DOCSLIB.ORG

The Lower Snake River Dams M3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Lower Snake River Dams M3 THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BREACHING THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS ENG MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY By: M3 020 BENJAMIN R. MOSHER LIBRARIES Bachelor of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Rhode Island, 1999 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2000 © 2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All Rights Reserved Signature of Author_ Benjamin R. Mosher Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering May 7, 2000 Certified by Dr. David H. Marks James Mason Crafts Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Director, MIT Center for Environmental Initiatives Thesis Supervisor Accepted by Daniele Veneziano Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Studies THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BREACHING THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS By: BENJAMIN R. MOSHER Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 7, 2000 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT The four Lower Snake River Dams have been providing irrigation, recreation, navigation, and electricity generation capabilities to residents of the Northwest since their completion in 1975. Meanwhile, salmon populations have gradually been declining to the point that five species of Snake River salmon are now listed as endangered. In 1995, the NMFS released a report citing the Snake River Dams as potential contributors to this decline, sparking a national debate. The diversity of existing studies and opinions surrounding the debate, combined with the complexity of the issues, has created a need for clarification of the estimated costs and benefits of breaching the dams. Recognition of the source and context of all data and conclusions is essential to the formulation of a well-informed analysis. It is in this context that this report attempts to analyze the costs and benefits of breaching the four Lower Snake River Dams through the use of existing in-depth studies, as well as through first-hand data collected during a visit to the region. It is the goal of this report to summarize and clarify the major economic issues and to produce a non-biased analysis, which will aid in improvement of public understanding. In strictly considering the NED models of direct uses of the Lower Snake River Dams with no regards to the net worth of preserving salmon, dam breaching would cost the national economy and its taxpayers an estimated $236 million annually for the next 100 years. Taking into account the existence values of the five species of endangered salmon, the net economic benefit to the nations taxpayers would be $86 million annually. It is important to note that the uncertainties surrounding this controversy are substantial. With few exceptions, this analysis has shown that the USACE/DREW initiative has surpassed any other existing study of the issue to date in both breadth and insight. Numerous groups have attempted to discredit the regional data obtained from a process that they were, themselves, invited to partake in. In interpreting and skewing economic data as a means toward their ends, these groups have slighted the true argument surrounding the controversy, which could be more appropriately argued in a social context. Despite this seemingly unavoidable opposition, the FR/EIS process has proven itself to be revolutionary. As society gains insight into the environmental consequences of its actions, controversies of the form of that surrounding the Lower Snake River Dams are sure to become more prevalent. Though the final result of this controversy has yet to be determined, it is evident from investigation of the existing studies that a unified effort is essential to a well-rounded non-biased analysis. Thesis Supervisor: David H. Marks, Ph.D. Title: James Mason Crafts Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has provided me with guidance, advice and support, both academically and personally. In particular, I would like to thank: Dr. David Marks,for his guidance and helpful advice. His in-depth insight into the relationshipbetween engineeringand the environment has provided me with direction and inspiration. Dr. Peter Shanahan,for introducing me to andfocusing me on this intriguing controversy. His dedication to this project and to all of the MEng. students is