Isleta_Fish_Passage_VP_Report1_0003.pdf

CONTROLLED

U.S. Department of the Interior March 2020

Value Planning

Isleta Diversion Dam Fish Passage

Isleta Settlement Implementation Project, New Mexico

Isleta Diversion Dam (Tetra Tech, 2019)

Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities.

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.

i

Acknowledgements

The Value Planning Team (Team) wishes to express thanks and appreciation Tracey Heller (Project Manager) for setting up the Value Planning Study, and those who provided their expertise during the study and are listed in the “Experts Consulted During the Study” section in this report. Their cooperation and help contributed significantly to the technical foundation and scope of the Team’s investigation and final proposals.

The goal of the Value Method is to achieve the most appropriate and highest value solution for the project. It is only through the effort of a diverse, high-performing Team that this goal can be achieved. This study is the product of such an effort.

ii

Abbreviations and Acronyms cfs Cubic feet per second FAST Function Analysis System Technique MRGCD Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District O&M Operations and Maintenance RGSM Rio Grande Silvery Minnow IDD Isleta Diversion Dam TEAM Value Study Team TSC Technical Service Center Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation VP Value Planning iii

Contents

Page

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................. i Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................. ii Executive Summary Project Description

Background Value Planning Alternatives

Alternative 1: West Side Step Pool Ramp Alternative 2: East Side Fish Bypass and Modified Sluiceway in Narrowed River

Channel Alternative 3: East Side Step-Pool Ramp and Sluiceway Enlargement Alternative 4: East Side Natural Bypass with New Sluiceway and Narrowed River

Channel Alternative 5: Center placed Step Pool and Rock Ramp Alternative 6: Mechanical Options for Fish Transport Alternative 7: West Side Technical Fishway Alternative 8: East Side Step-Pool Technical Ramp and Sluiceway Enlargement

List of Experts Consulted During Study References Disposition of Ideas ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Value Method Function Analysis Function Analysis System Technique Evaluation of Alternatives

Ranking Matrix Criteria and Scoring System

Design Teams’ Presentation

CONTROLLED

Executive Summary The Value Study Team (Team) met Tuesday through Thursday, 10-12 March 2020, to conduct a Value Planning Study of the Isleta Diversion Dam (IDD) modifications. The estimated cost of the Value Planning Study is $8,600. The Team developed / adopted eight alternatives, which are summarized below.

The effort was completed in support of the Isleta Settlement Implementation Project and the implementing body, the IDD Technical Team. The Settlement was finalized in 2016 between the Pueblo of Isleta, Middle Rio Grande Conservation District (MRGCD), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Settlement included specified project funding for IDD dam modifications and bosque and riverine restoration. The dam modifications are expected to provide fish passage and reduce sediment diverted into the associated irrigation canals. The dam and associated canals are shown in Figure 1 on the following page.

The Value Planning Study is not a decision document but rather a guidance document on where to concentrate design efforts in progressing forward on the project. The alternatives documented within this report will be presented to the decision-makers for consideration, and the decision to accept or reject individual alternatives will be made through a combined effort between designers, managers, and project stakeholders.

To better understand the summary of alternatives, note that:

• A Naturalized Fishway is a fishway consisting of natural materials such as rocks, sand, plants, etc., configured to control flow and depth

• A Technical Fishway is a fishway constructed of concrete and steel, and containing baffles configured to control flow and depth

• A checked condition at Isleta Diversion Dam is when all the gates are closed to create a pool behind the dam so water can be diverted for irrigation purposes

Alternative 1: West Side Step Pool Ramp

A naturalized fishway inside the existing river channel and through the dam, in a natural shape with un-grouted, coarse substrates and roughened walls to accommodate fish passage in checked conditions. In unchecked conditions, volitional passage would be provided through open gates, assisted by rocked approach at the gate apron.

CONTROLLED

Alternative 2: East Side Fish Bypass and Extended Sluiceway in Narrowed River Channel

Naturalized fishway bypass installed through gates on east side of dam, toward apex of dam, in fill created by narrowing the river channel.

