STRATEGIES TO CONDUCT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS...
31
STRATEGIES TO CONDUCT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS FOR HIGH PRIORITY COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN HYDROPOWER AND DAM FACILITIES Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission April 2014 Lisa A. DeBruyckere and Stephen H. Phillips
Transcript of STRATEGIES TO CONDUCT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS...
STRATEGIES TO CONDUCT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS FOR HIGH PRIORITY COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN HYDROPOWER AND DAM FACILITIES BUILDING A REGIONAL DEFENSE AGAINST INVASIVE MUSSELS
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission April 2014
Lisa A. DeBruyckere and Stephen H. Phillips
Table of Contents
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background _________________________________________________________________ 1
Preventing an invasion: Building a regional defense against invasive mussels _________ 1
Vulnerability assessments ________________________________________________ 2
Vulnerability assessment team_____________________________________________ 3
Implementation ______________________________________________________________ 4
Determine status of vulnerability assessments at hydropower projects in the Columbia
River Basin ___________________________________________________________ 9
The cost of hydropower vulnerability assessments _____________________________12
Determine the risk of hydropower projects to zebra and mussel establishment _______14
Prioritizing vulnerability assessments for the most prominent Columbia River Basin
hydropower facilities ____________________________________________________17
Strategy____________________________________________________________________ 18
A strategy to reduce the average cost of vulnerability assessments for prominent
hydropower facilities in the Columbia River Basin _____________________________18
Appendices _________________________________________________________________ 24
Appendix A. Adobe FormsCentral survey tool to document status of vulnerability
assessments in the Columbia River Basin ____________________________________24
Appendix B. Vulnerability Assessment Checklist ______________________________26
Background
1
BACKGROUND PREVENTING AN INVASION: BUILDING A REGIONAL DEFENSE
AGAINST INVASIVE MUSSELS
Quagga and zebra mussels (Dreissenid spp.) are the most economically damaging aquatic organisms to
invade the United States, costing an estimated $5 billion in prevention and control efforts since their
arrival in the late 1980s. Because of the threat posed by these invasive mussels to the Northwest, there
is a compelling need to define and implement a region-wide prevention and response strategy.
Recognizing this need, The Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council, Portland State University Center for Lakes and Reservoirs, and the Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission sponsored a workshop on May 15, 2013 entitled, “Preventing an
Invasion: Building a Regional Defense against Quagga and Zebra Mussels.” The workshop convened
90 individuals representing Canadian and Pacific Northwest irrigation and water districts, water
suppliers, legislators, state and federal agencies, tribal sovereign nations, nonprofit organizations,
recreational boating interests, consortiums, and others in Vancouver, Washington. Workshop
outcomes included the development of a set of regulatory/policy, outreach, funding and research
action items addressing the challenges and barriers to prevent the introduction of invasive mussels to
the Pacific Northwest.
One of the priority action items developed included creating a Vulnerability Assessment Team (VAT)
to coordinate/prioritize needed assessment and mitigation response efforts at hydro/raw water
projects and facilitate sharing of information among both affected and uninfested areas. The Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission, in cooperation with the Bonneville Power Administration, was
designated as the lead agencies to coordinate this important task.
Vulnerability assessments itemize and inspect all hydropower facility structures and components that
come into contact with raw water, and make an informed judgment on the degree to which
Dreissenid mussels could impair the performance of the structures and its components.
Understanding these factors in advance of an introduction can best prepare the facility to both
prevent and deal with an introduction.
Background
2
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS Vulnerability assessments1 itemize and inspect all hydropower facility structures and components that
come into contact with raw water, and make an informed judgment on the degree to which dreissenid
mussels will impair the performance of the structures and components.2
A facility assessment process usually requires considerable time for planning and coordination,
background research, site visits, evaluation of data and preparation of a report.3 It is likely that a team
approach with two or three people is most effective at carrying out the assessment with at least one
person with operational knowledge/experience of the specific facility. The assessment team lead
should become familiar with general mussel characteristics and behavior or possibly have a support
person familiar with mussels as part of the assessment team.
The specific risks and problems that a particular facility will have with the dreissenids will depend on:
The size of the dreissenid population in the area – actual/anticipated.
How the raw water gets into the facility.
Any processes to treat or transform the water for various facility applications.
The routing of all piping branches and location of components and equipment, including materials of construction.
The operating envelope of the various water systems (such as maximum and minimum flow rates, frequency of operation, temperature ranges).
1 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, May 2009, Facility Vulnerability Assessment Template, Invasive Quagga and Zebra Mussels. Prepared for Reclamation by: RNT Consulting Inc., 823 County Road 35, Picton, Ontario, Canada K0K 2T0, 26pp. 2 Prescott, T. Vulnerability Assessment of Zebra and Quagga Mussels on Facilities from Intake to Discharge. RNT Consulting, Inc. (PowerPoint Presentation). 3 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, May 2009, Facility Vulnerability Assessment Template, Invasive
Quagga and Zebra Mussels. Prepared for Reclamation by: RNT Consulting Inc., 823 County Road 35, Picton, Ontario,
Canada K0K 2T0, 26pp.
