Snake River White Sturgeon Conservation Plan ... - Idaho Power

Snake River White Sturgeon Conservation PlanIdaho Power CompanyAppendix 3.Conceptual design for White Sturgeon passage facilities at the HellsCanyon Complex.

Status and Habitat Use ofSnake River White SturgeonAssociated with the HellsCanyon ComplexKen LeplaProject BiologistTechnical ReportAppendix E.3.1-6Hells Canyon ComplexFERC No. 1971Revised July 2003Copyright © 2003 by Idaho Power Company

Conceptual Design for WhiteSturgeon Passage Facilitiesat the Hells Canyon ComplexStephen W. Wittmann-Todd, P.E.Marinus R. Voskuilen, P.E.John M. Etulain, P.E.Sverdrup Civil, Inc.Sharon E. ParkinsonKen LeplaIdaho Power CompanyTechnical ReportAppendix E.3.1-6Status and Habitat Use ofSnake River White SturgeonAssociated with the HellsCanyon ComplexChapter 4Hells Canyon ComplexFERC No. 1971December 2001Revised July 2003Copyright © 2003 by Idaho Power Company

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesTABLE OF CONTENTSTable of Contents............................................................................................................................. iList of Tables ................................................................................................................................. viList of Figures............................................................................................................................... viiAbstract............................................................................................................................................11. Introduction.................................................................................................................................32. Behavioral Characteristics of Sturgeon ......................................................................................42.1. Distribution ........................................................................................................................42.2. Sexual Maturity..................................................................................................................42.3. Spawning............................................................................................................................42.4. Incubation ..........................................................................................................................52.5. Larvae ................................................................................................................................62.6. Young-of-Year...................................................................................................................62.7. Juveniles and Adults ..........................................................................................................72.8. Movement ..........................................................................................................................72.9. The Effect of Dams on Sturgeon .....................................................................................103. Basic Dam Characteristics ........................................................................................................103.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................103.2. Flood Flows and Hydrology ............................................................................................103.2.1. Snake River.............................................................................................................103.2.2. Tributary Streams to Reservoirs .............................................................................113.3. Dam Characteristics.........................................................................................................113.3.1. Hells Canyon Dam..................................................................................................113.3.2. Oxbow Dam............................................................................................................11Hells Canyon ComplexPage i

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company3.3.3. Brownlee Dam ........................................................................................................123.4. Reservoir Water Quality ..................................................................................................124. Review of Fish Passage Concepts.............................................................................................134.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................134.2. Upstream Passage ............................................................................................................154.2.1. Fish Ladders............................................................................................................154.2.2. Fish Locks...............................................................................................................174.2.3. Fish Lifts .................................................................................................................184.2.4. Pressurized Passage Systems ..................................................................................204.2.5. Trap and Transport..................................................................................................214.2.6. Capture And Transport ...........................................................................................234.2.7. Entrance Conditions for Upstream Passage............................................................244.3. Downstream Passage .......................................................................................................254.3.1. Surface Collection...................................................................................................254.3.2. Spillway Release.....................................................................................................264.3.3. Pressurized Passage Systems ..................................................................................274.3.4. Behavioral Guidance Structure ...............................................................................294.3.5. Trap and Transport..................................................................................................304.3.6. Capture and Transport.............................................................................................314.3.7. Turbine Exclusion...................................................................................................325. Evaluation of Downstream Passage Concepts..........................................................................335.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................335.2. Brownlee Dam .................................................................................................................335.2.1. Surface Collection...................................................................................................345.2.2. A Behavioral Guidance Structure Combined with Spillway Release.....................34Page iiHells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities5.2.3. Pressurized Passage Systems ..................................................................................355.2.4. Trap and Transport..................................................................................................355.2.5. Capture and Transport.............................................................................................355.2.6. Promising Alternatives............................................................................................365.3. Oxbow Dam.....................................................................................................................365.3.1. Surface Collection...................................................................................................365.3.2. Behavioral Guidance Structure and Spillway Releases ..........................................365.3.3. Pressurized Passage Systems ..................................................................................375.3.4. Trap and Transport..................................................................................................375.3.5. Capture and Transport.............................................................................................375.3.6. Other Issues.............................................................................................................375.3.7. Promising Alternatives............................................................................................375.4. Hells Canyon Dam...........................................................................................................385.4.1. Surface Collection...................................................................................................385.4.2. Behavioral Guidance Structure Combined with Spillway Release.........................385.4.3. Pressurized Passage Systems ..................................................................................395.4.4. Trap and Transport..................................................................................................395.4.5. Capture and Transport.............................................................................................395.4.6. Promising Alternatives............................................................................................396. Evaluation of Upstream Passage Concepts...............................................................................406.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................406.2 Hells Canyon Development ..............................................................................................406.2.1. Fish Ladder .............................................................................................................406.2.2. Fish Lock ................................................................................................................416.2.3. Fish Lift...................................................................................................................41Hells Canyon ComplexPage iii

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company6.2.4. Pressurized Passage Systems ..................................................................................416.2.5. Trap and Transport..................................................................................................426.2.6. Capture and Transport.............................................................................................426.2.7. Promising Alternatives............................................................................................436.3. Oxbow Dam Development ..............................................................................................446.3.1. Fish Ladder .............................................................................................................446.3.2. Fish Lock ................................................................................................................446.3.3. Pressurized Passage Systems ..................................................................................446.3.4. Fish Lift...................................................................................................................456.3.5. Trap and Transport..................................................................................................456.3.6. Capture and Transport.............................................................................................456.3.7. Promising Alternatives............................................................................................466.4. Brownlee Dam .................................................................................................................466.4.1. Fish Ladder .............................................................................................................466.4.2. Fish Lock ................................................................................................................466.4.3. Pressurized Passage Systems ..................................................................................466.4.4. Fish Lift...................................................................................................................476.4.5. Trap and Transport..................................................................................................476.4.6. Capture and Transport.............................................................................................476.4.7. Promising Alternatives............................................................................................477. Cost Estimates for the Conceptual Designs..............................................................................487.1. Cost Estimates for Construction ......................................................................................487.2. Operations and Maintenance Costs..................................................................................487.3. Estimate Summaries for Downstream Passage Options ..................................................497.3.1. Brownlee Dam ........................................................................................................49Page ivHells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities7.3.2. Oxbow Dam............................................................................................................497.3.3. Hells Canyon Dam..................................................................................................497.4. Estimate Summaries for Upstream Passage Options.......................................................497.4.1. Hells Canyon Dam..................................................................................................497.4.2. Oxbow Dam............................................................................................................507.4.3. Brownlee Dam ........................................................................................................508. Literature Cited .........................................................................................................................51Hells Canyon ComplexPage v

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyLIST OF TABLESTable 1.Table 2.Table 3.Table 4.Table 5.Table 6.Table 7.Table 8.Abundance of white sturgeon in Snake River reaches between LowerGranite Dam and Shoshone Falls...........................................................................57Summary of movement by sonic-tagged white sturgeon in theBliss−C.J. Strike reach of the Snake River. Data from Idaho PowerCompany................................................................................................................58Summary of movement by sonic-tagged (S) and radio-tagged (R) whitesturgeon in the C.J. Strike−Swan Falls reach of the Snake River. Datafrom Idaho Power Company..................................................................................59Summary of movement by sonic-tagged (S) and radio-tagged (R) whitesturgeon in the Swan Falls−Brownlee reach of the Snake River. Data fromLepla et al. (2001)..................................................................................................60Summary of movement by sonic-tagged white sturgeon in theOxbow−Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River. Data from Lepla et al.(2001).....................................................................................................................61Summary of movement by sonic-tagged white sturgeon in theHells Canyon−Salmon River reach of the Snake River. Data from Leplaet al. (2001). ...........................................................................................................62USGS gauging station information for the Snake River........................................63USGS gauging station information for tributaries.................................................63Table 9. Description of Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee dams. .................................64Table 10.Table 11.Table 12.Table 13.The probability by project of sturgeon of various lengths being struck byturbine blades.........................................................................................................65Estimated costs for downstream passage options at Brownlee Dam.....................65Estimated costs for downstream passage options at Oxbow Dam.........................65Estimated costs for downstream passage options at Hells Canyon Dam...............66Table 14. Estimated costs for upstream passage options at Hells Canyon Dam. ..................66Table 15.Table 16.Estimated costs for upstream passage options at Oxbow Dam..............................66Estimated costs for upstream passage options at Brownlee Dam..........................66Page viHells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.Figure 2.Figure 3.Study area map depicting the locations on the Snake River of theHells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee dams. .........................................................67Mean movement of and maximum recorded distance traveled by whitesturgeon from their initial capture locations in Snake River reachesbetween Bliss Dam and the confluence with the Salmon River. Data fromIdaho Power Company...........................................................................................69Movement behavior of reproductive white sturgeon during the 1992 and1993 spawning periods in the Snake River between Bliss (RM 560) andC.J. Strike (RM 494) dams. Data from Lepla and Chandler (2001)......................70Figure 4. Movement behavior of reproductive white sturgeon during the 1994, 1995,and 1996 spawning periods in the Snake River between C.J. Strike(RM 494) and Swan Falls (RM 458) dams. Data from Lepla and Chandler(2001).....................................................................................................................71Figure 5.Figure 6.Movement behavior of reproductive white sturgeon during the 1997 and1999 spawning periods in the Swan Falls−Brownlee (RM 285−458) andOxbow−Hells Canyon (RM 247–273) reaches of the Snake River. Datafrom Lepla and Chandler (2001)............................................................................72Movement behavior of reproductive white sturgeon during the 1999 and2000 spawning periods in the Snake River between Hells Canyon(RM 247) and Lower Granite (RM 107) dams. Data from Lepla andChandler (2001). ....................................................................................................73Figure 7. Conceptual drawing of a fish ladder. .....................................................................74Figure 8.Conceptual drawing of sturgeon entering fish ladder orifices...............................75Figure 9. Conceptual drawing of a Borland lock. .................................................................76Figure 10. Conceptual drawing of the Bonneville Dam fish locks. ........................................77Figure 11. Conceptual drawing of the Tzymlyanskij fish lock. ..............................................78Figure 12. Conceptual drawing of a fish lift. ..........................................................................79Figure 13.Figure 14.Conceptual drawing of an alternative fish lift........................................................80Conceptual drawing of a pressurized fish lock for upstream passage offish..........................................................................................................................81Hells Canyon ComplexPage vii

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 15.Figure 16.Conceptual drawing of a pressurized fish lock and lift for upstreampassage of fish........................................................................................................82Conceptual drawing of a trap and transport facility...............................................83Figure 17. Conceptual drawing of an overflow weir with water spilling over the top. ..........84Figure 18.Figure 19.Conceptual drawing of notched spill gate..............................................................85Conceptual drawing of a removable spillway weir................................................86Figure 20. Conceptual drawing of a pressurized fish lock for downstream passage. .............87Figure 21.Figure 22.Figure 23.Figure 24.Figure 25.Figure 26.Figure 27.Figure 28.Figure 29.Figure 30Figure 31.Figure 32.Conceptual drawing of a pressurized fish lock leading to a chute or lift fordownstream passage...............................................................................................88Conceptual drawing of a behavioral guidance structure........................................89Conceptual drawing of a cross section of a behavioral guidance structureconduit....................................................................................................................90Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atBrownlee Dam using a pressurized passage system..............................................91Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atBrownlee Dam using a trap and transport system. ................................................92Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atOxbow Dam using a pressurized passage system..................................................93Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atOxbow Dam using a trap and transport system. ....................................................94Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atHells Canyon Dam using a pressurized passage system........................................95Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atHells Canyon Dam using a trap and transport system. ..........................................96Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atHells Canyon Dam using a fish lock system. ........................................................97Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atHells Canyon Dam using a fish lift........................................................................98Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atHells Canyon Dam using a pressurized passage system........................................99Page viiiHells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 33.Figure 34.Figure 35.Figure 36.Figure 37.Figure 38.Figure 39.Figure 40.Figure 41.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atHells Canyon Dam using a trap and transport system. ........................................100Conceptual drawing of the layout of the Oxbow Dam Project and variousoptions for passing sturgeon. ...............................................................................101Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream at OxbowDam using a fish lock. .........................................................................................102Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atOxbow Dam using a pressurized passage system................................................103Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atOxbow Dam using a fish lift................................................................................104Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atOxbow Dam using a trap and transport system. ..................................................105Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atBrownlee Dam using a pressurized passage system............................................106Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atBrownlee Dam using a fish lift. ...........................................................................107Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atBrownlee Dam using a trap and transport system. ..............................................108Hells Canyon ComplexPage ix

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyThis page left blank intentionally.Page xHells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesABSTRACTThe possibility of reestablishing upstream and downstream passage of sturgeon at Hells Canyon,Oxbow, and Brownlee dams on the Snake River has been identified by resource agencies as anissue for Idaho Power Company to explore. This chapter is the first step in considering potentialsturgeon passage options and focuses on identifying options and understanding the constraints onpassing sturgeon at each dam. Further studies, backed by engineering analysis, will be needed tofully investigate the feasibility of the possibilities we have considered.Observations of sturgeon indicate that sturgeon, most notably spawners moving from reservoir toriverine environments in search of suitable spawning habitat, do move upstream. These upstreammovements typically occur in the spring when the combination of suitable water temperature andhigh flow are conducive to successful spawning. Sexually immature sturgeon also moveupstream, but these activities are thought to be motivated by a search for food and suitablehabitat. Currently, we do not know whether downstream movement is related to a migratory urgeor simply a search for better feeding and rearing habitats. According to the results of telemetrystudies, the majority of Snake River sturgeon moved less than 10 river miles upstream ordownstream from their initial point of capture.Our evaluation of potential upstream passage options included ladders, locks, lifts, pressurizedpassage systems, a trap and transport approach, and a capture and transport approach. Of theupstream passage alternatives discussed, the trap and transport or capture and transport optionsappear to be the most promising for initial implementation at Hells Canyon and Oxbow dams.Considering our lack of experience in attracting and passing sturgeon, if a passive (nonvolitional)system is acceptable, the capture and transport option is probably the most cost effective andwould help us meet our passage goals. On the other hand, if a volitional system were needed, thetrap and transport option is the most promising alternative. At Brownlee Dam, either trap andtransport, capture and transport, or fish lift systems appear to be most suitable. The most easilyimplemented and flexible option is the capture and transport alternative, but it involves thegreatest operational cost and most human intervention. The effectiveness of other upstreamoptions are uncertain, and they are expensive because of the extensive construction required.Our lack of knowledge about downstream migrations of white sturgeon constrained our efforts toassess the viability of various options for passing sturgeon downstream. Potential downstreampassage options included surface collection, spillway release, pressurized passage systems,behavioral guidance structures, a trap and transport approach, and a capture and transportapproach. Of the downstream passage alternatives studied, the capture and transport optionappears to be the most feasible one for Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon dams because itwould incur lower construction costs and use proven techniques; it could also be implementedquickly. If the passage goals do not anticipate passing large numbers of sturgeon—a possibility,considering the small populations involved and the movement of sturgeon observed duringtelemetry studies—the capture and transport option becomes even more promising. If a volitionalsystem is more desirable, a trap and transport system is most promising because it focuses oneffectively attracting sturgeon that are migrating downstream, the primary uncertainty in passingsturgeon. Because of our lack of knowledge of sturgeon behavior and the uncertainty of howHells Canyon Complex Page 1

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companyeffective other transporting options would be, we are far less optimistic regarding the remainingalternatives for passing sturgeon downstream.Page 2Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities1. INTRODUCTIONThe possibility of reestablishing upstream and downstream passage of sturgeon at Hells Canyon,Oxbow, and Brownlee dams on the Snake River has been identified by resource agencies as anissue for Idaho Power Company (IPC) to explore during efforts to relicense the Hells CanyonComplex (HCC) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1This chapter reviews fish passage concepts and options that are currently in use and evaluatesconceptual facilities for passing sturgeon at each dam. The objective of the chapter is to providea high-level overview of passage options that might be applicable at each dam and an “order-ofmagnitude”cost estimate for each passage option. It also provides a qualitative assessment of thepotential success for the various passage alternatives.Our study explored potential routes for passing sturgeon upstream and downstream through theHCC. This report is the first step in considering the potential for sturgeon passage. It focuses onestablishing an understanding of the constraints on sturgeon passage and identifying possiblepassage options for each dam. Further studies, backed by engineering analysis, are necessary fora full investigation into the feasibility of the options we considered.For downstream passage of sturgeon, the reach of the Snake River that we evaluated for passagefacilities begins at the backwater of Brownlee Reservoir and ends below Hells Canyon Dam,which is located approximately 38 river miles downstream of Brownlee Dam. The reach of theriver that we evaluated for upstream passage of sturgeon begins downstream of Hells CanyonDam and ends at the forebay of Brownlee Reservoir (Figure 1).Reestablishing upstream and downstream passage in the HCC could benefit sturgeonpopulations. First, it could restore two-way gene flow. It could also provide access todownstream habitats that have more suitable spawning areas and better summer water qualitythan the areas to which sturgeon currently have access. However, before any potential benefitsare realized from passing white sturgeon from below Hells Canyon Dam, the water quality inHells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee reservoirs must be substantially improved.The challenges of providing upstream and downstream sturgeon passage are significant. Thetechnology for sturgeon passage is in its infancy, and current knowledge of sturgeon behaviorand passage options lacks the decades of experience and research dedicated to passinganadromous fish. Previous experience in passing sturgeon upstream is limited, while previousexperience in passing sturgeon downstream is nearly nonexistent. In fact, no successful model1Sturgeon passage at dams is only one of the many hazards that face sturgeon in their life cycle. Habitat, waterquality, accumulation of contaminants in organs, predation, and the negative influence of regulated river flow areother factors that affect sturgeon populations. Assuming that passing sturgeon is possible, passage alone may notguarantee an increase in sturgeon stocks. Any passage alternative that is considered must be developed inconjunction with resolving the other issues that threaten the overall life cycle of sturgeon.Hells Canyon Complex Page 3

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companyexists for passing sturgeon upstream over the height and distance required by conditions in ourstudy reach.2. BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STURGEON2.1. DistributionWhite sturgeon inhabit the Snake River from its confluence with the Columbia River upstream toShoshone Falls, a historical natural barrier. White sturgeon also inhabit two tributaries of theSnake River—the Salmon and Clearwater rivers (Cochnauer et al. 1985). The species has onlylimited access to its historical habitat because of the development of the hydroelectric system onthe Snake River. The Snake River in Idaho offers a contrast in population status between riversegments with viable, reproducing populations to others with few individuals and no detectablerecruitment. For example, the river segments downstream of both Hells Canyon and Bliss damscontain sizeable populations and show signs of recent reproduction. However, middle sections ofthe Snake River between Swan Falls and Hells Canyon dams, as well as sections upstream ofBliss Dam, contain only small populations and show little or no detectable recruitment (Lukens1981; Cochnauer et al. 1985; Lepla and Chandler 1995a, 1997; Jager et al. 2001; Lepla et al.2001). Many factors contributed to the current status of white sturgeon in the Snake River. Thesefactors include altered habitat, pollution, historical exploitation, and dams. Table 1 representswhat is currently known about the population sizes of resident sturgeon in the reach betweenLower Granite Dam and Shoshone Falls.2.2. Sexual MaturityThe size and age at first maturity for white sturgeon is extremely variable. Male sturgeon in thewild begin to mature around 125 cm as 12 year-olds, while females normally require longerperiods, generally 15 to 32 years (PSMFC 1992). Reproductive periodicities also vary betweensexes; males may reproduce every 2 to 4 years, while females may reproduce at no less than fiveyear intervals (Conte et al. 1988, Chapman et al. 1996, Anders et al. In Press). Spawnperiodicities for white sturgeon may also range up to 11 years (Semakula and Larkin 1968,Simpson and Wallace 1982, Cochnauer 1983). In domestic broodstock, initial egg developmentrequires 2 to 5 years (Binkowski and Doroshov 1985, Conte et al. 1988). Females maycommonly carry 0.1 to 7 million mature eggs depending on fish size and age (Bajkov 1949,Scott and Crossman 1973, Stockley 1981). In general, only a small portion (about 10%) of whitesturgeon populations are reproductive in any given year (S. Doroshov, University of California,Davis, pers. comm. to Apperson and Anders 1990).2.3. SpawningWhite sturgeon are iteroparous, broadcast spawners that depend on free-flowing rivers forsuitable spawning conditions. Spawners broadcast gametes into the water column wherePage 4Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilitiesfertilization occurs before the demersal, adhesive embryos settle to the substrate (Paragamianet al. 2001 and references within). White sturgeon spawn in extremely fast-flowing water, withvelocities exceeding 1.8 m/s considered the most suitable (Parsley et al. 1993, Parsley andBeckman 1994). Researchers have proposed a number of benefits from spawning in fast,turbulent waters. For example, high-velocity flows remove fine sediments from spawning areas,sediments that might otherwise suffocate eggs (Parsley et al. 1993). Also, broadcasting eggs infast, turbulent water may enhance egg viability by dispersing adhesive eggs, thereby preventingclumping and disease. Dispersal probably also reduces egg and larval predation and minimizescompetition among post-larval fish (McCabe and Tracy 1994). In the Snake River, spawnersfitted with radio transmitters (telemetered fish) were commonly associated with turbulent pools,high-velocity runs, and nearby rapids where eggs were collected (Lepla and Chandler 2001).These telemetered fish used a wide range of depths (2–21 m). Upper velocities approached2.72 m/s in some locations (Lepla and Chandler 2001).White sturgeon spawning in the Columbia River Basin occurs during spring months (April–July)when water temperatures are between 10 and 18 °C (Parsley et al. 1993, RL & L EnvironmentalServices 1994), with the peak in spawning occurring when temperatures are typically between13 and 15 °C. Generally, the Snake River reaches have suitable spawning temperatures(10−18 °C) from March through late June, depending on annual spring conditions and thelocation of the reach. Similar to the Columbia River observations, Lepla and Chandler (2001)reported that most spawning in the Snake River occurred when the water temperatures rangedfrom 12 to 16 °C, with mean temperature of 14 °C, which is considered optimal for eggincubation (Wang et al. 1985). The temperature regimes in the Snake River and the temperaturesof the water in which the majority of eggs were collected (12–16 °C) suggest that peak spawningactivity occurs from mid-March to the end of May in the reaches above the HCC and from lateApril to mid-June in the reaches below the HCC (Lepla and Chandler 2001).2.4. IncubationWang et al. (1985) indicated that a water temperature of 14 °C is optimal for egg incubation, eggmortality increases in temperatures of 18 to 20 °C, and water temperatures beyond 20 °C clearlybecome lethal. Although research has not yet established this conclusion, the lower limit atwhich temperatures become lethal to incubating white sturgeon eggs may be similar to the lowerlimit for other sturgeon species, which is near 6 to 8 °C (Wang et al. 1985). Egg incubationusually lasts 7 to 14 days, depending on water temperature (Bajkov 1949, Wang et al. 1985,Conte et al. 1988). Eggs of white sturgeon are vulnerable to predation because adults broadcastthe eggs and provide no parental protection. Research indicates that several species of fish preyon sturgeon eggs, including northern pike minnow, common carp, largescale sucker, and pricklysculpin (Carl 1936, Patton and Rodman 1969, Scott and Crossman 1973, Wydoski and Whitney1979, Kempinger 1988, Miller and Beckman 1993).Embryonic development of white sturgeon eggs collected in the Snake River indicated that mostspawning activity occurred within a temperature range of 12 to 16 °C (mean = 14 °C), which isconsidered to be optimal for egg development. Incubating eggs were commonly associated withturbulent pools and runs with mean column velocities ranging from 0.1 to 2.0 m/s and depths of4 to 19 m. Based on temperature regimes in the Snake River and the timing of most eggHells Canyon Complex Page 5

