*******DRAFT*****
9/1/00
PLANNING and ASSESSMENT OF SMALL-SCALE FISH PASSAGE and
DAM REMOVAL PROJECTS
By
Chris Lenhart
NOAA Fisheries
Office of Habitat Conservation
Restoration Center
ABSTRACT
-----------------The goal of this assessment is to describe NOAA fish passage project activity at small scale
dams and blockages; provide criteria for planning and monitoring fish passage and dam removal
projects and assess the success of 17 projects carried out by the NOAA Restoration Center’s
Community-Based Restoration Program (CRP) between 1996 and 1999. Suggestions are made
for incorporating dam removal into fish passage policy. While the focuses of these guidelines are
NOAA Community-Based Restoration Center projects, the results are applicable to many small
dam removal projects. The information provided will be applicable in many geographic areas,
but primarily in coastal states and rivers supporting anadromous fish. NOAA managers in field
office locations as well as government and non-profit groups involved in fish passage/dam
removal projects will be able to use this information to prioritize projects, identify appropriate
techniques for achieving fish passage goals and assessing the success of these projects.
I.

INTRODUCTION
Importance of Fish Passage to NOAA Fisheries Goals
Stream blockages are a major impediment to the preservation and/or restoration of anadromous
fish runs, one of NOAA’s major trust resources. Blockages to migratory fish runs may include
man-made barriers such as dams, weirs, undersized or broken culverts, roads, logjams, and
natural barriers such as waterfalls or excessive silt accumulation in-stream. Fish passage may
also be impeded by low flow conditions, when water depth in a stream or culvert becomes too
1
shallow to allow fish to swim through the area (Bates, 1992 and The Wildlife Society and A.F.S.,
1983). The replacement of riverine conditions by reservoirs can be problematic as well, slowing
the migration of downstream migrating juvenile salmon and other fishes (Venditti et al., 2000).
Because the effects of dams on stream ecosystems is well documented elsewhere they will not be
described in detail here. For summaries of these impacts see Bravard et al. (1985), Collier et al.
(1996) and National Research Council (1992). However an understanding of the impacts dams
have on rivers is helpful for understanding habitat changes which may occur following dam
removal. Aside from simply blocking fish passage, dams change in-stream habitat, often
creating conditions in reservoirs that are unsuitable for spawning and/or migration of
anadromous fish. Dams and other impediments also inhibit the movements of certain resident or
riverine fish (OTA, 1995 and Pellet et al, 1998). However, because NOAA Fisheries is
concerned primarily with the protection of living marine resources (LMR), this analysis focuses
only on anadromous fishes.
Fish Passage is a key to the success of NOAA’s Strategic Plan, including the goals to recover
protected species, build sustainable fisheries, and sustain healthy coasts (NOAA, 1996). The
recovery and protection of many endangered and threatened Pacific salmonid (Oncorhynchus
sp.) evolutionary significant units (ESU’s) is a major focus of NOAA Fisheries at this time.
Improving fish passage and/or removing certain dams is a large part of salmon recovery plans.
Fish passage research at large hydroelectric dams has been a major focus of NOAA on the West
Coast, particularly the Columbia River Basin for the last several decades. However, fish passage
at small blockages (culverts, small irrigation and milldams, etc.), has not been a focus of NOAA
activity, though recently they are receiving more consideration (NMFS, 2000). Despite this, the
greatest improvements in fish passage have actually occurred at small blockages in recent years,
including retrofitting of culverts and removing defunct dams.
On the East Coast, fish passage issues involve a more diverse assemblage of anadromous fish,
making fish passage design more difficult (McDowall, 1987)(See Appendix 1). The recovery of
endangered, threatened or diminishing East Coast anadromous fish stocks, including Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar), shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons (Acipenser sp.) are a major priority at
this time (NMFS, 1998). Historically important commercial fisheries on the East Coast,
2
including American Shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus) and to a lesser extent, striped bass (Morone saxatilis), have been heavily
impacted by dam blockages, contributing to declines in all of these species (Funderburk et al.,
1991).

Types of Blockages.
A variety of blockages to anadromous fish passage exist. At small dams and culverts blockages
range from small undersized culverts to dams that are fifteen feet high. Some of the major types
of blockage are dams (hydroelectric, irrigation, millponds, water diversions, etc.); road
blockages (broken culverts or culverts with poor hydraulic design); areas of excessive sediment
accumulation in streams that are barriers at low flow; and natural blockages (waterfalls, logjams,
beaver dams, etc.). At dams, blockage is created upstream for adults and downstream for outmigrating juveniles and repeat-spawning adults. Blockage at culverts are created by poorlydesigned, undersized, or broken culverts, creating an excess drop at the outlet; high velocities
within the culvert barrel; inadequate depth within culvert; high velocity and/or turbulence at
inlet; turbulence within the culvert; and/or debris accumulation at inlet (Bates, 1999; Bates and
Powers 1998 and Robison, et al 1999). Blockages are occasional produced by “natural” causes,
including waterfalls, silt build-up, log jams, and beaver dams. Silt accumulations often create
blockages only at low flows

Types of Dams
There are 3 main categories of dams from a federal regulatory perspective: 1) Federal dams,
2) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-licensed dams, and 3) small dams that don’t
fall under either category. This 3rd category of small dams is the focus of this assessment. The
Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, the US military, and a variety of other federal
agencies own federal dams. Large federal dams were built for a variety of purposes:
hydroelectricity, flood control, and/or water supply. There are approximately 2000 federal dams,
including some of the largest dams in the world, such as Hoover Dam in Nevada/Arizona and
Grand Coulee Dam in Washington. FERC-regulated dams are non-federally owned and include
about 1,850 active hydroelectric dams of various sizes (Francfort et al., 1994). The remainder
of the estimated total 75,000 dams in the U.S. fall into the 3rd category of small, non-FERC
3
dams, which are almost entirely non-hydroelectricity producing dams (Graf, 1999). These small
dams include many aging milldams in the Eastern and Midwestern U.S., small irrigation and
water supply dams, particularly in the western U.S, and a variety of other blockages.

Techniques for achieving fish passage
In order to maintain or restore declining anadromous fish runs, several techniques are used to
improve fish passage around dams and other obstacles (See Clay, 1995 and Orsborn, 1987 for
summaries of upstream passage techniques) (See Thayer, 199_? Also). In the 3rd category of
dams, fish ladders have been historically the primary technique for ensuring upstream fish
passage at small blockages. These ladders generally include denil fishways, portable, aluminum
steeppass ladders, or variations of a pool and weir type ladder. Generally, downstream protection
from entrainment is only provided at large (>15 feet) federal and FERC-licensed hydroelectric
dams. Dam removal, partial breaching, and/or structural modifications to dams that allow fish
passage are being used more frequently to improve fish access because removal provides the
surest way of achieving fish passage (Pyle, 1995 and American Rivers, 1999). Natural bypass
channels are increasingly being used for fish passage primarily in European countries like
Austria and Germany (Jungwirth, 2000). At small dams that meet certain spatial requirements,
bypass channels may represent a viable alternative to fish ladders that does not require dam
removal.
Many of the fish passage techniques used at large hydroelectric dams are not applicable to small
dams. These include the use of fish elevators or locks that are usually only economically
feasible at large dam facilities and so are only provided at FERC and/or federal dams usually.
They were often built at the time of dam construction to fulfill FERC license requirements. Many
aging fish ladders that were installed decades ago are now being required to add new or
improved fish passage technology to meet FERC licensing requirements. Vertical slot and ice
harbor style fish ladders are also generally reserved for large dams in the Western U.S. and a few
large dams in the Northeastern states (reference).
Downstream passage or bypass systems are generally reserved for the large hydroelectric dams
as well (Clay, 1995 and Odeh, 2000). These include bypass systems that use screens, surface
4
collectors, angled bar racks, louvers and other protective devices to divert fish away from
turbines, and prevent entrainment. Experimental techniques such as acoustic devices or strobe
lights are occasionally used to influence fish behavior by deterring fish from turbine intakes.
Finally transport around dams via trapping, trucking and release is occasionally used at large
dams. At small dams, there may occasionally be a bypass pipe to carry fish away from turbines,
but usually fish are just spilled over the top of the dam.
At blockages other than dams, culvert modification or retrofitting is increasingly being done to
improve fish passage on small tributary streams (Bates, 1998). Here the culverts are either
modified to allow fish passage, “daylighted” or opened up, or replaced with more suitable
culverts. Sediment, debris, and rooted tree blockages may also block fish. However, removal of
woody debris and sediment may have detrimental effects, damaging fish cover and destabilizing
streams. Therefore they should only be removed under appropriate conditions (The Wildlife
Society and A.F.S., 1983).
II. NOAA AUTHORITY AND POLICY INVOLVING FISH PASSAGE
A. Policies
1. The FERC hydroelectric dam re-licensing procedure provides an opportunity for NMFS and
US Fish and Wildlife Service to prescribe appropriate fishways. FERC licensing does not
apply to most small dams and other blockages. Fishway prescription authority for NOAA
Fisheries comes from Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and Sections 10(a) and
10(j) of the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) (Railsback et al., 1990).
2. Guidelines on screening of irrigation ditches, downstream protection at dams have been
published by NMFS NW Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. Guidelines on fish passage at
culverts were written by Southwest NMFS in California. (Reference)
B. Fish Passage Activities and Research
1. NOAA involvement in removal of Edwards Dam in Maine, Quaker Neck Dam (NC), and
Jackson St. Dams in Oregon
2. Long term research projects by NW Fisheries Science Center on Columbia River fish
passage systems.
5
3. NOAA Restoration Center’s Community Based Restoration projects involvement in fish
passage projects
Currently NOAA does not have a national fish passage policy or strategy for improving fish
passage in the 3rd category of dams, because most of NOAA’s legal authority lies in FERC dams. One
of the major purposes of this paper is to provide the basis for a NOAA fisheries strategy for improving
fish passage in 3rd category dams and small blockages. Several policies regarding specific aspects of
fish passage have been developed by NMFS’ offices in California and the Pacific Northwest.
These include screening for downstream migrant fish passage (NMFS, 1997; NMFS, 1995), use
of experimental technology in downstream passage at hydro dams (NMFS, 1995), and salmon
passage at small stream crossings (NMFS SW Region, 2000). However, more comprehensive
fish passage policies and priorities need to be developed in order to achieve NOAA’s fishery
management goals (Railsback, 1990). The Community-Based Restoration program, for example
receives applications for more fish passage projects than it can financially support, so some
mechanism is needed to prioritize them.
Aside from some projects that received NOAA-wide support such as the Edwards dam removal
in Maine and the Quaker Neck dam removal in North Carolina, fish passage activity is
concentrated in a few offices of NOAA. In terms of research, the NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries
Science Center has done the most work, focusing on downstream fish passage at the Columbia
and Snake River dams (Bickford and Skalski, 2000). NOAA is also actively involved in the
prescription of fish passage strategies at FERC-licensed dams. Along with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), NMFS provides recommendations for fishway specifications at
dams undergoing FERC-relicensing. The two agencies developed a joint policy on the
prescription of fishways in 1997 (NMFS/USFWS, 1997.) Finally, the NOAA CommunityBased Restoration Program (CRP) has been involved in a variety of fish passage projects,
involving voluntary (non-regulatory) improvements to fish passage mostly in the 3rd category of
dams. The CRP has been involved in 17 fish passage/dam removal projects since the program
began in 1996 until 1999.
6
Providing a system of ranking fish passage projects and criteria for successful dam removals will
facilitate the development of NOAA’s fish passage goals and incorporation into fisheries
management plans. For example, regional fishery councils and state fisheries commissions
regularly develop fishery management plans that affect NOAA’s trust resources (See Appendix
A). The council plans could serve as vehicles for implementing fish passage goals if they were
incorporated into their plans. The EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program provides a good example of a
prioritized fish passage plan. It has developed a priority list of fish blockages in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed and a strategy for removing impediments that has facilitated strong improvements
in fish passage (Chesapeake Executive Council, 1988).
III. SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT:
This assessment focuses on fish passage projects at small dams, culverts and road blockages.
Because the Restoration Center, primarily through the Community Based Restoration Program,
generally funds fish passage projects involving the 3rd tier of dams, dams less than 15 feet high
are the primary interest here. Generally fish ladder construction or repair, dam and culvert
modification, and dam removal are the main techniques used in the CRP. Fish passage at large
hydroelectric dams of more than 15 feet are not dealt with here because of the extensive research
done in this area by the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center and others (reference). There
are also key differences in issues that exist with large (>15 feet) hydropower facilities and small
blockages.
The information presented in Part VI of this paper was collected from seventeen fish passage
projects funded by the CRP. In order to more completely illustrate the key issues involving fish
passage and dam removal several other dam removal projects are discussed. Dam removal and
fishways both need to be considered in basin-wide fishery management plans. At most dams
removal is not a real option, so fish passageways must be used on active hydropower and other
useful dams. However with the large number of endangered or threatened salmonid species, the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and possibly NEPA will require consideration of dam removal
along with fish passage. Currently dam removal is generally not considered as an option in dams
applying for FERC relicensing (Brett, in press). However, dam removal projects that require
7
Environmental Assesments under NEPA must consider alternatives to dam removal such as fish
passage and/or no action. (see Brett, 2000 in press)
IV. RESEARCH ON FISH PASSAGE and DAM REMOVAL

