Chesapeake Executive Council
903R88112
Strategy for
Removing Impediments
to Migratory Fishes in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 111 Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
TD
225
.C54
£872
copy 2
December 1988
-------
Strategy for Removing Impediments to Migratory
Fishes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
An Agreement Commitment Report from
the Chesapeake Executive Council
U.Q. Environnwtal Protection Agency
Region III Information Resource
Certar (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Annapolis, Maryland
December, 1988
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the Strategy for Removing Impediments to Migratory
Fishes in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, in fulfillment of the Living Resources Commit-
ment Number 6 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement:
"...provide for fish passage at dams, and remove stream blockages when-
ever necessary to restore natural passage for migratory fish."
We agree to work together to implement the major recommendations of the
Strategy:
1) To constitute the Fish Passage Workgroup as the permanent interjurisdic-
tional body coordinating Baywide fish passage efforts, including the
development of priorities, timetables, and funding recommendations;
2) To continue to work together to update the comprehensive inventory of
obstructions to fish migration in the Bay watershed, and to use this inven-
tory to establish priorities for removal;
3) To adopt a multi-faceted approach to assure the removal of the diverse
impediments to fish migration located in the watershed; and,
4) To supplement the technical resources currently dedicated to the removal
of impediments.
We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable financial support and human
resources to the task of removing impediments to fish migration. In addition, we direct
the Living Resources Subcommittee to prepare an annual report addressing the progress
attained in implementing the Strategy's recommendations.
Date
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary pagei
Introduction page 1
Barriers to Migration: An Historical Perspective page 3
Barriers to Migration: The Current Situation page 5
Strategy for Removing Impediments page?
Establishing an Ongoing Bay wide Fish Passage Workgroup page?
Updating a Comprehensive Inventory of Obstructions page 7
Establishing a Multi-Faceted Approach to Migratory Fish Impediments page 8
Supplementing Technical Resources in the Bay Watershed page 11
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Recent Commercial Harvest of Migratory Species page 2
Figure 1: Estimated Historic Range of Migratory Fish Obstructed
by Stream Blockages in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed page 4
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement includes a commitment that the signatories will "provide for
fish passage at dams, and remove stream blockages wherever necessary to restore passage for
migratory fish." This commitment was made in response to precipitous declines in the Bay's
migratory fisheries and because of the recognition that these declines may be attributable, in part, to
the loss of historic spawning and nursery habitat as a consequence of dams and other impediments.
In January of 1988, the Living Resources Subcommittee appointed a Fish Passage Workgroup to
develop a strategy for implementing the Bay Agreement commitment regarding fish passage. This
workgroup includes representatives from each of the Bay states, the District of Columbia,
appropriate federal resource agencies, and the environmental community. This report contains the
Workgroup's findings and recommendations.
During the past two centuries, a major portion of the historic migratory fish spawning and
nursery habitat has been lost as a consequence of dams and other obstructions. The removal of
these obstructions is an essential element in our efforts to reestablish healthy migratory fisheries in
the Bay watershed. Because the structures which act as impediments to fish migration are diverse,
ranging from small road culverts to major hydroelectric facilities, it is important that all responsible
parties work together to assure the provision of fish passage. Remedying this problem will require
a new level of commitment from our state highway departments, local government, state and
federal resource agencies, utilities operating hydroelectric dams, and public and private owners of
other dams.
To initiate a comprehensive program for removing impediments to migratory fishes in the Bay
watershed, the Workgroup makes the following recommendations:
* The Fish Passage Workgroup of the Living Resources Subcommittee be designated the
permanent interjurisdictional body to coordinate Baywide fish passage efforts;
* The signatories work together to update the comprehensive inventory of dams and other
obstructions to fish migration;
* The signatories annually reassess their priorities based upon updated inventories and other
relevent information;
* All future road and highway culverts should be designed and constructed to assure the
passage of migratory fish species present or potentially present in the affected stream;
* Within each Bay state, the highway department should continue to inventory existing road
crossings which act as impediments to migratory fishes and to prepare, in cooperation with
the resource agencies, a strategy for remedying specific problems;
* The signatories establish a priority list for future fishway projects at these smaller
obstructions utilizing the inventory of impediments to fish passage;
* The signatories obtain the technical expertise necessary to provide for fish passage at these
obstructions;
* The signatories solicit input and assistance from local governments to provide fish passage
at small dams;
* The signatories explore ways to assure the provision of adequate funding for these projects;
-------
* The signatories take steps to assure that they possess adequate legal authority to carry out
an effective fish passage program;
* The signatories provide adequate resources to operate and maintain fishways once they are
constructed;
* The licenses for all hydroelectric facilities regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission be examined, and reopened where necessary, to assure that adequate
provisions are made for fish passage within a reasonable time frame;
* New licenses for hydroelectric projects not be issued in the watershed without the
assurance of migratory fish passage;
* The signatories identify specific spawning reaches suitable for reintroduction;
* The signatories initiate reintroduction programs for migratory fishes, when necessary and
appropriate, above impediments that have been targeted for fish passage projects;
* The signatories develop programs to trap adult fishes below the targeted blockage and
transport them upstream to spawn, or stock young hatchery-produced fishes above the
impediment;
* The signatories identify potential sources of migratory fishes for trap and transport efforts;
* The signatories acquire the necessary equipment for the transport of these fishes;
* The signatories implement management plans, regulatory measures and monitoring
programs that will protect newly-introduced fishes until a self-sustaining population has
been established;
* The signatories take steps to assure that water quality in targeted streams is maintained at
levels necessary for the reestablishment of migratory species;
* The signatories develop a plan for public involvement and sponsorship of activities related
to fish passage, and coordinate proposed activities with the Bay Program's Information
Network Group;
* The signatories prepare annual reports, for submission to the Chesapeake Bay Program
through the Living Resources Subcommittee, detailing the previous year's progress as well
as plans for the upcoming year;
* The Fish and Wildlife Service consider enhancing their anadromous coordinator initiative to
provide additional assistance in the Bay region;
* A technical workshop be held in the Bay area to apprise interested parties of recent
developments relating to fishway design and construction;
* Steps be taken to encourage regional educational institutions to focus resources on this
important problem; and
* The Fish and Wildlife Service consider encouraging "cooperative units" in the watershed to
focus on issues concerning migratory fish and the engineering and design of fishways.
11
-------
INTRODUCTION
Of the 260 fish species that occur in the Chesapeake Bay, the most sought after by both sport
and commercial fishermen are the migratory species. These include "anadromous" fishes, such as
^striped bass, river herring, sturgeon and American and hickory shad, that spend most of their adult
lives in saltier coastal waters but return each year to spawn in freshwater, as well as semi-
anadromous species such as white and yellow perch. The term anadromous is taken from the
Greek words "ana", meaning upward, and "dromos", meaning running. Another class of
migratory fish are the "catadromous" species, represented in the Bay watershed by the American
eel. Catadromous fish spend most of their lives in freshwater, returning to ocean waters to spawn.
Together, anadromous and catadromous species are described as diadromous, or migratory
between saltwater and freshwater.
At one time, the Chesapeake Bay abounded with migratory fishes. Today, however, these
once thriving fisheries are in a depressed state. No longer do sturgeon, striped bass, shad and
river herring support extensive recreational and commercial fisheries. In Maryland, the catch of
American shad declined from over 7 million pounds a century ago to approximately 20,000 pounds
in 1980, prompting the state to ban fishing for this species. Populations of shad in Virginia waters
have experienced a similar decline, with current annual harvests averaging 900,000 pounds,
compared to over 11 million pounds a hundred years ago. The total annual commercial landings of
river herring in Maryland has dropped from over 8 million pounds 50 years ago to approximately
200,000 pounds in 1985. The striped bass commercial catch Bay-wide has declined from 14.7
million pounds in the early 1970's to 1.7 million pounds in the early 1980's. Table 1 illustrates
the precipitous decline of the Bay's migratory fisheries. The economic impact of this decline is
significant. In the early twentieth century the shad and river herring fisheries were the two most
economically important commercial finfisheries in the Bay watershed. Today Maryland's
commercial shad fishery is closed as a result of a moratorium imposed in 1980 and the river
herring fishery has declined by over 90%. The economic importance of the Bay's migratory
species to the sportfishing industry is equally apparent.
