Okay, uh.
Good morning folks. Thanks, everybody for making the time.
Yeah, it looks like my camera's not working on my end. Anyway. I want to give a special thanks to Steve for making the time for us to pose some questions to him about this topic.
And so we have this meeting just as a review to kind of address some questions about the UMT, and kind of get an update on that and also I think there's this gives us an opportunity to ask any questions about the AFF that from the attachment that was provided to the group.
I think I will probably, tosss it to Jeanette right now to see if we have any updates on the front before we go into the conversation.
Yeah, thanks Nick. Yesterday after the meeting, I did have a discussion with, our mechanical crew. They originally we had been looking at the bulk head to isolate the upstream work from the rest of Washington Shore Way.
There's a bulkhead that goes right next to the UMT. That one we have, there's another bulkhead upstream from that. It's a larger bulkhead that goes across the whole fishway. It's 15 ft wide, not a half a fishway. Right now we're unable to locate that bulkhead. So, if we can't find the.
The M T will be not an option. I just wanted to provide that little update. Hopefully we can find that bull head if this is the option we decide to go down.
It's usually the last place you look. And I thought I was bad when I lose my keys.
Yeah, that's a pretty big item to misplace, I guess.
Well I'm gonna go ahead and turn to the group cause folks had some thoughts and ideas about the UMT that they wanted to ask about, so.
Hoping folks will just step forward and bring some of those questions up to start our dialogue.
Well geez since everyone seems to be locked job this morning.
Friday coffee hasn't kicked in yet. Steve, we were wondering I mean part of the the concern was that it's gonna have high head in parts of it. Are there any ways to militerate that with I don't, I'm just we're throwing out a splitball by changes in the four way operations that kind of stuff, could that help reduce issues with the higher head?
You're talking about the higher head going down Cascade Dyland?
Yeah, I'm just wondering if we would like try to slow maybe the upstream stuff that might help with that. I don't know I'm just we're spitball here since we've never done this before. I don't know if that's gonna be a control point or not. We're just we're, that was one such suggestion.
There is some way to restrict some of the flow going down Cascade island. That's, that's not there now or then maybe, but that'd be a trial and error thing. I mean it might be calculated, but, so we know we gotta get the at the point where the.
UMT joins the Cascade Island ladder, we gotta raise the water level at that location enough to get the water to flow backwards up to u UMT over that rise and then.
And then around the corner, assuming we can find that bulk head or or furnish one some other way, and then get get us 1 ft ahead over the next weird downstream of the junction of the UMT and the B two fish ladder, which is I understand it is 66, we are 66. So We.
Oh, sorry, go ahead, I thought you were nevermind.
Yeah, so, and the weird, and the next weird down cascade dialing is, yeah, it's 1 ft lower, so, I mean it's gonna have at least 2 ft. I wanna point out that there's gonna be some minor losses.
Not much but the little bit going around the corner and then, you know, through the over the, you know, through the junction and then just a little bit of channel. So it'll be a little bit more than 2 ft of head acting on Cascade islands in order to get that water to slow download 2nd powerhouse fish ladder. I see Ben has his hand up.
Yeah, Steve I was just curious. Do you do you think to have that, that high up top, would we be able to mitigate for some of that water coming down, down low by having all those diffusers closed? Just to minimize like the entrance differential or how bad it is, I guess?
Well, the main problem is the, this ladder proper.
Cascades island, you know, the the two 2 ft plus slightly going down that fish ladder. Yeah, NO, I, it won't help to lower the diffuser flow down below.
Cause this is, this is what's supposed to be coming from the four bay and unless we put in some kind of construction that would be have to be fabricated as far as I know. I mean I.
Jeanette and Becca are the experts on what's there. That's another thing I don't know, until we test it and I don't have I'm I'm split ten ways right now, I don't have time to compute.
The ability of the Cascade Island exit section to deliver the needed flow to raise the head in the ladder and assuming we, we get 2 ft going down the.
Yeah, that's our solution, then I, you know, it's probably, if we have it at a high formate, it'll probably, we can probably make it work, but I can't guarantee it until we test it out.
Steve, is it possible to put weird boards on that, you know, most the where that's just downstream of the UNT to raise that differential? Is that something that they, do they have slots for that or anything to accommodate that?
My recollection is NO, they don't, but I'll defer to our BIOS.
No, we don't. Right.
And then in terms of washing shore, I Does anybody know, how, how much distances between, the UMT fish entrance, which will will make the entrance, the washing Shore portion of the UMT.
How far from that point, downstream is the next add in water provided. So essentially if we weren't at a foot of head, if we could only get say half a foot or .75 ft, how long would that distance be before we could add in water and restore a foot of head?
Oh, ok, you're talking about going down the I don't know the 2nd powerhouse fish ladder. So say we have less than a foot of head at that 1st weird, you'd have to go down to wear 50 because there we have a diffuser.
And Jeanette and Becca can talk about that, but there's a diffuses that provides up to 37 CFS as far as I, as I understand it. That's where the, the AFF ladder exits into back into the main fish ladder.
Yeah, Ben's asking what about valve 68?
Somebody will have to explain that to me.
I just can't remember Steve, if there's a valve pretty darn close to the UMT from Washington side.
Okay, you're not talking about just downstream of the the the Okay is it the No, ok, so you got the AWS flow coming in as at the end of the exit section.
It's not like a John day where you have a, where you have a, a pool downstream of a counting window that sort of regulates the head, you know, makes up the water you need for the head going down the fish side. It's different at, at one of those 2nd powerhouse or washing the.
Right there almost straight across from the Washington end of the UMT. I just don't remember if it's above or below where the bulkhead would need to go. But it could in theory put water in.
Shown in the drawing and I was looking at.
It's on the north wall. It's not in the floor.
Okay.
But maybe that's a possibility to speak to it.
If, somebody can go out there and investigate it.
And I guess we'd need to know what size valve it is and where where is the source coming from? Is it coming from the four bay? Well, obviously coming from the four bay, but is it part of the ferral system that goes to the EAFF or is it separate from that?
I think it's better.
We're not doing much with the furl or the AFF. I guess the main thing is, was the pipe sides?
Yeah, Tammy's saying it's not part of the ferral I just can't remember what that, you know.
How those are connected over there between Valve coming from the four bay there for the, I mean sorry the entrance there at the four bay at the north end of the powerhouse two that feeds a lot of that stuff, but, yeah, I don't I don't know when that's last run. Jeanette might. Yeah.
