Upper Basin Study Technical Memorandum

Assessment of Potential Enhanced or New Storage Opportunities

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Finalized December 2018 Mission Statements

U.S. Department of the Interior PROTECTING AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS AND POWERING OUR FUTURE The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future.

Bureau of Reclamation The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Background ...... 1 1.2 Objectives ...... 1 2. Storage Assessment Process ...... 2 2.1 Objectives for New Storage ...... 2 2.2 Evaluation Criteria Relevant to Potential New Storage ...... 2 2.3 Literature Review and Inventory of Previously Studied Storage Sites ...... 3 2.4 Identification of Storage Concepts for Further Assessment ...... 3 3. Storage Concept Assessment ...... 4 3.1 Monner Area Concepts ...... 5 3.1.1 Concept Description ...... 5 3.1.2 Concept Information ...... 5 3.2 Haystack Area Concepts ...... 6 3.2.1 Concept Descriptions ...... 6 3.2.2 Concept Information ...... 6 3.3 Prineville Storage Restoration ...... 7 3.3.1 Concept Description ...... 7 3.3.2 Concept Information ...... 7 4. Findings ...... 8 4.1 Limitations on Water Delivery ...... 8 4.2 Existing Infrastructure ...... 8 4.3 Fish Passage ...... 9 4.4 Cost Considerations ...... 9 4.5 Environmental, Cultural and Socioeconomic Issues ...... 10 4.6 Storage Assessment Task Outcomes ...... 10 5. Literature Cited ...... 11

Appendix A – Inventory of Structural Storage Concepts

Appendix B – Preliminary Data Summary for Storage Assessment Concepts

i CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

List of Figures Figure 1. General location of concepts...... 4 Figure 2. Monner area concepts...... 5 Figure 3. Haystack area concepts...... 6

ii

1. Introduction

This memorandum summarizes planning level assessments of potential new storage opportunities completed as part of the Upper Deschutes River Basin Study (Basin Study). The objective of this assessment is to evaluate if and how enhanced or new storage facilities could contribute to overall water management objectives. The Basin Study does not propose, recommend, or endorse any particular storage concept or plan.

1.1 Project Background

The Basin Study provides an analysis of water supply and demand and identifies associated imbalances. In addition to analyzing how existing operations and infrastructure will perform under projected future water supply conditions and demands, the Basin Study was structured to collaboratively develop and evaluate options for addressing identified water imbalances. The storage assessment task was conducted to provide information about potential new water storage opportunities as one element of future water management strategies.

1.2 Objectives

The storage assessment task was completed to: • Review storage concepts considered in previous studies or evaluations. • Develop criteria for evaluating potential storage opportunities relative to Basin Study objectives. • Collaboratively identify one or more potential storage concepts for further evaluation. • Compile information on each of the identified storage concepts in terms of the relevant criteria.

This assessment focuses on potential concepts from a physical storage capacity perspective to determine how new storage may contribute to water management objectives in the basin. Other elements of any particular storage concept would need to be further evaluated after stakeholders have determinined if or how storage may contribute to long-term water management objectives in the basin.

December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum 1

The information presented in this memorandum is at an early planning level designed to inform evaluation of storage as a general concept in modeling broader water management scenarios. All information is pre-decisional.

2. Storage Assessment Process

A Storage Assessment Technical Working Group (TWG) was formed from the Basin Study Work Group (BSWG) to provide input, guidance and recommendations for the storage assessment task. Phase I of the storage assessment task involved a broad inventory and evaluation of potential storage opportunities in the basin. Phase II involved compilation of information for identified storage concepts to support evaluation of potential benefits during water resource modeling scenarios. Outcomes and recommendations were reviewed with the BSWG Steering Committee for concurrence as the assessment progressed.

2.1 Objectives for New Storage

The TWG defined the objective for potential new storage concepts in the Upper Deschutes River basin as providing the capacity to store water in lieu of storage at . New locations for stored water would be to facilitate increased non-irrigation season flows in the Upper Deschutes River and to facilitate moderated irrigation season flows in the Upper Deschutes River.

For the basin, the TWG defined the objective for new storage as providing restored storage capacity that could enhance operational flexibilities relative to the multiple objectives for water operations in the basin.

2.2 Evaluation Criteria Relevant to Potential New Storage

Evaluation criteria were reviewed with the TWG during Phase I of the storage assessment task. The group identified the following criteria as relevant for assessing potential new storage concepts: • Contributions to achieving identified objective(s) for storage. • Potential volume (annual acre-feet). • Reliability of fill. • Relative costs (capital costs, costs per acre-foot, ongoing operation and maintenance, etc.). • Geologic issues (foundation, leakage, etc.).

2 December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum

• Water availability. • Legal, regulatory, administrative constraints (scenic waterways, water right permitting, etc.). • Location issues (land ownership, existing structures/utilities, etc.). • Location re: supporting infrastructure, demand, etc. • Streamflow and/or habitat impacts on overall aquatic ecosystem & relevant species. • Fish passage impacts on Threatened and Endangered and other species. • Multi-purpose considerations (recreation, hydropower, etc.). • Cultural, historic, scenic values. • Alternatives for meeting same objectives (conservation, etc.). • Broad-based support for storage concept.

2.3 Literature Review and Inventory of Previously Studied Storage Sites

Documents in Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Region Planning Library were reviewed to identify storage sites examined in previous studies. In addition, Water Resources Department website listings of potential storage locations were consulted and the TWG provided further input on possible storage sites for consideration. The resulting inventory listing of previously studied storage sites is included as Appendix A.

2.4 Identification of Storage Concepts for Further Assessment

The TWG determined that the storage assessment would focus on off-channel surface storage concepts and that groundwater recharge or aquifer storage and recovery concepts would not be addressed as part of this task.

The TWG reviewed the broad inventory of potential new storage sites relative to the criteria listed in Section 2.2. During two workshop meetings, the TWG developed consensus agreement that three general concept locations were of interest and would provide a representative range of potential storage benefits and challenges for consideration. While the Plan of Study for the Basin Study envisioned the storage assessment task budget to be used to examine one concept, the TWG agreed that multiple concepts would be examined in Phase II. The concepts identified for further assessment are described below.

December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum 3

3. Storage Concept Assessment

Storage concepts identified for assessment involve: two variations of an off-channel reservoir east of Madras, Oregon, referred to as Monner Reservoir in prior studies; several variations of new or expanded storage in the area of Haystack Reservoir, an existing off-channel reservoir south of Madras, Oregon; and a storage restoration concept for intended to regain storage volumes lost to sedimentation in the existing reservoir. General locations of storage concepts are shown in Figure 1.

The following sections present information about the identified storage concepts to support planning-level consideration by BSWG of concepts to be included in water resource management modeling scenarios. Following completion of the scenario modeling and the Basin Study report, further planning, investigative, design, and other work would be required if basin stakeholders determine that potential benefits of storage concepts warrant additional interest.

Figure 1. General location of concepts.

