United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Athens GA 30605
EPA-600/5-78-019
September 1978
Reeaarcft and Development
and
Energy Analyses of
Regional Water
Pollution Control
-------
REPORTING SiBliS
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES series. This series includes research on environmental management,
economic analysis, ecological impacts, comprehensive planning and fore-
casting, and analysis methodologies. Included are tools for determining varying
impacts of alternative policies; analyses of environmental planning techniques
at the regional, state, and local levels; and approaches to measuring environ-
mental quality perceptions, as well as analysis of ecological and economic im-
pacts of environmental protection measures. Such topics as urban form, industrial
mix, growth policies, control, and organizational structure are discussed in terms
of optimal environmental-performance. These interdisciplinary studies and sys-
tems analyses are presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses
to management and policy-oriented reports.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/5-78-019
September 1978
ECONOMIC AND ENERGY ANALYSES
OF REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
by
Richard J. Heggen
Kenneth J. Williamson
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Contract No. 68-03-2397
Project Officer
James W. Falco
Technology Development and Applications Branch
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia 30605
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30605
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Research Laboratory,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, and approved for publi-
cation. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or re-
commendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
As environmental controls become more costly to implement and the penal-
ties of judgment errors become more severe, environmental quality management
requires more efficient analytical tools based on greater knowledge of the
environmental phenomena to be managed. As part of this Laboratory's research
on the occurrence, movement, transformation, impact, and control of environ-
mental contaminants, the Technology Development and Applications Branch de-
velops management or engineering tools to help pollution control officials
achieve water quality goals through watershed management.
The cleanup of the Willamette River represents a case history of success-
ful regional environmental management based on cooperation between industries
and local, state, and Federal governments. In this report, the Willamette
Basin is used in a retrospective evaluation of the environmental, economic,
and energy consequences of alternative strategies for water pollution control.
The investigation serves as a planning example for those concerned with en-
vironmental management as environmental quality goals increasingly compete
with economic and energy objectives.
David W. Duttweiler
Director
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia
-------
ABSTRACT
Two strategic approaches to water quality control in Oregon's Willamette
River are presently being utilized: point source treatment and flow augmen-
tation. Dry weather releases from reservoirs are for authorized purposes
other than water quality. However, reservoirs can participate in pollution
control by summer flow augmentation if authorized water resource objectives
(flood control, navigation, etc.) are not sacrificed.
It is hypothesized that the differences in economic and total energy im-
pacts between treatment and augmentation may be substantial. Of additional
interest is the comparison between direct utilization of energy for Willam-
ette Valley pollution control and indirect energy requirements of such pro-
grams. Input/output analysis (I/O) provides an econometric methodology to
study economic impacts and direct and indirect energy response to pollution
control alternatives. In this study, discharge and loadings are empirically
related to surveyed direct dollar and energy expenses. An energy I/O nation-
al model is coupled with a comprehensive Willamette River dissolved oxygen
model. Costs estimated for discharges resulting from different pollution
control strategies are then transformed by I/O to total energy costs.
Three approaches to environmental control for the Willamette were examined,
One was that of current enforcement coupled with present levels of augmenta-
tion. Another consisted of less augmentation and increased wastewater treat-
ment. Appropriate tactics involved advanced secondary methods of treatment,
regionalization of treatment plants, and yet more stringent effluent require-
ments for industry. The third approach consisted of increased flow augmenta-
tion for water quality control. Corresponding treatment was somewhat relaxed.
Each alternative of environmental control was evaluated as if it had been prac-
ticed in a study year of low natural runoff.
The relation of augmentation for water quality to other river uses was
utilized to value flow in a benefits-foregone manner. Independently, reser-
voir costs were allocated to water quality. An instream unit price was thus
assigned to augmentation.
For each alternative of treatment and augmentation, the dissolved oxygen
quality of the Willamette was simulated and the costs of the environmental
strategy estimated. River quality, dollar cost, and energy impact response
surfaces were developed. Indirect energy costs, largely expended out of the
region, were roughly twice the direct energy use.
IV
-------
Because of the predominance of treatment expenses over augmentation cost
and the energy-intensive nature of treatment, energy impact was substantially
a reflection of treatment degree. Because augmentation reduced treatment re-
quired, energy and dollar efficient management calls for the full role of
augmentation in water quality control. In some degree this presently occurs.
Policies of the region were compared; the present commitments to environ-
mental improvement and economic development were found to contradict the area's
energy objectives.
This report was submitt?d in fulfillment of Contract Number 68-03-2397
by Oregon State University, Viater Resources Research Institute under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers
the period April 1, 1976, to July 31, 1977, and work was completed as of
April 1978.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures viii
Tables -- - x
Acknowledgments xii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 6
3. Recommendations 9
4. Water Resources 11
5. Policies -- 34
6. Environmental Modeling 44
7. Economic Modeling 55
8. Energy Modeling 64
9. Analysis - - 72
10. Discussion - - 90
References 98
Glossary 106
Appendices
A. Listing of Municipal and Industrial Discharges 107
B. Dissolved Oxygen Model 111
C. Reaeration of the Willamette 132
D. Low Flow Augmentation and River Uses 136
E. Cost Allocation - - - 140
F. Input/Output Analysis 144
G. Treatment Levels 151
H. Dollar and Energy Cost Tabulations 152
I. Reservoir Net Energy Impact 159
J. Energy Flow Computations 161
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Study schematic 4
2 Willamette basin physiographic sectors and typical
cross section 12
3 Willamette River geomorphologic reaches 15
4 Willamette River flow balance 16
5 Storage reservoirs in the Willamette Basin 18
6 Willamette reservoir rule curve, storage, and discharge
at Salem 19
7 Annual low flow discharge at Salem 20
8 Willamette irrigation, navigation, and electrical generation 23
9 Willamette joint use storage, flood damage protection, and
reservoir recreation 25
10 Principal Willamette Basin municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities _ 28
11 Willamette sewered population, dissolved oxygen, and
fish migration 29
12 Willamette municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment and reservoir costs 31
13 Oregon per capita energy consumption 39
14 Willamette Basin energy flows 42
15 Dissolved oxygen river schematic 46
16 Dissolved oxygen simulation and verification 52
17 Industrial expenses for water pollution control,
Willamette Basin - - 59
18 DO Index response surface 77
viii
-------
Number Page
19 Annual cost of water quality control response surface,
flow augmentation cost allocated 78
20 Annual cost of water quality control response surfaces,
flow augmentation $0/af and $5/af 81
21 Annual cost of water quality control response surfaces,
flow augmentation $10/af and $20/af 82
22 Expansion paths for water quality control --- 83
23 Annual cost versus DO Index, flow augmentation $5/af and
cost allocated 85
24 Annual direct and primary energy cost of water quality
control response surfaces 88
B-25 Data handling schematic - - 113
C-26 Equivalent K2 for Willamette low flow - 134
C-27 Stream velocity and depth for Willamette low flow 135
D-28 Powerhouse head, reservoir outflow, and generation 138
-------
TABLES
Number page
1 Storage Reservoirs in the Willamette Basin 17
2 Population Centers in the Willamette Basin 22
3 Principal Willamette Basin Municipal and Industrial Waste-
water Treatment Facilities 27
4 Estimated Loadings of P, N, and BOD to the Willamette River 27
5 Effluent Concentrations of BOD and N from Municipal
Treatment Plants 50
6 Deoxygenation Rate Coefficients 50
7 Coefficients A, B for Cost Model 57
8 Probable Effects of Altered Low Flow Maintenance,
Willamette River 62
9 Input/Output Direct and Primary Energy Coefficients 69
10 Summary of Treatment Levels 73
11 Summary of River Loadings 73
12 DO Mean Difference, Standard Deviation, and Index 75
13 Treatment, Augmentation, and Total Annual Costs,
Flow Augmentation Cost Allocated 75
14 Treatment, Augmentation, and Total Annual Costs,
Flow Augmentation $5/af 79
15 Summary of Treatment Costs 86
16 Treatment, Augmentation, and Total Annual Direct
Energy Costs 37
17 Treatment, Augmentation, and Total Annual Primary
Energy Costs 87
-------
Number page
A-18 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Discharging to
the Willamette, August 1973 107
A-19 Major Operating Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plants 109
B-20 Listing of Computer Files 115
B-21 Listing of WILT Program 120
B-22 Listing of WILBER Program 121
B-23 Listing of WILMA Program 123
B-24 Examples of Computer Output 126
E-25 Willamette Multipurpose Reservoirs Cost Allocation 142
E-26 Willamette Multipurpose Reservoirs Cost Allocation,
Doubled 1973 Power Revenues 143
F-27 Input/Output Direct and Primary Energy Coefficients 150
H-28 Willamette Basin Wastewater Treatment Summary of
Dollar and Energy Costs, Treatment Level A 152
H-29 Willamette Basin Wastewater Treatment Summary of Dollar
and Energy Costs, Treatment Level B 153
H-30 Willamette Basin Wastewater Treatment Summary of Dollar
and Energy Costs, Treatment Level C 154
H-31 Willamette Basin Wastewater Treatment Summary of Dollar
and Energy Costs, Treatment Level D - 155
H-32 Willamette Basin Wastewater Treatment Summary of Dollar
and Energy Costs, Treatment Level E 156
H-33 Willamette Basin Wastewater Treatment Summary of Dollar
and Energy Costs, Treatment Level F 157
H-34 Willamette Basin Wastewater Treatment Summary of Dollar
and Energy Costs, Treatment Level G 158
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This investigation was carried out by the Water Resources Research In-
stitute, Oregon State University. Richard J. Heggen, Instructor in Civil
Engineering, performed the analysis; Kenneth J. Williamson, Assistant Profes-
sor of Civil Engineering, served as project director.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of E. Scott Huff, an
engineer with Dale E. Caruthers Co., Gorham, Maine, and Walter G. Nines, an
engineer with URS Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Mr. Huff compiled both a
historical record of wastewater treatment costs for the Willamette Valley and
surveyed pollution control energy consumption. Mr. Mines facilitated the ac-
quisition of the U. S. Geological Survey's water quality data, shared his ex-
perience derived from the USGS's ongoing research, and reviewed initial portions
of this report.
xn
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The decline in water quality of Oregon's Willamette River and its subse-
quent restoration have been well documented, both in technical and popular
literature (1,2). By 1938 industrial and municipal wastewater discharges in
the Willamette Basin had resulted in deterioration of the quality of the Wil-
lamette River. During summers, critically low dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions had drastically affected fish migration, aesthetics, and recreation.
High fecal bacteria concentrations, floating and benthic sludges, sulfur odors,
and infestations of the filamentous bacteria Sphaerotilus had become preva-
lent.
The State of Oregon through the Oregon State Sanitary Authority (OSSA)
began policies in the 1950's to improve water quality on the Willamette River.
In 1949 only two primary wastewater plants were completed in the Valley.
However, by 1957 all Willamette main stem dischargers except Portland prac-
ticed primary treatment. In this same period, the pulp and paper mills had
greatly reduced their summer discharges of sulfite waste liquor through la-
gooning of summer flows, barging to the Columbia, and recovering various by-
products.
In the late 1950's, OSSA began to encourage secondary municipal waste-
water treatment. Plants contributing wastes to the most polluted reaches of
the river were the first to be upgraded. By the mid-1960's all Willamette
Basin municipalities had secondary treatment facilities. Likewise, most in-
dustries had improved their effluents to secondary quality by this time.
During the 1950's and 1960's several multipurpose reservoirs were con-
structed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers on the upper Willamette tri-
butaries. Annual drawdown of these facilities significantly augmented the
Willamette's summer low flows. As a result, wastes were diluted and trans-
ported more rapidly out of the Basin.
Today, the Willamette is noted for its high water quality that was
achieved by effective, wide-spread pollution control. The river's cleanup
provides a rare case history of successful regional environmental management.
Cooperative regulation between industries and local, State, and Federal gov-
ernments restored the quality of this river in an era when environmental
protection was not a popular cause. Because of the general understanding of
the recovery of the Willamette River, this river provides a setting in which
-------
alternative methods of pollution control can be compared. Various methods of
water quality control can be hypothetically proposed, simulated with mathema-
tical modeling, and tested for effectiveness.
It is increasingly recognized that environmental quality is a goal com-
petitive with portions of economic and energy objectives. The three issues,
environment, economy, and energy, should be considered simultaneously in a
planning process. Whereas the Willamette River has served well as a how-to-
cleanup demonstration, its use as a planning example today requires the in-
clusion of economic and energy dimensions.
In an earlier study of the Willamette River (3), data were compiled
dealing with the energy costs of the pollution control techniques applied to
the Willamette. Capital and operational costs involved in the cleanup were
determined from documents and survey questionnaires. From that work, the to-
tal energy consumption for pollution control was estimated and a general
understanding emerged of the dollar and energy costs for Willamette water
quality control.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
This study extends this earlier work (3), which was an energy and econo-
mic inventory, to an economic and energy comparison of water pollution control
alternatives. Oregon's environmental, economic, and energy policies are
briefly discussed. The environmental, economic, and energy impacts of dif-
ferent approaches to water pollution control on the Willamette River are simu-
lated and compared.
Five objectives are pursued dealing with technical impacts of water pol-
lution control alternatives in the Willamette Basin. They are:
1. To select a representative water quality parameter that can
serve as a sensitive indicator of the environmental condi-
tions of the Willamette River;
2. To use this selected water quality parameter to develop a
river water quality simulation model;
3. To use the model to quantify the relative environmental
effectiveness of each of three water pollution control
strategies: the applied strategy of secondary point
source treatment and low flow regulation from Federal re-
servoirs, a strategy directed toward increased treatment,
and a strategy directed toward greater reliance on flow
augmentation. Each strategy was evaluated for the condi-
tions of 1973, a base year discussed later in this chapter;
4. To estimate the economic cost of attaining several levels
of water quality under each strategy; and
5. To estimate the energy cost by Input/Output analysis asso-
ciated with each strategy and water quality level.
These tasks deal objectively with a real issue of environmental-economic-
energy interplay, but the issue also has subjective planning implications.
Thus, two additional objectives are pursued, not as technical issues, but to
-------
provide this broader perspective. They are:
6. To identify major Oregon policies dealing with its state-wide en-
vironment, economy, and energetics; and
7. To relate the impacts of the three general strategies of pollu-
tion control to these policies.
STUDY DESIGN
Figure 1 illustrates the general procedure of investigation. Roman
numerals refer to sections of this report. Parenthetical numbers refer to
the study objectives previously listed.
Sections IV and V are of a broad, background nature. These water resources
discussions focus on various aspects of Willamette Basin hydrology and develop-
ment. Later sections on environmental and economic modeling draw from this
material. The policies discussed in Section V center on Oregon's environmental,
economic and energy goals from which strategies of pollution are ultimately
judged.
Environmental, economic, and energy models that are useful for testing
and comparing the pollution control strategies are developed in Sections VI,
VII and VIII. The first part of each chapter deals with model selection; the
remainder deals with model specification.
Section IX, "Analysis," deals with the systematic application of the
three models to alternatives for pollution control. In this chapter, the en-
tire technical analysis is traced from identification of pollution control
strategy to environmental, economic, and energy impacts.
Section IX draws together the application of the analytical models. Sec-
tion X relates modeled results to policies established by the State. Section
IX is technical, whereas Section X deals with more general implications for
comprehensive environmental decision-making.
THE STUDY YEAR
The year 1973 marked a significant point in Willamette water pollution
control. Most of the pollution control before this year resulted in water
quality improvement. Environmental regulation after this period has been
directed toward anticipated future growth. Until 1973, most pollution treat-
ment was achieved by secondary wastewater plants and their industrial equiva-
lents. Costs for such control can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.
Sensitivity of both water quality and economic cost to the pollution control
strategy allowed strategic alternatives to be compared for this year.
August 1973 illustrates critical hydrologic conditions brought on by a
25-year-low summer flow. Reservoirs were effectively used to maintain aero-
bic river quality suitable for fish migration. The value of the augmentation
can be estimated from realized, not supposed, water quality conditions. Data
gathered by the U.S. Geological Survey plus records of Oregon's Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ, successor to the OSSA) independently documented
this period.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC ENERGY
POLICIES
WILLAMETTE
WATER RESOURCES
Modify Tactics
ENVIRONMENTAL
OBJECTIVE
Satisfactory
ECONOMIC COST
3ZTI,4
MODEL
ENERGY COST
Figure 1. Study schematic.
-------
This study deals with alternative ways in which 1973 conditions could
have been managed. For example, flows from reservoirs could have been in-
creased or decreased. Construction of wastewater treatment facilities before
1973 could have been accelerated, achieving higher waste removal, or could
have proceeded less rapidly, accomplishing somewhat less point source treat-
ment by 1973. These are the trade-offs that are examined in this study for
the Willamette River.
This study is not a projection in time. Some likelihoods about the fu-
ture might be summarized from the analysis, but extrapolations, at best,
should be done with caution. The best employment of this study is that of re-
trospective analysis. The relationship of energy to dollars illustrates the
dual price paid for pollution management. The relationship of both these
costs to environmental consequences illustrates returns from investments. The
dollar and energy relationships between tactics of environmental control illu-
strate the sensitivity of environmental quality to pollution control methods.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
The two-pronged strategy of water quality control has restored the envi-
ronmental quality of Oregon's Willamette River to a well-oxygenated waterway
that supports anadromous fish. This strategy employed abatement of municipal
and industrial discharges and increased low flow augmentation from Federal re-
servoirs. The Willamette River presently provides Oregon's residents with a
variety of services possible from the preservation of its natural resources.
It is a prime State concern that the high environmental quality on the Willa-
mette is maintained. Whereas the Willamette was restored at a dollar cost
that Oregonians were willing to pay, the energy investment was considered
little in the decision-making process.
This investigation examined the environmental, economic, and energy con-
sequences of various strategies for environmental management. These strategies
considered varying degrees of both point source treatment and low flow augmen-
tation. Based on this study, the following conclusions were reached.
1. Water quality control in the Willamette Basin was estimated to have
cost $33 million annually in 1973. Of this total, $6 million was spent to
divert and treat the Basin's wastewaters to outfalls other than on the Willa-
mette, $3 million represented the water quality benefits of low flow augmenta-
tion, and $12 million was spent by the industrial and by the municipal sec-
tors, respectively, for treatment. Of the $30 million spent for waste treat-
ment, $8 million was used for operation, maintenance, and replacement (OMR)
and $22 million was the annualized portion of capital costs.
2. The use of existing reservoirs for high, but not maximized, releases
for water quality protection represented a reasonably cost effective environ-
mental strategy. Depending upon the method of assigning costs of flow augmen-
tation, savings of $2 to $4 million per year might have occurred if augmenta-
tion from existing reservoirs had been increased and offsetting treatment in-
vestment foregone. However, if the reservoirs had not been employed, an addi-
tional $7 million annually would have been required for treatment to have ac-
hieved the 1973 low flow dissolved oxygen quality.
3, Low flow augmentation was particularly effective in maintaining
summertime dissolved oxygen (DO) in the Willamette River. Some specific ad-
vanced secondary tactics may exist that would benefit summertime DO quality
more effectively than maximized augmentation if reservoir releases had large
alternative value for irrigation. If wastewaters had been treated in 1973 at
advanced levels, augmentation from existing reservoirs should have been maxi-
mized for summertime DO quality for any reasonable price of augmentation waters.
-------
4. A unit price of $3/af (acre-foot, 1233 m3) for summer releases from
reservoirs reasonably approximated the value of that water for pollution con-
trol if water quality was measured by summertime, 25-year low flow DO levels.
Thus, if waters were valued for irrigation at less than $3/af, greater bene-
fits would result if the flows were left instream to dilute wastes and to de-
crease river travel time. If reservoir releases diverted to agriculture are
valued at $20/af, maximum net benefit to the Willamette Basin would occur
with maximum use of secondary waste treatment and with only natural river dis-
charges.
5. In 1973, 510 TJ (terajoule, 948 x 106 Btu) of direct energy were
consumed for Willamette pollution control. Direct energy is defined as the
fossil fuel equivalent of fuels and electricity consumed at the site for
point source control or flow agumentation. The reservoir costs associated
with water quality benefits, which were allocated by savings in year-around
point source facilities to control summertime DO, were 37 TJ. Of the 473 TJ
used for treatment, 86 were used to halt discharges to the Willamette and 387
were used to treat discharges. Industrial pollution control required 166 TJ and
municipalities required 307 TJ. For pollution control, 363 TJ were consumed
in operation and 147 TJ represented the fuels used for annualized construction.
Energy use for water pollution control in the Willamette Valley accounted for
0.1 to 0.2 percent of the regional direct energy consumption.
6. In 1973, 1373 primary TJ were required to directly and indirectly
support Willamette pollution regulation. This primary energy value is the
fossil fuel requirement of the economy to produce both the direct energy and
the materials consumed. Primary energy does not incorporate many energy con-
sequences of pollution control, such as the changed productivity of a valley
inundated by a reservoir or a forest harvested to foster economic production
to pay for pollution control. Primary energy, which is defined in terms of
fuels mined from the earth, is the more traditional planning parameter. The
reservoirs' share of this primary total was 120 TJ. Of the 1253 TJ needed
for treatment tactics, 515 TJ were used by industries and 738 TJ by munici-
palities.
7. Dollar-to-energy coefficients derived from Input/Output analysis
varied with pollution control activities. Treatment plant construction typi-
cally used 0.8 times as many direct joules per dollar as reservoir construc-
tion, but 1.4 times as many primary joules. Treatment plant OMR used 3.2
times as much direct energy per dollar as did reservoir OMR. Plant OMR re-
quired 2.9 times as much total energy per dollar as did reservoirs.
8. For every unit of direct energy consumed in Willamette pollution
control, approximately an additional 1.7 units were consumed indirectly.
Thus for a typical pollution control activity consuming 10 TJ of energy at
the site (7 TJ to build the facility and another 3 TJ for OMR, for example),
an additional 17 TJ were consumed for the required construction and operation
materials. The primary energy cost for this activity would be 27 TJ. The
ratio of indirect and direct estimates varied with activities. For construc-
tion of treatment plants it was nearly 5.0; for OMR, 0.7. For construction
and OMR of reservoirs, the ratios were 2.3 and 0.9, respectively.
-------
9. Although Input/Output energy analysis improves the scope of environ-
mental decisions over those based solely on dollars, it does not appear that
this energy analysis gives results substantially different than dollar-valued
conclusions. This conclusion stemmed from the strong dependence of energy
Input/Output expressions upon dollar data.
10. Energy costs, like dollar costs, were shown to substantially vary
with environmental strategy. Of particular relevance in a time of primary
energy scarcity is the prediction that energy requirements could double for
pollution control if higher-than-secondary wastewater treatment was required
uniformly.
11. Oregon's environmental, economic, and energy policies are not entire-
ly reconciled with one another. The restoration of the Willamette's DO was in
harmony with environmental policies. The dollar expense for this cleanup was
willingly paid by Oregonians and the net effect was an immediate economic ad-
vantage to the Basin. The energy costs required for water pollution control,
however, were drains on fossil reserves for the Basin's economy. Summertime
DO was purchased with fossil fuels likely needed for long-term economic growth.
-------
SECTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS
METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Energy analysis of alternative environmental strategies is most like-
ly to bring new perspective to decision making if the alternatives are select-
ed so that equivalent environmental states have substantially different energy
requirements. Such a method identifies energy-efficient environmental control,
but does not impose a technical solution on the tradeoffs between energy and
environmental quality.
2. Energy analysis of public decisions may be undertaken in direct and/
or primary terms. In a region where local supply of energy is limited, but
extraregional energy supply is great, analysis should center on direct energy
requirements. In a region where energy may be imported as needed, but where
the stock for imports is being exhausted, energy analysis should be in primary
units. In a region where there is local competition for energy and where the
total energy stock is being reduced, analyses should include both measure of
energy.
3. Input/Output energy analysis is inappropriate when rapidly changing
economic organization and technology occurs. In this study, effort was made
to establish study bounds close to actual, documented conditions. Input/Out-
put models should not be employed in investigations where verification is un-
substantiated.
4. Input/Output energy analysis should be employed to distinguish be-
tween planning strategies only when the alternatives represent substantially
different predominant tactics and those tactics are of significantly different
energy impacts. Input/Output energy analysis should not be employed to dis-
tinguish between strategies differentiated only by tradeoff of one tactic
and the environment since the same analysis can be made more directly in
dollar terms.
5. Energy and economic Input/Output analysis of regional environmental
issues may use nationally based data if regional disconformity is shown to be
minor in the sectors of direct interest. The alternative approach of devel-
oping a complete and unique regional I/O data base is likely to be too data-
sparse for planning purposes.
6. Studies employing Input/Output models must properly conform econom-
ic activities of interest with sectors established for the model. Pollution
control exemplifies an activity that is not readily expressed as an explicit
-------
economic endeavor, but rather must be approximated by several, more general
I/O sectors.
7. River modeling should emphasize simple expressions, data suited to
the modeling enterprise, and familiarity with the problem. Complex models
built upon data taken for other objectives are likely to be of little value
to the decision maker.
POLLUTION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
8. Water quality planners for the Willamette should adopt a water
quality model that they themselves can evaluate and modify.
9. Federal reservoir cost allocation procedures should afford full
credit for water quality improvement to multipurpose water resource projects.
In such a way, environmental control may be made more cost-effective. In lieu
of a reallocation of existing Willamette projects, a unit price of $3/af
should be assigned to reservoir releases for late summer flow augmentation
where summertime DO is the environmental objective and alternative points
source control tactics call for advanced secondary treatment operated on a
year-around basis. This unit price is not proposed for the evaluation of addi-
tional reservoir capacity since the marginal returns of new construction should
be evaluated only after existing facilities are efficiently operated.
10. Willamette DO standards should be evaluated in terms of both re-
gional and national dollar and energy costs.
11. If low flow Willamette augmentation is used efficiently with waste-
water treatment, eventually the upper limit of augmentation from existing re-
servoirs will be required. Water pollution control strategies that propose
increased wastewater treatment and source control should be implemented only
if the option to increase augmentation is foregone.
12. Public policies that overlap should be analytically reconciled
where possible. Environmental, economic, and energy policies for the Willam-
ette Basin serve as an example. The present environmental and economic
policies tend to nullify the energy objectives. An alternative policy per-
spective is needed from which the policies in harmony with each other, with
human welfare, and with nature might be selected.
10
-------
SECTION IV
WATER RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
The abundant natural resources of Oregon's Willamette River Basin have
made possible the Valley's rapid economic development. The Willamette's waters
provide Valley residents with substantial water services including municipal,
industrial, and agricultural water supply; navigation; hydroelectric power;
flood control; recreation; waste disposal; and fish and wildlife habitat. The
Willamette Basin is today one of the few regions in the United States where
economic growth, water resource development, and environmental considerations
have proven to be reasonably complementary.
This section provides an overview of the Willamette Basin and describes
the present-day character of water resource development.
PHYSICAL SETTING
General Physiography, Geology, and Hydrology
The Willamette Basin (Figure 2) is bounded on the east by the Cascade
Mountains, on the west by Oregon's Coast Range, on the south by the Unpqua
Basin, and on the north by the Columbia River into which the Willamette flows
at Portland. The area of the Willamette Basin is 29,687 square kilometers
(km2), 31 percent of the state total. Approximately 70 percent of the land is
forest and 30 percent is in agricultural production. Only 5 percent is urban-
ized.
The Basin may be divided physiographically into four sectors: the Coast
Range, the northern Valley, the southern Valley, and the Cascades. The Cas-
cades can be further divided into the lower-lying western Cascades and the
rugged, snowcapped High Cascades (4).
The Coast Range has a crestline rising to 1249 meters (m) and extends to
the Pacific shore. Orographic precipitation from prevailing Pacific wester-
lies feeds short, steep sediment-laden coastal streams. Because the range is
typically low (<500 m) and the westerlies humid and persistently strong, much
precipitation which is condensed in the westerly upwelling is carried over the
Coast Range. The readily available rainfall (typically 1.5 m per year) on
both sides of the Coast Range far exceeds local water requirements except
during the rarest droughts.
The Willamette Valley floor is divided physiographically by the Salem-
Eola Hills. North of these hills, the Valley is composed of non-marine sedi-
11
-------
N
THERN WESTERN
LOCATION MAP
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION:
COAST/RANGE
WILLAMETTE
VALLEY
Figure 2. Willamette Basin physiographic sectors and typical
cross section (4).
12
-------
merits and conglomerates. In pre-Pleistocene (ice age) times, the portions of
the present-day Willamette Valley bordering the Columbia were extensively built
up with Columbia aluvium. At the same time the Willamette, as a lake extend-
ing over much of today's Basin floor, deposited a 15 to 30 m bed of sediments.
With ice-age sea recession, the lake drained and channels began downcutting
and meandering over the alluvial terrace. The northern Valley was again inun-
dated when glacial Lake Missoula broke loose from the Columbia Clark Fork and
swept toward the sea 10,000 or 15,000 years ago. The northern Valley has
abundant groundwater from the large supply from nearby mountains and the high
transmissability due to porous strata of sands and silt.
The southern Willamette Valley floor has experienced similar, but less
extensive, sedimentary deposition. Igneous flows and outcrops are common.
The southern Valley has redefined its boundaries several times. The Umpqua
may have once fed the upper Willamette and the Long Tom may have flowed west-
ward to the Siuslaw and the sea. Gradual weathering of ridges, alluviation,
and a rising sea level reduced stream gradients and reoriented channels. To-
day, the Valley remains broad from Salem to Eugene. Above Eugene a narrow
arm of bottom terrain leads up the Coast Fork. As in the north, groundwater
is generally available.
Nearly half the Willamette Basin is comprised of the west slope of the
Cascades. The Clackamas, Molalla, Santiam, Calapooya, McKenzie, Middle Fork
Willamette and Row rivers feed the main stem Willamette from these mountains.
The crest line averages somewhat less than 2000 m in altitude with its maxi-
mum being 3463 m (Mt. Hood). As the Cascade peaks lie near the eastern boun-
daries of the mountains, the greater and the wetter portion of the Cascade
Range drains west to the Willamette. These western slopes presently support
a large timber industry and multiuse Federal and State forests. Slopes are
steep, soils are silty-clay, and runoff and infiltration are high.
The High Cascades develop a substantial winter snowpack. Typically the
snow is retained until spring when warming temperatures and rain cause rapid
melting. Unlike the Columbia, the Willamette snowmelt is completed long be-
fore the dry summer months. Even during the dry summer period, however, the
discharge of the major Cascade tributaries is substantial.
The Willamette Basin receives abundant rainfall. Fifty percent of the
Basin receives 1.5 meters or more of annual precipitation. Seven percent
(mountainous regions) experience more than 2.5 m. The driest 1 percent re-
ceives 1 m. Runoff is likewise substantial. Fifty percent of the land yields
0.3 meters or less yearly. One percent exceeds 2m (5). Of the 26 largest
rivers in the United States (the Willamette River is fifteenth in annual dis-
charge), the Willamette Basin has the largest runoff/area ratio (0.03 m3/s-km2)
(6).
The Basin climate is temperature marine. Rain and snow fall during winter
and spring; summers and early autumn are clear, dry, and warm. Seventy per-
cent of the annual precipitation occurs from November through March, only
about 5 percent during the June-August summer period. The annual range of
average monthly temperatures is approximately 14 to 17°C. Extreme daily tem-
peratures for an average winter range from near freezing on the Basin floor to
13
-------
about -8°C in the Cascades. Summer maximums range from approximately 28°C in
the Valley to 24°C in the mountains (5).
The Willamette River
The main stem of the Willamette may be divided into three morphological
sections as shown in Figure 3. The upstream section, 217 km from Eugene to
Newberg, is a relatively steep (0.0005 gradient), braided, shallow (represen-
tatively 2 m) erosional regime. Summer velocities are typically 1 meter per
second (m/s). From Newberg to the basaltic weir that forms the Willamette
Falls (a distance of 41 km), the river is pooled and sluggish. The channel is
flatter (0.00001), the depth is greater (7 m), and velocities average approx-
imately 0.2 m/s. Deposition of sediment predominates. Below the Falls (43
km to the Columbia), the river is tidal and during the spring and early sum-
mer markedly affected by backwater from the Columbia River. During periods
of low Willamette flow, flow reverses twice a day in the lowest reaches which
causes water quality in the lowest 8 km to be essentially that of the Columbia
River. Depths are maintained at 12 m in the lower 27 km to facilitate naviga-
tion. A flat gradient (less than 0.00001) and low velocity (typically 0.1 mps)
create a depositional regime (7).
Figure 4 shows inflows to the Willamette for August 1973. Tributaries
from the Cascades constitute approximately 90 percent of the summer discharge.
Also shown are wastewater discharges.
Thirteen U. S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs are located on the
southern Willamette Basin tributaries as shown in Table 1 and Figure 5. The
reservoirs provide a full pool storage of 2.99 x 109 m3 (2.42 million af).
This corresponds to 14 percent of the mean Willamette annual discharge at
Salem. As illustrated in Figure 6(a), these reservoirs are operated by drain-
ing to low levels to store fall and winter flood flows and storing spring run-
off for late summer release. Figure 6(b) shows the corresponding discharge at
Salem for 1973 and early 1974.
The marked impact of the reservoirs upon low flow discharge is illustrated
in Figure 7, a plot of mean low flows against year. Mass balance analysis of
late summer reservoir releases accounts nearly totally for the experienced
downstream flow augmentation. Low flows presently are approximately twice the
discharge of low flows experienced more than 30 years ago. Figure 7 reveals
that hydrologic conditions are typically stable over the low-flow late sum-
mer months. The lowest discharge of a single day is not significantly different
than the discharge of the driest 30 days.
Basin climate, morphology, and river regulation not only generate char-
acteristic streamflow patterns of the river, but regulate aspects of natural
water quality. Precipitation creates high levels of winter turbidity. Eighty
percent of the annual sediment load (80 metric tons per square kilometer at
Salem) typically is generated from November through February (5). There is
relatively little overland runoff or surface erosion during the summer period.
Summertime suspended solids concentrations (perhaps 10 mg/1) result in a 2-
to 3-meter euphotic zone in the river. This allows the upper section of the
main stem to sustain a productive attached population of algae.
14
-------
\OREGON
LOCATION MAP
217 km
TIDAL REACH
POOL
UPSTREAM
REACH
SCALE
0 20 40
kilometers
41 km 43 km
»4-« »+*-
300
200 100
RIVER KILOMETER
0
Figure 3. Willamette River geomorphologic reaches (7)
15
-------
Tyron
Publishers Paper
Tualatin River
Publishers Paper
Yamhill River
Rickreall Creek
Ash Creek
Luckiamute River
Corvallis
Marys River
Evans Products
Long Tom
Eugene
Coast Fork
DISCHARGE, mVs
Pennwalt
Mil waukie
Johnson Creek
Oaklodge
Clackamas River
Oregon City
Crown Zellerbach
Molalla River
Salem
Mill Creek
Boise Cascade
Santiam River
Western Kraft
Wan Chang
Albany
Oregon Metal.
Calapooia River
American Can
McKenzie River
Springfield
Middle Fork
Figure 4. Willamette River flow balance, August 1973 (8, 9, 10),
16
-------
TABLE 1. STORAGE RESERVOIRS IN THE WILLAMETTE BASIN WITH 1 MILLION
CUBIC METERS OR MORE OF USABLE STORAGE CAPACITY
, .
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Reservoir name
Lookout Point
Detroit
Green Peter
Hills Creek
Cougar
Fall Creek
Fern Ridge
Blue River
Dorena
Timothy Lake
Scoggins
Foster
Cottage Grove
Smith
North Fork
Dexter
Trail Bridge
Big Cliff
Dallas
Stream
Mid Ford Willamette
N. Santiam R.
Mid Santiam R.
Mid Fork Willamette
S. Fork McKenzie R.
Fall Cr.
Long Tom R.
Blue R.
Row R.
Oak Grove Fork
Scoggins Cr.
S. Santiam R.
Coast Fk. Willamette
Smith R.
Clackmas R.
Mid Fork Willamette
McKenzie R.
N. Santiam R.
Rickreall Cr.
Operator*
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
PGE
BOR
C of E
C of E
EWEB
PGE
C of E
EWEB
C of E
Dallas
Year
placed in
operation
1954
1953
1966
1961
1963
1965
1941
1968
1949
1956
1975
1966
1942
1963
1958
1954
1963
1953
1960
Usable Storage
106m3
431
420
411
307
204
142
136
105
87
76
65
41
38
12
7
6
3
3
1
acre ft.
349 400
340 000
333 000
249 000
165 100
115 000
110 000
84 000
70 500
61 650
53 800
33 600
30 600
9 900
6 000
4 800
2 750
2 430
1 200
Authorized
purposes
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I
FC, N, I
FC, N, I
FC, N, I
P, R
FC, I, M&I
R, F&W, WQ
FC, P
FC, N, I
P
P, R
P
P
P
M&I
*
L£f E=CorPs of Engineers; PGE=Portland General Electric; E!/EB=Eunene Water 6 Electric Board; Dallas-City of Dallas-
BOR=Bureau of Reclamation
FC=flood control; ^navigation; ^irrigation; P=power; R=recreation; liai=municipal & industrial; F4W=fish and wildlife;
wq=water guanty. All existing Federal reservoirs are used for recreation, even though not so authorized.
-------
ALBANY
CORVALLIS,
i
(OREGON.
LOCATION MAP
kilometers
Figure 5. Storage reservoirs in the Willamette Basin (see Table 1 for key)
10
b
-------
o
O
UJ
o
CT
O
I-
co
cc
o
-------
ro
o
8000 -
20OO
CO
30
14 LOW FLOW
7 DURA TION,
3 days
- 60
1970
Figure 7. Annual low flow discharge at Salem, 1910-1974 (12).
-------
The temperature of the Basin is reflected in the temperature pattern of
the river. The Willamette at Salem averages slightly above 5°C in the winter
and approximately 21°C in late summer. The higher temperatures which coincide
with lower, summertime streamflow intensify biological rates of oxygen utili-
zation and decrease the water's capacity for dissolved oxygen saturation.