Review of literature on fish passage relevant to small dams
Much is currently known about the passage requirements for some fish species, particularly
Pacific and Atlantic salmonids and East Coast herring - family Clupeidae (Clay, 1995). Much
less is known about non-salmonids and non-commercially important fish species (Schwalme and
Mackay 1985, and Sorenson, 1995). Fortunately, there are only few anadromous fish species
other than salmonids on the West Coast including Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) and white
sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)(McDowall, 1987) (Table 1). Pacific salmonids are very
strong swimmers, having evolved in a mountainous region that required swimming and leaping
in high-gradient streams with numerous small barriers to reach spawning grounds. They can
swim in current up to 8 feet/second and so are able to navigate up fish ladders fairly successfully
(Clay, 1995). The downstream migration of juvenile salmon has proved to be an even more
difficult fish passage problem than upstream passage (Clay, 1995 and Odeh, 2000). As a result,
the NMFS, Bonnevile Power Administration, and others have focused research on downstream
passage for the last twenty years. Passage on smaller tributaries is often blocked by poorly
designed or broken culverts and road blockages. Achieving fish passage at road blockages is
relatively straightforward and is being actively pursued by many groups (Chesapeake Executive
Council, 1988; Bates, 1998).
On the East Coast, the only native anadromous salmonid is the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar),
though brown trout may have some fish making sea runs. While Atlantic salmon do successfully
pass fish ladders, they have become extirpated from the wild in most states. Only seven rivers in
Maine still supports viable populations of wild Atlantic salmon (need reference). In practice
most fishways in the East effectively benefit alewives or American shad the most. Aside from
salmon and members the clupeid family (Alosa sp.), fishways have not been as successful for
most anadromous East Coast fish. Sturgeons, smelt, and American eel either will not use fish
ladders or have very limited use of ladders (Kynard, 1998 and OTA, 1995). They would require
8
either expensive, specialized fish passage devices, such as elevators for sturgeon or dam
removal. The Edwards Dam Removal along the Kennebec River in Maine was removed partially
because of this reason. Four of seven target fish species were unable or have very limited usage
of fish ladders: Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, rainbow smelt, and adult striped bass. The
only way to assure passage of these species was to remove the dam (O’Donnell and Gray,
2000)(American Rivers et al., 1999).

Oppurtunities and limitations to fish ladders
There are several challenges to creating successful fish passageways that can influence their
ability to achieve fishery management goals. These challenges illustrate why in some cases dam
removal and alternative fish passage techniques are necessary to achieve fishery habitat and
population goals. Some of the inherent difficulties with building successful fish ladders include:
1. Varying needs required of different life stages and different species
It is difficult for fish passageways at dams to be able to pass all fish species or even different life
stages of the same fish. For example, adult Pacific salmon can pass dams fairly successfully
swimming upstream (Clay, 1995). However, delays to out-migrating juvenile salmon in
reservoirs and entrainment in turbines or irrigation diversions have continue to cause high
mortality rates for downstream migrants (Odeh, 2000, Bickford and Skulski, 2000, Venditti et
al., 2000 and Clay, 1995). Similar problems face the striped bass and American Eel, which can
pass up ladders fairly well in certain life stages, but not in others. Striped bass passes ladders as a
juvenile but not as an adult, while for eel it is the young elvers that have passage problems
(OTA, 1995). Atlantic salmon are very strong swimmers that can pass up fish ladders well.
However, increased predation on juvenile salmon has been observed in the tailrace of some small
dams (Blackwell, and Juanes 1998).
2. Providing suitable hydraulic conditions and water depth at low flow, after siltation, scour,
etc.
The main technical challenge from a hydraulic engineering standpoint is providing suitable flow
conditions (Clay, 1995). This includes adequate depth over a wide range of discharge, suitable
velocity, adequate attraction flow (velocity and discharge) at fish entrance to divert fish towards
9
the ladder. Deposition of sediment and scour downstream of the ladder must also be considered.
At culverts, deposition and scour, as well as suitable depth are major problems for fish passage
(Bates 1998)
3. Lack of knowledge for many fish species
There is a lack of knowledge regarding basic life history traits for some anadromous fish, such as
Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) and hickory shad (Alosa mediocris). For most non-salmonids
little is known about fish passage requirements. Part of this shortcoming is because most fish
ladders do not have fish monitoring programs. Some small fish ladders have volunteer fish
counts which provides some information, but most do not. Even amongst FERC dams, 82% of
dams investigated by Cada and Sale, (1993) had no performance monitoring requirements at fish
ladders. While salmonids, alosids and a few other species have been studied in detail, more
research is needed to determine the success of fishways and improve fish passage techniques for
other species.
4. Fish losses at multiple dams reduce benefits of fishway mitigation efforts
Fish ladders enable fish to make it past dams that would otherwise be complete barriers.
However, as the number of fish ladders increases on a river, the number of fish making it
upstream is considerably reduced. For instance, the Parker River Anadromous Fish Restoration
Project involves 6 small dam blockages (Table 1). Many fish are unable to pass upstream
through fish ladders (even at the best fish passage facilities), so the number of fish surviving is
progressively less as one moves upstream (Clay, 1995 and OTA, 1995). For instance, on the
Columbia River system an estimated 75% to 94.8% (varying by year) of adult spring chinook
salmon pass successfully through the four mainstem Columbia River dams (Dauble and Mueller,
2000). This number was estimated to be as low at 30.9% for one fish ladder upstream of the
Columbia dams. The Columbia River dams have some of the best fish passage facilities in the
world. At small dams, it is likely that the percentage of passing fish is often much lower.
Downstream migration eliminates many fish also, reducing even further the number of fish
returning to the ocean. (Bickford and Skalski, 2000). Overall fish survival is severely reduced,
when both upstream and downstream losses are considered. (If monitoring data is available at a
10
specific dam, more accurate fish passage estimates may be available and should be used to
estimate fish survival.) At some point, fish passage projects located upstream of multiple dams
can be expected to have almost no fish passage benefits, even if they are fairly effective. This
phenomena has contributed greatly to the decline of fisheries on rivers with multiple dams.
Opportunities
1. Natural bypass channels
Natural bypass channels show promise for overcoming several of the shortcomings of fish
ladders, though there several problems and unanswered questions with these as well. Bypass
channels circumvent a dam or barrier and more closely mimic natural substratum and hydraulic
conditions than a fish ladder (Parasiewicz et al, 1998). Reduced slope and frequently greater
attraction flow contribute to potentially greater fish passage success than conventional fish
ladders. Additionally, construction and monitoring costs should be less than conventional fish
ladders as well. The use of natural bypass channels may not be feasible at very high dams,
especially where the stream is constricted by rock or canyon walls. The increased slope at these
locations may require a more conventional fishway, while if the stream barrier is at a constriction
there may be no place to put the bypass channel.
2. Culvert modification
Modification of culverts to improve hydraulic conditions is relatively straightforward and has
few economic or social constraints. Therefore, the improval of fish passage at culverts is a wideopen opportunity that should be pursued wherever they create a blockage.
11
Table 1: Success of Fish Passage Techniques for Anadromous fish species
EAST COAST SPECIES
Common
Scientific Name
Response of fish to
References
Name
passageways
Sturgeon
(Atlantic, Gulf
and Shortnose)
Acipenser sp.
(oxyrhynchus,
oxyrhynchus desotoi,
and brevirostrum)
Alosa aestivalis
Very limited use of ladders, do not
swim through turbulent flow.
Success with elevators on
Connecticut River.
Can use ladders
Hickory Shad
Alosa mediocris
Alewife
Alosa
pseudoharengus
Alosa alabamae
Alosa sapidissima
Less is known about the life history
species but some observations of fish
ladders use have been recorded
Good success with ladders
Blueback
Herring
Alabama shad
American
Shad
American Eel
Anguilla rostrata
White Perch
Morone americana
Rockfish or
Striped Bass
Rainbow smelt
Yellow Perch
Atlantic
Salmon
Morone saxatilis
Sea lamprey
Other Species
Petromyzon marinus
Osmerus mordax
Perca flavescens
Salmo salar
WEST COAST SPECIES
Salmonids
Coastal
Oncorhynchus sp.
Cutthroat Trout,
(clarki clarki,
Steelhead Trout,
gobuscha, keta,
Pink, Chum,
kisutch,
Coho, Chinook,
mykiss, nerka, and
and Sockeye
tshawytscha)
salmon
Non-salmonids
Pacific lamprey
Lampetra
tridentata
White sturgeon
Acipenser
transmontanus
Unknown
Variable success with fish ladders.
Do not use ladders as easily as
alewife or salmon. Good success
with elevators on Susquehanna River
Require special considerations to
achieve passage: coarse, roughened
substratum needed for elvers to pass
upstream
Can use ladders (semi-anadromous
only in southern part of range)
Juveniles can use ladders, adults do
not use ladders
Not known to use ladders
Sporadic use, much unknown
Strong swimming and jumping
ability, will use ladders
Not well known
Unknown for most non-game species
(Kynard, 1998 and NMFS,
1998)
Haro et al, 1999; Fary and
O’Roark, 1999; Moffitt et al.
1982
Fary and O’Roark, 1999
(NMFS, 2000a)
(Haro et al., 1998; Haro et al,
1999; SRAFRC, 1999;
Rideout et al., 1988; Moffitt et
al. 1982
OTA, 1995,
Fary and O’Roark, 1999
Moffitt et al. 1982; SetzlerHamilton, and Hall, Jr. 1992
Fary and O’Roark, 1999
(Haro et al., 1998; Blackwell
and Juanes (1998); Laine et
al., 1998, Moffitt et al. 1982
Laine et al. , 199?
(Schwalme and Mackay,
1985; Mallen-Cooper, 1994;
Sorenson et al., 1998; Fary
and O’Roark, 1999)
Very good jumping ability and ability to use
ladders. During downstream migration of
juveniles there are major losses at large
hydroelectric dams, caused by entrainment in
turbines, migration delays and increased
predation in reservoirs. Irrigation ditches and
diversion kill many young salmon also.
Bickford and
Skalski, 1999;
Francfort et al.,
1994, Bates and
Powers 1998, and
Venditti et al.,
1998;)
Limited knowledge of fish ladder utilization
Sturgeon species not known to use fish ladders,
can use elevators.
12
Summary of existing findings (quantitative and qualitative) on fish passage
It is clear that fish ladders provide benefit to many fish species, often salmonids or alosids. For
example, requirements for upstream passage are well-defined for American shad, alewife, and
salmonids (Clay, 1995). However, migration of all anadromous fish, as well as resident (riverine)
fish species in a river, can not be achieved by one fish ladder type, although many non-target fish
may use fish ladders as well (Fary and O’Roark, 1999). Less is known about warm-water fish
species, non-salmonids, and semi-anadromous fish (such as yellow and white perch). For many
of these species there is little or no available information on fish ladder utilization. Conventional
fish ladders are not known to pass smelt, adult striped bass, or sturgeon.
Perhaps more importantly, fish ladders do not mitigate for alterations to important fish habitat
caused by impoundments. For instance, much of the mortality of Pacific salmonids is created by
the delayed migration and increased predation of juveniles in reservoirs behind dams (Venditti et
al, 2000). Dam removal is the only technique that opens longitudinal fish passage routes for all
fish and improves in-stream conditions for many others.
Review of literature on fish passage and dam removal
Dam removal provides potential for improved fish habitat that cannot be accomplished by
fishladders and other mitigation for dams. Removal improves dissolved oxygen and moderates
temperature conditions in reservoirs. Eutrophication problems may be greatly reduced in the
reservoir area (American Rivers, et al. 1999). Based on Table 1, it can be seen that dam removal
is almost the only procedure that can enhance passage for some important species, including
many of the sturgeon species (Acipenser sp.). Little data are available on post-dam removal fish
populations at this time. However, changes in fish populations are known to be caused by dam
construction (Beasley and Hightower, 1998 and Martinez et al, 1994). Initial studies indicate
that after blockage removal, fish quickly move up into the area upstream of the dam. Kanehl et.
al, (1999) found that smallmouth bass populations increased after dam removal while carp
numbers decreased. After the Edwards dam removal on the Kennebec River in Maine,
monitoring of fish populations is planned, though no results are available yet (O’Donnell and
Gray, 2000).
13
V. CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING FISH PASSAGE and SMALL DAM REMOVAL
PROJECTS
Dam removal, where feasible, is the best apparent approach to improving or enhancing fish
passage and habitat for anadromous species. Potential dam removal sites can be prioritized more
objectively by ranking dam removal projects using a quantifiable ranking system. The following
criteria and assessment of CRP projects will focus on the benefits of dam removal from a
fisheries perspective, since anadromous fish are the major concern of NOAA in dam removal
projects. Managers have been faced with only limited opportunities for dam removal to date, but
there are an increasing number of aging, decrepit and potentially unnecessary dams becoming
available across the U.S. Assessment of their “availability for removal” versus their value to
anadromous species is necessary in NOAA’s case because there is limited funding available.
Not all potential projects can be funded by the CRP or other NOAA programs. While it is
helpful for planning to prioritize dam removal sites, it should be recognized that managers and
scientists usually cannot simply make a list and start removing the dams in order. Many dams
are still serving useful purposes. Those that don’t are still often valued for historic, aesthetic, or
property value reasons. Dam removal opportunities are still relatively rare. If the opportunity to
remove a dam is bypassed the chance might not arise again, eventually limiting the benefits of
other fish passage efforts within that watershed. Therefore a list of dam removal sites that are
beneficial to NMFS’ target anadromous fish species should be developed. Any dam occurring
on the list should become a priority for removal.
When assessing the benefits of a dam removal project it is important to consider the influence of
other factors on fish populations, especially the availability of suitable habitat required at
different life cycle stages, the status (abundant vs. rare) and origin (hatchery or wild) of target
fish species. Because there are often multiple blockages on one river or watershed, it is necessary
to set fish passage objectives on a watershed basis. If there are blockages downstream of the
removed dam, the benefits for anadromous fish will be little to none unless fish passage is also
arranged at the downstream blockages. Therefore, fish passages need to be planned on a basinwide scale. This approach has already been used in assessing the cumulative impacts of new
hydropower developments (Cada and McLean, 1988).
14
The main questions that need to be answered when considering fish passage goals include: What
are the important fish? Where are they located? Are they abundant or rare? Will “opening” a
specified river help to support or increase their population? Can the fish reach this habitat if the
blockage is removed? What are the specific benefits to the fish population of removing a dam?
Are there any possible damaging affects? These questions and concerns are addressed in the
ranking system described below.
In prioritizing fish passage projects, then, the following criteria is suggested:
Score (0 –20)(20 is highest)
=
0-10 for Species benefiting and their potential to use the river;
0 – 5 for habitat quality and quantity;
0 – 5 for presence/absence of downstream barriers
Minus 0 - 10 for potential damaging environmental consequences
1. SPECIES BENEFITTED AND LIKELIHOOD OF FISH USAGE (Rank from 0 – 5, 5 is
high)

