Attachment_11-2018_RO_M_Coleman_National_Fish_Hatchery_Report_0001.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region May 2, 2018

2018 Review of Operation and Maintenance (RO&M)

Coleman National Fish Hatchery Central Valley Project, CA Mid-Pacific Region

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

U.S. Department of the Interior Mission Statement

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Tribes and our commitments to island communities.

Mission of the

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

Coleman National Fish Hatchery May 2, 2018 2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 1 of 9

REVIEW OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Coleman National Fish Hatchery

Central Valley Project, CA

MID-PACIFIC REGION

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

This report covers the findings of the Coleman National Fish Hatchery Review of Operation and Maintenance (RO&M) examination conducted on May 2, 2015. It reflects conditions at the time of the inspection and generally does not include any changed conditions that may have occurred since that time. This inspection focused on the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the facility in addition to any safety concerns.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is performing O&M of the hatchery in a satisfactory manner. There are some operational concerns with Intakes 2 and 3 that need to be discussed with the Norther California Area Office (NCAO) and resolved in a timely manner. Those concerns are discussed below. Preliminary findings and recommendations were discussed with NCAO and FWS at the conclusion of the inspection.

This inspection generated no new Category 1, one new Category 2, and one new Category 3 O&M recommendations. In addition, there are two Category 2 O&M recommendations that remain incomplete and no Category 3 O&M recommendations that were not addressed and are reissued.

INSPECTION DATA

Date of Last Inspection:

April 7, 2015

Date of This Inspection

May 2, 2018

Inspection Team:

Paul Caruso, Civil Engineer (Report Author) Facilities Engineering Branch, Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation

John Zimmerman, P.E., Civil Engineer Facilities Engineering Branch, Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation

Edward Wang, Ph.D., P.E., Civil Engineer Northern California Area Office

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 2 of 9

Derek Rupert, Fish Biologist Northern California Area Office Bureau of Reclamation

Mark Ahrens, Facility Management Coordinator Regional Office Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR

Brett Gaylean, Project Leader Coleman National Fish Hatchery Fish and Wildlife Service

Joe Livesay, Supv. Facility Operations Spec. Coleman National Fish Hatchery Fish and Wildlife Service

Weather: Clear, 55-70 deg

SPECIAL INFORMATION

Special Inspections:

46-inch conduit Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) Inspection performed on September 2000.

“SmartBall” remote inspection of 36-inch PVC pipe between Expanded Intake No. 1 and Intake No.

3, Pure Technologies, April 7, 2010.

Underwater inspection of fish screens, Intake No. 3, Pacific Northwest Region dive team, July 31, 2011.

Special Documents:

Designers' Operating Criteria None

Standing Operating Procedures None

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Coleman National Fish Hatchery is situated on Battle Creek in northern California, approximately 9.6 road miles from the town of Cottonwood, California. The hatchery was constructed by Reclamation in 1942 to mitigate the loss of natural spawning areas for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout due to construction of Shasta and Keswick Dams. The hatchery objectives include hatching and rearing steelhead trout and three of the four runs of Chinook salmon that return to the Sacramento River.

These objectives contribute to the preservation of the upper Sacramento River commercial and sport fishery of Chinook salmon and steelhead trout.

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 3 of 9

In 1948, Reclamation transferred the hatchery to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for “full custody, jurisdiction, and responsibility”. Under the current Interagency Agreement between FWS and Reclamation, dated March 19, 1993, FWS continues to operate and maintain the hatchery while Reclamation assumes responsibility for all hatchery costs. The Northern California Area Office (NCAO) administers Reclamation’s responsibilities in regard to the Interagency Agreement.

A barrier dam, or weir, on Battle Creek at the hatchery complex directs incoming fish to a fish ladder that leads to the hatchery crowding pool and holding ponds in the spawning building. The barrier dam and fish ladder were constructed in 2008 to replace original structures. The spawning building houses two indoor ponds approximately 80 feet by 40 feet by 10 feet deep with a hydraulic lift system able to handle and spawn up to 2,000 adult fish daily. Additionally, the spawning building contains a visitor viewing area. Raw water is pumped from Battle Creek to the spawning building.