The narrowed channel and sluiceway extension reduce delivery of sediment to the existing headworks. In unchecked conditions, volitional passage would be provided through open gates, assisted by rocked approach at the gate apron.

CONTROLLED

Figure 1. Isleta Diversion Dam & Associated Canals (Tetra Tech, 2019)

Alternative 3: East Side Step-Pool Ramp and Sluiceway Enlargement This alternative is a volitional fish passage through a sinuous, rock-lined step-pool ramp on the east side of the IDD. Also included is the enlargement of the sluiceway on the east side of the IDD (Peralta Main Canal).

Alternative 4: East Side Natural Bypass with Flume Diversion and Narrowed River Channel Reduction in river channel width to provide compatible river geomorphic conditions, extension of sluiceway and enlargement of sluiceway, connect sluiceway to existing canal headworks via inverted siphon and sluiceway, and a natural bypass fish passage channel. This concept involves removal/decommissioning of 4-5 gates on the east side of the diversion dam and relocation of the existing canal sluiceway.

Alternative 5: Center placed Step Pool and Rock Ramp In this option, a rock ramp is positioned below the IDD and a step-pool fishway is installed through an IDD gate and fish are released upstream.

Alternative 6: Mechanical Options for Fish Transport Mechanical fish passage options include variations of trapping and moving fish upstream. These options include capturing fish through use of loch, screw, or elevator systems, minnow traps, fyke nets, or seining and other live capture techniques.

Alternative 7: West Side Technical Fishway A technical (concrete) fishway inside the existing river channel and through the dam, designed with engineered substrates and roughened walls to accommodate fish passage in checked conditions. In unchecked conditions, volitional passage would be provided through open gates, assisted by rocked approach at the gate apron.

Alternative 8: East Side Step-Pool Technical Ramp and Sluiceway Enlargement This alternative is a volitional fish passage through various technical fish passage structures, such as: Denil, single/double slot flumes, etc on the east side of the IDD. Also included is the enlargement of the sluiceway on the east side of the IDD (Peralta Main Canal).

Enlargement of the sluiceway may consist of: sluiceway widening and lengthening, construction of a labyrinth sluiceway settling basin, turbulence reduction shelf, Langemann head gate installation, and modification of the upstream east bank alignment.

CONTROLLED

Other Ideas:

The Team identified additional ideas for further consideration and development, which are listed in the "Disposition of Ideas” section of this report.

Ranking of Alternatives:

A summary of the alternative rankings is shown in the charts below. Word descriptors linked to the score numbers are as follows:

(Excellent = 5, Very Good = 4, Good = 3, Fair = 2, Poor = 1).

A full explanation of how the rankings came about can be found in the “Evaluation of Alternatives” section of this report.

Alternative Ranking Based on Technical Merit Only

Alternative Ranking Modified by Cost

Figure 2 – Ranking of Alternatives Bar Charts

CONTROLLED

Project Description

Background Isleta Diversion Dam is located on the Rio Grande approximately 13 miles south of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The dam was constructed in 1934 on the Pueblo of Isleta by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) and was rehabilitated in 1954 by Reclamation.

The dam is a Reclamation facility, operated by MRGCD under agreement. It is a reinforced concrete structure with a structural height of 21 feet and a hydraulic height of 5 feet high. The dam is 674 feet long with 30 radial gates.

In 2016, a settlement agreement was finalized between the Pueblo of Isleta, Middle Rio Grande Conservation District (MRGCD), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Reclamation. That agreement resolved long-standing issues and included specified project funding for IDD dam modifications and bosque and riverine restoration. The dam modifications are expected to provide fish passage and reduce sediment diverted into the associated irrigation canals.

The Settlement requirement for fish passage aligns with the commitments of the 2016 Middle Rio Grande Biological Opinion (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). The Biological Opinion was based on the Middle Rio Grande Biological Assessment (Reclamation, 2015), which identified effects and alternatives to mitigate the impacts of management and controls on the Rio Grande. Since construction, the three diversion dams on the Rio Grande have resulted in blocking the natural movement of fish up and downstream of each diversion dam.

