Fish Passage Improvement at the Shear and Sodom Ditch Dams ... · Fish use of the Sodom Ditch and...

Fish Passage Improvement at the Shear and Sodom Ditch Dams

Flow Control and Sediment Management for the Bifurcation of the Calapooia River and Sodom Ditch

Prepared for:

Calapooia Watershed Council PO Box 844

Brownsville, Oregon 97327

Prepared by: Inter-Fluve, Inc.

1020 Wasco Street, Suite I Hood River, Oregon 97031

541-386-9003

Draft - October 31, 2003 Finalized - July 22, 2005

Phase 1 - Calapooia Fish Passage Improvement page 2 of 17

Introduction Oregon State Parks purchased the Thompson’s Mill in 2004 from a private owner. The Sodom Ditch Dam and Shear Dam along the Calapooia River are managed to provide operational flows to the mill. Both dams are concrete structures built in 1956-57. Each has an integrated weir and pool fishway along the left bank. The Sodom Ditch Dam is located approximately 1,400-ft downstream of the bifurcation of the ditch and the Calapooia River. The Shear Dam is located along the Calapooia River approximately 200-ft downstream of the diversion of the millrace. The dams are used to manage flows delivered to the Thompson’s mill. The operational goal of the mill is to maintain between 20- and 40-cfs at the Mill during low flows for demonstration operations. During high river flows, the operational goal is to minimize flows past the mill to limit risk of damage by passing the majority of flows along the Sodom Ditch. ODFW has studied the fish use of the Sodom Ditch and Calapooia River complex. For fish migration and habitat use, ODFW has a goal of passing about two thirds of river flows along the ditch and one third along the river. These flow distribution goals are consistent with mill operations. Three problem areas were identified and are to be addressed at a preliminary assessment level in this report. The problem areas include:

• Fish Passage is inadequate at the existing facilities on the Thompson’s Mills system.

• Current water control facilities are inadequate to ensure water availability for fish in Sodom ditch during low flow.

• Sodom Dam interrupts movement of gravels along the Calapooia River. Phase 1 of the study covered by this report includes recommendations for short term and long term improvements to upstream passage at both Sodom Ditch and Shear Dams. Phase 2 of the study covered by a companion report by Inter-Fluve (2005) evaluates sediment deposition, recommendations for monitoring and methods to control the flow distribution at the bifurcation between the ditch and river.

Study Scope The purpose of this Phase 1 report is to provide a discussion of recommendations to provide improvements to fish passage past the dams; provide flow control and sediment management at the bifurcation. Pros and cons of methods and planning level estimates of costs are included. The recommendation in this report will be used to pursue grants and funds to more closely examine alternatives, develop designs and ultimately implement construction of a preferred solution.


Recommendations are developed for short term improvements to fish passage past both dams. Two concepts for permanent fish passage at each dam are presented and include: 1) replacement of existing fishway with conventional fishway; and, 2) replace the existing fishway with a constructed channel riffle to provide passage, this may require partial removal of the dam. Visual observations of structures of the existing dams are noted. However, an assessment of the structural integrity of the existing dams was not included in this study. Conceptual drawings of fish passage improvements recommendations are included and discussed in this report. Planning level estimates of costs for the alternatives will be developed. Preliminary recommendations, conceptual drawings, and planning level estimates of costs for flow control and sediment management at the bifurcation of the Sodom Ditch and Calapooia River are provided under a separate Phase 2 study report (Inter-Fluve, 2005).

Site Investigations Inter-Fluve visited both structures on September 10, 2003 with representatives from the Calapooia Watershed Council, ODFW, Oregon Parks, NOAA Fisheries and the landowner. The structures were viewed and a scope of work for this study was discussed. On October 20, 2003, Inter-Fluve visited both structures to take simple measurements and survey of the structures and representative survey of the upstream and downstream channels. Survey was collected with a total station using a relative datum for vertical and horizontal coordinates. Wooden hubs at both dams and bolts on the existing Sodom Ditch Dam were surveyed to provide control points for future reference. Both structures were visually inspected and visible conditions were noted and digitally photographed. The site survey data was used for conceptual drawings and to complete preliminary design calculations. Measurements collected by ODFW from both dams and fishways were also used.

