Quality and quantity of potential anadromous fish spawning sites final report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Quality and Quantity of Potential Anadromous Fish Spawning Sites

Final Report

Grant No. NA88AA-D-CZ091

Prepared by:

Rebecca K. Wajda
FWIS Coordinator

Helen E. Kitchel
FWIS Aquatic Biologist-

Michael C. Odom
FWIS Research Specialist

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

Sponsored by:

Coastal Resources Management Program
Virginia Council on the Environment

January, 1990

SH
167
A7
W35
1990

Quality and Quantity of Potential Anadromous Fish Spawning Sites

Final Report

Grant No. NA88AA-D-CZ091

U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-24 13

Prepared by:

Rebecca K. Wajda
FWIS Coordinator

Helen E. Kitchel
FWIS Aquatic Biologist

Michael C. Odom
FWIS Research Specialist

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
r-property of CSC Library

Sponsored by:
fzs-
Coastal Resources Management Program
Virginia council on the Environment

January, 1990

This report was produced, in part, through
financial support from the Council on the
Environment pursuant to Coastal Resources
Program Grant No. NA88AA-D-CZ091 from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

Background

Striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa
sapidissima), hickory shad (A_. mediocris), alewife (A..
pseudoharencrus), and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) are the
primary anadromous fish species ascending Virginia's waters each
spring to spawn in natal freshwater rivers or streams. These
populations have historically provided extensive commercial and
recreational fisheries to Virginia fishermen. However, in the
10-year period from 1976-1985, commercial harvests of these
species from the Chesapeake Bay drainage declined by 82%.
-Probable causes for the decline of these stocks include
?verfishing, habitat loss (from dams and water pollution),
inconsistencies-in management activities, and inadequate data
with which to make informed decisions (ASMFC 1985, Atran et al.
1983).

Population recovery is presently being addressed at all levels of
management jurisdiction. The Atlantic State Marine Fisheries
Commission developed a fishery management plan for the anadromous
alosids of the East Coast of the United States. The primary goal
of this plan "shall be to promote, in a coordinated coastwide
manner, the protection and enhancement (including restoration) of
shad and river herring stocks occurring on the Atlantic seaboard"
(ASMFC 1985). In 1988, the Living Resources Subcommittee of the
Chesapeake Bay Program appointed an interjurisdictional Fish
Passage Workgroup to develop a strategy for implementing the 1987
Bay Agreement commitment concerning fish passage. Specifically,
the agreement stipulated that the signatories would "provide for
fish passage at dams, and remove stream blockages whenever
necessary to restore natural passage for migratory fish" through
the Basin-wide plan for removing impediments to migratory fishes
(CEC 1988). This Bay-wide Strategy was implemented in July,
1989. State-level fisheries management plans are presently being
prepared by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

Since the signing of the Strategy in 1988, the Virginia
Anadromous Fish Passage Committee has addressed the coordination
of the activities included in the recommendations amongst its
members. The Committee is composed of representatives of the
Council on the Environment, the Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, the Marine Resources Commission, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Several of the recommendations were targeted by the Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries for this particular project and are
addressed throughout this report:

The signatories work together to update the
comprehensive inventory of dams and other
obstructions to fish migration;

The signatories annually reassess their
priorities based upon updated inventories and
other relevant information;

The signatories establish a priority list for
future fishway projects at these smaller
obstructions utilizing the inventory of
impediments to fish passage;

The signatories identify specific spawning
reaches suitable for reintroduction.

Specific information needed to accomplish the above tasks is
widely scattered and often inaccessible. This project is
designed to assist the staff of the Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries (and other Bay agencies) in achieving the above
recommendations. While not all recommendations were addressed in
their entirety by the completion of this report, information has
been compiled which identifies further research or work needed.

The historic range of striped bass was not as widely distributed
in Virginia as that of the anadromous alosids (Mudre et al.
1985). One of the primary causes for the decline of the striped
bass in the Maryland/Virginia area has been due to
overharvesting. This problem has been addressed by a moritorium
on striped bass fishing in Maryland, and restricted harvesting in
Virginia. Since habitat restoration efforts are focused
predominantly on the alosids, they will be the species considered
in this project.

Proiect Obiectives and Activities

Two primary objectives were developed to address the issues and
needs concerning anadromous fish spawning habitat. These
objectives were:

1. To compile the information necessary for
determining the quantity of spawning area
available above current obstructions to
anadromous fish migration; and

2. To develop and apply the analysis techniques
required to identify potential spawning sites
and quantify the habitat quality of those
potential spawning sites upstream of current
obstructions to anadromous fish migration.

several activities were identified to help achieve each of the
above objectives.

Objective 1: To compile necessary information

Activities:

a. Current inventory sources of dams and other
obstructions to fish migration were combined
in a centralized location to allow a complete
analysis of the obstruction problem. A
survey of knowledgeable individuals was
conducted to complete the information which
was missing from the various inventories.
This does not duplicate any current
inventories being conducted but only attempts
to bring together the information.

b. Stream area above the current most downstream
blockage to the next blockage was determined
as a measure of the quantity of potential
habitat available to spawning given passage
at the current blockage.

C. Combining information on historic spawning
sites, current habitat conditions and stream
flow characteristics, potential spawning
sites were delineated within the upstream
area. Potential spawning sites were
evaluated as to quality of potential site.
Information collected for these sites
included the ownership, description, and
potential threats to the site.

objective 2: To develop and apply analysis techniques

Activities:

a. Literature and reports were reviewed to
develop a tentative model or models which,
based on best available information, would
provide a suitability index for potential
spawning sites for anadromous species.

b. Based on analysis and identification of areas
from the above activities, the test models
were used to identify and quantify known and
potential spawning sites in the James River
drainage.

C. Field surveys using appropriate sampling
procedures were conducted during the spring
spawning runs to collect the data necessary
for validation/modification of the models to
assure their applicability to quantify
potential habitat sites.

