In-stream Impoundment Guidance

/In-stream Impoundment Guidance
Subject: In-stream Impoundment Guidance
From: Brian Wrenn <bnan wrenn@ncmail net>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17 10 51 -0400
To: David Cox <david cox@ncwildlife org>
CC: John Hennessy <John Hennessy@ncmail net>, John Dorney
<john dorney@ncmail net>, Cyndi Karoly <Cyndi Karoly@NCMail Net>
David,
We have reviewed the guidance and have the following comments
1 Over all we agree with the guidance We appreciate your efforts to build
consistency among your representatives and to provide a good starting point for
anyone considering an impoundment
2 Although it is clear that WRC does not want this to be a regulatory document,
DWQ feels that there should be some reference to the 404/401 permitting process in
the document The "Remainng Issues Discussion" may be a place to recommend
that anyone planning impoundment activates should consult with the Corps, DWQ,
and DCM when applicable
3 The next to last bullet on p 13 discusses placing nprap below the high water
mark with vegetation aboveon outlet structures For in-stream impoundments is
seems that there is the potential for significant hydraulic energy from outlet
structures and spillways DWQ would prefer for the energy to be dissipated prior to
reaching the stream bed (e g , np rap, stepped spillway, etc ) It is unclear whether
vegetation could achieve this kind of energy dissipation In addition, DWQ prefers
np rap to be minimized below the high water mark, but understand that it is
necessary in many cases to maintain stream stability
4 The first bullet on p 14 is somewhat confusing I understand that you are
discussing temperature and DO, but the "Coldwater intake" term makes it difficult
to determine whether this is in the pond (standing head pipe type structue) or in the
stream (the inlet to the pond) This may need some clarification
5 The fourth bullet on p 14 discusses a sediment management plan What would
this consist of? Some further discussion of this bullet may be necessary.
Again, thanks for pulling this together Want to do one that discusses dam breaches
in depth?
Brian
Brian L Wrenn
Environmental Specialist III
1 of 2 5/18/2006 11 07 AM
[Fwd WRC On-Line Pond Literature review and guidance document]
Subject: [Fwd WRC On-Line Pond Literature review and guidance document]
From: John Dorney <John Domey@ncmatl net>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 20 57 07 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <Cyndi Karoly@NCMail Net>, John Hennessy <John Hennessy@ncmatl net>, Mike
Parker <Mike Parker@ncmatl net>, "DENR PROGDEV DWQ" <DENR PROGDEV DWQ@ncmatl net>
FYI if you have any comments, please send them to me by May 26 thankx
Subject: WRC On-Line Pond Literature review and guidance document
From: "Cox, David R " <david cox@ncwtldlife org>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14 18 31 -0400
To: " (keith a hams@us army mil)" <keith a hams@us army mil>, Jean B Manuele@us army mil,
David M Lekson@us army mil, " (William t walker@usace army mil)"
<William t walker@usace army mil>, "Brian Cole (Brian _Cole@fws gov)" <Brian Cole@fws gov>,
"Pete Benjamin (Pete _Benjamin@fws gov)" <Pete_Benjamin@fws gov>, " (matt flint@nc usda gov)"
<matt flint@nc usda gov>, " (mike hinton@nc usda gov)" <mike hinton@nc usda gov>,
Melba McGee@ncmatl net, John Dorney <John Domey@ncmatl net>, John Hennessy
<john hennessy@ncmatl net>, Cyndi Karoly <cyndi karoly@ncmail net>, Linda Pearsall
<linda pearsall@ncmail net>, " (Gray Hauser@ncmatl net)" <Gray Hauser@ncmatl net>, "
(max fowler@ncmatl net)" <max fowler@ncmatl net>
Dear State and Federal Agency partners,
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission contracted with Danielle Pender to conduct a literature review,
regarding the effects of on-line, in-line or in-stream impoundments on aquatic resources and their habitats and
write a guidance document detailing those findings The purpose of this document is to give WRC staff
information regarding how these impoundments are regulated in other states, provide literature citations
describing the effects of these projects on aquatic resources and their habitats and provide a list of
recommendations for situations when the construction of these projects is either desired or unavoidable
The NCRWC staff would like for your agencies to review this guidance document and suggest edits and ways in
which you feel it could be improved upon We will consider any recommendations when preparing a final draft
of the document Please circulate the document within your agency or send it to appropriate staff
I would like to have any comments back by June 1, 2006 We anticipate having the final guidance prepared by
July 1, 2006
Thank you for your consideration of the document We feel that interagency input will improve the final product
and look forward to receiving your input
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me
David R Cox
Technical Guidance Supervisor
Habitat Conservation Program, NCRWC
919 528 9886
WRC On-Line Pond Literature review and guidance document Content-Type: message/rfc822
1 of 2 5/5/2006 10 20 AM
[Fwd WRC On-Line Pond Literature review and guidance document]
In-stream Impoundments NC DRAFT 3.doc
Content-Encoding: 7brt
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
2 of 2 5/5/2006 10 20 AM
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
IN-STREAM IMPOUNDMENT GUIDANCE
DATE 2006
i
'1.
t? 1 ?it
y
?r .
Ilk
1
t 4 ? "` xr s?,
mom"
Y.
