Attachment_12-Coleman_NFH_Trapping___Sorting_VE_Study_(final).pdf

CUI

ATTENTION

Use this space to indicate categories, limited dissemination controls, special instructions, points of contact, etc., if needed.

ATTENTION

All individuals handling this information are required to protect it from unauthorized disclosure.

Handling, storage, reproduction, and disposition of the attached document(s) must be in accordance with 32 CFR Part 2002 and applicable agency policy.

allowed as necessary and permissible to any individual(s), organization(s), or grouping(s) of users, provided such access or dissemination is consistent with or in furtherance of a Lawful Government Purpose and in a manner consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Government-wide policies.

Standard Form 901 (11-18) Prescribed by GSA/ISOO | 32 CFR 2002

CUI

For information on this study, please contact:

Juan Cruz Echevarria, California-Great Basin Regional Value Coordinator

(916) 978-5327 - jcruzechevarria@usbr.gov or

Del Smith, Reclamation Value Program Manager

(303) 445-2516 - dsmith@usbr.gov

CONTROLLED

U.S. Department of the Interior May 2021

Value Engineering Final Report

Coleman National Fish Hatchery Trapping and Sorting Facility – Phases 1 & 2

Chinook Salmon at Coleman Hatchery – D. Rupert.

Controlled by: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior Region 10 – California- Great Basin, Bay-Delta Office, John Hannon, 916-414-2341

Decontrol by: 2.2.4.21

Mission Statements The Department of the Interior conserves and manages the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper.

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

Coleman National Fish Hatchery Trapping and Sorting Facility – Phases 1 & 2 Interior Region 10: California-Great Basin Prepared by: The Bureau of Reclamation, Jay Bytheway, Civil Engineer, CSV, Team Facilitator

Value Engineering Team

Chris Shipman, Cost Estimator Jason Wagner, P.E., Civil Engineer Jenna Paul, P.E., Civil Engineer Jason Foust, Resident Engineer Derek Rupert, Fish Biologist Javier Linares, Fish Biologist Logan Negherbon, P.E., Civil Engineer Jonathon Mann, Conservation Engineer

Disclaimer: Delete if N/A) Information in this report may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes. The data and findings should not be construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Interior, or Federal Government. The products evaluated in the report were evaluated for purposes specific to the Bureau of Reclamation mission. Reclamation gives no warranties or guarantees, expressed or implied, for the products evaluated in this report, including merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Final Value Planning Report – Coleman NFH Trapping & Sorting Facility – Phases 1&2 i

CONTROLLED

Acknowledgements The Value Study Team wishes to express thanks and appreciation to John Hannon - Project Manager, Bill Cutting – Kleinschmidt Design Lead, and Javier Linares – Fish Biologist for providing valuable project background and scoping information and helping set up the study.

Their assistance contributed significantly to the technical foundation and scope of the Team’s investigation and final proposals and considerations.

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

CONTROLLED

Abbreviations and Acronyms BC Battle Creek CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CGB California-Great Basin ESA Endangered Species Act FAST Function Analysis System Technique FWS Fish and Wildlife Service LSNFH Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery NFH National Fish Hatchery NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service SHPO State Historic Preservation Office Team Value Engineering Study Team TSC Technical Service Center Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation VE Value Engineering WRCS Winter Run Chinook Salmon iii

CONTROLLED

Table of Contents Page

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

Background Problem Statement

Baseline Concept Value Engineering Objectives Historic Preservation Considerations Cost Model and Estimate Information Owners, Users, and Stakeholders Value Engineering Proposals

Proposal 1: Connect a Section of Steeppass to Middle Ladder Proposal 2: Pescalator to lower release junction

Design Considerations Design Consideration 1: Replace Steeppass with Lock and Lift Design Consideration 2: Replace Steeppass with Denil Design Consideration 3: Use AI fish sorting system Design Consideration 4: Larger and/or more numerous holding tanks Design Consideration 5: Add velocity barrier and lock/lift vice steeppass Design Consideration 6: Improve employee comfort and ergonomics Design Consideration 7: Increase holding capacity and transport capacity in segregation pool Design Consideration 8: Increase holding capacity and transport capacity of the fish lock Design Consideration 9: Extend vertical slot ladder up to elevation needs Design Consideration 10: Release from the segregation pool to save from using the fish lock Design Consideration 11: Segregate salmonids prior to fishlock (remove steeppass from full buildout)

Design Consideration 11a:

Design Consideration 11b:

Disposition of Ideas Value Method Function Analysis Function Analysis System Technique Value Study Teams and Presentation List References iv

Final Value Engineering Report – Coleman NFH Trapping & Sorting Facility – Phases 1&2

CONTROLLED

Executive Summary The Value Study Team (Team) met on Monday, April 12, 2021, for a 5-day Value Engineering (VE) Study of the Coleman National Fish Hatchery Trapping and Sorting Facility – Phases 1 &

2. The estimated Contract Cost of the baseline concept is $8,500,000, not including construction contingencies and non-contract costs. At 100-percent design, the estimated Contract Cost of the Baseline Concept for Construction phase 1 is $8,500,000 not including non-contract costs. At 30-percent design, the estimated Contract Cost of the Baseline Concept for Construction phase 2 has not been vetted enough to give an accurate cost estimate. The estimated cost of the Value Engineering Study is $56,000. The Team developed two proposals, which are summarized below.