Inventory of Impediments to Anadromous Fish Passage

Background

The blockage of anadromous fish passage by dams or other
obstructions has widely been recognized as one of the primary
causes of the decline of anadromous fish populations in Virginia.
Advances in transportation and energy needs resulted in many of
the present impediments in Virginia. Canal dams, highway
culverts, mill dams, and hydropower facilities have contributed
to the loss of most of the historic anadromous fish spawning
grounds in the Commonwealth.

Historic records of anadromous fish indicate that several species
migrated nearly 300 miles up the James River, to the origin at
the confluence of the Jackson and Cowpasture Rivers. Presently,
fish may migrate only within the first 105 river miles,
downstream of a series of 5 dams in the Richmond area. Passage
at these facilities would open approximately 150 additional miles
of historic spawning grounds before the fish are stopped at the
Scots Mill Dam in Lynchburg (River Mile 252.1). This additional
spawning habitat would include 139 miles of the James River
proper, as well as all tributaries between Richmond and Lynchburg
(Odom et al. 1988a).

Ninety-six tributaries of the lower James River (below Manchester
Dam in Richmond) were evaluated by Odom et al. (1986). Of these
96, 54 were found to have confirmed river herring spawning runs,
38 were classified as "probable" spawning streams, and 4 appear
to be "unlikely" for anadromous fish spawning (Odom et al. 1986).
Thirty-three of the 54 tributaries known to have spawning runs
are open up to the fall line. Twelve of the tributaries have
dams that block fish migration; six have highway crossings that
impede migration; one is open its entire length; one has an
impassable private culvert; and one flows through a concrete
channel at very low levels (Odom et al. 1986). Thirty of the 38
"probable" are open up to the fall line; six have dams impeding
migration; one is open its entire length; and one has been
altered by mining operations (Odom et al. 1986). Eighty-eight
highway crossing were evaluated in this section of the James
River. Seven of these crossings were classified as "impassable"
or "questionably passable." All seven are on confirmed spawning
streams (Odom et al. 1986).

Odom et al. (1988a) also evaluated the middle James River (from
Manchester Dam in Richmond to Scots Mill Dam in Lynchburg). A
total of 463 tributaries were identified as potential spawning
areas. Of the 463, 106 tributaries were classified as "probable".
spawning streams, 71 as "questionable," and 286 as "unlikely"
(Odom et al. 1988a). The majority of the "unlikely" tributaries
were classified as such because of unsuitable stream morphology
in the first 0.1 river miles. of the 222 highway crossings

evaluated, 14 were classified as "impassable" or "questionably
passable." Five of these 14 crossings were identified on streams
classified as "probable" spawning habitat, 3 on streams
classified as "questionable," and 6 on streams classified as
"unlikely" (Odom et al. 1988a).

A similar study has also been completed for the Potomac River
drainage. A total of 148 tributaries of the Potomac River
(between Great Falls and Popes Creek) were identified as
potential spawning streams. Of these 148 tributaries, 40 are
"confirmed" spawning streams, 83 are "probable" spawning
streams, and 25 are "unlikely" spawning streams (Odom et al.
1988b). Ten of these 148 tributaries are open their entire
length; 116 have barriers due to stream morphology, 5 had highway
crossing obstructions, and 17 had miscellaneous other impediments
(Odom et al. 1988b).

Historic ranges of shad on the Rappahannock River have been
estimated conservatively at Remington (Beverly's Ford), 188 miles
upstream of the river mouth (Mudre et al. 1985). River herring
have been reported to run further upstream, to Fauquier Springs
(15 miles above Remington), 202 miles above the mouth of the
river (Mudre et al. 1985). The present range of all of these
species on this river is the Embry Dam, -located just above
Fredericksburg, approximately 110 miles above the mouth of the
river (VIMS 1986). Detailed studies of comparable impediments
(highway, upstream limits of tributaries) on the Rappahannock
River have just been started by Dr. Paul Angermeier at VPI&SU.
Several major historic spawning tributaries above the Embry Dam
are presently inaccessible. Passage at the dam would open an
additional 146 miles (total of 217 miles) of potential riverine
habitat for anadromous fish spawning and nursery sites (VIMS
1986).

The York River presently has no dams or major impediments
preventing anadromous fish from returning to historic spawning
areas. Tributaries have not been adequately assessed for
potential obstructions from transportation or recent impounding
activities. The upstream limits are set by natural falls and a
general shallowing of the river (Mudre et al. 1985). Shad and
herring historically ran in the Mattaponi River above Milford,
and continue to have access to virtually this entire range (Mudre
et al. 1985). The entire length of the Pamunkey River (into the
South and North Anna Rivers) historically provided spawning
habitat for both shad and herring. This area is presently still
open to these species for spawning (Mudre et al. 1985). No work
concerning the assessment of any type of obstruction is presently
planned on the York River.

other specific types of obstructions have also been studied in
Virginia. In 1981,, the "Virginia Hydro Dam Inventory" was
completed by Rockfish Corporation (1981). This inventory was

designed to provide hydroelectric information about each of the
facilities, but also gives information useful for prioritizing
anadromous fish restoration efforts. This inventory has not been
updated since its completion in 1981, and therefore, may not
presently represent all of the hydro dam facilities in Virginia.

Finally, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries field
fisheries biologists prepared a Statewide Dam Inventory. This
inventory includes the largest number of dams found in all of the
inventories, but specific information is sparse. This inventory
also does not include highway culvert obstructions or natural
impediments (e.g., fall line).