Species benefitted:
5
Endangered species with economic or cultural importance
(Salmonids, sturgeons, etc.)
4
Endangered species (eg. Alabama shad)
3
Commercially or recreationally important species, non-endangered
(American shad, alewife, striped bass)

1-2
Other anadromous fish (eg. White perch, hickory shad)
0
No benefit to any native anadromous or marine fish
Do target species currently exist in sufficient proximity and population size to use
opened area?
5
Target species already present in river with proposed project. Target
species known to exist directly downstream of blockage.
3
Target species exists within the watershed, though not found in target
river. There is still chance of re-colonization by wild strains of fish.
15
1
Target species existed in basin historically but has been extirpated. No
chance of fish “re-colonization”. Will require large hatchery expenditures
to restore fish to this river.
0
Target species never existed within the basin
2. QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF HABITAT “OPENED” (Rank from 0-5, 5 is high)
5
High quality, pristine or mostly undisturbed habitat capable of supporting all
spawning, feeding, or refugia requirements of target fish that were known to be
supported by the river before blockage or degradation.
3
Disturbed habitat that is still capable of supporting some life history stages of
target fish species but is deficient in others.
0
Habitat incapable of supporting any life history stages of target fish species.
(See techniques for assessing habitat quality and quantity, pgs. 17-19)
3. DOWNSTREAM BARRIERS TO ANADROMOUS FISH
(Rank from 0-5, 5 is high-greatest benefit to marine fishes)
5
No downstream blockages (between target dam and ocean)
2
One downstream dam or blockage (with fish passage)
1
Two or more downstream dams or blockages
0
Presence of natural downstream barrier (e.g. waterfalls)
4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN DAM REMOVAL
(Rank from 0 – 10, Subtract 10 for serious concerns, 0 for no concerns)
1. Sediment and Hydrology

Quantity of deposited sediment
Large quantities (more serious)
Little or no sediment (less serious)

Particle size distribution of deposited sediment
Fine silts or clays (more serious)
Sand – gravel (less serious)
Little or no sediment (no concern)
16

Presence of contaminants potentially damaging to fish and wildlife (PCB, Hg, Cd,
Pb, etc.) Subtract up to 10 if toxic levels of contaminants exist and risk of
downstream movement is high

Stream power (=stream slope x discharge)
Stream has sufficient slope and/or discharge to remove residual sediment from
stream in a few years (less serious)
Stream is a low-gradient, low discharge stream incapable of moving residual
sediment from the stream bed, except at extreme discharges (more serious)
2. Exotic species

Presence of invasive exotic aquatic species
(more serious)
Aggressive exotics (zebra mussel, sea lamprey in Great Lakes;
water chestnut, water hyacinth or other aquatic vegetation in
coastal areas) exists in close proximity to dam and are likely to
spread after dam removal
(less serious)
No threat of exotic invasion
Explanation of Criteria
1) SPECIES BENEFITTED AND LIKELIHOOD OF FISH USAGE
Areas that serve as habitat for endangered or threatened anadromous fish species deserve special
consideration in considering dam removal and fish passage projects. Areas that have been
designated as “Critical Habitat” for endangered species should rank as very high priorities. For
other species of importance to NMFS, “Essential Fish Habitat” designated under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation Act should also receive high priority, especially if the project
involves commercially important species such as salmon or American shad.
2. QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF HABITAT “OPENED”
In prioritizing dam removal projects, the measurement of habitat suitability for target fish species
is a major priority. It is clear that the hydraulic conditions following dam removal will be more
favorable for fish passage than with a barrier present. The main question is not whether the
target fish species will be able to pass upstream but whether they will be able to use the upstream
17
area for spawning, rearing, and/or other life-support functions. The USFWS describe 4 main
life requisites in their habitat suitability models: food, cover, water quality, and reproduction
(Terrell et al., 1982). However, there are many ways to measure the value of the “opened”
habitat to anadromous fish. The most simple quantitative estimate is the linear length of stream
made accessible by the dam removal, including tributary lengths. General qualitative indicators
of habitat value include EPA statistics on water quality, such as the Index of Watershed
Indicators (IWI), a general description of environmental degradation and susceptibility to
degradation in a watershed. The EPA’s list of Impaired Waters (as defined by Section 301 of the
Clean Water Act) provides more specific information on water quality in specific streams and
can point to problems, such as elevated water temperatures, that may be improved by dam
removal.
The best way to estimate the value of a stream for fish habitat is to survey the stream area
upstream of the dam and identify the area (in hectares, acres, or square feet) that is suitable for
each life stage of the target fish. For example, a river may contain 20 acres of riffles with a
gravel/cobble bottom and 80 acres of slackwater covered with silt within a two mile reach of
river. A more standardized approach would be to use an existing Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)
as developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or develop a new one (Federal Interagency
Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998)(USFWS, 1981). HSI’s have been developed for
several anadromous fish already, such as American shad (Stier and Crance, 1985). These
techniques can be very time consuming however, particularly the development of an HSI.
Oftentimes, local fishery biologists are already aware of the habitat areas that will be suitable for
certain fish in the dam removal area. The most efficient approach may be to have a
knowledgeable biologist do a “walk-through” survey to estimate the area of suitable habitat and
the potential fish population this habitat could support.
Techniques for assessing value of fish habitat:
1) Measures of habitat suitability for specific fish species or families
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) are used to develop a habitat suitability
index for each target fish species

Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI)
18

Habitat surveys (channel width, depth, substrate type, riparian
vegetation cover, etc.) to identify areas of spawning, rearing, or
foraging habitat, or refugia – as determined for each species, eg.
Cobbles over 2” in diameter; submerged aquatic vegetation cover, etc.
2) General indicators of water quality and overall watershed health

Indices of biotic integrity, watershed health, and related measures

EPA Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI)

Index of biotic integrity (IBI)

EPA list of Clean Water Act Section 301 impaired waters
3) Quantity of habitat opened

Length opened (linear feet or miles)

Areal estimates (acres, square miles) of spawning habitat for a given fish
species
4) Presence of designated habitat

