EXHIBIT NO. 2

The Wells Hydroelectric Project

Habitat Conservation Plan

Background Biology

May 1998

Wells HCP Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1-1

1.2 HCP DOCUMENTATION ...... 1-3 1.2.1 Project-specific MCMCP Documents ...... 1-3

1.3 PERMIT-RELATED ISSUES ...... 1-4 1.3.1 Term of Permit ...... 1-4 1.3.2 Spatial Extent Covered by the Wells HCP ...... 1-4 1.3.3 Decision Standards ...... 1-4

1.4 IMPACTS/EFFECTS COVERED BY THE WELLS HCP ...... 1-5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 2-1

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 2-1 2.1.1 General Site Description ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Geology and Land use ...... 2-3 2.1.3 Water Quality ...... 2-3 2.1.4 Hydrology ...... 2-4

2.2 BIOLOGICAL SETTING ...... 2-6 2.2.1 Life Histories of Plan Species ...... 2-6 2.2.2 Distribution of Anadromous Salmonids ...... 2-15 2.2.3 Species Not Included in the Plan ...... 2-15 2.2.4 Listed, Candidate and Other Species of Concern ...... 2-18

2.3 STRUCTURAL SETTING ...... 2-18 2.3.1 Power Generating Facilities ...... 2-18 2.3.2 Upstream Passage and Protection Facilities ...... 2-24

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\toc Page i Wells HCP Table of Contents

2.3.3 Downstream Passage and Protection Facilities ...... 2-27 2.3.4 Fish Production Facilities ...... 2-27

2.4 OPERATIONAL SETTING ...... 2-29 2.4.1 Dam and Reservoir Operations ...... 2-29 2.4.2 Adult Fish Passage Operations ...... 2-31 2.4.3 Juvenile Fish Passage Operations ...... 2-33 2.4.4 Spill Management For Dissolved Gas Control ...... 2-34 2.4.5 Fish Production Facility Operations ...... 2-34

3.0 SALMONID PROTECTION ISSUES AND EXISTING MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3-1

3.1 UPSTREAM PASSAGE OF ADULT FISH ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Upstream Passage at Wells Dam ...... 3-2 3.1.2 Upstream Reservoir Passage ...... 3-7

3.2 DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE OF JUVENILE FISH ...... 3-10 3.2.1 Downstream Passage at Wells Dam ...... 3-10 3.2.2 Downstream Reservoir Passage ...... 3-22

3.3 WATER QUALITY ...... 3-25 3.3.1 Dissolved Gas Supersaturation ...... 3-25 3.3.2 Water Temperature ...... 3-29

3.4 RESERVOIR PRODUCTION ...... 3-32 3.4.1 Spawning Habitat ...... 3-33 3.4.2 Rearing Habitat ...... 3-35

3.5 PREDATION ...... 3-38 3.5.1 Status of Predator Populations ...... 3-38 3.5.2 Vulnerability of Juvenile Salmonids to Predation ...... 3-42 3.5.3 Existing Mitigation Measures ...... 3-45 3.5.4 Ongoing Mitigation Efforts ...... 3-46

3.6 TRIBUTARY HABITAT STATUS AND

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\toc Page ii Wells HCP Table of Contents

IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES ...... 3-46 3.6.1 Methow River Watershed ...... 3-46 3.6.2 Okanogan River Watershed ...... 3-49

4.0 REMAINING SALMONID SURVIVAL ISSUES TO BE MITIGATED ...... 4-1

4.1 UPSTREAM PASSAGE OF ADULT FISH ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Upstream Passage at Wells Dam ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Upstream Reservoir Passage ...... 4-2

4.2 DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE OF JUVENILE FISH ...... 4-2 4.2.1 Downstream Passage at Wells Dam ...... 4-2 4.2.2 Downstream Reservoir Passage ...... 4-3

4.3 WATER QUALITY ...... 4-3 4.3.1 Dissolved Gas Supersaturation ...... 4-3 4.3.2 Water Temperature ...... 4-3

4.4 RESERVOIR PRODUCTION ...... 4-4

4.5 PREDATION ...... 4-4

4.6 COHO REINTRODUCTION ...... 4-4

5.0 CONSERVATION PLAN MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION MEASURES 5-1

5.1 FUNDING OF ON-SITE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5-3 5.1.1 Upstream Passage of Adult Fish ...... 5-3 5.1.2 Downstream Passage of Juvenile Salmonids ...... 5-4 5.1.3 Water Quality ...... 5-5 5.1.4 Reservoir Production ...... 5-5 5.1.5 Predator Control ...... 5-5

5.2 OFF-SITE COMPENSATORY ACTIONS ...... 5-6 5.2.1 Wells Project Coordinating Committee ...... 5-6 5.2.2 Hatchery Programs ...... 5-6

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\toc Page iii Wells HCP Table of Contents

5.2.3 Tributary Conservation Plan ...... 5-8

6.0 MONITORING PLAN ...... 6-1

6.1 FUNDING OF EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ...... 6-1 6.1.1 Adult Passage Evaluation ...... 6-1 6.1.2 Evaluation of Juvenile Passage Survival ...... 6-1 6.1.3 Water Quality ...... 6-2 6.1.4 Hatchery Programs ...... 6-3

6.2 TRIBUTARY CONSERVATION PLAN ...... 6-3

7.0 COSTS AND FUNDING ...... 7-1

7.1 COST ...... 7-1 7.1.1 Projected Annual Cost During the Term of the Wells HCP ...... 7-1 7.1.2 Tributary Conservation Plan ...... 7-2

7.2 FUNDING ...... 7-2

8.0 ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES ...... 8-1

9.0 REFERENCES ...... 9-1

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\toc Page iv Wells HCP Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1-1. Location of Wells dam and other mid-Columbia Utility District and federal dams in the mid-Columbia reach (PUD projects in bold) ...... 1-2

Figure 2-1. The mid-Columbia River in the vicinity of the Wells project ...... 2-2

Figure 2-2. Average monthly flow at Wells dam during four different time periods of operation: 1927-1965; 1966-1972; 1973-1983; and 1983-present ...... 2-5

Figure 2-3. Average arrival timing of adult spring (stream-type), summer and fall (ocean-type) chinook salmon at Wells dam form 1977 to 1994 ...... 2-8

Figure 2-4. Average arrival timing of adult steelhead at Wells dam from 1977 to 1994 ...... 2-12

Figure 2-5. Average arrival timing of adult sockeye salmon at Wells dam 1977 to 1994. ....2-15

Figure 2-6. Transverse cross section of the river channel in the vicinity of the Wells dam ...... 2-20

Figure 2-7. Wells dam fish passage and protection facilities ...... 2-21

Figure 2-8. Schematic view of Wells dam intakes ...... 2-23

Figure 2-9. Wells dam fishway plan at elevation 733 msl ...... 2-25

Figure 2-10. Schematic view of Wells dam right bank fishway ...... 2-26

Figure 2-11. Wells hydrocombine front and side views of downstream fish passage/protection bypass unit, showing horizontal and vertical baffle openings and attractant flows ...... 2-28

Figure 3-1. Vertical distribution of chinook and sockeye from simultaneous fyke net samples in a bypass intake at Wells dam during spring 1985 ...... 3-13

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\toc Page v Wells HCP Table of Contents

Figure 3-2. Average percent of monthly flow spilled at Wells dam from 1990-1994 ...... 3-18

Figure 3-3. TDG at Wells and Rocky Reach forebays, and spill at Wells dam during April to September 1994 ...... 3-27

Figure 3-4. Water temperature in the forebays of Wells dam in 1994 ...... 3-30

Figure 5-1. Decision process for Wells project mitigation measures ...... 5-2

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\toc Page vi

Wells HCP Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE AND NEED

The Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington (DCPUD) owns and operates the Wells hydroelectric project on the Columbia River. To mitigate adverse impacts on anadromous salmonid fishes associated with the continued operation of the Wells hydroelectric project, the DCPUD establishes this habitat conservation plan (HCP).

The Wells Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) identifies specific on-site measures that the DCPUD will take for fifty (50) years to mitigate Wells’ impacts on anadromous salmonids covered by the plan in the reservoir, at the dam, and in the tailrace area. In addition, the DCPUD will provide funding and other assistance for off-site measures intended to increase the productivity of anadromous salmonids, covered by the plan, that are determined to need protection within the plan's term and geographic boundary.

The HCP, and the associated Implementing Agreement (IA) are intended to serve as a pre-listing conservation plan under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and its implementing regulations, and to provide a legal basis for the issuance of an incidental take permit for the anadromous salmonids in the event any of these species is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA during the term of the Wells HCP.

CURRENT PROJECT STATUS AND RELATED BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Wells is a run-of-river hydroelectric project located at river mile (RM) 515.8 on the Columbia River in Washington state. It is owned and operated by the DCPUD pursuant to the terms of license no. 2149 issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under authority of the Federal Power Act. The current license expires in 2012 and the DCPUD intends to relicense the Wells Hydroelectric Project.

There are numerous aquatic plant and animal species that, for their natural survival, utilize or require the river habitat occupied or influenced by Wells. Among these are several species of anadromous salmonids, including stream-type chinook salmon, ocean-type chinook salmon, summer steelhead trout, coho salmon and sockeye salmon. These fish are the primary focus of the HCP and are subsequently addressed herein as the "Plan Species". As of the date of this plan, only steelhead are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, but all of these salmonid species population levels are of concern. Measures to protect and enhance their status in the mid-Columbia River reach are a primary purpose of this plan. In particular, issues exist regarding direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of Wells’ operations on the survival of both juvenile salmonids migrating downstream to the ocean and adults migrating upstream to spawn. The most significant issue at this time involves juvenile salmonid mortality. Impacts of Wells operations on other aquatic plant and animal species utilizing the project area are less well known. No such species is currently known to be jeopardized by project operations. However, the plan

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\exesum Page ES-1 Wells HCP Executive Summary recognizes the potential need for future mitigation measures for one or more of such species, and provides a mechanism for addressing those needs if they arise.

ON-SITE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SALMONIDS

In 1990, the DCPUD, Wells project power purchasers and the resource agencies and tribes entered into a long-term fisheries settlement agreement for the Wells project. This agreement established the DCPUD’s obligation with respect to the installation and operation of juvenile downstream migrant bypass facilities and measures; hatchery compensation for fish losses; and adult fishway operation. For the purposes of the Wells project, these measures, in conjunction with existing hatchery compensation programs, were considered to conclusively fulfill the DCPUD’s obligation to protect, mitigate and compensate for the anadromous fish resource. Compensation was initially established at 14 percent loss for anadromous fish with the actual loss and resulting compensation to be established through a project survival study.

The Wells project has a functional bypass system with a fish passage efficiency of 89 percent for both spring and summer salmonid migrants. The goal of the HCP is “No Net Impact” (NNI) of the project to the plan species. Components of NNI include an objective of 95 percent juvenile dam passage survival with a 91 percent survival of the total project (reservoir, dam and tailrace). This objective includes an unavoidable loss of 9 percent of the Plan Species to be made up with productivity increases in hatchery compensation and off-site tributary habitat improvements.

OFF-SITE COMPENSATORY ACTIONS AND THE CONSERVATION FUND

Compensation for (up to 2 percent of unavoidable losses at the Wells project will be provided by the establishment of a Tributary Habitat Fund (the Fund). The Fund will be established with the authority to expend money contributed by the DCPUD and other participating entities for activities outside the aquatic boundaries of the Wells project; such activities will be designed to increase productivity of salmonids in the mid-Columbia area. Off-site measures likely to be supported by the Fund include habitat restoration and improvement work in the primary mid-Columbia tributaries.

WELLS PROJECT COORDINATING COMMITTEE

The Wells HCP will utilize a biological/technical committee consisting of state and federal fishery agency representatives, tribal representatives a representative from the power purchasers of the Wells project and a representative from Douglas PUD. This Committee will serve to advise the project owner on implementation of the on-site measures called for or contemplated by this plan. 100 PERCENT EQUIVALENT SURVIVAL GOAL

A biological objective of the Wells HCP is to achieve "No Net Impact" to productivity of salmonids passing

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\exesum Page ES-2 Wells HCP Executive Summary through the Wells project. This objective is referred to in the plan as "100 percent equivalent survival," to be achieved by a combination of on-site survival and increases in off-site productivity. If the District achieves dam survival of 95 percent and project survival of 91 percent and fulfills its obligations under the hatchery and tributary sections of the HCP it shall be deemed to have achieved no net impact.

PROVISIONS FOR UNKNOWN IMPACT ON OTHER AQUATIC SPECIES

As there are no known impacts of the Wells project that do or are deemed likely to jeopardize the continued natural existence of any aquatic plant or animal species other than salmonids utilizing the Wells project area as habitat, this plan does not require any on-site or off-site mitigation measures for other species. The scope of the Wells HCP, however, includes any potential problems or concerns about aquatic species other than salmonids that may arise during the plan's fifty year term. To provide the flexibility necessary to be prepared for the contingency of some currently unidentified species requiring special protection, as noted above, the DCPUD shall initiate JFP consultation to establish a decision making and implementation process during the entire listing or action process and throughout the status review of any such species.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The Wells HCP proposes monitoring and evaluation of both on-site and off-site measures for salmonids. The on-site studies will be used to index or adjust the DCPUD's compensation for unavoidable losses depending on the Wells project mortality test results.

COSTS AND FUNDING

Costs for the Wells HCP can be divided into two components. First, the cost associated with on-site measures in the reservoir, at the dam and in the tailrace. These costs include construction and annual operation of the bypass system; predator reduction activities; adult fish ladder operations and modifications; operation and maintenance of its ongoing hatchery program; and monitoring and evaluation studies. The second part is the DCPUD’s contribution to the Tributary Habitat Fund, which will finance off-site tributary activities. Funding of the Wells HCP will be provided directly by the DCPUD.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\exesum Page ES-3 Wells HCP Section 1.0 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED

The Wells Hydroelectric Project is located at river mile (RM) 515.8 on the Columbia River, downstream of Chief Joseph dam and upstream from Rocky Reach dam (Figure 1-1). Wells dam consists of 10 generating units, producing approximately 840 megawatts of power, and 11 gated spillway openings. The hydraulic capacity of the Wells powerhouse is 200,000 cfs. Adult fishways are located on both sides of the river at the dam to provide upstream passage of adult anadromous fish. The vast majority of downstream migrating fish pass the dam via the juvenile bypass system; some pass through spillways during infrequent periods of spill. A small proportion pass through the turbines.

The Wells facility, owned by the Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County (DCPUD), produced its first commercial power in August 1967 after receiving an operating license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC License No 2149). This license is due for renewal on 1 June 2012. Utilities receiving power from the facility include the DCPUD, Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric Company, PacifiCorp, the Washington Water Power Company and the Okanogan County PUD.

The combined effects of hydropower projects, flood control, irrigation, timber harvesting, grazing activities, commercial and sport fishery harvest, as well as changes in ocean conditions have resulted in the decline of some stocks of mid-Columbia River fishes.

The Douglas PUD hopes that by working cooperatively with the fishery agencies and tribes, agreements can be developed to aid in the recovery of animal species covered by this plan. The objectives of these efforts are to: 1) avoid future listing(s) of mid-Columbia fishes under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by helping to maintain a healthy population of fish; and 2) in the event of a listing(s), to legally proceed with operations which might otherwise result in illegal "take" of listed species.

To date, only summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are listed as a threatened or endangered species and Spring Chinook are proposed for Endangered Species under the ESA in the mid-Columbia region. As of 9 August 1997, anadromous forms of steelhead are listed as endangered in the upper Columbia River. Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) upstream of the Yakima River Confluence (U.S. Federal Register 1997, 62; 159 pg. 43937-43954). Steelhead produced at the Wells Fish Hatchery are included in this listing since the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers them essential to the recovery of natural populations. ESA section 9(a) "Take" prohibitions have been in effect since 17 October 1997. However, the status of two other races/demes is presently being reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These species are spring chinook salmon

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec1 Page 1-1

Wells HCP Section 1.0 Introduction

(O. tshawytscha) and sockeye salmon (O. nerka). Summer/fall chinook were petitioned for listing in 1993, but such a listing was found to be not warranted by the NMFS in 1994 (U.S. Federal Register 1994). Summer/fall chinook are addressed in the HCP since they represent an important component of anadromous fish production in the mid-Columbia basin. The endemic stock of coho salmon (O. kisutch) is considered extinct.

Douglas County PUD has previously developed and implemented numerous mitigation measures for anadromous fish passage and habitat losses at the Wells Project. Many of these measures were developed as part of the original dam licensing agreement between the DCPUD and the FERC. Other measures were developed through negotiations resulting in a 1990 Settlement Agreement between the DCPUD, state and federal agencies and tribes (FERC 1990). These mitigation measures have provided substantial protection to anadromous fish at the Wells Project. However, the listing of any of the species previously mentioned could substantially affect operation of PUD and other hydropower facilities throughout the basin. The HCP is intended to enhance protection of these fishes while providing a greater degree of certainty in long-term operation of the Wells Project.

1.2 HCP DOCUMENTATION

The HCP documentation provides information on the impacts of the Wells Project operations on fish runs in the mid-Columbia River and describes ongoing mitigation measures for these impacts. This documentation and accompanying Implementing Agreement (IA) will be used to support application(s) for an incidental take permit from the NMFS and USFWS should a species be listed as endangered under the ESA. Should a species covered by the plan be considered for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA, then this documentation will form the basis of a pre-listing conservation plan.

1.2.1 Project-specific MCMCP Documents

This Wells HCP addresses project-specific technical issues, and includes specific mitigation and monitoring measures proposed as part of the Conservation Plan. This HCP contains detailed information on and analysis of the Wells Project regarding:

• the environmental settings in the project vicinity; • structural and operational features of the project; • existing issues related to anadromous salmonids; • existing mitigation and monitoring measures, and their effectiveness; • outstanding issues related to anadromous salmonids; • proposed mitigation and enhancement measures to address the outstanding issues; and • proposed monitoring.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec1 Page 1-3 Wells HCP Section 1.0 Introduction

1.3 PERMIT-RELATED ISSUES

The Wells HCP addresses impacts of the Wells Project on spring and summer/fall chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon and summer steelhead. The design of proposed mitigation measures and the monitoring of their effectiveness is based on current conditions (i.e., January 1995). Ongoing mitigation measures are considered existing conditions. Existing conditions are not considered an action subject to mitigation unless they cause "take" of a listed species as defined under the ESA.

1.3.1 Term of Permit

In the event that this documentation forms the basis for an incidental take permit, this HCP is intended to remain in effect for 50 years. Prior to the expiration of the project license, the DCPUD will initiate the renewal process for an operating license issued by the FERC for the Wells Project. Mitigation measures, agreed to as part of this HCP process, shall be consistent with measures requested by the fishery agencies and tribes during the relicensing process.

1.3.2 Spatial Extent Covered by the Wells HCP

The Wells HCP addresses impacts and provides conservation measures for the reach of the mainstem Columbia River from the Wells Project tailrace, approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the dam, upstream to approximately 2,000 feet downstream of Chief Joseph dam. The Wells HCP addresses the mainstem Columbia River and portions of tributaries that are influenced by backwater effects from the Wells Project, such as the lower reaches of the Methow and Okanogan Rivers.

1.3.3 Decision Standards

All measures proposed in the Wells HCP are intended to minimize and mitigate impacts to plan species covered under this plan to the "maximum extent practicable" as required by the ESA [50 CFR 17.22 (b)(2) and 17.32 (b)(2)]. This definition includes considerations of what is necessary from a biological standpoint to mitigate impacts to the species of concern, as well as what is economically feasible in terms of operation of the Wells Project. Failure to achieve NNI, 91 percent project survival or 95 percent juvenile dam passage survival (see page ES-2) does not in an of itself mean that the District's incidental take of permit species will either (a) appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of permit species in the wild or (b) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered or threatened species or result in distraction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary of Commerce to be critical.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec1 Page 1-4 Wells HCP Section 1.0 Introduction

1.4 IMPACTS/EFFECTS COVERED BY THE WELLS HCP

The mid-Columbia River is an important migratory and habitat area for mid-Columbia fishes. The Wells HCP addresses potential impacts on several key aspects of migration and habitat use of the project area by these species, including:

• upstream passage of adult fish at Wells dam; • upstream passage of adults through the reservoir behind Wells dam; • downstream passage of juvenile fish through Wells reservoir; • downstream passage of juveniles at Wells dam; • water quality conditions (particularly total dissolved gas and water temperature); • fish production facilities; • reservoir productivity and habitat use; • mainstem spawning habitat and use; and • predation.

The Wells HCP is also designed to respond to the contingency that other aquatic plant and animal species within the plan’s term may require protective or mitigative measures. That contingency is addressed through initiation of Joint Fishery Party (JFP) consultation to establish a decision-making and implementation process during the entire listing or action process and throughout the status review for such species.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec1 Page 1-5

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions units. Federal land in the project reach includes the Colville Indian Reservation in the north, the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests in sections between Wells and Rocky Reach dams, scattered tracts of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, the Yakima Firing Center between Wanapum and Priest Rapids dams, and the Hanford Reservation below Priest Rapids dam. There are also 13 state wildlife refuges and 7 state parks in the mid-Columbia region ( Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1994a).

2.1.3 Water Quality

The Wells Project reach of the mid-Columbia River has been classified by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) as "Class A" water. On a scale ranging from Class AA (extraordinary) to Class C (fair), Class A water is rated as "excellent". Regulations require that Class A water meets or exceeds requirements for substantially all uses. However, water quality in the mid-Columbia River occasionally does not meet state and federal water quality standards for certain parameters, e.g., total dissolved gas and water temperature.

The major contributors to water-quality effects in the mid-Columbia River include 1) nonpoint source pollution from agriculture runoff and irrigation return, 2) depletion of instream flows from diversions and 3) effects of impoundment, spill and flow regulation at hydropower projects. Irrigation return flows containing nutrients, sediments and pesticides can significantly impact the water quality of this reach. The primary water-quality impacts associated with the hydropower projects in the mid-Columbia River are increases in dissolved gases and alterations in water temperature.

Total Dissolved Gas

River water that contains high levels of total dissolved gas (TDG) can be harmful to fish. Total dissolved gas supersaturation often occurs during periods of high runoff and spill at hydropower projects, primarily because spill can cause significant air entrainment in spillway tailwaters. Fish and other aquatic organisms that are exposed to excessive TDG supersaturation can develop gas bubble trauma (GBT), a condition that is harmful. Total dissolved gas supersaturation in the mid-Columbia River system is well documented and has been linked to mortalities and migration delays of salmon (Beiningen and Ebel 1970; Ebel et al. 1975; Gray and Haynes 1977; Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1994a). Total dissolved gas supersaturation in the Columbia and Snake Rivers was identified in the 1960s and 1970s as a detriment to salmon, and those concerns have reappeared as management agencies have reinstituted spill as a means of aiding fish passage around Snake and lower Columbia River hydropower facilities (National Marine Fisheries Service 1995a).

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-3 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Water Temperature

Water temperatures in the mid-Columbia River reach are similar to those elsewhere in the Columbia and Snake River systems (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 1993). The major effect of hydropower projects on the Columbia River has been to delay the time when thermal maximums are reached and when cooling begins in late summer (Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1994a). The thermal regime of the mid-Columbia River is largely influenced by releases from Grand Coulee dam, which is the main upstream deepwater storage project. Lake Roosevelt, the impoundment created by Grand Coulee can be quite warm, such that the temperatures of water entering the mid-Columbia River reach are already elevated (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993). The mid-Columbia hydroelectric projects are run-of-river facilities with very limited capability for storage and flow regulation. In general, the very rapid flushing rate of the pool limits the potential warming that can occur.

2.1.4 Hydrology

The Columbia River basin is primarily a snow-fed system. Snow accumulates in the mountains from November to March, then melts and produces peak runoff in early June. In late summer and fall, the river flow drops and remains relatively low through April. Since about 1966, annual streamflow regimes in the Wells Project area have been affected by three different time periods of operation. These include the period from 1966 to 1973, as additional deepwater storage projects (i.e., Arrow, Libby, Mica) were being completed per the Columbia River Treaty; 1974 to 1982, as operations changed use of the available storage gained from these projects; and 1983 to 1995, when annual spring flow augmentation releases from these storage projects were recommended to aid migration of naturally produced and hatchery-origin juvenile salmonids in the lower Columbia River. The effect on the annual flow regime during these periods is indicated in Figure 2-2 based on average monthly total discharge at Wells dam.

These time periods were chosen because the Northwest Power Planning Council's (NPPC) Water Budget from Grand Coulee was first implemented in 1983. However, no releases specifically for Water Budget flow augmentation occurred in 1984 and 1985. Consistent annual flow augmentation releases from Grand Coulee began in 1986.

The flow regimes of these three periods indicate the influence of changes in storage and the shifts in operational objectives priorities. Prioritizing power generation and flood control objectives tended to result in "flattening out the hydrograph" by moving flow from spring, the period of peak natural runoff, into the fall and winter (i.e., 1973 to 1982). Placing higher priority on downstream fish migration trends toward releases that provide a slightly higher, more natural spring peak hydrograph (i.e., 1983 to 1995).

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-4

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

As a run-of-river project, the Wells Project generally has little usable storage volume, and therefore cannot store or draft a significant volume of water. As such, flows at the Wells Project are primarily shaped by the operations at the Canadian and federal storage projects upstream, particularly Grand Coulee dam.

2.2 BIOLOGICAL SETTING

2.2.1 Life Histories of Plan Species

This HCP addresses the following anadromous salmonid fishes occurring in the mid-Columbia River system as plan species: spring (stream-type), summer and fall (ocean-type) chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), summer steelhead (O. mykiss), coho salmon (O. kisutch) and sockeye salmon (O. nerka). Life history information on the plan species specific to the Wells Project area are presented below.

Historically, chinook salmon entered the Columbia River continually from early spring through late fall. Due to overharvest and the construction of dams without fish passage, segments of the run were eliminated (Chapman et al. 1994a, 1995a). Timing of peak counts of adults passing upstream of dams is one method now used to divide the continuum into separate stocks. Another method for dividing the run into segments or stocks is through spawning areas. A window of time for egg deposition exists in each spawning area based on water temperature, and the timing of upstream migrating adults matches this window (Miller and Brannon 1982). Therefore, those adults that spawn in the upper reaches of tributaries, in the middle and lower reaches of tributaries, and in the mainstem rivers and lower reaches of tributaries can be divided into three races/demes. Because the adults of the race/deme that spawn in the upper reaches generally return past mainstem dams in the spring, they are known as spring (stream-type) chinook. Similarly, the race/deme that spawn in the middle and lower reaches of tributaries generally return past mainstem dams in the summer, and are known as summer (ocean-type) chinook salmon. Those that spawn in lower tributaries and the mainstem river arrive in the fall and are known as fall (ocean-type) chinook salmon (Meekin 1963; French and Wahle 1965; Chapman et al. 1982; Mullan 1987).

These arbitrary classifications are based on the date of arrival at mainstem dams (Table 2-1). These cutoff dates are established administratively and are not necessarily reflective of the origin of the adults (Chapman et al. 1995a). Summer and fall (ocean-type) chinook salmon are treated as one evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) since they cannot be electrophoretically separated (Chapman et al. 1994a), and also because the juveniles migrate as age 0+ (subyearlings) while spring (stream-type) chinook salmon juveniles migrate as age 1+ (yearlings).

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-6

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Naturally produced stream-type chinook juveniles pass the Wells dam over a longer time period and are generally smaller than the hatchery produced juveniles. Naturally produced stream-type chinook juveniles originating from upriver areas were found to migrate downstream at lengths of 65 to 123 mm. Hatchery- reared stream-type chinook juveniles are generally released at a large size (117 to 178 mm) (Zook 1983; Mullan 1987).

