Docstoc

1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FOR

Document Sample
1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FOR Powered By Docstoc
					ALDEN


LITERATURE REVIEW OF UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FOR
             THE DUNVEGAN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT


                                          Prepared for
                                       Glacier Power Ltd.

                                       Prepared by
                                ALDEN Research Laboratory

                                             July 2006


INTRODUCTION

As part of the permitting process for a hydro project on the Peace River in Alberta, Canada,
Glacier Power Ltd. (Glacier) contracted Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. to conduct a literature
search and review of upstream and downstream passage for selected species that may be
impacted by the project. Specifically, the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Impact
Assessment of the proposed project state the following:

Provide summary statistics on the number of dams, dams with upstream and downstream fish
passage, and evidence of dams that have successful fish passage facilities. Provide
documentation of fish passage efficiency and the success of passing all fish species. The
summary is intended to provide perspective on the state of best management practices.

Consequently, the goal of the literature search was to identify and acquire publications or other
materials that describe existing upstream and downstream fish passage facilities that have been
evaluated for the specific species of interest or other species that have similar morphology and/or
swimming ability. The primary species of interest, as identified by Glacier, that may be
impacted by the Dunvegan Project include walleye, goldeye, mountain whitefish, and burbot.
Additional species of concern include longnose sucker and northern pike.

The amount of literature describing the design and effectiveness of upstream and downstream
fish passage technologies is extensive. Many studies examining the effectiveness of various
designs have been conducted over the past 60 years. Relevant information has been previously
reviewed as part of the development of fish passage facilities for Dunvegan. Consequently, the
focus of the literature search was on publications that present more recent findings on fish
passage applications (i.e., studies conducted within the past 5 years). Some older studies were
also reviewed due to their relevance to fish passage issues being addressed at Dunvegan.
Relevant publications and documents were located by searching four aquatic and biological
literature databases and using internet search engines. In addition to the literature search, several
researchers and fishery managers in the U.S. and Canada were contacted in attempts to identify
any additional sites, ongoing studies, or publications.




                                                  1
ALDEN


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

General Findings

Upstream and downstream fish passage for riverine fish species has not been studied as
extensively as it has for anadromous species (e.g., salmon, shad, and herring species). However,
a relatively large number of studies evaluating upstream passage of several freshwater species
were identified. Most of this research has been conducted with smallmouth bass, walleye, and
northern pike. Information on the passage of non-game species (e.g., suckers, carps and
minnows, catfish and bullheads) was less prevalent and generally consisted of monitoring data
documenting the passage of various riverine fishes (i.e., effectiveness or biological performance
data were not collected or reported). The most common non-game species reported at upstream
passage facilities were suckers (catostomids).

In recent years, very few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of downstream passage
technologies in diverting riverine fishes away from hydro turbines. However, downstream
protection and/or passage facilities have recently? been installed or are being planned for many
projects in the U.S. specifically for riverine fish. Although downstream passage at many projects
targets non-game and game species, no data or information has been reported for most of the
species of concern at the site of the Dunvegan Project.

Upstream Passage

Upstream passage of riverine fish has received considerable attention by fishery managers in
recent years. Although upstream passage of diadromous fishes (e.g., anadromous salmonids and
clupeids and catadromous eel species) is well understood, little has been known about the
requirements for effectively passing freshwater migratory species. However, the apparent need
to keep rivers connected and open to upstream and downstream movements of resident fish
populations has spurred considerable research over the past 10 to 15 years in the development of
effective fishways for application with freshwater fishes throughout the world. Traditional
fishway designs have been re-examined for their ability to pass nonsalmonids upstream and,
more recently, nature-like bypass channels and rock ramps have been developed for the same
purpose.

Despite the recent interest in passing riverine fishes upstream, a review of fish passage
mitigation in the U.S. conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that
effectiveness evaluations have only been conducted at eight of the 43 non-federal projects where
upstream passage facilities have been installed (FERC 2004). Of these eight studies, only three
produced meaningful data and none included an evaluation of passage rates for riverine fishes
even though they were targeted for passage at 12 facilities. Subsequently, there appears to be no
existing data on upstream passage effectiveness of riverine fish at hydro projects in the U.S.
Many facilities, however, have documented the occurrence of riverine species using fishways,
including at facilities designed specifically for anadromous migrants (e.g., salmon, shad, and
herring).




