Cnter for Environmental Information
-------
U.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Removing Impediments
to Migratory Fishes in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Annual Progress Report
1995
1 SKPAKcpnnin
Prepared by MSO^.S,
Philadelphia, PA I'mn
Chesapeake Bay Program
Fish Passage Workgroup
October 1996
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iv
Introduction 1
1. District of Columbia 2
I. Fish Passage Achievements
A. Fishway Progress 2
B. Monitoring and Stream Surveys 2
C. Trap, Transport, and Stocking 3
II. Fish Passage Support Activity
A. Public Relations and Education 3
B. Future Public Relations and Education 3
in. Future Activities
A. Planned Activities for 1996 4
B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 5-Year Goal (1993 -1998) 4
C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 10-Year Goal (Pre 1993 -
2003) 4
Table 1: D.C. 1995 Fish Passage Projects 5
Map 1: Fishway Progress in the District of Columbia 6
Figure 1: D.C. Progress Toward Goals 7
2. Maryland " 8
I. Fish Passage Achievements
A. Fishway Progress 8
B. Monitoring and Stream Surveys 9
C. Trap, Transport, and Stocking 10
II. Fish Passage Support Activity
A. Public Relations and Education 10
B. Future Public Relations and Education 10
HI. Future Activities
A. Planned Activities for 1996 11
B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 5-Year Goal (1993 - 1998) 13
C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 10-Year Goal (Pre 1993 -
2003) 13
Table 2: MD 1995 Fish Passage Projects 14
Map 2: Fishway Progress in Maryland 17
Figure 2: MD Progress Toward Goals 18
-------
3. Pennsylvania 19
I. Fish Passage Achievements
A. Fishway Progress 19
B. Monitoring and Stream Surveys 21
C. Trap, Transport, and Stocking 21
n. Fish Passage Support Activity
A. Public Relations and Education 22
B. Future Public Relations and Education 22
in. Future Activities
A. Planned Activities for 1996 22
B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 5-Year Goal (1993 - 1998) 23
C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 10-Year Goal (Pre 1993 -
2003) 23
Table 3: PA 1995 Fish Passage Projects 24
Map 3: Fishway Progress in Pennsylvania 27
Figure 3: PA Progress Toward Goals 28
4. Virginia 29
I. Fish Passage Achievements
A. Fishway Progress 29
B. Monitoring and Stream Surveys 30
C. Trap, Transport, and Stocking 30
n. Fish Passage Support Activity
A. Public Relations and Education 31
B. Future Public Relations and Education 32
IU. Future Activities
A. Planned Activities for 1996 32
B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 5-Year Goal (1993 -1998) 32
C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 10-Year Goal (Pre 1993 -
2003) 33
Table 4: VA 1995 Fish Passage Projects 34
Map 4: Fishway Progress in Virginia 36
Figure 4: VA Progress Toward Goals 37
5. Federal Agencies 38
6. Baywide Summary of Progress Toward Directive 93-4 42
Table 5: Baywide Fish Passage Progress 42
Figure 5: Baywide Progress 43
Figure 6: Jurisdictional Progress 44
Appendix A: Constructed Fish Passage Projects Preceding 1995 45
Appendix B: Workgroup Members 47
iii
-------
Executive Summary
The Fish Passage Workgroup of Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee (LRSc) is charged with reopening blocked tributary waters of the Bay to provide
access to spawning habitat for anadromous fish. This is accomplished through the construction of
fish passage facilities, dam removal, reconstruction of highway culverts, or by creating breaches
or notches. The Workgroup includes representatives from the District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and federal agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). An inter-agency agreement between the US EPA and NMFS facilitates the
processing and distribution of federal funds to the jurisdictions for many of the fish passage,
stocking, and survey projects. The high degree of cooperation among these jurisdictions and
agencies has resulted in opening up many miles where migratory fish could potentially spawn.
Fish passage development in Bay tributaries has been underway since the late 1980s. In
December, 1993 the Chesapeake Executive Council (EC) formalized short- and long-term goals
for this initiative in Directive 93-4, which instructs the Chesapeake Bay Program partners to open
582.05 and 1356.75 miles of spawning habitat for shad and herring (Alosa spp.) by 1998 and
2003, respectively. The Chesapeake Bay Program, in turn, designated the LRSc through the Fish
Passage Workgroup to accomplish these goals. In 1995, the Chesapeake Bay Program
signatories opened 36.6 miles to migratory fish within the Bay watershed. 216 miles have been
open to date, including 148.7 miles opened prior to the Directive. Specific accomplishments
during 1995 include:
• The District of Columbia completed two projects which opened one mile of habitat to
anadromous fish. They continued monitoring alosids in Rock Creek and the Potomac
River. American shad eggs were collected from the Potomac River for culture.
• Maryland completed seven projects and opened 27.9 miles of habitat, assessed stream
habitat in the Chester and Choptank River basins, and assessed the fish assemblage in the
Wicomico River. Maryland also stocked several thousand adult herring into the Patapsco
River and several million larval shad into the lower Susquehanna and Patuxent Rivers.
The US FWS reared and released 1.2 million shad in the Potomac River above Little Falls.
• Pennsylvania opened no new miles in 1995, but has ongoing construction on a number of
facilities. They also trapped thousands of adult shad and herring at the Conowingo Dam
and transported fish to upstream spawning waters in Pennsylvania. In addition, they
cultured and stocked 10 million marked shad larvae, monitored out-migrating juvenile
American shad, and completed phase I & II of the Susquehanna River Tributary Blockage
study.
• Virginia opened 7.7 miles of habitat by completing one fish passage project, monitored
alosids in numerous rivers, and began the Rappahannock River Basin Impediment Survey.
IV
-------
Virginia also stocked several thousand adult herring in the upper James River. Ten million
shad larvae were reared and released in the James and Pamunkey rivers.
Throughout 1995, all jurisdictions were engaged in education efforts, highlighting issues
from the values of anadromous fish in urban settings to the design offish passages. Education
efforts included environmental fairs; outreach to schools; seminars for regional, state and local
officials; and the production of videos, brochures and magazine articles. A Fish Passage
Workshop was held in Williamsburg, VA in March, 1995 to share information on anadromous fish
habitat and migration needs and techniques for design and construction of fishways.
This report also discusses fish passage projects currently in the planning, design, or construction
phase in 1996 and future actions which will contribute to reaching Bay Program goals.
-------
Introduction
In late 1993, Directive 93-4 was signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council which
reaffirmed their commitment to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Bay jurisdictions were
charged with opening blocked tributary habitats to spawning fish through the construction offish
passages or other means of removing impediments to migration. Ultimately, this initiative is
aimed at restoring populations of anadromous species, particularly shad and river herring (Alosa
spp.). Directive 93-4 sets up two goals. The five-year goal, which covers the period 1994-1998,
is to open 582.05 miles of blocked habitat. The ten-year goal, to be completed by 2003, is to
open a total of 1356.75 miles, which includes 148.7 miles opened prior to the Directive.
Previous to Directive 93-4, all three Bay states and the District had begun their own fish
passage programs. The District had opened 0.6 miles; Maryland had opened 106.1 miles;
Pennsylvania, 9 miles; and Virginia, 33 miles offish spawning habitat. The jurisdictions had also
been participating in other efforts, such as stocking of cultured shad, trap and transport of adult
shad and river herring, surveying of stream habitats, and public education.
All jurisdictions and other agency representatives on the Fish Passage Workgroup are
expanding their efforts throughout the watershed. Design, construction, and associated efforts for
the restoration of anadromous fish are being made at accelerated rates. Accomplishments planned
for the next few years will greatly boost the number of habitat miles opened to migratory fish,
hopefully increasing their abundance.
The greatest problem with achieving fish passage goals is that all jurisdictions, as well as
other state and federal agencies involved, are faced with declining budgets. As this happens, fish
passage programs have been scaled back. Two other common and persistent problems that slow
the success of the Fish Passage Workgroup include legal difficulties and the negotiation offish
passage agreements with public and private property owners.
This report provides a description of all the fish passage development, reintroduction
efforts, and habitat assessment activities by the signatory jurisdictions. A summary of federal
agency activities in 1995, as well as those activities and actions planned for 1996, are presented.
Also included is a "Baywide Summary" (Chapter 6), which relates 1995 and prior year actions
with the stated five and ten-year goals of Directive 93-4.
-------
1
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
I. Fish Passage Achievements
A. Fishway Progress
During 1995, the District of Columbia's Fisheries Management Program staff in
cooperation with personnel from the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
(ICPRB), the State of Maryland, the National Park Service, and with funding from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) removed the first two stream barriers blocking
anadromous fish in Rock Creek. These barriers, an abandoned weir and an abandoned U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station, were located at 1.6 and 2.4 stream miles from the
mouth of Rock Creek, respectively. (Please refer to the tables, map, and pie chart at the end of
this section for a detailed written and graphic depiction of 1995 fish passage progress.).
B. Monitoring and Stream Surveys
During 1995, the D.C. Fisheries Management Branch (DCFMB) continued regular
monitoring at a site established in 1993 on the lower reach of Rock Creek. Species composition
and abundance were monitored. Data collected during electro-fishing surveys in 1995 indicated
that adult alewife entered Rock Creek by the first week in April and adult blueback herring arrived
in early May. In April, alewife were noted in the lower portion of the creek and observed as far
upstream as Pierce Mill Dam. Upon inspection of three of the four barriers downstream of Pierce
Mill, fish were seen concentrated below two of the barriers. Occasionally fish would surmount
the barriers and move upstream. Once these barriers are removed, there will be record numbers
offish returning as far upstream as Pierce Mill Dam.
An ongoing fish sampling program, including juveniles and adults, was continued in 1995
to help inventory any migratory fish that reach the District. Two -of the sampling sites are of
special importance to fish passage work. One of the stations is located at Roosevelt Island, on
the mainstem of the Potomac near the mouth of Rock Creek. The other is located near the
upstream limit of the District's jurisdiction on the Potomac, a short distance downstream of Little
Falls Dam. Little Falls Dam, a water supply facility for the Washington, D.C. area, blocks
migratory fish passage to about 10 miles of Potomac River spawning and nursery habitat.
Migratory fish captured during sampling at these sites help determine the potential population
available to recolonize the spawning habitat above the barriers. Fish surveys will help document
any improvement in the spawning success of the anadromous species, once the barriers are
removed.
DCFMB staff helped ICPRB collect baseline data on 1995 anadromous populations in the
vicinity of Little Falls Dam. This included icthyoplankton hauls at the dam in the spring and seine
hauls upstream of the dam during the summer. This data will provide a reference against which
future stock recovery success can be measured.
DCFMB personnel continued to tag striped bass captured during monthly river surveys
-------
which are conducted within the District. Recapture of these tagged fish will complement tagging
activities conducted in the surrounding jurisdictions. Also, in April 1995, several pre-spawned
adult striped bass were captured during a night electro-fishing survey on the Potomac,
downstream of Chain Bridge. This is slightly more than a mile below Little Falls Dam.
