BuzzH
Well-known member
Paul, can you find some some things to refute anything in this article? Read it and weep, know-it-all. Find some evidence to refute the facts or shut your ignorant mouth.
Restoring the Lower Snake River
Saving Snake River Salmon and Saving Money
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BY PHILIP S. LANSING, ANALYTICA
ADDITIONAL TEXT BY EVE VOGEL
Snake River salmon once swam in the millions, travelling up to 1,000 miles inland to remote Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Montana streams. Until the 1960s Snake River Chinook, sockeye, coho and steelhead provided a living resource that supported ancient cultures, a vibrant fishing industry and diverse inland ecosystems.
Today, we have almost lost this natural treasure. Snake River coho are extinct and returning Snake River sockeye can be counted on a few fingers. Snake River Chinook and steelhead are listed under the Endangered Species Act, and are only slightly further from the brink of extinction.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would save approximately $87 million each year.
The people of the Pacific Northwest and the United States care about salmon. We care enough that in the past 20 years we have spent, even by modest estimates, $1.7 billion trying to bring salmon back to healthy population levels - more than has ever been spent on any other endangered species. A 1997 poll from the Northwest's largest newspaper The Oregonian showed that salmon protection is the number one environmental concern in the state; 86 percent of Oregonians want to preserve salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In Washington, over 70 percent of people believe protecting wild salmon is important.
Up until now, the money we have spent has not worked to save Snake River salmon. We have paid to transport salmon for hundreds of miles in trucks or barges just to get them past dams. We have built million-dollar dam by-pass systems, and supported hatcheries just so a few young salmon will survive the gauntlet of dams. We have released water from upstream dams, foregoing some power production, to increase flows as salmon migrate through the dam-impounded reservoirs.
We have been poor stewards: our fish are still dying. It is time to stop treating the symptoms and address the root cause of their decline. Dams kill salmon. Fish die going through turbines, or become traumatized, disoriented and easy prey as they come out of dam by-pass systems, trucks and barges. Spilled over dams, young salmon smolts survive better, but when spills are managed poorly, the smolts may become afflicted with gas bubble disease, a salmon version of the bends.
Perhaps even more significantly, dams destroy rivers, and salmon need rivers. What used to be the Lower Snake River is now a series of slow-moving reservoirs. Young migrating salmon take weeks or months longer than before dam construction to find their way to the ocean. On their slow journey, they can find few places to feed in the drowned river reaches.
The dams that the Snake River salmon cannot survive are the four Lower Snake dams: Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite. Before these dams were built, the Snake River salmon survived - albeit at reduced numbers - the hurdles of the Lower Columbia dams. Since the last of the four Lower Snake dams, Lower Granite, was built in 1975, every Snake River salmon species has been listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The four Lower Snake dams were built to provide hydroelectric power, river transportation to Lewiston, Idaho, and inexpensive irrigation. Today, they provide about 5 percent of the Pacific Northwest's electricity, allow shipment of about 3.5 million tons of grains each year, and reduce irrigation costs for thirteen large farms. These economic benefits are dwarfed by the money we have spent unsuccessfully to reduce the dams' impact on salmon.
We need to stop throwing money at failing efforts to help Snake River salmon survive the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. We need to restore the Lower Snake River and restore the Snake River salmon.
Saving Snake River Salmon by Restoring the Snake River
Restoring a River
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the dams were built, the Lower Snake River flowed freely, sustaining millions of salmon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently the four dams create a series of long, slow reservoirs. Salmon die both in the reservoirs and at the dams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River restoration would require breaching the earthen portion of the dams and allowing the river to flow freely past the concrete structures.
Some of the largest areas of pristine salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the Northwest are in Idaho, on tributaries of the Snake River. If enough salmon can survive the trip down the Snake and Columbia Rivers and return to Idaho habitat as adults, populations can become sustainable. Scientists from the State and Tribal Fisheries Agencies' Analytical Team have predicted that if the Lower Snake River is restored, salmon populations can recover. They predict an 80 to 100 percent probability of returning spring and summer Chinook salmon populations to the levels of the 1960s within 24 years. Recovery to those levels would allow removal of these runs from the Endangered Species list, and prevent the need for expensive restoration efforts.
Until recently, it was politically unthinkable to consider removing or retiring large dams, no matter what their ecological or economic damage. Now the Army Corps of Engineers, the very agency that built and operates the Lower Snake dams, is seriously considering removing the earthen portions of the four dams to return the Lower Snake to a natural river and hence restore the salmon. Their findings are expected in an Environmental Impact Statement in 1999.