                                                2
ALDEN


Our literature review found most upstream passage facilities designed for riverine fishes have
been installed at low head weirs or dams that are used for purposes other than power production
(Table 1). Of the six species of interest for the Dunvegan Project, only walleye and northern
pike have been extensively evaluated during studies examining the performance of upstream fish
passage facilities (Schwalme and Mackay 1985; Katopodis et al. 1991; Bunt 1999, 2001, 2003;
Bunt et al. 2000; Peake et al. 2001). However, some past studies and monitoring efforts have
included data on the passage of species similar to those that are of concern at Dunvegan (Laine et
al. 1998; Schmutz et al. 1998; Bunt et al. 1999; O’Connor et al. 2003). In particular, the passage
of catostomids (sucker species) through several fishway types has been reported at many dams
and weirs, which suggests that upstream passage of longnose sucker at Dunvegan could be
achieved through the use of several different fishway designs (e.g., Denil, vertical slot, or nature-
like channels). Table 2 summarizes the various fishway designs for which passage of each
Dunvegan specie has been reported.

Very little information is available on upstream passage for goldeye, mountain whitefish, and
burbot, all of which are primary species of interest at Dunvegan. In an older study that
monitored the passage of nonsalmonid fishes through vertical slot and Denil fishways at the
Lesser Slave Lake weir in Alberta, northern pike, longnose sucker, and burbot were observed
using both fishway types (Schwalme and Mackay 1985). Walleye and goldeye also were
observed at this site, but neither of these species used the fishways during the evaluation (this
may have been due in part to the weir being passable to fish during the study period due to high
flows). Mountain whitefish have been reported to use a vertical slot ladder at the Carseland Weir
in Alberta (Katopodis 2006).

Walleye upstream passage has been evaluated with Denil and vertical slot fishway designs and
nature-like channels and ramps (Katopodis et al. 1991; Bunt 1999, 2001; Bunt et al. 2000). The
swimming speeds and behavior of walleye as they move upstream has also been investigated
during laboratory studies (Castro-Santos 2004, 2005; Haro et al. 2004). Data from these studies
indicate that Denil, vertical slot, and nature-like fishways all have potential to effectively pass
walleye upstream. Walleye have also been documented using fish lifts at hydro projects on
several major U.S. rivers (Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, Undated). Similar to walleye,
northern pike upstream passage has been studied with different fishway designs (Schwalme and
Mackay 1985; Katopodis et al. 1991; Bunt 2003) and this species has been shown to utilize
Denil, vertical slot, and nature-like bypass designs.

Fishway evaluations generally have not been conducted with the other species of concern
(goldeye, mountain whitefish, burbot, and longnose sucker). Despite a lack of studies, several
fishways have been installed at weirs or dams where these species occur and, at some locations,
the passage of one or more of these species has been documented, including weirs with Denil,
vertical slot, and nature-like fishways (Table 2).

Downstream Passage

Similar to upstream passage, most downstream passage facilities have targeted anadromous
migrants (e.g., salmon smolts and juvenile shad and herring). The primary means for protecting
riverine fishes at hydro projects in the U.S. has been the use of narrow-spaced bar racks, which



                                                 3
ALDEN


typically have clear spacings of 1 to 2 inches. These facilities may be accompanied by a
downstream bypass, but many installations are designed only to prevent turbine entrainment and
loss of reservoir fish. Although prescribed by resource agencies at many projects in the U.S.,
few studies have been conducted at existing installations to determine their effectiveness in
minimizing entrainment of target species (FERC 2004). The FERC review of downstream
passage mitigation found that effectiveness evaluations were conducted at 12 projects, of which
only one focused on riverine fish species. This study was conducted at the Hudson Falls
Hydroelectric Project to estimate bypass efficiency rates for 45-degree angled bar racks with 1-
inch clear spacing and a single bypass located at the downstream end of the structure
(Ichthyological Associates 1999). Bypass efficiency rates were low (less than 50%) and similar
to those reported for laboratory studies conducted with several riverine species and 45-degree
angled bar racks with 2-inch clear spacing (Amaral et al. 2002). Although the Hudson Falls
study demonstrates that 45-degree bar racks may not be an effective downstream passage
measure for the species tested, the results are not completely relevant to Dunvegan because none
of the species of interest were evaluated and the 45-degree bar rack design is very different than
what has been proposed for preventing entrainment at the Dunvegan intake (i.e., vertically
sloping bar racks with multiple surface and submerged bypasses).

