Jump to content

Talk:List of dams in the Columbia River watershed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

stub?

[edit]

So, why exactly is this a stub, and what should be done to expand it? It is a complete list of every dam on the Columbia, which is what the title implies. It has additional info about each dam, which to my mind is over and above what one would expect.

I do think it would be good to have an article some day about hydro dams in the Columbia basin, but that would be a separate project.

So is it really a stub? -Pete (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

[edit]

I made a table for the Snake River dams, or at least those that have pages on wikipedia. I think this kind of thing would be nice, and can add more for other tributaries over time. I'm not sure whether to mention, somehow outside the table, dams without a page (and some of which confuse me to start with). The ones mentioned on the page now (except Bliss) that aren't in my table are: Shoshone Falls Project, Upper Salmon Falls Project (Upper Salmon Falls Dam A, Upper Salmon Falls Dam B), and Mid-Snake Projects (Bliss Dam, Lower Salmon Falls Dam, and the two dams of the Upper Salmon Falls Project). Sorry for removing them, please add back if there's a good way to do it that I'm not seeing. Also, if this table idea isn't ideal, let's try something else. I just thought since the mainstem dams are tabled, others can be too. The table fields are just what made sense to mention offhand. They could be altered if desired. Pfly (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pfly, I was thinking this should be done, but was feeling too lazy to do it. I think all the dams should be included in the table, regardless of whether there are articles about them. Also, I believe the "no fish passage" note is actually an error I introduced into the Hells Canyon article a while back; I believe it's the ACE dams in Washington that block fish passage, not the Hells Canyon Dam. But I had such a hard time finding a source that actually came out and said that, I'm a little hesitant to say it for sure.... -Pete (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More generally...I'd like to suggest to you and Kmusser that the new map include the Condit Dam and the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, which are notable due to the efforts to remove them. Also, probably some of the smaller ones along the Willamette and its tributaries, like the Detroit Dam, and the one at Lake Harriet, and probably the Willamette Falls Locks. It's true that it will be hard to determine good inclusion criteria, but I think just exercising our collective judgment will be good enough. Another thought is to use a number in the map for each dam -- like a "1" in a circle, which allows for a key such as "Bonneville Dam". Those in a single project could share a number. -Pete (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Map progress - Currently I'm planning on showing all the dams and then just labeling the big ones. I'm thinking of trying to show 2 aspects, varying the size of dot for the height of the dam, and the color for ownership. For height will probably just do a small, medium, large. For ownership I'm thinking 4 categories: Federal, Public Utility, Other government (state/prov./local), Private. Mentioned previously was the idea of making the treaty dams stand out - anyone point me to a list of those? Any other comments? Kmusser (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmusser, what do you think of using numbers or letters in the map graphic, and using the caption (and the text area of the image page) for the key/legend? This would allow wikilinking the dam names, and makes it possible to identify the most significant dams without clicking anywhere. For a fairly crude example of this approach, see here: Image:Map mount hood vicinity.png. To your question, I think the Columbia River Treaty article has the info you need -- if you have more questions about that though, I suspect Pfly can answer them better than I can. Also, I have no problem with listing by height, but is there a good reason not to use megawatts? -Pete (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently going with this approach, there just isn't room to label the dams otherwise. I'm not using megawatts because A) I'm including non-hydroelectric dams and B) I found the megawatt info I do have to be very incomplete and it would take quite a bit more research to do so. That said I have an atlas that has a map showing dams with circle sizes proportional to megawatt capacity and it's really cool so it might be worth the effort to re-create - maybe as a separate map, or used in this one and set the non-hydroloelectric dams to a standard size - unfortunately it only has the U.S. side of the border though. Kmusser (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a working list of dams I'm planning on labeling at User:Kmusser/dams, anything missing? Kmusser (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great list! I'd like to see the following added in, for their historic significance: Willamette Falls Locks (not a dam, but important), Condit Dam, and Bull Run Hydroelectric Project. Also, I don't know the names of many of them -- but do you have any dams on the Willamette River system? The one by Estacada on the Clackamas (is it Faraday Dam, maybe?) Detroit Dam? Lake Harriet? -Pete (talk)
I think I can squeeze on Willamette Falls and Condit. I have Portland #1 which can stand in for the Bull Run project and I have lots of Willamette system dams - enough that I may want to take some out.Kmusser (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New map

Ok, a draft of a new map is done, please take a look at it. Do check for errors, I found quite a few in my source data and I'm not sure I found them all. Also check to see if I categorized the ownership correctly, the source data wasn't always consistent, especially when it comes to utility vs private. General map comments? I think it might be too busy, but am not sure what to take out. Also this one really should be an SVG file but I can't get it to come out right and it crashes Inkscape, if anyone else wants to take a crack at converting it I'll happily send you the Illustrator file. Kmusser (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is really an amazing piece of work Karl! I am so impressed and appreciative! Great job. I love how you have so many smaller dams too -- it really gives a sense of the scale of development.