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply
The water supply for the Basin's major urban areas is drawn from surface
sources, but not generally the Willamette River. Of the urban areas listed
in Table 2, only Corvallis is supplied from the main stem itself. Minimum
main stem use for municipal water supply has come from traditional public hesi-
tation to "drink someone else's sewage." The Willamette presently requires no
more than conventional potable water treatment. Valley citizens acknowledge
that the river is clean, but subtle prejudice still remains.
Pulp and paper manufacturing provides the Willamette Basin with a rela-
tively stable basic export. Without such an industry, the Basin would experience
the hazardous seasonal and financial fluctuations common to raw material eco-
nomies. This industry requires large quantities of process water, but little
is actually consumed. Present pulp and paper water needs require less than 3
percent of the river's minimum annual monthly low flow (10).
Irrigation
Irrigated land has more than doubled in the Willamette Basin in the past
20 years as shown in Figure 8(a). Sixty percent of the irrigation water used
is derived from surface sources. More than 10 percent of the lands irrigated
from streams receive supplemental supply from reservoir storage. Ninety-nine
percent of such storage has additional benefits, principally flood control.
The value of crop and livestock production associated with irrigation in
1964 was $61 million. An economic multiplier encompassing indirect worth of
this production is estimated to be 2. Approximately 8600 agricultural work-
ers were employed in irrigated production with an additional 15 000 workers
supported in allied industry and services (15, 16, 17).
Navigation
Since territorial days, the Willamette has provided Oregon with a naviga-
tion route to its agricultural heartland. Steamboats paddled as far upriver
as Eugene. Logs were rafted down tributaries. Opened in 1873, the Willamette
Falls Locks (normal total lift - 12.5 m) connect the river reaches. A 2.5-m
channel is maintained below the Falls and a 1-m route extends above the Falls
to Eugene. Federal expenses for navigation improvement through 1974 were ap-
proximately $20 million for locks and $17 million for channel maintenance (18).
The advent of railways, freeways, and pipelines has reduced dependence on
river transportation. Over the past 35 years, river traffic has remained
fairly constant. Annual haulage is approximately 4 million metric tons, as
21
-------
TABLE 2. POPULATION CENTERS IN THE WILLAMETTE BASIN (13)
Population center
1976
Population
Portland
Eugene
Salem
Corvallis
Springfield
Beaverton
Albany
Milwaukie
Hillsboro
Lake Oswego
Estimated basin population
382 000
96 660
80 000
40 180
35 580
23 300
22 800
17 300
20 100
19 700
1 588 000
22
-------
Q
Z
Q £
250 -
200 -
uj o 150 -
(£> O
~ ~ 100
50 -
Z w
2 H-
'-O
UJ Si
Figure 8. Willamette (a) irrigation, (b) navigation, and (c) elec-
trical generation, 1951-1974 (15, 16, 18, 19).
23
-------
shown in Figure 8(b). The rafted log portion of this total has fallen from
over 50 percent to only 10 percent. Except for a few bulk shipments to and
from Salem, the mid-Valley does not depend on substantial river commerce.
Hydroelectric Power
Hydroelectric power is one of the Willamette's products. Of the approx-
imately 8500 TJ generation in 1973, 50 percent was produced by five multi-
purpose Corps projects on the upper Willamette tributaries. Most of the re-
mainder was developed from Portland General Electric dams on the Clackamas.
This utility also operates one small (415 TJ) run-of-river generator at Willa-
mette Falls. The Eugene Water and Electric Board draws approximately 1000 TJ
from the high McKenzie (3, 20). Figure 8(c) illustrates the development of
Corps' hydroelectric facilities.
Flood Protection
All Willamette Basin projects by the Corps provide flood mitigation. Ap-
proximately 70 percent of the combined Corps reservoir storage shown in Figure
9(a) is designated for flood control. Reservoir construction costs alloted to
flood control ranges from 32 to 70 percent (21). As seen in Figure 9(b), this
investment has been quickly returned. By 1974 when 50 percent of the Basin's
flood storage was less than 14 years old, the total reduction in flood damages
exceeded 125 percent of the entire reservoir expenses (18, 22). Approximately
70 percent of the return was incurred with the 100-year flood of 1964. Had
this flood not occurred, flood control investment would have been returned at
an approximate 6 percent rate.
Recreation
Throughout the Willamette watershed, hiking and camping sites are proxi-
mate to water. Fishing, boating, and swimming locations are abundant and
scenic motor routes follow waterways. During the peak summer months, 175 000
persons per day make use of developed recreational sites (23). This demand
is expected to grow at an annual rate of nearly 4 percent. Twenty percent of
the visitor days occur at Corps' reservoirs, as indicated in Figure 9(c). Ty-
pically, 75 percent of these visitors travel no more than 80 km to the reser-
voirs. More than 50 percent are from less than 40 km (24). Reservoir sites
are more favored by day vacationers, whereas remote fishing streams appeal to
the overnighters. What perhaps differentiates the Willamette from many other
basins is that recreation is enjoyed not only in protected upstream reaches,
but over the entire main stem.
Waste Disposal
The Willamette is extensively employed to assimilate municipal and in-
dustrial wastewater discharges. Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) monitors aquatic waste discharges, relates such discharge to water qua-
lity, establishes discharge limits to protect and enhance that quality, and
enforces those determinations.
24
-------
LJ
cr
o
UJIC
en O
O O
§s
, UJ
UJ
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
1.5
1.0
< 0.5
cc
O
>
|_ CC
< Ul
' 2
0
J L
l I I L
I I L
I l l | I I I I
2.0 .
u
.5 §
1.0
0.5 O
0
1952 1954 1956 1958 I960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972
YEAR
Figure 9. Willamette (a) joint use storage, (b) flood damage protection,
and (c) reservoir recreation, 1951-1974 (18, 23).
25
-------
Major wastewater dischargers can be seen in Table 3 and Figure 10. Fig-
ure 11(a) traces the development of municipal wastewater treatment on a popula-
tion basis. Effective pollution control on the Willamette itself has been more
rapid than Figure 10 indicates; the primary discharge continuing through the
late 1960's was Portland's wastewater that was released to the Columbia. In
Figure 11(b), the river response in August dissolved oxygen is shown. Improve-
ment is due to both wastewater treatment and dilution by flow augmentation
from reservoirs. Summer discharges flowing into the Willamette River are
listed in greater detail in Appendix A.
Table 4 summarizes discharges of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, and orthophosphate into the Willamette from municipal, in-
dustrial, unknown, and nonpoint sources. The "unknown" classification indi-
cates pollutant loadings found by mass balance in the river's main stem, but
not identified with known inflows. The "nonpoint" designation is loosely em-
ployed; pollutant discharges from tributaries minus residuals of up-tributary
point inputs are lumped into this category. Although nearly 30 percent of the
Basin is in agriculture, irrigation is limited to light application by sprink-
ler systems. Scattered animal feedlots and poultry farms are not believed to
contribute significant pollutant loadings to streams during the summer. Ex-
tensive clearcut logging activity (particularly in the Cascade Range) increases
the annual loading of sediments and organic material, some of which may affect
summer chemical and biological conditions. Other major sources of nonpoint
source pollution, including construction, highways, and urban runoff, contri-
bute pollutant loads primarily during rainy high flow periods.
Historically, benthal oxygen demand has been identified as a major contri-
butor to a recurring, summertime "oxygen dip" noted in the Portland Harbor
(1, 28). These benthal deposits were primarily attributed to two sources:
(1) overflows of raw sewage from Portland's combined sewer system, and (2) sus-
pended matter, wood, and pulp fibers discharged from upstream pulp and paper
industries and municipalities. By the early 1970's, however, the combined
sewer overflows had been largely rerouted to a municipal sewage treatment plant
on the Columbia River except during winter storm periods. In addition, secon-
dary treatment by the pulp and paper industries and municipalities has drasti-
cally reduced their discharges of oxygen-demanding wood fibers and suspended
solids. The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that the only signifi-
cant oxygen demanding deposits in 1973 were restricted to the reach below river
kilometer (Rkm) 21. This demand was thought to be 18 000 kg/day in the reach
Rkm 11-21. The demand was apparently responsible for a major part of the ap-
proximate 10 percent decrease in DO levels below Rkm 21 during 1973-1974 low-
flow conditions (29). This benthic oxygen demand in the Portland Harbor was
proportioned as follows:
(1) 25 to 33 percent due to natural benthal sediments,
(2) 25 to 33 percent due to algal respiration, and
(3) 25 to 50 percent due to an unknown combination of raw
sewage overflows, ship discharges, navigation dredging,
riverbed gravel mining, and resuspension of benthal
materials by tidal currents and prop wash (30).
26
-------
TABLE 3. PRINCIPAL WILLAMETTE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
BASIN MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES IN 1973 (10)
Municipal
facil
ities
Industrial
facilities
1. Salem
2. Eugene
3. Corvallis
4. Springfield
5. Albany
6. Portland - Tryon Creek
7. Fanno Creek
8. Oregon City
9. Beaverton
10. McMinnville
11. Oak Lodge
12. Milwaukie
13. Metzger
14. Aloha
15. Sunset
A. Wah Chang, Albany
B. Rhodia, Portland
C. Pennwalt, Portland
D. Evans Products, Corvallis
E. Boise-Cascade, Salem
F. Publishers Paper, Oregon City
G. Publishers Paper, Newberg
H. Crown Zellerbach, Lebanon
I. Weyerhaeuser, Springfield
J. Western Kraft, Albany
K. Crown Zellerbach, West Linn
L. American Can, Halsey
M. Oregon Metallurgical, Albany
N. General Foods, Woodburn
0. Tektronix, Beaverton
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED LOADING OF P, N, AND BOD TO THE
WILLAMETTE RIVER, AUGUST 1973 (7, 9, 10)
Source
Municipal
effluents
Industrial
effluents
Unknown'"
Nonpoint
Source
TOTAL
Orthophosphate as
P
kg/d
1 300
300
400
2 000
percent
66
14
20
100
Kjeldahl
N as N
kg/d
5 700
10 300
5 900
900
22 800
L percent
25
45
26
4
100
BOD5
kg/d
12 200
19 900
16 900
49 000
percent
25
41
34
100
'"See Section VI for discussion
27
-------
LOCATION MAP
kilometers
MUNICIPAL FACILITY
INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
MULTIPURPOSE RESERVOIR
Figure 10. Principal Willamette Basin municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities (see Table 3 for key)
-------
1° WASTEWA TER TREA TMEN7
I I I I
SUMMER
STEELHEAD'
1952 1954 1956 1958 I960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972
YEAR
Figure 11. Willamette (a) sewered population, (b) dissolved oxygen,
and (c) fish migration, 1951-1974 (3, 25, 26, 27). '
29
-------
Fish and Wildlife
The return to the Willamette of chinook salmon in the fall of 1973, il-
lustrated in Figure ll(c), marked a victory for the river. Oregonians lined
the banks to see a reward of pollution abatement. The preservation of fish-
eries and wildlife in a multiuse river was shown to be achievable.
The Basin contains four National Wilderness Areas and seven Federal Re-
search Natural Areas. The Basin is home for approximately 70 species of mam-
mals, including the Roosevelt elk, gray and red fox, black bear, mule and
blacktailed deer, mountain lion, mountain beaver, raccoon, ermine, weasel,
mink, and river otter. Over 30 reptile and amphibian species are found. More
than 40 species of fish inhabit the Willamette and its tributaries. Coho,
sockeye, and chinook salmon; cutthroat, rainbow, brown, and brook trout; and
largemouth bass are fished. Sturgeon, carp, dace, and sculpin are present.
Ornothologists have identified over 150 breeding birds. Geese, great blue
heron, teal, kingfishers, mallards, merganser, and sandpipers are seen along
waterways (31).
Pollution Control Expenditures
The return of water quality illustrated in Figure 11 was purchased, not
freely gained. Figure 12 indicates the capital investments for (a) wastewater
treatment plants, interceptors, outfalls, and lift stations, (b) industrial
pollutant removal, and (c) multipurpose reservoirs used for instream pollu-
tant dilution.
Capital expenses for Valley treatment plants as of August 1973 were $67.2
million (all costs in 1973 dollars). At the end of 1974 the sum was $143.3
million. Of this total, $58.6 million was spent after August 1973, $7.7 mil-
lion was invested in plants discharging out of the Basin, $3.9 million was
spent for plants not discharging to streams in August, and $5.8 million was
invested in plants since abandoned.
Construction records indicate that through 1973, over $87 million had
been invested in Basin sewer interceptors, wastewater outfalls, and sewage
lift stations. Approximately 60 percent of this sum was used to remove Port-
land discharges from the Willamette to the Columbia. For industrial waste-
water cleanup in this same period, $72 million was spent. Construction value
of the Corps' multipurpose reservoirs exceeded $1 billion (3, 18, 22, 25, 26
27).
Reservoir Authorization for Water Quality Control
A review of Congressional authorization for reservoir construction pro-
vides background for estimation of reservoir cost for pollution control.
Water pollution control is not an authorized primary purpose for any Corps'
Willamette reservoir. The Willamette River Basin Flood Control Act of 1938,
the original authorization for Willamette reservoir construction, followed the
heralded Columbia and TVA patterns for development: regional economic growth
stemming from flood control, power, navigation, and irrigation. Congress laid
out a plan of reservoir construction on Willamette tributaries for those ends.
30
-------
.0-
£/> <
UJ
UJ
UJ
cr
co
UJ
CO
o ^
cr 2
UJ I
5 CO
< z > -
o =>
0. CJ
CO
(E
ui a.
UJ o
140
80
60
40
20
0
70
60
50
40
i
! 30
20
10
0
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
PERCENT BOD REMOVAL
./
J
INTERCEPTORS
OUTFALLS
LIFT STATIONS
... SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
i
/CUMULATIVE
/ CAPITAL
,' EXPENSES
I I I
100
80 2
LJ
cr
60 g
00
40 £
LJ
O
20 u
CL
0
1952 1954 1956 1958 I960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972
YEAR
Figure 12. Willamette (a) municipal and (b) industrial wastewater
treatment and (c) reservoir costs (18, 22, 25, 26, 27).
31
-------
By the 1950's and 60's when final reservoir plans were drawn and approved, it
was realized that the projects would have impacts outside of those several
purposes. Recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, municipal and industrial
water supply for downstream users, and water quality control were seen as
additional project benefits. The Flood Control Acts of 1944, 1946, and 1954
designated recreation as an authorized specific use, thus allowing it to be
included in the comprehensive evaluation of reservoir economics (32, 33).
Within the limits of the 1938 Act, a broader interpretation was given to
project purposes of low flow augmentation in the 1950's. In addition to navi-
gation and irrigation benefits during the summer season, a water quality con-
trol benefit (then seen as approximately 3 percent of total benefits) was in-
cluded in benefit-cost calculations for the project. The anticipated water
quality benefits reflected pollution control cost reductions. Significantly,
pollutant dischargers did not realize such savings in waste treatment expenses.
Rather, the dischargers incurred substantial cost in upgrading their effluents
to secondary quality.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961 (PL 87-88)
provided for water quality control to be a recommended project function for
reservoirs being planned and those in initial stages of construction. The
Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study investigated and recommended such addi-
tion of purpose for Federal reservoirs. However, by the time of this deter-
mination, the Corps had successfully justified its reservoir plans independent-
ly of water quality improvement (21).
The Corps' conservative cost accounting proved to have foresight. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) again called for
streamflow regulation policies to be determined with water quality control in
project economic design. The Act, however, also specified that storage and
releases from reservoirs could not be justified as a substitute for adequate
at-source waste treatment, "adequate" being defined as the best practicable
or available technical level. Thus, water pollution control benefits could
only be claimed for Corps' projects that improved water already receiving only
the highest treated discharges. Since such "adequate" treatment capacity ap-
proaches complete pollutant removal, the Corps could only count pollution
control credit for improving water quality above its natural, unpolluted level
In effect, water quality from flow augmentation ("solution by dilution") are
not presently authorized benefits for reservoir construction (34). Though
Federal reservoirs do contribute to Willamette water quality maintenance, the
DEQ can neither rely on this strategy nor can the Corps claim economic benefits
for this environmental service.
SUMMARY
The Willamette Basin's physiographic setting gives rise to its varied
water resources. The State Water Policy Review Board summarizes:
1. The total surface water yield in the basin is sufficient to
meet all foreseeable needs,
2. The temporal distribution of runoff results in water shortages
in some areas,
32
-------
3. Low flow augmentation can be obtained through storage of
winter flows, and
4. Augmented flow is required to protect several seasonal water
resource benefits (35).
Water resource employment is varied, but to a large extent complementary.
Reservoirs are maintained at high levels for much of the recreational season.
Reservoir releases in preparation for the winter flood season coincide with
downstream needs for water supply and water quality protection. To the pre-
sent, consumptive use of the Willamette, principally for irrigation, has not
greatly competed with instream water requirements.
Mankind's employment of the Willamette River has increased over the years.
To both make use of the river resources and maintain water quality, substan-
tial investment has been made for water pollution control. A portion of this
investment has gone for wastewater collection, treatment, and diversion. An-
other portion of these costs has purchased augmented flow, an unauthorized
benefit from multipurpose reservoirs.
33
-------
SECTION V
POLICIES
PERSPECTIVES FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Governmental policies can be described as high-level overall plans that
embrace general goals and acceptable procedures. From those policies, resource
management issues emerge which involve environment, economics, and energetics.
Resource management reflects environmental policies, plans, and procedures for
protecting natural resources. Resource management is a major part of economic
policies that seek to increase the material enjoyment of life. Utilization of
natural resources often reflects energy policies that direct work allocation.
Any of the three policies can, in fact, be conceptualized as incorporating the
remaining two. Although man could unify his resource management policies under
one perspective, this is generally not done. Rather, issues are examined from
several viewpoints, each with somewhat independent policies. The selection of
a particular solution seems to depend on the compatibility to the most or
highest-order policies. This determination is typically social, not techni-
cal.
When policies are well defined, ranked, and accepted, issues of resource
utilization can be easily resolved. However, if the policy perspectives are
not well defined or generally accepted, resource decisions become difficult.
This section explores three policies pertinent to Willamette pollution
control. Environmental, economic, and energy policies are introduced so that
analytical results presented later in this report may be compared to public
goals. If policy and prediction seem to substantially differ, then recommen-
dation to make policies more realistic can be made.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
The Water Quality Management Plan
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Water Quality
Management Plan reflects the State's commitment to pollution control. The
plan, adopted December, 1976 in compliance with Federal regulation PL 92-500
furthers Oregon's tradition of being a frontrunner in water pollution abate-
ment.
"Whereas the pollution of the waters of this State constitutes
a menance to public health and welfare, creates public nui-
sances, is harmful to wildlife, fish and aquatic life and im-
pairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and
34
-------
other legitimate beneficial uses of the water, whereas the pro-
blem of water pollution in this State is closely related to the
problem of water pollution in adjoining states; it is hereby de-
clared to be the public policy of this State:
(1) To conserve the waters of the State;
(2) To protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public
water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and aqua-
tic life and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, municipal,
recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses;
(3) To provide that no waste shall be discharged into any waters
of this State without first receiving the necessary treatment
or other corrective action to protect the legitimate beneficial
uses of such waters;
(4) To provide for the prevention, abatement and control of new or
existing water pollution; and
(5) To cooperate with other agencies of the State, agencies of other
states, and Federal Government in carrying out these objectives."
(36)
The Water Quality Management Plan seeks to continue a determined and co-
operative pollution reduction policy by proven means of waste treatment. Im-
plementation of the plan calls for more advanced wastewater treatment to re-
duce carbonaceous BOD, suspended solids, and coliforms. The plan recognizes
problems of nonpoint source pollution and riverbed benthic materials as future,
not immediate, targets for control. To limit industrial wastewater effluents
the plan extends Oregon's pragmatic approach of seeking reasonable industrial
cooperation in lieu of governmental litigation. The Water Quality Management
Plan is a substantial conventional sanitary engineering endeavor.
Goals of the Water Quality Management Plan are transformed into tactical
regulations by the DEQ. Relevant to the environmental model developed in the
next section are the DEQ's standards. In the tidal reach below Willamette
Falls the minimum permissible dissolved oxygen (DO) is 5 mg/1. Above the
Falls to Newberg the level is 6 mg/1. From Newberg to Salem the standard is
set at 7 mg/1 above Salem, 8 mg/1.
E n v i ronme n ta1 Po1i cy
The generalized State environmental policy is illustrated by the Water
Quality Management Plan. State goals call for (1) the prohibition of further
environmental degradation within the State, and (2) the improvement of natural
resource quality where practicable. Acceptable procedures for these ends in-
clude (3) pragmatic cooperation between Federal, State, local, and industrial
officials, and (4) the maintenance of regulations and enforcement capacity
directed toward environmental quality.
35
-------
ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
Oregon's economic policies center on the general goal of improving per
capita income and reducing unemployment (37). Economic policies are perhaps
easier to identify in action than in legislation, as activity speaks for it-
self. Several indices of economic behavior are discussed below.
Indices of Resource Utilization
Ten percent of American softwood timber stands in the Willamette Basin.
Of the Basin timber harvest, 90 percent is sent to national and world markets
(11). The pulp, paper, and particle board industry steadily converts sawmill
wastes (once incinerated) into marketable goods. Statewide, the value of the
forest products industry's payroll exceeds $1 billion Forty-two percent of
the State's entire population receives income derived directly or indirectly
(38) The Basin is a foremost producer of grass seed,
half of the State's $1 billion annual farm and ranch
half of t ne Qf ^
he Vaney i«; ^ $si ]1
v
from the fort
hnn< H Irfnf ^half of the a
hops, and mint. Nea half of t ne Qf ^
«
gross sales comes from the Vaney ^ $si (]1)
is employed in renewable resource no. v r a
n^nnn cnnrtsmen devote more than 2 million person-days yearly to hunting
Oregon SP°^*" °e*° license fees (approaching $10 million annually)
1? hlS;talS a yel?-around tourist industry (40). In short, the economy
of the Willamette Basin is significantly derived from the harvest of renew-
able natural resources.
The aesthetics of the natural environment and the prosperity derived from
resource harvests have drawn to the Valley small non-resource based firms. A
larae part of Valley industry produces commodities of high value and little
bulk e g. electronic equipment or refined rare metals. Such industry is ac-
tively sought by the State. Should living conditions, local taxes, or State
regulation become unacceptable, these industries possibly would leave the
area.
Indices of Income
Mean personal income in the Willamette Basin is greater than that of the
rest of the State ($5520 versus $4770 in 1974), the difference in large part
due to the Valley's urban employment. In the past 25 years, the Basin's me-
dian family income has improved relative to that of the State. In this period,
the majority of Willamette Valley counties dropped below the State mean per-
centage of families living in poverty. Income is more evenly distributed in
the Valley than in the State as a whole. By any of the four measures (mean
income, median income, poverty percentage, and income distribution), the Val-
ley has a reasonably healthy income (41).
Indices of Population
Willamette Valley counties have experienced a 1.74 annual percent growth
in population over the past 15 years. Although population stabilization is
now generally assumed to be a necessary condition for preserving the Valley's
quality of life, in the next decade the rate is not anticipated to greatly
36
-------
change (21, 42). Somewhat less than half the population growth in Oregon is
attributable to immigration (43).
Economic Policy
The masthead of the State Economic Development Commission once heralded
"Oregon, the Growth State". Its newsletter was "Grow with Oregon". However,
environmental issues of the 60's have brought reevaluation. "Grow with Ore-
gon" was relabeled "Oregon Quality" in 1970. Perhaps the subsequent title
"Oregon Progress" reflects a slight rebound, a middle way. An economic policy
for Oregon has been established:
"(1) There exists in the State a great and growing need for balanced
economic and community development to provide and maintain or-
derly economic growth and the preservation and enhancement of
all facets of Oregon's environment;
(2) Only properly planned and coordinated growth and development can
maintain and improve the total environment by broadening the tax
base. . .;
(3) ... Balanced development opportunities must be made available
to rural areas to bring about the geographical distribution of
business and industry necessary to a healthy economy and environ-
ment for all Oregonians;
(4) Assistance and encouragement of balanced industrial, commercial
and community development is an important function of the
State. . .;
(5) The availability of this assistance and encouragement is an im-
portant inducement to industrial and commercial enterprises to
locate, remain and relocate in those portions of the State which
will contribute most of the environment and economy of Oregon. . .;
and
(6) Development of new and expanded overseas markets is an area of
great potential for furthering balanced economic growth. . .
thereby contributing to economic diversification." (44)
Redundant in the policy is the State economic goal: to sustain economic
growth. There is little willingness to forego the benefits of resource har-
vests, the healthy Basin income pattern, or the population growth complemen-
tary to traditional economic development. There is general willingness to in-
vest dollars in pollution management to avert the penalties associated with
a polluted region.
ENERGY PERSPECTIVE
Energy is required for protection of multipurpose environments, yet
energy production often degrades that environment. Energy consumption is re-
quired to fuel an economy, but energy depletion may curtail much economic ac-
37
-------
tivity. This section outlines several aspects of Willamette Basin energy use,
illustrating problems confronting energy policy of the 1970's.
Energy Consumption
Records of energy usage in the Willamette Valley incorporate electrical,
natural gas, and petroleum product data. Whereas such accounting does not
describe the area's total energy budget, the statistics do reveal significant
and manageable aspects of the region's energy base. Unless indicated other-
wise, the trends and generalities of the State are substantially the same for
the Willamette Valley.
Energy consumption in Oregon regularly increased until the oil embargo of
1973 (Figure 13). Oregon's energy consumption growth rate has historically
been more variable than that of the nation. Overall, Oregon has experienced
a higher than national rate of energy growth (4.7 versus 3.3 percent average
growth rate of total energy consumption and 2.8 versus 2.2 percent average an-
nual per capita increase, 1962-1974) (45, 46).
Oregon's petroleum and natural gas requirements are met by imports.
Thirty-three public and private utilities in 1974 supplied the State's elec-
trical needs. These utilities are members of the Northwest Power Pool, a pro-
gram of unified regional power production. Eighty-five percent of the Pool's
production comes from dams. Of this, most comes from Bonneville Power Admini-
stration's Columbia reservoirs. Approximately 10 percent of the Willamette
electrical consumption is hydraulically produced within the Basin (48).
Power is traded with the Pacific Southwest on an annual cycle. High
Columbia summer flow generates electricity in excess of northwestern immediate
demand. The surplus is transmitted via high voltage lines to California and
Arizona. Electricity is returned during the winter when the southwest's cool-
ing demands are reduced and the northwest's heating needs are greatest. Such
transshipment is estimated to cost 25 percent as much as otherwise-required
regional power plants for peak seasonal demands (47). The Willamette Valley,
then, regularly consumes electricity generated throughout the western United
States.
Energy Forecasts
Energy use forecasts vary. Private electrical power suppliers project
nearly a complete continuance of the 6.3 percent growth rate from 1962-74.
State officials, placing more credence in demand elasticity, expect 3.3 per-
cent. In either case, no plateau in energy demand is foreseen. Increased
electrical production will be derived from three thermal facilities (one coal
and two nuclear) in eastern Oregon. The residential sector will demand most
new electrical output.
Petroleum consumption is forecast to accelerate at a 4.5 percent rate.
This exceeds the growth rate of the past decade. The clear assumption is that
the oil will yet be available. Natural gas supply is predicted to decrease,
jump, and decrease in the next 20 years. Industrial gas delivery will be cut
back.
38
-------
CD
O
CD
Z
O
I-
CL
O
O
(T
LtJ
-^
LJ
CL
<
O
cr
LJ
CL
200h
250
00
50
'^o^'r;; /^/f TROL EUM PRODUCTS ::r&- {-&#*<&}'£
>
200 p
CL
S
ID
CO
150 §
o
cr
UJ
100 5
NATURAL
50
ELECTRICITY
CL
<
CJ
cr
UJ
Q_
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1952 1954 1956 1958 I960 1962 1964
YEAR
1966 1968 1970 1972
0
Figure 13. Oregon per capita energy consumption, 1951-1974 (45, 46).
-------
Overall, higher consumer incomes are anticipated to reverse the temporary
downward energy trend begun in 1973. The subsequent increases in energy de-
mand will eventually slow under the pressures of higher prices, reduced popu-
lation growth, decelerating effective per capita income, and diminishing ex-
pansion of industrial production (45).
Energy Policy
Given Oregon's dependence on imported energy, the decreasing world energy
stocks and Oregon's anticipated growth in energy requirements, the energy
policy of the State centers on two concepts: energy conservation for essen-
tial purposes and local development of renewable energy sources (45, 49).
The State energy policy is briefly as follows.
"(1) That development and use of a diverse array of permanently
sustainable energy resources be encourage utilizing to the
highest degree possible the private sector of our free en-
terprise system.
(2) That through State government example and other effective communi-
cations, energy conservation and elimination of wasteful and un-
economical uses of energy and material be promoted.
(3) That the basic human needs of every citizen, present and future,
shall be given priority in the allocation of energy resources,
commensurate with perpetuation of a free and productive economy
with special attention to the preservation and enhancement of
environmental quality.
(4) That all State agencies, when making monetary decisions, take
into consideration cost factors, including but not limited to
energy resource depletion and environmental costs." (50)
Oregon's energy policy is essentially one of fossil fuel and electricity
(high grade energy) management. Oregon's energy policy is directed toward
both altered patterns of energy consumption and production. The overall goal
is that of insuring an adequate long-term high-grade energy supply. General-
ized policy calls for (1) the conservation of fossil fuel reserves for essen-
tial purposes and (2) the development of local, renewable energy producing
capacity. Records and projections indicate (1) is not taking place. Techno-
logy of the foreseeable future is not apt to bring about (2). Unlike environ-
mental and economic objectives, areas in which Oregon can turn to experience,
energy policy may reflect desires not reconciled with all the facts.
AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Environmental, economic, and energy policy might be unified if issues
were seen in a broader framework. The many aspects of water pollution con-
trol strategy might be seen together, yielding coordinated resource manage-
ment. Some overlapping of environmental, economic, and energy terms in policy
statements does indicate that some perspective unification is coming about,
but it is more semantic than actual.
40
-------
A more methodological approach to comprehensive policy stems from the
field of ecology. This perspective, popularized by H. T. Odum, calls for re-
duction of all activity to an energy structure (51). Such energy analysis re-
quires both quantity and quality appraisal. Activity has quantity as calorie
transfer and quality as its ability to bring about work. Energy used to regu-
late the flow of other energy is deemed to be of higher quality than the regu-
lated energy. In so regulating, it can cause more work to be done than would
occur otherwise. Odum's proposals for many of today's social and ecological
problems call for strategic interaction of high and low quality energies. A
calorie of electricity spent for household heating is to Odum ill-employed.
The electrical calorie used to facilitate primary production of wood, say,
might be better invested. Odum is concerned with energy's effect upon the
world system, not just fuel for man's spending.
A realistic policy for the environment, economy, or fuel supply must con-
form to a viable total energy structure. Odum's approach to public policy
formulation calls for the determination of the many fold energy pathways that
sustain man's way of life. High quality energy used to pump more energy into
the system is identified. If an inflow of energy is desired, the proper policy
must be one in which the regulating energy flow is maintained.
In such light, the Willamette Valley might be viewed. Figure 14 repre-
sents an initial and partial conceptualization of the Valley's energy basis.
Several inflows of energy enter the Valley. Two of them, solar and precipi-
tation, are flow resources from essentially a constant sun, thus "renewable".
The remaining two inputs, fuels and raw materials, are derived outside the
Basin, in part from renewable sources, but mostly through depletion of na-
tional and international nonrenewable energy reserves. In-Basin renewable
energy supply is shown as forest and crops, quantified by caloric value.
Within the Basin, hydroelectric power is generated from precipitation runoff,
estimated to be the potential energy of flow channelized in streams. Energy
flows attributed to each of the above are indicated as caloric flux uncorrect-
ed for quality. Odum suggests fossil fuel equivalent units for all flows.
Such correction for quality would yield 16 x 1012 Cal for sunlight, 5 x 1012
for primary production, 5 x 1012 and 10 x 1012 for crop and timber harvest,
and 51 x 1012 for precipitation. The hydroelectric power produced in the re-
gion would be valued at 8 x 1012 fossil fuel equivalent Cal and the electri-
city imported, 56 x 1012. All other values shown are expressed directly as
fossil fuel equivalent energy units. Figure 14 may be modified in this manner
to standard units. This modification is here left to the reader's discretion
and to reader's agreement with Odum's method. Calculation of values shown is
given in Appendix J.
An Odum-based evaluation of pollution control costs might extend to esti-
mates of primary production lost with reservoir innundation or nutrient (high
quality energy) return to agricultural land. In this investigation, such is-
sues are not pursued. They are not unimportant topics, but rather questions
presently outside the domain of government energy policy and thus beyond the
objectives of this study.
The alternative policy perspective proposed is thus one schematized in
an Odum manner, but not extended to his comprehensive "total" energy picture.
41
-------
26OO BIOMASS
960 SAW TIMBER
32OOO
HYDROPOWER
PRECIPITATION 17 \ ^V V
PRIMARY
PRODUCTION
sfM
51 PET.
14 ELEC.
FUEL
' ENERGY
2O N.GAS
PRODUCTION
MATERIALS \ /
WILLAMETTE
BASIN
HUMAN
RESOURCES CAPITAL
49
38
IMPORTS
34 PRODUCTION, SERVICES\-^,69»
^a£ /
35
EXPORTS
1 o
Figure 14. Willamette Basin energy flows, 1973 in 10 Cal per year.
-------
The alternative policy perspective brings together aspects of pollution con-
trol, economic, and energy policies in a manner that would lead to coordina-
tion among those policies. Should a total energy perspective be pursued as
planning evolves, the data of Figure 14 provide a framework for the economic
portion of that effort.
Energy as imported power, materials, and capital is purchased with out-
puts of Valley economic production. Much imported energy, however, is not
paid for with produce export. Because the market price for power has tradi-
tionally been much lower than the marginal value derived from that power, the
Willamette Basin, like many affluent regions, has grown accustomed to develop-
ment afforded by this net energy subsidy. The Valley's economic sectors of
production and service transform this subsidy into goods and services enjoyed
by Valley residents.
Though Figure 14 reflects only order-of-magnitude estimation, several
conclusions can be drawn:
1. The Basin's economy is principally energetically maintained from
imported nonrenewable sources.
2. The Basin benefits from an advantageous energy pricing situation.
Far less than half the value derived from imported energy is ex-
ported in repayment.
3. The Valley cannot maintain current economic levels fueled by the
Basin's wood or hydroelectric power.
4. The consistency of energy subsidies control the Basin's long-range
economy, not industrial capacity within the Valley. A primary con-
cern of Basin policy must be that of maintaining the external energy
stock from which to draw. The consequences of Valley activity must
be seen in a larger scale than that of local expenditure for power.
The net national, and potentially international, effects must be
anticipated. The policy reduces to a survival strategy within
energy-imposed limits.
SUMMARY
Environmental, economic, and energy policies for Oregon are identified.
Each has consequences significant to water pollution control. These policies
provide perspectives from which the effects of resource management can be
weighed. For Willamette water quality control, these policies will be used in
Section X as illustrative criteria for management decisions.
The energy perspective of Odum has been used to identify patterns and
limits to which workable environmental control must be reconciled. This al-
ternative perspective will likewise be used later in this report to view stra-
tegies of water quality control.
43
-------
SECTION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING
INTRODUCTION
A model is defined by Weinberg as: an expression of one thing we hope to
understand in terms of another that we think we do understand (52). In model-
ing one seeks to integrate a rational set of concepts that satisfactorily de-
scribe a "real" system. Mathematics are commonly employed to provide an in-
ternally consistent, rigorous expression of the concepts. Modeling is a sub-
jective enterprise. Models identify not necessarily the problem, but the
modeler's notion of the problem. In this section a dissolved oxygen model of
a river is discussed and its relationship to the larger issue of Willamette
environmental quality is examined.
In environmental issues where a vast number of factors interplay, models
frequently succumb to one of two errors. These errors either result from an
unfortunate choice of what to model (error in model selection) or an unfortu-
nate decision of how to model (error in model formulation). No matter how
well expressed, a model of the wrong environmental attribute will fail to elu-
cidate the behavior of interest. In addition, a model will be of little value
if its analytic expression is inappropriate, no matter how carefully the en-
vironmental factors to model are chosen.
MODEL SELECTION
Dissolved oxygen (DO) models were among the first analytic expressions of
water quality behavior and much is known about this type of model; however, DO
models are often abused due to an over-confidence in their applicability.
Having learned DO equations from textbooks, engineers too often immediately
apply the calculations to any aquatic water quality problem. Other quality
parameters may be given little consideration, not because of their lack of im-
portance, but because models for these parameters are less familiar to the
engineer. Conversely, DO modeling may be slighted by the engineer for the
very reasons that it is older, not sufficiently complex, and less encompass-
ing. The temptation is great to model "everything." Problems arise when an
array of complex parameters, not necessarily appropriately modeled, masks the
significance of the few parameters basic to understanding environmental con-
ditions.
The Willamette has experienced both these modeling problems. Simple DO
models have been applied for general or example results (53, 54, 55). Few
model improvements were undertaken after the studies. The value of modeling
was, thus, largely limited to immediate problems of interest to the investi-
44
-------
gator, usually an academician. Model extrapolation to the more general audi-
ence of planners was largely unsuccessful. The State Sanitary Authority in
the 1950's anticipated Willamette water quality conditions primarily by in-
sight, rather than by modeling.
Often present environmental analysis succumbs to the second problem of
overencompassment. For example, models too complex for ready appraisal and
modification, too reliant on generalities, too ignorant of local conditions,
and too inclusive to unnecessary aspects have been applied to the Willamette
(56, 57). Results were based on sparse data, inappropriate model structure,
and coefficients determined without independent measure. Little confidence
is merited for such model output.
Dissolved oxygen appears to be the most suitable parameter for quality
modeling of the Willamette River. The reasons are specific to the river, not
general to aquatic modeling. Parallel studies have considered other possible
indices of pollution: metals, erosion-sedimentation, and nutrients (58, 59,
60). None of these parameters corresponds to the river's ability to sustain
a diverse ecosystem better than DO. DO is an integrative parameter of the
river environmental system. Natural regulation of river DO includes precipi-
tation patterns, topography, groundcover, and the natural carbon and nitrogen
cycles. Man-influenced controls include discharges of carbonaceous and nit-
rogenous wastes, land use as it affects runoff, and reservoir regulation.