Hydrology Fish use of the Sodom Ditch and Shear Dams was provided by ODFW (Mamoyac, 10/29/03 email) and is summarized in Table 1. The passage season for Spring Chinook is from April 15 through July 15 with peak passage from May through June. The Winter Steelhead passage period is December 1 through June 15 with peak passage during the months of March through April. Cutthroat trout are present the entire year with the exception of the Sodom ditch during August and September due to high temperatures. Thus, fish use of the fishways is likely throughout the year. Fish passage design flows for the three seasons of peak use: 1) May-June for Spring Chinook; 2) March-April for Winter Steelhead; and, 3) January to April for Cutthroat trout. The 95- and 5-percent exceedance flows were estimated using USGS gage data adjusted to the location of the bifurcation by the Oregon WRD. From these average daily flows, flow duration curves were generated for the seasons of the three species identified by ODFW. An operational goal for flow distribution is to convey about two thirds of the


flow along Sodom Ditch and the remaining one third along the Calapooia River. This ratio was used to distribute the fish passage design flows between the dams. The design flows are approximate as they do not consider other flow inputs, losses or operational requirements. The estimated high and low passage design flows are summarized in Table 2. Table 1 – Seasonal Fish Passage at Dams (Source: ODFW, 10/29/03) Species Dam Passage Period Peak Passage # fish @ peak use

Spring chinook Shear1 April 15 - July 15 May-June 3 Sodom Ditch April 15 - July 15 May-June 10 Winter steelhead2 Dec 1 - June 15 March-April 10 Cutthroat trout Shear entire year Jan - April 10 Sodom Ditch3 Oct 1- July 30 Jan - April 10 Notes:

1. Contemporary run sizes estimated to be in the range of 50-150; "Recovery" objective is 650. Majority of adults use Sodom in absence of mill operation; Shear use significantly higher if Mill operational.

2. Estimates of contemporary run sizes are not known. "Recovery" objective is 1170. 3. Excessive water temperatures preclude year round presence in Sodom Ditch.

Table 2 –Estimated Fish Passage Design Flows

Species Dam Peak PassageEst. Low Design

Flow (cfs) Est. High Design Flow

(cfs) Spring chinook Shear May-June 26 248 Sodom Ditch May-June 53 496 Winter steelhead Shear March-April 83 608 Sodom Ditch March-April 165 1215 Cutthroat trout Shear Jan - April 80 895 Sodom Ditch Jan - April 161 1790 For the Sodom Ditch Dam, 1790-cfs was selected as the fish passage design high flow. For the Shear Dam, 895-cfs was selected as the fish passage design high flow. Design fish passage low flows were obtained from an operational flow model developed by the Oregon Water Resources Dept. Low flows along the Sodom Ditch during the peak fish use season are 3-cfs at the Sodom Ditch Dam and 20-cfs at the Shear Dam. These design


flows would be conveyed by the dam and fishway complex. Rating curves of flows over the dam and through the proposed fishways are required to determine the percent of the fish passage design flow actually conveyed through the proposed fishway.

Sodom Ditch Dam The existing Sodom Ditch Dam is a concrete structure built in 1957 (photo 1). It is approximately 11-ft in height from the outlet apron to the crest of the dam. Three concrete buttresses extend from the scour apron to the crest of the dam. Including the crest and width of the existing fishway, the dam is 85-ft wide. The sides of the dam are bounded by concrete abutments that extend to a height of 10-ft above the crest of the dam. The abutments have concrete wingwalls that extend into the bank. Some areas of concrete along the scour apron and lower portions of the dam structure have deteriorated or been abraded by bed load (photo 2). Exposed rebar was evident at the toe of the three buttresses (photo 3). Scour under the outlet apron has occurred along the center portion of the outlet edge. Probing with a stick indicated some areas were undermined in excess of 4-ft. The water level at the time of survey with a few cfs of flow was 2.1-ft below the invert of the scour sill outlet (photo 4).