Yeah, so I'm looking I was trying to find the drawing real quick. I found the drawing, wear 68 bleed off is actually a a bleed off, so it takes the water out. There is a fish letter for all supply to wear 55 makeup water that is right next to that I've never played with that, but to me that seems like that would take water from there and put it down to wear 55.
Okay, and so what's the elevation of the Washington shore side of the UMT? Is that you just say it was 66 or 60?
60, about between 68, we're about 68 is where that weird bleed off is right next to the UMT junction. Okay.
So we'd have about 13 ft an elevation of washing shore out of criteria, or possibly lower than criteria. This is, you know, assuming that we didn't run Cascade Island all the way up to get that, you know, 1 ft of head of washing shore.
So, how much is that rise that you mentioned in the floor of the UMT? It it's not flat, it's got a hump in the center or what is it got an invert? What is it? Steve, do you know?
Hold on, so what was the question again?
You said that there was a hump in the UMT.
Yeah, if we, we got the 1 ft over the wire that we need to get it, that we want one feet over and the Bottleville 2nd powerhouse, the uppermost weird that we would encounter in the bottombill's 2nd powerhouse slash.
Better, then I calculated that's 85 CFS, I calculated the velocity at the top of that invert. There's a rise from, you know, most of the UMT is flat, but there is a rise and I can't remember the exact elevation. I have I had it when I calculated it, but it's the velocity would be 3 ft/s at that location, at that point of where you have to go over the rise. Yeah.
Rise less than a foot?
I don't think it's much because the average velocity up to UMT would be about two and a half e per 2nd or or two to two and a half e per 2nd. I'd have to go back and double check that. So it isn't a big rise, but there is a rise or drop in the normal direction.
Okay.
Then on the, the Cascade island side, if we had that, say we did have to have 2 ft of head right there at the UMT, how far down before we could, you know, either bleed that off or spread the load there to where we could get down to, say, 1.5, how, how far would the fish experience that 2 ft of head?
It pretty much stayed 2 ft ahead until you got into the influence of the water unless there's a bleed off the fuser somewhere in there. I do have a thought, I don't know if it's any good, but perhaps that uppermost cascade wear could be partially blocked so that the rest of the ladder would have, you know, closer to 1 ft and you you'd only have the one hurdle for the fish to get over through, through the orpheus. That's one possibility.
Okay.
Would you have to restrict the Orpheus also or would the orpheus stay at the same size?
No, you, you'd, you'd want to keep the orpheus because your NO fish could probably get through a orpheus with 2 ft ahead.
So if there's not guide slots on that top of that. Would have to fabricate something.
Like with wood or whatever, that's just the only thought that's the only thing I'm thinking that possibility other than somewhere else out in the channel that blocks off some of the flow going to cascades on and.
I'd have to do a, an estimate on how, how much of the channel needs to be. Cassie Islands is a wide channel, if I recall. It's, what is it, 30 ft? Or 35 ft?
Maybe 35 ft. Remember doing hell crabs studies on it long ago and it's a big ladder.
Good afternoon.
Hey Becca or Jeanette, I can't remember. When when when fish in theory would come into the Cascades island ladder under this scenario, they don't have to go over a wear, do they? Isn't that above the last weird?
Yes, it would be above the last year. They, what would happen is they would.
Come up the washing shore ladder, make a circle back down through the UMT. They'd have to take a, a sharp U down the UMT. Go across the UMT, then they'd be shooting out the UMT directionally downstream for, I don't know, probably 20 ft.
And then they would have to swing around and go back up towards the crowder.
Yeah, gotcha. That's what I thought, but I couldn't remember if that was So, so they wouldn't have to go over a high velocity weird. They just have to go through whatever velocity flow. Thank you.
Yeah, they wouldn't but the any fish coming up Cascade Island would.
Sure. Yeah, I gotcha. Yeah.
Which we would be willing to accept in this circumstance. I just wouldn't want it to get, you know, so high. I've never seen a ladder with 2 ft ahead on it. You know, I don't even know if they're stable or whatever under that.
Yeah, that maybe a concern is that's why we thought it didn't qualify. It certainly will violate energy dissipation criteria.
Which means it'll probably surge and, you know, there'll be some uninstability and then in the water surface elevations in the, in the Cascade Island ladder. That's, that's, that's a likely not saying that's guaranteeing that's gonna happen, but it's likely.
Okay.
I would, you know, understanding that I think 2 ft ahead is kind of, that makes me nervous, but I think we could, you know, cause we run shot at 1.3. I've seen that ladder over 1.3, when we do.
I don't know about that ladder, but I've seen, I know sometimes when we were out testing for hillcraps, sometimes it was at 1.4. I don't know if i've ever seen 1.5, but 1.4 happened a number of times and that seemed to be fine.
I'm just saying like when that ladder when it says 1.3 on the, on the, indicator there, it's it's actually higher over the wears that it's just like that ladder for whatever reason when they hit that 1.3 shad criteria, a lot of times it'll end up, it looks like complete white water coming down that thing and it looks more like it's like 1.6 or something.
Compared to the other ladders, so I don't know, I, you know, I I would rather instead of targeting two point oh if we could target 1.5.
And or 1.7 or something and hit, you know, just over a foot of head at on Washington Shore for the 13 vertical feet.
I think we can still pass fish as long as that collection channel, you know, is over 2 ft/s. And I don't know if we can hit that with some kind of wear or unless we do a wearboard so we can get the head up to 2 ft.
That's fine too. I just don't want to get too feet crashing down the entire Cascade island. That kind of concerns me personally, and I guess perspective too just because of the reliability of ladder. But if we could somehow do it with a wearboard or hit, you know, hit crack hit over a foot of head at Washington's.
So.
The Theatic Casket Island that that might be something worth looking into.
Well, if we, if we go with something less than 2 ft, then unless we can unless we can follow up on Ben's suggestion and augment, the upper part of the B two ladder, we're gonna have a, a shortage of flow going down the B two ladder. It'll be less than a footer head. How much is it, so e.g. if it's 1.7 Cascade island, then it'll be .7 going down one of the 2nd powerhouse.
Unless we.
You can augment the flow with a, you know, a diffuses that Ben was talking about.
