BOR_2007_Value_Engineering_Study1_0003.pdf

Contents Page

Executive Summary Value Study Team Members Value Method Process Current Description Function Analysis Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) Insert Value Engineering Proposals

Proposal No. 1 Naturalized Channel Proposal No. 2 Pipe, Valve, and Lock System

Disposition of Ideas Data and Documents Consulted Value Study Team Presentation Attendance List

Drawings Appendix A - Cost Estimates pg 3 deleted pg 14 deleted

Cost estimates deleted

San Acacia Fish Passage – Value Engineering

Executive Summary The Value Study Team (Team) met on March 13, 2007, for a 4-day study of the San Acacia Fish Passage. San Acacia Dam is a barrier to the upstream movement of Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (RGSM) due to the dam’s gates when the water is checked and because of degradation that has occurred downstream of the diversion dam over recent years. A fish bypass device would allow for better RGSM distribution within the river system upstream of the diversion dam and address the requirements stated in the March 2003 Biological Opinion by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. A total of two independent proposals are presented in this Value Engineering Report and are summarized below. The proposals take into account the concerns from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD), and other stakeholders with a vested interest in the area.

Baseline: A conceptual design was completed in September 2004 with two alternatives for the fish passage. Alternative 1 has an appraisal level cost estimate of $11,792,000 and Alternative 2 has an appraisal level cost estimate of $9,698,000. Alternative 2 was chosen as the preferred alternative because of lower construction costs and better engineering design features. Both conceptual designs were Low Gradient Roughened Channel and Boulder Weir Fishways which is considered to be one of the most acceptable ways of providing fish passage. The Value Engineering Team decided to create Proposal 1 to improve upon the September 2004 preferred alternative and to use $9,698,000 as the baseline for Proposal 1.

In 2006, Reclamation hired HDR/Fishpro to produce a preliminary design report (August 2006) which contains more alternative designs for a fish passage. The HDR/Fishpro report offered eight alternatives. They recommended and produced cost estimates for three of the eight alternatives. The alternative most acceptable to Reclamation was the Baffled Fishway Concept which has an estimated cost of $1,652,000. The baseline concept price for Proposal 2, the Baffled Fishway, has been adjusted to $1,669,000 to reflect site conditions not considered by HDR/Fishpro.

Independent Proposals: The following proposals are for the most part independent of each other. It is possible that some concepts between proposals may be combined.

Proposal No. 1: Use a naturalized fish channel with a Bernal Entrance. The estimated savings of this proposal is $4,122,000 when compared to Alternative 2 of the September 2004 report. However, this proposal has no savings when compared to the Baffled Fishway.

Proposal No. 2: Use a gate, pipe, and lock system to attract and transport the fish. The estimated savings of this proposal is $1,059,000 when compared to the Baffled Fishway.

Other Ideas: The Team identified additional ideas, some of which may have value for further consideration and development and are listed in the “Disposition of Ideas” table near the end of this report.

Value Method Process The Value Method is a decision making process, originally developed in 1943 by Larry Miles, to creatively develop alternatives that satisfy essential functions at the highest value. It has many applications, but is most often used as a management or problem-solving tool.

The study process follows a job plan that provides a reliable, structured approach to the conclusion. Initially, the Team examined the component features of the program, project, or activity to define the critical functions (performed or desired), governing criteria, and associated costs. Using creativity (brainstorming) techniques, the Team suggested alternative ideas and solutions to perform those functions, consistent with the identified criteria, at a lower cost or with an increase in long-term value. The ideas were evaluated, analyzed, and prioritized, and the best ideas were developed to a level suitable for comparison, decision making, and adoption.

This report is the result of a formal Value Study by a team comprised of people with the diversity, expertise, and independence needed to creatively attack the issues. The team members bring a depth of experience and understanding of the discipline they represent and an open and independent inquiry of the issues under study, to creatively solve the problems at hand. Ideally, the team members have not been notably involved in the issues prior to the study. The Team applied the Value Method to the issues and supporting information, and took a “fresh look” at the problems to create alternatives that fulfill the client’s needs at the greatest value.

Current Description San Acacia Diversion Dam is located on the Rio Grande approximately 16 miles north of Socorro, New Mexico. The dam was built in 1934 by the MRGCD and rehabilitated in the 1950s by Reclamation. The dam is listed on the national historic register. The left dam abutment and river embankment contain significant archeological sites. The dam presently provides diversions for the Socorro Main Canal operated by MRGCD and Low Flow Conveyance Channel (LFCC) operated by Reclamation. The diversion dam provides grade control within the Rio Grande at this location by preventing downstream degradation from extending upstream of the dam.

The need for a fish passage or methods to allow the RGSM to move upstream of the dam is addressed in the 2003 Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .

The dam is a barrier to the upstream movement of RGSM due to the dam’s gates when the water is checked and because of degradation that has occurred downstream of the diversion dam over recent years. An alternative to allow the RGSM to travel upstream of the diversion dam is to construct a fish passage that bypasses the dam.