The primary purpose of this particular aspect of the project was
to gather all of these hard copy maps and references and
puterize the information for quicker retrieval. The time
required to computerize the individual elements precluded merging
com

the information into one comprehensive system. This
consolidation will be completed by VDGIF within the next year,
presently at the Department's own expense. The comprehensive
inventory will include information on the current ownership and
use of each impediment, the species presently obstructed, and
quality/quantity of habitat upstream of the obstruction (when
obtainable). The inventory will also include locational and
descriptive information about the particular site. The hydro dam
inventory will also be updated with current information from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including information on
requirements for fish passage facilities.

Data Capture

The textual information from all of the above sources (where
applicable) was entered into datafiles developed using Advanced
Revelation (Revelation Technologies, Inc.), the Department's
chosen database management system. Each entry was given an ID
number which would link it to the digital files containing X,Y
coordinates for the site in question. Actual locations of
highway crossings, upstream impediments, and hydro dams were
captured using digitizing programs developed in Advanced
Revelation by VDGIF staff. The coordinates are maintained as UTM
coordinate pairs, but can be displayed or output as
latitude/longitude coordinates. Samples of each datafile may be
seen on pages 10-13.

The initial evaluations of the James and Potomac Rivers by VPI&SU
have been computerized into one database. The data collection
efforts on each segment were comparable, allowing us to combine
the information into one system. The system is divided into two
components: tributary analysis and highway crossing assessment.
Each highway crossing is related back to the tributary on which
it occurs. The following information has been entered for the
tributary analysis: USGS 7.51 quadrangle name, river to which it

is a tributary, the distance the tributary is above the mouth of
the primary river, the mileage open on the tributary, the use
category (confirmed, probable, or unlikely for anadromous fish
use), the migration obstruction on the tributary, and a narrative
of any additional information pertinent to anadromous fish use of
the tributary. The structural evaluation of highway crossings
includes: the name or route number of the road crossing the
tributary, the date the site was evaluated, the structure type,
its size and vertical drop, the depth and velocity of water
through the structure, the passage status (passable,
questionable, impassable for migrating anadromous fish), and any
notes concerning the location. Fish species using'the tributary,
or blocked on the tributary, are generally mentioned in the
narrative sections. The species information will be arranged in
a separate, retrievable field when the datafiles are merged in
the next year.

specific pieces of information were selected by Fish Division
Chief (VDGIF) from the complete "Virginia Hydro Dam Inventory"
(Rockfish Corp. 1981) for inclusion in the database. The
information captured includes: facility name, descriptive
location, river, USGS 7.51 quadrangle name, VA dam ID number,
latitude/longitude coordinates, owner, date built, length,
height, type of construction, original use, current use,
condition, access, reservoir area, flow, nearest USGS gaging
station, US Army Corps of Engineers summaries, and any specific
comments about the structure. This inventory does not provide
any information about species blocked by these facilities. No
FERC information was included. These data will be compiled in
the comprehensive inventory later in 1990.

The inventory compiled by VDGIF fisheries field biologists is
relatively comprehensive (statewide), but provides only minimal
information about each location in question. The data included
in the information system are: county, descriptive location,
river, dam name, height (if known), indication of whether or not
fish passage occurs at that structure, and which migratory
species are impeded by that facility. This information will be
added to the other inventories and elaborated upon in the
comprehensive system.

Programs have been developed by VDGIF staff to output UTM
coordinates from the Advanced Revelation system into an ARC/INFO
(ESRI) "generate" format. These files can then be processed
through the ARC/INFO system to develop coverages. Work will
begin on this conversion for in-house use by VDGIF staff within
the next 6 months.

L rginia Hydro Dam Inventory

Number NA-26 Name STAUNTON DAM

Location 8 miles south of Stokesville, Augusta County(Geo.Wash. Nat.Fbrest)

River NORTH VA.Dam.ID 01518

Quad STOKESVILLE Longitude 79 12.1

Owner CITY OF STAUNTON Latitude 38 20.1

Date.Built 1925 Length 266 Height 46

Type.of.Construction CONCRETE GRAVITY WITH OGEE SPILLWAY

Original.Use WATER SUPPLY Current.Use WATER SUPPLY

Condition good, gunited 1971, some erosion at right abutment

Access good, off Forestry road 95 and State Route 250

Reservoir.Area 30.4 Flow 33 Nearest.Gaging.Station

USA. Corps. Summary
No remedial measures necessary.

Comments
Drainage area - 28.9 square miles. Water supply dam with 16" water
supply line to City of Staunton. 14 miles to nearest 3-phase power
lines. 36" drain pipe could be used for hydro installation.

I
tributary Assessment - VDOT Highway Project

Stream.No LJ-77 Stream CHICKAHOWNY RIM

Quad.No
5506 Claremont
5507 Brandon
5508 wtilkers

Tributary.of JAMES RIVER Miles.Above.Mouth 46.5

Use.Category CONFIFHO (D, L) Mileage.Open 23.3

Migration.Obstruction WALKERS DAM

Narrative
American shad, striped bass, and herring run up the Chickahominy River to
the base of Walkers Dam. Walkers Dam is only about 30 am high during high
tide, but it is a barrier to fish during most years. Several locals have
remarked that during some years, an unusually high tide will allow herring
to get over this dam and into the impouadment above. How far herring will
run above Walkers Dam is unknown at this time. Passage does not happen
every year, so few fisherman and locals look for them above the dam;
consequently, local knowledge is lacking. 7he crossings above Walkers Dam
were not evaluated in this study.

Structure.No IJ-77-1

I
ttructure Evaluation - VDOT Highway Project

Structure.Nd LJ-77-1

Road.Crossing ROUTE 5

Date.Evaluated 04-04-86 Passage.Status PASSABLE

Structure.Type BRIDGE size

Vertical.Drop NONE Depth.In.Calvert > 1.0 M

Velocity.In.Culvert < 25 CM/S

Notes
This is a draw bridge with no passage problems.