But that would only be for 13 vertical feet until it gets down to the AFF where the add in water can restore a foot of head. And so I feel like the fish are still gonna pass under that scenario, and so I'll have to rework the.
Analysis on, I don't think the velocities will suffer greatly if, so I'll have to estimate what the flow going over that, if it's like .7 e.g., what does that translate to in terms of flow then then back then back calculate what it is going up the UMT, you know, what is, what are the velocities? Are they still within criteria? I I expect they will be.
One thing I don't know is that little rise might, they'll probably be go go higher on that little rise because the death's been reduced. But I, I'll verify that and I can send an email back to whoever wants to be the recipient of that, official recipient of that email.
What would the depth of the UNT be?
Let me see. I had to find my Excel sheet. I Sorry I was trying to get an email out right before the meeting and would have, if I had had proper preparation, I would add my little spreadsheet up. So, I go find it.
It's Robert.
Yeah, what if.
What if you only had orpheus flow for those upper weirds? Was that a deal breaker for Washington Shore?
This time down to weird 50, Down to the eight.
FS exit.
Yeah, well I just don't I mean, that's gonna be a low that's gonna be low velocity, so I don't know how attractive that's gonna be. The orphase flow is pretty, well would that be in.
All right. No, I'm sorry. I don't I don't mean or if it's low, I just mean.
You know, you can have almost a full ladder without any water going over the top, you know what I mean? You'd still have 5 ft of depth or whatever it is, but there wouldn't be water pouring over the top of the weird, it'll be shooting through the orphases. You know what I'm saying?
My understanding is the flow over the overflow where is the same velocity essentially as the flow of through the orpheus. And so if you didn't have flow over the overflow where you would have a greatly reduced flow through the Orpheus.
That so true I don't know if it'd be great to be reduced but I mean it would be reduced, but it may not be the as high. The question is, what's the, what's the lower threshold we're willing to live with and then we could back calculate from there. I mean really the interesting question is from Steve is like, if the main control is the water coming in from their part of the ladder.
We can use the floor based to try to basically fine tune what we think gets the best operation. Like if we think we need to run a higher pool to get more flow down there, we can do that or if we need to run a lower pool to reduce that to not get 2 ft ahead and get shoot for your magical 1.7.
I think we've got that. The key is just gonna be going out there and fussing with this and seeing what we can get it to work. I mean, the hell crabs will give us a pretty good baseline to start with, but as we all know, hell crabs and what actually happens at vulnerable ladders don't necessarily match up always. So it's definitely.
Where, yeah, that's where there's a risk.
Gotta get out there 1st. That's why we gotta get out there 1st as early as we can in February and see if this is even gonna be feasible.
That's what I'm talking about is like you get out there. So we want to be reasonably, you know, oh, you know, like this has some chance in hell kind of thing or better, to do that just because if it doesn't work, you know, what do we, what do we do then? Do we, did we dewater and put.
Get that burden on the project to salvage and when they've got, you know, everything else going on right now, you know, or or what, what's the next step after that if it doesn't work?
What I'm looking at right now is where are our, where are our biggest concerns right now with this operation? Is it, is it the 2 ft ahead? Is it the UMT velocity things? Let's pick out our spots that we have our most biggest concerns on, see if we have the flexibility, if the damaged flexibility to actually do something about those. If it does, then it makes sense to move forward. If we find some if we have some constraint points that have, there's NO way we can do anything about.
In the time allotted, then you have to move on to something else. I've yet to hear anything that says, we don't have a possibility of making this possibly work. Is it gonna be perfect? No, are we going to be in a criteria everywhere? No. But are we hitting anything that's a major like NO go? I haven't heard anything yet that makes me, well, the bull head yet of course. I mean, if they can't find out this is all out the door, so that's kind of the the 1st and foremost.
Can I have a calculation too.
Port.
What do you guys? So if we do point.
Seven over that, we're 66 in bond two, then we get instead of 85 CFS, we get 60 CFS. And the velocities are in criteria, so at the 1 ft hunt raised over the.
Uhh, going through that junction, I just found this here on my spreadsheet. And so the velocities would be 1.8 down the up the UMT and then 2 ft/s over at the top of the hump.
Okay. And then what was the depth that you reckon?
Did you find the depth of the UMT? Oh, yeah, right. Let me do that.
Yeah, we're close to 2 ft/s. That's, that's passing fish. I think, you know, even Ben's like talking about orphase flows as long as we have a half a foot over the wears, you know, I think we're passing fish to washing shore especially with the adding water at the AFF.
So as long as we can keep the flow and Cascade Islands from being destructive, I think it could work, Assuming we can find that bullcat, which might be next year Memorial trash Rick Tom.
This is gonna be a memorial bullhead Trevor?
Memorial Cascade Islands. Exactly.
Hold on, still working.
Go ahead Charlie.
Yes, I like what I hear in terms of that. My question to Jeanette and Ben, when you get out there to look at it, how long does it take to set up the set up the conditions or change things to see how the lattery.
So how the flow looks for the different things that you can test and evaluate.
That can be done fairly quickly unless we're looking at altering the four bay operations that would take a little more coordination. I think what we'd be looking at doing would be just be opening the fish valve up above at Cascade Island exit for the AWS, we would be opening that more or less.
To maintain the proper flows in the Cascadescade Island just to get water to curve back up the UMT.
Okay, if you need to, if you need to adjust the four bay height, do that mean another day of testing or can you From what I heard you say, I think the basic ladder flows you can do fairly quickly, the coordination with the four bay elevation that I I fully recognize may take more time.
Yeah, that's really good.
He also is whether we can deliver the water. Okay, I have some depths to report. So if we have .7 going over the bond two weird, then we have 5.7 ft in the UMT channel and 4.7 ft going over the, the rise at the junction.
Okay, that that'll work. Thank you.
Yeah, I figured that would be acceptable.
Jeanette, you know, I'm wondering if there, we should check and see if that 1st weird downstream of the UMT at Cascade Islands has any kind of slots on it, to add a board there, it'd be a miracle, but maybe you should just double check and maybe understand what it would take to.
Do something like that, and then find that bulkhead. Cause I think if we could affix something to the top of that where there, that really helps with being able to get the correct amount of head down, Washington shore, without screwinging up Cascade islands, and we wouldn't have to screw with the four bay.
