EPA 903-R-97-029
                        CBP/TRS 188/97
  Removing Impediments
 to Migratory Fishes in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Annual Progress Report
            1996
         October 1997
    Chesapeake Bay Program

-------
                 Chesapeake Bay Program

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership leading and
directing restoration of Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The Chesapeake Bay
Program partners include the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia;
the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative
body; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which represents the
federal government; and participating citizen advisory groups.

In the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Chesapeake Bay Program partners set
a goal to reduce the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay by 40%
by the year 2000.  In the 1992 Amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement,
partners agreed to maintain the 40% goal beyond the year 2000 and to attack
nutrients at their source—upstream in the tributaries. The Chesapeake
Executive Council, made up of the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia; the mayor of Washington, D.C.; the EPA administrator; and the chair
of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, guided the restoration effort in 1993 with
five directives addressing key areas of the restoration, including the tributaries,
toxics, underwater bay grasses, fish passages, and agricultural nonpoint source
pollution. In 1994, partners outlined initiatives for habitat restoration of
aquatic, riparian, and upland environments; nutrient reduction in the Bay's
tributaries; and toxics reductions, with an emphasis on pollution prevention.

The 1995 Local Government Partnership Initiative engages the watershed's
1,650 local governments in the Bay restoration effort. The Chesapeake
Executive Council followed this in 1996 by adopting the Local Government
Participation Action Plan and the Priorities for Action for Land, Growth and
Stewardship in the Chesapeake Bay Region, which address land use
management, growth and development, stream corridor protection, and
infrastructure improvements. A1996 riparian forest buffers initiative furthers
the Bay Program's commitment to improving water quality and enhancing
habitat with the goal of increasing riparian buffers on 2,010 miles of stream and
shoreline in the watershed  by the year 2010.

Since its inception, the Chesapeake Bay Program's highest priority has been the
restoration of the Bay's living resources—its finfish, shellfish, bay grasses, and
other aquatic life and wildlife. Improvements include fisheries and habitat
restoration, recovery of bay grasses, nutrient reductions, and significant
advances in estuarine science.

-------
            Removing Impediments
  to Migratory Fishes in the Chesapeake Bay
                    Watershed
            Annual Progress Report
                       1996
                      Prepared by
      the Fish Passage Workgroup of the Chesapeake Bay Program
                  October 1997

Printed on recycled paper by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary	4

Introduction  	5

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	7
       I. Fish Passage Initiatives	7
             A. Completed Fish Passage Projects	7
             B. Fishway Progress  	7
             C. Monitoring and Stream Surveys 	7
             D. Trap, Transport and Stocking	8
       II. Fish Passage Support Activities  	8
             A. Public Relations and Education	8
             B. Future Public Relations and Education  	8
       III. Other Future Activities	9
             A. Plans for 1997	9
             B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Five-Year Goal (1993-1998)	9
             C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Ten-Year Goal (1993-2003)	9
             Table 1:  District of Columbia 1996 Fish Passage Projects  	10
             Figure l:Fishway Progress in the District of Columbia  	10
             Map 1: Fishway Progress in the District of Columbia	11

MARYLAND	12
       I. Fish Passage Initiatives  	12
             A. Completed Fishway Projects	12
             B. Fishway Progress  	12
             C. Monitoring and Stream Surveys 	14
             D. Trap, Transport, and Stocking  	15
       D. Fish Passage Support Activity	15
             A. Public Relations and Education	15
             B. Future Public Relations and Education  	16
       m.  Other Future Activities	16
             A. Plans for 1997	16
       B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Five-Year Goal (1993-1998) 	16
             C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Ten-Year Goal (1993-2003)	16
             Table 2: Maryland  1996 Fish Passage Projects  	17
             Figure 2: Fishway Progress in Maryland	18
             Map 2: Fishway Progress in Maryland  	19

PENNSYLVANIA  	20
       I. Fish Passage Initiatives	20
             A. Completed Fishway Projects  	20
             B. Fishway Progress  	20
             C. Monitoring and Stream Surveys	22

-------
             D. Trap, Transport and Stocking  	  22
       II.  Fish Passage Support Activities	23
             A. Public Relations and Education	   	23
             B. Future Public Relations and Education	    23
       IE. Other Future Activities	23
             A. Plans for 1997	23
             B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Five-Year Goal (1993 - 1998)	24
             C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Ten-Year Goal (1993 - 2003) .  . . 24
             Table 3: Pennsylvania 1997 Fish Passage Projects	25
             Figure 3: Fishway Progress in Pennsylvania  	27
             Map 3: Fishway Progress in Pennsylvania	28

VIRGINIA  . :	29
       I. Fish Passage Initiatives	  	29
             A. Completed Fish Passage Projects	29
             B. Fishway Progress	29
             C. Monitoring and Stream Surveys	31
             D. Trap, Transport and Stocking  	32
       II. Fish Passage Support Activities .      	32
             A. Public Relations and Education   	   32
             B. Future Public Relations and Education    	33
       III.  Other Future Activities	33
             A. Plans for 1997	33
             B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program Five Year Goal  (1993 - 1998). .  . . 33
             C. Meeting the Bay Program Ten -Year (1993  2003)   	34
             Table 4: Virginia 1996 Fish Passage Projects	35
             Figure 4:  Fishway Progress in Virginia	36
             Map 4: Fishway Progress in Virginia	37

FEDERAL AGENCIES  .   	38
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)	38
       U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
             National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS)	38
       U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)	39
             A. Fish Passage and Stocking Activities	39
             B. Outreach and Education   	40

BAYWIDE SUMMARY OF PROGRESS	41
             Table 5: Baywide Fish Passage Progress      	41
             Figure 5: Baywide Progress	42
             Figure 6: Jurisdictional Progress	     	42
                             »
Appendix A: Fish Passage Projects between September 1993 and December 1996  	43

Appendix B: Fish Passage Workgroup Members	~          45

-------
                                  Executive Summary

In 1996, the Chesapeake Bay Program signatories opened 55.8 miles to migratory fish within the
Bay watershed.  A total of 267.1 miles have been opened to date, including 148.7 miles opened
prior to the Directive.  Specific accomplishments during 1996 include:

•      The District of Columbia completed no new projects but continued monitoring for alosids
       in Rock Creek and the Potomac River. American shad (Alosa sapidissima) eggs were
       collected from the Potomac River for culture at Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery
       (NFH).

•      Maryland completed one project, which opened 14.5 miles of habitat on a tributary to the
       Chester River.  Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR) also reared,
       marked, and stocked 2.2 million American shad larvae and 871,000 hickory shad (Alosa
       mediocris) larvae into the Susquehanna, Patuxent and Choptank rivers. The US FWS
       reared and released 2 million shad in the Potomac River above Little Falls Dam.

•      Pennsylvania completed two passage projects in the upper Juniata River, which will
       eventually provide 41.3 miles of new habitat to migratory fishes.  Over 34,000 adult
       American shad  were trapped at Conowingo Dam and transported to upstream spawning
       waters in PA. 7.5 million marked American shad larvae were stocked at several sites
       throughout the  upper Susquehanna.  Outmigrating juvenile American shad were monitored
       on the Susquehanna, and phase III of the Susquehanna River Tributary Blockage study
       was completed.

•      Virginia opened no new miles of habitat in 1996 but approached conclusion offish
       passage construction negotiations for Boshers Dam at Richmond.  Virginia, in partnership
       with US FWS, also stocked over 5,000 adult herring in the upper James River. They also
       reared and released 7.7 million American shad larvae for the James and Pamunkey Rivers.
       Juvenile alosid populations were monitored in several rivers, and Phase I of the
       Rappahannock  River Basin Impediment Survey was completed.

•      Throughout 1996, all Bay jurisdictions and federal partners were active in education and
       outreach efforts providing numerous presentations, fish passage tours, and displays at
       river festivals and other forums.

In addition to 1996 and prior year results, this report also discusses fish passage projects currently
in the planning, design, or construction phases for 1997 and future years.  These projects will
contribute to reaching Bay Program goals.

