Transporting Goods on the Lower Snake River

An efficient, affordable transportation system

The partial removal of the four federal dams on the lower Snake River in eastern Washington is considered the surest and best means for restoring Snake River salmon and steelhead to self-sustaining, harvestable levels. Right now, the lower Snake River is used to transport grain and other goods to market. If these dams are removed, the lower Snake River will close to barge traffic, but railroads and Columbia River barges will continue to offer transportation options for farmers to ship grain. The bottom line is that the Northwest does not need the lower Snake River dams to have an efficient and affordable transportation system for farmers.

The Northwest needs both our fish and our farmers for a healthy economy. Salmon businesses, fishermen, and conservationists support assuring that our farmers have affordable efficient transportation for their products while at the same time restoring salmon and steelhead to self-sustaining, harvestable levels. This fact sheet draws on several recent developments to demonstrate that grain farmers can continue to have an efficient, affordable transportation system without barging grain down the Snake River. Two new analyses, one by transportation consultants BST Associates and one by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, look at different ways of replacing the Snake River barge transportation system, but both conclude that it can be replaced feasibly and affordably. In addition, a recent transportation package passed by the Washington State Legislature will provide $33.5 million for the public purchase and rehabilitation of eastern Washington's short-line rail system, which is a key part of replacing the lower Snake River barge system.

Based on this new information the table below shows what it would cost to upgrade the rail system to affordably and efficiently accommodate grain transportation after lower Snake River dam removal.

Necessary Transportation Infrastructure Improvements

Comparing Transportation Improvement Costs to Ongoing Salmon Recovery

For perspective, the costs for ensuring a cost-effective and efficient transportation system for farmers are lower than the costs associated with current salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia and Snake River Basin. For example, it costs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers $36.5 million per year simply to operate and maintain just the four lower Snake River dams and their fish passage systems. The low-end estimate of $17.2 million for infrastructure upgrades is less than half that total, and importantly, it would be a one-time cost as opposed to perennial dam operation and maintenance costs. Even the unlikely high-end estimate of $224.6 million is far less than the $390 million the Army Corps committed to spending through 2010 in its 2002 Final Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement.

For all Snake and Columbia river salmon recovery efforts, the numbers are even more dramatic. The General Accounting Office found that through fiscal year 2001, we had already spent more than $3.3 billion on salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia Basin, and the GAO was not certain that these efforts were actually having an impact. Since that report, we have spent more than an additional $1 billion, making the grand total over $4.3 billion. Fully funding the federal government's Salmon Plan to keep the four lower Snake River dams in place would cost approximately $1 billion per year and we are already spending about $600 million per year on that plan. Even the high-end estimate for transportation upgrades after dam removal (i.e., $224.6 million in one-time expenses) is over 75% less than the annual cost of fully funding the Federal Plan. It would make more sense to make modest, one-time investments in improving the rail system and removing the dams, and then let Mother Nature take care of the bulk of Snake River salmon recovery for free.

Grain Transportation Remains Affordable

Recently, BNSF Railway released its assessment of its ability to both move grain to market and to do so in a cost-effective manner after the lower Snake River dams are removed. BNSF states that it has the capacity right now to move 94 percent of the grain produced in Washington to market.5 (Note: Not all grain would be moved by rail after dam removal: railroads would handle 54% of the grain currently moving down the Snake River, while Columbia River barges leaving from Washington's Tri-Cities area would carry the remaining 46%.6) Additionally, BNSF concluded that it could bring the grain to market in a manner that is "fully competitive with existing transportation requirements."7

Healthy Farms, Healthy Salmon, and a Healthy Economy

The Northwest doesn't need to choose between having vibrant farms, healthy rivers, abundant, harvestable salmon, and a strong recreational and commercial fishing economy. But such a future can only be realized if we remove the lower Snake River dams and take the opportunity to plan for a better future for the Northwest farms, fishermen, and salmon.

Footnotes
1 These costs are derived by using cost-estimates developed by BST Associates and subtracting $26.1 million from the BST numbers to account for the fact that the state of Washington has set aside $26.1 million for short-line rail upgrades that would help replace the lower Snake River barge system. See Lower Snake River Transportation Study (BST study), BST Associates, p. 63. For a list of projects scheduled under the this funding package, see "'Nickel Funding Package' Enacted for Transportation by the 2003 Washington State Legislature," p. 14 (available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/nickel/ProjectList.pdf). 2BST study, pp. 61-62. Mainline railroads may be able to reallocate some rail cars from existing fleets at no cost. 3 The low cost here comes from the BST study. The high end cost is half the cost the BST report projected would be needed if existing elevators are unable to handle any increased amounts of grain. Because there are many rail-served elevators in the region that are not currently in use (BST study, p. 51), we feel the range presented in this fact sheet is realistic. Dr. Ken Casavant, a transportation economist at Washington State University, has also stated that he believes the lower end of BST's rail elevator upgrade range is most realistic. 4BST study, pp. 62-63. Cost depends on whether existing elevators in the Tri-Cities area of Washington can handle increased amounts of grain. 5Washington Wheat Analysis (BNSF analysis) prepared for congressional staff by Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway, February 27. 2003. 6BST study, p. 65. 7BNSF analysis.

More Information