Thus, a model of Willamette DO can serve as an encompassing, broad-based ex-
pression of river environmental quality.
The rest of this section deals with the adequate expression of a Willa-
mette DO model suited to the objectives of this study.
MODEL FORMULATION
A basic DO model is expressed as a multi-step mass balance. For river
study, the channel is conceptually partitioned into reaches, each typified by
hydraulic dimensions of width, depth, length, and discharge. Each reach re-
ceives inputs of oxygen, water, and oxygen demanding substances from the reach
immediately upstream and/or from discharges along its banks. Within any reach,
the DO concentration may be reduced by oxygen-demanding degradation of waste
materials or increased by atmospheric or other reaeration mechanisms. A DO
model can be visualized as a series of conceptual hydraulic reaches, each
linked by interreach transport couplings, and each reach having potential oxy-
gen sources and sinks. Boundary conditions are established and coefficients
appropriate to internal model mechanisms are determined.
Oxygen sources and sinks meaningful for a Willamette model include bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD), both carbonaceous and nitrogenous; immediate oxy-
gen demand (primarily benthic exertion); and atmospheric reaeration. Figure
15 illustrates the basic dissolved oxygen model. Equations 1 through 5 de-
fine the expressions in general terms. The model is expressed in detail by
the computer routines listed in Appendix B. The atmospheric reaeration term
of Equation 1 is documented in Appendix C.
45
-------
Tributary or
Wastewater Discharge
DO Consumed
QQ
000
co mo
zo
I
CBOD Exerted
NBOD Exerted
Discharge from
Reach Upstream
CTi
DO
CBOD
NBOD
Discharge to
Reach Downstream
DO
CBOD
NBOD
Immediate Oxygen Demand
Reach of River
Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen river schematic.
-------
DO at
bottom
of reach
DO from
upstream
reach
DO in
tributary or
wastewater
Immediate
oxygen
demand
Carbonaceous
BOD
exerted
Nitrogenous
BOD
exerted
Atmospheric
reaeration
(1)
Carbonaceous
BOD at bottom
of reach
Nitrogenous
BOD at bottom
of reach
Carconaceous
BOD
exerted
Nitrogenous
BOD
exerted
where
Carbonaceous
BOD from
upstream reach
Nitrogenous
BOD from
upstream reach
Carbonaceous
BOD from
upstream reach
Nitrogenous
BOD from
upstream reach
Carbonaceous
BOD in tributary
or wastewater
Nitrogenous
BOD in tributary
or wastewater
Carbonaceous
BOD in tributary
or wastewater
Carbonaceous
BOD
exerted
(2)
Nitrogenous
BOD
exerted
(3)
(4)
-\
Nitrogenous
BOD in tributary
or wastewater
1-1 (
(5)
First order carbonaceous deoxygenation rate constant
First order nitrogenous deoxygenation rate constant
Time of travel in reach
Volumes of water are visualized as moving downstream as distinct units
(or "plugs"). Mixing, dilution, and biochemical reactions occur within the
units as they move downriver, but because the system is assumed to be in steady
state, the water quality of each unit passing by a given point is exactly
like that which preceded it. For this reason, only one incremental volume of
water needs to be modeled for the time of travel through the reaches of in-
terest.
Assumptions and Limits
Any model is of value only within limited ranges based upon the restrict-
ing assumptions. Assumptions proposed by the US Geological Survey for such a
model are considered reasonable for this study and are as follows.
47
-------
1. Reaches of Rkm 139 to 8 are applicable.
2. Steady state conditions must prevail. The model is applicable to
prediction of average daily DO concentration during low flow, high
temperature conditions that have been preceded by at least 5, and
preferably, 10 days of relatively stable streamflow and water
temperature. This condition is approximated by mean August flows
of typically dry summers.
3. The streamflow and water temperature must be for low flow between
85 and 255 m3/s Salem gage and ±3°C of calibration conditions (20°
C at Salem, 23°C at Portland), respectively.
4. Channel geometry must be similar to 1973-74 conditions. Isolated
dredging or filling do not cause significant differences. In con-
trast, a 2-m deepening of the Portland Harbor would likely invali-
date the present model and necessitate the collection of new channel
geometry data.
5. The predominant wastewater loads must be from secondary biological
treatment.
6. An approximate balance of DO production and DO consumption between
photosynthesis and respiration by aquatic plants must be present
(29).
DO problems have been historically most evident in the river's main stem
between Rkm 8 and 139, below Salem. The problems occur in late summer when
flow is low, temperature and metabolism rates high, and food processing wastes
are discharged. Such knowledge allows more effective modeling effort and the
use of the simplifying steady-state concept. Below Salem, reach partitioning
has been carried out by the US Geological Survey (USGS) for this summer period
(30). Above Salem and up tributaries there is less need to model DO. The
main stem boundary conditions at Salem are established by routing down oxygen-
demanding inputs. This is not done by the DO model, but by supporting models
that employ first-order decay expressions for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD) and nitrogenous biochemical oxygen demand (NBOD).
Hydraulic Data
Good USGS records exist for Willamette streamflow (61). Over 100 stream
gaging stations have been established in the Basin. With main stem channel
slope, USGS cross-sectional data, and appropriate discharge figures, an effec-
tive channel roughness (Manning's n) was determined by a search algorithm for
the Willamette channel from Salem to the Newberg Pool.
This estimation of channel roughness allows changes in channel cross-
section to be determined for low flow conditions other than those of 1973.
In and below the Newberg Pool, channel geometry is fairly constant over the
range of low flows. The depth of the Newberg Pool is maintained by Willamette
Falls, a natural weir. Channel depths in the tidal portion of the river are
controlled by the Columbia which in turn is maintained at fairly constant sum-
48
-------
mer conditions by its own reservoir system.
Travel times from Salem to Rkm 8 obtained from Manning's Equation velo-
cities decreased from approximately 24 to 9 days as Salem discharge varied
from 88 to 255 m3/s, the range of low flow conditions explored in this study.
Willamette Falls
At Willamette Falls oxygen is entrained and dissolved. Multiple routes
of overflow at the Falls make the estimation of reaeration difficult. At
periods of low flow, the Falls may have very small discharges since water is
routed through the fish ladder, hydroelectric turbines, and industrial facili-
ties. For use in the model, a measurement of DO changes from above to below
the Falls, August 1973, were employed (30). Reaeration was assumed to vary
directly with discharge and DO deficit.
Inputs of Pollution
Point source wastewater discharge data are regularly collected by the
DEQ. USGS work in 1973 and 1974 derived an independent point source data set
suited explicitly to low flow DO modeling (29, 30). For this study, a data
base of point source wastewater dischargers was compiled from DEQ data (9,
10). The DEQ data have historical continuity and would seem naturally to be
preferred by State environmental planners. USGS data were used to supplement
the point source data base. Where no appropriate data were discovered (typi-
cally the case for nitrogenous output from small municipal plants), an esti-
mate was made.
To facilitate the comparison of pollution control strategies outlined in
the study objectives, municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges were
standardized by plant type. For each class of plants in the Valley, weighted
mean CBOD and Kjeldahl N concentration was determined from summer 1973 re-
cords. The standardized concentration was then reapplied to each plant's out-
put. Table 5 indicates the standardized effluent concentrations for eight
methods of wastewater treatment. Model runs using actual August 1973 dis-
charges and standardized discharges yielded the same main stem DO result.
Industrial wastewater discharges were not standardized as their natures
vary widely. One nitrogenous input was given as an unknown industrial nitro-
genous load near Albany. Presently its source is unidentified; it was dis-
covered by a nitrogen mass balance of up-and-downstream river samples. Due
to poor mixing of summer flow in this reach, however, fieldwork has not cor-
related this loading to any point source. The input may be due in part to
subsurface flows from ponds in the Albany industrial park and/or ammonia tra-
versing the Santiam from a paper mill (30).
Nonpoint pollution data are not easily compiled. For this study where a
strategy of nonpoint pollution control was not evaluated, nonpoint inputs
were taken to be equivalent point sources at main stem tributary mouths. Tri-
butary municipal and industrial BOD's were routed to the Willamette. BOD's
sampled at tributary mouths and not accounted for as decayed residuals from
upstream wastewater discharges were treated as nonpoint inputs.
49
-------
TABLE 5. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS OF BOD AND N
FROM MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS
Plant type*
TFEF
ASEF
ASP
AS
TF
L
P
ASPL
BOD5,
mg/1
19
16
18
20
26
30
130
17
Kjeldahl N as N,
mg/1
10
12
20
20
16
0
23
0
*TFEF = Trickling Filter with Effluent Filtration;
ASEF = Activated Sludge with Effluent Filtration;
ASP = Activated Sludge Package Plant; AS = Activated
Sludge; TF = Trickling Filter; L = Lagoon; P = Primary;
ASPL = Activated Sludge Package Plant with Lagoon.
TABLE 6. DEOXYGENATION RATE COEFFICIENTS
Rate coefficients, base 10, per day
River reaches Carbonaceous Nitrogenous
Willamette tributaries 0.06 0.1
Willamette above Salem 0.04 0.2
Salem - Newberg 0.05 0.4
Newberg - Willamette Falls 0.02 0.0
Below Willamette Falls 0.02 0.0
50
-------
Benthic oxygen demand in the Portland Harbor was modeled as several im-
mediate oxygen demands.
Rate Constants
First-order deoxygenation rate constants for both carbonaceous and nitro-
genous biochemical oxygen demand have been determined by the USGS (29). Of
particular interest are changes of carbonaceous deoxygenation rate constants
from 0.10 - 0.14 (base 10) 20 years ago to 0.03 - 0.06 (base 10) presently.
This is believed to result from the primary to secondary improvement of treated
discharges.
Deoxygenation rates used in the model were determined by best fit and are
given in Table 6. The rates closely agree with the values determined by the
USGS independently of DO simulation.
Verification
Three sets of Willamette main stem DO field data exist for August 1973.
All three data sets (Figure 16) illustrate the DO decrease, due in great part
to nitrification, from Salem to the Newberg Pool (Rkm 140 to 84). The river
roughly maintains its DO content in the pool (Rkm 84 to 43), reaerates as it
passes Willamette Falls (Rkm 43), loses DO in the tidal pool, and recovers
again when at last it is diluted with Columbia flow (not shown).
The ranges plotted in Figure 16 indicate die! oxygen fluctuation and/or
sampling variation. It appears that this scatter is fairly regular and does
not mask the overall DO profile. Plotted with the field data is the DO pro-
file modeled for the same period. Subsequent model runs with varied discharge
and loading provide DO profiles substantially in accord with reported values.
Sensitivity
The Willamette DO profile is generally insensitive to differences in USGS
and DEQ point source data. Simulation trials indicated that the main stem DO
profile is generally insensitive to altered BOD loadings when such changes
are confined to a small number of discharges. Profile changes occur when
large numbers of discharges are altered. This significantly affects the use
to which the model may be put. Alternative environmental strategies must be
modeled as significantly different net discharge loadings. There may indeed
be some economic gain obtained by redistributing or reallocating fixed loads
among several dischargers, but overall environmental impact is likely to be
unaltered.
There exists one exception to the generality of DO's insensitivity to
individual discharges. Large nitrogenous loadings in reaches of high nitro-
genous deoxygenation rate constant can indeed influence the entire DO profile.
The DO profile is significantly influenced by river travel time. In ini-
tial simulation runs in which the lower reaches were not backwater, but rather
assumed to flow at normal depth, travel time was unduly short at very low flows
(100 m3/s). As a result, the DO sag too small. The assumption of constant
51
-------
en
ro
o>
E
LU
O
>-
X
o
Q
Ld
O
CO
CO
10
8
0
I
WILLAMETTE RIVER DISSOLVED OXYGEN
DEO
tVS£5
BATTELLE
A ,4 1,1
4 Hil
o
1
_L
_L
140 120
SALEM
100 80
NEWBERG
60 40 20
OREGON CITY
0
RIVER KILOMETER
Figure 16. Dissolved oxygen simulation and verification, August 1973 (29, 57).
-------
depth below Newberg corrected this anomaly.
Temperature variations of several degrees centigrade do not greatly alter
the results. A 5 to 10°C increase, however, may depress the DO profile. De-
oxygenation rate constants that were increased or decreased 10 percent did not
greatly alter the DO profile under August 1973 conditions.
A DO Index
It was originally anticipated that three fixed levels of water quality
would be considered: above, the same as, and below the DEQ Willamette stand-
ards (7 mg/1 DO at Salem, 6 at Newberg, and 5 at Portland). In modeling it
became evident that to match DO levels, an inordinate set of pollutant load-
ings would be needed for trial and error solution. Such an expansion of an
already multidimensional study is of little general value. Rather, an alter-
native index of water quality was developed, comparing DO in reaches where
sag would be most manifested to the actual DO of August 1973.
To generate a DO index the simulated DO levels are noted for 17 locations
systematically spaced through the Newberg and tidal pools. The index is cal-
culated as follows:
DO index = EA../O - zS + K (6)
where A. = DO simulated - DO standard at station i,
S = standard deviation of A over sample size n,
n =17 stations spaced at 5 km from Newberg to Portland,
z = normal statistic for a 90 percent one-sided confidence
interval, 1.282 in this case, and
K = correction constant.
The last term in Equation 6 is a constant shifting all values such that the
index of actual 1973 conditions is 0 mg/1. To illustrate the meaning of this
index, Willamette quality designated by an index of 0.3 mg/1 indicates that
from Portland to Newberg, 90 percent of the lower river is 0.3 mg/1 or more
above the DO levels of August 1973.
SUMMARY
A lower main stem Willamette DO model is selected as an environmental ex-
pression suitable for this study. The USGS field work and DEQ records provide
necessary sources of model data. A model documented in Appendices B and C is
developed to relate lower main stem DO detail to Basin-wide pollution control
strategy. The model is designed for low-flow, steady-state conditions and
summertime loadings of approximately secondary effluents. The Velz reaeration
algorithm (Appendix C) satisfactorily accounts for the river's atmospheric
oxygen inputs. A DO index is proposed allowing river DO profiles to be com-
pared.
53
-------
There appears to be significantly different reaction rates of low-flow
NBOD exertion in Willamette reaches. CBOD rates are generally low. If travel
times are not excessive, much BOD is discharged to the Columbia and not exert-
ed in the Willamette main stem.
Inadequately documented nonpoint source loadings and benthic demands are
roughly approximated in the model, but their true natures are largely unknown.
54
-------
SECTION VII
ECONOMIC MODELING
MODEL SELECTION
Economic analysis provides a link between strategy for environmental
quality and energy impact. The energy model expressed in this section trans-
lates direct dollar costs for pollution control ("direct" being contract price
for treatment plant facilities, annual expenses for reservoir operation, etc.)
to a direct energy cost (fuels consumed in construction and operation) and to
a total energy cost (energy needed throughout the economy to create and supply
the necessary materials for pollution control activity). Economic models for
water pollution control strategy were used as estimators of direct dollar
charges.
Criteria
Costs were charged to water pollution control if they represented ex-
penses qualifying on tax or DEQ records as those of water pollution control
and/or expenses reasonably expected to improve the summer dissolved oxygen
quality of the main stem Willamette. Investment in Willamette wastewater
treatment facilities and subsequent operation, maintenance, and replacement
may or may not bring about an upgrading of the quality parameter of interest,
dissolved oxygen. For DO to retain its role as overall water quality indica-
tor, it is necessary to control other potential problems (e.g., suspended
solids, metals, nutrients) concurrently. Though these pollution control ex-
penses do not have returns seen in a DO model, they can be assumed to be ad-
vantageous to water quality.
Units and Partitioning of Cost
The units selected for economic modeling are constant 1973 dollars. In-
flation is corrected for by the Construction Cost Index, as most direct ex-
penses for pollution control are incurred in contract construction (62). This
analysis does not address the issue of how inflation may be altered by pollu-
tion control expenditures.
Pollution abatement costs may be partitioned into two categories: vari-
able costs and fixed or independent costs. The former class is made of those
expenses that can reasonably be approximated as varying continuously and in-
versely with reduction in pollutant discharge. For variable cost a few more
pollutants can be removed with the expenditure of a few more dollars. The
second category is that of fixed or independent charges. These typically re-
flect costs associated with diversion of wastewaters from Willamette outfalls
to the Columbia, summertime wastewater detention, land disposal, and prevention
55
-------
of discharges. With such tactics, the characteristics of the waste are of no
significance to the quality of the Willamette. The lack of that waste, though,
is of potentially great consequence to the Willamette. Willamette quality be-
haves independently of fixed costs, once invested.
Costs associated with flow augmentation may be treated as variable or
independent, depending upon how augmented flow is priced. If a fixed unit
expense is attached to summer reservoir release (the common procedure in cost
allocation), the charge is subsequently independent of the DO benefits afford-
ed. On the other hand, if a price schedule is assigned to summer augmentation
such that resultant water quality enhancement is priced, the charge is variable,
The partitioning of costs into variable and fixed categories helps iden-
tify qualitative differences in dollars invested for pollution control. The
greater the ratio of variable to fixed dollars invested in a strategy of pollu-
tion control, the more flexible the strategy.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
Costs for wastewater treatment activity include capital investment and
operation, maintenance, and replacement (OMR) expense. Municipal treatment
(including municipally treated industrial effluent); interceptor, outfall, and
lift station provisions; industrial treatment having separate outfalls; and
industrial pretreatments prior to discharge to municipal sewers were the tac-
tics of wastewater treatment considered. Costs not considered included home
plumbing, sewer laterals, and the stormwater portions of separated sewers.
Municipal Treatment
Cost functions for municipal waste treatment plants are typically of the
form:
C = AQB (7)
where C = capital or OMR cost,
Q = design plant discharge, and
A, B = constants.
Capital cost models selected from engineering literature indicate that
the construction cost of August 1973 Willamette-discharging plants would be
$54.1 million (63, 64, 65, 66, 67). This estimation does not include engineer-
ing expenses and abandoned portions of operating plants. A 1.24 correction
factor was therefore applied to those A coefficients to fit them to the surveyed
1973 $67.2 million sum (3). The total OMR, labor cost, electricity cost, and
chemical cost were likewise estimated by exponential functions. Table 7 lists
A values corrected for the Basin and B values determined nationally for eight
classes of wastewater treatment employed in the Willamette Basin. For these
cost coefficients it is presumed that municipal plants are operated on a year-
around basis. The DEQ pollution control policy would not allow certain plants
to cease operation in the winter when river DO problems are absent.
56
-------
TABLE 7. COEFFICIENTS A. B FOR COST MODEL (3. 63. 64. 65, 66. 67)
Plant*
P
L
ASP
ASPL
AS
TF
ASEF
TFEF
C = $1000 AQBt
Capital
construction
667.2,0.755
166.0,0.740
206.0,0.440
226.8,0.469
1264.4,0.771
1114.2,0.592
1536.6,0.771
1386.3,0.592
Annual
OMR Total
43.2,0.587
7.0,0.554
46.8,0.621
51.5,0.599
64.4,0.730
42.3,0.621
89.8,0.730
67.6,0.621
Labor
25.9,0.551
3.3,0.361
28.7,0.680
31.5,0.680
38.0,0.767
25.6,0.662
42.5,0.767
32.0,0.667
Electricity
5.9,0.499
0.0,1.000
11.9,0.497
11.9,0.497
15.0,0.558
6.5,0.553
16.9,0.558
8.1,0.553
Chemical
8.3,0.578
0.0,1.000
4.4,0.535
4.4,0.535
5.6,0.674
6.2,0.510
5.6,0.674
6.2,0.510
*P = Primary; L = Lagoon; ASP = Activated Sludge Package Plant; ASPL = Activated
Sludge Package Plant with Lagoon; AS = Activated Sludge; TF = Trickling Filter;
ASEF = Activated Sludge with Effluent Filtration; TFEF = Trickling Filter with
Effluent Filtration.
fC = 1973 dollars; Q = Plant design capacity in mgd (1 mgd = 0.0438 m3/s).
-------
Interceptors, Outfalls, Lift Stations
Wastewater interceptors, outfalls, and lift stations (IOFLS) and OMR cost
for capital typically vary with capacity, discharge, length and slope of pipes,
and degree of land development. Costs were determined from records.
It is assumed that 1973 Basin plants could be joined by trunk lines fol-
lowing connecting waterways. Flow would be with grade, minimizing lift require-
ments. To conform to the objective of evaluating treatment costs for 1973
strategies, trunk lines were sized for 1973 discharges, not estimated future
flows. It was assumed that sewers proposed for regional alternatives would
have the same proportional lift station cost as did the Valley's 1973 inter-
ceptor system. OMR costs for interceptors were estimated to be 0.4 percent of
construction cost. Lift station OMR costs vary substantially with the unit.
Survey results indicated that, outside of Portland, public works agencies
spent 4.6 percent of their sewage treatment plant OMR on lift station OMR.
This estimator was suitable for this study. To illustrate the relative natures
of an IOFLS breakdown, Portland in 1974 spent $175,000 on interceptor and out-
fall OMR and $191,000 on lift stations. The rest of the Valley spent $175,000
on interceptors and outfalls and $146,000 on lift stations (3).
Industrial Treatment
Industrial pollution control costs can be itemized only on a plant-by-
plant, process-by-process basis. Such a breakdown was not required for this
study because the assumption was made that over the years the Willamette in-
dustrial complex has behaved like one large firm. A general pollution control
cost function was then determined. Thirty years of records are available for
industrial capital costs, BOD generation, and BOD discharge. Figure 17 shows
that capital costs Basin-wide are exponentially related to the percentage re-
duction of industrial BOD discharge. Figure 17 exhibits a cost discontinuity
at a BOD reduction of approximately 0.87. This degree of treatment corresponds
to a switch from lagoons to activated sludge for the Basin's major industry,
pulp and paper. At 90 percent BOD removal, activated sludge is more cost ef-
fective than an extrapolated lagoon system. If the relationship as shown
on a linear scale rather than log-log, the curve would approximate the expo-
nential form commonly used to illustrate pollution treatment expense. The
discontinuity at the 0.87 level would not be apparent.
The use of such a model imposes limits on strategic pollution control
planning. The data from which the model is constructed represent a reasonably
consistent and monotonic industrial cleanup. An intraindustrial mechanism was
assumed by which pollution cleanup was equitably shared by all the Basin's
firms. For a particular environmental strategy with a net industrial discharge
the total cost can be estimated from the industrial cost model, and specific '
changes in wastewater discharge allocated in a manner proportional to current
loadings. Costs for tactics of decreasing one plant's discharge and increasing
to the same extent that of another could not be modeled by this approach. Such
tactics are inconsistent with given goals of best practicable or available
treatment for all dischargers. In cases where unique industrial changes are
of interest, total industrial cost estimates would have to be modified.
58
-------
60 -
40 -
(D
o
-69-
O
I-
CO
O
O
<
I-
Q_
CJ
U
20 -
Z)
CJ
C=0,64(I-R)
C = 18.51(1 - R)~-49 , R > .87
0.5 0.8 0.9 0.95
BOD5 REDUCTION, R
Figure 17. Industrial expenses for water pollution control,
Willamette Basin (3, 25, 26, 27).
59
-------
It was assumed that across the industry, reduction of CBOD is a reason-
able estimator of reduction of other, less documented pollutants. A CBOD re-
duction is accompanied by a proportional change in NBOD. It was assumed that
the unknown nitrogen input near Albany is a point source industrial discharge.
If the cost of NBOD removing facilities were paid by the Basin-wide industry,
this nitrogen source could probably be controlled.
Industrial OMR expenses are typically integrated with other production
costs. The best overall estimate stems from industrial survey data that in-
dicated that $3.3 million was spent by the firms as water pollution OMR ex-
penses (3). OMR costs were assumed to directly vary with pollution control
capital costs. Several Portland firms incorporated in Basin records discharge
to the Columbia. These expenses were summed from DEQ records and recorded in
the fixed or independent category. Records of Basin capital costs indicated
approximately 3 percent of industrial capital costs fell into this category.
Industrial Pretreatment
Forty-five Basin industries in 1973 discharged to combined municipal sys-
tems. The end-of-line treatment expenses are incorporated in the municipal
data'and thus were not recounted. However, many of these industries prac-
ticed pretreatment before release to the sewers. Survey data on pretreatment
revealed that capital expenses and OMR annual costs were of the same magnitude.
Some firms may have no pollution control equipment, per se, but account some
of their production OMR costs as pollution control. Total capital investment
was estimated to be approximately $800 000; yearly OMR was $400 000. These
costs were divided between Willamette and non-Willamette discharge in the pro-
portions determined for municipal plants.
Abandoned Facilities
Costs of abandoned plants were taken from DEQ records. These facilities
are typically package plants removed from service when sewers were extended
from central facilities. In regionalization, some plants were removed from
service and other plants expanded to serve the demand. In such a case, the
value of the removed plant was recorded as a fixed, independent, abandoned
facility. No salvage value was assumed. No OMR was associated with abandoned
facilities.
LOW FLOW AUGMENTATION COSTS
A cost attributable to flow augmentation for water quality control may
be derived in either of two ways. The first method estimates benefits foregone
by other reservoir beneficiaries when flow is augmented for water quality con-
trol. A second method uses costs derived from expense data from the reser-
voirs. By allocation, a share of reservoir cost is assigned to the reservoir
beneficiary, water quality.
Benefits Foregone to Other Water Uses
Willamette water uses have been identified in Section IV. Alterations
in benefits due to changes in instream flow were investigated as part of an
60
-------
evaluation of strategies. Table 8 indicates the probable effects on various
water uses as a result of decreased and increased summer flow augmentation.
Effects stem from both altered discharge and resultant water quality. A dis-
cussion of the construction of Table 8 is found in Appendix D. As indicated
in Table 8, waste disposal and irrigation were the water uses most tangibly
related to low flow augmentation. The competitive relation of the two uses,
one instream, one consumptive, provided a benefits foregone estimation of aug-
mentation's value for water quality. From Appendix D, $53 000 per m3/s re-
presented a liberal extrapolation of what instream flow might be so worth.
Small or negligible complementary augmentation benefits are realized by
several other water-related activities, but values are difficult to determine
and are likely to be insignificant. In some cases, flow augmentation for DO
control provides no real increase in benefits for other augmentation uses but
does give a measure of added protection.
Charges to Reservoirs
Willamette low flow augmentation is recognized to be an effective strategy
for water quality maintenance. Costs of such regulation are incurred in con-
struction and operation of the Corps' multipurpose reservoir projects. A model
of water pollution control's share of these expenses brings forth a problem
different than the problems encountered in estimations of treatment costs or
benefits foregone. In those models, data were often sparse, but the data
dealt with unique objectives. A dollar spent for a treatment plant was a dol-
lar spent for pollution control. For multipurpose reservoirs, a dollar spent
may be an investment for recreation, hydroelectric power, and low flow mainte-
nance. The charge for low flow control may yield improved navigation, irriga-
tion, and pollution control. The problem is one of cost allocation to reser-
voir beneficiaries, only one of which is water quality. As discussed in Sec-
tion IV, water quality is generally not an authorized reservoir purpose, and
thus not assigned a cost in Corps' documents.
This investigation must depart from a viewpoint of no-cost flow augmen-
tation for water quality control. If flow augmentation is allowed to compen-
sate for some treatment, a strategy of explicit interest in this study, flow
augmentation must be priced. Otherwise, as a seemingly free good, there is
no reason economically to opt for anything less than the hydrologic upper
limit of dilution flow. The problem of strategy would be moot.
The separable cost-remaining benefits method is used in the allocation of
costs for Federal multipurpose water resource development, pursuant to a 1954
agreement among the Corps, Federal Power Commission, and the Department of the
Interior. This method provides that each project be charged no less than the
costs incurred only due to its inclusion in the project, no more than its
benefits, and between these limits, a proportionate part of the savings stem-
ming from the multiple-purpose project.
As developed in Appendix E, a reservoir charge to water quality control
was allocated as:
61
-------
TABLE 8. PROBABLE EFFECTS OF ALTERED LOW FLOW MAINTENANCE, WILLAMETTE RIVER*
Water use
Decreased low flow maintenance
Lower discharge I Lower water quality"
Increased low flow maintenance
Higher discharge [Higher water qualit^
01
ro
Municipal ,
Industrial
Irrigation
Navigation
Hydroelectric
Power
Flood protection
Recreation
- River
+ Reservoir
- River
+ River
- Reservoir
+ River
Waste disposal
Fish, wildlife
Key:
0 Same benefits of river use.
+ Increased benefits of river use.
- Decreased benefits of river use.
Single sign indicates a general case, probably not significant on the Willamette.
Double sign indicates a significant, tangible relationship on the Willamette, poten-
tially suited to economic analysis.
-------
C = 27 AWQ/ (98 + AWQ) (8)
where C = annual charge, millions of dollars, and
A,,n = alternative annual cost of water quality control to yield a
^ specified level of summertime DO in the lower Willamette,
millions of dollars.
Because benefits of multipurpose reservoirs in effect subsidize one an-
other, this cost model is sensitive to the value of hydroelectric power pro-
duced by the reservoirs. As shown in Appendix E, if power is valued at twice
its 1973 price, the denominator in the equation would become (109 + AWQ), de-
creasing the charge to water quality. ^
SUMMARY
A set of economic models were developed to provide costs in direct 1973
dollars for two approaches to water pollution control in the Willamette:
treatment and low flow augmentation. Treatment costs included capital and
operational expenses for municipal plants, interceptors, outfalls, lift sta-
tions,and industrial waste treatment and pretreatment. Treatment costs were
categorized as variable, incrementally influencing Willamette water quality;
or independent, having a fixed effect on the Willamette.
Low flow augmentation costs for water quality were expressed in two man-
ners: the benefits potentially foregone to irrigation, or a portion of re-
servoir cost attributable to augmentation.
63
-------
SECTION VIII
ENERGY MODELING
INTRODUCTION
In this section an Input/Output energy model is developed to express the
energy requirements for Willamette pollution control strategies. There are
several limits of the Input/Output approach and these limits, along with
their implications for energy modeling, are discussed.
In most technical studies, a theoretical expression for modeling is
rigorously developed in the body of the report and the details and procedures
necessary to carry out the model are relegated to an appendix, or not pub-
lished altogether. In this study, the emphasis is reversed. Input/Output
analysis is currently a standard econometric method. An example of Input/
Output development is included in Appendix F for illustrative reference. Ex-
panding the ability to put to use the theory that already exists, rather than
development of more complex models, is needed if energy modeling is to be-
come a useful analytic perspective. Thus, this section focuses on a use of
an existing Input/Output energy model.
DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND PRIMARY ENERGY
Strategies of environmental control require both direct and indirect
energy. Direct energy is used as high grade fuel (coal, oil, gas) or power
consumed in the final step of pollution control, e.g. electricity to build
and run wastewater treatment plants. Indirect energy is required as high
grade fuels consumed to mine the iron, to forge the steel, to fabricate the
equipment, and to produce pipes or chemicals needed by the plant. If material
flow can be traced from raw materials to final products, and if at each step
of material transformation the consumption of high grade energy is known, in-
direct energy embodied in the final product can be estimated.
To assess the energy impact of pollution control alternatives, both
direct and indirect energy requirements are of interest. Direct needs are of
principal concern within a region where power is in short supply. An energy
need for environmental control may compete with the need of some other energy-
consuming activity, say industrial production. Indirect needs are of major
concern to the economy as a whole, of which the region is but a part. Since
it is probable that a trace of material flow will extend from region to the
encompassing economy, much of the indirect energy requirements may be exper-
ienced outside of one region. If national energy stock is insufficient to
meet all demands, the indirect energy requirement imposed by one region is
energy consumption foregone by consumers in other regions. If the region im-
64
-------
posing the indirect national demand also must compete nationally for its own
direct energy supply, the indirect needs then compete against the direct needs
of that very region.
To unify energy analysis of a large system, it is necessary to reduce
energy costs to a common unit. The fossil fuel equivalent "primary" joule is
selected as such a measure. This unit represents a joule of energy obtained
from coal, oil, or natural gas. Where hydroelectricity or nuclear electricity
is consumed, its fossil fuel equivalent is considered, i.e., the units of fos-
sil fuels required to generate that quantity of electricity. Hydroelectricity
taken for pollution control forces other power users to turn to fossil sources,
thus all energy consumed is considered to be effectively a demand upon pri-
mary sources.
Primary energy cost for any activity is the equivalent final cost of that
activity to the world's fossil energy stock. This cost is variously called
the total cost or the direct plus indirect cost.
The term "total" energy cost has another popularized meaning that should
be distinguished from the usage in this study. Total energy cost is at times
considered to be the net flux of all types of energy quantified on a fossil
fuel equivalent basis (51). Such accounting credits energy value to coal,
gross plant production, sunlight, dollars, information, ocean currents, in
short, the inputs to world systems. The "primary" unit employed in this in-
vestigation is less general. Primary energy is derived from fossil reserves
or generated from hydroelectric or nuclear plants. Primary energy is trans-
formed in the production sector of an economy and consumed as heat and light
in households, mechanical friction in factories, fuel for autos, etc. Thus
primary energy represents a subset of broadly-defined "total" energy.
INPUT/OUTPUT ANALYSIS
Input/Output analysis (I/O) is an application of general equilibrium theory
to empirically interrelated activities. An open system is modeled as linearly
interdependent sectors of production and consumption; coefficients relating
each sector's output to inputs are assumed to be fixed. Perturbations of out-
put from the total system yield shifts of production within the system. These
internal shifts reflect the sector inflows and outflows necessary to satisfy
new exogenous requirements, endogenous mass balance, and constant input-to-
output factors. I/O analysis has been shown to be suitable for modeling flows
of goods, money, pollutants, and energy (68, 69, 70, 71).
The basic I/O model for energy demand is illustrated in Appendix F. In-
cluded is a discussion of the double counting problem, a consequence of re-
counting transformed energy.
Model Expression
As developed in Appendix F, the solved I/O energy model is of the form:
65
-------
where £_ = the primary energy consumed directly and indirectly,
Y_ = the final demand in dollars for goods, and
c_ = a dollar-to-energy transformation, the "primary" energy coefficient.
In addition, direct energy demand can be expressed as:
I = KX
where £ = the energy directly consumed,
X. = the total production in dollars of goods, and
J3 = a dollar-to-energy transformation, the "direct" energy coeffi-
~ cient.
I/O coefficients e and R have been calculated by Herendeen and others for
the U.S. economy in 1967 (72, 73). These values may be modified for a 1973
Willamette Valley study if conceptual limitations, time dependence and region-
al variance from the national I/O model are considered.
Conceptual Limitations
The energy I/O model is limited by assumptions and conventions. Techno-
logy and energy coefficients e and R are not independent in any real economic
system, although they are assumed so in the model. Fossil fuel equivalents of
hydroelectric or nuclear power introduce a technological component into the
primary energy unit. Dollar flow in times of unstable monetary systems, pro-
ducers' prices rather than those of consumers, exclusion of capital formation
from transaction data, technical coefficient variability, and no economies of
scale all impose limits on I/O scope. Nonetheless, Input/Output analysis is
econometrically useful for studies where projections do not extend far into
the future and perturbations of demand are moderate.
Figure 14 in Section V traces a variety of energy flows in and through
the Willamette Basin. Like much of the State energy policy discussed in that
section, I/O deals with industrial production. An I/O model can only be used
in a "total" energy analysis as partial specification of the industrial sub-
system. I/O itself does not provide insight into the dynamic aspects of eco-
nomic behavior.
Time Dependence
Energy I/O national models have been constructed semi-independently for
the United States in 1963 and 1967 (75, 76). The latter analysis reflects im-
provement in technique and scope. Of 352 non-energy model sectors, 281 appear
to have decreasing primary energy-per-dollar intensity. The mean energy-per-
dollar change is negative, potentially resulting from dollar inflation and
technical development. The mean change does reflect an economy of expanding
dollar flow and limited energy, an overall trend that is anticipated to con-
tinue.
66
-------
A similar test for trends can be made from lumped figures for national
energy consumption and gross national product. Such a check weights industrial
sectors by their production. Using current dollars, such a calculation yields
an approximate 2 percent annual decrease in energy intensity from 1963 to 1967
and a near 3 percent downward rate from 1967 to 1973. This again agrees with
expected development in an energy-depleting economy. The apparent net rate
change with time (the rate change from minus 2 to minus 3 percent) may stem
from a spiral of energy-based dollar inflation. As world fossil reserves are
rapidly being depleted, it is probable that the minus 3 percent rate will con-
tinue in its downward trend. As this study deals with conditions of 1973 only,
the approximately 3 percent deflation rate was judged as empirically proper to
apply to 1967 total energy (per dollar) coefficients.
If energy coefficients were projected to future years, an improved theory
of energy deflation would be required. A 1967-to-1973 correction for I/O co-
efficients e and R is a 6-year compounded 3 percent deflation applied to 1967
energy/dollar ratios. The issue of energy inflation is illustrated in the
following example. Note that although the energy cost rises, the dollar cost
rises more rapidly.
Cost of hypothetical project in 1967 $1 000
1967 I/O primary energy coefficient 100 MJ/$
Energy cost from 1967 I/O 100 000 MJ
Cost of same project in 1973 $1 771
1973 I/O coefficient (100 x (1-0.03)6).. 83 MJ/$
Energy cost in 1973 147 519 MJ
Regional Variation
I/O is best applied to a well disaggregated economy in which each sector
receives a large portion of inputs from industries also within the economy.
Subnational I/O models often have aggregated sectors with industries lumped
enough together such that intersectional material flow, the crux of I/O analy-
sis, is not trivial.
Two economic I/O regional models applicable to the Willamette region
have been developed. An I/O economic model exists for the Willamette Valley,
containing only four sectors. It affords little chance for analysis of speci-
fic sectors. It is of value in identifying the Basin's general import-export
structure and for limited general economic projections (77).
A State of Oregon model exists for 1963 (78). In this model Oregon's in-
dustries are grouped into 29 sectors. The study is primarly an illustration
of method rather than a definitive planning effort. A general check for re-
gional disconformity can be abstracted from this model. State intraindustrial
direct and indirect dollar requirements (diagonal (I-A)"1 in Appendix F) can
be compared to those of the nation. If they appear to be somewhat alike, the
overall impact of a dollar spent in Oregon is similar to the overall impact
of a dollar spent in the national economy.