extremely appreciated. Dr. Eric Adams for his devotion to teaching and to the students at MIT. The numerous economists and otherprofessionals that took the time to speak with me during my visit to Portland,OR. I would specifically like to acknowledge Dennis Wagner, Gina Trafton, Jim Fredricks, Tim Kuhn, Ed Woodruff, Phil Benge, and Dr. Charles Paulsen. My parents, Angelique and Stephen, and my brother,James, for their love and support. They have been an inspiration to me and without them, I would have never made it thisfar. Most importantly, my wife, Jennifer. It is her love, support, inspiration and encouragement that have allowed me realize my full potential.I will never be able to express in words my appreciationfor all that she does for me. THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BREACHING THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS CONTENTS 1.0 LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAM CONTROVERSY 11 1.1 LOWER SNAKE RIVER FACILITIES 13 1.2 STUDY MOTIVATION 14 2.0 ECONOMIC INTRODUCTION 15 2.1 EXISTING ANALYSES 16 2.1.1 UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS 16 2.1.2 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCE COUNCIL STUDY 19 2.1.3 ECONORTHWEST 20 2.1.4 AMERICAN RIVERS 20 2.2 METHODOLOGY 21 2.2.1 MOTIVATION 21 2.2.2 NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 21 2.2.3 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS 22 3.0 HYDROPOWER 24 3.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW 24 3.2 LOWER SNAKE RIVER HYDROPOWER FACILITIES 26 3.3 DREW HYDROPOWER IMPACT TEAM ANALYSIS 29 3.3.1 HYDROREGULATION MODELS 29 3.3.2 POWER SYSTEM MODELS 30 3.3.3 MODEL RESULTS 30 3.3.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 32 3.3.4.1 Transmission System 32 3.3.4.2 Ancillary Services 33 3.3.5 USACE / DREW / HIT CONCLUSIONS 34 3.4 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES 35 3.4.1 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCE COUNCIL 35 3.4.2 ECONORTHWEST & AMERICAN RIVERS 36 4 RENJAMIN MOSHER THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OFBREACHING THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS 4.0 TRANSPORTATION 37 4.1 EXISTING FACILITIES 37 4.2 DREW TRANSPORTATION WORK TEAM MODELING 40 4.2.1 MODAL COST ESTIMATING 41 4.2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COST ESTIMATING 41 4.2.3 DREW / TRANSPORTATION WORKGROUP CONCLUSIONS 44 4.3 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES 45 4.3.1 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCE COUNCIL 45 4.3.2 ECONORTHWEST 46 4.3.3 AMERICAN RIVERS 47 5.0 WATER SUPPLY / IRRIGATION 48 5.1 SNAKE RIVER FACILITIES 48 5.1.1 IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE 49 5.1.2 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL PUMP STATIONS 50 5.1.3 PRIVATE WELLS 51 5.2 DREW WATER SUPPLY WORK TEAM ANALYSIS 52 5.2.1 IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE 52 5.2.1.1 Pump Cost Modification Approach 52 5.2.1.2 Farmland Value Approach 54 5.2.1.3 Net Farm Income Approach 55 5.2.1.4 Irrigated Farmland Method Comparison 55 5.2.2 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL PUMP STATIONS 56 5.2.3 PRIVATE WELLS 56 5.2.4 SUMMARY OF DREW WATER SUPPLY WORK TEAM 57 5.3 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES 58 5.3.1 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCE COUNCIL 58 5.3.2 ECONORTHWEST 59 5.3.3 AMERICAN RIVERS 59 5 BENJAMINMOSHER THE NA TIONAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BREACHING THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS 6.0 RECREATION 60 6.1 RECREATION ON THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER 60 6.1.1 RESERVOIR RECREATION 61 6.1.2 FREE-FLOWING RIVER RECREATION 61 6.2 MEASURING RECREATIONAL BENEFITS 62 6.3 DREW RECREATION WORKGROUP 63 6.3.1 SURVEY OF USERS 63 6.3.2 INTERPRETATION OF SURVEY RESULTS 65 6.3.3 RECREATION WORKGROUP RESULTS 66 6.4 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES 67 7.0 ANADROMOUS FISH 68 7.1 BACKGROUND 68 7.2 SALMON AND THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 69 7.2.1 PATH ANALYSIS 70 7.3 DREW ANADROMOUS FISH WORKGROUP ANALYSIS 72 7.3.1 COMMERCIAL HARVESTS 72 7.3.2 OCEAN RECREATIONAL HARVESTS 73 7.3.3 AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS 74 7.4 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES 76 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION / AVOIDED COSTS 77 8.1 IMPLEMENTATION INTRODUCTION 77 8.1.1 USACE, WALLA WALLA, WA DISTRICT 78 8.1.2 ASSUMPTIONS 78 8.