FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENTS AT

THREE MILE FALLS DIVERSION DAM,

UMATILLA RIVER, OREGON

Bureau of Reclamation

Pacific Northwest Region

Boise, Idaho

Final Completion Report

To

Bonneville Power Administration

Division of Fish & Wildlife

Project Manager: Tom Vogel

Project No. 83-436

Contract No. DE-AI79-83BP17463

May 1985

U.S Department of the InteriorBureau of Reclamation

THREE MILE FALLS’DIVERSION DAM

HERMISTON

\LA

\ ‘K~~~~yE&zE$Y’UMATILLA BASIN

November 1984 1022-100 -39

SUMMARY

In June 1984 an interagency agreement between Bonneville PowerAdministration (BPA) and the Bureau of Reclamation was signed which directedReclamation to (1) coordinate a thorough biological assessment of fish passageproblems and needs at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam, located on the lowerLhnatilla River, among the fishery agencies and the Confederated Tribes of theUmatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and (2) conduct a feasibility study ofalternative plans to meet these needs.

This report contains the results and conclusions from the biologicalassessment and outlines several alternative plans for solving fish passageproblems at the dam. A recommended plan, based on consensus of the fisheriesagencies and the tribes, is described, and the rationale for that decision isdiscussed. Data needs for final designs, a tentative construction schedule,and a discussion of operation and maintenance needs are presented.

Historically, the Lbnatilla River produced large numbers of summersteelhead and fall and spring chinook salmon. The construction of Three MileFalls Diversion Dam, in combination with other upstream irrigation projectdevelopment, eliminated all chinook salmon and drastically reduced runs ofsummer steelhead. Steelhead runs have averaged less than 2,090 returningadults for the past 14 years.

The provision of improved fish passage facilities under existing flowlevels would significantly reduce or eliminate losses of adult salmon andsteelhead below the dam and reduce delays in adult passage. The inclusion oftrapping and counting facilities would permit the selection of adults forbrood stock without severely delaying or excessive handling of fish, enhancethe trapping of adults to be hauled to suitable spawning areas, and providefor total counts by species to and in the evaluation of all other fishenhancement projects. [This would be a valuable tool in the evaluation ofprogram success and would allow proper crediting to ratepayers for projectsaccomplished under section 4(h) of Public Law 96-501.] Passage efficiency forjuvenile fish would be improved.

Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam was constructed in 1914 by the Bureau ofReclamation as an integral part of the Umatilla Project. The dam is owned byReclamation, with operation a n d maintenance responsibilities being handledprimarily by the West Extension Irrigation District (WEID). The dam is aconcrete buttress dam with a maximum height of 24 feet and a crest length of915 feet.

Existing fish passage facilities include East Ladder, West Ladder, andlouver screen. The East Ladder was built during the initial construction in1914. Additional weirs were constructed at the toe of the dam as part of theladder in 1963. This ladder is an overflow weir type. It was taken out ofservice in 1964 by backfilling it with earth but was reopened in 1984.Successful passage of steelhead has occurred when riverflows exceed 500 cubicfeet per second (ft3/s). Primary problems associated with the East Ladderinclude false attraction flows along the face of the dam just west of theladder entrance, obstructions in the channel below the entrance to the ladder,and sedimentation along the upstream face of the dam near the exit (upstreamend) of the ladder. Also, the ladder does not contain trapping, holding, or

a

counting facilities. No additional attraction water is provided to the ladderentrance.

The West Ladder on the left abutment of the dam is a vertical slot-typestructure which was completed in August 1964. It has twenty-one 8-foot byl0-foot rectangular concrete pools. The floor slopes and the slots in thepools extend to the floor. The ladder is operated during periods of upstreamanadromous fish migrations and uses about 20 to 40 ft /s for ladder operationdepending upon forebay depths. When there is a difference of 20 feet betweenthe forebay and tailwater, the ladder will operate with about l-footdifference in water level between pools. A 12-inch-diameter pipe routes waterfrom inside the upper pool through a diffuser in the lower pool to provideabout 15 ft3/s of additional attraction flows for adult anadromous fish.

The ladder is not designed for trapping, counting, and holding of adultanadromous fish. An electronic counter operated at the head of the UestLadder for several years but has not been used recently. This counter wasdifficult to calibrate and gave inconsistent results. Consequently, atemporary conduit fyke-type trap is used in the upper four pools of the ladderfor annual counting of summer steelhead. The pools are then partiallydewatered, and the fish are individually dip-netted, counted, and passed overthe dam. Steelhead brood stock selection (for the juvenile supplementaloutplanting program) also occurs in this manner. Downstream juvenile migrantsare passed either over the crest of the dam or through a bypass pipe thatcollects those fish which have been screened from the canal entrance.

The louver is mounted at the intake of the UEID Canal at the leftabutment of the dam. It is approximately 30 feet long and consists of aseries of fixed metal slats spaced about 1 to 2 inches apart. It preventsmost steelhead smolts from entering the canal and directs them to the entranceof the bypass pipe.

During 1954, modifications were made to the Umatilla River channel belowThree Mile Falls Diversion Dam to improve upstream fish passage. This work,overseen by the Corps of Engineers and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife(ODFU), was about 90-percent complete at the end of the construction season inlate 1984. A research project will be conducted in 1985 to monitor thesuccess of this project over a range of flows. According to ODFW the riverchannel below the dam was observed to be a barrier to upstream passage ofadult Salmon and steelhead at flows less than 200 ft3/s, and flows up to300 ft3/s were assumed to limit passage. With channel work near completion, aflow of 100 ft3/s was assumed to be the minimum flow needed for adult passageHowever, even with channel work, it is estimated that flows up to 150 ft3/swill limit passage. Fish passage studies to be conducted in late 1985 shouldyield information on appropriate passage flow levels.

Adult steelhead use the lower main stem Umatilla River primarily as amigration corridor. Upstream migration begins as early as October, dependingon flows, with the peak occurring between November and March. Most spawningoccurs in April and May in the upper Umatilla River and its tributaries.

Egg incubation occurs from April through July. Most rearing takes placein the same tributary streams where spawning occurs. The juveniles typicallyspend 2 years in freshwater before migrating to sea as smolts. The estimated

b

annual outmigration of summer steelhead smolts is 50,000 to 100,000 nativefish. This occurs during the period April through June. The ODFW begansupplemental hatchery outplanting of juvenile steelhead in 1980. Sincethe program began, ODFW released about 17,500 steelhead smolts in 198159,500 in 1982, 60,500 in 1983, 58,000 in 1984, and 60,000 in 1985. Theoutplanted smolts are progenies of native adult fish trapped at Three MileFalls Diversion Dam.

A self-sustaining run of fall chinook has not existed in the lhnatillaRiver since shortly after the construction of Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam.However, an abundance of potential spawning habitat fs found throughout themain stem lhnatilla River and in Meacham Creek.

Under a fish release program developed by CTUIR and ODFW, juvenile fallchinook have been liberated in the Umatilla River since 1982.

Once established, adult fall chinook will enter the Umatilla River inOctober through December, with most spawning expected to occur in November andDecember. Egg incubation takes place from December to mid-March, with rearingbetween February and the end of May. Fingerlings are expected to migratedownstream to the Columbia River in March through June.

Large numbers of spring chinook salmon existed in the Unatilla basinprior to construction of Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam. The ODFW reportedsmall numbers of spring chinook in the system into the 1960’s, but none havebeen observed since.

An implementation plan for enhancement of Umatilla River salmon andsteelhead has been developed by the CTUIR. Long-term escapement goalspresented in this plan are 5,400 hatchery-produced and 5,000 naturallyproduced adult summer steelhead, 10,000 hatchery-produced and 12,000 naturallyproduced adult fall chinook salmon, and 10,000 hatchery-produced and 1,000naturally produced adult spring chinook salmon.

The Bureau of Reclamation recently completed a Planning Report/Environ-mental Statement on the Umatilla Project. This project emphasizes fisheryflow measures to restore chinook runs and enhance steelhead runs in theUmatilla River basin. The plan's major feature and recommended plan ofdevelopment is that of improving streamflows by "importing" water from theneighboring Columbia River. Water would be pumped from the Columbia Riverinto Cold Springs Reservoir for distribution to irrigators. Use of thisimported water by irrigators would permit Umatilla River water which is nowdiverted or stored for irrigation use to remain in the Umatilla River toimprove flow conditions in the lower basin. Other measures would include fishpassage improvements at four diversion points on the Umatilla River and apostproject fishery study.

Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam presents a major obstacle to both upstreamand downstream migrating salmon and steelhead. As runoff increases to mediumto high flows (about 500 ft3/s or greater), a higher percentage of waterspills over the crest of the dam, and attraction flows at both ladders becomea smaller portion of the total flow. This creates a false attraction problemin the tailrace area. The resulting migration delay creates increased stressand mortality when fish jump and become trapped in the open bays beneath the

C

dam. An estimated 20 percent of 1982-83 steelhead return was lost because ofthese conditions at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam. Migration delays for fallchinook would be even more harmful than for steelhead due to the relativelyshort period of time between migration and spawning.

The West Ladder is well designed for salmon and steelhead passage butlacks adequate attraction flows at the entrance during medium to high flows.The East Ladder is not adequately designed by today's standards. It has poorentrance conditions, poor turn pool conditions, poor exit conditions, and isnot self-regulating. It also lacks adequate attraction water at all flowlevels. Sediment naturally accumulates above the east side of the dam andrestricts flow into the East Ladder, thus impeding fish passage. There are notrapping or counting facilities at the East Ladder and only marginalopportunities at the West Ladder.

Debris hanging over the dam crest and accumulating in the tailrace areaimpedes lateral movement of adult salmon and steelhead along the base of thedam. This situation, combined with insufficient attraction flows at theladder entrances, also creates migration delay and stress. Accumulation ofdebris above the east side of the dam restricts the amount of flow enteringthe East Ladder. Failure to maintain control of debris above and below theEast Ladder may cause stranding of adult fish.

Juvenile steelhead migrate downstream past Three Mile Falls Diversion Damby passing over the crest, through the fish ladders, or through the smoltbypass pipe on the west side. The bypass pipe drops fish 20 feet into thetailrace area below the dam. This may cause injury, stress, and possiblemortality to smolts, especially during low flow conditions when the bedrockarea below the pipe does not contain adequate pool depths. This condition iseven worse for those smolts passing over the crest of the dam. Smoltsencounter the louver system at the intake of WEID Canal. Passage efficiencyof this type louver system for steelhead smolts under ideal flow conditions is70 to 95 percent. Passage conditions at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam areprobably near the low end of this range because of problems with the approachvelocities, nonlaminar flows, and bypass slot velocities. This efficiencydoes not meet National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) criteria for screeningfacility design, which requires successful passage of all fish.

Passage efficiency of louvers for fall chinook migrants under idealconditions would range from 40 to 9 0 percent. and for spring chinook 60 to90 percent. The larger-sized yearling fall chinook smolt presently beingreleased would likely be near the upper end of the range. However, futureoutmigrations of natural and hatchery fry and fingerlings of both fall andspring chinook would likely experience passage efficiencies near the lower endof this range.

This study considered several potential measures for fish passageimprovement, including two fish ladders, a concrete apron plus improvements tothe existing left bank ladder, a cap on the crest of the dam plus improvementsto the left bank ladder, and dam removal.

The main feature of the two-fish ladder plan would be the construction ofa new right bank ladder to improve fish passage. In addition, thisalternative includes modifications to the existing left bank ladder and the

d

Installation of rotary drum fish screens and related structures in the WEIDCanal. Total construction costs and annual op1/eration and maintenance costswould be $3,475,009 an4 $66,000,

The concrete apron plus West Ladder alternative would consist of atraining wall (barrier) and apron constructed downstream of the dam and thesame modifications to the left bank ladder and new screens and relatedstructures in the WEID Canal. Total construction costs would be $3,560,000,while annual operation and maintenance costs would total $55,000.

The cap-on-crest plus west ladder alternative would feature a concretecap on the east and center portions of the dam along with the modifications tothe left bank ladder and the new screens and related structures in the WEIDCanal. Construction costs would total an estimated $2,985,000, while annualoperation and maintenance costs would be $55,000.

The dam removal alternative would require the construction of a newpumping plant at the mouth of the Umatilla River to supply water to the WEIDCanal. Fish passage in the river would be improved by restoring the riverchannel to predam conditions. This would require the removal of a portion ofthe dam and bedrock and/or silt removal behind the dam. No fish ladders wouldbe required, and the canal headworks would be abandoned. Water normallydiverted at the dam for irrigation would be allowed to pass downstream forimproved fish flows, particularly during low flow conditions and high fishmigration. Water for the WEID Canal would be supplied by the pumping plant.

The construction costs for the pumping plant and dam removal areestimated to be $8,280,000. Annual operation and maintenance costs were notcalculated for this alternative.

The two-ladder plan was selected as the recommended plan by the fisheriesagencies and the Lhnatilla Indian tribes.

Three other alternatives were considered in the earlier stages of thisstudy but were eliminated for various reasons. These alternatives were(1) East Ladder only; (2) ladder at new location (i.e., middle of dam); and(3) center cap-on-crest with sill-type ladder on east side. The East Ladderonly alternative was eliminated because it would abandon the best (left bank)existing ladder, and it was thought that a single ladder was not sufficient tomeet fish passage problems. The middle ladder alternative was eliminatedbecause of access and maintenance difficulties, particularly when trapping andcounting fish. A middle ladder would require more water to operate and wouldbe more costly than a bank ladder due to additional heights and strengthrequirements. The sill-type ladder was omitted because it would be moredifficult to regulate flow, debris in the ladder would be a major problem, andtrapping and sampling facilities would not be available.

Present operation and maintenance responsibilities are shared betweenUEID, ODFW, and NMFS. Estimated annual operation and maintenance expensesborne by WEID are 310,500, which is used for minor and ordinary maintenanceand repair on gates, the louvers, and other structures.

L/ All costs cited in this report are based on January 1985 price levels.

e

The right bank ladder was reopened in 1984 after being out of servicefor 20 years. The left bank ladder is used to trap and count fish bypartially dewatering it and dip-netting individual fish and passing them overthe dam. The ODFW has responsibility for this activity, which requires about50 man-days per year to accomplish.

The louvers were constructed by the Bureau of Commerical Fisheries (nowNMFS) in 1961. Funding for annual maintenance and repair is passed to ODFUfrom NMFS in a program that includes fish screens throughout the ColumbiaBasin. No funding estimates are available for operation and maintenance onthe louvers.

Specific operation and maintenance responsibilities and funding sourceshave not been identified at this phase of the project. Estimated annualoperation and maintenance costs for the facilities outlined in the recommendedplan are about $66,000. The Bureau of Reclamation has no authority to provideoperation and maintenance funding for fish facilities at the dam and has askedBPA to pursue the possibility of their funding operation and maintenance ofnew fish passage facilities at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam. It is assumedthat Reclamation would be responsible for overseeing operation and maintenanceactivities. One possibility under consideration is to include the operationand maintenance function in the Yakima fish passage facilities program sinceThree Mile Falls Diversion Dam is reasonably close to the Yakima Project.

Resolution of the various questions regarding operation and maintenanceof fish passage facilities at Three Mile Falls Diverson Dam should be a toppriority as this project moves into the final design phase.

A variety of data must be collected and analyzed before final designs canbe prepared and construction begun. Additional control surveys andtopographical mapping are needed at each ladder and fish screen structure.Surveys are needed to establish river cross sections above and below the damand canal cross sections and profiles above and below the screen site.Geological investigations are needed to explore foundation conditions at eachstructure to locate possible borrow sources and to locate sites for disposalof waste materials. Hydrologic records and analyses are needed to developwater surface profiles above and below the dam and the screen site. Also, aflood frequency analysis needs to be prepared for the site, and operationaldata needs to be analyzed before final designs and specifications can bedetermined.

Records of all construction at and within the construction area of theladders and screens need to be examined to determine how new constructionshould tie into existing facilities, to locate possible utilities, toestablish access routes, and to locate rights-of-way.

Stream maintenance requirements during construction of the fishways needto be determined.

f

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Page

SUMMARYINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Study Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Study Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Potential Results of Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Coordination with Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Purpose and Function of Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Ownership, Operation, and Maintenance Responsibility . . . . . 4Dam Design and Flow Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Existing Fish Passage Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Right Bank Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :Left Bank Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Louver . . .Downstream Channel Improvements

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

EXISTING FISHERY RESOURCES OF THE UMATILLA B ASIN : : : : : : : : : : : :7

Steelhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiFall ChinookSpring Chinook'

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

POTENTIAL FUTURE FISHERY F;E;O;R~ES OF'T;E'U~AXLA 6~kl; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 110lo

Steelhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Fall Chinook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Spring Chinook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Umatilla Basin Project

PRESENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE ;ISH;R; ~R~B;E~~'ASS~C~A?E~ ki~'TiRiE'~iLi11

FALLS DIVERSION DAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Steelhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Juveniles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Fall Chinook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Juveniles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Spring Chinook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Juveniles

ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENT.................................14

............................................ 15TwoFishLadders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Description of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Right Bank Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Left Bank Ladder Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16West Extension Irrigation District Canal Fish Screens . . 16

Operating Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Concrete Apron Plus West Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Description of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Operating Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

i

Table of Contents

Cap-on-crest Plus West Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Description of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operating Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dam Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Description of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Operating Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .costs

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN' 1 1 1 1 1OTHER PLANS CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DATA NEEDS FOR FINAL DESIGNS AND CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Permits and Clearances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Construction Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operation and Maintenance Costs and Responsibilities . . . . . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION AND NEPA COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . .Environmental Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEPA Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COSTS DEVELOPMENTCONCLUSIONS AND RE&r;El;Dr;TiOk' : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LITERATURE CITEDAPPENDED MATERIAL

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTCONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SHEETS FOR RECOWENDED PLANAGENCY CONCURRENCE LETTERS

TABLES

Table No.

1 Average Monthly Flows Expressed in Cubic Feet Per Second BelowThree Mile Falls Diversion Dam for 44 Years of Record,1935-78...........................

2 Assumed Passage Conditions (Expressed as Percentage of FishPassing Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam) . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Comparative Summary of Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MAPS

Page

19

::

2':20212122232324242425

H5

2272727

Page

6

1322

Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frontispiece

ii

Table of Contents

DRAWINGS

Follows Page

Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Right Bank Fish Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Left Bank Fish Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fish ScreensFish Barrier aid'Apr&'

................................................ 1618

Cap On CrestConstruction S;hld;l6

.................................................. 1924

iii

F I S H P A S S A G E I M P R O V E M E N T S A T

T H R E E M I L E F A L L S D I V E R S I O N D A M

U M A T I L L A R I V E R , O R E G O N

INTRODUCTION

On December 5, 1980, Congress passed the Pacific Northwest Electric PowerPlanning and Conservation Act (Public Law 96-501). The act created a councilcharged with the responsibility to prepare a Northwest Conservation andElectric Power Plan and to develop a program to protect, mitigate, and enhancefish and wildlife including related spawning grounds and habitat on theColumbia River and its tributaries.

The council adopted its Fish and Wildlife Program on November 15, 1982.Section 700 of the program deals with measures to enhance the naturalpropagation of salmon and steelhead as well as to improve facilities andtechniques used for hatchery propagation. The primary objectives of therecommendations to improve natural propagation are:

1. Provision of suitable flows for spawning, incubation, emergence,and rearing in the Columbia River and its tributaries

2. Improvement of anadromous fish spawning, incubation, rearing,and migration habitat which were affected by hydroelectric developmentand enhancement of habitat at other locations to compensate for direct effects

3. Provision of and restoration of passage to habitats which becameunavailable to TP ratory fish primarily as a result of hydroelectricdevelopment (l)-

Much of the anadromous fish habitat in the Columbia River system has beenlost as a result of hydroelectric development. However, many tributarystreams have good spawning and rearing habitat and could be brought to fullpotential through habitat improvement measures and improved fish passage. Theproposed passage improvement measures at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam are inconcert with goal 3 above.

Two projects have been requested by the Confederated Tribes of thelknatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) in cooperation with the Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife (ODFU) to restore chinook salmon and improve steelheadpassage at and below the dam. The first of these was essentially completed inOctober 1984 and involved the excavation of a channel from the mouth of theUmatilla River to within about 1,000 feet of Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam.Upstream migrating salmon and steelhead now have much improved passageconditions to the dam. Before the channel work, upstream passage wasvirtually impossible at low flows.

l/ A number in parentheses refers to the number of the reference in the-"Literature Cited" section.

1

A proposal was developed jointly in 1983 by fishery agencies, CTUIR, andBureau of Reclamation to improve fish passage at the dam. The plan includedconstruction of a fish barrier immediately below the dam to help fish locatethe entrance to the fish ladder. Also included were modifications to countingand trapping facilities in the existing vertical slot fish ladder located onthe west end of the dam. Reclamation prepared feasibility plans and estimatesfor the fish barrier in October 1983.