Eggs harvested from fish at the spawning building are transferred to the 232-foot by 99-foot hatchery building. The hatchery building encloses 178 incubator units that contain a total of 2,670 trays; each tray holds approximately 7,000 eggs. The hatchery building also encloses 67 fiberglass rearing tanks, each 16 feet long by 4 feet wide by 2 feet deep. Treated water from the hatchery water treatment facility is supplied to the hatchery building to prevent disease.

Young fish are transferred from the rearing tanks in the hatchery building to the 58 outdoor concrete rearing units (raceways). Thirty of the raceways measure 80 feet long by 8 feet wide by 2 feet deep, and are commonly referred to as nursery ponds. The other 28 raceways are larger, measuring 150 feet long by 15 feet wide by 3 feet deep, and are commonly referred to as rearing ponds. Treated water from the hatchery water treatment facility is also supplied to all of the raceways to prevent disease.

In addition to the raw water pumped to the spawning building from Battle Creek discussed above, water is supplied to the hatchery via three intakes upstream from the facility. Intake No. 1 is located within the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Coleman Powerhouse tailrace approximately 1.1 miles east-northeast from the center of the hatchery complex, and includes intakes for the original 46-inch diameter water supply pipe, and for the 36-inch diameter polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe installed by Reclamation in 2008. The intake for the 36-inch diameter PVC pipe is referred to as Expanded Intake No. 1. Intake No. 2 is an auxiliary intake to the original 46-inch diameter supply pipe, and is located on the left (as the viewer faces downstream) bank of Battle Creek, approximately 485 feet southwest from Intake No. 1. Intake No. 3 is located on the right bank of Battle Creek approximately 0.8 mile east-northeast from the center of the hatchery complex.

Water is released to the original 46-inch-diameter concrete pipe via a manually-operated slide gate at Intake No. 1. The 46-inch-diameter pipe is approximately 2,700 feet long, and discharges at a canal headworks located southwest from Intake No. 1. The discharge capacity of the 46-inch pipe is approximately 75 cubic feet per second (cfs). The canal, commonly referred to as the water supply canal, is an unlined earthen canal approximately 3,900 feet long. The water supply canal formerly provided raw water to the hatchery complex; water from the water supply canal is now selectively withdrawn to either the water treatment settling basins or filtration basins discussed below. The water supply canal also conveys water for a senior water right at property located downstream from the hatchery.

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 4 of 9

The Expanded Intake No. 1 releases water to the 36-inch diameter PVC pipe installed in 2008; the 36-inch PVC pipe is approximately 1,954 feet long, and is tied in to a 48-inch diameter steel pipe that was reportedly installed in the 1960’s in the vicinity of Intake No. 3.

Intake No. 2 is an auxiliary intake to the original 46-inch-diameter concrete pipe, equipped with a manually-operated slide gate that is normally kept closed. Intake No. 2 is hydraulically lower than Intake No 1; a one-way flap valve prevents backflow from the 46-inch pipe.

Intake No. 3 is a concrete structure with four intake portals, each equipped with an electric motor driven rotating fish screen. A weir across Battle Creek and a small fish ladder is also constructed at Intake No. 3. Water drawn from Battle Creek through Intake No. 3 enters the 48-inch diameter steel pipe discussed above. The 48-inch pipe is approximately 4,600 feet long, and conveys water from Intake No. 3 and from the 36-inch PVC pipe from Expanded Intake No. 1 to two water-treatment settling basins located west-southwest from Intake No. 3. The discharge capacity of the 48-inch steel pipe is approximately 33 cfs. The asphalt concrete lined settling basins are approximately150 feet long by 75 feet wide by 3 feet deep, and are for initial treatment of incoming water. Water can also be supplied to the settling basins by the water supply canal via a 30-inch-diameter steel pipe. FWS automated Intake No. 3 to take water from Battle Creek when the water level in the water supply canal drops below the minimum level required to meet hatchery water demands.