Studies in the Columbia River Basin have shown juvenile chinook outmigrants actively feed and grow during their outmigration through reservoirs (Craddock et al. 1976; Dawley et al. 1986; Chandler, J., Idaho Power Co., unpublished data). Due to limited reach-specific data, a general assumption is that juvenile chinook outmigrant feeding behavior in the Wells reservoir is consistent with outmigrant behavior observed throughout the Columbia River. The rapid reservoir flushing rate and lack of shallow, backwater habitat suggests Lake Pateros is more characteristic of a flowing system than a lake system. Limited observation suggests that the residence time of juvenile stream-type chinook in Wells reservoir is short. Therefore, these juveniles are not lingering in Wells reservoir for rearing, but rather are migrating actively in mid- channel while in the reservoir.

Summer and Fall (Ocean-type) Chinook

For the purposes of the HCP, summer and fall (ocean-type) chinook salmon are treated as indistinguishable races/demes. However, when spawning is discussed, summer and fall chinook are separately identified and discussed. The fall chinook component are defined as those races/demes that spawn in the mainstem Columbia River, and in the extreme lower reaches of direct tributaries to the mainstem Columbia. The summer chinook component is defined as those stocks that spawn further upstream in the tributaries than the fall race, yet outmigrate as subyearling juveniles (age 0+), similar to fall chinook. Most summer and fall chinook salmon adults return to spawn after spending three or four years in the ocean (Peven 1992).

Summer and fall chinook salmon use the Wells Project area as a corridor during their upstream and downstream migrations. Ninety percent of adult summer and fall chinook pass Wells dam on their way to upstream spawning grounds from the beginning of July through the end of September (Figure 2-3). Between 1967 and 1997, adult summer and fall chinook counts at Wells dam have averaged approximately 6,500 and 2,400 fish, respectively. Over this time period, the number of summer chinook has fluctuated between 3,000 and 14,200 adults, while fall chinook have fluctuated between 770 and 4,800 adults. Summer chinook spawn in the mainstems of major tributaries to Wells reservoir, including the lowermost 50 miles of the Methow River, in the Okanogan River downstream of Lake Osoyoos, and in the Similkameen River below Enloe Dam (Chapman et al. 1994a).

Historically, the fall chinook component spawned in suitable areas up the Columbia River into the Canadian headwaters in the vicinity of Golden, B.C. (Chapman et al. 1994a). Currently, fall chinook are known to spawn near the Wells Project in the uppermost sections of Lake Pateros in the tailrace of Chief Joseph

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-9 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions dam, as well as in the lower reaches of the Methow and Okanogan Rivers (Chapman et al. 1994a).

Meekin (1967) and Chapman et al. (1994a) suggested mainstem spawning continued in the Brewster Bar area following inundation by the Wells reservoir. Other surveyors have indicated potential deep water spawning near Bridgeport Bar, Washburn Island, and in areas near the Chief Joseph tailrace where substantial groundwater upwelling occurs (Hillman and Miller 1994; Chapman et al. 1994a; Swan et al. 1994; Bickford 1994). Based on this information, it is apparent that some unknown but significant amount of chinook production occurs in the mainstem river areas in Lake Pateros upstream of the Okanogan River to the Chief Joseph dam tailrace, as streambed hydraulics and substrate conditions allow.

Juveniles usually emerge in April and May and are displaced downstream within a few days to several weeks after emerging from the redd (Chapman et al. 1994a). Ocean-type chinook juveniles migrate in late summer as subyearlings, generally passing Wells dam from late June through early August (Chapman et al. 1994a). Juvenile ocean-type chinook salmon passing Wells dam result from both hatchery and natural production . Chapman et al. (1994a) reported that juvenile ocean-type chinook emigrating from tributaries to Wells reservoir in late spring and early summer ranged in size from 45 to 80 mm. In July, juvenile ocean- type chinook in the reservoir ranged in size from 100 to 110 mm (Chapman et al. 1994a). Unlike stream- type chinook, young ocean-type chinook are likely to spend several weeks rearing in Wells reservoir before outmigrating.

It is generally believed that juvenile ocean-type chinook salmon tend to use nearshore littoral habitat while stream-type juveniles tend to migrate in mid-channel (Ledgerwood et al. 1991b; Chapman et al. 1994a; Burley and Poe 1994). Ocean-type juveniles use shallow littoral areas shortly after emergence in April and May (Chapman et al. 1994a). Campbell and Eddy (1988) believe this partitioning of habitat is related to fish size and predator avoidance, with small fish using the slow velocity nearshore margin areas. They noted that chinook in the Lewis River began to move progressively offshore into faster water and established territorial feeding stations along the river bottom as they increased in size beyond 50 mm.

Ocean-type chinook migrants actively feed and grow during their outmigration through Lake Pateros. Studies downstream of the Wells Project have shown that their diet consists primarily of aquatic insects, with minor amounts of zooplankton (Becker 1970; Dauble et al. 1980). Rondorf et al. (1990) found that ocean-type chinook migrants fed primarily on Diptera, Trichoptera, Daphnia, Corophium, Hymenoptera and Homoptera. Zooplankton were the dominant food item in embayments, while insects were dominant in littoral and limnetic areas. Preference was shown for terrestrial insects in littoral areas and embayments. These data also support the conclusion that aquatic insects comprise the primary prey items for juvenile salmonids in the mid-Columbia reach due to limited reservoir productivity. Hatchery production of summer chinook occurs at the Wells, but releases have only supplemented the total summer and fall chinook runs. Chapman et al. (1994a) estimate that about 6 percent of the summer and fall run fish are of hatchery origin in the mid-Columbia reach. Naturally-produced fish comprise the majority of adults returning to the mid-Columbia reach (Chapman et al. 1994a).

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-10 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Summer Steelhead

Summer steelhead use the Wells Project area as a corridor for juvenile and adult migration. The majority of summer steelhead returning to the mid-Columbia River are of hatchery origin, but some natural production occurs in tributaries to Wells reservoir, including the Okanogan, Similkameen, and Methow Rivers (Chapman et al. 1994a). Adult steelhead migration is much more protracted than that of other anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River. Adult summer steelhead begin arriving at Wells dam in May and 90 percent pass from the beginning of August through the third week of September (Figure 2-4). Between 1967 and 1997, adult summer steelhead counts at Wells dam have averaged 5,756 fish and ranged between 740 and 20,600 adults. Returns over this period peaked in the 1980s following hatchery supplementation.

In the Columbia River basin, naturally produced steelhead juveniles generally emerge from the gravel from July through September. After emergence, juveniles move downstream into overwintering habitats (Chapman et al. 1994b). Most parr rear in freshwater for two years, but the duration of freshwater residence can range from one to seven years ( Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 1990; Peven 1992). Peven et al. (1994) found that about 90 percent of wild steelhead juveniles in samples taken at Rock Island and Rocky Reach dams were two- and three-winter residents. Hatchery smolts are released as yearlings. Both hatchery and naturally produced steelhead pass Wells dam in May (McGee 1984). The size of steelhead smolts passing Wells dam was reported as ranging from 127 to 203 mm for naturally produced and 152 to 254 mm for hatchery smolts (Zook 1983). Juvenile steelhead migrate actively in Wells reservoir and residence time in Lake Pateros is short (McGee 1984).

No information is available about the feeding habits of steelhead juveniles in the mid-Columbia River reach. Steelhead juveniles in Lower Granite reservoir on the Snake River fed primarily on Chironomidae, and also took minor amounts of Homoptera, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and Plecoptera (Chandler, J., Idaho Power Co., unpublished data). Of over 100 stomachs examined, only two contained an unidentified fish. It may be reasonable to assume the dietary behavior of steelhead juveniles is the Snake River reservoirs is typical of steelhead juveniles in the mid-Columbia reach.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-11

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Coho Salmon

Historically, coho salmon migrated through Wells reservoir to spawning areas in several tributaries to the mid-Columbia River . The endemic stock has been considered extinct in the upper Columbia River regions including upstream of the Wells Project since the 1940s.(Mullan 1984; Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 1990). The State of Washington does not currently recognize any natural coho stock in the mid-Columbia reach (Washington Department of Fisheries et al. 1993). To the extent that coho are reintroduced, are residual from prior hatchery programs, or are included in future hatchery programs, the mitigation and off-site compensatory measures of this plan are intended to include that species. Historical and biological data on coho in the mid-Columbia reach are included when available.

Sockeye Salmon

Sockeye salmon use the Wells Project area as a corridor for juvenile and adult migration. Adult sockeye pass Wells dam on their way to spawning grounds upstream of Lake Osoyoos on the Okanogan River . Adults arrive at the dam from June through September, and 90 percent arrive from early July through early August (Figure 2-5).

Between 1967 and 1997 the counts of adults passing upstream of Wells dam have averaged 32,767 fish. However, returns of sockeye are highly variable and have ranged between approximately 1,650 and 113,300 fish since counts originated in 1967. These fluctuations are typical for sockeye production and represent strong and weak year classes. The abundance of natural stocks of sockeye fluctuates radically in a cyclical dominance pattern of four years' duration (Larkin 1983).

Sockeye fry emerge in March and April in the Okanogan system (Allen and Meekin 1973). Immediately after emergence, fry move into freshwater lakes (Chapman et al. 1995b; Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 1990). Newly emerged fry feed primarily in the littoral zone of lakes on Chironomidae larvae, and gradually shift to pelagic feeding on zooplankton, especially Bosmina, Cyclops and Daphnia spp., as they mature (Groot and Margolis 1991). Sockeye salmon migrate as smolts after spending one to three years in their nursery lakes (Chapman et al. 1995b). Juvenile sockeye salmon passing Wells dam originate from upstream spawning areas and hatchery releases into Lake Osoyoos . Sockeye salmon juveniles primarily pass Wells dam during the month of May (Kudera et al. 1992). The size of juvenile sockeye passing the project ranges from 76 to 128 mm (Zook 1983).

Sockeye juveniles actively migrate during their downstream migration, similar to yearling chinook and steelhead (Chapman et al. 1995b). Rates of travel up to 25 miles per day have been measured from the mid-Columbia River to Bonneville dam before most dams were in place (Chapman et al. 1995b). No information is available regarding the feeding habits of sockeye juveniles in the mainstem reservoirs of the Columbia River basin. It is expected that they feed on Chironomidae larvae and zooplankton such as Cladocera during their outmigration.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-13

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Hatchery production of sockeye salmon is currently conducted at the Cassimer Bar hatchery and Lake Osoyoos net pens. The goal for releases of juvenile sockeye salmon from these facilities is 129,500 fry annually (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995).

2.2.2 Distribution of Anadromous Salmonids

The pattern of distribution of fish, particularly juvenile salmonids, in Wells reservoir is a potentially important factor in determining the effects of the Wells Project on downstream migrants. Horizontal and vertical distribution of juveniles in the immediate forebay is a critical issue for downstream dam passage. The distribution of juveniles as they approach the Wells dam facilities through the downstream end of the reservoir affects the pattern of turbine, bypass or spillway entrainment. A discussion of the horizontal, vertical and diel distribution in the immediate forebay is presented in Section 3.2.1 of this document. Information on the pattern of diel movements past Wells dam is also presented in Section 3.2.1.

Horizontal distribution of spring and summer migrating juveniles in the lower three miles of Wells reservoir was described by McGee et al. (1983) and McGee (1984). The authors observed that yearling chinook, as well as sockeye and steelhead smolts, were more numerous in catches from the left (i.e., east) shoreline of the Wells reservoir.

Summer purse seining (June - July) collected primarily subyearling chinook salmon ranging in length between 51 and 159 mm and averaging 94 mm. As was the case for the yearling fish, the sets along the left (east) shoreline yielded relatively more fish than other sampling stations.

Hydroacoustic data collected during operation of the Wells juvenile bypass (see Section 3.2.1) generally indicate that fish passage rates and FPE are lowest on the left side of the hydrocombine and higher toward the center and right side of the structure. Although the index-seining data indicate that outmigrants prefer the left side of the lower portions of the Wells reservoir (McGee 1984), the hydroacoustic data indicate that the fish are becoming redistributed in the immediate vicinity of the project. The mechanisms responsible for this apparent horizontal redistribution are currently undescribed, but may be related to forebay bathymetry, forebay hydraulics or other factors.

There are no data available on the depth distribution of juvenile salmonids in the Wells reservoir. Information on vertical distribution in the Wells Project area is limited to hydroacoustic data for the Wells forebay immediately upstream of the dam and is summarized in Section 3.2.1.

2.2.3 Species Not Included in the Plan

Other aquatic and terrestrial species are not covered by the HCP, except to the extent that their activities may impact the plan species. These species are discussed generally in the following subsection. Other Fish Species

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-15 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Dell et al. (1975) found 18 resident species using the Wells pool. The most abundant species were suckers (38% of fish caught; unspecified spp.), northern squawfish (23%), redside shiners (14%), chiselmouth (10%), sculpins (5.5%; unspecified spp.), peamouth (4%) and mountain whitefish (3%). The other species comprised less than 3 percent of the number caught. Kokanee, a resident form of sockeye salmon, are commonly entrained through Grand Coulee dam ( Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1994a) and can be locally abundant in Wells reservoir. Juveniles or adults from small resident fluvial or adfluvial populations of bull trout in the Methow River drainages (Brown 1992) may occasionally drift downstream into Wells reservoir as part of their natural life cycle (Dell et al. 1975). Adult Pacific lamprey were counted at the adult fishway counting facilities at Wells dam in 1995. They were likely present in previous years but were not counted. Few adult lamprey were observed passing the project prior to early August, and subsequent daily counts were low (Klinge, pers. comm., 21 September 1995). Adult lamprey probably pass Wells dam from mid-July through late October based on Rocky Reach dam counts (Peven, pers. comm., 14 September 1995).

Other Aquatic Animal Species

In addition to the numerous fish species discussed above, there are a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species that utilize the mid-Columbia River as habitat for all or a significant part of their life cycle. These include species of molluscs, reptiles and amphibians. Those species known to be present in the mid- Columbia reach and may occur in some areas covered by the HCP are identified in Table 2-2.

Several plant species that are present either in the mid-Columbia River or along the shoreline are dependent on the river as habitat or use it as an essential habitat component (e.g., water table elevation). Those aquatic plants known to occur in at least portions of the mid-Columbia River and along its shoreline are identified in Table 2-3.

Terrestrial Resources

Resident and wintering waterfowl are one of the most abundant wildlife resources in the plan area. Common species include Canada geese and numerous duck species. Osprey, northern harrier, barred owl, bald eagle and other raptors are also found in and around riparian and wetland areas in the plan area. Riparian and wetland areas also provide habitat for several species of game and insect-eating species of birds. Shorebirds such as herons, gulls and terns feed and nest in shallow water areas, embayments, shorelines, riparian areas and wetlands. Mammals found in the plan area include the black bear, mountain lion and bobcat, as well as several species of deer and other ungulates.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-16 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Table 2-2. Aquatic animal species known to be present in areas of the mid-Columbia River.

Common name Scientific name Status California floater Anodonta californiensis Uncommon Giant Columbia River limpet (shortface lanx) Fisherola nuttalli Uncommon Great Columbia River spire snail (pebble snail) Fluminicola columbiana Uncommon Long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Uncommon Pacific treefrog Hyla regilla Uncommon Red-legged frog Rana aurora Uncommon Painted turtle Chrysemys picta Uncommon

Source: BPA et al. 1994a.

Table 2-3. Aquatic plants known to occur in the mid-Columbia River and along its shoreline.

Common name Scientific name Status Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina Common Sword-fern Polystichum spp. Common Woodsia Woodsia oregana Common Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Common Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Common Weeping willow Salix babylonica Common Willow Salix spp. Common White alder Alnus rhombifolia Common Water birch Betula occidentalis Common Miner's lettuce Montia perfoliata Common Douglas maple Acer glabrum var. Douglasii Common Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Noxious weed Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera Common Common cat-tail Typha latifoli Common Giant helleborine Epipactis gigantiea Sensitive/rare

BPA et al. 1994a.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-17 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

2.2.4 Listed, Candidate and Other Species of Concern

The USFWS has identified 22 federally listed or candidate fish and wildlife species and nine plant species that might be present in the mid-Columbia reach, including the Wells Project area.

2.3 STRUCTURAL SETTING

Wells dam was the eleventh dam built on the U.S. portion of the Columbia River, with first power generation occurring in 1967. In addition to the standard components of a hydroelectric facility, Wells dam has many fish passage and protection features for both upstream and downstream migrants. Further, as compensation for fish losses resulting from the Wells Project, the DCPUD funds two production facilities and one experimental fish production facility. Descriptions of the physical features of the Wells dam fish- related facilities are presented in the following subsections and summarized in Table 2-4. Details on the facility operations are presented in Section 2.4 of this document.

2.3.1 Power Generating Facilities

Until the early 1990s, Wells dam was the only dam in North America designed as a hydrocombine. While traditional dams have separate powerhouse and spillway structures, the Wells hydrocombine integrates the two by placing the spillway openings in unused space between the generators. This design approach was originally chosen to reduce the footprint of the combined powerhouse and spillway structures, thereby reducing the amount of concrete (and cost) needed to reach the limited amount of bedrock at the site (Figure 2-6).

The dam spans 4,460 feet, with the hydrocombine structure comprising 1,130 feet. The original river channel ran through what is now the east (left) embankment (Figure 2-6). A large amount of overburden was excavated in order to construct the hydrocombine on bedrock. Consequently, both the forebay and tailrace are at lower elevations than typical reservoir topography immediately upstream and downstream.

Generating facilities consist of 10 Kaplan turbines (Figure 2-7). Turbine Units 1 to 7 were initially started and accepted from the manufacturer in 1967, while Units 8 to 10 were started and accepted by January 1969. The total nameplate capacity of the generating units is 774.3 MW, and the total hydraulic capacity of the powerhouse is 200,000 cfs. The unit turbine rating is 120,000 hp at 64 feet net head and 85.7 rpm.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-18

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

There are three intakes for each turbine unit, measuring 26 feet wide by 58 feet high. In the event of an emergency where it is necessary to shut off the flow to a turbine, turbine intake bulkheads can be installed through a submerged gate slot in the turbine intake. The bottom of the turbine intakes are located at 135 feet below the normal water surface elevation. Because of the excavation that was required during construction of the dam, the turbine intakes are substantially deeper than the reservoir bed upstream from the hydrocombine. The excavation extended approximately 500 feet upstream from the center of the hydrocombine, to the point where the normal water depth is about 60 feet deep.

Each turbine is equipped with a runner 24 feet in diameter, the hub being 9.5 feet in diameter. The blades of the runner can rotate 12.1 degrees, between angle settings of 20.0 degrees and 32.1 degrees. The centerline of each runner is approximately 24 feet below the typical tailwater elevation. These runners were installed between 1988 and 1990, following a six-year period during which the original runners had been operated in a welded, fixed-blade condition to reduce the risk of failure.

Water exits each turbine via a draft tube, providing a smooth transition from vertical to horizontal flow. At Wells, the bottom of the draft tube is located 95 feet below the normal tailwater elevation. The limits of excavation conducted during construction of the dam extend approximately 1,400 feet downstream from the center of the hydrocombine, to the point where the normal water depth is about 15 feet deep.

The hydrocombine structure contains 11 spill bays interspersed between the generating units. Each spill bay is 46 feet wide, for a total spillway width of 506 feet. Water releases through the spillway are controlled by vertical gates. Each spill bay has two gates, a bottom leaf 30 feet high, and a top leaf 35 feet high. Normally, spill is achieved by raising the lower leaf to the height necessary to achieve the desired spill discharge. The top gates are used only after the bottom gates have been fully opened, which should be necessary only in extreme flood events. There are also two flap gates 23 feet wide by 14 feet high located at the top of the gates in Spill Units S2 and S10. They are used to pass ice and debris over the dam.

Because of the hydrocombine design, the spillway intakes are located directly above the turbine intakes (Figure 2-8). Spill Units S2 to S10 each have three intakes, while Spill Units S1 and S11 have two intakes each. The bottom of the spillway intakes are located 73 feet below the normal water depth.

The discharge side of the spillway is a controlled ogee design. The spillway crest is 5.5 feet above the normal tailwater elevation. The normal water depth above the spillway lip is 10 feet, but the draft tube location beneath the spillway lip extends the depth of the tailwater to 88.5 feet.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-22

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

2.3.2 Upstream Passage and Protection Facilities

The upstream passage facilities at Wells dam consist of identical but mirror-image left and right bank fishway facilities. Each fishway is a conventional staircase-type fish ladder 12 feet wide and comprised of 73 pools (Figure 2-9). Water is directed from one pool to the next via overflow weir sections 7 feet wide and through two 18-inch by 15-inch submerged orifices. About 1 foot of hydraulic head is dissipated at each weir in each of the lower 56 pools. In the upper 17 pools, the drop can range from 6 inches to 1 foot to accommodate the 10-foot fluctuations that may occur due to power generation.

At the bottom of each fishway is a portion of the endwall structure which serves as a fish attraction and collection chamber. There are three entrances into each collection chamber (Figure 2-10). The main side entrance and the downstream entrance are each 8-foot-wide vertical slots with vertical mitre gates to control the amount of opening. Below the side entrance is a fixed orifice type entrance, located at the end of a fish passage gallery extending the full width of the hydrocombine beneath the spillway lip. The orifice entrance and gallery are intended for use only when both the turbines and spillway are operating.

Provisions for sorting fish and collecting broodstock are contained at Pool 40 of each fishway. A removable picket barrier diverts fish from the ladder into a denil flume and then into a pool. In the west fishway, a false weir induces fish to exit the pool into a sorting flume that directs fish either to a 30-inch- diameter pipe leading to the hatchery spawning area, or on to the upstream side of the ladder. In the east fishway, the false weir leads to a flume to a station for loading fish transport vehicles.

Fish counting facilities are contained in Pool 64 of each fishway. The main features include an observation window into the fish ladder, a telescoping gate that forces fish to swim closer to the window, and a bypass gate to control the flow velocity past the window.

The exit from the fishway into the reservoir is located at the upstream corner of the endwall on the face toward the bank of the river. A slide gate allows the exit to be closed. Attraction water for the fishway entrances is provided by two turbine-driven pumps capable of withdrawing 1,200 to 2,500 cfs of water from the tailrace and introducing it into the collection chamber and lower portion of the fishway. Additionally, there are four fish attraction jets in a vertical plane near each side entrance that are supplied through gravity flow from the reservoir. The upper three jets are operated with 80 to 90 cfs each whenever they are submerged and the side entrance is open. The lowest jet is used to discharge approximately 125 cfs into the fish attraction gallery whenever the lower fixed orifice entrance is used.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-24

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

2.3.3 Downstream Passage and Protection Facilities

In 1989, a permanent juvenile bypass facility was completed at Wells dam. The system is based on a surface collector concept that utilizes barriers placed in spillway intakes to increase flow velocities in the upper water column of the forebay. It is postulated that the increased velocities attract smolts, and that once entrained in the attractant flow they pass readily through the baffle opening (Johnson et al. 1992). Fish that enter the baffled spillway pass the dam in bypass flow instead of turbine flow (Figure 2-11).

The smolt bypass system is comprised of five individual bypass units, installed in alternating spill bays S2, S4, S6, S8 and S10. Each bypass unit was formed by modifying a spill bay with baffles, sidewalls and gate slot plugs. Baffles inserted into trash rack guides in the modified spill bays reduce the open area and thereby increase flow velocity into the bypass units. Side walls installed between the pier noses and the turbine pit walls on each side of a spill bay prevent water from flowing between adjacent spill bays. Gate- slot plugs prevent flow between turbine intakes and the bypass unit.

The design of the baffle opening was decided after many years of testing different baffle configurations (Johnson et al. 1992). The installed system contains vertical slot baffle openings 16 feet wide by 73 feet high, which result in an average velocity through the opening of about 2 feet per second. Once fish are past the baffles, their passage through the smolt bypass system is identical to their passage over the spillway.

Downstream migrants passing the dam may be temporarily disoriented, whether passage occurs through turbines or over the spillway. To protect these fish from extensive predation by birds, aerial predator control wiring has been installed downstream of the dam over the tailrace. The wiring consists of cable strung approximately 25 feet apart for the first 200 feet downstream and 50 feet apart for the subsequent 400 feet.

2.3.4 Fish Production Facilities

Provisions of the FERC license and the 1990 Settlement Agreement require the DCPUD to provide hatchery-based compensation for losses of salmon and steelhead resulting from the Wells Project ( Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990; Douglas County Public Utility District 1969, 1972, 1982). The DCPUD has consequently funded the design, construction and operation of two major fish production facilities: Methow hatchery and Wells fish hatchery. In addition, the Cassimer Bar hatchery was started in 1992 as an experimental facility for sockeye production. The facility, located near the mainstem Columbia and the confluence of the Okanogan River, consists of incubation facilities plus vinyl raceways for juvenile rearing and adult holding. A satellite net pen facility is also available at Lake Osoyoos for juvenile acclimation and rearing.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-27

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

The Methow hatchery was constructed in 1991 to accommodate the enhancement of spring chinook in the Twisp, Chewuch and Methow Rivers. The main facility, located on the Methow River, contains isolation incubation facilities, 24 starter troughs, 12 raceways, 3 adult holding raceways and a growout/acclimation pond. The site is supplied by four wells capable of delivering 9 cfs and a surface water supply providing an additional 9 cfs. By agreement, the Methow Hatchery has the ability to use a 7 cfs portion of the USFWS water right for the Winthrop NFH. An adult trap for the Methow race/deme is located slightly upstream of the site. There are also two satellite facilities located on the Twisp and Chewuch Rivers. Each satellite contains an adult trap, an acclimation pond and a 3 cfs surface water supply for the pond (Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1994a).

The Wells fish hatchery was constructed in 1967 as a 6,000-foot-long spawning channel and a five-acre rearing pond. In the 1970s, the spawning channel concept was abandoned and the site was renovated to consist of a hatchery building with incubation facilities, 12 raceways, four rearing ponds of various sizes and adult capture and holding facilities. Water for the facility is supplied from 13 wells providing up to 29 cfs of groundwater, and up to 76 cfs gravity flow water from the Columbia River, most of which is used for the adult capture and holding facilities (Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1994a).

2.4 OPERATIONAL SETTING

2.4.1 Dam and Reservoir Operations

System-wide Integration of Operations

Flows through the Wells Project are primarily regulated from Grand Coulee dam in accordance with the Federal Columbia River Power System and the Mid-Columbia Hourly Coordination Agreement. Like all mid-Columbia projects, Wells dam is controlled from a dispatch center located in Ephrata, Washington. The general objective of this central coordination is to optimize power production while at the same time enhancing non-power uses of the mid-Columbia hydropower resources. Factors influencing the ability of the DCPUD to mitigate impacts to listed species include the many agreements, regulations and programs that determine flow into the mid-Columbia River reach from Grand Coulee dam. The Canadian Treaty and the related Non-Treaty Storage Agreement (NTSA) control the timing of flow into this reach. Since the NPPC established its first Fish and Wildlife Program in 1982, the Water Budget and other NPPC programs have played an increasing role in controlling flows in the mid-Columbia River reach. Similarly, the 1988 Vernita Bar Settlement Agreement (VBA) established minimum stream flows in the main fall chinook spawning grounds in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River downstream of the Mid-Columbia Projects. Since implementation of the VBA, river flows have increased annually during the November to January period. In addition, the ESA listings of Snake River chinook and sockeye salmon, and Kootenai River white sturgeon have had a significant effect on mid-Columbia flows.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-29

Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Table 2-6. Operating criteria for Wells dam fishways.

Staff gage locations Upstream and downstream of all entrances and exit trashracks, and at convenient locations for viewing along the ladder.