I
IWIF Dms Inventory Dow in Middlesex' Cotmty
T. OOLWN ....... NAME ..................... RIVER.SIREAM ............. T.1YPE.... T. r%dVSE ...... SPWIES ........
fiddlesex BARRICKS DAM MILL CREEK Earth Other S.BASS
Qmvity SHAD
HERRING
i
ddle8ex BEAZLEV DAM PARRUITS CREEK Earth Recreation S.BASS
r Other SHAD
HERRING
ddlesex am M111 wm LACRANGE CREEK Earth Rm-reation SHAD
r HERRING
Middlesex CC MRAOS DM WILIM CREEK Earth Recreation Sm
Gravity HERRING
Fddlesex C)CRBEN HALL FARM DAM IR RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Earth Recreation Sm
IrTigation HERRING
Middlesex CRAYS DAM DRACCN SWAMP CREEK Earth Recreation Sm
Irrigation HERRING
liddlesex ffic= wm m4m am Earth Recreation SHAD
HERRING
ddlesex: HILURDS DAM NICKLEBERRY SWAMP Earth Recreation SHAD
(ddlesex IDVER ROSEGIIL IAKE DAM 11R RAPPARW= RIVER Earth HERRING
ddlesex: ROSEGILL UPPE1R DAM 1E RAPPAHANNOCK Earth Recreation Sm
Irrigation HERRING
(ddlesex: MW ERMCE PCND BAN IUM BRIDGE SWAMP Earth Recreation sm
HERRINGS

Review of Habitat Models and H4bitat Assessment

Background

The most well-known comprehensive assessments of habitat
requirements for shad and river herring can be found in the
Habitat Suitability Indices developed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. An additional source of more recent
information on species life histories and environmental
requirements can be found in the Species Profiles prepared by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. A variety of papers also have been published
concerning species habitat requirements, but these usually target
a particular element (e.g., substrate, flow, water chemistry) and
generally are not specific for spawning.

River Herring

River herring occur on the Atlantic Coast from Newfoundland to
the northeastern Florida coast. Specifically, alewives are found
from Newfoundland to South Carolina, and blueback herring range
from Nova Scotia to northern Florida (Loesch 1987, Mullen et al.
1986,,Pardue 1983). The species occur sympatrically in Virginia,
but few studies have been conducted concerning their spawning
activities specifically in the state.

The species spawn from late March to July; spawning occurs
progressively later from south to north. In the Chesapeake Bay
area, primary spawning runs for alewives begin in March; spawning
runs in Virginia tributaries to the Bay begin in mid-March
(Loesch 1987). Primary spawning runs for blueback herring begin
in early April (slightly later in the upper reaches of the Bay)
(Loesch 1987). The primary factor initiating spawning appears to
be water temperature. Alewife spawn in temperatures from 10.5C-
27C, while blueback herring spawn in slightly warmer temperatures
of 14C to 27C (Pardue 1983).

In areas such as the Bay region where alewives and blueback
@erring occur sympatrically, the species are generally spatially
isolated. Alewives spawn in lentic sections of streams or ponds
and lakes, while blueback herring prefer the lotic sites (Loesch
1987, Pardue 1983). Two major areas in the eastern United States
have been intensely studied concerning river herring habitat. In
New England, where alewives are the predominant species, river-
herring spawn mostly in freshwater ponds or low-flow sections of
streams and rivers (Loesch 1987, Mullen et al. 1986, Pardue
1983). In the Carolinas, where blueback herring are the
predominant species, the fish are seen spawning in more diverse
habitats (oxbows and swamps as well as riverine sections) (Loesch
1987, Mullen et al. 1986, Pardue 1983).

Blueback herring appear to be the more dominant species of river
herring in Virginia. However, both species are limited in
upstream movement and occur in such numbers that they appear to
partition the available riverine resource. At such sites,
alewives tend to favor shore-bank eddies or deep pools, while
blueback herring tend to congregate in the mainstem flow areas
(J. Loesch, VIMS, 1989, pers. comm.; J. Mowrer, MD Dept. Natural
Resources, 1989, pers. comm; S. Rideout, USFWS, 1989, pers. comm;
C. Walton, ME Dept. Marine Resources, 1989, pers. comm; M. Odom,
USFWS, 1988, pers. comm.; Loesch 1987).

American Shad

American shad are found along the Atlantic Coast from Labrador to
Florida (Weiss-Glanz et al. 1986, Stier and Crance 1985). The
species is most abundant in the center of its range, from
Connecticut to North Carolina (Weiss-Glanz et al. 1986, Stier and
Crance 1985).

The species begin spawning as early as mid-November in Florida
and as late as July in some Canadian rivers (Stier and Crance
1985). The spawning run peaks at a temperature of about 18C,
i@ith a range of 13C to 20C. In Virginia, this means that the
initial spawning runs begin at about the same time river herring
runs begin, but taper off approximately one month before herring
have finished spawning.

Unlike the river herring, shad populations in Virginia are
predominantly semelparous (one-time spawners). Only about 25% of
the shad running in Virginia rivers are repeat spawners (Weiss-
Glanz et al. 1986).

American shad spawn over a variety of substrates, but seem to
prefer a sand or gravel bottom with sufficient water velocity to
eliminate silt deposits on the eggs (Stier and Crance 1985).
Spawning has been observed in a wide variety of depths; depth
does not appear to be a critical factor in selection of spawning
sites (Weiss-Glanz et al. 1986, Stier and Crance 1985).

Review and Modification of Habitat Suitability Models

American Shad

The HSI model developed by Stier and Crance (1985) has two
components: a riverine component and an estuarine component. The
riverine model assumes that, if water temperatures and water
velocities are suitable, all other habitat variables will be
acceptable for spawning and rearing young-of-the-year until their
downstream migration to the estuary.

