STRATEGIES TO CONDUCT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS FOR HIGH PRIORITY COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN HYDROPOWER AND DAM 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 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. 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, Seattle City Light Jared Rubin, EWEB Michael Stephenson, Idaho Power Sheila Street, FortisBC Andrew Talabere, EWEB Krista Watts, Columbia Power Steve Wells, PSU 3 Leonard Willett, USBR Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. Photo credit: US Army Corps of Engineers archives. Background 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. 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