Yeah, we can, we'll take a look at it when we get back to work on Tuesday, and then obviously my guys, the maintenance crews are, they will be actively looking all next week to see if they can find that bulk head like Ben said, it hasn't not nobody in living memory at Bonnenville has ever seen it used.
And along with that, if we do find it and it's not been used recently, it will need to be HSS inspected, so that'll take some time.
Oh boy. So we have to know next week on that or else we this that kills this option.
Yeah, I like this option better than the other one.
You're not the only one.
Folks, just something to remember as we're kind of talking about options is that we're working to get an answer by basically as soon as possible for whether or not the AFF is an alternative goes forward. I just want to put that also back in people's minds.
Yep, that was what I was gonna say Nick, I think if the project needs to have an answer on the ASF today, we can't get an answer on the other one until next week, what, what, what do we do?
I'm gonna put this out there with the caveat that, I I'm looking to my other folks that you says to call me crazy or back me up, but my, my thought is today, you know, becomes the final day to look for the, for the bulk head and then we.
Work out our answer on the AFF by the end of the day because the next step for the AFF will be then to run to ground a whole variety of questions about, kind of the, the labor feasibilities and the.
Kind of operational constraints in terms of things like how long fish will be held and things like that, that will have to be pursued, ideally I guess in the next week or so, to run all those things to ground to make sure we don't.
Break somewhere in that process too, for the AFF. There's just, there's a lot of logistics to work out on that that I I think we can get answers to, but we do need to run all that down. So they're, you know, it seems to me like given the timelines they're talking about if we want to pursue all of that.
We could start that prop or basically plan for that as of close of business today and then work on the rest of those logistics with what I think is an important caveat that we could hit a wall somewhere in working through all of those logistics that.
Could make the AFF infeasible too. There's just a lot of, many pieces to that operation that still have to be worked. I think that's all workable, but we still have to run those things to ground and get, you know, approval from all the partners involved in regulatory agencies and so on and so forth.
Nick, the only thing I I see there is, there's nobody at Bonnaville today. I'm personally at home working for free. There's really, people don't work at Bonoville on Fridays typically unless they're working overtime on something specific for winter for maintenance or powerhouse one specific work. So they won't be looking for the whole cut today.
And I'll look to you Jeanette to say when our our cutoff point for the AFF work moving forward needs to be.
Cut off for the AFF is today.
Yeah, so with that said, is it my understanding the court does not have the personnel, so it's gonna be upon someone else's shoulders and I have a bad feeling I'm looking in the mirror as to who would pick up the labor part of the AFF operation?
All indications I have right now, Tom, would be looking to you, yeah.
Yeah, these, these are the kind of things I need to know, cause John's on the call, but, if that's if that's a serious request, then we'll go take a look at it and see what we can do, but I wouldn't want to flip a coin on this one. And we also need, and then we're also gonna need to know some outlines like how many hours a day do people want to run this? Do we need two crews? What time, how long will we.
Well, there's there's some serious like operational questions we need to know so we can tell you whether we have the crews available and the equipment available to do this. And right now it's pretty, that none of us been done. So if this is seriously going to get done today, someone's got to put some pen to paper and tell me what you guys need from Crackfit. Otherwise I'm just gonna be guessing, which is never a good thing for anyone.
Yeah, thanks for bringing that up, Tom, Tom I know you and I had talked about that kind of one on one and I have I have your email in my inbox and it is on my list for today depending upon the outcomes of this meeting, but thank you for reiterating that for the group.
You know, Bluntness has never been, I've never been accused not being blunt, so.
Okay.
I mean I was talking with John Russage in in depth as to what he thought operations at the AFF would look like if we were to do this.
Both of us are under the impression that it should be done seven days per week. You don't want to fall behind with ESA listed species in such a small collection pool. As far as trap and hall operations, it depends on how many fish there are per day, but I would think.
You could have between two to seven loads per day, seven being max, I would say that'd be a full day's work, but that's just our opinion. I'm open to feedback from others for sure.
Yeah, I think if you have a tank that can hold 17 fish, when I looked at the counts that were in the MOC, it looked to me if you factor in the fact that powerhouse one's gonna be the priority so that total that's total damn passage, it looked to me to be about 17 fish on average per day, which should just be one trip.
I have a question. What about the problem with the tanks lip being higher than the exit to the flume? That sounds like a serious problem to me. And I don't see a quick solution for that.
Okay.
Yeah. What's wrong with the UI.
Can you have i tank not be used there?
It doesn't have O two and it doesn't have a lifting, ability. We wouldn't be able to lift it out of there.
So we need to find a tank in the next two months.
Well, that or you could use the anesthesia tank, right? Or, what, I mean, current research tank?
You mean the existing one in, in the AAFF? The pool Yeah I'm not sure we'll have water in that pool.
Jeanette, did they remove the lifting capability of that UI tank? Cause that was, that's the total function to be lifted in and out.
Yeah, when I went out there with the rigors, they said that they wouldn't lift that tank. I'm going off of their expertise, but, I can check into it again for sure, Ben. There's, yeah, there's there's also, where we, if it doesn't have O two, we would have to transfer the finish from a different tank, you know, for transport.
Yeah, just real quick, a lot of the time you and I would lift the whole trailer and tank into the AFF, which makes it even taller, and then, you know, just, just thinking about operations, you know, so our our our standard sampling day is about, you know, 6 h per day, and that includes set up and shutdown. So I'm not quite sure how, you know, this operation would work because they'd all already be kind of set up, so.
You know, things like, you know, how long are, you know, cause currently we're not allowed to, you know, leave the AFF unmanned. So what do we do in the off hours? And then, certainly budget budget restrictions, I don't have a budget for any of this for additional work.
And then, and then just the operations, so say, you know, we get, you know, 17 fish up into the collection pool, just because you water up the flumes doesn't necessarily mean that the fish are gonna go down them. So we'd be, you know, sitting there waiting at the anesthetic tank for fish to come through.
Just some thoughts to throw out there, you know, also the other big one that I'm not sure about is permitting because currently we're we're permitting a sample.
Under the harvest buy up, so basically our take is included in the harvest take, and so there's really nothing in there for trap and hall, so I don't know how or where we could get coverage for ESA. Likewise, our.
Non ESA take, you know, again, doesn't include trap and hall and, you know, it's, the earliest we've ever been in there has been like the last week of March, you know, so I'm not sure what buy catch is coming through, but there's, there's time certainly in late March and April in the past where we've.