C. Trap, Transport, and Stocking
In 1995, there was minimal trap and transport activity within the District of Columbia. An
attempt was made on May 12, 1995 to transport pre-spawned blueback herring to an area above
Pierce Mill Dam on Rock Creek. However, due to a lack of pre-spawned fish found at the
abandoned weir at stream mile 1.6, only three fish were moved. This site had been identified one
week prior as having over 100 fish that appeared to be unable to surmount the barrier. Because
this attempt to transport pre-spawned fish was made toward the end of the alosid spawning period
in Rock Creek, no further attempts were made to trap and transport fish. Trap and transport is
considered necessary because it appears unlikely that a functional fish passage facility will be
located at the Pierce Mill Dam until large numbers of anadromous fish are arriving yearly at the
base of the dam.
II. Fish Passage Support Activity
A. Public Relations and Education
In 1995, the DCFMB made extensive use of its Aquatic Resources Education Center
which is located on the Anacostia River. More than 4,000 area students and adults received
instruction about the diversity of anadromous and resident fish species found within the District.
The center also does a nice job explaining the interrelationship of the District's aquatic resources
with those of the Bay. This program has begun to instill in the population the knowledge that
what happens in their own backyards can impact the Bay region as a whole.
In addition to using its Aquatic Resources Education Center to inform the public about the
environment within the District of Columbia, the DCFMB has an In-School program where staff
go to area schools and give presentations about the District's aquatic resources. In 1995, this
presentation was given to over 2000 students and their teachers. The classes that receive this
education are also given materials for teachers to take back to the classrooms.
B. Future Public Relations and Education
The District of Columbia has committed itself to educating its residents about the
interrelationship between the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. To this
end, the DCFMB will continue to use its staff and the Aquatic Resources Education Center to get
the message out. In addition, after there is a fishway at Pierce Mill Dam, the District hopes to
work cooperatively with the National Park Service to make this fishway an educational tool. It is
believed that a working fishway in the nation's capitol would help illustrate the fact that there are
-------
still opportunities to greatly improve the environment, especially in an urbanized area.
HI. Future Activities
A. Planned Activities for 1996
Within the next year, the DCFMB is planning to conduct a telemetry study on alosids to
determine the possibility of passage of a boulder field located about 3/4 of a mile upstream of
Pierce Mill Dam. The boulder field is a one mile stretch of the creek located at the fall line and is
strewn, bank to bank, with large rocks.
B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 5-Year Goal (1993 - 1998)
The District's 5-Year Goal is the opening of 32 miles. A Denil fishway needs to be
designed for Pierce Mill Dam, the largest upstream fish passage blockage on Rock Creek. In
addition to its direct fish passage benefit, this fishway will be used as an educational tool.
Presently, DCFMB has an active aquatic education program, and with the ability to use a Denil
fishway as an instructional aid, instructors with the program will be better able to enlighten local
citizens about the need for environmental awareness, even in an urban setting.
C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 10-Year Goal (Pre 1993 - 2003)
The District's 10-Year Goal is the opening of 32.6 miles. If fish passage through the
boulder field is determined to be possible, and after a fishway is built at Pierce Mill Dam, there are
still six barriers which block fish passage to the Maryland State line. These barriers include five
sewer crossings and one ford. Once fish passage is provided at Pierce Mill Dam, the DCFMB's
ten year goal is to provide fish passage at the remaining barriers on Rock Creek, up to the
Maryland state line.
-------
« *«
ON H-I
S'i':
•"•-.:" ^,
:.-.;" :•."«*•
'••• •'*»
. i tJ
... .1 K
. SO .
fr»
":••; "fi[/ .
: •H V • -:'
':: '-to '•
:
'$• £n
. :;Jil..":j^:. ..!
•*^ fi
: 3tft «rf :
***** 1$ :
; • ': -j^.
- 4^ *O'
.; jJJ
ift
• -p"}
• ';O :
: \\
• (* :
:":ta*=»
•o
0)
(U
rH
g CT>
O CT>
U H
-rH
'O fv{
0)
fi 0
"O ^ g
a 0 o
(d a) 4->
o JH o
H
4J OJ
rd >
4J -H
CO (X
tn O
C •- fd
i ij e
1 * i^^ R
tn 0) O
3 0) 4->
rd SH O
O O ft
CN
(Ti
T3 CTi
Q) H
fl
fi rH
(d rH
i — I rd
04 PL,
£9
g
fc
u
P
i>
•
o
rH
rd
^
o
g
(U
05
• ».
•^
0)
CD
$-4
u
y
o
o
tf
~
H O
•f(- nj
g
T3 O
JH 4-)
O O
CL, 04
ro
CJ\
T3 O\
0) H
fl
C rH
td rH
i — i rd
p] pT,
CO
g
fe
O
p
i-H
•
rH
rH
m
j>
o
g
cu
OJ
• S.
y
0)
Q)
M
O
_y
o
o
Oi
-.
OJ O
-ft- nj
g
-O o
r< 4J
o o
["T[ ("t[
T3
Q)
a
td
rH
O4
Ot
w
CO
•^
CO
g
&4
U
p
CN
•
CTi
CN
rH
•H
rj
QJ
P
• h.
QJ
0)
r4
U
ry
O
0
prf
,
rH
rH
-H
S
CU fC
If f"
OJ 4J
-H 0
O4 O
LT)
-------
Map 1: Fishway Progress in the District of Columbia
-------
05
O
O
•o
CD
CD
CD
10
O)
at
0)
O)
o
ol
^ CM
r- >%
D) -Q
5 ~a
-------
2
MARYLAND
I. Fish Passage Achievements
A. Fishway Progress
The Maryland Fish Passage Program, through construction of fishways, removal of
barriers and the reintroduction of pre-spawning adult fish, continues efforts to reopen historic
migratory spawning habitat. During 1995, Maryland made significant progress toward the
commitment set forth in the Chesapeake Bay Program Directive 93-4, completing nine projects
which reopened over 27 miles of stream habitat. (Refer to the tables, map, and pie chart at the
end of this section for a detailed written and graphic depiction of 1995 fish passage progress.).
River System and Funding for Maryland Fish Passage Projects Completed During 1995:
*• Three projects in the Anacostia River system were funded by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
*• Two projects, on the Magothy and Wicomico Rivers, were completed and funded through
an ongoing cooperative arrangement with the State Highway Administration;
*- Two projects on the Patuxent River were funded by the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (MD DNR); and
*• Two projects on the Potomac River were funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Fish Passage Types and Remedies:
*• Three blockages were removed;
*• Two dams were breached;
»• Two Alaskan steeppass fishways were constructed;
»• One road culvert was replaced with a depressed bottom culvert that allows fish passage;
and
»• One concrete weir and baffle system (high-speed channel) was constructed.
Since the inception of the Maryland Fish Passage Program, the 1995 accomplishments bring the
total number offish passage projects to 37 and the cumulative number of stream miles reopened
to 158.
Surveys:
In addition to the above completed fish passage projects, Maryland continues to design
fishways for construction. Prior to the design phase, stream gauge readings and structure surveys
were conducted. Such data was collected at the following sites:
»• Adkinson Race Pond Dam, Pocomoke River
>• Barren Creek Dam, Nanticoke River
»• Broadway Branch Dam, Choptank River
-------
>• Cypress Branch Dam, Chester River
*• Herring Run Dam, Sassafras River
*• Simkins Dam, Patapsco River
Conceptual Designs:
During the first stage of the design process, a conceptual design is normally completed by
hydraulic engineers from the US Fish & Wildlife Service (US FWS), then approved by the
Maryland Fish Passage Program. During 1995, conceptual designs were approved for the
following nine projects:
" Little Falls Dam, Potomac River
" Johnson's Pond Dam, Wicomico River
»• Broadway Branch Dam, Choptank River
> Midway Branch Culvert, Little Patuxent River
»• Sawmill Creek 8th Avenue Dam, Patapsco River
*• Gilbert Swamp Run, Route 6, Wicomico River, Western Shore
*• Muddy Creek 1-97, Patapsco River
> Croom Station Road Culvert, Patuxent River
>• Herring Run Dam, Choptank River
Final Designs:
Once approved, the conceptual design phase is followed by a final design drawn by private
contractors. During 1995, final designs were completed for the following projects:
»• Simkins Dam, Patapsco River; Denil Fishway
»• Unicorn Dam, Chester River; Alaskan Steeppass Fishway (50% complete design)
*• Isabella Street Weir, Wicomico River; Notch Fishway
B. Monitoring and Stream. Surveys
Through a Memorandum of Agreement (MO A) between MD DNR Fisheries Division and
the DNR Chesapeake Bay Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment (MANTA - formerly the
Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division), and partially funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, stream habitat assessments were conducted within selected
waterways of the upper Chester River drainage basin and portions of the Choptank River.
MANTA assessed both the quantity and quality of the habitat above fish passage blockages as
well as the suitability of the habitat for spawning anadromous fishes. The data gathered has been
compiled as a report which serves as a valuable tool in the prioritization of future fish passage
projects within this watershed.
Through an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the DNR Fisheries Division, the
University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) Coastal Ecology Research Lab and the National
Biological Service jointly performed an assessment of anadromous and resident fishes in the
Wicomico River downstream of Johnson's Pond near Salisbury, Maryland. The spring 1995
survey determined the anadromous and resident fish species found in the vicinity of a future fish
passage site.
-------
Monitoring of ichthyoplankton in the Potomac River, above the Little Falls Dam, by both
the ICPRB and US FWS, resulted in 38 samples containing no migratory fish larvae. Monitoring
for the presence of young-of-the-year migratory fishes above the Little Falls Dam on the Potomac
resulted in 30 shore haul seine collections which contained no migratory fishes. Electro-shocking
and the presence of a male American shad above the Little Falls Dam on the Potomac River, just
downstream from Great Falls, indicated that at least some adult shad are reaching the dam and
can ascend above it at certain flow conditions.
C. Trap, Transport, and Stocking
Ripe blueback herring gathered by MD DNR biologists from the Conowingo fish lift
provided the eggs from which stocked larvae were produced at the Manning Hatchery. A total of
475,000 larvae were stocked three to four days after hatching at several points along the Patapsco
River during May 1995. No naturally spawned herring larvae were stocked during 1995. A total
of 6,920 pre-spawning adult blueback herring and alewife from the Susquehanna River were
transported and released in the Patapsco River.
During 1995, biologists from both ICPRB and the US FWS's Harrison Lake National Fish
Hatchery cooperatively worked on a stocking and monitoring program related to the Little Falls
fish passage project on the Potomac River. More that 1 million American shad fry were released
at Mather Gorge during the Spring of 1995, an event which received television coverage. In
addition, the stocking program was featured in the Washington Post.
II. Fish Passage Support Activity
A. Public Relations and Education
During March 1995, the Maryland Fish Passage Program cohosted a conference in
Williamsburg , Virginia with the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. The
conference focused on anadromous fish migration requirements and modern techniques of fishway
design for small dams, bridges and road culverts. Regional, state and local officials attended the
conference (see p. 31 for more detail).
The Fish Passage Program continued to provide educational outreach throughout 1995,
including on-site lectures at Daniel's Dam fishway for Boy Scouts and an Environmental Science
class from Dundalk Community College. Fish passage displays were provided at the Herring Run
Festival, the Patapsco Outdoor Expo, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Annual Meeting, the
Northeast Fish & Wildlife Conference, and the annual Chesapeake Executive Council Meeting.
