owa bmp sturgeon report 09

Lake Sturgeon

Ontario Waterpower Association

Best Management Practices Guide

for Waterpower Projects

June, 2009

A Report Prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd.

Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • i

July 1, 2009 Project Number: 108256-90113

Mr. Paul NorrisOntario Waterpower Association#210-380 Armour RoadPeterborough, ON K9H 7L7

Dear Mr. Norris:

Re: Lake Sturgeon Best Management Practices Guide

We are pleased to provide you with the Final Version of the Lake Sturgeon Best Management Practices Guide for Hydropower Projects. As stated in the initial DRAFT, the development of this Best Management Practices (BMP) Guide reflects a synthesis of industry-wide knowledge and best available science regarding hydropower impacts on the Lake Sturgeon resource in Ontario. Furthermore, it provides management strategies to avoid, mitigate and/or minimize those impacts. The goal of this BMP Document is to provide proponents and practitioners with tools and approaches based on the best available science to minimize potential impacts on Lake Sturgeon and create some coherence and predictability to otherwise complex project types.

Sincerely,AECOM Canada Ltd.

Daniel P. Gibson, [email protected]:mmEncl.

Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • iii

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Ontario’s Waterpower Resources ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Similarities among Project Types ..................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Differences among Project Types ..................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Purpose and Rationale for the Best Management Practices for Lake Sturgeon .............................. 6

1.5 Goals of the Best Management Practices Guide for Lake Sturgeon ................................................ 8

2.0 Framework of Best Management Practices Guide .........................................................9

2.1 Best Management Practices – Conceptual Process .......................................................................... 9

2.2 Project Screening Overview – Planning Process .............................................................................. 9

2.3 Impact Identification – Pathways of Effect ....................................................................................12

3.0 Potentially Applicable Legislation .....................................................................................13

3.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act...........................................................................................13

3.2 Fisheries Act ......................................................................................................................................13

3.3 Species at Risk Act (Canada) ............................................................................................................15

3.4 Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act .....................................................................................................17

3.5 Endangered Species Act (Ontario) ....................................................................................................17

3.6 Conservation Authorities Act ..............................................................................................................18

3.7 Ontario Water Resources Act (Ministry of the Environment) ..........................................................19

4.0 History and Ecology of the Lake Sturgeon ..................................................................... 21

4.1 Distribution .....................................................................................................................................22

4.2 Biology ............................................................................................................................................22

4.3 Life History Hydrograph .................................................................................................................24

5.0 Lake Sturgeon and Dams ......................................................................................................27

6.0 ImpactIdentification ..............................................................................................................29

6.1 Encroachment – Project Footprint .................................................................................................29

6.1.1 Impact Identification ...........................................................................................................29

6.2 Generation ....................................................................................................................................... 31

6.2.1 Impact Identification .......................................................................................................... 31

6.3 Operational Storage ........................................................................................................................33

6.3.1 Impact Identification ..........................................................................................................33

6.4 Spill .................................................................................................................................................36

6.4.1 Impact Identification ..........................................................................................................36

Table of Contents

iv • Ontario Waterpower Association

7.0 Best Management Practices .................................................................................................39

7.1 M1 – Management of Recreational Fishing Pressure/Sanctuaries ................................................39

7.2 M2 – Public Education of Fishing Regulations .............................................................................44

7.3 M3 – Minimize Public Access and Alternative Navigation ...........................................................44

7.4 M4 – First Nations Consultation ...................................................................................................45

7.5 M5 – Water Level Management in Reservoirs ................................................................................46

7.6 M6 – Water Management Plans (existing facilities) and Dam Operating Plans (new facilities) 47

7.6.1 Incorporating the BMP for Lake Sturgeon into Water Management Plans .......................49

7.7 M7 – Provision of Sturgeon Passage .............................................................................................. 50

7.8 M8 – Relocation of Lake Sturgeon .................................................................................................52

7.9 M9 – Barriers to Upstream Migration into Spillway .....................................................................53

7.10 M10 – Alternative Turbine Designs ................................................................................................53

7.11 M11 – Provision of Fish Protection Measures for Entrainment ...................................................54

7.12 M12 – Existing DFO Pathways of Effect and Operational Statements .........................................55

7.13 M13 –Natural Channel Design Principles .....................................................................................57

7.14 M14 – Enhanced Channel Stabilization Techniques ....................................................................57

7.15 M15 – Fisheries Management Plans ..............................................................................................57

7.16 M16 – Design/Re-design of Outlet Structures ...............................................................................58