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 78 8.3 BREACHED CONDITIONS IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 80 8.4 AMORTIZATION OF COSTS 80 8.5 AVOIDED COSTS 83 BENJAMIN MaSHER 6 BENJAMIN MOSHER THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BREACHING THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS 9.0 NATURAL RESOURCE EXISTENCE VALUATION 84 9.1 PASSIVE USE 84 9.2 DREW PASSIVE USE ANALYSIS 85 9.2.1 SALMON VALUATION 86 9.2.2 FREE-FLOWING RIVER VALUATION 87 9.3 SUMMARY 88 10.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 89 10.1 NET EFFECT ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 89 10.2 EXISTENCE VALUES 94 11.0 CONCLUSIONS 96 11.1 ECONOMIC FINDINGS 96 11.2 STUDY PROCESS 97 12.0 REFERENCES 99 BENJAMIN MOSI'IER 7 BENJAmMMOSHER THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BREACHING THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS TABLES TABLE 2.1: USACE ANNUAL COST INCREASE TO BREACH SNAKE RIVER DAMS 18 TABLE 2.2: ORNC ESTIMATED RESULTANT SAVINGS WITH DAM BREACHING 19 TABLE 3.1: PACIFIC NORTHWEST POWER RESOURCES 25 TABLE 3.2: PACIFIC NORTHWEST FEDERAL DAMS 27 TABLE 3.3: SNAKE RIVER DAM DATA 28 TABLE 3.4: ANNUAL AVERAGE HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION OVER SIMULATION PERIOD 29 TABLE 3.5: HIT MODEL RESULTS 32 TABLE 3.6: TRANSMISSION COSTS 33 TABLE 3.7: HYDROPOWER SYSTEM COST SUMMARY ($ MILLION ANNUALLY) 34 TABLE 3.8: TOTAL SYSTEM COST SUMMARY ($ MILLION ANNUALLY) 34 TABLE 3.9: ORNC HYDROPOWER ANALYSIS - SAVINGS WITH RESTORED RIVER 36 TABLE 4.1: TOTAL ANNUAL TONNAGE THROUGH ICE HARBOR LOCK (THOUSAND TONS)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • January 2018 Water Supply Briefing National Weather Service/Northwest River Forecast Center
    January 2018 Water Supply Briefing National Weather Service/Northwest River Forecast Center Telephone Conference : 1-914-614-3221 Pass Code : 619-465-763 2018 Briefing Dates: Jan 4 – 10am Pacific Time Feb 1 - 10am Pacific Time March 1 - 10am Pacific Time April 5 - 10am Daylight Savings Time May 3 - 10am Daylight Savings Time Kevin Berghoff, NWRFC [email protected] (503)326-7291 Water Supply Forecast Briefing Outline . Review of WY2017 Water Supply Season . Observed Conditions WY2018: . Precipitation . Temperature Hydrologic . Snowpack model states . Runoff . Future Conditions: . 10 days of quantitative forecast precipitation (QPF) . 10 days of quantitative forecast temperature (QTF) Climate . Historical climate forcings appended thereafter Forcings . Climate Outlook . Summary WY2017 Precipitation Summary Upper Columbia Precip %Normal Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep WY2017 Clark Fork River Basin 201 31 95 56 203 190 82 72 105 20 7 94 97 Flathead River Basin 309 52 82 38 243 223 151 47 80 4 16 57 109 Kootenai River Basin 275 75 76 44 234 198 133 64 53 15 22 53 104 Spokane River Basin 323 61 52 41 213 250 117 67 65 6 5 148 115 166 94 78 44 130 190 148 103 77 19 25 76 96 Columbia River Basin abv Arrow Dam Snake River Precip %Normal Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep WY2017 Henrys Fork River Basin 308 43 146 104 217 106 166 38 99 46 20 269 126 Upper Snake abv American Falls Dam 291 39 145 139 246 100 156 40 88 50 27 249 129 Middle Snake Tributaries 260 26 135 155 255 131 120 63 75 30 43 138 125 Payette River
    [Show full text]
  • Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report
    PNNL-23051 Rev.1 Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report AH Colotelo KD Ham RA Harnish ZD Deng BW Jones RS Brown AC Hanson MA Weiland DM Trott X Li MJ Greiner T Fu GA McMichael December 2014 PNNL-23051 Rev.1 Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report AH Colotelo KD Ham RA Harnish ZD Deng BW Jones RS Brown AC Hanson MA Weiland DM Trott X Li MJ Greiner T Fu GA McMichael December 2014 Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Preface The study reported herein was funded as part of the Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program (AFEP), which is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The AFEP study code is ADS-W-12-1: Steelhead kelt passage distributions and Federal Columbia River Power System survival and return rates for fish tagged above and at Lower Granite Dam. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was the prime contractor for the USACE Walla Walla District. The USACE technical lead was Chris Pinney. The PNNL project manager was Alison Colotelo (509-371-7248).