-------
                                      Introduction

The Fish Passage Workgroup of the 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 offish
passage facilities, dam removal, reconstruction of highway culverts, or by creating breaches or
notches in dams. The Workgroup includes representatives from the District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA), the U.S: Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS), and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). An interagency agreement between the US EPA and NOAA/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  amongst these jurisdictions and
agencies has resulted in opening up many miles of stream habitat 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 formalized short- and long-term goals for this
initiative with 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. Ultimately, this initiative is aimed at restoring
populations of anadromous species,  particularly American 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 1,356.75 miles, which includes 148.7 miles opened prior to the Directive.

Prior 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 and federal partners also
have been participating in other efforts, such as commenting on and processing hydroelectric
project licenses through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), stocking of cultured
American shad, trap and transport of adult shad and herring, surveying of stream habitats,  and
providing public education.

All jurisdictions and other agency representatives on the Fish Passage Workgroup are expanding
efforts throughout the watershed.  Design, construction, and associated projects for the
restoration of anadromous fish are accelerating. 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 decreasing budgets. As a result, fish passage

-------
programs have been scaled back.  Two other common and persistent problems that slow progress
include legal difficulties and the negotiation offish passage agreements with public and private
property owners.

This report provides a description of all fish passage development, reintroduction efforts, and
habitat assessment activities by the signatory jurisdictions.  A summary of federal agency activities
in 1996, as well as those activities and actions planned for 1997, are presented. In addition, a
"Baywide Summary" (page 41) relates  1996 and prior year actions with the stated five and ten-
year goals of Directive 93-4.

-------
                           DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

L Fish Passage Initiatives

Table 1, Figure 1, and Map 1 at the end of this chapter provide details of 1996 fish passage
progress in the District of Columbia.

A. Completed Fish Passage Projects

In 1996, no fish passage projects were completed in the District of Columbia.

B. Fishway Progress

During 1996, the District of Columbia's Fisheries Management Branch (DC FMB) program staff
conducted weekly monitoring of river herring activity around the lower fish passage blockage in
Rock Creek (Ford #l).This sampling documented prevention of upstream movement of the
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) during the breeding
season.  We plan to use this information to help justify the expenditure of funds to have the barrier
(Ford #1) removed in 1997.

C. Monitoring and Stream Surveys

During 1996, the DC FMB continued monitoring the lower reach of Rock Creek. Since 1993,
this monitoring has to helped determine species composition and abundance in Rock Creek. In
addition to the regular monitoring work, ichthyoplankton collections were made weekly from the
last week in March until the first week in June at a site just upstream from the mouth of Rock
Creek and just downstream of the first instream migration barrier (Ford #1).

Ichthyoplankton data suggests that most spawning occurs in late March upstream of the first
instream barrier and continues in Rock Creek until the middle of May. Data collected during our
1996 electrofishing surveys indicated that adult alewife entered Rock Creek by the last week in
March and adult blueback herring were in the creek by the last week in April.  During both
March and April, alewife and blueback were observed moving upstream past the first instream
blockage on Rock Creek. This barrier is an abandoned ford located at stream mile 2.6. Hundreds
offish were still blocked from upstream migration however and were congregated just
downstream of this blockage.  The limited movement offish over this barrier was flow-related,
with only moderate to high flows allowing fish to surmount this obstacle.  A similar ford at stream
mile 3.8 (Ford #2) was not surveyed regularly due to its inaccessibility. However, the first
blockage has a much lower vertical profile. So if fish were able to pass the Ford #1, Ford #2
would provide little or no obstacle to upstream migration. These two barriers are the last
obstructions to fish passage in the first 4.4 stream miles of Rock Creek. Once they are removed,
they will allow a record numbers offish to migrate as far upstream as Pierce Mill Dam.

-------
An ongoing icthyoplankton, juvenile and adult sampling program was continued in 1996 to
inventory migratory fish reaching the District of Columbia.  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 station is located near the
upstream limit of the District of Columbia'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. metro area, blocks about 10 miles of Potomac River migratory fish spawning and nursery
habitat. Migratory fish sampled at these sites help  determine the potential population available to
recolonize the spawning habitat above the barriers. Icthyoplankton surveys will help document
any improvement in the spawning success of anadromous species after the barriers are removed.

DC FMB personnel continued to  tag striped bass captured during their monthly river surveys.
Recapture of these tagged fish will compliment tagging activities carried out in the surrounding
jurisdictions.

D.  Trap, Transport and Stocking

In 1996 there was no trap and transport activity within the District of Columbia.

n.  Fish Passaee Support Activities

A.  Public Relations and Education

In 1996, the DC FMB made extensive use of its Aquatic Resource Education Center (AREC)
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 of Columbia
and about the interrelationship between the District's and the Bay's aquatic resources.  In
addition, the District of Columbia, in partnership with the Potomac Electric Power Company
(PEPCO) and the National Park Service (NPS), began the design of an expansion of the AREC.
This will provide for additional classroom space as well as a demonstration hatchery facility.

In addition, the DC FMB has an  in-school program which sends staff to area schools to give
presentations about the area's aquatic resources. In 1996, this program was presented to over
2000 students and  their teachers.  These classes are also given information which the teachers use
to supplement their regular instruction to help reinforce the presentations given by the DC FMB
staff.

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 Chesapeake Bay.  To this end, the DC FMB will
continue to use its  staff and the AREC to disseminate information.  Once the addition to AREC is
completed and there is a fishway at Pierce Mill Dam, the District hopes to work cooperatively

-------
with PEPCO and the NFS to make these facilities outstanding educational tools.  It is believed
that an expanded AREC and a working fishway in the Nation's Capitol would help illustrate that
there are still opportunities to greatly improve the environment, especially in an urbanized area.

ffl. Other Future Activities

A. Plans for 1997

Within the next year, the DC FMB plans to remove the last two instream barriers to fish passage
below Pierce Mill Dam. After these barriers are removed, a fishway will need to be built at Pierce
Mill to provide alewife and blueback herring access to the rest of their historical spawning
grounds in Rock Creek.

B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Five-Year Goal (1993-1998)

The District of Columbia's Five-Year Goal is to open 32 miles. A Denil fishway needs to be
designed and constructed at Pierce Mill Dam, the largest upstream fish passage blockage on Rock
Creek within the District of Columbia.  In addition to its direct fish passage benefit, this fishway
will be used as an educational tool.

C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Ten-Year Goal (1993-2003)

The District of Columbia's Ten-Year Goal is to open 32.6 miles. When the possibility offish
passage through the boulder field is demonstrated, and after a fishway is built at Pierce Mill Dam,
six low head barriers remain.  Depending on flow, these barriers may block fish passage upstream
to the Maryland state line. These barriers include five sewer crossings and one ford.  After fish
passage is provided at Pierce Mill Dam, the DC FMB's Ten-year goal is to provide fish passage at
the remaining barriers on Rock Creek, up to the Maryland state line.

-------
                      Table 1
      District of Columbia 1996 Fish Passage Projects
            Completed, In Progress, Planned
Map
n>r
i
2
3
Project (Stream & River
Drainage)
Ford #1, Rock Creek;
Potomac
Ford #2, Rock Creek;
Potomac
Pierce Mill, Rock Creek;
Potomac
Passage Type
Removal
Removal
Denil
Habitat Opened
CMiies>
0.70
1.10
29.2
Funding Source
DCFMB
DCFMB
DC FMB/EPA
Status
\
Planned
Fall 1997
Planned
Fall 1997
Planned
                     Figure 1
       Fishway Progress in the District of Columbia
            District of Columbia's
Progress towards 2003 Fish Passage Goals
              1.6 miles
                                   D Miles opened through
                                     1996
                                   El Miles to be opened
                                     between 1997-2003
                        10

-------
Map 1: Fishway Progress in the District of Columbia
                                                                                   \
                                                              Fishway in progress




                                                              Completed before 1996
                                                                           If
                                        11

-------
                                   MARYLAND

I.  Fish Passage Initiatives

Table 2, Figure 2, and Map 2 at the end of this chapter provide details of 1996 fish passage
progress in Maryland.

A.  Completed Fishway Projects

Unicorn Dam Fishway: Construction of the Alaskan steeppass fishway began in September,
1996 and was completed by the end of the year.  However, midway during construction, serious
defects affecting the integrity of the dam required extensive repairs. The Maryland Department of
the Environment's Dam Safety Division issued an emergency directive requiring completion of the
repairs as soon as possible.  Repairs will be completed during the first quarter of 1997. Funding
for fishway design, construction and about 40% of the dam repairs were provided by the
Chesapeake Bay Program.  The remaining 60% of the dam repairs were funded by the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR) Fisheries Service.