The VE Study is not a decision document, more of a guidance document on where to concentrate design efforts in progressing forward on the project. The proposals documented within this report will be presented to the decision-makers for consideration, and the decision to accept or reject individual proposals will be made through a combined effort between designers, managers, and project stakeholders and documented by an Accountability Report, if applicable.

Independent Proposals Proposals 1 and 2 are independent of each other and can be accepted or rejected individually without affecting the other proposal. Both proposals can be combined.

Proposal 1: Connect a Section of Steeppass to Middle Ladder This proposal includes a section of steeppass fishway connecting the segregation pool area directly to the base of the existing middle ladder. Two options for doing this are shown in the proposal (Proposal 1A and 1B).

The estimated cost addition of Proposal 1A is $226,000 before adding any study costs.

The estimated cost addition of Proposal 1B is $326,000 before adding any study costs.

Proposal 2: Pescalator to lower release junction This proposal recommends full buildout of Phase 1 and 2 with the following modifications:

• Removal of the fishlock system

• Replacement with a pescalator lifting fish to a junction on the release pool tube.

The estimated cost savings of this proposal is $124,000 before deducting any study costs.

CONTROLLED

Other Ideas:

The Team identified several design considerations that were not developed. It was generally agreed that the Design Team would likely address these issues and/or develop these considerations as the design progressed and therefore did not need extensive Team development.

All these ideas are listed in the “Design Considerations” section.

CONTROLLED

Project Description Background Battle Creek (BC) is an important upper Sacramento River tributary for the recovery of listed salmonids in the Central Valley of California, including Central Valley spring run (Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Threatened) and Sacramento River winter run (ESA listed Endangered) Chinook salmon, and Central Valley steelhead (ESA listed Threatened). Ongoing habitat restoration actions in BC will improve habitat quality and provide access to 48 miles of the historical 52 miles of stream habitat for anadromous salmonids in the BC watershed. Coleman National Fish Hatchery is located in northern California approximately 17 miles southeast of Redding, California. Coleman National Fish Hatchery (NFH) sits on the north bank of BC downstream of the BC Restoration Project area, approximately 6 miles upstream from the confluence with the Sacramento River. Coleman NFH was built to partially mitigate negative effects of Shasta and Keswick dams on natural populations of salmonids and plays a major role in maintaining feasible commercial/sport salmon fisheries for fall and late-fall Chinook Salmon and steelhead. The Coleman NFH operates a barrier weir and fish ladder on BC to facilitate the seasonal collection of hatchery broodstock. The barrier weir-fish ladder also serves as a key location for monitoring passage of salmon and steelhead into restored areas of BC. Coleman NFH annual smolt production includes 12 million fall run Chinook salmon, 1.0 million late-fall run Chinook salmon, and 600,000 steelhead.

In 2017, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requested the Service to spawn winter run Chinook Salmon (WRCS) captive broodstock at Livingston Stone NFH (LSNFH) to jump-start the reintroduction of WRCS into BC. The reintroduction of WRCS to BC was initiated with the release of Jump-start juveniles in 2018. Annual juvenile releases have occurred 2018-2021 (Table 1) and are expected to continue until a self-sustaining run is established. WRCS adult returns from juvenile releases include 95 in 2019 and over 1,000 in 2020. So far in 2021, adult WRCS returns are significantly lower than 2020 but fish are expected to keep returning until July.

Table 1. Number of Jump-start juveniles released into Battle Creek Brood Year Released Year Number of Smolt Released

2017 2018 215,000

2018 2019 180,000

2019 2020 184,000

2020 2021 214,000

CONTROLLED

With the return of WRCS to BC, the river ladder at the Coleman NFH barrier weir is now closed throughout their migration (February – July) to collect, sample, and manage returning spawners.

This strategy of trapping and collecting hatchery origin WRCS throughout their migration period is consistent with the strategy described in the Reintroduction Plan. While collecting WRCS at the Coleman NFH, spring Chinook Salmon and steelhead are also directed to swim up the hatchery ladder and into Coleman NFH adult holding pond 3. Fishes collected in Pond Number 3 are processed through the spawning building daily number. Migrating native non-salmonids (except Pacific Lamprey) are forced to hold below the hatchery ladder and Coleman barrier weir.

Native runs of Sacramento sucker (ca. 5,734), Sacramento Pikeminnow (ca. 385), and Hardheads

(ca. 1,229) which normally occur during March-July are blocked, except for limited periods when they are afforded managed passage through the river ladder. These opportunities are limited, however, because affording passage to non-salmonid fishes brings about the potential for unintentionally passing WRCS.

Problem Statement Based on the location of Coleman NFH and Coleman barrier weir, upstream passage of native fish and natural origin salmonids into the BC Restoration area is greatly influenced by hatchery, weir, and ladder operations during broodstock collections.

The problem affected operations in the following ways:

1. WRCS broodstock collection activities with the existing infrastructure result in holding, crowding, anesthetization, and handling of naturally origin salmonid and hatchery Winter runs for most of the year (September – July).

2. Broodstock collection activities at Coleman NFH result in upstream migration delays, increases in disease transfer potential, stress, and risk of injury including mortality to wild salmonid runs.