This decline cannot be attributed to a single cause. Rather, an intricate complex of factors
some natural, most man-made can be identified. Among those most often cited are pollution and
siltation of spawning areas, overharvesting, and construction of dams and other obstructions
across the Bay's tributary streams and rivers, preventing access to historic spawning areas.
Through the multi-agency Bay restoration program, progress .has been made in addressing the
degradation of Bay water quality. The 1987 Bay Agreement has bolstered these efforts by
establishing specific commitments to reduce nutrient input and sedimentation into Bay waters.
-------
RECENT COMMERCIAL HARVESTS OF
MIGRATORY FISHES IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
(Average annual tons for each 10-year period)
1966-1975 1976-1985 % Decline
American Eel
American Shad
Hickory Shad
River Herring
(Blueback herring and
alewife)
Striped Bass
White Perch
Yellow Perch
Total
TOTAL
VA
MD
VA
MD
VA
MD
VA
MD
VA
MD
VA
MD
VA
MD
VA
MD
Bay
427.1
117.8
1,114.0
409.7
18.8
8.7
9,486.0
1,094.7
1,059.0
1,803.3
173.8
650.8
1.9
51.8
12,280.6
4,136.8
16,417.4
257.0
106.7
454.0
37.4*
0.5
0.6*
725.0
71.0
226.0
642.4 *
65.0
341.9
0.2
14.9
1,727.7
1,214.6
2,942.6
40%
9%
59%
91%
97%
93%
92%
94%
79%
64%
63%
47%
90%
71%
86%
71%
82%
* Pre-moratoriwn
-------
Harvest restrictions have been placed on the taking of some migratory species in an attempt to
arrest further decline. Until recently, however, little had been done to address the blockage of
historic diadromous fish spawning habitat by dams, culverts and other physical obstructions.
BARRIERS TO MIGRATION: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Altering and impounding streams and rivers to meet the needs of a growing populace is a
practice as old as the Nation itself. Beginning in colonial times, the number of mill dams was
increased to meet the growing needs of commerce. As early as 1774, a navigation canal was
proposed for the James River. Many of our founding fathers were actively involved in improving
navigation on the James and other Virginia Rivers by constructing systems of canals and dams.
These provided better transportation but created impediments to migrating fishes and obstructed
once productive spawning and nursery areas.
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the potential energy of the rivers was harnessed
as dams were built to provide a source of impounded water to drive the mills. Mill dams gave way
to huge concrete structures built to provide a source of electricity for growing metropolitan areas.
Overland transportation expanded as the horse and buggy gave way to the automobile and dirt trails
were paved and expanded into roads and highways. Culverts and other structures placed in or
across streams and rivers to support these roads were added to the growing inventory of
blockages. Thus, the foundation was laid for a conflict between commercial interests and the
environment that would plague natural resource managers into the 20th century.
During the past two centuries, a major portion of migratory fish spawning and nursery habitat
throughout the Bay has been lost due to obstructions. The Susquehanna River is perhaps the most
dramatic example of the impacts of blockages on migratory fishes. Construction of four dams in
the lower river early in this century blocks nearly 300 miles of habitat historically used by shad and
herring. The annual harvest of American and hickory shad in the upper Bay, which reached 7.1
million pounds in 1890, plunged to a meager 34,000 pounds in 1979, causing resource managers
in Maryland to impose a full moratorium oh the harvest of this fish.
Further south, a similar fate has befallen the migratory fishery resources of the James River.
At one time anadromous fishes migrated nearly 300 miles upstream, to the river's origin at the
confluence of the Jackson and Cowpasture Rivers. Today, however, 5 concrete dams located in
the vicinity of Richmond block fish access to nearly two-thirds of that historic habitat. While the
Susquehanna and James Rivers may be two of the more dramatic illustrations of the problem,
blockages plague virtually every major tributary of the Bay. Figure 1 depicts historical spawning
and nursery areas currently precluded by impediments to fish migration. Nearly a thousand such
blockages are documented in both Virginia and Maryland.
-------
POTENTIAL AMERICAN SHAD SPAWNING AND
NURSERY HABITAT OF MAINSTEM RIVERS *
Susquehanna
habitat continues
into New York
First blockage on
mains tern river
Potential habitat
currently blocked
* Potential habitat in the smaller tributaries of
the mainstem rivers too detailed to include
Norfolk
-------
BARRIERS TO MIGRATION: THE CURRENT SITUATION
In Virginia several surveys have been conducted which collectively provide an inventory of
the larger impediments to fish passage in the tidewater area. Information on smaller impediments is
currently lacking. The "Virginia Hydro Dam Inventory" was prepared in 1981 to provide
information about the hydroelectric potential at existing dams. The inventory includes descriptions
of the physical condition of the state's larger dams as well as information on ownership. Two
regional surveys by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University document stream
blockages and water quality on the mainstems of the Rappahannock, James and York Rivers and
tributaries of the lower James. "An Analysis of the Impediments to Spawning Migrations of
Anadromous Fish in Virginia Rivers" was prepared in 1985 and describes physical impediments to
migration on the mainstems of the James, York and Rappahannock Rivers. "Use of Tributaries of
the Lower James River by Anadromous Fishes" identifies the first downstream impediment
encountered on 96 tributaries to the lower James. The studies include a description of the historic
and present ranges of anadromous migrations. Detailed information about the use and ownership
of the obstructions and the quality of upstream habitat is not included. In addition, field biologists
with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries have compiled a "Statewide Inventory
of Dams". This inventory is the most inclusive list of dams that impede fish passage, but does not
contain information on non-dam impediments. In summary, while much information has already
been compiled on stream blockages in Virginia, it needs to be consolidated, and gaps in the data
must be filled. Virginia representatives on the workgroup suggested that additional resources may
be necessary to collect and organize needed information. See Appendix 1 for a more detailed
description of the aforementioned surveys, along with a summary of current fishway projects in
Virginia.
In Maryland a similar but more centralized body of information on impediments to fish
passage exists. Between 1968 and 1988 the Maryland Department of Natural Resources compiled a
"Survey of Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas". The survey identifies all natural and manmade
stream blockages impeding the passage of migratory fishes in 15 of 17 tidewater counties.
Another, similar survey provides a description of impediments in the two remaining counties.
Although the surveys are fairly comprehensive, some of the information is dated, and there are
gaps in the available data. Specifically, the current ownership and use of impediments needs to be
documented, and information on the presence and abundance of migratory species below
blockages needs to be updated.
Detailed physical information about larger dams in the state is compiled in the "Inventory of
Maryland Dams and Assessment of Hydropower Resources", also published by the Department of
Natural Resources. The inventory does not describe habitat conditions or whether migratory
-------
species are present below the listed dams. See Appendix 2 for a more comprehensive discussion
of the status of fish passage efforts underway in Maryland.
Information on stream blockages in Pennsylvania also has to be augmented. However,
migratory fish access to the main stem of the Susquehanna River will be possible once passage has
been achieved around the four hydroelectric dams in the lower river. Emphasis has been placed on
negotiations with the utilities that operate these hydroelectric facilities, and on upstream stocking of
juvenile and adult American shad. A survey of habitat quality in the river has been completed.
Many impediments in the river are identified in the Water Resources Bulletin for Dams,
Reservoirs, and Natural Lakes, published by the state in 1970. The historical importance of the
Susquehanna's anadromous fisheries is documented in a review authored by Richard St. Pierre of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. See Appendix 3 for a more detailed discussion of diadromous
fish restoration efforts in Pennsylvania.