The Unicorn Dam fishway,  located just south of Millington, MD on Unicorn Branch, is the first of
three fishways scheduled for the upper Chester River basin. It reopened a 22.5 square mile water-
shed with 14.5 stream miles of migratory fish spawning habitat. Due to the quality  and
importance of the freshwater ecosystem in the upstream of the dam, the fishway was designed to
exclude white perch and common carp, which are potential nuisance species in a freshwater lake.

B.  Fishway Progress

Simkins Dam Fishway, Patapsco River, Baltimore and Howard Counties:  Construction of a
Denil fishway at this site, located  on the Patapsco River about one mile downstream of Ellicott
City, Maryland, was about 30% complete at the end of 1996.  Major repairs to this dam are not
necessary. Construction should be completed by the end of June,  1997.  This project was funded
through a public/private agreement between the state of MD and Simkins Industries, the dam's
owner. The majority of the design and construction costs were covered by state and Chesapeake
Bay Program grant funds. In addition, Simkins Industries has donated some funding and 38.4
acres of forested land that will become part of the Patapsco Valley State Park. The Simkins
fishway is the fourth and last fishway on the Patapsco River's mainstem and will allow fish to
ascend forty-four miles of the Patapsco for the first time in  155 years.

Broadway Branch Dam, Lake Bonnie, Chester River, Caroline County: The final
engineering design of an Alaskan  Steeppass fishway began in late 1996. Completion of the design
is scheduled for spring  1997 and construction should begin in late summer.

Johnsons Pond Fishway, Wicomico River, Wicomico County:  The project is located in the
City of Salisbury on Maryland's lower Eastern Shore. The final engineering design of a Denil


                                          12

-------
fishway at this site began in late 1996. The design should be completed in the second quarter of
1997 and construction should begin in the fall.

Midway Branch Culvert at Range Road, Little Patuxent River, Anne Arundel County:
The culvert, located on former property of Fort George G. Meads, is now the property of thee
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge. A contract to provide final
engineering design services for an Alaskan Steeppass fishway at the culvert was awarded in
November, 1996.  The design should be completed in the first half of 1997 and construction will
likely begin in late summer 1997.

Wilson Mill Dam, Deer Creek, Susquehanna River, Harford County: The final engineering
design of a Denil fishway began in later summer of 1996 and construction is anticipated to begin
in late summer of 1997.  Although designed for shad and herring, this project is the first Maryland
fishway designed specifically for hickory shad.

Andover Branch Fishway, Chester River, Kent County:  Although this project is the most
important of the three fishways planned for the Upper Chester River basin, it has been postponed
indefinitely, because an acceptable agreement with the dam's private owner could not be reached.
Next steps are under consideration.  The Chesapeake Bay Program funding for this fishway was
transferred to the Unicorn  fishway (above) to help fund the dam repairs and to the Simkins Dam
fishway (above) to assist with construction costs.

Cypress Branch Fishway, Cypress Branch, Chester River, Kent County: Plans to construct
an Alaskan Steeppass fishway at this dam has been canceled because of the required dam repairs
and the necessary construction of a spillway to accommodate a 100-year storm event.  Instead,
the dam will be breached by removing the existing overflow spillway, which is crumbling.
Preliminary evaluations of the wetlands and pond  upstream from the dam and of the pond and
stream below the spillway were conducted.  The breach should be completed in late 1997.  At this
time it is believed that breaching the dam will not  adversely affect the upstream wetlands.

Dorsey Run Dam, Little Patuxent River, Anne Arundel County: The dam removal was
postponed pending resolution of wetland and stream stabilization issues. Wetland restoration in
the floodplain above and adjacent to the dam, stream bank  stabilization and upstream bottom
dredging of sediments will  likely be required in addition to the proposed dam removal. During
1996,  the MD DNR Fisheries Service completed an analysis of upstream sediment to determine
the potential for various strata to move downstream after the dam is removed. Results of this
analysis showed that large-scale movement of upstream sediment would be unlikely with the
removal of this dam.

State Highway Administration Road Crossings: Engineering designs were prepared and permit
applications submitted for fishways at the following road culverts: Gilbert Run, Rt 6;  Gilbert
Swamp Run, Rt 232; and Nassawango Creek,  Rt  12.
                                          13

-------
Urieville Fishway, Morgan Branch, Chester River, Kent County: The design of a fishway at
this site has been delayed because it may be necessary to dredge the 35 acre lake above the dam.
If a decision is made to dredge, the fishway will be postponed for at least two years.

Little Falls Dam, Potomac River: Located about one mile upstream from the District of
Columbia city line, Little Falls Dam is one of Maryland's highest priority fish passage projects.
The overall project is coordinated through the Little Falls Taskgroup of the Fish Passage
Workgroup and is state, federally and privately funded.  During 1994, topographical studies of the
river bottom near the proposed fishway were completed, and a three dimensional model of the
area was constructed. In 1995, various fish passage options were studied by the S.O. Contee
Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory. In 1996, a conceptual design of a 24 foot wide notch
with three labyrinth weirs, one in the notch and two immediately below it, were provided by the
Contee Laboratory and approved by the Maryland Fish Passage Program.  In addition, a feasibility
study was completed. During 1997, the final engineering design will be completed, wetlands
evaluations performed and all required permits obtained. Construction will begin as soon as
possible after competition of these tasks.

C.  Monitoring and Stream Surveys

Adult Alosid Monitoring

During the Spring of 1996, the MD DNR Fisheries Service conducted electron" shing in the lower
Susquehanna River basin in Deer Creek below Wilson's Mill Dam. Hickory shad and alewife
were found in large numbers below the dam. American shad were collected from the Conowingo
Dam fish lift for otolith analysis and to provide hatchery stocks. To reduce handling  stress, fish
were also collected from recreational sport fishermen below the Conowingo dam.  Hickory shad
were collected by hook and line from recreational fishermen on the banks of the Susquehanna
River for hatchery culture and Deer Creek for an angling mortality study.

Juvenile Alosid Monitoring

The MD DNR Fisheries Service conducted monitoring in 1996 in the Patuxent and Choptank
River systems. A seine survey collected 221 juvenile American shad (32% hatchery tagged) and
44 hickory shad (1% hatchery tagged).  Choptank River surveys captured 107 juvenile American
shad (55% hatchery) and 14 hickory shad (0% hatchery). There were no American shad or
hickory shad captured in these tributaries prior to these studies for 35 years.

Wicomico River Assessment

Through an Interagency Agreement, the MD DNR Fisheries Service, the Maryland Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, the Coastal Ecology Research Laboratory, and University of
Maryland, Eastern Shore jointly performed an assessment of anadromous fishes in the Wicomico
River.  This study focused on demonstrating that anadromous species congregate and spawn


                                          14

-------
below the proposed fishway at the Johnson Pond Dam. American shad, alewife, and blueback
herring were found below the dam. Clupeids, especially alewife and blueback herring, were found
spawning in high numbers below the dam. (This report is available from Larry Leasner, Chief of
Special Projects, MD DNR Fisheries Service, 410 260-8341).

Habitat Survey in the Wicomico and Lower Susquehanna River Basins

This survey was conducted through a Memorandum of Agreement between the MD DNR
Fisheries Service and the Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division.  This study
characterized and estimated potential spawning and juvenile habitat suitable for anadromous and
semi-anadromous fish (This report is available from Larry Leasner, Chief of Special Projects, MD
DNR Fisheries Service, 410 260-8341).  Streams above Johnsons Pond Dam on the Wicomico
River and those above Wilsons Mill Dam on Deer Creek in Harford County were studied.

Stream Assessments and Database Management

•      Streams within the Patuxent River basin and streams above State Highway Administration
       road crossings were assessed for their fish passage potential.
•      Version 2 of the Maryland Fish Passage database was published and provided to various
       agencies and public  groups. Additions and refinements to  the database will continue as
       needed.