Water depth over ladder weirs 1.0 - 1.2 ft

Head on fishway entrances 1.0 - 2.0 ft (1.5 ft preferred)

Maximum trashrack water surface differential 0.3 ft

End wing gate settings:

Spill less than 80 kcfs 6 ft

Spill greater than 80 kcfs 8 ft

Side wing gate settings:

Spill less than 80 kcfs 4 ft

Spill greater than 80 kcfs Closed

Low level fixed orifice entrance settings Open whenever side wing gate is closed

Attraction jet criteria:

Lower jet (elevation 673) On whenever low level fixed orifice entrance is open

Upper jets (elevation 700, 708 and 717) On whenever submerged by tailwater. Only two of the four orifice jets will be operating at any one time.

Source: FERC 1990; DCPUD 1993.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-32 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

2.4.3 Juvenile Fish Passage Operations

In 1987, the Mid-Columbia Coordinating Committee (MCCC) agreed to replace the interim measure of bypass spill at Wells dam with the operation of the smolt bypass system then under development. Four of the five planned bypass units were already in place during 1987 and 1988, and the fifth spill bay was operated as though it had already been modified. In 1989, the fifth bypass unit was installed and operation of the complete system commenced. Since 1990, timing of the operation of the smolt bypass system has been managed by representatives of the Wells Coordinating Committee (WCC), following terms and conditions of the 1990 Settlement Agreement ( Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990).

The smolt bypass system at Wells is prepared for operation each year at least two weeks prior to the preseason forecast of the beginning of juvenile migration. It remains in place for at least two weeks after the juvenile migration period ends. In between these dates, the bypass system is available to operate continuously, 24 hours per day, at the direction of the WCC. Historically, the bypass operates less than 24 hours per day when juvenile salmonid numbers are low as indicated by the hydroacoustic index. In 1994, bypass operation started on April 12 and ended on August 11 (Klinge, pers. comm., 27 September 1995).

During the juvenile migration period, at least one of the five individual bypass units (S2, S4, S6, S8 and S10) is in operation at all times, even if no turbines are operating. When a turbine is operated, the adjacent bypass unit is operated at the same time (Table 2-7).

Table 2-7. Turbine and associated bypass unit operation at Wells dam.

Turbines Operated Bypass Units Operated 1 and/or 2 S2 3 and/or 4 S4 5 and/or 6 S6 7 and/or 8 S8 9 and/or 10 S10

On occasions when the Chief Joseph Dam Uncoordinated Discharge Estimate is 140 kcfs or greater for the following day, all five bypass units are operated continuously for 24 hours regardless of turbine operation.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-33 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Bypass units are turned on by opening the spill gate associated with the unit. For units S4, S6 or S8, this is accomplished by opening the lower leaf of the spill gate 1 foot, resulting in a bottom spill bypass flow of 2.2 kcfs per unit. Units S2 and S10 have the option of spilling over the ice and debris sluice gates (except when the Wells pool is very low) or using bottom spill. The sluice gates are the preferred method of spill for these units, at typical discharge levels of 1.6 to 2.1 kcfs. Based on this mode of operation, the daily bypass flows at Wells dam have averaged around 6 percent of total project discharge (Kudera et al. 1992; Kudera and Sullivan 1993).

Start and end dates for operation of the Wells smolt bypass system are determined in part from data collected as part of the Annual Passage Monitoring Plan. Hydroacoustic sampling of fish passage begins two weeks before the forecasted beginning of the migration period. Data are used to develop daily in- season indices of relative fish abundance, which then may be used by the Wells Bypass Team to adjust bypass system operation.

During the term of the HCP, the bypass system will be operated continuously between April 10 and August 15. Initiation of the bypass system may occur between April 1 and April 10 if the hydro-acoustic index reaches 150 and is verified by fyke netting. The bypass can terminate after August 15 if the Hydroacoustic index declines to 250 and is verified by fyke netting. The bypass will not operate past August 31. Run timing information will be gathered for five years from March 15 to April 10 and from August 15 to September 15.

2.4.4 Spill Management For Dissolved Gas Control

The DCPUD participates in a basin-wide program which at times may require spill for the purpose of managing dissolved gas levels in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Spill management requests are placed by the Fish Passage Center and are based in part on dissolved gas monitoring data and the observed condition of migrant juveniles and adults, along with juvenile migration monitoring data. Total dissolved gas monitoring is conducted by the DCPUD at the Wells forebay and reported every four hours from April 1 through August 31. Related data reported at the same time include spill volume, total project flow and which spill gates are open. Data are sent daily to the Fish Passage Center via the CROHMS network.

2.4.5 Fish Production Facility Operations

The two main fish hatcheries owned by the DCPUD are operated to meet production requirements specified in agreements emanating from the original FERC order and from the 1990 Settlement Agreement ( Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990; Douglas County Public Utility District 1969; 1972; 1982). The DCPUD has entered into formal arrangements with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to have that agency operate the Methow and Wells facilities. The Colville Tribe operates the experimental Cassimer Bar facility. The WDFW and the Colville Tribe are responsible for the day-to-day

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-34 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions hatchery activities of their respective sites and for assuring that the production programs are operated in a manner consistent with the policies and guidelines of the state. It is the ultimate responsibility of the DCPUD, however, to make certain that the objectives of the mitigation agreements are achieved.

The 1994 production goals for the DCPUD fish production facilities are noted in Table 2-8. It should be noted the fall chinook production program at Wells fish hatchery is funded by other entities and is not part of any DCPUD mitigation programs. The main facilities at Cassimer Bar, Methow and Wells hatcheries operate year-round with activities that include adult holding, spawning, incubation, rearing and on-site release. Each of these facilities also conducts initial rearing of fish that are transported to satellite facilities or released at off-station sites.

The Lake Osoyoos net pens served as a satellite facility for Cassimer Bar hatchery where sockeye were reared and released. However, because of concern expressed by the Canadian government about possible effect this program may have to the resident population of kokanee, the net pens were moved to Rufus Woods lake in 1998. The Chewuch and Twisp Ponds provide acclimation and release sites for two of the races/demes involved in the Methow River Spring Chinook Enhancement Program. These sites also have adult trapping facilities for collecting stock-specific brood.

Anadromous fish released from the DCPUD hatchery facilities share portions of the migration corridor used by Snake River species listed under the ESA. As facility operators, WDFW has obtained a Section 10 permit for all of its non-federally funded hatcheries in the Columbia Basin, including the Methow and Wells hatcheries. The permit describes efforts made by the agency to avoid and minimize impacts to listed species. These efforts include protocols for adult collection and spawning, rearing and release strategies, fish health management programs and environmental monitoring.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec2 Page 2-35 Wells HCP Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

Table 2-8. Fish production for 1994 for Wells dam mitigation hatcheries. Production Goal Age Length Release Facility/Species Stock Number Pounds Group (mm) Location Month Cassimer Bar hatchery Sockeye Okanogan 15,000 150 0+ 68 Transfer: Lake Osoyoos NP Apr

Sockeye Okanogan 95,500 1,038 0+ 70 Lake Osoyoos May - Lake Osoyoos NP Sockeye Okanogan 15,000 176 0+ 72 Lake Osoyoos May Methow hatchery Spring chinook Chew., Tw. 500,000 32,353 1+ 145 Transfer: Chew., Twisp Feb-Mar

Spring chinook Methow 250,000 16,667 1+ 150 On station Apr - Chewuch Acclimation Pond Spring chinook Chewuch 250,000 16,667 1+ 150 On station Apr - Twisp Acclimation Pond Spring chinook Twisp 250,000 16,667 1+ 150 On station Apr Wells hatchery Summer chinook Wells 484,000 24,200 0+ 125 On station Jun Summer chinook Wells 320,000 32,000 1+ 160 On station Apr Summer steelhead Wells 370,310 76,984 1+ 195 Methow R./Okanogan Apr Summer steelhead Wells 50,000 10,416 1+ 195 Similkameen R. Apr Summer steelhead Wells 10,000 1,818 1+ 195 Chiwack/Twisp R. Apr Fall chinook Wells 100,000 2,000 0+ 95 Transfer: L.Chelan NP May Rainbow trout Spokane 24,750 4,950 1+ 185 Local lakes Apr Source: FishPro, Inc. 1995. 1. Italicized lines indicate fish transfers or resident fish plantings. 2. Facility names preceded by a hyphen are satellite stations to the main facility. 3. The Cassimer Bar hatchery is a pilot project for the sockeye production specified in the Wells 1990 Settlement Agreement. The long-term goals call for 8,000 pounds of sockeye during Phase I and 15,000 during Phase II. progoals.we2

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec2 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

3.0 SALMONID PROTECTION ISSUES AND EXISTING MITIGATION MEASURES

Section 3 addresses existing issues and mitigation measures for species of concern specific to the Wells Project area. This section addresses upstream and downstream passage of adult and juvenile fishes, water quality, reservoir production, predation and fish production associated with Wells Project. Existing mitigation measures related to each of these issues are also described. Proposed mitigation measures are presented in Section 5 and monitoring in Section 6 of this document.

3.1 UPSTREAM PASSAGE OF ADULT FISH

The following section addresses issues specific to existing mitigation and monitoring programs for adult upstream passage in the Wells Project area. Timing of adult passage at Wells dam is detailed in Section 2.2.1 of this document.

Wells dam has two adult fishways, one on each side of the hydrocombine (Figure 2-11), to facilitate upstream passage of adults past the project. Adult counting stations are located in the vicinity of the exit of each ladder. Section 3.1.1 addresses issues and mitigation for adult passage at the dam, and Section 3.1.2 addresses issues and mitigation for adult passage through the reservoir. Generally, adults of species of concern are present in the project area from May through November, although adult steelhead may be present year-round.

3.1.1 Upstream Passage at Wells Dam

The term adult fishway is defined in this document as all structural and operational components of adult fish passage facilities at the projects including entrances, collection systems, ladders, water supply system, attraction jets, counting and brood stock collection facilities and exits. A full description of the structural and operational aspects of the Wells adult fishways is provided in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. Potential biological issues related to upstream passage of adult fish via the fishway facilities include delay, adult fallback and pre-spawning mortality. The following is a summary of these issues as they apply to Wells dam.

Existing Issues

Upstream passage facilities at the Wells Project are operated in accordance with criteria specified in a 1990 Settlement Agreement (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990). The fishways are inspected by representatives of the state and federal fishery agencies, tribes and the Fish Passage Center (FPC). Modifications to address delay or mortality are implemented in agreement with the Wells Project Coordinating Committee (WCC). Recently, a major study of adult migration in the project area has helped to further identify issues and concerns with passage of adult chinook at the project (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). Discussion of adult upstream passage involves physical and behavioral aspects of fish, and physical

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-1 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures and hydrologic characteristics of the facilities. Terms used to describe features of the adult collection and fishway facilities used in this section are defined as follows (in order of their use):

RDSE = Right downstream entrance LDSE = Left downstream entrance RSE = Right side entrance LSE = Left side entrance

Delay

Migrational delay of adult salmonids has the potential to increase mortality by increasing exposure to harvest or disease and to cause reductions in adult energy stores or spawning ability. Stuehrenberg et al. (1995) indicate that adult spring, summer, and fall chinook salmon quickly located the Wells fishway entrances in 1993 (Table 3-1). The time between tailrace arrival and first entry into the fishway at Wells was found to be lower than at the other four mid-Columbia project fishways. Stuehrenberg et al. (1995) concludes that the rapid entrance location time at the Wells fishways is a result of the low number (four) of entrances at the project and the proximity of the entrances to the fishways.

Median total passage time for adult spring chinook at Wells dam in 1993 was 28.5 hours, ranging from 2.9 to 1,396 hours (Table 3-1) (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). The median time required for spring chinook to locate the Wells fishway entrances was less than one hour (Table 3-1). The median time required for spring chinook to move through the collection system and locate ladders was 26.8 hours. Median passage times through the right bank and left ladders were 2.2 and 2.1 hours, respectively (Table 3-1) (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995).

Median total passage time for adult summer chinook at Wells dam in 1993 was 46.9 hours with a range of two to 1,108 hours (Table 3-1) (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). Summer chinook required a median time of only 0.4 hours to locate entrances, and required a median time of 33.3 hours to negotiate the collection channel system and enter the ladder. Once in the ladder, median time for passage through the right and left bank fishways was 2.6 and 2.7 hours, respectively (Table 3-1) (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995).

Median total passage time for adult fall chinook at Wells dam in 1993 was 45.6 hours with a range of 4.8 to 828 hours (Table 3-1) (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). Fall chinook required a longer time to locate entrances and ladders than either spring or summer chinook, requiring a median time of 2.4 hours from first entry into the fishway to the last collection-channel exit and location of the ladder. Once in the ladder, median time for passage through both right and left bank fishways was 2.4 hours (Table 3-1) (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995).

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-2 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Table 3-1. Median passage travel time (hours) of radio-tagged chinook1 and sockeye2 salmon passing over Wells dam in 1993.

Median Passage Time (hours)

Spring Chinook Summer Chinook Fall Chinook Sockeye

Starting locations and destinations N Passage Time N Passage Time N Passage Time N Passage Time

Rocky Reach to Wells Tailrace 63 22.7 111 25.8 33 40.8 79 36

Tailrace to arrival 66 1.4 112 1.8 36 <2.4 NA

Arrival to first fishway entry 72 0.9 123 0.4 52 <2.4 79 2.4

First fishway entry to ladder entry 73 26.8 123 33.3 51 31 NA

Passage through fish ladders Right ladder 27 2.2 10 2.6 20 <2.4 24 4.8

Left ladder 28 2.1 87 2.7 32 2.4 45 7.2

Total dam passage time 56 28.5 97 46.9 52 45.6 63 31.2

Range of total passage time 56 2.9 to 1,396 97 2 to 1,108 52 4.8 to 828 63 7.2 to 444

Wells Dam to Methow River 41 30.9 16 434.2 NA NA 7

Wells Dam to Okanogan River 7 270.4 50 24.6 NA NA 36

N = Number of fish observed 1Source: Stuehrenberg et al. 1995 2 Source: Swan et al. 1994 chinsock.we3

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec3 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Median total passage time for adult sockeye salmon in 1992 was 31.2 hours with a range of 7.2 to 444 hours (Table 3-1) (Swan et al. 1994). Sockeye required a median time of 2.4 hours from arrival to first entry into the fishway; the time required to locate the ladders is not available. Once in the ladder, median time for passage through the right and left fishways was 4.8 and 7.2 hours, respectively (Table 3-1) (Swan et al. 1994).

The efficiency of the Wells fishway entrances varies by entrance location, species, and race/deme. For spring chinook, the right downstream entrance (RDSE) and the left downstream entrance (LDSE) showed relatively high numbers of net positive entrances, i.e., more fish entering than exiting the fishway. The right side entrance (RSE) showed slight net positive entrances and the left side entrance (LSE) showed slight negative net entrances, i.e., more fish exiting rather than entering the fishway. The negative net entrances at the LSE indicate that spring chinook were entering through the LDSE and exiting through the LSE. Spring chinook used both fishways about equally, and most frequently entered through the LDSE, followed by the RDSE (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995).

The majority of summer chinook (90% ) used the left fishway and most frequently entered through the LSE, followed by the LDSE. The LDSE showed high net positive entrances with the LSE, RDSE, and RSE showing very low net positive entrances (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). Fall chinook most frequently used the left fishway (61.5% of the time), and most frequently entered through the LDSE, followed by the RDSE. All entrances showed net positive entrances, with the LDSE and LSE highest (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995).

Sockeye salmon most frequently used the left fishway (65% of the time) (Swan et al. 1994). About two- thirds of sockeye successfully passing through the facilities entered via the end entrances, LDSE and RDSE, and about one-third entered via the side entrances, LSE and RSE. Only the LDSE had strongly net positive entrances. The right fishway entrances (RDSE and RSE) and the LSE all had net negative entrances; although it may not be possible for both the RDSE and the RSE to have net negative entrances, the right fishway was nonetheless much less efficient than the left fishway. Sockeye adults which successfully negotiated the fishway made an average of 24.5 and 41.5 entrance attempts at the left and right fishways, respectively (Swan et al. 1994).

Based on these results, the side entrances (LSE and RSE) were inefficient at passing spring and summer chinook and sockeye, but were effective entrances for fall chinook adults. The LDSE was consistently effective at passing all four species, and the RDSE was effective for spring and fall chinook passing the Wells Project. Therefore, reducing the number of entrances, which may be effective at other mid-Columbia projects, may not significantly improve adult upstream passage time for chinook salmon at Wells dam. More information may be needed to explain the high number of entrance attempts and net negative entrances for sockeye at the right fishway.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-4 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Adult Fallback

Adult fallback is defined as voluntary or involuntary downstream movement of upstream migrating adults across a dam. Adult fallback information is available for spring, summer and fall chinook and for sockeye salmon from radio-telemetry studies at Wells dam (Swan et al. 1994; Stuehrenberg et al. 1985). No detailed radio-telemetry information regarding adult fallback is available for steelhead trout at Wells dam.

Stuehrenberg et al. (1995) reported that 3.6 percent of radio-tagged spring chinook adults (two of 56) experienced fallback at Wells dam in 1993. Both of these adults were last located in spawning areas downstream from Wells dam. Fourteen percent of summer chinook adults (14 of 98) fell back over the project. Six of these fish later reascended the adult fishway, two were last located in spawning areas downstream from Wells dam, four were last located in the Wells tailrace area and two entered the Wells fish hatchery. Twenty-one percent of radio-tagged fall chinook adults (11 of 52) fell back over Wells dam; one of these adults reascended the fishway, six remained in the tailrace, one was harvested downstream of the project, and three returned to Wells fish hatchery. Stuehrenberg et al. (1995) stated that they could not differentiate adults spawning in the mainstem from mortalities. Giorgi (1992) documented fall chinook spawning in the Wells tailrace. In 1992, 13 percent of radio-tagged sockeye adults (nine of 69) at Wells dam fell back at least once; all fallbacks occurred during periods of spill, ranging from 4.1 to 7.6 percent of total flow at the project (Swan et al. 1994). Of nine adults that fell back, two fell back twice. Only one fallback did not reascend the project.

Stuehrenberg et al. (1995) could not determine whether or not the adult summer and fall chinook that fell back and did not reascend the fishway may have "overshot" their intended destinations and fell back actively across the dam as they headed back downstream. They offered no evidence that these fish might have otherwise migrated past Wells dam and spawned at some upstream location. Overall, the incidence and frequency of fallback at Wells dam appears to be consistent with fallback at other Columbia Basin mainstem dams (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995).

Adult Losses at the Project

Interdam loss, defined as disappearance between two hydropower projects, is one component of pre- spawning mortality of adult salmonids, as are other factors such as disease, harvest, etc. Pre-spawning mortality, in turn, is defined as mortality between the time of measured escapement and the time of egg deposition (Chapman et al. 1991). Interdam loss can be further differentiated into losses at the dam, in the reservoir and in the tailrace area.

Losses of adult salmonids that may take place at Wells dam have not been enumerated. There are no known causes of direct adult mortality at Wells dam. Known causes of adult mortality that could potentially occur at Wells dam are TDG supersaturation, tailwater temperature, and mortality associated with fallback

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-5 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures over the spillway or through the turbines. The Stuehrenberg et al. (1995) study of chinook fallback at Wells dam could not differentiate adult mainstem spawning from mortalities.

Sixty-one tagged fall chinook were last recorded in the Wells dam tailrace, seven were last recorded in Wells reservoir in the vicinity of the dam, and two were last recorded in the Wells dam area (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). The fate of the fall chinook adults last recorded in the tailrace is not known, although they may have spawned there. It is not possible to compute percentages of adults either lost at the project or that spawned below the project from the data as presented in Stuehrenberg et al. (1995). Swan et al. (1994) observed that 90 percent (71 of 79) of radio-tagged adult sockeye successfully passed over Wells dam. The fates of the eight adults that did not pass the project are not known. Little data are available concerning adult losses of steelhead at Wells dam.

Previous and Existing Mitigation Measures

Migration delays were noted during the first few years of fishway operation (Meekin 1967). Large schools of adult salmon were observed in the tailrace, apparently searching for fishway entrances. During this period, turbines installed to pump water through the fishways were inoperative, considerably reducing adult attraction flows. Total blockage was never observed, but delays occurred. During 1967 and 1968, while equipment was being upgraded, fishway operation was alternated to allow upgrading of the system. Several other reasons were cited by Meekin (1967) for delays observed in fish passing through the Wells fishways.

Head differentials at fishway entrances also required modification during the first years of fishway operation as the amount of attraction flow was insufficient to attract adults. The original entrance head differential of one foot was modified to operate at one and one half feet, which improved adult attraction. Lights were also installed in internal portions of the fishway in order to aid adults in negotiating the ladders.

The fishway facilities at the Wells Project are considered to be relatively successful (Fish Passage Center 1992, 1993). Fishway-operating criteria are modified on an annual basis in the agreement with the WCC. The facilities are inspected annually by the FPC. Reports based on these inspections have been produced annually (Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 1994) for 11 years and have contributed to the development of fishway operating criteria (see Section 2.4.2) and the fine-tuning of fishway operations. Operating criteria are included in the 1990 Settlement Agreement (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990).

Effectiveness of Existing Mitigation

Relative effectiveness of Wells fishways has been assessed by comparing their performance with other fishways in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The chinook salmon radio-telemetry study by Stuehrenberg

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-6 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures et al. (1995) is the only work that includes a systematic evaluation of several mid-Columbia fishways. Based on these results, it is apparent that the Wells fishways are the most efficient of the mid-Columbia fishways with respect to the attraction of fish to the fishway entrances. The median time required for adult chinook to pass through the collection system and enter ladder sections of the Wells fishways was among the highest of the mid-Columbia fishways. Data from Stuehrenberg et al. (1995) indicate that spring and fall chinook salmon took an average amount of time, and summer chinook took longest, to negotiate the adult fishway at Wells dam as compared to the other four mid-Columbia projects . The median total passage time at Wells dam for spring and fall chinook was average for the fishways at mid-Columbia projects, but passage time for summer chinook was highest of the mid-Columbia fishways .

Since Swan et al. (1994) evaluated adult sockeye passage only at Wells dam, a comparison between projects is not possible. However, based on the results for summer chinook, which pass Wells dam at approximately the same time of year, sockeye took less time to pass the project, but fell back more often. Adult sockeye appear to pass the project more frequently via the right fishway than the left fishway.

It is extremely difficult to isolate variables affecting the success of the Wells fishway facilities in passing adult migrants upstream from the tailrace to the forebay. Any evaluation of fishway effectiveness is complicated by behavioral and life history variability of anadromous fish stocks, and by a general lack of information on migration and spawning behavior in the mid-Columbia River reach. It is reasonable to expect that mitigation addressing chinook salmon delays, fallback and losses at the project and reservoir will have similar effects on adult passage of other salmonid species.

Ongoing Monitoring

The state and federal fishery agencies, tribes and the FPC conduct annual inspections of the fishway facilities at Wells dam. The WCC coordinates mitigation measures that result from any problems identified during the inspections. No surveys track fall chinook spawning in the tailrace area at the present time, therefore adults that may spawn in the tailrace are not included in estimates of interdam loss of adult fall chinook that may be attributable to Wells dam.

3.1.2 Upstream Reservoir Passage

Once adults pass the dam, they navigate the reservoir to reach tributary spawning areas. Issues regarding reservoir passage include travel time and survival of adults. Wells reservoir has two major tributaries, the Methow and Okanogan Rivers, that are used for spawning. The federal project upstream from Wells dam, Chief Joseph dam, has no adult upstream passage facilities, and, therefore, adults passing the Wells Project are destined for spawning areas in the tributaries to Wells reservoir, the reservoir itself, or the Chief Joseph tailrace. Since counting takes place only at Wells dam it is not possible to enumerate losses of adults between Wells dam and the various spawning destinations. Passage of adult salmonids through reservoirs

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-7 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures has been documented in other areas of the Columbia River Basin (Bjornn and Peery 1992; Bjornn et al. 1994; Bjornn et al. 1995). Only two studies, Stuehrenberg et al. (1995) and Swan et al. (1994) have been performed on the mid-Columbia River reservoirs. .

There is little evidence to suggest significant impacts on adult migration and pre-spawning mortality occur in the mid-Columbia River reach reservoir environment. Bjornn and Peery (1992) included information from mid-Columbia and other run-of-river reservoirs in their comprehensive review of the effects of reservoirs on adult salmon. Based on the available information, they concluded that run-of-river reservoirs had minimal effect on migrating adults. Adult salmonids generally pass through these reservoirs at similar or faster rates than they do in the naturally flowing river. There is no evidence of serious disorientation, wandering, straying or mortality associated with reservoir conditions.

Adult Reservoir Passage Issues

Travel Time

Travel time of adult salmonids through both impounded and free-flowing reaches is relatively well known in the Columbia River Basin. Adult salmonids travel rates range from less than seven to 17 miles per day in unimpounded reaches of the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. Travel rates of adult spring and summer chinook and sockeye through Wells reservoir range from 2.2 to 7.2 miles per day (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995; Swan et al. 1994). Adult chinook slowed their speed of migration through the mainstem reservoirs as they neared their natal streams and hatcheries (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). The observed slower travel rates through the Wells reservoir are probably the result of the proximity of the fish to their spawning streams as well as delays in upstream migration due to elevated temperatures in the Okanogan River. Typically by the middle of July the Okanogan River exceeds 23°C (75°F) and as such precludes the entry of adult summer and fall chinook, summer steelhead and sockeye (Chapman et al. 1995b).

Travel times of spring and summer chinook and sockeye salmon through Wells reservoir to the Methow and Okanogan Rivers are presented in Table 3-1. Spring chinook adults took a median 30.9 hours to travel from Wells dam to the mouth of the Methow River (eight miles), a rate of 6.2 miles per day (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). Spring chinook took a median time of 270.4 hours to travel the 69 miles to the mouth of the Okanogan River, an average of 6.1 miles per day. However, summer chinook adults, for the most part, traveled to the Okanogan River mouth, held near the mouth, then returned to the Methow River 61 miles downstream. The median travel time to the Okanogan River was an extremely rapid 24.6 hours, and the median total time to travel the 130 miles from Wells dam to the Methow River via the Okanogan River was 434.2 hours, a rate of 7.2 miles per day (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). The authors do not present travel times for fall chinook to their destinations above Wells dam. Twenty adult sockeye radio-tagged by Swan et al. (1994) took a median of 33.5 days to travel 24 miles from Wells dam to Monse at RM 6 of the Okanogan River (range of eight to 43 days), an average of 0.72 miles per day. Swan et al. (1994) note that the temperature in the Okanogan River was above the level

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-8 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures which sockeye would enter the river until August 23; only three fish entered the river before this date.

Interdam Loss

As stated earlier, interdam loss has two components: loss at the project and loss in the reservoir. Due to lack of comprehensive fish counts in the Methow and Okanogan Rivers for the species of concern, it is not possible to isolate loss in the project. Loss in other reservoirs varies by time of year, species, and project. Loss rates for spring, summer and fall chinook in the reservoir cannot be calculated from Stuehrenberg et al. (1995), since the fate of fish last tracked in Wells reservoir and below Chief Joseph dam is not clear. The authors could not account for eight spring chinook below and six above Wells dam, and two summer chinook below and two above the project. Seven fall chinook were last located in Wells reservoir near Wells dam; one was last tracked at the mouth of the Okanogan River, where it may have spawned. Seven were last tracked in Wells reservoir in the vicinity of the Bridgeport Bar, and may have spawned there. Sixty-one fall chinook were last located in the Wells tailrace and may have spawned in the tailrace, but the authors stated that they could not distinguish adult mainstem spawning from mortalities.

