SADD_Fish_Passage_Final_VP_Report_1_0003.pdf

CONTROLLED

U.S. Department of the Interior January 2020

Value Planning

San Acacia Diversion Dam Fish Passage

Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico

Photo – San Acacia Diversion Dam April 3, 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 Engineering Team (Team) wishes to express thanks and appreciation Michael Vollmer (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 LFCC Low Flow Conveyance Channel MRGCD Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District O&M Operations and Maintenance RGSM Rio Grande Silvery Minnow SADD San Acacia 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 Owners, Users, and Stakeholders Value Planning Alternatives

Alternative 1: Inside Channel Natural Fishway Single Exit & Rock Ramp Alternative 2: Outside Channel Natural Fishway Single Exit & Rock Ramp Alternative 3: Inside Channel Technical Concrete Fishway Alternative 4: Outside Channel Technical Concrete Fishway Alternative 5: Inside Channel Natural Fishway with Multiple Exits Alternative 6: Outside Channel Natural Fishway with Multiple Exits

List of Experts Consulted During Study References Disposition of Ideas 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 on Monday, October 21, 2019, for a 3-day Value Planning Study of the San Acacia Diversion Dam Fish Passage. The estimated cost of the Value Planning Study is $41,000. The Team developed / adopted 6 alternatives, which are summarized below.

The Value Engineering Study is not a decision document, more of 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 containing baffles configured to control flow and depth.

• A checked condition at San Acacia 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: Inside Channel Natural Fishway Single Exit & Rock Ramp A Naturalized Fishway inside the existing river channel and through the dam using an engineered channel containing natural rocks and shapes to accommodate fish passage during dam operations (checked condition). In addition, a modified rock ramp located downstream of the dam will be necessary to allow passage over the modified apron and through the facility during unchecked conditions.

Alternative 2: Outside Channel Natural Fishway Single Exit & Rock Ramp A Naturalized Fishway outside the existing river channel and around the dam using an engineered channel containing natural rocks and shapes to accommodate fish passage during dam operations (checked condition). In addition, a modified rock ramp located downstream of the dam will be necessary to allow passage over the modified apron and through the facility during unchecked conditions.

Alternative 3: Inside Channel Technical Concrete Fishway The Technical Fishway, inside the existing river channel and through the dam, is a rectangular concrete channel with plates to divide it into pools (i.e., vertical slot fishway). Fish can pass between one section and the next. Multiple entrances and exits may be needed so fish can maneuver based on flow conditions.

Alternative 4: Outside Channel Technical Concrete Fishway The Technical Fishway, outside the existing river channel and around the dam, is a rectangular concrete channel with plates to divide it into pools (i.e., vertical slot fishway). Fish can pass between one section and the next. Multiple entrances and exits may be needed so fish can maneuver based on flow conditions.

Alternative 5: Inside Channel Natural Fishway with Multiple Exits Naturalized channel, inside the existing river channel and through the dam. The channel geometry will be either a single or compound trapezoidal channel, whose dimensions will be optimized to convey the design discharge(s) while ensuring that the depth/velocity criteria for Minnow passage is well distributed across the channel footprint.

Alternative 6: Outside Channel Natural Fishway with Multiple Exits This alternative is a naturalized channel, outside the existing river channel and around the dam. The channel geometry will be either a single or compound trapezoidal channel, whose dimensions will be optimized to convey the design discharge(s) while ensuring that the depth/velocity criteria for Minnow passage is well distributed across the channel footprint.

Other Ideas:

The Team identified additional ideas for further consideration and development and 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 1 – Ranking of Alternatives Bar Charts

CONTROLLED

Project Description

Background San Acacia Diversion Dam (SADD) is located on the Rio Grande approximately 16 miles north of Socorro, New Mexico. The dam was built in 1934 by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (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 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (RGSM) to move upstream of the dam is addressed in the 2016 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.

In 2019 Reclamation produced a draft report entitled San Acacia Diversion Dam Long-term Fish Passage Alternative Screening Report. This report screened out five alternatives from an initial list of Ten Alternatives based on Engineering Effectiveness and Biological Function. The final alternatives where:

1. Baffled Fishway Inside Active Channel (Score 60.5)

2. Series of Gradient Restoration Facilities (Score 60.2)

3. Baffled Fishway Outside Active Channel (Score 59.9)

4. Technical In-Channel Fishway (Score 58.1)

5. Rock Ramp and Operation Modification (Score 55.3)

CONTROLLED

Owners, Users, and Stakeholders Table 1 shows the owners, users, and stakeholders, as well as their issues of concern related to the project.