A water treatment filtration station is located on the north (right) bank of Battle Creek near the northeast corner of the hatchery complex. The filtration system consists of a series of four concrete filter bays, which contain sand/anthracite/gravel filter beds and self-cleaning machinery. Water is supplied to the filtration station by pumping either directly from the water supply canal or from the settling basins discussed above.

Water from the filtration station is then piped to an ozone treatment station located approximately 150 feet south from the filtration station on the opposite side of the water supply canal. The ozone treatment station is capable of treating 30,000 gallons per minute (gpm) with a ten minute detention time prior to degassing.

The balance of the water delivery system consists of the piping from the ozone station to the hatchery building and rearing units, and the discharge piping system from the rearing units to the pollution abatement lagoon located at the western edge of the hatchery complex.

Electrical power is supplied to the hatchery by a substation located a short distance east from the filtration station at the northeast corner of the hatchery complex. The substation is owned by FWS;

however, Reclamation administers an annual contract with Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) to perform maintenance and inspections of the substation. The substation single transformer steps power from 60,000 volts to 12,500 volts. This transformer also contains 2,520 gallons of oil.

A 2,000-kW diesel engine-generator located immediately southwest from the electrical substation provides auxiliary electrical power to the facility. A smaller auxiliary diesel engine-generator is located adjacent to Intake No. 3, and supplies auxiliary electrical power for that intake structure. An

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 5 of 9 additional engine-generator within the ozone production building supplies auxiliary power to pumps, lights, the traveling filter cleaning equipment at the filtration station, and other facilities at the hatchery.

Other features included at the hatchery complex are a cold-storage building with a cool room and freezer for fish feed, a truck garage, maintenance shops, a storage building (the former chiller building), and an administration building. Abandoned water treatment facilities are located at the southwest corner of the hatchery complex.

INSPECTION DETAILS

Features Inspected:

• Barrier Dam and Fish Ladder

• Fish Crowding Ponds

• Spawning Building – holding ponds, visitor viewing area

• Hatchery Building

• Raceway Ponds – 58 total (30 nursery ponds, 28 rearing ponds)

• Water Supply Intake 1 – 46-inch Concrete Water Supply Pipe and 36-inch PVC Water Supply

Pipe (Expanded Intake)

• Water Supply Intake 2 – 46-inch Concrete Water Supply Pipe

• Water Supply Intake 3 – Motor-driven rotating fish screens, 48-inch Steel Water Supply Pipe and 36-inch PVC Water Supply Pipe

• Water Supply Canal – 30-inch steel Water Supply Pipe, intake to the Water Supply Canal

Pumping Station

• Water Treatment Settling Basins – Settling Basin Pumping Station

• Water Treatment Filtration Station

• Ozone Treatment Station – Ozone Contact Treatment Building

• Canal Bridge

• Pollution Abatement Lagoons

• Auxiliary Generators – 2000 kW for the facility; one at Intake 3, one at the Ozone Treatment

Building

• Freezer/Food Storage/Chemical Storage Building

• Truck Garage

• Maintenance/Shop Building (former Ozone Treatment Building) – Battery charging station

• Storage Building (former Maintenance/Shop Building)

• Administration Building

• Roads and parking areas

• Site security

Features Not Inspected:

• Power Substation

• Abandoned Water Treatment Facilities

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 6 of 9

Note: The photos used in this report have an incorrect date stamp on them of 1/24/2018. All photos in this report were taken during the RO&M inspection on May 2, 2018.

Intake No. 1 and Expanded Intake No. 1

The visible portions of the concrete structure were in satisfactory condition with no significant cracking, spalling, deterioration, damage, or other unusual conditions. There are no operational concerns with the gate or hoist. Security fencing was intact and in satisfactory condition. Corrosion on visible portions of the trash racks was minimal. Undercutting of the concrete that was placed for erosion protection, observed during the last RO&M inspection (Photo 1), still exists, but the size of the hole does not appear to have changed. It is recommended that gravel be placed in this hole to determine if it will continue to settle. This is not a structural concern; nor will it affect the structural integrity of the structure; therefore, a recommendation is not issued.

