7845 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 1.3.9 Examples of Other Downstream Passage Limitation Projects ' 1.3.9.1 Introduction Surprisingly little information exists on the subject of intentionally restricting or prohibiting fish ' movement from within a waterway or from one waterway to another in order to limit species conflicts. Most of the information which exists addresses maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of passage and minimizing the mortality. While much of the information from the later ' objective can be applied to restricting downstream movement (e.g., excluding fish from diversions and hydroelectric power intakes) there is a basic difference which makes restricting fish movement inherently more difficult. Minimizing mortality is directed at adult and juvenile fish of economic or sport value and a survival or passage rate of greater than 80 percent is considered acceptable. However, fish passage restriction to separate species must be essentially 100% and cover all life forms because only a small escapement could enable potential reproduction downstream to population levels which would perpetuate the species conflicts. For this reason, it is important to consider those projects where an effort has been made to benevolently keep species separate with 100 percent success and/or cause 100 percent mortality of passed fish. There are no projects we are aware of where species separation via downstream movement restriction has been attempted within a ' naturally connected drainageway. However, there are two good examples of projects which involve restrictions of fish movement between historically separated drainage courses. ' Naturally, disconnected drainages normally require an anthropogenic act to connect them; therefore, the focus of any effort to keep species separate is simply whatever means (canal, pumping station, etc.) is employed to connect the drainages. Such is the situation with the following two examples. ' 1.3.9.2 McCluskey Canal The McCluskey Canal is one component of the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) located in North Dakota. GDU is one of the developments in the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944. Benefits of GDU include irrigation development, fish and wildlife conservation and enhancement, recreation development, water supply for municipal and industrial- purposes, and flood control. GDU is comprised to the Snake Creek Pumping Plant, Audubon Lake, the McCluskey Canal, and Lonetree Reservoir. The system operates by pumping Missouri River water from Lake Sakakawea (formed by Garrison Dam) by the Snake Creek Pumping Plant into ' Audubon Lake which is a subimpoundment of Lake Sakakawea„ Audubon Lake is the supply reservoir for the 74-mile long McCluskey Canal, which flows by gravity into Lonetree Reservoir. As initially proposed, water from Lonetree Reservoir would be diverted into project areas in several ' basins. A few of these basins drain into the Hudson Bay drainage. The Missouri River Basin and Hudson Bay drainage are separate systems; therefore, construction of GDU would allow Missouri River water to eventually flow into Canada via the Hudson Bay drainage. During planning and early ' construction phases, several government and private agencies in Manitoba, Canada were concerned that the diversion of Missouri River water would transfer undesirable fish species, fish disease, and fish parasites into the Hudson Bay drainage. It was believed that this would have adverse impacts on ' sport and commercial fisheries in Manitoba, including (1) direct: competition with native fish, (2) population eruptions of the introduced fish, (3) reduction in populations of native fish in Lake Winnipeg and other waters, and (4) predation by the introduced species on native fish. The U.S. ' Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) decided to develop a fish control system that would prevent any Control Structure Feasibility Evaluation 1-28 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc., February 18, 1997