Background
3
Because every facility has a number of unique features, a site person familiar
with the operation of the various water uses in the plant/facility is an essential
contributor to the assessment. A template (Appendix B), including checklists
and other key information can be used under most circumstances and for the
most common assets to assist in implementing a facility assessment.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TEAM
The VAT was created in July 2013 and consists of 33 individuals (see sidebar
to the left) representing both public and private hydropower facilities in the
Pacific Northwest.
The VAT was tasked with three specific goals:
1. Determine status of vulnerability assessments at key hydropower projects in
the Columbia River Basin (CRB).
2. Determine the risk of these hydropower projects to zebra and quagga mussel
establishment.
3. Create a planning document that recommends the highest priority needs for
vulnerability assessments and the costs associated with completing them.
Vulnerability Assessment Team
Members
Lisa DeBruyckere,
Creative Resource
Strategies, LLC
(Coordinator)
Dave Arbaugh, Arbaugh
Associates
Arnie Aspelund, Puget
Sound Energy
Chris Brueske, Whatcom
County
Lori Campbell, PGN
Renata Claudi, RNT
Consulting
David DeRosa, Teck
Metals, LTD
Hannah Dondy-Kaplan,
BPA
Tom Dresser, Public Utility
No. 2 of Grant County, WA
Tim Dykstra, USACE
Todd Gatewood, GE
Power and Water
Micah Goo, Centralia City
and Light
Ritchie Graves, NOAA
Jackson Gross, Smith-
Root
Michele Hanson, USACE
Bruce Howard, Avista
Corp.
Doug Johnson, BC Hydro
Mark Jones, BPA
Keith Kirkendall, NOAA
Chas Kyger, Douglas
County PUD
Scott Lindsay, Northwest
Public Power Association
Scott Lund, USBR
Carrie Link, Marrone Bio
Innovations
Madelyn Martinez,
USACE
Stephen Phillips, PSMFC
Christine Pratt, Seattle
City Light
Jared Rubin, EWEB
Michael Stephenson,
Idaho Power
Sheila Street, FortisBC
Andrew Talabere, EWEB
Krista Watts, Columbia
Power
Steve Wells, PSU
Leonard Willett, USBR
Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River.
Photo credit: US Army Corps of Engineers archives.
Background
4
IMPLEMENTATION
SELECTING HYDROPOWER FACILITIES TO SURVEY
The National Inventory of
Dams defines a major dam as
being 50 feet (15 m) tall with a
storage capacity of at least
5,000 acre feet (6,200,000 m3),
or of any height with a storage
capacity of 25,000 acre feet
(31,000,000 m3).4
There are about 8,100 major
dams in the United States.
The universe of dam/weir
facilities in the CRB is
extensive (Figure 1), totaling
2,657 documented features.
To determine which facilities
would be included in this
initiative effort, a total of 75
of the most prominent dams
(Figure 2, Table 1), owned by
the federal government,
public utilities, private entities,
and state, provincial, or local
governments was selected
initially to document the
status of vulnerability
assessments.
Figure 1. Dam/weir facilities in the Pacific Northwest. CRB facilities are
designated in light blue. Source: Van Hare, Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission.
4 Major Dams of the United States. National Atlas of the United States. USGS. September 17, 2009. Retrieved October 24, 2009.
Background
5
Figure 2. Locations of 75 of the most prominent dams in the CRB by ownership. Source: Van Hare, Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission.
Background
6
Table 1. List of mainstem dams within the Columbia River Basin. Dams in bolded text were included in
survey responses.5
Structure Name River Owner Blue River Dam Blue River USACE
Arrowrock Dam Boise River US BOR
Lucky Peak Dam Boise River USACE
Anderson Ranch Dam Boise River US BOR
Portland No. 1 Dam Bull Run River Portland, Oregon
North Fork Dam Clackamas River Portland General Electric
Cabinet Gorge Dam Clark Fork Avista
Noxon Rapids Dam Clark Fork Avista
Dworshak Dam Clearwater River USACE
Revelstoke Dam Columbia River BC Hydro
Keenleyside Dam Columbia River BC Hydro
Bonneville Dam Columbia River USACE
Grand Coulee Dam Columbia River US BOR
John Day Dam Columbia River USACE
The Dalles Dam Columbia River USACE
Wells Dam Columbia River Douglas County PUD
Mica Dam Columbia River BC Hydro
McNary Dam Columbia River USACE
Rock Island Dam Columbia River Chelan County PUD
Chief Joseph Dam Columbia River USACE
Wanapum Dam Columbia River Grant County PUD
Priest Rapids Dam Columbia River Grant County PUD
Rocky Reach Dam Columbia River Chelan County PUD
Mossyrock Dam Cowlitz River Tacoma, Washington
Mayfield Dam Cowlitz River Tacoma, Washington
O'Sullivan Dam Crab Creek US BOR
5 Information about Stone Creek Hydroelectric Project (Willamette), Leaburg-Waterville (McKenzie), South Slocan Powerhouse (Kootenay), Lower Bonnington (Kootenay), Upper Bonnington (Kootenay), Aberfeldie (Kootenay), Elko (Kootenay), Corra Linn Dam and Powerhouse (Kootenay), Kootenay Canal (Kootenay), Smith Creek Hydroelectric Project (Kootenay River), Spillimacheen (Columbia), Walter Hardman (Columbia), Whatshan (Columbia), Shuswap (Pend Oreille-Clark Fork-Flathead), Upper Salmon (Salmon), and Chelan (Columbia) were provided (these dams were not included in the original list of 75).