After reviewing these plans and estimates, Bonneville PowerAdministration (BPA) concluded that it could not commit funds for the finaldesign and construction of the proposed fish barrier because:

1. Information presented did not fully demonstrate that constructionof the fish barrier was independent of other required passage improvements atthe dam

The independent utility of the project from other Umatilla Riverfish EAhancement activities was not established (2)

Consequently, BPA requested that Reclamation (1) coordinate a thoroughbiological assessment by the various fishery agencies and the CTUIR to clarifyfish passage problems and needs and (2) conduct a feasibility study ofalternative plans to meet needs. An interagency agreement providing for thiswork was signed by the agencies in June 1984.

Study Purpose

The Reclamation study has two purposes:

1. To coordinate the completion of and report on a biological assessmentof fish passage problems and needs at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam byseveral interested fishery agencies and the CTUIR

2. To apply information from the biological assessment in developingalternative plans for solving fish passage problems which can he used by thefisheries agencies, CTUIR, and BPA to recommend a course of action

Study Scope

Included in this study are:

1. Results and conclusions of the biological assessment

2. Preliminary engineering data delineating general configuration andlayout of facilities; general flow requirements to operate facilities: datarequirements for preparation of final plans, designs, and specifications; andcost estimates for construction and operation and maintenance

3. Identification of Federal, State. and local government permits whichmay be required before construction can be initiated

2

4. Estimated schedules for final plans and designs, specifications, andconstruction

5. Identification of potential arrangements for operation and maintenanceof the new facilities

6. Analysis and preparation of information to satisfy NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements

Need for Action

Historically, the Umatilla River produced large numbers of summersteelhead and fall and spring chinook salmon. No actual population estimatesare available prior to the construction of Three Mile Falls Diversion Damin 1914, but reports of "thousands and thousands" of salmon being caught fromspring to fall in the lower Umatilla River by both Indians and non-Indians aredocumented (3).

The construction of Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam eliminated all chinooksalmon and drastically reduced runs of summer steelhead. Present runs ofsteelhead have averaged less than 2,000 returning adults for the past 14 years.

The Umatilla River basin has an abundance of spawning gravel andpotential habitat for both steelhead and spring and fall chinook. Primaryfactors limiting populations in the basin are low flows exacerbated byirrigation withdrawals and inadequate passage over irrigation diversion dams.The provision of adequate fish passage and protective facilities at Three MileFalls Diversion Dam would be a very important step in reestablishing chinooksalmon runs and enhancing steelhead runs in the Umatilla basin.

Potential Results of Actions

The provision of improved fish passage facilities under existing flowlevels would significantly reduce or eliminate losses of adult salmon andsteelhead below the dam and reduce delays in adult passage. The inclusion oftrapping and counting facilities would permit the selection of adults forbrood stock without severely delaying or excessive handling of fish, enhancethe trapping of adults to be hauled to suitable spawning areas, and providefor total counts by species to and in the evaluation of all other fishenhancement projects. [This would be a valuable tool in the evaluation ofprogram success and would allow proper crediting to ratepayers for projectsaccomplished under section 4(h) of Public Law 96-501.] Passage efficiency forjuvenile fish would be improved.

Coordination with Others

The Bureau of Reclamation appreciates the assistance of the followingentities who provided information or otherwise participated in the study:

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationOregon Department of Fish and WildlifeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Marine Fisheries ServiceColumbia River Intertribal Fish CommissionBureau of Indian AffairsCorps of EngineersWest Extension Irrigation DistrictBonneville Power Administration

The biological assessment was prepared by an interagency team comprisedof the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS), ODFW, CTUIR, and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission.Designs for fish ladders and screens were developed by Reclamation in closeconsultation with the NMFS and ODFW.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam

Puroose and Function of Dam

Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam is located on the Umatilla Riverapproximately 3 miles south of Umatilla, Oregon. The dam, headworks, andright bank fish ladder were constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1914as an integral part of the Umatilla Project under authority of the originalReclamation Act, section 4 (32 Stat. 388) and approved by the President onJanuary 5, 1911. It diverts water to the service area of the West ExtensionIrrigation District (WEID) through a 27-mile-long main canal (see drawing).The diverted water is used to irrigate about 7,000 acres of farmland.

Ownership, Operation, and Maintenance Responsibility

Title to Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam is held by the United States.The Bureau of Reclamation initially operated and maintained the works untilApril 27, 1926, when the WEID assumed operation, maintenance, and replacementresponsibility for the structure under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation.

Existing fish passage facilities at Three Mile Falls Diversion Daminclude the original pool-an4-weir ladder on the right bank (which wasreopened in 1984 after being out of service for 20 years). a vertical slotladder on the left bank, and a louver screen mounted at the intake of the WEIDCanal. The left bank ladder is used to trap and count fish by partiallydewatering it and dip-netting individual fish and passing them over the dam.

4

RiQhf lankFirh Letldw~

/ f ’

I/ d

\\

I\

7IL

i

)

!/

Y\/ $

// - I

>, -;+o;2”

&.‘.I-aa * - 0UMATILLA ?ROJECl - OREGON

THREE MILE FALLS DIVERSION DAMFISH PASSAGE & PROTECTION FACILITIES

5 9~00~ of Il*clamotioeEXISTING FACILITIES

Yov 1995 30 - 100 - 557s

The ODFW has responsibility for this activity, and about 50 man-days a yearare expended in its accomplishment. The WEID is responsible for debrisremoval along the face of the dam and from the louvers. The district has noresponsibility for operation and maintenance activities at the right bankladder. Estimated annual operation and maintenance expenses borne by WEID are$10,500, which includes $9,000 per year for labor (wages) and $1,500 for minorand ordinary maintenance and repairs on gates, louver screens, and otherstructures. About once every 8 to 10 years the district removes silt fromjust upstream of the east abutment and snags from the dam crest at anestimated cost of $4,000. The louvers were constructed by the Bureau ofCommercial Fisheries (now NMFS). Funding for annual maintenance and repair ispassed to ODFW from NMFS in a program that includes fish screens throughoutthe Columbia Basin. No funding estimates are available specifically for ThreeMile Falls Diversion Dam louvers.

Dam Design and Flow Characteristics

Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam is a concrete buttress dam with a maximumheight of 24 feet and a crest length of 915 feet. The canal headdworks at thediversion dam hascapacity is 310 ft3

a capacity of 375 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). /s, and the historic peak diversion is 305 ft /s3

The canal

average monthly diversions for the period 1935-78 are 145 to 170 ft /s betweenApril and September.

The buttress dam was designed to function as an overflow weir along itsentire crest. During the normal irrigation season, (April-October), the WEIDdiverts available river water to meet its demands and passes any remainderover the dam crest. During periods of low flow, all the ajailable water isdiverted (up to the canal capacity) except for about 20 ft /s released throughthe downstream migrant pipe. The fish ladder is operated dusing periods ofupstream steelhead migrations and requires about 20 to 40 ft /s for ladderoperation.

During the nonirrigation season, all the riverflows in excess of the fishladder and bypass pipe capacity are passed over the dam. As the flowsincrease over the dam, the proportion of total flow at the ladder entrancedecreases. Table 1 depicts the average flow conditions in the Umatilla Riverbelow the dam over the 44-year period 1935-78.

Existing Fish Passage Facilities

Right Bank Ladder .--During its initial construction, the dam was equippedwith a low fish ladder on the right abutment (east bank). Additional weirswere constructed at the toe of the dam as part of the ladder in 1963. Theright bank ladder is an overflow weir type containing 13 concrete pools, each6 feet by 8 feet by 6 feet in size. This series of pools contain verticaldrops ranging from 6 inches to 1 foot. This ladder was taken out of servicein 1964 by backfilling it with earth. It was replaced by a new ladder on theleft bank. However, in 1984 the right bank ladder was reopened by a group ofvolunteers, and succe

3sful passage of steelhead occurred when riverflows

exceeded about 500 ft 1s. Primary problems associated with the right bankladder include false attraction flows along the face of the dam just west ofthe ladder entrance, obstructions in the channel below the entrance to theladder, and sedimentation along the upstream face of the dam near the exit(upstream end) of the ladder. Also, the ladder does not contain trapping,

5

Table 1 .--Average Monthly Flows Expressed in Cubic Feet Per SecondBelow Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam for 44 Years of Record, 1935-78

Yhx MlaxlS-30 LB= 3ar Rb mc rp my an all Aqsp159ep3olBerap

191s 5. 5. 13.1936 4. 84. 106.1937 9. 31. 84.1938 33. 110. 161.1933 16. 79. 137.19&l 17. 105. 100.1941 13. lza Ea.lw2 210. 250. 867.1943 14. 138. 356.1944 98. 188. 115.1945 80. 101. 138.1946 43. 135. 618.1947 130. la. 637.198 'Ed. 645. 1030.1949 138. 128. 217.1950 44. 113. 157.1951 140. 358. 325,1%2 17l. 181. 258.1953 36. 72. 128.1954 92. 129. 161.1956 4). 2117. 126.1956 39. 184. 536.1957 89. 221. la.1%8 161. 176. 210.1959 51. 262. x2.19a 311. 192. M.1961 14. ly. 623.1952 15. 118. 176.1963 127. 14. EL1964 31. 155. 164.1965 26. 62. 116.1% 33. 73. 103.1961 11. 155. 48.l!xa xl. lzz. 107.1959 74. 256. 413.19m 127. 145. 115.1971 118. 172. 236.1972 as. Pg. 337.1973 las. 151. 120.1974 16. 466. 640.1975 66. 138. 153.1976 99. 1%. m.1977 36. 107. 97.1978 4. 164. 448.Axi m. 169. 279.

88.A.

291.174.110.484.733.1280.122.115.803.1571.974.4!3l.171.795.344.117.%2131.

12l5.sm.635.Ha160.215.274.452.165.

1881.103.489.92.4%.147.2Al.775.486.1898.225.1392.96.

117.552.

3zL365.51.

275.168.105.319.545.1273.95.332.74!3.8x.889.25.521.lp7.371.1007.436.132.

1309.116.715.13X3x.205.513.221.252.

2316.131.810.xc.1331.1931.1141.866.548.

1010.1580.1492.109.757.893.

316.a9.1%.333.m.987.117.892.1663.2-R.946.488.m .

l&6.1581.MS?.1815.882.1389.689.189.742.833.1875.910.587.1477.238.1367.331.

2254.139.610.1074.581.

1051.916.1636.160.

1301.842.763.77.

727.845.

188. 974.1082. 1513.558. lm6.lM1. 1181.1560. 692.131. 774.321. 11.739. 992.1181. 21323.743. 1037.lam. 1267.1457. MB.832. 588.991. 2120.1963. 1872.1490. 1M.1429. lcl54.829. ml.1123. 1481.4%. Sic.122. 737.

lXl3. 1376.14s 1407.688. x55.8%. 981.1132. Go.1333. as.899. 891.440. 941.423. 936.559. 1167.584. 2w.241. 1s.164. 5.854. 2188.1106. 942.628. m.36n. 1023.ao8. 8.1388. m0.1324. 996.751. 19zz.134. 268.

1031. 784.954. Km.

109. 11.176. 13.375. 50.95. 29.48. 18.17. 15.36. 211.

855. 445.957. 295.148. 26.855. 91.535. 99.15. 66.

3360. 551.652 31.797. 804.217. 140.430. 2.726. 417.13. zzo.

1478. 116.1107. 44.914. 39.980. 11.318. 35.726. 34.218. a.441. 33.3-L 7.378. 66.176. Y,

6. 6.619. 9.

4. 2.604. 54.839. 25.2%. 1%.795. 42.

7. 7.1255. 2%.1271. 59.645. 12.

2. z344. 10.548. la.

15. 14.12. 10.10. as.25. 15.38. 14.22. 13.15. 41.

148. 28.54. 63.2. 21.26. 3248. 45.35. 2.41. 56.19. 35.11. 51.32. 21.26. 19.26. 68.24. 35.27. 45.14. 44.12. 36.8. 45.

19. 25.17. 66.12. 25.19. 10.a 19.8. 15.

34. 12.10. 6.5. 7.4. 4.

26. 12.4. 5.

24. ia17. 16.5. 6.

21. 12.15. 12.10. 17.3. 3.

24. 33.23. 26.

9. ia 195.68. 13. 303.8

48. 28. m.227. 13. 293.25. 21. 261.3

13. 16. 292549. 68. 152.781. 35. 514.c52. 51. 752.140. 14. in.758. 42. 405.4151. 97. 515.032. 51. 4a.7141. 77. 921.631. 43. 990.965. 45. 568.033. 19. 593.737. 25. 399.680. 71. 538.846. 67. 271.152. 34. 269.62a 19. 666.424. 12. 474.447. 11. 6B8.6111. 123. 497.165. a6. 366.246. 17. 35s427. 17. XI.111. 4. 336.94. 12. 229.75. 5. m6.23. 3. 117.07. 3. 257.03. 4. 176.517. 9. 545.071. 19. 527.785. 35. s.422. 24. 765.47. 5. 141.317. 25. %1.810. 14. 546.07. 4. 6m.82. 2. 69.1

15. 13. 433.639. 29. 428.2

6

holding, or counting facilities. No additional attraction water is providedto the ladder entrance.

Left Bank Ladder. --The left bank ladder on the west abutment of the damis a vertical slot-type structure which was completed in August 1964. It wasbuilt by the State of Oregon under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation andthe WEID. It has twenty-one 8-foot by lo-foot rectangular concrete pools.The floor slopes and the slots in the pools extend to the floor. The ladderis operated durin periods of upstream anadromous fish migrations and usesabout 20 to 40 ft3 3/s for ladder operation depending upon forebay depths. Whenthere is a difference of 20 feet between the forebay and tailwater, the ladderwill operate with about l-foot difference in water level between pools. A12-inch-diameter pipe routes water from inside the upper pool through adiffuser in the lower pool to provide about 15 ft3 /s of additional attractionflows for adult anadromous fish.

The ladder is not designed for trapping, counting, and holding of adultanadromous fish. An electronic counter operated at the head of this ladderfor several years but has not been used recently. This counter was difficultto calibrate and gave inconsistent results. Consequently, a temporary conduitfyke-type trap is used in the upper four pools of the ladder for annualcounting of summer steelhead. The pools are then partially dewatered, and thefish are individually dip-netted, counted, and passed over the dam. Steelheadbroodstock selection (for the juvenile supplemental outplanting program) alsooccurs in this manner. Downstream juvenile migrants are passed either overthe crest of the dam or through a bypass pipe that collects those fish whichhave been screened from the canal entrance.

Louver. --The louver screen is mounted at the intake of the WEID Canal atthe left abutment of the dam. It was constructed by the Bureau of CommercialFisheries in 1961 under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation and the WEID.It is approximately 30 feet long and consists of a series of fixed metal slatsspaced about 1 to 2 inches apart. It prevents most steelhead smolts fromentering the canal and directs them to the entrance of the bypass pipe.

Downstream Channel Improvements .--During 1984, modifications were made tothe Umatilla River channel below Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam to improveupstream fish passage. This work, overseen by the Corps of Engineers andO D F W was about 90-percent complete at the end of the construction season inlate 1984. A research project will be conducted in 1985 to monitor thesuccess of this project over a range of flows. According to ODFW (6), theriver channel below the dam was observed to be a barrie r to upstream passageof adult salmon and steelhead at flows less than 200 ft3/s, and flows up to300 ft3 /s were assumed to limit passage. With channel work near completion, aflow of 100 ft3 /s was assumed to beHowever, even with channel work,

the minimum flow needed for adult passageit is estimated that flows up to 150 ft3/s

will limit passage. Fish passage studies to be conducted in late 1985 shouldyield information on appropriate passage flow levels.

EXISTING FISHERY RESOURCES OF THE UMATILLA BASIN

Steelhead

Summer steelhead is the only anadromous species that inhabits theUmatilla system. These fish have adapted to a number of limiting habitatconditions in the basin. Run sizes in recent years have averaged about 1,880,ranging from 700 to 2,500 returning adult spawners. Numbers of returningadults appear to be directly related to riverflow conditions during the wintermigration period; higher flows allow for greater numbers of fish to passupstream to spawning areas.

Adult steelhead use the lower main stem Umatilla River primarily as amigration corridor. Upstream migration begins as early as October, dependingon flows, with the peak occurring between November and March. Most spawningoccurs in April and May in the upper Umatilla River and its tributaries.Estimated distribution of Umatilla summer steelhead spawning is as follows:

Stream Percent

Meacham Creek 40.0South Fork Umatilla River 17.0North Fork Umatilla River 10.0Main stem Umatilla River 10.0Squaw Creek 5.0Birch Creek 15.0Other tributaries 3.0

Egg incubation occurs from April through July. Most rearing takes placein the same tributary streams where spawning occurs. The juveniles typicallyspend 2 years in freshwater before migrating to sea as smolts. The estimatedannual outmigration of summer steelhead smolts is 50,000 to 100,000 nativefish. This occurs during the period April through June. Major periods ofsummer steelhead use of the Umatilla River basin are as follows:

Upstream adult migrationSpawningEgg incubationRearingDownstream smolt migration

October-MayApril-MayApril-JulyAll yearApril-June

The ODFW began supplemental hatchery outplanting of juvenile steelhead in1980. Since the program began, ODFW released about 17,500 steelhead smolts in1981, 59,500 in 1982, 60,500 in 1983, 58,000 in 1984, and 60,000 in 1985. Theoutplanted smolts are progenies of native adult fish trapped at Three MileFalls Diversion Dam.

8

Fall Chinook

A self-sustaining run of fall chinook has not existed in the UmatillaRiver since shortly after the construction of Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam.However, an abundance of potential spawning habitat is found throughout themain stem Umatilla River. In addition, Meacham Creek up to the North Forkalso has potential for fall chinook spawning.

Under a fish release program developed by the CTUIR and ODFW, juvenilefall chinook have been liberated in the Umatilla River since 1982 at thefollowing rates:

Year of ApproximateRelease Number of Fish Size Stock

1982 3.83 million Fingerlings Tule1983 100,500 Yearlings Upriver bright1984 223,600 Yearlings Upriver bright1985 225,000 Yearlings Upriver bright

Approximately 20,000, 50,000, and 140,000 fall chinook yearlings wereacclimated and released at Bonifer Pond in 1983, 1984, and 1985, respectively.The remaining smolts were released in upper Meacham Creek. A few 2-year-oldjacks (probably fewer than 100) from the 1983 release returned to the UmatillaRiver in the fall of 1983. During the fall of 1984, adult tule and upriverbright fall chinook returned to the mouth of the Umatilla River from the 1982and 1983 hatchery releases. These fish had spent two to three growth seasonsin the ocean environment. The tule fish were 10 to 15 pounds and were maturespawners. The upriver brights were immature males (jacks) of 20-24 inches inlength. Due to Umatilla River channel modification work underway below ThreeMile Falls Diversion Dam, none of these fish were able to move above the rivermouth.

When established, adult fall chinook will enter the Umatilla River inOctober through December, with most spawning expected to occur in November andDecember. Egg incubation takes place from December to mid-March, with rearingbetween February and the end of May. Fingerlings will migrate downstream tothe Columbia River in March through June.

The major time periods that fall chinook are expected to utilize UmatillaRiver basin waters are as follows:

Upstream adult migrationSpawningEgg incubationRearingDownstream smolt migration

October-DecemberNovember-DecemberNovember-MarchFebruary-MayMarch-July

Spring Chinook

Large numbers of spring chinook salmon existed in the Umatilla basinprior to construction of Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam. The ODFW reportedsmall numbers of spring chinook in the system into the 1960’s, but none havebeen observed since.

Projected time periods of spring chinook use of the Umatilla River basinare as follows:

Upstream adult migration Apri 1 -JuneSpawningEgg incubation

August-September

RearingAugust-December

Downstream smolt migrationNovember-AprilApril-June

POTENTIAL FUTURE FISHERY RESOURCES OF THE UMATILLA BASIN

Steelhead

An implementation plan for enhancement of Umatilla River steelhead hasbeen developed by the CTUIR (4). Long-term escapement goals presented in thisplan for summer steelhead in the basin are 5,400 hatchery-produced adult fishand 5,000 naturally produced adult fish.

Hatchery production goals will be achieved through annual releases of200,000 steelhead smolts at the existing Bonifer facility and the Minthornacclimation facility currently in final design phase. The proposed Umatillahatchery near Irrigon (in the predesign phase) will produce these fish. The60,000 smolts that are currently being reared at existing ODFW facilities andreleased at Bonifer will continue at least until the Umatilla hatchery comesonline. Any excess broodstock returning to the Bonifer and Minthornfacilities will be used for enhancement of natural production by reseeding(adult or egg outplanting) in underutilized habitat.

Riparian and instream habitat improvement needs were identified in theCTUIR Umatilla River basin report of January 1984 (4). These projects weresubmitted to the Northwest Power Planning Council in November 1983 as proposedamendments to the Fish and Wildlife Program of the Northwest Power Planningand Conservation Act of 1980. There is an excellent opportunity to vastlyimprove the natural production of anadromous fish habitat throughout theUmatilla basin.

Fall Chinook

The Umatilla Basin Implementation Plan (4) cites long-term escapementgoals of 10,OOC hatchery-produced and 12,000 naturally produced fall chinooksalmon. Approximately 225,000 yearlings are programed for acclimation andrelease at the Bonifer and Minthorn facilities through 1987. Based upon theresults of ongoing studies at Bonneville hatchery, the most cost-effective

10

program for juvenile releases will be used. This may include yearlingreleases, fall reared smolts, or fingerlings. Based upon available data, areturn of about 2,500 adult fish would result from either program. Returningadult fall chinook will be used as broodstock for hatchery production and tofoster natural production in the system.

