This article was downloaded by: [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee]On: 09 October 2014, At: 17:02Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

North American Journal of Fisheries ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujfm20

Interdam Movements and Passage Attraction ofAmerican Shad in the Lower Merrimack River MainStemKenneth Sprankle aa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Central New England Fishery Resources Office , 151 BroadStreet, Nashua, New Hampshire, 03063, USAPublished online: 08 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Kenneth Sprankle (2005) Interdam Movements and Passage Attraction of American Shad in the LowerMerrimack River Main Stem, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25:4, 1456-1466, DOI: 10.1577/M04-049.1

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/M04-049.1

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

1456

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1456–1466, 2005 [Article]American Fisheries Society 2005DOI: 10.1577/M04-049.1

Interdam Movements and Passage Attraction of American Shadin the Lower Merrimack River Main Stem

KENNETH SPRANKLE*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Central New England Fishery Resources Office,

151 Broad Street, Nashua, New Hampshire 03063, USA

Abstract.—In May and June of 2002, 72 adult American shad Alosa sapidissima were internallyradio-tagged on four dates and were monitored in the Merrimack River, Massachusetts, betweenEssex Dam (first main-stem dam above the Atlantic Ocean) and Pawtucket Dam (second main-stem dam), a distance of 22 kilometers. From 1989 to 2001, the number of American shad thatpassed Pawtucket Dam via the Boott Station fish lift and fish ladder averaged 17% of the numberthat passed Essex Dam. The objectives of the study were to (1) determine the number of taggedAmerican shad that pass Essex Dam and reach the Boott Station tailrace and (2) monitor Americanshad movements between Essex and Pawtucket dams. Three stationary receivers and one mobilereceiver were used to track fish over a 2-month period. Sixty-five tagged fish were deemed healthyafter release from the Essex Dam fish lift. From this group, 43 fish (66%) reached the poolimmediately downstream of the Boott Station tailrace and 36 fish (55%) entered the tailrace. Themedian travel time for tagged fish that reached the tailrace was 41.5 h (range 5 14.5–365.0 h).Four radio-tagged American shad (6% of 65 fish) versus an estimated 5,283 untagged Americanshad (10% of 54,450 fish that passed Essex Dam) passed through the Boott Station fish lift in2002. These results indicate that American shad passage efficiency at the Boott Station fish liftneeds improvement to achieve full American shad restoration upstream of the Pawtucket Dam.The extent of structural or operational measures necessary to improve American shad passagerates should be examined and evaluated.

Populations of American shad Alosa sapidissimain large New England rivers typically must utilizefish passage facilities at hydroelectric dams toreach spawning and nursery habitat. Prior to theconstruction of main-stem dams on the MerrimackRiver, the historic range of American shad in thebasin extended to the confluence of the Pemige-wasset and Winnipesaukee rivers at river kilometer(rkm) 185 (measured from the river outlet to theAtlantic Ocean) and continued on to Lake Win-nipesaukee at rkm 223 (Marston and Gordon1938). The American shad population is targetedfor restoration by the interagency AnadromousFish Restoration Program for the Merrimack River(New Hampshire Fish and Game Department,Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Mas-sachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], U.S. ForestService, and National Marine Fisheries Service),which was formed in 1969. Restoration activitiesinclude coordinating the installation, evaluation,operation, and maintenance of fish passage facil-ities at targeted hydroelectric dams for returningadults and juvenile out-migrants of several diad-

* E-mail: kenpsprankle@fws.gov.

Received March 25, 2004; accepted July 11, 2005Published online November 3, 2005

romous fish species, including American shad(MRTC 1997).

Essex Dam (Lawrence, Massachusetts), con-structed in 1848, is the downstream-most main-stem barrier on the Merrimack River (rkm 48) andis located approximately 10 km above the head oftide. In 1983, Essex Dam was outfitted with a fishlift in the tailrace of a new hydroelectric facilityto provide upstream fish passage for returninganadromous fish. Pawtucket Dam (Lowell, Mas-sachusetts), constructed in the early 1800s, is thenext main-stem barrier, located 22 km upstream ofEssex Dam at rkm 70. Fish passage facilities atPawtucket Dam include (1) a dual vertical-slot fishladder that was installed in 1986 and that is locatedat the upper end of a 2-km bypass reach at thedam and (2) a fish lift in the Boott HydroelectricStation tailrace that moves fish into a canal systemleading to the Pawtucket Dam headpond. BoottStation is licensed (Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission 2790) as a run-of-the-river hydro-electric facility similar to the Essex Dam facility.Spill conditions at Pawtucket Dam, occurring atflows greater than 280 m3/s, may attract Americanshad to the fish ladder in the bypass reach. Riverflows from the end of May through June are gen-erally below the Pawtucket Dam spill thresholdduring the American shad run. As a consequence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1457AMERICAN SHAD INTERDAM MOVEMENT

FIGURE 1.—Map of the lower Merrimack River, showing the locations of Essex Dam (Lawrence, Massachusetts)and Pawtucket Dam (Lowell, Massachusetts).

of this situation, the Boott Station fish lift is con-sidered to be the primary fishway for Americanshad passage upstream of Pawtucket Dam becauseit possesses a greater level of attraction flow thanthe bypass reach.