Background
7
Structure Name River Owner Arthur R. Bowman Dam Crooked River US BOR
Round Butte Dam Deschutes River Portland General Electric
Pelton Dam Deschutes River Portland General Electric
Duncan Dam Duncan River BC Hydro
Kerr Dam Flathead River PPL Montana/Tribal
Hungry Horse Dam Flathead River US BOR
Brilliant Dam Kootenay River Columbia Power Corporation (Fortis BC is owner representative)
Libby Dam Kootenay River USACE
Swift No. 1 Dam Lewis River PacifiCorp
Yale Dam Lewis River PacifiCorp
Merwin Dam Lewis River PacifiCorp
Cougar Dam McKenzie River USACE
Smith Dam McKenzie River City of Eugene, Oregon
Owyhee Dam Owyhee River US BOR
Black Canyon Dam Payette River US BOR
Waneta Dam Pend Oreille River FortisBC/Teck Cominco
Boundary Dam Pend Oreille River Seattle, Washington
Albeni Falls Dam Pend Oreille River USACE
Seven Mile Dam Pend Oreille River BC Hydro
Mason Dam Powder River US BOR
Salmon Falls Dam Salmon Falls Creek Salmon River Canal Co.
Detroit Dam Santiam River USACE
Big Cliff Dam Santiam River USACE
Green Peter Dam Santiam River USACE
Gem State Dam Snake River Idaho Falls, Idaho
Bliss Dam Snake River Idaho Power Company
Brownlee Dam Snake River Idaho Power Company
C.J. Strike Dam Snake River Idaho Power Company
Lower Granite Lock and Dam Snake River USACE
Hells Canyon Dam Snake River Idaho Power Company
Jackson Lake Dam Snake River US BOR
Minidoka Dam Snake River US BOR
Milner Dam Snake River Milner Dam, Inc
Oxbow Dam Snake River Idaho Power Company
Palisades Dam Snake River US BOR
Little Goose Lock and Dam Snake River USACE
Ice Harbor Lock and Dam Snake River USACE
Lower Monumental Lock and Dam Snake River USACE
American Falls Dam Snake River US BOR
Background
8
Structure Name River Owner Swan Falls Dam Snake River Idaho Power Company
Lower Salmon Dam Snake River Idaho Power Company
Long Lake Dam Spokane River Avista
Tieton Dam Tieton River US BOR
Sediment Retention Structure Toutle River USACE
Fall Creek Dam Willamette River USACE
Hills Creek Dam Willamette River USACE
Lookout Point Dam Willamette River USACE
Willamette Falls Locks Willamette River USACE
Ririe Dam Willow Creek US BOR
Grand Coulee Dam, a gravity dam on the Columbia River in Washington. Photo credit: Library
of Congress, Farm Security Administration – Office of War Information: Photograph
Collection Call Number: LC-USW33-035035-C.
Background
9
Goal One
DETERMINE STATUS OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AT HYDROPOWER PROJECTS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
To achieve Goal One, staff developed a survey tool (Appendix A) using Adobe FormsCentral to obtain
information about both completed and planned vulnerability assessments on hydropower facilities in the
CRB among the 75 selected to survey. The tool was developed in July 2013, launched in August 2013,
and submitters provided information on their facilities through mid-September 2013.
As of late-November 2013, information on a total of 52 structures was received, including 36 on the
original list of 75 as well as an additional 16 structures (Table 1, Figures 3 and 4). Of those 52 structures:
Vulnerability assessments have been completed on three structures (The Dalles, John Day, and Bonneville Dam).6
System walkthrough checklists have been completed on three structures (Rocky Reach, Rock Island, and Chelan).
Vulnerability assessments were planned and budgeted7 for within the next two years for 16 structures (Lower Salmon, Upper Salmon, Swan Falls, Hell’s Canyon, Brownlee, Oxbow, Bliss, Libby, Albeni Falls, Chief Joseph, CJ Strike, Keenleyside, Brilliant, Lower Granite, Minidoka and Palisades).
Vulnerability assessments were neither planned nor budgeted for within the next two years for 19 structures.
The status of vulnerability assessments was unknown for a total of 42 structures.
6 One of the structures, the Boundary Dam, completed a prevention and control plan. Although not characterized as a vulnerability assessment, the document does include some key elements of a vulnerability assessment. 7 Note: The terms “planned and budgeted” do not necessarily mean that the work will be funded, but indicates initial steps have been taken to estimate costs and effort to complete the assessments.
Background
10
Figure 3. Completed, planned and budgeted, system walkthroughs, not planned/budgeted, and unknown
vulnerability assessments for the 75 most prominent hydropower facilities in the Columbia River Basin (as of
November 2013).
Completed
Planned and Budgeted
Not planned/budgeted
System walkthroughs
No information received
Status of CRB Vulnerability Assessments
Completed Planned and Budgeted Not planned/budgeted
System walkthroughs No information received
Background
11
Figure 4. Locations of hydropower structures with completed vulnerability assessments, and vulnerability
Background
12
assessments planned within two years (as of December 2013). Source: Van Hare, Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission.