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companycollections (12–16 °C), peak spawning activity occurs from mid-March to the end of Mayupstream of the Hells Canyon Complex (HCC) and from late April to mid-June downstream ofthe HCC. Egg incubation primarily occurs from mid-March through early June upstream of theHCC and from late April to the end of June downstream of the complex (Lepla and Chandler2001).2.5. LarvaeUpon hatching, yolk-sac larvae are planktonic and drift downstream on river currents. Larvaecan disperse across long distances. Kohlhorst (1976) and McCabe and Tracy (1993) reportedobserving sturgeon larvae about 115 to 121 mi downstream of known incubation and probablespawning sites. Brannon et al. (1986) described three phases of larval development and behavior(dispersal, hiding, and feeding) that occur between hatching and metamorphosis, with each phaselasting up to 6 days depending on environmental conditions. At 17 °C, exogenous feeding beginsabout 12 days after hatching, and larvae disperse into the water column as they begin to feed(Buddington and Christofferson 1985, Conte et al. 1988). Post yolk-sac larvae collected in theColumbia River feed primarily on amphipods of the genus Corophium (Muir et al. 2000).Other food items likely include copepods, Ceratopogonidae larvae, and Diptera pupae andlarvae. Within 20 to 30 days after hatching, metamorphosis is complete (Buddington andChristofferson 1985).Lepla and Chandler (2001) reported that few larval white sturgeon were captured during IPC’ssturgeon surveys, due primarily to gear limitations; however, sturgeon larvae were sampled inboth riverine and reservoir environments. Larvae in the riverine environment were sampled at thesubstrate in a deep, turbulent pool where spawners and eggs were found. One sturgeon larva wasalso captured in Brownlee Reservoir (4 m below the surface). Although the origin of the larvawas uncertain, its location illustrated the mobility of sturgeon in this life stage and the potentialto drift far from upstream spawning sites during the dispersal phase. The habitats in which thelarvae were collected had water temperatures of 17 to 18.6 °C, flow velocities of 0.0 to 0.9 m/s,and depths of 4 to 14 m. Based on developmental criteria by Wang et al. (1985) and IPC datafrom collections of sturgeon eggs in the Snake River, Lepla and Chandler (2001) suggested thatmost yolk-sac larvae are probably free swimming and have begun exogenous feeding by lateJune in reaches between Bliss Dam and the confluence with the Salmon River and by mid-July inreaches downstream of the Salmon River.2.6. Young-of-YearYoung-of-year (YOY) sturgeon grow rapidly in a laboratory environment. At 16 °C, their bodyweight doubles every 2 to 3 weeks during the first 4 months of life (Brannon et al. 1984). Basedon habitat information from McConnell (1989) and Parsley and Beckman (1994), Lepla andChandler (2001) reported that suitable conditions for YOY white sturgeon in the Snake Riveroccurred at water temperatures of 0.1 to 28 °C, flow velocities of 0.0 to 1.9 m/s, and depthsgreater than 6.1 m. Lepla and Chandler (2001) also estimated that YOY sturgeon beginappearing in various reaches of the Snake River from mid-April through early June.Page 6Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities2.7. Juveniles and AdultsWhite sturgeon metamorphose into juveniles within 3 to 4 months after spawning occurs. Lossesof juvenile sturgeon to predation are probably slight because of their protective scutes, benthichabitats, and fast growth. Juvenile sturgeon feed primarily on benthic invertebrates (Muir et al.2000). Fish and crayfish become the principal food for larger individuals (> 48.3 cm) (Scott andCrossman 1973). Generally, juvenile sturgeon reach maturity by 12 years of age for males and15 to 32 years for females, although age of maturity is highly variable (PSMFC 1992).Habitat use of juvenile and adult white sturgeon indicates that these fish can tolerate a widerange of conditions in both riverine and reservoir environments (Lepla and Chandler 2001).In riverine sections, sturgeon were often captured along current breaks in or near the thalweg ofruns and pools. These fish may position themselves in these areas because potential food settlesout from the river’s drift. Sturgeon sampled in reservoirs by IPC investigators tended to use themiddle section and upper transition areas while use of the lower pool was typically low. This usepattern may also be related to food opportunities and, in some cases, poor water quality in thelower sections of some reservoirs. Overall, sturgeon were captured most often at depths greaterthan 6 m and in water velocities less than 1.50 m/s. However, some sturgeon were found at siteswith relatively high velocities (up to 2.91 m/s) or very shallow depths (less than 2 m). Becausethese instances were few, Lepla and Chandler (2001) indicated that sturgeon use of theseconditions would be infrequent.2.8. MovementMembers of the order Acipenseriformes migrate for two basic reasons: feeding (rearing) andreproduction. Generally, sturgeon migrate upstream to spawn and downstream to feed (Bemisand Kynard 1997). However, migration patterns of sturgeon vary considerably by species,including white sturgeon. In the lower Columbia River, seasonal distribution patterns of whitesturgeon suggest a general upstream migration in the fall, a quiescent winter period, adownstream migration in the spring, and a large congregation of sturgeon in the estuary duringsummer. DeVore and Grimes (1993) suggested that these migration patterns were a result ofephemeral food availability. However, Bajkov (1949) found that some white sturgeon did notappear to migrate at all during a particular year. North et al. (1993) also reported variations inmovement patterns of white sturgeon in three Columbia River reservoirs above Bonneville Dam.Of the sturgeon sampled, half the fish moved downstream after release, while the other halfmoved upstream. Most sturgeon traveled at least 0.6 river miles, with some individuals travelingup to 94 river miles.Over the course of 10 years of tracking sturgeon in reaches of the Snake River between BlissDam and the mouth of the Salmon River, IPC investigators observed similar variations inmovement patterns of telemetered sturgeon. Of several sturgeon (n = 7) that were at large for193 to 648 days, each traveled more than 60 river miles, while others (n = 32) that were at largefor similar durations (185–679 days) traveled less than 10 mi (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5,and Table 6). In general, sturgeon in reservoirs showed more movement between monitoringevents than fish residing in free-flowing sections of the Snake River (Lepla and Chandler 1995a,Lepla et al. 2001). Sturgeon in reservoirs often traveled within the middle and upper sections ofHells Canyon Complex Page 7

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companythe pool, while fish movement in the free-flowing sections of the Snake River remained morelocalized. Lepla and Chandler (1995a) speculated that these differences in movement patternswere related to the differences in feeding behaviors between riverine and reservoir environments.In free-flowing sections, food items carried by the river currents could settle out in habitats usedby sturgeon; in a reservoir, sturgeon had to search more actively. Overall, sturgeon movementduring IPC’s monitoring efforts was fairly localized, with the majority (61–91%) of fishtraveling less than 10 river miles from their initial capture locations (Figure 2). Based on alltelemetry observations, the average distance traveled by Snake River sturgeon ranged from 0.4 to4.0 river miles. Coon (1978) observed similar localized movement patterns: sturgeon greater than183 cm below Hells Canyon Dam often moved only among pools that were close to each other.He noted that smaller sturgeon tended to move downstream but averaged only around 7 km peryear.RL& L Environmental Services (2000) reported similar movement behavior for white sturgeonin the Fraser River, an undammed river system. Telemetry data for female and male whitesturgeon in various stages of maturity and segments of the Fraser River showed meanmovements of 0.4 to 3.3 river miles for Stock Group 1 (SG1), 0.0 to 1.8 river miles for SG2,0.2 to 6.7 river miles for SG3, and 0.06 to 0.4 river miles for SG5. The authors also noted thatseveral sturgeon exhibited extensive movement exceeding 25 river miles: some of these sturgeontraveled more than 43 river miles between monitoring efforts. Overall, sturgeon monitoredduring their telemetry studies displayed localized movements that most commonly ranged lessthan 6 river miles. This finding suggests that discrete sections of the Fraser River providedsuitable white sturgeon habitats for several life history functions. In the Nechako River, atributary to the Fraser River, sturgeon commonly traveled more than 9 river miles (maximummovements ranged in direction from 38 river miles upstream to 45 river miles downstream).These movements are thought to be an adaptation of a feeding strategy that exploits the sockeyesalmon migration through this river system. Similar large-scale movements that appear to benecessary because of the geographic separation between habitats suitable for various lifefunctions—such as feeding, spawning, and overwintering—have also been observed in otherriver systems, such as the Kootenai River (Apperson and Anders 1991) and Lake Roosevelt(Brannon and Setter 1992).The most notable movement patterns IPC investigators observed in the Snake River weregenerally associated with spawning, and the distance sturgeon traveled depended on theproximity of suitable spawning habitat (Lepla and Chandler 2001). This behavior wasparticularly evident among sexually mature sturgeon traveling from reservoir to riverineenvironments. In C.J. Strike Reservoir, located 37 miles upstream of Swan Falls Dam,reproductive adults (tags S2633, S2426, S2354, S2353, S249, and S258) often left the pool asspawning temperatures approached and, depending on their capture location in the pool, traveledabout 16 river miles upstream of the pool to stage and spawn near RM 521.8 (Figure 3). Similarupstream spawning movements, although typically less than a few miles, were observed amongsturgeon below C.J. Strike and Oxbow dams as they sought suitable spawning conditions thatgenerally occurred only near the tailraces (Figure 4 and Figure 5b) (Lepla and Chandler 2001).Spawning-related movements in the river canyon corridors below Bliss, Swan Falls, andHells Canyon dams were often less defined than those we observed in the reaches belowC.J. Strike and Oxbow dams. These lesser defined movements are likely due to the presence ofPage 8Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilitiesnumerous pools with nearby high-velocity runs for staging and rapids that are suitable forspawning; such pools are absent in the reaches below C.J. Strike and Oxbow dams. The distancesthat spawners traveled varied by reach: sturgeon traveled 0.3 to 9.0 river miles between KingHill and Bliss Dam (S3335 and S275) (Figure 3), 1.5 to 6.0 river miles below Swan Falls Dam(S339 and R133) (Figure 5a), and 0.0 to 2.0 river miles below Hells Canyon Dam (S249, S248,and S294) (Figure 6). None of the telemetered spawners in these river segments traveledupstream to the dam tailraces (Lepla and Chandler 2001).Lepla and Chandler (2001) also observed that several spawners exhibited post-spawningbehavior by departing, generally downstream, from spawning areas within a few weeks, althoughthis behavior also varied. For instance, spawners from C.J. Strike Reservoir typically returneddownstream to the reservoir by late May (S2633, S2354, S2426, and S249) (Figure 3). BelowHells Canyon Dam, we observed similar behavior in two female sturgeon that departeddownstream. The distance these fish moved downriver ranged from 13 to 61 river miles,followed by return movements back upstream (24–31 river miles) by the middle of summer(S249 and S294) (Figure 6). Still other sturgeon remained at spawning sites and displayed nodiscernable post-spawning movement at all (S3335, S2534 [Figure 3], S114, S105 [Figure 4],S339 [Figure 5a], and S248 [Figure 6a]). Overall, the predominantly localized movement byreproductive and nonreproductive sturgeon suggested that several sections of the Snake Riverprovide suitable habitat for various life history functions, including feeding, rearing,overwintering, and spawning (Lepla et al. 2001).As mentioned already, movements of most sturgeon were highly localized, although somejuvenile and adult white sturgeon have moved downstream past dams in reaches of the middleSnake River. Lepla and Chandler (1995a, 1997) recaptured 15 hatchery sturgeon below BlissDam and 6 sturgeon (4 wild and 2 hatchery) below C.J. Strike Dam that had been originallystocked or tagged upstream of these projects. In contrast, no sturgeon (wild or hatchery) that hadoriginally been tagged above the HCC have been sampled downstream of Hells Canyon Damduring IPC’s sturgeon surveys. Based on the mark-recapture data, IPC estimated that 2% of theBliss Reach sturgeon population, on average, move downstream past C.J. Strike Dam annually(K. Lepla, pers. comm.). This estimate is comparable with the rate of annual downstreammovement (2%) estimated for sturgeon marked and released in the four lower Columbia Riverreservoirs (ODFW, unpubl. data).The environmental cues that drive older life stages of sturgeon to move downstream from onereach to another are poorly understood. These sturgeon may be seeking additional rearing andfeeding habitats. For instance, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game released 2,211 hatcheryrearedsturgeon (age 1) in the 13-mi segment between Lower Salmon Falls and Bliss damsduring 1989–1990 (Patterson et al. 1992). Movement by some of these stocked fish into the nextdownstream reach may have been related to searching for additional rearing habitat for whichthere was less competition. Still, other sturgeon from these stockings remained and wererecaptured at the same release point (the Lower Salmon Falls tailrace) 5 years later (IPC, unpubl.data).Hells Canyon Complex Page 9

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company2.9. The Effect of Dams on SturgeonThe construction of dams from Hells Canyon Dam to Shoshone Falls (a natural historic barrierfor sturgeon) has divided the Snake River into nine smaller river segments, three of which nolonger have free-flowing river habitat (Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Lower Salmon Fallsreservoirs). The dams have isolated sturgeon populations, reduced sturgeon abundance withinsome segments, and disrupted sturgeon movement between river segments. Although whitesturgeon are still found in the Snake River throughout their historic range, six of the nine reachesno longer support viable wild subpopulations, and existing populations have declined to levelsthat make long-term persistence questionable or unlikely.Dams and water management practices on the Snake River also alter the natural flow regime. Inthe upper Snake River Basin, water management practices, including irrigation diversions andflood control, can substantially alter spring hydrographs in the middle Snake River. Theseactivities not only reduce the amount of spawning habitat available to sturgeon by removing thepeak runoff, but they can also shift peak river flows so that they are out of sync with optimalspawning temperatures. Instream flow studies that IPC conducted at three middle Snake Riverdams have also shown that daily load-following operations can reduce the amount of habitat (orweighted usable area) for white sturgeon, particularly the early life stages (incubation and larvae)during low and median water years (Chandler and Lepla 1997, Brink 2000, Brink and Chandler2000).A Population Viability Analysis (PVA) was undertaken to evaluate various risks to the long-termpersistence of white sturgeon populations in the Snake River from upstream of Lower GraniteDam to Shoshone Falls. The results from the PVA are presented in Chapter 3 of this report(Jager et al. 2001).3. BASIC DAM CHARACTERISTICS3.1. IntroductionIn evaluating various options for passing white sturgeon at dams on the Snake River, this chapterconsiders the three dams that comprise the HCC: Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee. Thesedams are located between Oregon and Idaho and operated by IPC to provide power production,flood control, and recreational opportunities (Figure 1).3.2. Flood Flows and Hydrology3.2.1. Snake RiverThe Snake River, about 1,078 mi long, is the largest tributary to the Columbia River. Itsheadwaters begin in the area of Yellowstone National Park in western Wyoming and flowPage 10Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilitieswesterly through southern Idaho and then northerly along the Idaho–Oregon border. It thentravels west through Washington to its confluence with the Columbia River, just downstream ofPasco, Washington. It has a total drainage basin of approximately 108,700 mi 2 .The geography of the basin includes mountains, plains, and valleys. The majority of high flowsare caused by snowmelt. Peak flows generally occur between March and June. Before dams,water surface elevations during snowmelt would rise as much as 30 ft above summer waterlevels. The construction of numerous dams and reservoirs has regulated flows so that thefluctuations in water level elevations are narrower. In our study area, there are twoU.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations on the Snake River that collect basic statistics,including drainage area, daily mean flow, and period of record (Table 7). The farthestdownstream gauging station (station 13290450) is located 0.6 mi downstream of Hells CanyonDam and has a drainage area of approximately 73,300 mi 2 . The second USGS gauging station(132690000) is located at Weiser, Idaho, about 0.7 mi downstream of the confluence with theWeiser River. Its attributed drainage area is approximately 69,200 mi 2 .3.2.2. Tributary Streams to ReservoirsIn our study area, there are two major tributaries, the Powder River (including flows fromEagle Creek) and Burnt River, both of which enter Brownlee Reservoir. Statistics about dailymean flows from gauging stations along some of the minor tributaries that also flow into theSnake River in the study area are listed in Table 8.3.3. Dam CharacteristicsA summary of selected information about each project is included in Table 9.3.3.1. Hells Canyon DamHells Canyon Dam, located at RM 247.6, was completed in 1967 to supply power and providerecreational opportunities. It is a concrete dam approximately 330 ft high and 1,000 ft long. Thisdam has three generating units fitted with Francis runners and a nameplate capacity of 391 MW.The powerhouse is located on the west, or Oregon, side of the river, and the spillway is on theeast, or Idaho, side.A fish trapping facility is located just downstream of the powerhouse on the west bank. Thetrapping facility includes a pumped attraction-flow system and fish ladder that leads to a trappingpool. A hopper loads fish onto trucks for transport to various locations.3.3.2. Oxbow DamOxbow Dam, located at RM 273, is the next dam upstream of Hells Canyon Dam. It wascompleted in 1961 to supply power and provide recreational opportunities. This dam takes itsname from the unique U-shaped bend of the river where it is located, a bend that early settlerssaid resembled the U-shaped collar used for an ox. This unique geological formation broughtHells Canyon Complex Page 11