7.17 M17 – Mercury Accumulation (Bioconcentration) Control Measure ..........................................58

7.18 C1 – Stock Specific Hatchery Programs .........................................................................................59

7.19 C2 – Habitat Creation and Enhancement Programs ....................................................................60

8.0 CumulativeEffects/ImpactsforProposedandModifiedFacilities.......................65

9.0 Feasibility of Implementation .............................................................................................67

10.0 Retrospective .............................................................................................................................69

11.0 References .................................................................................................................................. 71

12.0 Glossary .......................................................................................................................................79

Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • v

List of Figures

Figure 1A&B. Lake Sturgeon Distribution and Water Power Generating Stations / Potential Stations ..........2/3

Figure 2. Overview of Waterpower Facility .................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3. Best Management Practices – Conceptual Process ...................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Project Screening Overview ............................................................................................................11

Figure 5. DFO Risk Management Framework Matrix ..................................................................................14

Figure 6. Typical Hydrograph for a Generic Regulated and Unregulated River with

Key Lake Sturgeon Life History Details Superimposed ...............................................................25

Figure 7. Encroachment – Project Footprint Pathways of Effect ................................................................ 30

Figure 8. Generation Pathways of Effect ......................................................................................................32

Figure 9. Storage Pathways of Effect .............................................................................................................34

Figure 10. Spill Pathways of Effect .................................................................................................................37

Figure 11. Modified Encroachment – Project Footprint – Pathways of Effect .............................................40

Figure 12. Modified Generation Pathways of Effect ...................................................................................... 41

Figure 13. Modified Storage Pathways of Effect ............................................................................................42

Figure 14. Modified Spill Pathways of Effect .................................................................................................43

List of Tables

Table 1. Lake Sturgeon Designatable Units in Canada ...............................................................................22

Table 2. Relative Costs of Implementing BMPs during Planning, Avoidance and

Redesign Phases of Projects – Greenfield and Existing Upgrade Developments .........................67

Appendices

A. Fisheries and Oceans Pathways of Effect Diagrams

B. Fisheries and Oceans Standard Operational Statements

C. Lake Sturgeon Literature Review

Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 1

1.1 Ontario’s Waterpower Resources

Ontario’s water resources are an integral part of the Provinces environmental, social, cultural and economic fabric, and are vital to meeting the renewable energy requirements of the Province through waterpower. With over 250,000 lakes and tens of thousands of kilometres of rivers and streams, the watersheds contained within the Great Lakes, Hudson Bay and the St. Lawrence regions dominate the geography of the Province. The drainage patterns, topography and geology of these watersheds lead to the consideration of these resources for waterpower development. Waterpower generation is a proven source for renewable and secure energy at both the regional and provincial scale. It is the most efficient method of energy conversion and is the most versatile in responding to changes in electricity demand. Historically (up to the 1950s), waterpower provided almost all of the province’s energy requirements and dates back more than a century in Canadian history. Over the past half century, other forms of energy generation such as fossil and nuclear power have received more focus due to the perceptions that waterpower opportunities within Ontario no longer exist. These perceptions however, are not accurate (OWA, 2005) and as demand for electricity increases, many waterpower sites previously deemed as impractical or uneconomic are becoming more feasible.

Today, the need for renewable energy is greater than ever as the provincial government aims to double the amount of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2025 while drastically reducing its dependence on coal generation (Ontario Power Authority, 2006). Currently, there are almost 200 operating waterpower facilities in Ontario that, collectively, account for approximately one-quarter of the Province’s installed capacity (8,000 Megawatts [MW]) and electricity generation (35-38 Terawatt hours (TWh) annually (OWA, 2008). Facilities in the province range in size from less than 100 kilowatts (kW) to more than 1,000 MW.

The increased demand for renewable energy however, comes with many challenges. Harmonizing energy production to meet the needs of the province while maintaining a legacy for future generations is the responsibility of both industry and resource managers. One such challenge that currently exists is to evaluate and plan for the sustainability of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser

fulvescens) in relation to current and future development of waterpower in Ontario. To date, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada (COSEWIC) has separated the populations of Lake Sturgeon into four designatable units within Ontario. Further to this, these populations are being considered for listing under the provisions of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) as follows (Figure 1A and 1B):

• The Winnipeg, English River (DU5) population currently listed as Endangered;

• The Lake of the Woods, Rainy River (DU6) population currently listed as Special Concern;

• The Southern Hudson Bay, James Bay (DU7) population currently listed as Special Concern; and,

• The Great Lakes, Western St. Lawrence (DU8) population currently listed as Threatened.

