EXHIBIT 8-A
Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District
DRAFT Technical
Memorandum 2008-01
Alternative Adult Steelhead Counting Technology to Enumerate Upstream
Migrants and Estimate the Total Run Size of South Central Coast Steelhead in
the Carmel River Watershed After Removal of San Clemente Dam
June 16, 2008
Prepared by
Kevan Urquhart
Introduction
California American Water (CAW)
has been required by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) to address the seismic safety deficiencies of
San Clemente Dam (SCD) at River Mile[1]
18.6 on the
Objective
To recommend to the District’s Board the most appropriate technical solution to replace the combined mechanical fish counter and back-up digital camera currently used to count upstream migrant steelhead moving through the ladder on SCD, if the dam and its ladder are removed as part of the “San Clemente Dam Seismic Retrofit Project”.
Johnson and others (Johnson et al., 2007) reviewed six currently
acceptable methods of enumerating the annual run size of adult salmonids,
including steelhead. These six methods
fall into two general types: (1) roving surveys that must be conducted
throughout the watershed, and (2) fixed sampling at a single location low in
the watershed. Roving surveys include
visual surveys throughout the watershed for spawning adults or their redds
(i.e., spawning nests), and mark-recapture surveys of fish carcasses left in
the river throughout the watershed.
Fixed location sampling includes: (1) fixed visual surveys of passing
adults from towers placed adjacent to the river at one location, (2) fish
trapping weirs that temporarily block adult migration, and (3) various
hydroacoustic technologies that detect and enumerate moving objects within the
path of their sound beam.
Visual surveys: Visual surveys in the
Mark-recapture surveys:
Mark-recapture surveys of salmonid carcasses are used throughout the
Consequently, given these
constraints, only weirs and hydroacoustic technologies were considered. Either approach is worthwhile for the District
to pursue, regardless of the time before SCD and its fish counting station are
removed. In fact, even if SCD is not
removed, consideration of a new location downstream that enumerates the
majority of the adult run of
The use of both resistance board
weirs and hydroacoustic technology to enumerate the run sizes of anadromous
fish, specifically salmonids (including steelhead) is common in the Pacific
Northwest,
Anderson and others (Anderson et
al., 2007) reviewed the latest available year of results (2006-2007) from a
resistance board weir installed in the lower Stanislaus River, a major
tributary to the lower San Joaquin River in Stanislaus County. Resistance board weirs are structures
installed in rivers to strain flow and block upstream passage by adult fish. The weirs force the fish into a trap where
they are manually or mechanically counted.
An example of a small resistance panel weir on
The
Johnson and others (Johnson et
al., 2006), reviewed the results of a short-term installation of both DIDSON
(dual-frequency identification sonar) and split-beam hydroacoustic technologies
on Mill Creek, an important tributary to the upper Sacramento River in Tehema
County. DIDSON technology uses a sound
wave projected across a river from a device mounted on the bank or a bridge
abutment. The sound wave detects and recognizes passing fish. A signal is generated and interpreted by computer
software and stored on a hard drive. The
device can also produce a low-resolution black and white picture of the
fish. An example of the DIDSON mount
with sonic signal generator and receiver on
USFWS’s Anadromous Fish Restoration Program also funded this evaluation that found DIDSON technology to be more effective than split-beam hydroacoustic technology, and appropriate for enumerating run size and timing of spring-run Chinook salmon on Mill Creek. Evaluations were conducted at flows from approximately 100 to 5,500 cfs.
A comparison of the District
staff’s opinion of the benefits and drawbacks of each counting technology as
applied to the
A new sampling site downstream of Potrero Creek (e.g., Rancho San Carlos Road Bridge at RM 3.86) would allow a counting station to enumerate nearly the complete annual run of steelhead in the Carmel River Watershed. Even a site as far upstream as Schulte Road Bridge at RM 6.70 would enumerate the majority of the run, whereas a counting station at Highway 1 Bridge at RM 1.09 enumerate the entire run.
Moving or adding a fish counting
site 12 miles downstream from its current location at SCD will allow the District
to more completely and accurately document improvements in the
While neither the DIDSON nor the
resistance board weir hardware is difficult to install, site selection for a
stable channel that the DIDSON can effectively scan, or where the panels of the
resistance board weir can be effectively anchored, is critical for reliable
measurements. In this regard, it is not
known if any private landowner will allow annual access to their property to
install and maintain a large resistance board weir. It is more likely that a private landowner,
the
It would be best for the District to employ a consultant experienced with installing either technology in unregulated rivers to guide its employees in choosing an installation site and completing the first season’s installation. Doing so is likely to greatly enhance the success of the project and reduce the degree of adaptive management needed to implement any new approach.