3. WRCS broodstock collection activities with the existing infrastructure result in blockage of native runs of Sacramento sucker (ca. 5,734), Sacramento Pikeminnow (ca. 385), and Hardheads (ca. 1,229) which normally occur during March-July.

4. Current infrastructure at Coleman NFH does not have capacity for short term holding of natural origin returning adult Winter run and Spring run Chinook salmon. Circulars with life-support systems will be needed to collect natural origin WRCS returning adults for broodstock.

5. Operations at Coleman barrier weir and ladder cannot always prevent passage of hatchery origin salmonids and non-target runs into the Restoration area.

6. Trapping and sampling natural salmon stocks in the middle ladder is not currently possible.

Overall hatchery broodstock collection operations at Coleman NFH with existing infrastructure can impair reproductive success of natural non-salmonid and salmonid runs destined for natural spawning in Battle Creek and compromise the success of the Battle Creek restoration project, reintroduction of WRCS and recovery of Central Valley ESA listed salmonids.

CONTROLLED

Baseline Concept The project includes a Trapping and Sorting Facility in Coleman NFH ‘broodstock holding pond Number 2’, modifications to the river and hatchery ladders, and construction of a release pool adjacent to the river ladder. The project is currently divided into two construction Phases, Phase 1 is at 100-percent design and Phase 2 at 30-percent design. The VE includes both construction phases.

The Trapping and Sorting facility is design to facilitate multiple functions associated with Battle Creek Restoration project and Coleman NFH operations:

1. Sorting of natural-origin Chinook salmon and steelhead during Coleman NFH broodstock collection operations, specifically during the period when steelhead and late-fall Chinook Salmon are being collected for broodstock (i.e., December – March)

2. Sorting of hatchery origin fishes, including steelhead, late-fall Chinook salmon, Feather River Spring Chinook salmon, and WRCS to prevent or manage access into BC restoration area

3. Temporary holding of returning adult WRCS broodstock

4. Sampling and tagging native salmonids

5. Monitoring (counting) native salmonid and non-salmonid fishes

6. Providing volitional passage to upstream migrating native salmonids

7. Providing passage to upstream migrating native non-salmonid fishes (e.g., Sacramento sucker, Pikeminnow, Pacific lamprey, and hardheads)

The Trapping and Sorting facility will be capable of operating year-round, including the periods of hatchery broodstock collection at the Coleman NFH (e.g., October – March) and at other times.

The Baseline Concept includes:

Phase 1:

• Hatchery Ladder Modifications

• Transport Channel

• Segregation Pool with Crowder, Brail Lift, gate and false weir

• Fish Lock with brail lift, gate, and false weir

• Anesthetic Tank with Brail Lift

• Sorting Table

• Upstream Recovery Tank

• Temporary Return Tube to Pond 3

• Flume and manual gates to circular tanks

• Circular Tanks and Life Support Systems

• Circular Tank Pie Crowder, False Weirs and Exit Flume

• Flumes with PIT reader, automatic pneumatic switch gates from circulars to transport pod, exit pool, and re-sort tank

CONTROLLED

• Roof and rails for Circular tank and Sampling areas

• Water Supply from 8x80 Raceways

• Water Supply System from P6 and Neves Creek

• Temporary Pumps and Piping

• Electrical Power Infrastructure

• Exit Pool and River Ladder Modifications

• Tubes to Exit Pool

• Automation (e.g. fish lock, water flow control)

Phase 2:

• Lower Steeppass

• Resting Pool

• Upper Steeppass

• Pre-Sort Pool with Crowder, Brail Lift and False Weir

• CWT Detectors

• PIT Tag Readers

• Observation Room

• Flumes and Automatic Gates to Trap Ponds

• Tubes to Ponds 3, 4 & 5

• Tubes to Battle Creek below Weir

• Trap Ponds with Crowders and Brail Lifts

• Anesthetic Tanks with Brail Lifts

• Permanent Pump Station and Aeration Tower

• Water Supply from Screen Number 1

• Electrical Power Infrastructure

• Downstream Recovery Tank

• SCADA and PLC Systems

• Electrical Power Infrastructure

The basic characteristics of the Baseline Concept are as follows:

• Demolition and removal of Holding Pond Number 2

• Construction of concrete and steel structures

• Electrical and mechanical systems

• Earthwork

• Paving

• Piping and site work

• Fish handling equipment

• Fish holding equipment

• Ladder modifications

• And related items for a complete and functioning facility.

CONTROLLED

At 100-percent design, the estimated Contract Cost of the Baseline Concept for Construction Phase 1 is $8,500,000 not including non-contract costs. At 30-percent design, the estimated Contract Cost of the Baseline Concept for Construction Phase 2 has not been vetted enough to give an accurate cost estimate.

CONTROLLED

Value Engineering Objectives Reclamation's VE Studies are often used to determine a broad range of ideas or options (Proposals and Design Considerations) that best meet the goals of the project. The objective of this VE Study helped determine the best proposals and create a roadmap of how to best proceed in the next step of the design process.

Historic Preservation Considerations Because the Coleman NFH is over 50 years old, it may be considered a historic federal property which could be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires federal agencies to review corrective actions and modifications to their historic properties and seek to minimize adverse effects. Reclamation will need to consult with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to discuss measures to mitigate adverse effects, if necessary.