NMFS-designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) present

Designated endangered species Critical Habitat present

Habitat areas that have been recognized by the fishery councils and/or
commissions in fishery management plans (FMP’s)
3. DOWNSTREAM BARRIERS TO ANADROMOUS FISH
Blockages downstream of the target dam that do not have fish passage facilities, or that do not
have plans to either remove the blockages or develop fish passage facilities can negate the effects
of a fish passage projects located upstream. The number and type of downstream dams and the
effectiveness of fish passage facilities will greatly affect the percentage of fish passing upstream.
As the number of blockages increase, fewer and fewer fish are able to benefit from projects. The
benefit to anadromous fish upstream of four or five blockages begins to become minimal,
without stocking upstream of the blockages. Areas that have natural blockages should not be a
priority for fish passage, since these areas historically separated fish populations.
19
4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN DAM REMOVAL
Particle size distribution of deposited sediment
Sand is less damaging to salmonid habitat than fine sediment. Fine silts and clay have greater
potential to be washed downstream after removal potentially damaging fish spawning beds. Fine
sediments are also more likely to bind toxic elements, because of their colloidal properties and
ability to bind positively charged ions, such as lead or mercury (Pb++ or Hg++).
The presence of contaminants such as mercury or lead is potentially damaging to fish and
wildlife and is one of the greatest concerns in dam removal projects.
Stream power –(=stream slope x discharge) The ability of a stream to flush sediment is important
in terms of habitat following removal. Streams with high stream power (a function of channel
slope and discharge) are preferable because they are more able to flush fine sediments
accumulated in the former reservoir.
Exotic species
Presence of invasive exotic aquatic species (for example sea lamprey in the Great Lakes, Water
chestnut (Trapa natans) in the Connecticut River, zebra mussel and carp) may cause problems in
a few limited areas. Dam removal or fish passage could potentially expand the range of
detrimental species, if the dams were serving as barriers to expansion of these species.
Summary of decision-making process:
The above criteria can be used to rank projects based on fish passage benefits. (It should be noted
that non-coastal states and resources agencies with different responsibilities from NOAA would
likely prioritize fish passage and dam removal projects differently. For example, in states
beyond the range of anadromous fish, the proximity to tidally-influenced areas is not applicable
to fresh water fish. Relationships to other stream blockages will not be as important either
because inland, freshwater rivers contain less migratory fish.) The criteria will assist managers
in prioritizing sites and producing a priority list of dams in a region that are key fish blockages to
anadromous fish. Once priority sites for fish passage are identified, social and economic
considerations that may limit the feasibility of a dam removal need to be considered. Social and
20
economic factors are in fact usually the main limiting factors to dam removal. Social, economic,
and environmental limitations will ultimately determine which dam removals are acceptable to
the public and participating stakeholders. Using a list of prioritized fish passage sites based on
scientific research and data, the social and economic criteria would then be used to determine the
most feasible and socially acceptable dam removal projects from the list of priority sites. Where
it is unpractical to remove a dam, or if the existing benefits far outweigh its fishery costs, then
the feasibility of fish passage techniques should be investigated. A list of potential economic and
social concerns is listed below. For a more detailed discussion of economic issue in dam
removal, see Born et al., (1998).
Economic factors that may affect project feasibility

Dam safety (Born et al., 1998)

Dam usefulness: is dam currently being used for hydropower, water supply, or other
purposes?

Cost of fish ladders: Are fish ladders costs feasible?

Economic benefits of small hydropower plants

Large number of landowners may make land acquisition and easements prohibitively
expensive

Availability of water for municipal or irrigation purposes, requiring installation of new water
diversions or intakes
(Smith et al., 2000 and ASCE, 1997)
Social issues that may affect project feasibility

Community opinion of dam removal

Historic value of dam and related structures

Recreational value of millponds

Increased canoeing, kayaking rafting opportunities

Improved fishing opportunities for riverine fish, particularly salmonids

Loss of water source for irrigation, etc.
(Smith et al., 2000) (Born et al., 1996)
21
VI. COMMUNITY-BASED RESTORATION FISH PASSAGE PROJECTS
1. Summary of Project activity
From 1996 to 1999, there have been 17 fish passage projects funded by NOAA CommunityBased Restoration. These projects have included installation or repair of small denil, steeppass
or pool and weir fish ladders in the Northeast and Northwest, modifying impassable culverts on
the West Coast, removal of small dams in Oregon, Northern California, and Massachusetts, and
removal of silt blockages (Table 2). In all there have been 6 general types of projects: fish ladder
construction, fish ladder modification, dam removal, dam modification or breaching, culvert
modification or repair, and removal of in stream sediment to reconnect side-channels. In total
there were 5 culvert or road-blockage related projects, 6 dam removal or modifications, 8
fishway installations or repair, and 1 sediment removal project. (Some projects involved 2
categories, for instance Roy’s Dam Project involved dam modification and fishway construction
to allow fish passage.)
Project completion
8 of 17 projects funded between 1996 and 1999 have been completed as of September, 2000.
One project (Shadow Lake) has been postponed indefinitely due to concerns over the structural
integrity of the dam. Upon examination, it appeared that construction of the proposed fish ladder
might weaken the aging dam, making it unsafe. The other 8 projects are in the planning, design
and/or construction phases.
Table 2: NOAA Community-Based Fish Passage and Dam Removal Projects from 1996-1999
Project name
Mussachuck Creek
Fishway at Echo
Lake
Cooper River
Fishway
Restoration
Shadow Lake Dam
Fish ladder
Ed Bill's Fish Pond
Fishway
Restoration
Parker River
Anadromous Fish
restoration
Location
Barrington,
RI
Year
1999
Project description.
Repair of outdated fish ladders and retrofitting collapsed culverts will allow
river herring access to spawning grounds in Brickyard Pond and Echo Lake.
Camden
County, NJ
1998
Middletown,
NJ
Lyme, CT
1996
Essex
County, MA
1998
Three aluminum steeppass ladders were installed to allow river herring and
American shad access to spawning grounds in impoundments like Walworth
Lake.
Fishway construction delayed indefinitely due to structural weakness of
Shadow Lake Dam.
Placement of steeppass ladder will provide access for river herring, American
shad, and possibly Atlantic salmon. Will open up to 5 miles of cold water
stream plus an impoundment.
Fishway repair and replacement over a series of 6 ladders built in 1930’s.
This will improve access to 17 river miles for river herring
1999
22
Drobkiewicz Dam
Removal
Yale Creek,
OR
1998
Hartman Irrigation
Dam Removal
Butte Creek,
OR
1999
Pilgrim Trail
Herring Restoration
Project
Roy's dam Fishway
Project
Plymouth,
MA
1999
San
Geronimo,
CA
1999
Fiock Dam
Removal
Shasta
River, CA
1998
Farmer's Ditch fish
passage
Jacksonville,
OR
1998
Upper Payallup
Culvert Projects
Pierce
County, WA
1999
Adobe Creek
Culvert Project
Santa Rosa,
CA
1996
Grassy Creek Fish
Passage
Improvement
Project
Dutch Bill Creek
Fish Ladder
Renovation Project
Humboldt
County, CA
1999
Sonoma
County, CA
1998
Deer and Gate
Creeks Fish Habitat
Improvement
Haskell Slough
Enhancement
Project
McKenzie
watershed,
OR
Seattle, WA
1999
1996
Removal of a small irrigation dam on Yale Creek will open 6 miles of stream,
lower summer temperatures, and restore natural channel morphology for coho
and chinook salmon.
Dam removal on Butte Creek, near Portland, OR has opened 17 miles of
mainstem river and 2-4 miles of tributaries. Will benefit cutthroat trout,
steelhead, and lamprey.
Dam removal of a small dam built in the 1700’s will enable alewife to gain
access to 1.5 miles of Town Brook and a large inland lake for spawning. Will
be one of the first dams intentionally removed in Massachusetts.
A small dam in Marin County, CA that was flood-damaged was modified to
allow passage of one of the last viable populations of coho salmon in Central
California. A pool and weir style ladder was constructed as a “ramp” in front
of the 10’ high dam to pass fish up Lagunitas Creek.
Dam removal of a summer flashboard dam improved passage and lowered
high water temperatures for fall chinook and coho salmon. Opened 30+ miles
of Shasta River, one of highest quality remaining salmon rivers in California.
Removal of a small irrigation dam on the Little Applegate River will open 12
miles of habitat for coho, 31 miles of steelhead habitat, and 6 miles of
chinook salmon habitat.
Culvert modification in the Puget Sound basin will benefit spring chinook,
coho and steelhead. The project area supports the last run of spring chinook
in the Puget Sound basin.
A ten-foot drop at a road crossing was made passable by building a pool and
weir style fishway from rocks and boulders. Stream habitat restoration and
stocking of local strains of steelhead also helped revived a degraded stream.
Culvert modification on Lindsay Creek, a small stream in northern CA
allowed passage of coho salmon up 0.5 miles of stream.
A concrete apron and retaining wall had collapsed in the creek creating a 3
foot drop, blocking access to coho, steelhead, and possibly chinook salmon.
Repair of the impediment has improved access of the fish up to the Russian
River.
Culvert modifications in the McKenzie River watershed along with in-stream
work will improve passage and habitat for rainbow, bull, and cutthroat trout,
possibly spring chinook.
Sediment removal in 3.5 miles of side channel reconnected groundwater fed
ponds to Skykomish River. Serves as refugia for salmon, benefitting coho,
spring chinook, steelhead and chum salmon.
2. Analysis of Project Success
Species benefited
The fish that have benefited most frequently from CRP projects are alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) on the Atlantic Coast (a main beneficiary in 5 of 6 Eastern projects), with
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), American Shad (Alosa sapidissima), and striped bass (Morone
saxatilis) benefiting to a lesser extant. On the Pacific Coast, coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are the main beneficiaries in 8 of 11 projects. Steelhead
23
were a major or minor beneficiary in all western projects. There have been no CRP fish passage
projects on the Gulf of Mexico coast.
A major benefit to fish species is defined as one that will provide improved survival,
reproduction or support of life functions necessary for maintenance of the target fish population.
The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
describe food, cover, water quality and reproduction as vital life requisites (Terrell, et al, 1982).
If the project does not clearly increase spawning, refuge, forage, or other areas necessary for the
target fish’s life cycle, the benefit is only minor. Minor benefits apply primarily to fish species
that sporadically wander into the project area, species that historically existed in a stream but
have been extirpated, and species that occur outside of their known range. Examples of major
benefits include: providing access to a spawning area for alewife after installing a fish ladder, or
the opening of a ground-water fed side channel to provide a winter refuge for coho salmon.
Minor benefits include proposed benefits to Atlantic salmon in states where they no longer exist
in the wild. Striped bass often have only minor gain from fish passage projects, usually gaining
access to foraging areas rather than spawning areas.
Table 3: SPECIES BENEFITTING FROM PROJECTS
Species
PACIFIC COAST (11 projects)
coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch)
steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)
ATLANTIC/GULF COAST (6 projects)
Alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus)
blueback herrring (Alosa aestivalis)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
American shad
(Alosa sapidissima)
# of projects
benefitting
8
7
3
2
5
5
1
1
Quantity and Quality of Habitat “opened” by projects
Since there is not standardized habitat information from all 17 projects from habitat surveys, the
length of river opened was used to estimate the quantity of habitat “opened” by a fish passage
24
project rather than acreage of spawning ground or some more biologically meaningful statistic.
Most of the projects opened or improved accessibility to 5 miles or less of river, while projects
opening more than 10 miles of river were rare. Fiock dam removal, Farmer’s ditch dam removal
and Parker River fish ladders opened or maintained accessibility to as many stream miles as the
other 13 completed projects put together.
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
Miles made
accessible
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
Figure 1: Miles opened by NOAA CRP fish
passage/dam removal projects
Project #
Projected fish population numbers based on the estimated carrying capacity of a stream reach or
pond area are sometimes made to estimate the number of a fish an area upstream of a fish
passage project could support. These were not available for most of the projects. However,
information on EPA’s water quality and watershed health indicators (IWI), the presence of
endangered species’ critical habitat and Essential Fish Habitat was available for all projects.
Most of the streams did not have extreme alteration or impairment (as defined by Clean Water
Act, section 303d). However, some streams in the Mid-Atlantic to Northeast region, including
Parker River, MA, Cooper River, NJ and Shadow Lake, NJ all had IWI scores of six. A score of
six indicates that these are Watersheds with “Serious Water Quality Problems” that have aquatic
conditions well below State or Tribal water quality goals, significant pollution and other stressors
and, therefore, a higher vulnerability to declines in aquatic health. These watersheds have the
greatest need for actions to protect quality and prevent decline (need Reference).
25
Streams in the west such as Yale Creek and Little Applegate River suffered from high summer
water temperatures dangerous to salmonids and low water levels due to water withdrawal at
small irrigation dams. Agricultural non-point pollution and chemical inputs were also problems
in these watersheds. The four dam removals in Oregon and Northern California (Fiock,
Hartman, Farmer’s Ditch, and Drobkiewicz) will help to alleviate the high temperatures,
augment low flows below the dams, and greatly improv fish access to upstream areas.
Most of the projects in the West supported EFH and/or endangered species habitat. Five
threatened salmon Evolutionary Specific Units (ESU) benefited from the projects: Coho (South
OR/North CA), Fall chinook (CA coastal), Spring chinook (Puget Sound), steelhead (Central
CA), and coho (Central CA). In the East, most projects did not improve endangered species
passage nor access to EFH. Atlantic salmon, a candidate species, benefited from one project,
(Ed Bill’s Pond Fishway) though the Eightmile River supports only hatchery fish. Many of the
rivers in the Northeast used to support wild Atlantic salmon, but now only contain whatever
hatchery fish are directly released into the rivers or the few that make it back to the river from
the ocean.
Negative effects of projects
None of the major negative potential effects discussed in Section V, occurred, including: opening
pathways for exotic invasion or releasing large quantities of fine sediments or toxic materials.
The Shadow Lake, New Jersey project did expose one potential problem: aging dams may not be
sound enough to support notching or other structural modifications needed to install denil or
steeppass fish ladders. The Pilgrim Trail Herring Restoration Project uncovered another potential
problem: minor asbestos and hydrocarbon concentrations in the reservoir sediments. Pre-dam
removal soil sampling prevented possible release of these substances, but raised project costs
considerably.
MONITORING INFORMATION:
1. Fish ladder projects
26
Monitoring data is not yet available for most of the 17 CRP projects. However, many of the fish
ladder projects already have, or will conduct fish counts through the fish passageways. Haskell
Slough and Adobe Creek projects have conducted fish counts upstream of the project sites.
The Haskell Slough project, which involved opening some 3.5 miles of groundwater-fed
sidechannels on the Skykomish River, benefited coho salmon immediately. Within 24 hours of
side-channel reconnection, coho salmon had entered the slough to spawn. By June 1999, 3000
juvenile salmon had migrated out of the slough to the ocean. This year 6000 smolts had been
counted with 4 weeks left in the spawning season. Pink salmon, steelheaad, cutthroat trout and
chinook salmon have been seen using the slough (Henry, 2000).
Adobe Creek data: need to add data here, if its available
Volunteers will be used to count fish passage numbers at Mussachuck Creek, Ed Bill’s Fish
Pond, Parker River, and Roy’s Dam. At many of the remaining sites estimates of fish passage
will be made by project partners including local and state resource agencies or partnering
NGO’s.
Data on herring runs collected at the Parker River, MA since the early 1970’s will enable
comparisons of fish runs before and after the current project. Data shows declines in the count
from about 40,000 per year in 1972 and 1973 to 6,000 or less in 1997-98.
In order to better assess the success of NOAA projects in the future, it is suggested that
monitoring be incorporated early on in the process, perhaps in the restoration grant proposal
itself and in later cooperative agreements. Plans for incorporating volunteer monitoring are
usually necessary, since small dams do not have full time staff counting fish as they do at major
hydroelectric plants. General monitoring criteria for CRP projects are described in Pinit and
Belmer, (2000).
2. Dam removal projects
No data is available for post-dam removal results, yet. Suggested metrics for dam removal
success monitoring should always include direct measurement of fish populations above the
27
removed dam. But what is the best way to estimate fish population response to dam removal?
Reeves et al., (1991) suggested that smolt production should be the standard for evaluating
salmonid response to habitat manipulations in general. Adult returning fish may be the most
meaningful indicator of project success, however there may be a very long response time before
it is possible to observe changes in adult returns. Adults must return to an area, successfully
spawn and then return to demonstrate a true increase in the local population. This should take a
minimum of two to three years. Return of adults immediately after removal are a good indicator
that the area is suitable habitat, however. Juveniles were assessed by Reeves to be the easiest
and quickest way to measure the success of a project. However, increased juvenile numbers may
be due to a shift in population within the watershed rather than a true long-term increase in the
population.
Variables other than fish passage are also important for monitoring habitat benefits in streams
and floodplains, as well as possible negative effects. The variables listed below are suggested
for measuring the success of future dam removal projects.
1. Benefits to fish passage: Estimating fish presence upstream of the removed dam