Most adult sockeye salmon radio-tagged by Swan et al. (1994) were destined for the Okanogan River. Of the 69 adults that passed over Wells dam, 29 (42%) were accounted for at Zosel dam on the Okanogan River. It is not possible to determine the fate of the remaining adults; they may have either moved upstream to the base of Chief Joseph dam, entered another tributary to Wells reservoir, remained in the lower Okanogan River or remained in Wells reservoir. Another explanation for the low detection percentage at Zosel dam is that some tags experienced antennae problems and were not able to be tracked.

These low numbers of unaccounted-for adult chinook suggest that the loss rate of chinook in Wells reservoir is low, and may be within the 3 to 5 percent rates calculated for other reservoirs. The loss rate of sockeye salmon between Wells dam and Zosel dam may be very high, but the causes of this loss (such as lethal water temperature in the lower Okanogan River, passage loss at Zosel dam, wandering, or reservoir effects) cannot be isolated. However, a radio-tag study of adult sockeye salmon conducted in 1997 (Alexander et al. 1998) showed that 83 percent of in-river migrants that passed Wells dam reached the spawning grounds in Canada.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-9 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Previous and Existing Mitigation Measures

Full and complete mitigation for anadromous fish losses at the Wells dam, including upstream migrating adults, has been stipulated in the 1990 Settlement Agreement (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990). No additional mitigation is required under the settlement agreement for the loss of adults in Wells reservoir. There is no evidence to suggest that adverse impacts on adult migration and subsequent pre- spawning survival occurs in Wells reservoir.

Effectiveness of Existing Mitigation

No mitigation is required for reservoir effects. Adult passage rates through Wells reservoir are influenced by the proximity of the reservoir to spawning streams and the ambient temperature encountered by adults in those tributaries, rather than the presence of or conditions in Wells reservoir.

Ongoing Monitoring

Monitoring efforts specifically designed to evaluate reservoir-related impacts on adult migrants in Wells reservoir are unnecessary due to rapid adult passage rates.

3.2 DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE OF JUVENILE FISH

3.2.1 Downstream Passage at Wells Dam

Existing Concerns and Issues

Fish migrating downstream through the mid-Columbia reach encounter a series of reservoirs and dams on their journey to the Pacific Ocean. Potential mechanisms that allow fish to pass from the upstream to the downstream side of any dam include the following:

• passage through a turbine; • passage over a spillway, through a sluiceway or locks. • passage through a permanent fish bypass system; • passage in a downstream direction through ancillary dam facilities, such as the adult fishway facilities; or • collection of fish on the upstream side of the structure followed by transport and release on the downstream side.

Issues for each of these potential methods of downstream dam passage as they relate to the Wells Project are presented in this section.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-10 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Turbine Passage

Turbine-related juvenile fish mortality includes both direct and indirect components. Direct mortality can result from mechanical damage, pressure-induced damage (including cavitation) and damage due to the shearing action of water present when two proximal planes of water exist with opposing vectors. Indirect mortality can result from conditions such as stress, disorientation and backroll entrapment which are not normally lethal in themselves, but which may result in increased risk of predation or injury during subsequent downstream migration.

Fundamental relationships as they relate to turbine passage and mortality have not yet been established between physical variables such as turbine criteria and hydrographic conditions, and biological variables such as species, size, condition, and health (Iwamoto and Williams 1993). However, based on current understanding, it is often possible to suggest whether a particular feature will have positive or negative impact on turbine mortality. In the discussion that follows, project-specific features of the Wells dam turbines are noted which may affect turbine mortality. System survival studies conducted on the mid-Columbia reach during 1982 and 1983 examined spring chinook survival through two reaches: Pateros (at the head of Wells reservoir) to Rock Island, and Rock Island to Priest Rapids (McKenzie et al. 1984a, 1984b). The Pateros to Rock Island reach involved passage through three projects (Wells, Rocky Reach and Rock Island) and resulted in survival estimates of 64 percent in 1982 and 60 percent in 1983. Based on this information and making the gross assumption that mortality rates are approximately equal through each project, the authors estimated the single project mortality for Wells, Rocky Reach and Rock Island at about 13 percent in 1982 and 16 percent in 1983. These studies made no specific estimates as to what portions of the project mortality were associated with direct and indirect turbine mortality, reservoir effects, or other factors involved with project passage. The hatchery-based compensation program developed as part of the 1990 Wells Long Term Settlement Agreement assumes an initial total project mortality rate of 14 percent.

A study attempting to measure turbine and spillway mortality specifically for Wells dam was conducted in 1980 following two years of pilot studies (Parametrix 1986). Whereas the 1978 pilot study suggested direct turbine mortality was very low, the 1980 study results estimated Wells turbine mortality at 16 percent. However, several serious assumption violations were observed during the 1980 study. Left brand and right branding positions were used during this study and the recapture and subsequently the survival estimates generated from the two different mark groups was very different. Residualism during this study varied greatly between the two different brand types which may have adversely effected the recapture estimates for the various groups. In addition the pre-release, post-marking survival of the two brands groups was also very different. Survival estimates generated from these two different marking groups ranged from a high of 96 percent to a low of 6 percent.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-11

Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Columbia and Snake Rivers attempt to operate within 1 percent of peak efficiency during the juvenile migration period, but the precise benefits of operating within this range are unknown, especially in light of indeterminate excursions outside of the range (NMFS 1995a).

The Kaplan turbines at Wells have high operating efficiencies over a broad flow range. The 10 units are operated under joint load control; that is, the settings and resultant efficiencies are the same for all units that are operating, except during the brief periods when a unit is just coming on or off line. Based on the immediate power demands and flow conditions at the dam, the Wells system will automatically adjust the wicket gate openings and blade angles to provide the best turbine efficiency under the given conditions. The automated settings are based on model testing information that has been verified and updated using the Winter-Kennedy index testing method. Consequently, typical turbine operations at Wells dam maintain high efficiencies under most conditions.

Dam Spillway Passage

Flow over the Wells dam spillway may occur either as bypass spill from operation of the smolt bypass system, or as forced spill due to flows that exceed the 200 kcfs powerhouse capacity. Characteristics of spill required to operate the smolt bypass system are discussed in Section 2.4.3. Issues involving spillway passage at Wells dam are related to predation in the tailrace on juveniles passing over the spillway (addressed in Section 3.5), increases in TDG and associated GBT in juvenile migrants (addressed in Section 3.3) direct and as well as indirect mortality resulting from passage through the spillways.

Juvenile Bypass System

The Wells juvenile bypass system began full-scale operation in 1989 following nine years of research and development. Performance criteria for the bypass system set forth in the 1990 Wells Dam Settlement Agreement call for a fish passage efficiency (FPE) of at least 80 percent for the juvenile salmonid spring migration and an FPE of at least 70 percent for the juvenile salmonid summer migration. Fish passage efficiency is defined as the ratio of fish passing through the bypass system to the sum of fish passing through the bypass system and turbines (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990).

The vertical distribution of juveniles in the forebay strongly effects the fish passage efficiency of the Wells bypass system. Hydroacoustic data collected from 1981 to 1983 indicates that 90 percent of fish approaching the dam during the day are located above the spillway/turbine intake boundary, and that 55 percent are above during the night. Fyke nets extending the full depth of the bypass and turbine intakes show chinook and sockeye migrants to be above the boundary 94 percent of the time during the day. At night, the numbers above the boundary fall to 80 percent and 63 percent for chinook and sockeye, respectively (Johnson et al. 1992). It should be noted, however, that these distribution data were collected prior to installation of the bypass system, and that the current configuration and operation of the bypass system could impact the vertical distribution.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-14 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

The horizontal distribution of downstream migrants in relation to the location of bypass baffle openings will also impact the fish passage efficiency of the system. In a 1991 study, the spring migration period showed higher passage rates for those bypass units located at the west and center portions of the spillway (Kudera et al. 1992). During the summer migration period, the bypass passage rates were again generally higher on the west side and center portion.

Each bypass unit at Wells has a baffle opening 16 feet wide by 73 feet high that results in an average velocity through the opening of about 2 feet per second. The flow net associated with baffle openings has no sharp transitions. There is no evidence to suggest outmigrating smolts strike the baffles during passage.

Once past the baffles, passage through the smolt bypass system is identical to passage over the spillway. Fish which pass through Bypass Units S4, S6 or S8 exit the bypass system via bottom spill. Bypass Units S2 and S10 have the option of spilling over the ice and debris sluice gates or using bottom spill.

Ancillary Passage Routes

Several support functions at Wells dam are supplied by reservoir water and discharge to the downstream side of the dam, resulting in a potential passage route for fish to pass the dam. These functions include the gravity flow and supplemental water supplies for the fishways, attraction jet supplies, and supplies for the fish pump turbines. It is estimated that these functions consume less than half of one percent of the total project discharge. Intakes for the noted supplies are equipped with trashracks.

Collection and Transport of Juvenile Fish

An alternative strategy for downstream dam passage involves collecting juvenile migrants on the upstream side of a dam and transporting them past one or more dams to be released. While this mechanism avoids the potential of direct impacts caused by turbine, spillway, or ancillary routes of passage, the mortality that results from collection and transportation must be taken into account. Erho et al. (1995) assessed the survival of steelhead that were acclimated in the Methow River and then transported by truck to below Bonneville Dam. These fish showed very high transport benefit survival, as evaluated by adult returns, in lower river areas. However, the fish showed little or no net increase in survival rates and in several cases decreased adult survival rates to areas upstream of Wells Dam. Due to the observed problems of straying and due to the lack of navigation locks in the Mid-Columbia River, barging and other transportation activities, similar to the ones that occur in the Snake River, are not considered viable mitigation options at this time.

The existing bypass system currently passes approximately 90 percent of the outmigrants (Skalski 1993). Barge transportation is not an option from Wells dam since there are no navigation locks at the downstream Rocky Reach, Rock Island, Wanapum and Priest Rapids dams.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-15

Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures occurred (Parametrix, 1986). The Wells turbines are operated using a computerized control system that automatically adjuects the turbines tothe best efficiency for any given load and head conditions.

Juvenile Bypass System

The Wells smolt bypass system began its formal existence in 1987 when the Mid-Columbia Coordinating Committee agreed to replace fish passage spill with bypass system spill. In 1989, the full-scale bypass system was in operation. In 1990, the smolt bypass system began operating under the terms and conditions of the Wells Dam Settlement Agreement (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990).

The design of the juvenile bypass system is based largely on a series of studies conducted by DCPUD between 1980 and 1989 addressing both biological and technical concerns. The sequence of studies followed a logical progression which frequently built upon the findings from previous years, as evidenced in the following summary of study objectives (Johnson et al. 1992):

• 1980 to 1983: determine the vertical, horizontal, and diel distribution of smolts immediately upstream of the dam and monitor run timing; • 1983 to 1986: determine the most efficient bypass baffle configuration; • 1986: evaluate the effects on bypass efficiency when adjacent bypass units are operating; • 1987: determine the most effective locations for bypass units; and • 1988 and 1989: determine the statistical relationship between passage at various locations.

Study methodology included both fixed-location hydroacoustic sampling and direct capture of smolts by fyke netting. Based on the results of these studies, the Wells dam juvenile bypass system was designed and installed as described in Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 of this report. The juvenile bypass system has operated every year since 1990 in accordance with the operational and timing criteria of the 1990 Wells Dam Settlement Agreement. During the first three years of operation (1990 to 1992), an FPE evaluation program was implemented, again in accordance with the settlement agreement.

Bypass flows required to operate the juvenile bypass system are noted in Figure 3-2, which presents the average percent of flow as spill for the past five years at Wells. Virtually all spill was used to operate the bypass system, as there was no significant amount of forced spill from 1990 through 1994. The highest bypass flows occur from April through July.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-17

Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Fish Production As Mitigation

As part of the Wells Dam Settlement Agreement, the DCPUD is funding a hatchery-based compensation program to mitigate for fish passage losses at Wells dam, in addition to its existing Wells fish hatchery program. For purposes of the settlement agreement, the total project mortality for juvenile salmon migrants at the Wells Project, including both dam passage and reservoir mortality, was estimated to be 14 percent (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990). Steelhead mortality was not specifically estimated in the settlement agreement, and the parties agreed to continue steelhead production programs and plans initiated under previous mid-Columbia settlements (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990).

The amount of fish production required as compensation is determined by a formula using a five-year running average of adult runs by species. Since 1991, the DCPUD has been operating in Phase 1 of the program, which establishes the following mitigation goals:

• 49,200 lbs of stream-type chinook yearlings at about 15/lb; • 8,000 lbs of sockeye juveniles at about 25/lb; and • 30,000 lbs of steelhead smolts at about 6/lb.

Based on the adult run results, Phase 2 will either expand the sockeye program or eliminate sockeye production and add production of ocean-type chinook juveniles. The compensation level may also be adjusted following completion of a project juvenile mortality/survival study, to reflect the differences between the mortality rate developed in the study and the 14 percent mortality rate assumed in developing original production amounts. Adjustments may also be made to compensate for unavoidable and unmitigated adult losses (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990).

The DCPUD began implementation of the Phase 1 production plan in 1990 with a decision by the Joint Fisheries Parties to conduct the steelhead program at its existing Wells fish hatchery and to construct new facilities for the stream-type chinook and experimental sockeye programs. The Methow hatchery and its satellite sites were completed in 1992 to accommodate the stream-type chinook program, with physical facilities that include three adult collection sites, a central hatchery facility, and two acclimation facilities. The DCPUD also constructed the Cassimer Bar hatchery as an experimental facility.

Effectiveness of Existing Mitigation

Turbine Improvements and Operations

Installation of the high-efficiency turbine runners at Wells dam was completed in 1990, and there have been no turbine mortality studies conducted since that time. A study conducted at Wells dam in 1980 estimated turbine mortality at 16 percent (Parametrix 1986). The turbine runners in place at that time had lower peak

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-19 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures efficiencies and larger clearances between the blade and the discharge ring and between the blade and the hub. It is not possible at present to provide a direct measure of the effectiveness of turbine improvements and operations.

Juvenile Bypass System

During 1990 through 1992, the fish passage efficiency (FPE) of the juvenile bypass system was measured for each spring and summer migration period as specified in the Wells Dam Settlement Agreement. Each year, the results exceeded the performance criteria of 80 percent FPE in spring and 70 percent FPE in summer. An arithmetic average of the three years of FPE measurements is shown below along with the standard errors and 90 percent confidence interval estimates (Skalski 1993) (Table 3-2).

Table 3-2. Fish passage efficiency of the smolt bypass system for spring and summer: 1990-1992.

Season Average FPE Standard Error 90% Confidence Interval

Spring 89.4% 3.10% 80.4% to 95.5%

Summer 89.0% 6.32% 70.5% to 100%

Source: Skalski 1993.

An arithmetic average of the annual FPEs is believed to provide a more realistic indicator of future performance of the bypass system, as compared to a weighted average. The weighted average FPEs were 92.4 percent for spring and 96.4 percent for summer (Skalski 1993).

The Wells dam juvenile bypass system is being operated in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, including the performance criteria. Less than 10 percent of downstream migrants pass through the turbines during the spring and summer migration periods. The small amount of spill used to operate the juvenile bypass system at Wells dam has not been identified as contributing to dissolved gas supersaturation problems below the project (see Sections 3.3.1 and 4.3.1). The system is very effective in minimizing the impact of downstream dam passage on migrants.

Fish Production As Compensation

The hatchery-based compensation program developed as mitigation for losses of juvenile migrants is being conducted as specified in the 1990 Wells Settlement Agreement. The first releases of stream-type chinook from Methow hatchery and its associated acclimation ponds occurred in 1993. The sockeye facilities at

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-20 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures the experimental Cassimer Bar hatchery are currently in the evaluation period. The programmed release of 30,000 pounds of steelhead from Wells fish hatchery first occurred in 1991.

Ongoing Monitoring

Wells Project Total Mortality/Survival Study

This study is specified in the settlement agreement and has not yet been conducted. Results of this study will be compared against the 14 percent mortality estimate assumed in the settlement agreement and may be used to adjust the compensation level of fish production.

Annual Passage Monitoring Plan

Each year the DCPUD develops a plan for monitoring juvenile fish passage and presents it to the Wells Project Coordinating Committee for review and approval. The plan includes development of indices of relative fish abundance on a daily basis during seasonal migration periods and provides annual estimates of juvenile migrant production. These items are used to guide decisions regarding operation of the bypass system and to evaluate adjustments to the hatchery-based compensation levels (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990).

Spillway Passage Conditions

Safe conditions for spillway passage are monitored through a dissolved gas monitoring program. Further details of this program are provided in Section 3.3.1.

Production Plan Evaluation

The DCPUD is funding the Joint Fishery Party (JFP) to develop and conduct studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the hatchery-based compensation program and the associated production plan. The studies will meet standards developed for similar efforts under the NPPC's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Studies anticipated as part of these efforts include the following (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990):

• Marking of juvenile fish and recoveries of juvenile and adult fish to estimate parameters such as fish health, fishery contribution and survival;

• determination of the success to produce the intended compensation level;

• evaluations of modifications to the production plan, if such modifications are

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-21 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

approved by the Joint Fishery Parties; and

• analysis of annual fish production and adult contribution to harvest and escapement.

3.2.2 Downstream Reservoir Passage

Adverse effects of reservoirs on outmigrating juvenile salmonids are thought to be much less of an influence than passage issues at dams. Iwamoto et al. (1994) and Muir et al. (1995) indicated that virtually all of the mortality measured in the mainstem Snake River was attributed mainly to fish passing through the hydroelectric structures and that the reservoirs themselves were quite benign.

Reservoir impoundment can create increased rearing area and provide overwintering habitat for juvenile anadromous salmonids. It can also affect the outmigration of anadromous salmonid juveniles by causing residualization, extended travel times and decreased survival rates. The use of the term "extended travel times" refers to slower rates of travel by outmigrating juvenile anadromous salmonids. Juveniles, when exposed to extended travel times and increased water temperatures, can residualize (become residents) and fail to migrate to the ocean. The following section describes background information on reservoir- related effects of delay and mortality. Information on predation, a major cause of mortality, is covered in Section 3.5 of this document.

Extended Travel Time

Raymond (1968, 1969, 1979) and Bently and Raymond (1976) estimated that juvenile anadromous salmonids move through the Snake River and lower Columbia River impoundments one-half to one-third slower than they would through free-flowing river sections of the same length. According to Raymond (1979) juvenile steelhead and chinook migrate through free-flowing stretches of river at 14 miles per day, while they move through impounded waters at 5 miles per day. Fielder and Peven (1986) found similar rates (3-6 miles per day) for stream- and ocean-type chinook and steelhead juveniles in the mid-Columbia reservoirs.

The rapid flushing rate of Wells reservoir appears to influence juvenile migration, and average reservoir migration time through Wells reservoir appears to be rapid. Movement from the mouths of respective tributaries through Wells reservoir takes only 1 to 2 days for all species. Stream-type chinook salmon released from Winthrop take 2 to 7 days, steelhead from 15 miles up the Methow take 2 to 3 days and sockeye released 1 mile up the Okanogan take 1 to 2 days to reach Wells dam. The median migration speed of ocean-type chinook salmon at Wells fish hatchery arriving at McNary dam ranged from 4.4 to 10 miles/day from 1984 to 1992 (Chapman et al. 1994b).

Berggren and Filardo (1993) found travel time through the mid-Columbia reach was related to prevailing

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-22 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures river discharge volume and water temperature. Travel time decreased as temperatures increased at a fixed flow volume. The predicted average water particle travel for the entire 142 miles of the mid-Columbia reach is 8.6 days, or about 16.5 miles per day. Although several studies indicated that water velocity is a primary determinant of juvenile migration speed (Smith 1982; Buettner and Brimmer 1995; Berggren and Filardo 1993) other studies suggest factors other than flow may be affecting the dynamics of out-migration (Achord et al. 1994; Beeman and Rondorf 1992; Mains and Smith 1964; Chapman et al. 1994a).

Sims and Ossiander (1981) reported stream-type chinook and steelhead survival improved with increasing flow through the lower Columbia and Snake River impoundments. However, there is little evidence to suggest that increased flows will increase survival in the mid-Columbia. This is particularly true for ocean- type chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia (Chapman et al. 1994a). Chapman et al. (1994b) measured the travel time and migration speed of freeze-branded subyearling chinook traveling from the Wells dam tailrace to McNary dam. They found no obvious relationship between migration speed and prevailing flow volumes over a broad range of flows.

Delayed Migration

Increase migration times can affect the size and survival rate of juveniles, timing of ocean transition and thermal imprinting. Increased migration times can cause migrating juveniles, especially steelhead, to revert to parr. Laboratory evidence suggests that water temperatures in excess of 20°C for about 20 days, or delaying migration beyond the end of June, may cause steelhead smolts to revert to parr (Chapman et al. 1994b; Adams et al. 1975; Wagner 1974; Zaugg 1981). Some reverted parr residualize and are lost to anadromous production.

According to Poe (1992) the primary mechanism responsible for juvenile mortality associated with downstream reservoir migration is predation by piscivores. Migrational delay due to reservoir effects increases potential exposure time to predatory fish, particularly for ocean-type chinook salmon (Chapman et al. 1994a). Attempts have been made to apportion juvenile downstream migration mortality between dam and reservoir passage. Chapman et al. (1994a) state that reservoir-passage mortality for juvenile stream-type chinook has been estimated at 5 to 10 percent, and that the majority of reservoir-related mortality appears to occur in the downstream vicinity of dams where predatory fish congregate. Muir et al. (1995) estimated total passage survival to be 92 percent from Silcott Island, upper Lower Granite pool, to the tailrace of Lower Granite Dam; 82 percent from the tailrace of Lower Granite to the tailrace of Little Goose Dam; and 88 percent from the tailrace of Little Goose to the tailrace of Lower Monumental Dam. The authors did not attempt to apportion stream-type juvenile downstream migration mortality between the dam and reservoir. However, this Snake River work indicates that reservoir-passage mortality of stream- type juveniles may be much lower than previously estimated. Predation-related mortality of juvenile migrants is addressed in greater detail in Section 3.5.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-23 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Survival

Juvenile survival through Wells reservoir has not been directly assessed to date, and there is little information on the relative impacts of interrelated factors such as delayed migration, residualization and predation-related mortality. McKenzie et al. (1984a, 1984b) conducted a multiple-year study to estimate the survival of spring chinook migrants through the mid-Columbia River reach (Table 3-3). Mean survival estimates from Pateros to the Priest Rapids dam tailrace in 1982 and 1983 were 44 percent and 45 percent, respectively. The single project survival rate for Wells, Rocky Reach and Rock Island dams, was 88 percent in 1982 and 83 percent in 1983, assuming survival associated with each of these three projects is constant (Table 3-3). Reservoir mortality could not be separated from direct and indirect sources of mortality through this section of river for the two years studied.

Table 3-3. Summary statistics for system-wide and single-project survival rates.

Survival Rates (%)1

River1 Section Mean Std Error2 Var3 95% C.I. Single Project4 Avg.

Pateros to RI2 64.04 4.28 50.41-77.67 86.83

Pateros to RI3 59.85 0.0090 51.00-68.69 84.27 85.6

RI to PR2 64.52 6.09 45.16-83.89 83.27

RI to PR3 75.21 0.0021 72.59-77.83 86.72 85.0

Pateros to PR2 44.12 1.87 38.13-50.06 NA

Pateros to PR3 44.92 0.0058 38.92-50.92

1 RI = Rock Island, PR = Priest Rapids, Pateros is about 0.6 miles up the Methow River 2 Data from McKenzie et al. (1984a) 3 Data from McKenzie et al. (1984b) 4 Assuming equal mortality associated with each project

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-24 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

3.3 WATER QUALITY

3.3.1 Dissolved Gas Supersaturation

Existing Issues

Total dissolved gas (TDG) supersaturation is a condition that occurs in natural waters when atmospheric gases are forced into solution at pressures exceeding the pressure of the over-lying atmosphere. Columbia River TDG supersaturation often occurs during periods of high runoff and spill at hydropower facilities, primarily because spill in deep tailrace pools can cause significant entrainment of gases during deep plunge and turbulence of the water. Total dissolved gas supersaturation conditions can persist and accumulate through the mid-Columbia River reach, since the reach consists of relatively calm pools behind each dam, providing less effective dissipation than naturally turbulent river systems. Fish and other aquatic organisms that are exposed to excessive TDG supersaturation can develop gas bubble trauma (GBT); a condition that is harmful and often fatal.

Total Dissolved Gas in the Vicinity of the Wells Project

Total dissolved gas supersaturation is monitored at the Wells Project as part of the Columbia and Snake Rivers Dissolved Gas Monitoring Program conducted by the USACE (1994). Monitoring occurs during the fish migration season, April through September. Data are collected every hour and transmitted every four hours via satellite to the USACE North Pacific Division Headquarters. These data are then compiled, along with pertinent flow, spill and water temperature information, and posted on the Columbia River Operational Hydromet Management System (CROHMS). The CROHMS is used for real-time review by authorized users and potential system spill adjustment recommendations.

Total dissolved gas at Wells is monitored in the forebay of the project. Data have been collected since 1983 at the Wells forebay station by the DCPUD (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994). Daily average TDG measurements at the Chief Joseph, Wells and Rocky Reach dam forebay monitoring stations from 1984 to 1994 generally exceeded 100 percent and, therefore, were consistently in a supersaturated condition during the April to September monitoring period. In general, daily average TDG levels most commonly ranged between 105 and 112 percent during 1984 to 1994 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994). The maximum observed TDG levels were 125 percent, 126 percent and 132 percent, respectively, at the Chief Joseph, Wells and Rocky Reach dam forebay stations. Such maximum levels could cause serious GBT effects depending on duration, species/life stage differences and other conditions, such as depth and water temperature (Ebel et al. 1975).

Total dissolved gas levels at Wells dam are primarily determined by TDG levels in water passing from Chief Joseph dam. Correlation of TDG data from the Chief Joseph and Wells forebay stations indicates that

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-25 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

TDG levels at the two sites do not differ significantly (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1992, 1993). This suggests that TDG is neither significantly increased nor dissipated from spill at Chief Joseph dam and subsequent flow through Wells reservoir. Spill at Wells dam appears to increase TDG somewhat. An examination of daily TDG in 1994 from the Wells and Rocky Reach forebays indicates that an increase in TDG occurred at times between the stations, particularly during periods of relatively high spill at Wells dam (Figure 3-3).

Evidence of GBT in the Vicinity of the Wells Project

Site-specific monitoring in the vicinity of the Wells Project to date has suggested that the incidence of GBT has been minor. The DCPUD co-sponsored a study of GBT symptoms on fish in the five mid-Columbia project pools during the 1974 spill season of May-August (Dell et al. 1975). Total dissolved gas level during the study averaged about 119 percent (ranges from 112% to 131%) in the Wells forebay and about 120 percent (ranges from 111% to 132%) in the Rocky Reach forebay. Chief Joseph dam spilled an average of 38 percent of total river flow during the study (April through August 1974) up to a maximum of 56 percent of total river flow during June (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995d). All fish were examined externally for gas bubbles under the skin, in the fins, on the body and in the mouth and eyes. Evidence of GBT was observed in 2.8 percent and 3.6 percent of the fish examined in the Wells and Rocky Reach pools, respectively.

Information on the depth distributions of migrating salmonids at the Wells Project are described in Section 3.2. Juvenile salmon that migrate in deep water and then move rapidly toward the surface are more susceptible to GBT in waters with high TDG supersaturation (Ebel et al. 1975). Total dissolved gas supersaturation has also been known to cause adult delay at the fishways at other Columbia River projects (Ebel et al. 1975).