CONTROLLED

Cost Model and Estimate Information Figures 1 and 2 shows the cost model for Phase 1 of the preferred project design, which is based on the 100-percent design estimate. The cost model was used to focus on features with the greatest potential for savings. The Value Engineering Team used the contract cost (not including construction contingencies and non-contract costs) for the baseline concept. Not enough cost detail for Phase 2 was given to create a meaningful cost model.

Figure 1. Cost Model for Phase 1. (Breakout by CSI Division)

Figure 2. Cost Model for Phase 1. (Breakout by Component)

CONTROLLED

Cost savings/additions are at a lower level of development than the design estimates. The cost savings/additions will vary as the design progresses.

The cost estimates prepared for this Value Engineering Study were developed solely for comparing the costs of proposals to the functional equivalent in the baseline concept. The Team has limited time and resources to prepare cost estimates for each proposal. Therefore, these cost estimates are not recommended to be used for budgeting or construction purposes. At the time final specifications are prepared, the Design Team will more accurately quantify any savings/additions resulting from acceptance of proposals.

The disposition (fully accepted, partially accepted, rejected, or withdrawn) and reason for the disposition of each proposal will be included in an accountability report. This report will also include the cost savings/additions. If, as a result of this study, a cost estimate is required for appropriations, the Team recommends that a new baseline cost estimate be completed.

CONTROLLED

Owners, Users, and Stakeholders Table 2 shows the owners, users, and stakeholders, as well as their issues of concern related to the project.

Table 2 − Owners, Users, and Stakeholders Issues of Concern

Owners Owner Issues Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Upkeep and maintenance

Operations

Reclamation Cost Mitigation effectiveness

Users User Issues FWS Broodstock collection and storage

Ability to trap and sort species Short term holding of returning adults Ability to process fish that have been trap in a safe manner Minimize impact on natural runs Provide volitional passage to migrating natural adult salmonids Prevent non-target species from entering Prevent juveniles from reentering Efficient sorting of fish

Stakeholders Stakeholder Issues Public Fishing opportunities

Regulatory Agencies

NMFS

CDFW

Re-establishing and managing listed species

Pacific Gas & Electric Ability to keep generating hydro power

CONTROLLED

Value Engineering Proposals Proposal 1: Connect a Section of Steeppass to Middle Ladder

Description:

Phase 2 of the project as currently planned includes two sections of steeppass fishway that would help self-sort fish to a sorting element that includes no fish handling. Because steeppass fishways present more challenging hydraulic conditions it is more likely to exclude fish that are not strong swimmers (non-salmonids) and therefore it is expected that only salmon and steelhead will ascend the steeppass sections. This proposal includes a section of steeppass fishway connecting the segregation pool area directly to the base of the existing middle ladder. Option A of this concept proposal as shown in Figure P1-1 would connect the steeppass just downstream of the segregation pool at the “polygon” area. This would be included with Phase 1 of the project. Option B of this concept proposal as shown in Figure P1-2 & 3 would connect the steeppass upstream of the segregation pool at a receiving pool for the lower steeppass fishway section that is planned as part of Phase 2 of the project. Since the steeppass only has a 6 cfs capacity an additional 13 cfs water supply would be needed for attraction flows.

Figure P1-1. Proposal 1 Option A as shown on the Draft 100-percent Phase 1 drawings Sheet C4.

Figure P1-2. Proposal 1 Option B as shown on the Phase 2 30-percent drawings Sheet C4.

Figure P1-3. Proposal 1 Option B as shown on the Phase 2 30-percent drawings Sheet C4 (Continued).

CONTROLLED

Critical Items to Consider:

• Vetting of steeppass fishway as being more certain to self-sort/self-select for adult salmon and steelhead.

• Proposal would be implemented as part of final design refinement.

• Changes to piping layout would be required. Shifting over the Phase 2 steeppasses, resting pool, and the presort pool would be needed to accommodate Option B (as shown in Figure P1-3).

• Review of this proposal by the project team, including the operators and fish managers, and the current designers would help ensure feasibility.

Changes from the Baseline:

• Routing of adult salmon and steelhead would bypass the hatchery ladder (Option A) and bypass both the hatchery ladder and segregation pool/fish lock (Option B).

• Additional section of steeppass fishway, transport channel, pools, and slide gates.

Potential Risks:

• Adult salmon and steelhead do not use the steeppass fishway sections.

Advantages:

• When wanting to target sorting of only salmon and steelhead this proposal would avoid receiving non-salmonids in segregation pool (Option A) or have adult salmon and steelhead bypass the segregation pool and fish lock (Option B).

• Steeppass experience while operating Phase 1.

Disadvantages:

• More water control needed (more gates and structure to operate and maintain).

Cost Addition (Proposal 1A):

Baseline concept (contract cost)

$ 8,500,000

Value concept (contract cost) $ 8,700,000

Implementation Cost $ 26,000

Cost Addition $ 226,000

CONTROLLED

Cost Addition (Proposal 1B):

Baseline concept (contract cost) $ 8,500,000

Value concept (contract cost) $ 8,800,000

Implementation Cost $ 26,000

Cost Addition $ 326,000 Notes: Mobilization, contingencies, and noncontract costs not included in the above totals.