Photo 1. Sodom Ditch Dam and fishway


Photo 2. Sodom Ditch Dam face and buttress

Photo 3. Sodom Ditch Dam – abrasion at base of buttress


Photo 4. Sodom Ditch Dam – Scour pool at outlet of apron The existing fishway is located along the left side of the dam. It is a six pool weir and pool fishway (photo 5). The fishway entrance discharges to the scour pool below the dam. Concrete along the outside was seen to have deteriorated with concrete missing from seams created during construction to depths averaging 6-inches to 9-inches (photo 6). Daylight was observed through the wall in a number of locations during the October 20, 2003 visual inspection. Flows were observed to actively seep through the wall of the fishway (photo 7). Two of the six pools were observed to have severe abrasion from bed load with exposed rebar along the walls and floor.


Photo 5. Sodom Ditch fishway

Photo 6. Concrete deterioration from inside Sodom Ditch fishway

Photo 7. Concrete deterioration from outside Sodom Ditch fishway Headwater and Tailwater conditions: A planning level HEC-RAS one-dimensional hydraulic model of the existing structure was created to characterize the headwater and tailwater conditions over the range of fish passage design flows. Three channel cross sections below the existing dam, three sections through the existing dam, one channel cross section immediately above the existing dam and one section near the bifurcation of the Sodom Ditch Dam and Calapooia River approximately 1,200-ft upstream of the dam were used to define the project reach. Flows through the existing fishway are a relatively small portion of the total flow. Therefore, the existing fishway was not included in the model. From the hydraulic model, rating curves of total stream discharge to water surface elevation downstream and upstream of the dam were generated. For the low fish passage design flow of 3-cfs the headwater is 11.0-ft higher than the tailwater. For the high fish passage design flow of


1,790-cfs the headwater increases 3.7-ft above the low flow headwater elevation. Thus there is a total elevation range of 14.7-ft through the range of fish passage design flows.

Short term/interim fish passage improvements Short term improvements to attraction flow conditions may be possible by moving the outlet notch from the middle of the erosion control apron to the side adjacent to the existing fishway. The existing notch would need to be plugged. Benefits of moving the main flow closer to the existing fishway to attraction flow conditions would be most pronounced at low flows when all or most flow exits through the notch. The benefit would be reduced markedly as the flows increase and overtop the outlet sill to greater depths and become more evenly distributed. Concrete slabs immediately downstream of the apron may need to be moved depending on fish response to this change. Modifications to the existing fishway have been identified by ODFW to maintain an appropriate magnitude of flow through the fishway. Based on the volumes and jump heights of the existing pool, ODFW identified that the pools would provide adequate energy dissipation for 5.4-cfs of flow. The existing weirs are capable of passing more than this amount. ODFW developed recommendations for steel inserts to reduce the size of the weir openings to a 1-ft width in order to reduce the flow to meet energy dissipation requirements. These recommendations will improve the fishway hydraulic conditions and aid fish passage.

Alternatives for Permanent Fish Passage Improvements Two alternatives were developed for future consideration. One alternative is removal of portions of the dam and construction of a channel riffle at about 1-percent slope using rounded boulders with gravelly cobble fill to mimic natural stream substrates and provide passage and grade control. The second alternative is replacement of the existing fishway with a conventional fishway. Partial Dam Removal and Channel Construction Alternative One alternative includes removal of a portion of the existing dam and construction of a stream channel using rounded rock substrate to provide passage and grade control. A recommendation for a pneumatically operated adjustable weir to provide flow control near the bifurcation is discussed in the Phase 2 report. Conceptual drawings of this scenario are attached on Sheets 1 and 2. Portions of the existing dam would be demolished and removed to the elevation of the new channel. The abutments and buried elements of the dam would remain to provide function as grade control and seepage control. The downstream limit of the new channel is located below the existing dam and extends upstream to above the existing dam. If existing materials are suitable they might be used as fill in the lower reach of the channel. The location and profile shown would roughly balance volumes of materials to be excavated with those to be placed as fill. The thalweg slope of the channel shown on the concept drawings is 1.1-percent. Pool and riffle features of the constructed channel would be developed during preliminary design.