D.  Trap, Transport, and Stocking

During 1996, American and hickory shad larvae and juveniles were stocked in the lower
Susquehanna, the Patuxent  and Choptank Rivers. MD DNR Fisheries  Service biologists collected
American shad from the Conowingo Dam fish lift and from recreational sports fishermen. These
fish provided the eggs from which stocked larvae were produced at the Manning Hatchery.
Because hickory shad were not regularly captured by the fish lift, all hickory shad were collected
by hook and line from recreational fishermen on the banks of the Susquehanna River and Deer
Creek.  A total of 920,000 American shad larvae were stocked at 3-6 days post hatch in the
Susquehanna River.  In the Patuxent River, 654,552 American shad larvae were stocked at 9-12
days post-hatch and 745,870 hickory shad larvae were stocked at  3 days post-hatch. In the
Choptank River, 626,127 American shad larvae were stocked at 6-12 days post-hatch and
125,000 hickory shad larvae were stocked at 3 days post hatch.

n. Fish Passage Support Activity

A. Public Relations and Education

•     Fish passage displays were set up at the Herring Run festival at Herring Run Park in
      Baltimore, the Shad Festival in Vienna and the Patapsco River Appreciation Festival at the
      Patapsco River State Park.
                                          15

-------
•      Tours of fishways were provided to a delegation from the state legislature, a group of
       Assistant Attorneys General and students.
•      MD DNR Fisheries Service worked with an engineering professor at the University of
       Maryland, Baltimore County campus. Students were assigned the task of drawing
       conceptual fishway designs for the Unicorn and Simkins Dams. The students were
       provided with fish passage program overview lectures and technical specifications and
       guidance. At the end of the semester, the students' designs were compared to the
       professional fishway designs.  Some of the designs were "unique" and some were not too
       different from the professional designs.
•      Presentations were given to students at two elementary schools.
•      Fish passage interviews were given to the Baltimore Sun newspaper and Channel 17  in
       Salisbury, Maryland.

B. Future Public Relations and Education

The Fish Passage Program will continue providing educational outreach to schools and interested
groups upon request.

m.  Other Future Activities

A. Plans for 1997

•      Construction: In  1997, construction of the following fishways should be completed:
       Simkins Dam; Wilson Mill Dam; Broadway Branch Dam; Johnsons Pond Dam; Cypress
       Branch Dam; Dorsey Run Dam; the Range Road culvert at Midway Branch; Rt 6, Gilbert
       Run; Rt 232, Gilbert Swamp run; Rt 12,  Nassawango Creek; and Rt 589, Turville Creek.
•      Stream assessments: This work will continue on streams at State Highway
       Administration culverts and in the Patuxent River basin.
•      Public outreach:  Outreach and education will continue upon request.

B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Five-Year Goal (1993-1998)

The Maryland Fish Passage Program has completed 38 projects to date, reopening 173 miles of
migratory fish spawning habitat. Achieving Maryland's Five-year goal of 316.6 miles will depend
on available funding and the resolution of technical or legal issues that may arise.

C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Ten-Year Goal (1993-2003)

Maryland's portion of the ten year goal is to reopen a total 388.65 miles of stream habitat. The
additional 72.5 miles beyond the 1998 goal is achievable and could be exceeded.
                                          16

-------
             Table 2
Maryland 1996 Fish Passage Projects
  Completed, In Progress, Planned
:^ '" '/•
1
2
3
4
5
6






t'/f'#itf^'&tnim & Bivsr
;fl- '-;" ' drainage) - ,
; -'/ „ ', <' ' ••
Unicorn Dam, Unicorn Branch,
Chester River
Simkins Dam, Patapsco River
Broadway Branch Dam,
Chester River
Johnsons Pond Dam,
Wicomico River
Range road Culvert, Midway
Branch, Little Patuxent River
Wilsons Mill Dam, Deer Creek,
Susquehanna River
Andover Branch Dam,
Andover Branch, Chester River
Cypress Branch Dam,
CypressBanch,Chester River
Dorsey Run Dam, Dorsey Run,
Little Patuxent River
Rt 6 Culvert Gilbert Creek
Wicomico River (west)
Rt 12 Culvert/USGS Weir,
Nassawango Creek, Pocomoke
River
Rt 232 Culvert, Gilbert Swamp
Run,
Wicomico River (west)
Passage
Type
Alaskan
Steeppass
Denil
Alaskan
Steeppass
Denil
Alaskan
Steeppass
Denil
Denil
Breach
Removal
Pool&
Weir
Notch
Pool&
Weir
Habitat
Opened
(miles)
14.5
3.8
12.5
25.0
1.2
24.0
25.0
12.0
7.0
9.0
49.0
6.6
Funding
Source
Federal/
State
State/
Federal
Federal
Federal
State
Federal
Federal
Federal
State
State
State
State
Stains
Completed
1996
Construction
ongoing
Design
ongoing
Design
ongoing
Design
ongoing
Design
ongoing
Planned
Planned
Planned
Planned
Planned
Planned
               17

-------







Urieville Dam,Morgan Creek,
Chester River


Little Falls Dam, Potomac
River

Alaskan
Steeppass
/pool
& weir
Notch
with three
weirs
5.0



11.0


Federal



Federal/
State

Planned



Planned


                   Figure 2
            Fishway Progress in Maryland
                 Maryland's
Progress towards 2003 Fish Passage Goals
             14.5 miles
                                 m Miles opened in 1996

                                 D Miles opened through
                                   1995
                                 01 Miles to be opened
                                   between 1997-2003
                     18

-------
Map 2: Fishway Progress in Maryland
        9  Fishway in progress



         O   Completed before 1996
20
                                          19
40 miles

-------
                                 PENNSYLVANIA

I. Fish Passage Initiatives

Table 3, Figure 3, and Map 3 at the end of this chapter provides details of 1996 fish passage
progress in Pennsylvania.

A. Completed Fishway Projects

Williamsburg Station Dam, Frankstown Branch of Juniata River, Blair County: Breaching,
demolition and disposal of Williamsburg Station Dam has been completed. Williamsburg Station
Dam was the first blockage on the Frankstown Branch of the Juniata River upstream from
Warrior Ridge Dam on the Juniata River.  The removal of this dam provides about 19.3 miles of
potential alosid habitat. Additional blockages remain downstream.

Huntingdon Water Authority Dam, Standing Stone Creek, Huntingdon County:
Construction of a Denil fishway at the Huntingdon Water Authority Dam was completed and will
be operational for resident species in spring 1997. This project provides 22 miles of potential
Alosid habitat.

B.  Fishway Progress

Susquehanna River Main Stem Blockages

Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haven Facilities: Construction offish lifts at Holtwood and
Safe Harbor Dams was essentially completed in 1996. Fishways at both dams are scheduled to be
tested in early 1997 and to be in service April 1, 1997. A dedication ceremony for these fishways
is scheduled for May 1997.

At York Haven Dam, the Tri-County Boat Club was concerned about the conceptual design for
the "open river" East Channel Dam approach to the fish passage.  This design included three
contiguous 67-foot openings with water control provided by gate works.  The "open river"
concept was replaced by a vertical slot fishway with auxiliary attraction flows. The design of the
fishway is ongoing. The 1993 Fish Passage Agreement between the utilities and fisheries interests
was amended  to reflect the York Haven Dam design and  forwarded to FERC for approval. The
fish passage should be operating no later than April 1, 2000.

Fabri Dam at Sunbury, Northumberland/Snyder County: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) personnel have provided a conceptual design for a vertical slot fishway at the inflatable
dam located at Shikellamy State Park in Sunbury.  The designs have been forwarded to the
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and planning is
underway. DCNR has included the cost for the fishway in their Five-year preliminary budget
proposal. Construction date is pending funding approval.

                                         20

-------
Tributary Blockages

Rock Hill Dam, Conestoga River, Lancaster County: On-site activities to breach, demolish
and dispose of Rock Hill Dam began in December 1996. The contractor is expected to complete
the project by January, 1997.

U. S. Geological Service Weir (USGS), Conestoga River, Lancaster County: A proposal for
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act funding for Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission (PFBC) 1997/98 alosid biomonitoring has been submitted to National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) for approval.  This proposal includes the use of electrofishing for adult
alosids to determine if the weir constitutes a blockage to fish migration. Should the weir impede
migration, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) will be requested to provide fish passage.

City of Lancaster Water Supply Dam, Conestoga River, Lancaster County: A proposal for
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act funding for PFBC alosid biomonitoring
in 1997 and 1998 has been submitted to NMFS for approval.  This proposal includes
electrofishing for adult alosids at the base of the City of Lancaster Water Supply Dam. Upon
documentation of alosids, provisions for fish passage will be mandated as provided by law.