Implementation costs were calculated by using TSC 2021 rates (3 days at Level 3, 6 weeks at Level 2, and 6 weeks at Level 1).

CONTROLLED

Proposal 2: Pescalator to lower release junction This proposal recommends full buildout of Phase 1 and 2 with the following modifications: removal of the fishlock system and replacement with a pescalator lifting fish to a junction on the release pool tube.

The fishlock appears to serve 2 purposes: primary lift system for Phase 1 and secondary lift for weak salmonids and non-salmonid to the sorting facility for phase 2. After Phase 2 is constructed, the fishlock lifts mostly non-salmonids up to the sorting facility and passes them to the release pool. This proposal recommends full buildout of the Phase 1 and 2 providing for the volitional segregation of salmonids and non-salmonids in the segregations pool. The segregation pool would maintain the crowder and brail system for non-salmonids not passing the steeppass ladder but the fish lock would be removed from design/construction and replaced with a pescalator (Archimedes-type pump) to lift non-salmonids up to a height where they may be released to the fish tube leading to the release pool. Salmonids that do not pass the steeppass ladder may need to be intercepted and netted in the segregation pool prior to operating the pescalator and manually passed up to sorting facility.

Figure P2-1. Pescalator exiting salmonid. (Roger Werth, Daily News file photo)

Figure P2-2. Section view Sheet M30 of 100-percent Phase 1 with fish lock.

Figure P2-3. Recommended components for removal.

Figure P2-4. Recommended components for replacement (pescalator and junction box to release pool tube).

Critical Items to Consider:

• This proposal requires the full facility buildout (Phase 1 and 2).

• The proposal assumes limited handling of salmonids not passing the steeppass is acceptable

Changes from the Baseline:

• Baseline assumed phased construction. This recommends non-phased construction.

• Baseline water supply requirements for the fishlock will be altered (assumed reduced) to support the pescalator and flushing flow.

Advantages:

• The pescalator to release pool tube minimizes handling of non-salmonids.

• Removal of the fish lock opens up more space in the sorting room.

• Removal of the fishlock reduces water demands (assumed).

• Reduced mechanical components.

Disadvantages:

• Manual handling of salmonids not passing the steeppass.

CONTROLLED

Potential Risks:

• Funding is not secured for design and construction of full facility buildout.

• A significant number of salmonids do not use the steeppass and must be manually evacuated from the segregation pool.

Cost Savings:

Baseline concept (field cost) $ 8,800,000

Value concept (field cost) $ 8,650,000

Implementation Cost $ 26,000

Cost Savings $ 124,000 Notes: Mobilization, contingencies, and noncontract costs not included in the above totals.

Implementation costs were calculated by using TSC 2021 rates (3 days at Level 3, 6 weeks at Level 2, and 6 weeks at Level 1).

CONTROLLED

Design Considerations The Team discussed the following ideas in more detail. These ideas became design considerations.

No response to these items is required in the Accountability Report.

Design Consideration 1: Replace Steeppass with Lock and Lift One of the key requirements for operations of the Trap/Sorter System is the ability to get fish up to the elevated platform. The current design has a small lock and lift (Phase 1) and a two-stage steep pass (Phase 2) to get the fish to the sorting platform. The steeppass is a high-angle flume with many vanes, which allow fish to swim up steep inclines. The VE team believe the designers should consider replacing the steeppass with an additional lock and lift. This change would ensure the uninterrupted operations of the Trap/Sorter and the health and safety of the fish.

The steeppass has several possible negative attributes that are less attractive than a lock and lift. First, the steeppass could injure a fish as it passes upstream. The vanes could cause abrasions, the fish could get stuck, or they could jump out of the flume. Spring-run and winter-run Chinook Salmon are the key species of interest for trapping and sorting, and both are rare and sensitive. Having even a small percentage of fish injured during their passage through the Trap/Sorter would be unacceptable. Second, the steeppass would only be passable by large and strong fish. Weakened fish may not be able to ascend the steeppass. Finally, operations could be continually delayed if the steeppass requires frequent maintenance. If the steeppass was overwhelmed by fish, it could become blocked and need to be dewatered for maintenance.

Many of the steeppass problems could be avoided if an additional lock and lift system was used. The Team suggests considering the design change. If the designers deem the steeppass a required component, it may be wise to also include a parallel lock and lift system for the Phase 2.

Design Consideration 2: Replace Steeppass with Denil One of the key requirements for operations of the Trap/Sorter System is the ability to get fish up to the elevated platform. The current design has a small lock and lift (Phase 1) and a two-stage steep pass (Phase 2) to get the fish to the sorting platform. The steeppass is a high-angle flume with many vanes, which allow fish to swim up steep inclines. There may be some concern about the performance of the steeppass for fish passage.

The VE team believes the designers should consider using Denil. The system although similar to the steeppass has a wider swim area. Also, it has a greater flow capacity which helps with attraction.

Design Consideration 3: Use AI fish sorting system The current design uses operator knowledge and judgement to determine the species type, run season, and other factors. Emerging technologies for fish scanners and artificial intelligence may reduce (but

CONTROLLED

not completely eliminate) the need for manual identification. This may also allow for automated sorting of some types of fish.