Project-specific Measures for TDG Supersaturation Abatement at Wells

No project-specific measures have been initiated for TDG supersaturation abatement at Wells. The 1994 DFOP, which includes comprehensive recommendations for operation of Columbia River mainstem projects for protection and enhancement of fish resources, provided a general system-wide strategy for TDG supersaturation management. The DFOP recommends managing spill by monitoring TDG supersaturation and possible related GBT symptoms in juvenile and adult salmonids during migration periods. Dissolved gas management and control at Wells are provided by DCPUD criteria and will result in spill requests derived from TDG monitoring at the Wells forebay, the observed condition of migrant juveniles and adults and juvenile passage monitoring data. The DCPUD did not provide specific project operating criteria for, and are not bound by, the terms and conditions contained in the 1994 DFOP. However, the DCPUD does participate in the system-wide strategy for TDG supersaturation management and abatement. Spill request management guidelines are described in detail in Section 2.4.4 of this report.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-26

Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Effectiveness of Current Measures

No project-specific TDG supersaturation management measures have been required to date at Wells, except for TDG monitoring. The Wells Project does not appear to contribute to an increase in TDG supersaturation during periods of low to moderate levels of spill at the dam. The effectiveness of TDG supersaturation-management under high levels of spill at Wells dam cannot be measured, since spill levels during the juvenile migration period have been low to moderate since 1983.

Current operations are considered effective at avoiding significant increases in TDG and GBT incidence in the project area. Reasons for this effectiveness are due to key features of the project's hydrocombine structure and operation, including:

• Wells has less frequent and lower amounts of spill than at conventional projects (see Section 2.4.1). The project is very effective at passing smolts at relatively small amounts of spill (see Section 3.2.1). Since TDG is related to the magnitude of spill, lower amounts of spill at Wells minimizes increases in TDG.

• The project has a relatively high spillway discharge per unit width. All of the spillway gates release water through the bottom near tailrace elevation level. The spillway has an ogee design with a spillway crest that is only 5.5 feet above normal tailwater elevation (see Section 2.3.1). These design features help keep spillway discharge turbulence at the surface, and avoid deep plunge and gas entrainment that can cause high TDG levels.

Ongoing Monitoring Efforts

Total dissolved gas monitoring occurs in the Wells dam forebay, the Chief Joseph dam forebay and the Rocky Reach dam forebay. Other pertinent information are also monitored, including water temperature, turbidity, total river flow, turbine discharge and spill discharge. It is intended that the TDG monitoring program be somewhat adaptive, i.e., additional coverage and types of data may be warranted as ongoing information is obtained and analyzed. Also, the onset and effects of GBT are still incompletely understood and remain controversial. Adjustments to ongoing monitoring and spill management guidelines could occur pending further biological and physical findings into GBT causes and effects. Juvenile salmonids are routinely monitored for external GBT symptoms as part of the Fish Passage Center's Smolt Monitoring Program at selected Snake and Columbia River dams, but only at Rock Island dam in the mid-Columbia region.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-28 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

3.3.2 Water Temperature

Existing Issues and Concerns

The potential effect of dams on water temperatures on the Columbia River depends on the extent of river impoundment and regulation at hydropower facilities. Such regulation can alter the natural heating and cooling of the river, subsequently affecting salmonids' incidence of disease, timing of migrations, maturation of spawners, time of incubation and hatching, and levels of dissolved oxygen and TDG (Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1994a; Chapman et al. 1994a; Dauble and Mueller 1993).

Water Temperature Conditions in the Vicinity of the Wells Project

Water temperature monitoring has been conducted from 1984 through 1994 by the DCPUD in conjunction with TDG monitoring at the Wells facility. As with the TDG data, water temperature data are obtained from approximately April through September each year. Water temperature and TDG data are collected manually every four hours and transmitted via teletype to the USACE CROHMS database.

Data collected at the Wells forebay station may not accurately reflect the water temperature of the entire volume of water passing the Wells dam. The temperature probe is stationary so the depth below the surface varies with the elevation of the pool. Because some warming of the surface layer is likely, especially near the dam, this fluctuation in the water surface elevation may result in temperature measurements higher than the majority of the water passing the Wells dam (Parker, pers. comm., 27 January 1995).

Water temperature at Wells dam forebay during 1994 is presented in Figure 3-4. Water temperature does not appear to substantially increase from Chief Joseph dam to Wells dam (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993). Comparison of water temperatures recorded at Chief Joseph dam and Wells dam during the last 11 years indicates that water can either warm or cool between the two facilities (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993). Water temperatures at the Wells forebay can exceed 18°C during July, and a maximum of about 20°C is reached in August and September. The maximum water temperature recorded, 22.3°C, occurred during August 1984 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993). By comparison, summertime water temperatures at Chief Joseph dam also commonly exceed 18°C and usually are within a few tenths of a degree of the temperatures at Wells (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993). Furthermore, temperatures measured at Chief Joseph are occasionally higher than at Wells. A maximum temperature of 23.0°C was recorded during August 1984 at Chief Joseph dam (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993).

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-29

Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

The lack of a consistent thermal effect between Chief Joseph dam and Wells dam suggests that substantial heat exchange does not occur as water travels through Wells reservoir. As a run-of-river reservoir, Wells reservoir has a rapid flushing rate, ranging from hours to a few days.

Reservoirs with rapid flushing rates have a mostly river-like character, including weak and intermittent or non-existent thermal stratification (Johnson et al. 1978; Kimmel and Groeger 1984; Cox 1984). In addition, rapidly flushed pools often do not permit substantial heat input and concomitant water temperature increases in pool outflow.

Evidence of Effects on Salmonids in the Vicinity of the Wells Project

Currently no problems associated with water temperature are being observed at the Wells facility (Hevlin, pers. comm., 27 January 1995; Woodin, pers. comm., 26 January 1995). The WDOE segment of the Columbia River affected by the Wells facility (Chief Joseph dam to Priest Rapids dam) is not on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list as being water quality limited for temperature. However, EPA has cited water temperature as a concern from Bonneville dam to Chief Joseph dam (Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1994a). Monitoring data from the mid-Columbia River reach near Wells dam indicate that water temperatures commonly exceed the 18°C water temperature standard during July, August and September. Moreover, water temperatures measured at Wells dam have exceeded levels shown to cause delays in upstream migration and have exceeded criteria set by the NPPC for some species (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4. Water Temperature criteria for salmon and steelhead (°C).

Upstream Upper Species Spawning Incubation Preferred Optimum Migration Lethal

Chinook

Fall (ocean-type) 11-19 6-14 5-14 7-14 12.00 25.00

Spring (stream-type) 3-13 6-14 5-14 7-14 12.00 25.00

Summer (ocean-type_ 13-20 6-14 5-14 7-14 12.00 25.00

Steelhead - 4-9 - 7-14 10.00 24.00 Sockeye 7-16 11-12 - 11-14 - -

Source: NPPC 1992a

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-31 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Some problems associated with high water temperatures have been observed in the past. High water temperatures in the spawning channel (see Section 2.3.4 for a description of this facility) caused pre- spawning mortality of adults and post-spawning mortality of eggs (Woodin, pers. comm., 26 January 1995). Water for the spawning channel was taken directly from the Wells forebay. These temperature-related problems were a major cause of the failure of the spawning channel.

Mitigation and Monitoring Measures

No mitigation has been directed specifically toward dealing with any water temperature problems. However, monitoring is conducted annually by the DCPUD in conjunction with the dissolved gas monitoring as described above.

The potential for improving water temperatures within the mid-Columbia River reach, including in Wells reservoir, is limited. Augmentation releases in the summer from Lake Roosevelt at Grand Coulee dam could perhaps decrease water temperatures in waters flowing into Wells reservoir. Lake Roosevelt is large and deep enough to stratify and provide a source of cold water during summertime. However, Grand Coulee does not currently have selective withdrawal capability to release waters at depth from Lake Roosevelt to reliably accomplish decreases in water temperature (Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1994a).

Effectiveness of Mitigation

For salmonids or other aquatic plants and animals, no obvious effects due to water temperature have been observed at Wells dam. However, within the Columbia River adverse effects of high water temperatures have been noted for sockeye in the Okanogan River upstream of Wells dam. Within the river, no effects (e.g., mortalities and reductions to spawning success) have been observed, although such effects are difficult to document. In addition, no effects have been observed at Wells while temperature-related problems have been observed at other facilities on the Columbia and Snake Rivers during the same time period.

3.4 RESERVOIR PRODUCTION

Creation of Wells reservoir in 1967 impacted potential spawning and rearing fish habitat in a 30-mile reach of the Columbia River. Inundation of the river created a pool with slower velocities and greater depths than present under free-flowing conditions. The effect of these physical changes on the fish community in the mid-Columbia reach varies by life stage and species.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-32 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

3.4.1 Spawning Habitat

Existing Concerns and Issues

The Wells Project reach primarily supports rearing and limited spawning of the fall component of summer/fall chinook. The project reach also serves as a migration corridor for other species of anadromous fish. Prior to inundation of Wells pool, Meekin (1967) documented spawning of chinook in the Columbia River, primarily between Brewster and Washburn Island on Buena Bar where groundwater upwelling occurred. He also noted chinook spawning to depths of 30 feet at and around Bridgeport Bar and Washburn Island and shallow areas below Chief Joseph dam. Shortly after pool development, Meekin (1967) indicated that mainstem spawning may have continued in the Brewster Bar area. Other surveyors have suggested that potential spawning occurs near Bridgeport Bar, Washburn Island, in areas of substantial groundwater upwelling in the pool (Hillman and Miller 1994; Chapman et al. 1994a; Stuehrenberg et al. 1995), and they have documented spawning in the Wells tailrace (Giorgi 1992). Members of the Colville tribe have also noted some deep water spawning activity near Washburn Island (Bickford 1994). Fall chinook salmon have been found to spawn in deepwater reservoir habitat in the mid- Columbia River (Meekin 1967; Chapman and Welsh 1979; Giorgi 1992; Dauble et al. 1994). Stuehrenberg et al. (1995) last recorded 18 percent (7 of 40) of the adult fall chinook passing Wells dam in the Bridgeport Bar area. It is possible some or all of these fish used Wells reservoir for spawning. One adult was last tracked in the Okanogan River mouth, and may have spawned there. Four adults were tracked to the Chief Joseph dam tailrace (two were caught in the fishery there), and seven adults were last tracked in Wells reservoir, near Wells dam (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). It is unknown whether or not these adults spawned successfully.

Fall (ocean-type) chinook salmon spawning in the tailrace of Wells dam has been well documented (Giorgi 1992; Peven 1992). Peven (1992) summarized aerial redd surveys for the area from Rocky Reach dam to Wells dam; redd counts are highly variable, and range from zero in about half the years to a maximum of 302 for the period from 1956 to 1991. The WDF (now part of WDFW) first observed six fall chinook redds in the Wells tailrace in 1967. Surveys observed between six and 57 redds in the Wells tailrace from 1967 until 1973 (Peven 1992). The reappearance of spawning chinook adults in the Wells tailrace area coincided with the discontinuance of trapping operations at Rocky Reach dam for the spawning channel (Chelan County Public Utility District 1991c). After 1973, redd counts below Wells dam decreased, ranging from zero to three redds per year until 1987. Since 1987, fall chinook redds have been consistently observed with peak counts exceeding 100 per year (Peven 1992).

The two major tributaries to Wells reservoir, the Methow and Okanogan Rivers, both contain suitable spawning habitat. Little potential spawning habitat is available in the smaller tributaries. Most of the smaller tributaries flow only during precipitation events or transport irrigation return-flows during the irrigation season. Adult spring, summer and fall chinook are known to spawn only in these two tributaries to Wells reservoir.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-33 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Tributary Bedload and Fine Sediment Deposition

No data about deposition of fine sediment in Wells pool are available. It is likely that smoothing of the hydrograph and lack of significant reservoir fluctuation have increased the amount of fines present in the substrate, especially in the lower portion of the reservoir. Suspected mainstem spawning by fall chinook salmon is concentrated between Washburn Island and Chief Joseph dam primarily because the river hydraulics are sufficient to maintain well-sorted substrates relatively free of fines (Bickford 1994). Tributary inflow into Wells reservoir is limited primarily to the Methow and Okanogan River drainages. Alluvial deltas have formed at the confluence of the Methow and especially the Okanogan Rivers. Fine sediment loading in both these tributaries is considered high, although the fine sediment load in the Methow River is less than in the Okanogan River. The alluvial fan at the mouth of the Okanogan River is comprised of mostly medium- to fine-grained sand and silt (Rensel 1993). The deposition area is regarded by some researchers as a mud flat (Bickford 1994). The area near the mouth of the Methow is composed of coarse-grained sand (Rensel 1993).

Because the majority of suspected fall chinook salmon spawning sites in the reservoir are located upstream of the Okanogan River, changes in sediment deposition near tributary junctions will not decrease the existing spawning production potential. Deposition of tributary bedload could provide a source of substrate for potential spawning habitat near the mouths of tributaries but such increased spawning has not been documented in Wells reservoir. Irrigation return flow in the smaller tributaries occurs from March through October and primarily transports fine sediments to Wells reservoir.

Previous and Existing Mitigation Measures

Existing mitigation for losses of mainstem spawning habitat due to inundation by Wells reservoir has been stipulated in the Wells project operating license No. 2149. The agreement specifies hatchery fish production to compensate for spawning losses (see Section 2.3.4).

Effectiveness of Existing Mitigation Measures

Section 3.6 discusses the effectiveness of existing hatchery-based mitigation for spawning or spawning habitat losses due to the existence of the Wells Project.

Ongoing monitoring

No ongoing monitoring of spawning or spawning habitat is conducted in the Wells Project area.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-34 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

3.4.2 Rearing Habitat

Existing Issues

Reservoir Conditions

The Wells Project area includes the tailrace, extending approximately 1,000 feet below Wells dam, and Wells reservoir (Lake Pateros), a 30-mile long reservoir upstream of Wells dam. The upper end of the reservoir extends to approximately 2,000 feet below Chief Joseph dam. The lake has a total surface area of 10,280 acres, a volume of 350,000 acre-feet, and an average depth of 34 feet. Water temperature ranges from just above 0.6 to 20°C, and the pool does not thermally stratify during summer due to its relatively high flushing rate. Wells reservoir also has the third highest flushing rate of the mid-Columbia reservoirs (Zook 1983). Although Wells reservoir has 100 miles of shoreline, most of the shoreline is steep, and the proportion of littoral area in the reservoir is small in comparison to its size. Due to the presence of a number of islands and inundation of two major tributary mouths, the ratio of shoreline length to reservoir length of 3.3:1 is the highest of the mid-Columbia reservoirs. Rapid water exchange, a relatively featureless shoreline and lack of riparian habitat severely limit juvenile salmonid rearing. Although there is an abundance of rocky and rip-rapped shoreline areas, there is little backwater habitat suitable for warmwater species, with the exception of the mouth of the Okanogan River. The majority of the reservoir shoreline remains undeveloped, but riparian habitat adjacent to the reservoir is sparse.

Factors with the potential to affect the rearing capacity of the reservoir include its flushing rate, the thermal regime, the degree of primary and secondary productivity, the level of submerged macrophyte growth, deposition of fine sediment, benthic organic matter, water quality conditions and fluctuating water levels in the reservoir. Very little information specific to Wells pool regarding these factors is available.

Reservoir Flushing and Turnover Rate

Water retention time, or flushing rate, of Wells reservoir ranges from 14 hours during spring runoff (June) to approximately 4.6 days in February, with an annual average turnover rate of 2.5 days. This water turnover rate is considered rapid in comparison to lower mainstem and mid-Columbia River reservoirs.

Nutrients, Aquatic Productivity, Zooplankton Abundance

No specific information related to productivity of Wells reservoir is available. Most of the primary and secondary production potential in the mid-Columbia region, however, is generated from upstream sources due to the slow turnover rate, large storage capacity and source of nutrients. Lake Roosevelt (upstream of Grand Coulee dam) is the single most important factor influencing aquatic productivity in the downstream PUD reservoirs (Rensel 1993). The thermal regime of the mid-Columbia River is also influenced by realeases from Grand Coulee dam,

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-35 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures which has the largest storage capacity of any reservoir on the U.S. portion of the Columbia River system. Lake Roosevelt exhibits strong thermal stratification during summer months. Since Grand Coulee dam is not equipped with selective depth-withdrawal facilities, downstream water temperatures are heavily dependent on the depth of the Lake Roosevelt thermocline.

The flow-through characteristics of the mid-Columbia dam reservoirs result in primary productivity being largely dependent on detritus, sessile (attached) algae and macrophytes (Mullan 1986). The turnover time of water in the pool is too short in summer to permit development of extensive and diverse zooplankton communities. Therefore, productivity may limit available prey items for juvenile anadromous salmonids in the mid-Columbia reservoirs (Rondorf and Gray 1987).

Submerged Macrophytes

Submergent aquatic plants are abundant in Wells reservoir. The benthic community in these submerged macrophyte beds is probably increasing as riverine macrophytes effectively create their own substrate. Substrate is created by velocity reduction and subsequent particle trapping which encourages settling of organic-rich soils (Falter et al. 1991). In the area upstream of Brewster, reduced current velocity and substrate type encourages the growth of macrophytes. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is found there (Rensel 1993). Macrophyte beds eventually increase the production of benthic food organisms, and provide surfaces where algae and invertebrates will live. They may also provide cover for rearing juvenile salmonids and other fish species.

Fluctuating Water Levels in Wells Reservoir and Potential for Fish Stranding

Wells reservoir generally consists of steep morphologies along the river margins with limited backwater and shallow areas. The areas around the tributary confluences and near islands offer the greatest potential for stranding fish. No studies or evidence of stranding fish are available for Wells reservoir. Daily drafting of up to several feet at Wells dam is a relatively slow process and does not represent a large stranding concern for juvenile fishes.

Deposition of Tributary Bedload and Fine Sediment, Rearing Effects

Reduction of peak flows and lack of significant water level fluctuation in Wells reservoir have probably increased the amount of fines present in the cobble substrate, especially in the lower portion of the reservoir. Substrates are still cleansed to a limited extent between Washburn Island and Chief Joseph dam (Bickford 1994). Rearing habitat for most mid-Columbia fishes may be concentrated in the upper section of the reservoir primarily because of the availability of shallow water habitat and substrates free of fines.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-36

Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Although sockeye could conceivable rear in the reservoirs, the rapid flushing rate, low primary productivity and lack of abundant zooplankton limit production potential. The Wells pool may be a source of rearing habitat for the small but sustained run of Methow River sockeye (Bickford 1994; Chapman et al. 1995b).

Previous and Existing Mitigation Measures

Full and complete mitigation for all spawning and rearing habitat modifications due to reservoir impoundment at the Wells Project has been made through the FERC project license and in the 1990 Settlement Agreement (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990). The license articles include hatchery-based mitigation for assumed reservoir losses. According to the agreements, the loss of spawning and rearing habitat has been fully mitigated by hatchery production.

Ongoing Monitoring

There is no current or proposed monitoring of rearing habitat in the Wells Project reach.

3.5 PREDATION

The following section describes the risk of juvenile outmigrant mortality due to predation at the Wells Project and DCPUD efforts designed to improve outmigrant survival. Discussion of potential predation on juvenile outmigrants at the mid-Columbia PUD projects involves use of the terms tailrace, forebay and mid-reservoir areas. Throughout the HCP project document, the term forebay and mid-reservoir refer to areas upstream of the project dam. Tailrace will refer to the area immediately below the project dam. For instance, the Wells tailrace area is located immediately below the Wells dam at RM 515 and extends downstream for approximately 1,000 feet. The boat-restricted zone (BRZ) refers to areas above and below the dam where conditions present a danger to recreational boaters.

3.5.1 Status of Predator Populations

Northern Squawfish

Northern squawfish, a large, native predatory fish are abundant in the Wells Project area and are under consideration as a potentially significant source of juvenile outmigrant mortality. In a 1993 survey conducted by the WDFW to assess the significance of predation, 337 northern squawfish were captured over 12 days of sampling at Wells (Burley and Poe 1994). Northern squawfish accounted for approximately 95 percent during the spring sampling period and 84 percent during the summer sampling period of all predators caught in the Wells dam project area (Table 3-5). In a study conducted from 1983 to 1986 at a lower Columbia River dam, salmonids accounted for 21 percent of the diet of 300 mm northern squawfish and 83 percent of the diet of larger squawfish (Poe et al. 1991). The size of salmonids

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-38 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures consumed by northern squawfish also increases progressively with the size of the squawfish. The northern squawfish caught by the WDFW at Wells averaged 332 mm in length. Squawfish of that size are capable of consuming salmonid juveniles up to 155 mm long (Poe et al. 1991).

Table 3-5. Number of predatory fish caught at the Wells Project site during a 1993 WDFW survey.

Spring Species Number Percent of Total Catch

Northern Squawfish 105 94.6 Walleye 3 2.7 Smallmouth Bass 3 2.7 Summer

Northern Squawfish 232 84.1 Walleye 18 6.5 Smallmouth Bass 26 9.4

Source: Burley and Poe 1994.

Northern squawfish prefer areas of slow water velocity, especially where low velocity borders high-velocity areas (Faler et al. 1988). Such sites are common in the Wells tailrace. Previous studies have documented high concentrations of northern squawfish in dam tailraces on the lower Columbia, and attributed such concentration to the existence of low velocity refuges near sites which frequently contain large numbers of injured or disoriented prey fish (Beamesderfer and Rieman 1991; Poe et al. 1991). In 1993, predation indexing studies conducted by the WDFW and National Biological Survey (NBS) found that the density of northern squawfish at the Wells Project was highest in the tailrace-BRZ (Loch et al. 1994).

Northern squawfish catch in the tailrace boating restricted zone (BRZ) at Wells dam may have been influenced by release of ocean-type chinook juveniles from the Wells fish hatchery just prior to sampling (Sauter et al. 1994). Ocean-type chinook juveniles were released from the hatchery and flushed into a small spawning channel below the dam. A relatively large number of squawfish were caught in the spawning channel, 93 percent of the total tailrace-BRZ catch, which may reflect a feeding response by the squawfish to the hatchery release. However, Consumption Index values were lower than and gut contents similar to other mid-Columbia River project tailraces sampled (Sauter et al. 1994). The authors theorize that ocean-type chinook juveniles, as well as other prey species, may have sought out quieter water in the spawning channel area, created by strong currents flowing from the tailrace, thus providing greater feeding

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-39 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures opportunity for squawfish (Sauter et al. 1994).

Smallmouth Bass

Smallmouth bass were the second most abundant predatory fish species captured at the Wells Project during the 1993 WDFW survey (Burley and Poe 1994). Four smallmouth bass were taken at Wells over six days of sampling in the spring (Table 3-4), and 36 were captured over six days of late summer sampling. Most smallmouth bass were captured in the Wells tailrace area, but nearly one-third were captured at mid- reservoir sites. Based on studies conducted in the lower Columbia River (Tabor et al. 1993), smallmouth bass appear to selectively feed on ocean-type chinook salmon. Ocean-type chinook outmigrate and rear along the reservoir shoreline and are preyed on by smallmouth bass that inhabit those areas.

Smallmouth bass are not known to reproduce in Wells reservoir, probably due to water temperature limitations (Zook 1983). Water temperatures in Wells reservoir are typically lower than those preferred by smallmouth bass (Wydoski and Whitney 1979) in areas containing suitable spawning substrate. Preferred spawning temperatures for this species range from 16 to 18°C (Wydoski and Whitney 1979; Scott and Crossman 1973); such temperatures consistently occur only in August and September in the Wells reach. A rise in river flow and associated decrease in water temperature during spawning season will cause adult bass to abandon their nests and has been linked to the periodic total loss of annual production in the lower mid-Columbia reach (Zook 1983). Despite the lack of suitable spawning conditions in Wells reservoir, habitat for adult smallmouth bass is plentiful. Adult fish prefer rocky shoals and moderate depths (Scott and Crossman 1973), and are well adapted to low productivity, flowing water habitat such as that found in Wells reservoir. Smallmouth bass inhabiting Wells reservoir are presumed to have been recruited from the Okanogan River, where a population is well established and expanding (Zook 1983).

Walleye

Walleye are piscivorous gamefish introduced into the upper Columbia basin to support recreational fishing. Twenty-seven walleye were captured during the 1993 WDFW survey at Wells compared to 40 at Rock Island, 24 at Rocky Reach, 18 at Wanapum and 13 at Priest Rapids. Eighty-nine percent of the walleye caught at Wells were taken in the tailrace (Burley and Poe 1994). Concentrations of walleye observed in the tailraces of the mid-Columbia projects may represent either spawning runs (Brown and Williams 1985) or a feeding response to the concentrations of vulnerable salmonids and resident fishes in the tailrace (Burley and Poe 1994).

Despite the presence of walleye in the Wells tailrace, which may represent a spawning run, there is no direct evidence that walleye are successfully reproducing in the Wells Project area (Zook 1983). Bennett (1991) suggested that the two factors most limiting walleye recruitment in the mid-Columbia River were

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-40 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures low turbidity and a lack of juvenile rearing habitat. Walleye require shallow, highly productive backwater areas for rearing. Because of the short water retention times and precipitous shorelines, the Wells reservoir lacks sites with warm, quiet water and abundant plankton production (Zook 1983). Walleye currently inhabiting Wells reservoir are believed to have originated upstream in Lake Roosevelt, and have been carried downstream to Wells reservoir during spring high flows. During the late 1970s, the Wells tailrace was the site of the most active walleye fishery in the mid-Columbia. The fishery declined abruptly in 1981, and this decline was attributed to overexploitation of a walleye stock with a low rate of recruitment (Brown and Williams 1985). Length distribution of sport-caught walleye revealed an absence of immature fish, supporting the hypothesis that the reproductive success of walleye in the mid-Columbia is limited.

No specific dietary data were available for walleye captured in the Wells Project area during a 1993 National Biological Survey (NBS) study (Burley and Poe 1994). A study of walleye food habits at the John Day reservoir in the lower Columbia River suggested that salmonids consistently accounted for only about 18 to 24 percent of the walleye diet there, even when juvenile outmigrants were abundant and highly concentrated in areas occupied by walleye (Poe et al. 1991).

The walleye's apparent inability to reproduce successfully in the mid-Columbia reach precludes the threat of population explosion and serious salmonid predation (Brown and Williams 1985). Should the population of walleye at Wells substantially increase, however, this species could impact survival of the juvenile outmigrants passing the project.

In summary, because of their number, fecundity and behavior of targeting outmigrating juvenile salmonids as a food source, northern squawfish are the primary predator of concern at the Wells Project (Burley and Poe 1994). Smallmouth bass and walleye are not numerous in Wells reservoir, resulting in minimal predation of juvenile outmigrants. Smallmouth bass may pose a notable risk to subyearling chinook because the subyearlings are a size easily consumed by the bass and they migrate and rear in areas inhabited by the bass.

Gulls

A 1982 study at Wanapum dam, downstream of Wells, indicated that gulls were consuming a substantial number of outmigrating juveniles (Ruggerone 1986). Prior to installation of protective devices, ring-billed gulls consumed an estimated 2 percent of all juvenile salmonids passing Wanapum dam. Although site- specific studies were not conducted at Wells, gulls have been observed feeding heavily on juvenile outmigrants in the Wells tailrace. Because of the identification of gulls as a significant predator of downstream migrating juvenile salmonids, the DCPUD has installed gull wires in the Wells dam tailrace. A considerable reduction in gull activity was observed following such installation.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-41

Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Table 3-6. Northern squawfish (>250 mm fl) index values for various locations at the Wells Project, 1993.