This was particularly problematic because one native species, the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (RGSM) is a Federally listed endangered species. Reclamation has committed to providing river connectivity by restoring fish passage through the diversion dams. From south to north, these are the San Acacia, Isleta and Angostura diversion dams.

The Isleta Diversion Dam presently provides diversion on the west side of the Rio Grande to supply water to the Belen Highline Canal and the east side of the Rio Grande to supply the Peralta Main Canal. The Peralta sluiceway also supplies the associated Big Chical, Middle Chical and Cacique Acequia ditches. The irrigation diversions serve the agricultural needs of the Pueblo of Isleta, as well as private farmers and other stakeholders and users downstream of the Pueblo. Much of the water diverted on the west side of the dam is conveyed downstream to support needs and commitments in the lower reach of the Rio Grande.

CONTROLLED

Value Planning Alternatives

Alternative 1: West Side Step Pool Ramp

Description:

A naturalized fishway inside the existing river channel and through the dam, in a natural shape with un-grouted, coarse substrates and roughened walls to accommodate fish passage in checked conditions. In unchecked conditions, volitional passage would be provided through open gates, assisted by rocked approach at the gate apron. Also included is the enlargement of the sluiceway on the east side of the IDD (Peralta Main Canal). Enlargement of the sluiceway may consist of: sluiceway widening and lengthening, construction of a labyrinth sluiceway settling basin, turbulence reduction shelf, Langemann head gate installation, and modification of the upstream east bank alignment.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Adequate water

• Minnow attraction at entrance

• Evaluate turbulence at fish passage flows to ensure entry

• Exit designed to protect from predation and entrainment into sluiceway

• Positioned on river side of the west-side sluiceway guidewall

• Design consistent with USF&WS performance standards memo dated 24 April 2019

• Minimize delivery impacts at sluiceways

• Some gates will be removed from dam operations to accommodate fishway

• Ensure identified enhancements are considered as appropriate

Changes from Existing Conditions:

• Volitional, naturalized fish passage provided through Isleta Diversion Dam

• Adds a significant additional structure within the river channel

• Enhancements required to reduce sediment into irrigation canals on east side

• Requires maintaining minimum passage flows through diversion as committed

CONTROLLED

Potential Risks:

• Dam structural risks

• Potential increase in flood risk due to reduced conveyance capacity

• Inadequate water availability

• Concentrated predation

Advantages:

• Cultural and fishway water flow needs are both met by the same flow during limited water conditions

• Supports adaptive management needs

• Meets compliance commitments

• More resilient to debris and sedimentation issues than technical fishway alternatives

Disadvantages:

• Narrow entrance relative to river width

• In channel so susceptible to floods and sediment deposition

• Requires dam modification

CONTROLLED

Alternative 2: East Side Fish Bypass and Modified Sluiceway in Narrowed River Channel

Description:

Naturalized fish bypass installed through gates on east side of dam, toward apex of dam, in fill created by narrowing the river channel. The narrowed river channel and sluiceway modification reduce delivery of sediment to the existing headworks. In unchecked conditions, volitional passage would be provided through open gates, assisted by rocked approach at the gate apron.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Adequate water

• Minnow attraction at entrance

• Exit designed to protect from predation and entrainment into sluiceway

• Design consistent with USF&WS performance standards memo dated 24 April 2019

• Minimize delivery impacts at sluiceways

• Some gates will be utilized to accommodate fishway

• Geomorphic benefit by channel narrowing needs to be balanced with flood conveyance needs and cost considerations

• Potential for sedimentation in sluiceway channel

• Fishway located on east side may conflict with cultural needs during low flows

• Volitional, naturalized fish passage provided through Isleta Diversion Dam

• Adds a significant additional structure outside narrowed river channel

• Requires maintaining minimum passage flows through diversion as committed

• Narrowing river channel should improve sediment transport through reach

• Less dam in operation so lower maintenance and operation costs

Potential Risks:

• Potential increase in flood risk due to reduced conveyance capacity

• Inadequate water availability

• Fishway filling during extreme floods

CONTROLLED

• Unanticipated consequences from channel narrowing

• Aggravated sedimentation into west sluiceway due to channel narrowing

• Supports adaptive management needs

• Meets compliance commitments

• More resilient to debris and sedimentation issues than some fishway alternatives