The Technical Services Division of the Albuquerque Area Office has provided conceptual designs for the bypass channel in a report dated September 2004. The scope of the report included providing the hydraulic characteristic of the bypass channel and the type of fish channel entrance and exit structure to be used.

In 2006, Reclamation hired HDR/Fishpro to produce a preliminary design report dated August 2006 which contains more alternative designs for a fish passage.

The HDR/Fishpro report offered eight alternatives which are as follows:

1. Dam Removal

2. Lock and Braille

3. Low Gradient Roughened Channel and Boulder Weir Fishway

4. Trap and Haul

5. Baffled Fishway

6. Fish Pump and Lock

7. Fish Trap and Lift

8. Technical Fishway

They recommended and produced cost estimates for three of the eight alternatives which are the Baffled Fishway, Fish Trap and Lift, and Fish Pump and Lock. The alternative most acceptable to Reclamation was the Baffled Fishway Concept.

Function Analysis Component Active Verb Measurable Noun

Overall Project Fulfill Biological Opinion Fish Passage Move Fish

Restrict Velocities Ease Maintenance Restrict Predators Monitor Passage Accommodate Sediment Protect Fish

Downstream Entrance Attract Fish Maximize Access

Upstream Exit Restrict Downstream Velocities at Exit

Locate Upstream Exit

Function Analysis System Technique

(FAST)

The Value Study Team used the function-analysis process to generate a Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram, designed to describe the present solution from a functional point of view. The FAST diagram helped the Team identify those design features that support critical functions and those that satisfy noncritical objectives. The FAST diagram also helped the Team focus on potential value mismatches and generate a common understanding of how project objectives are met by the present solution.

Value Engineering Proposals

Proposal No. 1 Naturalized Channel

Description

Proposal: Install a naturalized channel through the eastern most bay in San Acacia Diversion Dam.

Proposal Description: Fish bypass at San Acacia Diversion Dam could be achieved by constructing a naturalized channel. The bed would consist of grouted riprap. To reduce flow velocity and provide diversity in the flow pattern, reinforced concrete pipe baffles would be installed, protruding vertically from the channel bed. This channel would pass through the eastern most bay of the dam.

Geometric characteristics are as follows:

• trapezoidal channel with 2:1 (H:V) side slopes

• channel gradient at 1.0 percent (slope = −0.01)

• bottom channel width of 4 feet

• pipe baffle diameter of 2 feet

• pipe baffle length of 6.85 to 8.0 feet, extending approximately 5 feet above the channel invert

• longitudinal distance between pipe baffles of 10 feet

• transverse spacing between pipe baffles of approximately 1 foot; five pipes would be installed at each cross-section

• average water depth in the fish bypass channel between 3 and 4 feet

• maximum water surface head (H) of 17 feet (checked water surface behind dam)

The fish passage channel would be separated from the main Rio Grande channel by a berm with a crest height 5 feet above the fish passage channel invert. The berm would have a top width of 12 feet and 2:1 (H:V) side slopes. The berm and fish passage channel would be covered with 3-foot-thick grouted riprap, extending from 6 feet below the Rio Grande channel invert (on the river side) to the top of the historical bankline on the east side of the river.

The approximate fish passage channel length is 800 feet upstream and 800 feet downstream of the diversion dam. It will run along the eastern edge of the current Rio Grande channel, passing through the easternmost bay of San Acacia Dam.

Optionally, the distance downstream of the dam could be shortened by removing the dam sill where the channel passes through San Acacia Diversion Dam.

The design for the entrance (Bernal Entrance) at the downstream end of the fish bypass channel is a single row of sheet pile starting at the entranceway to the fish bypass channel that is driven on a 30 degree arching pathway to the right river embankment. The sheet pile row would have notches of various heights to allow for different flow conditions in the river. At the entrance to the fish bypass channel is a series of large boulders (4-foot by 5-foot) which would be placed between the sheet pile and the left river embankment to create a tranquil flow condition between the fish bypass channel entrance and the river. The sheet pile would also direct the RGSM to the approximate location of the entrance for the fish bypass channel.

The exit structure is located approximately 800 feet upstream of the dam. The fish exit is a cast-in-place concrete structure using gates and structure location to allow for changing water elevations. The diversion dam upstream pool elevations are dependent on the check water surface used by MRGCD during the irrigation season, LFCC diversions, and normal non-irrigation depths behind the diversion dam. These water surface depths can vary up to 7.0 feet. A channel with a bottom width of 4 to 6 feet would be excavated from the fish exit structure to the active river channel, extending through the large bar on the east side of the Rio Grande upstream of the dam. A portion of the bar near the dam would be removed, and a gate would be installed in the fish bypass channel slightly upstream of the dam to allow fish to exit during periods of low flow.

Advantages Disadvantages

• None Identified. • None Identified.

Potential Risks None can be identified at this time.

Cost Items One Time Costs Original Baseline Concept $9,698,000 Value Concept $5,566,000 Savings $4,132,000 Value Study Costs $10,000 Implementation Costs $0 Net Savings $4,122,000

Proposal No. 2 Pipe, Valve, and Lock System

Description

Proposal. Install a pipe and valve fish passage system. The system attracts Rio Grande RGSM into a vertical pipe (stack) that is periodically filled with water that in turn lifts the fish to the release levels at the checked and unchecked Rio Grande behind the dam.

