Operational Plan for the Restoration of Diadromous Fishes to the ...

17,000 alewife per day would require handling at the TSCF to minimize delays to upstream
passing these fish.
Seasonal spawning migrations of white sucker would likely overlap with the alewife
migration, thereby increasing the number of fish at the facility. While estimates of sucker
numbers were not obtained for this study, the presence of multiple fish species complicate
sorting operations.
A preliminary analysis was performed to evaluate staffing needs at the TSCF during peak of
an alewife run of 530,000 fish. Assuming 12 hours of sorting operations each day and a
maximum daily passage rate of 17,000 fish, approximately 1,500 fish would need to be
sorted each hour.
Operation of a two-stage sorting would double the approximate number of fish to be
handled. Given that the sorting work requires care to exclude target exclusion species, it is
estimated that a staff of four would be required for this work. Based on a full labor rate of
$30 per hour, the estimated cost for 30 days of peak migration sorting would be
approximately $43,200. The estimated cost for a staff of two during the balance of the
alewife migration is $21,600, resulting in a total estimated labor cost of $64,800 for the 60day
alewife migration period. The cost of sorting for the projected alewife production in the
Piscataquis River watershed (approximately 5,500,000 fish) at full productivity would likely
be higher. Staffing of the TSCF would likely be required over the balance of the target
passage species migration period, which extends to mid-April through mid-November for
Atlantic salmon.
Assuming that a staff of one person could tend the trap for four hours each day from mid-
April to the end of April and from July through mid-November, for a total of approximately
150 days, the cost of this staffing would be approximately $18,000.
The estimated operations costs presented here are for preliminary planning only, and would
require revision based on the efficiency of sorting operations. These estimated costs do not
include direct costs, such as transportation costs and maintenance of the TSCF.
3.4 Eel Passage
Dedicated passage facilities for American eel may be required for both the series and
parallel systems due to the small size of upstream passing elver and to accommodate
upstream movement of yellow-phase eels outside of typical migration windows. A variety of
eel-specific passage systems that would not be suitable for upstream passage by the target
exclusion species may be appropriate at this site.
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This evaluation presents information relevant to a TSCF on the Proposed Bypass adjacent
to Howland Dam. The results of this evaluation suggest that total exclusion of the target
exclusion species while allowing upstream passage of the target passage species cannot be
achieved through the design of the Proposed Bypass, and that a dedicated TSCF would be
required to trap, sort, and exclude the target exclusion species.
Two schemes, series and parallel systems, are presented as general design configurations.
General details are presented herein, but would need to be refined for the development of a
final design. In addition to requiring a conservative design, successful operation of the TSCF
PRFP Page 278