STRATEGIES TO CONDUCT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS FOR HIGH PRIORITY BASIN AND FACILITIES

Lisa A. DeBruyckere and Stephen H. Phillips BUILDING A REGIONAL DEFENSE AGAINST INVASIVE MUSSELS

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

April 2014

Table of Contents

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

i

Background

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 , 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 Economic Region, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, State University Center for Lakes and , 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, . 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.

1

Background

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.

2

Background

Vulnerability Assessment Team Because every facility has a number of unique features, a site person familiar Members 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 Lisa DeBruyckere, Creative Resource and other key information can be used under most circumstances and for the Strategies, LLC most common assets to assist in implementing a facility assessment. (Coordinator) Dave Arbaugh, Arbaugh Associates Arnie Aspelund, Puget VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TEAM Sound Energy Chris Brueske, Whatcom County The VAT was created in July 2013 and consists of 33 individuals (see sidebar Lori Campbell, PGN Renata Claudi, RNT to the left) representing both public and private hydropower facilities in the Consulting Pacific Northwest. David DeRosa, Teck Metals, LTD The VAT was tasked with three specific goals: Hannah Dondy-Kaplan, BPA 1. Determine status of vulnerability assessments at key hydropower projects in Tom Dresser, Public Utility the Columbia River Basin (CRB). No. 2 of Grant County, WA Tim Dykstra, USACE 2. Determine the risk of these hydropower projects to zebra and quagga mussel Todd Gatewood, GE Power and Water establishment. Micah Goo, Centralia City and Light 3. Create a planning document that recommends the highest priority needs for Ritchie Graves, NOAA vulnerability assessments and the costs associated with completing them. 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, City Light Jared Rubin, EWEB Michael Stephenson, Power Sheila Street, FortisBC Andrew Talabere, EWEB Krista Watts, Columbia Power Steve Wells, PSU 3 Leonard Willett, USBR on the Columbia River. Photo credit: US Army Corps of Engineers archives. Background

IMPLEMENTATION

SELECTING HYDROPOWER FACILITIES TO SURVEY

The National Inventory of 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. 4

Background

Figure 2. Locations of 75 of the most prominent dams in the CRB by ownership. Source: Van Hare, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

5

Background

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, North Fork Dam Clackamas River Portland General Electric Clark Fork Avista Noxon Rapids Dam Clark Fork Avista Dworshak Dam Clearwater River USACE Columbia River BC Hydro Columbia River BC Hydro Bonneville Dam Columbia River USACE Columbia River US BOR Columbia River USACE Columbia River USACE Columbia River Douglas County PUD Columbia River BC Hydro McNary Dam Columbia River USACE Columbia River Chelan County PUD Dam Columbia River USACE Columbia River Grant County PUD Columbia River Grant County PUD 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), Powerhouse (Kootenay), Lower Bonnington (Kootenay), Upper Bonnington (Kootenay), Aberfeldie (Kootenay), Elko (Kootenay), and Powerhouse (Kootenay), Kootenay (Kootenay), Smith Creek Hydroelectric Project (), 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). 6

Background

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 River BC Hydro Kerr Dam Flathead River PPL /Tribal Hungry Horse Dam Flathead River US BOR Kootenay River Columbia Power Corporation (Fortis BC is owner representative) 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 FortisBC/Teck Cominco Pend Oreille River Seattle, Washington Pend Oreille River USACE Pend Oreille River BC Hydro Mason Dam Powder River US BOR 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 Idaho Falls, Idaho Snake River Company Snake River Idaho Power Company C.J. Strike Dam Snake River Idaho Power Company Lower Granite Lock and Dam Snake River USACE Snake River Idaho Power Company Dam Snake River US BOR Snake River US BOR Snake River Milner Dam, Inc Snake River Idaho Power Company 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 Snake River US BOR 7

Background

Structure Name River Owner 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.

8

Background

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. 9

Background

Status of CRB Vulnerability Assessments

Completed

Planned and Budgeted

No information received Not planned/budgeted

System walkthroughs

Completed Planned and Budgeted Not planned/budgeted

System walkthroughs No information received

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).

10

Background

Figure 4. Locations of hydropower structures with completed vulnerability assessments, and vulnerability

11

Background

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 ($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.

12

Background

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.