Key blockages to fish passage within the District of Columbia are located in the Rock Creek
system. These are documented in several publications. The D. C. Fisheries Program is working
with the National Park Service to prioritize restoration efforts. Other blockages outside of the
District have been identified as priorities by District fisheries managers. These include the Little
Falls dam on the Potomac River and several smaller blockages on the Anacostia system in
Maryland. See Appendix 4 for further information on fish passage status in the District of
Columbia. See the map in Appendix 2 for key blockages to fish migration in D.C. area waters.
In recent years resource managers have begun to assess the passage problem more closely
and identify remedial measures which included management and passage plans. These concerns
culminated in 1987 when the authors of the new Chesapeake Bay Agreement included a specific
commitment "to provide for fish passage at dams, and remove stream blockages wherever
necessary to restore passage for migratory fish."
STRATEGY FOR REMOVING IMPEDIMENTS
In January, 1988 the Living Resources Subcommittee appointed a workgroup to develop a strategy
for implementing the 1987 Bay Agreement commitment to restore passage for migratory fishes.
The workgroup is composed of representatives from each of the Bay states, the District of
Columbia, appropriate federal resource agencies, and the environmental community. The
workgroup identified a number of issues that need to be addressed to accomplish the stated
objectives. These key issues are summarized as follows:
-------
Establishing An Ongoing Bay wide Fish Passage Workgroup
The Baywide workgroup would coordinate future activities relating to the provision of fish
passage. The workgroup would also serve as a forum for the evaluation of past remedial efforts
and the development of future fish passage initiatives, including priorities, timetables, and funding
recommendations. The workgroup would assure that the responsible authorities work
cooperatively in the removal of blockages to fish passage. In addition it would serve as a forum
for the exchange and dissemination of information to interested members of the public. The
workgroup recommends that:
* The Fish Passage Workgroup of the Living Resources Subcommittee be designated the
permanent interjurisdictional body to coordinate Baywide fish passage efforts.
Updating a Comprehensive Inventory of Obstructions
Accurate information on the nature and location of impediments in the Bay watershed is essential to
the success of any fishway program. The workgroup recommends that:
* The signatories work together to update the comprehensive inventory of dams and other
obstructions to fish migration.
One function of the previously recommended Baywide workgroup would be the coordination of
this effort. The inventory must utilize a uniform definition of blockages and include information
on the current ownership and use of each impediment, the species and numbers of migratory fishes
present below the obstruction, and the quality and quantity of upstream habitat. The inventory
should also identify the location of each blockage by river section and stream order and provide a
physical description of the obstruction. Where relevant, information concerning the status of any
license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should be provided. Ideally, this
information should be compiled in a central Geographic Information System computer data base
accessible to all interested agencies.
Although data gaps exist, existing information supports the need to take immediate steps to
remove known impediments to fish passage. The location of major impediments to fish passage in
the Bay watershed have already been inventoried. Those impediments should be the initial focus
of our remedial efforts. The workgroup recommends that:
* The signatories annually reassess their priorities based upon updated inventories and other
relevent information.
-------
Establishing a Multi-Faceted Approach to Migratory Fish Impediments
The structures that act as impediments to fish migration are diverse, ranging from major
hydroelectric facilities to road culverts. No one solution or instrumentality can effectively assure
fish passage at all obstructions. Instead, it is essential that several initiatives are taken concurrently
to remove stream blockages that impede the spawning runs of migratory species. The workgroup
thus recommends a multi-faceted approach to this problem:
A. Culverts and Highway Impediments
Many of the smaller impediments to migratory fishes are highway-related structures. The
workgroup recommends that:
* All future road and highway culverts should be designed and constructed to assure the
passage of migratory fish species present or potentially present in the affected stream; and
* Within each Bay state, the highway department should continue to inventory existing
road crossings which act as impediments to migratory fishes and to prepare, in
cooperation with the resource agencies, a strategy for remedying specific problems.
B. Small Dams
Many of the dams that impede fish passage are small structures. Designing fishways for these
structures is often a relatively straightforward process. The workgroup recommends that:
* The signatories establish a priority list for future fishway projects at these smaller
obstructions utilizing the inventory of impediments to fish passage;
* The signatories obtain the technical expertise necessary to provide for fish passage at
these obstructions; and
* The signatories solicit input and assistance from local governments to provide fish
passage at small dams.
The current fishway program in Massachusetts demonstrates the value of intergovernmental
cooperative efforts. The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries designs and assists in the
construction of small fishways. Local townships contribute through the provision of heavy
equipment and the purchase of concrete and other building materials. Because of these cooperative
efforts, the cost of constructing fish passage facilities is in many cases significantly reduced. The
8
-------
excellent record of the Massachusetts program has generated an extraordinary level of public
support.
The Massachusetts program is one possible model for the Bay states to consider. The
workgroup recommends that:
* The signatories explore ways to assure the provision of adequate funding for these
projects;
* The signatories take steps to assure that they possess adequate legal authority to carry out
an effective fish passage program. [A brief summary of the current law in the Bay
watershed as it relates to fish passage is attached to this report as Appendix 4]; and
* The signatories provide adequate resources to operate and maintain fishways once they
are constructed.
C. Hydroelectric Facilities
Although the number of major hydroelectric facilities in the Bay region is not large, these large
dams currently prevent migratory fishes from utilizing hundreds of miles of potential spawning and
nursery habitat. Efforts to provide fish passage at these facilities have accelerated in recent years,
partly resulting from voluntary agreements between state and federal resource agencies and utilities;
much work, however, remains to be done. It should be recognized that efforts at smaller, upstream
blockages will not be completely successful without a similar commitment at the hydroelectric
facilities and other blockages that obstruct the downstream areas of many of the Bay's tributaries.
The workgroup recommends that:
* The licenses for all hydroelectric facilities regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission be examined, and reopened where necessary, to assure that adequate
provisions are made for fish passage within a reasonable time frame; and
* New licenses for hydroelectric projects not be issued in the watershed without the
assurance of migratory fish passage.
D. Reintroduction
The upstream introduction of fishes prior to the construction offish passage facilities
"imprints" young fishes and increases their disposition to retujn, in future years, to the targeted
stream. This practice can expedite the recovery of migratory species in waters currently having low
populations. The workgroup recommends that:
-------
* The signatories identify specific spawning reaches suitable for reintroduction;
* The signatories initiate reintroduction programs for migratory fishes, when necessary and
appropriate, above impediments that have been targeted for fish passage projects;
* The signatories develop programs to trap adult fishes below the targeted blockage and
transport them upstream to spawn, or stock young hatchery-produced fishes above the
impediment;
* The signatories identify potential sources of migratory fishes for trap and transport
efforts;
* The signatories acquire the necessary equipment for the transport of these fishes;
* The signatories implement management plans, regulatory measures and monitoring
programs that will protect newly-introduced fishes until a self-sustaining population has
been established; and
* The signatories take measures to assure that water quality in targeted streams is
maintained at levels necessary for the reestablishment of migratory species.
E. Education
Public education is essential to the long term success of this initiative, just as it is the
cornerstone of all our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The workgroup recommends:
* The signatories develop a plan for public involvement and sponsorship of activities
related to fish passage, and coordinate proposed activities with the Bay Program's
Information Network Group.
F. Monitoring
It is important that the fisheries agencies monitor the results of their efforts. Such monitoring
is essential in gauging the impact of fish passage projects on populations of migratory species, and
in assuring the cost effectiveness of future efforts. The workgroup recommends:
* The signatories prepare annual reports, for submission to the Chesapeake Bay Program
through the Living Resources Subcommittee, detailing the previous year's progress in
removing impediments, as well as plans for the upcoming year.