More recently, barrier nets have been investigated for reducing fish entrainment at hydro projects
in the U.S. (EPRI 2006). Alden (2006) investigated entrainment and impingement of several
freshwater species (paddlefish, channel and blue catfish, gizzard shad, white bass, freshwater
drum, and black crappie) during raceway tests in attempts to determine the most appropriate
mesh size for protecting the species and size classes of greatest concern at a hydro project on the
Osage River in Missouri. Evaluations have also been conducted with full-scale barrier nets that
have been installed at several hydro projects in the U.S. (EPRI 2006). Similar to narrow-spaced
bar racks that are designed specifically to reduce entrainment, barrier nets typically are not
installed as guidance devices leading to a downstream bypass.

Behavioral deterrents or guidance systems (strobe lights, underwater sound, turbulent flow paths)
have been evaluated with many species as means to reduce entrainment at hydro projects (EPRI
1998a). Recent studies have focused on diversion of salmonid species and repulsion of riverine
or resident species at cooling water intakes. Despite a relatively large number of studies
conducted in the lab and field during the past 50 years, very little information exists to support
the use or behavioral deterrents at Dunvegan. In particular, an evaluation of strobe light and
sound at a hydro power project in Wisconsin concluded that none of the fish collected during
entrainment sampling were effectively repelled by either device (EPRI 1998b). However, the
only species collected during this study that is a species of concern for the Dunvegan Project was
walleye; similar species included several catostomids (suckers). Currently, no information
appears to be available on the behavioral responses of hiodontids (goldeye and mooneye),
coregonines (whitefish species), esocids (pike and pickerel), and lotids (burbot) to any type of
behavioral deterrent. Responses of fish to behavioral deterrents often are highly species- and
size-specific, which makes it even more unlikely that a behavioral technology would be effective
in protecting all of the species of interest at Dunvegan.




                                                4
ALDEN


CONCLUSIONS

The results of the literature search and review did not allow for definitive summary statistics to
be developed on the use and effectiveness of upstream and downstream passage facilities for the
species of concern that may be impacted by the Dunvegan Project. Very few upstream and
downstream fish passage studies have been conducted at hydro projects with riverine species
either the same or similar to those that will occur at Dunvegan. However, upstream passage
facilities have been installed and evaluated at a number of non-hydropower dams and weirs in
Europe, the U.S., and Canada. Many of these facilities have been installed for passing some of
the species of interest at Dunvegan (mainly walleye and northern pike) and the results from the
few evaluations that have been conducted indicate that Denil, vertical slot, and nature-like
fishways could be considered state-of-the-art for all of the species of interest depending on site-
specific design considerations. Future laboratory or field studies may be useful in refining the
design of each of these fishway types for use with species like goldeye, mountain whitefish, and
burbot.

For downstream passage, the results of the literature review indicate that there are no state-of-
the-art technologies that could be used on a widespread basis for safely passing the Dunvegan
species of interest. Although narrow-spaced bar racks (either flush to an intake or angled to the
approach flow) appear to be the most prevalent means for protecting riverine fishes at U.S. hydro
projects, there has been very little data collected to determine their effectiveness. However, the
few studies that have been conducted with narrow-spaced bar racks (flush to the intake, not
angled) support the use of this approach for preventing entrainment simply because they act as a
physical barrier (as well as a behavioral barrier to some species). If riverine fish are required to
be passed downstream, which is often not the case at U.S. projects, one or more downstream
bypasses (e.g., sluiceways) need to be provided. Barrier nets also may be a viable option for
preventing entrainment, but typically have not been used to guide riverine fish to a downstream
passage route. Because fish responses to behavioral guidance technologies can be highly
species- and size-specific, they are unlikely to provide effective deterrence for all of the species
and size classes of fish that will have to be passed downstream.

In addition to the information presented in this report and what has been reported by FERC
(2004) for U.S. hydro projects, there are many other fishways in operation throughout North
America that may pass the species of interest for Dunvegan or species of similar morphology and
behavior. Information on most of these facilities can be difficult to find, or may not exist,
because there are no available publications describing design, operation, or effectiveness.
Additionally, the FERC (2004) review of fish passage mitigation at nonfederal U.S. projects was
limited to some extent by the database that was used and should not be considered a
comprehensive summary of all fish passage evaluations that have been conducted at U.S.
projects to date.