Two sectors in the Oregon model are of particular interest to pollution
control strategy: maintenance and repair construction (MRC); and electricity,
67
-------
water, gas, and sanitary services (EWG). Thre is no sector in the Oregon
model corresponding to construction. The State-modeled MRC sector produces
$1.00746 of output per $1 sold to final demand. Corresponding national coeffi-
cients for two sectors combined to form the State classification are 1.00186
and 1.00737. For state EWG, the requirement is $1.00225. The agreement be-
tween the two I/O tables is reasonable. In these two pollution control acti-
vities, the regional and national economies behave somewhat alike.
Because pollution control in Oregon appears to be economically similar
to that of the nation, it is hypothesized that the Basin's environmental regu-
lation is in energy terms like that of the nation, especially when extra-Basin
indirect impact is considered. A national energy I/O model is thus useful for
regional study. Additional confirmation of the suitability of national energy
I/O models was obtained from Willamette pollution control survey data. Direct
energy requirements for construction and OMR were derived from detailed material-
use records and fell typically within ±50 percent of the I/O direct prediction,
the scatter anticipated nationally (70).
SECTOR ASSIGNMENT
In Section VII direct economic costs for water pollution control were
modeled. The estimated costs correspond to the productions X and Y used in
I/O energy analysis. The problem now remains of assigning to the pollution
control costs the appropriate e or R transformation coefficients.
Table 9 lists activities of Willamette River pollution control, the na-
tional I/O sectors to which they were assigned for energy modeling, and the
resultant transformation coefficients, corrected to 1973. A discussion of how
specific sector assignments were made, and how coefficients were determined
to encompass the Basin's industrial production follows.
Pollution Control Activity
No economic sectors of the national I/O energy model are uniquely suited
to activities of treatment plant construction, reservoir operation, and the
like. The national breakdown of 368 sectors tends to disperse parts of such
activities into various classifications. OMR costs for wastewater treatment
might fall into: maintenance and repair construction other than for non-farm
residential buildings (national I/O sector 1202); water and sanitary services
(6803); or local government enterprises other than passenger transit or elec-
trical utilities (7903). Each of these sectors reflects partly the pollution
control activity of interest and much activity not of concern.
From intermediate energy I/O tables, discriminatory information may be
abstracted about the 368 categories (73). The direct energy coefficients, R,
are of particular interest. Survey data indicates that Willamette sewage
treatment plants are almost exclusively powered by electricity (3). Coal is
of zero direct use. Of the three likely I/O sectors, 1202 is primarily directly
fueled by petroleum, 6803 consumes coal directly, and 7903 is mainly electric-
ally powered. The latter sector, therefore, was judged as best incorporating
OMR for Willamette sewage treatment plants.
68
-------
TABLE 9. INPUT/OUTPUT DIRECT AND PRIMARY ENERGY COEFFICIENTS
Activity
Municipal
treatment
Interceptors,
outfalls,
lift stations
Industrial
pretreatment
Industrial
treatment
Reservoirs
Construction
Sector
1103
1104
1103
1103
1105
MJ/1973 dollar
Direct
9.81
14.39
9.81
9.81
12.48
Primary
58.49
39.22
58.49
58.49
40.76
OMR
Sector
7903
7903
*
*
7804
MJ/1973 dollar
Direct
52.11
52.11
35.34
35.34
16.29
Primary
89.91
89.91
81.22
81.22
31.10
* National sectors combined to approximate Willamette industrial production.
Reservoir OMR, a Federal activity not exclusively assigned an I/O sector,
is energetically approximated by the miscellaneous Federal activity sector
7804, a sector unintensive in operational energy needs.
The construction energy requirements for industrial pre-treatment tactics
were assumed to be approximately equal to those of municipal treatment. The
energy requirements for OMR pre-treatment tactics including process modifica-
tion should be approximately those incurred in regular industrial production.
Weighting 32 Basin industries by value of output and identifying from I/O
sectors the appropriate industrial energy requirements, a Basin-industry OMR
energy requirement was calculated.
Interceptors, outfalls and lift stations OMR was assumed to be similar in
energy intensity to municipal plants. Per OMR dollar, more energy is directly
purchased in these activities than in any other general pollution control
measure.
Energy requirements for capital construction are easier to estimate than
those for generalized OMR. Independent of I/O analysis, direct energy require-
ments for various construction activities have been estimated (80). Informa-
tion specific to the pollution control tactics can then be used in place of
the nationally based I/O direct coefficients for regional construction energy
intensity.
Construction energy direct requirements were estimated from both litera-
ture and Willamette Valley construction records (3, 80). Treatment tactics
were best identified in the I/O sector 1103, construction of public utilities.
Again, industrial treatment works were assumed to require the same input mix
69
-------
in construction as did municipal works. Interceptors, outfalls, and lift sta-
tion construction were similar in energy inputs to the highway construction
sector 1104. Reservoir construction was placed in the category of new con-
struction, other, 1105.
Irrigation Foregone
The option of valuing flow augmentation as irrigation foregone lends it-
self to an I/O conversion, but the result is different than those of dollar
expense. Increased irrigation may yield an increase in the Basin's economic
activity. In Appendix D, a $53 319 per m3/s direct value is assigned to Willa-
mette abstraction over the irrigation season. This figure, treated as benefit
foregone if flow is withheld from the fields, may be I/O translated to pri-
mary energy not spent for increased agricultural production. Thus, water not
diverted for irrigation represents both income not realized for Valley farmers
and demand not exerted on primary energy resources.
Whereas the dollars foregone might legitimately be seen as a cost, the
energy not mined cannot be truly interpreted to be a benefit. No energy im-
pact was credited to non-irrigation.
Comparisons
The magnitudes of I/O coefficients in Table 9 reveal relative energy
costs of various pollution control activities. These values can be compared
intuitively. In direct construction, energy intensity is lowest for treatment
facilities; gasoline and electricity to build a treatment facility represent
only a small part of a contractor's expense. Interceptors and reservoirs,
earthmoving endeavors, are higher in fuel per dollar intensity. Based on the
ratio of direct to primary energy for construction, treatment has greater
spinoff energy impact; the longer economic chain associated with the mechani-
cal and high-grade material inputs requires a greater overall energy input.
For interceptor and reservoir construction, roughly 30 percent of the primary
energy impact is realized directly. For treatment facilities, the ratio is
approximately 17 percent.
In the OMR columns, the greatest direct energy requirements are exerted
by municipal facilities. Industrial treatment requires less direct power, as-
suming production can be modified for wastewater control. Reservoir operation
requires a relatively small amount of power. Though municipal and industrial
tactics have different direct OMR coefficients, the total coefficients are
more nearly the same. This suggests that once a dollar is spent, it is likely
to eventually trace similar paths. Much of the OMR municipal and industrial
dollars are spent for energy-intensive chemicals. The reservoir primary co-
efficient is low. A dollar here is less likely to be spent for a series of
energy-expensive materials; it is more likely to be payment for labor and
quickly dissipated to the household sector.
SUMMARY
An energy Input/Output model is selected to express the energy impact of
the Willamette water quality control strategy. The model transforms dollar
70
-------
expenses for various pollution control activities to both direct ("on the job")
and primary ("from the earth") energy costs.
I/O models can be used to describe the economy best if supplies and de-
mands are steady. I/O is not suited for projections of energy impact when
technology is rapidly changing. This was not judged to be a difficulty for
this study since most treatment and construction technology of 1967, the base
year for the I/O model, was similar to the treatment and construction techno-
logy of 1973, the year under study. With correction for overall dollar-to-
energy inflation, the I/O national energy model yielded dollar-to-energy co-
efficients suitable for the Willamette case in 1973.
Appropriate sectors for Willamette pollution control activities are iden-
tified. The resultant I/O coefficients revealed that per dollar of environmen-
tal control expense, the energy impact varies with activity. This provides an
energy criteria for evaluation of pollution control strategies. The deter-
mination of which strategy can purchase a given level of water quality with
the least amount of energy is explored in the subsequent section.
71
-------
SECTION IX
ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
In previous sections, the Willamette Basin and its interrelated environmen-
tal, economic, and energy resources have been discussed (Sections III to V).
Models have been developed expressing environmental, economic, and energy con-
sequences of water pollution control (Sections VI to VIII). This section de-
fines the range of pollution abatement strategies over which the consequences
of such strategies are modeled, summarizes the modeling procedure, and then
summarizes the results of analysis.
TREATMENT-AUGMENTATION MATRIX
Wastewater Treatment Levels
Eight alternatives for wastewater treatment are specified. Tables 10
and 11 list by treatment alternative municipal, industrial, nonpoint and ben-
thic Willamette oxygen demands. Designated A through H in order of pollutant
removal degree, the treatment alternatives do not represent every step of the
regulation, but rather an increasing series of pollution abatement tactics.
Level A represents a heavily polluted river, not improved since the 1950's.
Level H indicates a complete abatement of oxygen-demanding point discharges.
Level D represents the actual base period of August 1973.
Levels A and H are not reasonable alternatives for water pollution con-
trol in the 1970's. Neither extreme is modeled well, as assumptions of en-
vironmental condition (e.g. secondary-type wastes in river) or technological
consistency (e.g. energy coefficients suited to 1973) are likely violated.
Nonetheless, these two treatment extremes give perspective to consequences of
middle degree treatment alternatives deemed to be more reasonable.
Levels C, D, E, and F represent secondary treatment tactics consistent
with recent and near future probable Oregon regulation. Level G represents
a major effort at industrial nitrogen control, an area of regulation only pre-
sently being effectively incorporated into DEQ planning (81). In Appendix G
a description of each treatment level is given.
Flow Augmentation Levels
Four levels of low flow augmentation are used in the water quality model-
ing. A Salem discharge of 88 m3/s represents a typical unregulated Willamette
dry year low flow, as shown in Figure 7. A flow balance for August 1973 in-
72
-------
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT LEVELS
Strategy
Less
Treatment
1973
More
Treatment
Treatment
level
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Municipal
plant types*
P, L
P, L
AS, TF, L
L, ASPL, ASP, AS,
TF, ASEF, TFEF
L, ASPL, ASP, AS,
TF, ASEF, TFEF
ASEF, TFEF,
ASPL, ASP
ASEF, TFEF,
ASPL, ASP
Unspecified
Industrial
BOD5, KjdN removal
52% , 0%
81 % , 23%
90% , 30%
94% , 33%
95% , 46%
95% , 46%
95% , 90%
100% , 100%
NPS
August
1973
loading
Benthic
August
1973
loading
OOP'
00 ,o
August
1973
loading
* TFEF = Trickling Filter with Effluent
Sludge with Effluent Filtration; ASP =
AS = Activated Sludge; TF = Trickling
ASPL = Activated Sludge Package Plant
Filtration; ASEF = Activated
: Activated Sludge Package Plant;
Filter; L = Lagoon; P = Primary;
with Lagoon.
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF RIVER LOADINGS
Treatment
level
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Municipal
BOD5
42998
42998
12457
12252
6613
5764
5764
0
KjdN
7540
7540
5742
5737
5080
3780
3780
0
Industrial
BOD,
b
149039
59616
29808
19872
15897
15897
15897
0
KjdN
24120
18629
16799
16189
12951
12951
2473
0
NPS
BOD,
b
16860
16860
16860
16860
16860
16860
16860
16860
KjdN
943
943
943
943
943
943
943
943
Benthic
IOD
1361
1361
1361
1361
1134
1134
1134
1134
Total
BOD5
208897
119474
59125
48984
39370
38521
38521
16860
KjdN
32603
27112
23484
22869
18974
17674
7196
943
73
-------
dicates that without augmentation, this discharge would have taken place.
Statistical analysis gives the same result (61). Discharge above 88 m3/s may
therefore be designated as augmentation derived from reservoirs.
The August 1973 mean discharge of 186 m3/s represents augmentation under
the present water quality control strategy. This discharge is that called for
by the Corps to facilitate navigation and the State Water Resources Board to
protect fish life (35). A 126 m3/s discharge represents a level of decreased
augmentation. Boating or fisheries would not significantly suffer at this
flow if water quality were maintained. An upper limit to augmentation from
existing reservoirs is estimated to be 255 m3/s. This discharge would call
for reservoir rule curves to be modified for rapid, late-summer drawdown.
With 8 levels of treatment and 4 levels of flow, 32 alternatives for pol-
lution control can be investigated. This 4x8 matrix provides the basis for
environmental, economic and energy comparison of water quality control stra-
tegies.
Response Surfaces
The response surface is a graphical alternative to data representation
in matrix form. A response surface can be envisioned as a 3-D surface sus-
pended above a 2-D base. The base here is a Cartesian plane defined by coor-
dinates of wastewater treatment and river discharge. The height of the re-
sponse surface above any point on this base represents the environmental, eco-
nomic or energy consequence corresponding to the treatment-augmentation pair.
The surface may be displayed in the same manner as contour lines on a topo-
graphic map.
Advantages of the response surface representation over a matrix display
are several:
1. More data may be represented than only those pertaining to
certain matrix columns and rows,
2. Data may be visually interpolated,
3. Trends may become apparent, and
4. The response surfaces may be directly employed in subsequent
decision making analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Table 12 lists by discharge and treatment the simulated mean DO devia-
tions, the standard deviation of those differences, and the 90 percent index
defined in Section VI. In cases where the standard deviation is small, the
simulated DO profile is roughly parallel to the 1973 standard. Where the de-
viation is large, the index is substantially lower than the mean difference;
this results from the sensitivity of the index to the worst 10 percent case.
The H option with a flow of 255 m3/s is eliminated as offering nothing in in-
cremental DO benefit above that achieved with 186 m3/s. Three options of low
74
-------
TABLE 12. DO MEAN DIFFERENCE, STANDARD DEVIATION,
AND INDEX (ing/1)
Mean
August
discharge
m3/s
-1
255 0
-1
-2
186 1
-4
127
88
Treatment level
ft
.03
.69
.91
.46
.29
.11
B
-0.
0.
-0.
-1.
0.
-1.
-2.
0.
-3.
16
30
54
01
53
69
43
83
49
C
0.41
0.05
0.35
-0.13
0.08
-0.23
-1.02
0.19
-1.26
-2.17
0.34
-2.61
D
0.50
0.06
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.77
0.11
-0.91
-1.75
0.29
-2.12
E
0.74
0.10
0.61
0.36
0.05
0.30
-0.25
0.05
-0.31
-0.98
0.20
-1.24
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
-0
-0
0
-1
F
.81
.11
.67
.43
.06
.35
.16
.05
.22
.91
.17
.13
G
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
37
08
27
15
14
97
80
29
43
38
41
15
H
1.62
0.20
1.36
1.60
0.19
1.36
1.46
0.27
1.11
TABLE 13. TREATMENT, AUGMENTATION AND TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
($ x 106 , 1973)
Flow Augmentation Cost Allocated
Mean
August
discharge
m3/s
255
186
127
*
88
Treatment level
A
16.14
3.66
19.80
16.14
1.76
17.90
16.14
0.56
16.70
16.14
0
16.14
B
19.41
2.14
23.68
19.41
2.14
21.55
19.41
1.28
20.69
19.41
0
19.41
C
27.57
5.93
33.50
27.57
2.73
30.30
27.57
2.03
29.60
27.57
0
27.57
D
30.11
6.00
36.11
30.11
3.04
33.15
30.11
1.89
32.00
30.11
0
30.11
E
35.64
6.41
42.05
35.64
4.31
39.95
35.64
0.74
36.38
35.64
0
35.64
F
37.45
6.55
44.00
37.45
4.28
41.73
37.45
0.34
37.79
37.45
0
37.45
G
38.33
8.87
47.20
38.33
7.87
46.20
38.33
4.51
42.84
38.33
0
38.33
H
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
75
-------
treatment and low flow are eliminated because river quality would go anaero-
bic.
Figure 18 transforms the index variable of Table 12 into a response sur-
face. The gradient of DO is positive, but decreases from left to right and
bottom to top. With increase of treatment and/or augmentation, there appears
to be decreasing returns of environmental improvement. Since the 1973 DO was
typically 6 mg/1 (Figure 16), the flattening of the surface at higher eleva-
tions is explained in part by an asymptotic approach to the DO saturation
limit.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Modeled treatment costs for treatment levels A to G are tabulated in Ap-
pendix H. Treatment cost for level H, "complete" treatment, is projected from
general, national figures discussed in Appendix 6. Treatment total costs, A
to H, may be read from the bottom line of Table 13.
As noted in Section VII, flow augmentation costs might be determined by
two methods: a charge for water diverted from irrigation, or a charge allo-
cated to reservoir expenses. Flow is valued in both manners.
Augmentation Cost Allocated
Table 13 includes within each treatment-augmentation pair an allocated
charge for water quality flow maintenance. This charge is determined by
using Figure 18, the DO index response surface, to find the treatment level
that would provide the same index quality at no augmentation. The cost of
this treatment less the cost of treatment with augmentation is the alternative
cost to augmentation. Allocated according to the separable cost, remain-
ing benefit method proposed in Appendix E, Table 13 results. The allocated
cost of augmentation generally increases from left to right. Exceptions to
this trend occur where alternative costs are small.
The sum of treatment and allocated augmentation charges is the dollar
response surface, Figure 19. The move from level G to H is the most costly
of the given steps in pollution control.
A general assumption of pollution control strategy is here reiterated.
In lieu of flow augmentation, point source wastewater treatment facilities
would be constructed to mitigate dry year summertime DO depletion. In com-
pliance with law, these facilities would be operated throughout the year, not
solely during low flow periods.
Augmentation Unit Priced
If augmentation is valued at a fixed unit price, say $5/af (af = 1233 m3)
as suggested in Appendix D and Section VII, Table 14 is obtained. Although
treatment costs are as before, augmentation costs are not related to treat-
ment savings, but rather to discharge level alone.
76
-------
250
F G
DEGREE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
H
Figure 18. DO index response surface, August 1973, mg/1.
-------
250 -
00
DEGREE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Figure 19. Annual cost of water quality control response surface
flow augmentation cost allocated, $ x 106.
-------
TABLE 14. TREATMENT, AUGMENTATION, AND TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
($ xlO6, 1973)
Flow Augmentation $5/af
__
August Treatment level
discharge A R r n F F r,
m3/s
255
186
127
16
8
25
16
5
21
16
2
18
.14
.86
.00
.14
.19
.33
.14
.10
.24
19.41
8.86
28.27
19.41
5.19
24.60
19.41
2.10
21.51
27
8
36
27
5
32
27
2
29
.57
.86
.43
.57
.19
.76
.57
.10
.67
30.11
8.86
38.97
30.11
5.19
35.30
30.11
2.10
32.21
35.
8.
44.
35.
5.
40.
35.
2.
37.
64
86
50
64
19
83
64
10
74
35.45
8.86
46.31
37.45
5.19
42.64
37.45
2.10
39.55
38.33
8.86
47.19
38.33
5.19
43.52
38.33
2.10
40.43
100.00
100.00
100.00
16.14 19.41 27.57 30.11 35.64 37.45 38.33
88 0000000
16.14 19.41 27.57 30.11 35.64 37.45 38.33 100.00
79
-------
Figures 20(a) and (b) and 21(a) and (b) illustrate cost response surfaces
for water quality control at four prices of augmentation. In Figure 20(a),
flow is free, thus imposes no cost on environmental strategy. Figure 20(b)
plots the data of Table 14, the $5/af condition. In Figure 21(a) and (b),
flow is valued at $10 and $20/af, respectively. As price rises, the response
surface becomes more controlled by degree of augmentation.
Decision Making and Expansion Paths
The DO and economic response surfaces provide a basis for cost-effective
environmental regulation. If the DO surface and a cost surface are superim-
posed, a path from left to right can be identified wherein for any given total
annual charge, the maximum attainable DO index is achieved. Likewise, for
any given DO, the corresponding cost is minimized. The procedure is standard
in microeconomic analysis: treatment and augmentation are factors of produc-
tion; the DO index and cost response surface contours are output and input
isoquants, respectively; and the cost effective route of DO improvement is the
expansion path (82).
Expansion paths, therefore, represent the efficient allocation of re-
sources yielding incremental improvement toward an objective. If pollutant
production were to always remain at 1973 levels and regulation were solely
directed toward maximization of instream DO index, an expansion path on a
treatment-augmentation plane would indicate how treatment and augmentation
should be simultaneously employed. In this study, no assumption is made that
1973 waste production is fixed over time. Therefore, a treatment-augmentation
expansion path here represents not a continuous-in-time best route for DO maxi-
mization, but rather a focus of points useful for evaluating the tactics of
1973. The closer the actual 1973 strategy is to the expansion path, the more
cost efficient is that strategy.
Expansion paths are identified for DO control at $0, $5, $10, and $20/af
charges for augmentation. The results are shown in Figure 22. Several gen-
eralizations may be drawn from that figure. If water were free, logical DO
control would call for immediate maximization of augmentation and then step by
step construction of treatment facilities. If water not used for augmentation
were valued at $20/af, the cheapest DO improvement comes from treatment through
level G before augmentation is initiated. These two extremes are respectively
expressed by the expansion paths following the upper and lower boundaries of
Figure 22.
With water priced at $5/af, augmentation should be maximized before treat-
ments B, C, and D are purchased, but as steps E, F, and G are added, some
augmentation can be cut back, saving its charge. At $10/af the expansion path
is similar, but augmentation should be held at an intermediate value and then
reduced.
All paths indicate that if the Basin were regulated near treatment level
H, augmentation should be maximized, since the DO returns from augmentation
would be much greater than the incremental DO returns from such high and costly
marginal wastewater treatment.
80
-------
250
200
°E 150
uJ
CD
o:
<
5 100
CO
r
C
-
_
-
I £
J *
g ^
i ^
1 QOOC
)OQ
100 -
B C D E F G H
DEGREE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Figure 20. Annual cost of water quality control response surfaces,
flow augmentation (a) $0/af and (b) $4/af, $ x 106.
81
-------
250P
DEGREE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Figure 21. Annual cost of water quality control response surfaces,
flow augmentation (a) $10/af and (b) $20/af, $ x 106.
32
-------
oo
oo
250
"1
6-
s
g 200
2
1
Q
h-
| 150
|
LJ
100
ft
_
-
_
I
\ $0/af
\
\
\
\
\$5/of
\
\
\
X
*
\$IO/af ^
'^
*
»,
«%
*..
""---
^O/<7/
1 1 1 1 1
B C D E F C
; H
DEGREE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Figure 22. Expansion paths for water quality control, flow augmentation at four prices
-------
What is shown by an expansion path is the most efficient ascent up the
cost and environmental quality response surfaces. What is not shown is how
steep that route might be. Somewhere, gains (or losses) in environmental qua-
lity will be halted when society deems marginal costs and returns are balanced.
Figure 23 plots the total annual costs of water quality control against
the DO index (a) for the case of fixed pricing and (b) for the case of allo-
cated charges. In both figures, augmentation is fixed at four levels and
varies determined by the cost efficient expansion path.
In Figure 23 (a), flow levels alternate in order of total cost as DO is
improved. The bottom line always plots the expansion path gradient, defining
the minimum boundary for the family of cost-DO curves. The changing order of
the fixed augmentation curves illustrates the same results as did Figure 22
Levels of augmentation should vary in efficient upgrading of river quality.'
au9"ientation cost allocated is cost-efficient at the
°V10W' From "9^6 23 a rather broad observation may be
1 -°St per D° return is basically of the same shape whether
f °?^ 'S C0st allocated or "nit priced, or whether pollution con-
£ V C1?nt Or 1s accomplished with a fixed level of augmentation.
e -
.
«
-------
CD
O
CO
O
O
oo
en
88 m3/s
127 m3/s
186 m3/s
255m3/s
Cost
Efficient
Cost
Efficient
U"
DO INDEX, mg/l
Flow Augmentation, $5/af
DO INDEX, mg/l
Flow Augmentation Cost Allocated
Figure 23. Annual cost versus DO index, flow augmentation (a) $5/af and
(b) cost allocated.
-------
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT COSTS
00
CTl
Treatment
level
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
$
Capital
154.72
174.96
233.65
248.33
303.62
312.66
317.10
*
x 10b, 1973
OMR
annual
4.41
5.30
7.28
8.16
9.29
10.31
10.67
*
Total
annual
16.14
19.41
27.57
30.11
35.64
37.45
38.33
100.
Direct
Capital
1928
2127
2702
2846
3477
3566
3609
*
energy,
OMR
annual
218
249
328
363
415
467
479
*
TJ
Total
annual
282
323
431
473
550
606
620
1600
Primary
Capital
7324
8508
11940
12799
15661
16190
16449
*
energy,
OMR
annual
391
463
628
701
800
891
919
*
TJ
Total
annual
669
800
1137
1253
1476
1593
1635
4000
* Not estimated.
-------
TABLE 16.
TREATMENT, AUGMENTATION, AND TOTAL
ANNUAL DIRECT ENERGY COSTS
Mean
August
discharge
m3/s
255
186
127
88
Mean
August
discharge
m3/s
255
186
127
88
Treatment level
A
282
47
329
282
22
304
282
7
289
282
0
282
TABLE
B
323
55
378
323
40
363
323
16
339
323
0
323
C
431
76
507
431
34
465
431
25
456
431
0
431
D
473
77
550
473
37
510
473
24
497
473
0
473
E
550
82
632
550
54
604
550
10
560
550
0
550
17. TREATMENT, AUGMENTATION, AND
ANNUAL PRIMARY ENERGY COSTS
(TO)
F
606
84
690
606
53
659
606
4
610
606
0
606
TOTAL
G
620
113
733
620
99
719
620
57
677
620
0
620
H
1600
1600
1600
1600
Treatment level
A
669
149
818
669
71
740
669
22
691
669
0
669
B
800
172
972
800
126
926
800
51
851
300
0
800
C
1137
238
1375
1137
109
1246
1137
81
1218
1137
0
1137
D
1253
241
1494
1253
120
1373
1253
75
1328
1253
0
1253
E
1476
257
1733
1476
174
1650
1476
30
1506
1476
0
1476
F
1593
262
1855
1593
169
1762
1593
13
1606
1593
0
1593
G
1635
359
1994
1635
315
1950
1635
181
1816
1C35
0
1635
H
4000
4000
4000
4000
87
-------
250 -
Ck
o
o
CO
ID
O
<
LJ
250
200
50
100 -
i
A
l
B
I
C
i
D
i
E
i
F
I
G
i
H
DEGREE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Figure 24. Annual (a) direct and (b) primary energy cost of water
quality control response surfaces, TJ.
-------
Figures 20(a) and (b). The energy contours were intermediate in slope be-
tween those where water is free and where it is valued at $5/af. Decisions
based on energy alone will thus be like those based on dollars alone if water
is in that price range. The energy-efficient combinations of flow and treat-
ment lie between the $0 and $5/af paths of Figure 22.
SUMMARY
To bring together environmental, economic, and energy analysis of Willa-
mette pollution control strategies, a 4 x 8 matrix of augmentation and waste-
water treatment levels was developed. Augmentation varied from none to a
level approximately 70 percent above that of the study year 1973. Point source
treatment level varied from minimal to "complete" with emphasis given to de-
grees near conventional secondary technology.
For fixed levels of augmentation and treatment, the resulting river DO
was simulated and indexed. Using the DO index for cost allocation, or simply
assigning a unit price to flow augmentation, total costs for water quality
treatment-flow strategy were estimated in dollars, and direct and primary
energy. Results were converted into response surfaces, providing interpolated
DO, dollar, and joule estimations for strategies other than those defined in
the initial matrix.
The DO index and dollar response surfaces were used to develop cost-
efficient steps of a strategy seeking improved DO. If augmentation were
valued at a low unit price or cost allocated, augmentation should be maximized
before increased secondary treatment facilities are purchased. If flow were
highly valued for uses competitive with low flow augmentation (not now the
case, but a possibility in the future), there would be justification in reduced
flow maintenance in favor of increased treatment of pollutant loadings.
Whatever the means of augmentation pricing and whatever the mix of flow
and treatment, the cost per incremental gain of DO begins to rise rapidly in
the vicinity of 1973 treatment levels. This is in part due to the exponen-
tial costs of advanced wastewater treatment technology and in part due to the
saturation limit of DO.
89
-------
SECTION X
DISCUSSION
In the preceding section the analysis was drawn together in a graphical
manner; this section deals with interpretation of that analysis. In this in-
terpretation, the economic and energy consequences of DO quality protection
are shown in a larger perspective. Discussion focuses on three issues. In
what latitude can the modeled results be accepted? What do such results have
to say about on-going efforts for Willamette water quality control? How does
the cleanup satisfy the State environmental, economic, and energy policies?
VALIDITY OF ANALYTIC RESULTS
The modeled environmental, economic, and energy consequences for alter-
natives of water pollution control strategy are reasonable and informative.
They may, however, be hastily interpreted in an unreasonable and misleading
manner. Discussion in Sections V, VI and VII centered on the necessities of
model selection suitable to the problem at hand and model employment compatible
with assumptions and limits. At this point these items are reviewed. Each
has bearing on the credibility that can be assigned to the modeling output.
The Study Period
August 1973 provided a base period in which water quality strategies could
be compared. This period is well documented, marks significant restoration of
a river, and illustrates the role of low flow augmentation for water quality
control. Conclusions concerning water quality control for 1973 may be in part
transferable to decision making in subsequent years if late summer stream-
flows are low, if waste production is not too different from that of 1973, if
treatment technology is similar, and if the objective of environmental manage-
ment is essentially one of mitigating DO problems of the lower Willamette
during summers of low flow years.
DO Simulation
If the water quality model of this study is improper, subsequent error
would be passed along into the cost allocation procedures. As the profiles
of DO do appear to be satisfactory for periods of summer low flow in which
the waste discharges are approximately of a secondary quality, such an error
does not seem to occur. However, some treatment levels substantially below
or above secondary quality were investigated; the accuracy of the DO predic-
tions are unknown. (The DO profiles even at these extremes, however, seem to
be reasonably consistent with historical records and conceptual projections).
The environmental model is useful, but not substantiated outside of its as-
sumed range. DO simulation in the near 1973 range can be assumed to be within
90
-------
5 percent of true Willamette DO. DO simulation at the extreme treatment levels
may be 10 or 15 percent in error.
Cost Estimation
Because inflation of the 1970's has rapidly altered cost data, the cost
models developed in Section VII are only valid for 1973. Even within 1973,
the models do not express the variation of prices for projects of the same
size. The best information that the cost models yield deals with total sums
over the entire Basin.
In the same manner that additional latitude should be given to DO predic-
tions for treatments far from secondary, broader variability should be asso-
ciated with cost estimates for treatment technologies significantly different
than those commonly in use in 1973. In Figure 19, the dollar response surface
slopes may be a little steeper or flatter at the sides. This, however, is a
fortunate place to find a possible poor estimation. Because reasonable stra-
tegies for the 1970's do not include such low or very high degrees of waste
treatment, costs associated with such treatment levels are not overly critical
for decision analysis.
The allocation of reservoir costs is based upon the hypothesis that if
summertime DO levels were not improved by flow augmentation, DO would be im-
proved by treatment plant construction and operation. Additionally, the point
source treatment would be directed toward management of infrequent summertime
conditions, but would entail plant upgrading that would be employed throughout
the year. Thus, alternative costs to augmentation are weighed heavily. This
weight is the consequence of typical pollution control legislation imposing
plant-type technical solutions and achievable quality discharge standards.
Energy Estimation
I/O energy estimates carry along errors of economic modeling and in the
case of flow augmentation, of DO simulation. Thus energy impact is the least
accurately modeled consequence of water pollution control.
The Input/Output energy model is an expression developed from aggregated
data. I/O results are generally considered to be within 50 percent of actual
case by case values (79). The more accurate uses of the I/O energy model
deal with broad economic activities, defined by distinct I/O sectors. Water
pollution control is not well partitioned by such general sectors. Therefore,
even the 50 percent accuracy estimate may not be broad enough.
For general regional study, however, I/O energy estimates are of more
value than such error allowance might indicate. Differences in direct energy
intensity (Table 9) are both intuitively reasonable and roughly substantiated
by regional survey data (3). Primary energy intensities are broadly derived
from the national economy and thus should be a good estimate of mean energy-
dollar relationships.
The I/O limitations and the subjectivity of sector assignments brought
forth in Section VIII preclude I/O energy study outside of a system where
91
-------
economic steady state is approximately maintained and where data exist on in-
terindustrial transactions. Like all models, I/O cannot reveal truly new in-
formation, but rather provides additional perception into what is already
identified.
In this study where investigation deals with a well-documented, short-
term base period, results appear reasonable for regional analysis of energy
differences between water pollution control alternatives where direct and pri-
mary energies define the scope of energy planning.
IMPLICATIONS FOR WILLAMETTE POLLUTION CONTROL
Pollution Control Standards
The selection of waste water treatment levels for the Basin (Table 10)
reflects the DEQ's emphasis on achieving high secondary quality of discharges.
Issues of nitrification are not pursued with the vigor applied to suspended
solids. The flat gradient in the central section of Figure 18, the DO response
surface, reveals that DO gains do indeed decelerate as wastewater treatment is
directed towards goals other than dissolved oxygen quality.
Dissolved oxygen standards (5 mg/1 in the tidal reach, 6 mg/1 in the New-
berg Pool, 7 mg/1 Newberg to Salem, and 8 mg/1 above Salem) were not met only
in the Newberg area in 1973. Significantly, the lower standard at Portland
was achieved. If the standards were modified, the rationale of the stairstep
values should be examined. In reaches where rapid nitrification is expected,
DO limits might perhaps be reduced by as much as 0.5 mg/1. In the lower Willa-
mette, where deoxygenation rates are low, DO limits might be increased, by as
much as 1 mg/1, to better reflect what pollution control can effectively at-
tain.
The cost versus DO index curves (Figure 23) indicate that future DO im-
provement may become less attractive as an environmental goal. By either of
two pricing schemes for augmentation, pollution control costs rise with DO
gains. Of significance 1n these cost curves is the domain of DO indices where
costs begin to soar. The upturn generally begins in the -1 to 0 interval.
From both the dollar and energy perspective, diseconomies of scales are sub-
stantial for continued DO improvement. Pollution control standards should
strive to maintain a DO to protect aquatic life, but the standard established
is a reflection of public priorities, not precise calculation.
A Unit Price for Low Flow Augmentation
Because cost allocation is not undertaken every time a decision must be
made concerning low-flow reservoir releases, a general estimator for the eco-
nomic value of augmentation is of use to the planner. In Appendix D, a $5/af
price is assigned to instream augmentation as irrigation benefits foregone.
The cost allocation of reservoir costs, however, allows this estimation to be
improved.
If the allocated cost response surface in Figure 19 is compared with sur-
faces derived from fixed charges in Figures 20 and 21, the allocation outcome
92
-------
most closely resembles the response surface in Figure 20(b), the $5/af value.
This provides some substantiation of the $5/af estimate. The allocated sur-
face, however, is somewhat less deflected by augmentation than is the Figure
20(b), $5/af value. A $3/af unit price might be a somewhat better allocated
valuation for flow augmentation. This would assume less net gains resulting
from expanded irrigation (a proper correction, see Appendix D) and allow a
cost allocation for reservoirs more in conformity with original authorization.
This unit price for augmentation assumes that water quality is judged by low-
flow summertime DO levels in the lower Willamette (return period, 25 years).
The price is appropriate only to drawdown from existing reservoirs.
Evaluation of 1973 DO Control
At $3/af, the expansion paths of Figure 22 reveal that the cost-effective
approach to DO control is one in which low flow augmentation is generally
maximized. It appears that if flow were valued at approximately $8/af, the
actual 1973 treatment-flow mix (D, 186 m3/s) would lie on an expansion path
and thus be efficient. The 1973 management thus overvalues water used to
maintain water quality. The Willamette, however, is not regulated solely for
dollar efficiency. Low flow level has been roughly fixed whereas treatment
technology has been continuously stepped up. Augmenting flow to the 186 m3/s
level and adding treatment necessary for DO is a reasonable strategy for en-
vironmental control. The reservoir release, a tactic politically difficult
to alter, is set at an intermediate value and then river DO is tuned with the
easier to modify variables, the treatment plants.
Pertinence to Future Regulation
The expansion paths of Figure 22 give a degree of economic justification
to the DEQ's contention that augmentation may be curtailed in the future. It
does appear that low flow could be efficiently reduced if raw waste production
were held at 1973 levels (this might assume moderate economic development
balanced with an increased conservation ethic), and if treatment were upgraded
to a high secondary (level G) quality. It appears, however, that if waste-
water treatment needs advance beyond this level, flow at any reasonable price
would be best used to dilute wastes in the river.
The 1973 level of augmentation (186 m3/s) seems again to be one of modera-
tion. Until future loadings, constraints on waste treatment, DO targets, and
irrigation benefits are more certainly foreseen, there is little reason to
substantially alter the reservoir release curves and increase possible future
corrections.
Energy Considerations
A final implication for pollution control results from the energy per-
spective. The question arises whether decisions drawn on a direct or primary
energy basis will be different than those based on dollars. In the previous
section, both direct and primary energy costs were represented over the plane
of treatment-augmentation possibilities by response surfaces similar to the
dollar surfaces for either case where flow was cost allocated or priced $3/af.
If so priced, the 186 m3/s release was shown to be low. Thus this level of
93
-------
flow is low also in energy terms, both direct and primary. This sort of con-
firmation should not be interpreted as an independent check on environmental
strategy. The dollar-to-energy coefficients that I/O develops are generally
similar enough to each other (Table 9) that the conclusions drawn from this
type of energy considerations are not likely to be substantially unlike those
derived from dollars. Because reservoir dollars affect energy somewhat less
than treatment dollars (Table 9), energy-efficient decisions should call for
somewhat more augmentation at given treatment than would cost-efficient deci-
sions if any differences should arise in the selection of environmental stra-
tegy.
Given the very approximate nature of I/O coefficients and the dependency
of I/O conclusions upon dollar cost figures, I/O energy study for Willamette
regulation should be seen as potentially informative, but should not be ex-
pected to greatly broaden more conventional economic analysis.