~y
rr? i
DRAFT
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
IN-STREAM IMPOUNDMENT GUIDANCE
Prepared by
Danielle R. Pender
Submitted
Date 2006
Table of Contents
Preface 1
Introduction 1
Environmental Effects of Impoundments 2
1 Fragmentation and Migration 3
2 Reduced Abundance and Diversity 4
3 Extirpation from Native Range 4
4 Displacement by Exotics 5
Effects of Sto cking 6
Other States 7
A California Department of Fish and Game 7
B Idaho Department of Fish and Game 8
C Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 8
D Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 8
E Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 9
F New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife 10
G New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 10
H Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 10
I Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 10
J Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 11
K Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 11
Remaining Issues Discussion 12
Recommendations 12
A Project Design 13
B Project Planning 14
Literature Cited 16
Preface
This document is intended to serve as guidance to assist North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) personnel with addressing issues related to the effects
of in-stream impoundments on perennial stream channels This Guidance includes
information, recommendations, and references that will provide meaningful assistance to
NCWRC personnel involved in consultation activities where the impoundment of
perennial streams is proposed, primarily in the form of small impoundments such as
ponds The definition of a pond according to Armantrout (1998) is a "Natural or artificial
body of standing water that is typically smaller than a lake [less than 8 ha (20 acre)]"
The Guidance supports NCWRC recommendations to locate ponds off-channel and to
avoid wetlands and other high quality habitat
Refer to the NCWRC Procedures for Reviewing Hydropower Projects Licenses
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for information on hydropower projects,
to the NCWRC Committee on Nonmdigenous Species Introductions Draft Stocking
Policy for detailed stocking recommendations, and to the NCWRC Policies and
Guidelines for Conservation of Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitats for general guidance
Introduction
The NCWRC is charged by statute with management, regulation, protection and
conservation of wildlife resources and inland fisheries in North Carolina (G S 113-132)
Wildlife resources include all undomesticated avian, terrestrial and freshwater fauna as
well as supporting ecosystems (G S 113-129) The NCWRC is dedicated to conserving
all natural habitats including wetland, riparian, aquatic, and upland habitat for the benefit
of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and for the enjoyment of North Carolina's citizens
North Carolina rivers and streams harbor diverse and unique species, habitats, and
ecosystems
There are 5,251 dams listed in the North Carolina Division of Land Quality's
database, 1,057 of those may be considered relatively small [(< 16 feet high - structural
height measured from the lowest downstream elevation to the highest point on the crest
of the dam) Dams < 15 feet may not be included in the database unless they meet certain
cntena] An in-stream impoundment guidance is necessary because impoundments
modify stream flows, affect water quality, and can cause the alteration of the natural
diurnal, seasonal, and annual patterns of the upstream and downstream movements of in-
stream biota (Yeager 1993) It is the NCWRC policy to advocate avoiding any
diminution of the quantity or quality of the natural flow of water
Properly designed and managed waterfowl impoundments are acceptable
practices within the wildlife management profession Plans for impoundment
construction and management should clearly demonstrate public benefits and result in
improved habitat for waterfowl without detriment to other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources In addition, ponds that are properly managed can provide excellent fishing
opportunities to a large number of anglers The NCWRC in cooperation with the North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Service published a Pond Management Guide that
describes site planning and pond construction, stocking and harvesting, and pond
management The Pond Management Guide describes two general types of ponds (1)
watershed or embankment ponds, which are formed by constructing a dam to collect
stream or surface runoff, and (2) excavated ponds, which are formed by digging down
into the water table in an area that is relatively flat More information concerning pond
construction and management is found in the "Pond Management Guide" published by
the NCWRC and the N C Cooperative Extension Service This guide can be obtained
online at www ncwildlife org
The objective of the NCWRC In-stream Impoundment Guidance is to assist
NCWRC personnel in determining if a proposed pond construction will be conducted in a
manner that is consistent with their statutory responsibilities and the need for protecting
high quality aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat The NCWRC recommends that (1)
small impoundments be located off-channel and wetlands and other high quality habitats
be avoided and (2) ponds be located on a stream only when all other options have been
exhausted The NCWRC strongly recommends against locating ponds in naturally
reproducing trout waters, anadromous species waters, and waters that contain state and
federally listed species The NCWRC will formulate recommendations to help reduce
the adverse effects of impoundments on aquatic and terrestrial resources based on
information available to the agency, as appropriate under the circumstances presented
Therefore, the language of this Guidance should not be interpreted to establish any
binding requirements on NCWRC personnel or regulatory agencies
Environmental Effects of Impoundments
Running waters are complex physical, chemical, and biological systems that
interact and affect downstream elements in many ways Although dams have contributed
to national economic development and social welfare, they have had ecological impacts
on river and riparian ecosystem structure and function (Blough et al 2004) The negative
effects of impoundments are well documented and include blocking migration routes,
habitat fragmentation, alteration of natural hydrologic and geomorphic regimes,
degradation of water quality, declines in biodiversrty, alteration of natural food webs, and
disruption of riparian plant communities (Baxter 1977, Ward and Stanford 1979, and
references therein, Tyus 1990, Yeager 1993, Ligon et al 1995, Pringle 1997, Benstead et
al 1999, Pringle et al 2000, Blough et al 2004) The cumulative ecological effects of
multiple dams are likely to be substantial
Depending on outlet depth and design [hypolimnetic (deep), epilimnetic
(shallow), multi-level release, or run-of-the-nver], the physical, chemical, and biological
attributes of the downstream ecosystem will be affected differently (Yeager 1993, Tyus
1999, Blough et al 2004) In addition to coldwater releases being known to produce
several ecological changes, warm surface water releases have coincided with lower
densities of cold-water fish species (Lessard and Hayes 2003) Both high and low stream
flows influence the survival of aquatic ammals (Schlosser 1991) Water level
2
fluctuations have the potential to adversely affect fish microhabitat (Bain et al 1988) and