THE COST OF HYDROPOWER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS
The amount of funding necessary to complete a comprehensive vulnerability assessment for a
hydropower facility varies widely depending on the size and type of facility, the complexity of the
structure and function of the facility, the extent of anadromy within proximity to the structure, whether
or not similar types of facilities or facilities within close proximity to one another can be bundled, thus
creating economies of scale, and the extent to which the assessment includes locally trained staff familiar
with both vulnerability assessments and how the facility processes water.
In addition, consideration can be given to economies of scale that can be created by conducting
vulnerability assessments on structures within close proximity to one another and/or structures with
similar features.
Upon completing the initial survey, hydropower facility owners that had completed or were planning to
complete vulnerability assessments were asked to provide cost estimates of their assessments.
RESULTS
Columbia Power, Fortis BC and BC Hydro will be contracting with a consultant to produce vulnerability
assessments estimated at $15,000 each for the following facilities:
Brilliant Dam on Kootenay River—owned by Columbia Power Corporation and managed by Fortis BC
Brilliant Expansion Generating Station on Kootenay River (adjacent to Brilliant Dam)— owned by Columbia Power Corporation and managed by Fortis BC
Corra Lynn Dam on the Kootenay River (upstream of Brilliant Dam)—owned and operated by Fortis BC
Waneta Dam and Generating Station and Waneta Expansion Generating Station (
They also provided estimate of the cost of vulnerability assessments for Arrow Lakes ($10,000) and
Keenleyside ($5,000):
Arrow Lakes Generating Facility on Columbia River—owned by Columbia Power Corporation and managed by Fortis BC
Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam on Columbia River (adjacent to Arrow Lakes GS)—owned and operated by BC Hydro
Smaller facilities, such as those operated by Idaho Power, estimate it will cost about $5,000 per facility to
produce a vulnerability assessment.
Background
13
The US Army Corps of Engineers has hired Bureau of Reclamation Denver/Hoover Dam (L. Willett,
BOR LC Region) staff on contract to conduct vulnerability assessments. For $60,000, these contractors
are conducting vulnerability assessments on a total of five hydropower facilities within a fairly confined
geographic area (an average of $12,000 per facility).
KEY ACTIONS TO COMPLETE:
Continue to work with the management authorities responsible for the hydropower facilities that did not respond to the survey request to obtain their status on vulnerability assessments for their facilities, particularly the Bureau of Reclamation, which has a significant number of facilities within the basin.
Work with Chelan PUD to determine if additional resources are needed to develop comprehensive vulnerability assessments for the three facilities in which they reported system walkthroughs.
Encourage all management authorities that have not yet completed vulnerability assessments to provide updates to the online tool as they make progress in planning, budgeting for, and completing vulnerability assessments.
Identify any additional facilities (beyond the original 75 structures targeted for this initial initiative) that should be included in future analyses, either because of their presence within the extent of anadromous waters, or other key factors.
Graphic credit: Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
Background
14
Goal Two
DETERMINE THE RISK OF HYDROPOWER PROJECTS TO ZEBRA AND QUAGGA MUSSEL ESTABLISHMENT
Numerous factors affect the ability of zebra and quagga mussels to become introduced and then
established in a body of water, including whether or not recreational trailered water craft use the water
body, the total day use of that water body, presence of boat ramps and marinas, water body size and
access, and existence and amount of motorized boating, fishing, and angling tournaments.8 In addition,
environmental parameters, such as dissolved calcium, pH, water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen,
and substrate affect survivorship and establishment of invasive mussels.9 In the CRB, dissolved calcium
and pH are the most significant factors affecting invasive mussel establishment.10,11
Because of scarcity of resources, the need was recognized to develop a risk assessment tool to rank
projects to identify hydropower vulnerability assessment priorities and direct further funding.
To assess risk for each of the hydropower facilities in this strategy, values of dissolved calcium12 were
used:
Risk Category [Ca2+] (mg/L)
High >25
Medium >15-25
8 Wells, S., T.D. Counihan, A. Puls, M. Sytsma, and B. Adair. 2010. Prioritizing Zebra and Quagga Mussel Monitoring in the Columbia River Basin. BPA Contract Number 00003373, TI Project Number 152, prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 83pp. 9 Ibid. 10 Hincks, S.S. and G.L. Mackie, 1997. Effects of pH, calcium, alkalinity, hardness, and chlorophyll on the survival, growth, and reproductive success of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in Ontario lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54:2049-2057. 11 McMahon, R.F., 1996. The Physiological Ecology of the Zebra Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, in North America and Europe. Amer. Zool. 36:339-363. 12 Wells, S., T.D. Counihan, A. Puls, M. Sytsma, and B. Adair. 2010. Prioritizing Zebra and Quagga Mussel Monitoring in the Columbia River Basin. BPA Contract Number 00003373, TI Project Number 152, prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 83pp.
Background
15
If water chemistry data was not available at a specific hydropower facility, the water chemistry data from
the nearest and most reasonable sampling site was used to determine risk.
Of the 75 facilities included in this strategy, 15 are considered to have high risk of dreissenid mussel
establishment (Figure 5). Of those high risk facilities, none have completed risk assessments, five have
planned and budgeted risk assessments, and none have completed system walkthroughs.