13

Background

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. 14

Background

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 Medium Risk Facilities 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*

15

Background

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. 16

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

17

Strategy

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.

18

Strategy

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).

19

Strategy

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, US Bureau of Snake River Recreation Reclamation Gem State Concrete, Rockfill, Hydroelectric, Irrigation Snake River Idaho Falls Gravity Minidoka Earth US Bureau of Water supply Snake River Reclamation Jackson Lake Concrete, Gravity US Bureau of Water supply Snake River Reclamation Palisades Earth Irrigation, Hydroelectric, US Bureau of Flood Control and Snake River Reclamation Stormwater Management, Ririe Earth, Rockfill FloodRecreation, Control Fish and and Wildlife Willow US Bureau of Stormwater Management, Creek Reclamation Irrigation, Recreation Salmon Falls Concrete, Arch Salmon Salmon River Canal Water Supply, Irrigation Falls Creek Company Milner Rockfill, Roller- Irrigation, Hydroelectric, Snake River Milner Dam, Inc. compacted concrete, Recreation Concrete Ice Harbor Concrete, Gravity, Earth Navigation, Hydroelectric, Snake River USACE Walla Walla Recreation, Irrigation, Fish District and Wildlife Pond McNary Concrete, Gravity, Earth Navigation, Hydroelectric, Columbia USACE Walla Walla Flood Control and River District Stormwater Management, Recreation, Irrigation, Fish O’Sullivan Earth Flood Control and US Bureau of and Wildlife Pond Crab Creek Stormwater Management, Reclamation Navigation, Irrigation, Hydroelectric Priest Rapids Gravity, Rockfill, Hydroelectric, Flood Control Columbia Grant County PUD Concrete and Stormwater River Management, Recreation Rock Island Gravity Hydroelectric, Flood Control Columbia Chelan County PUD and Stormwater Management River Wanapum Gravity, Rockfill, Hydroelectric, Flood Control Columbia Grant County PUD Concrete and Stormwater River Management, Recreation

Irrigation, Hydroelectric, Flathead US Bureau of Hungry Horse Concrete Arch Flood Control and River Reclamation Stormwater Management Hydroelectric, Recreation Flathead Kerr Arch, Gravity, Earth PPL Montana/Tribal River 20

Strategy

Hydroelectric, Recreation, Spokane Long Lake Gravity, Concrete Avista Fish and Wildlife River Hydroelectric, Recreation, Clark Fork Avista Cabinet Gorge Arch Fish and Wildlife Hydroelectric, Recreation, Clark Fork Noxon Rapids Gravity, Earth Avista Fish and Wildlife

Pend Boundary Concrete, Arch, Gravity Hydroelectric, Recreation Oreille Seattle, Washington River Pend Seven Mile Concrete, Gravity Hydroelectric Oreille BC Hydro River Pend Waneta Dam Concrete, Gravity Hydroelectric Oreille FortisBC/Teck River Waneta Pend FortisBC/Columbia Expansion Oreille Power/Columbia Project (in River Basin Trust construction) Owned by Columbia Power/Columbia Kootenay Brilliant Concrete Hydroelectric Basin Trust; River operated by FortisBC Concrete, Gravity, Columbia Keenleyside Hydroelectric BC Hydro Earthfill River

Duncan Duncan Earthfill Water supply BC Hydro River Columbia Revelstoke Concrete Hydroelectric BC Hydro River Columbia Mica Earthfill Hydroelectric BC Hydro River

*[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.]

21

Strategy

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

22

Appendices

Figure 6. Proposed bundling of major Columbia River dams. 23

Appendices

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.

24

Appendices

SURVEY

NAME PHONE NUMBER E-mail 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.

25

Appendices

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 At Risk Item Comments No. Status3 (yes/no) 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. 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)

26

Appendices

2. Walkthrough Checklist Item 3 At Risk Item Status No. (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?

27

Appendices

2. Walkthrough Checklist

Item Status3 At Risk Item No. (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) 7.1.1 including Flowmaterial measurem of constructient tapson such as: 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 10.1.1  Fixed In-line strainer basket pores. Typical styles are: 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: 28

Appendices

2. Walkthrough Checklist

Item Status 3 At Risk Item Comments No. (yes/no) 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]

29