Studies presently-ongoing in Virginia and Maryland indicate that
certain water quality parameters not previously associated with
shad habitat suitability may be contributing to declines in shad
populations (Klauda 1989, CBP 1987, ASMFS 1985). We feel that
future models may want to consider pH, chlorine, and prey
densities. Additionally, we have made one modification to the
existing SI values for substrate type. The existing model does
not give suitability index values for riverweed or Justica beds.
Classifying these substrate types with the plant/detritus would
be an under-representation of the quality of such substrate for
spawning. The water flow through these living plant materials
offers abundant dissolved oxygen (DO) and low siltation. These
substrate types additionally offer numerous opportunities for egg
attachment during the water-hardening stage and some cover from
predators. Based on this assessment, we believe that the SI
values for the substrate component should be modified as follows:

Substrate SI
Living plant (riverweed, water willow) 1.0
Detritus (logs, sticks, leaf packs) 0.0
Mud/soft clay 0.1
Silt 0.2
Sand 1.0
Gravel 1.0
Cobble/rubble 1.0
Boulder 0.6
Bedrock 0.4

River Herring

The river herring model developed by Pardue (1983) has two
separate models within it: model for spawning adult, egg, and
larvae, and a model for juveniles.

The spawning adult model has two components to it: cover
(substrate characteristics and associated vegetation) and water
quality (temperatures). The cover component makes the assumption
that substrates with 75% silt and other soft materials containing
detritus and vegetation, and slow water flow are optimal for
river herring. Harder and coarser substrates are considered less
desirable. The water quality component assumes that mean daily
water temperatures of 15C-20C for alewives and 20C-24C for
blueback herring are optimal for spawning.- This model is to be
applied only in areas where water depth is 0.15m-3.Om and water
velocity is greater than 0 ft/sec and less than 1.0 ft/sec. Any
flow values (0 ft/sec, >1.0 ft/sec.) outside-of those values are
assigned an SI value of 0.0.

The juvenile model has two components: food (number of
zooplankton per liter) and water quality (salinity and
temperature). The food component ignores zooplankton

composition, assuming that there will be an appropriate species
composition. one hundred zooplankton per liter or more is
considered optimal. Salinities of 0-5 ppt are considered
optimal. Ideal water temperatures for alewives are considered to
be 15-20C, and 20-30C for blueback herring.

We feel that future models for river herring in Virginia should
include several additional elements. While current studies
indicate that low pH levels can adversely affect egg and larval
survival (Klauda 1989; D. Kelso, George Mason University, 1989,
pers. comm.; CBP 1987; ASMFC 1985), the existing model does not
consider pH a significant variable. We believe that this should
be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. Additional
evidence suggests that total residual chlorine (primarily from
sewage effluent) can be high enough to extirpate or severely
impact river herring runs in those streams (Kelso, 1989, pers.
comm; Morgan and Prince 1977), and should be considered in the
model.

we also suggest modifications in the substrate and flow elements
of the existing model based on the abundance of both alewives and
blueback herring. Blueback herring are the predominant river
herring in Virginia. When both species occur in an area, the
blueback herring use faster flowing water over harder substrate
types. It appears that the existing model values for these two
variables are based on information collected for alewives in New
England and blueback herring in the Carolinas, using slow water
over soft substrates. After conversations with J. Loesch (VIMS),
S. Rideout (USFWS), C. Walton (ME Dept. Marine Resources), J.
Mowrer (MD Dept. Natural Resources) concerning their knowledge
and observations of river herring spawning, and our own
observations in Virginia, we are suggesting the following
modified SI values for the substrate and velocity components in
the river herring model.

Depth

Depth (m) SI
0.00 0.0
0.09 0.0
0.20 1.0
1.25 1.0
3.01 0.0

These values are based on the values in Pardue's (1983) HSI model
with 0.15-3.Om receiving SI=1.0; S. Rideout (pers. comm.) seeing
bluebacks spawning in water greater than 0.10m; C. Walton (pers.
comm.) seeing bluebacks spawning in depths from 0.30m-1.22m, with
most from 0.61m-0.91m; and J. Mowrer (pers. comm.) seeing
bluebacks spawning in water depths for 0.20m-0.61m.

Velocity

Velocity Ws) SI
O.Om/s 0.0
0.02m/s 1.0
1.22m/s 1.0
1.35m/s 0.0

These values are based on values in Pardue's (1983) HSI model; C.
Walton (pers. comm.) indicating that some flow is required for
both species and observing bluebacks using areas with velocities
of 0.89m/s-1.34m/s; J. Mowrer (pers. comm.) indicating that
although some flow is required for both species, flows in excess
of 1.22m/s appear to be too high for bluebacks in Maryland.
Substrate Substrate SI
Live plant material (riverweed, water willow) 1.0
Woody debris 0.9
Temporarily flooded plant detritus 0.8
Gravel 1.0
Cobble/rubble 1.0
Boulder 0.7
Sand 0.6
Bedrock 0.4
Silt 0.2
Mud/soft clay 0.1
Muck/decomposing organic matter 0.0

conversations with several recognized anadromous fish experts
confirmed our own observations that this component most likely
does not accurately represent spawning grounds in Virginia.
Loesch (pers. comm.) agreed that the primary spawning areas for
bluebacks in Virginia is relatively fast-flowing water over
gravel and coarser substrates. Rideout (pers. comm.) indicated
that he has seen blueback herring spawning in a tributary of the
Connecticut River over gravel-cobble substrate in water as
shallow as 10-15 cm. Walton (pers. comm.) indicated that in
Maine, he has observed blueback herring spawning on gravel,
cobble, and boulders up to 30.5-35.6 cm in diameter. Mowrer
(pers. comm.) has seen blueback herring spawning in Maryland over
hard substrate, especially over gravel that is 2.5-5.0 cm in
diameter. He has also observed them utilizing flooded woodlands,
detritus (sticks), and wetland plants.