Currently there are several companies that are developing these systems, such as Whooshh and Vaki.

The VE team suggests that a discussion take place to determine if these types of systems are desired for the current system, or if they would be desired as a future retrofit. If not desired now, modifications to the design could be made to allow for a simple retrofit to occur in the future.

If it is not anticipated to have construction funding for several years, then it may be beneficial to wait to complete the design until some of these emerging technologies have become more reliable and accepted.

At that point, determining the extent of the use of these systems (if at all) could be reevaluated.

Design Consideration 4: Larger and/or more numerous holding tanks One of the key requirements for operations of the Trap/Sorter System is the ability to safely hold spring-run and winter-run Chinook Salmon. These are sensitive species and need to be kept safe and at low densities. The current design has six, 12-foot diameter holding tanks. As the future of the winter-run reintroduction is unknown, it is important to have flexibility in operations. Having additional and/or larger holding tanks would increase the hatchery’s ability to change operations as the project evolves.

Making future infrastructure improvements to increase the holding capacity of the Trap/Sorter would be difficult and costly. The VE study team recommends considering increasing the size and/or number of tanks for future project flexibility.

Design Consideration 5: Add velocity barrier and lock/lift vice steeppass This design consideration recommends evaluating an alternate segregation and transport method other than the steeppass. There is concern for the added stress induced by the steeppass ascent as well as potential for salmonids (weak or injured) to remain in the segregation pool. An alternate velocity barrier upstream of the segregation pool that has operational flexibility to adjust the velocity (i.e. a variable floor ramp or vertical constriction) may allow the operators to fine tune segregation. A lift or lock system may be placed on the upstream end as means to elevate salmonids to the sorting facility. This is unlikely to reduce water volume demands but may result in energy savings with lower head delivery.

Design Consideration 6: Improve employee comfort and ergonomics The Trap/Sorter is a large and complex infrastructure system. The Coleman employees will be tasked with the difficult job of operating and maintaining this system. The VE team suggests that the designers reevaluate all the components of the Trap/Sorter to ensure that the employees maintain comfort and operations can be completed ergonomically.

CONTROLLED

The following are examples of areas that should be re-evaluated or improved. As the early designs show that the facility is an open-air area, the designers should consider enclosing (or partially enclosing) certain areas to protect the staff and consider providing heating and cooling systems. The climate at Coleman Hatchery can see extreme weather, from intense sun and heat to cold rain and wind. Providing walls on the south-facing ends of the structure could block the intense sun and wind. Evaporative coolers on the roofs of the structure could provide much needed cooling, during excessively hot days.

Consider coating metal surfaces in high traffic areas with an insulative material, as the sun can heat surfaces to burning temperatures. Also, the designers should ensure that ergonomics are considered for all components. Equipment lifts should be provided at several locations, so that the staff do not need to carry heavy items up the stairs. Rest areas and benches on the upper levels would allow the staff to take breaks. All work surfaces should be elevated properly to keep staff from having to struggle with heavy fish. Placing hose attachments at many locations, would require staff to drag hoses over shorter distances. Overall, ensuring that the staff maintain comfortable and ergonomic work areas will be important for the smooth operations of the Trap/Sorter.

Design Consideration 7: Increase holding capacity and transport capacity in segregation pool Reintroduction efforts often deviate from design. While operational flexibility allows for more frequent batch handling from the segregation pool, there may still be density issues if run time and volume varies from the design estimate (include non-salmonids). It is recommended for further consideration to expand the capacity of the segregation pool. This is of great concern with the uncertainty associated with construction of Phase 2.

Design Consideration 8: Increase holding capacity and transport capacity of the fish lock Similar to the consideration above, reintroduction efforts often deviate from design. While operational flexibility allows for more frequent batch handling from the fish lock, there may still be density issues if run time and volume varies from the design estimate (include non-salmonids). It is recommended for further consideration to expand the capacity of the fish lock. This is of great concern with the uncertainty associated with construction of Phase 2.

Design Consideration 9: Extend vertical slot ladder up to elevation needs The current design uses various systems to raise the fish up to an elevation where sorting and/or handling can occur. This consideration would extend the hatchery ladder upstream of the “polygon” at the upstream end of the current hatchery ladder.

This likely would increase the project footprint and may increase cost. The benefit would be to allow the fish to move themselves to the sorting location rather than relying on mechanical systems to do it.

CONTROLLED

Design Consideration 10: Release from the segregation pool to save from using the fish lock The segregation pool allows for salmonids to be sorted from non-salmonids. Salmonids travel up the steeppass, leaving non-salmonids or weak salmonids in the segregation pool. Consider an alternate route for releasing remaining fish from the segregation pool back to the middle ladder, river, or release pool. This would require an additional conduit or channel and gates to convey remaining fish to the segregation pool outlet. Manual sorting of non-salmonids may be required.