IMPLICATIONS FOR BASIN POLICY
The response surfaces and expansion paths can serve as a guide for effi-
cient decision making, but they imply nothing about where development should
cease. Just because it may be prudent to add a little more flow augmentation
before a little more wastewater treatment, this is not a proof that either
should be added. The extent of water pollution control must be tied to the
objectives of the system for which water pollution control is just one acti-
vity. Those objectives direct policy. As emphasized in Section V, such
policy may be viewed from many perspectives, among them environmental, econo-
mic, and energy. In this section, the analytic interpretation of Willamette
pollution control strategy is put into such perspectives.
Environmental Policies
Upgrading Willamette DO has been a prime objective of water management
in the Basin. The DEQ's Water Quality Management Plan specifies DO river
standards that were substantially met in 1973 (10, 27). Post-1973 regulation
is roughly mapped as a shift to the lower right on the treatment-flow possi-
bility planes (Figures 18 to 24). If the DO index would remain near 0, treat-
ment plants would continue to be upgraded, and augmentation abstracted for
irrigation. Such a direction is compatible with the official plan since waste-
waters are treated to protect other legitimate river uses. The environment,
quantified by DO index, would not be degraded.
Economic Policies
The last section indicated that, given near-secondary wastewater treat-
ment, a $25 to $45 million per year pollution control cost range existed among
feasible pollution control strategies. The actual strategy evolved by 1973,
annually cost $33 million ((D, 186) in Table 13 or Figure 19). Is this ex-
pense reasonably consistent with the Basin's economic goals?
Approximately $12 million of the Basin's annual pollution control expenses
were incurred industrially (Treatment Level D in Appendix H). The larger por-
tion of these costs are born by the pulp and paper industry. If the entire
94
-------
$12 million annually for water quality control were divided by the Basin's
forest product payroll of $500 million, a low approximation of value added to
forest goods, the forest industry appears to spend about 2 percent of its
value added for Willamette quality protection. The Basin's agriculture, the
other regional economic mainstay, spends much less.
The Basin's aesthetic environment supports substantial sporting economic
activity and draws smaller industries to the region. Regional economic ad-
vancement brought on by this spinoff probably outweighs a $12 million annual
environmental burden placed on the resource industries.
If the annual cost of water quality control were divided among the
Basin's residents, a per capita charge of $20 would result. This corresponds
to somewhat less than one-half of one percent of mean personal income. Be-
cause both reservoirs and wastewater treatment plants are federally subsi-
dized, the direct per capita price is even smaller. Given the environmental
enhancement, most Oregonians do not think that the price is excessive.
Of the $33 million annual water pollution control cost, slightly over
$6 million is spent annually for fixed or independent pollution control tac-
tics, those activities of wastewater treatment wherein the discharge quality
is not reflected in the river. The remaining $27 million is the fund distri-
buted to incremental quality-achieving alternatives. Of this, $3 million, if
cost allocated, is used for reservoirs and $12 million each are spent by muni-
cipalities and industries. In that these charges are well distributed over
the Basin, this spending reflects the State policy of balanced development.
The Basin's economic growth might be curtailed if industries were forced
to assume a larger part of the total cost. Economic activity might be acce-
lerated if subsidized pollution control from reservoirs and municipal plants
were used to alleviate the industrial burden.
The 1973 level of augmentation and wastewater treatment is reasonably
consistent with the State economic policy, its emphasis on orderly, planned
and balanced growth. Significantly, however, a DO target upgraded 1 mg/1
over that of 1973 could double pollution control costs and potentially dis-
rupt economic development.
Energy Policies
If the direct energy used for pollution control (510 TJ, Table 16) is
compared to Basin energy use for 1973 (350,000 TJ, Figure 13, population
1,500,000), between 0.1 and 0.2 percent of the Basin's power was consumed for
water quality management. This value is in agreement with national estimates
of 0.1 to 0.3 percent for electricity and petroleum required for water pollu-
tion control (83). That energy requirement could double with advances in
treatment level (700 or 800 TJ for Level G, 1600 for Level H, Figure 24).
If the State's energy budget were to continuously increase at several
percent per year, the energy needs for pollution control could probably be
satisfactorily absorbed. This indeed reflects State and energy industry fore-
casts. Oregon may, however, find its energy sources curtailed sooner than an-
95
-------
ticipated. As this occurs, energy expenditures for pollution control will be
more and more determined by the alternative uses in which that power might be
used.
Oregon's energy policies call for diverse, permanently sustainable energy
resources, conservatively used to meet basic human needs and preserve environ-
mental quality. A logical consequence of an energy policy utilizing renew-
able energies would be environmental strategies drawing upon the assimilative
capacity of nature. For Willamette DO maintenance, joules spent for reser-
voirs generally accomplish more than do joules spent in wastewater treatment,
shown by an expansion path across the top of Figure 24(a). If augmentation
were maximized and raw waste production fixed, pollution control activity
might reduce 10 or 20 percent from its energy needs with negligible DO effects.
The energy perspective affords checks on pollution control tactics. One
such check is carried out in Appendix I. The energy required to build and
operate a reservoir is compared with the energy hydraulically produced. It
appears that if power is generated, a 17:1 return is realized on energy in-
vested. A similar calculation using generalized national figures indicated
the ratio might be 100:1 (84). By either accounting, hydroelectric generation
appears to be net energy productive, thus in conformity to policy objectives.
An Alternative Perspective
As illustrated in Section V, energy flows into and within a system pro-
vide a basis for understanding the nature of that system. The 1973 costs for
Willamette pollution control were approximately $33 million, 510 direct TJ,
and 1373 primary TJ (Tables 13, 15 and 17). If these dollars are translated
to calorie equivalent at $1 equal to 25,000 Calories as suggested by Odum,
these three measures of dollars, direct energy and primary energy are 0.83 x
1012, 0.12 x 1012 and 0.33 x 1012 Cal/yr (51). Since the primary figure in-
cludes energy directly sold to pollution control, the difference, 0.21 x 1012
Cal/yr, represents the fossil energy consumed elsewhere and embodied in pollu-
tion control inputs. The primary energy total subtracted from the dollar
energy total, 0.50 x 1012 Cal/yr, represents energy consumed in the Basin's
household sector.
In Figure 14, the 0.12 x 1012 direct Cal/yr is a portion of the 87 x 101?
Cal/yr, the Basin's direct energy input. Of the 34 x 1012 Cal of imports and
45 x 1012 Cal of intraindustrial consumption, 0.21 x 1012 Cal were required
for pollution control. Of the 118 x 10^2 Cal ultimately consumed by the Ba-
sin's population, 0.50 x 1012 Cal were derived from water quality management.
Whereas the largest portion of water quality regulation energy is even-
tually consumed in the Basin's households (0.50 x 10l2 of 0.83 x 1012 Cal/yr),
this energy is largely an economic flow that would likely continue with or
without pollution control investment. If the Valley opted for a very low qua-
lity river, the dollars would have been spent for something else. The environ-
mental planner may be able to save the public money, but he cannot halt the
spending of these savings for other goals.
96
-------
The use of 0.12 x 1012 direct and 0.21 x 1012 embodied Cal/yr associated
with water quality control is reasonably responsive to planning. If spent,
this energy results in an overall environmental gain. If not spent, this
energy might be removed from Basin imports. This last alternative is perhaps
the most significant to the Basin's overall planning. The Willamette Basin
is currently subsidized with imported primary energy. As the world's energy
stocks dwindle, this subsidy cannot be maintained. Cutbacks in direct energy
imports will occur, and energy intensive goods will be harder to obtain.
Energy in both forms will be sought with increased vigor by all segments of
the economy, only one of which is pollution control. It is most improbable
that pollution control can garner enough energy inflows to continuously up-
grade water quality (moves to the right on Figures 20{a) and (b)). It is not
guaranteed under conditions of energy shortages that water pollution control
can even maintain its current energy expenditures.
This paper analytically deals in the short range. A broader integrated
perspective shows the differences inherent between short and long run answers.
Short run policy and analysis needs to be first internally reconciled. Treat-
ment plant investment should be coordinated with reservoir operation. Then,
as understanding of the total system increases, short run perspective might
as a whole be better directed toward long run solutions.
SUMMARY
This report deals with alternatives not radically different from pollu-
tion control management of 1973. The environmental, economic, and energy
models selected are suitable for that base period. Even with such specifica-
tion, the economic and energy expressions yield only approximations of impact.
The established level of low flow augmentation appears to be of reasonable
economic efficiency, given uncertainty about the value of water and demands
in the future. If DO were upgraded to yet higher levels, or if energy effi-
ciency were considered, reason would exist for selecting an environmental
strategy weighted toward additional flow maintenance.
The water quality strategy of 1973 is harmonious with the substance of
State environmental and economic policies. The reliance on imported energy to
accomplish such regulation is not in keeping with Oregon's energy policy. It
appears that the three policy perspectives have yet to be reconciled.
From a broader viewpoint, the 1973 mode of water quality control is at
odds with the Basin's long range energy-based outlook. If the imported energy
subsidy to Oregon's economy should dwindle, energy-cheap strategies for en-
vironmental management, such as low flow augmentation, may have to be imple-
mented and energy-intensive alternatives reduced.
97
-------
REFERENCES
1. Gleeson, G. W. The Return of a River: The Willamette River, Oregon.
water Resources Research Institute. Oregon State University.
Corvallis, OR. WRRI-13. 1972. 103 p.
2. Britton, J. E. A History of Water Pollution Control in the
Willamette Basin, Oregon. US Public Health Service. Portland,
OR. Working Paper No. 56. July 1965. 56 p.
3. Huff, E. S., P. C. Klingeman, H. H. Stoevener, and H. F. Horton.
Restoring the Willamette River: Costs and Impacts of Water Quality
Control. Oregon State University. Con/all is, OR. EPA-600/5-76-005.
US Environmental Protection Agency. September 1976. 163 p.
4. Baldwin, E. M. Geology of Oregon. 2nd Edition. Eugene, University
of Oregon Cooperative Book Store, 1964. p. 1-76.
5. Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land
Resources: Appendix B, Hydrology. Willamette Basin Task Force.
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Vancouver, WA. 1969.
6. Large Rivers of the United States. US Geological Survey.
Washington, DC. Circular 44. May 1949.
7. Rickert, D.A., W. G. Hines, and S. W. McKenzie. Methodology for
River-Quality Assessment with Application to the Willamette River
Basin, Oregon. US Geological Survey. Washington, DC. Circular
715-M. 1976. 55 p.
8. Water Resource Data for Oregon. Part 1. Surface Water Records.
US Geological Survey. Washington, DC. Annual.
9. Willamette Basin Water Ouality Control Plan (Draft). Department
of Environmental Quality. Portland, OR. Unpublished. 1973.
10. Proposed Water Quality Management Plan, Willamette River Basin.
Text and Appendices. Department of Environmental Quality.
Portland, OR. 1976.
11. Columbia River Water Management Report. Columbia River Water
Management Group. Portland, OR. Annual
98
-------
12. Surface Water Supply of the United States, Pacific Slope Basins
in Oregon and Lower Columbia River Basin. US Geological Survey.
Washington, DC. Annual.
13. Oregon Blue Book: 1977-1978. Secretary of State. Salem, OR.
1977. p. 219-222.
14. Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land
Resources: Appendix C, Economic Base. Willamette Basin
Task Force. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission.
15. Columbia-North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study.
Appendix IX: Irrigation. Pacific Northwest River Basins
Commission. Vancouver, WA. February 1971. p. 247-267.
16. Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land
Resources: Appendix F: Irrigation. Willamette Basin Task
Force. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission.
Vancouver, WA 1969.
17. Oregon's Long-Range Requirements for Water: Appendix II,
Irrigation and Food Products Projections. State Water Re-
sources Board. Salem, OR. June 1969. p. 5-19.
18. Water Resources Development by the US Army Corps of Engineers
in Oregon. North Pacific Division. US Army Corps of Engi-
neers. Portland, OR. Annual.
19. Waterborne Commerce of the United States. Part 4: Waterways
and Harbors. Pacific Coast, Alaska and Hawaii. US Army
Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, MS. Annual.
20. Hydroelectric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production
Expenses. Seventeenth Annual Supplement. Federal Power
Commission. Washington, DC. May 1976. p. 57-105.
21. Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land
Resources: Main Report. Willamette Basin Task Force.
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Vancouver, WA. 1969,
22. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers on Civil Works Activ-
ities. Volume II. Office of the Chief of Engineers, US Army
Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC. Annual.
23. Annual Report. Oregon State Parks Division. State Highway
Department. Salem, OR. Annual.
24. Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land
Resources: Appendix K, Recreation. Willamette Basin "ask
Force. Pacific North West River Basins Commission.
Vancouver, WA. 1969.
99
-------
25 Water Pollution Control in Oregon: Annual Report. Oregon
' State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR. 1950-1965.
26 Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Numbers 1-13. 1940-1964.
27. Water Quality Control in Oregon. Oregon Department of Envir-
onmental Quality. Portland, OR. 1970, 1975.
28. Velz, C.J. Applied Stream Sanitation. New York, Wiley-
Interscience, 1970. 619 p.
29. Hines, W.G., S. W. McKenzie, and D. A. Rickert. Dissolved
Oxygen Regime of the Willamette River, Oregon under Conditions
of Basinwide Secondary Treatment. US Geological Survey.
Washington, DC. In publication.
30. Hines, W. 6. US Geological Survey. Portland, OR. Personal
Communication.
31. Loy, W. G., S. Allan, C. P. Patton, and R. D. Plank. Atlas
of Oregon. University of Oregon. Eugene, OR. 1976. 215 p.
32. Walker, W. R., and W. E. Cox. Legal Aspects of Storage for
Water Quality Improvement. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation. Vol. 43, No. 12: 2394-2401, December 1971.
33. Walker, W. R., and W. E. Cox. Legal Aspects of Water Supply
and Water Quality Storage. Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
Blacksburg, VA. Bulletin 37. August 1970. 235 p.
34. DeWeerdt, J. L., P. M. Glick (ed.). A Summary-Digest of the
Federal Water Laws and Programs. National Water Commission.
US Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. 1973. 205 p.
35. State Water Resources Board of Oregon. Lower Willamette
River Basin Program. October 8, 1976. Middle Willamette
River Basin Program. June 22, 1964.
36. State of Oregon. Oregon Revised Statutes. 468.710. 1974.
37. Straub, R.W., Governor of Oregon. Letter of October 14, 1977.
38. Industrial Forestry Association. Corvallis Gazette-Times.
Corvallis, OR. 69(191):2. December 9, 1976.
39. Miles, S. D. Extension Economist. Oregon State University.
Corvallis, OR. Personal Communication. January 14, 1977.
40. 1975-1976 Biennial Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wild-
life. Portland, OR. December, 1976. 56 p.
100
-------
41. Fitch, J. B., and J. E. Schefter. Income Distribution Patterns
in Oregon: A Comparison of Oregon Counties through Time.
Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. November 1974.
28 p.
42. Population and Household Trends in Washington, Oregon and
Northern Idaho 1970-1985. Pacific Northwest Bell. Seattle, VIA.
1972.
43. Holden, A. G., and W. B. Shepard. Migration and Oregon -- 1970:
Patterns and Implications. Oregon State University. Corvallis,
OR. May 1974. 112 p.
44. State of Oregon. Oregon Revised Statutes. 184.003. 1973.
45. Future Energy Options for Oregon. Oregon Department of Energy.
Salem, OR. December 1976.
46. Report to Governor Bob Straub. Task Force on Energy Conserva-
tion. State of Oregon. Salem, OR. November 24, 1975.
47. Muckleston, D. W. Department of Geography. Oregon State
University. Corvallis, OR. Personal Communication.
48. Report on the US Columbia River Power System. Bonneville Power
Administration. Portland, OR. Annual.
49. McCall, T. In: Transcript of Fourth Public Hearing, Seattle,
Boise, Portland, and Anchorage, Project Independence, Federal
Energy Administration. Washington, DC. September 5-7, 1974.
p. 715-717.
50. State of Oregon. Oregon Revised Statutes. 469.010. 1975.
51. Odum, H. T. and E. C. Odum. Energy Basis for Man and Nature.
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976. 297 p.
52. Weinberg, G. M. An Introduction to General Systems Thinking.
New York. Wiley. 1975. 279 p.
53. Friedman, J. M. Efficiency in Water Quality Control for the
Willamette River. Annals of Regional Science. IX (1): 45-55,
March 1975.
54. Liebman, J. C., and W. R. Lynn. The Optimal Allocation of Stream
Dissolved Oxygen. Water Resources Research. 2 (3): 581-591.
Third Quarter 1966.
55. Worley, J. L. A System Analysis Method for Water Quality Manage-
ment bh Flow Augmentation. Masters Thesis. Civil Engineering,
Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. June 1963. 137 p.
101
-------
56. Waddell, W. W. User's Manual for EXPLORE-I and PIONEER-I.
Battelle Northwest. Richland, WA. April 1974. 83 p.
57. An Analysis of the Waste Load Assimilation Capacity of the
Willamette River Basin. Parts I-III. Battelle Northwest,
Richland, WA. December 1973, April 1974.
58. Larson, D. W. Upstream Reservoirs as Important Sources of
Planktonic Algae and Nutrients Influencing the Eutrophication
of Lower Impoundments in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon.
Synopsis. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Portland, OR. March 1974. 38 p.
59. Rickert, D. A. , V. C. Kennedy, S. W. McKenzie, and W. G. Mines.
A Synoptic Survey of Trace Metals in Bottom Sediments of the
Willamette River, Oregon. US Geological Survey. Washington,
DC. Circular 715-F. 1977. 27 p.
60. Rickert, D. A., R. R. Peterson, S. W. McKenzie, W. G. Mines,
and S. A. Wille. Algal Conditions and the Potential for Future
Algal Problems in the Willamette River, Oregon. US Geological
Survey. Washington, D. C. Circular 715-G. 1977. 39 p.
61. Shearman, J. 0. Reservoir-System Model for the Willamette River
Basin, Oregon. US Geological Survey. Washington, DC.
Circular 715-H. 1976. 22 p.
62. Engineering News Record. McGraw-Hill. March 24, 1977. p. 67.
63. Estimating the Costs of Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
Culp, Wesner, Culp. El Dorado Hills, CA. March 1974. 37 p.
64. Michel, R. L. Costs and Manpower for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance, 1965-1968. Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 42(11) -.1883-1910.
November 1970.
65. Di Gregorio, D. Cost of Wastewater Treatment Processes. Feder-
al Water Pollution Control Administration. Cincinnati, OH.
December 1968. 53 p.
66. Smith, R., and R. G. Filers. Cost to the Con sumer for Collection
and Treatment of Wastewater. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati, OH. EPA 17090-07/70. July 1970. 86 p.
67. Klemetson, S. L., and W. J. Grenney. Physical and Economic Para-
meters for Planning Regional Wastewater Treatment Systems.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 48(12):
2690-2699, December 1976.
102
-------
68. Davis, H. C. Economic Evaluation of Water. Part V. Multi-
regional Input-Output Techniques and Western Water Resources
Development. Water Resources Center. University of Cali-
fornia. Berkeley, CA. Contribution No. 125. February 1968.
142 p.
69. Gray, S. L., and J. R. McKean. The Development of Water
Multiplier Impacts from Input-Output Analysis: An Empirical
Example from Boulder, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado.
Water Resources Research. 12 (2): 135-140, April 1976.
70. Leontief, W. W. Environmental Repercussions and the Economic
Structure: An Input-Output Approach. The Review of Economics
and Statistics. LII (3): 262-271, August 1970.
71. Herendeen, R. A. The Energy Cost of Goods and Services.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. ORNL-NSF-EP-58.
October 1973. 116 p.
72. Herendeen, R. A., and C. W. Bullard. Energy Cost of Goods
and Services. Center for Advanced Computation. University of
Illinois. Urbana, IL. CAC 140. November 1974.
73. Simpson, D. , and D. Smith. Direct Energy Use in the U. S.
Economy, 1967. Center for Advanced Computation. University
of Illinois. Urbana, IL. CAC 39. January 1975. 45 p.
74. Georgescu-Roegen, N. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process.
Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1971.
75. Herendeen, R. A. An Energy Input-Output Matrix for the United
States, 1963: A User's Guide. Center for Advanced Computation.
University of Illinois. Urbana, IL. CAC 69 March 1973. 99 p.
76. Bullard, C. W., and R. A. Herendeen. Energy Impact of Consump-
tion Decisions. Center for Advanced Computation. University
of Illinois. Urbana, IL. CAC 135. October 1974.
77. Calligan, C. C. Willamette Simulation Unit. Oregon State
University. Personal Communiciation.
78. Allen, R. L., and D. A. Watson. The Structure of the Oregon
Economy: An Input/Output Study. Bureau of Business and
Economic Research. University of Oregon. Eugene, OR 1965. 35 p.
79. Herendeen, R. A. Center for Advanced Computation. University of
Illinois. Personal Communication. February 1975.
80. Energy Use in the Contract Construction Industry. Tetra Tech.
Arlington, VA. TT-A-412-75-011. February 18, 1975.
103
-------
81. Dunnette, D. A. Effect of an Industrial Ammonia Discharge on
the Willamette River. Department of Environmental Quality.
Portland, OR. January 1977. 31 p.
82. Ferguson, C. E., and S. C. Maurice. Economic Analysis.
Homewood, IL, Richard D. Irwin, 1970. p. 121-124.
83. Smallwood, D. S., and R. F. Weston. Industrial Energy Usage
Considerations Associated With the Implementation of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL92-500). Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Presented at Energy and
Environmental Quality. Chicago. May 10, 1974.) 17 p.
84. Roberts, E. B., and R. M. Haqan. Energy Requirements of Alter-
natives in Water Supply, Use, and Conservation: A Preliminary
Report. California Water Resources Center. University of
California. Davis, CA. Contribution No. 155. December 1975.
85. Harris, D. D. Travel Rates of Water for Selected Streams in
the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey.
Washington, DC. Atlas HA-273. 1968. 2 p.
86. Kramer, L. Letter. In: Better Data Collection and Planning
is Needed to Justify Advanced Waste Treatment Construction,
Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the
United States. Washington, General Accounting Office
December 21, 1976. p. 60-62
87. Miller, S. F. An Investigation of Alternative Methods of
Valuing Irrigation Water. Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon State Univer-
sity. Corvallis, OR. 1965. p. 126-128.
88. Rockwood, D. M. North Pacific Division, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Portland, OR. Personal Communication. February
22, 1977.
89. Carson, W. D. Jr. An Investigation of the Determinants of
Reservoir Recreation Use and Demand: The Effect of Water
Surface Elevation. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Corps of
Engineers. Davis, CA. Research Note No. 2. November 1972.
53 p.
90. James, L. D., and R. R. Lee. Economics of Water Resources
Planning. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. p.527-540.
91. Loughlin, J. C. The Efficiency and Equity of Cost Allocation
Methods for Multipurpose Water Projects. Water Resources
Research. 13(1): 8-14, February 1977.
104
-------
92. Input-Output Structure of the U. S. Economy: 1967. Volume 1 -
Transactions Data for Detailed Industries, Volume 2 - Direct
Requirements for Detailed Industries, Volume 3 - Total Require-
ments for Detailed Industries. Social and Economic Statistics
Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis. U. S. Department
of Commerce. Washington, DC. 1974.
93. Report to the Congress by the National Commission on Water
Quality. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
March 18, 1976. 90 p.
105
-------
GLOSSARY
af - Acre-ft, 1233 m3
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOD5 - Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 day
Btu - British thermal unit, 1055 J
C - Celsius
Cal - Calorie, 4187 J
CBOD - Carbonaceous BOD
cfs - cubic ft per second, 0.0283 m3/s
COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand
DO - Dissolved Oxygen
ft - Feet, 0.3048 m
G - Giga, 109
g - Gram
J - Joule
k - Kilo, 103
1 - Liter
m - Meter
M - Mega, 106
mgd - Million gallons per day, 0.04381 m3/s
mg/1 - Milligrams per liter
NBOD - Nitrogenous BOD
Rkm - River kilometer
s - Second
T - Tera, 1012
Wh - Watt-hour, 3600 J
106
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE A-18. MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
DISCHARGING TO WILLAMETTE, AUGUST 1973 (3, 9, 10)
Plant
Albany
AlolM
Banks
Beaverton
Canby
Carlton
Cedar Hills
Central Linn Hi. School
Century Meadows
Chatnicka Heights
Cornel ius
Corval 1 is
Corvallis Airport
Corvall is Mobile Home
Cottage Grove
Country Squire
Creswell
Da 11 a s
Dawnasch Hospital
Dayton
Dundee
Eola Village
Estacada
Eugene
Fan no
Fir Cove Sanitation
Gaston
Halsey
Happy Val ley Homes
Harrisburg
Hill sboro
Hillsboro Jr. Hi.
Hill sboro West
Hubbard
Independence
Jefferson
Lafayette
Laurelwood Academy
Lebanon
Lowell
Lowell Park
Maryl hurst
McMinnville
Metzger
Millersburg School
Milwaukie
Molalla
Monmouth
Type
AS
ASEF
ASP
TFEF
AS
IF
TF
ASP
ASP
ASP
TF
TF
L
ASP
TF
ASPL
L
AS
TF
L
L
TF
TF
TF
AS
ASP
ASP
L
ASP
TF
AS
ASP
AS
TF
L
L
L
TF
TF
TF
ASP
TF
AS
AS
L
AS
TF
L
Year
built
1969
1965
1967
1970
1963
1955
1962
1958
1972
1964
1959
1966
1962
1959
1967
1964
1962
1969
1960
1965
1970
1941
1963
1971
1969
1957
1964
1969
1967
1959
1963
1971
1968
1967
1%9
1964
1967
1958
1949
1960
1962
1971
1966
1966
1962
1955
1964
Discharge, mgd
1973
5.33
1.20
.05
1.90
.34
.12
.92
.01
.04
.01
.21
6.60
.01
.02
.92
.02
.12
.70
.11
.10
.06
.08
.12
13.80
3.15
.00
.04
.05
.01
.09
.91
.01
.86
.10
.30
.10
.08
.04
.68
.56
.01
.62
1.87
1.50
.01
1.70
.20
.50
Design
8.70
4.00
.14
1.60
.85
.30
1.30
.01
.04
.04
.25
7.26
.01
.01
1.50
.07
.17
2.00
.30
.10
.13
.07
.38
16.00
3.00
.02
.06
.10
.01
.25
1.25
.01
2.00
.20
.39
.11
.10
.02
1.90
.26
.01
.11
4.00
2.50
.01
2.00
.40
.70
Receiving stream
river kilometer
Willamette - 191.5
Beaverton Cr. - 5.3
W.Fk. Dairy Cr. - 16.1
Beaverton Cr. - 12.9
Willamette - 53.1
N.Yamhill - 9.7
Beaverton Cr. - 12.1
Spoon Cr. - 7.1
Willamette - 67.6
Winslow Cr. - 7.2
Tualatin - 84.2
Willamette - 210.8
Cr. to Willamette - 222.0
Oak Cr. - 2.6
Coast Fork Willamette - 35.4
Muddy Cr. - 77.2
Camas Sw. - 8.0
Rickreall Cr. - 16.9
Corral Cr. - 1.6
Yamhill - 8.0
Willamette - 83.7
S.Yamhill - 24.1
Clackamas - 38.0
Willamette - 286.4
Fanno Cr. - 13.4
Coast Fork Willamette - 1.6
Tualatin - 103.8
Muddy Cr. - 37.0
Mitchell Cr. - 2.4
Willamette - 259.0
Rock Creek - 0.0
Beaverton Cr. - 0.0
Tualatin - 59.5
Mill Cr. - 8.5
Ash Cr. - 2.1
Santiam -11.3
Yamhill - 12.9
Hill Cr. - 9.7
S. Santiam - 28.0
Mid Fork Willamette - 29.8
Mid Fork Willamette - 27.2
Willamette - 35.2
S. Fork Yamhill - 6.4
Fanno Cr. - 7.9
Crooks Cr. - 10.0
Willamette - 29.0
Bear Cr. - 0.8
Ash Cr. - 4.2
107
-------
TABLE A-13 (continued)
Plant
Monroe
'It. Angel
Newberq
Oak Hills
Oaklodge
Oakridge
Oregon City
Philomath
Pleasant Valley Sch.
Primate Center
Ramada Inn
River Vil. Trailer Park
Riverview Heights
Salem Willow Lake
Sandy
Scio
Sherwood
Silverton
Sommerset West
Southwood Park
Springfield
Stayton
Sunset
Sweet Home
Tigard
Tualatin
Tual. Valley Develop. Co.
Twin Oaks School
Tyron
Westfir
West Hills S.D.
West Linn Bolton
West Linn Willamette
West Mod. Homes
Hest Salem
Willow Is. Mobile Home
Wilsonville
Woodburn
Yamhill
Tvne*
L
TF
AS
ASPL
AS
AS
AS
AS
ASP
ASP
ASPL
ASP
ASP
TF
AS
L
TF
TF
ASPL
TF
TF
ASEF
AS
ASEF
AS
ASEF
ASP
TF
AS
ASP
ASP
TF
TF
ASP
AS
ASP
ASP
TF
ASP
Year
built
1968
1955
1971
1965
1969
1969
1964
1952
1963
1964
1965
1968
1960
1964
1972
1963
1965
1970
1964
1962
1962
1964
1965
1966
1970
1970
1965
1958
1965
1966
1961
1963
1963
1969
1973
1972
1964
1954
Discharge, mgd
1973
.04
.15
.60
.18
1.70
.44
2.48
.17
.01
.05
.03
.00
.02
23.70
.13
.04
.33
.43
.39
.08
5.70
.34
1.10
.40
.92
.16
.23
.00
3.85
.03
.02
.44
.20
.05
.05
.03
.15
.60
.05
Design
.05
.36
2.00
.20
4.00
.42
3.00
.35
.01
.06
.02
.01
.05
17.50
.50
.06
.57
.70
.32
.10
6.90
1.35
1.50
.50
1.50
.28
.20
.01
5.00
.03
.03
1.30
.38
.05
.40
.03
.50
.96
.10
Receiving stream
river kilometer
Long Tom - 10.5
Pudding - 55.8
Willamette - 80.9
Willow Cr. - 4.3
Willamette - 32.3
Mid Fork Willamette - 64.0
Willamette - 40.5
Mary's R. - 18.5
Mitchell Cr.
Bronson Cr. -1.6
Tualatin - 12.9
Willamette - 64.4
Willamette - 135.0
Willamette - 125.8
Trickle Cr. - 2.1
Thomas Cr. - 12.9
Cedar Cr. - 1.8
Silver Cr. - 5.6
Beaverton Cr. - 12.1
Ball Cr. - 1.9
Willamette - 296.5
N. Santiam - 24.1
Cedar Mill Cr - 4.8
S. Santiam - 54.1
Fanno Cr. - 6.0
Tualatin - 13.8
Tualatin - 17.7
Spencer Cr. - 7.7
Willamette - 32.7
Mid Fork Willamette - 59.5
Oak Cr. - 2.1
Willamette - 38.8
Willamette - 45.1
Mill Cr. - 8.1
Willamette - 128.7
Willamette
Willamette - 62.8
Pudding - 13.7
Yamhill Cr. - 1.4
TFEF = Trickling Filter with Effluent Filtration; ASEF « Activated Sludge with
Effluent Filtration; ASP = Activated Sludge Package Plant; AS = Activated Sludge;
TF = Trickling Filter; L = Lagoon; P= Primary; ASPL = Activated Sludge Package
Plant with Lagoon.
108
-------
TABLE A-19. MAJOR OPERATING INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS (3, 9, 10)
Plant and
location
American Can,
Halsey
Boise Cascade,
Salem
Crown Zellerbach,
Lebanon
Crown Zellerbach,
West Linn
Evans Products,
Corvallis
General Foods -
Birds Eye,
Woodburn
Oregon Metallur-
gical , Albany
Pennwalt,
Portland
Publishers Paper,
Newberg
Publishers Paper,
Oregon City
Type of process
Bleached Kraft pulling
and tissue wastes
Bleached sulfite pulping
and fine paper wastes
Sulfite pulping and
linerboard wastes
Bleached groundwood
pulping and fine paper
wastes
Wet process hardboard
wastes; battery separa-
tor plant wastes
Fruit and vegetable
processi rig wastes
Titanium processing
wastes
Contaniinated cooling
water from cuior-alkali
process
Bleached sulfite, un-
bleached groundwood
pulping, and papemlll
wastes
Bleached sulfite and
bleached groundwood
pulping wastes
Receiving
stream
river kilometer
Willamette -
Willamette -
S. Santiam -
Willamette -
Willamette -
Pudding - 43
Oak Creek to
238.8
135.5
26.5
42.5
212.7
.4
Wil-
lamette - 192.6
Willamette -
Willamette -
Willamette -
11.9
80.4
44.2
Allowable summer discharges, kg/day
BOD5/suspended solids
1,100/3,200
3,600/3,200
1 ,400/1 ,800
1,800/3,600
900/1,600
no/no
0/70
0/0
2,700/3,400
3,600/3,400
Other*
None
None
None
None
None
None
Chlorides - 4,500
Fluorides - 9,000
Chlorine - 45
Chromium - 45
Ammonia - 70
None
None
-------
TABLE A-19 (continued).
Plant and
location
Rhodia,
Portland
Tektronix,
Beaverton
Wan Chang,
Albany
Western Kraft,
Albany
Weyerhaeuser,
Springfield
Type of process
Process wiste from in-
secticida production
Electroplating wastes
Process waste from
exotic metals
production
Unbleached Kraft,
neutral sulfite semi-
chemical pulping and
linerboard wastes
Unbleached Kraft pulp-
ing and linerboard
wastes
Receiving stream
river kilometer
Willamette - 11.3
Beaverton Cr - 10.8
to Rock Cr to
Tualatin - 61.9
Truax Cr - 3.2 to
Willamette - 185.8
Willamette - 187.4
McKenzie - 23.7
Allowable suraner dis<
BODs suspended solids
0/120
0/110
0/320
1,100/2,300
1,400/4,500
:harges, ka/day
Other*
COD - 680
Dissolved
solids - 21,000
Ammonium ion - 4.5
COD - 450
Dissolved solids -
22,000
Ammonium ion - 1 ,400
None
None
Inorganic waste streams have many other components.
-------
APPENDIX B
DISCUSSION
The following discussion traces the computer modeling from data file
creation to final simulated output. Figure B-25 illustrates in a schematic
manner the data handling. Example data files and FORTRAN listings or rou-
tines follow in this appendix.
Total Loading (TL) Files
For each strategy of Valley pollution control, a stream-ordered listing
of all known dischargers was created as a total loading (TL) data file. The
example file TL1973 listed described the Willamette River dischargers of
August 1973. Indentation signifies to what stream each discharge flows and
to what stream each tributary discharges. British, rather than SI units, are
used, conforming with raw data. River mile distance and stream velocity esti-
mation allow calculation of travel time to the Willamette main stem for each
up-tributary discharge. Tributary velocity is estimated from channel slope,
summer discharge, and proximity to streams where velocities have been gaged
(85).
Pollutant loadings are quantified as immediate oxygen demand (IOD), col-
lodial/dissolved carbw.iaceous 5-day oxygen demand (BOD), settleable solids
oxygen demand (not used in this study since settled solids are considered to
exert IOD), Kjeldahl nitrogen, flow discharge, and dissolved oxygen saturation.
The TL file incorporates all loadings: point source, nonpoint source (as
equivalent point inputs at main stem tributary mouths), benthic demands, and
abstractions (diversion of flow, BOD, and N from the main stem).
WILT
The routine WILT routed all tributary BOD and N to the Willamette main
stem. Reaeration was not estimated; DO of the final main stem input is in-
cluded in the TL data. Historically DO sag in tributaries has not been a
major porblem. It was assumed that particular tributary quality problems, say
eutrophied pools, can be resolved locally rather than as a regional concern.
WILT provided an output of a main stem loading (ML) file, a listing of
first-column TL inputs, with loads now encompassing residual up-tributary
oxygen-demanding discharges.
Ill
-------
UILBER
The main stem hydraulic program, WILBER, collected all inputs from the
ML file, read the design flow and percent DO saturation at Salem from a dis-
charge (Q) file, and obtained the hydraulic constants for the Sal em-Portland
reaches from HYCONST. Main stem flow above Salem was routed to Salem through
7 upstream reaches. DO was not modeled in the upstream Willamette where the
generally steep slopes keep the waters well aerated.
For reaches above the Newberg Pool, WILBER calculated channel depth by
Manning's equation. HYDCONST gave channel width, slope and roughness while Q
defined discharge. In and below the Newberg Pool, depth of summer flow does
not vary with discharge because of downstream flow control. Therefore WILBER
is directly given channel width and depth from HYDCONST.
WILBER generated a loading file (L) that resembles the ML file with the
top boundary condition now at Salem. WILBER also generated hydraulic file
(H) containing the milepoint, cross-sectional area, width, and inflow for each
of the 297 downstream reaches.
WILMA
The basic DO smulation routine WILMA routed flow reach by reach from
Salem to Portland. Velz's rational accounting method of DO was employed.
WILMA drew data from a H and L file and a user written temperature file, T.
In T, temperature can be given for any of the reach nodes. Nodes with unspe-
cified temperature assume the value of the immediately upstream node. WILMA
did the following:
1) Establishes deoxygenation rate constants and Velz stream type;
2) Converts BOD5 into CBOD ultimate;
3) Converts Kjeldahl N into NBOD;
4) Calculates average area, temperature, depth, and DO saturation
for each reach;
5) Corrects rate constants for temperature;
6) Determines oxygen, CBOD, and NBOD inputs at the top of each reach;
7) Determines CBOD and NBOD satisfied in each reach;
8) Removes IOD exerted;
9) Calculates reaeration in each reach;
10) Routes outputs to the downstream reach; and
11) Generates documentation including
File name references,
Lower mainstem loading summary,
Temperature and saturation summary,
Reach by reach hydraulic conditions,
Reach by reach temperature-corrected rate constants,
Reach by reach DO balance tabulation,
Travel times to each reach node, and
DO at each reach node.
112
-------
User-written
Saved Files
Routines
Saved Output
Files
Documents
1 T 1 L . ^. \A/ 1 1
Basinwide list Transfer
of oxygen- to mair
demanding loads
Flow
Augmentation
( « ( r-
v V »
^ ^ iAj i i
W L
.^ f ^^
/ '
HYDCONST ... .