4 December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum

3.1 Monner Area Concepts

3.1.1 Concept Description

The Monner Reservoir concept has been identified in prior studies (Reclamation 1972; Reclamation 1991). It would involve an off-channel, earthfill dam to store water delivered by pumping. Two versions of the Monner concept were identified by the TWG to provide information on a range of potential storage concepts: a smaller concept that could serve nearby agricultural lands by gravity distribution; and a larger concept that could serve additional agricultural lands with pumping.

3.1.2 Concept Information

Information compiled for both the smaller and the larger Monner Reservoir concepts are summarized in Appendix B. The concept locations are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Monner area concepts.

December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum 5

3.2 Haystack Area Concepts

3.2.1 Concept Descriptions

The TWG identified several concepts for potential consideration in the area of the existing Haystack Reservoir. These concepts would involve off-channel, earthfill dams to store water delivered by pumping from the North Unit Irrigation District main canal. A range of storage volumes could be considered for each concept; potential volumes were assessed by the TWG on a preliminary basis using screening level stage/storage information.

3.2.2 Concept Information

Information compiled for the Haystack area concepts are summarized in Appendix B. The concepts are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Haystack area concepts.

6 December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum

3.3 Prineville Storage Restoration

3.3.1 Concept Description

The Prineville Storage Restoration concept was identified by the TWG for consideration in water resource management scenarios. The concept would involve constructing a gate at the existing A. R. Bowman Dam spillway to allow a pool raise (increase in maximum stored water elevation) of approximately 1.5 feet. This increase could restore approximately 4,500 acre-feet of original storage that has been lost to sedimentation in Prineville Reservoir.

3.3.2 Concept Information

Information compiled for the Prineville Storage Restoration concept is summarized in Appendix B. Figure 4 shows the location of the concept relative to the existing dam and spillway facilities.

Figure 4. Prineville storage restoration concept.

December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum 7

4. Findings

The storage assessment provides information about potential storage concepts to support BSWG consideration of concepts to be included in water resource management modeling scenarios. The sections below summarize key findings from information included in Appendix B.

4.1 Limitations on Water Delivery

As noted in Appendix B, the Haystack area and Monner area concepts involve deliveries via the open North Unit Irrigation District main canal. Such deliveries would need to take place outside of irrigation season and when weather conditions would not be too cold for open water flows. Based on input from the TWG, this period was assumed to be from November 1 through 30 and from March 1 through 31. The TWG recognized that additional winter operations could extend the delivery period during favorable weather conditions and that climate change may extend operational periods in the future. Maximum volumes that could be delivered to the relevant storage concepts for this assumed time period are on the order of 75,000 acre- feet, based on 61 days at approximately 625 cubic feet per second net canal capacity.

4.2 Existing Infrastructure

Large transmission lines are present in the area of the Monner concepts. Preliminary and informal information from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) indicated that the size and regional importance of these transmission lines would affect the practicality of both Monner concepts (BPA 2017). At issue are three 500 kV lines making up the AC Intertie; BPA suggested that a process exists for looking at options to relocate lines, but it would be complex and would need to involve all affected parties, including out-of-state power users, etc. BPA indicated that the EIS process would take years and that outages required for relocation would be costly (BPA 2017).

In addition, a power line is noted in Appendix B for the Upper Haystack concept. This is reportedly a 230-kV transmission line (BPA 2017). As a single line of lower voltage, it is possible that relocation options may be less complex and costly than for the Monner area in the context of overall planning for a large infrastructure project.

In both cases, additional assessment of the potential for addressing transmission line issues would be appropriate before proceeding with more detailed planning for the relevant storage concepts.

8 December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum

Other existing infrastructure (residences, commercial operations, pipelines, roads, etc.) are present as noted in Appendix B and impacts would require further, more detailed assessment prior to advancing any particular concept.

4.3 Fish Passage

Preliminary and informal information from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Fish Passage Program indicates that a key factor for the Prineville storage restoration concept could be whether the restoration of original storage at Prineville Reservoir would meet the definition of a structural modification that increases storage or diversion capacity (ODFW 2017). If not, then it is possible that ODFW fish passage requirements may not apply. However, if the restoration of original storage at Prineville Reservoir were determined to meet the definition of a structural modification that increases storage or diversion capacity, then fish passage requirements may apply (ODFW 2017). As noted in Appendix B, further assessment of water rights issues would be a first step, and related coordination with ODFW would then be appropriate prior to more detailed planning.

4.4 Cost Considerations

Reclamation did not develop cost estimates for the identified concepts. For the Haystack and Monner area concepts, cost factors in Apendix B that are relevant to assessment of relative costs for the various approaches involve: • Potential volume of materials for construction of an earthfill dam • Capacity and lift required for pumping plants • Length of pipelines and/or canal construction required

Appendix B includes summaries of cost estimate information from similar projects to provide context for BSWG determinations about concepts to be evaluated in water resource management modeling scenarios

The information from other storage studies suggests that potential construction costs for Upper Deschutes concepts could range from roughly $30 million for a smaller facility (less than 5,000 acre-feet) to more than $300 million for the larger facilities considered. Ongoing costs after construction would include power costs for pumping water into, and in some cases from, new storage facilities. Power costs would be dependent on many concept-specific factors but may be on the order of $1 million or more annually. Significant additional costs would be incurred for investigating and addressing other elements of any new storage project, such as: land acquisition; environmental impacts and mitigation; engineering for site-specific conditions;

December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum 9

existing utilities, road, and other infrastructure; historic properties; cultural resources; permitting; and other issues.

4.5 Environmental, Cultural and Socioeconomic Issues

As noted in Appendix B, construction of new and/or expanded water storage facilities would involve environmental, cultural and socioeconomic impacts. Such impacts would be likely to require years of planning, investigative, design, and other work to evaluate specific issues and potential mitigation measures.

4.6 Storage Assessment Task Outcomes

The storage assessment indicates that relevant volumes of water could potentially be stored at topographically suitable locations in the Upper Deschutes River basin. The assessment also identified a potential storage restoration concept for Prineville Reservoir in the Crooked River basin.

The TWG, and subsequently the BSWG Steering Committee, determined that one of the four hypothetical water resource management scenarios evaluated for the Upper Deschutes River should include storage at a new location as an element of potential longer-term approaches for addressing water management objectives. The information in Appendix B was used to select a representative, generalized storage concept so that potential benefits of new storage could be considered using the water resources modeling tool. A mid-range storage volume of 40,000 acre-feet was assumed at a representative construction cost on the order of $200 million. The outcomes of that assessment are discussed in the Technical Memorandum on hydrologic analyses (Reclamation 2018) and in the Basin Study report.

In addition to the generalized storage concept assessed for the Upper Deschutes River, the TWG and the Steering Committee determined that the fourth hypothetical water resource management scenario would also include the storage restoration concept as an element of potential longer-term approaches for the Crooked River basin. A potential storage increase of 4,500 acre-feet was assumed at a representative construction cost on the order of $1 million. The outcomes of that assessment are discussed in the Technical Memorandum on hydrologic analyses (Reclamation 2018) and in the Basin Study report.