Table 1 − Owners, Users, and Stakeholders Interests in the Project

Owners Owner Interests Reclamation

Meet obligations of 2016 Biological Opinion Adaptable Fish Passage Happy Stakeholders Minimize Risk Reasonable Cost

Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District

Maintain Operations to Meet Needs of Irrigators Understand Fish Behavior Minimize O&M Changes (Irrigation & Fish Passage)

Users / Stakeholders User / Stakeholder Interests Refuge Water for Irrigation and Wildlife

State of New Mexico

Maintain Deliveries to Elephant Butte Reduce Evaporative Losses Make Sure the Fish Passage Works

Irrigators

Delivery of Water Water Rights Dam has Historical Value

Non-Governmental Organizations (i.e. Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc.)

Compliance with Endangered Species Act Maintain or enhance ecological characteristics

Tribes Cultural Resources

Local Community Economic Impact Historic Value of Dam Preserve Ability to Plan Recreation and Fishing

Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery of RGSM Make Sure the Fish Passage Works Advocate for RGSM Conservation of Habitat Have Reclamation Meet Obligations

CONTROLLED

Value Planning Alternatives

Alternative 1: Inside Channel Natural Fishway Single Exit & Rock Ramp

Description:

A Naturalized Fishway inside the existing river channel and through the dam using an engineered channel containing natural rocks and shapes to accommodate fish passage during dam operations (checked conditions). In addition, a modified rock ramp located downstream of the dam will be necessary to allow passage over the modified apron and through the facility during unchecked conditions.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Naturalized channel would most likely need to be located opposite of the irrigation headworks.

• Entry design needs to attract minnow, i.e. “Bernal entrance”

• Exit designed for checked water surface elevation

• Rock Ramp modified to a slope necessary for RGSM swimming capabilities i.e. less than 4% slope

• Concrete apron would need to have baffled modifications to reduce velocity and allow resting areas for the fish

• Dam Operations will need to consider low flow scenarios that allow fish to leave the rock ramp and travel upstream without going back downstream. i.e. leave only the gates necessary for passage open during low flow scenario

• The order of construction is not important.

• Carefully controlled Dam Operations during unchecked conditions is necessary.

• Need to install rock ramp(s) and south naturalized fish passage.

• Identify ideal rock ramp location. Identify specific apron modifications

• Structural analysis of the concrete apron for modifications and installation of baffles.

• Fish passage engineer involvement during channel design/construction

• Impact of operation changes on water rights

• The need to alter the dam structure

Potential Risks:

• Inadequate funding

• Structural issues with apron mods

• Operations do not allow passage

• O&M issues related to debris and/or sediment

• Fish do not use one or both passage options

• Debris into passage

• Predators camped out at exit way or ramp

Advantages:

• Passage way would be constructed in channel

• Allows for passage during checked and ramp during unchecked conditions

• Reclamation can do some of the construction to reduce costs

• More adaptable, changes can be added to both features

Disadvantages:

• There will be times when both passages cannot function without additional water

• Rock ramp susceptible displacement during flood events

• Major modifications of the dam

CONTROLLED

Alternative 2: Outside Channel Natural Fishway Single Exit & Rock Ramp

Description:

A Naturalized Fishway outside the existing river channel and around the dam using an engineered channel containing natural rocks and shapes to accommodate fish passage during dam operations (checked conditions). In addition, a modified rock ramp located downstream of the dam will be necessary to allow passage over the modified apron and through the facility during unchecked conditions.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Naturalized channel would most likely need to be located opposite of the irrigation headworks.

• Entry design needs to attract minnow, i.e. “Bernal entrance”

• Exit designed for checked water surface elevation

• Rock Ramp modified to a slope necessary for RGSM swimming capabilities i.e. less than 4% slope

• Concrete apron would need to have baffled modifications to reduce velocity and allow resting areas for the fish

• Dam Operations will need to consider low flow scenarios that allow fish to leave the rock ramp and travel upstream without going back downstream. i.e. leave only the gates necessary for passage open during low flow scenario

• The order of construction is not important.

• Carefully controlled Dam Operations during unchecked conditions is necessary.

• Identify ideal rock ramp location. Identify specific apron modifications

• Structural analysis of the concrete apron for modifications and installation of baffles.

• Fish passage engineer involvement during channel design/construction

• Impact of operation changes on water rights

• Cultural site issues on the left river bank.