Intake No. 2

Intake 2 was observed from Intake 1. FWS indicated that there were no issues with the intake, except for the one-way flap valve that appears to be malfunctioning. Water flowing through the 46-inch pipeline from Intake 1 backflows through Intake 2 (Figure 1). During spawning season, this causes spawning salmon to… FWS: PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITE-UP DESCRIBING WHY THIS FLAP

VALVE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED. ARE THERE ANY DRAWINGS

SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THIS FLAP VALVE? Without the flap valve in place and operating the back flow of water from Intake 1 out of Intake 2 can be an attraction flow for migrating adult salmonids thus delaying their migration further up Battle Creek.

Upstream of Intake 1 on Battle Creek… FWS: PLEASE PROVIDE A WRITE-UP DESCRIBING

WHAT IS OCCURRING UPSTREAM THAT WILL CREATE A SITUATION WHERE SMALL

FISH WILL GET SUCKED INTO INTAKE 2, PROVIDING JUSTIFICATION FOR INSTALLING

A TRAVELLING SCREEN ON THE INTAKE

In 1999, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was signed committing each partner to the Restoration Project. The Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project will be among the largest cold water fish restoration efforts in North America, restoring approximately 42 miles of habitat in Battle Creek, and additional 6 miles of tributaries habitat. The Bureau of Reclamation is lead Federal agency for the Restoration project that will remove five hydroelectric diversion dams, place new screens and ladders on three other dams and increase stream flow in the north and south forks of Battle Creek. Once completed the Restoration Project will provide additional habitat for endangered Winter chinook salmon, threatened Spring Chinook salmon and Steelhead. Therefore having listed species migrating by the hatchery intakes it is imperative the Intake 2 be screened and operating correctly so the hatchery does not take any listed fish species in to the hatchery’s water system.

Formatted: Font: Italic

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 7 of 9

Intake No. 3

Generally speaking, Intake 3 is in satisfactory condition from a structural integrity standpoint, but operationally, this intake seems to be plagued with issues according to FWS. FWS stated that fine sediment that passes through the screens will settle out in a sump immediately downstream of the screens, instead of being flushed through the discharge manifold and into the 48-inch water supply pipeline. Fine sediment builds up at the base of the travelling screen, causing it to FWS: PLEASE

DESCRIBE WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE FISH SCREEN AS A RESULT OF THE BUILD UP

OF SEDIMENT; HOW IS IT GETTING DAMAGED? The build-up of sediment in the sump is difficult to clean out. FWS: PLEASE DESCRIBE OTHER OPERATIONAL ISSUES OR

CONCERNS WITH INTAKE 3 THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF

NCAO.

A RAX project for modifying the travelling fish screens was awarded in 2015 and the work is substantially complete. A new contract for installing a trash rake on Intake 3 was awarded in September 2017 and construction is well underway. This work completes Recommendation 2012-2- A, which was made for providing FWS employees safe access to the Intake No. 3 fish ladder.

Two precast concrete covers on the control deck were broken (Photo 2). For one of the covers, the weight of the cover is bearing on steel reinforcement at one edge, which is not likely to hold up over time. A Category 3 recommendation (2018-3-A) is issued to repair or replace these covers. It is recommended that FWS investigate the cause of this damage; it may have occurred during the current construction work. This is not a safety concern now, but eventually it may become a hazard.

Water Supply Pipelines

Recommendation 2012-2-B was made to establish and maintain a vegetation clearance zone within 15 feet of buried pipelines, and to install pipeline location markers. This recommendation is deleted.

In 2000, the interior pipe was in good condition with no indication that it was not structurally sound, but there were some roots growing through one of the joints. The roots were removed and the joint was sealed. Considering the age of this 46-inch water supply pipeline, root intrusion is minimal; the joints are tight and there is minimal to no concern over roots restricting flow in the pipe. Cutting down numerous well established trees and maintaining a clearance zone cannot be justified. This endeavor would be very costly, especially since it may include a revegetation program (planting new trees to replace trees removed).