In the event that basin stakeholders determine that it would be worthwhile to pursue one or more new/expanded storage concepts in the future, additional planning, investigation, and design work would be required. For example, Reclamation’s

10 December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum

planning process for new water supply projects typically involves an appraisal-level assessment to determine whether a specific and viable water resource alternative has been identified; then associated authorization and funding would be required to complete a feasibility-level assessment and identification of a preferred alternative. These processes are outlined in the Reclamation Manual (CMP 09-02; Reclamation 2012). Appraisal-level studies often involve costs on the order of several hundred thousand dollars, and feasibility-level studies and associated environmental compliance activities for large-scale storage projects often involve costs of several million dollars.

(Note: The content of this document was finalized December 2018; formatting for accessibility compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act was applied in 2019.)

5. Literature Cited

Bonneville Power Administration, 2017. Email from Kevlyn Baker (Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon) to Michael Relf (Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho). Subject: Information re: Transmission Lines, August 18, 2017.

Bureau of Reclamation, 1972. Special Report; Deschutes Project Central Division, Oregon; Potentials for Expansion and Improvement of Water Supplies. July 1972. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho.

Bureau of Reclamation, 1991. Upper Deschutes Water Conservation Study, Potential Reservoir Storage Sites. August 1991. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.

Bureau of Reclamation, 1999. Prineville Reservoir 1998 Sedimentation Survey. March 1999. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.

Bureau of Reclamation, 2012. Reclamation Manual Directives and Standards CMP 09-02, Water and Related Resources Feasibility Studies. September 2012. Available online at https://www.usbr.gov/recman/cmp/cmp09-02.pdf (last accessed December 27, 2018).

Bureau of Reclamation, 2018. Technical Memorandum: Analysis of Regulated River Flow in the Upper Deschutes Basin using Varying in-Stream and Out-of-Stream

December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum 11

Conditions. December 2018, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017. Email from Greg Apke (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife – Fish Division, Salem, Oregon) to Michael Relf (Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho). Subject: Oregon Fish Passage Statutes and Administrative Rules. August 7, 2017.

Oregon Water Resources Department, 2017. Oregon Water Resources Department Above Ground Potential Storage Project Search. Available online at https://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/planning/owsci/sw_project_search.aspxf (last accessed December 27, 2018).

12 December 2018 – Storage Assessment Technical Memorandum

APPENDIX A

INVENTORY OF STRUCTURAL STORAGE CONCEPTS

The Storage Assessment Technical Working Group brainstormed to develop a list of storage concepts that have been considered in the past (note that these concepts are not necessarily recommended for further evaluation). This input identified the following past concepts/references for the Upper Deschutes (UD), Whychus (W), and Crooked (C) basins: 1. 1972 Reclamation study re: Monner Reservoir and other options (UD) 2. Reclamation study of Bowman Dam parapet wall re: Safety of Dams (C) 3. Expanded storage at Lake Billy Chinook w/pumping, per relicensing (UD) 4. Possible 1972, 1977 studies of options to increase storage at existing Upper Deschutes reservoirs (UD) 5. Pre-Wickiup studies of , Big Marsh options in the 1930s (UD) 6. Dry Canyon option (UD) 7. OWRD assessment of storage sites at http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/law/owsci_info.aspx#Potential_Water_Storage_ Sites (UD, W, C) 8. OWRD overview study of ASR/related sites at http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/planning/owsci/gw_project_search.aspx (UD, W, C) 9. Increasing storage at Bowman Dam – options beyond changes to rule curve (C) 10. Fisher Reservoir – Ochoco ID re-regulating concept (C) 11. Post Reservoir site upstream of Bowman, examined by Reclamation (C) 12. Big Summit Prairie storage option – included in 1972 Reclamation study? (C) 13. (Within-district opportunities – likely included in FCA scope) 14. Horse Heaven Creek study in early 1980s - ? (C) 15. LiDAR data re: TSID interest in higher storage options; USFS noted associated challenges per Wild & Scenic, etc. (W) 16. Off-channel impoundments that may have both peak-flow flood control benefits and instream flow benefits (W) 17. Aquifer recharge project, Limited License #1184, Deschutes River; identified in a January 25 letter from Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis to Reclamation (UD) 18. Concept of addition potential flood storage space at Prineville Reservoir to allow additional storage per rule curve requirements (C) The above referenced concepts are listed below, followed by listings of additional concepts noted in a 1991 Reclamation summary memo and/or in OWRD documents #7 and 8 above.

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) Past Concepts/References Identified during Jan. 14, 2016 Brainstorming Monner Reservoir Deschutes Unn Str>Mud 63,000 Deschutes Project, Central (#1 & 4 above) Springs Cr Division; Special Report - Potentials for Expansion and Improvement of Water Supplies; USBR 1972

Upper Deschutes Water Conservation Study, Potential Reservoir Storage Sites; Reclamation, 1991 Big Marsh Dam & Reservoir Deschutes Big Marsh Creek 200,000 Deschutes Project, Central (#1 & 4 above) Division; Special Report - Potentials for Expansion and Improvement of Water Supplies; USBR 1972 Big Prairie Dam & Reservoir Crooked N. Fork Crooked 100,000 Deschutes Project, Central (#1 & 4 above) River Division; Special Report - Potentials for Expansion and Improvement of Water Supplies; USBR 1972 Beaver Creek Dam & Crooked N. Fork Beaver 30,000 Deschutes Project, Central Reservoir Creek Division; Special Report - (#1 & 4 above) Potentials for Expansion and Improvement of Water Supplies; USBR 1972 Bowman Dam/Prineville Crooked Crooked River Project, OR, Reservoir expansion general, Arthur R. Bowman Dam, (# 2, 9, 18 above) Safety of Dams Modification, FONSI, Final EA, Feb 2010, USBR (70.852)

Crooked River Project, OR, general, Technical Report of Construction, Arthur R. Bowman Dam Modification, Safety of Dams – Contract No. R10PC10066, September 2012, USBR (70.856)

Crooked River Project, OR, Technical Report of Construction, Ochoco Dam Modification Completion, Crooked River Project, Oregon, June 2013, USBR 70.020) Lake Billy Chinook Expansion Deschutes Per OWRD report: DEQ – Water (#3 above) Quality Action Plan: Sept 2011 (11-WQ-043)

Additional relevant information may be in documents from FERC Relicensing process Benham Falls 1 Deschutes Deschutes OWRD (#5 above) R>Columbia R R>Columba R – AB Tumalo Cr Benham Falls 2 Deschutes Deschutes 442,500 OWRD (#5 above) R>Columbia R R>Columba R – AB Tumalo Cr