Spring Chinook

Potential spring chinook spawning habitat exists in the upper main stem,lower North Fork, and South Fork Umatilla River and in Meacham Creek. TheCTUIR and ODFW have plans for reestablishment of spring chinook in theUmatilla basin. Escapement goals are 10,000 hatchery-produced fish and1,000 naturally produced fish. However, poor spring passage conditions andlack of deep holding pools for adults could limit the production of thesefish. To avoid or reduce potential passage problems, broodstock would beselected for early arrival of adults to avoid low streamflows. Whenintroduced, adults would enter the Umatilla River in April and May and migrateto upstream resting pools near spawning grounds. Adults would hold over inthese pools until spawning commenced in late August and September. Mostjuveniles would rear for a year prior to migration in April, May, and June.

Umatilla Basin Project

The Bureau of Reclamation recently completed a Planning Report/Environ-mental Statement on the lhnatilla Project. This project emphasizes flowenhancement to help restore chinook runs and enhance steelhead runs in theUmatilla River basin. The plan's major feature and recommended plan ofdevelopment is that of improving streamflows by "importing" water from theneighboring Columbia River.

The recommended plan includes a program to pump water from the Columbiainto Cold Springs Reservoir for distribution to irrigators. Use of thisimported water by irrigators would permit Umatilla River water which is nowdiverted or stored for irrigation use to remain in the Umatilla River toimprove flow conditions in the lower basin. Structural features include amajor pumping plant on the Columbia River (Lake Wallula), a relift pumpingstation, and carriage facilities. Increased streamflow in the lower UmatillaRiver in conjunction with improved fish passage at Three Mile Falls DiversionDam would optimize passage conditions at the dam.

In addition to the pumping feature, the plan proposes improvements tofish passage facilities and installation of protective screens at someexisting irrigation diversions. A significant plan feature is apostconstruction monitoring program which would "fine tune" flow improvementsand other measures in meeting fishery enhancement objectives. This monitoringprogram, now expected to extend over a 12-year period, would aid projectoperators and fishery experts in adjusting operations or proposing additionalmeasures to meet fishery restoration goals.

11

PRESENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE FISHERY PROBLEMSASSOCIATED WITH THREE MILE FALLS DIVERSION DAM

Steelhead

Adults

Adult steelhead enter the Umatilla River in the late fall when theirrigation season has ended and natural flows begin increasing (table 1). Asrunoff increases to medium to high flows (about 500 ft3/s or greater), ahigher percentage of water spills over the crest of the dam, and attractionflows at both ladders become a smaller portion of the total flow. Thiscreates a false attraction problem for steelhead in the tailrace area.The resulting migration delay creates increased stress and mortality when fishjump and become trapped in the open bays beneath the dam. An estimated20 percent of the 1982-83 steelhead return was lost because of theseconditions at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam.

The left bank ladder is well designed for steelhead passage but lacksadequate attraction flows at the entrance during medium to high flows. Theright bank ladder is not adequately designed by today's standards. It haspoor entrance conditions, poor turn pool conditions, poor exit conditions, andis not self-regulating.levels.

It also lacks adequate attraction water at all flowSediment naturally accumulates above the east side of the dam and

restricts flow into the right bank ladder. thus impeding fish passage. Thereare no trapping or counting facilities at the right bank ladder and onlymarginal opportunities at the left bank ladder.

Debris hanging over the dam crest and accumulating in the tailrace areaimpedes lateral movement of steelhead along the base of the dam. Thissituation, combined with insufficient attraction flows at the ladderentrances, also creates migration delay and stress. Accumulation of debrisabove the east side of the dam restricts the amount of flow entering the rightbank ladder. Failure to maintain control of debris above and below the rightbank ladder may cause stranding of adult steelhead.

Juveniles

Juvenile steelhead migrate downstream past Three Mile Falls Diversion Damby passing over the crest, through the fish ladders, or through the smoltbypass pipe on the west side. The bypass pipe drops fish 20 feet into thetailrace area below the dam. This may cause injury, stress, and possiblemortality to smolts, especially during low flow conditions when the bedrockarea below the pipe does not contain adequate pool depths. This condition iseven worse for those smolts passing over the crest of the dam. Smoltsencounter the louver system at the intake of WEID Canal. A NMFS study(5) indicates that the passage efficiency of this type louver system forsteelhead smolts under ideal flow conditions is 70 to 95 percent. Passageconditions at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam are probably near the low end ofthis range because of problems with the approach velocities, nonlaminar flows,and bypass slot velocities. This efficiency does not meet NMFS criteria forscreening facility design, which requires successful passage of all fish.

1 2

A summary of the current passage conditions for steelhead, expressed as apercentage of adult and juvenile fish passing Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam,is provided in table 2. Future steelhead passage conditions, again assumingno flow enhancement with the present facilities at Three Mile Falls DiversionDam, would not change. However, greater numbers of fish would be impacted asthe benefits of the combined CTUIR/ODFW enhancement program are realized(table 2).

Fall Chinook

Adults

As indicated in table 1, adequate flows (assumed to be 200 ft3/s orgreater) for adult fish passage to Three Mile-Falls Diversion Dam can occurduring the October through December migration period. During this period, allthe passage problems listed for adult steelhead would be common to fallchinook. These include (1) false attraction flows below the dam, (2) lack ofadequate attraction to the ladder entrances, and (3) debris and/or sedimentabove and below the dam. In addition to these problems, the overflow weirdesign of the right bank ladder does not promote chinook passage as would thevertical slot desimportant for the

i w A submerged orifice or vertical slot is especiallyladder entrance.

Table 2 .--Assumed Existing Passage Conditions(Expressed as Percentage of Fish Passing Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam)

Steelhead Fall Chinook Spring ChinookPassage Condition Adults Juveniles Adults Juveniles Adults Juveniles

Without flowenhancement 75 75 38 50 48 60With Reclamationflow enhancement 80 75 90 50 80 75

Migration delays for fall chinook are generally more harmful than forsteelhead due to the relatively short period of time between migration andspawning.

During flow periods that could provide adequate fish passage, movementthrough the left bank ladder could be satisfactory. However, counting,trapping, and holding facilities are poor. Durflows, passage would be reduced or eliminated.duration are not expected to cause passage prob

ng periods of extreme lowWater temperature and swimmingems.

Juveniles

The NMFS study (5) indicates that the passage efficiency of louvers forfall chinook migrants under ideal flow conditions varies from 40 to 90 per-cent. The larger-sized yearling chinook smolt presently being released wouldlikely be near the upper end of this range. Future outmigrations of natural

13

and hatchery fry and fingerlings would likely experience efficiencies near thelower end of this range. The same problems with velocities and nonlaminarflows affecting louver efficiency for steelhead would be more of a problem forthe smaller fall chinook. NMFS policy has been to pass 100 percent of thefish, thus passage criteria would not be met in either case. Chinookdownstream migrants would also experience the same problems with injury,stress, and possible mortality from the juvenile bypass system as discussedfor steelhead.

A summary of the current passage conditions for fall chinook, expressedas a percentage of adult and juvenile fish passing Three Mile Falls DiversionDam, is provided in table 2. Future fall chinook passage conditions, againassuming no flow enhancement with the present facilities at Three Mile FallsDiversion Dam, would not change. However, greater numbers of fish would beimpacted as the benefits of the combined CTUIR/ODFW enhancement program arerealized (table 2).

Spring Chinook

Adults

Medium to high flows often occur during the April and early May migrationperiod. With these conditions, problems listed for steelhead and fall chinookat Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam would also be common for spring chinook.These include (1) false attraction flows below the dam, (2) lack of adequateattraction to the ladder entrances, and (3) debris and/or sediment obstructionabove and below the dam. In addition to these problems, the overflow weirdesign of the right bank ladder does not promote chinook passage as would avertical slot design. A submerged orifice or vertical slot is especiallyimportant for the ladder entrance.

In late May and into June, flows can rapidly decrease to very low flowconditions because of irrigation diversions (table 1). Passage during theseperiods could be significantly reduced or even eliminated. Migration delaysfor spring chinook would have very serious implications because upstreampassage to holding and spawning areas would he impossible later in the springand into summer. This would especially be a problem during late May and earlyJune for late arriving adults. During periods of adequate flows, movementthrough the left bank ladder could be satisfactory. However, existingcounting, trapping, and holding facilities are inadequate. Temperatureconditions and/or swimming duration are not expected to cause passage problems.

Juveniles

Spring chinook downstream migrants are expected to be yearling smolts.The NMFS study (5) indicates that the passage efficiency of louvers for springchinook smolts under ideal flow conditions varies from 60 to 90 percent. Thepreviously discussed problems with velocities and nonlaminar flows affectinglouver efficiency for steelhead would also affect spring chinook. NMFS policyhas been to pass all of the fish. Therefore, NMFS passage criteria would notbe met. Spring chinook downstream migrants would also experience the sameproblems from injury, stress, and mortality with the juvenile bypass system asthose listed earlier for steelhead and fall chinook.

14

A sumnary of the current passage conditions for spring chinook, expressedas a percentage of adult and juvenile fish passing Three Mile Falls DiversionDam, is provided in table 2. Future spring chinook passage conditions, againassuming no flow enhancement with the present facilities at Three Mile FallsDiversion Dam, would not change. However, greater numbers of fish would beimpacted as the benefits of the combined CTUIR/ODFW enhancement program arerealized (table 2).

ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

The study considered several potential measures which are discussedbelow. These include two fish ladders, a concrete apron plus improvements tothe existing left bank ladder, a cap on the crest of the dam plus improvementsto the left bank ladder, and dam removal.

Two Fish Ladders

Description of Facilities

Right Bank Ladder. --The main feature of this alternative would be theconstruction of a new right bank ladder to improve fish passage. In addition,this alternative includes modifications to the existing left bank ladder andthe installation of rotary drum fish screens and related structures in theWEID Canal.

The right bank fish ladder would be located just left of the existingpool-and-weir fish ladder (which is inadequately designed by today's standardsand would become inoperable). A second ladder of adequate design at the damwould prevent stranding and delay of adult migrants that would make their wayto the right side due to attraction flows over the dam. The new ladder wouldbe a vertical slot design with a 15-inch-slot opening and a 1O:l slopingfloor. Ten pools would be needed, with pools being 8 feet wide and 10 feetlong. The overall length of the structure would be about 100 feet, with about75 feet extending downstream from the crest of the dam (see design drawing).

An entrance pool would be excavated in the rock in front of the entrancestructure. The entrance structure would have two gates, one for low flowconditions and one for high flow conditions. However, only one gate would beoperated at any one time. Improved channels would be excavated downstream andalong the toe of the dam leading to the two entrance gates, and secondarychannels and potholes would be capped to facilitate better access to theentrance structure.

Auxiliary water to the entrance structure would be supplied by anoverflow gate. The water would spill over the gate into a separate pool,through a baffle structure, and then through a diffuser grate before enteringthe entrance structure.

The exit structure would have a viewing station for viewing and countingfish, a fish crowder, and a trapping and sampling facility. The exit would beapproximately 60 feet left of the exit for the existing pool-and-weir ladderwhich will help minimize the amount of silt accumulation. A retaining wall

15

would extend upstream of the exit structure for ease of maintaining an openexit channel. Silt removal in the exit channel and debris removal from thedam crest and channels immediately downstream are essential maintenance tasksnecessary to keep the fish ladder functional.

Adult fish could be trapped as they pass through the exit channel justbeyond the viewing station. Fish would be diverted into a separate holdingpool instead of being allowed to pass into the river. This would be done bycontrolling a set of hydraulically operated slide gates. Once in the holdingpool the fish would he moved into a portable tank by a crowding mechanism.The tank would then be lifted from the holding pool by an elevator system andraised high enough to sluice the fish from the portable tank into fishtransport trucks.

Grating over the structures as well as chain link fence around the entirefacility would be provided to prevent poaching and vandalism.

Left Bank Ladder Modifications. --The left bank ladder modifications wouldinclude a new entrance structure,and counting station,

improved auxiliary water supply, a viewinga fish crowder, and a trapping and sampling facility.

The vertical slot ladder itself would not be changed, since it meets currentstate-of-the-art design criteria.

In order to modify the existing fishway exit and entrance, the top of oneof the arch buttresses would be removed. The old auxiliary water supply pipeand existing bypass pipe would be removed as well. Much of the existingentrance and exit would be renovated. Trashracks would be required across theexit to the fishway and the entrance to the auxiliary water supply. Newtrashracks would replace existing ones across the canal entrance (see designdrawing).

The trapping and sampling facility would operate in a similar manner asthe facility on the right bank ladder. However, tank trucks would not be ableto park adjacent to the structure. Tank trucks would load from a locationjust downstream of the gatehouse, which avoids the use of the canal bridge. Along sluice system would be used to transfer fish from the elevated portabletank to the trucks.

Grating would be placed across open structures to prevent poaching.Access is limited to this side by existing locked gates on the canal accessroad, so additional chain link fence is not required.

Silt removal would be required to keep the fish ladder operational aswell as debris removal from the exit, entrance, and immediate channelsdownstream.

WE1D Canal Fish Screens .--A new fish screen structure would be located onthe WEID Canal just downstream of the existing gatehouse. The existing louverscreens in the canal entrance would be removed since they would no longer beneeded. The new facility would include seven rotary drum fish screens, each10 feet in diameter and 12.5 feet long, oriented at an angle of 25" to thecanal flows (see design drawings). The total length of the fish screenstructure would be 110 feet. The screens are designed to handle flows of

16

‘9l I

A-a.0

�*�-. ,*

,A

,�1�1

\.ec:.5,,\s.-5\

\

Umrtilla Project - OrbOonTHREE MILE FALLS DIVERSION DAM

IO 0 IO 20 FISH PASSAGE & PROTECTION FACILITIES-a- 2 JSCALE IN FEET RIGHT BANK FISH LADDER

1.S. Bureau of Reclamation Yorch 1985 30-IOO- 5550m -.

--- ---- - I--- --- - -:Ii iI

:I--- --- ---- __- - -/,”-----

c

c

:

:f .:0

?

i

E

10 I .o 0Y * . - 1l cAAt 10 rtn

I Drr*eu .I Roclomottor

hrllllr ?roJwl - DrD#orWEE WILE FALLS WEDSMU BAl

FISH ?ASSAGE & PR0TECfl.D FACILfllESLEFT BANK FISH LADDER IODIFICATHD

Yorch FDOS 80-too-aa@@

sw33Kls HSIJ-33, *I 17.x

S3111113V~ 10113UOIId 4 39VSSVd HSIJ3L6

IV0 WoIsI3AIQ SllV4 3111331HI1018JO - 1W(11( r((llrmfi

if: ;wq

r :

T:’z*

Ii

i

I .‘: IIf

:I

*

u:

I/ ‘,\

s1

II#4t

:q (Q

/

ii’ /

\bt f,’

iik

2\

I.=

\ ‘ir

i

tILL

I,:

:&;i' ': I

1.

; /c

"4p (

-I;. /*

i;'

I : ii

2: ; * ; k('!

1 '1

\

s

I

, $!L

%

*

hY

I'

i By'

0 '

/ il.

: [f/f

/

\", ;

j

2I

j-l" i ij

5.:

rr !1-'

0_ '

3 \

#'/f/I i

1,

I-@

1

I

1 I

!I(

i

L

.Iit:

2 f

1 5 ‘1 14 ;

z-2

fs\ ‘.,I

i6

\

m;i.L=::mEz:

j!

i

310 ft3/s (which isaverages only 210 ft

the design capacity of the canal). Since actual usage/s during the peak month of the Irrigation season and the

existing capacity is only 270 ft3/s due to settlement of the canal, a newlower design flow may be chosen before the final design stage.

The screening facilities include a single entrance bypass structure witha pump-back system to return a large portion of the bypass water back to thecanal. This is needed especially during low flows to optimize water usage. Ajuvenile sampling structure would be located between the bypass structure andthe Umatilla River.

The WEID has been issued a preliminary permit by the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission to study the feasibility of installing a powerplant inthe town of U m a t i l l a Water to run the new generator would be diverted atThree Mile Falls Diversion Dam through the WEID Canal. Since the powerplantwould primarily be operated during the winter and spring months, some concernhas been raised over potential conflicts between operation of the powerplantand winter operation of the new screens, which would be subject to theformation of frazil ice during periods of cold weather.

The possibility of using an advanced louver system, methods of operatingthe drum screen during cold weather, and winter operating constraints andresponsibilities will be addressed during preparation of final designs andspecifications.

Operating Plan

The ideal operating flow for each ladder is 85 ft3/s. This conditionprovides the desired attraction velocities through the entrance gate toattract the fish. This flow is made up of 45-60 ft3/s from the ladder(depending on flows over the crest), with the remaining flow being made upfrom the auxiliary water supply system. The ladders are designed to operateat flows up to 6,000 ft3/s passing the dam. During low flows over the crest(when not enough water is available to operate two ladders satisfactorily),only the right bank ladder would be in operation. If no flows are going overthe crest, then only the left bank ladder would be operational, provided therewould be enough water to attract the fish and pass them up to the dam fromdownstream. Both ladders would successfully pass fish at flows of less than85 ft 3/s.

The fish screen structure will handle 310 ft3/s at velocities of 0.5 feetper second (ft3/s); however, historical irrigation usage has been an averageoi 21 0 ft3/s in any month. The bypass structure will take approximately65 ft3/s under _ pumping 62 ft3

normal conditions; however, the pump-back system is capable of/s back into the canal if needed. On l y 4 or 5 ft3/s are

required to operate the sampling structure and to pass juveniles to the river.However, additional water from the dam or ladders is needed to safely carrythe juveniles downstream unless they are trapped and hauled by truck.

costs

The construction costs for the new right bank ladder, the left bankladder modifications, and the fish screen facilities are estimated to be$3,475,000. This includes $1,060,000 for the right bank fish ladder,

17

$605,000 for the left bank ladder modifications, and $1,810,000 for the fishscreen facilities.

Annual operation and maintenance costs would be $21,000 for the rightbank ladder, $25,000 for the left bank ladder, and $20,000 for the fish screenfacilities--a total of $66,000.

Construction and annual operation and maintenance costs are based on anOctober 1984 price level.

Concrete Apron Plus West Ladder

Description of Facilities

This alternative would consist of a training wall (barrier) and apronconstructed downstream of the dam, modifications to the left bank ladder, andnew screens and related structures in the WEID Canal (see design drawing).

The barrier would consist of a 460-foot-long, 4-foot-high concrete wallwith a 15-foot-wide concrete apron, constructed along the interface of theriver channel and the overflow area downstream of the dam. The barrier wouldtrain upstream migrating adult fish toward the entrance to the fish ladder onthe left bank and would prevent fish from reaching the east side of the damwhere they are subject to injury, stranding, and poaching. The upstream areawould be filled with rock and capped with concrete to eliminate fish restingareas and to reduce trash accumulation. In order for the barrier to functionproperly, the barrier, fill, and cut areas must be kept clear of debris.

The concrete barrier wall would be equipped with an aeration pipingsystem. This would reduce the differential pressure created beneath theoverflowing nappe. The fill area would have drain pipes to reduce upliftpressures and steel anchors to reduce erosion of the fill rock.

The left bank ladder modifications and the fish screen structures wouldbe the same as described under the two-ladder alternative.

Operating Plan

The barrier and apron would operate effectively under a range of flowconditions. However, the structure was designed such that velocities on theapron would be about 16 ft/s at a flow of 3,000 ft3/s. This velocity wouldmake it difficult for fish to get on the apron. Those fish that did get onthe apron would have to continue to swim against the high velocity to theUpstream end of the apron. Here they would find it difficult to jump the4-foot-high wall since flow depth on the apron would be too shallow for themto obtain vertical acceleration. At any time, if a fish would turn broadsideto the flow, it would be swept off the apron. Any fish which would manage topass the barrier would eventually be swept back into the main river channelsince the area between the barrier and the toe of the dam would be filled toeliminate holes and pools where a fish could rest.

18

,

-I”/

I-a i 0.8

r , ’I I’l’.U

,I’ / 1

RighI B a n kI “**a*.

i, L_. .-_ -

,“::

/ ,,’_’

O /04 I /’

f ,!P \2 ,/

0‘

- 7,,“i

B_: 1) f

L-3 i‘*i;/\

-~~--~~,-~~,;~~~~~~&&

.