REFERENCES

Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. 2006. Biological Evaluation of Barrier Nets for Protecting
Fish at the Osage Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for AmerenUE.



                                                 5
ALDEN




Amaral, S. V., J. L. Black, and D. A. Dixon. 2002. Assessing Guidance Efficiency of Angled
Bar Racks and Louvers. Hydro Review, HCI Publications, June 2002.

Baker, C., and R. Allibone. 2002. Whitebait Can’t Jump. Water & Atmosphere 10(1):26-27.

Bunt, C. 1999. Field Assessment of the Dow Fishway for Passage of Walleye. Prepared by
Biotactic Inc. for the Dow Chemical Company.

Bunt, C. M., C. Katopodis, and R. S. McKinley. 1999. Attraction and Passage Efficiency of
White Suckers and Smallmouth Bass by Two Denil Fishways. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 18:793-803.

Bunt, C. 2001. Preliminary Videographic Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Dow Dam Fish
Ladder. Prepared by Biotactic Inc. for the Dow Chemical Company.

Bunt, C. M., S. J. Cooke, and R. S. McKinley. 2000. Assessment of the Dunnville Fishway for
Passage of Walleyes from Lake Eerie to the Grand River, Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes
Research 26:482-488.

Bunt, C. M. 2001. Fishway Entrance Modifications Enhance Fish Attraction. Fisheries
Management and Ecology 8:95-105.

Bunt, C. 2003. Northern Pike Passage, Critical Habitat and Effects of Barriers on Movement in
the Welland River West and Oswego Creek. Prepared by Biotactic Inc. for the Niagara
Peninsula Conservation Authority and the Niagara Restoration Council.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1999. 1999 Fish Passage Annual Report. Prepared by Living
Resources Subcommittee.

Castro-Santos, T. 2004. Quantifying the Combined Effects of Attempt Rate and Swimming
Capacity on Passage through Velocity Barriers. Canadian Journal of Aquatic and Fisheries
Sciences 61:1602-1615.

Castro-Santos, T. 2005. Optimal Swim Speeds for Traversing Velocity Barriers: An Analysis of
Volitional High-speed Swimming Behavior of Migratory Fishes. Journal of Experimental
Biology 208:421-432.

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1998a. Review of Downstream Fish Passage and
Protection Technology Evaluations and Effectiveness. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory,
Inc., EPRI Report No. TR-111517.

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1998b. Evaluation of Fish Behavioral Barriers.
Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., EPRI Report No. TR-109483.




                                              6
ALDEN


EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2006. Design Considerations and Specifications for
Fish Barrier Net Deployment at Cooling Water Intake Structures. Prepared by Alden Research
Laboratory, Inc., In press.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2001. Order Accepting Fish Passage
Monitoring Results and Denying Recommendation Under Orders Issued March 4, 1997 and May
11, 1998. Issued December 6, 2001, 97 FERC¶ 62,202.

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2004. Evaluation of Mitigation Effectiveness
at Hydropower Projects: Fish Passage. Division of Hydropower Administration and
Compliance, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C.

Haro, A., T. Castro-Santos, J. Noreika, and M. Odeh. 2004. Swimming Performance of
Upstream Migrant Fishes in Open-channel flow: A New Approach to Predicting Passage through
Velocity Barriers. Canadian Journal of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences 61:1590-1601.

Helfrich, L. A., C. L. Liston, S. Hiebert, M. Albers, and K. Frazer. 1999. Influence of Low-head
Diversion Dams on Fish Passage, Community Composition, and Abundance in the Yellowstone
River, Montana. Rivers 7:21-32.

Ichthyological Associates, Inc. and Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C. 1999. An Evaluation
of the Downstream Fish Passage Facility. Prepared for Adirondack Hydro Development
Corporation.

Katopodis, C., A. J. Derksen, B. L. Christensen. 1991. Assessment of Two Denil Fishways for
Passage of Freshwater Species. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10:306-324.

Katapodis, C. 1991. Introduction to Fishway Design. Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
Winnipeg, Canada.

Katopodis, C. 2006. Fish Passage at Dams: Diverse Systems for meeting Diverse Needs for
Access to Suitable Habitat and Avoiding Fish Losses. Canadian Dam Association, Winter 2006.