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) Benham Falls 3 Deschutes Deschutes 300,000 OWRD (#5 above) R>Columbia R R>Columba R – AB Tumalo Cr Benham Falls East Side Deschutes Deschutes OWRD Bypass R>Columbia R R>Columba R (#5 above) – AB Tumalo Cr Benham Falls West Side Deschutes Deschutes OWRD Bypass R>Columbia R R>Columba R (#5 above) – AB Tumalo Cr Benham Falls, Wickiup, Deschutes USBR - 84.224 – 84.232a-b; Crane Prairie, Davis Lake; 84.234a-b Crescent Crook; Black Rock; Big Marsh; Odell Lake; Waldo Deschutes River, OR, Benham Lake reservoir sites Falls Reservoir, Deschutes River (#5 above) and Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs, West , Columbia Basin Project River Basin Surveys, November 1948; USBR (84.206)

Deschutes Project, OR, Benham Falls reservoir, Proposed Benham Falls Reservoir and Rehabilitation of Existing Reservoir, Project Report , December 1953, NPS (USBR 84.228)

Deschutes River, OR, Deschutes investigations, Storage Investigations, Progress Report, May 1935, USBR (84.12; 84-122) Big Marsh 1 Little Deschutes Big Marsh 32,000 Deschutes Project, Central (#5 above) R>Deschutes R Cr>Crescent Cr Division; Special Report - – at mouth Potentials for Expansion and Improvement of Water Supplies; USBR 1972 Big Marsh 2 Little Deschutes Big Marsh 90,000 Deschutes Project, Central (#5 above) R>Deschutes R Cr>Crescent Cr Division; Special Report - – at mouth Potentials for Expansion and Improvement of Water Supplies; USBR 1972 Davis Lake; Crescent Creek; Deschutes Deschutes River, OR, Deschutes Black Rock; Big Marsh; Odell Investigations, 1934-1935, Part 1, Lake; Waldo Lake Storage Investigations, Volume II, (#5 above) July 1936 (USBR 84.126) Dry Canyon Deschutes (Follow up w/Jeremy Giffin) (#6 above) Fisher Reservoir Crooked (Follow up w/Mike Kasberger) (#10 above) Post Reservoir Storage Dam Crooked Crooked River Project, OR, Post (#11 above) Reservoir, Post Reservoir Storage Dam, Crooked River Diversion Dam, Preliminary Estimates, USBR (70.08), 1935 Big Summit Prairie Crooked (see Big Prairie concept for #1, (#12 above) above)

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) Within-District Opportunities Crooked; (May be addressed in FCA scope; (#13 above) possibly D, W? follow up w/Niklas Christensen) Lower Horse Heaven – Crooked Lower Horse Heaven Project, WA, irrigation and development Reconnaissance Report, June potential 1962, Region 1 USBR (131.93; (#14 above) 141.931; 141.932; 141.934; 141.936)

Development Potential, December 1970, College of Agriculture, Washington State University WSU

Lower Horse Heaven Project, WA, Horse Heaven Hills Irrigation Potential, Reconnaissance Study , July 1976, produced for the Horse Heaven Hills Select Committee by CH2M Hill Smaller storage concepts Whychus (Follow up w/Marc Thalacker) higher in Whychus basin (#15 above) Off-channel impoundments Whychus (Follow up w/Marc Thalacker) w/instream flow and peak flood flow benefits (#16 above) Deschutes River Aquifer Re- Deschutes Bryant Lovelien & Jarvis, charge Project (includes Attorneys – representing Avion permit for applicants to Water Company and Deschutes discharge up to 25,000 acre- Valley Water District; per Jan. 25, feet annually into the regional 2016 letter to Reclamation aquifer system) (#17 above) Additional Concepts Identified from 1991 Reclamation Summary Memo Shevlin Park Deschutes 5000 Upper Deschutes Water Bull Creek & Tumalo Dam Deschutes 20,000 Conservation Study, Potential Enlargement/Modification Reservoir Storage Sites - McKenzie Canyon Deschutes, Squaw Creek 6000 Summary; Reclamation, 1991 Enlargement Whychus Area Cloverdale Deschutes, Squaw Creek 6000 Whychus Area Squaw Creek A Deschutes, Squaw Creek 3600 Whychus Area Squaw Creek B Deschutes, Squaw Creek 8500 Whychus Area Watson Reservoir Deschutes, Squaw Creek 4000 Enlargement Whychus Area Three Creek Lake Whychus Three Creek Enlargement Houston Lake Site Deschutes 12,000 O’Neil Deschutes 11,000 Bend Airport Deschutes 23,000 Alfalfa Deschutes Dry River 91,000 Lot H,F L. Crooked 12,000 Terrebonne L Crooked 6000 Lytle Creek Dam Crooked Lytle Creek 88,000 Enlargement

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) Lamonta Road Crooked 5000 McKay Creek Crooked McKay Creek 180,000 Barnes Butte Enlargement Crooked 5000 Johnson Creek Dam Crooked Johnson Creek 8000 Enlargement Old Dry Creek Crooked Old Dry Creek 20,000 Potential Surface Water Sites identified from OWRD Storage Site Online Resource Brennan Beaver Grindstone 100 Brennan Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Beaver Cr at mouth Cemetery Creek Crooked Cemetery 100 Cemetery Creek R>Deschutes R Cr>Crooked R – AB Sand Cr Deep Creek Deep Cr>N Fk Deep Cr>N Fk Deep Creek Crooked R – at Crooked R mouth Drake Creek Crooked Drake 100 Drake Creek R>Deschutes R Cr>Crooked R – AB Sand Cr Evans Creek Ochoco Evans Cr>Mill Cr 250 Evans Creek Cr>Crooked R – at mouth Fir Tree N Fk Crooked N Fk Crooked Fir Tree R>Crooked R – R>Crooked R at mouth Garski Camp La Follet 100 Garski Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Clover Cr at mouth Grindstone, Lower Beaver Grindstone 150 Grindstone, Lower Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Beaver Cr at mouth Grindstone, Upper Beaver Grindstone 200 Grindstone, Upper Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Beaver Cr at mouth Hoffman Crooked Crooked 1,265,000 Hoffman R>Deschutes R R>Deschutes R – AB Dry R Howard Creek Johnson Cr>N Howard Cr>Elliot 15,000 Howard Creek Fk Crooked R – Cr at mouth Hudspeth Lake N Fk Crooked N Fk Crooked 14,000 Hudspeth Lake R>Crooked R – R>Crooked R AB Johnson Cr Indian Creek Camp Indian Cr>W Fk 300 Indian Creek Cr>Crooked R – Camp Cr at mouth Jaghi Camp Camp 300 Jaghi Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Crooked R at mouth Lawson Creek Ochoco Lawson 300 Lawson Creek Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Ochoco Cr at mouth Lookout Creek N Fk Crooked Lookout Cr>N Fk Lookout Creek R>Crooked R – Crooked R AB Johnson Cr