Proposal Description: The concept uses a 5-foot diameter horizontal pipe that is below the dam and provides the attraction water in the river below the dam. This pipe would extend into the tailwater below the dam for over 100 feet. The flowing water in the pipe guides the fish up the pipe to a vertical lift stack that fills with water. A general flow in the pipe should be between 1 and 1.2 feet per second. Prior to filling the vertical pipe stack, the horizontal pipe is closed at the stack base, trapping fish that ascended the horizontal pipe and entered at the bottom of the stack. At this time the vertical pipe is filled with water, lifting the trapped fish. At the fish exit level there will be an inflow of water to further guide fish out of the vertical pipe and out into the Rio Grande upstream of the dam.

There would be two different fish exit elevations on the vertical stack to accommodate fish passage at checked and unchecked operations, or an alternate open flume that will accommodate several exit elevations.

Critical Items to Consider

The success of this proposal is based on fish being attracted to and actively swimming upstream in the intake pipe to the base of the vertical stack.

Albuquerque Bio-Park (Chris Altenbach at 505-848-7128) has captive brood fish and the facilities to perform controlled experiments to verify and potentially improve the operations of this proposal.

Two basic experiments would need to be performed to gain an understanding how RGSMs would use the horizontal pipe. These experiments could also provide insight into improving this project. A (scale) model could be constructed within the Bio-Park and fish trials performed under conditions expected in this project.

Preliminary information from a 12 foot flume test previously performed at the Bio-Park indicates the fish move quickest in a smooth floor flume rather than when boulders and turbulence are present.

The second test would involve investigating the fish’s tolerance to pressure. The vertical stack has potential to have 4-6 psi of water pressure at the bottom, and if fish were to remain there for any duration, they would be exposed to these pressures. Tests on survival or even subtle effects of pressure exposure would be valuable in understanding how to harmlessly transport fish at this project.

Additional Project Features

Some additional features of this concept include a gravity water filling control for the vertical stack. This needs to be a gradual process so fish can orient to the filling column (maybe stay near the surface). In addition this filling should be with “non-entrained air” water and should be filled from the stack bottom. Free dropping water into the stack could scare fish and keep them near the bottom and not near the top where the discharge guide flows would be detected.

A controlled, screened “leakage” near the base of the vertical stack into the horizontal attraction pipe will provide continued attraction flow. Inflow of water at the fish exit will maintain a flow that RGSMs will orient to and continue swimming upstream and out the exit.

A large mesh trash rack at the fish exit would reduce debris in the plumbing from upstream and a narrow trash rack grate at the fish entrance should reduce predator (fish, avian, and mammal) access to the pipe.

Advantages Disadvantages

• Overall cost savings.

• Sedimentation is less of a concern than with the passage channel and can be handled easier.

• Fish entrance can be adjusted easier for projected down cutting below dam.

• No major moving parts.

• Unknown fish behavior movements through long horizontal entrance pipe.

• Research is needed to verify fish use and any potential harm from pressure changes.

Potential Risks Fish attraction and use might not mimic results from Bio-Park laboratory experiments.

Cost Items One Time Costs Original Baseline Concept $1,669,000 Value Concept $600,000 Savings $1,069,000 Value Study Costs $10,000 Implementation Costs $0 Net Savings $1,059,000

Disposition of Ideas Value Study Elements Considered as Potential Proposals and Their Disposition

Idea Disposition

Bait Fish Not practical Use a Decoy Never been tried no data on this method Use Pheromones Technology is not yet available Lighting Incorporated in the pipe, valve, and lock system.

Use edge effect Incorporated in the proposals as part of the design.

Bernal Entrance from the September 2004 report

Good idea and has been incorporated into proposal one.

Eliminate alternate pathways This is basically the Bernal Entrance Locate entrance close to dam Not needed is using the Bernal Entrance Acoustic System Not good enough to develop and may have a negative effect Additional attraction flow Incorporated in the proposals as much as possible Fish Wheel Needs R&D Cut concrete apron on dam Adds expense Cart on wheels and bait Not practical Grouted Riprap Part of Proposal No. 1 Use LFCC Difficult to implement Sheet pile maze Good idea that may need to be looked at further Grade Reducing Facility Expensive Rotating Lock Needs R&D Orifice Ladder May not work for the RGSM

Data and Documents Consulted Title, Author, and Date Information

Conceptual Design for San Acacia Fish Passage Structure By: Mr. Rudy Bernal and Mr. Cord R. Everetts United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Albuquerque Area Office Technical Service Division Design and Construction Group September 2004

Source for original conceptual design information and the base concept for Proposal No. 1

Study and Preliminary Design Development of a Fish Passage Facility for San Acacia Diversion Dam By: HDR/FishPro August 2006

Source for original conceptual design information and the base concept for Proposal No. 2

Drawings