10
-------
Supplementing Technical Resources in the Bay Watershed
Technical expertise in the Bay watershed needs to be supplemented in order to implement an
effective fish passage restoration program. In particular, there is a strong need to establish
expertise in the area of fishway engineering and design. These resource needs could best be met
through a cooperative effort by the responsible state and federal agencies. A need exists at the state
level for personnel familiar with the principles of fishway design and capable of designing and
supervising the construction of small fish passage projects. The capabilities of state fish passage
programs could be greatly enhanced by establishing in the Bay region a technical advisory office
within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which would act as a resource to state and local
government agencies. This office would supplement the existing support currently provided by the
regional engineering staff and act as clearinghouse for information relating to fish passage facility
construction. The workgroup recommends that:
* The Fish and Wildlife Service consider enhancing their anadromous coordinator initiative
to provide additional assistance in the Bay region.
In addition, the workgroup recommends that the following additional steps be taken to address
existing gaps in technical knowledge:
* A technical workshop be held in the Bay area to apprise interested parties of recent
developments relating to fishway design and construction. This workshop could be
sponsored jointly with the Fish and Wildlife Service through then- short course program
on fish passage;
* Steps be taken to encourage regional educational institutions to focus resources on this
important problem; and
* The Fish and Wildlife Service consider encouraging "cooperative units" in the watershed
to focus on issues concerning migratory fishes and the engineering and design of
fishways.
1 1
-------
STRATEGY FOR REMOVING IMPEDIMENTS TO MIGRATORY FISHES
IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Virginia Fish Passage Status
Appendix 2 Maryland Fish Passage Status
Appendix 3 Pennsylvania Fish Passage Status
Appendix 4 District of Columbia Fish Passage Status
Appendix 5 Statutory Provisions of the Bay States
-------
Virginia Priority Sites
for Fish Passage
C/3
§'
Manchester Dam
Brown's Island Dam
Belle's Island Dam
William's Island Dam
Bosher's Dam
Battersea Darn
Locks Dam
Brasfieid Dam
-------
Appendix 1
Virginia Fish Passage Status
Identification of Obstructions
1. "The Virginia Hydro Dam Inventory" was prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Region HI and the Virginia State Office of Emergency & Energy Services in 1981 by the
Rockfish Corp., Afton, Virginia. This statewide inventory of dams was prepared to
provide information on the hydroelectric potential at existing dams. With five pages of
information dedicated to each dam, this three-volume inventory provides hydrologic
information, topo maps, photographs, and specific information on ownership, past, current
and potential for use, and information on each dam's physical condition. The inventory is
arranged in alphabetical order by dam name and may not include all the dams impeding
anadromous migrations, specifically the very low head dams.
2. "An Analysis of the Impediments to Spawning Migrations of Anadromous Fish in
Virginia Rivers" was prepared by the Department of Fisheries at the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University for the Virginia Highway Research Council and the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation in 1985. This study examined the water
quality and physical impediments on the mainstems of the Rappahannock, James and York
rivers. No tributaries to these rivers were included in the study. Historic and present
ranges of anadromous migrations are indicated in this report.
3. "Use of Tributaries of the Lower James River by Anadromous Fishes" way also
prepared by the Department of Fisheries at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University for the Highway Research Council and the Department of Highways and
Transportation in 1986. Not only were 96 lower James tributaries examined for use by
anadromous species, but the study also identified the first impediments encountered on
these tributaries. However, the study did not identify obstructions upstream of these first
impediments nor did it examine tributaries below river mile 40 (on the James) because it is
unlikely that herring spawn in them. This inventory does identify the stream order of the
tributary, the type of impediment obstructing migration, the mileage from the impediment to
the mouth of the James and the mileage currently open to spawning on that tributary.
Potential mileages above the obstructions were not determined in this study.
4. Another VPI report entitled "Potential U se of Tributaries of the Middle James River by
Anadromous Fishes" is the result of a study sponsored by the Virginia Department of
Transportation's Research Council. The study identified 463 tributaries of the James River
between Richmond and Lynchburg for their potential to be utilized by anadromous fish
(alosids) and catagorized these streams accordingly as "probable," "questionable" or
"unlikely." These designations were based on examinations of USGS topographic maps
and confirmed or modified in the field. The study also identified and evaluated 222
highway crossings for their potential to impede or permit fish passage. Multiple crossings
on the same stream were all evaluated, information which will be useful if and when
streams are prioritized or targeted for restorative action. The results showed that 208 of the
222 crossings were deemed passable for the species that would encounter them. Of the 14
crossings designated as either impassable or questionably passable for river herring that
would ascend to them, 5 of them were on stream reaches designated as "probable"
spawning habitat, 3 were on "questionable" stream reaches, and 6 were on stream reaches
"unlikely" to have spawning migrations.
-------
5. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Statewide Dam Inventory was prepared
by the field fisheries biologists. While this inventory of literally hundreds of dams may be
the most inclusive list of impediments (dams), there are a number of gaps in the specific
information provided. The list includes the stream name, dam name, approximate dam
height, the general, and in some cases specific, location of the impediment, the type of fish
(fresh or salt water) likely being blocked if known, and a notation as to whether there are
known downstream darns. The list does not include any other impediments such as
culverts or fall line, nor does it include potential upstream habitat or the number of
downstream blockages.
6. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' automated database, Biota of Virginia
(BOVA), includes the dam locations of dams under the Dam Safety Program and those
impediments ^identified in the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University study
(number 3 above). Under the Dam Safety Program, the Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources regulates dams greater than 25 feet in height and those which inpound
50 acre feet or more. While BOVA has the capability of displaying these on a map, the
database is an incomplete listing of the impediments.
Current & Prospective Projects
1. James River - Biennial budget (1988-90) approved by the legislature includes
$900,000 for cost-sharing the breaching and construction of gates at the Manchester and
Brown's Island Dams, the first two impediments on the James River. The City of
Richmond has $300,000 in its budget for the same project. These amounts which total
$1.2 million are $300,000 shy of the current project estimates. The Council and the City
have unofficially committed to seeking this same cost-share approach at the next two
impediments on the James, William's Island Dam and Bosher's Dam. Scott's Mill Dam,
the first dam in the next series of seven dams around Lynchburg (140 miles upstream of
Richmond) was recently granted a license for hydropower generation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). That license contains requirements for fish
passage if and when fish reach that dam and fishery agencies deem that passage is
warranted.
2. Chickahominy River - Walkers Dam on the Chickahominy River, a tributary to the
James River below Richmond was recently the subject of a fishway project proposed by
the City of Newport News, the owner of Walkers Dam. The City supported construction
of two denil-type fishways at Walkers Dam during the spring and summer of 1988.
3. Appomattox River - The Harvell and Battersea Dams, which are the first of four
dams on the Appomatox River near Petersburg, were recently issued hydropower licenses
by the FERC. The licenses contain provisions for fish passage. However, some believe
there may be financial problems that could delay the construction of these projects. The
Appomattox is a major tributary of the James River downstream of Richmond.
4. Meherrin River - While not in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the first dam on the
Meherrin River at Emporia will soon have a fish elevator in place as a result of a condition
in the FERC hydropower license issued to Emporia Hydro Power Inc. The elevator,
which is expected to be operational for the 1989 spring runs, will benefit the Chowan
Basin fisheries in North Carolina.
5. Rappahannock River - The only obstruction to anadromous migrations on the
Rappahannock, the Embrey Dam located just above the fall line in Fredericksburg, was
recently licensed by the FERC. The license includes requirements for fish passage. The
City of Fredericksburg has contested this license and may seek to have the license amended
-------
or revoked. The City has concerns about the developer's intentions to protect the
environmental and historical aspects of the project area.
Identified Needs to Fulfill Commitment of Restoring Access to Anadromous
Spawning Habitat
1. Fishway Expertise - In Virginia, there is no expertise in fishway design and
construction. The projects underway mentioned above and the anticipated FERC projects
have and will rely on the expertise of Ben Rizzo and Dick Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service engineers in the Boston Regional Office. Unfortunately, their expertise is deferred
to by several states on the east coast. A similar position with the Fish and Wildlife Service
should be established in the Bay region to support the expansion of the fish passage effort.