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act 1972 1855 Treaties U.S. and Nez Perce
    Harvest Pacific Salmon Treaty (Pacific Salmon Hydro/Habitat Commission - PSC) Federal Columbia River Power System Magnuson Act (Pacific Fishery Biological Opinion Management Council – PFMC) • Dworshak Dam Endangered SpeciesSnake/Columbia Act 1972 summer spill U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Idaho Power Complex Snake River Synergy is the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that Fall Chinook is greater than the sum of the individual Salmon elements Hatchery Idaho Power Company/Hells Canyon Settlement Agreement Lower1855 Snake River Treaties Compensation U.S. Plan – Publicand Law Nez 94-587, Perce, 99-662, 103-316 NorthwestUmatilla,Yakama Power Act & Warm Springs U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement Columbia Basin Treaty Tribes Accords Snake River Falls SEA K 14% PFMC 34% CA NA DA 52% Pacific Salmon Treaty (Pacific Salmon Commission - PSC) Magnuson Act (Pacific Fishery Management Council – PFMC) U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement Columbia River Treaty Tribe Harvest Hydro/Habitat Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Idaho Power Complex Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion & Litigation • Snake/Columbia summer spill Snake River • Juvenile Transportation • Predation Fall Chinook • Estuary Salmon Bonneville Dam 1938 BrownleeIce Harbor Dam 1961 1958 LowerTheOxbow DallesMonumental Dam Dam 1961 1957 Dam 1969 John Day Dam 1971 HellsLittle Canyon Goose DamDam 19671970 Lower Granite Dam 1975 McNary Dam 1954 Warner W. Gardner, Assistant Secretary of the
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of the Spawning, Rearing, And
    July 1997 IDENTIFICATION OF THE SPAWNING, REARING, AND MIGRATORY REQUIREMENTS OF FALL CHINOOK SALMON IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT DOE/BP-21708-5 This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views of this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of BPA. This document should be cited as follows: Rondotf,Dennis W., Kenneth F. Tiffan, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Columbia River Research Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Project Number 199l-029, Contract Number DE-A17cl-1991BP2170X, 121 electronic pages (BPA Report DOE/BP-21708-5) This report and other BPA Fish and Wildlife Publications are available on the Internet at: http://www.efw.bpa.gov/cgi-bin/efw/FW/publications.cgi For other information on electronic documents or other printed media, contact or write to: Bonneville Power Administration Environment, Fish and Wildlife Division P.O. Box 3621 905 N.E. 11th Avenue Portland, OR 97208-3621 Please include title, author, and DOE/BP number in the request. This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Admrnistration @PA), U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Syste Peration Re ·Ew Final Environmental Pact Statement
    Columbia River Syste peration Re ·ew Final Environmental pact Statement AppendixH Navigation ~ .~ . ~ .':.~ .~ '. ~. , ~" .. us Army Corps [('Mill,I 01 Engineers " .'1 North Paolic: DIVisiOn -. ~ DOElEIS·O170 November 1995 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE SOR PROCESS The Bureau of Reclamation. Corps of Engineers, and Bonneville Power Administration wish to thank those who reviewed the Columbia River System Operation Review (SOR) Draft EIS and appendicesfor theircomments. Yourcomments have provided valuablepublic,agency,andtribal input to the SOR NEPA process. Throughout the SOR. we have made a continuing effort 10 keep the public informed and involved. Fourteen public seeping meetings were held in 1990. A series of public roundtables was conductedinNovember 1991 to providean update on thestatus ofSOR studies. The leadagencies went back to most of the 14 communities in 1992 with 10 initial system operating strategies' developed from the screening process. From those meetings and oilierconsultations.seven 50S alternatives (with options) were developed and subjected to full-scale analysis. The analysis results were presented in the Draft EIS released in July 1994. The lead agencies also developed alternatives forthe other proposed SOR actions. including a Columbia River RegionalForum for assisting in the determination of future SOSs. Pacific Nonhwest Coordination Agreement alternatives for power coordination. and Canadian Entitlement Allocation Agreements alternatives. A series of nine public meetingswas held inSeptember and October 1994to present the Draft EISand appendices andsolicit public inputon the SOR. The lead agencies-received 282 formal written comments. Yourcomments have been used to revise and shape the alternatives presented in the Final EIS. Regular newsletters on the progress of the SOR have been issued.