Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alameda Creek Diversion Dam

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alameda Creek Diversion DamThe design components carried forward through the initial screening were next evaluated based ontheir relative cost (Section 5). Order-of-magnitude capital, operations, and maintenance costs weredeveloped, including the water cost associated with operating the design components and the lostwater diversion opportunity cost associated with screening.The next step in the analysis was to estimate the amount of habitat that the remaining designcomponents would make available to steelhead. Considering the quantity and quality of habitatavailable, the potential for passage to sustain a minimum viable population size was evaluated. Nonsteelheadenvironmental considerations related to the implementation of fish passage are alsodiscussed, although these considerations are deferred to a later stage of planning when an impactdetermination would be more appropriate, and do not weigh heavily on the feasibility evaluation.The last step in this first stage of the feasibility evaluation was to evaluate the remaining designcomponents in light of all the above considerations, and select the design components most suitablefor providing fish passage at ACDD. As a result, two potential fish passage options for ACDD wereevaluated for their potential to meet specific fish passage goals, as described below.3.3 EVALUATION OF THE BIOLOGICAL BENEFIT OF TWOPASSAGE OPTIONSWhile providing fish passage is almost always “technologically” feasible (that is, it is almost alwayspossible to catch some fish and relocate them somewhere else), simply moving the fish does notaccomplish the goals of fish passage. For the purposes of this analysis, the following goals have beenidentified for fish passage:■■■■■To provide access to additional quantity of habitat to increase natural production;To contribute to species recovery through increased overall natural production;To provide access to historical habitat;To protect or enhance the genetic integrity and/or distinctness of stocks; andTo reduce risk of extinction through increased natural production and creation of additionalindependent populations.The final step in this feasibility evaluation was to examine the potential fish passage options atACDD, and evaluate their ability or likelihood to meet these goals (Section 7). Following theseprimarily qualitative evaluations, the potential for success of steelhead passage at ACDD wasdetermined.ACDD Passage June 2009 Page 3-2
4.0 Design Components and Preliminary Analysis4 DESIGN COMPONENTS AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSISThis section describes and evaluates design components that could potentially be used to providesteelhead passage at ACDD based on literature review and experience with existing fish passageprojects. In conjunction with passage at ACDD, screening of the ACDT would also be required toprotect steelhead present at the diversion. Passage components are described and evaluated inSections 4.1 through 4.3; screening design components are described and evaluated in Section 4.4.Steelhead migration consists of the following three primary elements:■■■adult immigration;juvenile emigration;post-spawn adult emigration.Table 4-1 summarizes the steelhead life-stage time periods when each primary migration elementoccurs. The time periods presented in the table are based upon the literature review, survey datacollected in the Upper Alameda Creek Sub-Watershed, and personal communications withindividuals familiar with the watershed.Table 4-1Steelhead Passage Element TimingMonthPassage Element Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepAdult Immigration aJuvenile Emigration bPost-spawn Adult Emigration cSources:aGunther et al., 2000; Moyle, 2002bGunther et al., 2000; Brian Sak, pers. comm., 2009a; SFPUC, 2004cGunther et al., 2000Adult steelhead immigration in the Alameda Creek Watershed is expected to occur from Decemberthrough April, with the majority of immigration occurring between December and March (Gunther et al.,2000). Juvenile steelhead emigration naturally occurs simultaneously with the smoltification processwhen physiological changes occur that adapt the juvenile fish to life in the ocean. In the Alameda CreekWatershed, emigrating steelhead smolts are expected to migrate downstream between March and June,with older fish (ages 2 and 3 years) generally migrating earlier (March and April) and younger fish (age1 year) migrating later (May and June) (Gunther et al., 2000). Juvenile steelhead may sometimes makesmall movements related to habitat choice (Kahler et al., 2001), and upstream movements fromspawning grounds into suitable summer rearing habitats may sometimes occur (habitat in the studyarea is described in Section 6.1). Although most steelhead die after spawning, a significant number donot. As much as 20 to 30 percent of an annual steelhead run may be composed of repeat spawners(Shapovalov, 1953; Shapovalov and Taft, 1954). Steelhead that survive spawning typically emigrate tothe ocean before returning to spawn again. Migrations are typically expected to occur as described here,but are ultimately dependent upon the rainfall pattern in a given year, which determines when flowssuitable for migration are available. A flow duration analysis and a storm peaking analysis would berecommended if further passage design for ACDD is requested; storm peaking analysis would furtherACDD Passage June 2009 Page 4-1
Page 1: T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U
Page 4 and 5: Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alam
Page 11 and 12: 1.0 Introduction1 INTRODUCTION1.1 B
Page 13: 24Alamo680DanvilleAlameda CreekWate
Page 18 and 19: oleyriesSanCalaveras Creekalaveras
Page 20 and 21: (a)(b)Alameda Creek Diversion Dam (
Page 23 and 24: 2.0 Setting2.3.2.1 ALAMEDA CREEK DI
Page 25 and 26: 2.0 Settingalmost never submerged;
Page 27 and 28: 2.0 SettingRainbow trout are the sa
Page 29: 2.0 SettingA number of future proje
Page 42 and 43: (a) A view of the navigation lock a
Page 44 and 45: (a) A pickup truck adapted for haul
Page 57: Approximately 1.8 miles toCalaveras
Page 77 and 78: 6.0 Additional Considerations and A
Page 79: 6.0 Additional Considerations and A
Page 82 and 83:
Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alam
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 89 and 90:
9.0 Report Preparation9 REPORT PREP
Page 91 and 92:
10.0 References10 REFERENCESAACE (A
Page 93 and 94:
10.0 ReferencesHayes, Darrel, 2001.
Page 95 and 96:
10.0 ReferencesSak, B., San Francis
Page 97:
10.0 ReferencesWDFW (Washington Dep
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120:
show all

Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alameda Creek Diversion Dam

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?