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companyabout an unusual dam design. The rock-filled dam is approximately 1,150 ft long and 205 fthigh. The spillway is located on the north edge of the dam, and the intake is locatedapproximately 0.5 mi upstream, on the north side of the channel. From the intake point, twohorseshoe-shaped conveyance tunnels measuring 36 ft in diameter were constructed through thehillside to the north. The tunnels are approximately 170 ft long, and each is connected to one oftwo separate surge tanks, each measuring 130 ft in diameter. From the surge tanks, each powertunnel transitions to two penstocks measuring 23 ft in diameter (for a total of four penstocks).Each penstock is approximately 70 ft long and delivers the river flow to the powerhouse.The powerhouse comprises four generating units fitted with Francis runners and has a nameplatecapacity of 190 MW. The powerhouse is located on the bend of the oxbow, approximately3 river miles downstream of the dam and spillway.3.3.3. Brownlee DamBrownlee Dam, located at RM 285, was completed in 1959 for energy production, flood control,and recreational opportunities. This rock-filled dam is approximately 1,380 ft long and 395 fthigh. The spillway facilities are located on the west bank of the river, and the intake channel andpower-generating facilities lie on the east bank. There are four steel penstocks measuring 24 ft indiameter and over 500 ft long that deliver river flows from the power intake to the fourgenerating units fitted with Francis runners. An additional penstock measuring 28 ft in diameterand approximately 660 ft long brings river flows to a fifth turbine. This turbine is located abovethe original diversion tunnel that was used in the construction of the dam. It discharges into thediversion outlet channel. The nameplate capacity of this dam is 585 MW. A notable aspect of thedam is its approximately 57-mi reservoir, the longest reservoir on the Snake River.3.4. Reservoir Water QualityAs part of relicensing the HCC projects, IPC produced a draft report on water quality in the HCC(Myers and Pierce 1999). This report was based on data collected in the HCC from 1991 through1998. Data for 22 water quality parameters were recorded, including water temperature,dissolved oxygen, ammonia nitrogen content, phosphorus content, and algae. The results werecompared to both Oregon and Idaho state standards for coldwater biota, as well as standards setby the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The research found that the water quality inBrownlee Reservoir was severely degraded. The conditions in Brownlee Reservoir affect thewater quality in both the Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs, particularly regardingtemperature.On average, water temperatures in Brownlee Reservoir exceeded the Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality instantaneous maximum criterion of 22 °C for 70 days per year, while inOxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs, temperatures exceeded the criterion for 31 and 34 days peryear, respectively. Investigators discovered that water temperatures were actually higher duringflood years than during drought years. These higher temperatures were caused by cold waterbeing released during drawdowns for flood control and being replaced by warmer inflowingwater (Myers and Pierce 1999).Page 12Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesOn average, dissolved oxygen levels within Brownlee Reservoir failed to meet the IdahoDepartment of Environmental Quality 6.0-mg/l criterion on 173 days per year, while levels inOxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs did not meet the criterion on 111 and 103 days per year,respectively. Factors that affect oxygen levels include organic matter entering the reservoir andthermal stratification. Ammonia nitrogen levels for all three reservoirs were found to be withinthe Idaho criterion for coldwater biota. During low drawdowns, the bottom sediment of thereservoir is scoured, a process that releases additional ammonia into the water column. NeitherIdaho nor Oregon has a criterion for phosphorus levels, but levels in all three reservoirs wereconsistently above the 0.05-mg/l criterion set by the EPA as a threshold that triggers concernabout water quality in reservoirs.Water quality conditions in Brownlee Reservoir have been detrimental to sturgeon duringsummer months, particularly low dissolved oxygen, which can narrow depth stratum or eliminatelivable strata entirely in some areas of the pool. Water quality-related sturgeon mortalities haveoccurred in Brownlee Reservoir during low-flow water years. In mid-July 1990, lethal dissolvedoxygen conditions (less than 1.0 mg/l), possibly exacerbated by high water temperatures(25−26 °C), caused the deaths of at least 28 adult white sturgeon near the upper end (RM 324) ofBrownlee Reservoir. Brownlee Reservoir experiences severe water quality degradation duringdry and normal water years because of nutrient influxes from agricultural activity and municipalwastes from the surrounding watersheds. IPC’s water quality model for reservoirs,CE-QUAL-W2, predicted that conditions lethal to sturgeon (high temperatures and low dissolvedoxygen) can make up 80.4% of the bottom 2-m layer in Brownlee Reservoir during the summerin low-flow years such as 1992. The model predicted similar lethal conditions (72.9–54.7% ofthe bottom layer) in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs for similar seasons and flow. Duringhigher flow years, such as 1995 and 1997, the model predicted that lethal conditions decreasedconsiderably in Oxbow Reservoir (26.0 and 1.8%) and Hells Canyon Reservoir (9.8 and 0.4%).However, the majority (49.8–58.9%) of the bottom 2-m layer in Brownlee Reservoir still hadlethal water quality conditions. Environmental conditions in spring, winter, and fall were suitablefor sturgeon. Further development of passage concepts will rely on ongoing limnologicalassessments of the HCC undertaken as part of IPC’s relicensing studies.4. REVIEW OF FISH PASSAGE CONCEPTS4.1. IntroductionThe purpose of this section is to provide a brief survey of currently available downstream andupstream protection and passage technologies. Protecting fishery resources around electricitygeneratingfacilities has been a subject of interest and intense study for many years. InNorth America, fish passage structures and studies have focused primarily on the needs ofsalmonids. Consequently, despite continuing needs for research, much is known about thebehavior, biology, life history, habitat requirements, and fish passage of salmonids.The focus of salmonid studies has changed as the technology for generating electricity hasadvanced. In the early part of the 20th century, interest focused on construction of hydroelectricHells Canyon Complex Page 13

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companyfacilities that blocked upstream migration of anadromous fish. Intense research on upstreampassage for salmon began in the 1950s and continues today. The large-scale development ofsteam and nuclear electric facilities during the 1960s and 1970s raised additional issues aboutprotecting fishery resources. The need for large volumes of cooling water at these facilitiescaused concern about the potential effects of entrainment and impingement of fish.Consequently, fish screening and diversion technologies were developed.In recent years, fish-protection studies have focused on protecting outmigrating juvenile salmonat hydroelectric, water-diversion, and water-intake facilities. This focus has led to a number ofnew technologies, including surface-bypass systems, intake-diversion screens, trapping schemes,barge or truck transport, and “fish-friendly” turbine design.In contrast, because sturgeon in North America have been studied very little, less is known abouttheir nature. Literature on the biology, life history, habitat needs, and successful fish passagesystems is limited and often difficult to obtain. Accordingly, there are gaps in our understandingof white sturgeon that can only be filled with appropriate and focused research. Literature on thefish passage needs of sturgeon is particularly limited. Most of our information comes fromRussia where sturgeon have always been a commercially important species.A general decline in both anadromous and resident fish populations in river systems throughoutthe United States has led to efforts to quantify losses of downstream migrants and developprotection, or mitigation, techniques. One avenue of research and study stems from the FERCprocess for relicensing hydroelectric facilities. In general, the process requires the owners ofhydroelectric facilities to estimate the impact of project operations on fish resources and providemeasures for mitigating any impacts. This requirement has led to much research on developingprotection and passage techniques that may prove effective at hydroelectric facilities.This study uses previous fish research, which is primarily based on salmonids, and supplementsit with available knowledge of sturgeon to examine options for upstream and downstreamsturgeon passage. Since our knowledge of sturgeon movement behavior is incomplete, we havebased our examination of passage options on the following assumptions.Facilities for downstream passage would be used primarily by juvenile and adult fish—Downstream movement may be motivated by juvenile or adult sturgeon searching for improvedfeeding and rearing habitats or escaping poor environmental conditions. Unlike salmonids,whose downstream migration is a biological imperative, downstream movement of sturgeon is,to some extent, probably motivated by environmental factors and thus more difficult to predict.Based on mark-recapture estimates for C.J. Strike Dam and four lower Columbia River projects,IPC investigators assumed an annual rate of 2% for downstream movement of sturgeon. IPCtelemetry studies also indicate that there is no discernable downstream movement betweenreaches by reproductive sturgeon seeking suitable spawning habitat.Upstream passage needs to accommodate large, mature fish—We assume that spawning adultsmay move between reaches upstream to seek suitable spawning habitat when conditions within areach are unsuitable. We assumed that 10% of sturgeon greater than 125 cm were reproductiveduring any given year. Since a sexually mature female generally is at least 5 ft long and thelargest sturgeon of record captured in the Snake River during IPC’s sturgeon surveys wasPage 14Hells Canyon Complex

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²6WXGLHVRIVWXUJHRQPRYHPHQWKDYHVKRZQWKDWVWXUJHRQDUHOHVVDFWLYHGXULQJWKHFROGHUPRQWKV,QWKH6QDNH5LYHUVWXUJHRQWHQGWREHOHVVDFWLYHIURP'HFHPEHUWRHDUO\)HEUXDU\6WXUJHRQQHHGWREHSDVVHGZLWKOLWWOHLQMXU\DQGQHJOLJLEOHPRUWDOLW\²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²LQFOXGLQJWKH'HQLOYHUWLFDOVORWDQGVHYHUDOW\SHVRISRRODQGRULILFHZHLUODGGHUV²KDYHSURYHQVXFFHVVIXORYHUWKH\HDUVIRUSDVVLQJPDQ\W\SHVRIILVK7KH'HQLODQGYHUWLFDOVORWILVKZD\VKDYHEHHQVXFFHVVIXOO\XVHG+HOOV&DQ\RQ&RPSOH[3DJH

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companyby a wide variety of anadromous and freshwater fish, such as alewives and blue back herring.Anadromous fish and sturgeon have successfully used orifice-weir fish ladders. However, fishladders are most suitable for attracting surface-oriented fish. Sturgeon do not usually use fishladders because they greatly prefer to remain at depth and avoid light.4.2.1.2. Biological EffectivenessThe lower Snake River and Columbia River dams have pool and weir-type ladders, both ofwhich have proven effective for passing adult salmon but are also used occasionally by sturgeon.A typical pool and orifice-weir ladder is shown in Figure 7. The submerged orifice is crucial forsturgeon passage, since it allows this benthic (or bottom-dwelling) fish to travel upstream whileremaining submerged, as shown in Figure 8. In fact, for sturgeon, the overflow weir could beeliminated entirely and the ladder could still maintain equivalent sturgeon passage. Anothermodification for enhancing sturgeon passage is to enlarge the orifices to allow these large fish totravel easily from pool to pool.Sturgeon have been documented to use fish ladders at lower and middle Columbia River damsthat have vertical ascents of 65 to 105 ft. But, for unknown reasons, sturgeon use of the ladders ishighly variable among dams, although the ladders are similarly designed. Experience at theBonneville Dam, where both fish ladders and fish locks were included, has also shown that thevast majority of sturgeon passing the dam (97%) used the fish locks when they were operatingbetween 1938 and 1969. We have inferred, based on our experience and the bottom-dwelling andlight-avoidance habits of sturgeon, that fish ladders are of questionable effectiveness forupstream passage. This marginal effectiveness will be further reduced as vertical ascentincreases. Consequently, fish ladders are not considered a viable option for passing sturgeon.4.1.2.3. CostsFor dams with lower head (less than about 100 ft), fish ladders frequently present the mosteconomical approach. They also generally have lower operational costs than fish locks andelevators. One disadvantage of using ladders at sites with high head is that ladders can becomequite long: fish ladders generally cannot have a rate of rise that is steeper than 1 ft of vertical risefor every 10 ft of horizontal run (a slope of 10 to 1), and even at this slope, periodic horizontalresting pools are needed. There is also concern that some fish species may be physicallyincapable of absorbing the stresses imposed during the ascent of such a lengthy ladder.In 1983, a 42-step, vertical-slot fish ladder was constructed at Brunswick Dam on theAndroscoggin River in Maine. This ladder was 500 ft long and constructed for $4.3 million(Francfort et al. 1994). A fish passage study for the Cowlitz River hydroelectric project hasproposed two high-head fish ladders. The first ladder, at Mayfield Dam, is a half Ice Harbor-styleladder that is 8 ft wide and has a 10 to 1 slope. There are a number of resting pools, and the exitstructure accommodates a 10-ft fluctuation in the forebay elevation. The ladder also has abridged river crossing. The capital cost estimated for this ladder is $9,900,000, with an estimatedannual operations and maintenance (O&M) cost of $297,000. The second ladder is located at theMossy Rock Dam. It, too, is a half Ice Harbor-style ladder. The vertical rise for this ladder is216 ft. The exit structure is designed for a forebay elevation variance of 48 ft but also towithstand a total head of 143 ft during peak maximum flow. During high flows, when thePage 16Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilitiesforebay elevation rises 48 ft above the minimum elevation of the forebay, the ladder is shutdown. Capital costs for this ladder were estimated at $22,400,000, with an O&M cost of$672,000 (Harza Northwest, Inc. 1999).Typical fish ladders cost between $100,000 and $200,000 per foot of rise. For sturgeon passage,the typical design would have to be modified to account for fish size and characteristics.Accommodating sturgeon could require a larger fish ladder with additional resting pools and amore gradual incline. The costs for such a ladder would run in the upper part of the cost range, ifnot higher. To account for their larger size, we have assumed that the ladders would need to betwice as long for sturgeon as for anadromous fish. Therefore, ladder length would be based on a1-ft vertical rise for every 20-ft horizontal run.4.2.2. Fish Locks4.2.2.1. DescriptionAlthough experimental fish locks were tried as early as the 1920s, they were not developed into apractical method for passing fish until the late 1940s. The first of these modern locks wasdesigned by J. H. T. Borland and constructed in Ireland. Subsequent installations have beenreferred to as Borland Locks.A typical Borland lock (Figure 9) consists of a top and bottom chamber connected by a slopingchamber. A certain amount of flow is released through the top gate and flows down the slopingchamber into the bottom chamber. This flow empties into the tailrace and attracts fish that aremigrating upstream. At a predetermined time in a cycle or when sufficient fish have entered thebottom chamber, the downstream gate is closed, the upstream gate is opened, and the lock fillswith water. The fish then swim up the shaft and into the forebay. Then the gates are adjusted, thelock is drained, and the process is repeated. Borland locks have been designed for dams as highas 200 ft (such as Orrin Dam in Scotland). To date, most fish locks are in Europe, although a fewhave been built in the United States. The primary functional disadvantage of the Borland lockshas been the inability to clear all fish from the vertical shaft in a timely manner. Locks also havea much smaller capacity than ladders and lifts (Clay 1995).Most of the Borland-type locks are constructed for passing salmon on smaller rivers in Europe.The Bonneville Dam was constructed with three pair of fish locks that were operated from1938 to 1969 (Figure 10). These locks have the added refinement of a grated floor, which wasraised to force the captured fish into the forebay. The locks were observed by a Russian fisheriesscientist in 1946 and used as a prototype for several fish locks in Russia. Fish locks were alsoused at McNary Dam during construction and at The Dalles Dam. Neither of these locks iscurrently in use.In Russia, fish locks are designed to pass sturgeon and other species and have features that werenot included in the earlier Borland and Bonneville locks. The Tzymlyanskij fish lock on theDon River was designed with a vertical shaft. It provides auxiliary water attraction, a fishcrowder to direct the fish into the lock, and a vertical crowder or lifting basket to ensure that thefish ascend the lock into the forebay (Figure 11). The Volzhskaya Dam on the Volkhov Riverand the Volgogradskiy Dam on the Volga River are similarly designed, except that both haveHells Canyon Complex Page 17

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companytwo locks operating side by side so that one lock is always attracting fish as the other lock ispassing fish over the dam.4.2.2.2. Biological EffectivenessBonneville Dam on the Columbia River was constructed with three pair of fish locks. The lockswere used extensively by white sturgeon, and records indicate that 119 white sturgeon werepassed over the dam in one day in 1951 (Warren and Beckman n.d.). Since the emphasis of fishpassage has been on salmon and the operations of the lock were both time consuming and laborintensive, the use of the locks was discontinued. Records taken between 1938 and 1969 showthat 97% of sturgeon passing the dam used the locks, rather than the ladders, even though thelocks were operated for only 12 of those 31 years.At the Volgogradskiy Dam in Russia, about 200,000 to 700,000 sturgeon spawners approach thedam from the Caspian Sea. An average of 20,000 fish pass through the fish lock annually, with amaximum of 60,000 recorded in 1967. These data indicate that the efficiency of a lock in passingsturgeon is quite low.4.2.2.3. CostsAt this time, we do not have any information on the historical costs of building and operating thefish locks discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1. and 4.2.2.2.4.2.3. Fish Lifts4.2.3.1. DescriptionFish lifts are similar to fish locks, except that a lift transports the fish vertically in a mechanicallydriven hopper. Similar to a lock, a lift’s effectiveness depends on the ability of the system toattract sturgeon to the entrance chamber.Figure 12 shows a schematic cross section of a representative fish lift. Guided by attraction waterflowing out of the lower entrance, the fish enter the lift from the tailrace. When sufficient fishhave entered the bottom entrance channel, the crowder closes and travels toward the lift shaft,forcing the collected fish into the hopper. After the crowder has moved to the full-closedposition, the hopper is lifted up the vertical shaft by an electric or hydraulic hoist. When thehopper reaches the full-up position, a hopper door opens and the fish are passed into the upperreservoir.Other configurations might use an inclined railway or a cable-hung aerial tramway to movesturgeon both vertically and horizontally. Figure 13 depicts these options.Fish lifts are used in Russia to pass sturgeon and other species. Such lifts can be found at theSaratovskiy Dam on the Volga River and the Krasnodarskiy Dam on the Kuban River.Page 18Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities4.2.3.2. Biological EffectivenessFish lifts have been effective in passing sturgeon. The main factor that determines overalleffectiveness is the system’s ability to attract migrating fish to the entrance chamber. This abilityis a function of the entrance location at a dam and the attraction-water system. Entranceconditions for upstream passage are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.7.The primary advantage of a lift over a ladder is that the entrance can be tailored to the benthicnature of sturgeon, so this type of passage may be more efficient. In addition, lifts physicallytake up less space than ladders and can be more easily adapted to the conditions at individualsites. Lifts are expected to be more economical to build for dams with higher head because thegreater height simply requires extending the range of the lifting mechanism, rather thanincreasing the plan area that extending a ladder requires. With proper control of attraction water,a fish lift can be used to attract multiple species, whereas the hydraulic design of a fish laddertends to be more species specific. Fish lifts also have certain advantages over fish locks. Becausemodern fish locks use machinery to lift a crowder, their mechanical complexity and maintenancerequirements are similar to those for a fish lift. However, lifts have shorter cycle times becausethey do not have to move large quantities of water during operation, so lifts have a greatercapacity for transporting fish. Finally, for high-head dams, a fish lift would probably be moreeconomical than fish locks because the cost of building a fish lock increases as the height of thestructure—and therefore the water pressure—increases. In addition to passing the fish directlyinto the forebay, a fish lift is also readily adaptable as a shorter lift. It can be used as part of afacility for sorting fish and transporting them by truck. Therefore, in addition to passing fishdirectly into the forebay, lifts can be adapted to a trap and transport method for a permanent,temporary, or seasonal facility for passing fish.The primary disadvantage of a fish lift is the increased O&M costs associated with a mechanicalsystem. Winter operation would also present operational problems. In fact, we are not aware ofany fish lifts that operate during the winter. Fortunately, sturgeon are less active during most ofthe winter.4.2.3.3. CostsAs previously mentioned, an advantage of a fish lift over a fish ladder is that a lift is moreeconomical to construct on high dams. One example of a lift on a high dam is at Round ButteDevelopment on the Deschutes River in central Oregon. Although it is no longer in operation,the Round Butte fish lift used an aerial tram system to lift fish over the dam into the forebay365 ft above the tailrace. Figure 13 shows a schematic drawing of an aerial tram system. Anotheroption that could be investigated would use an inclined rail system to lift the fish over the dam.This option is also illustrated in Figure 13. Both designs could be advantageous at dams withfluctuating forebay elevations.In 1990, a second fish lift was constructed at the Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River inMaryland. This 40-ft lift can place the fish into a sorting tank from which they can be releasedinto the forebay or loaded onto a truck and transported upstream. The construction costs for thislift were just under $12 million, with an estimated annual O&M cost of $400,000 (Francfortet al. 1994).Hells Canyon Complex Page 19

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company4.2.4. Pressurized Passage Systems4.2.4.1. DescriptionA pressurized passage system uses a pressure lock to allow sturgeon to pass into the forebaybelow the reservoir surface. This system might be considered a good option for upstream passagefor several reasons. First, it would be able to operate over a wide range of forebay elevations,such as those at Brownlee Dam. Second, this system would reduce the vertical lift required andtherefore reduce the cycle time and possibly lower construction costs. Third, a pressurizedpassage system can be operated in reverse for downstream passage because its entrance islocated at the accustomed depth of sturgeon. Section 4.3.3. discusses in more detail how apressurized passage system could be used for passing sturgeon downstream.To construct a pressurized fish lock, a horizontal shaft is mined into the body of the dam and avertical shaft is installed on the downstream face. Two pressurized gates, a collection facility,and three mechanical crowders are installed (Figure 14). Fish are attracted to the collectionfacility by a discernable downstream flow that is created by water passing through a screenedand regulated outlet to the tailrace.When fish are to be moved to the forebay, the lower horizontal crowder forces the fish to thevertical shaft, where they are crowded vertically to the top of the shaft. Then the attraction flowis stopped and the tailrace gate is closed. After the gate is closed, the pressure is slowly increaseduntil it equals the water pressure in the forebay. Finally, the forebay gate is opened and ahorizontal crowder moves the fish into the forebay.In a pressurized fish lock (Figure 15), fish are transferred to the forebay by a series of operations.A structure for collecting fish using an attraction-water supply is built at the base of the dam, inthe tailrace. Once fish are attracted into the collection chamber, they are crowded into the lifthopper and, using the horizontal shaft that is mined through the body of the dam, raised to thetransfer chamber. The transfer chamber is constructed on the downstream face of the dam.This chamber has two valved outlets, one to pressurize the chamber and one to accept fish fromthe fish lift. The fish are then transferred into the transfer chamber and the lift valve is closed.The transfer chamber is then filled with water, and the pressure is slowly increased until itmatches the forebay pressure. Finally the forebay gate is opened and the fish are forced into theforebay by the mechanical crowder.Pressurized passage is an unusual and largely unproven passage concept. The only example wefound of a pressurized passage system being used is a system with a 6-m lift (19.5 ft) that wasconstructed in 1992 at the Rygene Dam in Norway. Consequently, pressurized passage isconsidered an experimental concept that will need research and development before it becomes aviable alternative. To allow captured sturgeon to safely acclimate to higher pressures, allpressurized fish locks must be carefully designed to ensure a gradual pressurization. Such asystem might use the highly compressible properties of air (as applied in air bladder tanks usedto pressurize domestic well systems) to reliably control water pressure in the lock. Anotherpossibility is to use an open standpipe system, so that the rate of drawdown can be closelymonitored. We anticipate that additional engineering challenges and biological constraints willbe discovered as this technology is developed.Page 20Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities4.2.4.2. Biological EffectivenessWe found no biological data for sturgeon using pressurized fish locks. Similarly, we found noinformation that helped us evaluate the design of a chute (for the biological effectiveness of fishlocks or fish lifts used as part of a pressurized passage system, see Sections 4.2.2.2. and 4.2.3.2.,respectively). Research is needed to prove the biological safety of this system. Of particularinterest is the reaction of sturgeon to changes in pressure, particularly when the surroundingwater is supersaturated with dissolved oxygen. The conclusions from such research woulddetermine the safe cycle time of a pressurized system. As with a fish lift or fish lock, theefficiency of the attraction system of a pressurized passage system would largely be determinedby the conditions at entrance to the facility.4.2.4.3. CostsBecause it is an untried system, we found no model of costs for a pressurized passage system.Additionally, because this system is experimental, there is significantly greater risk of costoverruns than for conventional methods of passing fish.4.2.5. Trap and Transport4.2.5.1. DescriptionA trap and transport facility collects migrating juvenile and adult fish above or below a dam,places them in transport vehicles, and releases them in the forebay or at another predeterminedlocation upstream of the dam.Trap and transport is a proven method that has been used for fisheries research and for gatheringbroodstock for sturgeon culture. A trap and transport facility can be designed as a separatefacility or adapted as part of a fish lift (described in Section 4.2.3.1.) (Figure 16). For example, ata lift facility (either before or after sorting), fish can be passed directly into the forebay, intoholding tanks for future movement, or directly into trucks for immediate transportation.Trap and transport systems have been used extensively to transport fish around both artificial andnatural obstructions. Sunset Falls Trap and Haul, located on the South Fork of theSkykomish River in western Washington and operated by the Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife, provides a successful example. That trap and transport facility began operating in1958 and passes migrating salmon past three natural falls. It was constructed to mitigate losthabitat in the lower Puget Sound system, and it opened up 90 mi of spawning and rearing areathat had previously been unavailable to salmon. It is currently used to transport up to 24,000 wildfish per year to the new, natural spawning areas. The Washington Department of Fish andWildlife had considered building fish ladders around the three falls, but has found that the trapand transport system is an effective and cost-efficient method of passing fish.For upstream passage, trapping needs to be based on the volitional drive of migrating sturgeon,including potential spawners or juvenile and nonreproductive fish that are sufficiently motivatedto move upstream and enter the trapping facility. Consequently, a holding structure with asuitably designed entrance and an attraction-flow system would need to be developed for thisHells Canyon Complex Page 21