Considering the inaccessibility of this pipe, and that it can only be inspected by an ROV, it’s not feasible to inspect it every six years as required by the RO&M program. Structural failure of this pipe is highly unlikely, unless it’s caused by an earthquake. If the pipe were going to fail structurally, it would have failed by now. Typically, failures occur within the first few years after construction, and failure is a result of poor construction methods or material. In the future, if there appears to be a noticeable decrease in flow, then the pipe should be inspected for root intrusion, and the problem addressed, just as it was in 2000.

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 8 of 9

The 48-inch steel pipeline is less likely to have root intrusion, but it is likely to have corrosion, and corrosion can affect the structural integrity of the pipe. Since there’s no record of this pipe being inspected, it would be prudent to determine its condition; however, an ROV inspection is not going to reveal the true condition of the pipe. Surface corrosion may be visible on the interior, but there may be corrosion on the exterior of the pipe, which is not visible unless it is exposed (excavated). An ROV inspection will not reveal thinning (pipe) walls resulting from corrosion. Testing wall thickness is typically done by performing (nondestructive) ultrasonic thickness testing. Someone would have to crawl inside the pipe to perform this type of testing. Performing an interior inspection of this pipe is not necessary. Reclamation has some features that go uninspected, such as siphons. This pipe falls into that category. Essentially, they get pushed to failure and then they’re replaced or repaired.

Water Supply Canal and Canal Bridge

The water supply canal appears to be in satisfactory condition; FWS did not indicate that there were any operational concerns with its ability to deliver water to the hatchery. There were no signs of burrowing animal activity along the canal. FWS takes appropriate measures to eradicate/control burrowing animals as needed. Only a short section at the downstream end of the (approx.) 3,900-foot long canal appears to have trees growing in the embankment that may pose a risk to the integrity of the canal. This section of the canal is also lined with a membrane. Recommendation 2015-2-A was made to develop and implement a plan and schedule to remove trees without disrupting flow requirements at the water supply canal. Removing trees along the entire length of the canal is not necessary. Many of the trees have no impact on the structural integrity of the canal. The Facilities Engineering Branch (MP-430) along with the Northern California Area Office (NCAO) will perform a special inspection of the canal embankment to mark trees for removal. This recommendation will remain incomplete until a plan is in place for tree removal.

The canal bridge was in satisfactory condition. No large cracks, spalls, or other serious damage or deterioration was observed during this examination.

Settling Basins, Water Supply Canal Pump Station, and Filtration Station

The settling basins were in satisfactory condition with no unusual conditions or operational issues.

Pump 5 at the settling basin pumping station was leaking during this exam (Photo 3). Overall, the pump station appeared to be very well maintained by FWS. No recommendation is made for the leaking pump since FWS has a solid maintenance program and addresses issues such as this in a timely manner.

Visible portions of the water supply canal pumping station were in satisfactory condition. There were no operational issues with the travelling screen or pumps. Corrosion on pumps, piping, and other metal features was minimal and not a concern. There were no deficiencies on visible portions of the concrete structure.

The water treatment filtration station was in satisfactory condition with no significant cracking, spalling, deterioration, damage, or other unusual conditions. The same calcium carbonate deposits

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 9 of 9 that were observed during the last RO&M inspection were still present, but none of these hairline cracks were leaking. There are no operational concerns with this filtration station. Coatings on handrails, catwalks, and stairs were in satisfactory condition with little to no corrosion present.

Ozone and Water Treatment Plant

Security fencing around the ozone treatment structure was in satisfactory condition. This structure was inspected from outside of the fencing and it was in satisfactory condition with no concerns. The ozone generation building was in satisfactory condition with no structural issues. Overall, there were no operational concerns with the ozone water treatment plant.

Pollution Abatement Lagoons

There were no operational concerns with the pollution abatement lagoons; they’re functioning as intended.