A few specifics:

  • Having the numerals be red might be confusing (with the "utility company" label.) Might be better to make them black or grey?
  • I'd like to see color splotches in the table as well -- maybe in the ownership column?
  • Moving the table from WP to Commons broke most of the links. I think I got them all fixed, but I used the "w:" prefix instead of "en:" (not really sure what the difference is.) If this is a problem, a simple search-and-replace in a text editor ought to fix it.

Great work! -Pete (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can mess with the labels, I had them as black and they blended into the background too much - I might try changing the color of the utility co. dams instead. The table can definitely be expanded - my thought was that eventually that should be able to be merged into the table on this page. I think I'll revert your edits on the Bull Run project, the dams on the Sandy and Little Sandy got removed, but the ones on the Bull Run itself stayed, including Portland or Bull Run No. 1, which is the big one (I believe it's the one pictured at [1]) Kmusser (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the tables sounds good. On Bull Run, I think we need to decide on one or the other -- naming one and linking to the other is not the right way to go. Portland Dam #1 was never, I'm prety sure, part of the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project. It was built later. I don't think that height should be the only factor in determining which dams are included; the Bull Run Hydro Project is the largest dam removed in Oregon, and the first of several being considered in the west for fish habitat reasons. (It wasn't that much smaller either, the Marmot -- the larger of the two dams -- was 47 ft high.)
Also, I'm a little confused by the classifications of dams owned by private utilities as being labeled differently from the other "private" dams. It seems to me that the distiction between a dam owned by a public utility district and one owned by a private company like Portland General Electric is a pretty important one. What are your thoughts on that? -Pete (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to suggestions on both counts. For Portland/Bull Run - at that scale all of those dams are more or less on top of each other - since I was going with height Portland No. 1 is the one labeled as the tall one - I'm definitely open to using things other than height though, the only reason I went with it was that it was the one data item I had consistently for all dams. On the ownership issue, that's part of why I listed the actual owners, the source data was not at all consistent, sometimes even categorizing the same owner differently for different dams - if some of those would be more appropriately labeled as "private" that's an easy change to make, I'm just not sure which ones to switch. Kmusser (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe relabeling BC Hydro and the PUDs as "public utilities" and switching the other utilities to private?Kmusser (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also there aren't any of the big ones, but lots of the little dams are owned by irrigation districts - I currently have those labeled as local government, but if I created a public utility category they might be more appropriate there? Kmusser (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I think based on this I will revert back the Bull Run project -- OK with you? I think that article does a decent job of "see-also"ing Portland Dam #1, but I'll make sure. I like your thoughts on the public/private stuff.
Also, a clutter-reducing suggestion -- just throwing this out there. Since the tributaries are already labeled on the other map you did, how about leaving the names off this one, and making sure there's a prominent link to the other map? The table identifies the rivers next to the dams' names, too.
I'd say this is ready to go on the main Columbia River article -- what do you think? -Pete (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. First of all: amazing, Karl! I saw this the other day and had to let it simmer for a while before coming up with a response. Plus real life is much in the way. Anyway, you wrote: General map comments? I think it might be too busy, but am not sure what to take out. I don't want to come off too critical, and am fine with it as is, but thought I'd give my thoughts for what they are worth: It does seem quite busy, even cluttered in places. There's also a few aspects I find confusing or potentially confusing. First some ideas on things I think could be taken out to reduce business without losing much of importance:

Cities: A few are needed to orient people, and some because they are important in relation to the dams. Many seem unnecessary, like Astoria, St Helens, Corvallis, Pendleton, Vancouver (WA); and perhaps others. Seattle and Tacoma ("Takoma"?) are the only cities not in the watershed, right? I'd take out Tacoma and add Vancouver (BC), and maybe Calgary (and/or Edmonton if it isn't off the map). Richland and Kennewick could be replaced with a simple "Tri-Cities" label.

Tributary names: some could come out, although it seems mostly ok. Perhaps Banks Lake, Lewis River, Umatilla? There's clutter near Spokane that could perhaps be improved by removing the tributary name.