V v Mam
V V f |(
Main stem
hydraulics
i r
Main stem D
temperature simu
W L
T
( ML
motion V
i stem
C H
^\
^
~ ^
3 E R
^S~ ^ -^
(
stem I
D W \^
\ <
(
M A
*( FORPL
o. V
lot ion
i
PI DT
3
LP
_^^
LP
LP
LP
^
Figure B-25. Data handling schematic.
113
-------
WILPLOT
The graphic routine WILPLOT plotted DO versus river kilometer from Salem
to Portland. A FORPLOT file derived from WILMA provided inputs. Figure 16
in the main text illustrates the product.
Operation
All routines were designed to be run interactively. The operator must
supply names, redefine logical units, copy, and save files. The system could
be modified to be batch run, though run flexibility would be reduced. Inter-
actively, the operator can recover and vary flow and loading files until the
target output is achieved.
LISTINGS
Following are listings of sample user-written data files and FORTRAN
routines. The lineprint output from WILMA is also illustrated. Program WIL-
PLOT is not listed, as this routine is not readily transportable. A WILMA-
written FORPLOT file, however, should be suitable input for graphic programs
on any system.
114
-------
TABLE B--20. LISTING OF COMPUTER FILES
TL File
TL1973
3EHTHIC DEMAND
<5FNTHIC DEMAND
RHOOIA
PF.NNWALT
3ENTHTC DEMAND
BFNTHIC DEMAND
3F.NTHIC DEMAND
MILHAUKIC
JOHNSON CREEK
NPS
CREF.K
Y HOMES
VALLEY SCH
OAKLOOGE
TYRON
MARYLHURST
WFST LINN BOLTCN
CLACKAMAS RIVEF
NPS
OFE" CREEK
TICKLE CREEK
SANOY
EST4CAOA
OREGON CITY
PUBLISHERS PAPER
WFST LINN WILLAMETTE
CROWN 7ELLER6ACH
TUALATIN RIVER
NPS
RAMAOA INN
TUALATIN
FANNO CRE^K
3ALL C»EF.K
SOUTHWOOD PARK
5.20
MET7GER
FANNO
TUAL VALLCY DEVELOP CO
CHICKEN CREEK
CRFEK
ROCK CRtEK
HILLS1CRO
REAVER'ON CPEEK
HILLSIOPO JR HI
8"0>:SOM CREEK
PRIMATE CENTER
ALOHA
WILLOW CREEK
OAK HILLS
C?OAR "ILL CREEK
SUNSET
TCKTRCNIX
BTAVERTON
CrOAR HILLS
SOMERSET W^ST
HILLS90RO WEST
DAIRY CREEK
WEST FCRK DAIRY
9ANKS
CORNELIUS
HILL CREEK
LAU^ELWOOO ACADEMY
GASTCN
WILLOW IS M03ILE HQME
CAN«Y
MOLALLA RIVER
K'PS
PUDTING RIVER
MILL CREEK
W'ST MOO HOMES
HUT3ARQ
H0001URN
ROCK CCEFK
BEAR CREEK
"OLALLA
MT AMGEL
SILVER CREEK
SILVERTON
7.00
7.20
9.23
9.20
Ill39
18.1*0
11. 00
1.30
1.30
19.90
20.23
21. 97
2^92
12.1
2.9
1.3
23.6
25.21
27.60
27. 90
28.00
28. <*5
8.0
9.6
9.1*
2.0
1.2
3.7
8^3
11.0
15.6
1.5
1.1
38.1
0.1
U.3
0.0
1.0
1.0
3.3
6.5
2.7
7.0
3.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
7.5
39.0
<»<». 3
10.0
10.0
52.3
62.0
6.0
3U6
33.0
35.75
0.8
7.2
5.0
5.3
15^5
0,5
10.0
27.
«*2*2
3.5
2.
3.
1.
1.1
1.2
.2
.3
.3
.3
.3
.1*
, ij
f ^
.<*
.2
.3
^
*»
.2
.3
.3
.3
6000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
1500.
200.
12.
1.5
1.
525.
131.
2770.
22.
10.
320.
8000.
35.
<+QOO.
7.
20.
13.
80.
253.
500.
sc.
80.
160.
Z.
8.
100.
32.
190.
60.
3GO.
125.
50.
335.
8.
20.
7.
12.
5.
71.
180.
8.5
18.
200.
60.
250.
5C.
80.
150.
28i».
18.
1.
1.
28<*.
6** ** .
83.
59.
108.
22.
16.
*»1 5
27.
0.
16.
10.
15**.
2 '»! .
526.
<&.
't'*.
152.
2.
9.
121.
18«».
5i«0.
191.
123.
lt»5.
a.
28.
5.
6.
6.
57.
15U.
9.
13.
S3.
27.
20.
58.
.20
57.23
2.63
1.
.01
.01
2.63
5.96
.96
.68
853.
.20
.19
3 6**
20.88
.31
22.89
36.
.0>*
.25
.12
2^32
<».87
.51
l.M
.02
.08
1.86
.28
1.70
.93
lt<*2
.60
.07
.32
.06
.06
.05
.53
77.
.08
.15
.S3
.31
1.50
.23
.67
.75
.75
.5
.8
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.96
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.9
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
1.
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
115
-------
TABLE B-20 (continued).
HILSONVILLP
OAMMASCH HOSPITAL
ABSTRACTION
9IV/E9 YIL TRAILER PARK
CENTU'Y MEADOWS
PUBLISHERS PAPER
ABSTRACTION
NEH8ERG
DUNDEE
YAMHILL
NPS
DAYTON
LAF4YETTE
NORTH FORK YAMHILL
CA9LTON
VAMHILL CREEK
SOUTH Frs>K YACHILL
EOLA VILLAGE
AQCT^A f» » T n fti
"OlML** 1(JN
AQC T CflpTTAfct
SALEM WILLOW LAKE
GLEN C°EEK
UCCT CAI c ^ HEIGHTS
A«C T ca<~T f nw
"ILI.cCPEEK
RICK^EALL°CREEK
NPS
DALLAS
ASH CREEK
NPS
INOEPENCENCE
ABSTRACTION
LUCKIAMUTE RIVER
SANTIAM RIVER
COOKS CREEK
IF FFCOcn^'''^'' -CHOOL
wnoTu ^AkiTT*
CTAVTA
SOUTH SAHTIAM
THOMAS C°EEK
SCIO
CROWN ZELLEREACH
SWEET HOME
wr^Trofci HEIGHTS
WAHf'u/ikr^''^^
UK'I DENT TF Ten
A 1 R Aw v
gjjpS»' __ .
f* A T Anrt "LLURGICAL
£pc PIVER
_ _ ^*
CrNTRflL LTNM hT ^rHIOl
AnCT3rtr*TTrtki JVrf'iouu
**-j I^AljiTON
C09V4LLIS
HAPYS RIVER
OAK CREEK
WEST HILLS s o
PH Tl XMAT "06ILF HOME
CY/AIuCo
Miinnw PRUOUCTS
NPS CREEK
HALSEY
/AOiilif^''^ SOUIPF
v*UKvMLLTS ATPPfUT
ASST^Af*T TOM
LONG T&H RIVER
kto c* ^»»t^
N" 5
COYOTE C9FEK
THIN OAKS SCf-OOl
AMERICAN CAN
ABSTRACTION
39.0
39.8
dO.O
5o!o
50.5
51.8
55.0
5.3
8.0
11.2
6.0
13.2
0.9
11.2
15.0
60.0
70.0
77.9
79.0
2.0
d. 5
80.
3d! 0
88.' 1
10.5
95.3
1.3
2.6
100.
107.5
109.0
3.0
6.2
7.0
11.7
15. 0
11.7
2.0
8.0
16.5
17. d
33.6
115.0
116.5
117.0
117.0
119.0
119.0
119.5
22.1
12C.
131.0
132.1
1.1
1.3
1.6
11. 5
132.2
132.6
23.0
dA.O
138.0
IJjjj
6.5
30.2
160 I
.3
.d
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
1.6
.9
2.6
1.3
A *J
1.2
.3
.3
.6
.2
*
*
20.
20.
-255.
1.
10.
6000.
-259.
115.
15.
285.
26.
22.
25.
11.
203.
13.
-329.
-398.
10000.
2.
1C.
-25d.
10000.
4 C
ID
70.
131.
202.
7272.
2.
26.
60.
11.0
3000.
177.
100.
3.
2500.
1COO.
1112.
310.
2.
-39.
2780.
120.
2.
5.
29.
2000.
.
3.
2.
-32.
d90.
11.
1.
2500.
57.
15.
1.
6.
-68.
101.
0.
16.
9.
322.
10.
-39.
-176.
30CO.
2.
8.
-20d.
20000.
0.
108.
.
-38.
Id.
779.
3d.
91.
2. *
2000.
13000.
892.
dO .
2.
-3.
8S3.
0.
2.
3;
28.
0.
-3.
59.
1.
-3.
.23
.17
-70.
. in
. U X
.06
id. 23
-70.
.93
.09
37.
.15
.13
.19
.08
2.89
.12
-70.
-70.
33.66
0.
.02
.07
-70.
u.
. .
1.08
1.2
1.23
.77
-13.
15.
1702.
.02
.15
.53
.06
7.13
1.05
.62
. 02
10.21
3.09
0 .
8.25
1. 85
2d.
.02
-13.
10.21
11.
.02
.03
. 26
2.66
0.
.08
.03
.02
-13.
37.
.07
.01
26.25
-13.
.5
.5
.85
5
.5
.5
.85
.5
.5
.9
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.85
.85
.1
0.
.5
.5
.90
.5
q
. y
.5
.8
.5
.5
.90
.9
.9
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
0 .
.5
. 1
. 7
.9
. «;
. j
.90
.5
.9
.5
.5
. e
. 7
. c
. J
0.
1
^5
.90
.9
.5
.5
.5
.9
116
-------
TABLE B-20 (continued).
HA9RISRIRG 161.0 32. 11. .13 .5
ABSTRACTION 170. -121. -6. -«»5. .98
HCKENZIE 171.8 2.6 233<». 1.
NPS 103*7. <»55.
WFYERHAUSE* 1«».7 3000. 25.37 .5
EUGENF 178.0 5300. 18U6. 21.35 .5
ABSTRACTION 180. -110. -6. -1,5. .90
SPPINf.FIELO 18i».3 1612. 763. 8.82 .5
MIDDLE FCRK 187.0 3.2 2210. .9
NPS 121.1.8. <»01.
LOWELL PARK 16.9 2. 1. .01 .5
LOWSLL 18.5 li». 75. .87 .5
MESTFI9 37,0 8. 5. .05 .5
PAK9IQGE 39.8 80. 7<». .68 .5
COAST PORK 187.0 .7 2«»1. .9
NPS 103«». i»9.
FI9 COVE SANITATION 1.0 2. 1. .01 .5
CAMAS SLOUGH 10.0 1.
COGSWELL 5.0 30. .19 .5
COTTAGE GROVE 22. <»00. 123. I.
-------
TABLE B-20 (continued)
HYDCONST File
e&.se
65.80
85.20
65.00
B4.QO
63.90
83. OC
62.00
61.00
80.00
79.00
77.90
77. 90
77.00
76.00
75.00
74.00
73.00
78. OC
71.10
71.00
70.00
ft). 00
68.00
67.00
6fc.no
65.00
64.80
64.no
63.00
62.00
fl.OO
60. ac
60.00
59.00
5*. 00
57.00
56.00
55.20
55.00
54.80
54 . 60
54.45
5*.. 20
54.00
53.90
53.60
53.1*0
53.20
53.00
52.90
52.60
53.1,0
52.20
52.05
51.30
51.60
51.i»0
51.00
50.90
50.65
50.50
50.<40
50.20
50.00
49.90
49.60
49.40
49.20
49.00
48.90
48.60
48.40
48.20
48.00
47.75
47.60
47.40
47.20
47.00
46.90
46.55
46.40
46.20
46.00
455
285
370
4CQ
545
415
516
531
460
375
245
290
400
295
390
400
260
36Q
445
335
39?
270
260
30C
370
325
375
335
295
39C
360
350
260
2«c
365
21C
21G
210
21P
367
337
= in
650
170
570
61 9
774
640
eio
467
505
600
439
720
790
710
710
770
910
950
695
690
700
650
470
520
520
520
490
600
580
440
520
570
690
639
620
690
590
550
499
570
600
550
650
.CC02P1
. C C 9 2 9 7
. G M 2 « 7
. OC0397
. C C02«7
.000287
. CC1?«7
.C C0282
.CC0292
. C C0282
. n oo?»2
. CC3292
. 0 CO 492
.0 C0<*°2
. OCO<.<12
.CC349?
. 000(492
.CC051U
.CC0514
. C C0514
,C£0514
.CCO?ai
. 0 C02P1
.0002^1
. C002
-------
TABLE B-20 (continued)
29.00
2?! U 5
2R.35
21.15
28.02
21.00
27.16
27.10
27.60
27.1*0
27.20
27. OC
26.99
26.53
26.52
26.37
26.30
26.00
? 5 7*+
25.56
25,37
25.21
25.00
21.. 82
21* .51
2i*. 31*
21*. li»
2i«. 00
23. «U
23.69
23.53
23.21
23.00
22.78
22.61
22.1*5
22,27
21.17
21.68
21.i*6
21.23
2C.16
20.61
2C.52
20,23
19.90
19.77
19.57
19,1*0
19 .11*
19.00
18.16
18.61
10.50
18.1*0
18.39
18.36
18.17
I". 10
17.92
1"7 ,73
17.51*
17.35
17.16
17.10
16.16
16.61
16.1.3
16.16
16.00
15.12
15.57
15.39
15. 22
15.10
11.. 78
11* . 52
li». 35
I1*.!"
1«*.00
13.12
13.57
13. 1. 1
1300
1200
1190
790
7<*0
780
910
960
960
990
1010
910
730
1090
?00
200
1.00
265
395
970
515
360
1.20
<»05
310
660
715
725
6UO
660
660
610
530
921*
i«75
290
1.50
1(60
1.25
685
365
1(25
1.15
660
510
565
665
900
70
97C
61*0
515
9C5
1110
91*1
91* 1
91*8
735
31,5
810
690
75C
690
760
955
1090
1231
1300
960
72C
1260
1505
1190
1216
1075
100
735
655
720
1560
1320
1290
1270
16.75
14.61*
19.82
5 2. 1 3
37.82
33.52
32.96
30.20
30.99
30.01
33.55
36.83
io!oo
10.00
29.98
35.32
5i«. 63
25.80
2l'.37
11.67
11.60
10.86
15.13
10.91
2i*. 51
15.98
25.58
31.23
18.97
20.06
23. 85
23.25
15.U7
36.28
39.09
39.20
60.61*
20.29
3/.81
95.80
(, g t foij
52.25
U7.36
35^81
60.30
1.0.53
70.86
39. 2S
Mjsi
U7.52
*(7.52
1*6. 18
3 ((.65
35.06
"(6.96
!( 5 0 1*
5?! 87
51.1*8
M.UO
c5!25
E"*.93
2i»l65
2U. 78
2l!B7
27. 1*2
29. 10
25. UO
33.65
<«5. 80
36.67
26.89
36.36
30.au
30.31
13.22
13.00
12.1<*
12.57
12.1,6
12.23
12.00
11.77
11.60
11.UO
11.20
11.00
10.73
10.60
10.t«0
1C .20
10.00
9.10
9.60
9.1.0
9.20
9.00
e.io
P.60
1.1*0
R.23
7.9C
7.80
7.60
7.«.0
7.20
7.00
6,16
6.60
6.1*0
6.20
6.00
5.10
5.60
5.t»C
5.20
5.00
Id80
1180
1005
825
120
1060
120
71.5
1000
1265
1185
1110
11U5
1160
1120
1210
1710
21.30
16««G
1630
1670
1710
2025
2360
2250
1760
2315
2135
2555
2060
2000
17i»0
1355
1366
13UO
1500
1210
1320
1290
13UO
1500
28.78
35.09
37.1.1
1.3.39
1.5.0«»
1.3.7U
55.1*9
1.9.32
40.56
1.3.00
1*1.27
i<7.09
1.9.9«»
1.5.12
1.5.68
i<3.55
1.3.95
33.33
36.32
35.U6
37.62
1(6.32
1(5.06
1.0.62
1(1.21
'.1.1.3
52.06
1.7.02
1.1.21
i.f.,31*
1.2.07
f.1.58
t.1.82
(3.99
«.1.2«»
1(1.72
1(2.63
1(3.67
1(1.?9
i(3.96
1(5.91*
1(5.51
119
-------
TABLE B-21. LISTING OF WILT PROGRAM
WILT
DlSiNSin"rtORTC5l, NOROC20DI, T ITLE <3 00 ,31 , X(200,B», TOT(300J, A |
t AKKeaCI, AKS<2GO) f ?
READ (1,151 TNULL * £
H = 0 f I
NHS =0 47
|
4 1
4 }S
A 18
A 19
A 99
J 5^
7 52
A 25
5 ||
A 27
? fi
S 5X
» 30
1
3
ti
5
IF (ECFI
N = N*l
REA3 (1,
IF 7n
NOROI
GO TO
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
REHTMD 1
REAO (1,151
REftD (Iil7l
C = .Of.111
DO 10 1 = 1, *J
GO TO (it
WFL1 = X
TOTdl =
GO TO 9
VEL2 = X
TOT2 = X
TOTdl =
GO TO 9
lit GO TO 3
16) MORO
ORO t J).EO. t it GO TO 1
11 = J
1 1 TITLE 1 1, J I, J= 1,31, IXC I, J>, J= 1,81, 1 = 1, N)
,5,6,7,81, NOROdl
i I » ? i
0.
11,21
TOTZ
TOTd) = T1T3 ?
GO TO 9 5
TOTI+ = TOTlfXtI,l)/tfEL3»C §
TOTdl = TOT<» ? 55
GO TO 9 g 3B
8 TOTCII =(TOTMXd,U/VELU«C 39
9 AKld) = .06 5 ?S
AKNdt = .1 A fc?
10 CONTINUE £ J|§
T300? =0. A U5
TBOON =0, A Lf,
11 CONTINUE A L7
TBOON = TqoONfX(K,6»»10.«*(-AKN(K»»TOT(K)t « *%
GO TO 13 A ll
X(Kl6l = X(Kj6i)+T300N J ||
NMS = NMS*1 5 CL
TB002 =0. A 55
T800N =0. A 56
13 K = X-l A c5
IF (K.GE.lt GO TO 11 J |£
WRIT! (l:i?j (aiTUfn,J>.J=i.3i.«xn,ji,J=i.5t,i=i,Ni * |g
A 61
A 62
A 63
CONTINUE 5 IK
CAIL EXIT » If
FOPMflT (A9I 5 fl
If, FORMAT (5411 a V2
-------
TABLE B-22. LISTING OF WILBER PROGRAM
WILBER
PPCGP&I WILBER
T- ". V* W. H T " ± 1. U C. ~
DI^ENSIOh TITLEtZ03,3l, X(200,8), RT(6), Q(7), V(7), TOT(2CO)
(?97), YM297), YSI297), YN(297), YQ(297), YA(297), YOINI297)
(?'J=1-8>'I=l'NHS)
= .°916»18dl
.
= . 7250*181.1
,7208»08l»l
.3700»08i«l
,370C»08<»1
0 (1)
0(2)
Q( 3)
0 (5)
0(6)
0(7)
Vf 1>
V(2)
V! 1)
V(n) = .C0615»0(6)»»0.712
VS7) = .C1860*Q(7)»»0.576
T - .06111
PT(l) - 22.5/V(l)*C
10.5/T (2T
= .C3252*GI3I»»0.513
PT
PT
PT
AK
(3)
(()
(6)
1 =
AKN =
1
2
3
d
5
t>
7
%
q
10
11
DO
1 I
IF
=
=
12.
13.
o c.
6/V
O f I
O t \t
(3)
U
1 C
)
i
ORT(
»f>RM
2)
3)
1. \
= fS/VI&l'C^Ttsf"
.Od
.2
= 1
(X
,NMS
(I,
1) .
GE
.
TWILMA = IWILHA*!
ITOP =
00
11
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
GO
TOT
r,n
TOT
GO
TOT
GO
TOT
GO
TOT
GO
TOT
GO
T^T
86.
51
GO
TO 2
IHILMA*-!
1 =
(X
(X
(X
(X
( X
(X
TO
(I
TO
(I
TO
(I
TO
(I
TO
(I
TO
ITOP,MHS
(I,
(I,
(I,
(I,
u!
9
) =
10
) =
10
) =
1Q
) =
10
) =
10
m =
TO
(i
10
T3002 =
T900M
IF (X(
l) .
1) .
li .
1) .
1 ) «
1) .
IX
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
(I
(X(I
( X
(X
(X
( j
(I
(I
(X(I
(X
(I
T^C-02
= T100N»X<
ITCP,1).NE
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
*
«
109
119
132
Id5
179
.0)
.5)
.1)
.9)
Isi
D-86.
D-109
1)
1)-
1)-
1)-
1)-
*X(I
I
,6)
36.
119
132
Id5
171
179
,dl
»10
5»
GO
GO
GO
GO
GO
GO
TO 3
TO d
TO 5
TO 6
TO 7
TO 8
5I/V(1»»C
.0)
.5)
.1)
.9)
.SI
.*>
10
.»»
GO
/V(2)»C*RT(1I
/V ( 3)1 *C*RT( 2>
/V(d)*C»RT(3)
/tflSI'ORTld)
-------
TABLE B-22 (continued).
16 PTA^ (1,211 (YMpm,YW(I», YS(I) ,YN(U ,1 = 1,38) A BO
"HAD (1,?9) tYMPm,YWlI),OEP(I),1=39,297) A 81
YOU) = CUO A 82
YQINtll = QUP A 83
YQTOT - CUP A 8l»
K = IHIL^A A 85
00 13 1=2,297 A 86
IF (K.LE.O) GO TO 17 A 87
IF (XtK.ll.LT.YMP(I)> GO TO 17 A 88
YOTOT = YOTOT»X(K,7) A 89
K = K-l A 90
1? YQ(I) = YQTOT A 91
19 YQIN(I) = YQ(I)-VQCI-l) A 92
0=5. A 93
DO 2Q 1 = 1,38 A 9«»
A = YK(I)»YO(I)/ A 120
WITE («»,30) (I, YMO(I), YA(I>, YM(I) ,VQIN(I) ,1 = 1,297) A 121
CAL.L EXIT A 122
22 W3.IT5 (61,31) IT A 123
CALi EXIT A 12i»
A 125
2J FQ9M4T (10X,A«/I3) A 126
2* FO«"AT (3fl9,2F7.2,"»F7.0,2F7.2) A 127
25 FCKMAT <2F1C.G) A 128
26 FORMAT It 86."50<,<«F10.a,F6.2,< TOP OF MODEL*) A 129
?7 (.-OCMflT JF6. 2,'»FlQ.n,Ff:>. 2t 2X,3A8) A 130
2"i FOrMflT (F6.2,F5.0,F«.6,F8.5) A 131
29 FCHM1T (F6.2,F5.0tF«.2» A 132
30 FORVfiT ( I3,F6.2,F7.0,F5.Q,F6,2) A 133
3i FO°MAT it ITE^ATIOM«,II») A i3<»
ENO A 135-
122
-------
TABLE B-23. LISTING OF WILMA PROGRAM
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
WILMA
PRtGPAM VILMA
OltENSIOh X(297), A(297», H(297), T(297), 0(297J, \M297), AWT(297)
$, AVA(297>, A\rn(297>, 0(297), QIN(297I, TIN(29*), TTO (297> , NTYt>E
M257), AK11297), AK7(?97), AKN(2<17), BOD(3,2
SET COHMCN REACH PARAMETERS
00 1 1=1.38
NTYPE(I»
10
11
12
= 1
.05
AKZm a
AKN(I) = .«»
00 2 1=39,185
NTYPE(I) = 1
AKZm = .02
«K«f(II = .9
00
I) = 2
AK7(I) = .02
3 AKN(I) = 0.
REAO HYOCAULIC DATA
READ (1,30) TITH
REAO (1,31) (X(I),A(I),W«I),QIN(I),I=1,297>
REAO AND SET ^EMPERATURES
REAO (2,30) TITT
KT = 0
NLAST = 0
l» NSTART = NLAST«-l
PEAO C2,3?) XTEST.TT
IF (FOF(2)» GO TO 7
00 6 I=MSTART,297
IF (X(I)-XTESTI 28,5,6
KT = KT*1
IPT(KT) = I
NLAST = I
GO TO «»
f> T ( I) = T (1-1)
7 CONTINUE
IF (NLflST.EO.297) GO TO 9
00 9 I=NSTART,297
S T(I) = TU-1J
9 CONTINUE
REAO LOACINGS
PEAO (3,30)
KL = 0
NLAST = 0
NSTA"T =
'{?.})
TITL
IF
00
XTEST,31,92,33,BN,PCTX
r,n TO 12
(EO
12 _ .
IF (X(I)-XTEST) 28,11,12
PTTIN(I) = PCTX
BOTH,i) = 91
flOO (2,1) - T2*2.00«»
900(3,1) = 83
BOON(I) = TN»«».3
KL = KL»1
IRL(KL) = I
NLAST = I
GO TO 10
CONTINUE
EVALUATE REACH
Qtl) = OIN(l)
0(1) = A(l)/wm
^d) = 1*4.3527ft-.32276»T(1) ».0032»TI1)»»2
XK'Ul) = X( 1) »1. 60931*
00 it H=1.296
N = M + {
0(N) =
0(N) =
A(N)/W(N)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
3
6
7
8
9
10
*i
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A 13
A 1<»
A 15
A 16
A 17
A 18
A 19
A 20
A 21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
A 31
A 32
A 33
35
36
37
38
39
*»0
U2
50
A 51
A 52
A 53
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
A 62
A 63
A 6
-------
TABLE B-23 (continued).
*n«.* *..««. A^A^-.«..»*....._.. v *^
A 95
A 96
A 97
A 9B
A 99
A ICO
('1) = BOOINM)-RCUS(N)-RNUSIN) A 102
l(M)»(X(MI-X(N))»2.7C16*l.l»"«AVT(H)/2.-10.)/(AVO A 103
A ' ~ '
S/1TOUT = Q(H)»S(NI»5.39136 A 105
orrccT nrs^ A 106
PCTEST = PCTOP(M) 4 in?
16 PEflEMM) = (l.-.5»(PCTEST«-PrTOP(Mi ))»Y AIDS
7 = (fiEAER(M) 4-OOIN(M)-aODSAT(M) )/SATOUT A 109
K = K*l A HO
IF (K.GT.2C) GO TO 29 A 111
IF (ABS(Z-DCT£ST».LE..0001) GO TO 17 A 112
PCTEST = Z A 113
GO TO 16 A lit
17 PCTUS(NI =7 A 115
PPM(M) = S(«)»PCTOP(H| J i\?
18 GOLS(N) = 7»S<\TQUT A 117
900IN(?97) = c'CUS(?97)*RNUS(297)+aOO(l,297) *BOO(2,297J«-eOO (3,297)* A llfi
t^OON(?97) A ita
OOIN(297) = OOUS(297>»OTN(297)*PCTIN(297)»5(397)»5.3913 2 l?n
PCTOP(297) = (Q(2<56)»PCTUS(297) fQIN(297)»PCTIN(297))/Q(297) A ill
PPM(297) = S(297)»PCTOP(297) ni'u\ciri A 121
C LOADING CUTPUT J J|3
WRITE (5,3<*» TITH,TITT,TITL A }||
WRITE (5,35) 5 H|
00 IP K=1,KL ? Hi
I =(I«?L(K) J J|8
c A ^^^>
C TEMPERATURE OUTPUT J J2|
^IT^ {lift! '"H.TITT.TITL j J«
00 f^iSf^J, l|j
c 20 WRITE <5,3JE. 1) W9ITE (^,39) 5 ^fe
GO TO (21,22,23,2<«,25), KPAGE 5JJI
el MT =1 ; r.2
M? = 67 A JJ»J
GO TO 26 * J*»8
22 MT r 69 ft 1*»9
MB = l(,l A 150
GO TO 26 * 151
23 MT = 1«,2 * If?
M3 = 215 * 153
GO TO 26 A 15|j
2«. MT = 216 A 155
MB = 299 * 156
GO TO 26 A 157
25 MT r 290 A 158
MD = 296 A 159
26 WRITE (5,«.ni A 160
27 .MRITP ,'5,J1» fl jXIIl ,AVA(I),flVO(I| .AVTCII.Odl fvui ,AK1(I) ,AKN(H, * ill
Xpr?nP??[ PPM?T^STI^)l^US
I,no, A 16<>
124
-------
TABLE B-23 (continued).
I = 297 A 165
WRITE C5.I.2) I,XII),Om,aOOIN,TTOm,PCTOP,PPHm A 166
C A 167
C PLOT OUTPUT A 168
C A 169
WRITE («.,l.3) (I,xm,XKM(Il,PPHm,I=l,297> A 170
CALL EXIT A 171
C A 172
C ERROR TERMINATIONS A 173
C A 17«.
28 WRITE (5,l»i») XTEST A 175
CALL EXIT A 176
29 WRITE (5,i»5) N A 177
CALL EXIT A 178
C A 179
3T FORMAT A 181
3? FOGMAT (JF10.0) A 182
33 FORMAT IF6.2,I»F10.0,F6.2» A 183
3i» FO^MCT (*1WILLAMETTF. DISSOLVED OXYGEN MODEL*//* HYDRAULIC DATA FRO A 18<»
.
I" FILE *,A1/* TEMPERATURE DATA FROM FILE *,A9/* LOADING DATA PROP A 185
SFILF *,A«//) A 186
35 FCHM/ST A 193
33 FO="AT (I5,F7.2,F10.2,F11.3) A ig'.
39 FORMAT (*!*) A 195
<»T FORMAT (f 1X,*»»»»»»*»»»»»»»»*3ALANCE L9S PrP DAY* »»»»»»»»»»» A 196
«»»«T0p OF of ACH«»»*//16X,<»»»AVERAGE RcfiCM COUDITI CNS»»» CONSTAN A 197
*TS »»«»»»»»»«»»gnr>»»»»»»»«»»»» *»OISSOLVFO OXYGEM»»*« 11X» A 198
*/»«*»00»«»"*//< RC4CH MILE XSEC DEPTH TF.MP o VEL KC A 199
* KN INITIAL SATIS- FINAL INITIAL REAER FINAL TIM A 200
?P PCT POM//9X,*«>T SOFT FT C CFS MPD BASE A 201
$ 10*,12X,* FI-0 CA^3 NITP*,2
-------
TABLE B-24. EXAMPLES OF COMPUTER OUTPUT
WILLAMETTE OISSOLVET OXYGEN MODEL
HYCPA'JLIC OATA F^O* FILE H73
TEHPEH4TIHE DATA F3QM FILE T20
LOADING OAT» FR01 FILE L73
REACH
1
l.
5
9
1C
1 i
23
3".
l\
is
1 1 5
llfc
11 5
1:6
If 0
136
1S1
159
171,
178
1*0
111
19".
195
199
310
217
337
251
276
2*6
267
291
296
MILE
PT
16.50
15.00
1 » * C 0
' 1 . C "
0 .C 3
79. CO
70^0
f. a . c c
55.00
51.1?
50.50
ro.co
",9. 1 0
1.2. C3
"0.30
i> C . C j
3 '>. . 1 3
39.07
35.75
33.00
31. 6C
28.1.5
28.00
27.«o
27.60
3i»Il2
2 1« .11.
21.17
30.23
19.90
18. 1.0
1301.
9.2C
8.33
7.2C
7.00
6.20
5.20
IMMEDIATE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
6COO
6000
6JBO
n
6
6000
6000
80LLOIOAL
ISSOLYEO
98523
2031,0
c
-569
30
2C01.0
- 659
962
30
230
-519
12031.
20
2
-511
1.0
876
10
1,876
8016
70
16033
61,1
5b05
363
30
1053
28
0
0
0
g
3006
0
0
SETTLEA9LE
SOLIDS
0
0
5
o
Q
0
0
Q
0
Q
o
Q
a
Q
0
0
0
a
0
0
Q
0
ft
C
0
jj
U
Q
0
§
0
0
ITROGENOUS
60571.
86000
-877
31,
9
12°OC
-757
-3S3
7/1,
0
1,31,
-293
C
36
1*
3 1 rt
tt.
31.5
SSb
2**5
36
2013
0
116
0
171S
519
? b *«
357
2769
1^31
36
122J
0
0
0
0
0
«AOOEO
CFS
651,1
19
1.6
-70
0
3*»
-70
-70
37
0
1
-70
0
0
-70
0
0
77
1
0
36
23
a
21
853
1
6
3
1
o3
0
*l
0
a
0
FLOW*
PCT
SAT
.15
.50
.93
.90
.50
.85
.85
.90
Iso
.85
.50
.50
.50
.85
.50
.50
1.00
.50
.50
.90
.50
.50
.5C
.50
.96
.50
.50
.50
.50
.80
5 0
Q
0
0
.75
.75
0
0
WIlUNfTTE DISSOLVED OXYGEN MODEL
HYC9AMLIC 04TA FROM FILE H73
TEHpr9iTWF ;)41r4 F!,OH FIL£ T2(,
LOADING 0AM FR01 FILE L73
REACH HILE
PT
1 86.50
<.« 53.1.0
9 ?3.2!
50 53.0:
51 C2.80
52
86
«7
88
-------
TABLE B-24 (continued)
ro
REACH
1
2
J
6
7
8
s
10
Jl
11
Ik
15
\7
18
19
20
22
23
in
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
16
37
18
39
40
*3
44
45
47
46
49
50
51
52
S3
55
56
57
5*
59
tO
( 1
62
63
64
65
KILE
PT
86.50
85. 40
85.20
85.00
8k. 00
83.90
83. 00
81*00
8lIoO
79.00
77.90
77.80
77.00
76. 00
75.00
74.00
73.00
72.00
71.80
71.0?
70. CO
69.00
68.30
67.00
66.00
65.00
64.40
6k. DC
63.00
62.00
61.30
60.20
60.09
59.00
50.00
57.00
56. 03
55.20
55.00
54.40
5k. 60
54.45
54.20
54.00
53.83
53.60
53.40
53.20
51. OE
52. SO
52.68
52.40
52. 2C
52.05
51. 40
51.60
51.40
51. CO
50. 8C
50.65
53. 5C
50.43
50.30
50. CG
49.80
49.60
* * * Al
XSEC
2361
2362
2336
2315
1980
1440
1439
1435
1431
1412
1433
1706
1981
1981
1981
1980
1980
1980
1961
1941
1935
1929
1929
1929
1929
1929
2188
2446
2446
2445
2447
1«79
1209
13C9
12C9
12C9
2289
2615
2115
3467
5137
84*2
46^7
4031
33':.
4651
55C?
9519
1 1 3n 1
7559
61(4
7124
7938
93'. 4
93-0
12579
8173
76C1
1C561
11978
12122
11914
/ERAGt «EACH CONDITIONS'"
SfPTH TTMP 0 WrL
FT
6.74
7. 33
6.08
5.02
3. 86
3.13
2.75
2.91
3.46
4. 83
5. 39
4.94
5.93
5.96
5.08
5.23
5.50
4.97
4.75
5.01
6.06
7.28
6.92
1:5?
5.54
6.22
7.83
7. 36
6.62
6.89
8.20
6.93
3.78
4.53
5. 75
5. 76
5.95
7.51
7.35
5.11
5.86
9.55
15.89
11.91
5.95
5.69
5.4.3
<-:.i3
K.58
1 - . 3 9
21.61
14.37
9.23
9.62
11.18
Ill82
14.22
14.15
11.94
lli .94
15.85
23>3
23. 91
C
20.00
20. 00
20.00
20.00
20.00
23. SO
23.00
23.00
23. 30
23. 00
23.00
2C.CO
2J.OO
20.00
20, CO
23. CO
20.00
25.33
23.00
73. CO
21.30
23.03
23. SO
23.50
23.00
23. CO
73.30
2.1. 00
20.00
20.00
23. CO
20.00
2C.OO
23.00
23.00
2u.:o
23. CO
23. CO
20.30
29. CO
2J.3C
20. CO
23.30
23.33
2G.CO
!rj . <"C
23.10
2:^70
7J.90
21. CO
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.03
21.30
21.30
21. CO
2:. so
21. CO
21.00
21. CO
21. CO
21.30
21. CO
31.00
CFS
6541
6541
6560
6606
6606
6606
6606
6536
6536
6536
6570
6570
6570
6573
6570
6570
6570
6570
6570
6570
6503
6503
6503
6500
6503
5503
65GC
65CO
650C
6530
653C
6433
6<.3C
6.1,1:
6430
6433
6467
6467
6467
6457
6467
6457
6457
6467
64*7
64 o 7
6467
6467
6467
6467
6467
6467
6467
6467
6467
6457
6467
6467
645!