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) Lost Creek Crooked Lost Cr>Crooked 150 Lost Creek R>Deschutes R R – AB Sand Cr Marks Creek Ochoco Marks 200 Marks Creek Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Ochoco Cr at mouth Mills Beaver Beaver Mills Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Beaver Cr at mouth Mills Beaver Unn Str>Beaver 100 Mills Cr>Crooked R – Cr at mouth Newsome Creek, Lower Crooked Newsome 200 Newsome Creek, Lower R>Deschutes R Cr>Crooked R – AB Sand Cr Newsome Creek, Upper Crooked Newsome 150 Newsome Creek, Upper R>Deschutes R Cr>Crooked R – AB Sand Cr North Fork Crooked River N Fk Crooked N Fk Crooked North Fork Crooked River R>Crooked R – R>Crooked R AB Deep Cr Old Dry Creek McKay Old Dry 200 Old Dry Creek Cr>Crooked R – Cr>McKay Cr at mouth Paulina Beaver Beaver 15,000 Paulina Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Crooked R at mouth Paulina Valley Beaver Paulina Paulina Valley Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Beaver Cr at mouth Powell Beaver N Fk Beaver 15,000 Powell Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Beaver Cr at mouth Price Camp Clover Cr>S Fk 200 Price Cr>Crooked R – Camp Cr at mouth Q Ranch Camp S Fk Camp 150 Q Ranch Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Camp0 Cr at mouth Roba Creek Beaver Roba Cr>Paulina 100 Roba Creek Cr>Crooked R – Cr at mouth Sand Hollow S Fk Crooked Sand Hollow 300 Sand Hollow R>Crooked R – Cr>S Fk Crooked at mouth R Sheep Rock Crooked Lost Cr>Sheep 100 Sheep Rock R>Deschutes R Rock Cr – AB Sand Cr South Fork Camp Creek Camp S Fk Camp 500 South Fork Camp Creek Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Camp Cr at mouth South Fork Crooked River S Fk Crooked S Fk Crooked 18,000 South Fork Crooked River R>Crooked R – R>Crooked R at mouth Stewart Creek Crooked Steward 200 Stewart Creek R>Deschutes R Cr>Crooked R – AB Sand Cr

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) Twelvemile S Fk Crooked Twelvemile Cr>S 200 Twelvemile R>Crooked R – Fk Crooked R at mouth Veazie Creek Ochoco Veazie 300 Veazie Creek R>Crooked R – Cr>Ochoco Cr at mouth Wolf Mountain Beaver Powell Cr>N Fk 5,030 Wolf Mountain Cr>Crooked R – Beaver Cr at mouth Aubrey Falls Deschutes Deschutes Aubrey Falls R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Buckhorn Can Big Deschutes Cultus 80,000 Big Cultus Lake R>Columba R – Cr>Deschutes R AB Little Deschutes Henderson Deschutes Off 4,000 Henderson R>Columbia R channel>Deschut – AB Shitike Cr es R Indian Ford, Lower Indian Ford Indian Ford 7,444 Indian Ford, Lower Cr>Squaw Cr – Cr>Whychus Cr at mouth Indian Ford, Upper Indian Ford Indian Ford 319 Indian Ford, Upper Cr>Squaw Cr – Cr>Whychus Cr at mouth Inex Maria Little Deschutes Paulina Cr>Little 856 Inex Maria R>Deschutes R Deschutes R – at mouth Laidlaw Deschutes Deschutes Laidlaw R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Buckhorn Canal Deschutes Deschutes Lava Island Falls R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Tumalo Cr Pothole Deschutes Whychus 3,000 Pothole R>Columbia R Cr>Deschutes R – AB Shitike Cr Sage Flat Indian Ford Deschutes 20,500 Sage Flat Cr>Squaw Cr – R>Columbia R at mouth Box Canyon, Lower Deschutes Crooked Box Canyon, Lower R>Columbia R R>Deschutes R – AB Shitike Cr Box Canyon, Upper Deschutes Crooked Box Canyon, Upper R>Columbia R R>Deschutes R – AB Shitike Cr Coleman Deschutes Deschutes Coleman R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Eagle Cr Crescent Creek Little Deschutes Crescent 32,000 Crescent Creek R>Deschutes R Cr>Little – at mouth Deschutes R Dry Creek Hay Cr>Trout Dry Cr>Hay Cr 100 Dry Creek Cr – at mouth

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) East Morrow Willow Newbill 692 East Morrow Cr>Deschutes Cr>Willow Cr R – at mouth Intercanyon Deschutes Deschutes Intercanyon R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Shitike Cr Jack Creek Metolius Jack Cr>Metolius Jack Creek R>Deschutes R R – AB Street Cr Jefferson Creek Metolius Metolius Jefferson Creek R>Deschutes R R>Deschutes R – AB Street Cr Kauffman, Lower Willow Willow 82 Kauffman, Lower Cr>Deschutes Cr>Deschutes R R – at mouth Kauffman, Upper Willow Willow 1,040 Kauffman, Upper Cr>Deschutes Cr>Deschutes R R – at mouth Lyle Hay Cr>Trout Wilson Cr>Hay 103 Lyle Cr – at mouth Cr Mecca Deschutes Deschutes Mecca R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Eagle Cr Metolius Deschutes Deschutes Metolius R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Shitike Cr Riggs Deschutes Metolius Riggs R>Columbia R R>Deschutes R – AB Shitike Cr Whitewater Creek Metolius Metolius Whitewater Creek R>Deschutes R R>Deschutes R – AB Street Cr Willow Creek Willow Willow 850 Willow Creek Cr>Deschutes Cr>Deschutes R R – at mouth Wilson Creek Hay Cr>Trout Wilson Cr>Hay 650 Wilson Creek Cr – at mouth Cr Beuther Buck Cottonwood 136 Beuther Hollow>Deschut Can>Finnegan es R – at mouth Can Cottonwood Canyon Buck Cottonwood 40 Cottonwood Canyon Hollow>Deschut Can>Finnegan es R – at mouth Can Finnegan Canyon, Lower Buck Finnegan 60 Finnegan Canyon, Lower Hollow>Deschut Can>Buck es R – at mouth Hollow Finnegan Canyon, Upper Buck Finnegan 100 Finnegan Canyon, Upper Hollow>Deschut Can>Buck es R – at mouth Hollow Jones Canyon Deschutes Unn St>Jones 60 Jones Canyon R>Columbia R Canal – at mouth Moody Deschutes Deschutes Moody R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – at mouth

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) Oak Brook Deschutes Deschutes Oak Brook R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – at mouth Unnamed Buck Cottonwood 136 Unnamed Hollow>Deshcut Canal>Sand es R – at mouth Hollow Ashley Antelope Antelope 1,200 Ashley Crk>Trout Crk – Crk>Trout Crk at mouth Frieda Deschutes Deschutes Frieda R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – at mouth Gate Creek White Gate Cr>Rock Cr 600 Gate Creek R>Deschutes R – at mouth Gutzier White Unn Str>White R 100 Gutzier R>Deschutes R – at mouth Kennedy White Hazel 200 Kennedy R>Deschutes R Hollow>Gate Cr – at mouth Larseil Deschutes Dead Dog 100 Larseil R>Columbia R Canal>Salt Cr – at mouth Lockit Deschutes Deschutes Lockit R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – at mouth Maupin Deschutes Deschutes Maupin R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – at mouth Oak Springs Deschutes Deschutes Oak Springs R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – at mouth Rimrock Deschutes Rimrock R>Columba R Schoolie Warm Springs Warm Spring 100,000 Schoolie R>Deschutes R R>Deschutes R – at mouth Sherrar Falls Deschutes Deschutes Sherrar Falls R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – at mouth Sinamox Deschutes Deschutes Sinamox R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – at mouth Threemile, Lower White Threemile 300 Threemile, Lower R>Deschutes R Cr>White R – at mouth Threemile, Upper White Threemile 400 Threemile, Upper R>Deschutes – Cr>White R at mouth Wapinitia Deschutes Wapinitia 20,000 Wapinitia R>Columbia R Cr>Deschutes R – at mouth White River White White White River R>Deschutes R R>Deschutes R – at mouth