2. Comprehensive Inventory - Less pertinent to the start up of a program, but very
significant in its long-range planning, is a comprehensive inventory of the dams and other
impediments, including highway culverts. The inventory should be prioritized based on
the cost/benefit, the disposition of the ownership/use, the fishery resources at the base of
the impediment, and other factors such as water quality. While much of the dam location
information is available and much of this has been entered into the Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries computer data bank, BOVA, the listing of impediments is not complete
and the task of correlating this information to other relevant factors has not been attempted.
3. Commonwealth's Policy - While there have been fish passage laws on the books
since the mid- 1700s, the contradictory exemptions and weaknesses in these laws have
contributed to, rather than halted, the declining trend of the anadromous fisheries. The
Commonwealth's policy has taken a new direction with the establishment of the Council on
the Environment's policy that fish passage provisions are integral in the Bay restoration
effort and that the state should share the responsibility of remediating the problem. The
1988 General Assembly's approval of the Governor's budget initiative to cost-share the
James River fishways is recognized as the first step in this new role. This approach to
seeking cost-share appropriations will be continued and a mechanism for recovery of state
or federal fishway expenditures through the FERC process should be explored. A
Congressional delegation from the Bay states in concert with the Department of Interior is
the appropriate channel to initiate the required legislative changes.
-------
COOE
SITE KEY
RIVER SYSTEM/ RIVER
STRUCTURE MILE
MARYLAND CHESAPEAKE BAY
PRIORITY SITES FOR MIGRATORY
FISH PASSAGE
1988-89
A POTOMAC RIVER/
LITTLE FALLS DAM
117.4
B POTOMAC RIVER/ 4.4
PIESCE MILL DAM ON ROCK CREEK
C POTOMAC RIVER/ 1.2
DAM ON NORTHWEST BRANCH
0 POTOMAC RIVER/ 1.0
DAM ON NORTHWEST BRANCH
E POTOMAC RIVER/ 2.3
DAM ON NORTHEAST BRANCH
f PATUXENT RIVER/ 11.6
FT. MEAOE DAM ON LITTLE PATUXENT
G SOUTH RIVER/ 1.4
USGS FLOW WEIR ON BACCN RIDGE BRANCH
H PATAPSCQ RIVER/ 0.1
DAM ON STONY RUN
I PATAPSC3 RIVER/ 0.1
DAM ON DEEP CREEK
J PATAPSCO RIVER/ 21.1
BLOEDE DAM
K PATAPSCO RIVER/ 22.6
SIMPKINS DAM
L PATAPSCO RIVER/ 26.4
UNION DAM
M PATAPSCO RIVER/ 30.0
DANIELS DAM
N BUSH RIVER/ 2.5
DAM ON WINTER'S RUN
0 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER/ 9.9
CONOWINGO DAM
P ELK RIVER/ 4.5
DAM ON BIG ELK CREEK
q SASSAFRAS RIVER/ 0.6
DAM ON HERRING RUN
R CHESTER RIVER/ 6.0
USGS FLOW WEIR ON MORGAN CREEK
S CHOPTANK RIVER/ 1.3
USGS FLOW WEIR ON BEAVERDAM BRANCH
ONLY INITIAL FISH PASSAGE PROJECTS ARE SHOWN.
NEARLY 100 STRUCTURES ARE BARRIERS TO ANADROMOUS FISH
SPECIES IN MARYLAND.
-------
Appendix 2
Mai) land Fish Passage Status
The Department of Natural Resources is expanding its efforts to provide fish passage at the
many obstructions on Maryland bav tributaries. An inventory of stream blockages has been
compiled with priority major stiuc lures in trie Susquehanna, Patapsco, Patuxent, Potomac and Elk
rivers identified for implementing iVh passage. Smaller dams in the Choptank, South, Chester,
Sassafras, and Bush river* are ';eco:?darv targets during the first year of fish passage
implementation. See attached n:;;;;
A budget has been formulated f * 1 iscai Year 1990 for fish passage, which is to include the
personnel, equipment, and operational funds necessary to remove blockages, re-stock migratory
species, and to construct iish Ludeis a; sites of barriers on priority streams and rivers. A pilot
program has been established witl. '_:,$ Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Chesapeake Bay
Foundation (CBF), and N.'.t, >nai Manrv Fisheries Service (NMFS) to transport anadromous fish
for restoring spawning run - to ,:>, ğ . ,ic - pawning populations, and to obtain technical assistance
in designing fish ladders,
A fish ladder project !ia.- been D
demonstration/educational moid 1.
been established with representativ
implementation offish p.:s>,[,ge n>
veloped with CBF and the Town of Elkton as a
the public Cooperative assistance and technical liaison have
ot state and federal agencies for a coordinated Bay-wide
.>. viand, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
Summary of fish passage
1 . Patapsco River Dr. s; n
wor
\---< t::c prujnty sites:
The Patapsco histoneaiiy provided spawning habitat for shad, river herring, and white and
yellow perch. The river is presently blocked by four dams: Bloede, Simpkins, Union, and
Daniels, listed sequential!} downriver 'Ml dams are state owned and located in Patapsco State
Park excepl the second st:u,:um: "> hi;:h is owned by Simpkins Industries and serves as an
industrial water , upply d'.r.' u^ >' r "''->. lufacture of processed paper.
DNR, cooperative iedeml ap-s
technical surveys and developed !i^
preliminary design weak t'oi H; -n-v
will remove a portion of '..TV-,* ' ) ..
will fund a fish ladder on thcr ! :,
preceding to remove n-.ree hl^-.r ,* .
A total of i.6 million dollar1- Ma^
Bloede Dam and to begn> construe v
$ 350,000) is available in the currei
Fish and Wildlife Foundation tor ! .
funds for construction as they IX-T; /
Two Patapsco River tr'Uitanjs m >
have been targeted for fis1! p -s:,.' ,
to remove two small fonncT wi:, , .
would be mitigation me: -i;re:-, ' =
and white and yellow pen :
e-, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have completed
f ^<\ ladder engineering plan for Bloede Dam and have done
! ) ;n\ A plan developed in conjunction with Howard County
!>~ credtc fish passage. It is anticipated that Simkins Industries
. supply cam as a mitigation measure. Current actions are
N : f w, 'rib.'ta' '<."'* of the river, Stoney Run and Deep Creek.
\-:CH requested in the FY 1990 Capital Budget to stabilize
v:n cf a Hsh ladder there. A total of $ 250,000 (perhaps
r Y !9HO budget through Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the
,: ujneering icsign work on the ladder and to supplement
--. , ai;able through the state.
;;, i tLnvnrivcr of Bloede Dam, Stoney Run and Deep Creek,
Nc siotiations are in progress with Calvert Whiskey Distillery
:..r)r.; darm on the tributaries. Removal of these barriers
Sfa e ilin hway Administration and create passage for herring
-------
2. Elk River Drainage:
A town water supply dam in Elkton on Big Elk Creek has been targeted as a demonstration fish
passage facility for the public in a cooperative project among DNR Fisheries, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, and the Town of Elkton. A combination of DNR and CBF funds and equipment
provided by the town will be used to construct the fish ladder and public access parking area
adjacent to Route 281. The conceptual design of the fishway has been completed; the final
engineering plan and construction of the ladder are targeted for late 1988.
Fish monitoring at the site was conducted throughout the spring of 1988, cooperatively done
by DNR Fisheries, CBF and FWS. A stocking program was also intiated by DNR Fisheries
through an arrangement with RMC Associates, Philadelphia Electric Company, CBF, FWS, and
NMFS. As a result, several thousand river herring were transferred above the Elkton Dam from
the Susquehanna River at Conowingo Dam and from Unicorn Branch off the Chester River. The
fish ladder in Elkton would restore 10-15 miles of spawning habitat into Pennsylvania for
migratory species.