Spring Project location CI1 DI2 AI3 PI4

Tailrace 0.5 1.528 0.42 0.21 Tailrace - BRZ5 - 1.472 0.07 0.03 Forebay 0.5 1.194 0.37 0.18 Forebay - BRZ5 0.4 1.472 0.02 0.01 Mid-reservoir 0.2 1.112 2.05 0.61 Summer Project location CI1 DI2 AI3 PI4

Tailrace 0.5 1.528 0.42 0.21 Tailrace - BRZ5 1.5 1.472 0.07 0.10

Forebay 0.1 1.194 0.37 0.04 Forebay - BRZ5 0.0 1.472 0.02 0.00 Mid-reservoir 0.0 1.112 2.05 0.00

Source: Loch et al. 1994. 1Consumption Index = Number of organisms consumed per day by an individual predator 2Density Index = Estimated number of predators per sample area (The authors did not differentiate density numbers between spring and summer). 3Abundance Index = DI * Surface area (The authors did not differentiate abundance estimates between spring and summer). 4Predation Index = CI * AI 5Values for boating restricted zone only.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-43 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Table 3-7. Stomach contents of northern squawfish (> 250 mm fl) caught by electroshocking at the Wells Project during the spring and early summer, 1993.

Spring

Reservoir Sampling No. of % empty % fish salmonids as total number of salmonids as a Location Date Squawfish guts in diet % of prey fish salmonids % of the total consumed consumed diet

Tailrace 4/22-4/24 40 13 100 100 73 100

Tailrace-BRZ 4/22-4/24 0 - - - - -

Forebay 4/22-4/23 18 39 88 31 4 27

Forebay-BRZ 4/22-4/23 12 50 78 40 2 31

Mid-reservoir 4/20-4/21 21 29 60 30 3 18

Summer

Reservoir Sampling Date No. of % empty % fish salmonids as total number of salmonids as a Location Squawfish guts in diet % of prey fish salmonids % of the total consumed consumed diet

Tailrace 6/24-6/25 55 33 36 33 6 12

Tailrace-BRZ 6/24-6/25 18 39 50 60 6 30

Forebay 6/24-6/25 41 37 37 9 1 3

Forebay-BRZ 6/24-6/25 18 28 37 0 0 0

Mid-reservoir 6/22-6/23 18 83 33 0 0 0

Source: Sauter et al. 1994.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-44 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Reservoir Forebays

Juvenile salmonids migrating downstream through Wells reservoir may concentrate in the forebay immediately upstream of the dam prior to finding a way through the dam. As in the tailrace areas, northern squawfish and other predators are attracted to such concentrations of juveniles. Density indices of northern squawfish in the Wells forebay sample area during the spring were slightly lower than those observed in the tailrace (Table 3-6) (Loch et al. 1994). Gut sample contents of northern squawfish during the spring indicated that salmonids accounted for a much lower proportion of the squawfish diet than in the tailrace (- 30% compared to 100%) (Table 3-7). Few salmonids were identified in gut content samples from 23 squawfish sampled in the forebay area in late June. The lack of salmonids in squawfish gut samples during the summer may reflect the fluctuation in timing of salmonids outmigrants.

Mid-reservoir

Predation losses of juvenile salmonids to northern squawfish in the main portion of Wells reservoir appear to be minimal. Northern squawfish were abundant in the mid-reservoir at Wells as compared to some of the other mid-Columbia reservoirs (Burley and Poe 1994). Juvenile salmonids accounted for 18 percent of the northern squawfish gut contents taken from the mid-reservoir at Wells reservoir during the spring, but were not found in any of the gut contents of northern squawfish in the summer of 1993. No concentrations of prey or predators were observed at the mid-reservoir sites. The relative scarcity of salmonids contained in the gut contents of northern squawfish taken from the mid-reservoir, as compared to the tailrace and forebay, suggests that juvenile salmon may be more adept at avoiding northern squawfish away from the dam site.

In summary, the greatest risk of juvenile outmigrant mortality due to predation at the Wells Project occurs in the tailrace. The concentration and disorientation during dam passage makes juvenile outmigrants particularly susceptible to predation at this site. Concentrations of outmigrating salmonids may be exposed to potential predation in the forebay, but predators do not appear to target the juvenile salmonids as successfully in this area. Based on existing information, predation in mid-reservoir appears to be low in Wells reservoir.

3.5.3 Existing Mitigation Measures

At present, mitigation measures implemented to reduce predation at the Wells Project are installation of wires across the tailrace-BRZ and implementation of a squawfish removal program to prevent gulls and squawfish from feeding on juvenile salmonids. No specific data are available on the effectiveness of the gull wires at Wells dam, but Ruggerone (1986) suggested that such measures could reduce consumption of juvenile salmonids significantly in areas protected by wires based on studies conducted at Wanapum dam. Occasionally gulls learn to navigate through the wires and periodic hazing is conducted to frighten

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-45 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures gulls away from the tailrace area.

The DCPUD contacted with the USDA in 1995 to extend gull wires farther downstream in the tailrace area. The wires were extended from a "pivot point" on the east bank near the earth fill area across the river to the west shore in a radial fashion. The new gull wires extend an additional 400 feet downstream and increase the tailrace area covered by wires from nine acres to 17 acres (Klinge, pers. comm., 21 September 1995).

The DCPUD also instituted a pilot squawfish program for removal at Wells dam in 1995. Squawfish were removed from the tailrace and Wells fish hatchery release area via gillnets and angling with hook-and-line in an attempt to reduce predation-related mortality on downstream migrating juvenile salmonids. Results of the program were not as great as expected in 1995. Modifications were implemented in 1996 to increase the effectiveness of the squawfish removal program.

3.5.4 Ongoing Mitigation Efforts

No program for monitoring anadromous salmonid loss due to predation is being conducted at this time.

3.6 TRIBUTARY HABITAT STATUS AND IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

The following information concerning an assessment of tributary habitat in the Methow and Okanogan Rivers is a summary from Bugert et al. (1997).

3.6.1 Methow River Watershed

The Methow River supports several populations of "Plan Fish Species" . Ocean type chinook spawn only in the mainstem Methow River, between French Creek and the confluence with the Chewuch River. Stream-type spring chinook spawn primarily in the mainstem Methow River upstream of the confluence with the Chewuch River, and in major tributaries including the Twisp River, Chewuch River and Lost Creek (Hubble and Sexauer 1994). Based on redd counts, the average natural escapement to the Methow River (including both wild and hatchery fish) has dropped from 3,429 for the period 1960-1969 to 772 for the period 1990-1995. Spring chinook spawn in the Twisp River, the Chewuch River between Boulder Creek and Lake Creek, in Lake Creek, and in a small section near the mouth of Thirtymile Creek. Escapements over the last 3 decades (1964-1973, 1974-1983, 1984-1993) are estimated to average 505, 384 and 310, respectively (U.S. Forest Service 1995).

Sockeye salmon adults are observed in the Methow River nearly every year (Chapman et al. 1995b). These fish are believed to be strays from the Wenatchee and Okanogan stocks, artifacts from releases of the Winthrop NFH between 1945 and 1958.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-46 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

The majority of land in the Methow basin (94%) is comprised of public lands managed for multiple use (primarily timber harvest, recreation and grazing). An extensive forest road system has been developed in the Chewuch and Twisp River basins since the 1930s, Roads are frequently located in narrow floodplains, and may impact aquatic habitat through reduced riparian canopy, lost off-channel habitat, reduced pool habitat and increased sediment loads. The USFS estimates that sediment delivery to the Methow system from activities on public lands is only ten percent higher than background. Thus the effect of increased sediment on salmonid production is not assumed to be a major concern.

The remaining land area consists of private holdings. Private lands contain most of the riparian bottomlands accessible to anadromous salmonids. Private lands in the basin are used for home sites, small farms, irrigated agriculture and grazing. Approximately 60 percent of the riparian bottomlands used by livestock have suffered erosion bank sloughing and bank cutting.

Peak flows occur in late spring as the result of snowmelt runoff. Low flows occur in late summer, and dewatering of several reaches of the mainstem Methow and Twisp Rivers has been documented (Northwest Power Planning Council 1990; Caldwell and Catterson 1992; MPP 1994). Dewatered reaches often coincide with areas supporting the highest density of spring chinook redds and rearing juveniles (Hubble and Sexauer 1994). While the dewatering appears to be a natural phenomenon, it is exacerbated by irrigation withdrawals.

The quality of waters in the Methow basin is rated high, with major tributaries meeting Class AA (extraordinary) or Class A (excellent) standards. Water temperatures may occasionally exceed state water quality standards in the summer. Anchor ice development in the winter has also been identified as a potential problem. Four reaches in the lower mainstem Methow and Twisp Rivers were rated as water quality limited [on the state 303(d) list] because of low instream flows.

Habitat in the upper mainstem Methow River has experienced limited impacts from either natural events or logging, grazing and agriculture. The quality of substrate is good (Chapman et al. 1994a). Downstream of the confluence with Chewuch River, agricultural uses predominates on stream adjacent lands, and detrimental impacts have been noted (Washington Department of Wildlife 1993).

Habitat in the Chewuch River has been impacted by channelization and forest harvest. The northeast half of the watershed is relatively undisturbed and functionally intact. Habitat inventories Okanogan National Forest (ONF) indicate that large woody debris (LWD) is deficient in much of the mainstem. The USFS hydrologists believe the low level of woody debris is the result of a combination of stream cleanouts for flood control, salvage of instream wood, and extensive streamside harvest of potential recruitment trees. Portions of the lower Chewuch River have been channelized as a result of bank protection efforts after the 1948 flood. Habitat inventories conducted by the ONF indicate that LWD is also below standard in much of the

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-47 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures mainstem Twisp River. The highest densities of salmonid production for all species combined has been observed in relatively undisturbed tributary reaches with the slowest moving water (Hubble 1994). These areas contain abundant cover in the form of LWD, boulders and other associated habitat features (Mullan 1994).

It is unclear why the Methow River has smaller runs of summer chinook than other mid-Columbia tributaries (Mullan et al. 1992) In general, the condition of spawning gravels in the lower Methow is good, as is water quality during the majority of the summer chinook rearing residence. There is evidence that some subyearlings remain in the Methow River through summer, and emigrate in fall (Chapman et al. 1994a). If a large component of the populations remains through summer, they may be effected somewhat by irrigation water withdrawals. Irrigation withdrawals may also reduce adult migration, holding, and spawning habitat (Chapman et al. 1994a), and effectively increase summer water temperatures.

The mainstem Methow River and tributaries can be a hostile environment for salmonids during late summer low flows and winter. Stream channel confinement provides adequate depth and cover for salmonids, yet temperatures and flow extremes may cause significant mortality. Lack of riparian cover reduces shade and allows significant loss of thermal insulation in the winter. Much of the spawning and rearing habitat for spring chinook salmon lies upstream from irrigation diversions. However, because it flows through a permeable glacial deposit some reaches may become dewatered. Prespawning mortality may be a significant factor for spring chinook in the Methow (Scribner et al. 1993; Chapman et al. 1995a). Lack of holding cover associated with LWD is one potential cause.

Lack of LWD in the Chewuch and Twisp may also exacerbate the movement of juvenile chinook downstream into areas that may be less suitable for overwintering. However, several authors cite evidence that the quality and quantity of juvenile rearing and adult holding habitat has either remained the same or increased slightly since the 1930s (Mullan et al. 1992; McIntosh et al. 1994).

Recommended strategies to maintain or enhance salmonid habitat in the Methow basin focus first on protection of existing habitat by securing riparian habitat. This protection may be accomplished through conservation easements or direct purchase. Habitat restoration strategies center on maintaining instream flows through renovation of the Methow Valley Irrigation District systems, and support of water conservation measures in tributary diversions. A second goal is to increase the complexity of the stream channel and floodplain by restoring side channel function and restoring riparian habitats.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-48 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

3.6.2 Okanogan River Watershed

The following paragraphs represent a summary of material contained in the draft report titled "Aquatic species and habitat assessment: Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow and Okanogan Watersheds" (Bugert et al. 1997), which is an exhibit to this HCP.

OKANOGAN RIVER

The Okanogan River originates in British Columbia, and flows south through several large lakes before reaching the United States at Lake Osoyoos. Below the lake, the river continues south for approximately 200 km before entering the Columbia River. Major tributaries in the U.S. include the Similkameen River, and Tonasket, Bonaparte, Tunk, Salmon and Omak Creeks. The lower 27 km of the river has been inundated by the pool of the Wells Hydroelectric Project.

The average annual flow of the Okanogan River (measured at Ellisforde, approximately 17 km downstream of Lake Osoyoos) is 3,200 cfs. About 75 percent is contributed by the Similkameen River. Flows in the Okanogan River are regulated by a series of dams in British Columbia, and by Zosel Dam in the U.S. Water releases to meet fishery needs are negotiated yearly by a consortium of fisheries and irrigation managers from the United States and Canada. In 1976, WDOE established base flows for the Okanogan River (WAC 173-549) and ruled that no further appropriation of surface water shall be made which would conflict with these flows.

Major land use activities in the U.S. portion of the Okanogan basin include forestry, mining, agriculture and grazing. Major timber producing lands include the Loomis Forest, managed by the WDNR, and the Okanogan National Forest (ONF). ONF lands in the northwest include part of the Pasayten Wilderness.

The Similkameen River is considered one of the better gold producing streams in the state (Barth and DeMayer 1982). The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) issues two year leases for the bed and shorelands to private individuals .

Agricultural activities including irrigated croplands, orchards, and livestock wintering grounds predominate in the wide, low gradient valley along the mainstem Okanogan River. Irrigators rely on water from two primary sources: the Similkameen River (approximately 180 cfs during peak season) and the mainstem Okanogan (approximately 33,500 acre feet annually).

The Okanogan River currently supports anadromous runs of chinook salmon, sockeye salmon and steelhead. Upstream passage of anadromous fish is limited by several major barriers. McIntyre Dam, approximately 21 km upstream of Lake Osoyoos, is a barrier to a sockeye migration, although some salmon have been known to pass the dam in high water years (Hansen 1993). Enloe dam, at RK 14 on

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-49 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures the Similkameen River, is located at a site of a natural falls that blocks anadromous salmonid access. Other barriers include a diversion dam on Salmon Creek and a velocity barrier on Omak Creek. The dam diverts water from Salmon Creek into an irrigation ditch, dewatering the lower 5 km of the stream except during spring freshets. The velocity barrier is formed where Omak Creek is routed through a large culvert under the Omak Wood Products Mill near the mouth of the creek. Funding to correct the velocity barrier has been obtained by the Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT), and this action is expected to restore natural production to over 60 km of steelhead habitat.

The run strength of ocean-type chinook has declined slightly in the mainstem Okanogan over the last 20 years, and increased slightly in the Similkameen River (Chapman et al. 1994a). Summer chinook spawn in limited areas over approximately 103 km of the mainstem Okanogan between Zosel Dam (at the outlet of Lake Osoyoos) and the town of Malott. On the Similkameen River, summer chinook spawn from Enloe dam to Driscoll Island, a distance of approximately 14 km (Hillman and Ross 1992).

There are no indications that spring chinook salmon currently use the Okanogan drainage. Historical records indicate that they used three areas: Salmon Creek (prior to construction of the diversion dam (Craig and Suomela 1941); tributaries upstream of Lake Osoyoos (Chapman et al. 1995a); and possibly Omak Creek (Fulton 1968).

The run strength of sockeye salmon is highly variable; escapement has ranged from a low of 1,662 in 1994 to a high of 127,857 in 1966 (as measured at Wells Dam). Sockeye salmon spawn upstream of Lake Osoyoos, primarily over an 8 km reach in the mainstem Okanogan River between Lyons Park and McIntyre Dam (Hagen and Grette 1994). Lake Osoyoos is the primary rearing area for sockeye salmon in the Okanogan watershed. The lake is eutrophic, and has an abundant food supply (Rensel 1996).

Few wild steelhead currently use the Okanogan River, and the historical record, while incomplete, suggests that steelhead use has always been low (Mullan et al. 1992). Salmon Creek, Omak Creek and the Similkameen River had small runs of steelhead, but are not used now because of passage barriers on each stream.

The Okanogan River, Similkameen River, Omak Creek and Lake Osoyoos are all on WDOE's 303(d) list of water quality impaired water bodies. Fecal coliform bacteria, total bacteria, pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen levels have all exceeded state and federal water quality criteria. Water temperatures often exceed lethal tolerance levels for salmonids in the lower Okanogan River. This exceedence is due in part to solar radiation on the upstream lakes, but is exacerbated by sedimentation, irrigation withdrawals during summer low flows, and the lack of riparian cover. High temperatures in the summer and fall effectively exclude juvenile salmon from rearing in most of the accessible waters in the basin. High water temperatures in the lower Okanogan River may at times block adult anadromous salmonid passage.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-50 Wells HCP Section 3.0 Salmonid Protection Issues and Existing Mitigation Measures

Lake Osoyoos is relatively shallow, very warm in the summer months, and appears to be in the transitory state leading to complete eutrophication (Booth 1969; Allen and Meekin 1980). The warm water temperatures, anoxic hypolimnetic areas and lake dwelling predators may influence sockeye salmon survival in the lake (Pratt et al. 1991).

Sockeye production in the Okanogan system is currently believed to be most limited by spawning habitat (Allen and Meekin 1980; Mullan 1986; Chapman et al. 1995b). Flow reductions in the mainstem upstream of Lake Osoyoos may have serious impacts on incubation survival (Major and Mighell 1966); Mullan (1986) stated that 15,000 more sockeye could spawn in the river if flows were increased from 375 cfs to 470 cfs during spawning, and maintained at that level throughout incubation.

Spawning gravel that remains accessible is severely limited because of sedimentation. Heavy silt loads have caused fines to infiltrate redds, and smother habitat for invertebrates in the Similkameen and lower Okanogan Rivers. High turbidity in these reaches reduces the feeding efficiency of juvenile salmonids. Surface erosion on agricultural bottomlands and mass wasting on adjacent hillslopes were serious problems in the 1970s, but have been reduced by switching crops and adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs) by USDA. Sedimentation from roads within the forested areas is also a concern.

Unstable banks are also a issue along the mainstem Okanogan River. A 1994 survey by the NRCS indicated that approximately 14.6 km of riverbank between Oroville and Tonasket requires treatment. The OCCD and NRCS recently started collaborative bank stabilization efforts using bioengineering concepts.

Recommended strategies to maintain or enhance salmonid habitat in the Okanogan basin focus on facilitating and funding institutional activities such as BMPs and CRMPs to reduce nonpoint sources of organic pollutants and sediment. Discussions with Canadian authorities on means to improve passage and spawning conditions will be accomplished through the Cooperative River Basin Project, facilitated by the OCCD. Habitat restoration strategies include passage improvements on Salmon and Omak Creeks, and revegetation of eroding banks in important spawning areas.

28 May 1998

22165\we\draft\sec3 Page 3-51 Wells HCP Section 4.0 Remaining Salmonid Survival Issues to be Mitigated

4.0 REMAINING SALMONID SURVIVAL ISSUES TO BE MITIGATED

Since construction of Wells dam, the DCPUD has invested millions of dollars investigating strategies and methods to reduce potential impacts of the project on anadromous salmonids. Conditions of the original FERC license and subsequent Settlement Agreements with the Joint Fisheries Parties have outlined a number of measures implemented by the DCPUD to improve migration survival and production of mid- Columbia River salmonids. The previous section described the variety of potential issues associated with operation of the project and identified potential outstanding impacts. Section 4.0 provides a brief summary of the issues and concerns addressed in the previous section and identifies those issues that may cause potential "take" of a species.

4.1 UPSTREAM PASSAGE OF ADULT FISH

4.1.1 Upstream Passage at Wells Dam

Adult upstream passage facilities are operated in accordance with criteria specified in the 1990 Settlement Agreement (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990). Fishway modifications to address impacts, if any, to adult passage are implemented in agreement with the Wells Project Coordinating Committee (WCC). In 1993, two radio-telemetry studies were conducted, one of adult chinook and one of sockeye, to assess passage conditions throughout the mid-Columbia River reach (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995) and above Rocky Reach dam (Swan et al. 1994), respectively. Based on the results of the radio-telemetry studies, reducing the number of fishway entrances (which may be effective at other mid-Columbia projects) may not significantly improve adult upstream passage time for chinook or sockeye salmon at Wells dam. The side entrances were inefficient at passing spring and summer chinook and sockeye, but were efficient for passing fall chinook (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). The left downstream entrance was consistently effective for passing all three chinook races/demes and sockeye, and the right downstream entrance was consistently effective for passing spring and fall chinook. However, the median time required by spring and summer chinook to negotiate the collection channel system and enter the ladder was longer than for other mid-Columbia projects (Stuehrenberg et al. 1995). No data were available for sockeye (Swan et al. 1994). These data may indicate that some fishway modification could be made to decrease adult passage time for these stocks. Current fishway modifications to meet operating criteria have been addressed under existing agreements. Additional monitoring and modifications that go beyond existing operating criteria and agreements will be addressed in Sections 5 and 6 of this document.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec4 Page 4-1 Wells HCP Section 4.0 Remaining Salmonid Survival Issues to be Mitigated

4.1.2 Upstream Reservoir Passage

Upstream passage of adult fish through Wells reservoir is not expected to cause significant delay or mortality and is not considered an outstanding HCP technical issue. Travel rates through Wells reservoir for upstream migrating salmon are similar to the ranges of salmon travel rates documented in the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers (see Section 3.1.2).

4.2 DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE OF JUVENILE FISH

4.2.1 Downstream Passage at Wells Dam

Numerous actions have been implemented at the Wells Project to minimize and mitigate the impact of dam passage on the downstream migration of juvenile fish. These actions include spill, improvements in turbine structures and operation, juvenile bypass system development and installation and fish production mitigation. The following paragraphs summarize the measures implemented by the DCPUD to improve juvenile passage survival past Wells dam. Due to the success of these measures and the existing 1990 Settlement Agreement between the DCPUD and the fishery agencies and tribes, downstream juvenile passage survival at Wells dam is not considered an outstanding HCP technical issue.

Spill for juvenile fish passage was implemented beginning in 1979 and continued through 1986. In 1987, spill for juvenile passage was terminated, by agreement of the Mid-Columbia Coordinating Committee, due to installation of the Wells juvenile bypass system.

Beginning in 1984, the DCPUD implemented a program to design, test and construct 10 new high efficiency Kaplan turbine runners with adjustable blades. The new runners were installed between 1988 and 1990. The new runners increased the maximum operating efficiency of each unit and had smaller clearances between the adjustable blade and adjacent surfaces. These features may result in reduced juvenile turbine passage mortality at Wells dam, based on the current understanding of the causal factors in turbine mortality.

The Wells juvenile bypass system began full-scale operation in 1989, following nine years of research and development. Performance criteria for the bypass system set forth in the 1990 Wells Settlement Agreement call for meeting fish passage efficiency (FPE) of at least 80 percent for the juvenile salmonid spring migration period and an FPE of at least 70 percent for the juvenile salmonid summer migration period. The juvenile bypass system was evaluated from 1990 through 1992 during the spring and summer juvenile migration periods per the 1990 Settlement Agreement. Each year, results far exceeded the 80/70 FPE performance criteria, with an arithmetic average spring and summer migration period FPE of 89.4 and 89.0 percent, respectively.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec4 Page 4-2 Wells HCP Section 4.0 Remaining Salmonid Survival Issues to be Mitigated

The hatchery-based compensation program developed as mitigation for losses of juvenile migrants is being conducted from the Wells fish hatchery, Methow hatchery and associated facilities and the experimental Cassimer Bar hatchery as specified in the 1990 Settlement Agreement. The DCPUD is funding the Joint Fishery Parties to develop and conduct studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the hatchery-based compensation program and the associated production plan. The studies will meet standards developed for similar efforts under the NPPC's Fish and Wildlife Program.

4.2.2 Downstream Reservoir Passage

Under existing conditions, water particle travel time (WPTT) in the mid-Columbia River is roughly twice as fast as the WPTT in the lower Columbia River (see Section 3.2.2). Additionally, Wells reservoir has a fast turnover rate. These factors combine to move water rapidly through Wells reservoir, in comparison to lower Columbia mainstem and other mid-Columbia River mainstem reservoirs. Thus, reservoir mortality is expected to be low in the Wells Reservoir due to the relatively fast WPTT. However, a project survival study will assess the mortality associated with the Wells Reservoir.

4.3 WATER QUALITY

4.3.1 Dissolved Gas Supersaturation

Daily average total dissolved gas (TDG) levels measured in the Wells dam forebay during the juvenile and adult migration season, April through September, generally exceed 100 percent (see Section 3.3.1). These levels are primarily dictated by flow releases from upstream projects, and are dominated by releases from Grand Coulee dam and spill at Chief Joseph dam. In spite of the occasional high levels of TDG observed in the Wells dam forebay caused by spill at Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams, monitoring of external symptoms in salmonid outmigrants has shown a low incidence of GBT. The DCPUD currently monitors TDG levels and water temperatures at the project and cooperates with federal operators in a system-wide TDG supersaturation abatement program. Additional monitoring and potential operational and structural modifications to reduce TDG levels at Wells dam are discussed in Sections 5 and 6 of this document.

4.3.2 Water Temperature

The thermal regime of the mid-Columbia River is determined by the temperature of water released from Grand Coulee dam. Wells reservoir's very short hydraulic retention time does not allow thermal stratification or significant solar heating and concomitant water temperature increases. No mitigation has been directed at modifying water temperature, but monitoring is conducted by the DCPUD in conjunction with TDG monitoring.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec4 Page 4-3 Wells HCP Section 4.0 Remaining Salmonid Survival Issues to be Mitigated

4.4 RESERVOIR PRODUCTION

Little is known regarding the effects of environmental conditions on adult spawning and juvenile rearing of species of concern in Wells reservoir. Fall chinook salmon spawn in the Wells tailrace and in the upper portion of the Wells Reservoir downstream of the Chief Joseph tailrace and nearly all races/demes spawn in either the Methow and/or Okanogan River systems, but no other species of concern are known to spawn in the project area (see Section 3.4.1) (Giorgi 1992; Mullan et al. 1986). Because chinook have been observed spawning in deep water, minor reservoir fluctuations are not expected to impact mainstem spawning habitat. Juvenile spring chinook and sockeye salmon use Wells reservoir as a migration corridor and therefore do not remain in the reservoir for rearing (Chapman et al. 1995a, 1995b). Juvenile summer/fall chinook are known to remain in the reservoir until at least July, and therefore are affected by conditions in the reservoir (Chapman et al. 1994a). Existing mitigation for impacts to mainstem habitat due to creation of Wells reservoir has been stipulated in the 1990 Settlement Agreement for the Wells Project.

4.5 PREDATION

Gulls and northern squawfish congregate to prey on juvenile outmigrants as they pass the dam, which may result in significant outmigrant mortality (Ruggerone 1986; Loch et al. 1994; Burley and Poe 1994). The population of walleye and smallmouth bass in Wells reservoir is low, presumably due to low water temperatures and lack of backwater rearing areas, which reduces the risk of predation by these species.

The mitigation measures currently employed in the project area by the DCPUD are installation of gull wires and hazing, designed to prevent gulls from preying on juvenile salmonids in the tailrace, and implementation of a predator control program in the tailrace and at the Wells fish hatchery release site. No monitoring program exists for evaluating juvenile losses to predation. Improving outmigrant production and survival through predator control methods will be one goal of the HCP. Details of additional control methods and monitoring plans will be described in Sections 5 and 6 of this document.

4.6 COHO REINTRODUCTION

In 1997, the Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) initiated a supplementation program for selected tributaries of the mid-Columbia Region with early stock coho salmon from lower Columbia River hatcheries to restore natural production identified in the Yakama Nations's "Coho Salmon Species Plan (CSSP) for the mid- Columbia Region". The goal of this program is to initiate restoration of coho salmon populations in mid- Columbia tributaries to levels of abundance and productivity sufficient to support sustainable annual harvest by tribal and other fishers.