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) Whitehorse Rapids Deschutes Deschutes Whitehorse Rapids R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Eagle Cr Additional Concepts Identified from OWRD Above Ground Storage Site Online Resource Allen Creek, Lower Allen Allen Crk>McKay 150 OWRD Crk>McKay Crk Crk http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/page – at mouth s/law/owsci_info.aspx#Potential_ Allen Creek, Upper Allen Allen Crk>McKay 100 Water_Storage_Sites Crk>McKay Crk Crk (#7 above) – at mouth Bear Creek Bear Bear 5,000 Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Crooked R at mouth Beaver Creek Beaver Beaver 10,000 Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Crooked R at mouth Beaver Creek, South Fork Beaver S Fk Beaver 300 Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Beaver Cr at mouth Beaver Creek, South Fork Beaver S Fk Beaver 15,000 Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Beaver Cr at mouth Big Prairie 1 N Fk Crooked N Fk Crooked 44,000 R>Crooked R – R>Crooked R AB Deep Cr Big Prairie 2 N Fk Crooked N Fk Crooked 34,000 R>Crooked R – R>Crooked R at mouth Little Bear, Lower Bear Little Bear 50 Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Bear Cr at mouth Little Bear, Upper Bear Little Bear 150 Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Bear Cr at mouth Lone Pine Creek Crooked Lone Pine 3,000 R>Deschutes R Cr>Crooked R – AB Osborne Canal McKay Creek McKay McKay 150 Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Crooked R AB Allen Cr McKay Creek McKay McKay 150 Cr>Crooked R – Cr>Crooked R AB Allen Cr Post Crooked Crooked R>Deschutes R R>Deschutes R – AB Sand Cr Valley Crooked Unn Str>Watson 400 R>Deschutes R Cr – AB Sand Cr Rabbit Valley Crooked Watson 566 R>Deschutes R Cr>Crooked R – AB Sand Cr Sarvis Creek Crooked Sarvis 100 R>Deschutes R Cr>Crooked R – AB Sand Cr

Concept Basin Stream Total Source Storage (acre-feet) Watson Crooked Watson 394 R>Deschutes R Cr>Crooked R – AB Sand Cr Davis Creek Camp Davis Cr>Camp 150 Cr>Crooked R – Cr at mouth Davis Lake Deschutes Davis Cr>Davis R>Columbia R Cr – AB Little Deschutes Deschutes Deschutes R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Tumalo Cr Green Lakes Deschutes Green R>Columbia R Lakes>Fall Cr – AB Little Deschutes Pole Creek Damsite Squaw Whychuss Cr>Deschutes Cr>Deschutes R R – AB Indian Ford Cr Squaw Creek Damsite Squaw Whychuss Cr>Deschutes Cr>Deschutes R R – AB Indian Ford Cr Black Rock Little Deschutes Crescent 32,000 R>Deschutes R Cr>Little – at mouth Deschutes R Odell Lake Deschutes Odell Cr>Davis L R>Columbia R – AB Little Deschutes Round Butte Deschutes Deschutes 500,000 R>Columbia R R>Columbia R – AB Shitike Cr Suttle Lake Metolius Lake R>Deschutes R Cr>Metolius R – AB Street Cr Antelope Creek, Lower Antelope Antelope 1,550 Crk>Trout Crk – Crk>Trout Crk at mouth Antelope Creek, Upper Antelope Antelope 270 Crk>Trout Crk – Crk>Trout Crk at mouth Additional Concepts Identified from OWRD Below Ground Storage Site Online Resource Bend Deschutes Formation OWRD Proximal Lava Flows (ASR) http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/pl La Pine Sediments (AR/ASR) anning/owsci/gw_project_search.a Lower Bridge Area Deschutes spx Formation ARC-Adjacent (#8 above) Alluvial-Plain Facies (ASR) Madras Deschutes Formation Inactive Margin Facies (ASR/AR) Redmond Deschutes Formation Ancestral Channel (ASR/AR)

APPENDIX B

Table 1. Preliminary data summary for storage assessment concepts.

Topic Monner Area Concepts Haystack Area Concept Prineville Storage Restoration Concept

Concept New off-channel dam located east of New dam up-valley from the existing Add spillway gates to allow storage at higher Madras, to serve approx. 10,000-30,000 Haystack Dam, and/or a raised dam at the elevations to regain capacity lost to acres of NUID lands via gravity and/or existing Haystack Dam location; storage sedimentation in Prineville Reservoir; storage pumping; storage would be in lieu of would be in lieu of storage at Wickiup to help would be to provide additional operational storage at Wickiup to help address winter address winter flow objectives in the Upper flexibility relative to Crooked River legislation flow objectives in the Upper Deschutes Deschutes River objectives River Potential From approx. 20,000 AF up to approx. From approx. 5000 AF up to approx. 40,000 Approx. 4,500 AF, per 1998 sedimentation Additional/New 70,000 AF AF survey; an updated sedimentation survey could Storage provide additional information Volume Construction Construction of new earthfill dam; larger New up-valley dam and/or raise to existing Addition of gates on spillway to allow water Approach concept considered would require earthfill dam; 3:1 slope, 10 ft. freeboard used storage approx. 1.5 ft. above current reservoir associated dikes; 3:1 slope, 10 ft. as conservative assumptions elevations freeboard used as conservative • For largest Upper Haystack concept • Obermeyer weir with inflatable bladder as assumptions considered (~ 40,000 AF), dam height ~ potential design approach; radial gate or • For smaller concept considered, dam 190 feet; dam crest length ~ 4,450 feet; manual/assisted flashboard approaches height ~ 130 feet; dam crest length ~ material volume ~ 6.9 million CY also possible 890 feet; material volume ~ 1 million • For smaller expansion concept considered CY; (~ 8,000 AF), dam height ~ 100 feet; dam • For larger concept considered, dam crest length ~ 2,550 feet; material volume ~ height ~ 195 feet; dam crest length ~ 725,00 CY 1,300 feet; material volume ~ 2.7 • For larger expansion concept considered (~ million CY; four saddle dikes required 40,000 AF), dam height ~ 156 feet; dam (#1 crest length ~ 1,800 feet, material crest length ~ 4,500 feet; material volume ~ volume ~ 310,000 CY; #2 crest length 4.1 million CY ~ 550 feet, material volume ~ 23,000 CY; #3 crest length ~ 2,100 feet, material volume ~ 457,000 CY; #4 crest length ~ 330 feet; material volume ~ 2,000 CY) Geology • Reclamation Dam Safety Program • Reclamation Dam Safety Program • Foundation (John Day Formation) requirements, risk neutrality issues would requirements, risk neutrality issues would potentially suitable for dam need to be considered for new need to be considered for new construction construction construction at existing dam at existing dam