The channel bed would be constructed using a mix of rounded boulders sized to remain stable to some desired flood event (e.g. 100-year flood). The voids between boulders would be filled with a mix of sandy/gravelly cobble. These materials fill the voids and limit subsurface flows. Given that flows are very low during the summer months, there is risk of these flows going subsurface; design must carefully consider this. Careful design of rock material sizes and selection of roundedness and color of material can result in a substrate that closely mimics natural stream material of similar slopes. A photo of a constructed riffle and the natural appearance that is possible to achieve through careful selection of materials is included on Sheet 2. This photo illustrates the desired end result from a similar project constructed using this approach. The cross section of the placed substrate would slope gently towards the center of the channel to provide adequate flow depths during low flows for fish passage. The low flow portion of the channel can meander across the channel bottom. Stability of the banks would need to be verified in design. Pool and riffle features would be developed in preliminary design. Benefits of this approach include:

• The new channel will provide functional stability removing any need to update the structural condition of the existing dam.

• Fish passage would be achieved over a wide range of flows. • Juvenile fish can migrate along the boundary layer as they would along a natural

channel. • All fish could pass downstream without going over the crest of the dam and

potentially impacting the concrete scour apron. • The slope is conducive to expanding the long riffle shown on the concept

drawings into pools and riffles. This would provide an opportunity to create pool and spawning habitat.

• The continual gradient may improve passage of gravels through the system and possibly reduce the volume of gravel depositing at the bifurcation.

• No structure is exposed to flow to collect debris. • The rock substrate may improve hyporheic flow and macroinvertebrate habitat.

Cons of this alternative include:

• An evaluation of channel capacity and stability at flood flows will be required. Measures to provide bank protection may be required. This additional study should identify if disruption of the existing bank vegetation and purchase of some of the adjacent field is required.

• There is risk that low flows go subsurface within the substrate. A planning level estimate of cost to remove a portion of the existing dam and fishway and construct a stream riffle is included in the Appendix. The cost is sensitive to the unit price of substrate materials that could very from $50/cy to $90/cy installed. The estimate is based on a unit price of $70/cy installed.


Conventional Fishway Alternative For the conventional fishway, two challenges must be resolved to satisfy NOAA Fisheries criteria. The challenges are the range of design flows and headwater elevations. Design flows range from a low design flow of about 3-cfs to a high design flow of about 1,790-cfs along the Sodom Ditch. These flows would pass through the fishway and/or over the dam. From the preliminary HEC-RAS model of the ditch in the immediate vicinity of the existing dam, headwater elevations vary by 3.7-ft over this flow range. During low flows, the fishway must provide adequate flow control at the pools. During moderate to high flows, the fishway must accommodate the elevation difference yet limit flow into the fishway to satisfy pool volume criteria. A number of fishway configurations were considered and determined to be unsuitable to this site.

• A weir and pool fishway along the entire length of the fishway would not provide adequate control of flow, jump height and energy dissipation for the higher design flows.

• Vertical slot fishway – A vertical slot fishway along the entire length of the fishway would work for moderate to high flows. However for lower flows, there is inadequate pool depth.

• Ice Harbor fishways require minimal headwater fluctuation as noted in NOAA Fisheries guidance. This is not feasible in this run of the river facility. Further, the Ice Harbor includes a 15-in by 18-in submerged orifice that would dewater the pools during low flows.

• Denil and Steeppass fishways are not an option due their tendency to collect debris. Further, the structures are not recommended in areas of downstream migration.

Initially, a hybrid fishway comprised of a weir and pool section from the fishway entrance to the crest of the existing dam with a vertical slot fishway upstream, is one scenario that appears to satisfy these conditions with a single structure and no mechanical features. Conceptual drawings of this scenario are shown on Sheet 3 and 5. The maximum flow through the fishway would occur during the maximum fish passage design flow through the vertical slots. For 1-ft jump heights and up to 5-ft depths the fishway flow could be limited to 30-cfs. Pool volume requirements would require pool dimensions 5-ft deep, 11-ft long by 9-ft wide. The lower weir and pool section of the fishway would provide the elevation difference during low flows. A compound weir crest profile with a central vertical slot and inclined sides (see sheet 5) operate over a range of flows up to the high fishway flow of 30-cfs and an increase in headwater of about 1.24-ft over the minimum flow. During the low flow season, the removable downstream wall of the vertical slot pools along the upper section would be removed to allow flows to pass through unimpeded. During the high flow season when stream flows exceed the limit of flow through the fishway, the walls would be installed in the upper vertical slot fishway section to accommodate the elevation differential and provide flow control.