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Benefits of the Lower Snake River Dams
    ffactactssheetheet January 2009 Power benefi ts of the lower Snake River dams n the 1960s and early 1970s, the federal government Ibuilt four large dams on the Snake River. This is the last set of major dams to have been built in the Federal Columbia River Power System. The FCRPS is the largest source of electricity in the Pacifi c Northwest and the largest source of renewable electricity in the nation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owns and operates the lower Snake River dams. All four of these dams are multiple-use facilities that provide navigation, hydro- Lower Granite Dam — capacity 810 MW, energized 1975 power, recreation, and fi sh and wildlife conservation benefi ts. These dams were not built to control fl oods. The four lower Snake River dams can operate above their rated capacity to produce up to 3,483 MW for An important part of the several hours. In an extended cold-snap or other power Northwest’s power supply emergency, such as another power plant shutting down unexpectedly, these four dams can produce in excess of The useful output of a power station is measured in two 2,650 MW over a sustained period of 10 hours per day ways – capacity and energy. The four lower Snake River for fi ve consecutive days. dams are major power plants by either measure. According to the Northwest Power and Conservation Capacity to meet peak loads Council, capacity is becoming increasingly important to Peak capacity typically refers to a power plant’s value the Pacifi c Northwest to meet peak loads in the summer in meeting peak power loads.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework
    Review Draft Review Draft Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Planning Framework Prepared for The Northwest Power & Conservation Council February 2013 Review Draft PREFACE This document was prepared at the direction of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to address comments by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) in their 2010 review of Bonneville Power Administration research, monitoring, and evaluation projects regarding sturgeon in the lower Columbia River. The ISRP provided a favorable review of specific sturgeon projects but noted that an effective basin-wide management plan for white sturgeon is lacking and is the most important need for planning future research and restoration. The Council recommended that a comprehensive sturgeon management plan be developed through a collaborative effort involving currently funded projects. Hatchery planning projects by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (2007-155-00) and the Yakama Nation (2008-455-00) were specifically tasked with leading or assisting with the comprehensive management plan. The lower Columbia sturgeon monitoring and mitigation project (1986-050-00) sponsored by the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the Inter-Tribal Fish Commission also agreed to collaborate on this effort and work with the Council on the plan. The Council directed that scope of the planning area include from the mouth of the Columbia upstream to Priest Rapids on the mainstem and up to Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River. The plan was also to include summary information for sturgeon areas above Priest Rapids and Lower Granite. A planning group was convened of representatives of the designated projects. Development also involved collaboration with representatives of other agencies and tribes involved in related sturgeon projects throughout the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams of the Columbia Basin & Their Effects on the Native Fishery
