Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />young fish to reach habitat occupied during the majority of their life cycle; and 3) movement back <br />and forth along the river as a part of normal movement of resident river fish. The stated purpose of <br />this study is closest to subject area 2. Subject areas 1 and 3 are not applicable to this study. <br />The evaluation of the control structure options to restrict downstream movement was conducted <br />using a combination of a review of literature and interviews with key individuals who are currently <br />operating and/or designing fish protection facilities throughout the nation. The literature is <br />summarized in the annotated bibliography in the Appendix. A description of personal contacts is <br />provided in Section 7. <br />1.3.1 Summary of Information Sources, Geographic Locations, and Target Fish <br />Species <br /> The initial literature search identified over a hundred publications and associated references which <br /> were reviewed. This served as the basis for identifying other publications, grey literature sources <br /> and initial personal contacts. Professional acquaintances of the primary investigators and additional <br /> individuals suggested by the people contacted were also targeted for interviews. This resulted in <br /> individuals from a wide range of agencies and organizations being contacted to get input regarding <br /> various protection devices and, in particular, on containing warm water species within reservoirs. <br /> These entities included: National Marine Fishery Service, Oregon Department of Wildlife, <br /> Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Ecology, California Department of <br /> Fish and Game, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, National Biological Service, <br /> Turners Falls Anadromous Fish Labs, and Alden Research Lab in Boston, Massachusetts. In <br /> addition, key personnel in the Bureau of Reclamation in Denver, Washington and California were <br /> contacted concerning both existing and proposed fish protection facilities. A list of persons <br /> contacted is in Section 7. <br /> Current fish protection facilities are located mainly in the Pacific Northwest, Northern California and <br /> in the northeast. In general, these facilities are used to protect anadromous salmonid species, <br /> normally smolts, from mortality at hydroelectric facilities or irrigation diversions during their <br /> downstream passage. Facilities also exist to retain game fish, to separate non-game and game fish, <br /> and to protect selected valuable (endangered, game or food) fish from mortality. Very few facilities <br /> exist to control fry size fish and smaller life forms. <br />1.3.2 General Characteristics of Exclusion Facilities <br />The general characteristics of these facilities are to safely bypass downstream migrating fish past a <br />danger point and return them to the receiving stream below. Most such facilities are in use <br />seasonally versus year round as the primary diversion purpose is for irrigation. Each facility consists <br />of some sort of screen or diversion device to direct the fish toward a bypass. A small amount of flow <br />is then directed down the bypass with the fish entrained in the flow and that flow is returned to the <br />stream downstream of the facility. For the evaluation of this study, an alternative concept was <br />investigated. In particular, that concept included no fish bypass facility, and retained the fish within <br />the reservoir without bypassing them downstream. This is a substantial difference from the usual <br />concept of fish bypass or fish screening facility. - <br />Control Structure Feasibility Evaluation 1-2 <br />Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc., February 18, 1997 <br />