1. Willamette Project Biological Opinions Presentation to the NW Power Council December 2008
Mindy Simmons
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dorie Welch, Daniel Spear
Bonneville Power Administration
Stephanie Burchfield
NOAA Fisheries
Chris Allen
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PORTLAND DISTRICT

2. The Willamette Project
Operation of 13 multi-purpose dams and reservoirs
Downstream habitat effects
The Willamette Project
Hatchery Mitigation Program
42 miles of bank protection/revetments

3. Willamette Basin Area: 11,476 mi2 Rain-driven hydrology
Population ~2.5M
Most populated sub-basin in Columbia River Basin

4. Willamette Basin

5. 1890 Willamette Flood 1943 Willamette Flood
Oregon State Archives, Marion Co Historical Society, MJON0209
From the time of Statehood through the mid 1940’s no less than 15 major floods wreaked havoc on towns and infrastructure
1861 Flood. This severe flood virtually washed away Linn, Canemah, Clackamas, and Multnomah cities. Most of the county's bridges and ferries were also destroyed in the flood
1943 Willamette Flood
Oregon State Archives, Oregon Water Resources Department, OWR0085

6. Willamette Project Dam Construction
Detroit Dam 1952
North Santiam River
Oregon State Archives, Oregon Water Resources Department, OWR0041
Willamette Project Dam Construction
Lookout Point Dam 1950
Middle Fork Willamette River
Oregon State Archives, Oregon Water Resources Department, OWR0072

7. 13 Multi-purpose Dams and Reservoirs
Detroit
Big Cliff
Green Peter
Foster
Willamette Project:
13 Multi-purpose Dams and Reservoirs
Dexter
Cougar
Blue River
Explain different types of dams- concrete monolith, earthen fill, and re-regulating
Fall Creek
Lookout Point
Hills Creek

8. 13 Multi-Purpose Dams and Reservoirs
Located in tributaries, not on mainstem Willamette River
Most are large, high-head dams
More similar to Hungry Horse and Libby than John Day or McNary

9. Authorized Purposes Flood Damage Reduction Hydropower Navigation
PORTLAND DISTRICT
Authorized Purposes
Flood Damage Reduction
Hydropower
Navigation
Irrigation
Fish & Wildlife
Recreation
Water Quality
Municipal & Industrial
The dams and reservoirs support the wide variety of project purposes authorized by Congress.
They were located and designed, and are primarily operated for flood control.
Other authorized purposes include hydropower production, recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality, and storage of water for municipal and industrial water supply and irrigation.
Some of those purposes benefit from having the water in storage in the reservoirs...while others benefit from the timed release of water to meet downstream needs.
I want to stress that this is not a prioritized list--beyond the hard constraints of flood control, we do our best to try to balance all the purposes.
In authorizing the projects, Congress gave the Corps relatively little guidance in terms of specific operating criteria
Over the past 50 years…the Corps has continually refined operation of the reservoir system in response to changing needs and lessons learned.

10. Willamette Project Hydropower Overview
Eight projects with generation
Projects produce aMW
Annual market value of $90 million
Three projects with 300 MWs of capacity- scheduled for heavy load hours
Total of 400 MWs of capacity for all projects
Projects can deliver additional energy in a shortage
Projects are close to major west side load centers

11. Willamette Basin Project System Benefits
PORTLAND DISTRICT
Willamette Basin Project System Benefits
Hydropower
more than $90 million annually
Flood Damage Reduction
$18.6 billion to date
$920 million annual average damage reduction
Navigation
Flows support water quality
Irrigation
minor use but supports high value crops
The Willamette Valley Projects facilitated economic growth and development in the Valley by managing floodwaters historically impacting Eugene, Springfield, Albany and Salem, among other communities.
It is an extremely productive, integrated system consistent with the vision of HD531.
Operating on roughly $26 million annually, this system is a workhorse, producing benefits exceeding operating costs by as much as 50 to 1.
Water quality, recreation and M&I supply needs will grow as the Valley’s population doubles by 2030.
Corvallis 1996