--=--- - /’LVfl BankFish Ladbor

/

--------~-----,‘3. ,* --..*.OO : FIII

x,<’

Wear EItvnrlon Canal Hoodrorrs

3I I.. .- Rotworn Flil

UMATILLA PROJECT - OREGON,r.. -4e w m THREE MILE FALLS DIVERSION DAM

I FISH PASSAGE It PROTECTION FACILITIESFISH BARRIER AND APRON

” , *.,a.. .I **claI*llam API11 1989 JO-100-5569

5z0 l--l

u.smu

2’0dao==3-+ c”WZ

tilI/ 1

I \=I!

v ,--p

//0y I/

f 1’ il

I

i

I ,J

I

I-

: I

\0c I’

a-- -‘7 7”

I’I

c

II

0 Ic0I I’

IYL0 G I> c0 c0 /IL 2w 0 /

-ii-1

w-Iz :

5Y)

Q 2

LL

IIc.I

1

III

*i .Am 0

., t- 0 GOOWO6J N-0

m -erk0

qA

0

C :E

;;rr)0

-0 ‘_ zg;$;

ot v

I

\II r = /

vi:* =:

. 0o”o2= I- Ir -

II 03;Nvi&

u

SE

ii00

a0&

00

0 0c- CLL) -0. ‘.

cg; :

/g(D

1

u’

U-T-tY

I

WmI

Umatilla Project - OregonTHREE MILE FALLS DIVERSION DAM

FISH PASSAGE & PROTECTION FACILITIES

CAP ON CRESTU . S . Burcou o f R~clamotion A~pril 1985 30-too-5570

Only the left bank ladder would be operational under this scenario. Theoperation of the left bank ladder and fish screens would be the same asdescribed under the two-ladder alternative.

costs

The construction costs for the fish barrier and apron, the left bankladder modifications, and the fish screen facilities are estimated to beS3,560,000. This includes $1,145,OOO for the barrier and apron, $605,000 forthe left bank modifications, and $1,810,0130 for the fish screen facilities.

Annual operation and maintenance costs would be $7,OOO for the barrierand apron, $25,000 for the left bank ladder, and 520,000 for the fish screenfacilities--a total of $52,000.

Construction and annual operation and maintenance costs are based on anOctober 1984 price level.

Cap-on-crest Plus West Ladder

Description of Facilities

A cap on the east and center portions of the dam would be the keyfeatures in this alternative. Other features would include modifications tothe left bank ladder and new fish screens and related structures in the WEIDCanal (see design drawing).

A 2.5-foot-high cap would be constructed on the dam crest for a 300-footlength starting from the east (right) side. A center section would have a1.75-foot cap for another 300 feet. The west 200 feet of the dam Would beleft without a cap. During low flow conditions (generally from July throughFebruary), fish attraction waters would be directed to the left bank fishladder. Water cresting the dam would spill into an entrance pool which wouldbe C3nStPJCted along the face of the dam for the entire 200 feet of theuncapped section. A new channel would be constructed from the east end of thepool. Old channels would be filled in and capped with concrete to preventstranding and delaying of upstream migrants.

D:!Sris removal from the dam crest, left bank fish ladder entrance andexit, and the canal entrance would be essential for proper operation of allfacilities.

The operation of the left bank ladder and fish screens would be thesane as described under the two-ladder alternative. The existing right Sankpool-and-weir ladder would be inoperasle under this alternative.

The cap-on-crest alternative would present a number of problems thatwould require further investigation. This alternative would result in ana?proxinate l/2-foot increase in the maximum pool elevation behind the dam,which would require flow routing studies to determine whether the iJEID Canalheadworks and left fish ladder exit would need to be raised. The weight ofthe proposed cap may affect the structural stability of the dam. Core samples

19

from the dam would be taken to determine any need for additional structuralsupport to the dam.

Operating Plan

With the cap on the crest, flows would be directed to the west portion ofthe dam during low flow conditions.3 The noncapped section of the dam would beahle to handle flows up to 1,528 ft3 /s,could increase to 3,251 ft3js.

and with the middle section, flowsAbove 3,251 ft3/s flows would start cresting

the east- capped section of the dam as well. At 15,600 ft3/s, the cap wouldraise the water surface behind the dam by 0.5 feet over current conditions.

The left bank fish ladder and bypass structures would require up to85 ft3/s and 65 ft3/s, respectively, as described under the two-ladderalternative.

costs

The construct ion cost for the cap-on-crest, the left bank fish laddermodifications, and the fish screen facilities are estimated to be $2,985,OOO.This includes $570 ,000 for the cap on the dam, S605,000 for the left bankmodifications, and 51,810,OOO for the fish screen facilities.

Annual operation and maintenance costs would be SlO,OOO for thecap-on-crest, 825,000 for the left bank ladder, and $20,000 for the fishscreen facilities--a total of $55,000.

Construction and annual operation and maintenance costs are based on anOctober 1984 price level.

Dam Removal

Description of Facilities

This alternative would require the construction of a new pumping plant atthe mouth of the Umatilla River to supply water to the WEID Canal. Fishpassage in the river would Se improved by restoring the river channel topredam conditions. This would require the removal of a portion of the dam andbedrock a n d / o r silt removal behind the da:?. No fish ladders would berequired, and the canal headworks would be abandoned. Water normally divertedat the dam for irrigation would be allowed to pass downstream for improvedfish flows, particularily du ring low flow conditions and high fish migration.Water for the WEID Canal would be supplied by the pumping plant.

A new pumping plant w o u l d b e constructed near the mouth of the UmatillaRiver at the present p u m p i n g site. Existing features are obsolete and wouldbe entirely replaced. The new plant would have a capacity of 6,500 horsepowerand would be able to lift 270 ft 3 /s (present canal capacity) 150 feet to theexisting canal structure. The forebay channel would need to be deepened,discharge lines replaced, and a new outlet structure built.

Approximately one-third of the dam would have to be removed to restorethe channel to predam conditions. The other portions of the dam and related

20

structures would be left in place and abandoned. Some of the silt behind thereservoir would be removed to prevent environmental problems downstream. Thequantity of silt that would be removed and the amount left to flush downstreamare not known at this time.

Operating Plan

WEID would obtain all its water supply from pumping from the mouth of theUmatilla River. A portion of this supply would have to be pumped back towardThree Mile Falls Diversion Dam.from this point.

However, most of the needs are downstreamThe maximum capacity of the pumping plant is 270 ft3 /s,

which is more than current supply (however, less than existing water rights).

Water normally diverted for irrigation at Three Mile Falls Diversion Damwould be allowed to pass downstream to improve fish passage flows in the river.

costs

The construction costs forestimated to be $8,280,000. Thand related structures and $380Falls Diversion Dam. This incl

the pumping plant and dam removal areis includes $7,900,000 for the pumping plant,000 for removal of a port ion of Three Mileudes a limited amount of s ilt removal.

Annual operation and maintenance costs were not calculated for thisalternative. Construction costs are based on an October 1984 price level.

A comparative summary of plans is found in table 3.

21

Table 3 .--Comparative Summary of Plans

Item Two Fish LaddersConcrete ApronPlus West Ladder

Cap-on-crestPlus West Ladder Dam Removal

Advantages Technology proven on Facilitates debrisladder design removal from face of

damReduces stranding offish Would only require

operation and main-Offers most versatility tenance on one ladderfor operation, trapping,and counting Addition of counting/

trapping facilitiesImproved attraction in right bank ladderwater to both ladders

Canal screensImproved passage to includedand through leftbank ladder

Ca-al screens included

Disadvantages High operation and Hydraulics of barriermaintenance (debris and unknown without node:silt) potential on left testingbank ladder

Debris or unfavorablehydraulics may createpockets of falseattraction flows.resulting in adultmigration de!ay

Total ccnstruc-tion costs $3,475,000 $3,560,000

Operation.maintenancereplacement andpower costs $66,000 $52,000

Least costly alterna-tive

Would only requireoperation and mainten-enance on one ladder

Improved attraction toright hank ladder

Addition of counting/trapping facilities inright bank ladder

Canal Screens included

Would provide mostnatural conditionsfor fish passagewhich would cause,least stress on fish(assuming adequateflows in river andchanneliration inreservoir area ifneeded)

Potential for excessive Most expensive alter-debris problem at canalheadworks

Possible safety of damsproblen

Canal headdworks wouldneed to be raiseddue to raise in maximumreservoir water surface

native

Pumping costs mayincrease in future

Loss of trapping/counting opportunitiesat Three Mile FallsDiversion Dam

Environmental impactsmore severe than otheralternatives

$2,985,000 $8,280,000

$55,000 Not calculated

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN

The various fishery agencies, the Umatilla Indian tribes, and the W E I Dwere involved in the selection of the recommended plan.

During the preparation of the biological assessment in mid-1984, sevenconceptual alternatives were defined by the agencies and Indians. Three ofthese alternatives were eliminated early in the planning stage; a discussionof this process is found in the following section. More detailed engineeringdesigns and cost estimates were done on the remaining four alternatives justdiscussed. Preliminary designs and cost estimates were presented to the WEIDin mid-February 1985 and to the fishery agencies and Indians in late February.

The representative from the WEID (Mr. Darrell Dick) favored the ConcreteApron Plus West Ladder alternative because it was felt that the apron wouldfacilitate debris removal from the face of the dam and would be somewhatself-cleaning. The representative also expressed that the Cap-on-crest Plus

22

West Ladder alternative would be undesirable because of significantlyincreased debris problems at the canal headworks. Also, since this plan wouldresult in a slightly higher reservoir pool level during high flows due toreduced spillway width, the canal headworks would probably have to be raised.The WEID's main concern with the two-ladder plan is the question of operationand maintenance funding and responsibility. The construction of a new ladderon the right bank could cause difficulty in access along the face of the damfor maintenance work.

The fishery agencies and Indians have unanimously endorsed the two-ladderplan. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CTUIR, and Columbia RiverIntertribal Fish Commission initially indicated a preference for dam removal.Since this alternative is much more costly than the other alternatives, theychose the two-ladder plan as their recommended plan. Within the ODFW, somepeople initially indicated a preference for the concrete apron plan becausethere would be less effort involved in counting and trapping fish with onlyone ladder. However, several people expressed concern over the effectivenessof The barrier. It was felt that there was high potential for the creation ofpockets of high flows along the face of the barrier, which would attract fishand create delays in upstream migration. Conversely, the technology andeffectiveness of the fish ladders are proven.

No preference was shown for the Cap-on-crest alternative.

Based on the above, the two-ladder plan has been chosen as therecommended plan. WEID's concern for a means of access to the face of the damwill be addressed during final design work.

Copies of letters from the various agencies and Indians summarizing theirpositions on the alternative items are found in the appended material.

OTHER PLAYS CONSIDERED

Three other alternatives were considered in the earlier stages of thisstudy but were eliminated for various reasons. These alternatives were(1) right bank ladder only; (2) ladder at new location (i.e., middle of dam);and (3) center cap-on-crest with sill-type ladder on east side. The EastLadder only alternative was eliminated because it would abandon the best (leftsank) existing ladder, and it was thought that a single ladder was notsufficient to meet fish passage problems. The middle ladder alternative waseliminated because of access and maintenance difficulties particularly whentrapping and counting fish. A middle ladder would require more water tooperate and would be nore costly than a bank ladder due to additional heightand s t r e n g t h requi r e m e n t s . The sill-type ladder was omitted because it wouldbe more difficult to regulate flow, debris in the ladder would be a majorproblem, and trapping and sampling facilities would not be available.

DATA NEEDS FOR FINAL DESIGNS A N D CONSTRUCTION

A variety of data must be collected and analyzed before final designs canbe prepared and construction begun. Additional control surveys and topograph-ical mapping are needed at each ladder and fish screen structure. Surveys are

23

needed to establish river cross sections above and below the dam and canalcross-sections and profiles above and below the screen site. Geologicalinvestigations are needed to explore foundation conditions at each structureto locate possible borrow sources and to locate sites for disposal of wastematerials. Hydrologic records and analyses are needed to develop watersurface profiles above and below the dam and the screen site. Also, a floodfrequency analysis needs to be prepared for the site, and operational dataneeds to be analyzed before final designs and specifications can be determined.

Records of all construction at and within the construction area of theladders and screens need to be examined to determine how new constructionshould tie into existing facilities, to locate possible utilities, toestablish access routes, and to locate rights-of-way.

Stream maintenance requirements during construction of the fishways needto be determined.

IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Permits and Clearances

Prior to any construction, Reclamation will submit a joint Applicationfor Permit to both the Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon, Divisionof Lands. This will comply with both section 404 of the Clean Water Act andappropriate State regulations for removal or filling of materials in waterways.

As part of this process, Reclamation will also comply with any localregulations governing alterations and/or development within a flood plain.

Construction Schedule

BPA proposes to fund construction of fish passage and protectivefacilities at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam. The construction schedule (onthe following page) was developed to provide continued operation of at leastone ladder at all times. Design data for the left bank ladder modificationswould be collected in July and August of 1985, and preparation of finaldesigns and specifications would begin at the same time. The constructicncontract would be awarded in September 1986, and the modifications would hecomplete by September 1987. The schedule for the right bank ladder would bethe same as the left bank ladder except that it would be 1 year later, withcompletion in Septemoer 1988. Some trapping and hauling of fish duringconstr:ction may be required to supplement passage through whichever ladder isopera'ing at the time. Both ladders would be fully operational for the falland winter I988 upstream migration period.

This construction schedule is contingent upon securing funds forconstruction and upon input and review from appropriate fishery agencies andthe CTUIR in a timely manner to complete the designs.

Design data for the WEID Canal screens would be collected in October andNovember 1985. Preparation of final designs and specifications would start in

24

06eds”

i

tc3

22

zIIi?cL!1r-Q7t.tJLaLI

_ ._-__.. :-*-.--.-----I

. ‘--, .-.

~_ ._..~7- --.AI

r1s.

f -

--

--

t-

-:

AC..,

---W

-l

i

.25

; _

._

. 1..

rc:.

*~--- ---1

Ir.I- ..L

-I-L------p

1 .:.Ii

s#i I+

~]

‘:**

* 1

-1

..~ _

....

i :‘?

;

I I

,-c3

1

.I.

, Y

-r

1 .-

.

-t--

-

.ii:-..::::-::::::::::.;

*-----

I

II

:

I.

i.! .A

.1 ~]&---I

1 . .-1

;j.. i

3 ti.: iI

II

1 :

I

~., II

j I

I I:

.:I

i

f5l ’

/ ---.I-.

..5~

.1 n . . ..-

--.

..i

rj

.-.

-4

I

t.:

-.1

-]

$t

.. .

-- 1

21..

-I

EcI

.

/

-dI

41.~

.+-.I:.. 1 III

-t.‘*:.:“4d5‘cr:

4:$‘,h

.- ~1- 1

.-.f r;:;i

;~

.$I,

-If,3

; ‘rnII

~---~?,--,- id...

g)..<

t:J.j

’ I

d 5 \: / ‘-is 5_- .2 ‘: #Y s3T

i-=

.JJ

I -; -; I I 1 aP’.’3u’

yf $-t:

ip.rr I ;=:

3.; qse,Ca?- 2-_ -c.

Ij;

-:I .:I:.‘-

I . . . .i!

_54:

..j. ..:!

Gc

-

December 1985. The construction contract would be awarded in February 1987.Fabrication of screens would begin at that time. Construction of the screenstructure would start in October 1987 and would be complete by March 1988.

Operation and Maintenance Costs and Responsibilities

Present operation and maintenance responsibilities are shared betweenWEID, ODFW, and NMFS. The WEID is responsible for debris removal along theface of the dam and from the louvers. The district has no responsibility foroperation and maintenance activities on the right bank ladder. Estimatedannual operation and maintenance expenses borne by WEID are $10,500, whichincludes $9,000 per year for labor (wages) and $1,500 for minor and ordinarymaintenance and repair on gates, the louvers, and other structures. Aboutonce every 8 to 10 years the district removes silt from just upstream of theeast abutment and snags and other debris from the dam crest at an estimatedcost of $4,000.

The right bank ladder was reopened in 1984 after being out of service for20 years. The left bank ladder is used to trap and count fish by partiallydewatering it and dip-netting individual fish and passing them over the dam.The ODFW has responsibility for this activity, which requires about 50man-days per year to accomplish.

The louvers were constructed by NMFS in 1961. Funding for annualmaintenance and repair is passed to ODFW from NMFS in a program that includesfish screens throughout the Columbia Basin. No funding estimates areavailable for operation and maintenance on the louvers.

BPA will fund design and construction of fish passage and protectivefacilities at the dam, and informal indications are that they will provideoperation and maintenance funds perpetually. Specific operation andmaintenance responsibilities have not been identified at this phase of theproject. Estimated annual operation and maintenance costs for the facilitiesoutlined in the recommended plan are about $66,000. It is assumed thatReclamation would be responsible for overseeing operation and maintenanceactivities. One possibility under consideration is to include the operationand maintenance function in the Yakima fish passage facilities program sinceThree Mile Falls Diversion Dam is reasonably close to the Yakima Project.

Resolution of the various questions regarding operation and maintenanceof fish passage facilities at Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam should be a toppriority as this project moves into the final design phase.

ENVIRONM E N T A L CONSIDERATION AND NEPA COMPLIANCE

Environmental Considerations

Constructing fish ladders and fish screening structures at Three MileFalls Diversion Dam would be classed as a minor construction activity andwould have only minor, short-term, and localized negative environmental

25

effects. None of these effects would be considered significant. The effectsof the proposed construction would be limited to four environmentalparameters --.air quality, water quality, noise, and fish and wildlife.

Increases in dust and exhaust emissions at all sites would be minorduring construction and would result from operation of equipment. Theseincreases would be limited to the immediate area near the construction sitesand would be insignificant.

Construction of the fish ladders and fish screens would requireconstructing cofferdams or other type barriers to dewater the constructionsites. This activity would cause short-term and minor increases in turbiditydownstream. However, the increase in turbidity would disappear within a fewhours after completion of the activity as the natural streamflow cleansed thearea.

A minor and short-term increase in noise levels would occur in theimmediate area of the construction site. There are no residential areas inthe immediate vicinity of the dam, and noise levels are already somewhat highfrom falling water and traffic on a nearby highway. The increased noiselevels during construction would not be significant.

Noise and human activity in the immediate area of construction at eachsite may cause the temporary displacement of a few animals sensitive to thisactivity. Construction of the ladders and screens would correct existingpassage problems which n o w result in suhstantial mortality and delay of fishas they attempt to pass Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam. This action wouldhelp rebuild the severely depleted anadromous fish runs in the Umatilla giverbasin.

Construction of the fish ladders and screens would not change theexisting land use which is diversion of water for agricultural purposes. Theproposed action would not have any effect on any wild and scenic river,national trail, designated or proposed wilderness area, or threatened orendangered species.

NEPA Compliance

T h e Bureau of Reclamation and BPA are coordinating the preparation of anenvironmental assessment, which will be ready for public review during latesummer 1985. If tnis environmental assessment supports a Finding of Nosignificant Impact (FONSI), tne FONSI document will be completed by lateO c t o b e r 1985.

COSTS DEVELOPMENT

Construction costs shown in this report are total construction costsbased on an October 1984 price level and include allowances for contingencies,engineering and supervision during construction. These costs were developedby applying unit prices to quantity estimates developed from preliminarylayouts and designs. Ladder and screen layouts and designs were developed incooperation with ODFW and N M F S Ladder and screen layouts and designs were

26

also based on Reclamation fish passage and protective facilities beingconstructed on the Yakima River Basin Project, Washington. Designs reflectthe current state-of-the-art for fish passage and protection for this size ofproject. Quantities for rotary screen and pumpback estimates in this reportare based on the specification drawings for the Sunnyside screen facility andadjusted as necessary for site-specific conditions.

The costs developed in this report are the best available at the presenttime and should provide an adequate cost estimate for project construction.Some items that may be required in final designs were not evaluated in thisstudy. Among other things, these could include a check structure downstreamof the fish screens to help regulate the flows in the canal, filling in thebays of the dam to prevent stranding if fish should still be inclined to"jump" the dam, and repair of seepage problems to the canal downstream of thefish screen structure.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusioo n

The provision of adequate fish passageMile Falls Diversion Dam would be a highlyenhancing steelhead runs and reestablishingUmatilla basin.

S

and protectivemportant stepchinook salmon

facilities at Threein the process ofruns in the

Recommendations

It is recommended that final designs and specifications on therecommended plan and NEPA compliance requirements be completed as outlined inthe enclosed schedule and construction be initiated as proposed. Thisobjective is in keeping with the recommendations of the Northwest PowerPlanning Council in its Fish and Wildlife Program and with the goals of theODFW and Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission in reestablishing chinooksalmon runs in the Umatilla basin.

27

LITERATURE CITED

1. Northwest Power Planning Council. Columbia River Basin Fish and WildlifeProgram. Adopted pursuant to Section 4(h) of the Pacific NorthwestElectric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-501).November 15, 1982.

2. Bonneville Power Administration. Letter to Bureau of Reclamation datedJanuary 13, 1984.

3. Van Cleve, R. and R. Ting. 1960. The Condition of Salmon Stocks in theJohn Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde, and Imnaha Rivers.

4. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 1984. UmatillaRiver Basin Recommended Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Improvement Measures.

5. National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon. 1981. Use ofLouvers for Downstream Migrant Protection. Unpublished Draft Paper.

6. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. January 1985. UmatillaRehabilitation Plan Review (Draft).