COSEWIC is an independent group of scientists from various communities throughout Canada including universities, government agencies and First Nations groups. They are tasked with 1) the selection and prioritization of species requiring assessment in the form of a candidate list and priority list, 2) the compilation of available data, knowledge and information in the form of status reports; and 3) the assessment of a species’ risk of extinction or extirpation and subsequent “status” designation.

1.0 Introduction


Map

Doc

umen

t: (N

:\Pro

ject

s\20

09\9

0113

\200

9\Fi

nal\G

ISS

patia

l\MX

Ds\

Wor

king

MX

Ds\

9011

3Lak

eStu

rgeo

nDis

tribu

tion.

mxd

)3/

3/20

09 --

9:3

8:16

AM

Hu

ds

on

Ba

y

Ja

me

s

Ba

y

La

ke

S

up

eri

or

La

ke

Mic

ha

ga

n

La

ke

H

ur

on

La

ke

Eri

e

La

ke

O

nta

rio

U.S.A.

Canada

UTM

Zon

e 17

N, N

AD

83

1:6,

500,

000

Lake

Stu

rgeo

n D

istr

ibut

ion

and

Wat

er

Pow

er G

ener

atin

g St

atio

nsM

arch

200

9Pr

ojec

t 901

13

Lake

Stu

rgeo

n D

istri

butio

n an

d D

esig

natio

n in

Ont

ario

Lege

ndW

ater

Pow

er G

ener

atin

g S

tatio

nW

ater

shed

with

Lak

e S

turg

eon

DFO

Des

igna

tion

Uni

tsG

reat

Lak

es, W

este

rn S

t. La

wre

nce

(DU

8)

Lake

of t

he W

oods

, Rai

ny R

iver

(DU

6)

Sout

hern

Hud

son

Bay

, Jam

es B

ay (D

U7)

Win

nipe

g, E

nglis

h R

iver

s (D

U5)

Prov

ince

/Sta

te B

ound

ary

Can

ada-

U.S

.A. B

orde

rFi

gure

1

©20

09 A

ECO

M C

anad

a Lt

d. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

This

doc

umen

t is

prot

ecte

d by

cop

yrig

ht la

w a

nd m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed,

repr

oduc

ed o

r mod

ified

in a

ny m

anne

r or f

or a

ny p

urpo

se e

xcep

tw

ith th

e w

ritte

n pe

rmis

sion

of A

ECO

M C

anad

a Lt

d. ("

AE

CO

M")

or a

party

to w

hich

its

copy

right

has

bee

n as

sign

ed.

AEC

OM

acc

epts

no re

spon

sibi

lity,

and

den

ies

any

liabi

lity

wha

tsoe

ver,

to a

ny p

arty

that

use

s, re

prod

uces

, mod

ifies

, or r

elie

s on

this

doc

umen

t with

out

AEC

OM

’s e

xpre

ss w

ritte

n co

nsen

t.

Base

map

ping

from

Ont

ario

Min

istry

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Dat

a fro

m O

ntar

io M

inis

try o

f Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es A

tlas

for L

ake

Stur

geon

Wat

ers

in O

ntar

io 2

002.

065

130

195

260

32.5

Kilo

met

ers

(DU

7)

(DU

8)

(DU

5)

(DU

6)

Figure 1A. Lake Sturgeon Distribution and Water Power Generating Stations

Map

Doc

umen

t: (N

:\Pro

ject

s\20

09\9

0113

\200

9\Fi

nal\G

ISS

patia

l\MX

Ds\

Wor

king

MX

Ds\

9011

3Lak

eStu

rgeo

nDis

tribu

tionP

oten

tialS

ites.

mxd

)3/

3/20

09 --

9:4

5:45

AM

Hu

ds

on

Ba

y

Ja

me

s

Ba

y

La

ke

S

up

eri

or

La

ke

Mic

ha

ga

n

La

ke

H

ur

on

La

ke

Eri

e

La

ke

O

nta

rio

U.S.A.