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companyoption. The trapping facility must also incorporate a system for capturing fish and handling themas they are loaded onto transport trucks. Additionally, a transfer facility must be established atreservoirs with water levels that vary widely. A portable load and unload mechanism may provemost practical in these circumstances.Most experience in trapping and transporting fish comes from moving smaller fish, such assalmon and trout, so trap and transport equipment and techniques would have to be modified forsturgeon. Research on this passage option may be needed before the transport and loadingsystems could be properly designed. We would need to know what conditions were suitable fortransporting sturgeon, including maximum density of fish, oxygen requirements, and temperaturelimits. We would also have to develop safe sturgeon-handling practices and methods.Another advantage of trapping is that the method could allow useful biological data on sturgeonbehavior to be obtained. For example, research and record keeping at the holding structure wouldprovide insight into sturgeon behavior and their reactions to various entrance conditions. Thisinformation could then be used to further develop a more permanent method of fish passage.4.2.5.2. Biological EffectivenessTrap and transport operations have proven effective in passing fish that are migrating upstreampast barriers and have little effect on their continuing migration. However, transport vehiclesmust be designed to minimize injury and stress from loading, transporting, and unloading.4.2.5.3. CostsThe primary advantages of a facility dedicated exclusively to a trap and transport operation,compared with a structure with direct forebay passage, is the lower capital cost. Anotheradvantage is that a trap and transport facility could also be located at any site where there issuitable truck access and area for the loading facility. However, a dedicated trapping andtransport facility could have higher operating costs than ladders or elevators that provide directpassage to the forebay.The estimated annual cost of operating the Sunset Falls trap and transport facility is $70,000.The facility employs two people and uses a 1,000-gallon tanker truck to transport an average of24,000 fish per year. The truck can transport up to 25 loads per day, with a capacity of between100 and 150 coho per trip but fewer fish per load when transporting chinook. A new trap andtransport facility, including the installation of an electric barrier, is proposed for Mossyrock Damon the Cowlitz River. The estimated construction cost is $4,500,000, and the estimated O&Mcosts are $135,000 (Harza Northwest, Inc. 1999). The cost of a tanker truck used in a trap andtransport operation runs between $100,000 and $200,000. These costs are associated with asalmon-trapping facility. Because of the size of the fish, a facility designed for passing sturgeoncould require larger and deeper entrance facilities and special transportation vehicles. Thesemodifications could increase costs.Page 22Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities4.2.6. Capture And Transport4.2.6.1. DescriptionA capture and transport program is a managed effort to catch sturgeon and transport themupstream. It differs from other options for passing sturgeon because it is an active method—asopposed to passive methods that are volitionally based—that captures a set number or specificlife stage of sturgeon and transports them upstream to meet defined goals for population orhabitat use for different reaches of the Snake River.Sturgeon would be captured at locations and during seasons that are most suited for samplingsturgeon in the targeted life stages. The methods we would use to catch fish would probablyinvolve a combination of nets, setlines, and rod and reel techniques combined with provenmethods for safe handling. The disadvantage of these methods is that they are labor intensive.However, an advantage of a managed capture program is that it allows useful data on sturgeonbehavior, population, and age distribution to be collected.For instance, if the goal were to transport spawners, captured sturgeon would be separated by sexand evaluated for spawning readiness using techniques developed for sturgeon culture. Fish thatwere not ready to spawn would be released immediately, while potential spawners would eitherbe transferred into a holding tank and transported later or placed directly into a transport tank andimmediately transferred to the release station in the forebay of the dam. A trailer-mountedtransport tank could be designed so that sturgeon were loaded directly into the tank at existingaccess ramps on the river. Section 4.2.5. discusses the effort needed to design a safe transportand handling system.A capture and transport system is a flexible system because no facilities, other than river accessramps, have to be constructed. It could be easily modified to catch or release fish at variouslocations and times. For example, the capture effort could be prescheduled according to previoussturgeon behavior. Alternatively, the capture effort could be implemented as an on-call basis, sothat sturgeon would only be caught when river conditions were suitable for collecting sturgeon inthe targeted life stage. Using the on-call option would mean that the program would be inactiveduring periods unsuitable for sampling sturgeon in a targeted life stage.4.2.6.2. Biological EffectivenessCapture and transport operations use proven techniques to capture, evaluate, and transportsturgeon. With proper care, the overall system could be configured to minimize injury and stressto the fish from transporting, loading, and unloading. We expect that this alternative would beeffective in passing migrating spawners past barriers without affecting their continuing upstreammigration. However, as an active system, it is more intrusive than passage systems that arepassive or than trap and transport programs that are volitionally based. Also, implementing acapture and transport program would require extensive and continual involvement from agencieswho manage the sturgeon resource.Hells Canyon Complex Page 23

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company4.2.6.3. CostsA capture and transport program would have significantly lower capital costs because it wouldinvolve little construction, particularly if fish were loaded or released at existing access ramps onthe river. Another advantage is that a loading and release facility could also be located at any sitewith suitable truck access. However, a dedicated capture and transport program would probablyincur higher O&M costs than the other options we considered.Yearly operating costs associated with a capture and transport system would depend on thenumber of fish to be transported and the length of the operating season. An initial estimateassumed that a crew of three would capture and transport spawning white sturgeon fromFebruary to May. We estimated the O&M costs at about $65,000 per year per hydroelectricproject. The basis for this estimate is our goal of maintaining a consistent effort to capture andpass sturgeon during their spawning period. This goal recognizes that the number of spawners isdifficult to predict for a given year. In addition, our inability to predict how many sturgeon willspawn makes a quota-based system impractical and potentially insufficient during idealspawning years. The actual cost could vary considerably if the resource agencies do not agreewith the philosophy behind this goal.Initial capital expenditures for a capture and transport system might include a boat, transportvehicle, and storage facility for the boat. The passage system would need to be designed tohandle large sturgeon with as little impact as possible to the fish. A suitable boat is available nowfor capturing sturgeon at a single project. The cost of a transport vehicle would run between$50,000 and $100,000, and the cost of the transfer facility, if needed, would be about $100,000.An advantage to the capture and transport alternative is that some of these capital-cost items mayalready be available at the dams at no additional cost. The boat and tanker truck could probablybe used at various locations and for a downstream passage program as well.4.2.7. Entrance Conditions for Upstream Passage4.2.7.1. Entrance LocationThe most important element in a successful upstream fishway is the entrance. Because migratingfish follow the primary current upstream until they are stopped by a barrier, such as anobstruction too high to jump (for example, a 95-ft concrete dam) or water flowing too fast toswim against (for example, discharge from a turbine runner), a successful entrance must belocated where sturgeon migrating upstream can readily find it. The entrance must be configuredso that the sturgeon enter and continue through the fish passage system, whether it is a fishway,lock, lift, or other type of system.The information we gathered about Russian experiences in passing sturgeon indicates thatattraction-flow velocities of 2.5 to 3.0 ft per second are successful. Russian observers found thatsturgeon tend to avoid flat portions of the river bottom and prefer to follow the edges of thebanks and mounds. Because of a sturgeon’s benthic nature, the observers also found that afishway entrance is best located at the level at which the migrating fish congregate. However, ifa ramp from the bottom to the entrance is required, it should be no steeper than 7.5 degrees(about 1.5 inches per foot).Page 24Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesThe Russian experience in passing sturgeon deals with sturgeon that are migrating from saltwaterto freshwater. This motivator is not present in the Snake River, so sturgeon “migrations” in theSnake River appear noticeably weaker than those in Russian rivers.4.2.7.2. Attraction FlowThe volume and source of the attraction flow are also important in designing an upstreamfishway. A rule of thumb is that the volume of the attraction flow should be 2 to 10% of thecompeting tailrace discharge. Because this attraction flow is a larger flow than is needed totransport fish through the fishway, it is common to provide the attraction flow either by pipingadditional water from the forebay to the fishway entrance or by pumping additional water intothe entrance from the tailrace. At some installations, a turbine is added to recover most of theenergy that can be generated from the attraction water.Russian attraction facilities are often constructed in such a way that the volume of the attractionflow can be easily varied to adapt to the requirements for fish passage. This feature allows thefacility operators to temporarily increase the attraction flow to enlarge the area of attraction.For example, the velocity of the attraction flow can be increased beyond the burst speed of asturgeon to create a larger attraction zone in the water column. The flow is then graduallythrottled to a velocity that allows sturgeon to approach and enter the fish passage system.Another method is to have a higher attraction-flow velocity at the entrance of the facility toattract fish and then reduce the velocity to cruising speed within the fish passage structure.If possible, other biological clues should also be used to attract fish to the entrances. Forinstance, there is evidence that the conditions in which sturgeon spawn relate to temperature aswell as flow volume, so adjusting the temperature of the attraction water might improve the rateof attraction. In a reservoir with temperature stratification, taking attraction water from differentreservoir depths would readily change the temperature. A feature for adjusting temperature couldbe implemented at passage facilities using a vertically adjustable intake. It should also be notedthat sturgeon spawning in the Snake River typically occurs from March through June and thetiming and magnitude of their movements appear dependent on the proximity of suitablespawning conditions.4.3. Downstream Passage4.3.1. Surface Collection4.3.1.1. DescriptionSurface collection systems on the mainstem Columbia River and other rivers have receivedincreased attention over the last several years as a means of passing juvenile salmonidsdownstream. Surface collection systems are based on the understanding that many of theanadromous species of salmonids tend to occupy the upper portions of the water column as theymove downstream (Bell 1991). If these migrants are offered an alternative to sounding tosignificant depths to enter the turbine entrances, such as using sluiceways and spillways, they areHells Canyon Complex Page 25

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companylikely to find and use the alternative. However, this tendency to swim at shallow depths variesamong species and sometimes within a species in response to various environmental conditions.During the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied the effectiveness ofsurface collection by using existing ice and trash sluiceways at hydroelectric facilities on theColumbia and Snake rivers. Studies at Ice Harbor and The Dalles dams revealed that up to 50%of the juvenile salmon approaching the powerhouse could be attracted into the sluiceways byusing as little as 3.7% of the powerhouse flow (Johnson et al. 1984, Steig and Johnson 1986).A study at Bonneville Dam's second powerhouse indicated that, during daylight hours, as manyas 80% of the fish approaching the powerhouse could be attracted into the ice and trashsluiceway (Magne 1987). All three of the powerhouses have sluiceway entrances, which areshallow, adjustable overflow weirs located directly above the deeply submerged entrances to theturbines. The species being diverted at these projects included chinook, sockeye, and steelheadsmolts.Sturgeon, as bottom dwellers, are not as well suited to collection systems located at the surface.Nonetheless, using existing ice and trash sluiceways to facilitate downstream migration isappealing as an inexpensive alternative at dams where sluiceways are already installed. A moreexpensive option would be to design a new surface collection system. Using either alternativewould require research into designing a system that would ensure that sturgeon survive passageto the tailrace, especially since, as large fish, sturgeon would tend to strike objects rather thanflow around them. The efficiency of a surface system could be increased by creating a ramp at adepth that leads to the entrance into the forebay. Section 4.3.4. provides more information aboutusing a ramp as part of a behavioral guidance structure for sturgeon.4.3.1.2. Biological EffectivenessDespite a history of experience and research, predicting the biological effectiveness of surfacecollection systems, even for salmonids, can be difficult. Some installations, such as those atWells Dam on the mainstem Columbia River, have been very successful, while the effectivenessof others is disappointing. Use of surface collection for sturgeon is even more problematicbecause there is little research or experience to demonstrate how effective or safe these systemsare.4.3.1.3. CostsWe found no cost information for a surface-bypass system designed specifically for sturgeon.The prototype for salmon at Wanapum Dam costs approximately $10 million, and the surfacecollection system at Lower Granite Dam costs about $8.4 million.4.3.2. Spillway Release4.3.2.1. DescriptionAs an option for passing juvenile salmon downstream, spillway release has received muchattention in the past few years as a safe and effective method. The most basic process is topartially open a spill gate to pass flow and fish that are migrating downstream. If bottom spillPage 26Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilitiesgates are installed at a dam, the fish are subjected to the deleterious effects of a rapid drop inpressure and acceleration as they pass under the gate. Another complication is that baffle blocks,which are placed in the stilling basin at some projects, present a significant hazard to fishreleased over the spillway.Spill studies at Rock Island Dam on the middle Columbia River confirmed previous studies thatshallow or surface spill is more effective than deep spill in passing juvenile salmon throughspillways (Odeh 1999). Various arrangements to create surface-flow patterns have includedmodifications to gates, additions of bulkheads in front of a gate to act as overflow weirs, and theinstallation of flow deflectors on the spillways to decrease the total dissolved gas.Wanapum Dam, on the mainstem Columbia River, uses a weir/bulkhead system installed in aspillbay to modify spillway flow. The weir was positioned upstream of the Tainter gate to blockthe lower 40 ft of the spillbay and produce a surface flow effect (Figure 17 and Figure 18).Another example of an overflow system is currently being constructed for the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers for installation at Lower Granite Dam on the lower Snake River. This installationwill create a forebay flow pattern similar to the one at Wanapum Dam system, but it will add therefinement of a curved downstream section to eliminate the shock to the fish of a free fall over aweir (Figure 19). Again, research and experience have focused on salmon passage rather thansturgeon passage, so thorough studies are needed to determine the effectiveness, safety, andpracticality of using spill releases to pass sturgeon.4.3.2.2. Biological EffectivenessA few (n = 6) sturgeon between 76 and 211 cm total length (TL) have passed downstream atC.J. Strike Dam, presumably over the spillway. However, biological data on the use of spillwaypassage for sturgeon are essentially nonexistent. The safety of passing sturgeon over a spillwayis questionable because of the large size of sturgeon and the high velocities of spillway flows,especially at high-head dams. As mentioned previously, baffle blocks in the stilling basin poseanother possible hazard.4.3.2.3. CostsThe spillway bulkhead at Wanapum Dam was constructed and installed for around $2 million.The Removable Spillway Weir overflow system being built for Lower Granite Dam costs about$12 million and will pass a flow of about 6,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).4.3.3. Pressurized Passage Systems4.3.3.1. DescriptionJudging by known sturgeon behavior, a submerged fish passage system could improve attractionefficiency because the entrance could be located at the depths to which sturgeon are accustomed.This type of system would then transfer the fish to the tailrace side of the dam and lower them tothe tailrace using either a fish lock, a fish lift, or a chute.A pressurized fish lock (Figure 20) could be used to pass fish downstream. To construct thissystem, a shaft is mined in the body of the dam, a vertical shaft is installed on the downstreamHells Canyon Complex Page 27

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companyface of the dam, and two mechanical crowders and two pressurized gates are installed. Fish areattracted to the system by a discernable downstream flow created by passing water through ascreened and regulated outlet to the tailrace. Attraction could also be supplemented by adding abehavioral guidance structure. Section 4.3.4. discusses behavioral guidance structures in greaterdetail.When fish are to be moved to the tailrace, the horizontal crowder forces the fish to the verticalshaft where they are crowded vertically to the base of the shaft. Then the attraction flow isstopped and the forebay gate is closed. When the gate is closed, the excess pressure is slowlyreleased, and the vertical and horizontal shafts are dewatered to match the pressure of thetailwater. Finally, the tailrace gate is opened to release the fish. A horizontal crowder could beused to quickly force all fish from the lock.Figure 21 shows a pressurized fish lock that empties into a chute or mechanical fish lift.To construct this system, a shaft is mined through the body of the dam in which a mechanicalcrowder is then installed. A transfer structure with two valve outlets is built on the downstreamface of the dam. One valve controls attraction water, and one is used to transfer fish to a chute orfish-lift system. The floor of the transfer chamber slopes to the fish outlet and is shaped toconform to the outlet shape. A forebay gate is installed on the transfer chamber.Fish are drawn to the lock by a downstream attraction flow that could be supplemented by abehavioral guidance structure. Fish are transferred to the tailrace by a series of operations.First, the crowder forces the fish into the transfer structure. Next, the attraction flow ceases andthe forebay gate closes. Once the gate is closed, excess pressure is slowly released until the watersurface is at atmospheric pressure. The horizontal shaft is then dewatered to the top of the fishoutlet pipe. If fish are to be transferred to a fish lift, the outlet opens and the sturgeon spill intothe hopper of the lift and are lowered to the tailrace. If fish are transferred into a chute to thetailrace, the chute is first fed with water until the flow stabilizes and then the fish outlet is openedto release the sturgeon to the chute.To allow captured sturgeon to safely acclimate to lower pressures, all pressurized fish locks mustbe carefully designed to ensure gradual depressurization. Such a system might use the highlycompressible properties of air (used in the air bladder tanks to pressurize domestic well systems)to more reliably control the water pressure in the lock. Another possibility is to use an openstandpipe system, so that the rate of pressure change controls the release of water.Of the three options presented—fish lock to tailrace, fish lock to fish lift, and fish lock tochute—the simplest system is the fish lock to chute. The mechanical components of this systemare valves, the valve operators, and the operating mechanism for a gate. The two other systemshave the added complexity of a fish lift or crowders and added gates. However, the fish lock tochute system can only be used for downstream passage, while the other options can be adapted toupstream passage. We anticipate that additional engineering challenges and biologicalconstraints will be discovered as this technology is developed.Page 28Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities4.3.3.2. Biological EffectivenessWe found no biological data for using pressurized fish locks to pass sturgeon downstream.Similarly, we found no information that helped us evaluate the design of a chute. For moreinformation about the biological effectiveness of fish locks and fish lifts, see Sections 4.2.2.2.and 4.2.3.2., respectively.Research is needed to prove the biological safety of a pressurized passage system. The reactionof sturgeon to changes in pressure, particularly when the surrounding water is supersaturatedwith gas, would be of particular interest. The conclusions of such research would help determinethe safe cycle time of a pressurized system. As with a fish lift or fish lock, the entrance and itsattraction methods would largely determine how efficiently any pressurized passage systemcould attract sturgeon.4.3.3.3. CostsBecause it is an untried system, we found no model of costs for a pressurized passage system.Additionally, because this system is experimental, there is significantly greater risk of costoverruns than for conventional methods of passing fish.4.3.4. Behavioral Guidance Structure4.3.4.1. DescriptionA behavioral guidance structure’s only purpose is to direct migrating fish to a specific area.These structures are used to supplement one of the passage systems described previously.A behavioral guidance structure can be constructed of steel or other materials and placed alongthe dam face or in the river channel itself to direct fish to bypass systems.A behavioral guidance structure is located at the lock at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River.It was placed along a trash shear boom that is relatively shallow, causing juvenile salmonid fishnear the surface to travel along the trash boom. Based on their experience with the trash boom atLower Granite Dam, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed and are testing a behavioralguidance structure that extends substantially deeper into the water (Figure 22). Although it wasnot intended to, the surface collection channel placed at Wanapum Dam has acted as a behavioralguidance structure by directing fish to the spillway and increasing the efficiency of the screensystem for the turbine intake. At Lower Granite Dam, the performance of screens for the turbineintake has also been improved by the addition of the surface collector and other associatedstructures.Both of these behavioral guidance structures are designed to guide juvenile salmon andsupplement the actual collection and passage system, regardless of the type of system. Otherexamples of behavioral guidance structures include use of light, sound, electrical stimuli, and airbubble curtains to discourage fish from entering turbine intakes.A behavioral guidance structure for sturgeon would have to differ from the systems describedpreviously because sturgeon are bottom dwellers. Therefore, for a surface passage system, thebehavioral guidance structure could take the form of a ramp that would guide the fish from depthHells Canyon Complex Page 29