B. Future Public Relations and Education
Educational outreach will continue in the form of public displays at various events and
presentations to interested groups. Events in which the Maryland Fish Passage Program will
participate during 1996 include: the Herring Run Festival in Baltimore; the Shad Festival in
10
-------
Vienna; and the Chesapeake Appreciation Days at Sandy Point State Park. Updated materials for
exhibits and educational purposes are created on a regular basis. Lectures, slide presentations and
on-site discussions are provided upon request. The Maryland program continues to generate
interest within the news media to provide the public with information related to fish passage. A
fish passage video is planned for 1996.
A volunteer network is being organized as a means of cleaning existing fishways of debris
so that they are operational in time for the Spring spawning runs. Concerned citizens, local, state
and federal officials have generously offered to donate their time and energy toward this effort,
which will begin during the Spring of 1996.
III. Future Activities
A. Planned Activities for 1996
1) The following eight fish passage projects are targeted for construction in 1996 and will
result in 97.6 miles being opened:
> Simkins Dam, the last blockage on the mainstem of the Patapsco River.
The Denil fishway to be constructed here will open an additional 3.8 miles on the Patapsco
River and will open habitat in the river from Baltimore Harbor up to the Liberty
Reservoir, for a total of more than 30 miles. Funded by MD DNR.
*• Unicorn Dam, Chester River. The Alaskan steeppass fishway to be constructed at this
site will open 14.5 miles of historic spawning habitat on the Unicorn Branch of the Chester
River. Funded by US EPA.
»• Dorsey Run Dam, Patuxent River. The remedy for providing fish passage at this site will
soon be agreed upon, opening 16 miles of spawning habitat. Funded by MD DNR.
»• Nassawango Creek Bridge and USGS Gauging Station Weir, Pocomoke River The
pool and weir fishway to be constructed at this site will open 48 stream miles of spawning
habitat. Funded by MD State Highway Administration
*• Turville Creek Culvert and Weir, Atlantic (Isle of Wight Bay). A channel will be
constructed within the culvert and the weir will be notched to provide passage at this site,
opening 7.8 miles of stream. Funded by MD State Highway Administration. *
> Gilbert Swamp Run Bridge (partially demolished), Wicomico River. A channel will be
constructed across the existing floor of the bridge, allowing passage offish and reopening
6.5 miles of stream. Funded by State Highway Administration.
»• Waugh Chapel Road Culvert, Towser's Branch, Little Patuxent River. Fishway type to
be determined. Providing fish passage at this site along with the Capital Raceway culvert
will reopen 1 stream mile. Funded by MD DNR.
> Capital Raceway Culvert, Towser's Branch, Little Patuxent River. Fishway type and
miles to be reopened will be determined. Funded by MD DNR.
* The Turville Creek culvert and weir project is not in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the miles will
not be credited to the goals of the 93-4 Directive. Nonetheless, this work will surely benefit anadromous
fish.
11
-------
2) The following fish passage projects are targeted for design during 1996:
Cypress Branch Dam, Chester River. The Denil fishway to be constructed at this site
will open 6 stream miles of spawning habitat. Funded by NMFS/NOAA.
Andover Branch Dam, Chester River. The Denil fishway to be constructed at this site
will reopen 18 stream miles of spawning habitat. Funded by NMFS/NOAA.
Broadway Branch Dam, Choptank River. The Denil fishway to be constructed at this
site will reopen 12.5 stream miles of spawning habitat. Funded by NMFS/NOAA.
Johnson's Pond Dam, Wicomico River. The Denil fishway to be constructed at this site
will reopen 16 stream miles of spawning habitat. Funded by NMFS/NOAA.
Wilson's Mill Dam, Susquehanna River. The Denil fishway to be constructed at this site
will reopen over 24 stream miles of spawning habitat. Funded by NMFS/NOAA.
Urieville Dam and Culvert, Chester River. Three sections of Alaskan steeppass will be
fitted on the dam and a channel will be constructed in the culvert, reopening a 3 5 acre lake
and 3.5 stream miles above the dam. Funded by NMFS/NOAA.
Midway Branch, Range Road Culvert, Little Patuxent River. Two sections of Alaskan
steeppass will be fitted at this site, reopening 1.2 stream miles of spawning habitat up to
Soldier's Lake. Funded by MD DNR.
Foreman Branch Dam, Chester River. Tentatively, the design for this site is for the
construction of an Alaskan steeppass fishway at this site which will reopen 7.1 stream
miles of spawning habitat. Funding source presently unknown.
3) Monitoring and Stream Survey Work Planned for 1996:
Through an Memorandum of Agreement (MO A) between the MD DNR Fisheries Division
and the DNR Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessments Division (MANTA), stream habitat
surveys will be conducted in the following areas in Maryland:
a) Deer Creek between the Wilson's Mill Dam and the Eden Mill Dam. The study
area includes representative reaches of stream within the 24.5 mainstem miles and
tributary streams (approximately 100 square mile drainage area).
b) Johnson's Pond Dam is on the Wicomico River. The study area includes
representative reaches of all streams above the lake (approximately 42 square mile
drainage area).
Through an Interagency Agreement with the MD DNR Fisheries Division, the University
of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) Coastal Ecology Research Lab and the National
Biological Service will jointly conduct a continuation of the 1995 assessment of
anadromous and resident fishes in the Wicomico River, downstream of the Johnson's
Pond Dam.
12
-------
B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 5-Year Goal (1993 - 1998)
Maryland's goal for the period from 1993 to 1998 is 210.05 miles. The Maryland Fish
Passage Program will continue to open habitat through the removal of blockages within the state
over the next three years. By the end of the year 1998, at least 30 additional projects should be
completed, opening at least 210 miles of upstream spawning habitat to migratory fishes.
However, 11 of these projects (representing 60 miles of stream to be opened) are not yet funded
and their completion will depend upon finding a source. Efforts to seek funding for these projects
is on-going within the Program. Some sites may be deleted from the 5-Year Goal due to
technical, legal or financial reasons. In the event that a site is deleted, a comparable site will be
added in its place.
The Maryland Fish Passage Program will continue to provide educational outreach and
information to the public, technical assistance and training upon request as well as coordination
with other state and local agencies.
C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 10-Year Goal (Pre 1993 - 2003)
Maryland's full goal, for the period before 1993 and up through 2003, is 388.65 miles.
The Maryland Fish Passage Program plans to continue its aggressive approach toward the
removal of blockages in Maryland waterways over the next eight years. The ten year goal is a
second set of projects slated for completion during the five-year period between 1998 and 2003.
Projects targeted for completion will open 15 miles of stream spawning habitat. To meet the
Chesapeake Bay Program Directive 93-4, Maryland will open over 400 miles of spawning habitat
by the year 2003. As time progresses and new sites are investigated, the Maryland Program
hopes to reopen stream miles to anadromous fish beyond the Chesapeake Bay Program's initial
goal.
13
-------
C/2
r^
td
z
S?
O 03
rvj O5
i£i
^^ ^3 ^^
—i b/ o
^^e«
ts- H
•n N
c\ J
ON P.
~"5
o
u
«
H
tft
JJl'.
.:.. ..Jj • ••
:<^J
4*
'• 'PJ
rt
S
tft
§*
•rl
*jj-
•8:
»*•-;
f^t ttfc
#<»
rH
•rt
•jft
<3
88
SH
5n CU
CU >
rH p{
u fd
-H
H 4J
CQ
CU O
4J 0
3 rd
O G
OS <
rH
•a
(U
J-)
cu
rH
am
g en
O en
O rH
w
CJ
CO
D
in
.
o
X!
O
rd
^
CQ
g
P
.
[ \
CO
x! SH
4J CU
00 >
m -H
OS
oo rd
O -iH
OJ 4J
CQ
CU O
4J O
3 fd
O G
OS rtj
03
-o
CU
4->
CP
r-H
am
O en
CJ H
w
CJ
CO
D
o
H
fj
U
rd
Q)
^
CQ
rH
^-
SH
P cu
X! -H
U CtJ
G
rd rd
5n -H
CQ 4J
CQ
4J 0
G 0
-H rd
^ 5
m
T3
CU
4J
CU
rH
a m
g en
O en
O H
£§
CO
o
.
OJ
0]
CO
rd a
^ a
CO CU
fd cu
rH 4J
N
3 X!
O X 4->
Oi CU O
cu cn
loS
,
t)
cu
4J
CU
rH
g Cf\
O cn
O H
os
J5
Q
*
^j*
.
o
4J
G
cu
g
4J CD
SH U
CU rd
> rH
M a
3 CU
u o;
.
^
cu
rH
^3
CJ
T3 X! SH
fd U CD
0 G >
OS fd -H
SH OS
G CQ
0 4J
CU CQ fl
SH SH CD
CD Q) X
SH CQ d
CU £ 4J
> 0 rd
H H ft
in
•a
0)
4-J
Q)
rH
am
g cn
O cn
O rH
OS
£5
P
Q
§
O
*
o
H
rH
rd
^
O
g
CU
OS
g
fd
P
g
rd
P
X! X!
U O
G G CD
rd rd >
M SH -H
CQ CQ OS
G G 4J
CD CU G
a a CD
CU CD X
CQ CQ 3
SH SH 4J
O O rd
W K ft
vo
•o
CD
4-)
CD
rH
am
g cn
O cn
CJ H
!ii
CO
o
*
•tf
CQ
CQ
rd
a
a
cu
cu
4J
CO
*—
a
s-
^ y r
m CD X
oj 0) u.
^-i
CD CJ C
\ \ ^.
3 ra a
O - 4J
PH 'O ff
-a a
§ cq •—
-
-------
g
U
10
4J
U
ta
U
O
01
j»
•rl
^
5
£
1
%? ^P
H
yt ^|
R$ £3
,(1 «•«•<
•>«$
t^
BJ
8S
«
Qv
SJ
r*
41
^j.
«J
a
ffi
^
$4
<8
$f
»rt
&
cu
si »••*
3 «
1* «T
jj jj
flj >*<(
**• *
CD ^
G Cn
O
td -H
Q OH
G SH
>H CU
0 4J
U CO
-H CU
G XI
t> u
CTl
G
o
-H
4J
U
^3
SH
4J
CO <4>
G cri
O CTi
O rH
fyj
s
Q
Q
*
VD
H
fQ
0) CU
Q fH
-rH
O g
1 _\ tl
(U
4J 4J
0 CU
tH T3
c ^>
rd cu
Q >
-H
G On
3
(U 4J
(^
>i CU
CU X
CO 3
o rd
O ft
o
H
O
-H
4J
U
3
S-i
4-)
CO U)
G en
O CTi
U H
3
CO
00
<*
•H
0
IS
•d
G
rd
rH
O
o
ft
0
-d
-H
SH
m
***
G 0
O 0 SH
-rH SH 0
4J CJ >
rd -H
4-> O (£
co en
G 0
Cn rd 4^
G £ 0
•rH (ti g
Cn co O
d co o
rd rd 0
C5 S ft
rH
rH
G
O
-H
4J
O
3
rH
4-1
CO V£>
G CD
O CT\
U rH
ft.