• Reduction in bedload diverted

• Minimized dam structural risks

• Narrow entrance relative to river width

• Potentially more expensive than other fishway alternatives

• At low flow conditions, there may not be adequate flows for attraction and passage

• Public perception of increased flood risk even if not validated by science

CONTROLLED

Alternative 3: East Side Step-Pool Ramp and Sluiceway Enlargement

Description:

This alternative is a volitional fish passage through a sinuous, rock-lined step-pool ramp on the east side of the IDD. Also included is the enlargement of the sluiceway on the east side of the IDD (Peralta Main Canal). Enlargement of the sluiceway may consist of: sluiceway widening and lengthening, construction of a labyrinth sluiceway settling basin, turbulence reduction shelf, Langemann head gate installation, and modification of the upstream east bank alignment.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Adequate flow will be needed during low-flow periods

• A physical model is needed to determine the adequacy of this alternative

• Dewatering would be required for construction

• Equipment must be able to handle large rock sizes (~2-4-foot diameter rock)

• Utilization may not meet Biological Opinion performance standards

• Alternative would provide fish passage

• Alternative would reduce sediment diversion into the headworks on the east side of the IDD

• Fish passage (or parts of) could fill with sediment or be dry

• High flows could dislodge rocks in the fish passage rock ramp

• Installation of a settling basin on the Peralta Main may still be needed

• Alternative uses a naturalized fishway rather than a mechanical or technical fishway

• Alternative will result in a reduction in operation and maintenance costs relative to current conditions

• Predation risk could be increased throughout the fishway

• Fish passage structure could result in localized scour or deposition

CONTROLLED

Alternative 4: East Side Natural Bypass with New Sluiceway and Narrowed River Channel

Description:

Concept includes reduction in river channel width to provide compatible river geomorphic conditions, relocation and forebay and enlargement of sluiceway, connect sluiceway to existing canal headworks via inverted siphon, and a naturalized bypass fishway. This concept involves removal/decommissioning of 4-5 gates on the east side of the diversion dam and relocation of the existing canal sluiceway. The fishway would include a rock channel with tiered cross section and boulder weir-pool features. A section of the upstream fish passage channel would comprise a mild slope to provide connectivity to the river upstream of the diversion dam and maintain invert elevation for crossing the diversion sluiceway.

Also included is the enlargement of the sluiceway on the east side of the IDD (Peralta Main Canal). Enlargement of the sluiceway may consist of: sluiceway widening and lengthening, construction of a labyrinth sluiceway settling basin, turbulence reduction shelf, Langemann head gate installation, and modification of the upstream east bank alignment.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Fishway size (cross sectional width and length)

• Fishway location and invert elevation relative to existing headworks

• Inverted siphon for diversion to allow fish passage channel to cross canal

• Sluiceway size and geometry

• Fishway entrance location and alignment downstream of sluiceway crossing

• Availability of flow on east side of river for fishway during irrigation season

• River channel flood capacity through smaller diversion dam

• Accomplishes both fish passage and improved sediment management

• Realigns river consistent with reach geomorphic processes

• Availability of water on east side for the fishway

• Potential increase in flood risk due to reduced conveyance capacity

CONTROLLED

• Concentrated predation

• Fishway filling during extreme floods

• Unanticipated consequences from channel narrowing

• Aggravated sedimentation into west sluiceway due to channel narrowing

• Reduces sediment entrainment via improved river channel alignment and enlarged sluiceway

• Provides maintenance access to fishway

• Utilizes existing headworks

• Requires availability of flow for the fishway on east side of the river during irrigation season

CONTROLLED

Alternative 5: Center Placed Step Pool and Rock Ramp

Description:

In this option, a naturalized fishway with a rock ramp positioned below and near center of the IDD and a step-pool fishway is installed through an IDD gate for operation during checked conditions. In unchecked conditions, volitional passage would be provided through open gates, assisted by rocked approach at the gate apron.