APPENDED MATERIAL

RIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

United States Department of the Interior

‘y-&y .

i?eference ZG:rr,n

klSl1 .A\11 \\ Il.l)l.lt‘t: 41fH\ 1c.t.: Division of Ecological Services

?ortland Field Office 727 N. E. 24th Avenue

Portland, 3reqon 97232 July 6, 1984

Recipient:

This is the final biologrcal assessment OF anadromous fish passage proble;ns at Inree i4ile r’alls Diversion Dam, Gmatilla River, Znatilla County, ar l gon . The assessment describes: 1) existing and futu:e anadromous fish reso’uices of the TJmitilla basin; 2) c ‘3 r r e n t f1sr. passage facilities and passaGe proble.ms at Three :4ile Da,:; and, 3j eight alternati*Je actions under two flow conditions (present and futirej . Fti’cdre fiou conditions are those that would exist witn two potential flo;J enL .,ancecent projects--one by the Corps of Znyineers and one “y the BJrtzau of Xeclanation. Tnese projects are briefly described as the:; relate to flow ,-o.?ditions at Three Nile Dam.

The purpose of the assessment is to urovide the niol~gical aspects of fish L passage problems under the above conditions. ?r.:s information is being provided to the Bureau of Reclamation for its .~se in development of a str..ictura? feasihilityj~reli~,inar~ design study cf passage problems and soi;ltio?.s at Triree :,Iile Dain. The at-liy *riil 31~3 include engineering and econ&:ic inforaation and will be si?o.-!ilttzd tz :ne Sonneville Tower A&ministration for possible funding under t!ls ;:or t?,west Power Tlanning and Conservation Act. The assessment is in outline for.m to assist the 3ureau in preparation of its study.

Both wr i teen and/or verbal co.mL;lents .were recei-~ezi from the Oregon Department of Fish and Kildlife, National :4arine Fisneries Service, Confederated Tribes of the Limatilla Indian Reservation, and the 3ureau of ROP’ ,LLa.ma t i 3 .-. . The final assessment has been refize3 and updated as a result of internal review and comments on the draft issessment.

Xe looK forward to yoclr continued interest and cooperati.on in protecting a .ri i -‘.zst3: inzj - sa.;jr3.y,3ss &i c’- A --.L resources in the Crratilia River Sasin.

Sincere’.. -1 I 4

&zsell D. Peterson F:eij SJpe:;lisor

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, FISH PASSAGE ATTHREE MILE FALLS DIVERSION DAY, UMATILLA RIVER

I. Three Mile Falls Diversion D a m

A. Purpose and Function of Dam

Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam is located on the UmatillaRiver approximately 3 miles south of Umatilla, Oregon. Thestructure is a concrete buttress dam with a maximum height of24 feet, hydraulic height of 23 feet, and a crest length of915 feet. The dam was constructed by the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation (BR) in 1914 as an integral part of the UmatillaProject. It diverts water to the service area of the x e 3 tExtension Irrigation District (WEID) through a 27-mile-longmain canal. The canal head-works capacity is 375 cubic feet

per second (cfs) and the canal capacity is 3 1 5 cfs. Thehistoric peak diversion has been 335 cfs witn maximum canalflows averaging about 210 cfs over the past 50 years. Thediverted water is ussed 50 irrigate about 7,000 acres offarmland.

B. Ownership, Operation, and Maintance Responsibility

The dam is owned by the BP. with operation and maintenanceresponsibilities being handled b y t h e WEID. Provisions foroperation and maintenance are handled under contract betweenthe two agencies.

C . Diversion Dam Design and Flow Characteristics

The dam was designed to function as an overflow weir along itsentire crest. D u r i n g the normal irrigation season (Aprilthrough October) the WEID diverts available river water tomeet their demand, and passes the remainder over the damcrest. During periods of low flow, all the available water isdiverted (up to the canal capacity), except for about 15 to 20cfs release.3 through the downstream migrant b y p a s s pipe fordownstream diversion at the Brownell site. ii h e n r i '.y e r flow isinadequate t \:, meet irrigation requirements, additional '4 a t e rcan be pumped into the canal from the C o l u m b i a RIver. Thish a s n o t b e e n done in t h e last few years because of the pumpingcosts.

During the non- irrigation season, all river flow in excess offish ladder and bypass pipe capacity is passed over the dam.AS the flows increase over the dam, the proportion of total

flow at the ladder entrance decreases. Figure 1 depicts the average flow conditions in the irmatilla River below Three >lile Dan over the 44-year period, 1935 to 1973. The photo on

page 4 shows the design and operation of t .2 e diversion dax, with flows o*:ertopgihg the crest along mos: of its 1sngt.h.

D. Existing Fian ?assage Facilities

1 . i; e s t Ladder, Trap, and Counting Facilities

The i<est Ladder on the left abat.7ent of tiie dam is a vertical-slot t y 0 e L structure which in a s completed in Augast, 1964. It has 21, 8 foot by 10 foot rectangular concrete pools. The floor s la?es and the slots in tns pools go clear to the floor. The ladder is operate<! during periods of upstream anadro3ous fish -migrations and utilizes abo#Jt 20 to 40 cfs for ladder operation, depending upon forebay depths. Xhcn there is a diff- erence of 20 feet betireen the for eba:J and taili;ater, t n -2 ladder ;Jill operate with about 1 foot difference in water level between pools. A 12-inch dicrneter ?i?? route; water frorr! inside the upper 2013 1 t.-lro;<n a diffuser i :: t ‘n e lower 232: t3 p r 0 7 i d e aZ3itionaL ar:rac:ion flow; (abo.it 15 cfs) for ad,Jlt 2?.3drOr-to.is fish.

The ladder is hot designed for trapiling, coclnting, a .r! 2 holding ad,dlt anadromous fish. iin electrcnic couqter 0serate.j at the head of the ;; t? 3 : Ladder for several year 5 but !-lCiS nott been dsed recent1.J -7; . I .‘ - r‘; COJnteK w a .5 dif ficu: A. t to calibrate and ;a.Je inconsistent reszilts. Consequently, 3 texnporary condJi:, Eyce-type trap is use-2 in the upper four pools of trre ladder for annu31 counting of 3 u .:: 3 e r 3 teelhead. - ‘b. e p.3013 are t h e n partiall.. dewatered and the fish -‘ire l7ldi.>ldt:all> die-netted, co.2nte3, and sassed over tne ia3. Steelnead broodstoc-: selection (for the jJy:enile S!i??- ’ t3.3entai otitolantin%j progranj also occ~urs in this 2 3 nner. DOWZS tr+a3 juvenile nigrants are 2assed eit;hez 0 v e r the crest of the da;r. or tbLrocg5 3 i2>~~7SS ?l?'e that c3llects t:5oae f ;s:. 'd !-i 1 c 5, ha.Je

been “sc-eea,eti” E r k3;;i t h e ,-anal tz. LranLe. -T :-! ‘3 hot to’? photo 32 paj,’ 5 s n 0 L; 3 t f‘ p 3 i ‘; e :I 1 1 ;- k, 1,. - i .2 ;j y - - pi>? exiszi-: in the

. t31;:3ce, and the ;ir-r;Y L 3 ;j j e r .+ntray-s .L_.

2. ;iest EXt?nSi.37l IrriG?a:i22 2jStrl.--.t ;oul:s[

The 1 :; .: ‘.* .: ,’ L .T .:. o 1 n t e d at t .s 2 i n t 3 < c c f zr: 2 X5; 3 Cana 1 at the +iest end of “-ree Xile I .I 3 a 8-r . It is 3~~:3X17,3tCl~ 3~J

feet long and consists of a series of fixed metal slats spaced about 1 ta 2 inches apart. 1: prevents .nost steelhead smolta froa entering the canal and directs them

to the en:rance of the bypAss pi?e. The to? photo or, page 5 skews the iouver syste:Tl.

2

Figure 1. Average Mmthly Flows Expressed in cfs Eels ?rhree tile mmfor 44 Years of Rzccrd, 19X-1978

lks Mbkx715Narr3l lxc Jan m sz rp 1qan.~RqsePl5~30Av

1935 5. 5. 13.1936 4. 84. 106.1937 9. 31. 84.1938 33. 110. 161.1939 16. 79. 137.1940 17. 105. 100.1941 13. 128. 260.1942 210. 250. 867.1943 14. 138. 3%.1944 98. 188. 115.1945 80. 101. 138.1946 43. 135. 618.1947 130. 163. 637.1948 76. 64!L 1030.1949 138. 128. 217.1950 44. 113. 157.1951 140. 358. 325.1952 171. 181. 258.1953 36. 72. 128.1954 92. 129. 167.1955 40. 207. 126.1956 39. 184. !36.1957 69. 221. 165.1959 161. 176. 210.1959 51. 262. 362.1960 311. 192. !x7.1961 14. 152 629.1962 15. 118. 176.1963 127. 146. 282.1964 31. 155. 164.1965 26. 62. 116.1966 39. 73. 103.1967 11. 155. 48.1963 50. 122. 107.1969 74. 256. 413.1970 127. 145. 115.1971 118. 172. 286.1972 85. 209. x7.1973 108. 151. 120.1974 16. 466. 640.1975 66. 138. 153.1976 99. 1%. 208.1977 36. 107. 97.1978 4. 164. 448.AX 70. 168. 279.

08.79.

291.174.110.484.733.1280.122.115.803.1571.974.450.171.795.344.117.%2.131.

1215.583.635.948.160.215.274.452.165.

1887.103.483.502.4!56.147.241.775.486.1698.225.1392.

96.1177.

322.365.51.

275.168.105.319.545.1273.95.332.749.820.888.2%.521.1207.371.1007.436.132.

1309.116.715.1378.306.205.513.221.252.2316.131.810.260.1331.1931.1141.866.548.mo.1!330.1492.109.757.693.

316.289.198.393.283.987.117.892.1663.202.9%.488.7?9.1066.1534.1462.1815.882.1369.689.189.742.833.1875.910.587.1477.298.1361.331.2254.139.610.1074.591.

1051.916.1636.160.

1301.842.763.77.

727.845.

188.1062.578.1041.1560.1391.321.739.1181.743.1000.1457.832.991.1963.1490.1429.829.1123.456.122.

1703.1493.688.894.1132.1338.699.440.423.559.594.241.164.854.1106.628.

3677.20%

1388.1324.751.134.

1031.954.

974.1513.lao6.1181.692.774.

11.992.2023.1037.1267.1409.588.

2120.1872.1363.1054.1501.1481.560.737.1376.1407.3a55.981.640.405.891.941.936.1167.239.188.

5.2183.942.602.1023.

8.m.996.1922.268.784.1095.

109.176.375.95.48.17.36.

855.957.148.8.5.535.15.

3360.652.797.217.430.726.13.

1478.1107.914.980.318.726.218.441.332.378.176.

6.619.

4.604.839.250.795.

7.1255.1271.645.

2.344.543.

11. 15. 14.13. 12. 10.50. 10. 26.29. 25. 15.18. 38. 14.15. 22. 13.

211. 15. 41.4%. 148. 28.29!i 54. 63.26. 22. 21.91. 26. 329% 48. 45.66. 35. 24.

551. 41. 56.31. 19. 35.

804. 11. 51.140. 32. 21.22. 26. 19.417. 26. 68.220. 24. 35.116. 27. 45.44. 14. 44.39. 12. 36.11. 8. 45.35. 19. 25.34. 17. 66.24. 12. 25.33. 19. 10.7. 8. 19.

66. 8. 15.52. 34. 12.6. 10. 6.9. 5. 7.2. 4. 4.

54. 26. 12.25. 4. 5.198. 24. 18.42. 17. 16.7. 5. 6.

2%. 21. 12.59. 15. 12.12. 10. 17.2. 3. 3.10. 24. 33.

la3. 23. 26.

9. 18. 195.68. 13. X&8

48. 28. 222.227. 13. 293.25. 21. 261.313. 16. 292.549. 68. 152.781. 35. 514.052. 51. 752.140. 14. 223.758. 42. 405.4151. 97. 515.032. 51. 440.7141. 77. 921.631. 43. 590.965. 45. 568.033. 19. 593.737. 25. 399.680. 71. 538.846. 67. 271.152. 34, 269.628. 19. 666.424. 12. 474.447. 11. 688.6111. 123. 497.165. 26. 366.246. 17. 35x427. 17. al.111. 4. 336.94. 12. 229.75. 5. 706.23. 3. 117.07. 3. 257.03. 4. 176.517. 50. 545.071. 19. 527.785. 35. 38.422. 24. 765.47. 5. 141.317. 25. 961.810. 14. 546.07. 4. 6Q8.82. 2. 69.1

15. 13. 433.639. 29. 428.2

*uoL2elnur03e s!Jqap pue wep aye ~aho ~~014uo;J3eJlrlij: aJON*Jsat4 fju~yoo~ -lappet qsea aAoqe wo.~4 wea al;waa+iyl 40 tAa!A

!dest - Existing louver system used to bypass the downstream juvenilemigrants (WEID Canal headqate in background)

West - Juvenile bypass outlet pipe and entrance to fish ladder onwest end of Threemile Dam

5

3. East Ladder

The East Ladder on the right abutment of the dam wasconstructed in 1914 in conjunction with Three Mile Dam.Additional weirs were constructed at the toe of the damas part of this ladder in 1963. The ladder is an over-flow weir type containing 13 concrete pools, each 6 footby 8 foot by 6 foot in size. This series of poolscontain vertical drops ranging from 6 inches to 1 foot.Because of sedimention problems and access difficulties,this ladder has been used only recently since the WestLadder was completed in 1964. These access problems arethe result of sediment buildups and obstructions in theriver near the ladder entrance. In 1984 the ladder wasreopened and successful passage of steelhead occurredwhen river flows exceeded about 500 cfs. The ladder doesnot contain trapping, holding, or counting facilities.No additional attraction water is provided to the ladderentrance. The photos on page 7 show this ladder inoperation from both the upstream and downstream side.

II. Existing and Future Fishery Resources

Historically, the Umatilla River System produced large numbersof summer steelhead and fall and spring chinook salmon. Thelargest run of chinook salmon within the memory of white manoccurred in 1914 (Van Cleve and Ting, 1960). In that year,Indians and non-Indians caught "thousands upon thousands ofsalmon from spring to fall at the site of West Extension Canaland Hermiston Light and Power Company Dams." It was reportedthat significant declines in the numbers of salmon and steel-head followed that year with the completion of Three Mile Dam.

A. Steelhead

1. Present Situation

The average number of native Umatilla River summer steel-head (based on long-term electronic counts and recentmanual counts) passing over Three Mile Dam for the last14 years has been 1,886 fish.

Adult steelhead use the lower mainstem Umatilla Riverprimarily as a migration corridor. Upstream migrationbegins as early as October, depending on flows, with thepeak occurring between November and March. Most spawningoccurs in April and May in the upper Umatilla River andits tributaries. Estimated distribution of Umatillasummer steelhead spawning is as follows:

6

East - East ladder looking from upstream side showing overflow weir design

East - Entrance to east side fish ladder Note: lack of well-defined channel

7

Stream Percent

Meacham CreekSouth Fork Umatilla RiverNorth Fork Umatilla RiverMainstem Umatilla RiverSquaw CreekBirch CreekOther Tributaries

40.017.010.010.05.0

15.03.0

Egg incubation occurs from April through July. Mostrearing takes place in the same tributary streams wherespawning occurs. The juveniles typically spend 2 yearsin freshwater before migrating to sea as smolts. Theestimated annual outmigration of summer steelhead smoltsis 50,000 to 100,000 native fish.period of April through June.

This occurs during theMajor periods of summer

steelhead use of the Umatilla River Basin are as follows:

Upstream Adult MigrationSpawning

October - May

Egg IncubationApril - May

RearingApril - July

January - DecemberDownstream Smolt Migration April - June

The Oregon Department of Fish and wildlife (ODFW) begansupplemental hatchery outplanting of juvenile steelheadin 1980. Since the program began ODFW has released19,000 steelhead smolts in 1981, 50,000 in 1982, and60,000 in both 1983 and 1984. The outplanted smolts areprogeny of native adult fish trapped at Three Mile Dam.

2. Future Enhancement

An implementation plan for enhancement of Umatilla Riversteelhead has been developed by ODFW and the ConfederatedTribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). Theelements of this plan are presentedtilla River Basin

in their joint Uma-Report (1984). Long-term escapement

goals for summer steelhead in the Basin are 4,000 hatch-ery produced adult fish andadult fish.

5,000 naturally produced

Hatchery production goals will be achieved through annualreleases of 200,000 steelhead smolts at theBonifer facility and the Minthorn acclimation

existingfacility

8

currently in final design phase. The proposed UmatillaHatchery near Irrigon (in the predesign phase) will pro-duce these fish. The 60,000 smolts that are currentlybeing reared at existing ODFW facilities and released atBonifer will continue at least until the UmatillaHatchery comes online.to the Bonifer

Any excess broodstock returningand Minthorn facilities will be used for

enhancement of natural production by reseeding (adult oregg outplanting) in under-utilized habitat.

Riparian and instream habitat improvement needs wereidentified in the Umatilla River Basin Report of January1984. These projects were submitted to the PowerPlanning Council in November, 1983 as proposed amendmentsto the Fish and Wildlife Program of the Northwest PowerPlanning and Conservation Act (NPPCA) of 1980. Some ofthese improvements are being implemented in andMeacham Creek

Squawwith Bureau of Indian Affairs and Union

Pacific Railroad funds.tunity to vastly improve

There is an excellent oppor-the natural production of

anadromous fish habitat throughout the Umatilla Basin.

Fall Chinook

1. Present Situation

A self-sustaining run of fall chinook has not existed inthe Umatilla River since shortly after the constructionof Three Mile Dam.spawning habitat is

However, an abundance of potentialfound throughout the Mainstem

Umatilla River. In addition, Meacham Creek up to theNorth Fork also has potential for fall chinook spawning.

Under a fish release program developed by CTUIR and ODFWjuvenile fall chinook have been liberated in the Umatill:River since 1982 at the following rates:

Year ofRelease

19821983

1984

No. of Fish

4 million100,000

225,000

Size Stock

90/lb Tule stock9/lb Upriver

bright stock9/lb Upriver

bright stock

Approximately 20,000 and 50,000 fall chinook yearlingswere acclimated and released at Bonifer Pond in 1983 and

9

1984, respectively. The remaining smolts were releasedin upper Meacham Creek. A few 2 year old mini-jacks,(probably fewer than 100) from the 1983 release returnedto the Umatilla River in the fall of 1983. Jacks arealso expected to arrive in the fall of 1984.

Adult fall chinook will enter the Umatilla River inOctober through December, with most spawning expected tooccur in November and December. Egg incubation will takeplace from December to mid-March, with rearing betweenFebruary and the end of May. Fingerlings will migratedownstream to the Columbia River in March through June.

The major time periods that fall chinook are expected toutilize Umatilla River Basin waters are as follows:

Upstream Adult Migration October - DecemberSpawning November - DecemberEgg Incubation November - MarchRearing February - MayDownstream Smolt Migration March - June

2. Future Enhancement

The Umatilla Basin Implementation Plan (1984) citeslong-term escapement goals of 10,000 hatchery producedand 12,000 naturally produced fall chinook salmon.Approximately 225,000 yearling are programed for acclima-tion and release at the Bonifer and Minthorn facilitiesthrough 1987. Based upon the results of ongoing studiesat Bonneville Hatchery, the most cost effective programfor juvenile releases will be used. This may includeyearling releases, fall reared smolts, or 90/lb. fish.Based upon available data a return of about 2,500 adultfish would result from either program. Returning adultfall chinook will be used as brood stock for hatcheryproduction, and to foster natural production in thesystem.

The capability of present flows in the Umatilla River tosupport a self-sustaining run of naturally produced fallchinook is doubtful. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS,1984) evaluated the potential benefits of flow enhance-ment as part of a Corps of Engineers project to provideflows for anadromous fish from Three Mile Dam downstreamto the mouth of the Umatilla River. Channel improvementbelow Three Mile Dam was also a part of that project.

10

The channel work is scheduled for completion this year bythe Corps with funding from the Bonneville Power Adminis-tration (BPA) under the NPPCA. The Fish and WildlifeService (FWS),and ODFW

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),are currently analyzing a potential flow

enhancement projectflows for

being planned by the BR to improveanadroums fish in the Umatilla River Basin.

The effect of these two flow projects as they relate topassage at Three Mile Dam are discussed in the lastsection (Item IV, B and C) of this report.

Future fisheries projects identified in theRiver Basin Report (1984),

Umatillaand included in the Fish and

wildlife Program, will also enhance fall chinook runs.These projects include the acquisition of 6,000 acre-feetof McKay Reservoir storage for fish flows, modificationor replacement of Umatilla River irrigation screens, andadult passage improvement at Maxwelldiversions.

and Cold Springs

C. Spring Chinook

1. Present Situation

Large numbers of spring chinook salmon existed in theUmatilla Basin prior to construction of Three Mile Dam.The ODFW reported small numbers of spring chinook in theSystem into the 1960's, but none have beensince.

observed

2. Future

Potential spring chinook spawning habitat exists in theupper Mainstem, lower North Fork,River,

and South Fork Umatillaand in Meacham Creek.

plansThe CTUIR and ODFW have

for reestablishment of chinook inUmatilla

spring theBasin. Escapement goals are

produced10,000 hatchery

fish and 1,000 naturally produced fish. How-ever, poor spring passage conditions and lack of deepholding pools for adults could limit the production ofthese fish. To avoid orlems,

reduce potential passage prob-broodstock would be selected for early arrival of

adults to avoid low stream flows. Whenadults would enter

introduced,the Umatilla River

and migrate toin April and May

upstream resting pools neargrounds. Adults would hold over in

spawning

spawningthese pools until

commenced in late August and September.juveniles would rear for a year prior

Most

April,to migration in

May and June.