From 1989 to 2001, 17% (mean; range 5 3–38%) of the American shad that passed Essex Damwere counted at Pawtucket Dam (MassachusettsDivision of Fisheries and Wildlife, unpublisheddata). Counts of American shad passing PawtucketDam have been obtained primarily from video re-cordings reviewed by Massachusetts Division ofFisheries and Wildlife staff for the fish lift andfrom partial counts at the fish ladder. It is unclearwhether American shad are motivated to reachhabitat upstream of Pawtucket Dam or whether thefish lift is not effective at attracting and passingthem. The need for information on fish behaviorand attraction to fishway entrances is pervasiveand critical to fishery programs worldwide (Clay1961; Kynard 1998; Northcote 1998). The objec-tives of this study were to (1) determine the num-ber of American shad that pass Essex Dam andreach the Boott Station tailrace and (2) monitor

American shad movements between Essex andPawtucket dams.

Study Area

The Merrimack River basin is located in centralNew Hampshire and northeastern Massachusettsand drains an area of 12,976 km2. The basin ex-hibits a mean annual discharge of approximately225 m3/s.

The reach of river bounded by the Essex (rkm48) and Pawtucket dams (rkm 70) runs a distanceof approximately 22 km, and the Essex Dam im-poundment extends upstream to rkm 62 (Figure 1).Hunts Falls is located at rkm 65, from which pointriffle and run habitat persists to rkm 68. A rela-tively large pool (25 ha) located at rkm 69 receivesdischarge from the Boott Station tailrace on thesouthern bank of the river (Figure 2).

The Boott Station tailrace is approximately 15m wide and 125 m long and is separated from themain-stem river by a narrow retaining wall on itsnorth side (Figure 3). The tailrace was constructedfrom excavated bedrock, resulting in nearly ver-tical ledge walls along the edges. The tailrace is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1458 SPRANKLE

FIGURE 2.—An aerial view of the upstream section of the Merrimack River (Massachusetts) study area fromHunts Falls (rkm 65) upstream to the Pawtucket Dam (rkm 70).

FIGURE 3.—An aerial view of the Boott Station tail-race in the Merrimack River, Massachusetts, showingthe location of the fish lift entrance. The tailrace re-ceiver’s antenna was located adjacent to the fish lift en-trance, and reception of signals from radio-tagged Amer-ican shad was limited to the downstream edge of thetailrace.

angled approximately 308 towards the south at apoint approximately 20 m downstream of thepowerhouse, continuing straight for the remainderof its length. The powerhouse operates two 8.6-MW Kaplan turbines that have a combined max-imum operating capacity of 194.9 m3/s. The fishlift becomes operational after the passage of 50American shad or 200 alewives A. pseudoharengusand blueback herring A. aestivalis at Essex Dam.The entrance gate to the tailrace fish lift is on the

north side and has an attraction flow of 3.4 m3/s(1.7% of maximum generation discharge). Oncefish have passed through the entrance weir, acrowder gate moves fish to the upstream end ofthe entrance flume, into the lift hopper, and up tothe exit flume and forebay. The Boott Station fishlift is operated by a company staff person from0800 to 1800 hours on an adaptive schedule (0.25–1.00-h cycle) based upon American shad passageobservations.

The bypass reach, located adjacent to the northside of the tailrace retaining wall, extends up-stream 2 km to rkm 70, where Pawtucket Dam islocated (Figure 2). Flow conditions in the bypassreach may fluctuate from early to mid-May priorto the installation of flashboards on the dam. Typ-ically, upon the installation of the dam boards, flowin the bypass reach from the end of May throughthe end of the spawning run in late June is insuf-ficient to attract fish to the Pawtucket Dam fishladder. As no minimum flow is required in thebypass reach, only spill flow (main-stem flows .280 m3/s), fish ladder operation (6 m3/s), and leak-age (;0.5 m3/s) contribute to conditions that mayattract fish to the bypass reach.

Methods

Adult American shad were captured at the EssexDam fish lift in a net-pen placed in the exit flumeof the lift, which received fish sluiced directly fromthe hopper bucket. Fish that appeared healthy,(swimming vigorously at the upstream edge of thepen) were dipped from the net and were held inthe dip net while a radio tag was inserted esopha-geally into the stomach with a modified tube, aprocess that typically took under 10 s. Fish weretagged on four dates during what has historically

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1459AMERICAN SHAD INTERDAM MOVEMENT

been the mid-point of the spring American shadrun from late May to early June. Between 1983and 2001, 25–75% of the American shad passageat Essex Dam occurred between 23 May and 11June (Massachusetts Division of Fisheries andWildlife, unpublished data).

Lotek MCFT-3D coded transmitters (10.3 3 29mm; 30-cm antennae; 3.9-g air weight) with a 60-d life and a 5-s pulse interval were used and op-erated at a frequency of 149.740 MHz. The tag’santenna extended 15–20 cm out from the fish’smouth. To minimize handling time and stress, noadditional data such as length, weight, or sex wererecorded on tagged fish. Tagged fish were releaseddirectly into the exit flume, from which they swamout of the fishway. The decision to expedite thehandling and tagging process to ensure that losses(injuries or other effects) were held to an absoluteminimum was based on published reports and ondiscussions with biologists that had experience inthe radio tagging of American shad. Studies in-volving radio-tagged American shad typically ex-perience a high rate of fallback or loss of studyfish because of a variety of factors believed to beprimarily related to handling stress and the taggingprocedure (Barry and Kynard 1986; Monk et al.1989; Bailey et al. 2004).