12. Total = 1.6 Million Acre-feet
1.2 MAF total
I’ll run through our normal reservoir operating criteria.
This diagram shows a generic reservoir water control diagram--each of our 11 storage reservoirs has one of these.
The vertical axis shows the reservoir pool elevation. The horizontal axis shows time in months of the year.
This bold red line is what we call the “Rule Curve” . Rule curves are our guidelines for operating the projects...they represent the maximum amount of water we can have in storage at any given time. We usually only go above the rule curve for short periods of time during flood events.
In following the rule curve, the reservoirs are drained every fall before the peak flood season. We keep them at minimum conservation pool through the winter months except during flood events when we capture flood flows and store them until the storm passes. After that the stored flood water is slowly released back into the streams.
As the flood hazard passes in the late winter and early spring, we begin to store water in the reservoirs. Note how quickly we normally fill the reservoirs in February, March and April.
Our objective is to have all the reservoirs full by the end of May in time for the summer recreation season. We like to keep them as full as possible through the summer, however, we are also required to release water downstream for those other authorized purposes I previously described.
The water in the reservoirs is divided into sections. On the bottom is dead or inactive storage which we cannot physically touch because of the operating limits of the dams.
The six big reservoirs with hydropower plants also have a section called Power Storage which we normally do not dip into except for power crises. I am certain that you all have been hearing about the power shortage in the Northwest this year. The Willamette projects can provide only a very small fraction of the generating capacity of the Columbia basin projects. However, if necessary, Bonneville Power can call on the Willamette Projects to generate power, in which case this storage may be used.
The upper section of the pool is conservation storage which is used to meet all the other purposes.
In a perfect world, we would maintain all the reservoirs exactly along the rule curve; but in reality that is almost impossible, especially in a very dry year like this year.
PORTLAND DISTRICT

13. DIFFERENT EFFECTS ON FISH
Mainstem Columbia Dams
Operated primarily for hydropower, run-of-river; in series on mainstem
Willamette Basin Dams
Operated primarily for flood damage reduction (storage)
most are high-head
located in tributaries
Illustrates differences between Willamette Basin Dam and mainstem Columbia Dam footprint
DIFFERENT EFFECTS ON FISH

14. Willamette Project Biological Opinions
Completed July 11, 2008 after 8 years of consultation
Proposed Action Includes:
Continued operation of 13-dam complex
Continued maintenance of 42 miles of revetments
Operation of hatchery program
View the Supplemental BA at:
_plan_ ba.asp
View the NMFS Biological Opinion at:
View the USFWS Biological Opinion at:

15. Willamette ESA Consultation Action Agencies
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Owns and operates projects
Congressional appropriations
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
Markets power from the 8 power projects
Funds power share of USACE budgets
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
Markets stored water through irrigation contracts
PORTLAND DISTRICT

16. Anadromous Fish in the Upper Willamette Basin (NMFS BiOp)
Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook salmon
Upper Willamette River winter steelhead
JEOPARDY

17. UWR Chinook Salmon Population Status
High extinction risk
Moderate extinction risk
The populations affected by the Willamette Dams are considered essential for recovery (i.e., must be much closer to viable)

18. Chinook Spawning habitat loss due to no passage at dams
High extinction risk
Moderate extinction risk
Next element is Fish Passage – this graph simple representation of why we need safe access to upstream habitat to get populations back on track. See 4 tribs with most habitat blocked? (click to next slide)
All
Note that dams on Clackamas are not Corps dams; Molalla and Calapooia are small populations
Describe Winter Steelhead status; location among basins, both genetic legacy and core pops in Santiam basin
All Chinook populations affected by Corps dams are populations important for long-term recovery

19. Listed Resident Fish in the Willamette Basin
USFWS Opinion includes NMFS’ RPA in Proposed Action
Oregon chub
Columbia River bull trout
NO JEOPARDY