S
CO
ID
•
rO
0
4-)
O
3 rH
SH 0
4-> G
co G
G 03
0 X!
U U
0
Cn
•d
-H
SH
PQ
G
^3
p^
*-l
i">
rd -H
5 PH
CO
o
4J O
SH -H
0 g
,Q 0
rH U
-H -H
O £
CN
rH
G
0
-rH
JJ
O
;3
rH
4J
CO U3
G CTl
O CTi
CJ H
OH
Jg
D
Q
*
H
•d
0 0
Q G
•H
O g
4J ft
0
4J 4J
0 0
XI
0
G
rd SH
>H 0
ffl !>
-rH
•d CQ o^
rd -
O SH 4J
04 0 G
CO 0
0 O 3
£ll f-1 4J
rd rd
CJ 4J
SH 0
Xl 0 rH
Cn> 4J
^ rH 4->
IS CJ J
ro
rH
G
O
-rH
4J
O
rj
SH
4J
CO <^)
G en
O en
CJ H
#
S
Q
Q
*
-d
0 0
Q fl
•rH
0 g
4J SH
0
j_> j i
0 0
>H T3
•d
0 0
Q G
-H
O g
4J SH
0
4J 4J
0 0
>< "d
^
JJ
SH
0 SH
> 0
rH >
U OH
^t Xl t *
fd o G
5 G 0
0 rd X
O SH G
rd PQ 4J
OH rd
CO ft
rH -
fd SH 0
4J 0 rH
-H CO 4J
fd O -rH
0 H J
rH
G
O
-H
4J
O
^3
SH
4J
CO i^>
G en
O en
CJ H
ffi
CO
CO
•
D-
rr-j
0
4J
U
d rH
SH 0
4J G
CO G
G rd
O x!
0 U
4->
SH
0
> ^
d m
CJ
0)
y -^
sj
SH tts
CJ W
(U
CU fi T(
, | Sjj
rH R JH
-,H -H W
t^ j i rfi
Li ^
3 s ^
E-! * ^
G
tn
-H VD
co cn
0 cn
Q H
rtj
ft
w
CO
D
vo
rH
-rH
G
0
Q
g
rd
Q
Xi
CJ SH
G 0
rd >
SH-H
ffl OH
co SH
CO 0
0 4J
SH CD
Qj 0
U CJ
-------
g
CJ
ra
4J
o
(U
•n
O
rl
P4
0)
tn
n)
a
ra
as
ra
•O
a
to
rH
j ;; j :;.
•: " '. tO ..'.;.
• si;
Q
':"•«»•
":" ' -pj:
:^rl
1*
••:- •-•- -§ •" :
!*
£2i- ?& - •
€j fl* '
• : »*r .
44;-H
«5 fi
41 Cl
**4 ' . ' .
JQ
• & • ' :- -
.¥'
; i j:
• ffl"
•&j
: tO
: til
flj
;O«
:®
, -rf ••• •
••"*?
• *SJ :' "
§:>»»'
: ' O
:<8: t?J
W' '&
*i U
S«*| f(J:
i |^ ;
4i:^J
O " ' '''-
. ffl
f*5 • :
:' O :
• ft*j' Y'7
ot
« Q
Sf H
G
Cn
-H ^D
cn cr\
Q) 01
P H
rtj
ft
W
CO
E>
00
H
-
rH
-H
G
CU
P
H
P
X!
U rl
G CU
&H -H
CQ Pi
^-1 rl
Q) Q)
t> I *
O CQ
T5 <1>
S6
G
Cn
-H VD
CQ 01
0) Ol
P H
f3j
ft
w
CO
in
•
(N
1-1
rH
-H
G
CU
P
rt
P
t~i
U rl
G CU
rt >
rl -H
CQ Pi
^x, y
rt G
^ rt
TJ 4-J
rt a
0 0
CQ U
G
Cn
•H U)
CQ 01
(U 01
P H
fgj
ft
H
CO
VD
rH
rH
-H
fj
CU
P
g
P
"O rl
G CU
0 >
ft -H
Pi
CQ
- 0
G 0
O-H
CQ g
G 0
X! 0
O-H
G
Cn
-H VO
CQ O1
0) 01
P H
f3j
ft
w
CQ
^
-H
rH Pi
rH
-H rt
S G
CQ rt
G CU
0 3
CQ CT
rH CO
!S co
G
Cn
•H U)
CQ Ol
0) 01
P H
idj
ft
W
CO
D
in
•
rn
CQ
CQ
G rt
rt a
j
-H
(U Pi
P-l
H -U rl
-H rl (U
> (1) 4J
CU > CQ
-H rH 0)
rl d X!
£ U U
Cn
-H k£>
CQ 01
Q) 01
P H
Pi
P*
P
Q
*
CN
•
rH
CQ
CQ
G rt
rt a
^ a
CQ CU
rt cu
rH -U
< CO
rl
(U
4-1 -H
rl pj
cu
> 4J
rH G
3 X! 0)
0 U X
T3 rt i-)
rt ri rt
O CQ ft
Pi
>i CU
0) rt rH
Cn ^ 4J
G -O 4-)
rt -H -H
Pi S J
Cn
-H VO
CQ Ol
CU 01
P rH
G
£
0
G
G
D
rH
•
r-
CQ
CQ
G rt
rt a
.id Qj
CQ CU
rt cu
rH 4J
rt| CO
g
rt
P
X!
U r4
G CU
rt >
rl-H
CQ Pi
G rl
rt cu
g 4J
CU CQ
rl CU
0 X!
fc U
-------
Map 2: Fish way Progress in Maryland
. 17
-------
CD
o
o
i 1
o I
O)
o
in
o>
•o
(D
c
Q.
o
oo
(D -Q
co co
(D (U
-------
3
PENNSYLVANIA
I. Fish Passage Achievements
A. Fishway Progress
(Refer to the tables, map, and pie chart at the end of this section for a detailed written and
graphic depiction of 1995 fish passage progress.).
Susquehanna River Main Stem Blockages
Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haven Facilities. Construction offish lifts at Holtwood and
Safe Harbor Dams is ongoing. In 1995, 60 to 65% of the construction was completed. The fish
lifts are scheduled to be in service by April 1, 1997. A conceptual design for fish passage at York
Haven Dam using the "open river" East Channel Dam approach has been completed. The design
included three contiguous 67-foot openings with water control provided by gate works. Several
gate control systems are being considered and preliminary project schedule has been completed.
The project is scheduled to be in service no later than April 1, 2000.
Diversion Dam. A site inspection of the Diversion Dam by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission (PFBC) staff revealed that the existing 20-foot wide gate would permit fish passage
on the west side of the island. The dam is owned by the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company.
Construction offish passage facilities is not considered necessary at this time. Multiple notches
may be required at the east side of the Diversion Dam, but this cannot be properly evaluated until
anadromous fish reach the site.
Fabri Dam at Sunbury. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) personnel are completing the
conceptual design for a vertical slot fishway at the inflatable dam located at Shikellamy State Park
in Sunbury. The PFBC will meet with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (DCNR) to revisit the implementation and funding agreement for fish passage at the
dam. Construction date is pending DCNR funding approval.
Susquehanna River Tributary Blockages
Rock Hill Dam, Conestoga River, Lancaster County. Following an extensive period of public
input, PFBC Board of Commissioners voted to approve the project to remove Rock Hill Dam at
their October, 1995 meeting. In response to requests from permitting agencies, minor
modifications were incorporated into the engineering design for the breaching, demolition and
disposal of Rock Hill Dam. The acquisition of permits for the project is complete. Preparation of
the detailed NOAA grant proposal for the breaching, demolition and disposal of Rock Hill Dam is
underway. An Invitation for Bid package is complete and will be used to select a contractor to
remove the dam. Removal is targeted for summer 1996.
19
-------
U. S. Geological Service Weir (USGS), Conestoga River, Lancaster County. US FWS
personnel determined that the USGS weir is not a blockage to migratory fishes. In 1997, the
PFBC will begin monitoring anadromous fish attempting to pass the weir to verify US FWS
findings.
City of Lancaster Water Supply Dam, Conestoga River, Lancaster County. The PFBC met
with the Lancaster Water Authority (LWA) and Superintendent of Water to discuss the
implementation of an inexpensive design for fish passage at the Authority's Water Supply Dam on
the Conestoga River. The design was viewed as "non-practical" by the LWA due to the
uncertainty of the facility's future as a water supply. No agreement was reached on a feasible fish
passage design or Chesapeake Bay Program participation. The PFBC continued with negotiations
and was less than optimistic that an agreement will be reached in the immediate future.
American Paper Products Dam, Conestoga River, Lancaster County. Discussions between
the American Paper Products Co. and PFBC about fish passage at their dam on the Conestoga
River began in 1995. The dam is the next upstream barrier above the City of Lancaster Water
Supply Dam.
Castle Fin Dam, Muddy Creek, York County. Engineering design for the breaching,
demolition and disposal of Castle Fin Dam is ongoing. Removal is targeted for summer 1996.
Williamsburg Station Dam, Franks town Branch of Juniata River, Blair County. Final
engineering design-for the breaching demolition and disposal of Williamsburg Station Dam was
complete and all permits were obtained. Removal of the dam is scheduled for the summer of
1996. Williamsburg Station Dam is the first blockage on the Frankstown Branch of the Juniata
River, preceded by Warrior Ridge Dam on the Juniata River.
Marietta Gravity Water Co. Dam, Chickies Creek, Lancaster County. PFBC met with
Marietta Gravity Water Company board members to discuss fish passage at their dam located in
Chickies Rock Park, Lancaster County. Future discussions are planned and PFBC was optimistic
an agreement will be reached.
Cave Hill Dam, Conodoguinet Creek, Cumberland County. The Carlisle Water Authority has
not made a decision on refurbishment plans for their Cave Hill Dam facility on Conodoguinet
Creek, Cumberland County. When a decision is reached, provisions for fish passage at the dam
will be a permitting requirement. Every indication is that the city will comply. Cave Hill Dam is
the third blockage on Conodoguinet Creek.
Huntingdon Water Authority Dam, Standing Stone Creek, Huntingdon County.
Construction of a denil fishway at the Huntingdon Water Authority Dam was approximately 75%
completed in 1995 and will be finished in the Summer of 1996.
20
-------
Hykes Mill Dam, West Conewago Creek, York County. Discussions resulted in no agreement
for fish passage at Hykes Mill Dam. The owner, Ray Hykes, under pressure from riparian
interests, desires documented evidence of migratory fishes at the base of the dam before
considering the implementation offish passage. Due to the dams poor condition, removal has
been identified as the most preferred method to achieve fish passage.
B. Monitoring and Stream Surveys
The lifts at Conowingo Dam collected a record number (61,650) returning adult American
shad in the Spring of 1995. Fish lifts also collected approximately 98,000 blueback herring, 5,575
alewives and 37 hickory shad. Otolith analysis determined that 84% of adult American shad
captured at Conowingo were of hatchery origin. Biomonitoring of out migrating juvenile
American shad in the autumn of 1995 indicated successful reproduction, with approximately 10%
of the out-migrants identified as wild fish.
The Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, funded by
the US EPA, has completed Phase I & II of the Susquehanna River Tributary Blockage study.
Thus far, the study has identified and characterized blockages on Conestoga River, Kreutz Creek,
Chickies Creek, E. Conewago Creek, W. Conewago Creek, Codorus Creek, Fishing Creek,
Muddy Creek, Pequea Creek and Otter Creek. Phase III will continue through September 1996,
with Fishing Creek (Cumberland Co.), Swatara Creek, Yellow Breeches, Conodoguinet Creek,
Fishing Creek (Dauphin Co.), Fishing Creek (Perry Co.), Sherman's Creek, and Little Juniata
Creek targeted for inventory.