To accommodate the length required for pools with one foot of drop, the lower three pools of the fishway would turn 180-degrees. This would also position the fishway entrance at the best attraction flow condition. A wingwall would extend out into the stream at 45-degrees to provide refuge during high flows. As the tail water increases, fish can access the fishway at respectively higher pools. The length of fishway would place the exit a distance upstream of the dam crest and reduce the risk that fish would fall back over the dam. Other design features would include a grating over the top of the fishway to provide safety, limit vandalism and poaching while allowing ambient lighting into the fishway. A security fence along the bank would assist in limiting access to authorized personnel. Benefits of this concept include:

• Maintain existing operation Limitations of this concept include:

• While the existing dam structure is in much better condition than the fishway, the concrete is deteriorating somewhat and some rebar is exposed. The dam might provide several more years and perhaps decades of satisfactory service. However, the risk is present that the dam may require replacement before the service life of the fishway is completed. The cost of the new fishway would benefit from improvements to or replacement of the dam to provide a similar length of service.

• No change in gravel deposition conditions would result from this condition. A planning level estimate of cost to demolish the existing fishway and construct the replacement fishway is included in the Appendix. This cost does not include upgrades to or replacement of the existing dam structure. A structural engineering study would be required to determine what upgrades are necessary.

Shear Dam The existing Shear Dam is a concrete structure built in 1956. It is approximately 5-ft in height from the scour apron to the crest of the dam. The crest of the dam is 7.1-ft higher than the water level in the downstream scour pool under stagnant conditions. Including the crest and width of the existing fishway, the dam is 40-ft wide. The sides of the dam are bounded by concrete abutments that extend to a height of 4-ft above the crest of the dam (photo 8). The concrete appears to be in generally good condition for the age of the structure. Immediately downstream of the scour apron, cobble sized ballast rock from the prior timber crib dam extends from the outlet sill downstream for 15-ft (photo 9). A scour pool is located downstream of the ballast rock. The water level at the time of survey with nearly stagnant conditions was 1.44-ft below the invert of the outlet apron. Measurements were not taken on the depth of the scour pool. No undercutting or scour was noted along the downstream face of the dam structure. A small amount of discharge was noted to be welling up near the downstream, left edge of the dam fishway entrance. The source of this water was not known.


Photo 8. Shear Dam and fishway.

Photo 9. Ballast rock and scour pool at outlet from Shear Dam. The existing fishway is located along the left side of the dam. The weir and pool fishway is comprised of three pools 6-ft wide by 9.5-ft long by 3-ft depth below the outlet weir sill invert. It was not possible to note the condition of the concrete below the water level. No abrupt surfaces were noted as felt with booted feet. The fishway entrance discharges onto the ballast rock with no flow depth immediately downstream of the dam. The concrete of the fishway was in generally good condition for the age of the structure. One seep through the fishway wall onto the outlet apron was noted from the upstream most pool.

Short term/interim fish passage improvements Attraction flow has not been identified as being a problem at the Shear Dam.


The entrance to the fishway discharges onto rock ballast along the downstream edge of the dam (photo 10). The rock ballast is 3- to 6-inch subangular rock and extends a distance of about 10-ft downstream from the fishway entrance to the scour pool. The rock extends above the water level in the scour pool under stagnant conditions. Under stagnant conditions this is a barrier to fish. At low stream flows the flow depth may be too shallow for fish to traverse and jump into the fishway entrance. A simple solution to improve fish passage would be to excavate an entrance channel and pool from which fish could jump into the fishway. Excavation should be done in a manner to not create scouring conditions that could undermine the dam. The depth of the pool should be at least 1.5-ft deep under stagnant conditions to enable fish to jump the 1-ft into the entrance. The pool should be about 6-ft wide and extend to the scour pool downstream of the ballast rock.

Photo 10 – Shear Dam fishway entrance. Modifications to the existing fishway have been identified by ODFW to maintain an appropriate magnitude of flow through the fishway. Based on the volumes and jump heights of the existing pool, ODFW identified that the pools would provide adequate energy dissipation for 9-cfs of flow. The existing weirs are capable of passing more than this amount. ODFW developed recommendations for steel inserts to reduce the size of the weir openings to a 1-ft width in order to reduce the flow to meet energy dissipation requirements. These recommendations will improve the fishway hydraulic conditions and aid fish passage.