20. Oregon Chub Current Distribution
(35 Populations)
REPLACE WITH CURRENT MAP

21. Willamette Basin Bull Trout Distribution
Columbia River
Willamette Basin Bull Trout Distribution
Probable Historic
Current
Clackamas R. (last observed 1963 – reintroduction being considered)
Willamette River
North Santiam R. (last observed 1945)
South Santiam R. (last observed 1953)
Listed by USFWS as Threatened in (in OR, WA, ID, MT, NV)
Draft Recovery Plan Published in 2002
Fish Passage
Hydropower, Flood Control
Hatchery Racks & Weirs
Fish Management
Chemical Treatments
Negative Sentiment
Intensive Trout Stocking
Forage Base
Reduction of Salmon/Steelhead
Habitat & Water Quality
Timber Harvest, Roads, Agriculture
McKenzie R. (approx. 300 adults)
Middle Fork Willamette R. (15 to 20 adults) rehabilitation program underway since 1998

22. Summary of Biological Opinions
Short term (FY08-15)
Long term (FY16-23)
Actions/
Construction
Evaluations/
Config Op Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
15-year Implementation timeframe
Describe Effects on Fish
Highlight Major Actions from Opinions

23. Downstream Effects: Altered Seasonal Flow Pattern
Spring Reservoir Refill (Feb-May)
Inflow > outflow
Lower than natural spring flow
PROBLEM: reduced flows affect winter steelhead outmigration and adult spring Chinook migration; steelhead spawning/incubation flows
Summer Flow Augmentation (May-Aug)
Outflow > inflow
Higher than natural summer flow
Water quality benefits, rearing habitat

24. Redd and eggs out of water
PROBLEM: Providing adequate water downstream of dams for all life stages
Spawning
Egg Incubation
Redd and eggs out of water

25. Flow Management Actions
Operational changes implemented in 2000
Minimum mainstem flows
Tributary flows
Spawning
Incubation
Rearing
Process for adjusting targets based on water forecasts
Coordination and in-season management team
Down-Ramping rates (avoid sudden decreases in flow)
meet or exceed mainstem flow objectives – accept those in PA, based on best available information developed by ODFW, NMFS, and Corps; amend only with agreement of services
limited data for trib flows; System can’t meet all trib flows plus mainstem flows in most years – may need to re-balance operations

26. Downstream Effects: Altered Geomorphic Processes
Winter Flood Damage Reduction (Dec/Jan/Feb)
Capture peaks of flood events, slow release
Decreases magnitude of floods
PROBLEM:
Fewer channel-forming flows +
loss of floodplain connectivity
Loss of large wood and gravel from reservoirs

27. PROBLEM: Downstream Loss of Channel Complexity and Floodplain Connectivity
Willamette River Planning Atlas (PNW Ecosystem Research Consortium)
Oregon Chub:
Loss of population connectivity
Loss of habitat
Chinook/Steelhead:
Loss of winter rearing habitat; reduced spawning gravel
Loss of floodplain refugia

28. Habitat Restoration Program
On-site actions for Oregon Chub, other species
Action Agencies will develop an off-site habitat restoration program
Recovery Plans, Willamette Subbasin Plan, and other habitat assessments will be synthesized to guide restoration work
Collaborative Habitat Team representing state, tribes, and federal agencies will recommend projects and assist in the prioritization of actions
Action agencies will work with other habitat programs in the Willamette to identify opportunities and leverage funding where possible
Complete 2 habitat projects per year starting in 2010

29. Downstream Effects: Temperature
SUMMER
PROBLEM:
Water is too cold during the summer
Warm
Dam
Too cold
Cold
Adult salmon stop migrating to spawning grounds

30. Downstream Effects: Temperature
FALL/WINTER
PROBLEM:
Water is too warm during the fall and winter
Reservoir drawn down for flood operations
Dam
Too warm
Salmon eggs in gravel die or hatch too early
Cold

31. Downstream Effects: Temperature
Detroit Dam 2007 – 8
Detroit Dam 2009?
SOLUTION: Temperature Control Operation
“surface spill”
Warm
Dam
Correct temperature
Correct temp
Cold
MIX