Improved access to fish habitat measured by fish presence upstream of dam removal area

Adults – Most meaningful way to assess changes in fish populations, but may require
years to show response via returning spawning adults

Smolts- should be standard for evaluating the biological response of anadromous
salmonids to habitat manipulation, according to (Reeves et al., 1991)

Juveniles-easiest way to assess population trends, but may consist of transitory
individuals rather than a true population increase
2. Benefits to fish habitat

Physical/structural benefits

Restoration of flow conditions (depth, velocity, turbulence) and hydraulic
features (e.g., pools, riffle, eddy) favored by fish species of interest

Presence of substrate suitable for spawning (Often this means a lack of fine
sediment deposition in stream)
28

Presence of refugia (from severe floods, temperature, or predators) or juvenile
rearing area. May include large woody debris, riparian wetlands, submerged
aquatic vegetation, groundwater seepage areas.


Presence of foraging areas

Presence of vegetated streambanks for erosion control and shade
Water quality improvements from removal

Decreased summer water temperatures in the former reservoir area

Increased dissolved oxygen in the former reservoir area and in water released
from the bottom of large reservoirs

Reduced turbidity, algae, and chlorophyll concentrations in the former
reservoir
3. Benefits to floodplain ecosystems

Restoration of floodplain functions
Stream/floodplain connectivity. Is floodplain area flooded with frequency, duration and
timing needed to benefit target fish that may use the floodplain area for foraging, juvenile
rearing, or refuge during high flows? (especially for species who require floodplains for
nursery/spawning)
4. Potential negative effects of dam removal: Did dam removal cause any of the following?
1. Open a corridor for invasion of exotic or undesirable species in streams and
floodplains. For example, will the project allow passage of aggressively invasive species,
such as sea lamprey or zebra mussels in the Great Lakes?
2. Release of toxic materials (PCB, lead, hydrocarbons, etc.)
3. Physical damage to downstream aquatic organisms habitat via sediment delivery
(burial of spawning grounds, riparian wetlands, or other important fish habitat)
29
CASE STUDIES OF NOAA FISH PASSAGE PROJECTS
Case 1: Fiock Dam Removal, Shasta River, California
In some cases, fish ladders cannot mitigate for certain habitat problems and dam removal is
needed to achieve fishery management goals. The Fiock Dam on the Shasta River in California
was a 4.5 foot high, summer flashboard dam installed only in the summer to retain water needed
for irrigation. Fall chinook migration was blocked, while coho salmon passed through before the
dam was installed each summer. This seasonal blockage created a 5 acre pond, allowing the
standing water to rise to temperature levels that are lethal to salmonids. Low dissolved oxygen
in the reservoir also restricted the use of stream by salmonids. Because high temperatures and
low dissolved oxygen levels were producing potentially lethal conditions in the reservoir, fish
ladders could not mitigate the problem. The removal of the pond is expected to reduce summer
maximum temperatures and raises oxygen levels in reservoir. Eventually more natural stream
channel morphology will establish as the pond recedes and forms a narrower channel.
The Fiock Dam Removal Project was unusual in two aspects. First, the dam was removable or
semi-permanent. Secondly, the Shasta River has a unique geologic setting that makes it very
fertile salmon habitat. It is a low-gradient, meandering, groundwater fed system that runs across
young volcanic soils. (Many salmon streams are high-gradient mountain streams that are very
oligotrophic or nutrient-poor). The quality of the habitat and large area opened (30+ stream
miles) made it one of the most beneficial CRP dam removal projects. In other respects, the
Fiock Dam was similar to many other irrigation dams in Western states, in that dam removal
helps to decrease high summer water temperatures and increase low dissolved oxygen levels that
occur when small rivers in the west are impounded.
Replacement of irrigation or municipal water supply is another problem that Fiock Dam
illustrates. In order to remove the dam, nearby farmers needed a replacement water supply. This
required constructing a new water intake valve, pump system, and fish screen which totaled
nearly $25,000. This is a problem with removing many western dams and was also described by
Smith et al. (2000) in the removal of the Jackson Street Dam in Medford, Oregon. Here a
replacement diversion and intake system had to be built at a cost running to hundreds of
30
thousands of dollars. Replacing water supply was also an issue at Farmer’s Ditch and
Drobkiewicz dam removal projects. At Farmer’s Ditch on the Little Applegate River, Oregon
45 people were involved with land ownership and/or water rights to that reservoir. This created
prolonged negotiation, legal costs, and dramatically increased the overall time and budget of the
project.
Case 2: Pilgrim Trail Herring Run Restoration Project, Plymouth, MA
The Pilgrim Trail Herring Run Restoration Project is located on a small impoundment on Town
Book a small stream in Plymouth, MA. A large herring run (estimated at 7,000) is blocked by
this dam from spawning in the Billingon Sea, a 265 acre inland lake only 1.5 miles from the
ocean. Pre-dam removal sampling included sediment sampling within the reservoir sediments.
Results revealed elevated hydrocarbons and asbestos that possibly originated from industrial
plants located along the brook. While the amounts and type of toxic material was fairly minimal,
the findings demonstrate the importance of sediment sampling prior to dam removal.
The
consequences of not sampling were displayed in the Hudson River dam removal done in the
1970’s, before people were as cognizant of this problem. Large quantities of contaminants were
released upon removal, contaminating a huge area downstream of this dam (American Rivers,
1999).
Contaminated reservoir sediments is possibly the biggest concern following dam removal
(Shuman, 1995). For example, one impoundment on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan
contained an estimated 40,454 kg of PCB’s (Miller et al., 1988). Reservoirs act as settling basins
for sediment and pollutants that may be bound to those sediments.
Fine-particle soils like silt
and clay have a greater binding potential than coarse sediments and are more likely to hold
contaminants than sand or gravel. There are numerous toxics that may accumulate in a reservoir
sediments. Some of the more common problematic ones are PCBs and heavy metals (lead,
mercury, cadmium, etc.).
There was also great concern with the historic value of the dam itself and archaeological
remnants possibly contained in the impoundment.
Since Plymouth, MA is one of the oldest
towns in the U.S. this was a greater concern here than most dam sites. While there proved to be
31
nothing of great historical value at the site, historical issues are a concern in much of the
Northeast, because of its long history relative to the Midwest and Western U.S. Consultation
with state historical societies and potentially, archaeological investigations should be undertaken
if warranted, before dam removal.
Finally, the Pilgrim Trail projects illustrates that many fish ladder proposals can have greater
benefits and lower costs if the dam is removed instead. Originally, Pilgrim Trail was proposed
as a fish ladder project. Due to an aging, structurally questionable dam and the high costs of fish
ladders, dam removal was proposed as a more suitable alternative. There are many aging dams
that may be structurally compromised if they are notched for placing fish ladders.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RELEVANT TO FISH PASSAGE POLICY

Fishways do not benefit all species equally, and some species may not benefit at all (Clay,
1995 and Mallen-Cooper, 1994). In general fish ladders are good for passage of targeted fish
species to key spawning, feeding, or refuge area, but not for recovery of whole fish
communities. Dam removal can alleviate many problems that fish ladders cannot. Removal
needs to be used in conjunction with fish ladders to achieve certain fishery management
objectives.