In 1996, YIN staff identified selected habitats and acclimation pond sites in the Methow watershed for the

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec4 Page 4-4 Wells HCP Section 4.0 Remaining Salmonid Survival Issues to be Mitigated potential reprogramming of adult and/or juvenile coho salmon from appropriate lower river hatcheries. It is expected that when adults are transferred they will spawn naturally in areas close to where they are released with rearing in suitable production areas identified in the CSSP. Similarly, juvenile releases would rear up to one year in suitable production areas, returning after ocean migration to these same areas to spawn. Pre-smolts would be acclimated for one month in low-cost ponds prior to their release. A full description of this program is in CSSP.

In 1996, YIN implemented a small feasibility study by releasing 350,000 early run coho salmon juveniles into the Methow Watershed. Of these, 100,000 smolts were acclimated two weeks in the Fulton Irrigation canal and volitionally released into Chewuch River. The remaining 250,000 smolts were acclimated one month at Winthrop NFH and released directly into the Methow River.

The reintroduction of coho salmon to the mid-Columbia Region is an issue to be resolved outside the scope of the HCP. However, coho salmon will be included as a Plan Species in the HCP. As coho salmon reintroduction efforts proceed, the same mitigative measures afforded to other Plan Species shall be provided to coho salmon that are produced from the mid-Columbia Region. Off-site compensation activities for coho salmon to achieve NNI shall be based on losses to naturally produced coho salmon, losses to second-generation hatchery produced coho salmon from adults returning to the mid-Columbia Region, and losses to adults to the mid-Columbia Region from both reintroduction efforts and coho salmon produced in the mid-Columbia Region.

Compensation for coho will be based on a five-year rolling average of natural production or some sustained run returning to the hatchery. The adult to smolt return ratio shall exceed 0.003 percent to receive compensation under this plan. Adult survivals less than this level would be regarded as an unsuccessful reintroduction program.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec4 Page 4-5 Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

5.0 CONSERVATION PLAN MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION MEASURES

The development of the HCP and the following measures is intended to provide for conservation and help in maintaining healthy populations of the Plan Species. These measures include such activities as preservation of existing habitat, enhancement of former habitat, control of native and non-native species that impact survival of Plan Species, modification of existing dam operations and construction of facilities designed to improve overall survival of Plan Species by enhancing production and improving upstream and downstream passage survival. Development of these proposed measures has been conducted in consultation with federal, state and local resource agencies and tribes.

Salmonid Species

The principal focus of the Wells HCP is to achieve "No Net Impact" to the productivity of salmonid populations originating upstream of Wells dam. The primary means of achieving this objective is to ensure a high survival rate for fish migrating through the Wells reservoir and past the project structures.

In 1990, the DCPUD, the Wells Project power purchasers, the resource agencies and Tribes entered into a long-term fisheries settlement agreement for the Wells Project. This agreement established the DCPUD's obligation for the installation and operation of juvenile downstream migrant bypass facilities and measures; hatchery compensation for fish losses; and adult fishway operation. These measures, in conjunction with existing hatchery compensation programs, were considered to conclusively fulfill the DCPUD's obligation to protect, mitigate and compensate for the effects of the Wells Project on the anadromous fish resource and were used as the basis for the HCP. Compensation was negotiated at 14 percent loss for anadromous fish with the actual loss and resulting compensation to be established through a project survival study.

The Wells Project has a functional bypass system with a fish passage efficiency of 89 percent for both spring and summer salmonid migrants. Components of NNI include an objective of 95 percent dam passage (forebay, concrete, tailrace) survival with a 91 percent survival of the total project (reservoir, dam and tailrace).

This objective includes an unavoidable loss of 9 percent of the Plan Species to be made up with productivity increases in hatchery compensation and off-site tributary habitat improvements. The existing hatchery compensation program appears to be in excess of the mitigation needs of the Wells Project.

A flow chart illustrating the decision process for how the various Wells HCP components discussed below are intended to interact over time to achieve the plan's goal of “No Net Impact” to productivity is provided in Figure 5.1.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-1

Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

Existing Compensation

The Wells Project currently funds the operation of the Wells summer chinook and steelhead hatchery, the Methow spring chinook supplementation hatchery and the Cassimer Bar experimental sockeye facility. The Wells fish hatchery was built to fully mitigate for the effects of the Wells reservoir on salmonid spawning. The Methow hatchery, increased production from the Wells fish hatchery and the experimental sockeye program are part of the 1990 Fisheries Settlement Agreement and were intended to compensate for an assumed 14 percent project mortality to juvenile salmonids.

The Douglas PUD intends to continue to fund these programs through Phase I of the HCP. If it is determined that the existing programs over compensate for the Wells Project impacts, the DCPUD would consider allowing other mid-Columbia PUDs to utilize and fund the production capacity for their mitigation programs.

Resident Fish and other Aquatic Species

Although the Wells HCP is primarily focused on the needs of salmonid species in the mid-Columbia River area, it is intended to also apply to serve as a vehicle for mitigating any present or future adverse impacts of the Wells reservoir on aquatic animals or plant species that are dependent on the habitat within the Wells Project boundary. As of the date of adoption of the Wells HCP, there are no identified aquatic plant or animal species covered by the plan in the plan area other than the salmonids. Therefore, the Wells HCP addresses the possibility that other species may need assistance during the term of this plan.

5.1 FUNDING OF ON-SITE MITIGATION MEASURES

Each of the following on-site measures shall be fully funded by the DCPUD in accordance with this conservation plan:

5.1.1 Upstream Passage of Adult Fish

As discussed in Section 3.1, upstream passage of adult fish through both fishways and the reservoir has not been identified as a significant problem. Accordingly, the DCPUD does not plan on implementing any new mitigation measures related to upstream passage. The DCPUD will continue to work with fishery agencies and tribes to optimize passage conditions by refining operating criteria for fish ladders and developing minor structural improvements. Annual inspections of fishway facilities will continue and any identified problem or deficiencies with fishway structures or operations will be addressed. To the extent that any adult passage concerns arise during the term of the Wells HCP, they will be presented to the Wells Project Coordinating Committee (WCC) for discussion. The DCPUD will use its best efforts to undertake any

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-3 Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures feasible adult passage measure that is biologically effective, cost efficient, and approved by the Committee.

5.1.2 Downstream Passage of Juvenile Salmonids

The Wells Project will operate the juvenile bypass system pursuant to the 1990 fisheries settlement agreement. Timing of the bypass operation will be continuous between April 10 and August 15, annually. Initiation of the bypass system may occur between April 1 and April 10 if the hydroacoustic index reaches 150, as verified by the fyke netting. Bypass termination may occur after August 15 if the hydroacoustic index declines to 250 as verified by fyke netting. The bypass system will not operate after August 31. Based on the spillway survival study in the early 1980's, the bypass survival estimate is 100 percent. The three-year fish passage efficiency (FPE) of the bypass was determined to be 89 percent for both spring and summer migrants.

The Wells Project installed new turbine runners from 1987 to 1990. These runners are highly efficient and are expected to reduce turbine mortality compared to the prior FPE estimates, but the exact mortality rate today is unknown.

Future Project Survival Studies

DCPUD, in consultation with the JFP, will develop study plans and implement studies to determine if dam survival goals of 95 percent and project survival goals of 91 percent are achieved. The DCPUD will fund a pilot study and a three or four-year full project study to assess reservoir and project survival.

Pilot Survival Study: A Pilot survival study is planned for 1998 to answer questions regarding the appropriateness of using hatchery origin fish as surrogates for in-river migrants. The pilot survival study will also answer questions concerning minimum sample size and replication requirements and in evaluating the use of the Single release-recapture methodology at the Wells Hydroelectric Project (Bickford 1997).

Full Survival Study: Following the pilot study, DCPUD will design and implement a minimum of three full years of study (1999-2001). It is anticipated the Single release-recapture methodology will be utilized to estimate yearling salmonid survival throughout the Wells reservoir, dam and tailrace. The weighted average derived from the three full years of study will be used as the point estimate of project survival. It is the intent to estimate survival at ± 5 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. If the target level of precision is not achieved during at least two of the three years of study and the overall weighted average of project survival does not meet the precision objectives then a fourth year of study will be accomplished.

Reservoir Passage

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-4 Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

Reservoir passage issues include travel time, water quality, stranding and predation. Water quality is addressed separately in Section 5.1.3 and predation is covered in Section 5.1.4. Since the Wells Project is a run-of-river project with limited storage, the DCPUD has limited control over river flow. Limits on Wells hydroelectric project operations are set by the FERC license requirements. In light of these physical, legal and operating constraints, available mitigation measures are limited to those described in Section 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 and the following measures to limit pool fluctuations.

Reservoir Level Control

The DCPUD participates in the mid-Columbia hourly coordination of flow through the seven mid-Columbia hydroelectric projects. Hourly coordination substantially reduces river level fluctuations, thereby reducing the possibility of stranding of juvenile fish. The current hourly coordination agreement expires in 2017.

5.1.3 Water Quality

No specific water quality problems have been attributed to the Wells Project. Water quality monitoring at the Wells Project consists of total dissolved gas (TDG) supersaturation, water temperature and turbidity measurements. These measurements are part of ongoing programs. Additionally, the Wells Project cooperates with federal operators to provide nitrogen abatement spill.

5.1.4 Reservoir Production

Neither juvenile rearing nor adult spawning in the Wells reservoir appear to be of significant concern. The DCPUD participates in the Vernita Bar Settlement Agreement to protect fall chinook spawning below the Priest Rapids hydroelectric project.

5.1.5 Predator Control

Present predator control measures for the Wells Project consist of gull wires in the tailrace area and a squawfish removal project. The gull wire system was expanded in 1995 an additional 400 feet downstream to improve its effectiveness.

A squawfish removal program was initiated in 1995 with limited success. Predation is not limited to the tailrace areas, but efforts have focused there because the tailrace has the highest concentration of predators and juvenile salmonids are probably the most vulnerable in the tailrace area. The squawfish removal project was expanded in 1996 and in 1997 the DCPUD performed a radio-tagging study to determine squawfish movements, migration patterns and spawning locations. Additional study of predator behavior and population dynamics may be implemented in an effort to reduce the number of predators.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-5 Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

5.2 OFF-SITE COMPENSATORY ACTIONS

Off-site compensatory measures will be the plan's activities to increase salmonid productivity at areas other than the project reservoir, dam and tailrace. They are referred to as compensatory actions because they are intended to compensate for up to 2 percent unavoidable on-site losses. A Tributary Habitat Fund (Fund) will provide financial resources for appropriate actions to be taken through the Tributary Coordinating Committee to provide compensation for up to 2 percent of the unavoidable losses at the Wells Project.

The DCPUD's payments into the Fund in compliance with the Wells HCP shall satisfy fully the DCPUD's obligation for off-site compensation.

5.2.1 Wells Project Coordinating Committee

There shall be a Wells Project Coordinating Committee composed of (one) 1 technical representative of each Party to the Implementation Agreement, unless a party elects not to participate. The Coordinating Committee will be used as the primary means of consultation and coordination between the PUD and the Joint Fishery Parties (JFP) and American Rivers in connection with the conduct of studies and implementation of the measures set fourth in this Plan and for dispute resolution. Studies will be conducted following sound biological techniques and methodologies in use for similar studies in the Columbia Basin. All studies will be based on sound statistical design and analysis. Study designs and modifications to study designs will be subject to agreement by all Parties.

5.2.2 Hatchery Programs

The Wells Project currently funds the operation of the Wells summer chinook and steelhead hatchery, the Methow spring chinook supplementation hatchery and the Cassimer Bar experimental sockeye facility. The Wells fish hatchery was built to fully mitigate the effects of the Wells reservoir on salmonid spawning. The Wells fish hatchery (Wells FH) is operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The Methow hatchery, operated by the WDFW, and the experimental sockeye hatchery and net pen program, operated by the Colville Tribe, are part of the Wells Project 1990 Long-term Fisheries Settlement Agreement. These production facilities, plus additional production from the Wells fish hatchery, were intended to compensate for an assumed 14 percent project mortality to juvenile salmonids.

A three- to four-year project survival study will be conducted for the Wells Project (Section 5.1.2). The results of this study will determine the level of compensation necessary for the Wells Project to achieve “No Net Impact” to the salmonid resource. It has been assumed, for initial compensation purposes, the overall total system loss through the Wells Project is estimated as a plug number to be 9 percent. The loss shall

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-6 Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures be made through compensatory survival of productivity increases of 7 percent hatchery contribution and up to 2 percent from tributary habitat improvements. The existing hatchery program capacity was designed to compensate for a 14 percent estimated loss. If it is determined that the existing programs "over compensate" for the Wells Project impacts, DCPUD's production would be reduced. However, DCPUD would consider allowing other mid-Columbia PUDs to utilize and fund the excess production capacity of the Methow or Cassimer Bar hatcheries for their mitigation programs.

Hatchery Funding Baseline

As of the date of the Wells HCP, the DCPUD has constructed and is paying operating and maintenance expenses for several existing facilities for artificial production of salmonids. The DCPUD shall continue to pay annually the operation and maintenance cost (including study and evaluation expenses) for the Wells, Methow and Cassimer Bar (experimental sockeye program) hatcheries. This amount was $1,820,000.00 for 1996. The Methow and Cassimer Bar operation and maintenance budgets and the production from the Wells fish hatchery that is in excess to the original inundation compensation will be adjusted after the completion of the Wells Project survival study to reflect the outcome of that study.

The DCPUD shall also pay for repair or replacement of any major equipment or structural component at the Wells, Methow or Cassimer Bar hatcheries required as a result of normal wear and tear or casualty loss. Douglas PUD shall retain ownership of all hatchery land and facilities presently existing and all subsequent capital improvements thereto.

Hatchery Management

All hatcheries operated pursuant to the Wells HCP shall be managed by the current management entity, i.e. the Wells and Methow hatcheries shall be operated by the WDFW and the experimental sockeye facility by the Colville Tribe, provided WDFW and the Colville Tribe manage the hatcheries in accordance with sound biological principles.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-7 Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

5.2.3 Tributary Conservation Plan

Purpose

Under the Tributary Conservation Plan, the District shall provide a Plan Species Account to fund projects for the protection and restoration of Plan Species' habitat within the Columbia River Watershed (from the Chief Joseph tailrace to the Rock Island tailrace) and the Methow, Okanogan, Entiat watersheds, to compensate for up to 2 percent of Unavoidable Project Mortality. Actual measurement of whether or not the Tributary Plan compensates for 2 percent Unavoidable Project Mortality will not be required.

Tributary Committee

There shall be a Tributary Committee composed of one (1) representative of each Party and the Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County ("Chelan"), provided that an entity eligible to appoint a representative to the Tributary Committee is not required to appoint a representative, and further provided that, representatives from USFWS shall participate in a non-voting, ex-officio capacity unless they otherwise state in writing, and further provided that, the signatory Power Purchasers collectively will be a single Party, and shall participate through a single representative, who they will designate from time to time. The Tributary Committee may select other expert entities, such as land and water trusts/conservancy groups to serve as additional, non-voting members of the Tributary Committee. Each entity eligible to appoint a representative to the Tributary Committee shall provide all other eligible entities with written notice of its designated representative. The Tributary Committee is charged with the task of selecting projects and approving project budgets from the Plan Species Account for purposes of implementing the Tributary Plan. The Parties shall choose and the District of Chelan shall fund, independent of the Plan Species Account, a neutral third party to record and distribute minutes of Tributary Committee meetings.

Meeting

The Tributary Committee shall meet not less than twice per year at times determined by the Tributary Committee. Additionally, the Tributary Committee may meet whenever requested by any two (2) members following a minimum of ten (10) days advance written notice to all members of the Tributary Committee unless a member waives notice. The notice shall contain an agenda of all matters to be addressed during the meeting.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-8 Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

Voting

The Tributary Committee shall act upon the consensus of its members that appointed a representative, except as set forth below in "Prohibited Uses of Account."

Coordination With Other Conservation Plans

Whenever feasible, projects selected by the Tributary Committee shall take into consideration and be coordinated with other conservation plans or programs. Whenever feasible, the Tributary Committee shall cost-share with other programs, seek matching funds, and "piggy-back" programs onto other habitat efforts.

Plan Species Account

The District shall establish a Plan Species Account in accordance with applicable provisions of Washington State law and this Agreement. Interest earned on the funds in the Plan Species Account shall remain in the Plan Species Account. The Parties to this Agreement may audit the District's records relating to the Account during normal business hours following reasonable notice. The Tributary Committee shall select projects and approve project budgets from the Plan Species Account by joint written request of all members of the Tributary Committee. The Tributary Committee shall act in strict accordance with the following:

Prohibited Uses of Account: No money from the Plan Species Account shall be used to enforce compliance with this Agreement. Members of the Tributary Committee and their expenses shall not be compensated through the Plan Species Account. Administrative costs, staffing and consultants, reports and brochures, landowner assistance and public education costs collectively shall not exceed $80,000 (1998 dollars) in any given year without the unanimous vote of the Tributary Committee.

Financial Reports: At least annually, the District shall provide financial reports of Plan Species Account activity to the Tributary Committee.

Selection of Projects and Approval of Budgets: The Tributary Committee shall select projects and approve budgets for expenditure from the Plan Species Account for the following: (1) Any action, structure, facility, program or measure (referred to herein generally as "projects") intended to further the purpose of the Tributary Plan for Plan Species. Projects shall be chosen based upon the guidelines set forth in Exhibit su Tributary Compensation Plan Species Account Project Selection, Implementation, and Evaluation Plan and Exhibit Aquatic Species and Habitat Assessment: Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan Rivers. Projects shall not be implemented outside the area specified previously in "Purpose." High priority shall be given to the acquisition of land or interests in land such as

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-9 Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures conservation easements or water rights or interests in water such as dry year lease options; (2) Studies, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and legal (expenses) associated with any project financed from the Plan Species Account; and (3) Prior approved administrative expenses associated with the Plan Species Account.

Ownership of Assets: Determinations regarding ownership of real and personal property purchased with funds from the Plan Species Account shall be made by the Tributary Committee. Title may be held by the District or Chelan, by a resource agency or tribe or by a land or water conservancy group, as determined by the Tributary Committee. Unless the Tributary Committee determines that there is compelling reason for ownership by another entity, the District or Chelan shall have the right to hold title. All real property purchased shall include permanent deed restrictions to assure protection and conservation of habitat.

Reversion Upon Termination: Upon the Agreement's termination, the Plan Species Account, less charges authorized by the Tributary Committee, shall remain with the District, and all real and personal property which the District owns shall remain its property.

Account Status Upon Termination: Upon the Agreement's termination, (1) the District's advance contributions to the Plan Species Account shall be promptly returned to the District, and (2) if funds remain in the Plan Species Account after the return of the District's advance contributions, then the Tributary Committee shall remain in existence and continue to operate according to the terms of this Agreement until the funds in the Plan Species Account are exhausted.

The District shall make an initial contribution of $991,000 (1%) in 1998 dollars to the Plan Species Account. The District will conduct survival studies called for in this Agreement. If after five years, the results of the survival studies show that the Wells Total Project Survival is equal to or more than 95 percent, the District shall do the following: 1) make annual payments of $88,089 (1%) in 1998 dollars as long as the Agreement is in effect; or 2) provide an up front payment of $1,321,333 (1% for 15 years) in 1998 dollars but deducting the actual cost of bond issuance and interest.

If after five years, Total Project Survival is less than 95 percent, the District shall contribute $991,000 in 1998 dollars plus interest from day one of the Agreement (equivalent to 2%) and shall do the following: 1) make annual payments of $176,178 (2%) in 1998 dollars as long as the Agreement is in effect; or 2) provide an up front payment of $2,642,667 (2% for 15 years) in 1998 dollars, but deducting the actual cost of bond issuance and interest.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-10 Wells HCP Section 5.0 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

If the Total Project Survival at the Wells Project had been equal to or greater than 95 percent and the survival subsequently falls below 95 percent, the District will contribute prospectively for the remaining time of the Agreement the equivalent to make a 2 percent credit in 1998 dollars to the Plan Species Account.

The choice of annual or up front payment, discussed above, shall be made by the JFP and American Rivers.

At the end of 20 years, the Parties will determine the distribution of the remaining funds to the Plan Species Account in amounts equivalent to annual payments of $88,089 (1%) in 1998 dollars or $176,178 (2%) in 1998 dollars, as the case may be.

The first installment is due within ninety (90) days of the effective date of the Agreement. The rest of the installments are due by the 31st day of January each year thereafter.

Inflation Adjustment.

Unless stated otherwise, the dollar figures set fourth in this Section are expressed in 1998 dollars and shall be adjusted for inflation on the 1st day of January each year during the term of the Agreement. The inflation rate shall be based on the "Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers" for the Seattle/Tacoma area, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If this index is discontinued or becomes unavailable, a comparable index suitable to the Tributary Committee shall be substituted.

The DCPUD's contribution to the Fund, and fulfillment of its obligations under the hatchery program, as required herein, shall fully satisfy the DCPUD's obligation under the Wells HCP to provide measures or actions to compensate for unavoidable losses at the Wells Project. It shall also constitute full compensation for Well's contribution to any cumulative losses.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec5 Page 5-11 Wells HCP Section 6.0 Proposed Monitoring Program

6.0 MONITORING PLAN

The goal of the Wells HCP is to achieve "No Net Impact" to the aquatic resources that encounter the Wells hydroelectric project. The monitoring and evaluation programs as set forth in this section are intended to assure that the survival standards are being met under the Wells HCP.

6.1 FUNDING OF EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS

On-site evaluation and monitoring programs shall be fully funded by the DCPUD. Specific study design and implementation details for all on-site evaluation and monitoring activities shall be determined by the DCPUD in consultation with the Wells Project Coordinating Committee (WCC). Funding of off-site evaluation and monitoring will be provided by the Plan Species Account under the direction of the Tributary Committee.

6.1.1 Adult Passage Evaluation

The DCPUD has funded several adult passage studies at the Wells project. In 1992, the DCPUD sponsored a radio-telemetry study to evaluate adult sockeye salmon passage. The three mid-Columbia PUDs funded a radio-telemetry study to evaluate spring and summer chinook passage at the five mid- Columbia dams in 1993. Further adult fish passage studies are contemplated under this HCP. Any new adult passage measure recommended to improve passage must be biologically effective and cost efficient and approved by the WCC.

6.1.2 Evaluation of Juvenile Passage Survival

Project Survival Studies

The advent of PIT (passive integrated transponder) tag technology has substantially improved the ability to accurately tag, recover and passively interrogate individual juvenile salmonids. Detailed recovery information can now be collected to estimate survival in a more accurate, less intrusive and more cost effective manner. There are several new estimation procedures that have been developed to take advantage of the ability to determine the exact identification of an individual fish. The Single release- recapture and the Modified Single release-recapture are variations of the study designs of Cormack (1964) which can be used to estimate survival. In addition to these models, the traditional paired release-recapture model, used for Columbia River survival studies since the 1960's, can also be executed more precisely through the marking of study animals with PIT tags. On a per fish basis, the Single release-recapture model is much more accurate. However, to be able to estimate survival with this model, two collection and interrogation sites must be present downstream of the section of river of interest. Without a collection and interrogation site at Wells Dam, a single release-recapture model cannot be used to estimate the survival of fish only through the Wells complex. Therefore, paired releases, consisting of two relative releases of

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec6 Page 6-1 Wells HCP Section 6.0 Proposed Monitoring Program fish, must be used to estimate survival through the Wells Dam complex. The DCPUD intends to conduct a pilot PIT-tag survival study of the Wells project starting in 1998 with the full study to start in 1999. The objective of the study will be the determination of the survival of juvenile salmonids passing through the Wells reservoir, dam and tailrace. The study is anticipated to use the paired and single release methodology with PIT-tagged chinook, sockeye and steelhead. The DCPUD anticipates that the study would be a three- or four-year study designed in consultation with the WCC (see Section 5.1.2).

Data collected from the project survival study will be used to adjust the level of compensation the DCPUD provides for hatchery operation and maintenance, and for the Tributary Habitat Fund. This adjustment will ensure the level of funding is commensurate with the concept of "No Net Impact".

Run Timing/Bypass Efficiency

Information on the timing of the juvenile migration is critical for determining when to start the operation of the Wells Bypass System. Douglas PUD will continue the hydroacoustic monitoring program to determine the initiation of the bypass operation as established under the 1990 Wells Settlement Agreement. Per agreement of all parties, DCPUD will operate the bypass system continuously between April 10 and August 15, annually. Initiation of the bypass system may occur between April 1 and April 10 if the hydroacoustic index reaches 150, as verified by the fyke netting. Bypass termination may occur after August 15 if the hydroacoustic index declines to 250 as verified by fyke netting. The bypass system will not operate after August 31.

Bypass Performance

The DCPUD will evaluate the performance of the Wells juvenile bypass system approximately every five years (commencing five years after the completion of the project survival study) at the determination of the WCC to verify that the system is operating as expected. If the evaluation shows a substantial difference from the 95 percent survival goal at the dam, the DCPUD will make adjustments to the bypass operation as stated in the Wells 1990 Long-term Settlement Agreement.

6.1.3 Water Quality

No specific water quality problems have been attributed to the Wells project. Water quality monitoring at the Wells project consists of total dissolved gas (TDG) supersaturation, water temperature and turbidity measurements. These measurements are part of ongoing programs. Additionally, the Wells project cooperates with federal operators in the nitrogen abatement program.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec6 Page 6-2 Wells HCP Section 6.0 Proposed Monitoring Program

6.1.4 Hatchery Programs

Hatchery evaluation programs are presently in progress to meet the requirements of the 1990 Wells Long- term Fisheries Settlement Agreement or requirements under Section 10 of the ESA. These evaluation programs will continue as approved by the WCC.

6.2 TRIBUTARY CONSERVATION PLAN

The Tributary Committee will have the responsibility to decide what evaluation and monitoring activities will be necessary to evaluate the efficacy of the actions implemented through the Plan Species Account. Evaluation studies of tributary habitat improvement measures shall be implemented within the limits of financing available from the Account.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec6 Page 6-3 Wells HCP Section 7.0 Costs and Funding

7.0 COSTS AND FUNDING

7.1 COST

Costs for the Wells HCP can be divided into two components. First, the cost associated with on-site measures in the reservoir, at the dam and in the tailrace. These include the cost of construction and annual operation of the bypass system, predator reduction activities, adult fish ladder operations and modifications; ongoing operation and maintenance of the Wells, Methow and Cassimer Bar hatcheries; and monitoring and evaluation studies. The second part is Douglas PUD's contribution to the Tributary Conservation Plan, which will finance off-site activities.

7.1.1 Projected Annual Cost During the Term of the Wells HCP

• Predator-reduction program $ 45,000

• Annual bypass system operation $1,200,000

• Adult fish ladder and Bypass System Maintenance $ 50,000

• Supervision of Fish & Game facilities $355,000

• Annual fish hatchery operation and maintenance $ 1,820,000

• Monitoring and evaluation studies $835,000

• Annual Debt Service $ 2,700,000

• Total annual on-going measures $ 7,005,000

The foregoing estimate represents the direct costs the DCPUD will incur in performance of the Wells HCP. In addition, certain measures undertaken by the federal hydropower system for protection of listed salmon populations in other parts of the Columbia River basin are resulting in reregulation of Columbia River flows. This augmentation program costs the Wells Project an estimated $7.6 million per year in lost generation. To the extent those flows help any of the Plan Species, they represent an additional financial contribution by the DCPUD for species conservation.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec7 Page 7-1 Wells HCP Section 7.0 Costs and Funding

7.1.2 Tributary Conservation Plan

The District will make an initial contribution of $991,000 (1%) in 1998 dollars to the Plan Species Account. The District will conduct the Phase I survival studies called for in this Agreement. If after five years, the results of the survival studies show that the Wells Total Project Survival is equal to or more than 95 percent, the district will make annual payments of $88,089 (1%) in 1998 dollars as long as the Agreement is in effect/or provide an up front payment if $1,321,333 (1% for 15 years) in 1998 dollars but deducting the actual cost of bond issuance and interest.