6469
6469
6399
6412
6412
HPO
45. 33
45. 32
45. 82
46. 37
57. 50
75. 07
75.12
75. 33
74. 74
74. 71
74. 71
63.03
54, 28
54. 27
54. 28
54.30
54. 33
54. 33
54. 84
\V.\l
55. 14
55. 14
55. 14
55. 14
55. 14
4S. 62
43. 44
4]. 1,9
43. 49
43. 49
43.47
59. 19
87. 05
87. 06
57. 33
97. 0 3
85. 57
45. 99
40. 47
50. 03
3D. 35
20. 6C
12.51
13. 13
22.53
2'.. 25
3 1 . i i
22. 75
18. S9
10. 93
9. 31
14. 00
17. 17
14. 95
13. 33
13. 22
11. 32
9. 38
9. 00
12.95
1). 92
10.02
8.91
9.61
8.52
«. 81
CONSTANTS
KC KN
INITIAL
BASE 10
.050
.050
.050
.050
. 050
. 050
.050
.050
.050
.050
.050
.050
.050
. 050
. 050
.B50
.150
.150
.0*0
. 550
. C50
.050
.050
. 050
.050
.C5C
.050
.050
.050
. 05C
. 050
.C5C
.C5C
. 050
.150
. 050
. 050
.050
.320
.023
.030
. 020
. C30
. 320
. C20
.070
. 520
. 020
. 020
.£21
. C21
.021
. 321
.021
.021
.021
.021
.021
. 021
. 021
. 021
.021
.021
.021
.031
.031
.031
.400
.400
.400
.400
.400
.400
.400
.403
.400
.400
.400
.400
.400
.400
.400
.433
.40 li
.400
.40 0
.400
1490
.403
.400
.4CC
.400
.403
.400
.400
.40 0
.400
.400
.400
.400
.400
.43 C
.400
.400
c
0
a
0
0
a
o
0
c
0
0
0
a
3
0
c
8
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
159097
158066
157193
262947
2598C7
359556
257937
255950
252643
35C852
349041
379994
279763
277597
774927
372297
269709
267159
2C4649
2*4156
267220
251394
2559.35
253670
251340
249J94
24f 99t
244179
241470
338811
234149
232727
2 '1470
2.30224
2277J5
226779
2285C9
228479
22S455
228476
273353
275258
379167
22l6f9
22"C ?3
277977
277912
277799
277666
227577
22752S
277449
227.355
227262
226596
226793
237386
337342
337219
326269
338167
338009
SATIS- FINAL
FIEO
1030
874
286
3140
351
1719
1864
1862
1844
1834
1983
235
21t6
2671
2629
3589
2549
3511
493
1136
2381
2349
2314
22«0
2246
2213
497
22C4
2709
2659
2609
2053
J9C
1258
1246
1235
1273
987
26
29
24
29
72
95
91
53
46
39
53
f5
113
133
89
54
1C4
93
94
219
147
44
123
138
127
157
153
CARS
98349
98199
98149
117895
117873
117709
117529
117350
116601
116441
116244
136263
136032
135744
135456
135169
134853
134597
134541
134317
1J43J9
1329 64
132685
1324:9
132133
131858
131795
131516
131169
13C822
13C476
1302CO
130149
129J14
129147
128976
1288:5
125667
128641
129594
129570
129540
139465
129373
12S?92
12-^239
12=194
129145
129:26
128914
125780
129692
125637
125533
128470
128376
125158
129010
1279C8
127536
129C22
127899
127751
127115
138982
138833
NITS
59719
58995
55758
141911
141684
140128
138421
13673?
134197
1-325J7
13331C
1435CO
141565
139183
136541
134539
132276
130352
129615
1274C2
1 ? 5 4 T I
122J71
123934
115K31
116161
115323
114588
112*f, 3
M33C7
137990
1C5726
10395C
1S3671
1G2152
131377
103313
99-Sf-u
95111
99111
959B5
95355
95585
99595
93385
95565
955* 5
95585
99155
999P5
999»5
95585
93585
95995
99585
98985
99585
98985
98985
9S38S
95985
99320
9932C
99320
99327
99327
99327
INITIAL
275376
274257
373548
273914
2731°4
273C03
27 1 * C 6
27S629
266323
265C18
263543
262066
261675
26CC31
257764
255*53
253579
251573
24959.5
2V77S5
2473*6
24Q9C1
733996
337274
235535
2339C2
233517
231149
329'JOO
2271.56
225441
27.3771
2715 40
21 ^9«3
219779
217f 16
216949
215675
219773
21«914
219054
219195
21=246
314333
715513
21^737
719^39
22CC47
22.124
2201*1
223159
32C214
222343
72C525
22C*43
22J765
32 '.0 00
221J93
2211*0
321257
321314
221367
211)495
218926
214796
.VEO OXYGEN"
R£AER FINAL
213
164
71
471
56
524
711
670
540
350
339
43
322
403
519
515
494
582
125
465
456
364
400
518
561
577
113
376
615
594
393
9.3
697
545
396
399
320
106
124
165
169
214
146
165
244
270
740
162
142
150
132
193
284
208
318
453
241
169
146
101
176
139
123
128
128
374357
273548
273332
371146
273300
271806
27C629
269437
265016
263543
3*1930
261575
36C031
257764
255653
253579
351523
249595
249227
247755
245530
245931
235996
237224
335539
233932
233517
231649
279500
737456
275441
223771
223484
219990
310279
218440
217616
21H49
217030
318772
215914
210J54
219195
219246
21°322
219513
2 1 " 7 3 7
219939
2? '124
27C 1*1
2?M59
22C214
32C 343
27C523
77; 765
221CCO
271163
371735
271314
221367
221367
218491
318796
218772
TIME
DAYS
0
.015
.029
.033
.055
.056
.069
.082
.C95
.108
.122
.136
.138
.153
.171
.190
.209
.236
.245
.248
.263
.381
.399
.317
.335
.353
.373
.376
.394
.417
.440
.463
.493
.485
.496
.508
.519
.531
.540
.545
.550
.554
.558
.571
.587
.602
.611
IM
. bco
.634
.644
.662
.684
.698
.707
.734
.739
.754
.789
.813
.830
.841
.849
.868
.891
.912
.935
OF "?£
PCT
SAT
.85
.85
.85
.84
.44
.84
.93
.83
.82
.82
.81
.81
.91
.81)
.79
.79
.75
.77
.77
. 77
.76
76
. 7<*
.74
.73
.73
.73
.72
.71
.71
.70
.70
.69
.69
.69
.69
.65
.68
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
. 69
'I?
D 1
.70
.70
-7$
.73
.70
°73
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.70
.73
.70
ACH
PPH
7.8C1
7. 779
7. 759
7.742
7.671
7. 655
7. 632
7. 599
7. 55S
7.521
7. 479
7. 399
7.393
7. 3»1
7.277
7.219
7.159
7.131
7.047
7. 036
6.395
6. 931
t. 875
6.87Q
6. 773
6. 722
6. 675
e.664
6. 612
6.549
6.491
6.433
fr. 3S6
6.362
6. 346
6.326
6. 3C1
6.278
6.25»
6.272
6.775
6. 279
6.293
6.757
6.789
6.291
6.246
6.333
6 3 C 6
6.311
6. 314
6.315
6. 315
6. 316
6.323
6.375
6. 378
6. 337
6.339
6. 741
6.343
6.345
6.247
6.3*9
6.334
6.330
6.329
-------
TABLE B-24 (continued)
ro
CO
EtCM
68
69
7C
71
72
73
T*
75
76
IT
78
79
80
81
82
S3
e*
85
86
87
88
«9
4 1
52
93
S*
95
°fe
97
98
99
ICO
101
102
183
1" *
105
15%
1C 7
15 1
159
110
111
112
113
11*
115
116
117
119
120
1 2 *
122
12*
125
126
137
128
133
131
133
:3*
135
137
139
1*1
MIL?
PT
1.9. *3
<»9.ZO
1.9. CO
1.8.80
% 8. 60
*8^20
*8.00
«.7.7S
*7.60
(i 7. * 0
*7.ZC
*7.00
*6.8tl
*6.5S
* 6 . * 3
1.6.20
*»6 . 0 C
1.5.85
1.5.60
*5 .*0
WS.30
*5.00
**.75
**.55
**.*0
**.20
**.05
tj.ia
1.3.60
*3.*0
1.3. ZO
*3.00
Jl.'Io
*2.*3
1.2. ZO
*2.0C
*1.1C
*1.60
*1.*0
*1.20
<>1. CO
*0.10
*0.60
*0.*0
*0.20
1.3. CO
39.83
39.63
39. *3
39.25
39. CO
31.75
38.60
38. *0
38.20
38.03
37.80
37.60
37. *0
37.20
37.80
36.10
36.6:
36. *1
Jf,.?S
34. CC
35.75
35.60
35. *5
35. Z3
35.00
3*. 83
ys^c
STfT
11591
13357
1*1*7
12701
10*77
9193
I02C5
10358
9956
1C*53
13111
129*0
13081
1Z719
1*561
1*637
1653J
1930S
17*93
13919
11.555
15383
13579
1*511
160C6
1619*
17*97
17*17
17582
16975
16133
15351
15891
19173
11.9V*
15Z51
1*739
15031
15*!fl
1572&
1517*
1*3*5
13781
15903
16DC6
1*076
150^5
159S2
i**e3
13*71
132"'
1 26*»2
13*31
1*1*7
17951
17173
17529
17769
J7553
16602
15326
153f 3
» n 2? 3
1 ol > 5
1 62 j 8
12911
13725
15125
15199
182CS
132*1
OF°TH
FT
21.20
32.25
2*. 00
2*. 90
32.05
11.21
15.39
15.56
15.13
16.08
19.51
22.90
33.31
3*. 33
2*. 17
33. 50
25. *3
3J.9S
28.03
25.0*
3*. 81
20.5*
31.6*
36.59
27.8*
27.35
21. 39
33. *1
32. 51
27.59
27. *7
26.75
29. *1
29.33
33.76
27.38
23.21
2*.3«
21.15
2%. 67
2*. 93
2 -» . 6?
21. 5»
21.73
36. 11
2 2
218133
319336
318113
311798
313750
311730
31.1690
2116*1
21*570
218*80
21!*37
211391
213376
21'3*7
218281
21123*
21S162
211131
217989
217896
217125
21775*
217695
2 1 761 *
217529
217*91
217*32
217385
2173*7
21727*
217221
217175
217128
217112
217396
2iro*s
216^19
21^968
21*130
21 c. 2 *5
2 1 * C 1 2
21*303
213^11
213^76
213957
21?1C>9
213118
211739
2 l 36 S3
213572
213^13
213*%9
213*35
213*10
213367
21 3 1C 7
213J65
213192
213397
2 1 £65 9
2166*6
2166C6
2165*6
216**9
216383
TIME
Oirs
.9S8
.978
1.001
1.028
1.052
1.07Z
1.091
1.110
1.135
1.1*9
1.169
1.193
1.217
l.2*C
1.270
1.291
1.319
1.350
1. 378
l.*20
l.**6
l.*7*
1.503
1.535
1.563
1.586
1.618
1.6*1
1.685
1.718
1.751
1.783
i.eiz
1.8**
1. 879
1.907
1.936
1.96*
1.993
3.02*
Z.C5Z
2.092
2.11*
2.1*2
2.168
2.198
3.229
2.256
2.235
2.315
2.3*3
2.363
2.395
2.*25
2.***
2.*77
2.511
2.5*5
2.576
3.613
2.6*6
2.679
2.708
2.736
2.765
2.796
2. 928
2.860
2.899
2.918
Z.937
2.973
3.C02
3.037
PCT
SAT
.70
.73
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.73
.70
.73
.70
.73
.70
.70
.70
.71
,71
,71
.71
.73
.72
.73
.72
.73
.72
.72
.72
.73
.72
.72
.72
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.71
.Tl
.72
.72
.73
.73
.72
.73
.73
.73
.73
.73
.71
.73
,7J
PPM
6.339
6.329
6.323
6.327
6. 326
6.325
6. 326
6.327
6.328
6.329
6.333
6.33C
6.33C
6.329
6.32J
6.327
6.326
6.325
6.323
6.323
6.319
6.317
6.317
6. 316
6.315
6.313
6.311
6.339
6.306
6.333
6. 301
6. 299
6.797
6. 295
6.29J
6.291
6.293
6.168
6. 3i7
.215
6.28*
6.283
6. 291
6.29D
(-. 280
6.279
6.277
6.263
6.262
6.2SG
fr.259
e>'. 25s
6.251
6. eS7
6. 255
6.253
6.251
6. 2*9
6.2*6
6 . 2*. *
6.:* 3
6.2.2
6. 2*1
(.2*0
6.231
6.237
b.235
6.261
6.263
6.2b3
6.259
6.257
6.25*
-------
TABLE B-24 (continued)
ro
UD
1*2
1*1
1**
1*5
1*6
1*7
1*8
1*9
ill
15*
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Ifc*
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
17*
175
176
177
178
179
181
182
183
18*
185
186
189
1° 1
1^2
193
19*
195
196
197
198
199
200
20 1
202
2C3
2r *
3C5
?0 f.
30 7
30 '
3C9
?1G
211
212
713
21*
215
ULE
Pf
3*. 60
1*.*0
3*. 26
3*. 20
3*. 00
33.60
33.60
33.30
33.05
33. CO
32.60
12.60
33. *5
32. *0
32.25
32.05
31.60
31.60
31. *2
31.20
31.00
30.80
30.56
33.20
30.00
29. 93
29. 6G
29. *0
29.20
29.00
28.90
29.65
29. *5
25.35
26.15
28. 02
29.00
27.96
27.80
27.63
27.1.0
27.30
27.00
26.99
26.51
26.52
26.37
26.20
26.00
25.7*
25.56
25.37
25.21
25.00
2*. 82
2*. 58
2*. 3*
?*.!*
2*. 00
23.8*
21.69
23.53
23.29
23.00
? ? 7 ti
22.61
22. *5
23.37
21.57
21.68
2ll23
2C.86
20.68
XSFC
STFT
15CM
17789
19665
2*953
2**39
15158
10920
12720
17055
15516
136*5
200*8
26913
217C*
117*0
16136
20751
26601
26185
21397
17301
9788
11157
1*750
17768
2*7C5
25933
23575
19672
19982
277*5
32135
30)39
30002
31373
30317
29936
30-.95
30*31
28709
29793
163J7
6995
10676
15*70
16*66
12*3%
13311
*53 t
* 63 5
507,
6*75
11331
J5*i 3
13979
19152
1 7236,
1?* : >
17C -.3
* 1 ~ 5
i*:?-.
2 1 f. 7 Z
1 9 S 2 6
2 72 S $
33931
21997
26735
QFPTH
FT
19.76
37.67
31.35
31.23
31.83
36.1*
16.7*
11.71
17.**
16.99
16.7*
35.06
*2.77
37.95
15. *1
9.60
17.99
27.9*
37. *1
33.57
29.66
22.39
15.31
3S.72
38. 76
19.58
20.93
32.97
19. *7
15. 7J
16.73
30.36
*2.01
39.99
15.67
33.3*
31.5?
33.59
3 3 . 5 C
31.76
35.19
12. *9
19.07
16.72
19.99
52.65
*jl33
30.67
18. *5
16.53
1.6 3
1.33
3.99
1.03
17.71
? C 2 S
33.78
2 *3 . * 3
36.13
19.53
2 il55
19.36
3?!o9
31.65
*9.*3
*C.*7
39.05
66.'! 1
69.71
*2.12
*6.*S
TEHP
C
23. CO
21.00
23.00
23.90
21. CO
31.00
23.00
23. CO
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.30
33. CO
21.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23. CO
21.03
23. CO
23. CO
23.00
23. CO
23.00
23.00
21. 00
23. CO
21.00
21.00
31. CO
33.00
23.00
21.00
33.00
23.00
23.03
21.03
23.03
23.00
21.00
21. C5
23.15
21.25
21.35
33. *5
33. 5Q
22.53
23.51
33.30
23. SO
33.50
23.50
21.50
21.50
23.50
21. 5 J
33.50
31.53
31.50
23.53
23.50
23. CO
33.50
31.50
33.50
21.50
23.50
21.50
21.50
0
CFS
6*19
6*19
6*19
6*19
6*19
6*19
6*19
6*19
6*19
6*23
6*20
6*20
6*20
6*20
61(20
6*20
6*20
6*30
6*20
6*30
6*20
6*30
6*23
6*20
6*30
6*23
6*30
6*30
6*29
64-30
6'.20
6*56
6*56
6*56
6*56
61.79
6*79
6179
6501
650C
65CG
6500
6500
6500
6530
6503
6531
650S
S53fi
65CO
6533
650*
6iC*
7357
7357
7557
7358
735S
735»
7358
7358
7351
735S
7358
7355
7359
7351
7159
7359
7359
7359
7359
7359
VCU
MPQ
6.97
5.91
5.3*
*.23
*.30
6. 6*
9.62
6.26
6. 16
6.77
7.70
5.2*
3.9?
*.8*
a. 95
12.1*
6.*3
5.06
3.95
*.01
*.91
6. 11
10. 73
7. 99
7. 13
5.51
*. 35
*.C5
*.*0
5.3*
5.26
3. 79
3.29
3. *1
3.52
3.*3
3.50
3. 55
3.*a
3.5i]
3. 71
1.73
6.51
53.15
15. 20
9.96
6. 89
6.*6
8.55
8. 18
12.7*
31.1.5
33.9'j
30.99
18. 59
9. It
7.91
6.61
6. 29
6.99
9.71
9.69
7.06
».35
13.*1
9.57
6.65
5.56
6. 07
6.69
*.*J
3.89
5.03
*.50
KC
BA:
.033
.033
.033
.023
.023
.121
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
.23
.023
.023
.033
.t23
.023
.023
.023
.C23
.023
.023
.33
.033
.033
.C23
.C23
. tzs
.023
. 023
.023
.33
.033
.021
.023
.033
.023
.131
. 031
. 033
.033
. 023
.023
.023
.023
.033
.033
.033
.033
.023
.023
. 023
.C33
.033
.023
.033
.033
1033
.133
.033
.033
.033
.023
. 023
.023
.023
.023
All
.023
.023
.023
KN INITIAL SSTIS- FINAL
10 FIEO CARS NITR
0 225192
C 2250C2
0 22*9*5
0 22*771
0 22**59
822*153
223951
0 231757
0 223559
0 22389*
fl 223701
t 223531
0 2233*5
0 223262
IS 223060
0 222915
0 222782
0 222616
0 223386
0 223037
0 221706
0 221**S
0 22119*
0 23C979
0 220319
0 2306*1
0 330*35
0 230137
0 319815
0 319528
0 219*10
0 219110
C 225667
0 23r>*69
C 225095
0 23*856
0 233833
0 232557
0 233627
0 2*526*
0 2*7933
82*7*C9
2*699*
0 3*6993
0 2*6916
0 2*6911
11 2*fc79
6.769
t.768
6. 765
6.763
6.752
6.7*8
6.7*5
6.737
6.721
6.716
-------
TABLE B-24 (continued)
oo
o
REIC*
216
217
214
5 tj
220
221
222
2*3
3?4
225
225
227
224
III
2"* 2
233
234
235
237
235
239
240
241
342
2^4
245
21-5
2-3
35C
251
2r2
253
255
256
257
254
?i p
261
262
363
264
2^5
267
215
2'.°
'70
271
272
273
274
275
277
274
279
2'. 1
2! '
2? 3
244
215
216
247
348
389
MILE
PT
23.52
20.23
19.93
19.77
19.57
19.40
19.14
19.00
18.46
18.68
18.50
18.40
18.39
14.36
18.17
17l<93
17.73
17.54
17.35
17.16
17.10
16.46
16.68
16.43
16.16
16.00
15.82
15.57
15.39
15.2?
15.10
14.74
14.52
14.35
14.14
14.00
13.32
11.57
13.41
13.22
13. CO
12.44
12.57
12.46
12.33
12.00
11.77
1 1.60
11.40
11120
11. QO
10.73
10.60
10. 4C
10.20
10. 00
9. SO
9.60
9.40
9.30
9. CO
1. 50
4.60
4.49
e.23
7.90
7.43
7.60
7.40
7.23
7.03
6.86
6.60
X7EC DEPTH
S3FT FT
267C3 49.11
27374 44.72
30110 38.95
36515 41.05
37331 50.41
I.0356 55.69
32793 55.07
JOO&5 41.63
46474 46.33
49448 44.01
45349 47.52
45349 47.52
4.3650 46.55
32765 40.41
28539 34.36
314Q1 41.01
33541 45.64
329C6 45.61
35633 44.96
44672 52.17
56413 54.94
H026 46.42
523 29.55
34992 40.09
42376 49.70
31539 34. 5S
34177 24.72
145114 33.14
143644 35.54
33349 24. 14
32313 21.25
25102 27.25
22527 29.53
27366 39.73
252C1 41.23
34175 31.71
44972 31.62
43190 33. S3
39139 35. 5«
40544 29.54
4377Q 33.43
41272 37.75
35697 1.0.43
36365 44.22
41649 44.39
45933 49.61
41123 52.43
34652 44.94
47478 41.71
51650 42.14
50585 44.11
54726 41.51
55166 47.21
2157 45.75
51929 44.62
3926 43.75
71074 34.6'.
70279 34.13
55663 35. 1j
t0313 36.54
71444 43.22
«S6.55 45.94
93555 43.14
94293 40.92
83S13 1--.12
1C47C3 5J.25
121733 49.54
119397 44. 12
S1J16 42.77
87743 s3.23
71245 41.42
645C4 41.70
59434 -42.91
5936J 43.62
T^ IP
'C
23,50
23.50
23.53
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23. 50
33.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.53
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.53
23.53
23.53
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23. 50
23.50
'3.53
23. 50
23.50
33.53
23. CO
23.53
23.50
2J.?0
23.50
23. 50
23.50
23.53
23.55
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.53
23.50
25.50
23. 5C
23.50
23.50
23.50
21.53
23.50
25.53
23.58
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.53
23.50
23.50
0
CF3
7359
7355
7367
7367
7367
7357
7367
7367
7367
7367
7367
7368
7371
7371
7371
7.371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7171
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7171
7371
7571
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7371
7421
7424
7434
7428
VEL
KPO
4. 51
4.40
4. 00
3. 32
3. 19
2, 99
3. 64
4.01
2.57
2.44
2. 68
2. 68
3.97
3.64
4. 14
3. 97
3. 59
3. 67
3. 39
2. 73
2. 14
2. 27
3. 57
3. 09
2. 45
3. 42
3.53
. 83
3!s6
3.73
4. 67
5. 35
4.41
4. 35
3. 53
2. 61
2. 75
3.01
2, 97
^, 76
2. 92
3. 29
3.32
2. 93
2. 63
2. 93
.3.12
2. 54
2. 34
2. 33
2. 2C
2. 19
2.31
3.32
1. 59
.54
.72
.06
.00
.69
.41
.29
.28
. 36
.15
'. 01
.23
.37
.55
. 54
2.05
2.05
KC
BASE
.023
. {T 2 3
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
. 823
.023
.(23
.023
.023
. C23
. 023
.C23
.C23
.023
.C23
. 023
. 023
.C23
.23
. 023
.C23
. 023
. 023
. C23
. C2;
.023
.023
. 023
.023
. 023
. 023
.023
. 123
.023
.023
. 023
. 023
.023
.023
.023
. 023
. 023
.P23
.023
.C23
. 023
.C25
.023
.023
.023
. 023
.023
.023
. 023
.023
.123
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
. 023
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
.033
KN
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
8
0
0
Q
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
C
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
G
t
0
0
0
0
I
0
t
0
0
0
0
0°
0
C
0
INITIAL
250073
253339
254726
254471
253999
2535B2
352905
252610
252340
351799
251231
251059
252652
252575
252179
252051
251704
2513C1
250908
25C4«2
249951
249740
24S571
247969
247266
246959
246512
244331
24211.6
243535
242? 76
241790
341173
24G534
c 3a4 24
2 3Qii t'7
2 3 K b 24
231C72
243695
237132
2369CS
335770
335240
334473
33431.5
233774
233216
2*2407
2'2C16
2314-.9
230315
230JCO
229366
228620
22«CCO
333367
326622
225734
224772
323111
229046
331317
220680
2195C9
218553
218352
220615
220176
219433
SflTIS- FINAL
FIEd
503
586
255
472
417
677
295
270
540
568
287
29
78
396
128
347
403
394
425
531
211
792
377
602
703
309
376
21=4
1542
341
229
487
344
273
280
359
471
635
361
44 3
552
377
6563
227
541
530
367
528
572
557
8 1 ^ 2 39
25^329
25M1S
256013
25 'j * 3 3
25^739
25^617
255-63
255223
25^115
251.996
25 -» 7 J 3
25-633
2*» ° 3 73
2452^0
247651
247333
24 '1 ^ 3
245016
2 4 t l, b 1
2 4 f 3 ^7
2459T.4
245763
2454 9 5
2452T4
?44'U7
344627
244434
244262
244040
237799
237427
3370 16
236783
336499
229724
229463
339113
228S63
23u614
233457
23C355
23S163
P- AES
148
203
1C5
149
123
171
77
106
136
L97
10
27
lot
64
1 44
142
144
141
161
59
290
236
271
239
16?
299
248
160
252
169
375
244
1 31
136
237
314
395
253
3 ? i.
353
211
304
113
271
256
211
1 ? 5
294
317
293
177
137
291
331
381
5»4
553
447
451
465
516
62C
664
475
954
375
S21
7C6
623
579
336
555
430
FINAL
2^5936
260659
2£52i.6
264053
364328
264064
363739
263329
2f>3139
263157
265166
2f-2936
262372
262669
262403
2f-215S
26*5 7*.
261SC4
26.135?
2^ C 151
26.C739
26C373
2590J5
?c Q 7 74
' ^^ 6 9 7
257752
256379
256219
2 r fi 2 2 9
2 = 61* 3
2 5 f- C 1 8
255115
25^739
255617
255460
25=223
257115
251.996
2 5 4 7 o 3
254633
2i-°373
2^*263
247939
247651
247333
247150
24(.qie
246^61
2 *«" 3 9 7
21.5 964
24? 763
2 i*c 4 1 5
24=224
241,917
2 *'* 62 7
2U4434
244 C 6 "*
244013
237709
237427
2370 S6
23£-71S
2 3y -* 9 9
3?0724
229462
229112
33JS62
221639
230450
33J355
230163
23:025
TIME
DAYS
5.357
5.421
5.496
5.529
5.5S9
5.642
5.729
5.767
5.802
5.873
5.946
5.9S4
5.9S7
5.997
6.049
6.066
6.111
6.164
6.216
6.373
6.342
6.370
6.476
6.526
6.607
6.7C3
6. 744
6.795
7.096
7.310
7.358
7.390
7.458
7.C07
7.546
7.585
7.636
7.703
7.794
7. 846
7.910
7.990
1.045
3.137
8.160
8.239
8.327
8.405
4.460
4.539
8.624
4. 70S
3. 831
3.890
8.977
9.C63
9.169
9.295
9.415
9.512
9.612
9.731
9.573
10.C28
10.154
10.339
13.596
10. 703
10.901
11.C64
11.309
11.335
11.412
11.539
PCT
S»T
.79
.79
.75
.78
.74
.75
.78
.75
!74
.78
.78
.78
.73
.74
.75
.77
.77
.77
.77
.77
.77
.77
.77
.77
.77
.77
.77
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.73
.73
.73
.71
.73
.73
.73
.73
.73
.73
.73
.72
.73
.72
.72
.72
.72
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.63
.68
.64
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
PPN
6.711
6.700
6.690
6.686
6.674
6.671
6.658
6.652
6.64S
6.639
6.630
6.625
6.624
6.622
6.617
6.615
6.610
6.603
6.597
6.590
6.581
6.577
6.564
6.561
6.552
6.541
6.537
6.535
6.456
6.452
6.449
6.4>.S
6.4.5
6.443
6.439
6.436
6.432
6.423
6.423
6.42C
6.417
6.412
6.4C 4
6.25U
6.247
6.2V1
t.233
6.224
6.319
6.213
6.2C7
6 . 2 J C
6. 19C
6.1S-
6.177
6. 171
6.163
6.156
6. 151
6.147
6. 142
5l S75
S.S66
5. 959
5.951
5. 781
5. 774
5. 765
5. 759
5.759
5. 75*
5. 752
5.71,7
-------
TABLE B-24 (continued)
REICH
2°3
291
292
293
291,
2°5
296
297
"JVE
6.>>0
6.20
6.00
5.80
5.60
f.«.o
.20
5. BO
XSEC OfPTM TEMP
SOFT FT C
56123 ".1.1.1 23.50
59925 1.2.1? 23.50
58393 ".3.15 23.50
53672 (.2. 1.9 ?3.50
55606 1.2.62 23.50
5913". l*.95 23.50
6*913 1.5.73 23.50
0
CFS
71.28
71.28
71.28
71.28
71,28
71.28
71,28
71.26
$fc
2.17
2.03
2.04
2.26
2.19
2.06
t.67
KC
BASE
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
JSi
.023
KN
10
0
0
0
1
0
1
INITIAL
218861
22<.325
217756
217201.
216699
216178
221628
215027
saris- FINAL
FIEO CARS NITR
536 107061. 111261
6569 1061.95 111261
552 1059i>3 111261
505 105<>38 111261
520 101.918 111261
551 101.367 111261
6601 103766 111261
INITIAL REAER FIN4L Jln£
DAYS
230025 1.22 229911 11.637
229911 1,51. 223795 11.^29
223795 1.1.1 223651. 11.828
223611. mi. 223593 11.921,
223593 1.27 2231.99 12.012
2231.99 1,21. 223373 12.1CI,
223373 1,67 217239 1Z.|$1
217239 12.308
PCT
SAT
.67
.67
.65
.65
.65
III
.6%
PPK
5.71.1.
5. 71.1
5.58S
5. 545
5.583
5.581
5.578
5.1.21.
-------
APPENDIX C
THE VELZ ALGORITHM
The Velz model of stream reaeration is employed in the routine WILMA.
This estimation of atmospheric reaeration in stream flow is defined by
Equations 11 to 18. Further discussion may be found in Velz's text (28).
R = Atmospheric reaeration in reach, ppd
= QS
r-
P - P
bottom top
J
x 10
"6
BOD
IOD
exerted
(11)
Y [1 - (Ptop + Pbottom>/2 3 <12>
Y = Reaeration in reach initially devoid of DO, ppd
DO in
saturated
reach, Ib
'
D
Mix
intervals
per day
= 62.4 VS x TO"6 x D x 1440/1
D = Reaeration as percentage saturation absorbed
per mix interval by water initially devoid of DO
30.48 H
[f-w] *De1n1
Deininger's solution
(13)
(14)
a = Phelps1 diffusion coefficient
. 1.42 x 1.1
I = Mix interval in reach, minutes
= 1.797 + 3.090 H - 0.088 H2 + 0.00092 H3,
usual freshwater streams
= 1.426 + 2.215 H - 0.061 H2 + 0.00063 H3,
tidal regimes
(15)
(16)
(17)
= 5 i? * in"4 y i 1^/^-10) y^ ri-(P + P w?l
*'u x IU x '' Vb L1 ^top pbottom;/^J
U) (18)
132
-------
where Q = Discharge through reach, Ibs/day water
S = DO saturation, mg/1
P = Percent DO saturation as decimal
V = Reach volume, ft3
H = Reach depth, ft
T = Reach temperature, °C
Equations 16 and 17 are empirical determinations by Velz. Equation 18
stems from Deininger's direct solution to Pick's law of diffusion,
t - "L* £ <19)
where 3m is the mass of oxygen passing through a cross-sectional area A in
time at when the concentration gradient is ac/3x, where oxygen concentration
is c at x, and D, is a diffusion coefficient. Equations 13 and 14 modify
Phelps1 theory of quiescent diffusion to account for a waterbody that is
mixing.
Equations 11 and 18 may be solved simultaneously for R and P at reach
bottom. Velz resorts to a graphical method, but a direct search procedure
on the computer resolves the two terms rapidly.
EQUIVALENT REAERATION COEFFICIENT
The Velz reaeration algorithm is more complex than a standard oxygen sag
reaeration coefficient (K2) approach, where the reaeration rate is equal to
K2(l - P). A K2 equivalent, a constant applied to the DO deficit in a given
reach that would indicate the amount of reaeration found by the Velz proce-
dure, was determined by computer search for each reach in the lower Willa-
mette. Mean equivalent K2's, base 10, were: 0.18, Salem-Newberg, 0.05, New-
berg Pool, and 0.02, tidal reach.
Values of equivalent K2's are plotted on Figure C-26. Regressing equiva
lent K2 on velocity, depth (Figures C-27(a) and (b)), and stream type, a rate
model resulted as:
, . (0.160 - 0.190 N)
_ I .go/ U
_
2 u(1.122 - 0.104 N)
n
where K2 = coefficient of reaeration, per day, base 10°c, 20°C,
U = velocity, fps,
N = 0, tidal regimes, below river km 43,
1, usual freshwater streams, above km 43, and
H = depth, ft.
The significant interaction of stream type, depth and velocity upon equi-
valent K2 explains why standard reaeration expressions not incorporating
stream type may fail to adequately model Willamette DO under low flow condi-
tions. It is possible that a judicious selection of a K2 reaeration model
might produce the generally good fit that the Velz method provides. DO simu-
lations using alternative K2 expressions taken from the literature, however,
yielded no single reaeration formulation that adequately modeled existing
data for the Salem to Portland Willamette main stem.
133
-------
140
120
100
80 60
RIVER KILOMETER
40
20
Figure C-26.
Equivalent K? for Willamette low flow
versus river kilometer.
134
-------
120
100 80 60 40
RIVER KILOMETER
0
20
Figure C-27. Stream (a) velocity and (b) depth for Willamette low
flow versus river kilometer (30).
135
-------
APPENDIX D
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY
Willamette water is generally treated to remove natural sediment, a
constituent not greatly affected by summer augmentation. Augmented
flow would dilute coliform organisms, but it is unlikely that waterworks
subsequently would reduce chlorination. Demands for municipal and in-
dustrial withdrawal have generally been satisfied without main stem
augmentation. Municipalities and firms desiring a water less turbid than
that of the Willamette can generally get it from tributaries. A change
in low flow augmentation would not affect most municipal and industrial
water supply.
IRRIGATION
Irrigation benefit is not significantly increased by water quality
as long as quality remains aerobic. As long as present rights for agri-
cultural abstraction are not impinged upon, present irrigation benefits
will not decrease by having Willamette flow altered. There is current
belief in the DEQ, however, that augmentation for water quality control
may not have the legal right to usurp river flow divertable to irriga-
tion expansion (10, 86). This belief stems from original reservoir
authorizations for irrigation but not water quality benefits. Much of
the augmented flow thus might properly belong to the farmers. If this
is assumed, flow for quality augmentation might be valued at the bene-
fits foregone by the irrigators.
In a typical year, main stem flow below the Santiam is augmented
approximately 120 m3/s for the 5-month drawdown season. Were this
water to be employed for irrigation at $5/af net return (a typical value
for row crops in the Valley), a $6.5 million gain would be realized by
farmers (87). This corresponds to an approximate 10 percent increase
in total production on all Basin irrigation lands. Such assumptions
lead to a $53 000 per m /s annual benefit for uniform drawdown for irri-
gation. This estimation is a high bound, for (1) the irrigation demand
does not yet exist, (2) the value added would show decreasing returns
to scale, (3) some irrigation return flow would occur, and (4) no allo-
cation of streamflow would give irrigators complete rights to all aug-
mented flow. This estimation of price, then, values water by imposing
an assumed future policy of water management on a historical record of
agricultural economics.
NAVIGATION
Flow maintenance for navigation is entirely complementary with flow
maintenance for other benefits. As mentioned in Section IV, the
136
-------
Willamette is decreasingly used for commercial transportation. Channel depth
through Portland Harbor is more regulated by the tidal Columbia than by Willa-
mette discharge. There is little economic evidence to suggest that total an-
nual navigation use significantly depends upon summer low flow discharge.
Navigation and channel maintenance are insensitive to DO quality.
HYDROELECTRIC POWER
A hydroelectric power cost or benefit attributable to low flow augmenta-
tion may be determined from augmentation's effect on through-turbine discharge,
reservoir head, and the temporal pattern of generation. Figure D-28 traces
(a) the mean head for powerhouses at multipurpose Willamette reservoirs; (b)
total discharge from those reservoirs, partitioned into over-spillway and
through-turbine flow, and (c) total net generation from those projects. Head
is highest in the early summer. Water is spilled generally in the autumn.
Generation varies with both head and turbine discharge. Low flow augmentation
is largely responsible for the late summer drop in powerhouse head. As spill
is not wasted in this period, through-turbine flow is not foregone. If the
reservoirs were maintained at full capacity throughout the summer, thus pro-
viding some slight additional head for power, more water would be spilled
from fall runoff, thus lost to power. Given that the reservoirs must be
lowered for winter flood control, annual power production is not signifi-
cantly altered by the late summer releases.
The timing of Willamette power generation reflects both hydroelectric
power peaking strategy for regional needs and inter-regional management. The
later summer drawdown and corresponding power produced is needed in California;
power is repaid during the winter season when it is locally demanded. The
cost of transhipment is outweighed by efficient utilization of power plants.
An altered scheme for Willamette flow augmentation would not cause net power
production to be substantially altered.
FLOOD PROTECTION
Like navigation and power, flood protection is a benefit independent of
water quality. Deviation above the flood control rule curve (Figure 6(a))
represents loss of flood control capacity, thus potential penalty. Deviation
below the rule indicates increased flood protection, a benefit if and only if
there are flood damages yet reduced by such control.
An increased late summer flow may be operationally achieved by two
rule curve modifications. A full pool may be maintained later into the
summer and/or a minimum pool may be realized sooner in the autumn. In
each instance, a steeper rate of drawdown increases late summer augmen-
tation. The full pool held longer into the summer might decrease sum-
mer flood protection. Hydrologically, the Willamette is not apt to
flood in this season. If it were to do so, normal rule allowance would
compensate. A low pool earlier in the fall, another consequence of in-
137
-------
UJ
X
UJ
2
UJ
en
ZJ
O
I
o
o:
UJ
Ul
o:
cc
UJ
z
UJ
I
K
z
o
0
Q
<
UJ
X
Z
<
UJ
5
UJ
en
D
O
I
o:
UJ
5
o
QL
i
O
orKT
O 6
>
o:
ui
(0
UJ
ct
z
o
<
o:
UJ
z
UJ
o
UJ
z
5
I
I-
z
o
*
Figure D-28.
Powerhouse head, reservoir outflow, and (c) genera-
tion, 1973 (88).
138
-------
creased summer augmentation, may provide additional capacity for flood
storage from early winter storms. This benefit, however, is not likely
to be realized. Damaging floods commonly result from lack of total re-
servoir capacity, not inability to empty storage before the flood
season.
RECREATION
Any policy of reservoir storage and release will have recreation
impact. Recreation response to a program of main stem flow augmentation
for quality control might include (1) increased downstream water-contact
summer recreation, (2) increased downstream boating, (3) decreased water-
edge reservoir recreation during the drawdown season, and (4) a decreased
reservoir boating season. Whereas all four responses may occur in the
case of the Willamette, any net annual impact of reservoir releases tends
to cancel. Reservoir recreational visits by annual count do not seem to
depend on drawdown. Recreation's insensitivity to reservoir drawdown is
indicated by other studies (89). Undoubtedly, drawdown leads to changed
patterns of recreation activities, but on the whole, no net gain or loss
is foreseen to result from augmented main stem summer flow.