11

Projected time periods of spring chinook use of theUmatilla River Basin are as follows:

Upstream Adult Migration April - JuneSpawning August - SeptemberEgg Incubation August - DecemberRearing November - AprilDownstream Smolt Migration April - June

III. Fish Passage Problems Caused by Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam

A. Steelhead

1. Upstream (Adult)

Adult steelhead enter the Umatilla River in the late fallwhen the irrigation season has ended and natural flowsbegin increasing (Figure 1, page 13). As runoffincreases to medium to high flows (about 500 cfs orgreater), a higher percentage of water spills over thecrest of the dam and attraction flows at both laddersbecome a smaller portion of the total flow. This createsa false attraction problem for steelhead in the tailracearea. The resulting migration delay creates increasedstress and mortality when fish jump and become trappedin the open bays beneath the dam. An estimated 20percent of the 1982-83 steelhead return was lost becauseof these conditions at Three Mile Dam.

The West Ladder is well designed for steelhead passagebut lacks adequate attraction flows at the entranceduring medium to high flows. The East Ladder is not ade-quately designed by today's standards. It has poorentrance conditions, poor turn pool conditions, poor exitconditions, and is not self regulating. It also lacksadequate attraction water at all flow levels. Sedimentnaturally accumulates above the east side of the dam andrestricts flow into the East Ladder, thus impeding fishpassage. There are no trapping or counting facilities atthe East Ladder and only marginal opportunities at theWest Ladder.

Debris hanging over the dam crest and accumulating in thetailrace area impedes lateral movement of steelhead alongthe base of the dam (see photo on page 4). Thissituation, combined with insufficient attraction flows atthe ladder entrances, also creates migration delay andstress. Accumulation of debris above the east side of

12

the dam restricts the amount of flow entering the EastLadder. Failure to maintain control of debris above andbelow the East Ladder may cause stranding of adultsteelhead.

2. Downstream (Juveniles)

Juvenile steelhead migrate past Three Mile Dam by passingover the crest, through the fish ladders, or through thesmolt bypass pipe on the west side. The bypass pipedrops fish 20 feet into the tailrace area below the dam.This may cause injury, stress and possible mortality tosmolts, especially during low flow conditions when thebedrock area below the pipe does not contain adequatepool depths. This condition is even worse for thosesmolts passing over the crest of the dam. Smoltsencounter the louver system at the intake of WEID Canal.A NMFS study (1981) indicates that the passage efficencyof this type louver system for steelhead smolts underideal flow conditions is 70 to 95 percent. Passage con-ditions at Three Mile Dam are probably near the low endof this range because of problems with the approachvelocities, nonlaminar flows, and bypass slot veloci-ties. This efficiency does not meet NMFS criteria forscreening facility design, which requires successfulpassage of all fish.

A summary of the current passage conditions for steel-head, expressed as a percentage of adult and juvenilefish passing Three Mile Dam, is provided in Table 1.This information is listed under the No Action Plan,assuming no flow improvements. Future steelhead passageconditions, again assuming no flow enhancement with thepresent facilities at Three Mile Dam, would not change.However, greater numbers of fish would be impacted as thebenefits of the combined CTUIR/ODFW enhancement programare realized.

B. Fall Chinook

1. Upstream (Adult)

As indicated in Figure 1 (Page 3), adequate flows(200 cfs or greater) for adult fish passage to Three MileDam can occur during the October through December migra-tion period. During these periods all the passageproblems listed for adult steelhead would be common tofall chinook. These include: 1) false attraction flowsbelow the dam: 2) lack of adequate attraction to theladder entrances; and, 3) debris and/or sediment

13

I88

“4

173

pi?

iv-l

iiB

11

ww

20

?aA

34

Ji

VIWY

8t51

4lj

a;,

“‘a$

ii8

3 w

4ifixI

:. 8Q

)url

f ,”

R %

dI

5Lc%il

“I

3 Yil“ii

2 *A

I

iti%I

cht

+4

4 1

!I!&8id

3

:.I

-; 3G

834h

i0i!z22Tl685ii1

I! 3-a-ls74 36s.!f 3q

al1

.g9fir:33L

34g 303ribLiba3$.4JJ53

$1B4.i!iLY2z

d6‘GL4n48iI.F3dQ4!h%85iii28i:4uEaJ!f843.32

8c88c8

si332a 8

!! A

P

$88 ‘iIuuti4

14

above and below the dam. In addition to these problems,the overflow weir design of the East Ladder does not pro-mote chinook passage as would the vertical slot design.A submerged orifice or vertical slot is especially impor-tant for the ladder entrance.

Migration delays for fall chinook are generally moreharmful than for steelhead, due to the relatively shortperiod of time between migration and spawning.

During flow periods that could provide adequate fishpassage, movement through the West Ladder could be satis-factory. However, counting, trapping, and holdingfacilities are poor. During periods of extreme lowflows, passage would be reduced or eliminated. Tempera-ture and swimming duration are not expected to causepassage problems.

2. Downstream (Juveniles)

The NMFS study (1981) indicates that the passageefficiency of louvers for fall chinook migrants underideal flow conditions varies from 40 to 90 percent. Thelarger sized yearling chinook smolt presently beingreleased would likely be near the upper end of thisrange. Future outmigrations of natural and hatchery fryand fingerling would likely experience efficiencies nearthe lower end of this range. The same problems withvelocities and nonlaminar flows affecting louverefficiency for steelhead would be more of a problem forthe smaller fall chinook. NMFS policy has been to pass100 percent of the fish, thus passage criteria would notbe met in either case. Chinook downstream migrants wouldalso experience the same problem with injury, stress, andpossible mortality from the juvenile bypass system asdiscussed for steelhead.

A summary of the current passage conditions for fallchinook, expressed as a percentage of adult and juvenilefish passing Three Mile Dam, is provided in Table 1(Page 14). This information is listed under the NoAction Plan, assuming no flow improvements. Future fallchinook passage conditions, again assuming no flowenhancement with the present facilities at Three MileDam, would not change. However, greater numbers of fishwould be impacted as the benefits of the combinedCTUIR/ODFW enhancement program are realized.

15

C. Spring Chinook

1 . Upstream (Adult)

Medium to high flows often occur during April and earlyMay of the migration period. With these conditions,problems listed for steelhead and fall chinook at ThreeMile Dam would also be common for spring chinook. Theseinclude: 1) false attraction flows below the dam; 2)lack of adequate attraction to the ladder entrances; and3) debris and/or sediment obstruction above and below thedam. In addition to these problems, the overflow weirdesign of the East Ladder does not promote chinookpassage as would a vertical slot design. A submergedorifice or vertical slot is especially important for theladder entrance.

In late May and into June, flows can rapidly decrease tovery low flow conditions because of irrigation diver-sions (Figure 1, Page 3). Passage during these periodscould be significantly reduced or even eliminated.Migration delays for spring chinook would have veryserious implications because upstream passage to holdingand spawning areas would be impossible later in thespring and into summer. This would especially be aproblem during late May and early June for late arrivingadults. periods of adequate movementthrough the West Ladder could be satisfactory.counting, trapping holding facilities are poor.Temperature swimming duration are notexpected to cause passage problems.

2. Downstream (Juvenile)

Spring chinook downstream migrants are expected to beyearling smolts. The NMFS study (1981) indicates thatthe passage efficiency of louvers for spring chinooksmolts under ideal flow conditions varies from 60 to 90percent. The previously discussed problems with velo-cities and nonlaminar flows affecting louver efficiencyfor steelhead would also affect spring chinook. NMFSpolicy has been to pass all of the fish. Therefore, NMFSpassage criteria would not be met. Spring chinook down-stream migrants would also experience the same problemsfrom injury, s t r e s s , and mortality with the juvenilebypass system as those listed earlier for steelhead andfall chinook.

A summary of the current passage conditions for springchinook, expressed as a percentage of adult and juvenilefish passing Three Mile Dam, is provided in Table 1

16

This information is listed under the No Action Plan,assuming no flow improvements. Future spring chinookpassage conditions, again assuming no flow enhancementwith the present facilities at Three Mile Dam, would notchange. However, greater numbers of fish would beimpacted as the benefits of the combined CTUIR/ODFWenhancement program are realized.

IV Conceptual Actions

A. No Action

This alternative would maintain the existing passagefacilities at Three Mile Dam. Existing management and opera-tions would continue as in the past. Passage conditions wouldnot change at Three Mile Dam. It is assumed that passage con-ditions below Three Mile Dam would improve. This would be theresult of channel improvements planned at several locations inthe three miles of river below the dam. This work isscheduled for completion this year (1984) by the Corps ofEngineers. The downstream channel improvement work is assumedto be a condition of all the conceptual actions discussedherein.

B. Dam Removal

This concept would involve three major features. These are:1) removal of the dam; 2) bedrock and/or silt removal ifrequired; and, 3) construction of a new screen facility andbypass system at the future location of the WEID Canalentrance.

Under this concept the dam would be removed down to bedrock toallow the river to pass unimpeded at all flow levels.Specific flow characteristics, (velocities, depth), channelcharacteristics (drops), and sediment conditions that wouldexist with this action need additional engineering study. Thespecific channel design through the area should providepassage conditions consistent with accepted adult salmon andsteelhead passage criteria. The opportunity for trapping andcounting at this location would be foregone with this plan.

The need to replace flows to the WEID Canal with this planalso should be considered. It is unlikely that adequateconditions would exist to provide for this need at Three MileDam. Alternatives include pumping water from the ColumbiaRiver or providing a new, low head diversion futher upstreamin the Umatilla River. A new diversion dam should have appro-priate passage facilities to insure that existing problems are

17

not just being moved upstream. Any new source of water shouldbe screened to insure safe passage of juvenile fish.

C. East Ladder Only

This concept would involve six major features.improve or

These are: 1)rebuild the East Ladder with vertical slots or

other state-of-the-art facilities;and counting facilities; 3)

2) addition of trappingimproved attraction water;

improved fish access to the ladder; 5)4)

maintenance of theforebay and tailrace; and, 6) construction of a new screen andbypass facility at the WEID Canal.

To improve passage through the East Ladder the overflow weirdesign of the steps would be changed to submergedvertical slots,

orifice,or other more acceptable design. Construction

of trapping and counting facilities at the ladder would berequired. The West Ladder would be nonfunctional under thisconcept.

With this plan, additional attraction water would be providedat the ladder. During periods of higher flows (500+ cfs) thiswould be achieved by removal of debris upstream from the pointof inflow, allowing greater volumes of flow to enter theladder. During low flows appropriate features would bedesigned to assure that a sufficient amount of water forattraction flows could be diverted through the ladder.

An improved channel would havebedrock at the face of the dam.

to be constructed through theAt higher flows this would

induce fish attracted by spill to cross the channel and enterthe ladder.

To assure access to the ladder the forebay and tailrace wouldhave to be maintained. This would include removal of debrisand sediment which could physically block or hinder fish move-ment.

To increase smolt Survival it would be necessarythe louver and bypass pipe

to replaceat the WEID Canal headgate. The

new screens and bypass facility would comply with ODFW, NMFS,and FWS criteria.

D. Two Ladders, No Apron

This concept would involve seven major features. These are:1) improved attraction water to the West and East Ladders; 2)addition of trapping and counting facilities at both ladders;3) convert the overflow type design in the East Ladder to a

18

type that would improve passage of steelhead and chinooksalmon; 4) improved fish access to the East Ladder (but notto the West Ladder); 5) maintenance of the forebay and tail-race at the East Ladder; 6) modify both ladders so they canbe shut off to prevent any flow-through; and, 7) constructionof a new screen and bypass facility at the WEID Canal.

Under this concept additional attraction water would beprovided at both ladders. During periods of higher flows(500+ cfs) this would be achieved by removal of debris up-stream from the point of inflow.volumes of flow to enter the ladders.

This would allow greaterDuring low flows one of

the ladders could be shut off and flow would go through theother ladder.

To improve chinook passage through the East Ladder theoverflow weir design of the stepsmerged orifice,

would be changed to sub-vertical slots, or other more

design.acceptable

Construction of trapping and counting facilities atboth ladders would be required.

An improved channel would have to be constructed through thebedrock at the face of the dam leading to the East Ladder. Athigher flows this would induce fish attracted by spill tocross the channel and enter the ladder.

To assure access to the East Ladder the forebay and tailracewould have to be maintained. This would include removal ofdebris and sediment which could physically block or hinderfish movement.

During low flow periods there may be insufficient water tokeep both ladders operational. To maximize the potential forupstream migration one of the ladders may have to be shut offat the upstream end.entering

This would result in all passage flowsthe other ladder and would

conditions.improve passage

Associated features would be designed to assurethat the water and that"shut off"

would be diverted efficiently, theladder and approaches would be completely drained.

This would prevent stranding of fish.

To increasethe louver

smolt survival it would be necessary to replaceand bypass pipe at the WEID Canal headgate. The

new screens and bypass facility would comply with ODFW, NMFS,and FWS criteria.

19

E. Cap on Crest - West Ladder

This concept would involve four major features. These are:1) improved attraction water to the West Ladder; 2) additionof trapping and counting facilities; 3) addition of a cap onthe crest of the dam beginning at the east bank; and, 4)construction of a new screen and bypass facility at the WEIDCanal.

Under this concept additional attraction water would beprovided at the West Ladder. During periods of higher flows(500+ cfs) this would be achieved by removal of debris up-stream from the point of inflow. Also, the cap would allowgreater volumes of water to enter the ladder during lowflows. The cap would be designed to assure that a sufficientamount of water for adequate attraction flows could be pro-vided at the ladder entrance. The East Ladder would benonfunctional with this plan. In addition, construction oftrapping and counting facilities at the West Ladder would berequired.

The addition of a cap on the existing facility would helpdirect flows near the west bank and eliminate the falseattraction flows over the crest of the dam. This flow concen-tration would also likely reduce the debris problem whichexists upstream of the dam.

To increase smolt survival it would be necessary to replacethe louver and bypass pipe at the WEID Canal headgate. Thenew screens and bypass facility would comply with ODFW, NMFS,and FWS criteria.

F. Ladder At New Location (i.e. Middle of Dam)

This concept would involve four major features. These are:1) construct a new ladder at an optimum location; 2) insureadequate attraction water to the ladder: 3) addition oftrapping and counting facilities; and, 4) construct a newscreen and bypass facility at the WEID Canal.

The construction of a new fish ladder located approximately inthe middle of the existing facility could be used alone, or inconjunction with the West Ladder. It would be designed with asubmerged orifice, vertical slots, or other acceptable state-of-the-art features.

Under this concept additional attraction water would beprovided at the ladder. During periods of higher flows (500+cfs) this would be achieved by removal of debris upstream fromthe point of inflow. During low flows appropriate features

20

would be designed to assure that a sufficient amount of waterfor adequate attraction flows could be provided at the ladderentrances.

Construction of trapping and counting facilities at the newladder would be required. Access to the ladder must also beprovided.

To increase smolt survival it would be necessary to replacethe louver and bypass pipe at the WEID Canal headgate. Thenew screens and bypass facility would comply with ODFW, NMFS,

and FWS criteria.

G. Concrete Apron Plus West Ladder

This concept would involve four major features. These are:1) improved attraction water to the West Ladder; 2) additionof trapping and counting facilities at both ladders; 3) aconcrete apron in the tailrace of the dam (east side only);and, 4) construction of a new screen and bypass facility atthe WEID Canal.

Under this concept additional attraction water would beprovided at the West Ladder. The East Ladder would beaccessible and useable only during high flows. This would beachieved by the concrete apron acting as a velocity barrier todirect both fish and flows in the tailrace to the WestLadder. Flows across the apron would be shallow and swift,thus sweeping any fish off the apron, while at the same timedirecting them towards the West Ladder. At high flows fishcould negotiate the apron and use the East Ladder in itsexisting condition. The concrete apron would have to beconstructed through and on the bedrock at the east face of thedam over to the existing main channel below the west side ofthe dam. Construction of trapping and counting facilities atthe West Ladder would be required.

To increase smolt survival it would be necessary to replacethe louver and bypass pipe at the WEID Canal headgate. Thenew screens and bypass facility would comply with ODFW, NMFS,and FWS criteria.

H. Center Cap On Crest with Sill-Type Ladder on East Side

This concept would involve six major features. These are:1) construct a small cap across the center crest of the dam;2) construct a sill-ladder; 3) improved attraction water tothe sill-ladder; 4) improved fish access to the sill-ladder;5) addition of trapping and counting facilities; and, 6) con-struct a new screen and bypass facility at the WEID Canal.

21

Under this concept a small cap would be constructed across thecenter section of the dam, with lower portions remaining onboth sides. The gap on the west side would be slightly higherthan the east side gap. This would be designed to direct lowflows over the east side of the dam.

A sill-type ladder with several large steps would beconstructed on the east side where the present ladder is nowlocated. These would act as a ladder, with vertical dropsbetween each sill. The sills would create resting pools andwould be deep enough for fish to negotiate vertical jumps.

Under this concept additional attraction water would beprovided at the sills by concentrating all low flows at onelocation. Moderate flows would also pass through the existingWest Ladder or over the crest on the west side as a result ofthe gap on the west side of the dam. Thus, low to mediumflows would pass only over each end of the dam but not overthe center. The peak high could pass over the center sectionof the dam, however, this would be an infrequent occurrenceand spread a smaller portion of the total flows over a largeenough area, that false attraction flows should not be aproblem.

An improved channel would have to be constructed through thebedrock at the face of the dam to the sill-ladder. At lowerflows this would induce fish attracted by the spill to crossthe channel and enter the East Ladder.

The forebay and tailrace would have to be maintained to assureaccess to the East Ladder. This would include removal ofdebris and sediment which could physically block fishmovement. Construction of trapping and counting facilities atthe West Ladder would be required.

To increase srnolt survival it would be necessary to replacethe louver and bypass pipe at the WEID Canal headgate. Thenew screens and bypass facility would comply with ODFW, NMFS,and FWS criteria.

V. Summary

A. Effect of Conceptual Actions Under Present FlowConditions

Adult and juvenile anadromous fish that reach Three Mile Damduring upstream and downstream migration are confronted with avariety of passage problems. These include: 1) outdatedfacility design; 2) inadequate attraction flows at the

22

ladders; 3) inadequate flow through the East Ladder atcertain times; 4) sediment and/or debris barriers; and, 5)channel conditions which prevent access to the ladders atsome flows. These problems would persist under the NoAction Plan. A detailed description of these existingproblems is provided in Section III above.

The structural improvements for ladder design and forlocation, dam modification or removal, and upstream or down-stream channel improvements would increase upstream passageof adult fish by about 10 to 20 percent. It is assumed thatthe dam removal alternative would increase adult passagewhen compared to the other alternatives because of a smallpercentage of fish which would not negotiate the structure,even with state-of-the-art designed passage facilities. Theopportunity for trapping and counting would be improved withall plans (except for dam removal) and broodstock selectionwould be available at the dam. Trapping and countingfacilities would also allow for a CTUIR terminal fishery atThree Mile Dam; total counts by species to evaluate thehabitat improvement measures of the ODFW/CTUIR implementa-tion plan: and trapping and hauling of adult salmon to otherareas in the basin where suitable spawning habitat mayexist. The lack of these facilities without the dam is notconsidered to be as important as the improved passage thatwould result from this alternative. Dam removal would alsoeliminate expenditures of time and funds required to operateand maintain facilities installed at the dam. With improveddesign of the juvenile bypass system and more efficientscreening, downstream migrant survival would increase byabout 15 to 40 percent. A comparison of each plansimprovements, for both adult and juvenile fish, is providedin Table 1 (Page 14).

Lack of adequate flows at certain critical times wouldcontinue to be the major passage problem for all threeanadromous fish species (Table 2). Fall chinook adultswould be the most seriously affected because of low flowconditions in September, October and November. Springchinook passage would be similarly affected, but to a lesserdegree, because of low flow periods in May and June. Bothearly and late returning adult steelhead could experiencepassage problems during these low flow periods, but thebiggest percentage of these fish return during the Decemberthrough March period when flows are normally adequate.Downstream migrants of all species could experience passageproblems because of low flows in May and June. This wouldrequire trucking of these smolts during periods of extremel o w flow, as is presently done during such periods at theWestland Diversion Dam (river mile 27 on the MainstemUmatilla River).

23

Table 2. Present Flow Conditions at Three Mile Dam1

Sept 16-30 Ott Nov 1-15 Nov 16-30 May June

Flow Conditions (cfs)

Average Flow

Median Flow

Number of YearsFlows Equal orExceed 200 cfs2

29 70 168 279 548 108

24 44 145 176 378 33

0/44 2/44 9/44 21/44 30/44 8/44

1/ Number of years flows equal or exceed 200 cfs downstream of Three Mile-Dam, based on 44 years of record (1935 to 1978) from Figure 1.