Barrier Dam and Fish Ladder

The barrier dam and fish ladder were in satisfactory condition with no significant cracking, spalling, deterioration, damage, or other unusual conditions. There are no operational concerns with these features. Fencing and other metalwork were in satisfactory condition with little to no corrosion.

Installation of a warning sign at the barrier dam was discussed. Such a sign would warn the public, particularly kayakers, that passing over the dam could result in injury or drowning. This is not O&M related and therefore, a recommendation will not be issued. NCAO should discuss the concern of safety at the barrier dam with the MP Region safety office.

Spawning Building, Fish Holding Facilities, and Chiller Building

The Spawning Building and Chiller Building were in satisfactory condition with no deficiencies that warrant any concern; the buildings are structurally sound and there are no operational concerns. The fish crowding and pre-release ponds were in satisfactory condition, with no deficiencies that warrant any concern. There are no operational issues with these features.

The pumping station on Neves Creek (for the Spawning Building) was in satisfactory condition with no deficiencies. There are no operational concerns with the pumps and they all appear to be well maintained. The traveling screen at the Neves Creek discharge to Battle Creek was in satisfactory condition. There were no unusual conditions or concerns with these features.

Raceway Ponds

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 10 of 9

The concrete raceway ponds were in satisfactory condition and appear to be structurally sound;

however, some of the joints appear to be leaking and there’s some minor scouring erosion on the walls of the raceways. As observed in the 2015 inspection, the aggregate is exposed and the surface looks like it has been scoured or is eroding (Photo 4). FWS power-washes these ponds in order to keep them clean and the high-pressure washing is likely contributing to the erosion. The erosion is minor, and it wouldn’t normally be a concern, but operationally, the rough surface is very difficult to keep clean. The concrete surfaces must be disinfected and free of all algae, dirt, and organic waste in order to prevent disease. Recommendation 2018-2-A is made for resealing the joints in the raceway ponds, as well as any cracks that may be present. The recommendation also includes applying an ultra-violate resistant lining to the wet areas of the raceway ponds, making them easier to keep clean and free of bacteria. FWS should research best practices for lining the ponds.

The effluent canal that’s used for discharging water from the raceways to Battle Creek is in satisfactory condition, with no operational concerns. Recommendation 2009-2-C was made for removing trees growing near the top of the concrete liner. This recommendation is deleted. Removing these trees is not required, as they do not affect the structural integrity of the canal, nor are they interfering with the operation of the canal. In the future, if it appears that roots are uplifting the liner or damaging it in any way, then removal of the trees will be considered.

Shop/Maintenance Building

The Maintenance Building was in satisfactory condition and structurally sound. There are no operational concerns with this building.

The Battery Charging Station was in satisfactory condition, with no significant issues or concerns.

Hatchery Building

The Hatchery Building was in satisfactory condition and structurally sound. There are no

Former Maintenance/Shop Building

The former Maintenance Building (which is now an open-bay storage building) was in generally satisfactory condition and structurally sound. As mentioned in the previous report, bats congregate in this building and leave behind their excrement. This is still an issue that FWS is still dealing with on a regular basis - cleaning up bat guano. Unless the building is kept closed and all of the holes and crevices are sealed, bats will continue to enter the building and make it their home. No recommendation is made to address this issue at this time.

In 1998, Reclamation performed a seismic evaluation of this building for FWS and determined that it did not meet current seismic code and mitigation is required. The building is currently not scheduled for “RAX funded” seismic upgrades, as mentioned in the previous report. A seismic

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 11 of 9 upgrade for this building is qualified for RAX funding; however, it’s a lower priority project on the RAX list because of the low risk of structural failure or personal injury as a result of an earthquake.

Coleman National Fish Hatchery is in a “lower probability” earthquake hazard zone. Also, it’s not near any known or active faults and will experience lower levels of shaking during an earthquake.