C. Trap, Transport, and Stocking
The trap and transport of alosids from Conowingo Dam, a Susquehanna River
Anadromous Fish Restoration Cooperative-funded activity, included approximately 56,000 pre-
spawn American shad in 1995. The primary release site for these fish was the Tri-County Marina
upstream of York Haven. Approximately 23,000 pre-spawn adult river herring were also
captured and released in the mainstem Susquehanna River, Little Conestoga Creek, and Muddy
Creek.
A total of 22.1 million American shad eggs were received and incubated at PFBC Van
Dyke Anadromous Fish Research Station in 1995. Of these, 55.2% were successfully hatched. A
total of 10 million American shad fry were marked and stocked into the Susquehanna drainage,
including 8.3 million in the Juniata River; 731,000 at Montgomery Ferry in the mainstem
Susquehanna River; and, 931,000 into three lower tributaries, Conodoguinet Creek, Conestoga
River and Muddy Creek. Biomonitoring determined that approximately 90% of the out-migrating
juveniles captured in the fall 1995 were of hatchery origin.
21
-------
II. Fish Passage Support Activity
A. Public Relations and Education
In 1995, PFBC staff displayed an exhibit on American shad restoration in the Susquehanna
River at numerous events throughout Pennsylvania and Maryland. Over a dozen slide
presentations on migratory fish restoration were given by staff to various sportsman,
environmental, and special interests groups. The PFBC Anadromous Fish Restoration Unit gave
numerous tours of the Van Dyke Research Station for Anadromous Fish in 1995.
The PFBC, in conjunction with the Chesapeake Bay Program's Communication
Subcommittee, conducted a media event for the stocking of shad fry in Conodoguinet Creek, a
tributary to the Susquehanna River. The event was well received and attended by local television,
radio and newspaper media, as well as citizens, activists, and environmental organizations.
The new brochure on Fish Restoration and Passage on the Susquehanna River* was
completed and is currently being distributed. The 16-page brochure was cooperatively produced
by the PFBC, US FWS, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
*(Fish Restoration and Passage on the Susquehanna River is available from US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1721 N.
Front St., Suite 105, Harrisburg, PA 17102)
B. Future Public Relations and Education
Initiatives to expand the PFBC public education and awareness efforts with regard to the
Chesapeake Bay Program and migratory fish restoration in Pennsylvania continue. In 1996, the
PFBC plans to conduct numerous media events pertaining to migratory fish restoration in the
Susquehanna Basin. These include shad fry stockings in the West Branch of the Susquehanna
River, North Branch of the Susquehanna River, Standing Stone Creek, Conodoguinet Creek and
Conestoga River. Numerous of slide presentations and exhibits on migratory fish restoration are
also scheduled for 1996.
III. Future Activities
A. Planned Activities for 1996:
• The Susquehanna River Tributary Blockage Study will identify and characterize the
blockages on major tributaries to the Susquehanna River below the confluence of the
Juniata River.
• Complete construction offish lifts at Holtwood Dam and Safe Harbor Dam.
• Breach and remove Rock Hill Dam, Castle Fin Dam, and Williamsburg Station Dam, and
complete construction of the fishway on Huntingdon Water Authority Dam.
• Complete fishway design for Fabri Dam and Cave Hill Dam.
• Negotiate agreements for fish passage at Marietta Gravity Water Co. Dam and American
22
-------
Paper Products Company Dam.
• Continue to expand the PFBC public education and awareness initiatives, as well as
develop programs to identify and acquire additional funding for the removal of tributary
blockages.
B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 5-Year Goal (1993 -1998)
The five year goal for the Pennsylvania is 32 miles.
• Open mainstem of the Susquehanna River to migratory fishes by providing passage at the
Holtwood Dam, Safe Harbor Dam.
• Provide fish passage at Marietta Gravity Water Co. Dam, and American Paper Products
Company Dam.
• Provide fish passage at tributary blockages yet to be determined.
C. Meeting Chesapeake Bay Program's 10-Year Goal (Pre 1993 - 2003)
The cumulative 10-year goal for Pennsylvania is 520 miles.
• Provide fish passage at York Haven Dam, Fabri Dam, Warrior Ridge Dam, Oakland Dam,
Cave Hill Dam, Hykes Mill Dam, and Lancaster Water Authority Dam.
• Provide fish passage at ten additional high-priority blockages on Susquehanna River
tributaries.
23
-------
w
s* .
• -' 4*
itt
4*
OJ
0 i
•O
te :
CR
-••*•
•d
3
••-."•&*• -
fi • ' :
'$f
i-i*.""^- :
JQ-
"3
'=**-. ' '
::i
ra
tj
~.; o« :
£i
flj
*^
•H
c
'*•"* (5
-" •&
4i "O
o
0
•n
. o .......
ft
<*»
G
O
-H
4J
U
3 Cn
tj r~l
i*~l *•*
4J -H
CQ O
G Cn
0 G
U 0
0
rt
£>
-H
^1
ftj
O
•
cn
.
jj
l|_|
-H
J
5^1
0)
-H
g *
rt rt
Q G
G
TJ rt
0 ,G
O (U
4-> O1
iH CQ
O G
ffi CO
H
G
0
-H
4J
O
3 Cn
(j rH
rl M
4J -H
03 O
G Cn
0 G
CJ O
0)
4J
rt
-H
S-l
04
0
•
ro
OJ
jj
4-4
-H
J
J_J
0)
g >
rt -H
Q 04
Vt rt
0 G
Q J]
5-t rt
rt ,rj
w cu
(U CJ1
IH CO
rt 3
CO CO
CN
G U)
O CTl
-H Ol
4J H
O
^ «.
5-1 5-4
4J 0
to g
G g
0 3
U CQ
rt!
0.
H
CO
p
in
•
03
H
U
rt
(U
CQ
*
^J
.> 0)
1 1 *^
" K^
- 0) -H
g > P4
rt -H
D P4 rt
G
.H rt G
r—i Cn rt
-H o X!
K 4-> O
CO 3
4*! 0) CJ1
0 G CO
O O 3
04 0 CO
m
G vo
O o\
-H CTi
4J H
U
^ »
5-4 5-1
4-1 0)
CO g
G g
0 3
O CQ
rt!
Pu
ptj
CO
p
ro
•
«*
U
rt
(U
5-1
CQ
^_)
0)
£ -rH
Q -
M rt
G 0) G
-H 0) G
fa 5-i rt
O X!
0)
-H
J^
&
ro
•
CT\
H
O
rt
0)
5-i
CQ
g"
rt -
Q rt
G rt
O -H
-H G
rt ^D
4J
co • •
5-1 04
cnpq
5-1 rt
3 G G
43 S G
CQ O rt
g p (-]
rt CQ d)
-H ^ 3
rH G O1
iH rt CQ
-H 5-1 3
!S fa CO
in
G
O
-H
jj
O
3 Cn
5-1 G
4J -H
CO O
G Cn
O G
CJ O
4J
G
0)
g
Q
rH 5-1
rt 0)
U >
0 0
J tn
0
•
CN
M
rH
-H
G
OJ
Q
CD •
r~* t- 1
M M
•H CQ
T3 rt
G G G
rt £ G
4-) O rt
5-4 CO 4J .G
0) CD 0)
4-J ^ £>*i 13
rt g rt D1
S: rt o4 CQ
Q 2
G -co
0 >, •
•d 4J & —
cn-H cj re
G 5-4 4->
I-H O CU rt 5-
4.) x; G -H a
G 4J O G >
3 ^ 4-> P -r
ffi rf! c/j hD ct
«
-------
O
U
at
jj
o
a)
•n
O
H
04
••, •
*»*( .,::""
^4 !
•- *i# ' i
tjj -,
• -I****
.0
« tn
•••**••* -r.
•i*:d
«**•*
-T-.I0 -
•H *^j
O ; '..
•r*
O
fix ;
Is
Cn
G
-H
O
Cn
G
O
G
Cn
-H
03
CD
P
CD
US
-rH
l_l
ft
ro
•
01
r-~
**
G
CD
a
O rH
CD
T5 G
CD G
4J rd
fd XJ
O U
^
g •
rd 04
Q
ns
G G
CD G
r* fd
rd X!
W CU
.* tr
>H 03
O 3
CD
G 0)
CnrH
-H a
03 g
0) O
P U
CD
JJ
(ft
4J
CO
*
CD
4_)
o
*
OJ
O
rH
CQ
rH
m
O
•ri
4J
VH
CD
>
*
04
rd
- G
g G
fti n3
P X!
0)
Q) 3
rJ D1
£! TO
•ri d
fe CO
CQ
G
O
-H
jj
(ti
-H
J->
O
Cn
CD
idj
ft
W
CO
o
•
H
H
G
CD
p, o.
O rH
CD
-d G
CD G
JJ nJ
fti Xl
O O
Cn
O
jJ
CQ •
CD 04
G
O rt
U G
^ G
CD - rt
J-J g Xl
nJ nS d)
!3 P d
CT
CD J-J d
4-> -H CO
CQ JH ••.
rtf O in
0 Xl CD
SH 4-J ^
fd ^ "H
J H Q)
CD • >
g O -rt
5 CJ 04
CQ
G
O
-H
JJ
fd
-H
JJ
O
Cn
0)
&
CQ 04
fd CD
^1 -rl fd
O *l G
U G
rd -H td
JJ X! XI
JJ U CD
CD 3
•H •• CJ1
JH • CQ
fd O 3
S 0 co
CQ
G
O
-H
4J
rd
-H
JJ
o
Cn
CD
*
rtj
ft
H
CO
J^J
•^
^
o-
rH
-H
G
0)
P
.«.
y
CD
SH
-O •
g O:
fd JJ
P CU rt
G $:
rH -H fl
rH d fC
•H cnx
ffi O d
T3 5
CD O 0
> G CC
fd o "
U U 0]
a
•
s
c
S-
cs
•JC
S
p
•5
-------
ti
o
u
(Q
JJ
0
Q)
cu
0)
tn
n)
ra
to
(0
•H
ni
•H
a
ra
d
U
0)
'-•*' '•
•.L: s:
•43
"-:- I* '
; , ,':--P -"
- : ^!Q
:^ :
.:>*•;
-iV
to
: .:-Ci
: • -t-(
i-O
§,
:fe
J;'.
r'"'"Hi
. ;$.Jl
f:
.
, , : "
. . *:••
" • Pi
Ps
c^
;.• ••• I
' "7:'*»:
.:. ' .-.-.•IQl".. .
a
' l8
: 9*
r;w r"
fk • -.
-H ;
.--',*» , .
1 *&
S **.'...
M*
4fr to
"H- o)
4> #
54 ~r*
: M
4»> *CJ
v I). "; v
£ ;
O :.
ft
^
i
0 JJ
r-l G
0
JJ g
-H 0
O g r4
Gi H -H
H 0 3
fa Qj D1
0
JJ
nJ
•H
^1
ft
ro
•
H
CO
•d
0
G
-H
g
0 "
JJ
0
•d
G
p
rt
jj
nj
-H
- G
g 3
nj ^D
P
0 ^ PH
tnm
•d nj
-H G G
P4 5 G
O nJ
>-i JJ A
O to 0
-H A! d
rj nJ CD
nj M 3
IS fa CO
•d
0
CJ
G
ni
rH
ft
rtj
ft
H
CO
D
CN
•
Ol
T3
0
G
-H
g
0
JJ
0
•d
C
13
y
0
0
£_|
0
nj
nj •
JJ rt
nj
> nj
co G
G
g nj
P 0
d
CN Cr1
• CQ
O d
S CO
T3
0
j3
G
nj
rH
ft
^j
ft
w
CO
D
m
•
^
•d
0
-(—(
g
0
jj
0
•d
D
..
g ^
p i"pi
0
S rJ G
O O G
JJ rtj
CQ nJ £
rH S-l 0
0 Oj 3
g nj CQ
3^3
ffi CO CO
•d
0
G
nj
rH
ft
(^J
ft
w
CO
<*
.