3. Potomac River Drainage:
The water supply for the District of Columbia at Little Falls is owned by the Washington
Aqueduct Company and operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The dam has been a major
barrier to the passage of migratory fish species since the early 1950s. Recent meetings have been
held with D.C. Fisheries, Virginia authorities, and interested federal agencies for the purpose of
constructing a fishway on the Virginia side of the Potomac River, and also for the Corps of
Engineers to operate/maintain the non-functional Snake Island fishway located in the center of
Little Falls Dam. Plans are underway for the Corps of Engineers to design and construct a second
fishway with funds provided by the mitigation agreement with the Port America development.
This fishway would open the Potomac River spawning habitat another 11 miles to Great Falls, the
historical limit for shad and river herring.
Cooperative work with D.C. Fisheries, CBF, and federal agencies was initiated to provide fish
passage at Pierce Mill Dam on Rock Creek in the District of Columbia. The plan intends to create a
fish ladder with public access to the site in Rock Creek Park.
4. Bush River Drainage:
Preliminary meetings were held in October 1988 with the Department of the Army officials
concerning mitigation of two dams on Winters Run for anadromous fish passage. The two
structures are water supply dams for Edgewood Arsenal and Aberdeen Proving Ground.
5. Patuxent River Drainage:
The Patuxent drainage has historically supported spawning populations of migratory species
upriver to Laurel on the mainstem, and to Savage on the Little Patuxent River. Fish passage is
blocked on the Little Patuxent River by a dam on federal property located at Fort Meade. A newer
fish ladder design has been developed to replace the deteriorated, non-functional ladder currently
on the structure. The Department of the Army has also been requested by DNR to provide, in
cooperation with state/federal agencies, for fish passage at the water supply structure. A
conceptual design plan for the fishway is being completed by FWS. Mitigation of the Fort Meade
Dam would increase spawning habitat 8 miles upriver to Savage, the former historical limit.
6. Susquehanna River Drainage:
The Conowingo Dam, constructed in 1928, has presented a longstanding barrier to the passage
of migratory fishes. RNC Associates, in conjunction with Philadelphia Electric Company, have
operated a fish lift at the site since 1972, for restocking shad into the Susquehanna River above the
-------
Dam. Under a recent agreement, a second fish passage facility is to be constructed at the site, with
additional measures to improve downriver spawning habitat.
Under an agreement developed by the Fish Passage Project, Philadelphia Electric and RMC
Associates provided river herring and trucks/personnel for the stocking of Big Elk Creek above the
dam at Elkton during the spring of 1988. It is anticipated that this cooperative agreement for
stocking at sites of targeted fish passage facilities will continue on a limited basis until DNR has a
budget established for equipment, personnel, and operations to conduct the Fish Passage Project
work.
Passage at U.S.G.S. Stream Flow Structures
An inventory and assessment of fish passage needs at sites of U.S. Geological Survey stream
flow weirs was made in cooperation with the U.S.G.S. personnel in conjunction with technical
assistance from DNR and federal agencies. The fish passage structures are to be constructed
during 1988, following design criteria provided by FWS.
Passage at Highway Culvert Sites
An inventory of migratory fish blockages at sites of state and county highway culverts has been
compiled. A representative listing of state highway culvert blockages for all geographic regions of
Maryland was assembled and presented to DNR Water Resources Administration and the State
Highway Administration. A contractual study is to be conducted for mitigation measures to be
used in removing existing culvert barriers.
Current policy provides for a minimum of one foot placement of culverts below the stream bed
level. Future cooperative efforts between DNR/SHA will be utilized to mitigate existing, older
barriers to fish passage, including the construction of small weir deflectors to raise water levels to
the height of the culvert floor to effect fish passage. Future effort needs to be directed at county
highway culverts, following development of a strategy and passage facilities at state-owned
culverts to serve as models.
Passage at Privately Owned Structures
Initial DNR Fisheries/CBF discussions for funding and technical assistance to provide fish passage
at privately owned sites have been conducted. Initial fish passage work has been targeted at a
privately owned dam on the Sassafras River which blocks fish migration. A future budget is
required to assist private landowners in funding fish passage structures beyond the $ 270, 000
requested in the FY 1990 Fish Passage Operational Budget. State, federal, or donated funds might
be used to fund fish passage work at private structures, possibly in conjunction with private funds.
Summary
The strategy plan and program developed for fish passage during the first part of 1988 needs to
be continued for several years to bring about fish passage at nearly 100 identified stream barriers in
the tidewater region of Maryland. A budget for personnel and equipment is necessary for
monitoring and stocking fish at barrier sites, constructing passage facilities, and
maintaining/repairing passage structures.
At present, the Fish Passage Project Manager is dependent on cooperating state, federal, and
institutional personnel to expedite fish passage, stocking and monitoring, and structure
maintenance. Personnel and equipment are not currently available to bring about the 1987
commitment for development offish passage at nearly 100 blockages in Maryland's tidewater
counties, or to maintain coordination with the other state and federal agency representatives that are
involved in Baywide fish passage efforts.
-------
PENNSVLUflNlfl PRIORITY SITES FOR MsGRftTORY FISH PRSSRGE
RIVER BAS1 N v
S c rp n t o n '.';'.';':';'.' ':'o .';';';v'! ;'.';
Villiamsport
'DAMS ^^^y/^
.-' ... -.. ;. C URBAN AREAS ^
;
-------
Appendix 3
Pennsylvania Fish Passage Status
The fish species of recreational, commercial and ecological significance to the Susquehanna Basin
in Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake Bay are diadromous species which would spend at least part
of their life cycle in Pennsylvania's portion of the Susquehanna River Basin, if their migrations
were not blocked by existing dams. These species are as follows: American shad, hickory shad,
striped bass, American eel, blueback herring and alewife.
The Susquehanna River once supported large populations of all of these fishes. Each year
anadromous adults returned from the sea through Chesapeake Bay to ascend the river, some going
as far as Binghamton, New York, to reproduce. Catadromous juvenile American eels also
returned annually to mature. The development of hydropower and the associated construction of
mainstem dams prevented all of these species from reaching their historic spawning and nursery
areas. As a result, their populations declined drastically and with the exception of American eels,
these species now occur only in the lower river below Conowingo Dam. American eels currently
inhabit the lower Octoraro and Elk Creek basins in Pennsylvania.
A strategic plan for restoration of these species to the Susquehanna River Basin was adopted by the
following agencies in 1979:
Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Pennsylvania Fish Commission
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
In 1981, this strategic plan was adopted by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and
included in their comprehensive plan.
The major restoration emphasis on the mainstem of the Susquehanna and its larger tributaries has
been placed on the American shad because of its potential for producing substantial recreational and
commercial fisheries wherever it is found. This species has historically used extensive areas of the
Susquehanna Basin for reproduction and nursery habitat. Considering that the Susquehanna River
is the largest river on the East Coast, and more than 60,000 acres of suitable habitat still remains in
the basin, successful restoration of this species would contribute greatly to the limited existing
stocks of the Atlantic Coast.
Secondly, restoration efforts for American shad on large rivers, particularly as they relate to the
design and implementation of fish passage facilities, usually are beneficial for hickory shad, striped
bass, American eel, blueback herring and alewife. Therefore, the anticipated development of
American shad passage facilities on the Susquehanna should help restore these five species as well,
since their life history requirements are generally similar to that of the American shad. However,
specific efforts will be necessary in addressing existing blockages on smaller tributaries which
have historical significance as spawning and/or nursery habitat for some of the other target species.
The process of developing, adopting, scheduling and implementing a plan for American shad is
already underway on the Susquehanna. Prior to 1970, several biological and engineering studies
were conducted to determine the feasibility of American shad restoration and the design of
appropriate fishways. Concurrently, fertilized American shad eggs were introduced in basin
waters, mostly without measurable population improvement. It was determined, however, that the
-------
Susquehanna Basin, with the exception of the polluted upper West Branch, is generally suitable for
American shad, and restoration is feasible.
In 1970, the Susquehanna Shad Advisory Committee was formed to address restoration efforts.