Also included is the enlargement of the sluiceway on the east side of the IDD (Peralta Main Canal). Enlargement of the sluiceway may consist of: sluiceway widening and lengthening, construction of a labyrinth sluiceway settling basin, turbulence reduction shelf, Langemann head gate installation, and modification of the upstream east bank alignment.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Adequate water

• Minnow attraction at entrance

• Evaluate turbulence at fish passage flows to ensure entry

• Design consistent with USF&WS performance standards memo dated 24 April 2019

• Minimize delivery impacts at sluiceways

• Some gates will be removed from dam operations to accommodate fishway

• Need to include infrastructure to meet sediment management goals on east side sluiceway

• Provides fish passage

• The fishway with potential catwalk from the IDD

• Dam structural risks

• Potential increase in flood risk due to reduced conveyance capacity

• Inadequate water availability

CONTROLLED

Advantages:

• May provide optimal fish attraction for passage (entrance is nearest the IDD)

• Supports adaptive management needs

• Meets compliance commitments

• More resilient to debris and sedimentation issues than technical fishway alternatives

• Minimizes potential entrainment into the canal system

• Construction and O&M occurs in the center of river (limited access)

Alternative 6: Mechanical Options for Fish Transport

Description:

Other mechanical fish passage options were considered (that is, elevator and screw systems), but this option includes a lock system that would extend through a gate. The downstream side of the lock would open and attract or trap fish with a small flow. Once fish were trapped, the water level would increase, and a gate on the lock (upstream of the IDD) would open and allow fish to exit upstream of the

IDD.

Also included is the enlargement of the sluiceway on the east side of the IDD (Peralta Main Canal). Enlargement of the sluiceway may consist of: sluiceway widening and lengthening, construction of a labyrinth sluiceway settling basin, turbulence reduction shelf, Langemann head gate installation, and modification of the upstream east bank alignment.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Adequate power source

• Standard procedures to increase or maintain fish survival upon release

• Capturing or attracting enough RGSM (to passage through the IDD upstream)

• Alternative would provide fish passage (mostly upstream)

• Fish injury or increased mortality in traps or upon release

• High sediment loads could increase wear and decrease functionality

• Predators could be attracted to fish congregation in the lock trap

• Fish will be passed with the least amount of water lost to the system

• Fish are only trapped for brief periods

• Works in both checked and unchecked conditions

• Minimizes impact to dam structure and operations

• Depends on an adequate source of energy

• This option provide non-volitional fish passage

• Downstream passage would be limited

CONTROLLED

Alternative 7: West Side Technical Fishway

Description:

A technical (concrete) fishway inside the existing river channel and through the dam, designed with engineered substrates and roughened walls to accommodate fish passage in checked conditions. In unchecked conditions, volitional passage would be provided through open gates, assisted by rocked approach at the gate apron.

Also included is the enlargement of the sluiceway on the east side of the IDD (Peralta Main Canal). Enlargement of the sluiceway may consist of: sluiceway widening and lengthening, construction of a labyrinth sluiceway settling basin, turbulence reduction shelf, Langemann head gate installation, and modification of the upstream east bank alignment.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Adequate water

• Minnow attraction at entrance

• Evaluate turbulence at fish passage flows to ensure entry

• Exit designed to protect from predation and entrainment into sluiceway

• Positioned on river side of the west-side sluiceway guidewall

• Design consistent with USF&WS performance standards memo dated 24 April 2019

• Minimize delivery impacts at sluiceways

• Some gates will be removed from dam operations to accommodate fishway

• Consider previous lab results

• Volitional fish passage provided through Isleta Diversion Dam

• Adds a significant additional structure within the river channel

CONTROLLED

• Potential increase in flood risk due to reduced conveyance capacity

• Inadequate water availability

• May not be judged as desirably as a natural channel alternative

• Cultural and fishway water flow needs are both met by the same flow during limited water conditions

• May function at lower flows than a naturalized channel fishway

• Supports adaptive management needs

• Meets compliance commitments

• Allows for more precision in velocities

• Can be constructed in a smaller footprint than a naturalized channel alternative

• Less flexible to design modifications

• More susceptible to sedimentation and debris entrapment than natural channels

• Narrower entrance relative to naturalized fishways

• Requires dam modification

• Less supportive of adaptive management

• Fish exit may be near sluiceway

CONTROLLED

Alternative 8: East Side Step-Pool Technical Ramp and Sluiceway Enlargement

Description:

A technical (concrete) fishway inside the existing river channel and through the dam, designed with engineered substrates and roughened walls to accommodate fish passage in checked conditions. In unchecked conditions, volitional passage would be provided through open gates, assisted by rocked approach at the gate apron.