Lf)
CN
•0
0
G
-H
g
0
JJ
0
•d
G
4J
-•H
CO
O
tt
0
P
G •- •
o *: DS
-H 0
G 0 nj
D M G
U G
SH nj
nJ nj X!
0 r-J 0
G nj d
g nj CQ
nS S d
p co co
•d
0
G
G
nj
rH
ft
I^J
ft
w
CO
CN
•
CTi
•0
0
G
-H
g
0
JJ
0
-d
G
,^
y
0
- 0
nj O *
P Pi
jj
co 0 nj
- G G
G-H G
g tni
000
G -d d
GOD1
0 G CQ
r-i o d
CQ CJ CO
'd
0
G
G
nj
rH
ft
^
ft
w
CO
D
H
•
*4*
H
•d
0
G
-H
g
0
JJ
0
•d
G
D
• *.
y
0
- 0
gti
*^
nj U •
P PH
JJ
rH 0 nj
rH G G
-H -H G
S d nj
Cn,G
5O0
O TS d
rH O D1
rH G CQ
-H O d
!S U co
-
-d
0
G
G
nj
rH
ft
^
ft
w
CO
o
•
r-
-d
0
G
-H
g
0
JJ
0
-d
G
D
„.
g
nj
P
^i \^t ,
rH 0 Pi
-H 0
IS rj nJ
U G
0 C
rH CQ n5
rH G a
-H nS 0
rH 1 &
rH 0 CQ
0 .G d
P CO CO
0 JJ
iH G
0
•u g
-H 0
0 g H
ct! SH-H
M 0 d
fa PI d1
0
jj
nj
-H
^i
ft
o
•
^D
^0
•d
0
G
-H
g
0
JJ
0
-d
G
ID
•
^_i
m
•
s •
>
g nj
nj G
P G
nj
T3 rG
G 0
nj d
rH D1
J
-------
Map 3: Fishway Progress in Pennsylvania
- - PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
If
27
-------
CO
o
o
CM
03
O
O
o
H-
V)
O)
CD
O)
o
o>
Q.
o
0)
(0
T3
C
(U
Q.
O
(0
-------
4
VIRGINIA
I. Fish Passage Achievements
A. Fish way Progress
(Refer to the tables, map, and pie chart at the end of this section for a detailed written and
graphic depiction of 1995 fish passage progress.).
Ashland Mill Dam. Negotiations with the owner have temporarily been terminated due to
problems over financing of the project. The Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries
(VDGIF) can not guarantee that the owner will not be required to spend personal funds or time
on the fishway. The VDGIF plans to reopen negotiations with the owner in the future.
However, Chesapeake Bay Program funds originally granted for the Ashland project have been
extended and transferred to the Ruffins Pond Dam fishway project.
Ruffins Pond Dam. Chesapeake Bay Program funds originally designated for fish passage at
Ashland Mill Dam were extended and transferred to Ruffins Pond Dam, which is on
Massaponax Creek near Fredericksburg. There is a good herring run at this dam, which is
about 1/2 mile from the confluence with the Rappahannock River. A Denil fishway is planned
for this 16-foot high dam that blocks 3.5 miles of Massaponax Creek and 4.5 miles of a
perennial tributary for a total of 8 miles. The dam was surveyed by VDGIF staff for US FWS
to update the conceptual plans. A second no-cost time extension was granted, and by the end
of 1995, Tarmac America, Inc. and the VDGIF were close to signing a "Grant Contract" for
completing the project. In the meantime, Tarmac advertised a "Request for Proposals" for
engineering firms.
Boshers Dam. This 10-foot high dam is the last blockage to migratory fishes on the James
River in Richmond. A fishway would open 137.4 mainstem miles of anadromous fish
spawning habitat, extending to Lynchburg. A conceptual plan for a vertical slot fishway was
provided by the US FWS in 1994. In February 1995, the City of Richmond advertised a
"Request for Proposals" for engineering firms. The VDGIF then assisted the City in choosing
the engineering firm and a fee was successfully negotiated. In October 1995, the City and
VDGIF signed a contract that outlines the details for the City to use Chesapeake Bay Program
funds to obtain the final design for a vertical slot fishway to be built. In February 1996 the
engineering firm recieved their contract from the City and initiated design.
Embrey Dam. This 22-foot high dam in Fredericksburg is the only mainstem impediment to
fish passage on the Rappahannock River. Three possibilities exist for fish passage: removal,
breaching, or a vertical slot fishway. In 1994, a sediment study was conducted to determine if
toxic substances were present behind the dam. Early in 1995, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality reviewed the results and determined that the sediments retained by
Embrey Dam are comparable to other sediments upstream. The potential for these sediments
29
-------
to fail a hazardous waste characteristic test, as defined in VR 672-20-10, is minimal. These
results further support the removal of the dam. Passage would open 82 miles of the mainstem
Rappahannock and an additional 76 miles of major tributaries.
Chandlers Mill Dam. This dam is on Chandlers Run, which is a tributary of Cat Point Creek
in the Rappahannock drainage. Historically, strong runs of river herring occurred at the base
of this dam. During reconstruction of this 10-foot dam owned by VDGIF, a Denil fishway
was also included, which opened 7.7 miles of alosid spawning habitat. Construction was
completed in early 1995 and the fishway was opened for the 1995 spawning run.
B. Monitoring and Stream Surveys
During the Spring of 1995, shad and herring spawning runs were monitored by VDGIF
staff throughout Virginia. Electro-fishing forAlosa spp. was conducted at the following sites:
below Boshers Dam down to the fall line/tidal interface on the James River; below Harvell
Dam on the Appomattox River; below Walkers Dam on the Chickahominy River; and below
Embrey Dam down to the fall line/tidal interface on the Rappahannock River. American shad
(A. sapidissima) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) were found in the James River. Blueback
herring, alewives (A. psuedoharengus), and hickory shad (A. mediocris) were found in the
Rappahannock, Chickahominy, and Appomattox rivers. American shad were also monitored
for fry culture procedures during collection by commercial gill netters on the Pamunkey River.
Age and growth rates were determined by Virginia Commonwealth University for brood stock
shad. A minimal amount of juvenile Alosa spp. monitoring was conducted by Fish Division
staff above and below Boshers Dam.
In August 1995, Virginia Commonwealth University was hired by the VDGIF with
Chesapeake Bay Program funds to conduct a comprehensive survey of impediments on
Rappahannock River tributaries. The first year of the Rappahannock River Basin Impediment
Study will focus on first- through third-order tributaries of the lower Rappahannock River.
Impediments will be characterized and biological sampling will be conducted below
impediments to determine migratory fish usage. The long-term plans are to survey the entire
basin over a four-year period and provide information necessary for setting fish passage
priorities in the basin. Additionally, an alosid habitat model will be developed which will be
useful for setting habitat restoration goals.
C. Trap, Transport, and Stocking
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) Fish Division staff, in
cooperation with the US FWS, conducted a trap and transport project for blueback herring in
April 1995. Blueback herring were collected by electro-fishing below Walkers Dam, on the
Chickahominy River, and transported in circular tanks to several stocking sites. About 2,300
herring were stocked into the James River at Maidens Landing, which is approximately 20
miles above Boshers Dam. Approximately 630 herring were stocked into Big Lickinghole
Creek which is near Maidens Landing. Harrison Lake and Herring Creek (tributary of lower
30
-------
James) received 1100 and 300 fish, respectively. Resulting offspring should imprint on the
"upstream habitat" and return in about five years traveling through completed fishways to
spawn themselves. This will aid in reestablishing the herring runs in these systems.
Fish Division staff, in cooperation with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
(VMRC), the US FWS and the Commercial Watermen of Virginia, collected American shad
brood stock on the Pamunkey River. The eggs were hatched at the King and Queen fish
hatchery and the fry were marked prior to stocking with oxytetracycline for identification
purposes prior to stocking. Some surplus eggs were hatched at the Harrison Lake National
Fish Hatchery. The James River, above Boshers Dam, received seven million fry and the
Pamunkey River received about three million fry.
. Fish Passage Support Activity
A. Public Relations and Education
The January issue of Virginia Wildlife magazine was dedicated to fish passage and
anadromous fish restoration. The articles were written by VDGIF, Virginia
Commonwealth University, and freelance staff. Topics covered anadromous fish
history in Virginia, anadromous fish biology, striped bass recovery, American shad
restoration, and fish passage projects and goals.
A 30-minute video documentary was produced and made available by VDGIF media
staff. The video targets historical and current fish passage issues and the Bay
restoration effort in Virginia.
The Fish Passage Coordinator presented the Fish Passage and American Shad
Restoration programs to the Suffolk chapter of the Izaak Walton League. The group
responded by donating chapter funds for the Boshers Dam Fishway Project to the James
River Association.
From March 21-23, 1995, the VDGIF and the Maryland DNR co-sponsored a fish
passage workshop in Williamsburg, Virginia. About 35 participants heard
presentations on anadromous fish biology, fishway design criteria, fish passage
fundamentals, and the permit process for fishway construction. A tour of several
Virginia fish passage facilities was very beneficial and was highlighted by the seasonal
opening of the Denil fishway at Harrison Lake Dam on Herring Creek and a
demonstration of electro-fishing for alosids on the Chickahominy River. Interaction of
the participants was very beneficial as engineers, biologists, and planners were able to
discuss essential fish passage issues from a variety of perspectives.
31
-------
B. Future Plans for Public Relations and Education
Plans are being made to present the anadromous fish restoration program to the
"Friends of the Rappahannock River" and other groups in the Fredericksburg area to educate
the public on the benefits of passage at Embrey Dam. The Fish Passage Coordinator will
present the Fish Passage Program to a joint meeting of the Virginia and Tidewater chapters of
the American Fisheries Society (AFS). Upon request and as opportunities arise, the
anadromous fish restoration efforts will be presented to the public.
m. Future Activities
A. Planned Activities for 1996
For 1996, fish passage efforts will consist of the following:
• Complete the final design and initiate construction of a vertical slot fishway on Boshers
Dam on the James River opening 137.4 miles;
• Complete the design and construction of a Denil fishway on Ruffins Pond Dam on
Massaponax Creek, a tributary of the Rappahannock River opening 8 miles;
• Decide on a viable option for fish passage at Embrey Dam on the Rappahannock River;
and
• Set future goals for fish passages in Virginia.