Design Consideration 11: Segregate salmonids prior to fishlock (remove steeppass from full buildout)

The full facility buildout prioritized minimizing handling and maximizing volitional passage up to the salmonid presort pool. The Team recommends that the design team consider the following two design considerations which may be incorporated independently of phasing approach:

Design Consideration 11a:

Adds a segregation barrier (similar as described in design consideration 5) on the upstream side of the segregation pool to pass salmonids upstream into a presort pool and keep non-salmonids in the segregation pool. Non-salmonids in the segregation pool would be crowded and lifted to the fish tube passing to the release pool (similar to the description of proposal 2 and figure DC11a-1). Salmonids would hold in the presort pool before passing over a false weir into a fishlock and lifted up to Phase 1 and Phase 2 transport flumes. With Phase 1 implemented, salmonids volitionally exit the fishlock via a false weir into a transport flume leading to the sorting facility anesthetic tank. Processing of salmonids remains the same from that point forward (see Figure DC11a-2). With Phase 2 implemented, salmonids volitionally exit the fish lock via the same false weir and are directed via switch gate to the north where the flume reconnects with the Phase 2 automated build out (See Figure DC 11a-3).

Figure DC11a-1. Recommended components for replacement (pescalator and junction box to release pool tube).

Figure DC11a-2. Phase 1 addition of segregation barrier, presort pool, dedicated salmonid fishlock and transport flume to sorting facility.

Figure DC11a-3. Phase 2 addition of transport flume to automated sorting.

Design Consideration 11b:

Similar to design consideration 11a, but include extending the vertical slot fish ladder north of the Sorting Facility, relocate the segregation pool, add a segregation barrier (similar as described in design consideration 5) on the upstream side of the segregation pool to pass salmonids upstream into a presort pool and keep non-salmonids in the segregation pool. The main difference with design consideration 11b from 11a is that the segregation pool is now elevated (as much as 4 feet) with the extension of the vertical slot fish ladder. Non-salmonids in the segregation pool would be crowded and may pass directly via elevation difference into a fish tube passing to the release pool (see figure DC11b-1).

Salmonids would hold in the presort pool before passing over a false weir into a fishlock and lifted up to Phase 1 and Phase 2 transport flumes. With Phase 1 implemented, salmonids volitionally exit the fishlock via a false weir into a transport flume leading to the sorting facility anesthetic tank. Processing of salmonids remains the same from that point forward (see Figure DC11b-1). With Phase 2 implemented, salmonids volitionally exit the fish lock via the same false weir and are directed to the north where the flume reconnects with the Phase 2 automated build out (See Figure DC 11b-2).

Figure DC11b-1. Phase 1 showing extension of the vertical slot fish ladder, segregation pool relocation, non-salmonid release flume, segregation barrier, presort pool, fishlock relocation, and salmonid transport flume to sorting facility.

Figure DC11b-2. Phase 2 addition of transport flume to automated sorting and removal of Phase 1 transport flume directly to sorting facility.

CONTROLLED

Disposition of Ideas During the Creativity Phase of the Study, the Team is encouraged to offer all and any ideas, including wild ideas to solve the problem. Criticism is prohibited during this phase so that everyone will feel comfortable in 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 are not evaluated during this phase of the study. To help with the creation of ideas the team focused on several functions from the Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram. A full listing of the ideas is presented to demonstrate the openness of the environment in which the ideas were offered.

Table 3. Ideas Considered as Potential Proposals and Their Disposition

Idea Function Disposition

1. Replace steep pass with lock & lift Transport Fish Design Consideration 1

2. Use the Whooshh AI system Segregate Salmonids Design Consideration 3

3. Behavioral barrier Segregate Salmonids Eliminated

4. Simulate fast water (velocity barrier) Segregate Salmonids Eliminated in favor of Idea 8

5. Steep pass at base of hatchery ladder Segregate Salmonids Proposal 1

6. Larger holding tanks Hold Fish Design Consideration 4

7. More holding tanks Hold Fish Design Consideration 4

8. Simulate fast water (velocity barrier) and Lock & Lift afterwards

Segregate Salmonids / Transport Fish

Design Consideration 5

9. Reduce need for transfer tanks for transport - hold instead

Hold Fish Eliminated

10. Increase Employee Comfort Sort Fish Design Consideration 6

11. Swamp Cooler for Employees Sort Fish Design Consideration 6

12. Space Heaters for Employees Sort Fish Design Consideration 6

13. Don't build Phase 2 Sort Fish Eliminated

14. Don't sort fish Sort Fish Eliminated

15. Consider using a smaller & simpler facility

Collect Broodstock Eliminated

CONTROLLED

Idea Function Disposition

16. Increase holding capacity and transport capacity of the segregation pool

Hold fish Design Consideration 7

17. Increase holding capacity and transport capacity of the fish lock

Fish lock Design Consideration 8

18. Use lift like at Keswick Dam Transport Fish Idea not developed

19. Screw lift Transport Fish Eliminated

20. Just build Phase 2 Sort Fish / Transport Fish

Eliminated

21. Cut out fish lock and use bypass channel instead

Transport Fish Eliminated

22. No fish lock or lift to an upper sorting facility send to a lower sorting facility instead and Change holding pond channel to a culvert or pipe

Transport Fish Eliminated

23. Do away with the sampling area and fish lock

Sort Fish / Transport Fish

Eliminated

24. Lower handling facility next to ladder and use escalator to lift fish

Sort Fish Proposal 2

25. Remove the steep pass Sort Fish Eliminated

26. Two different Sorting Areas Sort Fish Eliminated

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 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 created in 1943 by Larry Miles, to creatively develop proposals or 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 component features of the program, project, or activity to define the critical functions, governing criteria, and associated costs. Then, 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 from Reclamation, FWS, NMFS, and CDFW with the diversity, expertise, and independence that is necessary to creatively attack the issues. Each Team member brings a depth of experience and understanding of the discipline they represent. The Team applied the Value Method to the issues and supporting information and took a “fresh look” at the problems to create Proposal that fulfill the client’s needs at the greatest value.