spawning, seasonal availability of aquatic and floodplain habitat, development of aquatic
and terrestrial macrophytes, riparian vegetation growth, and bottom-dwelling organisms
(Tyus 1999, Blough et al 2004)
As river segments become fragmented due to dam construction, plant and animal
movements are interrupted Migration cues may be lost to migratory fish, and resident
fish habitat needs for different life history functions, such as spawning, nursery, foraging,
and over-wintering areas and seasonal thermal refugia can also be lost (Yeager 1993,
Blough et al 2004) The fragmentation of streams can lead to reduced genetic flow and
variation to upstream populations, and downstream areas can act as population "sinks"
for "source" populations of native species upstream (Pringle 1997) Alternatively,
degraded downstream areas can act as "source" populations of exotic species that migrate
upstream (Pringle 1997) Nutrient and energy exchange may be prevented from larger
downstream systems to upstream areas by stopping or reducing aquatic life passage
(Blough et al 2004) Dams trap sediments, nutrients, and large woody debris, prevent
their normal processing by rivers, and cut off transport to larger downstream water bodies
(Yeager 1993, Tyus 1999, Blough et al 2004)
Most published literature contains information about large dams and reservoirs
Smaller dams and impoundments influence watersheds and natural resources similarly,
but possibly to a lesser degree (Porto et al 1999, Beasley and Hightower 2000, Tiemann
et al 2004, Santucci et al 2005) In some cases, profound detrimental effects to the
biotic integrity of warmwater rivers have been found for low-head dams with relatively
small impoundments (Santucci et al 2005) Inflatable dams are often used as seasonal
impoundments and the impoundments created are generally of small size However,
inflatable dams can cause migration delays (forming a notch in the crest may reduce this
effect) (Manning et al 2005) Although several presented studies discuss impacts to
smaller systems and impoundments and the impacts caused by ponds may be similar to
both large and smaller impoundments, note that the magnitude of pond impacts may
occur at a lesser degree Also see the NCWRC Fisheries Management Fact Sheet
"Environmental impacts caused by ponds"
Common consequences of altered rivers are a decrease in suitable habitats, fewer
native flora and fauna, and more non-native plants and animals (Bain et al 1988, Neves
and Angermeier 1990, Tyus 1999, Pringle et al 2000, Blough et al 2004) Research on
the potential effects of in-stream impoundments on riverme fauna and their habitat are
summarized as follows (many of the references below discuss the effects of smaller
impoundments)
1 Fragmentation and migration
Even during periods of high flow when the Quaker Neck Dam (7 feet high) on the
Neuse River, North Carolina, was completely submerged, American shad (Alosa
sapidissima) and striped bass (Morone saxatilas) migration was substantially affected
(Beasley and Hightower 2000) Low-head barrier dams constructed to control
populations of sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) were demonstrated to affect
movements of some non-target fishes on stream tributaries of the Laurentian Great Lakes
(Porto et al 1999) and low-head dams were found to affect the migration of fishes and
amphidromous freshwater shrimps in Puerto Rico (Holmquist et al 1998, Benstead et al
1999) Fluvial specialists showed reduced movements among Texas headwater streams
upstream of an impoundment (Herbert and Gelwick 2003) An in-stream pond created to
reduce nutrient transport was found to slow migration time and increase mortality rate of
brown trout (Salmo trutta) smolts in a creek in Sweden (Olsson, et al 2001) Watters
(1996) found that small dams restricted mussel fauna to downstream reaches in Midwest
river systems and concluded that dams as small as 3 28-feet high were obstacles to the
distribution of some fishes, and therefore to the distribution of the mussels
2 Reduced abundance and diversity
Aquatic biota diversity and abundance can be reduced due to both impoundments
and flow modifications (Erman 1973, Wildhaber et al 2000, Santucci et al 2005)
Densities of the federally threatened Neosho madtom (Noturus placzdus) and channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) were higher above than downstream of the John Redmund
Dam on the Neosho River in Kansas and Oklahoma due to altered physical habitat,
hydrology, and water quality (Wildhaber et al 2000) Tiemann et al (2004) found that
low head dams on the Neosho River in Kansas were associated with changes in water
depth, stream velocity, and substrate compaction and composition which affected
macroinvertebrate and fish abundance and evenness In addition to reduced movement
effects, Texas headwater streams upstream of an impoundment were also populated by
more tolerant macrohabitat-generalist species and showed a reduced abundance of fluvial
specialists (Herbert and Gelwick 2003) Although fish passage was found to be feasible
for some species at individual low-head dams on the Yellowstone River in Montana, a
cumulative fish passage challenge may result in restricted fish distributions and limited
abundance due to the six dams in a series (Helfrich et al 1999) Fish assemblage changes
were documented in three years of post-impoundment surveys below Beaver Dam on the
White River, Arkansas, furthermore, 30 years after impoundment, substantial fish
assemblage changes had occurred since the short-term post-impoundment surveys were
completed (Quinn and Kwak 2003) Following the Woolen Mills Dam removal on the
Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, smallmouth bass (Mzcropterus dolomieu) abundance and
biomass increased substantially and they occupied new spawning areas and common carp
(Cyprinus carpio) abundance and biomass declined dramatically in the previously
impounded reach (Kanehl et al 1997)
3 Extirpation from native range
Physical habitat alteration and introduced species are the first and second most
frequently cited causal factors of extinction in North American fishes (Miller et al 1989)
Isolated upstream populations may become extirpated when reproductive failure or high
mortality cannot be compensated by recolomzation from downstream sources (Pringle et
al 2000) Due to impounding and poor water quality on the Tennessee River system,
extirpation of species and changes in species composition of fishes, mussels, and other
4
faunal groups have been observed (Neves and Angermeier 1990) Extensive changes in
fish community structure occurred after the construction of the Altus Dam on the North
Fork of the Red River, Oklahoma, including the extirpation of two minnow species and
the drastic decline and possible extirpation of two other minnow species (Winston et al
1991) A mussel spatial extinction gradient was observed downstream of impoundments
on the Little River in Oklahoma, where mussel species richness and abundance increased
gradually with increasing distance from the reservoir and only sites furthest from the
impoundment contained relatively rare species (Vaughn and Taylor 1999) In the Little
River study, some mussel species did not begin to recover until 12 miles downstream of
the impoundment and did not peak until 44 miles, which led researchers to suggest that
considerable stream lengths are necessary to overcome the effects of impoundment on
mussel populations
4 Displacement by exotics
Dams can be a factor in allowing or preventing non-native species to become
established in new systems (Blough et al 2004), and non-native species may be favored