Had pretty significant numbers of like pea mouths and suckers and that sort of thing. So what do we do about bike catch?
I don't know about the bi catch question, but we could cover the take under the CRS biop. We have provisions for construction activities that need additional coordination and mitigation efforts and we also have.
Some provisions for additional research in there too. So speaking with my supervisor, I think we're ok providing some take coverage, so it wouldn't go under your, your USB oregon take or anything like that.
And John I don't think we would be looking to shut the AFF down. I know that's the protocol when you guys sample in there and we don't want to pull fish up into there, but in this case, obviously, we, we do want to pull fish up into there. So my thought was that would just run with all the pickets down and then leave the holding pool filled. Sufficient theory, you know, max they would sit would be overnight.
Hi guys, this is Eric. I just wanted to bring in a detail that comes to mind when we're talking about, you know, permitting issues. There is a, some permitting necessity for transporting animals, so I don't know to be on the Washington shore, that the transport would occur, right? So I'm not sure.
How Washington handles it, but if it were in Oregon it would, there would be some need to make a contact about that if this is an alternative that is being used. Does that make sense Not to throw another.
Your loop in here, but it sounds like we'd be trying to put together a list of, issues that would have to be run to ground. That might be one of them.
Thanks for that Eric. I agree with you there. Hey, this is my Worth. We just want to make sure we're 50 min into this call. I think one of the main reasons for this call is the concern over Pennipet predation. You know, fish being vulnerable in the tail race not being available, say we have a bunch of pennipeds, follow you look on up and be waiting there.
When this period occurs, so I want to make sure since we have some experts on pinnerpads on the call that we address really, you know, we've talked about a triggering different things, but making sure we address those things we can do to prevent the situation from occurring or the worst case scenario from occurring. Thoughts on that over?
Okay, uh.
It almost takes us away from the topic that was being discussed Bob, but I think I mentioned earlier that I've been talking with folks in the program for over again. They seem to think they have some nimbleness to respond in the way they.
I'll addressed and the tail water. I think it might just require making the clear contact of what's expected or desired there. I'm not sure who else is on the call for ODF chase here. Talk to that? Okay, thanks. Yeah.
I can speak to that a little bit. Yeah, ordinarily, we don't have the the resources to have a trapping crew ready all the time, so we target, you know, periods of highest predicted abundance in the spring, you know, which in in the past has been April and May. But, you know, if, if this early March period is deemed a high priority, high impact period, yeah, we can, we can shift staffing and resources around to be.
Potentially available to do trapping and little removal. You know, looking at, I've been looking back at the ffus count data from previous years and, in most years in this time frame, then the number of is pretty limited with the exception of it, it does seem, in the past ten years.
There's there's been three years of kind of high numbers in early March and those look to be the, I guess hangover year after large euicon runs, so 2015 2016 2024, there was not a large Eulicon run last year, so I would be very surprised that there's a large number of pinnapeds in early March, but we certainly can be prepared to, to come.
Up and trap if if there are. And then the the other caveat too is that, we're of course only able to successfully trap if there's, good hallout use on our traps and so, you know, one, you never can't predict that aspect, but yeah, we, we can be ready to potentially, do that.
And hey, thanks John, this is Bob I just want to follow on that briefly just because the MOC, the way it's written lays out that when the pinnerpeds are present and we're still working on the details of the MOC, but then it triggers one of these operations. So I just want to make sure we're considering if these operations are so difficult, you know, where the biggest bang for the bucket?
As a region we can make our efforts to make sure we protect these fishes. So thank you for that.
No, I know Bob I think that's part of the reason we're doing it because if we see sealines and that kind of stuff, we've offered up boat hazing from Crickfit to help with that. It's just that we all know that boat hazing is not the silver Bowl isn't gonna solve all the problems. And that's why we kind of set up with the FFU to be the one saying like, Yeah, you have enough numbers and enough sea lines and we're seeing predation.
You guys need to do something more, that's the kind of, we're trying to figure out the what's the something more right now. And as we've seen, if we don't have a bulk head umt's out, AFF is gonna take somehow we're gonna have to get folks there and get agreement of how we're gonna operate. That's not gonna be easy either. And then the last one is try to minimizing any flow to B two so we don't have adults going to a ladder where there's to a powerhouse where there's NO ladder. And I still I'm glad we're all working really hard on all these other things, but.
That's gotta stay on the table, the reduced bill option. I know it's not palatable for some, but that might come down to one of the operations we have to do. I don't want that to fall off the table.
Yeah, I agree with that. It's, you know, we were looking at these options, but if we can't figure something out here, yeah, you see I think you slipped at the end there Tom that said reduce spill, but yeah, be reduced powerhouse to terminal.
Friday I wasn't even supposed to be working today. And I'm I'm here talking about AFF.
Yeah, I perked up too since, you know, I think the spill at that time is really about attraction, but.
But that's the, that's the issue.
So just given our our timeline, I want to make sure that if there's anything left to, ask Steve about that we take that opportunity cause I definitely want to be conscious of his schedule to let him step out at ten, even if we want to continue discussions.
So I guess for Steve, we're not seeing any issues with, flow or meeting NO ladder criteria with operating the AFF in this manner, is that correct?
I, I think that's correct. I, I I would have to be confirmed operationally, but I, I believe the AFF we can get, 74 or 74 to 75 CFS going down the fish ladder.
And maybe, maybe the full 85, but, what I don't know is whether it start of the system inside there with the piping. It's a complex complex piping system, which I have not had time to.
Jeanette and Becca have done a great job of familiarizing me with it, but, I have NO time to do a, any pipe network analysis, e.g., to determine what works and what doesn't. But it looks like based on our conversations that we can get.
3704 CFS going down the fish ladder, and and so basically you'd be operating, the diffuser.
At we're 50 at 37 and then the AFF would have 37 CFS coming out of it that combines to the 74, so it's .87 ft ahead. And if there's some possibility of adding more flow in.
That might be a possibility I think there's another diffuser in the vicinity. What I don't know is, whether we have room to have water in the receiving pools. I understand that our main priority was to get the water.
Hit the fish into the collection pool, down the flows, and into the collection tank. Now if we have to have the, the main pool receiving pool.
Yeah remember the collection pool where the flooms discharged into watered up, I'm not sure we can do that with this operation.
By catch would be affected by that, so releasing, who knows what, the non cell models.