If after five years, Total Project Survival is less than 95 percent, the District will contribute $991,000 in 1998 dollars plus interest from day one of the Agreement (equivalent to 2%) and will make annual payments of $176,178 (2%) in 1998 dollars as long as the Agreement is in effect; or provide an up front payment of $2,642,667 (2% for 15 years) in 1998 dollars, but deducting the actual cost of bond issuance and interest.

If the Total Project Survival at the Wells Project had been equal to or greater than 95 percent and the survival subsequently falls below 95 percent, the District will contribute prospectively for the remaining time of the Agreement the equivalent to make a 2 percent credit in 1998 dollars to the Plan Species Account. The choice of annual or up front payment shall be made by the JFP and American Rivers.

At the end of 20 years, the Parties will determine the distribution of the remaining funds to the Plan Species account in amounts equivalent to annual payments of $88,089 (1%) in 1998 dollars or $176,178 (2%) in 1998 dollars, as the case may be. The District's total contribution to the Plan Species account will equal $5 million dollars if the survival studies show the Wells Project Survival is equal to or greater than 95 percent and $10 million if the survival is less than 95 percent.

The first installment is due within ninety (90) days of the effective date of the Agreement. The rest of the installments are due by the 31st day of January each year thereafter. The dollar figures shall be adjusted for inflation on the 1st day of January each year based upon the "Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers" for the Seattle/Tacoma area, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If said index is discontinued or becomes unavailable, a comparable index suitable to the Tributary Committee shall be substituted.

7.2 FUNDING

In its current financial position, the District has sufficient assets to secure funding for its affirmative obligations under the Agreement. To ensure notification of any material change in the financial position of the District during the term of the Permit, the District will provide the NMFS with a copy of its annual report each year of the Permit.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec7 Page 7-2 Wells HCP Section 8.0 Alternatives to Proposed Conservation Measures

8.0 ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES

The DCPUD has considered several alternatives to the measures discussed in the preceding sections of this plan and has analyzed the relative benefits and disadvantages of each. The following paragraphs briefly describe the alternatives considered and the principal reasons for their elimination. Additional discussion of alternatives to the proposed plan is contained in the Environmental Assessment for the Mid-Columbia Mainstem Conservation Plan and the Wells HCP prepared by the NMFS and the USFWS.

ACTIONS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Spill as the Primary Bypass Measure

Spill has been shown to safely pass fish past the Wells Project, but the relative passage efficiency of the spillway is low compared to the highly efficient bypass system. Approximately, 7 percent of the average daily flow is used to operate the Wells juvenile bypass system. This volume of water passes an average of 89 percent of the migrating juvenile spring and summer migrants.

Turbine Intake Screens as Primary Bypass Measure

Turbine intake screens were considered initially in the development of a bypass system for the Wells Project. However, because of the Project's unique hydrocombine design that places the spillway directly above the turbine intakes (thus, no gatewells to collect the fish from the screens), the use of turbine screens was eliminated from further consideration.

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED CONSIDERATION

Operation of Wells Dam with a Non-power License

The use of the project in non-power mode, while still providing for flood control, recreation and other project purposes, would require spilling 100 percent of river flow, which could increase TDG to environmentally detrimental saturation levels. The absence of electrical energy generation would also eliminate the only available source of revenues for other measures in the plan, such as predator control and off-site activities such as hatcheries and habitat restoration, all of which would still be needed to meet the overall salmonid productivity goals of the plan.

Dam Removal

Removal of Wells dam would eliminate the need for an HCP, thus it is not considered as a mitigative

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec8 Page 8-1 Wells HCP Section 8.0 Alternatives to Proposed Conservation Measures measure in this HCP.

Reservoir Drawdowns

Reservoir drawdowns have been proposed as a universal tool for improving fish survival through mainstem Columbia River hydroelectric projects. The premise that a reservoir drawdown would improve survival is based on three assumptions: 1) fish migration speed is proportional to water particle travel time (WPTT) (or average flow velocity); 2) faster migration through the reservoir improves the survival rate of fish and; 3) the improved survival rate from reduced travel time exceed detrimental effects of drawdown on the target species. Drawdown has not been included in the toolbox of on-site mitigation measures. Travel time studies conducted by the Fish Passage Center have shown a strong correlation between WPTT and flow levels in the mid-Columbia River, but only a weak correlation between WPTT and juvenile fish travel time. No evidence from the mid-Columbia supports the premise that reduced travel time of salmonid species increases survival. The detrimental ecological effects of drawdown include reduction in habitat and food organisms that ocean-type chinook salmon depend on when rearing in mid-Columbia reservoirs, including Wells reservoir. Drawdowns would also disable the project fishways, blocking the upstream migration of adult salmonids.

Juvenile Transportation

There is currently no feasible means to capture fish and transport juvenile salmonids around the Wells reservoir and dam. Studies of fish transported directly from hatcheries in the mid-Columbia River determined that homing of transported fish was significantly impaired.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec8 Page 8-2 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References

9.0 REFERENCES

Adams, B., W. Zaugg and L. McLain. 1975. Inhibition of salt water survival and Na-K-ATPase elevation in steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) by moderate water temperatures. In: Chapman, D., M. Peven, T. Hillman, A. Giorgi and F. Utter. 1994b. Status of summer steelhead in the mid-Columbia River. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 235 pp.

Achord, S., G.M. Matthews, D.M. Marsh, B.P. Sandford and D.J. Kamikawa. 1994. Monitoring the migrations of wild Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon smolts. Annual Report 1992. Coastal Zone and Estuaries Study Division, NMFS. Project No. 91-28, Contract No. DE-AI79-91BP18800. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 73 pp.

Alexander, R.F., K.K. English, B.L. Nass and S.A. Bickford. 1998. Distribution, timing and fate of radio- tagged adult sockeye, chinook and steelhead tracked at or above Wells Dam on the Mid-Columbia River in 1997. Report to DCPUD #1.

Allen, R.L. and T.K. Meekin. 1973. An evaluation of the Priest Rapids chinook salmon spawning channel, 1963-1971. In: Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, M. Peven, B. Suzumoto and R. Klinge. 1994a. Status of summer/fall chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 411 pp.

Barth, D., and J. DeMeyer. 1982. Aquatic land management plan for the Okanogan-Similkameen rivers. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.

Beamesderfer, R. and B.E. Rieman. 1991. Abundance and distribution of northern squawfish, walleyes, and smallmouth bass in John Day reservoir, Columbia River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 120:439-447.

Bechtel Corporation. 1963. Project layout. Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, WA. Scale 1:100. Black and white.

Beeman, J.W. and D.W. Rondorf. 1992. Estimating the effects of river flow, smoltification and other biotic and abiotic variables on the travel time of juvenile salmonids in the Snake and Columbia Rivers. USFWS report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Beiningen, K.T. and W.J. Ebel. 1970. Effect of John Day dam on dissolved nitrogen concentrations and salmon in the Columbia River, 1968. In: Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman and F. Utter. 1995a. Status of spring chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., Boise, ID.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-1 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References

Bell, M.C. 1981. Updated compendium on the success of passage of small fish through turbines, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, OR. 294 pp. plus tables.

Bennett, D. H. 1991. Potential for predator increase associated with a three foot pool rise in Rocky Reach reservoir, Columbia River, Washington. Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Moscow, ID. 14 pp.

Bentley, W. W. and H. L. Raymond. 1976. Delayed migrations of yearling chinook salmon since completion of Lower Monumental and Little Goose Dams on the Snake River. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 3:422-424 pp.

Berggren, J. and M.J. Filardo. 1993. An analysis of variables influencing the migration of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 13:48-63.

Bickford, S. 1997. Project Survival Studies. Proposed wording for HCP survival studies. 15 October 1997. 3 pgs.

Bickford, S.A. 1994. Habitat Conservation Plan for the enhancement of anadromous salmonid stocks upstream of Wells dam. 1994. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 59 pp.

Bjornn, T.C., J.P. Hunt, K.R. Tolotti, P.J. Keniry and R.R. Ringe. 1995. Migration of adult chinook salmon and steelhead past dams and through reservoirs in the lower Snake River and into tributaries - 1993. National Biological Service report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, WA.

Bjornn, T.C., J. Hunt, K. Tolotti, P. Keniry and R. Ringe. 1994. Migration of adult chinook salmon and steelhead past dams and through reservoirs in the lower Snake River and into tributaries - 1992. Technical Report 94-1, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, WA.

Bjornn, T.C. and C.A. Peery. 1992. A review of literature related to movements of adult salmon and steelhead past dams and through reservoirs in the lower Snake River. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, WA.

Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1994b. Supplemental biological assessment on federal Columbia River power operations. Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 1-72 pp.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-2 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References

Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation. 1994a. Columbia River system operation review-draft environmental impact statement. SOR Draft EIS. DOE/EIS 0170. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Brown, L. and K. Williams. 1985. Mid-Columbia walleye - fisheries - life history - management - 1979- 1982. Washington Department of Game, Olympia, WA. 39 pp.

Brown, L.G. 1992. On the zoogeography and life history of Washington's native charr; dolly varden Salvelinus malma (Walbaum) and bull trout Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley), pp. 34-75 in: Washington Department of Wildlife, editor. 1992. Bulltrout/dolly varden management and recovery plan. Fisheries Management Division. Report #92-22. 125 pp.

Buettner, E.W. and A.F. Brimmer. 1995. Smolt monitoring at the head of Lower Granite reservoir and Lower Granite dam - annual report for 1993 operations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Bugert, B. et al. 1997. Aquatic Species and Habitat Assessment: Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow and Okanogan Watersheds. Draft Report prepared for Douglas County PUD No. 1, Chelan County PUD No. 1, and Grant County PUD No. 2. Report dated 25 April 1997.

Burley, C. C. and T. P. Poe. 1994. Significance of predation in the Columbia River from Priest Rapids dam to Chief Joseph dam, predator consumption indexing. Contract 430-486. Prepared for PUD No 1 of Chelan County, PUD No. 1 of Douglas County and PUD No. 1 of Grant County. Reports A, B and C plus appendices.

Caldwell, B., and D. Catterson. 1992. Methow River Basin fish habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental analysis. Publication Number 92-82. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Campbell, R.F. and B.R. Eddy. 1988. Verification of habitat utilization criteria for juvenile fall chinook in the north fork of the Lewis River, Washington. Pages 364-389 in: Bovee, K. and J.R. Zuboy, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. Proceedings of a Workshop on the Development and Evaluation of Habitat Suitability Criteria. 8-12 December 1986, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Chapman, D. and T. Welsh. 1979. Vernita Bar spawning survey 1978-79. Document No. 79-1221-36 F. Parametrix, Inc. Bellevue, WA. 45 pp.

Chapman, D., M. Peven, T. Hillman, A. Giorgi and F. Utter. 1994b. Status of summer steelhead in the mid-Columbia River. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 235 pp.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-3 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References

Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, M. Peven, B. Suzumoto and R. Klinge. 1994a. Status of summer/fall chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 411 pp.

Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, M. Hill, A. Maule, S. McCutcheon, D. Park, W. Platts, K. Pratt, J. Seeb, L. Seed and F. Utter. 1991. Status of Snake River chinook salmon. In: Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, M. Peven, B. Suzumoto and R. Klinge. 1994a. Status of summer/fall chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 411 pp.

Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, F. Utter, M. Hill, J. Stevenson and M. Miller. 1995b. Status of sockeye salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., Boise, ID. 401 pp. plus appendices.

Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman and F. Utter. 1995a. Status of spring chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., Boise, ID.

Chapman, D. W., D. E. Weitkamp, T. L. Welsh, and T. H. Schadt and Parametrix, Inc. 1982. Effects of minimum flow regimes on fall chinook spawning at Vernita Bar. 1978-82. Boise, ID. 84 pp.

Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1. 1991c. Application for raising pool elevation from 707' to 710'. Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project No. 2145. Chelan County Public Utility District, Wenatchee, WA.

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1994. Detailed Fishery Operating Plan, draft 1994 operating criteria.

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1990. Integrated System Plan for Salmon and Steelhead Production in the Columbia River Basin. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. 449 pp.

Cox, J.P. 1984. Evaluating reservoir trophic status: the TVA approach. Lake and Reservoir Management. EPA 440/5/84-001. pp. 11-16.

Craig, J., and A. Suomela. 1941. Time of appearance of the runs of salmon and steelhead trout native to the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow and Okanogan rivers. Unpublished ms, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 35 pp.

Dauble, D.D., R.L. Johnson, R.P. Mueller, C.S. Abernethy, P.J. Evans and D.R. Geist. 1994. Identification of fall chinook salmon spawning sites near lower Snake River hydroelectric projects. Funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, WA. 28 pp. plus appendices. Dauble, D.D. and R.P. Mueller. 1993. Factors affecting the survival of upstream migrant adult salmonids

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-4 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References in the Columbia River basin. Recovery issues for threatened and endangered Snake River salmon, Technical Report 9 of 11. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Dell, M.B., M.W. Erho and B.D. Leman. 1975. Occurrence of gas bubble disease symptoms on fish in mid-Columbia River reservoirs. Mid-Columbia PUDs. Portland, OR.

Douglas County Public Utility District No. 1. 1993a. Detailed Fishery Operating Plan with 1994 Operating Criteria (Draft). Wells Dam.

Douglas County Public Utility District No. 1. 1994. Welcome to Wells dam. East Wenatchee, WA.

Douglas County Public Utility District No. 1. 1969. Resolution No. 2573. A Resolution authorizing execution of agreement with the State of Washington Department of Fisheries for operation of salmon mitigative facilities at Wells dam. Agreement with the State of Washington. East Wenatchee, WA. 9 pp.

Douglas County Public Utility District No. 1. 1972. Resolution No. 3039. A Resolution authorizing execution of agreement with the State of Washington Department of Game for mitigation of gamefish losses in connection with the Wells hydroelectric project. Agreement with the State of Washington Department of Game. East Wenatchee, WA. 7 pp.

Douglas County Public Utility District No. 1. 1982. Resolution No. 82-12. A Resolution authorizing execution of an amendment to agreement with the State of Washington Department of Fisheries for operation of salmon mitigative facilities at Wells dam. Agreement with the State of Washington. East Wenatchee, WA. 5 pp.

Douglas County Public Utility District No. 1. 1987. Wells dam design and juvenile bypass development. Douglas County Public Utility District No. 1. Wenatchee, WA. 18 pp.

Ebel, W.J., H.L. Raymond, G.E. Monan, W.E. Farr and G.K. Tanonaka. 1975. Effect of atmospheric gas supersaturation caused by dams on salmon and steelhead trout of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. National Marine Fisheries Services, Seattle, WA. 111 pp.

Eicher and Associates, Inc. 1987. Turbine-related fish mortality: review and evaluation of studies. AP- 5480 Research project 2694-4, final report. Prepared for EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.

Erho, M.W., J. McGee Jr., K.D. Truscott and R.R. Whitney. 1995. Homing ability of steelhead affected by their transportation as juveniles around part of their migration route in the Columbia River. Draft report to DCPUD #1. Faler, M.P., L.M. Miller and K.I. Welke. 1988. Effects of variation in flow on distributions of northern

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-5 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References squawfish in the Columbia River below McNary dam. N. Am. Journal of Fish. Man. 8:30-35.

Falter, C.M., C. Baines and J.W. Carlson. 1991. Water quality, fish and wildlife characteristics of Box Canyon reservoir, Washington. Section 2: Water quality. Completion report 1989-1990. Prepared for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing. 1994. Environmental assessment mid-Columbia proceeding. P-2114-024. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1990. Settlement Agreement No. 2149, Docket No. E-9569. Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, East Wenatchee, WA. 45 pp.

Ferguson, J.W. 1994. A Program to improve fish survival through turbines. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR. 18 pp.

Fielder, P. C. and C. M. Peven. 1986. Juvenile salmonid monitoring at Rock Island dam bypass sampler - annual report. Contract No. DE-AI79-86BP61748, Project No. 84-54. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, and Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wenatchee, WA. 21 pp.

Fish Passage Center. 1992. Fish Passage Center, 1991 Annual Report. Annual report to BPA, Fish Passage Center, Portland, OR. 52 p + appendices.

Fish Passage Center. 1993. Fish Passage Center, 1992 Annual Report. Annual report to BPA, Fish Passage Center, Portland, OR. 60 p. + appendices.

Fish Passage Center. 1995. Electronic data sent to Tim Fisher (Beak). Portland, OR.

Fish Passage Center. 1994. Fish Passage Center annual report 1993. Project No.94-033, Contract No. DE-FC79-88BP38906. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 123 pp.

French, R.R. and R.J. Wahle. 1965. Salmon runs -- upper Columbia River, 1956-57. In: Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, M. Peven, B. Suzumoto and R. Klinge. 1994a. Status of summer/fall chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 411 pp.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-6 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References

Fulton, L.A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Columbia River Basin --past and present. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report -- Fisheries No. 571.

Giorgi, A. 1992. Fall chinook spawning in Rocky Reach pool; effects of three-foot increase in pool elevation. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., research report to CCPUD, Wenatchee, WA.

Gray, R.H. and J.M. Haynes. 1977. Depth distribution of adult chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawtyscha) in relation to season and gas-supersaturated water. In: Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, M. Peven, B. Suzumoto and R. Klinge. 1994a. Status of summer/fall chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 411 pp.

Hagan, J.E., and G.B. Grette. 1994. 1993 Okanogan River sockeye spawning ground population study. Parametrix, Inc. for Douglas County Public Utility District, East Wenatchee, WA. 19 p.

Hel fman, G.S. 1981. Twilight activities and temporal structure in a freshwater fish community. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 38:1405-1420.

Hevlin, B., National Marine Fisheries Service. Personal communication, telephone conversation regarding water temperature in the mid-Columbia reach to Skip Haak (Beak), 27 January 1995.

Hillman, T.W., and K.E. Ross. 1992. Summer/fall chinook salmon spawning ground surveys in the Methow and Okanogan River basins, 1991. Report to Chelan County Public Utility District. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, Idaho.

Hillman, T.W., D.W. Chapman and J.S. Griffith. 1988. Seasonal habitat utilization and behavioral interaction of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout in the Wenatchee River, Washington. II. Nighttime habitat selection. In: Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1. 1991c. Application for raising pool elevation from 707' to 710'. Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project No. 2145. Chelan County Public Utility District, Wenatchee, WA. Appendices.

Hillman, T. W. and M. D. Miller. 1994. Summer/fall chinook salmon spawning ground surveys in the Methow and Okanogan River basins. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 62 pp.

Hubble, J. 1994. Methow Valley spring chinook supplementation project. Annual Report 1993, Draft. Yakima Indian Nation, prepared for Douglas County PUD, East Wenatchee, WA. 38 p.

Hubble, J. and H. Sexauer. 1994. Methow Basin spring chinook salmon supplementation plan. Natural Production Study. 1994 Annual Report. Report to DCPUD #1.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-7 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References

Iwamoto, R.N. and J.G. Williams. 1993. Juvenile salmonid passage and survival through turbines. Funded by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR. and National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 27 pp.

Iwamoto, R., and seven other authors. 1994. Survival estimates for the passage of juvenile chinook salmonid through Snake River dams & reservoirs. NMFS research report to BOA, Contract no. DE- A179-93BP10891. 140 pp.

Johnson, G. E., C. M. Sullivan and M. W. Erho. 1992. Hydroacoustic studies for developing a smolt bypass system at Wells Dam. Fisheries Research. 14:221-237 pp.

Johnson, N.M., J.S. Eaton and J.E. Richey. 1978. Analysis of five North American lake ecosystems. II. Thermal Energy and Mechanical Stability. Verh. Int. Verein. Limnol. 20:562-267.

Kimmel, B.L. and A.W. Groeger. 1984. Factors controlling primary production in lakes and reservoirs: a perspective. Lake and Reservoir Management. EPA 440/5/84-001. pp. 277-281.

Klinge, Rick, Fisheries Biologist, Douglas County PUD No. 1. Personal communication, letter with lamprey passage at Wells to date this year to Jeff Osborn (Beak), 21 September 1995.

Klinge, Rick, Fisheries Biologist, Douglas County PUD No. 1. Personal communication, letter containing count periods and peak passage dates for adult anadromous salmonids at Wells dam fishway for the HCP to Jeff Osborn (Beak), 27 September 1995.

Kudera, E. A., C. M. Sullivan and G. E. Johnson and A. G. Birmingham. 1992. Evaluation of the smolt bypass system at Wells dam in 1991. BioSonics, Inc., Seattle, Washington. 28 pp. plus appendices.

Kudera, E.A. and C.M. Sullivan. 1993. Evaluation of the smolt bypass system at Wells dam in 1992. BioSonics, Inc., Seattle, WA. 28 pp. plus appendices.

Ledgerwood, R., F. Thrower and E. Dawley. 1991b. Diel sampling of migratory juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River estuary. In: Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, M. Peven, B. Suzumoto and R. Klinge. 1994a. Status of summer/fall chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 411 pp.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-8 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References

Loch, J.J., D. Ballinger, G. Christofferson, J.A. Ross, M. Hack, C. Foster, D. Snyder and D. Schultz. 1994. Significance of predation in the Columbia River from Priest Rapids dam to Chief Joseph dam: abundance and predation indexing. In: Burley, C. C. and T. P. Poe, editors. 1994. Significance of predation in the Columbia River from Priest Rapids dam to Chief Joseph dam. Contract 430-486. Prepared for PUD No 1 of Chelan County, PUD No. 1 of Douglas County and PUD No. 1 of Grant County. Reports A and B plus appendices.

Long, C. and W. Marquette. 1967. Research on fingerling mortality in Kaplan turbines. In: National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. 1995. Draft Reinitiation of Consultation on 1994-1998 Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Juvenile Transportation Program in 1994- 1998. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. Seattle, WA.

Major, R.L. and J.L. Mighell. 1966. Influence of Rocky Reach Dam and the temperature of the Okanogan River on the upstream migration of sockeye salmon. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. 66:131-147.

Mains, E. and J. Smith. 1964. The distribution, size, time and current preferences of seaward migrant chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In: Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, M. Peven, B. Suzumoto and R. Klinge. 1994a. Status of summer/fall chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 411 pp.

McGee, J.A. 1984. Migration timing of juvenile salmonids in the Wells dam forebay April-July 1984. Douglas County Public Utility District No. 1, East Wenatchee, WA.

McGee, J.A., R. Rulifson, C. Heath and R.F. Leland. 1983. Juvenile salmon monitoring in the Methow River, Okanogan River and Wells dam forebay April-May 1983 and summer downstream migrant monitoring June-July 1983. Douglas County PUD, Wenatchee, WA.

McKenzie, D., D. Weitkamp, T. Schadt, D. Carlile and D. Chapman. 1984a. 1982 Systems mortality. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA. 27 pp. plus appendices.

McKenzie, D., D. Carlile and D. Weitkamp. 1984b. 1983 Systems Mortality Study. Prepared for the PUDs of Chelan, Grant and Douglas Counties. Battelle Northwest. Richland, WA.

McIntosh, B.A., R.C. Wissmar, J.E. Smith, W. Hiram, G.H. Reeves, J.R. Brown, L.A. Sedell, and S.E. Clarke. 1994. Historical changes in fish habitat for select river basins of Eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 68: 36-53.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-9 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References

Meekin, T.K. 1967. Observations of exposed fall chinook redds below Chief Joseph dam during periods of low flow, October 1966 through January 1967. In: Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, M. Peven, B. Suzumoto and R. Klinge. 1994. Status of Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon in the Mid-Columbia Region. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 411 pp.

Meekin, T.K. 1963. Salmon escapements above Rock Island dam, 1961 and 1962. In: Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman and F. Utter. 1995a. Status of spring chinook salmon in the mid- Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., Boise, ID.

Miller, R.J. and E.L. Brannon. 1982. The origin and development of life history patterns in Pacific salmonids. In: Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, F. Utter, M. Hill, J. Stevenson and M. Miller. 1995b. Status of sockeye salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., Boise, ID. 401 pp. plus appendices.

MPP (Methow Valley Water Pilot Planning Project Planning Committee). 1994. Draft Methow River Basin Plan. Available from Okanogan County Planning Department, Okanogan, WA.

Muir, W.D., S.G. Smith, R.N. Iwamoto, D.J. Kamikawa, K.W. McIntyre, E.E. Hockersmith, B.P. Sanford, P.A. Ocker, T.E. Ruehle, J.G. Williams and J.R. Skalski. 1995. Survival estimates for the passage of juvenile salmonids through Snake River dams and reservoirs, 1994. Annual report to BPA and USACE. USACE, Portland, OR.

Muir, W.D., S.G. Smith, R.N. Iwamoto, D.J. Kamikawa, K.W. McIntyre, E.E. Hockersmith, B.P. Sandford, P.A. Ocker, T.E. Ruehle and J.G. Williams. 1994. Survival estimates for the passage of juvenile salmonids through Snake River dams and reservoirs, 1994. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 187 pp.

Mullan, J.W. 1984. Overview of artificial and natural propagation of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the mid-Columbia River. In: Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1. 1991c. Application for raising pool elevation from 707' to 710'. Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Project No. 2145. Chelan County Public Utility District, Wenatchee, WA. Appendices.

Mullan, J. W. 1986. Determinants of sockeye salmon abundance in the Columbia River 1880s-1982: A review and synthesis. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Assistance Office. Levensworth, WA. 135 pp.

Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman, J.D. McIntyre. 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. Monograph 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, WA.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-10 Wells HCP Section 9.0 References

Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman and J.D. McIntyre. 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. In: Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, M. Peven, B. Suzumoto and R. Klinge. 1994a. Status of summer/fall chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants, Boise, ID. 411 pp.

Mullan, J. W., M. B. Dell, S. G. Hays and J. A. McGee. 1986. Some factors affecting fish production in the mid-Columbia River 1934 - 1983. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FRI/FAO-86-15. 69 pp.

Mullan, J. W. 1987. Status and propagation of chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia River through 1985. Biological Report 87(3). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Research and Development, Washington, D.C. 111 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. 1995a. Draft reinitiation of consultation on 1994- 1998 operation of the federal Columbia River power system and juvenile transportation program in 1994- 1998. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. Seattle, WA.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1990. Salmon and steelhead system planning status report. Staff Briefing Paper No. 90-7, Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1992. Strategy for salmon. Columbia River basin fish and wildlife program. Northwest Power Planning Council. 77 pp.

Parametrix, Inc. 1986. Survival of steelhead smolts during passage through Wells dam turbines and spillway. Prepared for the Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County. East Wenatchee, WA. Main report plus appendices.

Parker, Robert, U.S. Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division. Personal communication, telephone conversation regarding water temperature at Wells dam with Heidi Bard (Beak), 27 January 1995.

Peven, C.M., Fisheries Biologist, Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1. Personal communication, data sheets containing lamprey passage timing at Rocky Reach from 1985 through 1994 to Jeff Osborn (Beak), 14 September 1995.

Peven, C.M. 1992. Population status of selected stocks of salmonids from the mid-Columbia River basin. Chelan County Public Utility District Fish and Wildlife Operations, Wenatchee, WA. 52 pp.

28 May 1998 22165\we\draft\sec9 Page 9-11