Of the 75 facilities included in this strategy, 21 are considered to have medium risk of dreissenid mussel
establishment. Of those medium risk facilities, three have completed risk assessments, three have planned
and budgeted risk assessments, and none have completed system walkthroughs.
Table 2. High and Medium Risk CRB Hydropower Facilities in the Columbia River Basin based on mean
dissolved calcium concentrations. Facilities in bold have a vulnerability assessment completed; facilities with
an asterisk have a vulnerability assessment planned within the next two years.
High Risk CRB Facilities
Medium Risk CRB Facilities
American Falls Brilliant*
Arthur R. Bowman Bonneville
Bliss* Boundary
Brownlee* Duncan
Hells Canyon* Cabinet Gorge
Ice Harbor CJ Strike*
Libby* Hungry Horse
Lower Salmon* Jackson Lake
Milner John Day
Minidoka* Keenleyside*
Noxon Rapids Kerr
O’Sullivan Long Lake
Palisades* McNary
Ririe Owyhee
Salmon Falls Priest Rapids
Revelstoke
Rock Island
Seven Mile
The Dalles
Wanapum
Waneta*
Background
16
Figure 5. Risk of establishment of dreissenid mussels (based on dissolved calcium) for 75 of the most
prominent hydropower facilities in the CRB. Source: Van Hare, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
17
Goal Three PRIORITIZING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MOST PROMINENT COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN HYDROPOWER FACILITIES
Limited financial and staff resources make it impractical to conduct vulnerability assessments on all
hydropower facilities in the CRB in a short period of time. Therefore, this strategy was developed to
initially address the most prominent hydropower structures in the CRB, and generate, from that list,
the highest priority facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments.
Identifying those facilities most vulnerable to establishment of invasive mussels allows managers of
hydropower facilities and the region to prioritize locations where vulnerability assessments should
occur. From the dissolved calcium information that exists for water associated with hydropower
facilities in the CRB, a logical approach is to support vulnerability assessments in two tiers:
Priority One—for those high risk facilities that currently do not have vulnerability assessments planned nor budgeted:
o American Falls o Arthur R. Bowman (an earthfill structure, currently without hydropower facilities) o Ice Harbor o Milner o Noxon Rapids o O’Sullivan o Ririe o Salmon Falls
Priority Two—for those medium risk facilities that currently do not have vulnerability assessments planned nor budgeted:
o Boundary o Duncan o Cabinet Gorge o Hungry Horse o Jackson Lake o Kerr o Long Lake o McNary o Owyhee o Priest Rapids o Revelstoke o Rock Island o Seven Mile o Wanapum
Strategy
18
STRATEGY
A STRATEGY TO REDUCE THE AVERAGE COST OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS FOR PROMINENT HYDROPOWER FACILITIES IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
To reduce the overall cost of vulnerability assessments for high and medium risk hydropower facilities in
the CRB, it is recommended hydropower facility owners work with one another to bundle assessments
(Figure 6), creating efficiencies and reducing overall costs per assessment.
Of the 75 most prominent hydropower facilities within the CRB, a total of 28 facilities are either high or
medium risk for invasive Dreissenid establishment based on mean calcium concentrations of the water in
close proximity to these facilities. Of those 28 facilities, conducting vulnerability assessments by “bundling”
these facilities across ownerships, dam types, purposes, and other characteristics would create efficiencies
and reduce the overall cost of each vulnerability assessment.
As an example, a total of eight of these 28 facilities (Jackson Lake, Ririe, Palisades, Gem State, American
Falls, Minidoka, Salmon Falls, and Milner) are located in the southern portion of the Columbia River
Basin in the Snake River and its tributaries, but outside the range of anadromy. Potentially, vulnerability
assessments could be conducted on each of these facilities for $15,000, for a total of $120,000. To
enhance bundling efficiencies (because it is usually not feasible to conduct eight vulnerability assessments
at one time, particularly if these assessments are conducted by a contractor or an entity other than the
owner), Table 3 provides a listing of the 28 dams and additional characteristics. Based on dam type, dam
purpose, river, ownership and proximity to one another, second tier bundling would result in grouped
assessments as follows:
Milner and Salmon Falls
Jackson Lake, Palisades, and Ririe
American Falls, Gem State, and Minidoka
McNary, Ice Harbor, Priest Rapids, Wanapum, O’Sullivan, and Rock Island, all Columbia River sites
within fairly close proximity to one another, could potentially be bundled. Because these facilities, with the
exception of O’Sullivan, are within the range of anadromy, it is estimated that each assessment would cost
about $30,000. Thus, it is estimated these six vulnerability assessments could be completed for a total of
$180,000. Second tier bundling would result in the following grouping of assessments:
Ice Harbor and McNary
Priest Rapids, Rock Island, and Wanapum
O’Sullivan would not be bundled with any other facility.
Strategy
19
The Arthur R. Bowman facility is somewhat isolated relative to nearby facilities with any level of risk,
however, given that it is an earthfill dam and is located outside the range of anadromy, it is estimated a
vulnerability assessment could be completed on it for about $10,000.