The health (viability) of radio-tagged Americanshad was determined based on the extent and du-ration of upstream movement after the tagging pro-cedure. The number of viable tagged Americanshad was then used for analytical purposes to char-acterize the movements of healthy American shadthat passed Essex Dam. Tagged fish that did notleave the immediate vicinity of Essex Dam aftertagging and that were soon detected by the EssexDam tailrace receiver were designated as fall-backs. In addition to this group, tagged fish thatmade limited upstream progress (did not move up-stream of the impoundment) or that were only de-tected upstream for a short time (,72 h) beforedetection at the Essex Dam tailrace receiver werealso deemed nonviable.

Three stationary Lotek SRX-400 receivers withsix-element Yagi directional antennas were de-ployed to detect tagged fish in (1) the Essex Damtailrace, (2) the Boott Station tailrace, and (3) thebypass reach adjacent to Boott Station. After 7 dof operation, the bypass receiver was moved to theexit of the Boott Station fish lift because of reducedbypass flows on 5 June. The Boott Station tailracereceiver and antenna were arranged to only detecttagged fish entering the tailrace. Trials of the tail-race receiver’s detection of a radio tag and the tag

signal power readings were conducted by attachinga test tag to fishing line and casting and retrievingit at multiple locations in the Boott Station tailrace.Based upon the results of these test trials, the rel-ative locations of detected radio tags were assignedfrom receiver data based on tag signal power read-ings. Power readings are unitless and relative,based primarily upon tag design, sensitivity set-tings of receiver detection, and antennae config-uration and placement. Receiver power readingsof greater than 150 for a study tag were consistentwith a location within 30 m of the fish lift entranceor the uppermost quarter of the tailrace. Receiverpower readings of greater than 200 in the sametests were consistent with a location within 10 mof the fish lift entrance. Stationary receiver datawere retrieved at varying frequencies (1–5 d)based upon the volume of data recorded (e.g.,Boott Station tailrace at the shortest intervals).

The Boott Station tailrace receiver was set toscan for tag signals without averaging and withouttime delays (instantaneous). The detection of a ra-dio tag by the receiver was recorded at intervalsmeasured in seconds along with correspondingpower readings. Subsequently, tag identificationsand their corresponding power readings were usedto determine the relative duration for which atagged fish remained in the tailrace.

Mobile tracking by vehicle and foot was con-ducted over the study reach by use of equipmentidentical to the stationary receivers. Reception ofradio tag signals was generally within 1–2 km butvaried with background noise (electronic interfer-ence) and elevation among sites. Mobile trackingwas conducted on 38 dates from 31 May to 31 July2002. Daily mobile surveys occurred from 31 Mayto 9 July with five exceptions: 1, 15, 22, and 23June and 4 July. Additional mobile tracking oc-curred on seven dates from 12 to 31 July at in-tervals greater than 2 d. Mobile tracking effortswere conducted at a less-frequent interval duringJuly, as upstream movements were no longer de-tected. Mobile tracking locations consisted of 21sites from the Essex Dam tailrace (downstream)to Pawtucket Dam (upstream). Distances betweensurvey sites were less than 1 km between rkm 59and the Pawtucket Dam at rkm 70; this reach con-tained the upstream portion of the Essex Dam im-poundment and unimpounded riverine habitat andwas rapidly occupied by the majority of taggedfish. Between rkm 48 (Essex Dam) and rkm 59, areach that was entirely within the impoundment,distances between survey sites ranged from 1 to 4km. The greatest distance between two survey sites

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1460 SPRANKLE

TABLE 1.—Percentage of the 2002 American shad run that passed Essex Dam, Massachusetts, number of radio-taggedfish released, identified fallbacks, and fish identified as reaching the Boott Station tailrace. Percentage of fish that reachedthe Boott Station tailrace was based upon the number tagged minus the number of fallbacks.

Releasedate

Percentage of 2002run passing by the

release dateNumber

radio-tagged

Fall backs

N %

Detections atBoott Station

N %

30 May 43.5 19 0.0 9 47.43 Jun 60.7 20 1 5.0 13 68.46 Jun 65.5 21 5 23.8 6 37.59 Jun 71.8 12 1 8.3 8 72.7Total 72 7 36

was between rkm 48 and 52. Analysis of propor-tion data were performed by use of Zar’s (1984)chi-square procedures. One-way analysis of vari-ance was used to test for differences in the meantime spent upstream after release among the fourrelease groups of tagged American shad. The levelof statistical significance was set at 0.05.

Mean daily discharge data were obtained fromthe U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging sta-tion on the Merrimack River in Lowell (USGSgauge 01100000; rkm 66). Discharge at PawtucketDam was extrapolated from these data after cor-recting for the discharge of the Concord River trib-utary (USGS gauge 01099500, Lowell), locatedapproximately 300 m upstream of the gauging sta-tion.

Results

Four groups of American shad totaling 72 fishwere radio-tagged and released on 30 May and 3,6, and 9 June 2002 at the Essex Dam fish lift (Table1). Seven radio-tagged fish (10%) were classifiedas nonviable due to limited upstream progress orfallback within 72 h of release, as determined bymobile tracking and Essex Dam tailrace receiverdata. Five tagged fish were never detected outsideof the Essex Dam forebay, one fish moved 4 kmupstream for a 3-d period, and one moved 5 kmupstream for 1 d. Most tagged fish were observedto leave the exit of the fish lift flume, pass thecounting house window, and proceed through thelower impoundment within 1 h of release. No sig-nificant difference in the percentage of fallbacks(x2 5 7.34; P 5 0.06) was detected among thefour release groups.