So basically everything's gonna have to go down to the anesthesia tank, and then we're gonna have to fish out whoever's there is gonna have to fish out and play the sort game of, and that becomes a question is like our by catch are we allowed to that put them in a five gallon bucket and go put them in the tail race? What are people gonna be ok with that? And then the Sam and the seal hit we keep in the transport tank or do we just throw everything in transport tank and just use that for everything and hope we don't have too much.
And then it seems like the, I mean that's not a probably a major issue, I don't think, but getting, you know, a crew there to operate, you know, 4 h a day at a minimum, four to 6 h to cycle through those fish as they pass and then having a lifting tank, a truck and a release location.
I think, that seems to me like the biggest issues with the AFF.
Well, there's also.
Snapping. Yeah.
It's it's if you're doing it seven days a week, that's two crews and I don't even know if John you can speak to this I don't even know if we have a full one crew cause shockingly enough early in March, our guys are not doing FF work, they're doing a bunch of other stuff. So we gotta see if we can pull them off that.
And I don't know if you've tried to hire people lately, but it's not the easiest thing to do in a rapid succession. And there's also gonna be a cost thing and but we work for free, I guess, so we'll just get paid later.
Okay.
Yeah, you'd have to work that out on. Maybe they'll just cut you a check, Tom.
Yeah, well, we'll take we'll take a boat. We'll take a boat in transition now, that's a bad bad inside joke. Yeah, I mean, the stuff is workable, but it's not, and it's not insurmountable, but there are stuff that has to get done and has to get agreed to and has to get work done. And this is why I love the UMT thing. It takes out the human element, and as we all know, human elements can be a lot more challenging and a lot more fun to work through.
Yeah, but it sounds like that bulkhead, if they can't find out.
That's the game changer. You gotta find the bulk head. If you don't have the bulk head, then we're stuck with AFF or using spill.
Don't imagine we could have the contractor out there modern contractor fabric data, ok. That's probably unlikely given their schedule constraints.
Yeah, that would push them that would make them late, which would cause They're gonna be pushed to be done by the 15th.
They're they're already pushed, yeah, you're right.
I think it's worth, and this was Nick brought this up yesterday, worth asking around other projects, you know, everyone has a whole variety of oldheads, if one exists somewhere else, you know, we've got a couple months to try and get it there and then, then we've got our best alternative.
It's not a lot of head on it. It's, you know, my calculation says 5 ft, so, you know, you want something a little higher than that, but it's not like it will have my bulk head.
Alright.
But it is long. I, Jeanette or Becca, what's the width of the channel?
15 ft. Okay.
Yeah, that's pretty long bulkhead or stop logs.
You'd be 5 ft of depth up there at the bulk head front, Steve, is that what you said?
Yeah, 5 ft. Okay. And you gotta factor in a little freeboard for safety. Gotcha. Sure. Like at least 2 ft.
Okay, uh.
Well, that was easy.
Yeah, yes and NO. We still have to work out. We, well, so I'll I'll put a final call for anything for Steve because I wanna try and release him if there's any final thoughts on that, but I do think we still have some lingering questions that I want to bring up to the group.
Steve, this is Doug Bows RCC. I just wanted to throw out, you know, longer term, if you do think facilitating a specific four bay operation, whether it be high or low may help aider facilitate this conversation, let's keep, let's keep talking, and I guess Ben I would just, I just want to put the shout out to Ben and Steve. If we feel that any higher low may facilitate success of this conversation, let's continue to have that in our back pockets as we move forward.
That's a good point keeping communication. Yeah, and Lori forwarded that question from Tom, I guess.
Yeah, from yes yesterday's meeting.
And my my expectation is using the Cascade island option, we'll want to hire four bay like something like 75 is is a preliminary guess to, you know, cause we're gonna want more water than normally is going down that exit section. And so.
Higher four way, you know, I I can't remember, is it certaintine or is it something else the exit section itself? But yeah, higher four way gives you more flow going down the the fish channel of the exit section and then that give leaves you more capacity to use the auxiliary water to add in the rest of the water, so some form of higher four bay, I don't know what that is, but my preliminary guess is 75 or that'd be a starting point.
Okay, thank you Steven, Tom, good comment, and Ben I guess let's just keep that as we move forward from a planning standpoint as a preliminary objective, if this is still on the table. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions before I get off?
Hey Steve, this is just so a quick question because I know Tom was asking about the poor bay because the current collector operation, so I just want to make sure Tom, is that what you were making sure that we didn't affect negatively affect our co passage operation over?
No, I was talking using the Forbay as another form to get more water into that Cascade island ladder. Yeah, that would.
Yeah.
Great question.
Go ahead.
No, and I was gonna say in the and the four bay only puts four water, a higher four bit only puts a little more water down the Casket islands. So I see that as a win win.
Good. Okay, well y'all have a good weekend.
Thank you so much.
You bet you. Thank you Steve.
Yeah, and Tom, my point was, of course, there was a double benefit because it would also benefit the cornerclocker operation as well for.
Great, great mindstick Alex.
All right. So what still rises to the top in my mind is that we are at kind of a critical decision point today about going forward with the AFF or not because of the maintenance staff time or basically timeline needs.
So Nick, could you clarify that, I mean cause unfortunately Friday right before a three day weekend and we have this bulk head questioning so other things going out. Do we still need to have this absolutely has to be done today or could we push this off as much as I hate to do that? Is there a way we could push this into next week when we'll have, we'll find out if the bulk head is found, if it's not.
Then we're looking at two options and we're kind of in the same spot. I'm just trying to understand what the dire need is right now to, get a yay or nay on AFF.
I'm gonna pass that ball to Janette because she's the one who's had those conversations with the maintenance staff, not me.
Yeah, I I've spoke with the OPM chief of maintenance, and then all the maintenance guys on the on the ground. They need to know right now, actually they should have known probably a couple of weeks ago that if we were gonna go the AFF route.
There's a lot of work that needs to be done within the fishway. They need to expedite some work and there's a lot of potential fabrication and repairs that need to be done in the AFF in order to operate in this manner. So they asked me to have an answer by the end of this week.
Janette, are they there to actually receive your answer? Miss Eric.
They want the answers starting Tuesday morning when we get back to work so they can reprioritize all of their work next week. That's it, thanks that that's.
Detail makes sense. So there's some flexibility there for the delivery point, but understood.