Economic Concerns and the Purpose of this Report
The proposal to restore the Lower Snake River has raised alarm in some quarters. Opponents argue that we cannot afford the economic losses that would result from losing the Lower Snake dams. The electric power, river transportation, and inexpensive irrigation they provide are seen as essential to the Northwest economy.
Given how much has already been spent to reduce the impact of the dams, it is reasonable to ask how much more it would now cost to retire the dams and restore the Snake River.
This paper addresses this question:
Would restoring the Lower Snake River to free-flowing conditions cost or save money?
This question is a bit more complex than simply adding up annual spending on keeping the dams in place and comparing it with the costs of restoring the river. What is required is a comparison of the actual net economic benefit provided by the dams at present with the net benefit that would result from river restoration.
In other words,
Which is greater: Net economic benefit of Lower Snake dams and reservoirs or net economic benefit of restored Lower Snake River?
Net economic benefit is a technical term meaning economic return to society after all costs are accounted. Net benefit is typically a positive amount, but it can be negative when hidden costs are included in the reckoning. For the Snake River dams, the benefit is negative.
Net economic benefit is very different from economic impact. An impact study might focus, for example, on the impact of a proposed course of action on a local community. There will be many different impacts in different areas if the Lower Snake River is restored, some positive and some negative. Our benefits analysis does not address local impacts. Instead, it takes a broader view and focuses on changes in overall economic wealth.
Comparing Net Economic Benefits:
Dams and Reservoirs vs. Restored River
The following table summarizes the costs and benefits provided by the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs, and by a restored Lower Snake River. This report details calculations of net benefits for both sides of this table. The results of this analysis are significant.
KEY FINDINGS: (Relevant report sections in parentheses)
The Lower Snake dams and reservoirs require the Bonneville Power Administration to spend $194.4 million every year on salmon restoration. (Section 1, p. 13, and Appendix for Section 1, pp. 26-29.)
Taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize electric power production, river transportation and irrigation from the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. With all costs accounted, these three Lower Snake dam "benefits" actually produce a net benefit loss to the economy of $114 million every year. (Section 3, p. 25.)
Electric power from the Lower Snake dams is not competitive. It costs 2.44 cents per kilowatt-hour. If we restore the Lower Snake River and purchase power elsewhere, we could provide energy for 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Section 2, pp. 17-18 and Appendix for Section 2, p. 29.)
River transportation on the Lower Snake is expensive and heavily subsidized. Although river shippers pay only $1.23 per ton to go from Lewiston, Idaho to Kennewick, Washington, taxpayers and electric ratepayers pay an additional $12.66. The total cost to ship one ton of goods on the Lower Snake is $13.89. In comparison, rail costs only $1.26. (Section 2, p. 19-21 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 30-32.)
Thirteen agribusinesses pump water from the Ice Harbor reservoir. Together, these farms earn a net $1.9 million per year. But taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize these farms with $11.2 million. If the farms paid their full costs, they would lose $9.3 million every year. It would be cheaper to buy these farms outright and end their production altogether. (Section 2, pp. 22-24 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 32-34.)
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF LOWER SNAKE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS
BENEFITS
Hydroelectric power generation
River transportation
Greater returns to farmers who use inexpensive irrigation water pumping
COSTS
Operations and maintenance
Salmon restoration spending
Support for river transportation and irrigation
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RESTORED LOWER SNAKE RIVER
BENEFITS
End expensive, failing salmon restoration
End dam operations and maintenance
End navigation and irrigation supports
Restored fishery
COSTS
Removing earthen dam, re-routing roads, etc.
Replace power
Replace transportation
Irrigator buyout or additional support
We make two major assumptions in calculating net benefits. First, we assume ALL power generation constraints adopted to restore Snake River salmon under the Endangered Species Act will be removed if salmon are restored and thus removed from Endangered Species Act protection. Second, we assume there are benefits from restored Snake River fisheries but their calculations are beyond the purview of this paper. The first assumption increases our calculated economic benefit with river restoration and the second assumption decreases it.
Restoring the
Lower Snake River
would save approximately $87 million each year.
Conclusion
Restoring the Lower Snake River would produce an economic benefit of $87 million each year. This includes the costs of replacing Snake River hydro-power, ending the barge transportation system, and buying out the thirteen farms that use Lower Snake water for irrigation.
Restoring the River:
Summary of Net Yearly Costs and Benefits
The following tables summarize the money lost to the economy because of the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs and the economic losses caused by a restored Lower Snake River. The difference is the savings that would result each year from retiring the four Lower Snake dams and restoring the Lower Snake River.
COSTS WITH DAMS:
Managing dams and reservoirs.