Radio-tagging dates for American shad werestaggered over 11 d. High river flows delayed fishpassage at the Essex Dam fish lift from 14 to 24May (Figure 4). The percentage of the total Amer-ican shad run that passed Essex Dam by the fourradio-tagging dates in 2002 ranged from 44% to72% (Table 1).

Boott Station Tailrace and Fish Lift Receiver

Thirty-six (55%) of the 65 viable tagged fishwere detected at the entrance of the Boott Stationtailrace. The period of time taken to reach the tail-race, the time spent in the tailrace, and the prox-imity to the lift entrance varied considerablyamong tagged fish. The median travel time for atagged fish to reach the tailrace was 41.5 h (range5 14.5–365.0 h), or a rate of 0.5 km/h. The per-centage of tagged fish that reached the Boott Sta-tion tailrace was not significantly different amongthe four release groups (x2 5 5.2; P 5 0.16) (Table1). The tailrace receiver data for 24 June at 1600hours to 26 June at 1100 hours, a period of 43 h,were irretrievable.

Four (11%) of the 36 tagged fish identified inthe Boott Station tailrace (6% of the 65 tagged fishreleased from Essex Dam) successfully passedthrough the Boott Station fish lift. Fish code 78was not detected by the Boott Station tailrace re-ceiver but successfully passed through the fish lift.This fish was located in the tailwater of AmoskeagDam (rkm 121) in Manchester, New Hampshire,on 23 June (Mike Jeanneau, Normandeau Asso-ciates, Inc., personal communication) and was lat-er identified on 26 June with the mobile receiverin the lower Boott Station tailrace before its finaldetection in the Essex Dam tailrace on 28 June.Fish code 96 was detected as passing the BoottStation fish lift on 12 June and was later identifiedat the base of Amoskeag Dam on 19, 22, and 27June. Neither fish entered the Amoskeag Dam fishladder. Fish code 57 was detected as passing theBoott Station fish lift on 6 June and was next de-tected by the mobile receiver on 24 and 26 Junein the Boott Station tailrace pool. This fish wassubsequently detected by the Essex Dam tailracereceiver on 27 June and was detected repeatedlyat that location on the next seven mobile trackingdates between 30 June and 15 July. Fish code 87was detected as passing the Boott Station fish lift

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1461AMERICAN SHAD INTERDAM MOVEMENT

FIGURE 4.—Daily counts of American shad passing Essex Dam on the Merrimack River, Massachusetts, andcorresponding data for river flow and water temperature from 29 April to 31 July 2002. Release dates for radio-tagged fish are shown by arrows.

on 27 June and was later detected as stationary inthe bypass reach in the vicinity of the downstreambypass discharge for Boott Station on 10 mobiletracking dates from 28 June to 25 July.

Tagged fish were identified by the stationary re-ceiver a mean of 7.9 d (N 5 35, SD 5 7.6) in theBoott Station tailrace. Those tagged fish that didnot pass were identified in the tailrace a mean of8.0 d (N 5 32, SD 5 7.6), whereas the three fishthat passed were identified a mean of 6.7 d (SD5 8.1) in the tailrace. The tailrace receiver datawere further examined to determine the number ofevents (tag identification) and the power of thetag’s detected signal for individual fish (Table 2).Relative signal power reading thresholds of 200and 150 were chosen based upon the reception fieldof the antenna configuration and the gain settingon the receiver. The four tagged fish that success-fully passed (codes 57, 78, 87, and 96) were fromthe final three of the four release groups. Three ofthe four passed fish (codes 57, 87, and 96) had amean of 1,415 recorded events (range 5 790–1,850 events) for power readings greater than 200;code 78 was omitted from analysis, as it was notdetected by the tailrace receiver. Tagged fish thatdid not pass but that were detected at a powergreater than 200 by the tailrace receiver (N 5 14)had a mean of 715 recorded events (range 5 2–4,560 events).

In the spring of 2002, the Pawtucket Dam fish

ladder was not operated, and thus the Boott Stationfish lift was the sole facility for upstream passageof fish. In addition, fish counts at the Boott Stationfish lift were estimated by the power company’slift operator in 2002, as opposed to the past methodof enumeration by videotape monitoring. Visualestimates were made as the lift bucket was raised,and estimated numbers of American shad rangedfrom a few fish to a maximum of 200 per lift. Anestimated 5,283 American shad, or 10% of the runthat passed Essex Dam, passed through the BoottStation fish lift, which is consistent with results inrecent years.

Mobile Tracking

Movements of radio-tagged American shad out-side the reception field of the three stationary re-ceivers were determined by mobile tracking.Sixty-five fish were located and tracked with mo-bile and stationary receivers (Table 3; 7 fallbacks[10% of 72 tagged fish] are excluded). Four fish(6% of 65) were never detected upstream of rkm59 within the Essex Dam impoundment.

Sixty-one of the tagged fish (94% of 65) wereobserved to move upstream of the Essex Dam im-poundment to varying distances over the 60-d pe-riod. Three fish (5% of 65) were never locatedupstream of rkm 64 but were located in more shal-low water (2–3 m) downstream of Hunts Falls (rkm65). Fifteen tagged fish (23% of 65) were tracked

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1462 SPRANKLE

TABLE 2.—A summary of radio-tagged American shaddetected by the Boott Station, Massachusetts, tailrace re-ceiver. The fish with code 78 (excluded here) was docu-mented as passing but was not identified by the tailracereceiver. Data include the number of days for which adetected tag signal was greater than the designated powerthreshold and the frequency of such events. A power read-ing of 230 places a fish at the immediate entrance of thefish lift. Values in bold italics represent fish that passedthrough the Boott Station fish lift.