Canada

UTM

Zon

e 17

N, N

AD

83

1:6,

500,

000

Lake

Stu

rgeo

n D

istr

ibut

ion

and

Pote

ntia

lPo

wer

Gen

erat

ing

Stat

ions

Mar

ch 2

009

Proj

ect 9

0113

Lake

Stu

rgeo

n D

istri

butio

n an

d D

esig

natio

n in

Ont

ario

Lege

ndPo

tent

ial G

ener

atin

g S

tatio

nW

ater

shed

with

Lak

e S

turg

eon

DFO

Des

igna

tion

Uni

tsG

reat

Lak

es, W

este

rn S

t. La

wre

nce

(DU

8)

Lake

of t

he W

oods

, Rai

ny R

iver

(DU

6)

Sout

hern

Hud

son

Bay

, Jam

es B

ay (D

U7)

Win

nipe

g, E

nglis

h R

iver

s (D

U5)

Prov

ince

/Sta

te B

ound

ary

Can

ada-

U.S

.A. B

orde

rFi

gure

2

©20

09 A

ECO

M C

anad

a Lt

d. A

ll R

ight

s R

eser

ved.

This

doc

umen

t is

prot

ecte

d by

cop

yrig

ht la

w a

nd m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed,

repr

oduc

ed o

r mod

ified

in a

ny m

anne

r or f

or a

ny p

urpo

se e

xcep

tw

ith th

e w

ritte

n pe

rmis

sion

of A

ECO

M C

anad

a Lt

d. ("

AE

CO

M")

or a

party

to w

hich

its

copy

right

has

bee

n as

sign

ed.

AEC

OM

acc

epts

no re

spon

sibi

lity,

and

den

ies

any

liabi

lity

wha

tsoe

ver,

to a

ny p

arty

that

use

s, re

prod

uces

, mod

ifies

, or r

elie

s on

this

doc

umen

t with

out

AEC

OM

’s e

xpre

ss w

ritte

n co

nsen

t.

Base

map

ping

from

Ont

ario

Min

istry

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Dat

a fro

m O

ntar

io M

inis

try o

f Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es A

tlas

for L

ake

Stur

geon

Wat

ers

in O

ntar

io 2

002.

065

130

195

260

32.5

Kilo

met

ers

(DU

7)

(DU

8)

(DU

5)

(DU

6)

Figure 1B. Lake Sturgeon Distribution and Water Power Generating Stations/

Potential Stations


4 • Ontario Waterpower Association

Further to the potential SARA designations, the

Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario

(COSSARO) is currently reviewing the status of Lake

Sturgeon under the provisions of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). Based on these reviews and potential

designations, the development of a Best Management

Practices (BMP) Guide for Waterpower Development and

Operation affecting Lake Sturgeon provides the Ontario

Waterpower Association (OWA) and its members with

a “toolbox” of steps to mitigate and monitor potential

effects that existing and future waterpower facilities

may have on Lake Sturgeon. The BMP for Waterpower

Development and Operation affecting Lake Sturgeon

is therefore a proactive undertaking by the OWA and

consists of:

a) a literature review focused on impacts of

waterpower facilities on Lake Sturgeon;

b) a review of existing legislation that is applicable

to Lake Sturgeon and the implications for

existing and new waterpower development in

Ontario;

c) a review of potential impacts of waterpower

facilities on Lake Sturgeon;

d) a review of current waterpower industry practices

that mitigate the effects on Lake Sturgeon; and

e) a summary of Best Management Practices

and Pathways of Effect Diagrams focused on

avoidance, mitigation and compensation/

offsetting measures for minimizing impacts on

Lake Sturgeon.

The development of this BMP Guide reflects a synthesis

of the best available science to date and industry-wide

knowledge and furthers the OWA’s approach to providing

the best available information to its members. The guide

is intended to serve as a practical, useable resource for

practitioners and furthers the OWA’s commitment to

foster and maintain positive and productive relationships

with those with an interest in waterpower. In a

separate initiative, the OWA has also worked directly

with government agencies in the development of the

“Federal Requirements for Waterpower Development

Environmental Assessment Processes in Ontario –

Practitioners Guide (2006). The development of this BMP

Guide builds on that product, in particular through the

application of the DFO Risk Management Framework

and a Pathways of Effect approach. It is important to

note however, that BMP practices are ever-evolving

and as such, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

and Fisheries and Oceans Canada should be contacted

early in the design and planning process to ensure that

proposed BMPs are consistent with current legislation,

policies, and fisheries management plans, goals and

objectives.


1.2 Similarities among Project Types

Most waterpower facilities, regardless of type, use similar

technology for energy generation and utilize the natural

drop or “head” of the river and/or build a dam to raise

the water level and provide the drop needed to create

a driving force. Water at the higher level (the reservoir)

goes through the intake into a canal or a pipe called

a penstock, which carries it down to the turbine. The

turbine is connected to a generator. When the turbine

is set in motion, it causes the generator to rotate and

electricity is produced. The falling water then exits the

generating station through the draft tube into the tailrace

(river). Figure 2 depicts this process and some of the

above mentioned components.