B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's 5-Year Goal (1993 -1998)
Virginia's five-year goal is 308 miles. The projects listed in "Future Activities" above,
along with the following outline show progress toward the 5-Year Goal. Williams Island Dam
Notch was completed in November of 1993 and opened 2.6 miles of the James River, up to
Boshers Dam. Also in 1993, a fish lift was installed on Brasfield Dam (Appomattox River),
but the actual hopper has not yet been added. This lift will be completed when passage is
provided at two downstream dams and will open an additional 129 miles. As part of a FERC
requirement, Harvell Dam will be fitted with a Denil fishway and reopen 5.6 miles of the
Appomattox River, up to the Abutment Dam. The Abutment Dam (an old Virginia Electric
Power Company dam) may be passed by 1998 (negotiations have begun) which would open an
additional 1.4 miles, up to Brasfield Dam. In 1995, a Denil fishway on Chandlers Mill Dam
(Rappahannock drainage) opened 7.7 miles of the two principal tributaries. By the end of the
Five Year Goal period, Virginia should open a total of 291.7 miles. Some miles were added
(Chandlers - 7.7) but several miles have been moved back to the 10-Year Goal (Ashland Mill
Dam, 9 miles; and Ashland Water Supply Dam, 28 miles).
32
-------
C. Meeting the Bay Program 10-Year (1993 - 2003)
Virginia's portion of the original 10-Year Goal is 415.5 miles, which includes the miles
from the Five-Year Goal. Projects completed in HI A & B will be added to the following
projects to work toward meeting the 10-Year Goal. Fish passage is planned at Embrey Dam,
which would open 82 miles of the mainstem Rappahannock. Fishways on Ashland Mill Dam
and the Ashland Water Supply Dam would open a total of 37 miles of the South Anna River.
This would result in a total of 410.7 miles opened in Virginia by the end of 2003.
33
-------
Y ••-'•• {&
Jj
..: ;:vjj :••.
(rt: . .
4)
w
§
s
0
to
• -jg
•H
•O
'•• .-ft*
•**
fl
;i><5
-H
f.
•
..
*
J*'
an
oJ
flj
(Q
$5
• 4$
;fl*
R
r* : '
»H
v<
•••*& : !
t-»-
«
to
n «
OJ -ri •
:"- '«*. 1
• ;JJ::T3 •
o
"\U
'"I?'-"' :
• ^|
A| "
*i**fc*¥fC
•d
0
jj
0
rH
Qj
g
O
o
fr,
M
C5
g
E>
•
^
rH
-H
G
0
P
„
g
03 ^
P 0
rH -H
-H d
S CK! ^
0
ra ra o
- - G
5-i ^i G
0 0 03
rH rH X!
T3 T3 nj
G G a
rd n3 a
0 U tf
-
G 0
O JJ
-H 0
JJ rH
0 Q.
3 S
r-l O
JJ U
03
G o\<>
O 0
U a\
X
0 >,
jj jj
JJ -H
nS ^
g M 0
O 0 .G
Q4JJ JJ
S*S3
o
•
a\
CN
H
jj
H-l
-H
J
X
o
Jj
Jj
o3
g
O
04
*^J
^
g
n3
P ^
•0 >
rH -H
0 04
•H
M-4 r-4 CQ
CQ 0 0
OS > E
PQ P4 (-3
CN
O
-H
rH JJ
nS u
•»-H 3 VO
G JJ M en
CD G JJ CTi
-H 0 m H
m JJ G
0 O O G
P Oj O -H
T)
G
OS
0
- - JJ
rH 0 03
~ OS JJ M
0 J-i o3 O
JJ 0 > QJ
JJ 0 rH O
CO fc O4 U
•
r^
m
H
0
.1
P~ 1
CO
rH
O
-H
JJ
V-i
0
>
g
OS ^
p 0
m -H
- Pi
0 CQ
A 0
ra E
O OS
CQ ro
m
G
O
-H
rH JJ
nS u
•H ^ U)
JJ S-t CTi
G JJ en
0 m H
JJ G
0 O G
CX4 U -H
rtj
ft
W
CO
ID
o
•
00
rH
-H
G
0
p
- (-1
E 0
P 0-H
0 Oi
T3 • ^
G U .*
O U
fr X 0
03 G
m G G
- O OS
£H fj_l ^^^
-H Oj OS
u-i ra a
iw ra a
d o$ 03
Pi S Pi
»
vo
en
en
H
G
Cn
-H
CQ
0
P
0
JJ
oS
-H
CU
VO
•
LO
rH
-H
G
0
P
X
O
JJ
JJ
o3
j—
O
&
tt
«
g r-l
rtS 0
P >
-H
-H PS
rH
0 v-i ra
> 0 0
C > g
OS -H OS
|T] fvj HU
m
G
o
•H
JJ
-a os
0 -H
rH JJ
rH O
oS tn
JJ 0
CO S
•O
0
G
-H
$~
£1
0
JJ
0
•o
§
o
4
en
rH
-H
G
0
p
oS
£3
£j
fX^
•
CQ
-
g
nS
P
rH
rH
-H 5-
S 0
•0 -r
G Ct
ftS 5H
rH 0 ^
4^ > S-
ra -H c
rtC Pd JH
-------
ti
o
U
CQ
4J
O
0)
(U
CO
CO
-H
PH
y
U
g 0
fO G
Q G
I>~)rG
QJ fti
M a
g rt
W Oi
rrj
QJ
G
G
nJ
rH
ft
•d
G
-H
g
^1
QJ
4J
QJ
•d
G
P
o
•
CO
oq
•a
QJ
G
-H
^
QJ
4-J
QJ
T)
' Cj
P
£>1
rH
QJ ^H
QJ (L)
G >
CO -H
Pi
JH
OJ (S
jj g
rd G ^H
^
-d --H
G CO Pi
rt
i — i »• .*^
^ g rH
03 Cd O
H
03
G
O
-H
4J
nj
-H
4J
O
tn
QJ
K
T5
0)
G
-H
^1
QJ
JJ
QJ
•d
^
^
.
rH
•d
QJ
G
•H
g
^ij
QJ
4J
QJ
*d
G
P
X
o
4-1
4-)
(d
g
o
a
f^J
«.
g
Q QJ
>
4J -H
G Crf
QJ
g rH 03
4-) 0) QJ
2 > g
,O ~rH flj
^1 O< ^D
-d
QJ
G
G
nj
rH
ft
rrj
QJ
G
-H
g
QJ
J_)
QJ
•d
G
tn
•
OJ
-d
QJ
G
-H
g
SH
QJ
4J
QJ
-d
G
y
QJ
QJ
U
£-4
rH QJ
rH >
-H -H
S Pi
- ,J*j
g 0
rd O
Q G
G
•d rd
QJ ^3
g rd
nj a
G a
G cd
P Pi
rrj
QJ
G
G
rd
rH
ft
-d
QJ
G
-H
g
^
OJ
4-)
QJ
•d
G
OJ
•
rH
•d
0
G
•H
g
^_]
QJ
4_>
QJ
-d
G
P
y
QJ
QJ
^_J
CJ
CO
rH
rH
rd
IS 5-1
OJ
G >
O -H
Oi
QJ
tn 03
'd QJ
•H g
M rd
PQ ru
•d
QJ
G
G
rd
rH
ft
•d
QJ
G
-H
g
^
QJ
4J
QJ
T3
G
o
•
OJ
•d
QJ
G
-H
g
JH
Q)
Q)
T)
G
P
J^
g QJ
rd >
Q-H
Pi
T)
ri ^
O 0
ft O
G
G G
g £
*d rd
rH a
0 a
O rd
O Pi
•d
QJ
G
G
rd
rH
ft
•d
Q)
G
-H
g
rl
QJ
4J
Q)
T)
G
P
o
.
OJ
-d
QJ
G
-H
g
^_l
QJ
QJ
-d
G
P
}-)
QJ
g >
rd -H
Q Crf
yJ
*d QJ &i
G QJ 0
O S-i O
ft CJ G
G
'd co rd
QJ G X!
g-H rd
rrj ^! a
G 03 a
G rd rd
P K Oi
•d
QJ
G
G
rd
rH
ft
-d
QJ
G
-H
g
^_l
Q)
4J
QJ
•d
G
P
Q)
G
"rH
g
j-i
QJ
4J
QJ
"d
G
P
•d
QJ
G
-H
g
^_j
QJ
4J
QJ
•d
G
P
y
QJ
QJ
O
03
jq
O
4J
0
0 ^
i-l QJ
ft >
•H
G C*i
O
ra
QJ QJ
a g
"H flj
CXi H)
-------
Map 4: Fish way Progress in Virginia
II
36
-------
CO
o
o
CM
•o
CD
c
o>
Q.
O
0)
CD
JO
CO
o
O
IO
en
o>
O)
o
T3
CD
C
CD
Q.
O
(/)
CD
Si
I
-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
In fiscal year 1995, the US EPA allocated $955,000 for fish passage activities in the Bay
watershed. These activities included the design and construction of the fish passages, and stream
blockage surveys upstream of planned and/or constructed fish passage sites. The surveys assess
anadromous fish species spawning habitat potential. The overall goal of these projects is to
provide American shad, blueback herring, alewife, striped bass, as well as other anadromous
species, with access to historical spawning areas.
In April 1995, the Northeast Region of the NMFS entered an Interagency Agreement
(IAG) with the US EPA for "Fisheries and Habitat Restoration in Chesapeake Bay." Under the
provisions of this IAG, a total of six grant applications involving fish passage initiatives were
received from the MD DNR, the PFBC and the VDGIF. Although the District of Columbia was
identified to receive monies, fiscal constraints stopped them from applying for the funds, and their
allocation went to the VDGIF. Project work focuses on the Susquehanna, Choptank, Patapsco,
Patuxent, James, and Rappahannock river watersheds. Another IAG was signed between the US
EPA and the US FWS to fund monitoring and the stocking of American shad at Little Falls Dam
on the Potomac River. Upon completion, the fish passage construction activities are anticipated
to open over 100 additional river miles to anadromous fish migrations.
The following is a list of the projects funded by the US EPA throughout the Chesapeake
Bay watershed in 1995.
District of Columbia
• Abandoned Weir, Rock Creek, Potomac River. Fish passage design
• Gauging Station, Rock Creek, Potomac River. Fish passage design
Maryland
• Andover Branch Dam, Chester River. Fish passage design and construction.
• Broadway Branch Dam, Choptank River. Fish passage design and construction.
• Cypress Mill Fish Passage, Chester River. Fish passage design and construction.
• Johnson's Pond, Wicomico River. Fish passage design and construction.
• Unicorn Dam, Chester River. Fish passage design and construction.
• Urieville Dam, Morgan Run, Chester River. Fish passage design and construction.
• Wilson's Mill Dam, Susquehanna River. Fish passage design and construction.
• Stream Habitat Assessment Surveys upstream of planned and constructed fish passages in
the upper Chester River and the Choptank River.
• Maryland Fish Passage Coordinator.
38
-------
Pennsylvania
• Rock Hill Dam, Conestoga River. Fish passage design.
• Castle Fin Dam, Muddy Creek. Fish passage design.
• Hammons Dam, Muddy Creek. Fish passage design.
• Stream Survey downstream of York Haven Dam.
• Pennsylvania Fish Passage Coordinator.
Virginia
• Bosher's Dam, James River. Fish passage design.
• Rappahannock River Stream Survey.
• Ruffiris Pond Dam, Massaponax Creek, Rappahannock River. Fish passage design.
• Fish Passage Workshop.
• Virginia Fish Passage Coordinator.
Multi-jurisdiction and Agency Project
• Little Falls Dam, Potomac River. Stocking, modeling, monitoring, and design.
U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration /
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS)
NMFS continues to participate in American shad restoration efforts for the Susquehanna
River as a technical and policy member of the Susquehanna Anadromous Fish Restoration
Cooperative. NMFS reviews and provides input to the activities included in an annual work plan.