Alternatives for Permanent Fish Passage Improvements Analyzing the crest of the dam as a sharp crested weir, the depth of headwater is 3.8-ft above the dam crest at the fish design high flow of 895-cfs. Under stagnant conditions the tailwater defined by the scour pool is 7.1 ft lower than the dam crest. Therefore, the total elevational range is 10.9-ft and would require a fishway with eleven pools at 1-ft drops or eight pools at 1.5-ft drops.


Conventional Fishway Alternative The Shear Dam is a similar situation to the Sodom ditch Dam in that the range of flows vary from a low of about 20-cfs to a high of about 895-cfs. The headwater will increase by about 3.8-ft over this flow range. Therefore, a weir and pool fishway will not perform satisfactorily during high flow conditions. By placing a two-pool vertical slot fishway with removable baffles upstream of the dam crest, this headwater difference can be controlled and satisfactory fish passage conditions can be achieved. As at the Sodom Ditch Dam, the baffles would be removed for low to moderate flows to allow flow to pass through unimpeded. Baffles would be installed during the high flow season to control amount of flow entering the fishway and provide the necessary jump height for fish to attain the high headwater elevations. Conceptual drawings are included on Sheets 4 and 5. Benefits of this concept include:

• Maintain existing operation Limitations of this concept include:

• The dam might provide many more years or decades of satisfactory service. However, the risk is present that the dam may require replacement before the service life of the fishway is completed.

A planning level estimate of cost to demolish the existing fishway and construct the replacement fishway is included in the Appendix. This cost does not include upgrades to or replacement of the existing dam structure. A structural engineering study would be required to determine what upgrades are necessary. Dam Removal and Channel Construction Alternative The existing dam is in fairly good condition and should provide many years more service. Removal of a portion of the dam and construction of a channel section for fish passage would require a new structure to provide flow control. An option to construct a channel by placing rounded boulders with voids filled with a gravelly-cobble mix downstream of the dam as shown on Sheets 6 and 7. Given that flows are very low during the summer months, there is risk of these flows going subsurface; design must carefully consider this. By matching the new channel to the crest of the existing dam this option would maintain the existing dam structure and crest for flow control. For a relatively steep slope of 2.0-percent, a constructed channel 400-ft in length would be required. Substrate should extend for about two channel widths (40-ft) downstream to provide erosion protection as flows transition between the steep and mild gradients. Greater length would be required for gradients flatter than 2.0-percent. An undesirable feature of this option is that the constructed channel would be at a higher elevation than the existing flood terrace downstream of the dam. Channel construction would require filling a portion of the existing flood terrace and construction of a new functional flood terrace for a distance of at least 125-ft along the stream. For the slope of 2-percent erosion protection along the


banks would be required along the length of the constructed channel and the distance beyond as the energy of flow dissipates. Benefits of this approach include:


• Fish passage would be achieved over a wide range of flows. • Juvenile fish can migrate along the boundary layer as they would along a natural

channel. • All fish could pass downstream without going over the crest of the dam and

potentially impacting the concrete scour apron. • The slope is conducive to expanding the long riffle shown on the concept

drawings into pools and riffles. This would provide an opportunity to create pool and spawning habitat.


• No structure is exposed to flow to collect debris. • The rock substrate may improve hyporheic flow and macroinvertebrate habitat.

Cons of this alternative include:

• Fill in the existing flood terrace and construction of a functional flood terrace is required. The option to remove a portion of the existing dam, provide flow control upstream and move the constructed channel profile upstream should be evaluated at preliminary design to lessen the impact to the existing flood terrace.

• An evaluation of channel capacity and stability at flood flows will be required. Measures to provide bank protection may be required. This additional study should identify if disruption of the existing bank vegetation and purchase of some of the adjacent field is required.

• There is risk that low flows go subsurface within the substrate. A planning level estimate of cost to maintain the existing dam and fishway and construct a stream riffle is included in the Appendix. The cost is sensitive to the unit price of substrate materials that could very from $50/cy to $90/cy installed. The estimate is based on a unit price of $70/cy installed.

Bifurcation Flow Control and Sediment Management Flow control and sediment management at the bifurcation of the Sodom Ditch and Calapooia River have been analyzed and are documented Phase II.