While many resident and non-target fish will use fish ladders, sometimes benefits are claimed
in project proposals for fish that cannot use a fish ladder or that has been extirpated from a
stream. This is particularly the case with Atlantic salmon, where wild strains do not exist in
most of their historic range in the U.S. These benefits need to be considered carefully to
determine the likelihood that the targeted fish will benefit from a proposed project.

Regional Differences: East Coast projects often suffer in comparison to West Coast projects
in terms of fish passage project benefits. This is especially true for projects in highly
disturbed streams in the densely populated strip between Washington D.C. and Boston.
These areas tend to suffer from water quality problems, extreme alteration of coastal streams
and marshes, presence of toxics in sediments, biological impairment, and extirpation of
historically important anadromous fish species (EPA, 2000). West coast streams often have
less development and industrial toxins but may suffer from low flows due to water
32
withdrawal, agricultural degradation, dams, and poor forestry practices (Richter et al, 1997).
Because there are less highly degraded streams in the West and many support endangered or
threatened salmonids, they often will rank higher using the criteria described earlier.

For species such as alewives, fish ladders are helpful for achieving fishery management
goals. Alewife are capable of using denil or steeppass ladders and prefer to spawn in lakes or
ponds, such as the reservoirs above fish ladders. For these reasons, restoration of alewife runs
have been much more successful with fish ladders than most other species. Ladders like the
ones installed at CRP projects on the Cooper River, New Jersey, and Mussachuck Creek,
Rhode Island are expected to greatly enhance herring populations and the ecosystem benefits
these species provide.

Dam removals closer to the saltwater/freshwater boundary or saltwedge, may benefit a
greater number of fish species. In these areas, freshwater, anadromous, semi-anadrmous, and
even some primarily marine species may benefit. Semi-anadromous species like white perch
and yellow perch that spawn near the saltwater/freshwater boundary, should benefit from
dam removals in this boundary area more than removals far up into a river’s freshwater
reaches. Striped bass for example, spawn in tidal freshwater areas just above the salt wedge
and spend much of their juvenile stage in this area (Setzler-Hamilton and Hall, 1992). In
rivers with low gradients, such as the Neuse River in North Carolina, the saltwater wedge
may extend for 100+ miles up a river. Thus, the Quaker Neck dam removal opened a larger
area for striped bass than most dam removals could provide. The Kennebec River in Maine
was located above saltwater but within the tidally-influenced area. As a result of its setting,
the removal of the Edwards dam also benefited a great number of species. In high gradient
rivers, such as the Elhwa River descending the Olympic peninsula in Washington, the
saltwedge may extend for only a few miles upstream.
Potential problem areas in dam removal projects

Lack of familiarity and precedent for dealing with dam removal projects may hinder projects.
Each dam removal new managers ‘recreate the wheel” in order to get a dam removed. People
are unfamiliar with the permitting requirements, engineering and design issues, and sediment
management problems that accompany dam removal. Until state agencies and others establish
procedures to facilitate removals, dam removals may be lengthy and complicated processes.
33

Dam removal projects that have reservoirs with a large number of landowners or water
rights holders may raise costs and prolong project costs significantly. Reaching agreement with
a large number of parties and obtaining necessary land purchases or easements can prove to be
large obstacles to project completion. This is particularly a problem when water supplies need to
be replaced for irrigation or municipal water supply in the arid western U.S.

Toxic sediments, large quantities of fine sediments, and large impoundments in general may
create problems for dam removal (see Case studies, and Section V: Criteria).

There are many unknown factors at dam removal sites regarding management issues,
particularly sediment management issues and stream channel restoration as they relate to fish
habitat. Questions regarding suitability of streams in the dam removal area for fish habitat and
techniques for improving conditions through restoration and management need to be answered.
More research and experience in dam removal will help remedy this problem.
Table 4 provides a summary of potential benefits and problems in different regions of the U.S.
While each project within a region will vary according to its costs and benefits, certain
characteristics may be representative of an entire region (Graf, 1999). The Midwest is not an
area of concern for NMFS but is included to provide a contrast for dam removals in different
settings. Benefits to migratory fish are generally great in the Pacific Northwest and California as
well as the Northeast. The Midwest does not support anadromous fish so it ranks lower, though
the area does support some migratory riverine fish (OTA, 1995). Dams removed in the Midwest
and Northeast have mostly been small defunct milldams or other non-functional small blockages.
On the West Coast, many of the small dams provide water supply or have water rights issues that
may be costly to resolve (irrigation and municipal water supply). The likelihood of large
sediment deposits existing in reservoirs is based on land use both historical and recent. The
Midwest, which is primarily agricultural has had high sediment loss for the last century leading
to reservoir deposition (Waters, 1995 and Richter et al, 1997). Much of the Northeast was
abandoned for farming or was never farmed. As a result, most of the watersheds are forested,
causing less siltation of reservoirs, and reducing dam removal costs. Western watersheds have a
mixture of land-uses ranging from very high to low soil loss. Occurrence of contaminants such as
heavy metals and PCB’s tends to be greatest in industrial areas (either historically or currently),
which are concentrated in the Great Lakes Region and East Coast. Finally, endangered species
34
issues are most prominent in the West Coast which has multiple endangered or threatened
salmonid species. On the East Coast there are less endangered ESU’s but still many threatened
species, including several sturgeon species and Atlantic salmon.
Table 4: A comparison of potential dam removal issues in different regions
VARIABLE
REGION
West Coast
Midwest
Northeast
Benefit to migratory fish passage High
Medium
High
Dam removal costs
Low-High
Low-Medium
Low
Likelihood of large sediment
deposits existing in reservoirs
Occurrence of contaminants in
sediments
Endangered species issues
Low-High
High
Low
Low
Medium-High
Medium-High
High
Medium
Medium-High
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DAM REMOVAL AND FISH PASSAGE POLICY
All projects improving fish passage

For reasons of cost efficiency and the preservation of wild fish stocks, projects that benefit
wild strains of anadromous fish should be given a high priority. Projects that require
hatchery supplementation to maintain fish runs, should be assigned a lower priority,
particularly if hatchery fish have very low return rates.
Fish ladders

Fish passage projects need to be planned on a basin-wide level (Cada and McLean, 1988).
Without basin-wide planning, passage efforts may be thwarted by upstream blockages as
described earlier in the effects of multiple blockages

Natural bypass channels have potential to overcome some of the shortcomings of traditional
denil, pool and weir or steeppass fishways. Bypass channels mimic natural substrata and flow
condition, and can minimize turbulence and water velocity, by virtue of being longer and less
steep than fish ladders. There is little data available yet on their success, however (Jungwirth
et al.)
35

Reconnection of side channels, particularly ones that contain ground-water seepage areas,
such as Haskell Slough provide more salmon production per unit area than most streams,
because of two major reasons. 1) Groundwater discharge is generally cooler (in the summer)
and higher in oxygen than surface water. High temperatures and low dissolved oxygen are
two major causes of habitat degradation for Pacific salmon (Bonnel, 1998) 2) These areas
may serve as refugia from extreme temperature conditions and floods.

Culvert modifications pose few technological problems and none of the political or economic
controversy that dam removal has. Because culvert projects are often very cost effective,
these projects are prime candidates for the CRP.
Dam Removal

Dam removal should be a high priority when: 1) dams are unsafe or failing, 2) dams are no
longer serving a practical function, 3) a fish passage project is meant to benefit sturgeon, eel,
smelt, or American shad, 4) the costs of fish ladders are not feasible, or 5) high summer
temperatures and dangerously low dissolved oxygen levels are inhibiting salmonid survival
or reproduction.

Compared to other regions, small milldams in New England are generally excellent prospects
for dam removal (see Table 4). The heavily forested and/or lightly farmed watersheds
generally have yielded little fined-grained sediment to deposit in reservoirs. Many rivers
have good water quality and healthy in-stream habitat compared to heavily farmed, grazed,
or urbanized watersheds. Additionally some of the last viable populations of Atlantic
salmon, shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon are found in New England, especially Maine.