by altered flow regimes (Tyus 1999) After the formation of Grayrocks Reservoir on the
Laramie River, Wyoming, significantly fewer native and more exotic species were
collected from both upstream and downstream reaches (Quist et al 2005) The
impoundment of Kinkaid Creek in Illinois resulted in the extirpation of six native species
and a change in fish community structure that showed a potentially deceptive increase in
species richness (Taylor et al 2001) An observed increase in species richness can also
be due to an invasion of native species that does not normally occupy the area (Scott and
Helfinan 2001) Habitat alteration, which may make a stream region unsuitable to an
endemic specialist, may also increase the suitability for generalist species (Scott and
Helfinan 2001)
Dam removal as an option to support watershed restoration is an increasing trend
in the United States, at least 123 dams have been removed since 1970 (Blough et al
2004) with the majority being less than 16 feet in height (Poff and Hart 2002) Dam
removal that has occurred in North Carolina includes the Quaker Neck Dam in
1997-1998 (Meuse River), Cherry Hospital Dam in 1998 (Little River, a tributary to the
Neuse River), Rains Mill Dam in 1999 (Little River), Lowell Mill Dam in December
2005 (Little River), and Carbonton Dam on the Deep River in January 2006 Dillsboro
Dam on the Tuckasegee River, Steeles Mill Dam on Hitchcock Creek (a tributary of the
Pee Dee River), and Pleasant Green Road Dam on the Eno River are in the process of
being removed Dam removal offers long term benefits such as lotic habitat restoration
and aquatic life passage, however, some short-term negative ecological effects may occur
such as the release of sediments (Stanley et al 2002) and the burial of sedentary species
such as mussels could occur following removal (Sethi et al 2004) Because dam
removal, or even a partial breach, to restore native habitats and species assemblages
could cause social, economic, and ecological disruptions (such as allowing the spread of
invasive species to upstream locations) that greatly complicate decisions, the American
Fisheries Society recommends that decisions about dam removal involve all vested
interests based on a wide array of issues (Blough et al 2004)
5
Effects of stocking
There are many reasons aquatic biota are introduced into alien freshwater
environments Commonly accepted management strategies for realizing the full potential
of altered aquatic habitats produced by impoundments are planned introductions (Blough
et al 2004) Fish stocking in North Carolina is recognized as an important and
appropriate fisheries management tool In recognition that thoughtful consideration
should be given when making decisions regarding fish introductions, the NCWRC
Committee on Nonmdigenous Species Introductions developed a stocking policy
statement, a four-step stocking evaluation protocol, and a decision flow chart to evaluate
stocking proposals Also refer to the NCWRC Fisheries Research Fact Sheet (16),
"Dangers of fish introductions to our State's waters"
Introductions of non-native fishes have resulted in a loss of biological diversity
and have played a large part in the homogenization of fish faunas (Rahel 2000) Exotics
may affect native species through predation, habitat use alterations, hybridization, and
introductions of diseases or parasites (Allan and Flecker 1993) Introduced species may
also colonize waters beyond the point of release (McMahon and Bennett 1996)
Introductions can be planned or unintended, such as by the release of bait fish Some
exotics are popular sport fish and support important recreational fisheries
Salmomds form the basis of important fisheries in the North Carolina mountains
Although trout species other than native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinahs) are also
valuable to the fishery and to North Carolina citizens, non-native trout species have been
known to negatively affect brook trout Therefore, careful consideration should be given
to the placement of trout species in North Carolina waters The American Fisheries
Society's Southern Division Trout Committee developed a position statement to advocate
management approaches suitable for conserving native southern Appalachian brook trout
(Habera and Moore 2005), which includes emphasizing conservation and prescribes
fishery managers to restrict the use of hatchery-produced (non-native) brook trout to
areas where southern Appalachian brook trout genetic integrity cannot be compromised
through interbreeding or altered selective pressures related to ecological interactions
Some of the effects reported in the literature of non-native trout introductions on
native brook trout are summarized below
• Over a 15-year period, a population of 100% brook trout was replaced by a
dominant brown trout (Salmo trutta) population with some brook trout and
rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykas) also being present in Valley Creek,
Minnesota, likely due to habitat perturbations and the variable behavior of the
trout species (Waters 1983)
• Microhabrtat location and vertical distribution of brook trout shifted and brook
trout lost weight and contracted fungus in the presence of brown trout in a
laboratory stream (DeWald and Wilzbach 1992)
6
Water temperature and elevation generally limit wild trout habitat in the southern
Appalachian region, which includes waters in Georgia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (Habera and Strange 1993) Brook trout,
originally the only salmomd present, now represent only about 25% of the
southern Appalachian salmomd population in terms of inhabited stream length,
and northern strains of brook trout that were part of past stockings or hybrids
between northern and southern strains may now occupy much of the region
(Habera and Strange 1993)
Flebbe (1994) found brook trout to be located at higher densities in allopatry than
in sympatry with brown and rainbow trout in southern Appalachian streams in
North Carolina and Virginia, and rainbow and brown trout were most abundant in
North Carolina lower elevation streams However, Strange and Habera (1998)
did not find a change in allopatric brook trout range with rainbow trout in
Tennessee
Introductions of other non-resident species can affect resident fauna as well
Stocking catchable-size hatchery rainbow trout in Montana streams coincided with a
reduction in numbers and biomass of self-sustaining wild brown and rainbow trout
(Vincent 1987) Where green sunfish (Lepomzs cyanellus) were introduced in North
Carolina Piedmont headwater streams, their abundance and biomass exceeded that of any
other coexisting species, and when they were removed, the biomass and numbers of most
native species increased (Lemly 1985)
Other States
Thirty-eight state fish and wildlife resource agencies have pond information
readily available on their websrtes, mostly in the form of a pond management guide For
many states, the pond management guide only discusses upland ponds with some also
discouraging stream impoundments, however, it is unclear from most of the guides
whether in-stream ponds are disallowed or discouraged Some states also have special
pond regulations, and information from those states is summarized below This list is not
necessarily exhaustive
A California Department of Fish and Game
(http //www dfg ca gov/)
• California law requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public
utility to notify the Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) before beginning an
activity that will substantially modify a river, stream, or lake If the CDFG