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companyto the passage structure. For passage systems at depth, a ramp combined with a guidewall couldbe founded on the bottom to lead sturgeon to the inlet structure. Or a behavioral guidancestructure for sturgeon might use a submerged conduit attached to a surface passage system, suchas a spillway or a pressure lock system. In both types of surface systems, an attraction flowwould attract fish and assist their passage downstream. With a design philosophy that embracesoperational flexibility, this system could be structured so the depth and location of the entrancecould be changed to enable collection of useful operational and biological information. A crosssection of the conduit is shown in Figure 23.4.3.4.2. Biological EffectivenessWe currently lack information on the biological effectiveness of behavioral guidance structuresystems. Research is needed to prove the biological effectiveness of this system.4.3.4.3. CostsThe behavioral guidance structure that was constructed for Lower Granite Dam is an articulated,rigid-steel curtain that is suspended in the forebay by pontoons. The behavioral guidancestructure is 1,400 ft long and varies in depth from 50 to 80 ft. The estimated cost of constructingthis behavioral guidance structure was $15 million in 1997 dollars.4.3.5. Trap and Transport4.3.5.1. DescriptionA trap and transport system is a viable option for moving juvenile or adult sturgeon downstream.A downstream trap and transport system would share transport vehicles and equipment used forupstream passage. Ideally, trapping would use passive systems that depend on the individualsturgeon’s drive to move downstream. However, since downstream movement of sturgeon is nottied to reproductive readiness, passive trapping methods might not be effective. Based on thetheory that downstream migrants will seek out the predominant downstream flow, trappingwould probably take place near the power intakes of the projects. Transport requirements wouldbe identical to those used for upstream passage (see Section 4.2.5.).4.3.5.2. Biological EffectivenessTrap and transport operations have proven effective in passing migrating fish upstream pastbarriers and have little effect on their continuing migration. Transport vehicles must be designedto minimize injury from loading, transporting, and unloading. Research may be required todetermine the best site in the forebay for trap and transport facilities.4.3.5.3. CostsAs with upstream passage (Section 4.2.5), a trap and transport system can be implemented atrelatively low capital cost. Another cost advantage is that the transport equipment can be used forboth upstream and downstream passage. However, O&M costs would probably be higher thanfor other passage methods.Page 30Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities4.3.6. Capture and Transport4.3.6.1. DescriptionA capture and transport program is a managed fishing effort to catch sturgeon and transport themdownstream. It differs from other options for passing sturgeon because it is an active method—asopposed to passive methods that are volitionally based—that captures a set number or specificlife stage of sturgeon and transports them downstream. Because, there is no well-defineddownstream migration of sturgeon in the reach of the Snake River where the IPC projects arelocated, the goal of using this technique would be to distribute sturgeon to meet defined goals forpopulation, age distribution, and habitat use for various reaches of the Snake River.For this method, IPC personnel would use suitable collection gear to capture sturgeon at siteswhere sturgeon congregate. The collection gear would probably consist of a combination of nets,setlines, and rod and reel techniques combined with proven techniques for safe handling. Thedisadvantage of using these methods to capture sturgeon is that they are labor intensive. Anadvantage of using a managed catch program is that useful data on sturgeon behavior,population, and age distribution could also be collected.Once caught, sturgeon would be sorted to meet the defined goals of the capture and transportprogram. Selected sturgeon would be placed into a holding area or directly into a transport tankfor immediate transfer to the appropriate release station. A transport tank mounted on a trailercould be designed to load sturgeon directly into the tank at existing river access ramps.Section 4.2.5. discusses the effort needed to design a safe transport and handling system.A capture and transport system is a flexible system because no facilities other than ramps forriver access need to be built. The system could easily be modified so that fish were caught orreleased at various locations and times. Since there is no identified downstream migration patternfor white sturgeon, the effort to catch sturgeon would be prescheduled and halted when thedefined goals for distribution are met.4.3.6.2. Biological EffectivenessA capture and transport operation uses proven techniques for capturing, evaluating, andtransporting sturgeon. With proper care, the overall system could be designed to minimize injuryand stress from loading, transporting, and unloading. We expect this alternative to move sturgeonpast barriers with little effect to the health of the sturgeon. However, as an active system, it ismore intrusive than passage systems that are passive, such as a volitionally based trap andtransport program. Additionally, defining the goals for sturgeon distribution would be a majoreffort that would require the extensive and continual involvement of resource agencies.4.3.6.3. CostsA capture and transport program would have significantly lower capital costs because it wouldrequire little construction, particularly if fish were loaded or released at existing access ramps onthe river. Another advantage of using this passage option is that a loading and release facilityHells Canyon Complex Page 31

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companycould be located at any location that provides suitable access for trucks. However, a capture andtransport program would probably incur higher O&M costs than the other options we considered.Our estimate is based on the cost of operating a capture and transport program for downstreammigration at a single project with an assumed goal of passing 2% of the sturgeon populationwithin a reach. Based on this goal, we estimated that the capture effort would last about onemonth and cost about $25,000 per year per project. Otherwise, the capital costs would be similarto those for the upstream capture and transport option (see Section 4.2.6.3.). There would be noadditional capital costs to implement this program because any boats and transport vehicleswould be used for passing sturgeon both upstream and downstream.4.3.7. Turbine Exclusion4.3.7.1. DescriptionTurbine exclusion is a protective measure to keep sturgeon from passing through a project’sturbines and being injured. Typically, screens constructed with steel shapes and equipped withcleaning systems are used for turbine exclusion.Researchers have conducted studies on injuries to fish caused by passing through turbines(Von Raben 1957, Nece 1991). This research provides a scientific basis for developing barspacing criteria for the screens used for turbine exclusion. The studies evaluate the possibility ofinjury to fish of various sizes that pass through a turbine system. Jager et al. (2001) calculatedturbine mortality at IPC hydroelectric projects using project-specific parameters and formulasdeveloped for the appropriate turbine styles (Kaplan and Francis). For both turbine styles, theprobability that an entrained sturgeon would be struck by a turbine increased linearly withsturgeon length. As an example, the blade-strike probability for three lengths of sturgeon—5 cm,15 cm, and 25 cm—is summarized in Table 10.Based on length and girth relationships of white sturgeon, IPC estimated various bar spacing thatwould likely exclude a particular size of sturgeon. For example, we assume that 2-year-oldsturgeon, fish 25 cm and larger, may be excluded from the turbine system using a bar spacing of2.5 cm (about 1 inch). The actual field performance and ability of this bar spacing to effectivelyexclude sturgeon at existing IPC facilities is unknown. In addition, 2.5 cm between bars isconsiderably narrower spacing than that for existing trash racks and would incur hydraulic lossescompared with the existing bar spacing. For example, assuming a 50% open area, in ourpreliminary calculations, we predict a head loss of about 2.7 ft, or a little over 1.1 pounds persquare inch, for a flow approaching the screen at 4 ft per second. The tighter spacing for trashracks would also increase the need to clean them. More frequent cleaning would increaseoperational costs and, if mechanized cleaning systems were included, the capital costs as well.An economic analysis that balances the revenue lost through decreased power production withthe cost of adding screens is warranted before any exclusion screens are installed. The actualcriteria for bar spacing in screens would probably be established using additional biological dataand a more sophisticated analysis, as well as through consultation with resource agencies.Page 32Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities4.3.7.2. Biological EffectivenessThe use of screens to exclude sturgeon would effectively protect older sturgeon. Research isneeded to determine the maximum velocity at which sturgeon are able to retreat from the screento avoid being impinged.4.3.7.3. CostsThe costs associated with turbine exclusion would vary considerably by application. It would beless expensive to modify projects with existing trash racks than to install screens at dams sincethe existing trash racks could easily be replaced with the new, smaller-spaced trash racks.Installing screens at dams would require extensive modifications to the trash rack support. Wecalculated the preliminary cost to be approximately $150 per square foot. Using this value, weestimate that new trash racks at the Oxbow Project would cost about $1.2 million. Installationand any modifications to the existing support structure would increase this estimate.5. EVALUATION OF DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE CONCEPTS5.1. IntroductionThis section takes a preliminary look at the downstream passage alternatives discussed inprevious sections of this report for each of the three hydroelectric projects in the HCC. We beginby looking at options for the dam that is farthest upstream (Brownlee Dam) and progress to thedam that is farthest downstream (Hells Canyon Dam). An important source of uncertainty whenassessing downstream passage systems is our lack of knowledge about downstream migrations ofwhite sturgeon. Currently, we do not know whether downstream movement is a migration orsimply a search for better habitat. Lepla et al. (2001) did not observe seasonal migrations bytelemetered sturgeon. Telemetry studies showed that movement activity of sturgeon tagged withtransmitters between Swan Falls and the Salmon River was fairly localized, with the majority(73%) of fish traveling less than 10 mi from their initial capture locations. Similar observationswere noted upstream in the middle Snake River reaches. Furthermore, since our analysis ispreliminary, several types of research need to be conducted: engineering concepts need to bedeveloped and examined for engineering practicality, economic analyses needs to be done toestablish more precise cost estimates, and hydraulic testing and biological studies need to bedone to determine how to make attraction systems at facility entrances most efficient andminimize the mortality of fish during passage. Additionally, other factors that have yet to beidentified would undoubtedly have to be considered when assessing the practicality andeffectiveness of the various alternatives.5.2. Brownlee DamBecause Brownlee Reservoir serves as a flood-control reservoir, it is subject to water-levelfluctuations of over 100 ft. Reservoir water levels are typically kept low in early spring inHells Canyon Complex Page 33

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companyanticipation of spring floods, with the lowest water levels occurring in late April. The water levelthen rises to nearly full in late May and is maintained until early July. The reservoir is thendrawn down through July and into the middle of August to increase flows for migrations ofanadromous fish. The reservoir partially refills by Labor Day, but it is then drawn down againthrough the middle of October to support another migration of anadromous fish. The Octoberwater level is maintained for flood control until the middle of December when the reservoir isallowed to fill until the next spring drawdown.Therefore, when evaluating alternatives for downstream passage at Brownlee Dam, we assumedthat the conditions for passage would generally include a reservoir that is being drawn down.For those periods when the reservoir is full, we believe that a trapping and transport option or asystem of pressurized passage would be the only feasible alternative.The Brownlee Project has some unique characteristics that significantly affect the viability ofsome options for passing fish downstream. The upstream river channel is approximately 1,000 ftwide at the dam. However, flows for power generation are diverted into an intake channel on theright bank that is only about 150 ft wide. Spillway flows travel through the spillway channel,which is approximately 200 ft wide and located on the left bank. The forebay water levels canalso fluctuate up to 101 ft.5.2.1. Surface CollectionA surface collection system similar to those located on the lower Snake and Columbia river damswould be difficult to implement at Brownlee Dam because of the large fluctuations in waterlevels in the reservoir. For this reason, and because sturgeon are not surface oriented, we did notconsider a surface collection system to be viable at Brownlee Dam.5.2.2. A Behavioral Guidance Structure Combined with SpillwayReleaseA system using a guidewall and spillway release could be used for passing sturgeon atBrownlee Dam. This system would require 1,400 ft of guidewall to span the forebay and a rampto guide the fish up from depth. This guidewall could begin just upstream of the power intakechannel and run diagonally to the spillway channel. The spillway structure is composed of fourlarge Tainter gates at an elevation of 2,027 ft and three smaller Tainter gates at an elevation of1,938 ft. Flow could be released through either an upper or lower Tainter gate, depending onreservoir elevation.An alternative behavioral guidance structure system could use a large, submerged conduitinstalled in the same location as we proposed for the guidewall. The conduit would start at depthand rise slowly to spillway level. At the spillway—because the water level drops as the waterflows over the spillway—the pipe would be placed so that the dropping water level would causewater to flow through the pipe. This flow would attract sturgeon and guide them to the spillway.As a further refinement, a mechanism could be incorporated into the system to allow the depth ofthe entrance to the conduit to be adjusted.Page 34Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesThe main advantage to these systems would be their cost, which would be lower than for someoptions. However, before this alternative could be considered further, detailed research on thesurvival of sturgeon passing over spillways while using these passage systems would have to beconducted. There would be some disadvantages: it may be difficult to attract fish because of thecompeting large flows entering the intake channel, power production would be decreased byincreasing spill, and the spillway release might increase the dissolved gas in the tailrace to unsafelevels.5.2.3. Pressurized Passage SystemsBrownlee Dam could be modified to include a system for pressurized passage by mining throughthe rock in or near the power supply channel. The intake for this system would be locatedupstream of the trash racks associated with the power intake. To efficiently attract and capturesturgeon, this system would be designed to make entrance flows perceptibly faster thansurrounding flows. Either a chute, lock, or fish lift could be used to lower fish to the tailrace.When combined with a fish lock or lift, this system could be used for both upstream anddownstream passage. During the spawning period in the spring, the system would be operated topass sturgeon upstream. In summer, with minor modifications, the system would be operated toattract migrants and transfer them downstream (Figure 24).5.2.4. Trap and TransportTrapping and hauling sturgeon is a viable alternative at Brownlee Dam. Based on the assumptionthat sturgeon would be guided by the predominant downstream flow, a productive trappingfacility would probably be located in or near the entrance of the power supply channel(Figure 25). Once captured, the sturgeon would be transported to a loading facility, transferredinto specially designed trucks, and hauled downstream and released into the tailrace.Section 4.2.5. provides a more complete description of a trap and transport system.Because the reservoir levels fluctuate by over 100 ft at Brownlee Dam, the design and locationof the facility for holding sturgeon would become somewhat complicated. It would need to bedesigned to allow vehicle access to all reservoir levels, a constraint that would require very longaccess ramps, possibly with winch systems to haul transport vehicles up steep grades on aninclined railway. One possible solution is to construct a loading and hauling system that ismounted on a trailer so that only vehicle access is needed for loading and hauling sturgeon.5.2.5. Capture and TransportA capture and transport system is a practical method of passing sturgeon over Brownlee Dam.It could be implemented quickly, it uses proven methods, and it provides considerable flexibility.Additionally, capital costs would be relatively low. Implementing this passage option iscomplicated by the widely fluctuating water levels in the forebay: current access ramps wouldhave to be modified to provide access to the water when water levels are low.Hells Canyon Complex Page 35

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company5.2.6. Promising AlternativesWith its relatively low capital costs, passing sturgeon using a capture and transport system is anattractive alternative. It could be implemented quickly and structured so that useful behavioraldata on sturgeon could be collected.If a volitional system is preferred, a trap and transport system is the most promising option.Development of this system would concentrate efforts on effectively attracting sturgeon, afunction that poses the greatest design uncertainty.Because of our sparse understanding of sturgeon behavior, particularly when encountering otherpassage scenarios, we feel more uncertainty about the effectiveness of the remaining options forpassing sturgeon downstream. Our uncertainty, combined with their high capital costs, makes theremaining options less desirable.5.3. Oxbow DamWhen weighing the alternatives for passing white sturgeon at Oxbow Dam, the layout of thedevelopment must be considered. The power intake is located on the west bank, approximately0.5 mi upstream of the dam. Flows enter the intake and then travel through the rock bank to thepowerhouse outlet at the other end of the oxbow. Under current operations, only a small portionof the total flow is released over the dam spillways, so sturgeon probably would be attracted tothe power intakes. Given the project’s layout, a bypass system would require either tunnelingthrough about 1,000 ft of rock to a release point downstream of the tailrace or using a truck totransport the sturgeon downstream.5.3.1. Surface CollectionA surface collection system similar to those used on other lower Snake and Columbia river damscould be placed directly in front of the power intake. The collection equipment could consist of alarge, floating, channel-like structure with vertical slots that run the width of the intake.Attraction flows would empty into an area for collecting fish and then be discharged back intothe forebay. Captured sturgeon would then be taken from the collection area and loaded intotrucks for transport downstream. The advantage to such a system is that it is constructible.However, as a surface system, it probably would be ineffective in attracting sturgeon since theyare bottom dwellers.5.3.2. Behavioral Guidance Structure and Spillway ReleasesBecause the behavioral guidance structure (ramp) would have to extend such a great distance—from the power intake to the spillway—we did not consider a spillway release system to be aviable option for passing sturgeon at Oxbow Dam.Page 36Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities5.3.3. Pressurized Passage SystemsA pressurized passage system similar to the one discussed for Brownlee Dam could be installedby mining through rock to create an entrance near the power intakes (Figure 26). As describedpreviously, the conduit for conveying sturgeon downstream would be about 1,000 ft long.It could empty into a chute, lock, or lift to lower fish to the tailrace. This system could becombined with a submerged conduit (behavioral guidance structure) to allow the depth andlocation of the entrance to be changed. A behavioral guidance structure might also allow greaterflexibility in deciding where in the rock the conduit would be built, a decision that could affectthe amount of mining needed. Section 4.3.4. describes behavioral guidance structures in greaterdetail.When combined with a fish lock or lift, this system could be used for passing sturgeon bothupstream and downstream. In the spring, during the spawning period, the system would beoperated to pass spawning sturgeon upstream. In summer, with minor modifications, the systemwould attract sturgeon and pass them downstream.5.3.4. Trap and TransportOf the various methods we considered for passing sturgeon, the trap and transport option is aproven method that has been used in research and in obtaining broodstock for sturgeon culture.However, because we know so little about sturgeon, we do not know how effectively such asystem would attract sturgeon. Trapping would take place in the vicinity of the power intakes touse the predominant downstream flow to attract the sturgeon (Figure 27). Once captured, thesturgeon would be loaded into transport vehicles, trucked around the dam, and released belowthe tailrace. Section 4.2.5. provides a more complete description of trap and transport methods.5.3.5. Capture and TransportCapture and transport is a viable option for passing sturgeon at Oxbow Dam. This system usesproven methods that do not depend on the configuration of the dam. Additionally, this method isflexible and incurs relatively low capital costs. Section 4.3.6. provides a complete discussion ofthis option.5.3.6. Other IssuesAny plan that collects fish at the power intake would probably require trucks to transportjuveniles downstream because tunneling through rock to construct a discharge conduit would bevery expensive.5.3.7. Promising AlternativesOf the alternatives we studied, capture and transport appears to be the most feasible optionbecause it uses proven techniques, is flexible, and requires relatively low capital costs. GivenHells Canyon Complex Page 37

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companythese benefits, this alternative for passing sturgeon is attractive. It can be implemented quicklyand structured to gather useful behavioral data on sturgeon.If a volitional system is desired, the trap and transport options would be the most promising.Development of this system would concentrate on effectively attracting sturgeon, a function thatposes the greatest design uncertainty.5.4. Hells Canyon DamCompared with the other two dams in the HCC, Hells Canyon Dam more closely resembles themore conventional dams on the lower Snake and Columbia rivers. Flows passing through boththe powerhouse and the spillway pass through the center of the river channel.5.4.1. Surface CollectionThe layout of Hells Canyon Dam makes it well suited to a surface collection system. Since thespillways are adjacent to the power intakes, this option could take advantage of the existing flowto attract sturgeon. The collection equipment could be mounted to the walls of the dam, and thedischarge could pass through the dam or through a modified spillway gate.As previously mentioned, it is difficult to predict how effectively a surface collection systemwould attract juvenile salmon, even when the results of extensive fish migration studies areconsidered. Only after a system has begun operating can its effectiveness be determined.Because detailed biological data are sparse and because sturgeon are bottom dwellers, theuncertainty of using a surface collection system would be magnified.5.4.2. Behavioral Guidance Structure Combined with SpillwayReleaseHells Canyon Dam is equipped with three Tainter gates measuring 43 ft wide by 50 ft high.The crest elevation of the three gates is 1,638 ft. The elevation of two lower radial gates is1,549 ft. With 10-ft fluctuations in the forebay (elevations of 1,678 to 1,688 ft), the three Taintergates could be equipped to release spill through top-spill structures, vertical notched gates, or aremovable spillway weir.A submerged conduit behavioral guidance structure could supplement the spillway releasesystem. The conduit’s entrance would be located at a depth and location that sturgeon frequent.The conduit could be attached at the spillway end in such a way that the spillway release wouldcreate flow in the conduit. This flow would attract sturgeon and guide them through the conduit.The primary concern of using a spillway system at a high dam is the potential for serious injuryor mortality of the fish. Detailed research on sturgeon’s response to passage and the probabilityof mortality during passage over spillways needs to be done to estimate this system’s biologicalefficiency. At this time, spillway release appears to be unnecessarily risky.Page 38Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities5.4.3. Pressurized Passage SystemsWith sufficient research and development, a pressurized fish passage could attract and safelytransport sturgeon downstream (Figure 28 is a conceptual drawing of this option). SinceHells Canyon Dam is constructed of concrete, a pressurized passage system could be created bymining through the dam at a depth typically used by sturgeon. A chute, lock, or lift could beconstructed on the downstream face of the dam to lower sturgeon to the tailrace.Additionally, if a fish lock or lift were used to lower sturgeon to the tailrace, this method ofpassing sturgeon could be used for both upstream and downstream passage.5.4.4. Trap and TransportAs with Brownlee and Oxbow dams, a trap and transport system at Hells Canyon Dam wouldtrap sturgeon near the turbine entrances. The sturgeon would then be transferred to trucks fortransport to the tailrace (Figure 29). The disadvantage of this method is that it is labor intensive.The advantages are that it is flexible, a proven method, and readily adaptable for obtainingbehavioral data about sturgeon. Additionally, the initial cost is relatively low. Section 4.3.5.provides a more detailed discussion of this option.5.4.5. Capture and TransportA capture and transport system incurs little capital cost. It uses proven methods, is flexible, andcan be quickly implemented at Hells Canyon Dam. Section 4.3.6. provides a more detaileddescription of this system.5.4.6. Promising AlternativesOf the passage alternatives we studied, capture and transport or a pressurized passage systemappears to merit further consideration. If a forced (nonvolitional) passage system is acceptable,the capture and transport option is the more promising alternative because it would cost less andbe easier to implement. If the passage goals do not anticipate passing large numbers ofsturgeon—a definite possibility, given the small population of sturgeon in the HCC reach—thecapture and transport option becomes even more promising. If volitional passage is required, thepressurized passage or trap and transport alternatives are promising because they appear toeffectively address the safety of downstream passage. However, additional research is neededfirst to define the criteria for biological effectiveness and then to determine the biologicaleffectiveness of a pressurized passage system.Hells Canyon Complex Page 39