American Paper Products Dam(s), Conestoga River, Lancaster County:  Manheim Township
has purchased two mill dams and 5.3 acres of adjacent property from the American Paper
Products Co. of Philadelphia. An agreement between the PFBC and the Township will allow the
PFBC to provide Bay Program funding for the  breaching, demolition and disposal of the two
dams. This funding will also support a riparian restoration project, which includes demolition of a
large abandoned warehouse and service parking lot. Long-term plans are under development for
a passive-use public park, which will provide access to the Conestoga River.  Removal of the
dams will open 4.3 miles of the Conestoga after passage is provided at the next downstream
blockage, the City of Lancaster Water Supply Dam. Removal is targeted for completion by
September 30,  1998.

Maple Grove Dam (Lancaster Township Dam),  Little Conestoga River,  Lancaster County:
An agreement between the PFBC and the Township will allow the PFBC to provide Bay Program
funding for the breaching, demolition and removal of Maple Grove Dam. The Township has hired
a contractor for engineering design development, which is currently underway. Target date for
project completion is September 30, 1998.

Castle Fin Dam, Muddy Creek, York County: Engineering design for the breaching,
demolition and disposal of Castle Fin Dam is complete.  Permit acquisition is delaying further
progress prompting a request for an extension to the grant activation period.   The new target date
for project completion is September 30, 1997.
                                         21

-------
Marietta Gravity Water Co. Dam, Chickies Creek, Lancaster County:  No agreement
regarding fish passage has been reached between the PFBC and Marietta Gravity Water Company
Dam located at Chickies Rock Park, Lancaster County.  It is doubtful an agreement will be
reached in the near future. Funding originally allocated for this project is being redirected to
implement fish passage at other blockages.

Daily's Dam, Swatara Creek, Dauphin County:  A public meeting regarding PFBC proposal
for breaching, demolition and disposal of Daily's Dam, Swatara Creek, for the purpose offish
passage and habitat restoration, is planned for May  1997. The dam has been identified as the first
blockage on Swatara Creek (river mile 2.0).  Its removal will open approximately 11.0 miles of
stream habitat to migratory fish.

C. Monitoring and Stream Surveys

Despite weather related delays and mechanical shut  downs, the fish lifts at Conowingo Dam
collected 37,500 returning adult American shad during Spring  1996.  Otolith analysis determined
that 55% of these were hatchery fish and a record 45% were wild fish. Biomonitoring of
American shad in the autumn of 1996 indicated successful reproduction of trucked adults:
approximately 42% of the fish migrating downstream and collected above Conowingo Dam were
identified as wild fish.

The Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit has completed the
Susquehanna River Tributary Blockage study. The  inventory identified and characterized over
200 impediments to migratory fish in 17 watersheds below the confluence of the Susquehanna and
Juniata Rivers. Watersheds inventoried include: Conestoga River, Kreutz Creek, Chickies Creek,
E. Conewago Creek, W. Conewago Creek, Codorus Creek, Fishing Creek (Lancaster Co.),
Muddy Creek, Pequea Creek, Otter Creek, Fishing Creek (York Co.), Swatara Creek, Yellow
Breeches Creek, Conodoguinet Creek, Fishing Creek (Dauphin Co.), Fishing Creek (Perry Co.),
and Sherman's Creek.

D. Trap, Transport and Stocking

The trap and transport of alosids from Conowingo Dam, a Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish
Restoration Cooperative funded activity, included approximately 34,000 pre-spawn American
shad in 1996. The primary release site for these fish were the Tri-County Marina upstream of
York Haven Dam and at Columbia, PA.

In 1996 a total of 14.4 million American shad eggs were received and incubated at PFBC Van
Dyke Anadromous Fish Research Station. Of these, 62.7% were successfully hatched.
Approximately 7.5 million American shad fry were marked and stocked into the Susquehanna
drainage including: 4.8 million in the Juniata River; 1 million in the  Susquehanna River; 561,000
in the West Branch of the Susquehanna River; 682,000 in the North Branch of Susquehanna
River; and, 492,000 into three lower tributaries (Conodoguinet Creek, Conestoga River and


                                          22

-------
Standing Stone Creek). Biomonitoring determined that approximately 58% of the juveniles
moving downstream and captured in fall 1996 were of hatchery origin.

n.  Fish Passage Support Activities

A.  Public Relations and Education

In 1996, PFBC staff displayed an exhibit on American shad restoration in the Susquehanna River
at events in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Numerous slide presentations on migratory fish
restoration were given by staff to various sportsmen, environmental and special interests groups.
Also, the PFBC Anadromous Fish Restoration Unit gave numerous tours of the Van Dyke
Research Station for Anadromous Fish to a number of organizations during 1996.  Finally, shad
stocking activities on the West and North Branches of the Susquehanna River and Standing Stone
Creek were extensively covered by the local newspaper, radio and television media.

B.  Future Public Relations and Education

In 1997, initiatives to expand the PFBC public education and awareness efforts with regard to the
Chesapeake Bay Program  and migratory fish restoration in Pennsylvania will continue. The PFBC,
in conjunction with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, is planning a shad festival at the Borough of
Huntingdon on the Juniata River in late May.  In addition, the PFBC will conduct media events on
migratory fish restoration in the  Susquehanna Basin. Numerous slide presentations and exhibits
on migratory fish restoration are also scheduled for 1997.

HI. Other Future Activities

A. Plans for 1997

•       Complete construction offish lifts at Holtwood Dam and Safe Harbor Dam to open 32
       miles of Susquehanna River and 28 miles of tributaries, third order or larger, from their
       mouths to the first  upstream blockage.
•       Breach and remove Castle Fin Dam, Rock Hill Dam, American Paper Product Co.  Dam
       (Manheim Township), Maple Grove Dam (Lancaster Township) and a low-head dam on
       Fishing Creek, Clinton County to open a cumulative 38 miles of tributaries, third order or
       larger, not previously included in Pennsylvania's 10-year Bay Program goal.
•       Complete fishway design for York Haven Dam, Cave Hill Dam and proposed dam on Mill
       Creek, a tributary to the  Conestoga River.
•       Negotiate agreements for fish passage at City of Lancaster Water Supply Dam (Conestoga
       River), Daily's Dam (Swatara Creek) and Carson Long Dam (Sherman's Creek).
•       Continue to expand the PFBC public education and awareness initiatives, as well as
       develop programs to identify and acquire additional funding to supplement pre-existing
       monies for the removal of tributary blockages.
                                          23

-------
       Target additional tributary blockages for removal and submit funding proposals to the Bay
       Program for approval.
•      Continue funding for the Fish Passage Coordination project.

B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Five-Year Goal (1993 - 1998)

The five-year goal for Pennsylvania is 32 miles.  The Directive specifically included opening the
main stem of the Susquehanna River to migratory fishes by providing passage at Holtwood and
Safe Harbor Dams. These projects will be operational in 1997 and will make accessible an
additional 46 miles of tributaries, third order or larger, to migratory fish.  This additional mileage
was not previously included in Pennsylvania's Bay Program ten-year goal.

Forty-one miles of third order or larger tributaries not previously included in Pennsylvania's Bay
Program goals were opened in 1996 with the completion offish passage projects at Williamsburg
Station Dam and Huntingdon Water Authority Dam.  Also, PFBC expects to provide fish passage
at City of Lancaster Water Supply Dam, Daily's Dam, and at tributary blockages yet to be
determined.

C. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program's Ten-Year Goal  (1993 - 2003)

The ten-year goal for Pennsylvania is 520 miles. This will be completed several years early by
providing fish passage at York Haven Dam in 2000. Other potential projects beyond 1998
include the Fabri Dam, Warrior Ridge Dam, Oakland Dam, Brenneman's Dam, Cave Hill Dam,
and Hykes Mill Dam, and Carson Long Dam. For planning purposes, fish passage is expected at
ten additional high priority blockages on tributaries to the Susquehanna River by 2003.
                                          24

-------
               Table 3
Pennsylvania 1997 Fish Passage Projects
   Completed, in Progress, Planned
Map
;a» -.
i
2
3
4
5
6
4
5




Pr«|eet (Stream &
, River drainage)
Williamsburg Station
Dam, Frankstown
Br. Juniata R.
Huntingdon Water
Authority Dam,
Standing Stone Ck.;
Juniata R.
Holtwood Dam,
Susquehanna R.
Safe Harbor Dam,
Susquehanna R.
York Haven Dam,
Susquehanna R.
Rock Hill Dam,
Conestoga R.
*Fabri Dam,
Susquehanna R.
Castle Fin Dam,
Muddy Ck.
USGS Weir,
Conestoga River
Lancaster Water
Authority Dam,
Conestoga R.
American Paper
Products Co. Dam,
Conestoga R.
Maple Grove Dam,
Little Conestoga R.
i Passage 'Eype
>
Breach &
remove
Denil fishway
Lift
Lift
Vertical
slot fishway
Breach &
remove
Vertical slot
fishway
Breach &
remove
Undetermined
Undetermined
Breach &
remove
Breach &
remove
Habitat
Opened
(Miles)
19.3
22.0
9.0
23.0
169.3
18.5
310.0
4.3
unknown
11.0
2.5
unknown
Funding
Source
Private
Local
Government
Private
Private
Private
Federal/
Private
State
Federal/
Private
Federal/State
Lancaster
Water
Authority
Federal/ State/
Private
State/Local
Government
Status
Complete
Complete
Construction
ongoing
Construction
ongoing
Design
ongoing
Construction
ongoing
Design
ongoing
Design
complete
Status
Pending
Negotiations
Planned
Planned
                 25

-------
                       Pennsylvania Fish Passage Projects (Cont.)










Marietta Gravity
Water Co. Dam,
Chickies Ck.
Daily's Dam,
Swatara Ck.
Oakland Dam, N. Br.
Susquehanna R.
Warrior Ridge Dam,
Frankstown Br.
Juniata R
Lapp's Dam,
Conestoga R.
Hykes Mill Dam,
W. Conewago Ck.
Dam near Union
Deposit, Swatara Ck.
Brenneman's Dam,
Conodoguinet Creek
Cave Hill Dam,
Conodoguinet Ck.
Carson Long Dam,
Shermans Creek
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Denil
Undetermined
1.8
9.2
5.0
81.3
4.3
22.0
25.4
9.2
22.2
7.0
Undetermined
Federal/ State/
Private
Private
Private
Federal/ State/
Private
Undetermined
Federal/ State/
Private
Undetermined
Local
Government
Undetermined
Negotiations
Negotiations
FERC
permit
requirement
FERC
permit
requirement
Negotiations
Negotiations
Anticipated
Anticipated
State permit
requirement
Negotiations
*Anadromousfish can freely pass this site until late May -when the dam is inflated.  Thus, it is an
impediment for late arriving fish.
                                         26

-------
                 Figure 3
       Fishway Progress in Pennsylvania
              Pennsylvania's
Progress towards 2003 Fish Passage Goals
          41.3 miles
                9 miles
                                 m Miles opened in 1996

                                 D Miles opened through 1995

                                 m Miles to be opened
                                   between 1997-2003
                   27

-------
Map 3: Fishway Progress in Pennsylvania
                   PENNSYLVANIA
                     MARYLAND
         0   Fishway in progress
         O   Completed before 1996
                           20
                                       40 miles
                                            28

-------
                                     VIRGINIA

L Fish Passage Initiatives

Table 4, Figure 4, and Map 4 at the end of this chapter provide details of 1996 fish passage
progress in Virginia.

A. Completed Fish Passage Projects

Progress was made for several fish passage projects, however none were completed in 1996.

B. Fishway Progress

Harvell Dam, Appomattox River, City of Petersburg: The owner, Joshua Greenwood, of
Greenwood Ironworks, completed the design of a Denil fishway for this 9 foot dam, and the plans
were approved by the US FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
issued orders to Greenwood Ironworks to proceed with the construction of the fishway. The
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Virginia Marine Resource Commission (VMRC)
permits were obtained and a temporary dam to allow for fishway construction (a cofferdam) was
in place before the end  of the year.  Several pieces of the attraction water system were under
construction in the powerhouse and excavation for the fishway began in 1996. FERC also
granted the owner's request to generate hydroelectric power up to March 1, 1997 even though the
fishway was  not yet completed. This project will open 5.6 miles and should be completed for the
1998 spring spawning run.

Boshers Dam, James River, Henrico County:  This  10 foot high dam is the last blockage to
migratory fish on the James River in Richmond. A fishway here will open 137.6 mainstem miles
and 168 tributary miles, third order or larger, of anadromous fish spawning habitat up to
Lynchburg. A conceptual plan for a vertical slot fishway was provided by the US FWS in 1994
and the final  design was completed by J.K. Timmons & Associates in August 1996.  The final
design was accepted for construction by the city of Richmond, the VDGIF, and the US FWS.
VMRC issued their permit and the Virginia Department Environmental Quality (DEQ) plans to
issue a permit waiver. Three construction bids were opened on September 13, 1996; however,
the lowest bid, at $1,292,000, was more than double the original budget allocated for this project.
The construction grant  was approved by Richmond City Council in late September, but due to
this funding discrepancy, it remained unsigned by the City Manager.

The City of Richmond,  J.K. Timmons & Associates, and the VDGIF met with US FWS engineers
to discuss possible design changes that would reduce construction costs. The meeting was
successful in identifying some minor changes but none that would greatly reduce costs.  The City
of Richmond and the VDGIF also met with two representatives from English Construction, Inc.,
the low bidding construction company, to discuss cost saving options. None, however, were


                                         29

-------
identified, and by the end of 1996 the bid had not been withdrawn by English nor rejected by the
City of Richmond. More funding will therefore be needed in the near future for this project to be
completed.  Several options include funding from VMRC, private funds through the James River
Association, and possibly State funds allocated by the General Assembly of Virginia.

Negotiations continue regarding the dam's transfer of ownership from CSX Railroad to the City
of Richmond. After these negotiations are finalized, the City of Richmond will need to obtain an
ACOE permit for construction of the fishway. The City of Richmond will maintain the fishway
and the VDGIF will operate the facility.  Due to additional water supply issues above Boshers
Dam, the VDGIF will be required to operate the fishway according to operating regulations
outlined in the pending ACOE permit. These permit conditions are not  expected to alter normal
spring fishway operations.

Rufilns Pond Dam, Massaponax Creek, Rappahannock River, Spottsylvania County:
Chesapeake Bay Program funds originally designated for fish passage at Ashland Mill Dam were
extended and transferred to Ruffins Pond Dam. A Denil fishway for this 16-foot high dam is
being designed by J.K. Timmons & Associates and is based on conceptual plans from the US
FWS. Timmons submitted the first draft of the final design in October 1996 and by the end of
December,  Tarmac America, Inc. (a concrete company), the VDGIF and the US FWS accepted
the plans. The project will be put out for bids in January of 1997.  The fishway will not be
completed in time for the 1997 spawning run.  This project is being funded by the VDGIF,
Tarmac, and federal dollars.  Completion of this project will  open  8 tributary miles to a good
herring run.

Embrey Dam, Rappahannock River, Spottsylvania County: This 22-foot high dam in
Fredericksburg is the only mainstem migration impediment on the  Rappahannock River. In 1994,
a sediment  study was conducted to determine if toxic substances were present in the sediment
behind the dam. Early in 1995, the Virginia DEQ reviewed the results and determined that the
sediments retained by Embrey Dam are comparable to other  sediments upstream and that these
sediments would probably not be characterized as hazardous waste as defined in Virginia
regulations. These results allow for the removal of all or part of the dam to be considered.

The City of Fredericksburg and Spottsylvania County decided to  build  a joint water plant at
Mott's Run Reservoir, a tributary to the Rappahannock, a few miles upstream of Embrey
Dam. This will make Embrey Dam obsolete as a water supply by early  1999. Removal of
Embrey is therefore under strong consideration as the best  option for fish passage and would
open 70.6 miles of the mainstem alone.  The City of Fredericksburg has stated that they will
need to keep the historic canal watered even if Embrey Dam  is removed. Satisfying all of
these concerns will be one of the major challenges at Embrey Dam.

Ashland Mill Dam, South Anna River: Negotiations with the owner have temporarily been
terminated due to problems over personal financing of the project. The VDGIF cannot guarantee
that the owner will not spend personal funds or time on the fishway.  The VDGIF plans to reopen


                                         30

-------
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.