Field Assessment of Habitat Quality and Quantity

Several areas on Virginia rivers were considered for an
assessment of habitat quality and quantity, using the modified
habitat suitability index models mentioned above. The intent of
this portion of the project was to select two rivers with known
obstructions to anadromous fish passage (James River and
Appomattox River) and evaluate the habitat between the first and
second blockage. A series of 5 dams occurs within a 6-7 mile
stretch of the James River in the city of Richmond. The first
impediment on the James River is the Manchester Dam. A
comparable series of 4 dams exists on the Appomattox River just
upstream of the city of Petersburg. The first obstruction on the
Appomattox River is the Harvell Dam, on the western limit of
Petersburg. Because each of these systems has a series of dams
in such close proximity to one another, the habitat was evaluated
on both rivers between the first and the last of the series of
dams (pp. 21-22).

Aerial photographs were obtained from the Virginia Department of
Transportation at a scale of 111:120011 for the reaches of concern
on both rivers. Stream channels and islands were delineated
using a stereoscope to allow for digitizing once field work was
completed. Reaches were identified on each river, using obvious
breaks (dams,-pipelines) where available. Ten to twenty random
points were selected in each reach for specific habitat
measurements and marked on the photographs. The number of points
in any given reach was determined by the relative size of the
particular reach.

Field work on each river required 3 days, which were spread over
a period of one month due to high water levels. Gage heights
were noted for each field day and flow values were calculated
from USGS conversion tables. Data were also verified by follow-
up calls to USGS. A review of the tables on pages 23-25
indicates that the water flows encountered during the field days
was comparable to flows generally found in those rivers during
March to May. At each sampling site, water depth and velocity
were measured, and substrate composition was determined with a
qualitative assessment of a 1-meter circle around the point. The
additional parameters mentioned in the review of the habitat
suitability models (i.e, temperature, pH, etc.) were not measured
in this study. Shad and herring already have a history of
spawning in each of these rivers below the primary impediment, so
we assume that these parameters are at acceptable levels during
the spawning season,

Water depth measurements were taken in meters using a 4-meter
stick. Velocity measurements were made using a Oceanics flow
meter. Velocities were calculated using the conversion equation
provided by the manufacturer. Substrate composition was measured
as percentages of specific substrate types. A range finder was

used to ensure that sampling points were located as accurately as
possible.

Upon completion of field work, the river maps/photographs were
sent to VPI&SU where project staff digitized the individual
reaches using the ARC/INFO geographic information system. River
system and individual reach maps were generated to illustrate the
project activities (Appendix 1) and reach areas were calculated
using the ARC/INFO system (p. 26).

MMMM*M MMMMM

JAMES RIVER

(Boshers Dom to Brown Island Dam)

Williams Island Dam
REACH 3

REACH 5

REACH I REACH 4 REACH 7

REACH 2

Boshers Dom REACH 6

scol.

0 meters 1000

APPOMATTOX RIVER

(Brasfield Dom to Harvell Dom)

Brasfield Dam REACH 2 REACH 3
REACH 4

REACH I R
REACH 5

Abutment Dom

Scale 1:41,666

0 meters 1000

ESTIMATED MEAN MONTHLY FLOW OF JAMES RIVER AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

(Does not include flow in Kanawha Canal)

(cubic feet per second)

(USGS data: 1934-1981)

MONTH MINIMUM MEDIAN MAXIMUM

January 840 8,200 22,500

February 3,240 10,270 20,750

March 5,690 11,510 25,900

April 2,770 10,050 22,760

May 2,430 6,130 16,990

June 900 3,660 30,910

July so 2,270 11,300

August 150 1,820 21,710

September 130 11350 16,730

October 180 1,680 18,670

November 540 3,180 19,710

December 450 4,610 20,160

ESTIMATED MEAN MONTHLY FLOW OF APPOMATTOX RIVER
AT MATOACA, VIRGINIA

(cubic feet per second)

(USGS data: 1969-1989)

MONTH MINIMUM MEDIAN MAXIMUM

January 384 1,662 5,868

February 889 2,065 3,931

March 478 2,019 5,149

April 498 1,982 5,003

May 411 1,189 4,452

June 161 616 5,293

July 99 438 1,987

August 85 483 1,818

September 99 288 5,312

October 129 349 6,869

November 200 733 5,648

December 398 1,404 2,912

DISCHARGE ON JAMES AND APPOMATTOX RIVERS

DURING HABITAT SAMPLING PERIOD

James River, Westham Gage

10/31/89 - 11/02/89

Date Discharge

October 31, 1989 5,920 cfs

November 1, 1989 5,920 cfs

November 2, 1989 6,070 cfs

Appomattox River, Matoaca Gage

10/11/89 - 10/12/89, 10/26/89

Date Discharge

October 11, 1989 417 cfs

October 12, 1989 374 cfs

October 26, 1989 920 cfs*

Estimate based on gage height 6 hours prior to
sampling (3.51)

AREA OF INDIVIDUAL REACHES

APPOMATTOX AND JAMES RIVERS

(hectares)

James River

Reach Total Area Water Area

1 36.783 36.395

2 36.783 36.395

3 65.243 63.240

4 49.641 47.938

.5 57.136 57.136

6 77.284 69.130

7 79.143 68.456

8 47.397 42.207

9 28.419 27.337

10 36.035 34.252

Appomattox River

Reach Total Area Water Area

1 16.495 16.241

2 34.953 22.817

3 10.155 9.100

4 6.517 6.494

5 44.030 31.556

6 22.366 15.699

7 7.653 7.158

suitability indices (SI) were calculated for each variable at
each reach for American shad and river herring using the modified
habitat suitability model developed earlier in this project.
Once SI were calculated, the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)
value for that particular site was determined to be the lowest SI
value for any of the variables. Mean HSI values were calculated
for each reach to determine a reach HSI value (p. 28).