Waterpower development and re-development has taken

place in Ontario for well over a century and the basis

for the production of electric energy from falling water

has not changed fundamentally over time. The province

has gone through a number of waterpower or hydro

eras, most recently from the mid-1980s to the early

1990s. Notwithstanding that waterpower is considered

a relatively mature means of producing electricity,

advancements in technology, efficiency; water resource

management and environmental mitigation continue to

be made. The approach taken in this BMP Guide is that

all waterpower projects, regardless of size or type, new or

existing, have the potential to affect Lake Sturgeon and

their habitat through four inherent functions/activities;

1) Encroachment – Project Footprint, 2) Generation, 3)

Storage and, 4) Spill.

Figure 2. Overview of Waterpower Facility

(Courtesy: www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/renewable/images/exhibit19-1.png, March, 2008)


This document recognizes that potential effects on the

environment are a function of both the nature of the

project as well as the conditions and characteristics of the

natural environment within which a project is proposed.

This broader context provides the most useful means of

identifying the generic similarities among projects.

1.3 Differences among Project Types

The Best Management Practices described in this guide

are applicable to projects that range from modification

of existing infrastructure (e.g., retrofits and expansions)

to new facilities where none existed before. In addition,

projects may also occur in different environmental

settings characterized by managed or unmanaged river

systems. Key considerations include:

a) the general natural environment;

b) fish community composition;

c) aquatic and riparian ecosystems;

d) cultural heritage resources;

e) social and economic features;

f) community and public interest;

g) land and resource use; and

h) aboriginal interests.

This BMP Guide recognizes these differences among

project proposals and concedes that detailed aspects

within individual projects may not be outlined in detail.

This BMP Guide however, does present enough detail to

ensure that the general characteristics of each project can

be appropriately addressed.

1.4 Purpose and Rationale for the Best Management Practices for Lake Sturgeon

The purpose of the Lake Sturgeon BMP is to provide

a toolbox of common approaches and guidance to

proponents and practitioners regarding Lake Sturgeon

based on best available science. Through this, the BMPs

should aid in streamlining the review and approval

requirements related to impacts on Lake Sturgeon under:

1. The federal Fisheries Act,

2. The federal Species at Risk Act,

3. The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act,

4. The provincial Endangered Species Act (if

applicable), and,

5. The Green Energy Act 1

Furthermore, the BMP Guide can also serve as a resource

for owners and operators of existing waterpower facilities.

The BMP Guide has been produced to allow proponents

and practitioners greater ability to continue to act as good

stewards of the environment. The information presented

within this document will aid in ensuring existing and

proposed waterpower facilities in Ontario will satisfy

the current and proposed legislation, regulations, and

policies. The BMP Guide is intended to have provincial

context but could be applied to other regions or

provinces of Canada as the format of this document is

intended to work in conjunction with existing Fisheries

and Oceans Pathways of Effect Diagrams (Appendix A)

and Fisheries and Oceans Operational Statements

(Appendix B).


To review, the rationale for the development of the Best

Management Practices Guide specifically targeted toward

Lake Sturgeon therefore includes:

1. The provincial government’s desired acceleration

of new renewable energy projects, as represented

by the introduction of the Green Energy Act

2. COSEWIC’s distinct designatable units and

potential listings under the federal Species at Risk

Act,

3. the provincial government’s (Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources) current review of the status

of Lake Sturgeon under the provisions of the

Endangered Species Act and,

4. the potential impacts that waterpower may have

on Lake Sturgeon.

1.5 Goals of the Best Management Practices Guide for Lake Sturgeon

As outlined above, this BMP Guide builds on key

concepts applied under the federal Fisheries Act, in

particular through the application of the DFO Risk

Management Framework and a Pathways of Effect

approach.

To this end the goal of this BMP Guide is to provide

proponents and practitioners with tools and approaches

based on the best available science to minimize potential

impacts on Lake Sturgeon and create some coherence

and predictability to otherwise complex project types.

These tools and approaches are intended to strengthen

rationale when demonstrating low/no scale of negative

effects justification under any the above noted Acts. The

Guide also provides proponents with the ability to make

informed decisions early in the project planning and

design phases to minimize the risk to Lake Sturgeon and

their habitat.

The BMP Guide is intended as a reference guide for

project proponents and practitioners. This document

purposely avoids in-depth discussions of individual

project types and historic practices as the degree of

variance in size, scale, operation type and generation type

are far too diverse to be undertaken in a single document.