• Inadequate funding

• Structural issues with apron mods

• Operations do not allow passage

• O&M issues related to debris and/or sediment

• Fish do not use one or both passage options

• Debris into passage

• Predators camped out at exit way or ramp

• Passage way will be constructed out of channel

• Allows for passage during checked and unchecked conditions

• Reclamation can do some of the construction to reduce costs

• More adaptable, changes can be added to both features in the future as needed

• There will be times when both passages cannot function without additional water

• Lack of access to Southside for O&M

• Rock ramp susceptible displacement during flood events

Alternative 3: Inside Channel Technical Concrete Fishway

Description:

The Technical Fishway, inside the existing river channel and through the dam, is a rectangular concrete channel with plates to divide it into pools (i.e., vertical slot fishway). Fish can pass between one section and the next. Multiple entrances and exits may be needed so fish can maneuver based on flow conditions.

This alternative creates the conditions in which the Minnow can traverse upstream through a relatively small channel relative compared to the river corridor. Connectivity for the Minnow is dependent on individuals being capable of finding the fishway entrance, which may require additional infrastructure development.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Additional data on fish movement and attraction conditions would be helpful to support design. Topography data are currently being collected, and a fish movement study is underway. Additionally, a test of a Whooshh® trap is also underway, which may help inform attraction conditions.

• Implementation will require environmental and cultural compliance (NEPA, NHPA, ESA, CWA, etc.). Large construction equipment will be needed through a Reclamation construction contract. Water diversion around the construction area will be required, so construction timing to avoid the risk of large flow events will be important.

• To enable the success of this alternative the following are needed: adequate funding, design that covers a broad range of flow conditions, adaptive management (ability to vary the slot width), appropriate pool depth design for the full range of expected elevation change for both checked and unchecked conditions, good trash rack/debris management, and a good stakeholder process.

• Reclamation would need to contract for special equipment and contractors to construct the alternative.

• Fish may not use the passage

• Reclamation will not get the budget to construct or O&M

• Costs greatly exceed the estimate/budget

• Adverse weather during construction (e.g., flooding, rain)

• Unexpected geological or physical conditions during construction

• Bad contractor or delays in construction

• Unintended interference with diversions at the dam

• Unforeseen impacts to structural integrity of the dam

• Debris during construction or operation, causing extra O&M

• Unable to fund or find entity to O&M

• Widely adjustable (within a restricted range) slot and pool sizes

• Can be designed to very tight criteria – more precision in target velocities

• Structure would be sustainable and highly durable (e.g., monsoon high flows, storm events)

• Slots are adaptable to accommodate different flows

• Can be a standalone alternative, does not require pairing with another alternative to meet needs during unchecked state at dam

• Shouldn’t impact depletions; not a large area for evaporative loss, no seepage losses

• Placement in channel reduces risk of cultural impacts

• Requires relatively less water than other alternatives (less impact to river water rights)

• Will be expensive to construct and O&M and may not work well

• Although slots are adaptable, overall the alternative is less adaptable to different river flow conditions than other alternatives

• More complicated to construct (specific design with tight tolerances on grade for concrete)

• Contracting of construction is required

• More difficult to achieve the attraction discharge for this alternative, compared to other alternatives

• If concrete channel remains smooth, fish will prefer more natural channel substrates.

Rougher cobble/rock would be needed on the bottom of the passage structure throughout to support fish utilization of passage.

• More susceptible to debris and plugging

Alternative 4: Outside Channel Technical Concrete Fishway

Description:

The Technical Fishway, outside the existing river channel and around the dam, is a rectangular concrete channel with plates to divide it into pools (i.e., vertical slot fishway). Fish can pass between one section and the next. Multiple entrances and exits may be needed so fish can maneuver based on flow conditions.

This alternative creates the conditions in which the Minnow can traverse upstream through a relatively small channel relative compared to the river corridor. Connectivity for the Minnow is dependent on individuals being capable of finding the fishway entrance, which may require additional infrastructure development.

Critical Items to Consider:

• Additional data on fish movement and attraction conditions would be helpful to support design. Topography data are currently being collected, and a fish movement study is underway. Additionally, a test of a Whooshh® trap is also underway, which may help inform attraction conditions.

• Implementation will require environmental and cultural compliance (NEPA, NHPA, ESA, CWA, etc.). Large construction equipment will be needed through a Reclamation construction contract. Water diversion around the construction area will be required, so construction timing to avoid the risk of large flow events will be important.