Due to hydrologic and hydraulic
conditions in the Carmel River Watershed, only two approaches for a new station
to count immigrating adult steelhead appear feasible. Both will cost approximately $150,000 to
implement in the first year, and each has its drawbacks and benefits. I believe the most non-intrusive, cost
effective, and reliable approach is use of a DIDSON monitoring station. This technology is being used for this
purpose on a wide variety of fish species throughout the world, and on
salmonids in the Pacific Northwest,
Section 5:
Conclusions
The District should consider
including up to $20,000 in the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Mid-Year Budget adjustment
for a pilot installation of DIDSON fish counting technology in the lower
Table 1. Factors Affecting the Benefits and
Drawbacks of Two Alternative Steelhead Counting Technologies Applicable to the |
||
|
|
|
Factor |
Weir and Trap Station |
DIDSON |
Estimated Initial Installation
Cost |
~$150,000 |
$125,000 - $140,000 |
Estimated Annual
Re-Installation Cost |
>$6,000 |
~$1,000 |
Estimated Annual
Maintenance Cost |
>$2,000 |
<$2,000 |
Staff Positions Required
For Installation |
2-Biologists & 4-Technicians |
1-Biologist & 1-Technician |
Days Required For
Installation/Removal |
5 |
2 |
Staff Positions Required
For Operation |
1-Biologists & 2-Technicians |
1-Biologist/Technician |
Minimum Ongoing Staff
Allocation |
21 person-days, weekly |
1 to 3 person-days, weekly |
Estimated Annual
Operational Staff Costs |
~$110,000 |
~$4,000 - $17,000 |
Site Footprint |
Large |
Minimal |
Degree of Access Required |
Large & Daily |
Small & Intermittent |
Probability of Acquiring
Access |
Moderate-Low |
Moderate-High |
High Flow Failure Risk |
Moderate |
Slight |
High Flow Loss Risk |
Moderate |
Slight |
Coverage Across All
Predictable Flows |
Most, But Not All Flow Levels |
At All Flows But Not All Depths |
Complexity of Environmental
Permitting |
High |
Minimal |
Would Require ESA Section
10 Permit |
Yes |
No |
Would Require DFG 1600
Permit |
Yes |
No |
Would Require MPWMD or |
Yes |
No/Minimal |
Cost of a Pilot Study |
Similar To Installation |
Less Than Full Installation |
Liability Risk of
Installation/Operation |
Some |
Minimal |
Risk of Vandalism |
Moderate |
Moderate-High |
May Enhance |
Yes |
No |
Figure 1.
Example of a Small Resistance Panel Weir on
Figure 2.
Example of a DIDSON Mount with Sonic Signal Generator and Receiver
on
References Cited
Anderson, Jesse T., Cark B. Watry, & Ayesha Gray. 2007.
Upstream Fish Passage at a Resistance Board Weir Using Infrared and
Digital Technology in the Lower
[Available on the Internet at: http://www.fishsciences.net/reports/index.php]
Cramer Fish Sciences.
2007.
Johnson, David H., Brianna M. Shrier, Jennifer S. O’Neil,
John A Knutzen, Xanthippe Augerot, Thomas A. O’Neil, and Todd N. Persons. 2007.
Salmon Field Protocols Handbook: Techniques for assessing status and
trends in salmon and trout populations.
478 pgs. American Fisheries
Society,
Johnson, Peter, Bryan Nass, Don Degan, James Dawson, Mathew
Johnson, Brenda Olson, & Colleen Harvey Arrison. 2006.
Assessing Chinook Salmon Escapement in Mill Creek Using Acoustic
Technologies in 2006. 46 pgs.
Scientists and Experts Consulted
Anderson, Jesse T.
2008 . Personal Communication.
Phone conversation on or about 03//08 about his experiences operation
the resistance board weir on the
Dorsey, Jeanne. 2008.
Personal Communication. Phone
conversation on 6/6/08 about the applicability of DIDSON technology to
conditions in the
Hayes, Sean.
2008. Personal Communication. Site visit to his resistance board weir
installation on
Johnson, Peter.
2008. Personal
Communication. Phone conversation on
6/6/08 about the applicability of DIDSON technology to conditions in the
Pipal, Kerrie.
2008. Personal
Communication. Site visit to her DIDSON
installation on
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2008\2008boardpackets\20080616\ConsentCal\08\item8_exh8a.doc
6/12/2008
[1] River Miles (RM) are measured from the river mouth, i.e., 0.0 mile, and increase as you move upstream.