The Snake River dams and reservoirs require on-going operations and maintenance. They also cause damage to the Snake River salmon. Government agencies and society pay for this damage when we haul salmon, flush water for fish instead of electric power turbines and otherwise attempt to make the dams and reservoirs less lethal to fish.
Providing hydropower, river transportation and irrigation.
Transportation and irrigation as provided by the dam-reservoir system are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and electricity ratepayers. U.S. taxpayers subsidize production of crops that are irrigated by water pumped with subsidized electricity. Local taxpayers support the ports necessary for river transportation. Water consumed by irrigation and river transportation cannot be used to produce power; electricity ratepayers' costs are higher because of this foregone power.
In addition, grain shippers pay a fee to ship goods; this private cost is an additional cost of river transportation.
ANNUAL COSTS WITH DAMS:
$ (MILLIONS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing dams and reservoirs
Operations and maintenance .................... $33.6
Salmon restoration spending ................... $194.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing hydropower, river
transportation and irrigation
Transportation costs .................................... $6.4
Irrigation costs ........................................... $1.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
WITH DAMS: ......................................... $236.2
COSTS WITH RESTORED RIVER
Restoring and managing a restored Lower Snake River.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would require physically removing the earthen portion of the dams and re-routing infrastructure like roads and bridges. Operations, maintenance and salmon restoration spending would be unnecessary in a natural river.
Providing electric power and river transportation.
We assume that if the Snake River is restored, hydroelectric power and river transportation may need to be replaced with other sources of power and shipping.
Loss of irrigation.
Although irrigation pump in-takes could be extended to natural river level to make irrigation possible even with the Lower Snake River restored, it is an expensive proposition and one whose full economic effects are unknown. We calculate benefit assuming that irrigated lands are purchased outright and their farm production is lost.
ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER :
$ (MILLIONS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring and Managing
restored Lower Snake River
Restoration .............................................. $25.6
Operations, maintenance and Snake River
salmon restoration ..................................... $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing electric power and river transportation
Replacement power ................................ $115.6
Alternative transportation ............................ $4.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of irrigation
Purchasing lands ........................................ $2.0
Loss of net crop returns ............................... $1.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER: ............ $149.5
Next Chapter
A complete copy of this report as an Adobe PDF document is available.
Download a FREE copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ONRC Home | Alerts | Programs | ONRC Info | Fun Stuff | Conservation Contacts | Government Contacts | News |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report is a project of the Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund
© copyright 1998 Oregon Natural Resources Council.
Restoring the Lower Snake River
Saving Snake River Salmon and Saving Money
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BY PHILIP S. LANSING, ANALYTICA
ADDITIONAL TEXT BY EVE VOGEL
Snake River salmon once swam in the millions, travelling up to 1,000 miles inland to remote Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Montana streams. Until the 1960s Snake River Chinook, sockeye, coho and steelhead provided a living resource that supported ancient cultures, a vibrant fishing industry and diverse inland ecosystems.
Today, we have almost lost this natural treasure. Snake River coho are extinct and returning Snake River sockeye can be counted on a few fingers. Snake River Chinook and steelhead are listed under the Endangered Species Act, and are only slightly further from the brink of extinction.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would save approximately $87 million each year.
The people of the Pacific Northwest and the United States care about salmon. We care enough that in the past 20 years we have spent, even by modest estimates, $1.7 billion trying to bring salmon back to healthy population levels - more than has ever been spent on any other endangered species. A 1997 poll from the Northwest's largest newspaper The Oregonian showed that salmon protection is the number one environmental concern in the state; 86 percent of Oregonians want to preserve salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In Washington, over 70 percent of people believe protecting wild salmon is important.
Up until now, the money we have spent has not worked to save Snake River salmon. We have paid to transport salmon for hundreds of miles in trucks or barges just to get them past dams. We have built million-dollar dam by-pass systems, and supported hatcheries just so a few young salmon will survive the gauntlet of dams. We have released water from upstream dams, foregoing some power production, to increase flows as salmon migrate through the dam-impounded reservoirs.
We have been poor stewards: our fish are still dying. It is time to stop treating the symptoms and address the root cause of their decline. Dams kill salmon. Fish die going through turbines, or become traumatized, disoriented and easy prey as they come out of dam by-pass systems, trucks and barges. Spilled over dams, young salmon smolts survive better, but when spills are managed poorly, the smolts may become afflicted with gas bubble disease, a salmon version of the bends.
Perhaps even more significantly, dams destroy rivers, and salmon need rivers. What used to be the Lower Snake River is now a series of slow-moving reservoirs. Young migrating salmon take weeks or months longer than before dam construction to find their way to the ocean. On their slow journey, they can find few places to feed in the drowned river reaches.