Rather, this BMP Guide focuses on:

1. general avoidance measures through planning,

design, construction and operation,

2. mitigation measures through the design,

construction and operation processes of new and

existing facilities,

3. mitigation and conceptual compensation/

offsetting measures based on industry practices

and best available science.

It is important to note that the use of the BMP Guide

does not guarantee the approval of a proposed

waterpower project with regulatory agencies (RAs) (i.e.,

DFO, OMNR). Each project, and project review, is a site

specific undertaking and the assessment of impacts from

a fish and fish habitat perspective can be complex and

dependent on multiple factors. In all cases however, this

BMP Guide is intended to provide best available advice in

addressing waterpower projects and Lake Sturgeon.


2.1 Best Management Practices – Conceptual Process

The format in which the BMP Guide is implemented

is presented in Figure 3. This overview illustrates the

decision tree matrix for streamlining and effectively

minimizing impacts to Lake Sturgeon from the planning

phase through to the monitoring of a waterpower

facility. Figure 3 is intended to act as a high level tool

illustrating the framework in which avoidance, re-design,

mitigation and compensation/offsetting measures

can be implemented and shows appropriate activities

throughout the process.

This framework follows a similar hierarchical approach

to that of the DFO Policy for the Management of Fish

Habitat in Canada (Department of Fisheries and Oceans,

1986). The objective of that Policy is a ‘net gain of habitat

for Canada’s Fisheries Resources’, which is achieved

through the goals of fish habitat conservation, restoration

and development (enhancement).

According to the policy, regulators work with the

proponent to eliminate/reduce the impacts of the

proposed project through the use of a hierarchal

framework of measures including:

a) relocate or physically move a project or part of

a project to eliminate potential impacts on fish

and fish habitat;

b) redesign a project so that it no longer results in

potential impacts to fish or fish habitat;

c) mitigation to alleviate potential adverse effects

on the productive capacity of fish habitat and is

typically used when relocation or redesign are

not possible; and

d) compensation or offsetting measures should only

be considered when relocating and/or redesign

prove impractical and where mitigation measures

fail to avoid all impacts on fish and fish habitat.

2.2 Project Screening Overview – Planning Process

In practice, avoidance, redesign and mitigation are

frequently used in combination to minimize or avoid

impacts to fisheries resources. For new developments,

this process begins within the planning phase of the

project and first focuses on avoidance strategies. Figure

4 outlines a conceptual planning process for gaining a

detailed understanding of the fisheries resource within

the project study area and concludes with a selection of a

preferred site location. The process commences with an

initial assessment of anticipated impacts to Lake Sturgeon

habitat based on a series of criteria to be addressed at the

planning stage of a project. Namely, these criteria include:

1. an assessment of sturgeon presence/absence

within a project study area;

2. the connectivity of the habitat (upstream and

downstream) within a project study area;

3. the importance of the habitat (both spatial and

temporal) to Lake Sturgeon; and

4. the habitat contribution to Canadian Fisheries

within a landscape/watershed.

2.0 Framework of Best Management Practices Guide


Figure 3. Best Management Practices – Conceptual Process


Figure 4. Project Screening Overview


In order to properly assess the potential impacts on Lake Sturgeon with some degree of confidence in the planning stage, a baseline conditions study of the Lake Sturgeon community and habitat potentially affected should be conducted through consultation with regulatory agencies (i.e., DFO, MNR). Considerate of existing resources and information, a scoped baseline conditions study may prove valuable in effectively undertaking an evaluation of site alternatives prior to the selection of the preferred site. To this end, the planning exercise and baseline condition determination is a primary avoidance tool in minimizing not only project impacts in relation to Lake Sturgeon and their habitat but also to avoid cumulative impacts to the species on a landscape scale. Whether it is a regulatory agency undertaking, or a proponent driven undertaking, the strategic avoidance of critical habitat and the concentration of projects within non-critical habitat on a landscape scale is of fundamental importance during the planning phase of a project.

2.3 Impact Identification – Pathways of Effect

Pathways of Effect (POE) are an approach used by some RAs (i.e., DFO, MNR) to determine possible cause-and-effect relationships between in-water or near water activities and the aquatic environment. At the early stages of project design, all activities that have the potential to affect fish and fish habitat in a negative way are identified, and methods for eliminating or mitigating each of the pathways are evaluated. By following this approach, a clear understanding of potential aquatic impacts can be demonstrated up-front, and an assessment of residual risk can be done.