C. Monitoring and Stream Surveys

Adult Alosid Monitoring: During the spring of 1996, shad and herring spawning runs were
monitored throughout Virginia by the Fish Passage Coordinator and other Fish Division staff.
Electrofishing 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, below Embrey Dam down to the fall line/tidal
interface on the Rappahannock River; and below Ashland Mill Dam on the South Anna River.
American shad (A. sapidissima), blueback herring (A. aestivalis) and hickory shad (A. mediocris)
were found in the James River. Blueback herring, alewives (A. psuedoharengus), and hickory
shad were found in the Rappahannock, Chickahominy, and Appomattox rivers.  American shad
and blueback herring were found in the South Anna River. American shad were also monitored
during collection by commercial gill netters for VDGIF and USFWS fry culture procedures on the
Pamunkey River. Age and growth rates were determined by Virginia Commonwealth University
for broodstock shad.

Juvenile Alosid Monitoring: A minimal number of ichthyoplankton net samples were taken on
the James River above and below Boshers Dam. The only fish collected were a few juvenile
cyprinids above Boshers Dam. The net will be pushed, instead of towed, in next year's sampling.

Juvenile American shad were collected above and below Boshers Dam on the James River from
July through October of 1996 using pushnet and electrofishing sampling techniques. This is a
major milestone for the shad stocking program, because the habitat above Boshers Dam was
shown to still be suitable for juvenile alosids. All of the shad otoliths examined from fish collected
above Boshers displayed the oxytetracycline (OTC)  mark received in the hatchery prior to
stocking.  Approximately 80% of the American shad juveniles  collected below Boshers Dam were
of hatchery origin. OTC marking will be a valuable tool for evaluating the overall contributions of
wild and hatchery fish to the system, especially after the fishway is passing fish above Boshers
Dam. Juvenile American  shad were also collected on the Pamunkey River with both the pushnet
and electrofishing boat. In contrast to the James, approximately 20% of the otoliths examined
were OTC marked. The Pamunkey Tribal Government shad fry stocking program does not yet
include OTC marking.  Spawning shad are more abundant on the Pamunkey, although fewer
marked fish were stocked in the Pamunkey than in the James.

Juvenile river herring (blueback and alewife) were collected below Boshers Dam by pushnetting
and electrofishing in July and August and above the dam by electrofishing in October. The
presence of herring juveniles above Boshers Dam is evidence that the stocked adults were able to
successfully spawn, the eggs hatched and the fry survived to the juvenile phase.  This increases the
                                          31

-------
significance of finding American shad juveniles above the dam: the habitat is conducive to natural
alosid spawning and recruitment.

Rappahannock River Basin Impediment Survey: The first year of this four-year study was
completed by Virginia Commonwealth University, and the contract with the VDGIF was
continued for the second year of the study. Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) funds are being used
to conduct a comprehensive survey of impediments on Rappahannock River tributaries. The first
year of the study focused on first through third order tributaries of the lower Rappahannock
River. Impediments were characterized and biological sampling was conducted below
impediments to determine migratory fish usage. The initial impediments database was completed
which includes the standardized US EPA CBP fields. Migratory river herring (blueback and
alewife) were documented at several impediments and reference sites. 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.  In addition, an alosid habitat model may be developed which could
be a useful tool for setting habitat restoration goals.

D. Trap, Transport and Stocking

The Fish Passage Coordinator and other VDGIF Fish Division staff, in cooperation with the US
FWS, conducted a trap and transport project for blueback herring  in April 1996.  Blueback
herring were collected by electrofishing below Walkers Dam on the Chickahominy River and
transported in circular tanks to several stocking sites. Over 4,000  herring were stocked into the
James River at Columbia Landing which is approximately 30 miles above Boshers Dam.
Approximately 400 herring were stocked into Big Lickinghole Creek which is near Maidens
Landing (James) and about 400 herring were stocked into Byrd Creek, also near Maidens
Landing. Harrison Lake (on Herring Creek - tributary of lower James) received over 1,200
herring above the existing Denil fishway (US FWS).  Resulting offspring should imprint on the
"upstream habitat" and return in about five years through completed fishways to spawn
themselves.  This will aid in re-establishing the herring runs in these systems.

The American Shad Restoration Coordinator and other VDGJJF Fish Division staff, in cooperation
with the VMRC, the US FWS and the Commercial Watermen of Virginia, collected American
shad broodstock on the Pamunkey River.  The eggs were hatched at the State King and Queen
fish hatchery and the fry otoliths were marked with OTC for identification purposes prior to
stocking. American shad eggs were also hatched at the Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery.
The James River above Boshers Dam received 5.7 million fry and the Pamunkey River received 2
million fry.

n. Fish Passage Support Activities

A. Public Relations and Education

•     The Fish Passage Coordinator presented the Fish Passage Program to a joint meeting of


                                          32

-------
       the Virginia and Tidewater chapters of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) in February.
       The American Shad Restoration Project was also presented at the AFS meeting.
•      A fish passage and anadromous fish restoration presentation was made to the citizens of
       Fredericksburg by the VDGIF in the spring. The Friends of the Rappahannock (FOR)
       sponsored the event. A "bucket brigade" was planned by the FOR and VDGIF to move
       herring over Embrey Dam during VDGIF sampling. The event was canceled due to
       prolonged high water during the spring.
•      In November, the Fish Passage and Shad Restoration coordinators along with a
       representative from the US FWS made a presentation to the Skyline Chapter of Trout
       Unlimited in Lynchburg. The chapter was supportive and made a contribution to the
       James River Association for the Boshers fishway project.

B. Future Public Relations and Education

•      The Fish Passage Coordinator plans to participate in the Shad Festival being held on the
       Rappahannock  River in Fredericksburg in April 1997. This event is being planned by the
       Friends of the Rappahannock and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
•      The Fish Passage Coordinator will be giving a fish passage presentation at the midyear
    •   meeting of the Southern Division of the AFS in San Antonio, Texas (February 1997).
•      Upon request and as opportunities arise, the anadromous fish restoration efforts will be
       presented to the public to gain support.

m. Other Future Activities

A. Plans for 1997

•      Complete fund  raising for, and initiating construction of a vertical slot fishway on Boshers
       Dam on the James River which will open 137.6 miles.
•      Complete the construction of a Denil fishway on Ruffins Pond Dam on Massaponax
       Creek, a tributary of the Rappahannock River which will open 8 miles.
•      Work closely with Greenwood Ironworks on completion of a Denil fishway on Harvell
       Dam (FERC #8657) on the Appomattox River which will open 5.6 miles.
•      Decide on a viable option for fish passage at Embrey Dam on the Rappahannock River.
•      Set future goals for fish passage in Virginia.

B. Meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program Five-Year Goal (1993 - 1998)

Virginia's five-year goal is to open 308 miles.  Williams Island Dam Notch was completed in
November of 1993 and reopened 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 is not yet in
place. This lift will be completed when passage is provided at two downstream dams (Harvell and
Abutment) and will open an additional 127.1 miles. In 1995, a Denil fishway on Chandlers Mill
Dam (Rappahannock drainage) opened 8 miles of the two tributaries feeding Chandlers Pond.
                                          33

-------
The Chandlers fishway is an addition to the original five-year goal. The Boshers fishway should
be completed in 1997 or 1998 and will open 137.6 miles.  A fishway at Ruffins Pond Dam may be
completed in 1997 and will open 8 miles.   The Ashland Mill Dam (S. Anna River) project has
been moved back to the ten-year goal (9 miles).

C. Meeting the Bay Program Ten -Year Goal (1993 - 2003)

Virginia's ten-year goal is to open 415.5 miles which includes 107.5 miles in addition to the 5-year
Goal. Besides completing  projects listed above, the ten-year goal will be achieved by providing
fish passage at Embrey Dam on the Rappahannock (70.6 miles); and the Ashland Mill Dam and
Ashland Water Supply Dam on the South Anna River (37 miles).
                                         34

-------
            Table 4
Virginia 1996 Fish Passage Projects
 Completed, In Progress, Planned
Map
W;
'f 'fa'
i
2







fyoiectj(*treani &
*' rivtr drainage) ' ,
....•" f< '*!.' ?f A'?., s ..*!.. /*•:. . , . ':
Harvell Dam;
Appomattox River;
James
Brasfield Dam;
Appomattox River;
James
Boshers Dam, James
River; James
Ruffins Pond Dam,
Massaponax Creek;
Rappahannock
Embrey Dam;
Rappahannock River;
Rappahannock
Ashland Mill Dam;
S. Anna River; York
Ashland Water Supply
Dam; S. Anna River;
York
Abutment Dam:
Appomattox River;
James
Unnamed Dam; Mill
Creek; Rappahannock
*.
Passage Type
Denil
Lift
Vertical Slot
Denil
Undetermined
Denil
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Habitat
Opened

-------
                    Virginia Fish Passage Projects (Cont.)