determines that the activity could substantially adversely affect an existing fish
and wildlife resource, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement is required
Applicants are required to complete a notification package and submit a fee
• Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires any person, state or local
governmental agency, or public utility to notify the CDFG before beginning any
activity that will do one or more of the following (1) substantially obstruct or
divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake, (2) substantially change or use
7
any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake, or (3)
deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked,
or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake Fish and
Game Code section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral
rivers, streams, and lakes in the state
If an Agreement is required, the CDGF will conduct an onsite inspection, if
necessary, and submit a draft agreement to the applicant The draft agreement will
include measures to protect fish and wildlife resources while conducting the
project
The applicant may also be required to obtain a permit, agreement, or other
authorization from one or more governmental agencies
B Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(http //fishandgame Idaho gov/)
• A pond is defined as private only if it is entirely surrounded by private land and is
not located on a natural stream channel Stocking or maintaining fish in such a
pond requires a Private Pond Permit Any lake, pond, or reservoir with legal
access to the public is considered a public water body The Idaho Department of
Fish and Game (IDFG) manage the fisheries on public waters
• Private Fish Pond Permits are free and must be renewed every five years The
permits allow IDFG to monitor and prevent introductions of fish that could harm
wild populations
• Before a permit can be issued, landowners must screen the outlet of their pond to
insure that fish cannot escape into public waters from the pond The inlet may
also require screening to keep wild fish from entering the pond
• Since even the best screens may fail, IDFG only allows stocking of desirable
species that are currently found in adjacent waters To prevent the introduction
and spread of disease, only fish from an approved, disease-free hatchery may be
stocked
C Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
(http //www kdwp state ks us/)
• A permit is required to construct a pond or otherwise modify habitat occupied by
threatened or endangered fish and wildlife species Permits are obtained from the
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
D Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(http //www dnr state mn us/index html)
• A permit is necessary for transferring live game fish into and within the State of
Minnesota This permit is available free of charge The information needed to
complete the permit includes the source of fish, the legal description (Township,
Range, Section) of the destination of the fish, the species, number and size of the
fish to be stocked, the date of stocking and the size, license number, and route of
the truck to be used for hauling the fish
8
E Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
(http //fwp mt gov/default html)
• Based on state law first passed in 1945, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP)
administers private fish pond licensing Regulations are intended to allow the
stocking of private fish ponds while ensuring that public resources are not
adversely affected by unwanted fish or fish diseases, that nuisance aquatic species
are not planted into ponds where they can escape or be introduced into state
waters, and habitat of wild fish is not harmed
• Pond builders should be aware of and be sensitive to the fact that water
withdrawals for new fish ponds may negatively impact downstream public
resources including wild fish All private fish ponds consume some water Every
effort should be made to eliminate or minimize the use of stream surface water or
alluvial groundwater for ponds
• A private fish pond permit applicant must have a water right appropriate for the
size and location of the pond MFWP cannot issue fish stocking permits until it is
certain that legal water rights exist (if needed) for the pond or reservoir MFWP
may file an objection to a requested water right if it is determined that the
withdrawal will pose an unacceptable risk to fish in adjacent public/state waters
• Pond owners will not be permitted to stock fish if the pond is likely to flood or if
it poses an unacceptable risk to game fish or species of special concern
• In-stream ponds will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there is
no threat to game fish or species of special concern in adjacent waters The
applicant must provide documentation verifying that game fish or species of
special concern do not occur in the tributary, spring or stream for the proposed in-
stream pond, and that the pond does not pose an unacceptable risk to game fish or
species of special concern in adjacent waters Verification must be in the form of
a formal report from an MFWP-approved professional fisheries consultant, or
other reliable data and documentation (MFWP survey/inventory data, university
studies, scientific journal articles)
• The MFWP is required by law to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) of
any proposal to introduce fish into a pond and must provide a minimum 14-day
public comment period on potentially controversial proposals or proposals that
may have impacts that require mitigation At least one site visit is necessary as
part of the EA process
• The MFWP regional office will contact the applicant to conduct a pond inspection
as part of the EA process and to ensure that the pond is properly screened to
prevent fish from entering or escaping the pond
• The Regional MFWP office issues private fish pond permits Permits are issued
for a duration of 10 years Only fish species approved and obtained from a lawful
source may be stocked Normally, fish approved for stocking will be limited to
those species presently occurring in the drainage
• Because the MFWP is funded by general license dollars, department biologists
cannot provide technical assistance to private pond owners unless free public
access is provided
• The applicant may also be required to obtain a permit, agreement, or other
authorization from one or more governmental agencies
9
F New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife
(http //www state nj us/dep/fgw/)
• The New Jersey Fish and Game Code requires that a stocking permit from the
Division of Fish and Wildlife be obtained for stocking any fish or fish eggs in all
waters of the State, both public and private, which are contiguous with the ocean
G New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(http //www dec state ny us/website/dfwmr/)
• Prior to stocking fish in a pond, a Farm Fish Pond License must be obtained from
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) The
license allows the licensee, his immediate family, and his employees to take fish
at any time, in any size, in any number, and in any manner as stipulated in his
license The farm fishpond license also serves as a stocking permit, eliminating
the need to obtain a separate NYSDEC fish stocking permit, which is required to
stock fish into any waters of the state
• A Permit to Stock Triploid Grass Carp must be obtained if the applicant chooses
to use grass carp to control aquatic plants A current New York State fishing