The committee was comprised of representatives of the various hydropower project owners and the
resource agencies. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission's Fish and Boat Code permits the
Commission to order the owner of a dam on any Commonwealth water to erect fish passage
facilities, or where such facilities are not presently practicable or advisable, to enter into agreement
with the owner or operator of any dam and require an annual sum of money in lieu of requiring
fishways. Such an agreement exists with each owner of the three project dams on the lower
mainstem of the Susquehanna in Pennsylvania. These funds eventually served to support
restoration activities which effectively began in 1971 with a 5-year project under the direction of
the Susquehanna Shad Advisory Committee. In 1976, this committee was restructured and titled
the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee (SRAFRC). Studies begun
under the original 5-year plan continued, with an annual renewal of utility funding between 1976
and 1980.
In August 1980, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued licenses for the
continued operation of the Conowingo, Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haven hydroelectric
projects. Several resource agencies and other groups filed petitions of intervention with FERC
requesting that various issues, including passage of American shad and other target species, be
resolved as part of the license process.
The project owner at Conowingo Dam in Maryland decided to seek a separate resolution, while the
three project owners in Pennsylvania agreed to continue their cooperative and joint efforts to reach
settlement. Shad restoration programs were maintained through this period under terms of a
second 5-year program agreement, using project owner funds. In the interim, discussions occured
between the three upstream licensees and the intervenors. Talks came to fruition with a December
1984 agreement between these two parties, establishing a 10-year, 3.7 million dollar restoration
project funded by the utilities and under the direction of SRAFRC. This program was approved by
FERC in 1985.
Intervenor's settlement with the Conowingo project owner on several matters, including fish
passage facilities, has not been completed. Negotiations continue and some progress has been
made.
The 10-year American shad restoration program, referred to earlier, is fully active and the third
year of this program was completed in 1987. An annual plan is derived and progress report is
published each year.
Specific aspects of the restoration program involve the collection and hatching of American shad
eggs from several Virginia rivers as well as the Delaware and Columbia rivers. Releases of fry and
fingerling American shad are then made into the Juniata River and the Susquehanna River
downstream from Conowingo.
Until 1988, releases of out-of-basin prespawned adult shad from the Connecticut and Hudson
rivers were made upstream from all dams in an effort to permit natural reproduction in the free-
flowing parts of the basin. This effort was discontinued because of its limited success and high
cost.
Returning adult American shad are annually trapped at a fish collection facility built by the project
owner at Conowingo Dam. These fish are transported upstream by the project owner to free-
flowing areas of the river where they find suitable spawning habitat.
-------
Fry and fingerling American shad from the Pennsylvania Fish Commission's Fish Culture Facility
at Van Dyke, Juniata County, are chemically marked to differentials them from the naturally-
reproduced young found in the river. Outmigrating juveniles from all sources are monitored at
several points downriver to determine such things as percentage of marked versus unmarked fish,
growth, relative abundance and rate of migration. Efforts are also being made to determine effects
on juveniles passing through project turbines.
In addition to the ongoing program, intervenor-project owner negotiations on fish passage facilities
at the four major hydropower projects continues on the lower Susquehanna and a current inventory
of dams on selected tributaries of the basin deemed suitable for diadromous fish restoration is
being compiled.
-------
Appendix 4
District of Columbia Fish Passage Status
Information on blockages to fish passage within the District of Columbia is primarily
restricted to the Rock Creek system and summarized in several publications and studies.
The Rock Creek Watershed Conservation Study compiled by the National Park Service
provides a detailed account of water quality, hydrology, land usage, spawning conditions
and barriers to fish migration. A subsequent study (Houghton, 1983) specifically evaluates
stream barriers and proposes recommendations for mitigation. The D. C. Fisheries
Program is currently collaborating with the National Park Service to monitor resident and
migratory fish populations in this system in order to make additional recommendations and
prioritize restoration efforts.
The fish populations of the Anacostia River drainage are described with reference to
earlier studies in a report entitled Resource Identification Study for the Anacostia River
(Dietemann and Giraldi, 1973). While the report does not specifically describe the effect of
barriers to fish migration, the distribution of fish populations are compared to historical
ranges, providing insight into the extent of habitat degradation and current usage. The D.
C. Fisheries program is in support of a current study by the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin designed to update this work. It is expected that detailed information
on the Anacostia system, particularly with respect to blockages and their effect on
anadromous fisheries resources, will be available within a year.
Other blockages, located outside the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, directly
impinge on local anadromous fishery resources and are of concern to District fisheries
managers; notably, the municipal water supply dam at Little Falls situated on the Potomac
River and several smaller blockages in the Anacostia drainage streams that terminate in the
District require fish passage. The District has substantial interest in identifying and
mitigating these blockages and is prepared to lend support to future fish passage
restoration.
-------
Appendix 5
Fish Passage Provisions of the Bay States
MARYLAND
Relevant Statutory Provisions: NR §§ 4-501 and 502.
Prohibition of Obstruction: NR § 4-501 prohibits any obstruction to the passage of fish. A
dam, however, may be constructed and maintained in accordance with NR § 4-502.
Affirmation Requirements: § 4-502(a) requires that every owner of a dam construct on the
dam and keep repaired at least one fish ladder if the Department deems it necessary for the
passage of fish. § 4-502(b) requires that any person intending to construct a dam file an
application with the Department, setting forth sufficient information to enable the
Department to determine the necessity for constructing a fish ladder. (The Department is to
advise each applicant of its determination.)
Maintenance and Repair Requirements: § 4-502 requires that the fish ladder be kept in
repair.
Administration: § 4-502(a) puts the initial burden upon the Department to notify a dam
owner that it deems a fish ladder necessary for the passage of fish. § 4-502(b) puts the
initial burden on the person seeking to construct a dam to file an application with the
Department, who then determines, based upon that application, whether a fish ladder is
necessary. The statute sets forth no guidelines for the Department to use in making its
determination of whether a fish ladder is "necessary," thus it appears to be a highly
discretionary determination as to both existing dams and new dams.
Alternatives Available to Dam Owner: § 4-502(d) provides that if the owner, operator, or
lessee of a dam entered into an agreement prior to July 1,1955 to pay the state an annual
sum of money instead of being required to erect a fish ladder or othci fish passage devices,
the provisions of that agreement remain in effect. Howevei, the amount of money paid to
the State each year cannot be less than four and one half percent of the estimated cost of
constructing a fish ladder and cannot be more than $4000 annually. These monies must be
used to manage, rear, and distribute the fish actually placed in the water and to acquire any
necessary facility for these purposes.
Penalty Provisions: § 4-502(f) provides that the Department must investigate every
violation of this section. It also provides that any person who violates the notice from the
Department requiring him to install or repair a fish ladder is quilty of a misdemeanor and
upon conviction, is subject to a fine not exceeding $300, or imprisonment not exceeding
three years, or both, costs being imposed in the discretion of the court. A separate offense
exists on each day the person violates the notice.
Exceptions: §§ 4-301 and 502 apply to all waters of the State, however, under § 4-502(f),
these provisions do not change any term, condition, or obligation imposed by a contract in
force prior to July 1, 1055 between the owner of any dam and the State.
-------
VIRGINIA
Relevant Statutory Provisions: § 29.1-532. (relating to dams and other objects); § 33.1-
256. (relating to toll bridges.)
Prohibition of Obstruction: § 29.1-532. deems any dam or object which obstructs the
passage offish a nuisance unless it is used to work a mill, factory, or other machine useful
to the public and is allowed by law or by order of a court. § 33.1-256. prohibits a toll
bridge from obstructing the passage of fish.
Affirmative Requirements: § 29.1-532. requires any person owning or having control of a
dam or other obstruction which may interfere with the passage of anadromous and other
migratory fish to provide every such dam or other obstruction with a suitable fishway
unless the Board considers it unnecessary. ("Suitable fishway" means one which passes
significant numbers of the target fishes, as determined by the Board.) Owners of dams or
other obstructions which are not authorized by law must have the obstacles removed at their
expense when the Board determines that the obstacles interfere with the free passage of
fish.