Overall habitat suitability should not be determined by HSI
values alone, but must include some measure of the area available
in a given location. Habitat Units (HU) were calculated for each
reach. The HU value in any reach is the product of -the reach
mean HSI value and the reach area (in hectares) (p. 29). The
calculated HU values were then compared to an optimal HU (HSI=l x
reach area) for a relative evaluation of the available habitat
for spawning.

The HU values of the James River indicate that this system is
good habitat quality and area for both American shad and river
herring spawning. The Appomattox River does not appear to be
good habitat for American shad spawning; limiting factors appear
to be water velocity or water depth. It will, however, provide
good river herring habitat for spawning once passage is made to
the last of the structures in that reach.

MEAN HSI VALUES FOR SAMPLED REACHES

Mean HSI (Standard Deviation)

James River

Reach American Shad River Herring

1 0.84 (0.13) 0.68 (0.22)

2 0.69 (0.17) 0.33 (0.31)

3 0.75 (0.13) 0.59 (0.21)

4 0.48 (0.25) 0.66 (0.16)

5 0.69 (0.27) 0.51 (0.28)

6 0.26 (0.29) 0.68 (0.20)

7 0.48 (0.22) 0.45 (0.21)

8 0.32 (0.27) 0.69 (0.18)

10 0.31 (0.37) 0.51 (0.35)

Due to the difficult nature of sampling in Reach 9, no habitat
measurements were made

Appomattox River

Reach American Shad River Herrin

1 0.20 (0.20) 0.37 (0.25)

2 0.13 (0.13) 0.72 (0.25)

3 0.07 (0.10) 0.79 (0.31)

4 0.64 (0.16) 0.70 (0.13)

5 0.27 (0.25) 0.77 (0.19)

6 0.34 (0.30) 0.46 (0.34)

7 0.10 (0.20) 0.31 (0.35)

HABITAT UNITS (HU) FOR JAMES AND APPOMATTOX RIVERS

(HSI Mean Reach x Water Area)

James River

Reach American Shad HU River Herring HU

1 13.64 11.04

2 15.74 7.53

3 6.83 5.37

4 23.01 31.64

5 39.42 29.14

6 17.97 47.01

7 32.86 30.81

8 13.51 29.12

9* --- ---

10 10.62 17.47

Since no HSI values were calculated for Reach 9, no Habitat
Units can be calculated

Appomattox River

Reach American Shad HU River Herring HU

1 3.25 6.01

2 2.97 16.43

3 0.64 7.19

4 4.16 4.55

5 8.52 24.30

6 5.34 7.22

7 0.72 2.22

Summary and Recommendations

Computerized databases of existing inventories of river
obstructions were developed using the Advanced Revelation
database management software. These database are presently
maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Information System at the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Gaps in
inventory information were identified on the Rappahannock and
York Rivers to completely cover the Chesapeake Bay drainage.

Habitat suitability models for American shad and river herring
were evaluated and modified according to current literature and
personal communications with individuals knowledgeable of
anadromous fish populations in Virginia. Site assessments were
conducted to illustrate the use of the modified models in
determining habitat quality and quantity. The James River was
found to be better overall for all alosid species, while the
Appomattox River was identified as good river herring habitat.

During the course of this project, many information needs were
identified as meriting further research. The following is a
summary of these regional information needs:

1. Need for basic habitat requirements and life
history information for hickory shad in
Virginia. So little data are presently
available that we were not able to include
this species in our assessments. This
species can be locally abundant and support a
significant recreational fishery, such as on
the Rappahannock and Occoquan Rivers. The
value of this recreational resource has yet
to be quantified.

2. Need for information regarding the freshwater
spawning and nursery habitats of alosids in
Virginia, especially for blueback herring and
American shad. The majority of the
information used to assess stocks in Virginia
have been derived from New England or
Carolina studies, and appear to be in some
conflict with the actual habitat use in
Virginia. Validation of the modified habitat
models would be possible as a result of this
activity.

3. Need for information on the effects of
watershed development on known anadromous
fish streams where the species have been
extirpated from only certain areas of the
watershed. Water chemistry information,
including pH, residual chlorine, and

aluminum, need to be collected and evaluated
for these areas.

4. Water quality parameters of the modified
river herring and American shad models need
to be quantified. This relates back to
problems addressed in 13. Several studies
are presently being conducted, but this
research needs to be directed at larger areas
of the state.

5. Highway crossing evaluations need to be
conducted on the York River and its
tributaries. Additional funding should be
provided to complete the assessment of the
Rappahannock River (above Embry Dam).

Literature Cited

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commossion (ASMRC). 1985.
Fishery Management Plan for the Anadromous Alosid
Stocks of the Eastern United: American Shad, Hickory
Shad, Alewife, and Blueback Herring: Phase II in
Interstate Management Planning for Migratory Alosids of
the Atlantic Coast. Washington, DC. 347pp.

Atran, S.M., J.G. Loesch, W.H. Kriete, Jr., and B. Rizzo.
1983. Feasibility study of fish passage facilities in
the James River, Richmond, Virginia. VIMS Special
Report No. 269, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, VA. 109pp.

Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Task Force (CBP). 1987.
Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources. Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD.
86pp.

Chesapeake Executive Council (CEC). 1988. Stategy for
removing impediments to migratory fishes in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershad; Agreement Commitment Report,
Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD. 12pp +
Appendices.

Klauda, R. 1989. Definitions of critical environmental
conditions for selected Chesapeake Bay finfishes
exposed to acidic episodes in spawning and nursery
habitats. Prepared for Versar, Inc. ESM Operations
9200 Rumsey Road, Columbia, MD and Maryland Dept. of
Nat. Resources, Tidewater Administration, Chesapeake
Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Tawes State
Office Bldg. Annapolis, MD. 158pp.