    Dams of the Columbia Basin & Their Effects on the Native Fishery Bonneville * The Dalles * John Day & McNary * Priest Rapids & Wanapum * Rock Island, Rocky Reach, Wells & Chief Joseph * Grand Coulee * Hells Canyon, Oxbow, Brownlee & Dworshak * Revelstoke, Keenleyside, Mica & Duncan BACK TO COLUMBIA BASIN MAP The Treaty Right to Harvest Traditional Equipment Dams & the Native Fishery Celilo Falls Ice Harbor Dam. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers Ice Harbor Dam: Snake River, near the confluence with the Columbia River at mile DOCUMENTS marker 9.7, completed in 1961, federally owned , concrete gravity hydroelectric, 1 lock, 2 fish ladders, 2822 feet long, 100 feet high, spillway 590 feet, 10 gates with an U.S. Treaties earth fill embankment. The dam creates Lake Sacajawea, which extends 32 miles upstream to the Lower Monumental Dam. Canadian Documents U.S. Legal Decisions Canadian Legal Decisions Other Documents Photo Archive Bibliography & Resources Table of Contents Lower Monumental Dam. Courtesy of Bonneville Power Administration Lower Monumental Dam: Snake River at mile marker 41.6, completed in 1969, federally owned, concrete gravity with a short earth fill abutment, spillway 572 feet, 8 gates, 3791 feet long ,height 100 feet, 2 fish ladders, 1 lock, creates Lake Herbert G. West, 28.1 miles to the Little Goose Dam, hydroelectric. Little Goose Dam. Courtesy of Army Corps of Engineers Little Goose Dam: Snake River at mile marker 70.3, completed in 1970, additional units completed in 1978, federally owned, concrete gravity type hydroelectric, spillway 512 feet, 8 gates, 2665 feet long, 98 feet high. Creates Lake Bryan which extends 37.2 miles upriver to the Lower Granite Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • HOUR PRECIPITATION for OREGON Final Report
    REGIONAL PRECIPITATION-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS AND SPATIAL MAPPING OF 24- HOUR PRECIPITATION FOR OREGON Final Report SPR 656 REGIONAL PRECIPITATION-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS AND SPATIAL MAPPING OF 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION FOR OREGON Final Report SPR 656 by Melvin G. Schaefer Ph.D. P.E. and Bruce L. Barker P.E. MGS Engineering Consultants 7326 Boston Harbor Road NE Olympia, WA 98506 George H. Taylor CCM Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University Strand Agriculture Hall 326 Corvallis, OR 97331 James R. Wallis Ph.D. Yale University 9 Hillhouse Avenue, ML8 New Haven, CT 06511 for Oregon Department of Transportation Research Unit 200 Hawthorne Ave. SE, Suite B-240 Salem OR 97301-5192 and Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590-0003 January 2008 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. OR-RD-FHWA-08-05 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Regional Precipitation-Frequency Analysis and Spatial Mapping of 24-Hour January 2008 Precipitation for Oregon 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. MG Schaefer Ph.D. P.E. (MGS Engineering Consultants) BL Barker P.E. (MGS Engineering Consultants) GH Taylor CCM (Oregon Climate Service) JR Wallis Ph.D. (Yale University) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Oregon Department of Transportation Research Unit 11. Contract or Grant No. 200 Hawthorne Ave. SE, Suite B-240 Salem, OR 97301-5192 SPR 656 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Oregon Department of Transportation Final Report Research Unit and Federal Highway Administration 200 Hawthorne Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Ieab2009 1.Pdf May 10, 2018
    Noelwah R. Netusil, Chair Susan S. Hanna Independent Economic Hans Radtke, Vice-Chair Roger Mann Analysis Board Daniel D. Huppert John Duffield IEAB Joel R. Hamilton Independent Economic Analysis Board Interactions between Fish and Wildlife Program and Sixth Power Plan (Phase I) IEAB Task Number 138 February 2009 IEAB Power Plan Interactions Page 1 Executive Summary This report describes some interactions between the Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) and the Sixth Power Plan, suggests that some of these interactions be considered in the Power Plan, and discusses additional analyses that may be appropriate. Mainstem operations for fish in