Dam number labels: there's quite a lot, are they are needed? Looking for dams of lesser note and places of clutter on the map, perhaps take out number labels for Salmon Falls (46), Ririe (45), Cabinet Gorge (37), Albeni Falls (38), Long Lake (42), O'Sullivan (43), Tieton (44), Black Canyon (51), Mason (52), Pelton (56), Fall Creek (61), Smith (66), Blue River (64), Big Cliff (67) North Fork (68), Yale (70), Merwin (71), Swift (69), and/or Mayfield (73)? This list is just off the top of my head.

Dam dots: Some, many, or even all of the small unlabeled dams, especially those on streams that are not shown, could be taken out; but I'm unsure about this idea. On one hand I like being able to see where there are clusters (like the upper Okanogan), and it gives a sense of just how many dams there are, on the other hand, it definitely adds to the sense of clutter, and is a bit overwhelming. Maybe a selective removal of some of them, at least where they are particularly cluttering and/or misleading (like very close but not actually on a larger river). There's something to be said for showing all the dams, but I'm not sure this is all of them in the first place. The National Atlas dams dataset is not fully complete, is it?

Second, a few misc thoughts:

It isn't exactly clear why some dam label numbers are larger than others (although once I thought about it I saw they are the mainstem dams). It also is not always clear which dam dot a number label belongs to; perhaps the dam dots that have labels could be made to stand out? Perhaps a darker ring around them, or perhaps those dam dots ought to be shown large and all others small. I'm not sure. On dam dot sizes, I understand and like seeing dam height symbolized this way, but it seems odd in some cases, especially with so many mainstem Columbia dams having dots as small as minor irrigation dams. It's also confusing when some minor tributary dams are so close to the main Columbia that the dots look like they might well be mainstem dams. These thoughts make me wonder whether it would be clearer if numbered dams had larger dots and all others had smaller ones. Or perhaps unnumbered dams were shown in a couple sizes, medium and small.

The purple blends in with the river blue a bit too well, it seems to me. The cities and dams both use dots, even of the same size in some cases. This might add to the feeling of overload maybe? Might be interesting to see squares used for one or the other. On making the number labels stand out a bit more. I know what you mean about black and greys not always working well. Sometimes I've had luck with subtle drop shadows for labels. And a final nitpick: There seems to be a stroked but unfilled purple dot in Oregon between the John Day and Umatilla rivers.

Again, these are just some off the cuff reactions. Sorry for going on so long. I don't mean to sound overly critical! None of this is seriously important and thanks for doing this in the first place; it's great! Pfly (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great observations, Pfly -- I agree with much of what you say. This prompts a few other ideas, that might supplement your ideas:
  • I didn't realize that the larger numbers signified mainstem dams, either. I'd say either make them more distinct, or not distinct. If you go the more distinct route, how about this, since those ones are pretty well spaced out: put the number inside the circle on the river.
  • Using a bold, sans-serif font for the numbers might reduce the cluttery look a bit.
  • I think the wealth of information is a huge value, and would rather not see any dams removed. Like I said before, I think removing tributary names (and city names too) is fine, so long as a supplemental map has them.
  • In a few cases, you might combine a few dams into a single number; for instance, I've been meaning to write an article for the Lower Snake River Project for some time, and would be happy to start it if it helps make this map cleaner. Not sure how many similar projects there are, where an article would be justified.
Not to be a broken record, but I want to reiterate what Pfly said…it really is an awesome map, and none of these changes are necessary, just tweaks that might make a great thing even better. -Pete (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments are good. I think this can be used as is on the main article, I'll work on a version 2 but probably won't have it for a week due to flying off to Germany (other than the spelling mistake which I'll fix now, I plead living too close to the Takoma in DC). I think I do want to keep all the dams, especially as I think that's easier than coming up with some criteria of what to keep and what not, taking off a few labels should help with the clutter. I think for the circles sizes I may try switching to just large circles for the labeled dams and small circles for the unlabeled ones - for the main stem putting the numbers in the circles would probably work - if I do that, essentially using circle size to differentiate notable vs non-notable dams instead of height I'll gladly take more comments on which to add or drop. Kmusser (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and wanted to comment that I added Seattle and Tacoma specifically because they are owners of major dams in the basin, not just for orientation. 00:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah ha, that makes sense wrt Tacoma. It certainly wouldn't hurt to leave it in. I also think it can be used as is. Thanks again for your work. Hope you enjoy Germany! Pfly (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding river mile to dams?

[edit]

To help make the order of the lists less confusing for readers who may not be too familiar with these rivers, I'd like to add the river mile to each dam. While this will be fairly easy to find for major rivers like the Columbia itself and the Snake, it may be more difficult for others, such as the Pend Orielle. May also be more difficult for smaller private dams.