32. Downstream Effects: Temperature
Cougar Dam 2005
Detroit Dam 2018?
New Intake Tower
SOLUTION: Temperature Control Structure
Warm
Dam
Correct temperature
Correct temp
Cold

33. Biological Opinion Actions
Operate Temperature Control tower at Cougar Dam (ongoing since 2005)
Operational Temperature control at Detroit in 2009 (based on 2007 and 2008 operations)
Permanent temperature control at Detroit by 2018

34. Hatchery Mitigation Program
Willamette Project
Hatchery Mitigation Program

35. Hatchery Mitigation Program
Mitigation for lost production caused by blocked access to habitat upstream of dams
Current program produces:
Spring Chinook salmon (part of ESU; integrated)
Summer steelhead (non-native, segregated program)
Catchable trout
NO winter steelhead program (winter steelhead are ESA-listed)
COMBINE ONTO PREVIOUS SLIDE

36. Willamette Basin Hatchery Facilities
5 major hatcheries
constructed by USACE
operated by ODFW
Funded by USACE and ODFW
Mention power share of O&M budget

37. Downstream Effects: Summer Steelhead Hatchery Program
Non-native Skamania stock summer steelhead
Popular sport fishery
Evaluate site-specific effects on ESA-listed winter steelhead
Modify program in collaboration with ODFW

38. Downstream Effects: Spring Chinook Hatchery Program
Use hatchery fish to evaluate reintroduction of Chinook salmon back into their historic habitat above the impassable dams (e.g., NS, SS, McK, MFW)
Implement new HGMPs for integrated programs
supported by Hatchery Scientific Review Group
Increase percentage of natural-origin fish in brood
Minimize risks on stronghold wild populations (McKenzie)
Manage hatchery-origin spawners

39. Action: Leaburg Fish Sorter
McKenzie Chinook is a stronghold wild population
Leaburg Dam is located on the McKenzie River and owned and operated by Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB)
Action Agencies will construct a sorting facility at the dam to prevent hatchery fish from straying above the dam and into wild fish sanctuary above Leaburg
Action Agencies will work with EWEB, ODFW and NOAA to design, construct and operate the fish sorter
BPA lead for funding design and construction (USACE and ODFW fund operation and maintenance)
Complete by 2014

40. How do the Action Agencies move forward?
Dams blocked access to historical spawning habitat
Altered downstream habitat
How do the Action Agencies move forward?
ESA Sec 7 Consultations
Can we JUST improve habitat downstream of projects?
Flows and operations
Improve temperatures
Habitat improvement and floodplain restoration
Hatchery improvements
Recovery Planning

41. Do we ALSO need access to habitat upstream of dams?
Considerations:
Quality adult holding habitat
adequate quantities of spawning gravel
most is managed by USFS or BLM

42. PROBLEM: Inadequate or nonexistent upstream passage facilities
Upstream passage currently provided only at Foster and Fall Creek dams (trap-and-haul)
Fish ladders are likely infeasible
High-head dams
Variable forebay fluctuations
Existing hatchery facilities designed for broodstock collection

43. SOLUTION: Use Willamette Basin Hatchery Fish Facilities as “trap-and-haul” for adult fish
DEXTER DAM
Adult Collection
Adult Sorting; load on to truck for transport
SOLUTION: Use hatchery spring Chinook to evaluate potential for reintroduction in upstream habitat

44. Upstream Fish Passage Actions
Cougar Fish Trap Plans
Continue adult “outplanting” program
Construct Trap at Cougar Dam (McK):2009
Improve or replace adult fish traps:
Minto (N. Santiam): 2012
Foster (S. Santiam): 2013
Dexter (Middle Fk Willamette): 2014
Fall Creek: 2015
Develop 4 to 6 adult release sites above reservoirs by 2012
Operations plan to reduce handling/transport stress
Dates are end of year
Currently ODFW has released from trucks onto tarps for fish to slide down bank to stream; need safe release sites; mostly FS property; 6 if get funds from FS or others
Outplanting adult spring Chinook also provides prey base for bull trout