Okay.
So one thing that and Jeanette follow up on this, but in our kind of batting stuff back and forth yesterday is the, the question about testing the UMT if a bulkhead is found.
We have more time flexibility about, you know, down, you know, in the next couple of weeks versus this question about the AFF, so if that was to, you know, if that got found next Friday, we, that could still get back or be back on the table if that was found with without any major timeline issues. Does that sound correct?
Yep, that's correct. They wouldn't have to do any specific, repairs maintenances within the AFF to modify it. So that takes out that element. All they would be doing would be expediting all of their work right now by one week, so they would want to know that by the end of January. That's the date drop drop dead date I got from them if we were to expedite all work.
That too.
Jeanette, so is there, are you talking about work at the AFF that's, additive to or different than what they would normally have to do to prepare for, for 2020 five's trapping season? Or is it the exact same stuff that they're gonna have to do anyways?
Some of the same stuff but also additive if we were to use the side flumes, the side flumes need to be rehabbed, new liners placed in them, new, switch gates installed, and we would need to fabricate a new exit flume extension that would go up and then back down into the take.
Yeah, I was just wondering if we could buy a little more time by them working on the stuff that they're gonna have to do anyways.
I'm not sure if they could do that and buy us another week, but if they have, if, if most of it is additive, then that wouldn't work.
I'm I'm still a little confused with how that ended most of it being additive when, it sounds like you're rearranging the planning of when you do it, but is that a misinterpretation of what it's being said?
Well it's I was just thinking that if if you have to do all the AFF work anyways, just rearrange your schedule now and go ahead and do that and then, you know, do your other stuff at the damn after that and so so we can continue thinking about this since you have to do it anyways, but Jeanette's saying that in order to do.
This operation, we're gonna have to modify some additional things and so that's like, that would be unnecessary if we didn't go with this option. And so that that's why it's additive and they may not may not want to switch their current priorities for that if we're not going down that road.
Thanks, that was helpful. I mean, you're talking about figuring out how to lift a tank if you go with a transport alternative, things like that. So that was helpful, thanks.
Okay.
I just want to let folks know this was a meeting that was, you know, brought on without planning, so somewhat unexpected, we don't have all day to spend on it, but I will sit here as long as we talk, just hope we can manage our time. Thanks.
And Charlie?
Yeah, it's I'm not an expert on bond of them. I've listened intently to all the discussions. If I were in a position where I had to make a decision at this point in time, I'm reluctant to endorse the AFS as a way going forward. I think our best.
My perception is our best approach is to find that bulk head, better than that, I think we're back to reducing spill. That's kind of where that's kind of my perception, I think where this is going if we have to make a decision right now and.
So I just share that thoughts with others and see if anybody has anything different to add. And I will say I appreciate the discussions we've had and the flexibility of people looking and thinking and especially those that really know the system, your contribution to this effort. Not an ease.
He Went over.
Hey, hey Charlie, this is Doug Doug Valsterone I just wanted to clarify we keep talking about spill and just to manage expectations. I just wanted to thread the needle. So, on that note, it's my understanding that as as spill goes on the minimum side, we would still still be passing project outflows of Dam to facilitate the chumb operation that currently has an eleven three tailwater minimum that equates to project outflows of approximately a hundred and 25 KCFS depending on real time conditions, and so.
That's on the bottom end, the top end is what whatever mother nature gives us. We can look at the current forecast, which is, is still low. Current STP forecast is quite low or well below average, but I just wanted to highlight, we keep talking about spill, but we don't talking about any numbers, and so I just wanted to, to throw that out there to the group, just to clarify it's my understanding on the bottom end, it would be approximately spilled to facilitate the maintenance of the chumb tail water minimum elevation, which is eleven three, which is approximately.
Hundred 25 KCFS and then on the high side, get out your crystal ball and that'll be what, what, well, we have the STP, of course, but I'm just saying, just wanted to highlight that for March flows. So, Nick, I just wanted to throw out there to put a pin on that conversation cause I feel like we're talking about it, but just.
Just want to throw out those specific details. Thank you. Any questions on that? And Charlie did I thank you Doug. I think you.
No, I think you can't yeah Doug I think you captured that well. Thank you. And I haven't thought about that, but yeah, that is a concern and I'm not sure how much how much of a reduction and skill we would need to accomplish what our goal would be. So, yeah.
Production, it's an, it would be an increase cause they.
There they currently have four to five units that will be available at powerhouse. One is the the most recent understanding, and so that's gonna limit them 5060K And then the rest of it will have to be either spilled.
Or they could fluctuate and try to use their range in their four bay that they have. They have a bid, a Bonaville to increase flows at night and reduce them during the day. So the idea is that you're just limiting powerhouse to flow during the day, but that's likely to result in an increase.
Since bill, for the.
Okay and and Trevor, that's why I'm trying to note like I.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but just wanted to highlight that eleven three Bonnonville tailwater minimum is on all hours and so under the paradigm that you just laid out yes, there would be a, a day night operation, but the bottom line is, is 24 h a day, seven days a week. We'd still need an eleven three Bonnerville tail water.
And so that that that make sure that 01:25 approximately 01:25 KCFS project outflow on all hours during the month of March would need to be maintained as the floor as the minimum. Gotcha.
And then, and then there's also a TDG concern. Do you know at what level of spill we would be likely to come up against state standards?
Yes and NO. Dan, if Dan Turner I'm not sure, I'll let him chime in if he's on. If he's not, I can Dan Turner are you on? Okay, he's not on. In conversations I've had with Dan is that basically per our our water.
Quality, requirements with the states that we do have the ability to spill at higher levels in in in partnership or in coordination with the states for fish operations. He felt that this was consistent with that. And so his expectation was merely tracking this conversation, tracking the MOC, and then whatever comes from this conversation, he felt it would be then appropriate for the core to reach out to the states and just say, you know, here's, here's the operation. It's been coordinated via this MOC with regional salmon managers and then we'd be good to go and for.
A process standpoint, he felt that that would be appropriate and for so from the course perspective, Trevor, I want you to know I don't, we don't feel at this time that there's any limitations of regarding that conversation. So we feel that just coordination with the states would be appropriate and and and and and and we'd be able to implement that. So that makes sense.
Thank you.
Yep, I just I want.