The dams that the Snake River salmon cannot survive are the four Lower Snake dams: Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite. Before these dams were built, the Snake River salmon survived - albeit at reduced numbers - the hurdles of the Lower Columbia dams. Since the last of the four Lower Snake dams, Lower Granite, was built in 1975, every Snake River salmon species has been listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The four Lower Snake dams were built to provide hydroelectric power, river transportation to Lewiston, Idaho, and inexpensive irrigation. Today, they provide about 5 percent of the Pacific Northwest's electricity, allow shipment of about 3.5 million tons of grains each year, and reduce irrigation costs for thirteen large farms. These economic benefits are dwarfed by the money we have spent unsuccessfully to reduce the dams' impact on salmon.
We need to stop throwing money at failing efforts to help Snake River salmon survive the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. We need to restore the Lower Snake River and restore the Snake River salmon.
Saving Snake River Salmon by Restoring the Snake River
Restoring a River
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the dams were built, the Lower Snake River flowed freely, sustaining millions of salmon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently the four dams create a series of long, slow reservoirs. Salmon die both in the reservoirs and at the dams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River restoration would require breaching the earthen portion of the dams and allowing the river to flow freely past the concrete structures.
Some of the largest areas of pristine salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the Northwest are in Idaho, on tributaries of the Snake River. If enough salmon can survive the trip down the Snake and Columbia Rivers and return to Idaho habitat as adults, populations can become sustainable. Scientists from the State and Tribal Fisheries Agencies' Analytical Team have predicted that if the Lower Snake River is restored, salmon populations can recover. They predict an 80 to 100 percent probability of returning spring and summer Chinook salmon populations to the levels of the 1960s within 24 years. Recovery to those levels would allow removal of these runs from the Endangered Species list, and prevent the need for expensive restoration efforts.
Until recently, it was politically unthinkable to consider removing or retiring large dams, no matter what their ecological or economic damage. Now the Army Corps of Engineers, the very agency that built and operates the Lower Snake dams, is seriously considering removing the earthen portions of the four dams to return the Lower Snake to a natural river and hence restore the salmon. Their findings are expected in an Environmental Impact Statement in 1999.
Economic Concerns and the Purpose of this Report
The proposal to restore the Lower Snake River has raised alarm in some quarters. Opponents argue that we cannot afford the economic losses that would result from losing the Lower Snake dams. The electric power, river transportation, and inexpensive irrigation they provide are seen as essential to the Northwest economy.
Given how much has already been spent to reduce the impact of the dams, it is reasonable to ask how much more it would now cost to retire the dams and restore the Snake River.
This paper addresses this question:
Would restoring the Lower Snake River to free-flowing conditions cost or save money?
This question is a bit more complex than simply adding up annual spending on keeping the dams in place and comparing it with the costs of restoring the river. What is required is a comparison of the actual net economic benefit provided by the dams at present with the net benefit that would result from river restoration.
In other words,
Which is greater: Net economic benefit of Lower Snake dams and reservoirs or net economic benefit of restored Lower Snake River?
Net economic benefit is a technical term meaning economic return to society after all costs are accounted. Net benefit is typically a positive amount, but it can be negative when hidden costs are included in the reckoning. For the Snake River dams, the benefit is negative.
Net economic benefit is very different from economic impact. An impact study might focus, for example, on the impact of a proposed course of action on a local community. There will be many different impacts in different areas if the Lower Snake River is restored, some positive and some negative. Our benefits analysis does not address local impacts. Instead, it takes a broader view and focuses on changes in overall economic wealth.
Comparing Net Economic Benefits:
Dams and Reservoirs vs. Restored River
The following table summarizes the costs and benefits provided by the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs, and by a restored Lower Snake River. This report details calculations of net benefits for both sides of this table. The results of this analysis are significant.
KEY FINDINGS: (Relevant report sections in parentheses)
The Lower Snake dams and reservoirs require the Bonneville Power Administration to spend $194.4 million every year on salmon restoration. (Section 1, p. 13, and Appendix for Section 1, pp. 26-29.)
Taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize electric power production, river transportation and irrigation from the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. With all costs accounted, these three Lower Snake dam "benefits" actually produce a net benefit loss to the economy of $114 million every year. (Section 3, p. 25.)
Electric power from the Lower Snake dams is not competitive. It costs 2.44 cents per kilowatt-hour. If we restore the Lower Snake River and purchase power elsewhere, we could provide energy for 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Section 2, pp. 17-18 and Appendix for Section 2, p. 29.)