license is required to catch fish from the pond
• A Stream Protection Permit is required for the disturbance of a protected stream
A Freshwater Wetland Permit is required for excavating or filling an area within
100 feet of a NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetland
H Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
(http //wildlife utah gov/index php)
• All ponds must be inspected by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR)
personnel before a Certificate of Registration is issued to confirm that adequate
screening is installed and that the pond is not on a natural stream No private
pond can be constructed on a natural flowing stream (Utah Code 23-15-10)
Inflows (except springs) and outflows of ponds are required to be screened to
prevent migration of fish in and out of the pond
• A Certificate of Registration is required to produce, propagate, rear, or possess
any aquatic wildlife or aquaculture product in a private fish pond for private,
noncommercial purposes A separate certificate of registration is required for
each private fish pond
• A private fish pond owner or operator may not sell, donate, or transfer live fish or
live fish eggs, except approved species may be transferred to the private fish pond
from an approved source
• Private stocking is limited only to those species approved on the certificate of
registration
I Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(http //wdfw wa gov/)
• A Fish Stocking Permit from The Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) is required to plant fish into ponds or lakes on private land in
10
Washington State The main concern with most fish stocked into private ponds is
to prevent any escapement into nearby waters of the state
The WDFW is trying to protect native and important non-native fish species The
spread of stocked fish species can have a detrimental impact through predation or
competition Additionally, stocked fish species coming from commercial or wild
sources may carry disease agents to waters that currently do not have them By
requiring a Fish Stocking Permit, WDFW biologists are able to examine these
possibilities and make determinations on the risk to fish in the waters intended for
stocking and any nearby state waters
The required fish stocking permit and biological evaluation covers two aspects
concerning approval The first relates to the pond site parameters, while the
second deals with approval of the source of fish Pond site parameters reviewed
by WDFW biologist include water quality and quantity, inlet and outlet structures,
connections to nearby state waters, and flooding potential Screening may be
necessary in some ponds to keep fish from leaving In some cases, it may be
necessary to have a hydraulics permit to put inlet or outlet screening in the pond
The fish source approval covers an evaluation of the landowner's proposed fish
management stocking plan regarding fish species or combination of fish species,
stocking rates, potential feeding recommendations, and how those species will
match with the pond's habitat The biologist will also review with the owner
whether or not state fishing licenses and state fishing regulations apply to the
pond Usually private ponds are exempt from these licenses and regulatory
requirements Fish must have accompanying documentation showing them to be
free from disease-causing organisms
J Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection
(http //www dnr state wi us/)
• The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is required to review
and permit all introductions of non-native fish or fish eggs into the state
• Ponds without outlets constructed within 500 feet of a public waterway require an
unconnected pond permit
• All ponds with open or closed (1 e , piped) outlets to public waters, regardless of
the distance to a public waterway, require an ultimately connected pond permit
• All ponds connected by a navigable channel to an existing public waterway or any
enlargement of any public waterway require a permit These ponds and
enlargements are public waters by statute, and permit review requires a public
notice and an EA
K Wyoming Game and Fish Commission
(http //gf state wy us/index asp)
• The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission has developed a process to allow
waters on privately held lands to be planted with fish from certified disease-free
commercial fish hatchery operations The process involves identifying the
species to be planted to ensure compliance with management plans for each
II
drainage, locating the water, its source, and waterways impacted by the private
water, and authorizing commercial hatchery sources for the planting of trout
Remaining Issues Discussion
The studies discussed above demonstrate that small dams and impoundments
influence watersheds and natural resources similarly, but possibly to a lesser degree than
larger dams However, there appears to be some gap in scientific knowledge on the
effects of ponds in particular, therefore, additional study may be warranted North
Carolina and other states would benefit from such studies that would more precisely
illustrate the effects of ponds constructed on streams Examining the potential for the
numerous impoundment effects described above would be beneficial, and in particular,
thermal impacts and the effectiveness of coldwater withdrawals on North Carolina's
coldwater streams are of interest Research on the efficacy of management practices (e g
screening inflows and outflows) to minimize the effects of in-stream impoundments
would also be informative Information provided by these studies could guide future
recommendations for in-stream impoundments
State fish and wildlife agencies vary on their m-stream impoundment
recommendations or requirements Many states require private pond licenses and the
inlet and outlet of ponds to be screened Some of the more restrictive state agencies
require a permit or notification prior to substantial modification to a water body, the
completion of a lake or streambed alteration agreement, all ponds to be inspected, or the
development of an Environmental Assessment, and some prohibit pond construction on a
natural flowing stream A number of agencies also require a fish stocking and
transferring permit, only allow certain species to be stocked, and only allow private
ponds to be stocked with fish from certified disease-free commercial fish hatchery
operations, and some do not allow stocking in private ponds located on natural stream
channels The NCWRC may review and consider adopting some of these policies
Recommendations
The NCWRC will formulate recommendations to help reduce the adverse effects
of impoundments on aquatic and terrestrial resources based on information available to
the agency, as appropriate under the circumstances presented Therefore, the language of
this Guidance should not be interpreted to establish any binding requirements on
NCWRC personnel or regulatory agencies These recommendations may be revised as
the science upon which they are based improves and areas of uncertainty are resolved,
therefore, they should not be regarded as static or inflexible
The NCWRC recommends that (1) small impoundments be located off-channel
and wetlands and other high quality habitats be avoided and (2) ponds be located on a
stream only when all other options have been exhausted The NCWRC strongly
12
recommends against locating ponds in naturally reproducing trout waters, anadromous
species waters, and waters that contain state and federally listed species
A Project Design
Upland (off-channel) pond recommendations