Also included is the enlargement of the sluiceway on the east side of the IDD (Peralta Main Canal). Enlargement of the sluiceway may consist of: sluiceway widening and lengthening, construction of a labyrinth sluiceway settling basin, turbulence reduction shelf, Langemann head gate installation, and modification of the upstream east bank alignment.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Adequate water

• Minnow attraction at entrance

• Evaluate turbulence at fish passage flows to ensure entry

• Exit designed to protect from predation and entrainment into sluiceway

• Positioned on river side of the east-side sluiceway guidewall

• Design consistent with USF&WS performance standards memo dated 24 April 2019

• Minimize delivery impacts at sluiceways

• Some gates will be removed from dam operations to accommodate fishway

• Consider previous lab results

• Volitional fish passage provided through Isleta Diversion Dam

• Adds a significant additional structure within the river channel

CONTROLLED

• Potential increase in flood risk due to reduced conveyance capacity

• Inadequate water availability

• May not be judged as desirably as a natural channel alternative

• May function at lower flows than a naturalized channel fishway

• Supports adaptive management needs

• Meets compliance commitments

• Allows for more precision in velocities

• Can be constructed in a smaller footprint than a naturalized channel alternative

• Less flexible to design modifications

• More susceptible to sedimentation and debris entrapment than natural channels

• Narrower entrance relative to naturalized fishways

• Requires dam modification

• Less supportive of adaptive management

• Fish exit may be near sluiceway

• At low flow conditions, there may not be adequate flows for attraction and passage

CONTROLLED

During the “creativity phase” of the Value Planning Study, the Team was encouraged to offer any and all ideas, including wild ideas, to solve the identified problems and perform the intended functions. Criticism was prohibited during this phase so that all Team members would be comfortable offering thoughts and ideas. It has been demonstrated that one person’s extreme idea can often be the spark for someone else’s “brilliant” idea. Ideas were not evaluated during this phase of the study. Table 2 below presents a complete list of each idea, the function that the idea addresses and the disposition of that idea. The best ideas were developed as Alternatives. Several of the ideas that did not rise to the level of an Alternative are in the “Design Considerations” section of this report.