Maintenance and Repair Requirements: § 29.1-532 requires that owners of such dams or
other authorized obstructions shall maintain and keep fishways operational, in good repair,
and restore them in case of destruction.
Administration: § 29.1-532 puts the initial burden upon the owner of the dam or other
obstruction to provide a suitable fishway unless the Board deems it unnecessary. The only
"guideline" contained in the statute for the Board's decision is that the purpose of a fishway
is for anadromous and other migratory fish to have free passage up and down the streams
from March to June and down the streams throughout the remaining months. However,
because the provision assumes a fishway to be necessary unless the Board deems it
unnecessary, the lack of guidelines is less troublesome.
Alternatives Available to Dam Owner: § 29.1-532. contains no provision for an agreement
with the state to pay money in lieu of constructing a fishway.
Penalty Provisions: § 29.1-532. provides that a court, after reasonable notice to the parties
and upon satisfactory proof of the failure to comply, may order any necessary construction
or destruction to be initiated or put in good repair at the expense of the owner of the dam o
other obstruction. All construction or destruction must be initiated within one year of the
court order and completed within three years of the court order. Any person failing to
comply with this section must pay as a penalty a percentage of the estimated cost of
construction or destruction equal to the percentage specified on the judgement rate of
interest pursuant to § 6.1-330.10.
Exceptions: § 29.1-532 does not apply to portions of certain rivers and streams listed in
the statute. Also, no fish ladders may be required on dams twenty feet or more in height
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
Relevant Statutory Provisions: 30 P.A.C.S.A. §§ 3501-3506
Prohibition of Obstruction: The relevant statutory provisions contain no general prohibition
of obstructing the passage of fish by a dam or other object in the water.
Affirmative Requirements: § 3501 requires that, upon written order from the commission,
any person now or hereafter erecting or maintaining a dam must erect such chutes, slopes,
fishways, gates or other devices as the commission deems necessary to enable fish to pass
at all seasons of the year.
Maintenance and Repair Requirements: § 3502 requires that all devices be operated in a
manner prescribed by the commission and must remain open and be maintained in good
order and repair by the person owning or maintaining the dam in which the device is
located. § 3503 provides that the device may be closed for repairs or when not needed with
written approval of the commission.
Administration: These provisions put the initial burden upon the administering agency to
give notice to the dam owner that a device is necessary to enable fish to have free passage
during all seasons of the year. Furthermore, these provisions contain no guidelines for the
commission's determination that a device is "necessary."
Alternatives Available to Dam Owner: § 3501 (b) provides that in lieu of requiring the
erection of devices for fish passage at any dam where they are not deemed by the
commission to be practicable or advisable for the passage of fish, the commission may
enter into an agreement with the owner or person in control of the dam to pay to the
commission a sum of money periodically, which is not less than two and one half percent
of the estimated cost of the erection of fish passage devices plus the estimated cost of
reasonable depreciation and maintenance of the same, except in cases where the sum of the
interest, depreciation and maintenance so calculated would be equal to or exceed $25,000,
in which case the annual payment shall be $25,000 per year. § 350 l(c) provides that these
monies are to be expended by the commission for the stocking with fish of the waters of
the stream dammed, the propagating, rearing and distribution of fish placed in the waters
and the acquisition of the necessary facilities therefor, and carrying out such other fish
managing practices in the waters as are deemed proper by the commission for the
improvement of public fishing opportunities therein.
Penalty Provisions: § 3504 provides that any person failing to comply with these
provisions within three months of the date of notice provided in § 3510(a) must forfeit and
pay to the commission a civil penalty of $100 for each day of non-compliance. § 3505
provides that if the person fails to erect the devices required by the commission within three
months of the date of notice or fails to maintain the required devices, the commission may
erect the necessary devices or make necessary repairs and recover the costs from the person
owning or maintaining the dam.
Exceptions: These provisions apply to all waters of the state.
(The District of Columbia makes no provision for the obstruction of fish passage.)
-------
REFERENCES
CH2M Hill. 1979. Rock Geek Watershed Conservation Study. National Park Service,
National Capital Region, Rock Creek Park, Washington, D.C.
Dietemann, A. J. and A. Giraldi. 1973. Resource Identification Study for the Anacostia
River. Volume IV. 1948 vs. 1972 Fish Distribution. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Annapolis, MD.
Houghton, L. 1983. Mitigation of fish barriers on Rock Creek, Washington, D.C.
National Park Service, National Capital Region, Rock Creek Park, unpublished
memo. Washington, D.C. 7p.
Mudre, J. M., J. J. Ney, and R. J. Neves. 1985. An Analysis of Impediments to
Spawning Migrations of Anadromous Fishes in Virginia Rivers. Final report.
Virginia Highway Research Council, Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, Charlottesville, VA. 81p.
O'Dell, J., J. Gabor, and R. Dintaman. 1975. Survey of Anadromous Fish Spawning
Areas. Fed. Aid Comp. Report, 1970 -1975. National Marine Fisheries Service
Project No. AFC-8: 184p.
O'Dell, J., J. Mowrer, and J. Gabor. 1980. Survey and Inventory of Anadromous Fish
Spawning Areas. Fed. Aid Comp. Report, 1975 -1980. National Marine Fisheries
Service Project No. AFC-9: 165p.
O'Dell, J., and J. Mowrer. 1984. Survey and Inventory of Anadromous Fish Spawning
Streams and Barriers in the Patuxent River Drainage. Fed. Aid Comp. Report 1980 -
1983. National Marine Fisheries Service Project No. AFC-10: 207p.
Odum, M. C, R. J. Neves, J. J. Ney, and J. M. Mudre. 1986. Use of Tributaries of
the Lower James River by Anadromous Fishes. Final Report. Virginia Highway
Research Council, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
Charlottesville, VA. 181p.
Odum, M. C., R. J. Neves, and J. J. Ney. 1988. Potential Use of Tributaries of the
Middle James River by Anadromous Fishes. Final Report. Virginia Highway
Research Council, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
Charlottesville, VA. 318p.
Odum, M. C., R. J. Neves, and J. J. Ney. 1988. Use of Virginia's Tributaries of the
Potomac River by Anadromous Fishes. Final Report. Virginia Highway Research
Council, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Charlottesville, VA.
126p.
Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters, Bureau of Engineering. 1970. Water
Resources Bulletin - Dams, Reservoirs and Natural Lakes. Bulletin No. 5.
Comprehensive Water Resources Planning Inventory, Number 1. lOlp.
-------
Rockfish Corporation. 1981. Virginia Hydro Dam Inventory. Final Report. U.S.
Department of Energy, Region HI, Virginia State Office of Emergency and Energy
Services. 3 volumes.
St. Pierre, R. 1981. Historical review of the American shad and river herring fisheries
of the Susquehanna River. Special Report to the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished manuscript. Harrisburg,
PA. 40p.
Speir, H., and J. Mowrer. 1987. Anandromous Fish Research, Maryland. Fed. Aid
Comp. Report 1983 -1986. National Marine Fisheries Service Project. No. AFC-14:
106 p.
Weinrich, D. R., N. H. Butowski, E. W. Franklin, and J. P. Mowrer. 1987.
Investigation of Anadromous Alosids. Fed. Aid Annual Report 1986 -1987. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Project No. F-37-R: 122p.
Weinrich, D. R., N. H. Butowski, and J. P. Mowrer. 1988. Investigation of
Anadromous Alosids. Fed. Aid Annual Report 1987 -1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Project No.
F-37-R: 143p.
Weisberg, S. B., K. A. Rose, B. S. Clevenger, and J. O. Smith. 1985. Inventory of
Maryland Dams and Assessment of Hydropower Resources. Prepared by Martin
Marietta Environmental Systems and Dam Safety Division, Water Resources
Administration for Maryland Department of Natural Resources Power Plant Siting
Program, Annapolis, MD. Report No. PPSP-85-2.
ğU. S.GOVERNBENT PRINTING OFF ICE M989-241-569 |80025
------- |