Fishcode

Power reading .200

Numberof days

Numberof events

% of totalevents

Power reading .150

Numberof days

Numberof events

33 5 1,138 17.0 5 3,13334 1 16 0.9 1 8839a 1 141 5 4,560 13.2 8 14,85443 3 234 3.5 3 1,44847 1 9 2.4 1 2452 2 4857b 2 1,605 35.4 2 3,44561 1 663 1 19 3.4 1 19564 2 342 5.9 2 2,09865 1 57 3.1 1 65167 2 200 12.9 2 63872 7 216 2.9 8 3,07587b 8 1,850 5.3 10 11,61588 2 5792 2 3 0.8 2 10495 1 896b 3 790 9.4 3 4,046

102 1 2 0.6 1 98103 10 3,161 5.3 16 13,405104 2 58 2.2 4 708

a Multiple identification events with ,150 power readings in tail-race.

b Passed through fish lift.

TABLE 3.—A summary of the furthest documented upstream locations reached by 65 radio-tagged American shadwithin the Merrimack River (Massachusetts) study area. Seven fallbacks are omitted.

Number ofradio-tagged

fishFurthest knowndistance (rkm) Habitat or location

4 59 Essex Dam impoundment3 64 Run

15 67 Riffle and run6 68 Pool at base of Boott Station tailrace

32 69 Boott Station tailrace1 71 Base of Pawtucket Dam4a 121a Passed upstream of Boott Station

a Of the four radio-tagged fish that passed the Boott Station fish lift, two were documented at thenext upstream barrier, Amoskeag Dam (rkm 121), by a concurrent, separate telemetry study.There were no monitoring efforts upstream of Pawtucket Dam in this study.

in a reach from Hunts Falls (rkm 65) to the down-stream edge of the Boott Station tailrace pool (rkm67). This reach consists of moderate-gradient riffleand run habitat containing a mixed substrate of

gravel, cobble, and some small boulder; waterdepths range from 1 to 2 m.

The tailrace pool (rkm 68), which is 25 ha insize, receives discharge from the Boott Station tail-race on its south shore and any spill directed downthe bypass reach. Forty-three tagged fish (66% of65) were monitored as utilizing the tailrace poolfor varying amounts of time. Discharge from theBoott Station tailrace, at 200 m3/s, always ex-ceeded the flow in the bypass reach by at least afactor of five on dam spill events. Spill conditionswere observed during the study on 8 June (22m3/s), 9 June (9 m3/s), 14 June (32 m3/s), 15 June(41 m3/s), and 16 June (12 m3/s). One tagged fish,code 61, was tracked in the upper bypass reachnear the base of Pawtucket Dam from 14 to 17June during a 3-d period of spill at the dam. Thefish was detected again in the tailrace pool on 19June. Fish code 61 had previously been detectedin the Boott Station tailrace on 5 June and returnedagain to the tailrace on 24 June (Table 2).

Downstream Movements

Downstream movements of the 65 viable radio-tagged American shad were determined by mobiletracking and were monitored by the stationary re-ceiver located in the Essex Dam tailrace. The Es-sex Dam tailrace receiver was positioned to scanthe area that received discharge from the down-stream fish bypass. Sixty-two (95%) of the 65tagged fish were identified as occupying the EssexDam tailrace for a mean of 20.6 d (range 5 3–40d) after being released. However, the field of re-ception could not distinguish between a tagged fishthat passed via the downstream bypass and a fishthat passed via the turbines. The amount of timethe tagged fish spent upstream varied by releasegroup but was not statistically different among

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1463AMERICAN SHAD INTERDAM MOVEMENT

TABLE 4.—A summary of the amount of time radio-tagged American shad spent upstream of Essex Dam, Mas-sachusetts, after release prior to being detected again atthat dam as out-migrants; CI 5 confidence interval.

Releasedate

Number offish

Number of days spent upstream

Mean SD 95% CI

30 May 18 24.1 10.9 18.7–29.53 Jun 19 20.4 5.5 17.8–23.16 Jun 14 17.4 5.9 14.0–20.89 Jun 11 19.2 6.1 15.1–23.3

groups based upon 95% confidence interval (CI)estimates (Table 4).

Two of the four tagged fish (codes 57 and 78)that passed through the Boott Station lift were de-tected in the Essex Dam tailrace. The first (code57) was initially detected at Essex Dam on 26 June,and its final detection was on 15 July in the EssexDam tailrace. The second (code 78) was first de-tected at Essex Dam on 28 June and last detectedin the Essex Dam tailrace on 30 June. Two of thefour tagged fish (codes 87 and 96) that passedthrough the Boott Station lift were not detected bymobile tracking receivers as out-migrants in theEssex Dam tailrace or in the immediate forebayarea. One of these fish (code 87) was stationaryin the area of the adult downstream bypass channelat Boott Station and was believed to have died.The last fish (code 46) not detected at Essex Damas an out-migrant was last detected at rkm 57 on14 June; it had been tracked upstream since itsrelease on 30 May, a period of 16 d (Table 3).