• To enable the success of this alternative the following are needed: adequate funding, design that covers a broad range of flow conditions, adaptive management (ability to vary the slot width), appropriate pool depth design for the full range of expected elevation change for both checked and unchecked conditions, good trash rack/debris management, and a good stakeholder process.

• Special equipment and contractors are needed under Reclamation contract to construct the alternative.

• Fish may not use the passage

• Reclamation will not get the budget to construct or O&M

• Costs greatly exceed the estimate/budget

• Adverse weather during construction (e.g., flooding, rain)

• Unknown or complicated cultural sites that emerge during construction

• Unexpected geological or physical conditions during construction

• Bad contractor or delays in construction

• Unintended interference with diversions at the dam

• Unforeseen impacts to structural integrity of the dam

• Debris during construction or operation, causing extra O&M

• Unable to fund or find entity to O&M

• Widely adjustable (within a restricted range) slot and pool sizes

• Can be designed to very tight criteria – more precision in target velocities

• Structure would be sustainable and high durability (e.g., monsoon high flows, storm events)

• Slots are adaptable to accommodate different Fishway flows

• Can be a standalone alternative, does not require pairing with another alternative to meet needs during unchecked state at dam

• Shouldn’t impact depletions; not a large area for evaporative loss, no seepage losses

• Requires relatively less water than other alternatives

• Will be expensive (e.g., O&M, or if does not work well)

• Although slots are adaptable, overall the alternative is less adaptable than other alternatives

• More complicated to construct (specific design with tight tolerances on grade for concrete)

• Contracting is required

• Placement outside of the channel increases the risk of cultural impacts

• More difficult to achieve the attraction discharge for this alternative, compared to other alternatives

• If concrete channel remains smooth, fish prefer more natural channel substrates. Rougher cobble/rock would be needed on the bottom of the passage structure throughout to support passage.

• More susceptible to debris and plugging

CONTROLLED

Alternative 5: Inside Channel Natural Fishway with Multiple Exits

Description:

This alternative is a naturalized channel, inside the existing river channel and through the dam. The channel geometry will be either a single or compound trapezoidal channel, whose dimensions will be optimized to convey the design discharge(s) while ensuring that the depth/velocity criteria for Minnow passage is well distributed across the channel footprint.

For the fishway to function under a variety of conditions, both a constant checked water surface and variable water surface associated with changing flow conditions under un-checked conditions, multiple connections to the river upstream of the dam will be required.

If multiple connections are used, there must be facilities to close off lower elevation connections when higher elevation connections are in use. Currently unknown, but it may be possible to design a compound channel to accommodate a range of water surface elevations while being able to ensure that the channel satisfies the depth/velocity criteria for Minnow passage.

Critical Items to Consider:

• What is an acceptable range of flows, in addition to the checked water surface, that satisfies passage goals?

• How will debris be excluded and/or removed?

• Each upstream river connection requires its own separate gate and the facilities to operate it.

• Major structural changes will be required to the dam, possible including mechanization of dam gates (electrical/mechanical engineering).

• Velocity break structures (boulders) should be added/subtracted post-construction to maximize ideal conditions.

• Passage entrance conditions require optimization to attract the Minnow.

• Debris and sediment reduce available areas for Minnow navigation.

• Operations and maintenance of multiple gates.

• Minnow do not find the correct exit to river.

• Locating the fishway entrance to maximize likelihood that Minnow will find it.

• Minnow may stay in the fishway instead of continuing upstream.

• Easily modified by positioning rocks.

• Facilitates the construction of cover.

• Can monitor water quality.

• Large variability of depth/velocity conditions within the fishway.

• Multiple gates and their operation and maintenance.

• Each exit connection to be designed for a specific discharge, limiting the flow to a set of specific values when the fish passage functions.

• Requires dam modification

CONTROLLED

Alternative 6: Outside Channel Natural Fishway with Multiple Exits

Description:

This alternative is a naturalized channel, outside the existing river channel and around the dam. The channel geometry will be either a single or compound trapezoidal channel, whose dimensions will be optimized to convey the design discharge(s) while ensuring that the depth/velocity criteria for Minnow passage is well distributed across the channel footprint.

For the fishway to function under a variety of conditions, both a constant checked water surface and variable water surface associated with changing flow conditions under un-checked conditions, multiple connections to the river upstream of the dam will be required.