Loesch, J.G. 1987. Overview of life history aspects of
anadromous alewife and blueback herring in freshwater
habitats. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1:89-
103.

Morgan, R.P., and R.D. Prince. 1977. Chlorine toxicity to
eggs and larvae of five Chesapeake Bay fishes. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 106:380-385. 1

Mudre, J.M., J.J. Ney, and R.J. Neves. 1985. An analysis of
the impediments to spawning migrations of anadromous
fish in Virginia rivers. Final Report. Virginia
Highway Research Council, Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, Charlottesville, VA.
81pp.

Mullen, D.M., C.W. Fay, and J.R. Moring. 1986. Species
profiles: life histories and environmental requirements
of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic)--
alewife/blueback herring. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biol. Rep. 82(11.56). U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 21ppo

Odom, M.C., R.J. Neves, J.J. Ney, and J.M. Mudre. 1986. Use
of tributaries of the lower James River by anadromous
fishes. Final Report. Virginia Highway Research
Council, Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, Charlottesville, VA. 181pp.

Odom, M.C., R.J. Neves, and J.J. Ney. 1988a. Potential use
of tributaries of the middle James River by anadromous
fishes. Final Report. Virginia Highway Research
Council, Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, Charlottesville, VA. 318pp.

Odom, M.C., R.J. Neves, and J.J. Ney. 1988b. Use of
Virginia's tributaries of the Potomac River by
anadromous fishes. Final Report. Virginia Highway
Research Council, Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, Charlottesville, VA. 126pp.

Pardue, G.B. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: alewife
and blueback herring. U.S. Dept. of Into, Fish and
Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82/1058o 22ppo

Rockfish Corporation. 1981. Virginia Hydro Dam Inventory.
Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Energy, Region III, VA State
Office of Emergency and Energy Services. Rockfish
Corp., Afton, VA. 3 Volumes.

Stier, D.J., and J.H. Crance. 1985. Habitat suitability
index models and instream flow suitability curves:
American shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol.
Repo 82(10o88). 34pp.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 1986.
Anadromous fish restoration demostration project on the
Embry Dam in the Rappahannock River, Virginia. VIMS,
School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary,
Gloucester Point, Virginia. 12pp.

Weiss-Glanz, L.S., J.G. Stanley, and J.R. Moring. 1986,
Species profiles: life histories and environmental
requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North
Atlantic)--American shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biol. Rep. 82(11.59). U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 16ppo

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix I
I
.I
I
I
I
I r
I
I
1 34
1

= = M M = = M = M = M M M = M
JAMES RIVER

Reach I

, 2
. 1 .4 .6 .8
. !), 10
. 7

Boshers Dam
. 3
. 5

Scoie = 1.10,204
i I I I I i
0 meters Soo

= = M = = = = M M = M M = M 0
JAMES RTVER

Reach 2

. 7

.6
.5

. 4

. I
Scale = 1:10,204

i I I "I
0 meters 500

= mm mm'm mm mmm
JAMES RIVER

Reach 3

.3 .4

.2
W II I ams

Scale 1:10,204

0 me@ers 500

JAMES RIVER

Reach 4

Williams Island Darn

3 .9

Scale 1:10,204

!0 meters 500

m m m m m m m m m m m m m = m
JAMES RIVER

Reach 5

. 1 .2

. 4

.5 . 7

.10
.9

Scale = 1:10,204
I- @ --i
0 meters 500

JAMES RIVER

Reach 6

7
10

Scale i@10,204

0 meters 500

J-AMES RIVER

Reach 7

.2 .6

4
.3

Scale 1:10,204

0 meters Soo

JAMES RIVER

Reach 8

Bel les Islan

7
3
6
C7

Scale 1:10,204 Cle

0 me@ers 500

= = M= mmm MM'= == mm M
JAMES RIVER

Reach 9

0
Q>

Belles Island Dam
p
q

@o
p
e@p
Scale = 1:10,204
i IIIi
0 me@ers 500

= = m = = = = = m = = m m = m
JAMES RIVER

Reach I a

.9
. @;- - 10 Browns

. 1 6F . 3 .6
0 @
.!::i?
C,0 . 5 . 7

13
N , .d

.2 a

a
Scale = 1 :10,204
i I -- I I -
0 me@ers 500

M 1=1 M M M M =1 1=1 M IM M M M M 0
APPOMATTOX RIVE

Reach I

Brasfield Dom
Abut

0
q
.3
- 11� . 17 . I

. i

. 13

. 0 1
.8 .9 . I

Scale = 1:10,204
i I I
0 meters 500 N

APPOMATTOX RIVER

Reach 2

Abutment Dam

Scale 1:10,204

0 meters Soo

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0
APPOMATTOX RIVE

Reach 3

I .

4
.3

Scale = 1.10,204
iI __rI
0 meters 500

= = m = = = = = = m = m = m =
APPOMATTOX RIVE

Reach 4

.2
.5@1
.067.* -. 10

Scale = 1:10,204
F===:- I I I
@ meters- Soo

= = M = = M = M = M = = M = M

i
APPOMATTOX RIVE

Reach 5

Cz>
C==-,

1z,
@-_;8 . 0 ; I I

<Z@@

Scale = 1:10,204
i I I
0 meters 500

mm M = = MM = M'= = = mm w
APPOMATTOX RIVE

Reach 6

Ba
. oz
69

,@@7
. 4

. 3

--------
. I -

Scale :z 1:10,204

1 --- I - 11
I
0 meters 500

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
APPOMA'TTOX RIVE

Reach 7

N I--," Harve I

. 4-
e

.-I -
i
Battersea Dam--'

Scale = 1:10,204
F=== L I I i
@ me@ers 500
7
.9.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATE DUE I
I
I I
I
I I
GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED 114 U.SA I
I
I
I
- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - I
1 11111191111
3 6668 1 107 356 11 1
--- I