Habitat and Fisheries Engineering staff from the NMFS Northeast Region reviewed and
provided preliminary comments on the proposed Denil fishway for Harvell Dam, located on the
Appomattox River in Petersburg, Virginia. Fishway construction at this dam is critical, because it
is the first dam in a series of four, and it currently blocks all anadromous fish spawning runs each
spring. Final plans for the fishway are in preparation.
NMFS habitat staff reviewed and provided comments regarding a silver American eel
passage study at four hydro stations on the South Fork and mainstem of the Shenandoah River in
Virginia. NMFS, as well as the US FWS and VDGIF recommended that nighttime shutdowns be
considered in the fall to protect migrating adults from injury from turbines when river flows are
low. As a result, nighttime shutdowns will be implemented from September 15 through
December 15, each year, during the migration season.
Habitat staff from NMFS NE Region assisted the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources in their efforts to restore spawning runs of river herring to the non-tidal portions of
Swan Creek, a tributary to the Chesapeake Bay. The restoration project is part of a joint
federal/state program for comprehensive management of the Swan Creek watershed. Physical and
chemical in-stream data were collected during the spring river herring run at randomly selected
stations along the stream. The results of the data analysis will determine whether additional
39
-------
expenditure of funds is warranted for modifying three in stream barriers in Swan Creek to allow
for passage of adult herring.
NMFS personnel from the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office and the Oxford Cooperative
Lab assisted Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries staff in trap and transport activities in central
Virginia. Approximately 2,100 mature blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) were electro-fished
and collected below Walker's Dam, on the Chickahominy River, over a two-day period. The fish
were transported by tank truck to Maidens Landing (20 miles upriver from Boshers Dam) and
stocked in the James River. Offspring of the stocked fish should return to the James River as
mature adults upon completion of the Boshers Dam fishway in 1996.
Vane Terminals has contributed $150,000 to the Maryland Fish Passage Program
(MDFPP) to be used in funding construction of a Denil fish ladder at Simpkins Dam on the
Patapsco River mainstem. The contribution represents compensatory action for an authorized fill
of approximately one acre of open water habitat in Baltimore Harbor for constructing a ship
chandlery. The monetary contribution to MDFPP was recommended by NMFS habitat staff as an
alternative to on-site compensation for the unavoidable loss of Harbor habitat during the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers regulatory review of the project. The contribution should put MDFPP
close to having the funds necessary for initiating construction of the Simkins Dam ladder.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS)
Fish Passage and Stocking Activities
The US FWS Chesapeake Bay/Susquehanna River Ecosystem Team has given high
priority to characterizing the quality of 200 miles of anadromous fish spawning and nursery
habitat each year during 1995-1998. This is accomplished through field surveys, modeling
techniques, and by assessing impacts of stocked cultured larval shad and adult shad and herring
transplants. In 1995, the US FWS Virginia Fisheries Coordinator and Harrison Lake National
Fish Hatchery worked in cooperation with VDGIF, VMRC, and ICPRB to collect American shad
eggs. 2.4 million American shad were marked and stocked above blockages in the James and
Potomac rivers (1.2 million each). They also collected 3,000 adult blueback herring from the
Chickahominy River and stocked these above Harrison Lake Dam on the Herring Creek drainage.
The Virginia Fisheries Coordinator also wrote a Strategic Plan for the Restoration of American
Shad to the Potomac River Upstream of Little Falls Dam*, and drafted a cooperative agreement
for anadromous Alosa restoration in Virginia.
The US FWS Susquehanna River Coordinator worked with PFBC, Maryland DNR, and
operators of four Susquehanna River dams to direct shad and herring restoration activities. 1995
activities include recording trap and transfer of adult alosids from Conowingo Dam to upstream
spawning waters, shad egg collections, and hatchery operations which produced 10 million shad
fry in 1995. US FWS biologists and engineers participated on four Susquehanna River fish
passage technical advisory committees, resulting in operational modifications at Conowingo Dam
to enhance downstream passage of juvenile alosids; construction oversight for fish lifts being built
at Holtwood and Safe Harbor dams; and, design and development of a gated opening passage
concept for the York Haven project to be built by April 2000.
40
-------
The Federal Activities Branch of the US FWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office routinely
reviewed all federally licensed and permitted projects in the Bay watershed to assure that fish
passage considerations were accommodated when appropriate. This included fish passage designs
for the Harvell hydroelectric project on the Appomattox River, which are nearing final approval.
Night-time shutdown of four hydroelectric facilities on the Shenandoah River to assist
outmigration of American eels was also recommended.
US FWS engineers participated in 26 meetings and field investigations involving fish
passage projects in the Chesapeake Bay drainage. Engineering staff also provided technical
assistance with preparing and reviewing conceptual designs for 32 fish passage projects in the Bay
area.
* Strategic Plan for the Restoration of American Shad to the Potomac River Upstream of Little Falls Dam is available
from US FWS, Virginia Fisheries Coordinator Office, 11110 Kimages Rd, Charles City, VA 32030; phone 804-829-
5322; fax 804-829-6067; email r5ffa_hlnfh(cr)mail fws.gov.
Outreach and Education
US FWS personnel from throughout the watershed participated in several outreach events
aimed at informing the public about the importance offish passage and culture programs to
restore anadromous fishes to historic habitats. The US FWS Chesapeake Bay Office worked with
staff from Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery, Susquehanna River Coordinator, and the Bay
Program's Communications Subcommittee to organize a springtime media "blitz" about fish
passage, including separate events at Richmond, Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Harrisburg.
Media attention reached over one million people and emphasized federal, state and local
cooperation in removing barriers to fish migration and restoring spawning runs of shad and
herring.
The US FWS fish passage display was exhibited at numerous Bay events. Fish passage and
restoration articles were promoted in many articles provided to ten Bay area newspapers, with a
combined circulation of over one million. Service personnel were closely involved with
production and distribution of the 16-page color brochure titled "Fish Restoration and Passage
on the Susquehanna River". US FWS engineers provided training on fish passage design at the
Workshop on Fish Passage at Small Barriers held in Williamsburg, VA in March, 1995.
41
-------
Baywide Summary of Progress
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Executive Council signed Directive 93-4 on December 27,
1993. This directive charged the Bay's jurisdictions to open 1,356.75 miles of migratory fish
spawning habitat along the major tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay by 2003. An interim goal of
582.05 miles was set for the year 1998. This directive has focused the goals and activities of the
Fish Passage Workgroup for the past two years.
The Workgroup is moving steadily toward attaining these goals. By the end of 1995 a
total of 211.3 miles of anadromous fish spawning and nursery habitat (38.7 in 1995) has been
opened. Significant design work has been done in all the jurisdictions and over 100 additional
miles should be opened in 1996 throughout the Bay watershed.
The following tables illustrates the "Baywide Success" in terms of miles opened. This
includes all parameters of the agreement and the miles opened before the agreement.
Table 5
Baywide Fish Passage Progress
States/District
District
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Totals
•*•
Miles Opened
Before 9/93
0.6
106.1
9.0
33.0
148.7
Miles Opened
9/93 - 12/95
1.0
51.3
0.0
10.3
62.6
Five Year Goal
1993 - 1998
32.00
210.05
32.00
308.00
582.05
Ten Year Goal
Pre 1993 - 2003
32.60
388.65
520.00
415.50
1356.75
It is important to note that meeting the Directive's fish passage goals will not necessarily
result in increased abundance of anadromous stocks. Other necessary efforts include control of
harvest, habitat protection, trap and transport, stocking, proper design of facilities, and the proper
management of fishways. These activities have been, and are, expanded throughout the
watershed by the Fish Passage Workgroup.
42
-------
5 S
_ &
•5 O
"1
o» ^
O)
o r»
•^^
i_ T3
O 03
'C C
Q. 03
-O g-
C 03
CD
CO
Di
bJD
-------
Figure 6
Executive Council Directive 93-4
1356.05 Miles Opened by 2003
Jurisdictional Progress
600,
500
400
300,
200
100
Legend
Miles opened through 1995
Miles to be opened through 2003
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
44
-------
Appendix A
Constructed Fish Passage Projects Preceding 1995*
State/District
District of
Columbia
Maryland
«
•
Project
Ford # 3, Rock Creek, Potomac River
Dam #1 on Northeast Branch, Anacostia River
Culvert, Rt. 495 East Loop, Paint Branch,
Anacostia River
Culvert, Rt. 495 West Loop, Paint Branch,
Anacostia River
Whitemarsh Run Rt. 40 Culvert, Bird River
Van Bibber Dam, Winter's Run, Bush River
Weir on Morgan Creek, Chester River
Beaverdam Creek Weir, Choptank River
Tuckahoe Creek Dam, Choptank River
Elkton Dam, Big Elk Creek, Elk River
Railroad Bridge, Little Elk Creek, Elk River
Fort Meade Dam, Little Patuxent River
Railroad Tressel, Dorsey Run, Little Patuxent
Culvert, Dorsey Run, Little Patuxent River
Sewer Line, Little Patuxent River
Lake Waterford Dam, Lake Waterford, Magothy
River
North East Dam, North East River
Bloede Dam, Patapsco River
Daniels Dam, Patapsco River
Fish Passage Type
Removal
Notch
Pool and Weir
Alaskan Steeppass
Alaskan Steeppass
Denil
Denil
Notch
Denil Fishway
Denil Fishway
Removal
Denil
Remove
Replace Culvert
Replacement
Pool and Weir
Breach
Denil Fishway
Denil Fishway
45
-------
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Deep Run Dam, Patapsco River
Sawmill Creek Culvert, Patapsco River
Stony Run Dam, Patapsco River
Trail Culvert, Sawmill Creek Patapsco River
Union Dam, Patapsco River
Hoghole Run Rt. 6 Culvert, Port Tobacco River
Railroad Trestle, Dorsey Run, Patuxent River
Western Branch Rt. 214 Dam, Patuxent River
Bacon Ridge Branch Weir, South River
North River Culvert, South River
Connowingo Dam, Susquehanna River
Hepburn Stree Dam, West Branch Susquehanna
River
Battersea Dam, Appomattox River, James River
Walkers Dam, Chickahominy River; James River
Harrison Lake Dam, Herring Creek; James
River
Manchester Dam, James River
Browns Island Dam, James River
Removal
Pool and Weir
Removal
Pool and Weir
Breach
Steeppass
Removal
Removal
Removal
Replacement
Fishlift (2)
Vertical slot
Natural Breach
Denil (2)
Denil
Breach
Breach
* These projects were constructed following or were included in Directive 93-4.
46
-------
Appendix B
Fish Passage Workgroup Members
Chair
Richard St. Pierre
Susquehanna River Coordinator
US Fish & Wildlife Service
1721 N. Front St., Suite 105
Harrisburg, PA 17102
717-238-6425
Members
Carin Bisland
Scott Carney
William Goldsborough
Rick Hoopes
Robert Kelsey
Larry Leasner
Larry Lubbers
Richard Quinn
Jon Siemien
Albert Spells
Todd Stiles
John Stremple
Alan Weaver
Joe Wolfe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)/Chesapeake Bay
Program Office (CBPO)
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PA FBC)
Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF)
PA FBC
U.S. Fish &. Wildlife Service (US FWS)
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR)
MDDNR
US FWS
D.C. Fisheries Branch
US FWS
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries (VDGIF)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
47
-------
|