Thoughts on adding this information, knowing there may be missing data for some subsets? Also, after looking at the river mile page, I was reminded that river mile 0 is the mouth, which means the lists would be in reverse order of river mile. Would it make more sense to have the lists in order of river mile, so that as you scroll down you are heading up the river? I'm leaning towards leaving the lists as-is, since flipping them will be a lot of work. Jaywm (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would river mile make the list less confusing? Their order? Don't see river mile too often. Lists are typically headwaters down to the mouth so I agree with the order.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should Kootenay Canal and South Slocan Dam be counted as dams?

[edit]

These two power plants are on the Kootenay River, right in the same busy area as the Bonnington Falls dams (located here: http://goo.gl/maps/VdA74). They were in the list before my latest edit, but I decided to take them out. I will try to explain. To me, the Kootenay Canal 'Dam' should not be counted as a dam on the Kootenay River simply because the dam is not located on the river - it dams the canal that was created by the Corra Linn dam just a touch upstream.

Similarly, the South Slocan dam should be removed because it's not holding back the water; it's just built into a portion of the river and utilizing what moves through it. The river still has the ability to move freely past the powerhouse.

Thoughts on these two powerhouses being counted as dams? Jaywm (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Kootenay Canal 'Dam'"; that's a difficult one but it retains water from the river and at a higher elevation. It is technically an extension of the Corra Linn Dam. Never seen a case like this but I think it should be on a list. It is a dam as it retains water from a water source, the Kootenay, just in a different spot and next to another dam. Checked some sources too, it is referred to as a dam here pg1 and here pg2 (map).--NortyNort (Holla) 17:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
South Slocan should be on the list. It is a dam, just with an uncontrolled spillway. Photos here show a 'barrier that impounds water'. If the power plant were to be shut off it would still maintain its reservoir. There are very few hydroelectric facilities without a dam and they are generally very small scale.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points, and thanks for the feedback. Your argument for South Sloan is spot on and something I hadn't even considered. I'll add these next chance I get.
Jaywm (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Thanks for all the work on this list, it's much improved.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List depth

[edit]

Just out of curiosity, how many dams are in the basin? Here it says 470+. I was adding infoboxes to the Detroit and Big Cliff Dams the other day and wondered how in-depth this list should be.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I've been kinda wondering that. Right now my thought is to create lists for rivers that satisfy either or both of the following: a notable river (ie: Yakima), or a river with a notable dam (ie: Owyhee River). I've seen the vast number of dams as I've scrolled around on google maps, and do not expect to get them all, but am interested in covering notable instances. What are your thoughts?
Jaywm (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main tributaries seem to be a good level to go to. Almost 500 dams would be too much. Is notable by height, MW or just it's 'fame'?--NortyNort (Holla) 10:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notable just by feel. If it's a river through a big town (Spokane River) that doesn't really have major dams, then it can be included. I'm not sure of what the cut off is. For example, if you click on the picture at the top of the article, and look at the tributaries of the Snake River in southern Idaho, it looks like those can be skipped. I think the only other rivers in Idaho to include are the Boise (because of where it runs through) and the Clearwater (because of Dworshak Dam). The rest can be added later if someone wants to.
At the same time, I want the Tieton Dam on the Tieton River to be included for sure, since it's an important part of the irrigation project of the Yakima Irrigation District, but it's a tributary of the Naches, which is a tributary of the Yakima. The Naches doesn't really have any major dams, much like the Yakima, but doesn't have the dams or esteem of the Yakima. So I may try to skip the Naches but fit the Tieton with the flow of the page.
Many of the dams on the Willamette Tributaries should be included because they are major dams, especially the Detroit. I guess my point is, for the moment it's alright going for the bigger or more important landmarks, but there's really no problem ultimately going for total inclusion. There are longer lists with more references out there (even if all dams were included), and for a list to become a feature list, it has to include all current information (in this case, all dams). It might also be handy to have all included, so that parts of the list can be linked from other pages.
Jaywm (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you can go down a worm hole pretty quick with every single one. It's not optimal to skip rivers but I'd imagine several split lists if every dam was included.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just keep on adding to the list and we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. In the mean time, I'll be thinking of how to split it up if that's how we decide to treat it. Jaywm (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant omission - Dvorshak Dam

[edit]

The Dworshak Dam on the North Branch Clearwater River is omitted. This is like the third highest dam in the U.S. The Clearwater flows into the Snake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.77.101 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another significant omission is Duncan Dam, which stores about 1/4 as much water as Libby Dam. Dougmcdonell (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of dams in the Columbia River watershed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of dams in the Columbia River watershed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_dams_in_the_Columbia_River_watershed&oldid=1208227289"