Only stock desirable species that are currently found in adjacent waters
Screen inflows and outflows of ponds to prevent migration of fish in and
out of the pond (provided that this can be accomplished in compliance
with dam safety regulations)
Locate new ponds away from streams and use surface runoff, springs, or
water pumped from wells as water sources Ponds can also be filled by
building them adjacent to a stream and diverting or pumping a small
portion of the stream water into the pond to fill it Water should only be
diverted into the pond continuously while the pond is being filled Once
the pond is filled, water should only be diverted into the pond as needed to
maintain water levels
2 Impoundment recommendations
If after thorough analysis and all other options have been exhausted, the NCWRC
recommends that the project be designed to minimize impacts if an in-stream
impoundment project is going to proceed The recommendations below present a general
list Each project should be considered in its own context, based on project design,
stream type and condition, natural resources, and cumulative impacts
• Ensure the pond is appropriately sized for the watershed
• Sediment and erosion control measures must be used before construction
and maintained
• Any concrete work must occur in dry areas that are isolated from stream
flow to prevent uncured concrete from coming in contact with stream
waters and causing a fish kill
• Rock, sand, or other materials must not be excavated from the stream
channel except in the immediate permitted area
• Sandbags, flexible pipe, or other stable diversion structures should be used
to avoid excavation in flowing water
• All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be
inspected and maintained regularly to prevent contamination of stream
waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other toxic materials
• Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other
equipment in or adjacent to surface waters is prohibited
• Any nprap (rock revetment) for outlet stabilization should be clean and
limited to the stream bank below the high water mark, and vegetation
should be used above
• Minimize temperature deviations from upstream ambient conditions
13
• To minimize temperature elevation in waters downstream, native woody
vegetation (e g , river birch, sycamore, red maple) should be reestablished
wherever possible along the pond, but not on the dam Also, the outflow
pipe must be designed to draw water from near the bottom of the pond
Coldwater intakes should be within 1-2 feet of the bottom, but not on the
bottom This design will prevent buildup of poorly oxygenated water and
improve water quality in the pond Also see the NCWRC Fisheries
Management Fact Sheet "Environmental impacts caused by ponds"
• Stormwater ponds should be planted with local native trees and shrubs to
provide a reduction of direct sunlight and restore some lost habitats for
birds and small animals
• When filling in-line ponds, residual flow in the stream below the dam
must be maintained to protect aquatic life This can be accomplished by
partially opening the gate valve during the filling process However,
turbid water should not be discharged Until the water in the pond is clear,
flexible pipe should be used to maintain any stream flow, if applicable,
around the pond
• A plan should be developed to manage sedimentation behind the dam
• Only stock desirable species that are currently found in adjacent waters
• It should be demonstrated that there is minimal or no threat to game fish or
state or federally listed species in adjacent waters
• Upstream and downstream passage of aquatic organisms may be
warranted and should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and viewed in
the context of the watershed condition See the U S Fish and Wildlife
Website (http //www fws gov/fishenes/FWSMA/FishPassage/) for
detailed passage information
• Mitigate impacts following a prioritized stepwise approach of avoidance,
minimization, rectification, and compensation
B Project Planning
Prediction of biological, physical, and chemical changes resulting from a dam can
be difficult, however, mitigation of those effects may be even more costly and complex
Unintended consequences of stream degradation will occur upstream, downstream, and
laterally when a river and its floodplam are disconnected (Allan and Flecker 1993,
Pringle 1997, Fausch et al 2002)) Longer recovery times have been observed in
disturbances that resulted in alterations to physical conditions (Nierm et al 1990, Yount
and Niemi 1990, Detenbeck et al 1992) A starting goal would be to preserve a dynamic,
geomorphically living stream (Ligon et al 1995) The maintenance of connectivity
between habitat patches used by various life stages is critical for the reproduction and
survival of fish in lotic systems (Schlosser 1991, Fausch et al 2002) Long-term
monitoring may be warranted to determine when a fish assemblage has stabilized
following habitat alterations (Quinn and Kwak 2003)
14
Information required to determine the biotic effects of hydrologic alteration include
• A quantitative inventory of aquatic habitat
• Impounded acreage and length of stream to be inundated
• The location of the water body, nearby waterways, and wetlands
• The location of floodplain and shoreland boundaries
• A description of habitat modification upstream and downstream including any
proposed modifications to the waterway (dredging, culverts, structures, outflow
modifications, etc )
• Water temperature data (temporal and spatial)
• Current lists and abundances of aquatic species from above and below the project
• Information on the physical design of the project that allows or prohibits
modifications to allow aquatic life passage
• An evaluation of the cumulative biotic effects of hydrologic alterations of other
sinular projects on a system
• A plan to manage sediment behind the impoundment
• A list of species that are intended to be stocked
Due to the dynamic and unpredictable nature of stream hydrology, the difficulty
in predicting stream impoundment effects, and the lengthy recovery time, the NCWRC
cautions against relying on restoration to compensate for intentional physical and biotic
impacts, and advocates that the best form of habitat mitigation is to avoid or minimize
adverse impacts to the environment
15
Literature Cited
Allan, J D , and A S Flecker 1993 Biodiversity conservation in running waters
Bioscience 43 32-43
Armantrout, N B , compiler 1998 Glossary of aquatic habitat inventory terminology
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland
Bain, M B , J T Finn, and H E Booke 1988 Streamflow regulation and fish
community structure Ecology 69 382-392
Baxter, R M 1977 Environmental effects of dams and impoundments Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics 8 255-283
Beasley, C A, and J E Hightower 2000 Effects of a low-head dam on the distribution
and characteristics of spawning habitat used by striped bass and American shad
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129 1316-1330
Benstead, J P , J G March, C M Pringle , and F N Scatena 1999 Effects of a low-
head dam and water abstraction on migratory tropical stream biota Ecological
Applications 9 656-668
Blough, H , T Bigford, and J Haynes 2004 AFS Policy Statement on Dam Removal
http //www fisheries org
Detenbeck, N E, P W Devore, G J Niemi, and A Lima 1992 Recovery of
temperate-stream fish communities from disturbance a review of case studies and
synthesis of theory Environmental Management 16 33-53
DeWald, L , and M A Wilzbach 1992 Interactions between native brook trout and