Further policy and/or design evaluations will be required prior to acceptance of any Proposal developed during the Study. Proposals 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 Proposal will be made through a combined effort between designers, managers, and project stakeholders.

CONTROLLED

Function Analysis The Team developed basic functions for the key elements of the project (Table 4). 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 (shown in bold in the table below) 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 4 – Function Analysis

Component Active Verb Measurable Noun Hatchery Ladder Attract Fish

Elevate Fish

Pass Fish

Exclude Pac Lamp

Segregation Pool Hold Fish

Crowd Fish

Meter Fish (into pool)

Meter Fish (into basket)

Segregate Salmonids

River Ladder Pass Fish

Elevate Fish

Deliver Water

Fish Lock Elevate Fish

Crowd Fish

Meter Fish

Hold Fish

CONTROLLED

Component Active Verb Measurable Noun Sorting Area Anesthetize Fish

Sort Fish

Bio-Sample Fish

Tag Fish

Recover Fish (anesthesia)

Identify & Enumerate Fish

Monitor Fish

Process Fish (Efficiently)

Employ Ergonomics

Flume System Transport Fish

Distribute Fish

Minimize Stress / Injury

Transport / Supply Water

Fish Distribution Tubes Transport Fish

Distribute Fish

Minimize Stress / Injury

Transport / Supply Water

Release Pool Hold Fish

Recover Fish

Pass Fish

Receive Fish

CONTROLLED

Component Active Verb Measurable Noun Steeppass & Resting Pool (Phase 2)

Pass Fish

Elevate Fish

Segregate Non-Salmonids

Meter Fish

Save Space

Holding Pool (Phase 2) Hold Fish

Meter Fish

Crowd Fish

Tag Readers (Phase 2) Identify Fish

Observation Room (Phase 2) Identify Fish

Sort Fish

Count & Enumerate Fish

Circular Holding Tanks Hold Fish

Crowd Fish

Meter Fish

Determine Species

Water Delivery System Supply Water

Elevate Water

Drain Water

Monitor Water Quality

CONTROLLED

Component Active Verb Measurable Noun Final Sorting System Sort Fish

Identify Fish

Transport Fish

Hold Unidentified Fish

Distribute Fish

Roof and Structure Protect Staff

Protect Fish

Provide Access

Ensure Safety

Protect Infrastructure

Store Supplies

Elevate Facility

Automation (HMI) Reduce Workload

Reduce Error

Protect Fish

Operate 24/7

Operate Autonomously

Reduce Fish Stress

Collect Accurate Data

Maintain Flows

Control Operations

CONTROLLED

Component Active Verb Measurable Noun Overall Mitigate Project

Promote Reintroduction

Collect Broodstock

CONTROLLED

Function Analysis System Technique The Team used the functions to generate a 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 for Coleman National Fish Hatchery.

CONTROLLED

Value Study Teams and Presentation List

Name Organization / Phone / Email Team Member

Design Team's Presentation Apr-12-2021

Value Study Team's Out

Briefing Apr-16-2021

Jay Bytheway Supervisory Civil Engineer CVS Facilitator

Reclamation – Upper Colorado Basin / 801-524-3616 / jbytheway@usbr.gov X X X

Jenna Paul Civil Engineer Reclamation – CGB / 916-978-5185 / jpaul@usbr.gov X X X

Christopher Shipman Civil Engineer Estimator

Reclamation – TSC / 303-445-3079 / cshipman@usbr.gov X X X

Jason Wagner Civil Engineer Civil Structures

Reclamation – TSC / 303-445-3136 / jwagner@usbr.gov X X

Jason Foust Civil Engineer Field Engineering

Reclamation - Willows Construction Office / 530-308-9857 / jvfoust@usbr.gov X X X

Derek Rupert Fish Biologist Reclamation – Northern California Area Office / 530-247-8514 / drupert@usbr.gov X X X

Javier Linares Fish Biologist FWS / 916 414-6579 / Javier_Linares@fws.gov X X X

Logan Negherbon Civil Engineer NOAA-NMFS / 503-939-4827 / logan.negherbon@noaa.gov X X X

Jonathon Mann Fisheries Engineer CDFW / 916-599-0925 / jonathon.mann@wildlife.ca.gov X X X

John Hannon Fish Biologist Reclamation – Bay-Delta Office / 916-414-2341 / jhannon@usbr.gov X X

CONTROLLED

Name Organization / Phone / Email Team Member

Design Team's Presentation Apr-12-2021

Value Study Team's Out

Briefing Apr-16-2021

Jesse Castro Supervisory Mechanical Engineer

Reclamation – California-Great Basin Regional Office / 916-978-5349 / jcastro@usbr.gov X X

Eric Simmen Civil Engineer Reclamation – Willows Construction Office / 530-892-6274 / esimmen@usbr.gov X X

Darryl Good Supervisory…