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company6. EVALUATION OF UPSTREAM PASSAGE CONCEPTS6.1. IntroductionIn this section, the upstream passage concepts described in Section 4.2. are tentatively consideredfor upstream passage at each of the three dams being studied. Upstream movement, as describedin Section 2.8., appears primarily motivated by a search for suitable spawning habitat and thedistance traveled by spawners depends on the proximity of suitable spawning habitat. Thesemigrations typically occur in the spring when the combination of suitable water temperature andhigh flow is conducive to successful spawning. Other upstream movements do occur bynonreproductive sturgeon and are thought to be motivated by a search for food and suitablerearing habitat; therefore, these movements are less predictable.Dam type, location, and height and surrounding topography dictate which fish passage optionsare viable at each of the three dam sites. This section takes a preliminary look at the upstreampassage alternatives discussed in previous sections of this report for each of the three damprojects in the HCC. We begin by looking at options for the dam that is farthest downstream(Hells Canyon Dam) and progress to the dam that is farthest upstream (Brownlee Dam).Since our analysis is preliminary, several types of research need to be conducted: engineeringconcepts need to be developed and examined for engineering practicality, economic analysisneeds to be done to establish more precise cost estimates, hydraulic testing and biological studiesneed to be done to determine how to make attraction systems at facility entrances most efficientand minimize the mortality of fish during passage. Additionally, other factors that have yet to beidentified undoubtedly will have to be considered when determining the practicality andeffectiveness of the various alternatives.6.2 Hells Canyon DevelopmentHells Canyon Dam is located in a narrow section of the canyon, with steep rock walls on bothsides. The existing facility for trapping fish is located approximately 500 ft downstream of thedam, on the Oregon side of the river.6.2.1. Fish LadderWhile constructing a fish ladder for passing sturgeon at Hells Canyon Dam is possible,implementing this option would be difficult because of the height of the dam and the extensiveamount of rock that would have to be excavated. Most fish ladders on the Columbia and lowerSnake rivers are no more than 100 ft high. If a ladder were constructed at Hells Canyon Dam,it would be the tallest ladder built in North America, with an elevation gain of 221 ft. Sinceexperience has shown that significantly shorter fish ladders (about 100 ft) on the Columbia Riverare used only marginally by sturgeon, a fish ladder of 221 ft would not be suitable for sturgeonpassage and should not be considered a viable option.Page 40Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities6.2.2. Fish LockThe most suitable location to place a fish lock at Hells Canyon dam would be adjacent to thespillway, on the Idaho side of the dam. If the lock were located on the Oregon side, thepowerhouse and transmission lines (located on the Oregon side) would interfere with the fishlock unless they were rerouted. An entrance to a fish lock could be placed at the bottom and tothe right of the spillway, but placing the entrance there would require excavation and wideningof the channel (Figure 30).Installing a fish lock could be complicated by the height of the dam. The high head pressure(13,800 pounds per square foot) that the facility would have to withstand could make thisalternative difficult to design and costly to construct. Also, the lock would operate slowlybecause of the time required to fill and empty the lift.A full-height fish lock could be used to transfer sturgeon downstream as well as upstream.However, since the upstream exit from the lock is located at the surface, when the lock was usedfor downstream passage, the upstream exit would become a surface entrance. A surface entranceis less likely than a deeper entrance to attract downstream migrants. A submerged conduitbehavioral guidance structure extending from depth to the lock entrance might mitigate thisconcern.6.2.3. Fish LiftAs with a fish lock, a full-height fish lift could be constructed at Hells Canyon Dam adjacent tothe spillway on the Idaho side of the river. A pipeline delivering water from the forebay wouldsupply the attraction flow. The fish would be collected in the entrance area and placed in ahopper. This hopper would be lifted up through a vertical tower to a chute that would dischargeinto the forebay (Figure 31).Another possibility would be to use a lift that rises only part way up the dam. At the top of thelift, the fish would be transferred to a transport truck. This option would have a lower capital costthan a full lift but a higher operating cost.Both of these lift alternatives could be used only for upstream, not downstream, passage. Weexpect these options to be less expensive than either a fish lock or a pressurized passage system.6.2.4. Pressurized Passage SystemsSimilar to a fish lock or lift, a pressurized passage system would be adjacent to the spillway onthe Idaho side of the dam (Figure 32). This facility would not extend the full height of the dambut would exit below the water surface of the forebay, at a depth where sturgeon congregate.A supplemental fish lock or lift could be used to raise the sturgeon from the tailrace to the exit.For economic and operational reasons, the height of Hells Canyon Dam makes using a fish lift toraise sturgeon to the horizontal passage through the dam a better option. Operationally, a fish liftwould be able to cycle more quickly and use less water than emptying and draining a verticalHells Canyon Complex Page 41

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Companylock chamber would. Additionally, the unit cost per vertical foot for the lock chamber increaseswith height because of the increase in water pressure. In contrast, a fish lock tends to cost lessper vertical foot because the primary equipment cost—the cost of the lifting mechanism and thegondola—is spread over a greater distance.Another advantage of a pressurized system is that, with proper design, it can pass sturgeondownstream as well as upstream. Section 4.2.4. provides a more detailed description of thissystem.6.2.5. Trap and TransportUsing the existing trapping facility located on the Oregon side of the river for trapping andtransporting sturgeon may prove to be the best alternative at Hells Canyon Dam. This facilitywould probably be enlarged to increase its capacity, and the entrance modified to moreeffectively attract sturgeon (Figure 33). Once trapped, all sturgeon or only certain classes ofsturgeon could be passed upstream, depending on the passage goals. For instance, a selectivepassage program could focus only on passing probable spawners upstream.Sturgeon could be transported over the dam using several methods. The alternative that wouldhave the lowest capital cost would be using transport vehicles to haul sturgeon to releaselocations. The vehicles would incorporate proven technology and techniques for safely loading,transporting, and releasing the sturgeon. Another advantage to using vehicles is that the choice ofrelease locations would be limited only by the ability of vehicles to access the reservoir. Thus,sturgeon could be released over a greater range of the upstream reservoir. This flexibility wouldallow us to use a variety of release strategies, depending on the goals for passing sturgeon. Forexample, for a strategy focused on stimulating spawning, sturgeon could be released upstream ator close to the best spawning areas.Another transport option would involve the use of a cable tram to transport fish from the existingfish trapping facility to the forebay. This transport method also allows sturgeon to be sortedaccording to passage goals before they are transported over the dam. Because of the existingoverhead transmission lines, the tram would have to run from the existing trapping facility on theOregon side to the Idaho side of the forebay. A tram system would reduce operating costs butincrease capital costs. In addition, it would provide no flexibility in release locations.As with any fixed passage system, the greatest risk stems from our relative inexperience in tryingto attract sturgeon to a specific location. A trapping facility, even when based on additionalresearch, would need to be viewed as an experimental facility that might not attract sturgeon.6.2.6. Capture and TransportIn a capture and transport system, sturgeon would be captured using nets, setlines, or rod and reelgear at locations conducive to sampling sturgeon within the reach or perhaps only near the dam.For example, assuming that migrating fish are attracted to the predominant source of downstreamflow, a likely place to capture sturgeon would be near the tailrace. The captured fish would betransported to a holding area or loaded directly into transport vehicles and trucked over the dam.Page 42Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesAs with the trap and transport option, sturgeon could be sorted after capture for selectivepassage.Using existing access to the river, the capture and transport system could be implemented easilyat Hells Canyon Dam. The primary capital cost would be for preparing a holding area andconstructing a transport tank. An option might be to use multiple self-contained transport tanksmounted on trailers. The tanks could be used at a given boat ramp for both holding and transport.This system would reduce the amount of handling but remove sturgeon from their natural habitatfor a longer period.Another alternative would be to construct a floating net pen to hold the sturgeon until they areloaded onto trucks. A holding pen decreases the time that sturgeon are out of their natural habitatand provides for a holding period during which the sturgeon can recover from their initialcapture. However, it does add another handling step with its associated stress.Either design for a capture and transport system (with or without a floating net pen) would havelow capital costs and could be implemented easily and quickly at the Hell Canyon Project.Because additional personnel would be needed to capture sturgeon, the operational cost for acapture and transport system would be higher than for other options. Either design would havethe advantage of allowing flexibility in choosing locations for both capture and release, socapture and release efforts could easily be moved to improve capture rates or better meet passagegoals. The equipment could also be used for a capture and transport program that passes sturgeondownstream.6.2.7. Promising AlternativesOf the alternatives discussed, either the capture and transport option or the trap and transportoption appears to be best suited for passing sturgeon at Hells Canyon Dam. If a passive(nonvolitional) system is acceptable, the capture and transport option should be the most costeffective and would probably be able to meet passage goals. Considering our lack of knowledgeabout sturgeon passage and attraction strategies, a capture and transport system might be the bestoption. On the other hand, if a volitional system is required, a trap and transport system would bethe most promising alternative. If one passage goal is to pass potential spawners upstream, bothalternatives for passing sturgeon become even more promising because captured sturgeon couldbe sorted prior to transport so that only probable spawners would be passed upstream toproductive spawning areas. The existing trapping structure has proven effective for other speciesand could possibly be modified and expanded to handle sturgeon successfully.A pressurized passage system also deserves consideration. This type of system would provide amore volitional passage system (and involve less handling of fish) than either transport option.This system would require substantially more development and incur higher capital costs thanthe trap and transport and the capture and transport options.Hells Canyon Complex Page 43

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company6.3. Oxbow Dam DevelopmentOxbow Dam has an unusual configuration because the Snake River nearly loops back on itself inthis reach (Figure 34). Consequently, the power outlet at Oxbow Dam is located welldownstream of the dam and spillways. When the spillways are dry or at low flows, the riverreach between the powerhouse and the dam is a calm stretch with little discernable flow to attractfish to the dam. Accordingly, upstream migrants are expected to congregate at the powerhouseoutlet rather than at the dam.6.3.1. Fish LadderFrom the tailrace to the forebay, Oxbow Dam has an elevation change of about 123 ft. Based ondata about sturgeon using ladders on the Lower Columbia River, a fish ladder of 123 ft wouldoccasionally be used by sturgeon. However, fish ladders are generally not attractive to sturgeon,and we expect they would pass only the most fit and determined migrants. Therefore, we do notrecommend a fish ladder as a primary upstream passage system. However, any ladder beingconstructed for other species could be constructed so that it would also accommodate sturgeonand allow determined migrants to pass the dam. Constructing new ladders with the needs ofsturgeon in mind would not increase the construction cost.6.3.2. Fish LockA full-height fish lock could be a viable option at Oxbow Dam if the system supplied a sufficientattraction flow at the entrance to the lock. Since a substantial flow would be needed, apowerhouse could be incorporated into the design to generate power before releasing theattraction flow. The system could also incorporate automated cycle times that could be setaccording to the number of fish passing (Figure 35).With minor changes in design and operation, a fish lock could also be used for passing sturgeondownstream, enabling a single passage system to provide both upstream and downstreampassage. However, because a typical full-height lock collects fish at the surface, it would not takeadvantage of the benthic behavior of sturgeon. Therefore, it would be less effective than otherpassage systems, especially if it were located above a deep inlet where sturgeon normallycongregate.6.3.3. Pressurized Passage SystemsA pressurized passage system could be installed at Oxbow Dam. Sturgeon would enter thissystem at a collection facility in the tailrace that has been designed to attract and retain fish.As with the fish lock, a substantial attraction flow would be needed to attract sturgeon away fromthe power outlet. Once attracted, the sturgeon would be crowded into either a lift or a verticallock and then raised and transferred to a horizontal conduit leading to a submerged outlet in theforebay.Page 44Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesBecause Oxbow Dam is a rock-filled dam, we consider it risky and impractical to mine ahorizontal conduit through the body of the dam. Instead the conduit would be mined through therock near the power intake. Because this location would be near the power outlet, the amount ofadditional attraction flow that the design would need to provide would probably be reduced.Unfortunately, due to the configuration of the dam, using this location would require mining atunnel through about 1,000 ft of rock (Figure 36).An advantage of this system is that it could also be used for downstream passage when operatedin reverse. This alternative may be more attractive to downstream migrants since the inlet andoutlet would be located at greater depth and should therefore more effectively attract sturgeon.6.3.4. Fish LiftTo effectively attract sturgeon, the collection channel for a fish lift could be placed either nearthe powerhouse outlet or near the spillway. If placed near the dam, the channel would have toincorporate a substantial attraction flow to draw sturgeon away from the powerhouse outlet andtoward the dam (Figure 37). A new powerhouse at the dam could be constructed to generatepower from the attraction flow, minimizing the amount of power that would be lost. A liftinstalled at the powerhouse would require less attraction flow because it needs only to drawsturgeon that are already attracted to the powerhouse flow. However, implementing this design iscomplicated by the need to transport fish horizontally over the neck of the oxbow. Constructinga conduit in either location would incur substantial capital costs for construction anddevelopment.6.3.5. Trap and TransportA trap and transport station at Oxbow Dam would probably be located near the powerhouseoutlet (Figure 34) to take advantage of the attraction of the primary river flow. Additionalattraction flow would be needed to draw potential spawners into the trap. As described for thisalternative at Hells Canyon Dam, a trap lends itself to a selective passage strategy becausesturgeon could be sorted before they were released. Another possibility is to locate the trap at thedam (Figure 38). This layout would require greater attraction flows to draw sturgeon away fromthe tailrace discharge at the powerhouse.Once collected, the sturgeon would be loaded into transport vehicles, hauled to the desiredlocation in the forebay, and released. This transport process is described in more detail inSection 6.2.5.6.3.6. Capture and TransportThe capture and transport system discussed for the Hells Canyon Project could be adopted at theOxbow Project with similar costs, advantages, and drawbacks. Section 6.2.6. provides completedetails of the capture and transport discussion.Hells Canyon Complex Page 45

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company6.3.7. Promising AlternativesOf the alternatives discussed, either the trap and transport option or the capture and transportoption appears to be best suited for use at Oxbow Dam. The capture and transport option, whilehaving the highest operating costs, is most likely to be successful because locations for bothcapture and release could easily be changed to improve this system’s effectiveness. However,capture and transport is a nonvolitional option that involves extensive handling of the sturgeon.If a volitional system is desired, the trap and transport alternative holds the most promise.The remaining options are of uncertain effectiveness and would be expensive because of theextensive construction required.6.4. Brownlee DamThe greatest challenge in providing upstream passage for fish at Brownlee Dam, a flood-controland power-production project, is the large fluctuations in forebay water levels. This range offluctuation, at over 100 feet, significantly complicates the design of fixed release structures.6.4.1. Fish LadderThe elevation difference between the tailrace and the top of the dam (290 ft at normal operatinglevels) would make it difficult to design and build a traditional fish ladder at Brownlee Dam. Aswith the Hells Canyon Dam, a fish ladder of the necessary height and length would rarely, ifever, be used successfully by migrating sturgeon. Consequently, we consider this alternativeimpractical and not worth pursuing.6.4.2. Fish LockThe dam height and large fluctuations in forebay elevations at Brownlee Dam also makeconstructing a fish lock infeasible.6.4.3. Pressurized Passage SystemsA pressurized passage system could be designed to accommodate the fluctuations in forebaywater levels at Brownlee Dam by placing the outlet below the low-water level. Since this is arock-filled dam, constructing a horizontal shaft through the dam would be impractical andpossibly hazardous. However, if the bank abutment on the Idaho side of the river could betunneled, a pressurized passage system could be a practical option. A layout of this option isdepicted in Figure 39.As with Hells Canyon Dam, the most economical design of a pressurized system would include afish lift to raise sturgeon vertically. Section 6.2.4. provides a more detailed discussion of such apressurized passage system at Hells Canyon Dam.Page 46Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities6.4.4. Fish LiftA fish lift could be used at Brownlee Dam if the lift were designed to accommodate the largefluctuations in forebay water levels. One possible layout would use a fish lift mounted on rails.Sturgeon would be loaded into the lift at the collection facility, raised up the face of the dam,passed over the dam crest, and then lowered down to the reservoir for release. The equipment forthis system would be submerged for part of each cycle and therefore require substantialmaintenance.Alternatively, the lift could empty the sturgeon into a chute at the top of the dam for transfer intothe forebay (Figure 40).6.4.5. Trap and TransportA trap and transport system could be constructed at Brownlee Dam. The trapping facility wouldprobably be placed at the base of the dam, near the powerhouse tailrace, and designed to attractand retain spawning sturgeon. Additional studies on migration patterns and attraction of sturgeonwould need to be conducted to determine the most promising location for a trapping facility.Sturgeon could be transported to the forebay by a fish lift or truck. Using a fish lift has higherconstruction costs and commits the system to a single release location, but this option wouldprobably reduce the operating costs. Either transport option could accommodate selectivetransport because sturgeon could be sorted prior to transport. Section 6.2.5. provides a moredetailed description of the trap and transport option described for Hells Canyon Dam, andFigure 41 depicts a possible layout of a trap and transport facility at Brownlee Dam.6.4.6. Capture and TransportA capture and transport system similar to the one described for Hells Canyon Dam could be builtat Brownlee Dam with similar costs, advantages, and drawbacks. Section 6.2.6. describes thecapture and transport option for Hells Canyon Dam in more detail.6.4.7. Promising AlternativesOf the alternatives discussed, the trap and transport, capture and transport, and fish lift systemappear to be the best options for passing sturgeon at Brownlee Dam. The most easilyimplemented and flexible option would be the capture and transport alternative, but this optionwould have the greatest operational cost and the most human intervention. If a volitional systemis required, the trap and transport or fish lift options hold the most promise. However, developingand building an effective entrance and trap near the powerhouse would make these two optionsmore difficult to implement.Hells Canyon Complex Page 47

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company7. COST ESTIMATES FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS7.1. Cost Estimates for ConstructionThe designs we have presented in this report are conceptual and were developed without a highdegree of detail. We based our estimates of probable construction costs on four factors: estimatedunit costs taken from actual construction costs of similar facilities, feedback from vendors aboutthe costs of large components, cost information taken from standard cost guides for the industry,and the judgment of engineers. We used these factors—since adequate detail is not included inthe conceptual designs—to create detailed cost estimates that are based on precise quantities ofmaterials and labor expenses for fabrication and installation.We also added a 50% construction contingency to all cost estimates for two reasons: productionsystems of the magnitude required for these dams do not yet exist, and our concepts are not fullydeveloped. We did not include other costs, such as the costs of planning and engineering thefacilities, managing the projects, and conducting studies of value engineering. Additionally, ourestimates assume current year costs and would need to be escalated to better approximate costs atthe time of construction.In addition, given the untested nature of some of the passage concepts, hydraulic modelingand/or prototyping and a significant amount of additional evaluation would be required beforeany of the design options could be implemented.7.2. Operations and Maintenance CostsWhen we developed the annual O&M costs for the various passage options, we were alsoconstrained by the lack of detail typical of conceptual designs. Therefore, we based our estimatesof O&M costs on percentages of construction costs (excluding planning, design, constructionmanagement, and the contractor’s mobilization and overhead and profit costs). Becausemechanical and electrical systems—such as gates, screen cleaners, cranes, hoisting equipment,and controls—require more maintenance than other components, we assigned to these systemsan annual O&M cost equal to 10% of their construction cost. In addition, the O&M costs includethe annualized cost of periodically replacing or rehabilitating components.To conceptual passage options that were primarily composed of structural elements, we assignedan annual O&M cost equal to 5% of their construction cost. Our estimates typically reflect thecosts of periodic inspection, refurbishing, and other maintenance.To conceptual passage options with very low initial capital expenditure (such as capture andtransport), we assigned a higher O&M cost equal to 25% of their initial costs.Page 48Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities7.3. Estimate Summaries for Downstream Passage Options7.3.1. Brownlee DamWe considered the capture and transport option to be the most promising option for passingwhite sturgeon at Brownlee Dam. There is an existing boat ramp located approximately 3 miupstream of the dam that could be used as an access point. Assuming the purchase of a new boatand trailer, a transport vehicle, and a storage facility, we estimated that implementing this optionwould cost $250,000, with an O&M rate of 25%. A second option, trap and transport, would costan estimated $3,190,000, with an estimated O&M rate of 10% (Table 11).7.3.2. Oxbow DamWe considered the capture and transport option to be the most promising option for passingsturgeon at Oxbow Dam. There is an existing boat ramp located approximately 2 mi upstream ofthe dam that could be used as an access point. Assuming the purchase of a new boat and trailer,a transport vehicle, and a storage facility, we estimated that implementing this option would cost$250,000, with an O&M rate of 25%. Alternatively, a trap and transport system could be locatedat the powerhouse intake or at the dam itself. We estimated the costs of a trap and transportsystem at $3,280,000, with an O&M rate of 10% (Table 12).7.3.3. Hells Canyon DamFor Hells Canyon Dam, we estimated costs for two downstream passage options—capture andtransport and pressurized passage. We estimated the cost of a capture and transport system at thisdam at $250,000, with an O&M rate of 25%.Although we do not consider pressurized passage to be a viable option at Hells Canyon Dam, weestimated costs for this option for two reasons: for comparison purposes, we wanted to providean upper range for the cost estimates, and we wanted to provide an estimate of an at leastsomewhat volitional passage option. We estimated the cost for this option at $16,500,000, withan estimated O&M rate of 10% (Table 13).7.4. Estimate Summaries for Upstream Passage Options7.4.1. Hells Canyon DamWe estimated costs for two options for upstream passage at Hells Canyon Dam. We consideredcapture and transport to be the most promising option for Hells Canyon Dam. Assuming thecosts of improving access to the river and purchasing a new boat and trailer, a transport vehicle,and a storage facility, we estimated that implementing this option would cost $300,000, with anO&M rate of 25%.Hells Canyon Complex Page 49