Laine, A., R. Kamula, and J. Hooli. 1998. Fish and Lamprey Passage in a Combined Denil and
Vertical Slot Fishway. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5:31-44.

Larinier, M., and F. Travade. 2002. Downstream Migration: Problems and Facilities. Chapter
13, Bull. Fr. Piscic. 364 suppl.:181-207.

O’Connor, L., T. Pratt, A. Hallet, C. Katopodis, R. Bergstedt, D. Hayes, R. McLaughlin. 2003.
A Performance Evaluation of Fishways at Sea Lamprey Barriers and Controlled Modifications to
Improve Fishway Performance. Prepared for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

Ovidio, M., and J. Philippart. 2002. The Impact of Small Physical Obstacles on Upstream
Movements of Six Species of Fish. Hydrobiologia 483:55-69.




                                               7
ALDEN


Paragamian, V. L., R. Hardy, and B. Gunderman. 2005. Effects of Regulated Discharge on
Burbot Migration. Journal of Fish Biology 66:1199-1213.

Peake, S., B. McKeown, and R. Bukowsky. 2001. Swimming Performance of Manitoba Fish
Species in Relation to Fishway Design.
Http://www.hydro.mb.ca/environment_speak/fish_species/research/htm.

Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission. Undated. History of Lehigh River Fish Passages.
Http://www.fish.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/shad01/lehigh/001lehigh_histroy.htm.

Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission. Undated. Smallmouth Bass and Walleye Passage at
Susquehanna River Dams, 1997-2005.
Http://www.fish.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/shad01/2005/fish2005.htm.

Schmutz, S., C. Giefing, and C. Wiesner. 1998. The Efficiency of a Nature-like Bypass Channel
for Pike-perch (Stizostedion lucioperca) in the Marchfeldkanalsystem. Hydrobiologia
371/372:355-360.

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.

Slatick, E., and L. R. Basham. 1985. The Effect of Denil Fishway Length on Passage of Some
Nonsalmonid Fishes. Marine Fisheries Review 47:83-85.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2005. 50 Miles of Uninterrupted Rock River Restored Near
Jefferson, Wisconsin. Http://www.fws.gov/arsnew/regmap.cfm?framesFlag=0&arskey=18047.




                                             8
ALDEN


TABLE 1. Summary of upstream passage information for dams where Dunvegan species of interest and/or similar species have been
reported.

                                                                        Dam      Dunvegan        Similar       Fishway         Effectiveness
  Project/Site      River/Waterbody       State/Province    Country     Type       Species       Species         Type           Evaluation
Bearberry Creek    Bearberry Creek       Alberta            Canada      weir    walleye        unknown        nature-like     unknown
                                                                                n. pike
                                                                                m. whitefish
Big Carp River     Big Carp River        Ontario               US        weir   unknown        w. sucker      vertical slot   yes
Boshers Dam        James River           Virginia              US        weir   walleye        sucker spp     vertical slot   monitoring
Box Canyon Dam Pend Oreille              Washington            US       hydro   m. whitefish   unknown        trap & truck yes
Breckenridge    Otter Tail River         Minnesota             US        weir   unknown        unknown        nature-like     unknown
Dam
Canborough Weir Oswego Creek             Ontario             Canada      weir   n. pike        unknown        nature-like     yes
Carmangay Weir     unknown               Alberta             Canada      weir   unknown        unknown        nature-like     unknown
Carseland Weir     Bow River             Alberta             Canada      weir   m. whitefish   unknown        vertical slot   unknown
Chain Dam          Lehigh River          Pennsylvania         US         weir   walleye        sucker spp     vertical slot   unknown
Churchill Weir     Churchill River       Manitoba            Canada      weir   unknown        l. whitefish   nature-like     yes
                                                                                               cisco
Cobourg Brook      Cobourg Brook         Ontario               US        weir   l. sucker      sucker spp     vertical slot   yes
Conowingo          Susqehanna River      Pennsylvania          US       hydro   walleye        sucker spp     fish lift       monitoring
Cowan Weir         --                    Saskatchewan        Canada      weir   walleye        w. sucker      Denil           yes
                                                                                n. pike
                                                                                l. sucker
Dow Dam            Tittabawasee River    Michigan              US        weir   walleye        unknown        vertical slot   yes
Dunnville          Grand River           Ontario             Canada      weir   walleye        sucker spp     Denil           yes
                                                                                n. pike        mooneye



                                                                 9
ALDEN


TABLE 1 (continued)