If multiple connections are used, there must be facility to close off lower elevation connections when higher elevation connections are in use. Currently unknown, whether it is possible to design a compound channel to accommodate a range of water surface elevations, while being able to ensure that the channel satisfies the depth/velocity criteria for Minnow passage.

Critical Items to Consider:

• What is an acceptable range of flows, in addition to the checked water surface, that satisfies passage goals?

• How will debris be excluded and/or removed?

• Each upstream river connection requires its own separate gate and the facilities to operate it.

• Velocity break structures (boulders) should be added/subtracted post-construction to maximize ideal conditions.

• Passage entrance conditions require optimization to attract the Minnow.

• Placement outside of the channel increases the risk of cultural impacts

• Debris and sediment reduce available areas for Minnow navigation.

• Operations and maintenance of multiple gates.

• Minnow do not find the correct exit to river.

• Locating fishway entrance to maximize likelihood that Minnow will find it.

• Minnow may stay in the fishway instead of continuing upstream.

• Can be built outside of the active channel.

• Easily modified by positioning rocks.

• Facilitates the construction of cover.

• Can monitor water quality.

• Large variability of depth/velocity conditions within the fishway.

• Multiple gates and their operation and maintenance.

• Each exit connection to be designed for a specific discharge, limiting the flow to a set of specific values when the fish passage functions.

• Placement outside of the channel increases the risk of cultural impacts

List of Experts Consulted During Study

None

References

U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2019. San Acacia Diversion Dam Long-term Fish Passage Alternative Screening Report (Draft). June.

CONTROLLED

Disposition of Ideas During the “creativity phase” of the Value Engineering 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. Very long channel with minimal grade starting below the dam and ending where the natural river intersects the checked pool