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyAnother possibility for passing sturgeon at Hells Canyon Dam is a trap and transport system.Hells Canyon Dam already has a facility for trapping salmon, and we estimated costs assumingupgrades to this facility. Upgrades could include modifying the entrance, increasing theattraction flow, and increasing the holding capacity for adult sturgeon. Estimates for similarupgrades were estimated for the barrier dam located just downstream of Mayfield Dam on theCowlitz River. The preliminary cost of the upgrades for that site was estimated at $2,800,000,with an O&M cost of $84,000 per year. For our preliminary estimate for Hells Canyon Dam,we used the Mayfield Dam estimate of construction costs ($2,800,000) and increased it by 20%to account for modifications geared toward sturgeon. We estimated that implementing a trap andtransport system at Hells Canyon Dam would cost $3,360,000, with an O&M rate of 10%(Table 14). Further study is needed to determine which modifications would be warranted.7.4.2. Oxbow DamWe considered capture and transport to be the most promising option for passing sturgeon atOxbow Dam. The river could be accessed near Pine Creek. Assuming the purchase of a new boatand trailer, a transport vehicle, and a storage facility, we estimated the cost of implementing thisoption at $250,000, with an O&M rate of 25%.Another possibility for passing fish at Oxbow Dam is a trap and transport facility. At one time, atrap and transport facility was operated adjacent to the spillway. As with the Hells Canyon Damestimate, we assumed that the existing facility would be upgraded. Section 7.4.1. discussespossible upgrades and our cost estimates for this option in more detail. We estimate the cost ofimplementing this option at $3,360,000, with an O&M rate of 10% (Table 15).7.4.3. Brownlee DamWe considered capture and transport to be the most promising option for passing sturgeon atBrownlee Dam. Assuming the purchase of a new boat and trailer, a transport vehicle, and astorage facility, we estimated the cost of implementing this option at Brownlee Dam at $250,000,with an O&M rate of 25%.Trap and transport is another possibility for passing sturgeon at Brownlee Dam. The facilitycould be located at the toe of the dam at an elevation of approximately 1,850 ft. Use of thislocation would require that we route a conduit to the tailrace. For comparison, the cost for a newtrap and transport facility with a barrier dam at Mossyrock Dam was estimated at $4,500,000.Since no barrier dam is included in the design of a trap and transport option at Brownlee Dam,we adjusted the cost estimate for this facility to $3,600,000, with an O&M rate of 10%(Table 16).As an alternative to transporting sturgeon obtained through either trapping or capture, a fish liftwould raise sturgeon over the dam and release them into the forebay. Including a lift in acapturing or trapping option increased our estimates of these two options by $2,500,000, for atotal cost of $2,750,000 or $6,100,000, respectively, with an O&M rate of 10%.Page 50Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities8. LITERATURE CITEDAnders, P. J., D. L. Richards, M. S. Powell. In Press. The first endangered white sturgeonpopulation (Acipenser transmontanus): Repercussions in an altered large river-floodplainecosystem. In: W. Van Winkle, P. Anders, D. Dixon, and D. Secor, editors. Biology,management and protection of North American sturgeons. American Fisheries SocietyPress.Apperson, K., and P. J. Anders. 1990. Kootenai River white sturgeon investigations andexperimental culture. Annual Progress Report FY 1989. Idaho Department of Fish andGame and the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.Contract DE-AI79-88BP93497, Project 88-65.Apperson, K., and P. J. Anders. 1991. Kootenai River white sturgeon investigations andexperimental culture. Annual Progress Report FY 1991. Bonneville PowerAdministration, Portland, OR. Contract DE-AI79-88BP93497, Project 88-65.Bajkov, A. D. 1949. A preliminary report on the Columbia River sturgeon. FisheriesCommission of Oregon, Portland, OR. Research Briefs 2(2):1–8.Bell, M. C. 1984. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria.Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.North Pacific Division. Contract No. DACW57-79-M-1594 andNo. DACW57-80-M-0567.Bell, M. C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. Fishpassage development and evaluation program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NorthernPacific Division.Bemis, W. E., and B. Kynard. 1997. An introduction to Acipenseriform biogeography and lifehistory. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:167–183.Binkowski, F. P., and S. I. Doroshov, editors. North American sturgeons: biology andaquaculture potential. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Brannon, E. L., C. L. Melby, and S. D. Brewer. 1984. Columbia River white sturgeon (Acipensertransmontanus) enhancement. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. ContractDE-AI79-84BP18952, Project 83-316.Brannon, E., A. Setter, M. Miller, S. Brewer, G. Winans, F. Utter, L. Carpenter, andW. Hershberger. 1986. Columbia River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)population genetics and early life history study. Final Report 1986. Bonneville PowerAdministration, Portland, OR. Contract DE-A179-84BP18952, Project 83-316.Brannon, E., and A. Setter. 1992. Movements of white sturgeon in Lake Roosevelt. Final Report1988–1991. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and the Bonneville PowerAdministration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. Project 89-44. 35 p.Hells Canyon Complex Page 51

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyBrink, S. R. 2000. FERC additional information request #16: wetted streambed area belowLower Salmon Falls (updated Lower Salmon Falls instream flow study). Report to FERC.Idaho Power, Boise.Brink, S. R., and J. A. Chandler. 2000. FERC additional information request #1a: project flows(Bliss instream flow study). Report to FERC. Idaho Power, Boise.Buddington, R. K., and J. P. Christofferson. 1985. Digestive and feeding characteristics of thechondrosteans. In: F. P. Binkowski and S. I. Doroshov, editors. North Americansturgeons: biology and aquaculture potential. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht,The Netherlands. p. 31–42.Carl, G. C. 1936. Food of the coarse-scaled sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Girard. Journal ofthe Biological Board of Canada 3(1):20–25.Chandler, J. A., and K. B. Lepla. 1997. Instream flow evaluations of the Snake River fromC.J. Strike Dam to the confluence of the Boise River. In: Volume 1, Technicalappendices for C.J. Strike hydroelectric project. Idaho Power, Boise. TechnicalReport E.3.1-C.Chapman, F. A., J. P. VanEenennaam, and S. I. Doroshov. 1996. The reproductive condition ofwhite sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, in San Francisco Bay, California. FisheryBulletin 94:628–634.Clay, C. H. 1995. Design of fishways and other fish facilities. 2nd Edition. Lewis Publishers(CRC Press), Boca Raton, FL. 248 p.Cochnauer, T. G. 1983. Abundance, distribution, growth and management of white sturgeon(Acipenser transmontanus) in the middle Snake River, Idaho. Doctoral dissertation.University of Idaho, Moscow.Cochnauer, T. G., J. R. Lukens, and F. E. Partridge. 1985. Status of white sturgeon, Acipensertransmontanus, in Idaho. In: F. P. Binkowski and S. I. Doroshov, editors. NorthAmerican sturgeon:biology and aquaculture potential. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht,The Netherlands.Conte, F. S., S. I. Doroshov, P. B. Lutes, and E. M. Strange. 1988. Hatchery manual for the whitesturgeon Acipenser transmontanus with application to other North AmericanAcipenseridae. Cooperative Extension, University of California, Division of Agricultureand Natural Resources, Davis. Publication 3322.Coon, J. C. 1978. Movement, distribution, abundance and growth of white sturgeon in themid-Snake River. Doctoral dissertation. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station,University of Idaho, Moscow.Page 52Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesDeVore, J. D., and J. G. Grimes. 1993. Migration and distribution of white sturgeon in theColumbia River downstream from Bonneville Dam and adjacent marine areas, In:R. C. Beamesderfer and A. A. Nigro, editors. Volume I, Status and habitat requirementsof white sturgeon populations in the Columbia river downstream from McNary Dam.Final Report. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.Contract DE-AI79-86BP63584.Harza Northwest, Inc. 1999. 90% Draft fish passage study. Cowlitz River Hydroelectric ProjectFERC No. 2016.Francfort, J.E., G.F. Cada, D.D. Dauble, R.T. Hunt, D.W. Jones, B.N. Rinehart, G.L. Sommers,and R.J. Costello. 1994. Benefits and costs of fish passage and protection. In: Volume II,Environmental mitigation at hydroelectric projects. Idaho National EngineeringLaboratory, Idaho Falls, ID. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy. ContractDE-AC07-761D01570.Jager, H., K. Lepla, J. A. Chandler, W. Van Winkle, A. Sullivan, R. Myers, and M. Bevelhimer.2001. Population viability model for Snake River white sturgeon. In: K. Lepla, editor.Chapter 3. Status and habitat use of Snake River white sturgeon associated with theHells Canyon Complex. Technical appendices for Hells Canyon Complex HydroelectricProject. Idaho Power, Boise. Technical Report E.3.1-6.Johnson, L., C. Noyes, and R. McLure. 1984. Hydroacoustics evaluation of the efficiencies ofthe ice and trash sluiceway and spillway at Ice Harbor Dam for passing downstreammigrating juvenile salmon and steelhead, 1983. BioSonics. Sponsored by the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Walla Walla District. Contract No. DACW68-82-C-0066.Kempinger, J .J. 1988. Spawning and early life history of lake sturgeon in the Lake Winnebagosystem, Wisconsin. American Fisheries Society Symposium 5:110–122.Kohlhorst, D. W. 1976. Sturgeon spawning in the Sacramento River in 1973, as determined bydistribution of larvae. California Fish and Game 62(1):32–40.Kruse-Malle, G. O. 1993. White sturgeon evaluations in the Snake River. Job PerformanceReport F-73-R-15. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.Lepla, K. B., and J. A. Chandler. 1995a. A survey of white sturgeon in the Bliss Reach of theSnake River, Idaho. In: Volume 1, Technical appendices for new license application:Upper Salmon Falls, Lower Salmon Falls, and Bliss. Idaho Power, Boise, ID. TechnicalReport E.3.1-E. 96 p.Lepla, K. B., and J. A. Chandler. 1995b. A survey of white sturgeon in the Lower Salmon FallsReach of the Snake River, Idaho. In: Volume 1, Technical appendices for new licenseapplication: Upper Salmon Falls, Lower Salmon Falls, and Bliss. Idaho Power, Boise, ID.Technical Report E.3.1-B. 31 p.Hells Canyon Complex Page 53

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyLepla, K. B., and J. A. Chandler. 1997. Status of white sturgeon in the C.J. Strike Reach of theMiddle Snake River, Idaho. In: Volume 1, Technical appendices for C.J. StrikeHydroelectric Project. Idaho Power, Boise, ID. Technical Report E.3.1-B. 71 p.Lepla, K. B., and J. A. Chandler. 2001. Physical habitat use and water quality criteria forSnake River white sturgeon. In: K. Lepla, editor. Chapter 2. Status and habitat use ofSnake River white sturgeon associated with the Hells Canyon Complex. Technicalappendices for Hells Canyon Complex Hydroelectric Project. Idaho Power, Boise, ID.Technical Report E.3.1-6.Lepla, K. B., J. A. Chandler, and P. Bates. 2001. Status of Snake River white sturgeon associatedwith the Hells Canyon Complex. In: K. Lepla, editor. Chapter 1. Status and habitat use ofSnake River white sturgeon associated with the Hells Canyon Complex. Technicalappendices for Hells Canyon Complex Hydroelectric Project. Idaho Power, Boise, ID.Technical Report E.3.1-6.Lukens, J. R. 1981. Snake River sturgeon investigations (Bliss Dam upstream to ShoshoneFalls). Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID.Lukens, J. R. 1985. Hells Canyon white sturgeon investigations. Job Performance Report. IdahoDepartment of Fish and Game, River and Stream Investigations, Boise. Project F-73-R-7.Magne, R. A. 1987. Hydroacoustic monitoring of downstream migrant juvenile salmon atBonneville Dam. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.McCabe, G. T., Jr., and C. A. Tracy. 1993. Spawning characteristics and early life history ofwhite sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus in the lower Columbia River. In: Volume I,R. C. Beamesderfer and A. A. Nigro, editors. Status and habitat requirements of whitesturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. FinalReport. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. Contract DE-AI79-86BP63584.McCabe, G. T., Jr., and C. A. Tracy. 1994. Spawning and early life history of white sturgeon,Acipenser transmontanus, in the lower Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin 92:760–772.McConnell, W. J. 1989. Habitat suitability curves for white sturgeon. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, National Ecology Center, Fort Collins, CO.Miller, A. I., and L. G. Beckman. 1993. Predation on white sturgeon eggs by sympatric fishspecies in Columbia River impoundments. In: Volume II, R. C. Beamesderfer andA. A. Nigro, editors. Status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in theColumbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Final Report. Bonneville PowerAdministration, Portland, OR. Contract DE-AI79-86BP63584.Muir, W. D., G. T. McCabe, Jr., M. J. Parsley, and S. A. Hinton. 2000. Diet of first feedinglarval and young-of-the-year white sturgeon in the lower Columbia River. NorthwestScience 74:25–33.Page 54Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesMyers, R., and S. Pierce. 1999. Descriptive limnology of the Hells Canyon Complex. DraftProject Progress Report. Idaho Power, Boise.Nece, R. E. 1991. Calculations for determining strike and pressure gradient. In: M. C. Bell,editor. Revised compendium on the success of passage of small fish through turbines.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, WA. p. 47–83.North, J. A., R. C. Beamesderfer, and T. A. Rien. 1993. Distribution and movements of whitesturgeon in three lower Columbia River reservoirs. In: R. C. Beamesderfer andA. A. Nigro, editors. Volume I, Status and habitat requirements of white sturgeonpopulations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Final Report.Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. Contract DE-AI79-86BP63584.Odeh, M., editor. 1999. Innovations in fish passage technology. American Fisheries Society.Bethesda, MD. 212 p.Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 1992. White sturgeon managementframework plan. Prepared by the White Sturgeon Planning Committee, PSMFC,Portland, OR. 201 p.Paragamian, V. L., G. Kruse, and V. Wakkinen. 2001. Spawning habitat of Kootenai River whitesturgeon, post-Libby Dam. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:22–33.Parsley, M. J., and L. G. Beckman. 1994. White sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat in thelower Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:812–827.Parsley, M. J., L. G. Beckman and G. T. McCabe, Jr. 1993. Spawning and rearing habitat use bywhite sturgeons in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 122:217–227.Patterson, T., K. A. Apperson, and J. T. Siple. 1992. Snake River white sturgeon culture. 1987 to1990. College of Southern Idaho, Twin Falls, ID.Patton, B. G., and D. T. Rodman. 1969. Reproductive behavior of northern squawfishPtychocheilus oregonensis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society98(1):108–111.Pavlov, D. S. 1989. Structures assisting the migrations of non-salmonid fish: USSR, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper No. 308. 97 p.RL & L Environmental Services, Ltd. 1994. Status of white sturgeon in the Columbia River, B.C.Final Report prepared for: British Columbia Hydro, Vancouver, BC. 101 pp.RL & L Environmental Services, Ltd. 2000. Fraser River white sturgeon monitoring program:comprehensive report 1995–1999. Final report prepared for: British Columbia Fisheries.RL & L Report 815F. 92 p. plus appendices.Hells Canyon Complex Page 55

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyScott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research BoardCanada, Ottawa, Canada. Bulletin 184.Semakula, S. N., and P. A. Larkin. 1968. Age, growth, food, and yield of the white sturgeon(Acipenser transmontanus) of the Fraser River, British Columbia. Journal of the FisheriesResearch Board of Canada 184.Simpson, J., and R. Wallace. 1982. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.Steig, T. W., and W. R. Johnson. 1986. Hydroacoustic assessment of downstream migratingsalmonids at The Dalles Dam in spring and summer of 1985. BioSonics. Sponsored bythe U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power Administration, Fish and WildlifeDivision. Contract DE-AC79-85.Stockley, C. 1981. Columbia River sturgeon. Washington Department of Fisheries. ProgressReport No. 150.Tuell, M. A., and S. R. Everett. 2001. Evaluation of potential means of rebuilding sturgeonpopulations in the Snake River between Lower Granite and Hells Canyon dams.Preliminary draft of 2000 Annual Report. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland,OR. Contract 97-AM-30423, Project 00000333-00023 (9700900).Von Raben, K. 1957. Zur frage der beschadigung von fischen durch turbinen. DieWasserwirtschaft 4:97-100. English translation by: Fisheries Research Board of CanadaTranslation Series 448.Wang, Y. L., F. P. Binkowski, and S. I. Doroshov. 1985. Effect of temperature on earlydevelopment of white and lake sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus and A. fulvescens. In:F. P. Binkowski and S. I. Doroshov, editors. North American sturgeons: biology andaquaculture potential. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. p. 43–50.Warren, J. J., and L. G. Beckman. No date. Fishway use by white sturgeon on theColumbia River. Washington Sea Grant Program Marine.Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University ofWashington Press, Seattle, WA.Page 56Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesTable 1.Abundance of white sturgeon in Snake River reaches between LowerGranite Dam and Shoshone Falls.Reach Survey Year nPopulationEstimate(95% CIs) ReferenceShoshone Falls–Upper Salmon Falls 2001 265 772(593–1,107) aIPC, unpubl. Data1980-81 9 — Lukens (1981)Upper Salmon Falls–Lower Salmon Falls 1980-81 0 — Lukens (1981)Lower Salmon Falls–Bliss 1992-93 38 — Lepla and Chandler (1995b)1980-81 7 — Lukens (1981)Bliss–C.J. Strike 1991-93 669 2,662(1,938–4,445)1979-81 905 2,192(1,479–4,276)C.J. Strike–Swan Falls 1994-96 330 726(473–1,565)Lepla and Chandler (1995a)Cochnauer (1983)Lepla and Chandler (1997)Swan Falls–Brownlee 1996-97 44 155 (70–621) b Lepla et al. (2001)1993 1 — Kruse-Malle (1993)Brownlee–Oxbow 1998 0 — Lepla et al. (2001)Oxbow–Hells Canyon 1998 4 — Lepla et al. (2001)Hells Canyon–Lower Granite 1997-00 1005 3,625(3,050–4,536)Lepla et al. (2001)Tuell and Everett (2001)Hells Canyon Dam–Lewiston, ID 1982-83 331 3,955 Lukens (1985)a 95% of population comprised hatchery-stocked white sturgeon.b Data represents from Swan Falls Dam (RM 458) to Walters Ferry (RM 444).Hells Canyon Complex Page 57

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyTable 2.Summary of movement by sonic-tagged white sturgeon in theBliss−C.J. Strike reach of the Snake River. Data from Idaho PowerCompany.a TagNumber b SexTL(cm) c StageDateTaggedBliss−C.J. StrikeInitialCapture(RM)DaysatLargeFrom Initial CaptureMaxDistanceDownstream(river mile)MaxDistanceUpstream(river miles)MeanMovement(river mile)TotalDistanceTraveled(river mile)ReservoirS2245 F 235 2 910924 501.5 306 1.9 7.5 2.6 28.2S2236 F 254 2 911003 509.7 593 4.1 8.8 2.7 48.8S2227 F 243 3 920602 505.8 354 6.9 4.8 2.9 57.2S356 F 189 3 920507 506 61 7.0 0.0 4.8 9.6S293 F 241 3 920505 506.5 130 3.0 6.9 2.1 21.5S2543 F 267 4 910924 502.1 589 3.1 10.8 2.7 62.1S2633 F 222 4 920317 502.8 117 2.3 20.9 4.2 50.6S3335 F 196 4 911003 509.5 212 3.0 0.5 1.7 8.4S2426 M 178 7 910626 516.9 422 9.8 6.8 2.7 42.6S258 M 193 8 930317 508.1 69 2.5 15.9 3.3 23.1S2353 M 195 8 930317 508.9 43 0.0 12.9 3.2 12.9S2227A M 210 8 911008 510.7 588 10.4 13.3 4.3 81.2S249 M 196 8 930405 513.3 51 6.6 8.5 9.1 36.6S2336 U 116 U 910924 501.2 327 0.0 9.2 1.4 19.8S284 U 110 U 930414 507 340 13.1 0.0 2.3 39.2S2444 U 105 U 910717 517.1 669 19.2 0.0 2.4 42.7RiverS275 F 289 4 910730 547.5 644 5.0 8.5 3.8 45.8S2534 F 195 4 911014 555.8 379 0.6 0.4 0.2 3.3S2525 M 187 7 910820 552.9 638 1.1 3.3 0.6 12.1S87 M 241 7 920630 556.1 328 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.0S2254 M 200 7 920630 558.2 326 0.7 0.4 0.1 2.6S2354 M 202 8 910723 533.4 284 29.4 0.0 11 66.1S2345 M 185 8 910822 553.4 636 0.0 3.3 0.3 6.8S446 U 109 U 920616 533.1 137 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6S257 U 143 U 920421 544.3 333 0.0 12.4 1.0 16.7S80 U 126 U 920421 552.9 354 7.0 3.4 2.1 29.9a S-sonicb F-female, M-male, U-unknownc Stages: 1-previtellogenic2-early vitellogenic3-late vitellogenic4-ripe5-spent6-previtellogenic w/ attritic oocytes7-nonreproductive8-reproductiveU-unknownPage 58Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesTable 3.Summary of movement by sonic-tagged (S) and radio-tagged (R) whitesturgeon in the C.J. Strike−Swan Falls reach of the Snake River. Data fromIdaho Power Company.a TagNumber b SexTL(cm) c StageDateTaggedInitialCapture(RM)C.J. Strike−Swan FallsDaysatLargeFrom Initial CaptureMaxDistanceDownstream(river mile)MaxDistanceUpstream(river miles)MeanMovement(river mile)TotalDistanceTraveled(river mile)ReservoirS2263 U 110 U 941019 464.5 293 2.4 22.3 2.2 28.6RiverR123 F 228 1 951017 493.8 230 2.0 0.0 0.3 5.2S124 F 187 2 940713 493.9 233 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.8S115 F 210 3 940906 493.9 270 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5S142 F 182 3 941025 492.6 342 6.1 1.2 1.0 21.6S106 F 159 3 950323 490.4 398 1 3.2 0.7 5.6S96 F 187 3 950620 486.8 306 0.1 7 0.8 22.2S455 F 177 3 950822 486.7 170 3.5 6.9 1.3 10.3R114 F 211 3 950919 492.8 258 2.6 1.1 0.5 11R119 F - 3 960402 493.9 29 0.1 0.0 0.04 0.3S348 F 195 4 950425 493.9 147 1.3 0.0 0.1 1.7R115 F 185 6 950919 492.7 252 3.9 0.9 0.5 11.1R117 M 211 7 950919 492.8 225 2.4 1.1 0.4 7.2S114 M 253 8 940322 493.9 245 1.4 0.0 0.2 4.1S105 M 187 8 940407 493.9 60 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.8S132 M 219 8 940713 489.1 381 2.4 4.7 0.8 22.6S267 M 192 8 950329 492.7 379 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.3R118 M 187 8 960409 492.8 65 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.9S123 U 130 U 940519 475.5 504 1.2 14.1 0.9 33S276 U 124 U 950404 493.9 391 0.1 0.0 0.01 0.4R116 U 143 U 950919 493.9 258 1.3 0.0 0.3 7.1R125 U 126 U 950926 474.8 218 0.1 1 0.1 1.4a S-sonicb F-female, M-male, U-unknownc Stages: 1-previtellogenic2-early vitellogenic3-late vitellogenic4-ripe5-spent6-previtellogenic w/ attritic oocytes7-nonreproductive8-reproductiveU-unknownHells Canyon Complex Page 59