                                                                 Dam     Dunvegan      Similar        Fishway        Effectiveness
  Project/Site    River/Waterbody     State/Province   Country   Type     Species      Species          Type          Evaluation
Easton Dam       Lehigh River        Pennsylvania        US      weir    walleye      sucker spp     vertical slot   monitoring
Eureka           Fox River           Wisconsin           US       weir   walleye     sucker spp      nature-like     unknown
Fairford Dam     Lake Fairford       Manitoba          Canada     weir   walleye     sauger          Denil           yes
                                                                                     w. sucker
Goose Creek      Goose Creek         Manitoba          Canada    culvert n. pike     unknown         nature-like     unknown
Grand River Weir Grand River         Ontario           Canada     weir   --          sucker spp      Denil           yes
Holtwood         Susqehanna River    Pennsylvania        US      hydro   walleye     sucker spp      fish lift       monitoring
Isohaara         Kemijoki River      --                Finland   hydro   unknown     whitefish spp   Denil           yes
                                                                                                     vertical slot
Jackfish Creek   Jackfish Creek      Manitoba          Canada     weir   n. pike     w. sucker       unknown         unknown
Jefferson Dam    Rock River          Wisconsin          US        weir   walleyen.   unknown         nature-like     yes
                                                                         pike
Lab study        --                  Manitoba          Canada      --    n. pike     --              open flume      yes
                                                                                                     Denil
                                                                                                     vertical slot
Lesser Slave     Lesser Slave Lake   Alberta           Canada     weir   walleye     l. whitefish    Denil           yes
                                                                         n. pike     w. sucker       vertical slot
                                                                         goldeye     y. perch
                                                                         l. sucker
                                                                         burbot
Mannheim         Grand River         Ontario           Canada     weir   walleye     w. sucker       Denil           yes
                                                                         n. pike
Midtown Dam      Red River           Minnesota           US       weir   unknown     unknown         nature-like     unknown




                                                           10
ALDEN


TABLE 1 (continued)

                                                               Dam       Dunvegan     Similar     Fishway         Effectiveness
 Project/Site    River/Waterbody    State/Province   Country   Type        Species    Species       Type           Evaluation
Multiple weirs   Yellostone River   Montana            US      weirs   walleye     sucker spp    none            yes
                                                                       goldeye
                                                                       l. sucker
                                                                       burbot
                                                                       m.
                                                                       whitefish
Multiple weirs   Meuse                               Belgium   weirs   n. pike     unknown       NR              yes
Multiple weirs   Red River          North Dakota       US      weirs   walleye      sucker spp   restored        unknown
                                                                       goldeye                   channels
Otter Tail Dam   Otter Tail River   Minnesota         US       hydro   unknown      unknown      nature-like     unknown
Port Davidson    Welland River      Ontario          Canada     weir   n. pike                   nature-like     yes
Weir
Rapid City       Little Saskatchewan Manitoba        Canada    weir    walleye      sucker spp   nature-like     yes
                 R.                                                    n. pike
Rocky Creek      Rocky Creek         Manitoba        Canada    weir    n. pike      unknown      unknown         unknown
                                                                       walleye
Safe Harbor      Susqehanna River   Pennsylvania       US      hydro   walleye                   lift            monitoring
W4               Marchfeldkanal-                     Austria   weir    unknown      pike-perch   nature-like     yes
                 system
York Haven       Susqehanna River   Pennsylvania       US      hydro   walleye      sucker spp   vertical slot   monitoring
                 Kananaskis River   Alberta          Canada    unkno   unknown      unknown      unknown         unknown
                                                                wn




                                                         11
ALDEN


TABLE 2. Number of upstream passage facilities where Dunvegan species of interested have
been evaluated or reported.


                                           Upstream Passage Design
                                                           Nature-like
              Species         Vertical Slot        Denil    Channel      Fish Lift
        walleye                    6                5          4             3
        other percids               1               1          1             --


        goldeye                     1               1          --            --
        other hiodontids            --              --         --            --


        mountain whitefish          1               --         1             --
        other coregonines           1               3          1             --


        burbot                      1               1          --            --
        other lotids                --              --         --            --


        northern pike               1               2          5             --
        other esocids               --              --         --            --


        longnose sucker             1               2          --            --
        other catostomids           7               5          2             2




                                              12

				
DOCUMENT INFO