Similar to regulatory agency use, the POE diagrams established for the purposes of this BMP Guide (Section 6) follow cause-and-effect principles. Unlike the aforementioned POE however, in addition to methods for avoiding, eliminating or mitigating each of the pathways, the BMP Guide also incorporates compensation/offsetting strategies that may be employed

to further mitigate/eliminate the potential impacts on Lake Sturgeon and their habitat.

Through industry knowledge and best available science, the potential impacts from waterpower facilities on Lake Sturgeon are summarized into four activities for the purposes of the BMP Guide. The categories include impacts associated with both the construction and long term operation of a waterpower facility as presented in Section 6. The four categories are as follows:

1. Encroachment – Project Footprint2. Generation of Energy 3. Storage of Water 4. Spilling of Water

For each of the four categories, two POE diagrams were developed. The first POE illustrates the cause and effect relationships ultimately leading to a change in the productive capacity of the Lake Sturgeon resource (Figures 7 to 10). The second POE illustrates the various Best Management Practices (Section 7) introduced at various stages of a project (pre-construction to production) to effectively break the links or minimize the potential impacts on Lake Sturgeon through means of avoiding, re-designing, mitigating or compensating/offsetting measures (Figures 11 to 14). These links therefore, play an important role in the project resulting in a low/no scale of negative effect and aids in satisfying the various Acts and Legislation that are applicable most waterpower projects. To this end, the following section summarizes many of the applicable Acts and Legislation pertaining to Lake Sturgeon and waterpower projects/development.


3.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act1

The Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Act is a federal law that is triggered when the federal government is the proponent, provides financial assistance, owns or administers federal lands or is issuing a permit or approval in order to enable a project in whole or in part to proceed. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the effects of projects are considered before irrevocable decisions are made by federal authorities. The CEA Act requires responsible authorities (RAs) to consider the effects of proposed projects prior to taking an action that would enable a project to proceed. In order for the CEA Act to apply, there must be:

a) a federal authority; b) a subsection 5(1) trigger (i.e., a federal power,

duty or function in respect of the project); and c) a project that is not excluded.

Due to the potential need for a Fisheries Act authorization, it is expected that the CEA Act will apply to many waterpower projects. Federal-provincial initiatives to “harmonize” regulatory requirements are intended to allow flexibility to address the specific requirements and responsibilities of the federal responsible authorities while at the same time increasing the predictability of the process. This will allow RAs to rely upon the information collected under the provincial process to help meet their obligations under the CEA Act and create a more consistent, streamlined and predictable process for proponents.

3.2 Fisheries Act

In addition to reviewing projects under SARA (Section 3.3) and CEAA (Section 3.1) in Canada, the DFO’s Ontario-Great Lakes Area, Fish Habitat Management Program has the mandate for administering the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. The federal Fisheries Act provides for the protection of fish habitat, which is defined as: “spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.” Under the Fisheries Act, no one may carry out any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat, unless this HADD has been authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. An authorization under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act is a regulatory trigger under the CEA Act.

The following sections of the Fisheries Act are of particular importance to waterpower projects in the context of the planning process for a new project or in the operation of an existing facility:

Section 35: The prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, unless authorized by DFO;

Section 20: Passage of fish around migration barriers;

Section 22: The provision of sufficient water flows;

Section 30: Screening of water intakes;

Section 32: Prohibition against the destruction of fish by means other than fishing, unless authorized by DFO; and

Section 36: Prohibition to deposit deleterious

substances except by regulation

(administered by Environment Canada,

with the exception of subsection 36(3)

with respect to sediment).

3.0 Potentially Applicable Legislation


As part of the federal government’s commitment to

modernize and streamline the regulatory approvals

process, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) developed

the Environmental Process Modernization Plan (EPMP).

A key element of the EPMP is the Risk Management

Framework (RMF) (Figure 5). The Risk Management

Framework Matrix (RMFM) is designed to evaluate the

relative risk associated with the residual effects of a project,

identified using the Pathways of Effect approach outlined

above. The RMF assesses the severity of the residual effects

in combination with the sensitivity of the fish and fish

habitat at the site. The relative risk is categorized as low,

medium, or high, representing an increasing scale of

anticipated negative effects. Projects identified as low risk

are typically managed using tools such as Operational

Statements, best management practices, fact sheets, letters

of advice and other such guidelines. Medium risk projects

may be managed with Class Authorizations. Projects in the

high risk category are usually managed through individual

harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of

fish habitat authorizations but can be advanced through

and assisted by Best Management Practices and other

established guidelines, such as this BMP.