the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) under the recent Biological Opinions (BiOp) have been extensively documented in the form of hydrosystem, and power generation and value models. This paper does not focus on these models and their results. Rather, this paper identifies potential changes over the 20-year Power Plan time horizon relative to recent conditions and analyzes some other, less-studied interactions. The IEAB concludes that several important interactions between the power system and the FWP should be analyzed and discussed in the Sixth Power Plan: • Three changes in power supply and its cost will have demand and supply effects that will influence the amount, mix and costs of power. First, under the 2008 BiOp, increased FWP costs relative to the 2004 BiOp will increase BPA power prices. Increased prices can be expected to reduce quantity demanded. Second, in the next five years, new temporary spillway weirs (TSWs) may change the required amount and cost of fish spill relative to 2008 BiOp calculations at three FCRPS facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design
    ANADROMOUS SALMONID PASSAGE FACILITY DESIGN NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHWEST REGION www.nwr.noaa.gov July 2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Bryan Nordlund, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Hydraulic Engineer, is the primary author of this document. He was assisted by Larry Swenson, Hydraulic Engineer; Melissa Jundt, Hydraulic Engineer; Ed Meyer, Hydraulic Engineer; Scott Carlon, Fishery Biologist; and John Johnson, Hydraulic Engineer; all with NMFS. In addition, he was assisted by Steve Rainey, GEI Consultants, Inc. Reviews were provided by Denny Hudson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Pat Powers and Tom Burns, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Ray Hartlerode, Tom Stahl, and Bernie Kepshire, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Lynn Stratton and Matt Hightree, Idaho Department of Fish and Game; and Ken Bates, Koszmo, Inc. Suggested changes, additions, or questions should be directed to Bryan Nordlund at [email protected] for consideration in updating this document. Assistance from NMFS fish passage specialists can be obtained by contacting the NMFS Northwest Region Hydropower Division at 503-230-5414. Suggested citation: NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design July 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.............................................................................................................................. viii 1. DEFINITION OF TERMS..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Cold and Snowy Winter
    A Publication Of WFO Pendleton, Oregon Spring/Summer 2017 - Volume 20 A Cold and Snowy Winter Summary of December 2016 - February 2017 By Zaaron Allen, Science and Operations Officer and Michael Murphy, Meteorologist he winter of 2016 – 2017 will be remembered as through February average temperatures were this cold one of the coldest and snowiest on record across was in the winter of 1992-93 for most local climate sites, Tthe interior Pacific Northwest. Four out of the except the Tri-Cities where one has to look back to the five major climate locations experienced a top 5 coldest winter of 1948-49 to find a colder winter. The specific winter ever, with all of those locations also experiencing a temperatures, snowfall information, and rankings are top 10 snowiest winter on record. The last time December given in the tables on page 2. v Figure 1. Main Street, Echo OR covered in deep snowfall on January 13, 2017. The temperature at the time of this photo was near -5° F. Photo by M. Murphy Continued on page 2 In This Issue • Winter 2016-2017 Summary • Climate Outlook • Water Year And Drought Info • Cooperative Program Highlights • Fire Weather Season • Photo Album • Banner Image by T.W. Earle Continued from Cold and Snowy Winter - Page 1 Temperature Summary: December 2016 - February 2017 Location AVG Temperature (°F) Ranking Coldest Day of the Season Pendleton, OR 28.4° 3rd coldest -8° on JAN 13th Walla Walla, WA 29.2° 2nd coldest -6° on JAN 12th Tri-Cities, WA 27.2° 4th coldest -9° on DEC 16th Yakima, WA 26.9° 9th coldest -4° on JAN 9th Bend,
    [Show full text]