Discussion

Concerns about upstream passage efficiency forAmerican shad at the Boott Station fish lift wereconfirmed by the study, which showed that 55%(36 of 65) of the tagged fish that passed EssexDam migrated into the Boott Station tailrace. Itwas determined that 4 tagged fish (6% of 65 re-leased fish, or 11% of 36 fish tracked in the tail-race) versus an estimated 5,283 untagged fish(10% of the total number that passed Essex Dam)passed through the Boott Station fish lift; a poorlevel of passage efficiency is demonstrated in ei-ther case. In addition, the lack of spill conditionsat Pawtucket Dam after the first release of taggedfish at Essex Dam provided flows that were in-sufficient to attract American shad to the Paw-tucket Dam bypass reach, resulting in one taggedfish moving up that reach during a brief period ofminimal spill. These findings indicate the need to

improve upstream passage efficiency of Americanshad at the Boott Station fish lift.

Early-run fish were not characterized by thisstudy, as 44% of the run had passed by the firsttagging event. However, based upon the observedtime spent upstream by tagged fish (Table 4), therewas no significant detected time effect among thefour release groups. It is possible that early-runfish would have been more motivated to continueupstream movements, due in part to cooler watertemperatures and the resultant delay in maturationand greater available energy reserves (Leggett1976; Glebe and Leggett 1981). In a study ofAmerican shad bioenergetics in the ConnecticutRiver in 1973 (Glebe and Leggett 1981), the firstgonad weight losses were observed between rkm83 and 137 for early- and peak-season migrants.Late-migrant males and females in that study ini-tiated spawning closer to the river mouth; the firstsignificant gonad weight losses for these fish wereobserved between rkm 50 and 83.

Visual observations of American shad in theBoott Station tailrace indicated that untagged fishwere moving along the rock ledge that lines thenorth side of the tailrace. Fish swimming alongthe ledge may have been afforded a hydraulic ad-vantage due to decreased water velocities from itsroughened surface. On occasion, fish were ob-served close to the surface (,1 m) and progressedupstream until a point approximately 15 m fromthe entrance to the fish lift. However, visibilitywith polarized glasses was generally limited to thetop 1–2 m of the water column in the tailrace.Water turbulence associated with turbine dischargecreated an area of upwelling and boiling that ap-peared to cause fish to lose orientation at a pointbetween 10 and 15 m downstream of the lift en-trance, which is a common problem for passageof adult American shad around hydroelectric fa-cilities (Barry and Kynard 1986; Kynard 1993;Haro and Kynard 1997). The factors responsiblefor the observed high-turbulence section, includ-ing turbine discharge, geomorphology of the ex-cavated tailrace, angle of the tailrace, and theirinteraction, are not understood.

Movement of fish within the area of disturbance(approximately 10 m in width at greater than 75%generation) could not be examined in any greaterdetail with the telemetry data because of the lim-itations of the study design and telemetry equip-ment. However, power readings of detected tagswere used to identify the strongest readings(.200) and those of moderate strength (.150) andto subsequently determine the relative proximity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1464 SPRANKLE

of a tagged fish to the lift entrance. Although pow-er readings may be affected by a number of var-iables that limit their use in such a narrowly de-fined area, fish identified at power readings greaterthan 200 (N 5 18, including code 78) constituted50% of the 36 tagged fish detected in the tailrace.This finding suggests that unfavorable conditionsin the Boott Station tailrace prevented motivatedfish that had migrated upstream 68 km (includingpassing at Essex Dam) from advancing further up-stream to purportedly accessible spawning andnursery habitats.

Freund and Hartman (2002) examined the ef-fects of water depth on signal strength and dem-onstrated substantial reductions in detection withdepths greater than 3 m. The actual effects of theuse of a high-frequency tag (greater attenuationwith depth in this study) would have probably beenlessened to some unknown degree by the uniqueconfiguration of the Boott Station tailrace, includ-ing a ledge face up to 10 m high on the south sideand a 2-m-high cement retaining wall runningalong the northern edge. Based upon earlier testtag placements in the tailrace and receiver read-ings, this situation is not suspected to have influ-enced study results.

A study conducted at Holyoke Dam on the Con-necticut River, where fish lifts are utilized to passAmerican shad, showed that 50% of the radio-tagged fish in the tailrace passed through the tail-race lift at that facility (Barry and Kynard 1986).At rkm 139, Holyoke Dam is the first main-stembarrier in the Connecticut River and is located attwice the distance to Pawtucket Dam (rkm 70).Lorda and Crecco (1987) documented that an av-erage of 41% of the Connecticut River Americanshad run passed Holyoke Dam between 1976 and1980. Based on these studies and unpublished data,an estimated 40–60% of the annual American shadrun passed Holyoke Dam during the 1980s and1990s (Tom Savoy, Connecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection, personal communica-tion). This information is interesting from thestandpoint that the Connecticut River Americanshad population could not effectively access hab-itat upstream of Holyoke Dam prior to 1976, whenimprovements to the fish lift dramatically in-creased upstream passage efficiency. The effectsof improvements to the fish lifts at Holyoke Damresulted in a near-immediate response in the pro-portion of the run that passed the facility, from anaverage of less than 10% for the period 1955–1975to the 40–60% cited above (Leggett et al. 2004).Given the findings from this study, it would seem

likely that an increase of similar proportions inAmerican shad passing Boott Station could be an-ticipated with improved upstream passage.