45. PROBLEM: Downstream Passage is Challenging
Long reservoirs
Predators
Deep intakes to passage routes (very little surface spill)
Spill gates (rarely used)
Regulating Outlets (“spill”)
Power Turbines

46. Cougar Dam and Reservoir
South Fork McKenzie River
Regulating Outlet
Powerhouse
Photo Courtesy of Portland District USACE

47. Photograph of the instruments located in the RO channel
Regulating Outlet
Willamette Project “spill”
Photograph of the instruments located in the RO channel

49. Biological Opinion Actions: Step-wise Approach to Downstream Passage
Measures to improve passage through reservoirs and dams until permanent facilities are built
Fall Creek drawdown for Chinook outmigration
Test other measures: reservoir drawdown, pulsing flows, spill, other outlets
Implement feasible alternatives (“simple” by 2009; more “complex” by 2011)
Head-of-Reservoir juvenile collection prototype
Evaluate feasibility – complete by end of 2010
Construct prototype by 2014
Biological and physical evaluations 2015 & 2016
If effective, include in design alternatives for downstream passage at other Project dams
Evaluate fish passage survival, injury, delay, timing and distribution at 8 Project dams and reservoirs,

50. Biological Opinion Actions: Step-wise Approach to Downstream Passage
Downstream fish passage facilities Construction complete by:
Cougar
Lookout Point/Dexter
Detroit/Big Cliff
Evaluate for use at additional dams
Analyze feasibility, alternatives, design through the COP study
These were NMFS’ highest priorities, working with Recovery planning team, but studies may indicate different priorities

51. Configuration Operation Plan “COP”
Reconnaissance Phase Study due 2009
Feasibility phase to assess alternatives
All major structural modifications will be evaluated for:
Biological benefit
Technical feasibility
Economic viability
Consistency with overall recovery strategies

52. Research, Monitoring & Evaluation
Willamette is data-poor relative to mainstem Columbia
Very little monitoring infrastructure
Developing comprehensive program, to feed into COP
Site-specific field studies
Coordinated through WATER
Currently included in AFEP Annual Review
Expanded outyear efforts in separate process in Willamette
Includes evaluation of all elements of the RPA – from flow and ramping to fish passage and habitat

53. Implementation Coordination: Willamette Action Team for Ecosystem Restoration
“WATER”
Federal and State agencies, Tribes
Charter/guidelines completed by December 2008
Adaptive Management

54. Funding Strategy
Most large structural modifications will be funded out of the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Fund (CRFM)
Authority: Original project authorities, such as 1950 Flood Control Act (as is the original CRFM Project)
Proposal to use CRFM appropriation made with 2008 budget submittal to Congress (including $800k in funding to initiate actions)
Future Corps budget proposals will account for most critical needs to meet BiOp commitments in both programs
The System Configuration Team (SCT) provides input on priorities for Columbia/Snake program
WATER group will perform a similar function for the Willamette component

55. The Willamette Project Summary
Willamette dams different than mainstem Columbia dams
Different effects on fish
The Willamette Project Summary
Need to use hatchery program to evaluate reintroduction into spawning habitat upstream of dams
Need downstream habitat for rearing

56. The Willamette Project Approach
Short-term improvements and actions:
Habitat
Temperature
Flow operations
Hatcheries
Long-term structural modifications may be critical to success
The Willamette Project Approach
Improve hatchery collection facilities as trap-and-haul
Evaluate feasibility of long-term actions

57. Questions?

58. Willamette Hatchery Mitigation Program Facilities
North Santiam
Marion Forks Hatchery
Minto Ponds Collection/acclimation (nr Big Cliff)
South Santiam
South Santiam Hatchery
Foster Dam (Collection)
McKenzie
McKenzie Hatchery
Leaburg Hatchery
Leaburg Dam (EWEB) (some Collection)
Middle Fork
Willamette Hatchery
Dexter Ponds (Collection, rearing/acclimation)
Hatchery collection facility
Minto
Marion Forks
South Santiam
Leaburg
McKenzie
Willamette

59. Cougar Dam Cross Section