2/ The minimum flow for adequate fish passage below Three Mile Dam was-considered to be 200 cfs with planned channel improvement (FWS, 1984).

B. Effect of Conceptual Actions Under Reclamation FlowEnhancement

The BR plan (BR, 1982) basically entails a pumping facilityto exchange water from the Columbia River for some naturalflow rights in the Umatilla River and some McKay Reservoirstorage presently diverted for irrigation. Also included isa water storage reservoir on Bear Creek, a tributary toMeacham Creek. This plan would significantly improvestreamflow and water quality conditions in Meacham Creek and79 miles of the Mainstem Umatilla River. Steelhead produc-tivity would be enhanced and salmon runs would be restoredon a sustained basis.

The plan provides the following minimum streamflows (cfs)for steelhead trout and chinook salmon in the Umatilla Riverdownstream from the Three Mile Dam.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July hug Sept Ott Nov Deel-15/16-30 l-15/16-30

250 250 250 250 250 250 0 0 O/250 300 300/250 250

Flow enhancement without structural modifications would noteliminate passage problems associated with: 1) falseattraction below the dam; 2) lack of adequate attractionflows at ladder entrances; 3) debris and/or sedimentobstructions; and, 4) channel problems in the tail-race.However, with the flow improvements shortages during criti-cal periods would be eliminated, and passage conditionswould improve. The combination of structural improvements(plans C to H) plus flows, would eliminate all major passageproblems. The dam removal alternative with flows providesfor 100 percent passage of anadromous fish, while thestructural plans are assumed to impact a small percentage offish that would not successfully pass the structure.Compared to the existing passage problems without flowenhancement, improvements would range from about 20 to 55percent for adult fish, to about 25 to 45 percent forjuvenile fish. A comparison of each plans improvements withBR flows, for both adult and juvenile fish, is provided inTable 1 (Page 14).

C. Effect of Conceptual Actions Under Corps FlowEnhancement

The Corps of Engineers plan (Corps, 1981) entails use of anexisting pumping plant to transport water from near themouth of the Umatilla River up to Three Mile Diversion Dam.

25

The pumped water would be added to the WEID Canal to ensureadequate water for irrigation uses. This would allow Uma-tilla River water to be bypassed as the minimum flows forfishery enhancement. This proposal only provides flows fromThree Mile Dam downstream, and has no provisions for flowrelated improvements upstream from the dam.

The Corps' plan would provide the following minimum stream-flows (cfs) for steelhead trout and chinook salmon in theUmatilla River downstream from Three Mile Dam.

Jan Feb Mar hpr May June July Aug Sept Ott Nov Dee200 200 200 200 100 100 0 0 20 200 200 200

Flow enhancement without structural modifications would noteliminate passage problems associated with: 1) falseattraction below the dam; 2) lack of adequate attractionflows at ladder entrances; 3) debris and/or sedimentobstructions; and, 4) channel problems in the tailrace.However, with the flow improvements, shortages during somecritical periods would be eliminated, and passage conditionswould improve.

In comparing the Corps flow enhancement project with the BRproject the two major differences are: 1) the amount ofwater provided during the months of September, May and June;and, 2) water with the Corps project would be provided onlyat Three Mile Dam, while the BR project provides water up-stream from Three Mile Dam. In terms of fish passage, theMay and June flows with the Corps project (100 cfs versus250 cfs with BR) are not considered adequate for upstreampassage of adult spring chinook. Also, because May and Junedo have periods of low to no flows as a result of irrigationwithdrawals, water provided at Three Mile Dam would noteliminate the need to truck outmigrating smolts that wouldotherwise be stranded at upstream diversions. The flowdifferences in September would impact early returning adultfall chinook. However, this should be a very small portionof the run when compared to adults that would return duringthe October through December period. A comparison of eachplan's improvements with the corps flow enhancement, forboth adult and juvenile fish, is provided in Table 1(Page 14).

26

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SHEETS

FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN

f i 1 3 3 0 r I* 3 1 !: /r r - I- ” L a FJ j+ 0 :c : L/ , _: 1 c i- r1 1LA !i 1

IF jr 0 kl 2.1 tF 1. h I

1by

-s-

-2 1

I$ i-j

I:a

; j’>

t

;

I

g

~

f+ ’ I I ,I i / / f I : ! ! i u- ~ /I’

I I I

i

Ii

/

1 i

4jg!; !

--r s-a< ;I

tE c

:E

f: &A

;;;,

lc

f rf .

,- ‘I

G 1

L!;: :

[ 1;1 * I

I* I’ F’ ; i;

1

7 : ; ! ; ‘ f-4. ;I : ! ?i _

:,. ! I. j - ! : f

!

j> 1

H fr 7

-q -I

I-;

,f. .;

z [

$ /F:

!W F

L

1,: ‘r {

J,k:

lb;

1Y -1 ;

b L7;” r

5I. ,3 4 iEB 360 i 4-L I-! ’ I jL I 1 / i-

p;

z *

p:

i F

z=

?co

;.’

0 1

FL

c$

vf

,: I c

11ip

IT (

rr0

; z,

‘= f

; i

yi:”

1tr

; 15

ii.‘p

ji 1;3

a:

1;

b!

/ !

fad

1-I ; ’

‘III-

@I$

j

. 9-l

n v

,,

;, p P

a?.?

VP I

’:

iI+$,

,8/T

RI v,

iv r.

dP

ibo-Y

‘Ic;

82

-+

-T

ii

I .k IV I 1a 0” c1 1

1!

L

j $1 . * I -i

1 / /

I’

I

kl!

.I/

/!

I !

! ,

Li

’

A-

1/1 L, ;n P;?J$ cPC ’ I 1I? 1r-44 30 Q I is8r -P I I/ !! 11 i ! I I -

1 2 d $1

zl 2,

2 ‘2 1

I I:+J 1;I i

I nL

L -

r, PC

!? 1. 0 I{

1 I 1 -

; 3 ; i :E' 0 ! .I P D

, I;. 7! ' r - / c E' I h Y I

cjc ,

c

1 1 I : ( : r ( i : i I L t. - rl

. m irl

r r

~n A P

z ‘

b b

z. l”

g:g

r ‘P

r-r

4 4 $J a ;t

b ”

;- >.

) P : .._, 1

p,

y ?’ I i1’;

0 E IDc c

I I L

1 f P! : :

;. I

r 4

n “r / 1

$ 2 I

f! ll P dc 0 ’ ’ P -if 6‘

DO 1;: ’

IF 1;@ I

T T f J . 7: ; : IL : ;c fi ;, :: ;f G 2: 2 cD I : ~ 8< 2 F : ; ; ! “! 1.c u .- r ?; I-J 8 I 1 - 1 -

1 i I I i I f IS n i : W D L i ‘> z I- ; B 1 I 1 ~0 / + rl, 2’ I

‘0 8 /I F F” TP r. r. I Cl I

PR

OP

ER

TY

CLA

SS

IDE

NT

IFIE

3P

RO

PE

RT

Y

PL

AN

TA

CC

OU

NT

i2 I 3 ; 4 t c 175 d 0 i t

FEATURE PRICE LEVELFEAS\BILIT~

3- tn ;LF llD;VCYStO-i iIlL- - FlJU PASSA6E ft.lPPOVFME~~ ocT-oBc4 ( \9BQ-

I I I I I I I= “Ia$ ;i 55 2p”4 40 =

E00 $,o ,q -

Da

-. - .-.-i=-.--- --.. ___-. “:.

2,

-- .__ .__- -..-- --

- - .-.-_- ------L-.-__.

!_I

-i-‘\

--._.>

- --. ~-. II f--.---.-_

--Li------II

IT

-A:-- --il.

,,I

- .__...-.-.- _

- ----- -

--- .- - ._-_

1:;

- - -_--. --~ _.-

-.-__~ _-.-- - _- .- - -.- .._..--.- ._-. -..-- .- ._. _

-.. -.. _--. _-. .-- _

--_

DESCRIPTION OUANTITY cPRICE FIELD TOTAL

5AMOUNT COST FIELD NONCONTRACT CONSTf4UCTlON

COST COST COST

P,.,TPC ‘!.T y- - -

.___--3 - II-F I! v F wo--I! AT

---. __._-.- -_ - - - --__

----~-~DCI..t’,

--.--.. --_ ._

- - - - ___-- .----.. - -- - - ~ _ _ _ - - -(2-j ! [,r\’ [!ld>Y. !-‘15\4 LrLcb:.E.

____ ---. -~-____ ~-----. ___-- ~--------- .-.-_ ._____

M7L,,FI~:Kl’Iv\_. 4-faLe 9-. q.cs 000-4.. - 3lkb-q cm ’-_-..-.

- - - - - --_____ ._---___. - - - _.- _._-

&Al I,, I>?.,&-~- p.*,fl i~v.Fcri\Inl, (!“‘,, I ,- - - B , ._. .a-VI, Is- - - - - ---..-_-

.!p J c c :.i n* Ir.8, I<. b’r. 3 ;’ NC ‘3 i ,&,,*o z~>*,~-___-

I5_. .__

IS 5T,,omI,,,‘\. If/ >YCLf-r,-7 tr\C 5T.gdcr\#nE’jOF L-VI.4 Jur* I s

- -_- --.._- ---. - - - - ..__ I 5

-.-T -co 6-”

IS, cl00

I 10-.-.-__-._ - - - - ..-.

G , I’,< Lcy - - .~L=.!P- - --____ __--_.

-z--c r 0 Ll- 23 TU !”, I*‘)(’Cw~cu~r~ ‘,I 0 .‘LT’1.l’.h\.

-.---A...IS5 c.\l 3&j5 =* ___--

.-~----.& 0. 00 0

1 rt.\Fl.C.~, r,-,- :3, c-00 0 L”---

~:,r..aT.P, G O’,i c15, 000 -

jrp.,cJ,‘P’:.-- ___ ---

_ lzo.wo --~~. -----. ---

-.zl~~~~L --_- _-- ______ ._-..________.--___ .--.- ~---_-

~-- .---~ ~- ---_----

---. - - ___--_ ___._

-_-- - -

-..-. .__-- ---.- -/

- - - - ..-----

-----4-__ - - - - - --~-._-- .__-___- --_..-_

~-~_ _.~..____ _ __- - - ---__- .---- - -. - . - ___--. __-._-. -A. I-, ( , ?,l ,%. -.-

c,v\: l,l<,l .,ZiC’, ‘;,z-Y - -

.)uu”c)o

-__- ___._ ~. ----_--.---.-.-.--I_.. -iYLJCP-.. . ..____~... -..- - - - - _-- .-._

~--______ -. - - .-____. _ - -__~- --_-._ _--__ ,<Lb r’nrt,.I:.“!‘./.1 iL-.‘I___~_____ ---I.__

- - - - - - - - ---.. - - ~___ _.______. .

.--~- ----.. ___~_____. - - - - - . - - - - - ~ - - - ____-.. -.-.----.. .---..... .-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -____-- - - - - I _ - - - - - - - --.I_- ---. .- _._,-__ _--_ _ _ _-_ -. _-__.----.. _?~:A,.~\ ‘,L n I- ,I i W’“!~.~

.-------- - - - - ---.c,,(l

r-Y . - - .- ----.. .._... -- - - ---. .-- - - .-..------. -.---- - - - -_~. -.. ._ - -

3-t !,.,‘>.‘,rl “>I’, I,1-r & ;.ot’fi7

- . - -_-----..L--.----L”L. -.--._-. - - - - ----_ _ __,- ----.--- - - - - - . .--- _- _. __-_- --..-_- ..- _.-_

-~____---- - ---__--. - - - - - ~-------. .------- --___-- ..- . .-_- - .----_ .----.~--____ _..-____-. ._____ .--_-- -_.--~-.-- - -. - - . - - . . - - ---.- - .--.__- .---- . --__ ..-. .----.-.- --..-___. .-___----- ----_-. - --__ ._---_ .-...

~---~-.-------------. -..-.-- -- --.----.- ._.-- --..-- - -.~ . . ..- -__--.~- _ .-_---- _ .--. -~ __.,,_ _-._ .-__.. ._ _

I.,.<, II *.r

1.1.t,? ,I Y4,“a3lc.1” (II t,rr, ,I$ I,,, 111, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

SHEET l.twuJtcT

OF-L-.

dl%AaT!LL4VREPARED BY

“l”lSlONl-w I?eGI:>h, l-20

ESTIMATE DATE

“NlTs+w\uc\Yy ) 19fls .

ESTIMATE TYPE

7E 5 r

W i ; m v E ,T L’ I 5 d > 9 i 3 *: !” .s ia 0 ? :: L :a ! 1” : -7g n L s ,-

3 I’ i 3 s Pi ,x 3 3: i I

- , I J 1 5 -

b ?. 5 P / :

,;

T

-mq

-Tr

I / 1

! ! j

i jI i

I I i

I i I

/ i I 1

1 I /

/I / j i

7-i-n

//

j 1

/ /

FFp

i?

-r

‘P 1; p

y;

,; I’-

‘91;

I, r

j(;

i 1.

;‘g

i; j;

I$ ;I

, /

1. ,4

:ID

/,- -Ii

::,:L.

I:i

!_. ii,

/1

ij /

j !

--L lr-

I I

ii ‘;’

IF.

‘,*

y 11:.A

‘11

;

: Ii;

61 -

-7

-j:

: 5

; -.

:

3 f

:

J-I

- t 1 ./ ‘1 -- I . :

I 1;

)I // /I I I i ’ I 0 i 1 I ! I --:

I

L

I i

Jl

; I

-!-L

nI

I ’

I 1

-+ /I

/

,ic :m 1: iL ‘2

I 7 T 4 $ : I’ , 1 ;: I; 1; I ? 1 ; b ; 4 k j 7 ’

1 I -i- I -T f i- ;- : ‘, I- iL’ Ii i 1 b ;F I3T -I-

T $ -I-

-1; !I

I $

h ir

$1’.

$

13 I / I

IT /:

,3 \ If,

1; il

-i-

i- L T’,

I; I 3

,I;

- T I T _i-/_ > i ‘II r ii I1 i

T-T

-r-p-

I //

:-I

i I

' 13

t2'+

y

:I

/! i

;'I;-

T ,

;\cb;;.

I.

P I*

1: j?

!;:

Q 1;

z ,-

^r

I;i-

; ,c

in ;;

ILL

I ~

+;:E

"'i/

;

; j:

70

Y

P

I'

'

A1h,

j 2

i<

1;

Tz

5

ili7.l

c ,

'r, 1

; '7:

f

s”:

ri6

1 1

1;--I

I7

;,,

1,. 44

1 1,:

If\ ‘

,* c‘.;

” 3II/

:.:

;,/

;

’ ;

f;

&l

$1/

1

-;p

-1

.I b

-J

A $

* $

0 ,f+

io iF

i0

0 a’:

3 ”

! I!

1: i

;jU,c

$ :

Ilr;

cI

4‘.d

ii

~

,; z

I

I

‘=, ,‘-

.I-

GI”

I? 181

:I /: :! / I

I- i /:u

:,:$

,$t

ii’ a

J\, !-L

f I

t:: (

0: i

o0

2t21

;:jO

8 /~

l’li

I11

I

1 II

T

i

! /

/jjil

i.:

I,-!

/ 1

I(

I !

/ i,i

I ’

iI

17,

/ ,

L I

i i

/1

: I,

j I,

/ /

i

/-,,-

;-/

i i

‘,,)i

I :

! 3 ~ j

,LJ’

,~1

‘f

j I:,

j

i:

usi.;

:-:

: ;

if1:

i

II:b

i I./

, ,ii

:;nj

I;/ .

,; -

G I

,yr;

i /

1-J g-:,:

: :?

:‘I

/I?*

- :

i ;

/i.7

;i~

:;\r

e;

/Ir

-j

i‘8)

: ‘.

I;

‘: II,

r. 5..

/

i. :ii

i I

1 I

I

i!

I

1 /

/ /

) i

j i

I /‘ij/;i/(

/ 1 ~

~~

~~

~;~

~j

i /

8’

,’-m

:, i I. :-

, -9%

b/g

;i

I I

” ,I<

:/

b~

~j~

~~

~j~

~i

1

I i

I i

j ;

I j

! ’

/I

1 j

! ;

j /

I I

!I

1 /1

Ij

I

I *

I If

k-7

1 1

1 i

’ II

I

1 I

!

‘I

11

/ /

/ q

i I

!I

/I

~:

Iii

i$

jI

1

: 1

I

/ j

:$

1!

i

I I

II

/

11’

I

’ I,1

/

_I

1 i

j 1

1 j

j;’

i ii;<

’

; j

1 ,

/1

1 ! /

/;I

:. .

fi- ‘.

Z-

_-

L2

:? I:

i :

PR

PE

RT

YC

LAS

S

ISE

YT

IFIE

DP

RO

PE

RT

Y

L 1 : n : 4 ,:. b ‘c : L f 4 ! : ‘c -

PL

AN

TA

CC

OU

NT

:rj/ ii.1

,;’ ’

I’:‘1 1-i

f.1 i

i!

i;j

-

i’ i

1 i I i

I I I

( i

Ii !

-

I I

/ j

I i

ITEM 3 i(: 3 5 2 2

I 1; s ;r 11 I ‘.a i:! /” / .-

/ 1

& :.;

;Ie

:zii

jf

,i ,- E;“

IS :;1

/

j “‘:

j I

!‘j

I i

/ /

;;I

i 1

’ F,i

i’-’

I Ii

II,

I 1

I I

T Ij (

/ j j

I’ I

/“‘I’

1 / / 1

! i

,I

I

J- I- 2 J

I+;

: z

: I2

1 i:

TI

I -L

-

IJ-

LI I I’: /

;1 1

ilj

iI

,II

j;v

1 Ii

LJ 1

j$l

;lo

i

I !

//; -

1

1

r”I

i

1 I

j 1)

, !

, I

1

, i

/ i

/

“NlT 3 E m > 5 Y 5

T-

1:

i /

/,

; I

I

/ /I

) /

/i

/ 1

j

I ,/I

, /j

j

fL t

i

I Tz z =

7 ,G

=z

‘3

2 4

I:

:I I

! I

i i

I !/

/

1 /I

1 I

~I~

~~

p;~

;i:j

1 !

! /

I/I

j!,

] /

j/

/ 1

j !

/ I

,~. I,,

II

2 5,z c’

=5,

=-^; 5

i

-I

T i i L

: T I 1 L L iT-r

R /

->,J

c;”

L-

$ . - :

‘-b

[I

L!

2

tk

7,

c

n

F-.

:L1

;

1; ;

I-1

I L / r r j I I j i$ I[6 1; A 1 I i ; I i-

p $7 I;, 7 itc ,;I I* ,i if” “!I :’1: : k i:Po 111-Fi *,2 ,I ,p : ,g z ,. : 0 5 ;;I iK[p =, 2 ; 2 3 f ’ jr 5 ‘r) ; I; ;iO r ,3 f i’ /i IF, i f

r

1I

/i&

/

/

,I

j;;

~lj+;,:;,/

/;

k

3

+

-,

5 I

1 iy

7i 4

:,

j:;I

1;n

l+

;/

.:k

: .

i!,S

z,

,-

I 2

i-

t: :

2 ?

; r-7

,1 ;

I : :

>1;

_ ,!;

62

;:

1;

’

: g

,it Y

: ;I .- :I;1

;.I;

ii,

E

:

9 F

7;

i’

p;;q$

&

ii:

,q

53

I*

7

I

SbC z 1I”. t I lg’&; u i 1 L I r rL Ii ’ ! !I /Ii1 - I( h-l

i11

$.I

ii;;

I 1; :Ll

I- I*

;

i K;

1.2/T.

? Djj

, Ii

/>

,i

;I;

:,

JI

Ili

11

lr

;I$

_-.

r\I ;b I

1.:

g-,

” s

2

i

j 22

11

r.d.

c /r I$

,-

oz,+

D

1”.

, I

i

I I

%

‘7

!: ,a

,

I ’

/

; 1

j-la

0

; ‘; ;i

i -2

!

1

tg

2

! 10

00”

’ I

T-

T-l-

’/I

I/

l

1 i

-

I I

1

’ /II

!

i I

0 1

II

-LA

!-

i I i

,

-I -! a I 7 7 , ; I ; ? . ‘I 7 I 1 5 i -I1 ; ! I- 7 ; In J 1ir i 4; > 1 1 T T I A- 7 q 2 'i:

g r -1L

F( g P P; 3 ';

F : ;

2 I

? :

J- P L

:I 11 c

*- 40 c 1 :‘ t<i a( i - 7 I I -

T T -7 I Y .I I :!v +-r I+!-! ,; CL -. ‘- ; ,;#p/,: i' ,T

f 14.:

.A

*.*

-11T

_i *;

1 i

x .

; 1:

z 7

':;PD

'

$-; ;

i- -

- ;

,c c

5 <I>

: ?

1 1

< 82

WL-J

: 1

?g b

PI rci ,'

tl r:

fJ

2-.

3-/ i

1,2. a T

--;

II ;

s 5

'>

,. "

c,., _

‘.a (

A f

;Ji

I :

\ ri __. LA!