Topic Monner Area Concepts Haystack Area Concept Prineville Storage Restoration Concept

• For larger concept considered, • Foundation treatment may be required to • Geologic issues may be relevant to additional investigations (and address broken rock noted for right potential construction scope and/or potentially treatment) required for abutment of existing dam possible shoreline erosion issues four dike structures • Some borrow material sources may be • Some borrow material sources may present near and/or upstream of existing be present near concept reservoir reservoir • Soil survey info indicates favorable • Seepage issues likely manageable per seepage conditions are likely performance of existing reservoir; • Site-specific investigations of seepage issues may be of concern for geologic/seismic conditions would be coarse grained soils identified in eastern required areas of Upper Haystack concept • Site-specific investigations of geologic/seismic conditions would be required Delivery to In lieu of storage at Wickiup, water In lieu of storage at Wickiup, water conveyed Existing inflows to reservoir (concept involves Reservoir conveyed in U. Deschutes in winter in U. Deschutes in winter months to diversion existing storage rights as a basis for restoring months to diversion in Bend; NUID main in Bend; NUID main canal deliveries to volumes lost to sedimentation) canal deliveries to location west of Haystack; pumping up to raised/new reservoir reservoir; pumping to reservoir • Max. pump lift approx. 220 feet from invert • Max. pump lift: approx. 240 feet from of feeder canal for Upper Haystack lateral along NE Henderson Drive at concept; approx. 80 feet from invert of NE Loucks Rd for smaller concept; feeder canal for larger Haystack expansion: approx. 300 feet for larger concept • Pump distance ~ 2.5 miles for Upper • Pump distance ~ 1.5 miles Haystack concepts; pump from existing • Pumping plant would need to be sized feeder canal for Haystack expansion to pump canal flow rates as delivered concepts • Time periods most favorable for • Pumping plant would need to be sized to deliveries outside of irrigation season pump canal flow rates as delivered and when freezing issues would be • Time periods most favorable for deliveries minimized are estimated to be outside of irrigation season and when November 1 to November 30 and/or freezing issues would be minimized are March 1 to March 31 estimated to be November 1 to November • Would require expansion of existing 30 and/or March 1 to March 31 lateral capacity for approx. 8 miles • Total distance from diversion dam approx. • Total distance from diversion dam 44 miles (if full piping considered) approx. 66 miles (if full piping or considered)

Topic Monner Area Concepts Haystack Area Concept Prineville Storage Restoration Concept

Issues re: Consideration of multiple storage Consideration of multiple storage concepts Ability to fill additional 4,500 AF capacity to be Water Supply concepts will be affected by potential total will be affected by potential total delivery assessed. delivery volumes; potential total delivery volumes; potential total delivery volumes for volumes for the assumed period outside the assumed period outside of irrigation of irrigation season and when freezing season and when freezing issues would be issues would be minimized are on the minimized are on the order of 75,000 AF (61 order of 75,000 AF (61 days x 700 cfs days x 700 cfs canal capacity less estimated canal capacity less estimated 75 cfs 75 cfs canal losses). Expanded winter canal losses). Expanded winter operations and/or opportunities during April operations and/or opportunities during through October would increase the potential April through October would increase the total delivery volumes. Climate change may potential total delivery volumes. Climate increase potential winter operational periods change may increase potential winter in the future. operational periods in the future.

Distribution Gravity feed to serve approx. 10,000 Gravity feed back to NUID Main Canal Per existing operations; additional storage could from Reservoir acres of NUID lands; for larger concept, enhance operational flexibility in addressing • Utilize same pipeline as for deliveries pumping required to serve approx. instream flow and other objectives 20,000 additional acres of NUID lands • For smaller concept, potential canal/pipeline length = approx. 4 miles to existing lateral crossing Hwy 97 between NE Brown Drive and NE Meadowlark Lane • For larger concept, potential pipeline/canal distance = approx. 10 miles to existing lateral crossing SW Culver Way west of SW Bear Drive Hydropower Could recapture a portion of power used Could recapture a portion of power used for Could potentially affect hydropower Opportunities for pumping via generation units pumping via generation units opportunities re: possible powerplant development at Bowman Dam An Upper Haystack concept could be used in conjunction with either the existing Haystack reservoir or a smaller Haystack Expansion to provide potential pump-storage benefits

Topic Monner Area Concepts Haystack Area Concept Prineville Storage Restoration Concept

Existing Major transmission line, pipeline, roads, For Upper Haystack concept, transmission Dam Safety guidelines, risk neutrality issues Infrastructure quarry business are present; correctional line, roads are present would need to be assessed via a risk evaluation facility is nearby prior to considering any spillway modification. • Up to approx. 850 acres directly • For smaller concept, approx. 800 impacted • Security issues would need to be assessed acres directly impacted; approx. 1.25 • Up to approx. 2.75-mile paved roads relative to public access to dam crest. miles major transmission line • Up to approx. 1.4 miles powerline • Existing dam & reservoir means some affected; approx. 1.1 miles existing affected impacts would be incremental rather than pipeline affected; approx. 1.9 miles For Haystack expansion concepts, private new paved roads residence, roads, recreation areas impacted • Recreational and other facilities on • For larger concept, approx. 1400 (depending on storage volume) shoreline of existing reservoir could be acres directly impacted; approx. 2 affected miles major transmission line • Up to approx. 950 acres directly affected; approx. 1.5 miles pipeline impacted (beyond existing reservoir) affected; approx. 3.2 miles paved • Existing campground facility roads • Up to approx. 3.8 miles paved roads Policy/Legal Would require diversions outside of Would require diversions outside of existing Use of existing storage rights for restored Considerations existing irrigation season’ would require irrigation season; would require addressing storage concept would require additional addressing water availability and water water availability and water rights issues for research and confirmation into relevant water rights issues for moving storage in lieu of moving storage in lieu of storage at Wickiup rights/permit issues. storage at Wickiup Permitting processes per Federal, state, Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife fish passage Permitting processes per Federal, state, county, local requirements, etc. requirements may apply pending determination county, local requirements, etc. of whether the restoration of original storage at Prineville Reservoir would meet the definition of a structural modification that increases storage or diversion capacity).

A risk evaluation would be required to assure that Reclamation Dam Safety requirements would be met. Property Private property at potential dam site & Upper Haystack concepts primarily involve Affected areas anticipated to be within existing Ownership on south side of potential reservoir; Crooked River with Federal land interests surrounding Prineville Crooked River National Grasslands for private parcels also affected Reservoir; extent of additional inundation would most of potential reservoir area need to be assessed in detail.