hatchery brown trout effects on habitat use, feeding, and growth Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 121 287-296
Erman, D C 1973 Upstream changes in fish populations following impoundment of
Sagehen Creek, California Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
102 626-629
Fausch, K D, C E Torgersen, C V Baxter, and H W Li 2002 Landscapes to
nverscapes bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes
Bioscience 52 483-498
Flebbe, P A 1994 A regional view of the margin salmomd abundance and distribution
in the Southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 123 657-667
16
Habera, J W, and S Moore 2005 Managing Southern Appalachian brook trout A
position statement Fisheries 30(7) 10-20
Habera, J W , and R J Strange 1993 Wild trout resources and management in the
Southern Appalachian Mountains Fisheries 18(1) 6-13
Helfrich, L A, C Liston, S Heebert, M Albers, and K Frazer 1999 Influence of low-
head diversion dams on fish passage, community composition, and abundance in the
Yellowstone River, Montana Rivers 7 21-32
Herbert, M E , and F P Gelwick 2003 Spatial variation of headwater fish
assemblages explained by hydrologic variability and upstream effects of
impoundment Copeia 2003 273-284
Holmquist, J G, J M Schmidt-Gengenbach, and B Buchanan Yoshioka 1998 High
dams and marine-freshwater linkages effects on native and introduced fauna in the
Caribbean Conservation Biology 12 621-630
Kanehl, P D , J Lyons, and J E Nelson 1997 Changes in the habitat and fish
community of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woolen
Mills Dam North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17 387-400
Lemly, A D 1985 Suppression of native fish populations by green sunfish in first-
order streams of Piedmont North Carolina Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 114 705-712
Lessard, J L, and D B Hayes 2003 Effects of elevated water temperature on fish and
macromvertebrate communities below small dams River Research and Applications
19 721-732
Ligon, F K, W E Dietrich, and W J Trush 1995 Downstream ecological effects of
dams, a geomorphic perspective Bioscience 45 183-192
Manning, D J, J A Mann, S K White, S D Chase, and R C Benkert 2005
Steelhead emigration in a seasonal impoundment created by an inflatable rubber dam
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25 1239-1255
McMahon, T E , and D H Bennett 1996 Walleye and northern pike boost or bane to
Northwest fisheries9 Fisheries 21(8) 6-13
Miller, R R, J D Williams, and J E Williams 1989 Extinctions of North American
fishes during the past century Fisheries 14(6) 22-38
Neves, R J , and P L Angermeier 1990 Habitat alteration and its effects on native
fishes in the upper Tennessee River system, east-central U S A Journal of Fish
Biology 37(Supplement A) 45-52
17
Niemi, G J, P DeVore, N Detenbeck, D Taylor, A Lima, J Pastor, J D Yount, and R
J Naiman 1990 Overview of case studies on recovery of aquatic systems from
disturbance Environmental Management 14 571-587
Olsson, I C , L A Greenberg, and A Eklov 2001 Effect of an artificial pond on
migrating brown trout smolts North American Journal of Fisheries Management
21 498-506
Poff, N L, and D D Hart 2002 How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging
science of dam removal Bioscience 52 659-668
Porto, L M, R L McLaughlin, and D L G Noakes 1999 Low-head barrier dams
restrict the movements of fishes in two Lake Ontario streams North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 19 1028-1036
Pringle, C M 1997 Exploring how disturbance is transmitted upstream going against
the flow Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16 425-438
Pringle, C M, M C Freeman, and B J Freeman 2000 Regional effects of hydrologic
alterations on rivenne macrobiota in the new world tropical-temperate comparisons
Bioscience 50 807-823
Quinn, J W, and T J Kwak 2003 Fish assemblage changes in an Ozark river after
impoundment a long-term perspective Transaction of the American Fisheries
Society 132 110-119
Quist, M C , W A Hubert, and F J Rahel 2005 Fish assemblage structure following
impoundment of a Great Plains river Western North American Naturalist 65 53-63
Rahel, F J 2000 Homogenization offish faunas across the United States Science
288 854-856
Santucci, V J, S R Gephard, and S M Pescrtelli 2005 Effects of multiple low-head
dams on fish, macromvertebrates, habitat, and water quality in the Fox River, Illinois
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25 975-992
Schlosser, I J 1991 Stream fish ecology a landscape perspective Bioscience
41 704-711
Scott, M C , and G S Helfinan 2001 Native invasions, homogenization, and the
mismeasure of integrity of fish assemblages Fisheries 26(11) 6-15
Sethi, S A, A R Selle, M W Doyle, E H Stanley, and H E Kitchel 2004 Response
of umomd mussels to dam removal in Koshkonong Creek, Wisconsin Hydrobiologia
525 157-165
18
Stanley, E H, M A Luebke, M Doyle, D Marshall 2002 Short-term changes in
channel form and macroinvertebrate communities following low-head dam removal
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21 172-187
Strange, R J , and J W Habera 1998 No net loss of brook trout distribution in areas of
sympatry with rainbow trout in Tennessee streams Transactions of the American
Fisheries society 127 434-440
Taylor, C A, J H Knouft , and T M Hiland 2001 Consequences of stream
impoundment on fish communities in a small North American drainage Regulated
Rivers Research and Management 17 687-698
Tiemann, J S , D P Gillette, M L Wildhaber, and D R Edds 2004 Effects of low-
head dams on riffle-dwelling fishes and macromvertebrates in a Midwestern River
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133 705-717
Tyus, H M 1990 Effects of altered stream flows on fishery resources Fisheries
15(3)18-20
Tyus, H M 1999 AFS Policy Statement on Effects of Altered Stream Flows on Fishery
Resources http //www fisheries org
Vaughn, C C , and C M Taylor 1999 Impoundments and the decline of freshwater
mussels a case study of an extinction gradient Conservation Biology 13 912-920
Vincent, E R 1987 Effects of stocking catchable-size hatchery rainbow trout on two
wild trout species in the Madison River and O'Dell Creek, Montana North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 7 91-105
Ward, J V , and J A Stanford, editors 1979 The Ecology of Regulated Streams
Plenum Press, New York
Waters, T F 1983 Replacement of brook trout by brown trout over 15 years in a
Minnesota stream production and abundance Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 112 137-146
Watters, T G 1996 Small dams as barriers to freshwater mussels (Bivalvia, Umonoida)
and their hosts Biological Conservation 75 79-85
Wildhaber, M L, V M Tabor, J E Whitaker, A L Allert, D W Mulhern, P J
Lamberson, K L Powell 2000 Ictalund populations in relation to the presence of a
main-stem reservoir in a Midwestern warmwater stream with emphasis on the
threatened Neosho madtom Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
129 1264-1280 s
19
Winston, M R, C M Taylor, J Pigg 1991 Upstream extirpation of four minnow
species due to damming of a prairie stream Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 120 98-105
Yeager, B L 1993 Dams Pages 57-114 In C F Bryan and D A Rutherford,
editors Impacts on warmwater streams Guidelines for evaluation Southern
Division, American Fisheries Society, Little Rock, Arkansas
Yount, J D , and G J Niemi 1990 Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems
from disturbance-a narrative review of case studies Environmental Management
14 547-569
20