Table 2 - Disposition of Ideas

Idea Function Disposition

1. Gate Improvements Optimize Delivery Already Happening

2. . Automation Optimize Delivery Already Happening

3. Debris Management Optimize Delivery Already Happening

4. Line Ditches Optimize Delivery Out of Scope

5. Settling Basin Optimize Delivery Alternative Enhancement

6. Reduce Gate Leakage Optimize Delivery Alternative Enhancement

7. No Action Minimize Sediment Out of Scope

8. Lengthen Sluiceway(s) Minimize Sediment Works with all Alternatives

9. Modify Upstream East Bank Alignment Minimize Sediment Works with Alternatives A1, A3, A5 through A8

10. Labyrinth Sluiceway Settling Basin Minimize Sediment Works with all Alternatives

11. Widen Sluiceway Minimize Sediment Works with all Alternatives

12. Turbulence Reduction Shelf Minimize Sediment Works with A1, A3 through A8

13. Drain Water Augmentation Minimize Sediment Works with all Alternatives

14. Vortex Tube Minimize Sediment Alternative Enhancement

15. Install Langemann Gates Minimize Sediment Works with all Alternatives

16. Radial Peralta Gate with Langemann to Big Chical Minimize Sediment Alternative Enhancement

CONTROLLED

Idea Function Disposition

17. Bladder Dam Minimize Sediment Dismissed by Team

18. Modify Stoplog Elevations in Sluiceways Minimize Sediment Alternative Enhancement

19. Rectangular subchannels in the side and bottom of a concrete channel

Facilitate Movement Alternative Enhancement

20. I-Beams in the side and bottom of a concrete channel Facilitate Movement Alternative Enhancement

21. Lock system Facilitate Movement An A6 Option

22. Screw Lift Facilitate Movement An A6 Option

23. Trap and Move (Whoosh) Facilitate Movement An A6 Option

24. Apron Rock Ramp Facilitate Movement Alternative Enhancement

25. Dam Removal Facilitate Movement Out of Scope

26. Westside Bypass Facilitate Movement Dismissed by Team

27. Diversion Upstream Facilitate Movement Dismissed by Team

28. Low & Medium High Flow Entrances Facilitate Movement Alternative Enhancement

29. Infiltration Gallery Facilitate Movement Dismissed by Team

30. Technical Passages Facilitate Movement Part of A7 and A8

31. Bird / Predator Netting over Fish Passage Maximize Survival Alternative Enhancement

32. Cover Maximize Survival Alternative Enhancement

33. Reduced Velocities Maximize Survival Already Happening

34. Refuge Areas Maximize Survival Alternative Enhancement

CONTROLLED

Value Method The goal of the Value Method is to achieve the most appropriate and highest value solution for the project. It is only through the effort of a diverse, high-performing Team, in which all members participate, that this goal can be achieved. This Value Planning Study is the product of such an effort. The purpose of the study is to make good projects better by focusing on improving value and striving to achieve a return on investment exceeding 5:1.

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 it 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 features of the project to define the critical functions and governing criteria. Then the Team suggested alternative ideas and solutions to perform those functions, consistent with the identified criteria. The Alternatives were then 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 Planning 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. 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.

Further policy and/or design evaluations will be required prior to acceptance of any alternative developed during the study. Alternatives from this study, in and of themselves, do not indicate the technological, administrative, or policy approval of the agencies represented by the Team. The decision to accept or reject individual alternatives should be made through a combined effort between designers and managers involved with the project.

CONTROLLED

Function Analysis The Team developed basic functions for the key elements of the project Table 3 these functions generally are a two-word pair consisting of an active verb and a measurable noun. The Team determined which functions are basic functions necessary to meet the purpose of the project. The basic functions (as shown in the list below in bold) were determined by answering the question, “Which functions must the project satisfy?” All the other functions are secondary functions that support achieving the basic functions.

Table 3 – Function Analysis

Component Active Verb Measurable Noun

Fish Entry Attract Fish

Ease Transition

Fish Passage Facilitate Movement

Maximize Survival

Maintain Flow

Minimize Predation

Fish Exit Maximize Survival

Reduce Entrainment

Ease Transition

Connect Habitat

Fish Passage Operation Maintain Flow

Maintain Diversion

Maximize Duration

Pass Sediment

CONTROLLED

Component Active Verb Measurable Noun

Minimize O&M

Minimize Sediment Diversion Minimize Sediment

Drop Sediment Load

Optimize Velocity

Reduce Turbulence

Flush Sediment Load

Skim Water

Removal of Sediment from Canals

Minimize Dredging

Maintain Access

Optimize Delivery

Sediment Control Operations Minimize O&M

Minimize Debris

Automate Gates

Minimize Fish Entrainment

CONTROLLED

Function Analysis System Technique

The Team used the functions to generate a Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram Figure 3. The diagram was designed to describe the present solution from a function point of view. The FAST diagram helped the Team identify design features that support critical functions. The FAST diagram also helped the Team develop a common understanding of how project objectives are met by the present solution. Some of the functions listed above are not in the FAST diagram because they were not considered critical functions when the diagram was created. In addition, some of the critical functions in the FAST diagram are not listed above because they were not identified until the diagram was created.

Figure 3. Fast Diagram

CONTROLLED

Evaluation of Alternatives The Team used a FAST diagram to determine which functions best supported the basic function of the project and encompassed as many alternatives as possible. For the purposes of this exercise supporting functions were defined as functions that could be minimized, maximized, or optimized to improve the project. These supporting functions “criteria” were then used to evaluate each alternative based on how well they performed the supporting functions.