Long Lake, Noxon Rapids, Kerr, Cabinet Gorge, and Hungry Horse are within close proximity to one
another. Hungry Horse and Kerr are on the Flathead River, Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge are on the
Clark Fork, and Long Lake is on the Spokane River. All are located outside the range of anadromy,
therefore, it is estimated that if these assessments were bundled, each could be completed for $15,000 for
a total cost of $75,000. Second tier bundling would result in the following grouping of assessments:
Long Lake, Noxon Rapids, and Cabinet Gorge
Kerr and Hungry Horse would not be bundled with any other facility.
Boundary, Seven Mile, Waneta (consisting of both the dam and generating station as well as the expansion
generating station), Brilliant (consisting of both the dam and generating station as well as the expansion
generating station), and Arrow Lakes Generating Station and Keenleyside Dam are located within close
proximity to one another and are located outside the range of anadromy. It is estimated vulnerability
assessments could be completed at Boundary, Seven Mile, and Brilliant (2 facilities) for $15,000 each.
Waneta consists of two facilities – the dam VA is estimated to cost $15,000, while the expansion, because it
is in construction, is estimated to cost $2,000. The estimate for Kennleyside Dam is $5,000, with the
associated Arrow Lakes Generating Station $10,000. Second tier bundling might result in the following
grouping of assessments:
Boundary, Seven Mile
Brilliant, Keenleyside Dam (as well as Arrow Lakes Generating Station), Waneta,, and Corra Lynn Dam and Generating Station (not on the original list of 75 most prominent dams)
Mica and Revelstoke are located in the northern portion of the CRB outside the range of anadromy. It is
estimated vulnerability assessments could be bundled and completed at these facilities for $10,000 each, for
a total of $20,000. Duncan would not be bundled with any other facility—a vulnerability assessment is
estimated at $15,000. Second tier bundling would result in the following grouping of assessments:
Mica and Revelstoke
Duncan would not be bundled with any other facility
It is estimated the cost to conduct remaining vulnerability assessments for high and medium risk prominent
hydropower facilities in the CRB is $502,000 (Table 4).
Strategy
20
Table 3. Characteristics of 25 high and medium risk hydropower facilities in the CRB.
Dam Name Dam Type Dam Purpose River Owner/Operator American Falls Concrete, Gravity Irrigation, Hydroelectric,
Recreation Snake River
US Bureau of Reclamation
Gem State Concrete, Rockfill, Gravity
Hydroelectric, Irrigation Snake River Idaho Falls
Minidoka Earth Water supply Snake River
US Bureau of Reclamation
Jackson Lake Concrete, Gravity Water supply Snake River
US Bureau of Reclamation
Palisades Earth Irrigation, Hydroelectric, Flood Control and Stormwater Management, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife
Snake River US Bureau of Reclamation
Ririe Earth, Rockfill Flood Control and Stormwater Management, Irrigation, Recreation
Willow Creek
US Bureau of Reclamation
Salmon Falls Concrete, Arch Water Supply, Irrigation
Salmon Falls Creek
Salmon River Canal Company
Milner Rockfill, Roller-compacted concrete, Concrete
Irrigation, Hydroelectric, Recreation
Snake River Milner Dam, Inc.
Ice Harbor Concrete, Gravity, Earth Navigation, Hydroelectric, Recreation, Irrigation, Fish and Wildlife Pond
Snake River USACE Walla Walla District
McNary Concrete, Gravity, Earth Navigation, Hydroelectric, Flood Control and Stormwater Management, Recreation, Irrigation, Fish and Wildlife Pond
Columbia River
USACE Walla Walla District
O’Sullivan Earth Flood Control and Stormwater Management, Navigation, Irrigation, Hydroelectric
Crab Creek US Bureau of Reclamation
Priest Rapids Gravity, Rockfill, Concrete
Hydroelectric, Flood Control and Stormwater Management, Recreation
Columbia River
Grant County PUD
Rock Island Gravity Hydroelectric, Flood Control and Stormwater Management
Columbia River
Chelan County PUD
Wanapum Gravity, Rockfill, Concrete
Hydroelectric, Flood Control and Stormwater Management, Recreation
Columbia River
Grant County PUD
Hungry Horse Concrete Arch Irrigation, Hydroelectric, Flood Control and Stormwater Management
Flathead River
US Bureau of Reclamation
Kerr Arch, Gravity, Earth Hydroelectric, Recreation Flathead
River PPL Montana/Tribal
Strategy
21
*[Note: The order indicates the relative decreasing importance of the purpose. Codes are listed in order of priority
purpose, e.g., the first purpose listed indicates the primary purpose, followed by secondary and tertiary purposes,
etc.]
Long Lake Gravity, Concrete Hydroelectric, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife
Spokane River
Avista
Cabinet Gorge Arch Hydroelectric, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife
Clark Fork Avista
Noxon Rapids Gravity, Earth Hydroelectric, Recreation, Fish and Wildlife
Clark Fork Avista
Boundary Concrete, Arch, Gravity Hydroelectric, Recreation Pend
Oreille River
Seattle, Washington
Seven Mile Concrete, Gravity Hydroelectric Pend
Oreille River
BC Hydro
Waneta Dam Concrete, Gravity Hydroelectric Pend
Oreille River
FortisBC/Teck
Waneta Expansion Project (in construction)
Pend
Oreille River
FortisBC/Columbia Power/Columbia
Basin Trust
Brilliant Concrete Hydroelectric Kootenay
River
Owned by Columbia Power/Columbia
Basin Trust; operated by
FortisBC
Keenleyside Concrete, Gravity, Earthfill
Hydroelectric Columbia
River BC Hydro
Duncan Earthfill Water supply Duncan
River BC Hydro
Revelstoke Concrete Hydroelectric Columbia
River BC Hydro
Mica Earthfill Hydroelectric Columbia
River BC Hydro
Strategy
22
Table 4. Estimated cost to complete vulnerability assessments on high and medium risk prominent
hydropower facilities in the Columbia River Basin by bundling facilities within close proximity to one another.