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyTable 4.Summary of movement by sonic-tagged (S) and radio-tagged (R) whitesturgeon in the Swan Falls−Brownlee reach of the Snake River. Data fromLepla et al. (2001).a TagNumber b SexTL(cm) c StageDateTaggedSwan Falls−BrownleeInitialCapture(RM)DaysatLargeFrom Initial CaptureMaxDistanceDownstream(river mile)MaxDistanceUpstream(river miles)MeanMovement(river mile)TotalDistanceTraveled(river mile)ReservoirS285 F 217 2 970814 327.8 439 10.9 0.0 1.5 24.7S555 F 220 2 970821 327.8 241 10.5 0.0 2.0 20.3S357 F 197 2 960917 331.6 334 10.4 2.7 2.1 34.3S3434 M 162 8 970708 326.6 475 7.5 3.3 0.7 18.5S248 U 162 U 970814 327.8 439 5.9 0.7 0.9 19.6RiverR120 F 258 1 960709 457.3 310 5.3 0.1 0.3 7.9S384 F 275 2 961105 458 242 3.9 0.1 0.3 5.5S375 F 257 4 961105 455.3 270 2.7 0.0 0.4 6.2R133 F 268 4 961211 456.1 185 2.5 0.6 0.6 8.1S339 M 276 8 961105 454.7 209 1.1 2.8 0.6 10.1S456 U 143 U 961105 458 273 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.9a S-sonicb F-female, M-male, U-unknownc Stages: 1-previtellogenic2-early vitellogenic3-late vitellogenic4-ripe5-spent6-previtellogenic w/ attritic oocytes7-nonreproductive8-reproductiveU-unknownPage 60Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesTable 5.Summary of movement by sonic-tagged white sturgeon in theOxbow−Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River. Data from Lepla et al.(2001).a TagNumber b SexTL(cm) c StageDateTaggedOxbow−Hells CanyonInitialCapture(RM)DaysatLargeFrom Initial CaptureMaxDistanceDownstream(river mile)MaxDistanceUpstream(river miles)MeanMovement(river mile)TotalDistanceTraveled(river mile)ReservoirS2443 F 250 3 980323 263.8 479 11.5 7.6 4.1 73.8S2525 F 236 4 980406 269.9 417 15.9 0.0 2.8 45.3S447 U 139 U 980323 263.4 479 11.1 5.5 4.6 92.3a S-sonicb F-female, M-male, U-unknownc Stages: 1-previtellogenic2-early vitellogenic3-late vitellogenic4-ripe5-spent6-previtellogenic w/ attritic oocytes7-nonreproductive8-reproductiveU-unknownHells Canyon Complex Page 61

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyTable 6.Summary of movement by sonic-tagged white sturgeon in theHells Canyon−Salmon River reach of the Snake River. Data from Leplaet al. (2001).a TagNumber b SexTL(cm) c StageDateTaggedHells Canyon−SalmonInitialCapture(RM)DaysatLargeFrom Initial CaptureMaxDistanceDownstream(river mile)MaxDistanceUpstream(river miles)MeanMovement(river mile)TotalDistanceTraveled(river mile)RiverS375 F 174 1 7/27/99 196.6 329 0.1 15.7 2.7 16.2S662 F 212 1 00/04/11 - 112 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.5S2543 F 272 1 4/17/00 201.1 106 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.5S365 F 200 1 9/19/97 190.4 579 1.5 1.1 0.2 4.8S456 F 237 2 4/13/99 218.7 387 16.9 1.2 2.4 40S455/(S248) dF (F) 206(205)2 (4) 9/04/98(4/11/00)228.8(228.8)255(113)0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (2.0) 0.04 (0.6) 0.5 (4.2)S249 F 240 4 3/22/99 224.4 193 60.7 0.0 5.1 96.3S294 F 225 4 4/04/00 211.7 120 12.7 11.4 5.3 37.2S276 F 220 5 7/27/99 193.9 253 0.0 1.3 0.3 2.3S2255 M 265 7 8/10/99 199.7 353 3.2 0.0 0.4 6.6S356 M 192 7 4/12/00 228.1 572 1.6 1.0 0.2 4.8S2236/ d(S254)M (M) 200(217)7 (7) 8/07/98(00/04/12)199.0(226.8)648 0.0 29.9 3.3 89.6S34 M 200 7 5/09/00 236.3 85 0.0 1.6 0.5 2.5S510 M 182 7 8/07/98 197.5 679 3.7 0.6 0.4 9.9S2353 M 201 7 7/11/98 210.5 365 1.1 0.3 0.3 6.0S2336 M 193 8 8/10/99 203.3 332 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.3S366 M 202 8 7/08/98 207.9 323 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.4S933 U 264 U 4/20/99 200.1 340 3.6 0.1 0.5 7.5S239 U 151 U 10/16/97 238.1 594 0.3 7.4 0.5 16.1S465 U 152 U 10/01/97 199.7 910 0.2 26 2.2 26.8S377 U 138 U 7/08/98 207.9 367 2.8 0.0 0.5 9.5a S-sonicb F-female, M-male, U-unknownc Stages: 1-previtellogenic2-early vitellogenic3-late vitellogenic4-ripe5-spent6-previtellogenic w/ attritic oocytes7-nonreproductive8-reproductived Fish recaptured & retaggedU-unknownPage 62Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesTable 7.USGS gauging station information for the Snake River.StationNumberDescriptionDrainageAreaAnnual MeanFlowMax. DailyMeanMin. DailyMeanYears ofRecord13290450 Snake River atHells CanyonDam73,300 mi 2 20,820 cfs 98,100 cfs(1/2/97)4,360 cfs(5/8/77)27 years(1966–1998)13269000 Snake River atWeiser, ID69,200 mi 2 18,260 cfs 83,800 cfs(4/28/52) a4,460 cfs(6/7/92)86 years(1911–1998)a Extreme events outside the period of record include an estimated flow of 120,000 cfs on 03/03/1910 and reports that the floodof June 1894 was considerably higher.Table 8.USGS gauging station information for tributaries.StationNumberDescriptionDrainageAreaAnnualMean FlowMax. DailyMeanMin. DailyMeanYears of Record a13290190 Pine Creek near Oxbow,OR230 mi 2 166 cfs 7,013 cfs(1/1/97)10 cfs(8/17/77)40 years (1959–1999)13289960 Wildhorse River atBrownlee, ID177 mi 2 55 cfs 1,900 cfs(1/1/97)6.9 cfs(8/15/97)40 years (1959–1999)13289500 Powder River nearRobinette, OR1,660 mi 2 94 cfs 3,620 cfs(2/21/82)0.9 cfs(8/12/66)42 years (1957–1999)13275000 Burnt River atHuntington, ID1,093 mi 2 79 cfs 1,760 cfs(2/26/57)4 cfs(7/16/77)32 years (1956–1980)USGS; 1992–1999ODWRa Some years included in the record are incomplete or missing.Hells Canyon Complex Page 63

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyTable 9.Description of Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee dams.Dam Hells Canyon Brownlee OxbowYear Constructed 1967 1961 1959Location River Mile 247.6 272.5 284.6Dam Height Feet 330 205 395Dam Length Feet 1,000 1,150 1,380Dam Type Concrete Rock-Fill Rock-FillReservoirReservoir Length Miles 25 12 57Total Volume Acre-feet 167,720 58,385 1,420,062Usable Storage Acre-feet 11,800 5,000 975,318Max. Forebay Elev. Feet 1,688 1,805 2,077Min. Forebay Elev. Feet 1,678 1,795 1,976Max. Tailrace Elev. Feet 1,515 1,718 1,825Min. Tailrace Elev. Feet 1,467 1,682 1,799Normal Tailrace Elev. Feet 1,475 1,688 1,805Max. Head Range Feet 221 123 278Power PlantHydraulic Capacity cfs 30,500 28,000 35,000Number of Units 3 4 5Rated Net Head Feet 220 117 272Page 64Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesTable 10. The probability by project of sturgeon of various lengths being struck byturbine blades.Approximate Blade-Strike Probability for Sturgeon of Various Lengths (TL)Project TL = 5 cm TL = 15 cm TL = 25 cmBrownlee 6% 17% 29%Oxbow 6% 18% 30%Hells Canyon 6% 17% 28%Table 11. Estimated costs for downstream passage options at Brownlee Dam.OptionCost(Opinion) a Contingencies Est. O&M Rate Costs aCapture and transport $0.25 50% 25% Construction O&MTrap and transport $3.19 50% 10% Construction O&M$0.38$0.09$4.76$0.48a Cost in millions of dollarsTable 12. Estimated costs for downstream passage options at Oxbow Dam.OptionCost(Opinion) a Contingencies Est. O&M Rate Costs aCapture and transport $0.25 50% 25% Construction O&MTrap and transport $3.28 50% 10% Construction O&M$0.38$0.09$4.92$0.49a Cost in millions of dollarsHells Canyon Complex Page 65

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyTable 13. Estimated costs for downstream passage options at Hells Canyon Dam.OptionCost(Opinion) a Contingencies Est. O&M Rate Costs aCapture and transport $0.25 50% 25% Construction O&MPressurized passage $16.50 50% 10% Construction O&M$0.38$0.09$24.75$2.20a Cost in millions of dollarsTable 14. Estimated costs for upstream passage options at Hells Canyon Dam.OptionCost(Opinion) a Contingencies Est. O&M Rate Costs aCapture and transport $0.30 50% 25% Construction O&MTrap and transport $3.36 50% 10% Construction O&M$0.45$0.11$5.04$0.50a Cost in millions of dollarsTable 15. Estimated costs for upstream passage options at Oxbow Dam.OptionCost(Opinion) a Contingencies Est. O&M Rate Costs aCapture and transport $0.25 50% 25% Construction O&MTrap and transport $3.36 50% 10% Construction O&M$0.38$0.09$5.04$0.50a Cost in millions of dollarsTable 16. Estimated costs for upstream passage options at Brownlee Dam.OptionCost(Opinion) a Contingencies Est. O&M Rate Costs aCapture and transport $0.25 50% 25% Construction O&MTrap and transport $3.60 50% 10% Construction O&MFish lift $6.10 50% 10% Construction O&M$0.38$0.09$5.04$0.54$9.15$0.92a Cost in millions of dollarsPage 66Hells Canyon Complex

Lower MonumentalDamLower Granite DamWASHINGTONIce Harbor DamLittle GooseDamSnake RiverColumbia RiverSalmon RiverHells Canyon DamOxbow DamBrownlee DamOREGONIDAHOSwan Falls DamC.J. Strike DamBliss DamUpper and LowerSalmon Falls DamSnake RiverShoshone FallsDamLegendStudy ReachDamRiver or StreamHells Canyon Project - FERC No.1971Tech Report E.3.1-6, Chapter 4 Figure 1Study area map depicting the locations on the Snake Riverof the Hells Canyon, Oxbow and Brownlee dams.Vicinity MapScale 1:3,469,6580 15 30 60 90 120Miles

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyThis page left blank intentionally.Page 68Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities3020Bliss-CJ Striken= 26 sturgeon100-10-20-30Max Distance from Capture (%)0-5 rm: 235-10 rm: 38>10 rm: 35Mean Movement (rm)Reservoir 2.8River 1.50 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 760 800 840 880 9203020CJ Strike-Swan Fallsn= 22 sturgeonMaximum Distance Traveled from Initial Capture (river miles)100-10-20-303020100-10-20-303020100-10-20-30Max Distance from Capture (%)0-5 rm: 775-10 rm: 14>10 rm: 09Mean Movement (river miles)Reservoir 0.7River 0.50 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 760 800 840 880 920Max Distance from Capture (%)0-5 rm: 455-10 rm: 27>10 rm: 27Mean Movement (river miles)Reservoir 1.3River 0.4Swan Falls - Brownleen= 11 sturgeon0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 760 800 840 880 920Max Distance from Capture (%)0-5 rm: -5-10 rm: ->10 rm: 100Mean Movement (river miles)Reservoir 4.0River -Oxbow - Hells Canyonn = 3 sturgeon0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 760 800 840 880 9203020100-10-20-60Max Distance from Capture (%)0-5 rm: 685-10 rm: 5>10 rm: 27Hells Canyon - Salmon Rivern = 22 sturgeonMean Movement (river miles)Reservoir -River 1.20 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 760 800 840 880 920Days at LargeFigure 2.Mean movement of and maximum recorded distance traveled by whitesturgeon from their initial capture locations in Snake River reachesbetween Bliss Dam and the confluence with the Salmon River. Data fromIdaho Power Company.Hells Canyon Complex Page 69

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power Company30Bliss - C.J. Strike ReachBliss Dam56025201510a)Spawning Window(10-18 0 C)FlowTemp1992 - SpawnersS275 FemaleS2534 FemaleS2426 MaleS2633 FemaleS2354 MaleS2543 FemaleS3335 FemaleS2525 MaleS2345 MaleS2227 MaleTop of CJ Strike Reservoir550540530520510Flow (kcfs) / Temperature ( 0 C)50CJ Strike DamJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec30252015b)Spawning Window(10-18 0 C)FlowTempBliss Dam1993 - SpawnersS249 MaleS258 MaleS2254 MaleS2353 MaleS87 MaleS2227a Female500560550540530River Mile10Top of CJ Strike Reservoir52055105000CJ Strike DamJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecDateFigure 3.Movement behavior of reproductive white sturgeon during the 1992 and1993 spawning periods in the Snake River between Bliss (RM 560) andC.J. Strike (RM 494) dams. Data from Lepla and Chandler (2001).Page 70Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage Facilities30C.J. Strike - Swan Falls ReachCJ Strike Dam4952520a)Spawning W indow(10-18 0 C)1994FlowTempS114 MaleS105 Male4904854801547510Top of Swan Falls Reservoir4705465Flow (kcfs) / Temperature ( 0 C)0Swan Falls DamJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec30CJ Strike Dam252015105Spawning W indow0(10-18 0 C)Swan Falls DamJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec30CJ Strike Dam252015b)c)1 egg collectedon May 2319961995FlowTempS348 FemaleS142 FemaleS132 MaleS115 FemaleTop of Swan Falls ReservoirFlowTempR118 MaleS267 MaleS96 FemaleR114 FemaleS106 FemaleS455 Female460495490485480475470465460495490485480475River Mile10Top of Swan Falls Reservoir4705Spawning W indow(10-18 0 C)Swan Falls Dam0Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecDate465460Figure 4. Movement behavior of reproductive white sturgeon during the 1994, 1995,and 1996 spawning periods in the Snake River between C.J. Strike(RM 494) and Swan Falls (RM 458) dams. Data from Lepla and Chandler(2001).Hells Canyon Complex Page 71

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanySwan Falls - Brownlee Reach6050a)Spawn Window(10-18 0 C)FlowTempSwan Falls Dam4554030201997 SpawnersFemale S375Female R133Male S339Top of Brownlee Res.450340330River MileFlow (kcfs)/ Temperature ( 0 C)100Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec60504030b)Oxbow - Hells Canyon ReachFlowTemp1999 SpawnersFemale S2525Female S2443Brownlee DamOxbow SpillwayOxbow Dam320310300290270265260River Mile2025510Spawn Window(10-18 0 C)Hells Canyon Dam0Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec250DateFigure 5.Movement behavior of reproductive white sturgeon during the 1997 and1999 spawning periods in the Swan Falls−Brownlee (RM 285−458) andOxbow−Hells Canyon (RM 247–273) reaches of the Snake River. Datafrom Lepla and Chandler (2001).Page 72Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesHells Canyon - Lower Granite Reach605040a)Spawn Window(10-18 0 C)Hells Canyon DamFlowTemp1999 SpawnerS249 Female24022020030Confluence of Snake & Salmon River180Flow (kcfs) / Temperature ( 0 C)20Top of Lower Granite Res.10Lower Granite Dam0Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec60504030b)Hells Canyon DamFlowTemp2000 SpawnersFemale S248Female S294Confluence of Snake & Salmon River160140120240220200180River Mile20Top of Lower Granite Res.16014010Spawn Window(10-18 0 C)Lower Granite Dam0Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecDate120Figure 6.Movement behavior of reproductive white sturgeon during the 1999 and2000 spawning periods in the Snake River between Hells Canyon(RM 247) and Lower Granite (RM 107) dams. Data from Lepla andChandler (2001).Hells Canyon Complex Page 73

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 7.Conceptual drawing of a fish ladder.Page 74Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesSource: Warren and Beckman, Fishway Use by WhiteSturgeon on the Columbia RiverFigure 8.Conceptual drawing of sturgeon entering fish ladder orifices.Hells Canyon Complex Page 75

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanySource: ClayFigure 9.Conceptual drawing of a Borland lock.Page 76Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFishLocksSource: Bell, 1984Figure 10.Conceptual drawing of the Bonneville Dam fish locks.Hells Canyon Complex Page 77

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanySource: ClayFigure 11.Conceptual drawing of the Tzymlyanskij fish lock.Page 78Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 12.Conceptual drawing of a fish lift.Hells Canyon Complex Page 79

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 13.Conceptual drawing of an alternative fish lift.Page 80Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 14.Conceptual drawing of a pressurized fish lock for upstream passage of fish.Hells Canyon Complex Page 81

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 15.Conceptual drawing of a pressurized fish lock and lift for upstream passageof fish.Page 82Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 16.Conceptual drawing of a trap and transport facility.Hells Canyon Complex Page 83

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanySource: PUD No. 2 of Grant CountyFigure 17.Conceptual drawing of an overflow weir with water spilling over the top.Page 84Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesSource: Rock Island Dam in 1996Figure 18.Conceptual drawing of notched spill gate.Hells Canyon Complex Page 85

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanySource: Walla Walla Corps of EngineersFigure 19.Conceptual drawing of a removable spillway weir.Page 86Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 20.Conceptual drawing of a pressurized fish lock for downstream passage.Hells Canyon Complex Page 87

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 21.Conceptual drawing of a pressurized fish lock leading to a chute or lift fordownstream passage.Page 88Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 22.Conceptual drawing of a behavioral guidance structure.Hells Canyon Complex Page 89

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 23.Conceptual drawing of a cross section of a behavioral guidance structureconduit.Page 90Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 24.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atBrownlee Dam using a pressurized passage system.Hells Canyon Complex Page 91

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 25.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atBrownlee Dam using a trap and transport system.Page 92Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 26.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atOxbow Dam using a pressurized passage system.Hells Canyon Complex Page 93

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 27.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atOxbow Dam using a trap and transport system.Page 94Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 28.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atHells Canyon Dam using a pressurized passage system.Hells Canyon Complex Page 95

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 29.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon downstream atHells Canyon Dam using a trap and transport system.Page 96Hells Canyon Complex

,GDKR3RZHU&RPSDQ\&KDSWHU&RQFHSWXDO'HVLJQIRU:KLWH6WXUJHRQ3DVVDJH)DFLOLWLHVÃÃ)LJXUH&RQFHSWXDOGUDZLQJRIDQRSWLRQIRUSDVVLQJVWXUJHRQXSVWUHDPDW+HOOV&DQ\RQ'DPXVLQJDILVKORFNV\VWHP+HOOV&DQ\RQ&RPSOH[3DJH

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 31.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atHells Canyon Dam using a fish lift.Page 98Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 32.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atHells Canyon Dam using a pressurized passage system.Hells Canyon Complex Page 99

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 33.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atHells Canyon Dam using a trap and transport system.Page 100Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 34.Conceptual drawing of the layout of the Oxbow Dam Project and variousoptions for passing sturgeon.Hells Canyon Complex Page 101

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 35.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream at OxbowDam using a fish lock.Page 102Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 36.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atOxbow Dam using a pressurized passage system.Hells Canyon Complex Page 103

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 37.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atOxbow Dam using a fish lift.Page 104Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 38.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atOxbow Dam using a trap and transport system.Hells Canyon Complex Page 105

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 39.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atBrownlee Dam using a pressurized passage system.Page 106Hells Canyon Complex

Idaho Power CompanyChapter 4: Conceptual Design for White Sturgeon Passage FacilitiesFigure 40.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atBrownlee Dam using a fish lift.Hells Canyon Complex Page 107

Status and Habitat Use of Snake River White SturgeonIdaho Power CompanyFigure 41.Conceptual drawing of an option for passing sturgeon upstream atBrownlee Dam using a trap and transport system.Page 108Hells Canyon Complex