The unreinforced masonry wall that exists is not a structural wall; essentially, it can be removed and not affect the structural integrity of the building. The steel truss roof bears on reinforced concrete columns and walls (Photo 5). If there is an earthquake, personnel should exit the building. FWS might consider installing signs to inform personnel to exit the building during an earthquake. NCAO should pursue another funding source if they wish to proceed with the seismic upgrades.

Freezer/Food Storage/Chemical Storage Building

The Freezer/Food Storage/Chemical Storage Building was in satisfactory condition and structurally sound. There are no operational concerns with this building.

Hatchery Generator Building

The Generator Building was in satisfactory condition and structurally sound. There are no

Parking Lots and Roads

Overall, the bituminous concrete parking lots and roads around the hatchery complex were in satisfactory condition. There were areas that exhibited some alligator cracking, block cracking, longitudinal cracking, open joints, and minor settlement at various locations. FWS intends to perform some preventive maintenance and spot repair/replacement on the roads and parking lots. Preventive maintenance will prevent conditions from worsening and prolong the life of the pavement. No recommendation will be issued for pavement repair or replacement since it’s planned by FWS.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the Coleman National Fish Hatchery is being operated and maintained in a satisfactory manner. There were no issues or concerns that would affect the operation of the facility; however, there are concerns at Intakes 2 and 3 that need to be addressed before they significantly impact the facility. A special inspection of the Water Supply Canal will be performed by MP-430 to identify trees for removal. Once identified, FWS should prepare a plan of action to remove the trees. The current three-year inspection frequency will be increased to a six-year frequency since, overall, the facility is in good condition, there are few incomplete O&M recommendations, FWS is following good O&M practices, and they’re proactive in correcting deficiencies and completing recommendations in a timely manner. The next RO&M inspection should be scheduled for 2024.

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 12 of 9

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 13 of 9

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 14 of 22

RECOMMENDATIONS

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 15 of 22

EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATION CATEGORIES

Category 1: Recommendations involving the correction of severe deficiencies where immediate and responsive action is required to ensure structural safety, operational integrity of a facility, or operating personnel/public safety.

Category 2: Recommendations covering a wide range of important matters where action is needed to prevent or reduce further damage, preclude possible operational failure of a facility, or reduce safety risks to operating personnel/public.

Category 3: Recommendations covering less important matters but believed to be sound and beneficial suggestions to improve or enhance the O&M of the project or facility.

STATUS OF PREVIOUS O&M RECOMMENDATIONS

CATEGORY 1

There are no outstanding Category 1 Recommendations.

CATEGORY 2

2009-2-C Remove trees within 15 feet of the effluent canal.

Status Deleted. Removing these trees is not required as they do not appear to be affecting the structural integrity or the operation of the canal. In the future, if it appears that roots are uplifting the liner or damaging it in any way, then removal of the trees will be considered.

2012-2-A Provide FWS employees safe access to Intake No. 3 Fish Ladder or investigate and develop means or methods to prevent debris from blocking the fish ladder.

Status Complete. A new contract for installing a trash rake on Intake 3 was awarded in

September 2017 and construction is underway.

2012-2-B Establish and maintain a 15-foot vegetation clearance zone on each side of all buried pipelines in accordance with Reclamation guidelines for removal of trees and other vegetative growth and install location markers over the pipelines centerline.

Status Deleted. This recommendation is deleted. Root intrusion in the 46-inch water supply pipeline does not seem to be a problem, not enough to justify cutting down numerous well established trees and maintaining a clearance zone; this would be a very costly endeavor. Structural failure of this pipe is highly unlikely. Considering the inaccessibility of this pipe, and that it can only be inspected by an ROV, it’s not feasible to inspect it every six years as required by the RO&M program. The interior of the pipe will be inspected on an as-needed basis, if there appears to be a noticeable decrease in flow.

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 16 of 22

2012-2-C Update single-line electrical drawings for the hatchery and perform an arc-flash analysis of the hatchery’s electrical system. In the meantime, Reclamation electricians should not be allowed to work at CNFH until electrical drawings get updated and an arc flash assessment is performed.