Topic Monner Area Concepts Haystack Area Concept Prineville Storage Restoration Concept

Haystack expansion concepts would involve private properties near dam & on south side of existing reservoir; Crooked River National Grasslands up-valley of existing reservoir Environmental, Threatened and Endangered Species Threatened and Endangered Species could Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife fish passage Cultural, could be affected; historic properties be affected; historic properties could be requirements may apply pending determination Socioeconomic could be affected; existing environmental affected; current recreational resources would of whether the restoration of original storage at Issues & recreational values for National be affected; existing environmental & Prineville Reservoir would meet the definition of Grasslands would be affected; cultural recreational values for National Grasslands a structural modification that increases storage resource surveys and Tribal consultation would be affected; cultural resource surveys or diversion capacity). would be required; reservoir operations and Tribal consultation would be required; would affect potential recreation and/or reservoir operations would affect potential Threatened and Endangered Species could be scenic values since water levels would be recreation and/or scenic values for affected; existing environmental & recreational drawn very low new/expanded reservoir(s) since water levels values for Prineville Reservoir could be would be drawn very low affected; cultural resource surveys and Tribal consultation would be required; reservoir operations could incrementally affect recreation and/or scenic values since water levels would be slightly elevated during certain periods Example Cost Preliminary planning-level and appraisal-level cost estimates from Reclamation The information below is summarized from Information for assessments (see listing below) suggest that new/expanded embankment storage potentially-relevant cost estimates or projects Context concepts providing on the order of 20,000-100,000 AF additional storage may involve involving added spillway gates/inflatable construction costs on the order of $50 million to more than $300 million. Note that bladders. Note that estimated construction estimated construction costs do not account for other elements of overall project costs costs do not account for other elements of such as: investigations; other project features; mitigation for existing infrastructure (roads, overall project costs. Costs shown are from utilities, etc.); environmental/cultural resource mitigation; design; procurement; documents as dated and have not been construction management; long-term O&M; property acquisition; and other factors. The adjusted to current dollars: information below is summarized from potentially-relevant Reclamation evaluations of • Planning estimate for bladder dam new/expanded dam concepts; costs shown are from documents as dated and have not raise to existing spillway, 8,000 AF been adjusted to current dollars: additional storage ~ $850,000 (Island • Appraisal estimate for concrete face rockfill embankment dam, 169,000 AF Park Raise option, Henrys Fork Basin active storage, 450 ft/ height, 3,200 ft. crest length, ~ 15 million CY material Study, Nov. 2012) volume ~ $306 million (Yakima River Basin Storage Study, Wymer Dam and • Construction of bladder dam with weir Reservoir Appraisal Report, Sept. 2007) gate ~ $700,000 (Boise Diversion • Appraisal estimate for rockfill embankment saddle dike, 180 ft. height, 2,700 ft. Dam, 2012) crest length, ~ 3.2 million CY material ~ 63 million (Yakima River Basin Storage Study, Wymer Dam and Reservoir Appraisal Report, Sept. 2007)

Topic Monner Area Concepts Haystack Area Concept Prineville Storage Restoration Concept

• Embankment Dam, 60,000 AF total storage, 85 ft. height, 850’ crest length, 1.3 million CY material ~ $175 million (Reclamation Safety of Dams evaluation, Tualatin Project, August 2016) • Roller-Compacted Concrete Dam, 60,000 AF total storage, 85 ft. height, 850’ crest length ~ $220 million (Reclamation Safety of Dams evaluation, Tualatin Project, August 2016) • Concrete-Faced Rockfill Dam, 265,000 AF total storage, 300 ft. height, 2300 ft. crest length ~ $492 million (Teton option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, April 2014) • Earth Core Rockfill Dam, 101,000 AF total storage, 160 ft. height, 6040 ft. crest length ~ $ 462-531 million (Lane Lake option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, April 2014) • Rockfill Embankment Dam, 288,000 AF total storage, 302 ft. height, 1700 ft. crest length ~ $157 million (Teton option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Oct. 2012) • Roller-Compacted Concrete Dam, 288,000 AF total storage, 302 ft. height, 1700 ft. crest length ~ $313 million (Teton option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Oct. 2012) • Roller-Compacted Concrete Dam, 50,000 AF total storage, 140 ft. height ~ $63 million (Small Dam A option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Oct. 2012) • Roller-Compacted Concrete Dam, 100,000 AF total storage, 160 ft. height ~ $81 million (Small Dam B option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Oct. 2012) • 8-ft. embankment raise to existing dam, 74,000 AF additional storage, 670,000 CY material volume ~ $29 million (Island Park Raise option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Nov. 2012) • 43-ft. embankment raise to existing dam, 20,000 AF additional storage, 370,000 CY material volume ~ $17 million (Ashton Dam Raise option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Nov. 2012) • Rockfill dam, 68,000 AF total storage, 170 ft. height, 3100 ft. crest length ~ $267- 345 million (Lane Lake option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Nov. 2012) • Rockfill dam, 20,000 AF total storage, 180 ft. height, 1200 ft. crest length ~ $42- 231 million (Spring Creek option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Nov. 2012) • Rockfill dam, 37,000 AF total storage, 220 ft. height, 1300 ft. crest length ~ $55- 167 million (Moody Creek option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Nov. 2012) • Rockfill dam, 47,000 AF total storage, 290 ft. height, 2400 ft. crest length ~ $86- 156 million (Upper Badger Creek option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Nov. 2012) • Rockfill dam, 60000 AF total storage, 160 ft. height, 1300 ft. crest length ~ $168- 252 million (Moose Creek option, Henrys Fork Basin Study, Nov. 2012) • Re-regulation reservoir, 1600 AF total storage, ~ $31 million (Roza Irrigation District, 2017)

Topic Monner Area Concepts Haystack Area Concept Prineville Storage Restoration Concept

The information below is summarized from potentially-relevant cost estimates or projects involving pumping plants; note that costs shown are from documents as dated and have not been adjusted to current dollars: • Appraisal estimate for pumping plants 100-225 cfs & 385-402 ft. total design head ~ $32-46 million (McKay Storage increase Appraisal Report, Feb. 2009) • Appraisal estimate for pumping plant 400 cfs & total design head ~475 ft. ~ $54 million (Yakima River Basin Storage Study, Wymer Dam and Reservoir Appraisal Report, Sept. 2007) • Construction costs for replacement pumping plant 150 ft. max head ~ $28 million (Savage Rapids Replacement Pumping Plant, Slayden Construction, 2009) • Estimated cost for pumping plants 1,000 cfs 100+ ft. lift (including underground features, tunnels/pipelines, etc.) ~ $340-390 million (Draft EIS, Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plant and Keechelus Reservoir-to-Kachess Reservoir Conveyance, Jan. 2015)

The information below is summarized from the North Unit Irrigation District System Improvement Plan (June 2017) regarding potentially-relevant cost estimates for projects involving piping: • Estimated cost, 12-ft. diameter steel piping installed (includes engineering, contingency, etc.) ~ $2,900/LF • Estimated cost, 6-ft. diameter steel piping installed (includes engineering, contingency, etc.) ~ $870/LF