Restoration of American shad in the Susque-hanna River also relies on fish passage facilities,where estimates of fish passage efficiency havevaried over time at the lower main-stem dams.During 1997–2001, the percentage of Americanshad that passed Conowingo Dam, Maryland, andsubsequently passed Holtwood Dam, Pennsylvania(a distance of approximately 32 km), has averaged35% (Hendricks and St. Pierre 2002). However, ina telemetry study conducted in 2001, it was foundthat 67% (136 of 204) of tagged American shadreleased from the Conowingo Dam fish lift exitflume reached the Holtwood Dam tailrace (Nor-mandeau Associates 2002). American shad pas-sage from Holtwood Dam to Safe Harbor Dam,Pennsylvania (a distance of approximately 11 km),averaged 80% from 1997 through 2001 (Hendricksand St. Pierre 2002). This is another example anal-ogous to the lower Merrimack River, wherein themotivation of adult American shad to move up-stream of dams has been hampered by ineffectivefishways. Similar to fishways on the Merrimackand Connecticut rivers, passage efficiency at theSusquehanna River dams is influenced to a largedegree by river flow, which impacts the ability ofAmerican shad to successfully locate the fishwayentrance. Competing flows may be generated froma variety of sources, including dam spill, turbinedischarge, waste gate discharge, and downstreamfish bypass discharge.

In many cases, the fishway entrance siting, op-erating water velocities, and head differentials aredeveloped with underlying assumptions of flowand target species behavior (Quinn 1994). Eval-uations of these structures and their operationalguidelines must be conducted and modified, whennecessary, with subsequent evaluations. The 3.4m3/s of flow released through the entrance gatefrom the Boott Station fish lift (head differentialof approximately 20 cm) has been prescribed toproduce a nonplunging, streaming flow into thetailrace to attract and pass fish, including Ameri-can shad (USFWS, unpublished).

Larinier (1998) stated that an increase in at-traction flows in France’s larger facilities, from 1%to 5% of the volume of the competing flow, is nowrecommended to pass fish, including the allis shadA. alosa. At the Le Bazacle Dam on the GarroneRiver, France, the operating flow of one fishwayis as high as 6–7% of turbine discharge flow (Tra-vade et al. 1998). One of the principal target spe-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1465AMERICAN SHAD INTERDAM MOVEMENT

cies for fish passage in France is the allis shad.Operating capacities between 150 and 200 m3/sare commonly observed at the Boott Station, whichtranslates to 2.3% and 1.7%, respectively, of com-peting discharge flow for the lift entrance duringthe American shad run. The current percentage ofattraction flow prescribed at the Boott Station fishlift may be inadequate given the issues of entranceplacement with respect to adjacent ledge structure,tailrace configuration (angled), and turbine dis-charge flow characteristics. However, increases inattraction flow from the lift entrance would prob-ably require structural modifications to maintaindesired head differentials between the entranceflume elevation and the tailrace elevation. It seemsreasonable to concur with Larinier’s (1998) con-clusion that the attraction flow required at a facilityis related to site-specific conditions.

Management Recommendations

The results from this study suggest that theBoott Station fish lift is not performing at a levelof efficiency adequate to restore American shad inthe Merrimack River basin, as it does not providesufficient access to greater than 70% of the historicspawning and nursery habitat located upstream ofPawtucket Dam (Kuzmeskus et al. 1982). The at-traction water flow to the entrance of the BoottStation fish lift, which is located in the upstreamcorner of the tailrace along the abutting ledge, isimpacted by submerged ledge material (;1 m be-low the surface) that extends into the entrance jetapproximately 3 m from the entrance gate to adistance of approximately 0.5 m. At this point, thedischarge from the turbines appears to furthercompound the loss of any desirable near-surfaceflow field. This situation is exacerbated by turbinedischarge, which is placed at an angle of approx-imately 308, directing flow to the north side of thetailrace, the same side as the fish lift entrance (Fig-ure 3).

The interaction among the tailrace configuration(substrate contours and angling), turbine dis-charge, existing lift entrance attraction flow, andresulting flow dynamics is not understood and re-quires further study. The removal of the protrudingsubmerged ledge material is a logical first step inthe process to improve the passage situation in theimmediate area of the lift entrance. Any structuralor operational modifications must be properlyevaluated in a variety of operational conditions.

AcknowledgmentsI thank Tim Holdsforth (intern, State University

of New York at Cobleskill) for his dedication and

hard work on this project and Doug Smithwood(USFWS) for his technical assistance in the field.Rick Simmons and Mike Jeanneau (NormandeauAssociates, Inc.) provided much-appreciated sup-port in the setup of the telemetry equipment andadditional monitoring at Amoskeag Dam. CurtMooney (Public Service of New Hampshire) as-sisted by providing an additional telemetry re-ceiver. Funding for the purchase of radio tags camefrom an Urban Rivers Grant of the MassachusettsRiverways Program, administered through the De-partment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and EnvironmentalLaw Enforcement in cooperation with the City ofLowell, Massachusetts. The administrative sup-port and cooperation of Christine Thomas (City ofLowell) also helped to make this study possible.Reviews and comments from Kimber Sprankle,Alex Haro (USGS), John Warner (USFWS), JoeMcKeon (USFWS), and Ron Essig (USFWS) im-proved the draft manuscript. Reviews and com-ments by Carolyn Griswold and two anonymousreviewers greatly improved the final draft. Lastly,the cooperation of Consolidated Hydro, Inc., dur-ing the course of the study was greatly appreciated.

References

Bailey, M. M., J. J. Isely, and W. C. Bridges. 2004.Movement and population size of American shadnear a low-head lock and dam. North AmericanJournal of Fisheries Management 133:300–308.