Status Complete

2012-2-D Provide oil containment to the generator feeder located inside the ozone chamber.

Status Complete.

2012-2-F Replace or repair the transfer switch for the ozone backup generator.

Status Complete

2012-2-K Perform a load test on the hatchery main generator every two years for four hours minimum.

Status Incomplete. At the time of this RO&M, according to FWS, the project addressing this recommendation was in solicitation, with expected award in 2018.

2012-2-N Provide sufficient secondary containment capacity to hold the required 110% of the substation transformer capacity.

Status Deleted. This is not a valid O&M recommendation. Secondary containment for oil-filled equipment is for environmental compliance, as required by the EPA. This has no impact on the operation of the facility. NCAO: PLEASE CONFIRM O&M RESPONSIBILITY

OF THE SUBSTATION. WAPA? BOR?

2012-2-O Hard-wire lighting fixtures if fixture is not directly below outlet receptacle per NEC.

Status Complete

2012-2-Q Provide secondary oil containment to oil-filled transformers located throughout the hatchery.

Status Deleted. This is not a valid O&M recommendation. Secondary containment for oil-filled equipment is for environmental compliance, as required by the EPA. This has no impact on the operation of the facility. Nevertheless, under the EPA Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rules, these transformers qualify for an optional alternative to secondary containment (Reference: 40 CFR part 112). FWS has met the qualifying criteria in paragraphs 112.7 (k)(1) and has implemented alternative requirements as described in paragraph 112.7 (k)(2), in lieu of providing secondary containment. FWS:

PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FOR MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF

112.7 (k)(2)

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 17 of 22

2015-2-A Develop and implement a plan and schedule to remove trees without disrupting flow requirements at the water supply canal, and forward a copy of the plan and schedule to NCAO for review and comment.

Status: Incomplete. The Facilities Engineering Branch (MP-430) along with the Northern

California Area Office (NCAO) will perform a special inspection of the canal embankment to mark trees for removal. Not all trees will be removed along the canal embankment.

CATEGORY 3

2015-3-A Establish a Maintenance Management System (MMS) for the hatchery, to include preventive maintenance schedules and records of inspections, maintenance, and tests performed. Water O&M Bulletin No. 138 discusses establishment of a MMS, and can be viewed at: http://www.usbr.gov/assetmanagement/bulletins.html.

Status: Complete

NEW O&M RECOMMENDATIONS

CATEGORY 1

There are no new Category 1 Recommendations.

CATEGORY 2

2018-2-A Reseal the joints in the raceway ponds, as well as any cracks that may be present.

Apply an ultra-violate resistant lining to the wet areas of the raceway ponds. FWS should research best practices for lining the ponds.

CATEGORY 3

2018-3-A Repair or replace the broken precast concrete covers at the operating deck of Intake 3.

http://www.usbr.gov/assetmanagement/bulletins.html

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 18 of 22

Approval Page

Coleman National Fish Hatchery

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Report

Submitted:

Paul Caruso, Civil Engineer Date

Reviewed:

Scott Foster, P.E. Date Team Lead, Facilities Engineering Branch

Approved:

Richard J. Woodley Date Regional Resources Manager

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 19 of 22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 20 of 22

PHOTOS AND FIGURES

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 21 of 22

Photo 1 – Undercutting of the concrete that was placed for erosion protection at Intake 1.

The same hole was observed during the 2015 RO&M exam.

Figure 1 – Plan of Intake 2

When Intake 1 is operating, a flap gate prevents backflow through Intake 2

Flow from Intake 1

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 22 of 22

Photo 2 – Broken precast concrete covers at the operating deck of Intake 3

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 23 of 22

Photo 3 – Pump 5 was leaking during this RO&M exam

2018 Review of Operation & Maintenance Page 24 of 22

Photo 4 - Scouring erosion on the walls of the raceway ponds

Photo 5 - Unreinforced masonry wall of the (open bay) Maintenance Building is not a structural wall; steel roof trusses bear on reinforced concrete columns and walls