Bundled Hydropower Facilities
Total Cost
Milner and Salmon Falls $30,000
Jackson Lake, Palisades, and Ririe $45,000
American Falls, Gem State, and Minidoka $45,000
Ice Harbor and McNary $60,000
Priest Rapids, Rock Island, and Wanapum $90,000
O’Sullivan $30,000
Arthur R. Bowman $10,000
Long Lake, Noxon Rapids, and Cabinet Gorge $45,000
Kerr $15,000
Hungry Horse $15,000
Boundary, Seven Mile $30,000
Brilliant (2 facilities @ $15K each), Keenleyside Dam ($5K) and Arrow Lakes Generating Station ($10K), and Waneta (2 facilities – Dam
@$15K and Expansion at $2K) $62,000
Mica and Revelstoke $20,000
Duncan $15,000
TOTAL $512,000
Appendices
23
Figure 6. Proposed bundling of major Columbia River dams.
Appendices
24
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. ADOBE FORMSCENTRAL SURVEY TOOL TO DOCUMENT STATUS OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR QUAGGA/ZEBRA MUSSELS: A SURVEY
BACKGROUND
Quagga and zebra mussels are the most economically damaging aquatic organisms to invade the United
States, costing an estimated $5 billion in prevention and control efforts since their arrival in the late
1980’s. Because of the threat posed by these invasive mussels to the Northwest, there is a compelling
need to define and implement a region-wide prevention and response strategy. Recognizing this need,
The Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland
State University Center for Lakes and Reservoirs, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
sponsored a workshop on May 15, 2013 entitled, “Preventing an Invasion: Building a Regional Defense
against Quagga and Zebra Mussels”. The workshop convened 90 individuals representing Canadian
and Pacific Northwest irrigation and water districts, water suppliers, legislators, state and federal
agencies, tribal sovereign nations, nonprofit organizations, recreational boating interests, consortiums,
and others in Vancouver, Washington. The workshop developed a set of action items addressing the
challenges and barriers to prevent the introduction of invasive mussels to the Pacific Northwest.
One of the actions from the Preventing an Invasion meeting was to "coordinate/prioritize needed
assessment and mitigation response efforts at hydro/raw water projects and facilitate sharing of
information among affected areas and uninfested areas.”
A Vulnerability Assessment Team (VAT) comprised of Federal (BOR, USACE, BPA), Canadian
(FortisBC, e.g.) and other (Idaho Power, EWEB, e.g.) hydroelectric entities has been formed to assist
with this effort. The VAT has initially been tasked to determine the status of vulnerability assessments
in the Columbia River Basin.
Please take a moments to fill out the survey below. Once a comprehensive list has been developed, it
will be shared on a password protected site at Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Appendices
25
SURVEY
NAME
PHONE NUMBER
DATE
1. What is the name of your agency?
2. What is the name of your facility, and where is it located within the Columbia River Basin?
3. To your knowledge, has a Vulnerability Assessment been undertaken for the facility you described in
question #1?
YES
NO
4. If the answer to question #3 was yes, please provide a hyperlink to the assessment (to the right) or
provide a copy of the assessment (below) as an attachment.
5. If the answer to question #3 was "No," is a vulnerability assessment planned and budgeted within
the next two years?
YES
NO
6. If the answer to #5 is yes, please provide the estimated date of completion of the planned and
budgeted assessment.
7. Does your organization have any projections for when a vulnerability assessment might be
completed for this facility?
YES
NO
8. If you answered "Yes" to question #7, please provide additional information on your projection
(dates, budget, etc.).
9. Please provide any additional comments you may wish to make about your facility and vulnerability
assessments.
Appendices
26
APPENDIX B. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
System or Structure Name:
Prepared by: Date of Preparation: Using this Document
Prepare one of these sheets for each system or major structure identified in the Deliverables list. For each Item No. below, complete all blank fields (see footnotes for Status and At Risk of Mussels columns).
For some of the components such as valves and strainers there may be several in one system. If more than one component needs to be considered add an extra sheet for that particular component group.
Refer to Appendix C for additional information and suggestions about various systems and components.
Add additional rows as required where you identify items that need to be considered and are not covered elsewhere in the list.
2. Walkthrough Checklist Item
No.
Item Status
3
At Risk
(yes/no)
Comments
1 General for Dams, Reservoirs, Aqueducts 1.1 Are there any membranes, control joints, permeable construction
media, drains, etc. that will let raw water pass?
1.2 Are there any air vents? 1.3 Check if the spillway and appurtenances are always wet or dry
and record duration of dry period.