.I L I I ;‘ 3 T tr "I > I Ii !

II I / 2-L 1 i I 1 -T-- FI -: ‘, ra c : 15 / c ? .’ ?I ;I 17 I$’ I 1 !~i I! r - 40 iz 0 I ,a* :'

0 /I ,"I

$

? -

1'

!!

j 1

i I

1

i i

jjI

7 1 -L 1 ! -I [ I! 1: 1,: 1; f il 1:

t I L I j

-

B t II

I c, P : *: P : -0 =a : * < I2

i

I t I I

PR

OP

ER

TY

CLA

SS

IDE

NT

lFlE

DP

RO

PE

RT

Y

PL

AN

TA

CC

OU

NT

ITE

M

UN

IT 3” K g z 5 2:

ml-

+c

” 1 I T 6 Z 5 > 0 ‘.1 b 2 rl : :. L1 : h 5 ‘I -

T- :- -L 5;: Z== ; 5 8 E J 5 P a -I z 2 2 I I I ? 2

-

II‘_1.

;L

--j

‘- Ir- IT!--I 24?<7

L1i;i

1:

I

=f

7( I

!L-i

/A

-/II

r!--- ,-

-‘III

iI

’111

1I j, !,I /

II I

+y7

i /

$j, !

:;:131 Ij

j :

21 I

I [ )

;1 jL

-7A-4-ITITiir-i- -i-4-/I?4T-i1TiIiIr

711

zr”5,

2*

Eg

G75‘2:,255

,q ;3

5z

iT

'\750i

f1;

Is1;:4

!.

”i-

4:

J07

-’ :

.‘,<’.LJ i-

._;,;

i

<c

II,-r’ri-,n10LI376‘5<LI.‘I

--

i

I

ii

,j

Tijj:IE21:L5<r’

1;

i -0

i cI2

i

713c01U'1?I*Ii;-a:017;r?"!;r3:3J2

qII I,iJr ‘IIjrT-l-4. ..I61 fiCl.+!;I 3;I dr<rl 4q.12331 ,$I’ :w 01+qII i

+/ Ii

j i

i I’

,

!’ II

’ (

’

Ioiq2, :ii

-jIIiI

1I

I-i-

T43;I0146;r,dI-r

T

I

T

/I-+II J-I4 I1 TTl-I1;i ;1; ”;?I1;-Ii! - ;:‘I;ILiI

I

t&i&

-11 v)

3-

h CJd 4

’/

Iu

-

7II IjI11-F/ ;r’: ,/70 I 1YliI/ j?a;I /,bi5 I * i :,i ;A

:I

I !ii

1’1zli-

--r-;

1 I

j ’

I

Ti1 iuI I/j /I IL! II 1I IflIt1T

ITT

T!!

I1I,i-TjTIt

iiti-t1t

r!30$t-

43

1b 3J ClLcit;.zI , :!I, LA-.I

-

5P<g;1lNl-l

-j-I

ci

I ’

A!;I

gj 4

;I 3

i;/

;I :I

J ‘,j,

z ;

2I

I\a

:j,;k

;’

l-4

5g,523

K311

1;Ii1-T;r‘kIL-

j,IiI,i-

clN

nos3a

INV

ld

hlt(3

dO

tld:3

ljllhjO

l

SC

13

AlU

i3d

C)U

d

“Sk-5 “11 ir.lS

.-___..___ __ -.-_-_-.--

____- -.---..---_~.- __---. .--.--.--- .- -..

_-_-- .-----.-.--.---.~____--___-.-~-__ __ _-..

~-..-.

_-___-----.----- -_____ ---------..

__.-_ -_---____--------. ___-..- --.

----.-~.- .--~

~-- _----..-.__~_..~~~--

_----- ~_.-~_______~ -.-----

______ --- ---.-. ~--._-. .____ - ---_.___-- .--.- -

-__-- __--___-. .--.~---_----~___~- ---- -

----. -----..-__ _.__

..- -------- ---.-----

---_.-_ --.-~.

-.-.--

----..---.~--- .- .--~~-

__.-__-.----.~._.____-. -__--~_. ---- --

-_.-.-___--____-...--_-

_~--.~---- -___~- .--___-

---._________ ~-__--- ^--

____--

_.-.-----____-.. -- ..-.

---.--- --.__.-__- ._

_ ~~- ----.- ~ -~

-

_----

--_-----. -.-@co GLLS

___.. -.-EL--) O-c’,

-_--. -----,-_--.----

ooo’oCiT- ---,.L9)r?r.s-_ _-_.

_~___ ___----__----__--.-- _-

---oo0to-,57q-“s ..77y, ‘\“,I--&T~--T--- -‘__ .---. -____-.-_aoo’cnb‘;Ir, --ns J’“7’----- T-- .- >r-.~~---yniW~3FI~

-.-___-. __ --_ 2<\-2L\ --O=I,ziF7-Fr- __ -

..---.ru ~+ua‘L~‘~IDUy~_ -,,*< -.30”7 A,!-)--

-.__--_-

Ycm+>st I-y,S,‘- (( z c ”_ !1\1>,$ 1c l~m~-~~.:,~~~---_____._ ___--_-. .-.__-_-..--~--.-____-- .- -- - -

-~ --~Tp*o-~ir~s.--. -.1 GTJ-9 /‘I &q----@~

--. ---

._~ .-.- _.~

--__ .-___-~q.J-- -- ‘TS ) -- -------. .~-----___~______--.-~-_- .- --. .-. .-________ ____-.-- ~___----___________--------yqq--~Ic;u~a-~~~T----- -- -- ~- - ----.----.-._- ___:,(I

.___--_____~-----

--- ~7~~‘~--~= -.o=iiJFJ3 q-ST.-____--- __--__.____-- ..--.~-. - _-_ --..

-0 ;

IS03IS03IS03IS03gxl g;70

0131,sN011,3,,MlSN03 13VMlN03NON“13ld1NllOWV331Ud,,lIlNV”ONOlldlH3SdOG 81;

Z-IlW101ri

blz;$5am MD

-4-Ii 2<o

-bt'l/a38 eL3QLava-p\lfd3/X\ <,A-l‘LI -f

---./\I I \I I13/13-l 331H.i3un1v3.1

13dA131VWllS3 -

SOLI-3~ n trv r*IN”

31”O 319S3

u-i LTIC 131)j l’iNOISIhIO

p-3 1, L:’ .“(I,4tl”3UVd3Hd1:17r”H.I,

LHi----- ---l,JIIs 931Vt4llS3 IS03 N0113flkIlSN03111~11r1101 ,(1), ,.I ,IV1111,,

I,& Il:,II !

/ ,.I,‘,, 54,

,,1,,1 11, 0, ,~~‘L,h11_1111111 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 7StIEFT.- -___ OF ‘7- - - -_____PII”JECT IPREFARCD t,” 1

CSTIM*TE DATE-i-c a~.tua~~:Y 1 9 8.7

ON,, ESTIMATE TYPE I-t

FEATVHE3 -M:LE I) I u/t17&.~

PRICE LEVEL--

.i) &CA*LJcro(? m I 9 .:3 -jc

I~ESCHIPTION 0”ANTtT Y!I TOTAL

ft’t?lCE AMOUNT

FICLDFIELD NDrlCONTnACT CONSTttIIClION

COS ICOST COST cos 1

-4

-----__. &--.-,----.

3w, Lx:0 3’ c3 ) r L..>I

.-_ .-- - .---__ - -- ---. .-___ ---..

._ - _-__

I iila;jccf u-1 I 04 ,I-l,.-&? s..... A, /A _ II/107 ---~---_

-c--

-_--~.-_.. -LL -P ez.-cL*Qv41 .Lv..-.3 s.,, 5 -13._-~ --

ZZ&, ~-- .__--

___-- A.- .- LLa.~..LLU4 _L-&l z<,-- 1% Is /3,000 ._____. - -__-_ _-. - -~__-- _ _ _

St, p, lsq+& 2so,o3g- .--~.

_--- - - - -(1,>.1r,.l(~,:l,r I’CS zor.4- -

.____--__ -----. -____,a. bO’> - _.

* -._ -_ F’CLO COST>/s.os- r ISI (7 ) 300, MCI --~. -

_ ~-. ~----_ .-.. - --. ~-. --. ..-.. b--lid ,4.JO SpiCI,=,L~P*.~.LtL--_

.L.--.-_--~ .--~----

-.-__- .~.-~ --~ _ _ _ _ _~-. .-.- - - - ---..---~---- ---_-~-._~.~__ _ - -----.- __..

-------. ---___- _ _~_._ ---~--____- .---- _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - -~-.____.- ----_______ .____.. _ - - - - -~. - - - ---__.

- ~ - _ - - _ _ _ -----___ __-_- _--- .__ - ___ -_-__-- - - - - - - - - -__--- -. -.----.- .-~-.. _- - - - - _I_. _ _ _ _ ._

(i, h ,I* -a..*

AGENCY CONCURRENCE LETTERS

OFFlClAt. FILE c()w By

MAR 111985

Department of Fish and WMlife506 SW. MILL STREET, P.O. BOX 3503. PORTLAND, OREGON 9720

.-_ -______ __-__- _-_- -.-_____

March 6, 19851

F’LE 1 --t

Mr. Larry W. WolfBureau of ReclamationPO Box 043, U.S. Courthouse550 W Fort StBoise, ID 83724

Dear Larry:

We have reviewed the two preferred options for improving adult salmonid passageat Three Mile Falls Dam on the Umatilla River, which were discussed at thecoordination meeting held at our headquarters on February 25, 1985, and haveconcluded that our preference is for a two-fishway system rather than thesingle fishway and velocity barrier.

In coming to this conclusion, however, we identified several aspects of thesystems's operation which were of concern to us. We want to be sure thatdesign and operational criteria will address these concerns, which we listbelow.

1. Design criteria for the fishways should allow fish to pass throughthem under any flow condition. However, it is possible that whenflow at Three Mile Falls Dam falls below a certain level, therewill be an insufficient volume of water passing through a fishwayto attract fish to its entrance. Yet, because some water wouldflow through the channel leading to the base of the fishway, fishmay be attracted into the lower end of this channel. This couldresult in delay and injury to fish attempting to reach the fishway.Likewise, dividing flows between the east and west bank fishwaysbelow a certain flow level may result in inadequate attractionflows for both fishways. Therefore, it may be necessary to identifyminimum flow levels above Three Mile Falls Dam at which both fishwayswould be operated. When flows fall below that needed to operateboth fishways, the east ladder should be shut down and all flowsshould be diverted down or in close proximity to the west fishway.At higher flows water should not be spilled over the crest of thedam while one of the fishways (the east bank fishway) is not operating.This could result in uncontrolled attraction of fish into the channelleading to the closed fishway and result in further delay or mortality.Therefore, when flow above Three Mile Falls Dam is at or fallsbelow the combined capacities of the two fishways, all flow shouldbe passed through the fishways.

March 6, 1985Mr. Larry W. WolfPage 2

2. Both fishways should include a capability for counting and trappingsince we cannot predict with certainty that most fish will usea fishway of our choosing. However, the renovation should be designedso that at higher flows when both fishways are operational attractionis strongest to the west fishway. It will be more convenient andless expensive operationally if fish can be mainly trapped in onefishway.

3. When flow through the east fishway is shut off, the channel leadingto that fishway should drain in such a fashion as to prevent theentrapment of fish in remaining pools. A pool at the lower endof the channel which extends for some distance into the channeland results in a "blind-alley" situation should, likewise, be avoidedas this situation could contribute to delays in fish passage. Onthe other hand, the grade of the channels leading to the base ofthe fishways should not be so steep and uniform as to result ina velocity barrier under relatively high flow conditions.

We look forward to the continuing opportunity to review and comment on plansfor improving fish passage at Three Mile Falls Dam, and are appreciativeof this opportunity to comment regarding the preliminary design options. Ifyou need additional information regarding these comments, please let us know.

Sincerely,

'-&%Harry WagnerChief of Fisheries

cc T. Vogel (BPA)Esch (NMFS)Garst (USFWS)James (CTUIR)Marsh (CRITFC)Prange (BR)ChaneySmelcer/Barila (USACE)Andrews (USFS)Schneider (NPPC)Chrisman (NPPC)

[YENERAL COUNCIL0h?GlJ oc; ----/i&p

C 0 N F E D E R A T E D T R Ikc.., :> : xM)ARD qf,T@J$TEES

E6 Z- : : :.. i:<:i~f i c! 1

PENDLETON, OREGON 97801

Area Code (503) Phone 276-316

arch 15, 1985

Larry VinsonhalerRegional Planning OfficerBureau of ReclamationPO Box 043, US Courthouse550 W Fort StBoise ID 83724

RE: Preferred Alternative for Modification

Dear Larry:

of Three Mile Falls Dam

The Umatilla Tribe has long recognized the anadromous fish passage problemsassociated with Three Mile Falls Dam on the Umatilla River. We have been excitedabout the recent cooperative efforts and the funding outlook for finally correctingthis problem and many others which have impacted anadromous fish runs in the basinsince the early 1900's.

The Tribe has always favored a dam modification plan that would result in thebest fish passage conditions. Recent reports stated that dam removal would providethe best juvenile and adult passage. However, the cost of this alternative is morethan double any other option, as was noted at the February 25, 1985 coordinationmeeting. Although cost by itself should not be an overriding factor in determiningthe preferred alternative, there are other issues which are potential problems withthe dam removal option. The cost of pumping water into the WEID canal raises severalunanswered questions, and the lack of irrigator support for this alternative would nodoubt be detrimental to other critical ongoing flow coordination efforts with irriga-tion districts.

The Tribe also has problems with the velocity barrier option. We are not convincedthat this additional structure would result in acceptable levels of false attraction,fish stress, and migration delay.

For the above reasons, the Tribe supports the two-ladder fish passage alternativeat Three Mile Falls Dam. We feel that providing passage at both ends of the 900-foot-wide dam is critically important during medium to high flows. The two-fishway systemmust be versatile so that low flows can be concentrated through either ladder. Thisalternative should also include a rotary drum fish screening system in WEID canalwith juvenile sampling capabilities, fish counting and trapping capabilities in both

REATY JUNE 9, 1855 + CAYUSE, UMATILLA AND WALLAWALLA TRIBES

Larry Vinsonhaler 2 March 15, 1985

fishways, and some channel work immediately below the dam to create pool areas atthe ladder entrances and facilitate passage to these areas.

The Umatilla Tribe appreciates the opportunity to comment on the preliminarydesign options for improved fish passage at Three Mile Falls Dam. We look forwardto continued coordination with your agency during the final design phase. We hopethat the project can move ahead expediently since upriver brigh fall chinook willbegin to return annually to the Umatilla River in the Fall of 1985.

Sincerely,

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Elwood H. PatawaChairman

cc: Fish and Wildlife CommitteeVogel (BPA)Esch (NMFS)Garst (USFWS)Burchfield (CTITFC)

\Prange (BOR)ChaneyKorn (ODFW)Phelps (ODFW)

I

Mr. Larry VinsonhalerRegional Planning OfficerBureau of ReclamationFederal Building and U.S. CourthouseBox 043-550 West Fort StreetBoise, Idaho 83724

UNITED STATES DEPARTM T DW:GOMMEUCtNational Oceanic and AtmoNATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES

@%dminisy,Q$io

ENVIRONMENTAL & TECHNICAL SEAVI847 NE 19th AVENUE, SUITE 350 MAR2 5 1985PORTLAND, OREGON 97232-2279(503)230-5400

:ch 21, 1985

-y. ? * .L '':l.;E 1

,

-p.

f

-.. ?.. _.

7 3 9‘--A Ii ‘,; - - . .-i- _

i :-. -.. i ;‘A-.-..i- I;

733

Dear Mr. Vinsonhaler:

In accordance with a request by Mr. Bill Mullins of your staff, we havereviewed the alternatives for proposed fish passage improvements at Three-MileDam. We favor both a right bank and left bank fish ladder in addition to fishscreens in the West Extension Irrigation District Canal.

We believe fish ladders on both banks will provide the optimum passageconditions for adult salmon and steelhead approaching the project.Additionally, two ladders will provide greater operational flexibility through afull range of flows and site conditions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please directfurther comments or questions to Steve Rainey at FTS 429-5418 or Randy Lee atFTS 429-5411.

Sincerely,

Dale R. EvansDivision Chief

c c : Jim Phelps, ODFW, PendletonGary James, CTUIR

rp”““flrdi’ I..*

i-w

8Lz% PY

United States Department of the InterioFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Reference RG:mm

Division of Ecological ServicesPortland Field Office727 N. E. 24th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232

March 25, 1985

MEMORANDUM $34

To : Regional Planning Officer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,Boise, ID 83724

From : Field Supervisor, ES, Portland Field Office

Subject : Fish Passage Alternatives for Three Mile Falls Diversion Dam

This is a follow-up to the February 25, 1985 meeting on the subject.Preliminary designs and cost estimates were discussed for the alternativescurrently under consideration. It is our understanding that the Bureau'sassessment of fish passage problems and potential solutions at Three MileDam will discuss four alternatives. These will involve a combination of:two ladders; downstream fish barrier; cap on crest; and dam removal. Inrecent discussions with your staff, we have been asked to identify ourpreferred alternative.

Based simply on the biological issue of fish passage, it is our opinionthat the dam removal option is the best alternative. We realize, however,that there are other considerations (engineering- economics, politics,etc.) which will be weighed in the final selection of a plan. In anyevent, the Bureau's analysis should include a fair and equal assessment ofthis alternative as a possible solution to the fish passage problems atThree Mile Dam. This analysis might include other (possibly moreeconomical) means of supplying water to the West Extention IrrigationDistrict (WEID), besides pumping.

The second best alternative from a biological standpoint appears to be thetwo ladder alternative. This would involve renovating the left bank (westside) ladder and adding a ladder at a new location on the right bank (eastside) of the dam. Both ladders would have counting and trapping facilitiesand a new fish screen and juvenile bypass system would be added on the leftbank. As discussed at the meeting, there are several design considerationsthat still need to be resolved for this option--particularly for thescreening facility.

The other two alternatives, while likely improving fish passage compared tothe present situation, have many unanswered questions considering thedebris, sedimentation, and flow problems at the dam. Without somehydrologic modeling to test these alternatives, we feel the two ladderoption can be designed and operated in conjunction with good maintenance atthe dam, to satisfactorily allow for fish passage.

These comments should be considered preliminary. We will make finalcomments on a preferred alternative when detailed plans and specificationsare available for review. Thank you for the opportunity to provide earlyinput on this matter.

4Jr Russell D. Petersoncc:ODFW, PortlandNMFS, PortlandODFW, PendletonCTUIR, PendletonCRITFC, Portland

.I COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION__ ..-’ ;.a .’ .‘.,:.:.- :. _’ -*.-‘:Y. -‘y;:;i‘+~.‘,,;2705 East Burnside ScreeL Suite 114 Pokand, O&gon 97214 klephone (503)i38-0667

26 March, 1985 t

:qi;- \-? p-y

APR.-3i985 I

htg

Larry VinsonhalerRegional Planning OfficerBureau of ReclamationP.O. Box 043, U.S. Courthouse550 W. Fort StreetBoise, ID 83724

Dear Larry,

-.A7.;’_-.

:i76374s-.

‘d t’---FIL..w.- . .- .--L

7307;?L)

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission has reviewedthe options for fish passage facilities at Three Mile Falls Damon the Umatilla River. While we consider dam removal as anattractive option, we are aware that a pumping station on theColumbia River would merely transfer the fish passage problem toanother site. Substantial changes in water policies arenecessary before dam removal can be a suitable solution to fishpassage problems at Three Mile Dam. Since it appears waterpolicies are unlikely to change drastically within the next fewyears, we support the Umatilla Tribes' endorsement (by letter ofMarch 15) of the two-fishway system. Flexibility to operate oneor both ladders must be built into the design. The approachchannel must be designed to minimize stranding of adults if oneladder is inoperable during low flows. Fish counting andtrapping facilities should be designed for both ladders.Additionally, this option should include juvenile screening ofWEID canal and juvenile sampling capabilities.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to you duringthese early stages of the design process. We are eager forconstruction to begin, and we urge you to avoid delays wheneverpossible.

J?Y;2; &+....S. Timothy Wapato -'Executive Director

.-T1-~ _ ?‘~. . . ..*..- .-.._ v I x-%-!-rruF- wy------~rc~-~~-../ I_ . ..W.~V .yYy., . ., _-NEZPERCE Melvin’S~jdye l Henry W. Penney l AllenPinkham l &arlesH. Hayes l WilfredScott

‘y xc+>> Y .‘-: . -723’- .,_,

IUMATILLA Roderick Cowapoo l N. Kathtyn Brigham l Elzie Fat-row l Robert Williams -’ ‘, ‘- ‘. ’ : :

WARM SPRINGS Harold Culpus l Debt Frank. Sr. l Nathan Jim. Sr. l Claude H. Smith, Sr. l Eugene Greene, Sr.YAKIMA B i l l Y a l l u p l L e v i G e o r g e , S r . l WilferdYallup l TomEli \ ..,, ,_, :-+.

_ -, .~. _. :.., , .-..-.:: ; -.I

: . . ., :