Bridge on Walls Creek;
James
Gouldman Pond Dam;
Rappahannock
Unnamed Pond Dam;
Haskins Creek;
Rappahannock
Pipe on Proctors
Creek; James
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
1.2
2.0
2.0
unknown
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Planned
Planned
Planned
Planned
* updated miles
                               Figure 4
                       Fishway Progress in Virginia
                             Virginia's
           Progress towards 2003 Fish Passage Goals
                           ,47.3 miles
                                              D Miles opened through
                                                1996
                                              f! Miles to be opened
                                                between 1997-2003
                                 36

-------
Map 4: Fishway Progress in Virginia
                                                         V
      W   Fishway in progress



      O   Completed before 1996
                                                   If
                        15
30 miles
                                        37

-------
                              FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)

In fiscal year 1996, the US EPA allocated a total of $814,863 for fish passage activities in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.  The activities include the coordination offish passage efforts,
stream blockage surveys, and design and construction offish passage facilities. 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 the fourth Interagency Agreement
(LAG) with the US EPA for "Fisheries and Habitat Restoration in Chesapeake Bay"  Under the
provision of this IAG grant applications were received from Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries.  Project work focuses on the Susquehanna, Choptank, Pattapsco, Patuxent,
James, and Rappahannock River Watersheds. Two other lAGs were signed between the US EPA
and the US FWS to fund (1) monitoring and the stocking of American shad at Little Falls Dam on
the Potomac River, and (2) US FWS engineering expertise for fish passage design in Chesapeake
Bay watershed. Upon completion, the fish passage construction activities are anticipated to open
over 30 additional river miles to anadromous fish migrations.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS)

The National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Region administers the Chesapeake Bay
Program Fish Passage grants, through an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with The Environmental
Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program Office (EPA CBPO), for the fourth consecutive
year.

The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office in coordination with EPA CBPO staff designed a Chesapeake
Bay Fish Passage homepage on the World Wide Web. Located at
http://chesapeakebay.net^ayprog^am/cbp_home^ayprog/committ/lrsc/fpwg/passview.htrn.  This
interactive internet site provides updated information on progress towards removing impediments
to migratory fish and lists the names, locations, and types of the blockages and passageways in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

NMFS Habitat and Fisheries Engineering staff reviewed and provided comments on the final plans
for the proposed Denil fishway for Harvell Dam, located on the Appomattox River in Petersburg ,
Virginia.  Habitat staff also coordinated and completed an updated map of confirmed, as well as
potential anadromous fish spawning/nursery habitat for the State of Virginia to assist the Norfolk
District, Army Corps of Engineers in Section 10/404 permit review.


                                         38

-------
NMFS continues to contribute to 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 the annual Work Plan.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

A.  Fish Passage and Stocking Activities

The US FWS Susquehanna River Coordinator continued to coordinate the multi-agency shad
restoration program on the Susquehanna River.  In 1996, over 37,500 American shad were
collected at Conowingo Dam and most were safely transported to spawning waters above all
dams. Fifty-five percent of these returning adults were of hatchery origin. Shad hatcheries in
Pennsylvania and Maryland cultured, marked and stocked 8.5 million larval shad in the
Susquehanna. Juvenile surveys conducted during summer and fall months indicated that 58% of
outmigrating shad were from the hatchery and 42% were naturally produced. New fish lifts were
under near completion at Holtwood and Safe Harbor Dams. The Coordinator worked with state
agencies and GPU-Genco to develop an agreement to build a 500,000 shad fish ladder in the East
Channel of the York Haven project by April 2000.
                                                                
-------
herring for re-introduction into the upper watershed of Herring Creek, above the U.S. Fish And
Wildlife Service's Harrison Lake Dam in the James River watershed. A total of 5,000 pre-
spawned blueback herring were moved above Boshers Dam.

Service engineers participated in at least 10 meetings and/or field investigations involving fish
passage projects in the Chesapeake Bay drainage. In addition, the engineering staff provided
technical assistance, conceptual designs, and/or review of designs for 18 fish passage projects in
the Bay area.

The Chesapeake Bay Field Office continued to insure that projects constructed, licensed, or
permitted by the Federal Government include provisions for fish passage where appropriate.  The
Denil fishway at the Harvell Hydro project is now under construction and should be ready for the
1998  migration.

B. Outreach and Education

Several US FWS fishery project leaders attended a "Shad Summit" sponsored by the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation at Bishops Head, MD. The purpose for this meeting was to improve
communications and education and to foster advocacy for shad restoration baywide.  The
Susquehanna River Coordinator hosted Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt during his
National Heritage Tour stop in Harrisburg in June where he specifically noted the value of
maintaining  strong clean water legislation to support migratory fish restoration in the  river and the
Bay.

Service personnel participated in several outreach events to inform the public about the
importance of restoring suitable anadromous fish spawning  and nursery habitat above existing
blockages, and the importance of well run fish culture programs to reintroduce species into
historic habitats.
                                           40

-------
                        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 in the Chesapeake Bay by 2003.  This ten-year goal includes
148.7 miles opened prior to signing the directive.  An interim goal of 582.05 miles was set for the
year 1998, which does not include the pre-directive miles. This directive has focused the goals
and activities of the Fish Passage Workgroup for the past three years.

The Workgroup is moving steadily toward attaining these goals. By the end of 1996 a total of
267.1 miles of anadromous fish spawning and nursery habitat (55.8 in 1996) has been opened.
Significant design work has  been done in all the jurisdictions and over 100 additional miles should
be opened in 1997 throughout the Bay watershed.

The following table and figure 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 - 12/96
1.0
65.8
41.3
10.3
118.4
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.
                                           41

-------
                                Figure 5
                            Baywide Progress
       Baywide Progress Towards Reaching the Executive Council
                  Goal of 1356.05 miles Opened by 2003
   626 miles
                            148.7 miles
                                  118.4 miles
                                 463.65 miles
                             • Miles opened before December
                              1993
                             Q Miles opened 1993-1996

                             B Miles to be opened 1997-1998

                             D Miles to be opened by 1999-2003
                                Figure 6
                          Jurisdictional Progress
600 j

500 --

400--

300 --

200 --

100--

  0
           Jurisdiction progress towards Ten-Year Goal
         DC
MD
PA
                              Q Miles to be opened by 2003
                              • progress through 1996
VA
                                   42

-------
                            Appendix A




Fish Passage Projects Completed after September 1993 through December 1996
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
Deep Run Dam, Patapsco River
Sawmill Creek Culvert, 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
Removal
Pool and Weir
                                43

-------
















Pennsylvania

Virginia






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
Rt. 1 Culvert, Anacostia River
Rt. 208, Anacostia River
Paint Branch Dam #1, Anacostia River
Md Rt. 648, Cattail Creek, Magothy River
Evergreen Road Culvert, Patuxent River
Horsepen Branch Dam, Patuxent River
MD Rt. 234, Budd's Creek (Western Shore)

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
Chandler's Mill Dam, Rappahannock River
Removal
Pool and Weir
Breach
Steeppass
Removal
Removal
Removal
Replacement
Fishlift (2)
Baffle System
Breach
Breach
Alaskan Steeppass
Culvert Replacement
Dam Removal
Steeppass

Vertical slot

Natural Breach
Denil (2)
Denil
Breach
Breach
Denil
44

-------
                                      Appendix B

                           Fish Passage Workgroup Members
Chair:
Richard St.Pierre
Susquehanna River Coordinator
US Fish and Wildlife Service
1721 N. Front Street Suite 105
Harrisburg, PA 17102
717 238-6425
Members:

Carin Bisland
Scott Carney
William Goldsborough
Rick Hoopes
Robert Kelsey
Larry Leasner
John Nichols
Susan Olsen
Richard Quinn
Jon Siemien
Albert Spells
Alan Weaver
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Chesapeake Bay Program
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
District of Columbia Fisheries Branch
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
                                          45

-------