Plans to direct a stream channel’s path after dam removal should receive careful scrutiny.
Stream restoration projects involving manipulation of channel structure have had a high
degree of failure in general (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998
and Kondolf et al., 1996). The risk of designed channel failure at dam removal sites is even
higher, since there is extreme channel instability during dam removal and many unknown
factors regarding sediment transport and stream channel dynamics. At least one designed
stream channel built during a dam removal project was washed out by a large flood in
Waterloo, Wisconsin (ASCE, 1997). An alternative option is to allow the channel to form
its own path initially to avoid washing out of designed channels during extreme flood events.
36
Streambank vegetation and other improvements can wait until it becomes clear what path the
stream channel will cut itself.
REFERENCES:
American Fisheries Society, 1985. Proceedings of the Symposium on Small Hydropower and
Fisheries, R.H. Hamre, editor. May 1,2, and 3, 1985, Aurora, CO. Bethesda, MD: American
Fisheries Society.
American Rivers, Friends of the Earth, and Trout Unlimited. 1999. Dam Removal Success
Stories: Restoring rivers through selective removal of dams that don’t make sense. Editors E.
Maclin and M. Sicchio.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1997. Guidelines for retirement of dams and
hydroelectric facilities. New York: ASCE.
Barkuloo, J.M., M.F. Mettee, and L.G. Jenkins. 1993. Systematic and population status of
Alabama shad in rivers tributary to the Gulf of Mexico. Pamama City, Florida.
Bates, K. 1992. Fishway design guidelines for Pacific salmon. Working paper 1.6,1/97.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Bates, K. and P. Powers. 1998. Upstream passage of juvenile coho salmon through roughened
culverts. in Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses, editors M. Jungwirth, S. Schmutz, and S. Weiss.
Oxford: Fishing New Books, Blackwell Science Ltd.
Bates, K. 1999. Fish passage design at road culverts. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Habitat and Lands Program, Environmental Engineering Division.
Beasley, C.A. and Hightower, J.E. 1998. Effects of the Quaker Neck Dam on the distribution and
characteristics of spawning habitat selected by striped bass and American shad in the Neuse
River, North Carolina. Final report to the Marine Fisheries Commission, April, 1998.
Bickford, S.A. and J.R. Skalski. 2000. Reanalysis and interpretation of 25 years of SnakeColumbia River juvenile salmonid survival studies. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. 20: 53-68.
Blackwell, B.F. and F. Juanes. 1998. Predation on Atlantic salmon smolts by striped bass after
dam passage. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 18: 936-939.
37
Bonnell, R.G. 1998. Construction, operation, and evaluation of groundwater-fed side channels
for chum salmon in British Columbia. in Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses, editors M.
Jungwirth, S. Schmutz, and S. Weiss. Oxford: Fishing New Books, Blackwell Science Ltd.
Bravard, J.P. Amoros, C. and C. Patou 1985. Impact of civil engineering works on the succession
of communities in a fluvial system. Oikos 47:92-111.
Brett, in press. …..
Cada, G.G. and R.B. McLean. 1988. An approach for assessing the impacts on fisheries of basinwide hydropower development. In Symposium on small hydropower and fisheries. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Cada, G.F. and M.J. Sale. 1993. Status of fish passage facilities at nonfederal hydropower
projects. Fisheries: 18(7): 4-12.
Carney, Scott. 2000. “Susquehanna fish lifts and the returning shad”. Website:
http:www.state.pa.us/Fish/fishlift.htm
MAY WANT TO CUT OUT INTERNET REFERENCES!!
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2000. Fish Passage Restoration. Website:
htttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/fishpass.cfm
Chesapeake Executive Council, 1988. Strategy for Removing Impediments to Migratory Fishes
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Chesapeake Bay Program, Agreement Commitment Report.
Annapolis, MD
Chesapeake Executive Council, 1995. Removing Impediments to migratory fishes in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Annual Progress Report, 1995. Chesapeake Bay Program,
Agreement Commitment Report. Annapolis, MD
Chesapeake Executive Council, year???. Fish passage goals. pamphlet. Chesapeake Bay
Program, Annapolis, MD
Clay, C.H. 1995. Design of Fishways and other Fish Facilities. Boca Raton. Lewis Publishers.
Collier, M. R.H. Webb, and J.C. Schmidt 1996. Dams and Rivers: a primer on the downstream
effects of dams. U.S.G.S Circular 1126. Tucson: U.S.G.S.
Dauble, D.D., and R.P. Mueller. 2000. Upstream passage monitoring: Difficulties in estimating
survival for adult chinook in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Fisheries 25 (8): 24-34.
Fary, J. and B. O’Roark. Monitoring the success of fishways in Maryland: 1999 Report.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fish Passage Program, Lawerence Leasner,
Director. Annapolis, MD.
38
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes, and practices.
Francfort, J.E., G.F. Cada, D.D. Dauble, R.T. Hunt, D.W. Jones, B.N. Rinehart, G.L. Sommers,
R.J. Costello. 1994. Environmental Mitigation at Hydroelectric Projects: Volume II. Benefits
and costs of fish passage and protection. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
Funderburk, S.L., S.J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky, D. Riley, editors. 1992. Habitat Requirements for
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, 2nd Edition. Habitat Objectives Workgroup Living
Resources Subcommittee and Chesapeake Research Consortium , Inc. Solomons, Maryland.
Graf, W.L. 1999. Dam nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large-scale
hydrologic impacts. Water Resources Research 35(4): 1305-1311.
Haro, A., M.Odeh, J. Noreika, and T. Castro-Santos. 1998. Effect of water acceleration on
downstream migratory behavior and passage of Atlantic salmon smolts and juvenile American
shad at surface bypasses. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 127: 118-127.
Haro, A., M.Odeh, T. Castro-Santos, and J. Noreika. 1999. Effect of slope and headpond on
passage of American shad and blueback herring through simple denil and deepened Alaska
steeppass fishways. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 19: 51-58, 1999.
Henry, C. 2000. A unique partnership to restore Haskell Slough. Land and Water 44 (4): 15-25.
Kondolf G.M., J.C. Vick, T.M. Ramirez. 1996. Salmon spawning habitat rehabilitation on the
Merced River, California: An evaluation of project planning and performance. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 125: 899-912.
Kynard, Boyd. 1998. Twenty-two years of passing shortnose sturgeon in fish lifts on the
Connecticut River: What has been learned? in Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses, editors M.
Jungwirth, S. Schmutz, and S. Weiss. Oxford: Fishing New Books, Blackwell Science Ltd.
Laine, A., R. Kamula, and J. Hooli. 1998. Fish and lamprey passage in a combined denil and
vertical slot fishway. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 1998, 5, 31-44.
Lichatowich, J.A. and J.D.McIntyre. 1987. Use of hatcheries in the management of Pacific
anadromous salmonids. in Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes.
American Fisheries Society Symposium
Loesch, J.G. 1987. Overview of life history aspects of anadromous alewife and blueback herring
in freshwater habitats. in Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes. American
Fisheries Society Symposium
Mallen-Cooper, M. 1994. How high can a fish jump? New Scientist: April 16, 1994.
39
Martinez, P.J., T.E. Chart. M.A. Tramell, J.G. Wullschleger, and E.P. Bergersen. 1994. Fish
species composition before and after construction of a main stem reservoir on the White River,
Colorado. Environmental biology of fishes 40: 227-239.
Miller, T.J., W.S. Creal, J.D. Suppnick, 1988. Dissolved Oxygen and sediment contaminant
considerations in refurbishment of defunct hydropower sites: A case study on the Kalamazoo
River, Michigan. In Symposium on small hydropower and fisheries. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Moffitt, C.M., B. Kynard, and S.G. Rideout. 1982. Fish passage facilities and anadromous fish
restoration in the Connecticut River Basin. Fisheries. 7 (6): 2-11.
National Research Council. 1992. Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems--Science,
Technology, and Public Policy. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems : science, technology, and
public policy. Washington, D.C. : National Research Council.
Odeh, Mufeed. 2000. Advances in fish passage technology. Engineering design and biological
evaluation. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
O’Donnell, M. and N. Gray. 2000. Restoring our native fish resources: Kennebec River
diadromous fish restoration, annual progress report – 1999. Maine Department of Natural
Resources, in partnership with Kennebec Hydro Developers Group, Kennebec Coalition, Natrual
Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. 1995. Fish passage technologies: Protection
at hydropower facilities, OTA-ENV-641 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Parasiewicz, P, J.Eberstaller, S. Weiss, and S. Schmutz. 1998. Conceptual guidelines for naturelike bypass channels. in Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses, editors M. Jungwirth, S. Schmutz,
and S. Weiss. Oxford: Fishing New Books, Blackwell Science Ltd.
Pellett, T.D., G. J. Van Dyck, and J.V. Adams, 1998. Seasonal Migration and Homing of
Channel Catfish in the Lower Wisconsin River, Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 18: 85-95.
Pinit, Thomas P. and Russel J. Belmer. (in press). NOAA Fisheries Guidance manual for
restoration projects success criteria and monitoring. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Restoration
Center.
Pyle, Michael T. 1995. Beyond fish ladders: Dam removal as a strategy for restoring America’s
rivers. Stanford Environmental Law Journal. 14: 97-143.
Quinn, Dick. 2000. Hydraulic Engineer, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Personal
Communication, April 2000.
40
Railsback, S.F, C.C. Coutant, and M.J. Sale. 1990. Improving the effectiveness of fisheries
agencies in developing hydropower mitigation. Fisheries 15 (3): 3-8.
Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest, and J.R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of anadromous salmonids to
habitat modification: How do we measure them? in Fisheries bioengineering symposium. J. Colt
and R.J. White, editors. American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, Maryland
Richter, B.D., D.P. Braun, M.A. Mendelson, and L.L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled
freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology. 11 (5): 1081-1093.
Rideout, S.G.,L.M. Thorpe, and L.M. Cameron. 1988. Passage of American shad in ice harbor
style fish ladder after flow pattern modifications. In Symposium on small hydropower and
fisheries. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Robison, G.E, A. Mirati and M. Allen. 1999. Oregon Road/Stream Crossing Restoration Guide:
Spring 1999. Advanced Fish Passage Training Version.
Schwalme, K. and W.C. Mackay 1985. Suitability of vertical slot and denil fishways for passing
north-temperate, nonsalmonid fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 42:
1815-1822.
Setzler-Hamilton, E.M. and L. Hall, Jr. 1992. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis). In Funderburk, et
al. 1992. Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, 2nd Edition. Habitat
Objectives Workgroup Living Resources Subcommittee and Chesapeake Research Consortium,
Inc. Solomons, Maryland.
Smith, L.W., E. Dittmer, M. Prevost, and D.R. Burt. 2000. Breaching of a Small Irrigation Dam
in Oregon: A Case History. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 20: 205-219.
Stier, D.J. and J.H. Crance. 1985. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability
curves: American shad. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82 (10.88).
Sorenson, K.M., W.L. Fisher, and A.V. Zale. 1998. Turbine passage of juvenile and adult fish at
a warmwater hydroelectric facility in Northeastern Oklahoma: monitoring associated with
relicensing. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 18:124-136.
Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee (SRAFRC), 1999. Annual
Progress Report 1999.
Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee (SRAFRC), 2000. (Alliance for
the Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Susquehanna River Basin Commission,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)….Migratory fish restoration and passage on the Susquehana
River
41
Terrell, J.W.,T. McMahaon, P. Inskip, R. Raleigh, and K. Williamson, 1982. Habitat suitability
index models: Appendix A. Guidelines for riverine and lacustrine applications of fish HSI
models with the habitat evaluation procedures. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82/10.A, 54 pp.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Fish Passage Technologies: Protection
at Hydropower Facilities, OTA-ENV-641 (Washington, CD: U.S. Government Printing Office,
September, 1995.)
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Alabama Shad, Candidate
species- Fact Sheet. (www.nmfs.gov/prot_res/candidate/alabamashad.html)
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Atlantic Sturgeon,
Candidate species- Fact Sheet. (www.nmfs.gov/prot_res/candidate/atlanticsurg.html)
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Region. 2000.
Guidelines for salmonid passage at stream crossings. Final Draft. (Santa Rosa, CA: March 2000).
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998. Final Recovery Plan
for the Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. December, 1998.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. 1997.
Interagency policy on the prescription of fishways under Section 18 of the Federal Power Act.
Silver Spring, MD. 28 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. 1997.
Fish Screening for Anadromous Salmonids.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. 1995.
Experimental technology for managing downstream salmonid passage.
Venditti, D.A., D.W. Rondorf, and J.M. Kra. 2000. Migratory behavior and forebay delay of
radio-tagged juvenile fall chinook salmon in a lower snake river impoundment. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management. 20:41-52.
Waters, T.F., 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American
Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD.
The Wildlife Society and American Fisheries Society (AFS), 1983. Stream Obstruction
Removal Guidelines. Prepared by Stream Renovation Guidelines Committee, The Wildlife
Society and American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Williams, David T., 1977. Effects of Dam Removal: An Approach to Sedimentation: Davis, CA,
Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
42
APPENDIX A
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO PASSAGE AND MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATORY
FISH
(by- Kathryn Conant)
MIGRATORY FISH INFORMATION
ATLANTIC
Common
Name
Alewife
Bass, Striped /
Rockfish
Scientific Name
Alosa
pseudoharengus
Morone saxatilis
Eel, American
Anguilla rostrata
Herring,
Blueback
Lamprey, Sea
Alosa aestivalis
Perch, White
Perch, Yellow
Pipefish,
Opossum
Morone americana
Perca flavescens
Microphis
brachyurus lineatus
Petromyzon marinus
Managing
Organization and
Regulatory authority
Population Status
Blockages a
major
habitat
threat?
ACA and ASFMC FMP
(Shad and River Herring)
ASFMC and GSFMC
FMPs (Striped Bass) and
Striped Bass Conservation
Act
ACA and ASFMC FMP
(American Eel)
ACA and ASFMC FMP
(Shad and River Herring)
Population control in some
areas
Unmanaged species
Unmanaged species
ESA- Candidate Species
Observed decline in catch
and resource conditions
ASFMC has declared the
species fully restored
yes
Unkown?
yes
Observed decline in catch
and resource conditions
Adequate population
yes
Observed decline
Observed decline
ESA- Candidate Species
no
yes
yes
no
unknown
43
Common
Name
Scientific Name
Managing
Organization and
Regulatory authority
Population Status
NEFMC FMP (Atlantic
Salmon with EFH
amendment) and NASCO
ESA- Candidate Species
All native runs south of
Kennebec River, ME have
been extirpated.
ESA- Candidate Species
yes
ACA and ASFMC FMP
(Shad and River Herring)
ACA and ASFMC FMP
(Shad and River Herring)
Range-wide abundance is
well below historic levels.
Lack of data makes it
difficult to ascertain the
status of the stocks.
yes
Salmon,
Atlantic
Salmo salar
Shad,
Alabama
Shad,
American
Shad, Hickory
Alosa alabamae
Smelt,
Rainbow
Sturgeon,
Atlantic
Osmerus Mordax
Unmanaged species
ACA and ASFMC FMP
(Atlantic Sturgeon)
Sturgeon,
Gulf
Acipenser
oxyrhynchus
oxyrhynchus
Acipenser
oxyrhynchus desotoi
Sturgeon,
Shortnose
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Alosa sapidissima
Alosa mediocris
ESA- Threatened Species;
FWS and GSMFC 1995
Recovery Plan
ESA- Endangered Species;
NMFS 1998 Recovery
Plan
Blockages a
major
habitat
threat?
yes
yes
yes
ESA Candidate species;
Sturgeon fisheries are
closed.
ESA- Threatened species
no
ESA- Endangered species
yes
yes
ACA- Atlantic Coastal Act
ASFMC- Atlantic States Fishery Management Commission
FWS- US Fish and Wildlife Service
FMP- Fisheries management plan
GSMFC- Gulf States Marine Fishery Commission
NEFMS- New England Fishery Management Council
NASCO- North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
SPECIES INFORMATION
Alewife- The coastal range extends from Labrador, Canada to South Carolina. Alewife
spawns in spring when water temperatures are between 16 C and 19 C. Specific habitat
requirements for salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH for spawning and
hatching have been identified. (Loesch, 1987)
Bass, Striped - Ranges in the Atlantic coast from northern Florida to the St. Lawrence estuary. It
has been successfully introduced in numerous inland lakes and reservoirs and to the
Pacific coast. Four stock occur: Hudson River, Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and
Roanoke River, with Chesapeake Bay contributing the most fish. Most striped bass along
the Atlantic coast are involved in two types of migrations: an upriver spawning migration
from late winter to early spring, and coastal migrations that are apparently not associated
with spawning activity. Spawning timeframe ranges from early to mid-April to May.
44
Spawns above salt-wedge, in tidal fresh-water areas. (Setzler-Hamilton, and Hall, Jr.
1992). Recruitment has improved and the population growth has reached abundance
levels equivalent to the mid 1970’s. ASFMC has declared the species fully restored,
relaxing the management restrictions in the commercial and recreational fisheries.
Eel, American- Eels inhabit ponds, lakes, harbors, estuaries, and rivers. They are
catadromous. All American eels migrate to the Sargasso Sea near the Bahamas to spawn.
Once hatched, the young begin migrating to fresh water. Eels rest on the bottom and bury
themselves in mud during the day, and then are active at night.
Herring, Blueback - The coastal range is from Nova Scotia to Florida. Migrate upriver
spawning during spring. Blueback herring spawn later in spring, when water
temperatures are about 5 C warmer than alewife. Specific habitat requirements for
salinity, temperature, and pH for spawning and hatching have been identified. (Loesch,
1987)
Lamprey, Sea- Migrating up streams in May and early June. Males build nests in shallow,
swift water by removing cobble and forming a depression on the stream bottom. Several
days later, tiny young lampreys called ammocoetes leave the nest and drift downstream to
shallow areas that have little current and a mud bottom. There they burrow into the mud.
These larvae are nonparasitic and feed on organic material filtered from the water. In 3 to
14+ years, they reach a length of 5 to 7 inches and transform into the adult stage. These
new adults move down the streams and out to sea. Upon returning on their spawning run,
they will be 2 to 3 feet long. In some areas, effort is taken to reduce their populations.
Perch, White– This species is related to the striped bass. This species is considered a semianadromous because it lives in salt, brackish and fresh waters along the northern east
coast. There are also inland landlocked populations as far west as the Great Lakes,
resulting from stocking programs that started in the early 1900's. Species exhibits strong
separation between populations. Prefer fine grain sediments for spawning. Spawning
begins from late March to April.
Perch, Yellow - Ranges from South Carolina to Nova Scotia, Canada, and is in the northern
portion of the Mississippi drainage. This species is considered a semi-anadromous
because adults migrate from downstream reaches of tidal waters to spawning areas in less
saline upper reaches in mid-February through March. Water temperature is a strong
influence of the actual spawning timing.
Pipefish, Opossum- The breeding range of this unique tropical species is east central Florida.
Predictable breeding populations and year round occurrences in the US are limited to the
freshwater tributaries of the southern River Lagoon. Ephemeral populations have been
observed from Texas to Florida to South Carolina. Spawning adults migrate to
freshwater habitat (usually panic grass and smartweed).
Salmon, Atlantic - Occurred along the Atlantic coast from New Brunswick, Canada to
45
Connecticut. Currently a candidate species for seven river remnant populations within
the Maine. Gravel and cobble substrates are essential for Atlantic salmon eggs, larvae,
and juveniles. Juvenile salmon are resident in freshwater streams for 2 to 3 years before
migrating to the sea. Typically spend two winters before returning in the rivers in June
and spawn in November. There are currently no dams on the seven rivers.
Shad, Alabama- Spawns in large flowing rivers from the Mississippi River to Florida, with the
largest population in the Apalachicola River. Fish enter the freshwater during the
spawning season (January to April). (Barkuloo, et al. 1993).
Shad, American- Occurs along the Atlantic coast from southern Labrador, Canada to northern
Florida. It also has been introduced along the Pacific Coast. American shad undergo
extensive seasonal migrations, moving into rivers for spawning beginning in January in
southern rivers, and continuing until July in the northernmost portion of their range. After
spawning, shad migrate north along the coast to Canada where they feed during the
summer. A southward migration occurs later along the continental shelf where the fish
overwinter prior to spring spawning migrations to their natal rivers. American shad leave
the estuary in late fall, mature in the ocean, and return to tributaries after 2 to 5 years.
Specific habitat requirements for salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, suspended
solids, and velocity for spawning and hatching have been identified. Substrate and depth
is less important for spawning.
Shad, Hickory - Hickory shad are not very important commercially but are a popular recreational
species. The list history of the hickory shad is similar to the American shad, but poorly
known. Hickory shad spawn in small streams as well as mainstems. Historically
occurred in significant abundance from Virginia to Florida. The lack of comprehensive
and accurate commercial and recreational fishery data make it difficult to ascertain the
status of the stocks. Specific habitat requirements were not available.
Smelt, Rainbow - Relatively small freshwater and estuarine schooling fish that is recreationally
harvested during its spawning migration. In some areas freshwater or landlocked
populations exist. Smelt spawn in spring, when large numbers run up tributary streams.
Although spawning usually occurs in streams, in some situations smelt may spawn
offshore on gravel shoals. Spawning occurs at night, and upstream movement typically
occurs during flood tides; then return to the calmer waters by sunrise. In warmer
temperatures, fish move into deeper cooler waters.
Sturgeon, Atlantic - Found along the entire coast, from Labrador, Canada to Florida. Can be
found in at least 34 rivers, with spawning in at least 14 of them. Juveniles and adults of
both species are benthic feeders. Sturgeon fisheries are closed, and will remain closed for
decades. Dams are not significant impact because most are built on natural barriers to
migration.
Sturgeon, Gulf- A subspecies of the Atlantic sturgeon. Its range occurred from Mississippi River
to Florida, though numbers are much reduced compared to historic abundance. Most
46
adult feedings takes place in the Gulf of Mexico and its estuaries. Spawning occurs in
areas of deeper water with clean (rock and rubble) bottoms.
Sturgeon, Shortnose - Found along the entire coast, from New Brunswick, Canada to Florida. It
prefers the slower moving nearshore marine, estuarine, and riverine habitat of large river
system. Juveniles and adults of both species are benthic feeders. There are two partially
landlocked populations (Connecticut River and Santee River, SC). Remains on the ESA
candidate list, but endangered or threatened status is not warranted at this time.
47
PACIFIC
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Management Technique
Status
Blockages a
major threat?
Lamprey,
Pacific
Salmon,
Chinook
Lampetra
tridentata
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
unmanaged
ESA- species of concern
yes
PFMC and NPFMC Fishery
Management Plans for ocean
fishery; states and tribes
manage inland fishery
yes
Salmon,
Chum
Oncorhynchus
keta
Salmon,
Coho
Oncorhynchus
kisutch
6 ESU: 3 are threatened; 2
are proposed/candidate; 1
action not warranted
yes
Salmon,
Pink
Oncorhynchus
gobuscha
Salmon,
Sockeye
Oncorhynchus
nerka
PSC, State of Washington
and Alaska, and tribal
fisheries agencies
PFMC and NPFMC FMPs
for ocean fishery; states and
tribes manage inland fishery
PSC, State of Washington
and Alaska, and tribal
fisheries agencies
PSC, State of Washington
and Alaska, and tribal
fisheries agencies
15 different evolutionarily
significant units (ESU): 1 is
endangered, 2 are
threatened; 7 are
proposed/candidate; 5
action not warranted
4 ESU: 2 are listed as
endangered or threatened
Steelhead/
Rainbow
Trout
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Trout, Bull
Salvelinus
confluentus
Trout,
Coastal
Cutthroat
Trout,
Varden
Dolly
Oncorhynchus
clarki clarki
Salvelinus
malma
yes
yes
7 ESU: 1 is protected, 1 is
threatened; 5 action not
warranted
15 ESU: 7 are listed as
endangered or threatened; 4
are proposed/candidate; 4
action not warranted
Washington State considers
the bull trout a "declining
species."
7 ESU: 1 is endangered, 2
are proposed/candidate; 4
action not warranted
yes
yes
unknown
yes
unknown
NPFMC- North Pacific Fishery Management Council
PFMC- Pacific Fishery Management Council
PSC- Pacific Salmon Commission
SPECIES INFORMATION
Lamprey, Pacific- Immature individuals migrate from the sea between July and September and
overwinter under rocks in freshwater until March at which point they emerge. Nest
building and spawning occurs from April to July. Spawning beds are usually sandy gravel
48
at the upstream edge of riffles. An external parasite and feeds on the blood and fluids of
fish and other marine vertebrates.
Salmon, Chinook- Distribution ranges from Kotzebue Sound, Alaska to central California. The
migratory patterns vary significantly. Use a variety of freshwater habitats, but it more
common to see them spawn in larger rivers than other salmon species.
Salmon, Chum- The most widely distributed species of Pacific salmon. North American range is
from central California to Aleutian Island chain in Alaska. They spawn in the lowermost
reaches of rivers and streams, and peaks during November and early December. They
migrate almost immediately after hatching to estuaries and ocean waters.
Salmon, Coho - The species ranges from Hope, Alaska to Monterey Bay, California. Smolts
typically migrate to sea in the spring of their second year, spending 17 to 20 months
rearing in the ocean, and then return to freshwater as three-year-old adults. Habitat
requirements are small, relatively low gradient tributary streams for spawning and
juvenile rearing and prefer complex instream structure. A concern for the species is the
lack of winter habitat, including streams and the surrounding area.
Salmon, Sockeye- One of the most complex of any Pacific salmon species because of its variable
freshwater residency (one to three years). Also, the species has several different forms:
fish that go to the ocean and back, fish that remain in freshwater, and fish that do both.
Sockeye is the only Pacific salmon that depends on lakes as spawning and nursery areas.
Steelhead/Rainbow Trout- The original steelhead range is from Kenai Peninsula, Alaska to Baja
Peninsula, Mexico. Are the premier freshwater gamefish along the West Coast. They
depend more on freshwater than most salmon species (an average of two to three years),
and rely on rivers and streams as their nursery areas. They do not die after spawning.
Trout, Bull- Many are resident to a single stream; others migrate on a fluvial or adfluvial basis.
One population of bull trout in Washington is known to be anadromous. They spawn
every year or every other year and require particularly clean gravel bars for their redds
(nests for eggs). Spawning success is very sensitive to temperature.
Trout, Coastal Cutthroat- One of the most biologically diverse and least-studied groups of West
Coast salmonids. Historically it ranged from Prince William Sound, Alaska to Eel River,
California. This species is not a commercial species. They may migrate to estuaries and
other marine environments; they may remain in freshwater (river/lake migrants or
nonmigrants); or they may follow migratory pathways the combine these behaviors.
Trout, Dolly Varden- Some population are anadromous and others remain resident. The species
typically can be found in colder river systems (of glacial origin) and associated deep
lakes. Sea-run fish occur in and near estuaries, frequently in the inter-tide zone.
Anadromous fish generally ascend their natal stream in mid-summer and spawn in the
fall. Juveniles spend 2 or 3 years in fresh water, then another 2 or 3 years in salt water
before making their first spawning run.
49