River transportation on the Lower Snake is expensive and heavily subsidized. Although river shippers pay only $1.23 per ton to go from Lewiston, Idaho to Kennewick, Washington, taxpayers and electric ratepayers pay an additional $12.66. The total cost to ship one ton of goods on the Lower Snake is $13.89. In comparison, rail costs only $1.26. (Section 2, p. 19-21 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 30-32.)
Thirteen agribusinesses pump water from the Ice Harbor reservoir. Together, these farms earn a net $1.9 million per year. But taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize these farms with $11.2 million. If the farms paid their full costs, they would lose $9.3 million every year. It would be cheaper to buy these farms outright and end their production altogether. (Section 2, pp. 22-24 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 32-34.)
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF LOWER SNAKE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS
BENEFITS
Hydroelectric power generation
River transportation
Greater returns to farmers who use inexpensive irrigation water pumping
COSTS
Operations and maintenance
Salmon restoration spending
Support for river transportation and irrigation
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RESTORED LOWER SNAKE RIVER
BENEFITS
End expensive, failing salmon restoration
End dam operations and maintenance
End navigation and irrigation supports
Restored fishery
COSTS
Removing earthen dam, re-routing roads, etc.
Replace power
Replace transportation
Irrigator buyout or additional support
We make two major assumptions in calculating net benefits. First, we assume ALL power generation constraints adopted to restore Snake River salmon under the Endangered Species Act will be removed if salmon are restored and thus removed from Endangered Species Act protection. Second, we assume there are benefits from restored Snake River fisheries but their calculations are beyond the purview of this paper. The first assumption increases our calculated economic benefit with river restoration and the second assumption decreases it.
Restoring the
Lower Snake River
would save approximately $87 million each year.
Conclusion
Restoring the Lower Snake River would produce an economic benefit of $87 million each year. This includes the costs of replacing Snake River hydro-power, ending the barge transportation system, and buying out the thirteen farms that use Lower Snake water for irrigation.
Restoring the River:
Summary of Net Yearly Costs and Benefits
The following tables summarize the money lost to the economy because of the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs and the economic losses caused by a restored Lower Snake River. The difference is the savings that would result each year from retiring the four Lower Snake dams and restoring the Lower Snake River.
COSTS WITH DAMS:
Managing dams and reservoirs.
The Snake River dams and reservoirs require on-going operations and maintenance. They also cause damage to the Snake River salmon. Government agencies and society pay for this damage when we haul salmon, flush water for fish instead of electric power turbines and otherwise attempt to make the dams and reservoirs less lethal to fish.
Providing hydropower, river transportation and irrigation.
Transportation and irrigation as provided by the dam-reservoir system are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and electricity ratepayers. U.S. taxpayers subsidize production of crops that are irrigated by water pumped with subsidized electricity. Local taxpayers support the ports necessary for river transportation. Water consumed by irrigation and river transportation cannot be used to produce power; electricity ratepayers' costs are higher because of this foregone power.
In addition, grain shippers pay a fee to ship goods; this private cost is an additional cost of river transportation.
ANNUAL COSTS WITH DAMS:
$ (MILLIONS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing dams and reservoirs
Operations and maintenance .................... $33.6
Salmon restoration spending ................... $194.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing hydropower, river
transportation and irrigation
Transportation costs .................................... $6.4
Irrigation costs ........................................... $1.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
WITH DAMS: ......................................... $236.2
COSTS WITH RESTORED RIVER
Restoring and managing a restored Lower Snake River.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would require physically removing the earthen portion of the dams and re-routing infrastructure like roads and bridges. Operations, maintenance and salmon restoration spending would be unnecessary in a natural river.
Providing electric power and river transportation.
We assume that if the Snake River is restored, hydroelectric power and river transportation may need to be replaced with other sources of power and shipping.
Loss of irrigation.
Although irrigation pump in-takes could be extended to natural river level to make irrigation possible even with the Lower Snake River restored, it is an expensive proposition and one whose full economic effects are unknown. We calculate benefit assuming that irrigated lands are purchased outright and their farm production is lost.
ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER :
$ (MILLIONS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring and Managing
restored Lower Snake River
Restoration .............................................. $25.6
Operations, maintenance and Snake River
salmon restoration ..................................... $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing electric power and river transportation
Replacement power ................................ $115.6
Alternative transportation ............................ $4.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of irrigation
Purchasing lands ........................................ $2.0
Loss of net crop returns ............................... $1.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER: ............ $149.5
Next Chapter
A complete copy of this report as an Adobe PDF document is available.
Download a FREE copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ONRC Home | Alerts | Programs | ONRC Info | Fun Stuff | Conservation Contacts | Government Contacts | News |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report is a project of the Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund
© copyright 1998 Oregon Natural Resources Council.