WASTE DISPOSAL
The ability of a river to satisfactorily carry away waste products
is directly related to both discharge and receiving water quality. The
greater the discharge, the faster the water's velocity, and the sooner
the wastes will be flushed downstream. The greater the discharge, the
more wastes will be diluted and the less problems of concentration they
will create. The higher the water quality, the more assimilative capacity
exists to biodegrade waste products. This study deals with estimating
the waste disposal benefits of low flow augmentation. Such benefits
therefore cannot be independently given, but rather are determined in
Section IX.
FISH AND WILDLIFE
The return of fish to the Willamette has been shown to correspond to
the river's cleanup. A loss of such a resource must carry with it a sub-
stantial regional economic penalty. In this study, however, it is not
necessary to estimate the quantative nature of such a price. Any environ-
mental strategy leaving the summer low flow with insufficient oxygen for
fish passage is objectionable, thus not allowed. Natural obstructions
and low flow hinder natural fish passage if limiting water quality levels
are not violated. Credit for improvement upon passage, if allowed,
should be given to the ladder at Willamette Falls, not the augmented
level of flow itself.
139
-------
APPENDIX E
METHOD
Methods for cost allocation are documented elsewhere (50). The
method of allocation employed here is the separable costs-remaining benefit
method, modified for equity. The equity modification is in compliance
with Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee and Bureau of the Budget
objectives for cost allocation procedures (51. The cost allocation pro-
cedure is as follows.
T = Multiple-purpose total project cost
S = Separable cost of purpose x
A
N = T - zS = Total nonseparable costs
B = Benefits to purpose x
A
A = Alternative project cost for purpose x
X
J = min(A , B ) = Justifiable cost of x
A XX
0 = min(T-S ,zJ - J ) = Justifiable costs combining all other purposes
A A A
E = (0 + JV)/T = Correction for equity
X XX
Rv = Jv EvSv = Adjusted remaining benefit to x
X X XX
N = N x R /ER = Adjusted nonseparable costs allocated to x
X X
T = S + N = Total cost allocated to x
X XX
Separable costs, $x> are those expenses incurred solely in support of
one project purpose, x. for a multipurpose project, total project cost, T,
less separable costs yields the nonseparable remainder, N. Justifiable
cost of a project purpose, J is the lesser of the benefit, B , afforded
u X
by purpose x, or the alternative cost, A , of obtaining that benefit
A
from some other project. Justifiable cost combining all other project
purposes, 0 , is the lesser of the cost of a project combining all pur-
poses but pQrpose x, or the sum of all other justifiable single purpose
costs.
Correction for equity, E , an allowance for fair distribution of cost
A
savings to all project purposes, is obtained by adding justifiable single
purpose cost to justifiable costs combining all other purposes and dividing
by the total project cost. This allows each project purpose a savings
proportional to the savings from inclusion of that purpose in the project.
Without such correction, all project savings accrue entirely to nonsep-
arable costs.
140
-------
Adjusted remaining benefit, Rx, is the justifiable cost of a purpose less
the separable cost of that purpose, corrected for equity. Adjusted nonsepar-
able cost, NX, is the portion of total nonseparable costs determined by the
ratio of adjusted remaining benefit of a purpose to the total adjusted re-
maining benefits. Total cost allocated to a purpose, Tx, is the appropriate
separable cost and adjusted nonseparable cost.
WILLAMETTE RESERVOIRS
The cost of Willamette multipurpose reservoirs allocated to water quality
control may be simplified if two observations are made about the Willamette
system. First, all projects are so extensively designed for flood control
that no additional expenses are incurred for a program of summer release for
whatever purpose. Secondly, augmentation benefits other than water quality
have either lost much of their dollar significance (e.g. navigation) or may
be thought of as not a co-equal benefit with water quality, but a benefit
subsequently spunoff from water quality (e.g. fish and wildlife or recreation).
Flood control and hydroelectric power are project purposes, duly autho-
rized and affording independent benefits. Municipal, industrial, and irriga-
tion withdrawal benefits are assumed to be negligible if summer reservoir
drawdown is left instream for flow augmentation. The remaining benefits
(navigation, recreation, waste disposal, and fish and wildlife enhancement)
are related to low flow maintenance, subsumed in the benefit of water quality
control. Thus the multipurpose reservoirs provide three significant ser-
vices: flood control (FC) hydroelectric power (HP), and water quality (WQ).
Table E-25 illustrates cost allocation for Basin reservoirs. Note that
flood control benefits alone justify the entire project. Revenues from hydro-
electricity just pay separable costs; hydroelectric power realizes no excess
benefits with which to pay for nonseparable expenses. Were the value of power
doubled while expenses held constant, costs would be allocated as shown in
Table E-26. The cost allocated to water quality might drop several percent,
a modification probably miner when compared to the imprecision in estimates
for flood control returns upon which water quality charges also depend.
141
-------
TABLE E-25. WILLAMETTE MULTIPURPOSE RESERVOIRS COST ALLOCATION
($ x 106/yr, 1973)*
-P.
ro
Item
Total Cost
Separable Cost
Nonseparable Cost
Alternative Cost
Benefit
Justifiable Cost
Other Purposes
Equity
Remaining Benefit
Nonseparable Cost
Total Cost
Entries rounded to
T
S
N
A
B
J
0
E
R
N
T
Hydro power
18
18
18
18
27
1.000
0
(1
18
Flood Control
0
>98
98
98
. (45
min 1 18 + A
U ° rtl.JQ
(98 + Opc)/45
98
2678
98 + V
Water Qual ity
0
Unknown
AWQ
AWQ
45
1 + AWQ/45
AWQ
27 AWQ
98 + AWQ
Total
45
18
27
98 + AWQ
45
integer value
-------
TABLE E-26. WILLAMETTE MULTIPURPOSE RESERVOIRS COST ALLOCATION
($ x 106/yr, 1973)*
Doubled 1973 Power Revenues
Item
Total Cost
Separable Cost
Nonseparable Cost
Alternative Cost
Benefit
Justifiable Cost
Other Purposes
Equity
Remaining Benefit
Nonseparable Cost
Total Cost
T
S
N
A
B
J
0
E
R
N
T
Hydropower
18
36
36
36
27
1.397
11
295
109 + AWQ
in i 295
10 109 * Awo
Flood Control
0
>98
98
98
. f45
min(36 + AWQ
(98 + Opc)/45
98
2678
109+AWQ
Water Quality
0
Unknown
AWQ
AWQ
45
1 + AWQ/45
AWQ
27AWO
109 + AWQ
Total
45
18
27
109 + AWQ
45
* Entries rounded to integer value
-------
APPENDIX F
MODEL DEFINITION
Energy I/O modeling and economic I/O analysis are of similar nature.
Because the economic model is I/0's most common employment, and because
it is common to visualize dollar flow within an economy, an economic I/O
example serves to both describe and illustrate the general nature of I/O
analysis. An energy model is then formulated for example solution.
An Economic I/O Model
Assume a four sector economy of manufacturing (M), crude oil pro-
duction (C), refined petroleum (R), and pollution control (P). Each
sector in one time period, say a year, produces X. units of output.
where n = sectors of the economy, 4 in this case,
X. = total production by sector j,
J
X . . = output from sector i used by sector j ,
' J
A.. = X../X., an empirical direct activity
1 J "i J J
coefficient, and
Y. = output of i exported to final, non intrasector, demand
In the example case, XR is the total production of, say, gasoline,
XRp represents the gasoline used by the pollution control sector, ARp is
the ratio of gasoline used in pollution control equipment production to
pollution control equipment produced, and YR is the gasoline sold to
households and government. Nonhomogenety within sectors precludes de-
termination of the direct activity coefficients, A, as goods/good ratios.
Dollar equivalents at producers prices are instead used. Thus X's and
Y's are measured in dollars, A's as dimensionless fractions. Suppose
dollar sales in a base year are:
Producer
M
C
R
P
M
6
1
3
4
Purchaser
C K
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
P
1
0
2
1
Y
15
0
13
3
X
25
5
20
10
144
-------
This table is known as the transaction table. The 3 in the third
row represents $3 of refined petroleum sales to the manufacturing sector.
The 6 in the first row represents $6 worth of manufactured goods sold
within that same sector. The Y column is exogenous or final demand.
The X column sums the row. Note that for each sector j to remain in
business,
n
it A j » ^ A
A table of direct activity coefficients is obtained by dividing the
X.. terms by the appropriate X.. The resulting direct activity coefficient
table is:
Purchaser
M
C
R
P
Purchaser
M C
6/25
1/25
3/25
4/25
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
R
2/20
3/20
1/20
1/20
P
1/10
0
2/10
1/10
Thus it requires $6/25 of machinery, $1/25 of crude oil, $3/25
of gas, and $4/25 of pollution control to produce $1 worth of machinery.
In algebraic form,
= .24
= .04
XR = .12
.2XC + .10XR
.2XC + .15XR
.2XC + .05XR
Xp = .16 XM + .2XC = .05XR
In matrix form, the economy is described:
OX
.20Xp + YR
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
X = AX + Y
(26)
Moving all X terms to the left, the matrix expression (I-A) X. = Y.
is obtained.
145
-------
.76 -.20 -.10 -.10
-.04 .80 -.15 0
-.12 -.20 .95 -.20
-.16 -.20 -.05 .90
"XM~
XC
XR
_XP_
,
V
YC
YR
_V
(27)
To obtain X as a function of Y, total production as a function of
final demand, the (I-A) can be inverted and transposed.
X = (I - A)"1 Y
(28)
Doing this to the four-sector example, "direct plus indirect" coefficients
result.
V
xc
XR
.V
~ 1.422 0.467 0.234 0.210
0.121 1.354 0.230 0.065
0.267 0.430 1.164 0.288
0.294 0.408 0.157 1.179
"YM"
Yc
YR
-YP_
(29)
The values in the fourth row indicate the dollar increase in pollu-
tion control production necessary to allow a $1 increase in final demand
from each column sector. Note that an additional $0.179 of interindus-
trial pollution control is needed to provide a dollar's worth of pollution
control export in this example. Total outputs can now be determined
necessary to satisfy both internal and external requirements of an arbi-
trary set of final demands. For the U.S. economy, (I - A) , the direct
plus indirect coefficients, have been determined for 1967 (92).
An Energy I/O Model
To this point, units have had monetary basis. The same model can
likewise be applied to energy flow, say in joule units. The designator
E can be used in similar fashion to the previous X.
n E
z Lik
k=l
Eiy
(30)
146
-------
where E. = total energy output of sector i,
E.. = energy output by sector i used by sector k, and
i K
E. = energy output by sector i sold to final demand.
Recall that,
Xk = i (I-A)'! Y.
k j=1 kj j
Multiplying E-k by \/^^
E., n ,
Then,
(31)
Eik =
E1 =
X £ U-A)kj Yj
K J~ 1
n |~Eik n _1
k 1 1 ^U T 1 ^J J
^ 1 1 IN J "" 1
+ (^) f,-
(32)
(33)
Define Rik = Eik/Xk, the energy component from sector i in a dollar
of k production, and
Si = the producer's price for energy sold to final demand
E. /Y., i = energy sector
0, otherwise.
Combining terms in matrix form.
"1
1= CR (I-A) + S] 1
(34)
As was X^ in dollars, £ is the production of energy required both
directly and indirectly to satisfy a final demand, X- Note tnat B. is
an empirical factor of production, (I-A)~ has been previously deter--,
mined, and S^ is another empirical value. The bracketed term [R(I-A)
+ S] may be designated e_, the total energy matrix. Returning to the
foLfr-sector example, assume the following table of joule sales has
been obtained from industrial records.
147
-------
Producer
M
C
R
P
Purchaser
M
0
2
5
0
C
0
1
1
0
R
0
37
2
0
P
0
0
1
0
Y
0
0
16
0
X
0
40
25
0
Unlike the dollar requirement of viability, only the crude oil
sector appears to produce a net energy. This sector, of
course, achieves its 40 to 2 energy increase by drawing upon "free"
input from the environment. Refined petroleum dollar and energy outputs
are not necessarily proportional. Different energy pricing is allowed.
The R^ matrix eliminates the non-energy rows, M and P.
|2/25 1/5 37/20
5/25 1/5 2/20
Thus,
e -
,08
.2
1.85
.1
00 00
0 0 16/13 0
(35)
1.422
0.121
0.267
L 0.294
0.467
1.354
0.430
0.408
0.234
0.230
1.164
0.157
0.210
0.065
0.288
1.179
0.632
0.365
1.103
0.448
2.218
1.456
0.563
0.202
(36)
From this example matrix, it is seen that $1 final demand of pollu-
tion control requires 0.563 joules of production from the crude oil
sector and 0.202 joules from the refined petroleum sector. The two values
should not be summed, however, or a double counting of energy occurs.
THE PROBLEM OF DOUBLE COUNTING
,-1
When I/O is applied to dollar-only problems, columns of the (I-A)'
matrix are often summed to obtain the overall dollar flow response to -,
unit of exogeneous demand. Summing the fourth column in the example (I-A)
matrix,$1.742 of total production is generated by $1 final demand for
pollution control. Such vertical summation is proper where one dollar,
148
-------
passing through two hands, can be interpreted as having twice the
economic impact as it would have had, had that dollar only passed
through one hand.
Such addition is not proper for energy analysis. Unlike a dollar,
a joule spent is a joule not to be spent again. In the example, two
energy sectors provide joules for pollution control. But all the joules
produced by the refining industry are transformed primary joules of crude
oil. No energy is produced in refinement; energy quality is upgraded.
From the viewpoint of resource management, the use of refined petroleum
is of internal, not external, economic consequence. That which sustains
the economy is primary input to the overall system, not the technology
of energy circulation within. In this example, the primary requirement
necessary for pollution control is 0.563 joules mined by the crude oil
sector.
The problem of double counting can be illustrated by adding to the
example model another sector, say one of refined petroleum transport, T.
This activity can be thought of as before having been incorporated in
the refining sector itself. The direct joule table adds row and column
T. Let all 25 joules produced in R now go to T. These 25 are distributed
by T as they were before by R. From an external viewpoint, the system
behaves exactly as before. From the viewpoint of internal circulation
there is a new step, more transfer, and an additional total energy co-
efficient. Adding these coefficients for $1 of pollution control final
demand, joule flow seems to be greater. The more numerous the economic
partitions, the more interindustrial circulation results and the greater
will be the total direct-plus-indirects. The net efficiency of the system,
the cost of stock energy per unit of goods production, must only consider
the primary coefficients relevant to external inputs. In this example,
the primary energy requirement for $1 worth of P final demand is 0.563
joules.
The only example of direct energy demand by final demand is that of
refined petroleum. Sixteen joules are exported for $13. In common energy
usage, the term "direct" has a different meaning. Direct energy is the
fuel value consumed in the final step of production, not the value of
the fuel supplied to final, non-industrial, demand. The common usage of
direct" leads to 7/25, 2/5, 39/20, and 1/10 joules of crude and refined
petroleum burned per dollar output of each sector. Values such as these
correspond to energy estimates used in direct energy analysis of water
pollution control strategy. These direct energy coefficients indicate
the immediate, local demand for pollution control energy. The primary
coefficients indicate the overall impact on the fossil reserves.
Table F-27 illustrates the two interpretations of direct energy and
the primary requirement for the example economy. The first column is of
interest only for sectors selling energy outside the industrial matrix.
Table 9 in Section VIII lists the direct-for-production and primary enerqv
I/O coefficients for various sectors participating in pollution control
activity. In effect, Table 9 is a real-value partitioning of the bottom
illustrative line in Table F-27.
149
-------
TABLE F-27. INPUT/OUTPUT DIRECT AND PRIMARY ENERGY COEFFICIENTS
(J/dollar final demand)
Sector
M
C
R
P
Sales to final
demand
0
0
1.231
0
Direct for
production
0.280
0.400
1.950
0.100
Primary
0.632
1.103
2.218
0.563
150
-------
APPENDIX G
This appendix describes the formulation of Table 10. See that table
for abbreviation key.
Treatment Level A - All 1973 municipal plants are in operation, but down-
graded to L if L, ASP, or ASPL in 1973, to P otherwise. All but two
industrial dischargers release 7.5 times 1973 BOD and Kjeldahl N. The
two exceptions reflect two major 1973 N discharges assumed to be uncon-
trolled. Benthic and non-point demands are those of 1973.
Treatment Level B - As above, but industrial releases are three times
those of 1973.
Treatment Level C - As above, but P plants are replaced by AS or TF, as
indicated in 1973. Industrial releases are 1.5 times those of 1973.
Treatment Level D - August 1973 conditions.
Treatment Level E - Seven municipal plants are upgraded, three plants
added, twenty-four plants abandoned, fourteen plants halt August dis-
charge to river, and trunk sewers are added to regionalize areas with
abandoned plants, all as recommended by DEQ. Industrial releases are
0.8 those of 1973. One sixth of the benthic demand is removed by regu-
lation of Portland Harbor sewage overflows, ship discharges, dredging,
gravel mining, and prop wash. Non-point sources are unchanged.
Treatment Level F - As above, but all plants are upgraded to ASEF, TFEF,
or ASPL. ASP is allowed in place of ASPL only if downstream nitrification
does not occur.
Treatment Level G - As above, but two industrial major N sources are re-
duced to 0.1 of 1973 loadings.
Treatment Level H - All municipal and industrial loadings are removed.
As economic and energy models employed for levels A-G are not suited for
this option, a rough dollar and joule estimation is drawn from costs pro-
jected of national legislation directed toward elimination of point
source pollution. Willamette costs are estimated to be one-third the
national per capita figure, as the Willamette wastes are treatable by
proven methods, (93).
151
-------
f
-a
-o
TABLE H-28. WILLAMETTE BASIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SUMMARY OF DOLLAR AND ENERGY COSTS
Treatment Level A
o
ii
x
COSTS
Variable Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
I OILS
Industrial frctreatr.ent
Industrial Discharges
Total
Fixed or Independent Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Pretreatnent
Industrial Discharges
Abandoned Facilities
Total
Total
DIRECT DOLLARS
Million 1973 Dollars
CAPITAL
.1.853
38.902
.I9S
3.177
8*.3JO
11.652
50. 673
.1*5
2.09%
5.838
70.39%
15*.. 72*
ANNUAL i : ED
CAPITAL
3.6W9
2.585
.0".*
.373
t.651
1.016
3.J68
.016
.21.6
.1*29
5.072
<»i8
.091.
122
0
1.276
''K.
TOTAL
Att.UAL
5.955
2.906
.1.16
.512
9.7S9
1.651
3.796
.110
.368
.1.29
6.350
16.11.0
DIRECT ENERGY
Terra Joules
CONST.
10.578
559.800
3. SO".
31.166
1005.M.8
im.306
729. H«t
1.1.22
20.51.2
57.192
922.61.7
1929.096
OMR
12C. 166
16. 727
13.11.6
fc.912
15W.952
33.1.55
21.7-12
3.322
<». 311
0
62.870
217.822
TOT AL
ANNUAL
mC. 695
30.722
13.303
fc.i.71
191.190
39.170
itO.012
3.379
5.339
2.860
90.759
281.91*9
PR I : WRY ENERGY
Terra Joules
CONST.
21. <»7. 982
15Z5. 736
23.279
185.623
1.182.820
681.525
1987.395
8.1.81
122. (.78
31.0.997
311.0.876
7323*697
OMR
207.332
28.861
33.311.
11.290
277.697
57.722
37.582
7.63S
9.909
112.81.8
390.5*5
TOTAL
A.NNUAL
329.732
67.305
31.11.5
2C.5S1
l.l»8.<.62
91.798
87.267
7.971.
16.033
17.050
220.122
668.58W
-------
TABLE H-29. WILLAMETTE BASIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SUMMARY OF DOLLAR AND ENERGY COSTS
Treatment Level B
COSTS
Variable Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
10FLS
Industrial Pretreatmcnt
Industrial Discharges
Total
Fixed or Independent Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
lOfLS
Industrial Prct reat^ent
Industrial Discharge*
Abandoned Facilities
Total
Total
DIRECT DOLLARS
Million 1973 Dollars
CAPITAL
*l.8S3
38.982
.191
23.417
tfl*.?70
11.652
.1*5
"»'*
5.110
71. 39*
tf*.«$*
ANNUAL I :tD
CAPITAL
3.6*9
2.585
.0**
2.751
«.029
l.«16
3.3(«
.016
?*6
.*29
5.07*
1*.103
OMR
2.396
.321
.372
1.027
*.026
.6*2
.«.!
.09..
.122
0
1.276
5.302
DIRECT ENERGY PR1I1ARY ENERGY
Terra Joules Terra Joules
TOTAL CONST. OMR TOTAL CONST. OMR TOTAL
AM.UAL ANNUAL ANNUAL
5.955 *13.578 120.166 1*0.695 2**7.982 207.332 329.732
2.908 559. BOO 16.727 30.722 1525.736 2S.S61 67.005
,*16 3.90* 13.11.6 13.303 23.279 33.21* 31.1*5
3.77S 229.721 36.29* *7.78fl 1369.660 83.*U 151.896
1J.C55 120*.Cfl3 186.33* 232.500 5366.658 3*9.820 579.777
1.658 11-..J06 33.*55 39.170 691.525 57.722 91.798
3.786 729.11* 21.762 *0.012 1987.395 J7.582 §7.267
.HO i.fc?2 3.J22 3.379 8.*81 7.635 7.971,
.36* 20.5*2 *.J11
.*29 57.192 6 ?«" J*0.997 0 17.050
6.350 922.6*7 62.870 90.759 31*C.876 112.8*8 220.122
19.*35 2126.650 2*9.20* 323.258 8507.531. *62.6*8 799.899
tn
u>
-------
TABLE H-30. WILLAMETTE BASIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SUMMARY OF DOLLAR AND ENERGY COSTS
Treatment Level C
COSTS
Variable Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatnent Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Prctreatment
Industrial Discharges
Total
Fixed or Independent Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatnent Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Pretreatment
Industrial Discharges
Abandoned Facilities
Total
Total
DIRECT DOLLARS
Million 1973 Dollars
CAPITAL
65.366
38.9BZ
.621
56.370
163.259
11.65Z
50.673
It*
2.094
5.838
70.39%
233. 65 3
ANNUALIZED
CAPITAL
5.699
2.585
.068
6.S56
15.309
1.016
3.363
.016
.21.6
.«29
s.o7<»
2fl.2»a
OMR
2.935
.321
.329
2.560
6.1«.5
.523
.<»1S
.076
.122
0
1.139
7.2*1.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
8.63"»
2.106
.397
9.1.16
21.351.
1.539
3.796
.092
.368
.1.29
6.213
27.567
DIRECT ENERGY
Terra Joules
CONST.
6<»1.2fcO
559.900
6.092
572.610
1779. 7«.2
11".. 306
729. 18C,
1.1.22
20.5<»2
57.192
922.6*7
2702.389
O^IR
152.91.3
16.727
11.627
90.1.70
271.767
27.25".
21.782
2.686
I..311
0
56.033
327.800
TOTAL
ANNUAL
185.005
30.722
11.871
119.101
31.6.699
32.969
HO. 012
2.71.3
5.339
2.860
83.921
1.30.620
PRIIIARY ENERGY
Terra Joules
CONST.
3823.257
1525.736
36.322
3 Ull.. C 61
8799.377
681.525
1987.395
8.1.81
122.
-------
TABLE H-31. WILLAMETTE BASIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SUMMARY OF DOLLAR AND ENERGY COSTS
Treatment Level D
COSTS
Variable Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
10KLS
Industrial Pretreatment
Industrial Discharges
Total
Fixed or Independent Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatnent Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Pretreatncnt
Industrial Discharges
Abandoned Facilities
Total
Total
DIRECT DOLURS DIRECT ENERGY PRIIIARY ENERGY
Million 1973 Dollars Terra Joules Terra Joules
CAPITAL
67.19%
38.983
.639
71,200
177. 9 It
11.651
53.67%
.1*5
2.09%
5.130
70.39S
2*8.331
ANNTJALIZED
CAPITAL
5.854
2.585
.070
8.363
16.877
1.916
3. 369
.016
.2*6
.".29
5.075
Z1.95Z
OMR TOTAL CONST. OMR TOTAL COXST. OMR TOTAL
AWUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL
3.1S9 9.038 659.173 165.711 198.670 3930.177 2SS.916 *B2.*25
.321 2.906 559.81* 16.728 3C.723 1525.77", 2S.862 67.006
.357 .1.26 6.270 12.431 12.S82 37.381. 29. C30 33.525
3.123 It. 486 698. (.72 110.360 1*5. 28* (.161.. 1.88 253.63% %61.«59
6.981 23.858 1923.729 305.1.30 387.559 9657.823 597.4%? 10*1.415
.551 1.567 lit. 312 28.735 3*.*51 681.562 %9.500 83.658
.*18 3.786 729.192 21.789 1.0.019 1987. (.15 37.59* 87.280
.081 .097 l.*23 2.866 2.923 8.I.8* 6.508 6.927
.123 .369 20.5<»% "..3W7 5.37* 122. *69 9.990 16.11*
0 .%29 57.192 0 2.860 3*0.997 17.050
1.17* 6.2*8 922.663 57.738 85.627 31*0.9*7 103.752 211.029
R.155 30.107 28*6.392 363.168 (.73.185 12798.770 701.19* 1252.8**
L71
tn
-------
TABLE H-32. WILLAMETTE BASIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SUMMARY OF DOLLAR AND ENERGY COSTS
Treatment Level E
COSTS
Variable Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Pretrcatment
Industrial Discharges
Total
Fixed or Independent Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Pretreatnent
Industrial Discharges
Abandoned Facilities
Total
Total
DIRECT DOLLARS
Million 197J Dollars
CAPITAL
75.886
58.202
.703
79.426
217.21*
U. 1.87
50.673
.155
Z.0<9<»
25.99(i
91. (.03
303.620
AANUUIZED
CAPITAL
6.UI.1
3.868
.077
<3.329
1°.716
1.089
3.368
.017
.21.6
1.913
.632
2£.3<.S
OMR
3.667
.".80
.M3
3.1.83
8.0«.3
.621
..19
.091
.122
0
1.252
9.295
DIRECT ENERGY PRIflARV ENERGY
Terra Joules Terra Joules
TOTAL CONST. OMR TOTAL CONST. OMR TOTAL
ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL
10.108 72".. 822 191.087 227.328 (.321.592 329.700 5.(.5.750
*.3*8 837.527 25.013 ".5.951 2282.682 <»3.157 100. 22".
.t.90 6.896 1I..S95 l«..87l (.1.118 33. 51,* 35.1S9
12.112 779.169 123.089 162.01.8 (,6«.5.627 282.889 515.171
27.779 23<.S.<>1<« 353. 785 1.50.133 11291.020 689.290 1196.363
1.710 122. (.97 32.360 38.U85 73C.365 S5.83(» 92.352
3.796 729.181, 21.732 (.C.012 19S7.395 37.582 87.267
.108 1.521 3.216 3.277 9.C66 7.391 7.75<.
.368 20.5<.2 (,.311 5.339 122. (.78 9.909 16.033
1.913 255.001 0 12.753 1520.389 0 76.019
7.88U 1128.7*6 61.670 99.862 (,369.693 110.716 279. ".25
35.6d3 3V77.160 ".15^55 55C.061 15660.713 800.006 1«.75.788
-------
TABLE H-33. WILLAMETTE BASIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SUMMARY OF DOLLAR AND ENERGY COSTS
Treatment Level F
COSTS
Variable Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Pretreatment
Industrial Discharges
Total
Fixed or Independent Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Pre treatment
Industrial Discharges
Abandoned Facilities
Total
Total
DIRECT DOLLARS
Million 1973 Dollars
CAPITAL
62 84*
5^202
.788
221.260
12.487
5C.673
.155
2.094
29.994
91.403
312.663
ANNUAL I ZED
CAPITAL
7.222
3.868
.097
«.329
20.507
1.089
3.368
.017
1.91)
.632
27.139
OMR
4.521
.480
.538
3.483
8.992
.681
.418
. 100
.122
0
1.321
10.313
TOTAL
ANNUAL
11.743
4.348
.595
12.812
29.499
1.770
3.786
.117
.363
1.913
7.953
37.45Z
DIRECT ENERGY
Terra Joules
CON'ST.
812.700
837.527
7.730
779.169
2437.126
122.497
729. 1«4
1.521
20.542
255.001
1129.746
3565. 87Z
OMR
235.589
Z5.313
17.553
123.099
401.644
35.437
21.782
3.534
4.311
0
65. m
466.758
TOTAL
ANVJAL
276. 22U
45.951
18.262
162.048
502.485
41.612
40.012
3.595
5.339
12.750
103.307
605.792
PRIIURY ENERGY
Terra Joules
COX ST.
1.945.546
226?. 682
46.090
4645.627
11819. 945
730.365
1987.395
9.066
122.478
152C.3B9
4369.693
16189.638
..
OMR
406.483
43.157
41.260
232.889
773.789
61.229
37.582
8.122
9.909
0
116.842
890.631
TOTAL
ANNUAL
649.763
10J.224
43.103
515.171
1307.259
97.747
87.267
3.495
16.033
76.019
285.551
1592.809
tn
-------
TABLE H-34. WILLAMETTE BASIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SUMMARY OF DOLLAR AND ENERGY COSTS
Treatment Level G
COSTS
Variable Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Pretreatir.ent
Industrial Discharges
Total
Fixed or Independent Costs
Municipal Discharges
Treatment Plants
IOFLS
Industrial Pretreatr.cnt
Industrial Discharges
Abandoned Facilities
Total
Total
DIRECT DOLLARS DIRECT E.'.'ERGY PRIMARY ENERGY
Million 1973 Dollars Terra Joules Terra Joules
CAPITAL
£:«$
.7*4
83.861
225.695
12.1.87
5G.67J
.159
2. 09"»
25.99<»
H.<,03
317.098
AXN'UALIZED
CAPITAL
7.222
3.868
.067
9.450
21.028
1.089
3.36S
.017
.2«t6
1.913
6.632
27.660
OMR TOTAL CONST. OMR TOTAL CONST. QMS TOTAL
AWUAL ANNUM. ANNUAL
",.521 11.71(3 812.700 235. 5«9 276.22", <,5«.5.5<»6 ",06. kS3 6<,i.7tO
.1,30 «..3<,S 837.527 25.013 1.5.951 2232.682 <»3.1S7 ICO. 221,
.SOJ .595 7.730 17.^53 19.262 1.6. G90 "H.260 <.3.1C3
3.837 13.687 822.676 135.600 176.733 1,905.030 311.6m 556.893
9.3
-------
APPENDIX I
The Input/Output estimation of primary energy cost may be particu-
larly useful for future hydroelectric projects, capital intensive en-
deavors that are not infrequently challenged as costing more than they
will ever produce. Traditionally, dollar benefit/cost analysis is used
to resolve such an issue. A calculation of energy benefit/cost ratio
might serve decision analysis in an energy-conscious society much as the
dollar ratio is used when social goals are dollar production. The
Willamette Basin Corps of Engineers reservoirs serve as an example case.
Five hydroelectric projects, nameplate generating capacity of 409.4
MW, net annual load factor of 44 percent, generated 1.56 TWh in 1973.
Power-allocated construction costs in 1973 dollars of these projects was
$420 million. Annual power production expenses were $1.267 million. The
average annual cost for replacement of major components was $2.75 million.
The primary energy intensity for reservoir construction is 38 650 Btu
per dollar. Therefore, construction primary energy cost for the five
projects is:
$420 x 106 x 38 650 Btu/$ = 1.62 x 1013 Btu (36)
If the expected project life is 100 years and the ratio of primary
energy to unit job is fixed (energy and construction prices may vary,
however), the average annual primary energy required for construction is
1.62 x 1011 Btu.
Assuming capital replacement has the same energy intensity as does
capital construction, the average annual primary energy cost of major
replacement is:
$2.75 x 106 x 38 650 Btu/$ = 1.06 x 1011 Btu (37)
An energy intensity of 29 500 Btu per dollar may be applied to
production expenses.
$1.27 x 106 x 29 500 Btu/$ = 0.37 x 1011 Btu (38)
The total annual primary energy cost for the five hydropower plants
is thus 3.05 x 1011 Btu.
The three primary energy sources of electrical power and their primary
energy to generated electricity technical coefficients are:
159
-------
Coal Fired Power Plants - 2.944 Btu/Btu
Oil Fired Power Plants - 3.072 Btu/Bru
Gas Fired Power Plants - 2.887 Btu/Btu
Using a typical conversion of 2.9 Btu of primary energy to produce
1 Btu of electricity, the 3.05 x 1011 Btu primary cost of the five hydro-
plants, if diverted from the hydroprojects to direct thermal generation
would have produced 1.05 x 10 Btu of electrical energy.
The 1.56 billion kWWhyearly produced by the projects is equivalent
to 53.24 x 1011 Btu. If the 1.05 x 1011 Btu of electrical production
foregone is subtracted from this output, an average annual net output of
52.19 x 10 Btu is derived from these projects.
An energy benefit/cost ratio may be calculated.
"
3.05 x 10" Btu
B, 53.24 xio u>46 (3g)
As the ratio is many-fold greater than 1.0, the energy-for-energy in-
vestment in the Willamette projects is productive.
160
-------
APPENDIX J
Solar Input, IN
Incident solar energy at surface, I = 17 x 105 Cal/m2-yr
Basin area, A = 29.676 x 109 m2
Reflection from surface, R = 0.36 incident
IN = I x A (1 - R) = 3200 x 1012Cal/yr
Primary Production, PP
Net primary production, NP = 700 g/m2-yr
Bomb calometric energy content, B = 5 Cal/g
PP = NP x A x B = 100 x 1012 Cal/yr
Standing Crop, Biomass. SB
Standing crop density, D = 1800 g/m2
SB=DxAxB= 2600 x 1012 Cal/yr
Standing Crop, Saw Timber, ST
Standing crop, saw timber, S = 193 Tg
ST = S x B = 960 x 1012 Cal/yr
Economic Production, Non Saw Timber Biomass, PB
Crop harvest, H = 1.87 Tg/yr
PB=HxB=9x 1012 Cal/yr
Economic Production, Saw Timber, PT
Log production, L = 4.37 Tg/yr
PT = L x B = 21 x 1012 Cal/yr
Precipitation Potential Energy, P
Basin runoff, BR = 1.089 x 1012 ft3/yr
Mean channel elevation above lower Willamette datum, CE = 805 ft
P = BR x CE x 62.4 Ib.ft3 = 5.47 x 1016 ft-lb/yr = 17 x 1012 Cal/yr
Hydropower Production, HP
HP = 2221 x 105 kWh/yr = 2 x 1012 Cal/yr
161
-------
Petroleum Import. PI
PI = 203 x 1012 Btu/yr = 51 x 1012 Cal/yr
Electrical Import, El
Electrical consumption, EC = 65.68 x 10 Btu/yr = 16 TCal/yr
El = EC - HP = 14 x 1012 Cal/yr
Natural Gas Import. GI
GI = 78.28 x 1012 Btu/yr = 20 x 1012 Cal/yr
Energy Consumption. C
C = HP + El + PI + GI - 87 x 1012 Cal/yr
Industrial Energy Consumption. IE
IE = 0.44 C = 38 x 1012 Cal/yr
Imports. M
Primary energy intensity (I/O),
Agricultural products, AE = 9598 Cal/$
Forest products , FE = 16402 Cal/$
Manufactured goods , ME = 19156 Cal/$
Services , SE = 11417 Cal/$
Imports,
Agricultural products, AI = $176 x 106/yr
Forest products , FI = $144 x 106/yr
Manufactured goods , MI = $920 x 106/yr
Services , SI = $950 x 106/yr
M = AE x AI + FE x FI + ME x MI + SE x SI = 34 x 1012 Cal/yr
Exports. X
Exports,
Agricultural products, AX = $ 184 x 106/yr
Forest products , FX = $ 349 x 106/yr
Manufactured goods , MX = $ 569 x 106/yr
Services , SX = $1426 x 106/yr
X = AX x AI + FX x FI + MX x MI + SX x SI = 35 x 1012/yr
Gross Output, 0
Gross output,
Agricultural products, AG = $ 766 x 106/yr
Forest products , FG = $1204 x 106/yr
162
-------
Manufactured goods , MG = $2190 x 106/yr
Services , SG = $6788 x 106/yr
0 = AG x AI + FG x FI + MG x MI + SG x SI = 147 x 1012 Cal/yr
Industrial Consumption. 1C
Consumption,
Agricultural products, AC = $ 69 x 106/yr
Forest products , FC = $ 24 x 106/yr
Manufactured goods , MC = $ 66 x 106/yr
Services , SC = $3503 x 106/yr
1C = AC x AI + FC x FI + MC x MI + SC x SI = 43 x 1012 Cal/yr
Net Production, N
N = 0 - 1C = 104 x 1012 Cal/yr
Household Consumption, HC
HC = N - X + EC - IE = 118 x 1012 Cal/yr
163
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
/Please read instructions on the reverse before completing/
. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/5-78-019
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOf*NO.
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Economic and Energy Analyses of Regional
Water pollution Control
5. REPORT DATE
September 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHORISI
Richard J. Heggen, Kenneth J. Williamson
8. PERFORMING ORGANIEATfON REPORT NO.
JD ADDRESS
Water Resources Research Institute
Oregon State University
115 Covell Hall
Corvallis, OR 97331
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BA609
11. CONTRACT/GRANT MO.
68-03-2397
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens, GA
Office of Research and Development
U. S, Environmental Protection Aqency
Athens, GA 30605
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, 4/76-4/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/01
16. ABSTRACT
is (I/O) provides an econometric methodology to studv
and indirect energy response to pollution control alternatives An enernv
modfil 1S C°Upled With a ^Prenensive Willamette Rlver^issolvld oxvnen
^^^
JSatlS For alffiJiSS nf't InJePe?de^ly> reservoir costs are allocated to water
'0"* m" the ful1
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
OESCF
Energy
Cost effectiveness
Stream pollution
Multiple purpose reservoirs
Sewage disposal
Water resources
Regional planning
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Flow augmentation
Willamette River (Oregor)
Input/Output analysis
Dissolved oxyqen models
COSATl Field/Group
48H
48B
68D
Release to Public
. SECUHI I Y CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
21. (MO. OF PAGES
176
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2320.1 (9-73)
164
r PR 1 NT I NT, QFVlCt" , W78 757-140/M68
------- |