After the FAST diagram was constructed, the Team used a paired comparison table to weigh each criterion and which compares each criterion side-by-side. The criterion that has the greatest perceived importance is chosen and the degree of difference between the two criteria is placed in the corresponding cell below. When two criteria tie, the corresponding cells are left blank. The number range used for the Criteria Matrix was 1 through 3 (1 being a minor preference and 3 being a major preference). If any criterion has a raw score of zero, it is given a rating of one (See Table 4).

Alternatives were ranked on how well they supported each function “criteria” by using a scoring range of 1 to 5. If it performed the function poorly it was given a score of one. If the performance of the function was excellent it was given a score of five.

Without considering cost, the alternative rankings and function weights were then combined in a matrix table and ranked based on function alone (See Table 5). Alternative rankings were multiplied by their respective function “criteria” weights and added together to come up with a score for each alternative.

Weighted scores correspond to the descriptions given below the table (i.e. Excellent = 5, Very Good = 4, Good = 3, Fair = 2, Poor = 1). An alternative with a weighted score of 4.2 would be considered “Very Good”.

Larry Miles declared that “all cost is for function”, so to consider the cost in the rankings the team members were asked to make a rough determination of the cost of each alternative. The cost numbers were then converted to a perceived difference in the relative cost between the various alternatives by applying a mathematical rule to normalize the range relative to the highest cost option. Cost scores are weighted by the team based on perceived importance in price for the overall project (See notes below Table 6 for further explanation).

The perceived differences were then combined with weighted scores of each alternative in the form of a ratio (Value Score = Function Score/Cost Score) and re-ranked with perceived life cycle cost in mind (See Table 6).

Figure 4. Criteria Fast Diagram

CONTROLLED

Ranking Matrix The Team developed six alternatives. To determine which alternatives rise to the top and which alternatives fall to the bottom, the Team developed a ranking matrix. The ranking matrix was developed as follows:

A. Maximize Adaptability B. Maximize Water Efficiencies C. Optimize Fish Movement Conditions and Duration D. Minimize O&M E. Minimize Impacts to Flood Conveyance F Minimize Environmental Impacts G Minimize Cultural Impacts

Criteria and Scoring System The Team developed the following criteria and scoring system used to evaluate the five alternatives developed in this report.

A. Maximize Adaptability – The passage has the capacity to be modified in the future through adaptive management to improve fish passage and function. (1= low adaptability, 5 = very adaptable)

B. Maximize Water Efficiencies – The passage can function with the least amount of water (1= low efficiencies, 5= high efficiencies)

C. Optimize Fish Movement Conditions and Duration – Passage has the best physical characteristics for the longest amount of time within the year (e.g. entrance, exit, transition, velocity, depth, resting areas, turbulence, cover, minimize entrapment, temperature, downstream movement). (1= Least Opportunity for Movement, 5 = Most Opportunity for Movement)

D. Minimize O&M – Which fish passage alternatives are easier to operate for the longest duration and minimizes maintenance?

(Number of switches, number of gates, debris removal, staff requirements) (1= Most O&M, 5 = Least O&M)

E.

Minimize Impacts to Flood Conveyance – Alternatives do not impact flood conveyance. (1= Most impact, 5= No change)

CONTROLLED

F. Minimize Environmental Impacts – Construction and maintenance have the least environmental impacts. (1= Most Disturbance and 5 = Least Disturbance)

G. Minimize Cultural Impacts - Construction and maintenance have the least cultural impacts. (1= Most Disturbance and 5 = No Disturbance)

Table 4 Criteria Scoring Matrix

Table 5 - Alternative Ranking (Function Score Only)

CONTROLLED

Table 6 - Alternative Ranking (Function and Cost)

While the final ranking would typically factor in relative costs, the Team determined that there was not enough difference in costs at this level of abstraction to perform a meaningful ranking between the various alternatives (essentially therefore the technical score was not modified by cost. Therefore, there is no Table 6 for this Study.