Connect Habitat Dismissed by Team

2. . Use sediment bar for off channel movement Connect Habitat Dismissed by team

3. Create a “leaky” set of gates for fish passage Connect Habitat Dismissed by team

4. Rubber inflatable gates to raise and lower flows for passage and irrigation

Connect Habitat Dismissed by team

5. Fishway on either side of the dam Connect Habitat Dismissed by team

6. Create naturalized channel outside river channel Connect Habitat Alternatives 1,2,5 and

7. Provide an extended rock ramp with pools and resting zones

Connect Habitat Part of Alternatives 1 and 2

8. Physical connection such as ramp or ladder Connect Habitat Dismissed by team

9. Fish channel around east end of dam Connect Habitat Dismissed by team

10. Partial rocky ramps and bypass to maximize passage opportunities

Connect Habitat Dismissed by team

11. Fish can move back and forth, Fish decide movement

Connect Habitat Dismissed by team

12. Tunnel / siphon below / around dam Connect Habitat Dismissed by team

13. Enough for fish to swim in (depth) Hold Water Dismissed by team

14. Create pools deep enough to reduce turbulence to “x”

Hold Water Dismissed by team

15. Use lots of cement and geomembranes Hold Water Dismissed by team

CONTROLLED

Idea Function Disposition

16. Tax incentive for fishway water to water owner Hold Water Dismissed by team

17. Bucket Hold Water Dismissed by team

18. A thread of schooling fish observed seasonally moving upstream

Maintain Condition Dismissed by team

19. Gradient close to native river Maintain Condition Natural channel alternatives

20. Regulate flow and velocity and turbidity to minimize energy effort of fish

Maintain Condition Design detail that may be considered

21. Evaluate project alternatives for velocity, depth, and turbulence suitability for RGSM

Maintain Condition Part of one of the criteria

22. Food / Resting areas / Good velocities Maintain Condition Design detail

23. Create resting spots within the structure Maintain Condition Design detail

24. Have access to quality feeding habitat, have access to quality resting habitat

Maintain Condition Design detail

25. Use rounded corners to reduce injury unless needed to minimize burst speeds

Maintain Condition Design detail

26. Pump system to supply irrigation flows then use headworks to create fish ladder

Maintain Condition Dismissed by Team

27. Use LFCC to supply irrigation and keep SADD open as much as possible

Maintain Condition Dismissed by Team

28. Snow making / Reduce fossil fuels Maintain Flow Dismissed by team

29. Divert water from main river to in-channel fish passage

Maintain Flow Already considered

30. Good velocities Maintain Flow Design detail

31. Define flow rate for fish passage to work under Maintain Flow Design detail

32. Cut diversion dam to connect with downstream in one section

Maintain Flow Dismissed by team

33. Reduce width of dam Maintain Flow Dismissed by team

34. Move river around diversion dam Maintain Flow Dismissed by team

35. Fish structure with energy dissipating rocks so fish can rest

Maintain Flow Design detail for Alternatives 1 and 2

36. Natural rock weir channel (Replace dam) Maintain Flow Dismissed by Team

37. Pump diversion flow and reduce dam height of water

Maintain Flow Dismissed by Team

38. Pump groundwater to maintain constant flow Maintain Flow Dismissed by Team

CONTROLLED

Idea Function Disposition

39. Langemann gate at exit Maintain Flow Design detail

40. Feed fish Attract Fish Dismissed by Team

41. Monitor water quality Attract Fish Dismissed by Team

42. Attraction velocities from 8 cm/sec to 53 cm/sec Attract Fish Design detail

43. Bait fish Attract Fish Dismissed by Team

44. Attach ion batteries to them for assisted movement Attract Fish Dismissed by Team

45. Substrate with refuge Attract Fish Design detail

46. Different flows than main channel / Food / Resting areas

Attract Fish Design detail

47. Create river conditions up and downstream (baffles, runs, and pools) to control velocities and attract

Attract Fish Design detail

48. Restoration of entrance and exit – backwaters habitat

Attract Fish Design detail

49. Put entrance at bottom of apron Attract Fish Needed for most of the alternatives

50. Fishway built upstream and exit far into pool to maximize exit passage

Attract Fish Design detail

51. Operate dam to create barrier and guide fish to entrance with turbidity and flow over dam

Attract Fish Design detail

52. Bernal entrance Attract Fish Design detail

53. Study fish movement motivations first All Others Studies are currently underway

54. Tunnel system with lights and baffles All Others Dismissed by team

55. Lock system All Others Dismissed by team

56. Line ditches so to reduce loss and put loss back into river for low flow passing benefit

All Others Dismissed by team

57. Pump ground water from sump to meet irrigation demand

All Others Dismissed by team

58. Keep a pool behind dam perpetually to allow only one exit year-round

Next Day Ideas Dismissed by team

59. Two separate fishways – one for checked conditions and one for un-checked conditions

Next Day Ideas Alternatives 1 and 2

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

Entry Attract Fish

Ease Transition

Grant Access

Passage Promote Movement

Cover Fish

Maintain Condition

Hold Water

Maximize Survival

Reduce Injury

Maintain Flow

Exit Maximize Survival

Grant Egress

Connect Habitat

Ease Transition

Reduce Entrainment

CONTROLLED

Component Active Verb Measurable Noun

Operation Maintain Flow

Maintain Irrigation Diversion

Protect Public

Deflect Debris

Exclude Sediment

Flush Sediment

Minimize Operations & Maintenance

Minimize Depletion

CONTROLLED

Function Analysis System Technique

The Team used the functions to generate a Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram Figure 2. 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 2. 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 criteria 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 3. Criteria Fast Diagram.

CONTROLLED

Ranking Matrix The Team developed six alternatives. To figure out 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. Optimize Water Efficiencies C. Optimize Fish Movement Conditions and Duration D. Minimize O&M E. Optimize Dam Operational Flexibility F Minimize Environmental Disturbance

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 and 5 = very adaptable)

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

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

E. Optimize Dam Operational Flexibility – Alternatives allow normal or improved operation of the dam (irrigation, river flood control, sluicing, downstream and compact deliveries). (1= Negative impact to operation, 3= No impact and 5 = Improved operation)

F. Minimize Environmental Disturbance – Construction and maintenance have the least impacts (cultural, land, transportation, biological, etc.). (1= Most and 5 = Least)

Table 4 Criteria Scoring Matrix

Table 5 - Alternative Ranking (Function Score Only)

Note: Alternative titles have been shortened

Table 6 - Alternative Ranking (Function and Cost)

The cost scores are computed by determining which project alternative costs the most and then making the others a fraction of that cost (normalizing to one). If it is determined that the cost scores give too much weight to the final score (which is almost always the case) then the difference between scores are flattened out by using a common exponent less than one. The exponent selected by the team in this study was 0.20. The flattened scores are then converted to a Final Denominator which preserves the correlation between the Final Score and word descriptions (i.e. Excellent = 5, Very Good = 4, Good = 3, Fair = 2, Poor = 1). Final score of each alternative is computed by dividing the function score by the cost score (Function/Cost=Value). The Final Scores are either equal to the Function Score or are less than the Function Score (never higher) depending on the impact of Cost.