References Bates, Ken, 1992. “Fishway Design Guidelines for Pacific Salmon” Bell, Milo 1991. “Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria. Clay, Charles, 1995. “Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities, Second Edition” Inter-Fluve, Inc., 2005. “Calapooia River – Sodom Ditch Bifurcation, Phase 2 - Sediment Deposition/Channel Stability Assessment”. ODFW, Jane Kelly 10/7/02 Field measurements and design notes for the Sodom Ditch Dam and Shear Dam. ODFW, Steve Mamoyac, 10/28/03. Excel summary of fish use and run numbers. Oregon Water Resources Department, Jonathan La Marche. Excel operational flow model for the Thompson’s Mills flow management complex. Terraserver usa.com U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. HEC-RAS version 3.1.1

Sodom Ditch: Partial Dam Removal and Channel Construction

VERSION 07.22.05

Location Description Quantity Units Unit cost Cost Assumptions

Remove portion of dam and existing fishwayconcrete demolishion 376 cy 30.5 $11,468 Means 02225-320-1450, pg 38loader 10-hr days @ $75 8 days 750 $6,000 estimatedhauling 376 cy 21 $7,896 Means 02320-200-0560, pg 60

Subtotal = $25,400

Construct channel

excavation to grade 2378 cy 12 $28,536 estimatedexcavation to subgrade 4756 cy 12 $57,072 estimatedfill 409 cy 12 $4,908 estimatedsubstrate - installed 8827 cy 70 $617,890 Typical

Subtotal = $708,400

Subtotal = $733,800

Contingency 25% of subtotal $183,500Restoration/cleanup 5% of subtotal $36,700Mob/Demob 2% of subtotal $14,700Dewatering 4% of subtotal $29,400Erosion and sediment control 2% of subtotal $14,700

Total = $1,013,000

Sodom Ditch Dam: Replace Fishway

VERSION 07.22.05


Remove existing fishwayconcrete demolishion 299 cy 30.5 $9,120 Means 02225-320-1450, pg 38loader 10-hr days @ $75 5 days 750 $3,750 estimatedhauling 299 cy 21 $6,279 Means 02320-200-0560, pg 60

Subtotal = $19,100

Construct replacement fishway

volume for 13-pools 11583 cf 40 $463,320 Ref: Clay, 1995Subtotal = $463,300

Subtotal = $482,400


Total = $666,000

Shear Dam: Replace Fishway

VERSION 07.22.05


Remove existing fishwayconcrete demolishion 103 cy 30.5 $3,142 Means 02225-320-1450, pg 38loader 10-hr days @ $75 3 days 750 $2,250 estimatedhauling 103 cy 21 $2,163 Means 02320-200-0560, pg 60

Subtotal = $7,600

Construct replacement fishway

volume for 8-pools 7128 cf 40 $285,120 Ref: Clay, 1995Subtotal = $285,100

Subtotal = $292,700


Total = $404,000

Shear Dam: Channel Construction

VERSION 07.22.05


Remove existing fishwayconcrete demolishion 0 cy 30.5 $0 Means 02225-320-1450, pg 38loader 10-hr days @ $75 0 days 750 $0 estimatedhauling 0 cy 21 $0 Means 02320-200-0560, pg 60

Subtotal = $0

Construct channel

excavation to subgrade 833 cy 12 $9,996 estimatedfill 313 cy 12 $3,756 estimatedsubstrate - installed 1889 cy 70 $132,230 TypicalFlood Terrace - clear and grub 4 hrs 125 $500 excavatorFlood Terrace - substrate/fill 490 cy 70 $34,300 TypicalFlood Terrace - seed 6.225 msf 40 $249 TypicalFlood Terrace - woody veg 249 ea 7 $1,743 TypicalFlood Terrace - erosion control fabr 692 sy 5 $3,460 Typical

Subtotal = $186,200

Subtotal = $186,200


Total = $257,000

Fish Passage Improvement at the Shear and Sodom Ditch Dams ... · Fish use of the Sodom Ditch and...

Documents

Transcript of Fish Passage Improvement at the Shear and Sodom Ditch Dams ... · Fish use of the Sodom Ditch and...