Barry, T., and B. Kynard. 1986. Attraction of adultAmerican shad to the fish lifts at Holyoke Dam,Connecticut River. North American Journal of Fish-eries Management 6:233–241.

Clay, C. H. 1961. Design of fishways and other fishfacilities. Department of Fisheries of Canada, Ot-tawa.

Freund, J. G., and K. J. Hartman. 2002. Influence ofdepth on detection distance of low- frequency radiotransmitters in the Ohio River. North AmericanJournal of Fisheries Management 22:1301–1305.

Glebe, B. D., and W. C. Leggett. 1981. Temporal, in-trapopulation differences in energy allocation anduse by American shad (Alosa sapidissima) duringthe spawning migration. Canadian Journal of Fish-eries and Aquatic Sciences 38:795–805.

Haro, A., and B. Kynard. 1997. Video evaluation ofpassage efficiency of American shad and sea lam-prey in a modified Ice Harbor fishway. North Amer-ican Journal of Fisheries Management 17:981–987.

Hendricks, M. L., and R. A. St. Pierre. 2002. Alosidmanagement and restoration plan for the Susque-hanna River basin. Susquehanna River AnadromousFish Restoration Cooperative, Harrisburg, Pennsyl-vania.

Kuzmeskus, D. M., A. E. Knight, E. G. Robinson, andW. Henderson. 1982. Anadromous fish: water andland resources of the Merrimack River basin. U.S.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

1466 SPRANKLE

Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Report, Laconia,New Hampshire.

Kynard, B. 1998. A key to fish passage: understandingfish behavior. Pages (5)12(5)35 in Fish passage-ways and bypass facilities: east. U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service, National Conservation Training Center,Northampton, Massachusetts.

Kynard, B. 1993. Fish behavior important for fish pas-sage. Pages 129–134 in Fish passage: policy andtechnology symposium, American Fisheries Soci-ety, Bioengineering Section, Portland, Oregon.

Larinier, M. 1998. Upstream and downstream fish pas-sage experiences in France. Pages 127–145 in M.Jungwirth, S. Schmutz, and S. Weiss, editors. Fishmigration and fish bypasses. Blackwell ScientificPublications, Ltd., Oxford, UK.

Leggett, W. C., T. F. Savoy, and C. A. Tomichek. 2004.The impact of enhancement initiatives on the struc-ture and dynamics of the Connecticut River popu-lation of American shad. Pages 391–405 in P. M.Jacobson, D. A. Dixon, W. C. Leggett, B. C. Marcy,Jr., and R. R. Massengill, editors. The ConnecticutRiver Ecological Study (1965–1973) revisited:ecology of the lower Connecticut River, 1973–2003.American Fisheries Society, Monograph 9, Bethes-da, Maryland.

Leggett, W. C. 1976. The American shad (Alosa sapi-dissima), with special reference to its migration andpopulation dynamics in the Connecticut River. Pag-es 169–225 in The Connecticut River ecologicalstudy. American Fisheries Society, Monograph 1,Bethesda, Maryland.

Lorda, E., and V. A. Crecco. 1987. Stock-recruitmentrelationship and compensatory mortality of Amer-ican shad in the Connecticut River. Pages 469–482in M. J. Dadswell, R. J. Klauda, C. M. Moffitt, R.L. Saunders, R. A. Rulifson, and J. E. Cooper, ed-itors. Common strategies of anadromous and catad-romous fishes. American Fisheries Society, Sym-posium 1, Bethesda, Maryland.

Marston, P. M., and M. Gordon. 1938. Notes on fish

and early fishing in the Merrimack River system.Pages 187–197 in E. H. Hoover, editor. Biologicalsurvey of the Merrimack watershed. New Hamp-shire Fish and Game Department, Concord.

Monk, B., D. Weaver, C. Thompson, and F. Ossiander.1989. Effects of flow and weir design on the pas-sage behavior of American shad and salmonids inan experimental fish ladder. North American Journalof Fisheries Management 9:60–67.

MRTC (Merrimack River Technical Committee). 1997.Strategic plan and status review: anadromous fishrestoration program, Merrimack River. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Nashua, New Hampshire.

Normandeau Associates. 2002. Adult American shadmovement in the vicinity of Conowingo and Holt-wood hydroelectric stations, Susquehanna River,during spring 2001. Pages 5(40)–5(79) in R. St.Pierre editor. Restoration of American shad to theSusquehanna River: annual progress report. Sus-quehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Co-operative, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Northcote, T. G. 1998. Migratory behaviour of fish andits significance to movement through riverine fishpassage facilities. Pages 3–18 in M. Jungwirth, S.Schmutz, and S. Weiss, editors. Fish migration andfish bypasses. Blackwell Scientific Publications,Ltd., Oxford, UK.

Quinn, R. F. 1994. Fish passage facilities for Alosa.Pages 119–127 in J. E. Cooper, R. T. Eades, R. J.Klauda, and J. G. Loesch, editors. Anadromous Alo-sa Symposium. American Fisheries Society, Tide-water Chapter, Bethesda, Maryland.

Travade, F., M. Larinier, S. Boyer-Bernard, J. Dartigue-longue. 1998. Performance of four fish pass in-stallations recently built on two rivers in southwestFrance. Pages 146–170 in M. Jungwirth, S.Schmutz, and S. Weiss, editors. Fish migration andfish bypasses. Blackwell Scientific Publications,Ltd., Oxford, UK.

Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analyses, 2nd edition.Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 17:

02 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014