Going to weigh in here and say that I think what Doug just said, it's my expectation of what can and can't happen as well, and that the coordination piece would be important. In the event we have this triage requirement, but the the spill again, you know, I think most are trying to think of that and how it might help attract through the available ladders.
I don't think we've moved away from that, have we? This is really just in the event that something goes sideways. Is that a misinterpretation?
Yeah Eric, I mean, UMT we have to find a bull kid, That's gonna go ahead and flip that. AFF, we have to find crews and hope to God that the hydraulics actually work out the way she Liker thinks it will. So that's kind of also, and there's dangers in that. I mean, you're basically putting fish in the AFF or I'm gonna hold them for some time blah blah blah.
So that's not exactly a great operation. So the only other way to keep fish out of B two is to not operate the powerhouse. Well, the only way to do that is to spill, is to basically have to spill the the remainder that can't pass through B one. So we're kind of in a, we're on 222 lanes right now, so, and both are, have benefits and detractions.
Yeah, I I I, the the noise is wide for sure. The point I'm just making is that if we do spill more because of this event happening, I would think we would operate in a way that would re reduce the impacts to attracting fish to the ladder. Does that make sense? It's on this one.
Good point, it's not on all the other ones that have already been discussed.
Yeah, this is a heavy, heavy discussion, brought on quickly, so I, I recognize it's hard to.
I think out loud, even though that's what this process is, is expecting from us, but I I just wanted to share that point. Thanks.
Well I guess Nick, where do we go from here? You know, I think we've kind of talked about everything. Now we just need to move forward.
I've been thinking about for this. So, at the moment I'm thinking to close this meeting. I think there's an AFF decision about going forward or not that I I'm I'm still kind of new to these processes out here, so bear this in mind, but that I'm thinking the final call ultimately rests with Usase right now.
To pursue, to decide to pursue and the next step on the AFF path, if that was the decision that was made would then be to run to ground all of the challenges that has highlighted and make sure that those are achievable.
The question of, the spill alternative, you know, we're working with BPA right now to kind of, more, completely describe what that translates to. So that's actively ongoing.
But is our, at least as far as i'm aware, is our least time sensitive decision point, and then the UMT, the quest for the Bullcab will continue into next week since that we have more time flexibility on that.
But if that makes anybody uncomfortable or you see a flaw in my my kind of breakdown of that, please point that out.
Yeah, so Nick, the only issue I have is like, on the FF there's kind of like two things, there's the work you guys have to get done and then there's talking with John to see if he can even pull together a crew. I mean, you guys can keep doing the work, but if we can't pull together a crew, you're gonna be doing a bunch of stuff that.
I mean that's why I'm a little perplexed that we're like, so gotta have the decision today cause that's why I was begging people to find to say like if you're really serious about this, we need to know now and need to get some of the base criteria so we can figure out what we need for crew to see if we can even do to basically support the AFF operation. So, I'll have to look to John to see when he can give us a yeah I can pull this rabbit out of the hat or NO, there's NO way in hell I can do that. Unless John is John unless john's dumb enough to offer that up right now.
Yeah, of course I don't have that right now. Part of it is we're, we're waiting on, you know, basically what we call fishtime, you know, so we've got projects up in Kalem and it's all based on egg maturation, and so I have NO idea what week we're gonna have to go up there.
One thing the group might be able to help me with is if, you know, with the hazing portion, cause I have to cover that, those crews too. Are we talking hazing seven days a week? And then again, you know, just our normal hours per day, like 6 h per day and that's, that's cool.
Yeah Cause that's the other project I have to cover, too, is that.
Understood, yeah, and I'm I, I fully understand both of the or the challenges that are with the logistics and I think, you know, even if, vulnerable staff goes forward on the maintenance path, with that decision today, I think it's important that everybody realized that the AFF option could get broken in the, you know, in the next week or so.
By a lack of ability to staff the AFF, so I just want to be very clear about that like Tom and and John, you've both made that very clear to me, but I just want to reiterate that for the group cause I think that's an important next step in the AFF path if that goes forward is.
There's another break point that could occur that will eliminate that option. So I, that's the the next step if we go forward today on the usage decision size will be to immediately work start working that to figure out if.
That's feasible, but that's in my mind, not something that this group needs to be occupied with at this point in time. That's something that we can handle offline in pursuing that information.
Well, my suggestion is to find a bullet as long as this goes away.
Agreed.
Yeah, yeah.
Just and with the bulket thing, if you have bulket slots, and not that I'm suggesting this to be brilliant, but could we just get, stack.
I mean if it's 15 ft wide, they make 16 ft four by sixes, could we just not stack up ten of those or twelve of those as an improved to basically bulkhead?
I don't think that would pass Mustar for HECP and clearance work for people working in the fishway. All right.
It's only 5 ft of water, so I was hoping that maybe that would be, I mean cause we do, we kind of have a weird wooden bullet we use in the AFF, so I was thinking, it's good enough for the AFF? Is it good enough for the unt? So I'm just trying to because that's the solution I think most of us feel the most comfort with. And that's why I Just if we can't find a bullet I'm just saying, is there any other thing we can do?
I think that's a bit of that and maybe deserves a little more discussion internally with the core to see if there's, if they can adapt to do something to Oh, how would you say if Sherry find an adaptable solution, if they can't find the original bucket I am not an expert on that, so I'm not, I just talking this out there.
There's maybe a stupid idea that people are not smart of mine with this one.
I'll definitely bring that back to our engineers and see what they think on it and that's a great side solution if, if we're allowed to do that. Thanks for the the thought, Tom, I appreciate it.
Oh, you say that now, you're trying to be nice to me now. You're gone like, oh great, another stupid thing from Brickfit.
And we're, we're all in an impossible situation right now trying to make the best of it, so I'm really appreciative of everybody's hard work on this and insights. I'm going to propose we closed the meeting, if nobody has any objections. And again, thank you all for those that made time outside of your schedule for the long weekends to.
Be available for this. I'm very appreciative and, know how frankly annoying it is when you have to step up to the plate like that, but it is greatly appreciated.
Thank you Mick. All the rest of you were going through this process and may May the end of your day be you'd be able to put this aside and enjoy the three day weekends.
We'll see how close I get. I gotta move a lot of heavy stuff this weekend.
Oh.
Is one of the booking?
Unfortunately.
I know, but I have one in my pocket.
Oh, you do. Oh, there you go. Alright, take care of all. Bye. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, Nick.
Okay.