1.4 How much does the water level (i.e. reservoir water surface
elevation) fluctuate?
1.5 Are all potential water seepage paths inspected on a regular basis?
2 Water Intake Structures 2.1 Types of intake structures present (more than one may be present):
2.1.1 Open Canal Direct into Facility (concrete) 2.1.2 Open Canal Direct into Facility (other material-
specify)
2.1.3 Forebay (specify lining material) 2.1.4 Tower (specify construction material) 2.1.5 Submerged Tunnel or pipe intake (specify construction
material)
2.1.6 Penstock intakes (specify construction material)
2.1.7 Fish Barriers 2.2 Is the floor of any intake structures likely to be covered with silt or
sediment?
2.3 Are any structures duplicated to provide a back up? 2.4 What is the flow velocity range in the structure? 2.5 Is the structure accessible for inspection or maintenance?
3 Enter one of the following: C (Complete), P (Partially Complete), A (Absent); Y (Yes), N (No); NA (Not Applicable)
Appendices
27
2. Walkthrough Checklist
Item
No.
Item
Status3 At Risk
(yes/no)
2.6 Are there any shutdowns to provide easy access and what is their
frequency?
2.7 Are there scheduled maintenance cycles and what are their frequencies? 3 Trash Racks, Grates, Screens 3.1 Record spacing, size and material of trash rack bars. 3.2 Are trash racks fixed or easily removable for maintenance? 3.3 Is there a planned maintenance frequency for the trash racks? If so what
is interval?
3.4 Is there a trash rake or other style of cleaning system? 3.5 Are the rake fingers sufficiently large to remove mussels from sides
of trash rack bars?
3.6 Record location, material, size and grid spacing of any small intake grates. 3.7 Are grates fixed or removable for easy maintenance? 3.8 Check if grates at bottom of pipes or channels get covered with silt or
sediment.
3.9 Record location, material, size and grid spacing of any screens. 3.10 Are screens fixed or removable for easy maintenance? 4 Wells and Sumps 4.1 Location and material of constructions of wells. 4.2 Identify level fluctuations in pump wells. 4.3 Distance of pump suction from bottom of wells. Will pump ingest shells
that are transported along the floor into the well?
4.4 Location and material of constructions of sumps. 4.5 Is there a float or other instrumentation in sump that could become
covered with mussels?
4.6 Frequency of sump inspection by plant staff. 5 Pumps and Turbines 5.1 Is pump motor or turbine generator water or air cooled? Water
cooled motors are at risk.
5.2 Can mussel shells get into wear ring gaps? 5.3 Does pump have a mechanical seal? 5.4 How is the seal flushed during start-up? 5.5 How is the seal flushed during normal running? 5.6 Does the turbine or pump have a stuffing box? 5.7 Is there a stuffing box lantern ring or other cavity for cooling and
flushing water?
5.8 How is the ring flushed during start-up? 5.9 How is the ring flushed during normal running? 5.10 Check if the motor bearings have water cooled lubrication? 5.11 Check if the pump has water cooled bearings? 5.12 Can mussel shells get into the water lubricated bearing passages?
Appendices
28
2. Walkthrough Checklist
Item
No.
Item 3
Status At Risk
(yes/no)
Comments
5.13 Do seal or stuffing box cavities have a means of monitoring or
inspection?
5.14 Can seals or stuffing box be cleaned without removing motor? 6 Piping 6.1 Identify materials of construction for piping. 6.2 What is flow velocity range in piping? 6.3 How much time is velocity above 6 ft/sec? 6.4 How much time is velocity below 6 ft/sec? 6.5 Are there any offsets or changes in pipe diameter? 7 Instrument Tubing and Instruments 7.1 Identify any small diameter lines (2” diameter or less)
including material of construction such as:
7.1.1 Flow measurement taps 7.1.2 Piezometer taps 7.1.3 Pressure taps 7.1.4 Sample lines 7.1.5 Pressure balance lines 7.1.6 Other - specify 8 Heat Exchangers 8.1 Identify material of construction of plenum. 8.2 Identify material of construction of tubing. 8.3 What is diameter of tubing? 8.4 What is flow velocity range in tubing? 9 Valves 9.1 Identify all normally open (NO) valves. 9.2 Can NO valves fail to seal properly if valve seat or valve face
becomes mussel coated?
9.3 Identify all normally closed (NC) valves 9.4 Can NC valves fail to open if valve face becomes coated with
mussels?
9.5 What is throat diameter of valve? Is it small enough to become plugged by mussel shells?
10 Strainers and Filters 10.1 Identify the style of strainer, material of construction of strainer body and
basket as well as the size of the
basket pores. Typical styles are:
10.1.1 Fixed In-line strainer 10.1.2 Duplex strainer 10.1.3 Self-cleaning strainer 10.1.4 Wye (Y) strainer 10.1.5 Other type - specify 10.2 Identify the style of filter, material of construction of body and filter
element, as well as the size of the filter pores. Typical styles are:
Appendices
29
2. Walkthrough Checklist
Item
No.
Item 3
Status At Risk
(yes/no)
Comments
10.2.1 Self-cleaning filter 10.2.2 Replaceable cartridge filter 10.2.3 Other type - specify
Name
Title
Tel [Telephone]
Fax [Fax]
[Email Address]