The presence of rare, endangered or species at risk requires a project to demonstrate low/no negative effect on the species present for DFO to obtain a Fisheries Act Authorization

Figure 5. DFO Risk Management Framework Matrix

The presence of rare, endangered or species at risk requires a project to demonstrate low/no negative effect on the species present for DFO to obtain a Fisheries Act Authorization


In the case of rare or endangered species, these projects

are generally grouped within the highly sensitive

column within the Risk Management Matrix (Figure 5).

In these situations it is the proponents’ responsibility

to demonstrate to RAs that the scale of negative effect

for the project has relatively low/no impact on fish or

fish habitat. Failure to demonstrate this low/no scale of

negative effect may result in the project being deemed

an unacceptable risk to fish and fish habitat. This guide

provides various mitigation and management strategies

that could be considered to lessen the scale of potential

negative effects.

Furthermore, in Ontario, in an effort to create a “one

window” approach, DFO has negotiated agreements with

all 36 Conservation Authorities to review development

plans for their impacts to fish habitat pursuant to Section

35 of the Fisheries Act. Levels of the Agreement include:

Level I: The local Conservation Authority conducts

the initial review of the project to identify any

impacts to fish and fish habitat. If there are

potential impacts to fish and fish habitat, the

project is forwarded to the local DFO office

for further review.

Level II: In addition to the above, the Conservation

Authority determines how the proponent can

mitigate any potential impacts to fish and

fish habitat. If impacts to fish and fish habitat

can be mitigated, then the Conservation

Authority issues a letter of advice. If impacts

to fish and fish habitat cannot be fully

mitigated, the project is forwarded to the

local DFO office for further review.

Level III: In addition to all of the above, the

Conservation Authority works with the

proponent and DFO to prepare a fish

habitat compensation plan. The project is

then forwarded to the local DFO office for

authorization under the Fisheries Act.

DFO also has partnering agreements with Parks Canada.

In the event that a project requires an authorization

under the Fisheries Act, it is only DFO that can provide

the authorization. Additional information regarding

the requirements for an “Application for Authorization

for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat” is

available through the OWA and from DFO.

3.3 Species at Risk Act (Canada) 1

The purposes of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) is to:

a) prevent Canadian indigenous species,

subspecies, and distinct populations from being

Extirpated or becoming Extinct;

b) provide for the recovery of wildlife species that

are Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened as a

result of human activity; and

c) manage species of special concern to prevent

them from becoming Endangered or Threatened.

Two federal Ministers are responsible for the

administration of SARA. The Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans Canada is responsible for aquatic species at risk

and the Minister of Environment (through the Parks

Canada Agency) is responsible for species at risk found in

national parks, national historic sites or other protected

heritage areas. The Minister of the Environment is also

responsible for all other species at risk, and for the

administration of the Act. The federal Species at Risk Act

gives these Ministers the authority to make decisions in

their areas of responsibility. In particular, the following


requirements of SARA are of potential importance during

the planning process as it relates to the protection of Lake

Sturgeon:

Section 32:

(1) No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or

take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed

as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a

threatened species.

(2) No person shall possess, collect, buy, sell or

trade an individual of a wildlife species that is listed

as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a

threatened species, or any part or derivative of such

an individual.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), any animal,

plant or thing that is represented to be an individual,

or a part or derivative of an individual, of a wildlife

species that is listed as an extirpated species, an

endangered species or a threatened species is

deemed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,

to be such an individual or a part or derivative of

such an individual.

Section 33:

No person shall damage or destroy the residence of

one or more individuals of a wildlife species that

is listed as an endangered species or a threatened

species, or that is listed as an extirpated species

if a recovery strategy has recommended the

reintroduction of the species into the wild in Canada.

Section 58 (1): Subject to this section, no person shall destroy any

part of the critical habitat of any listed endangered

species or of any listed threatened species – or of any

listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has

recommended the reintroduction of the species into

the wild in Canada – if

(a) the critical habitat is on federal land, in the

exclusive economic zone of Canada or on the

continental shelf of Canada;

(b) the listed species is an aquatic species; or

(c) the listed species is a species of migratory birds

protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.

Section 79 (1):

Every person who is required by or under an Act

of Parliament to ensure that an assessment of the

environmental effects of a project is conducted

must, without delay, notify the competent minister

or ministers in writing of the project if it is likely to

affect a listed wildlife species or its critical habitat.

Section 79 (2): The person must identify the adverse effects of the

project on the listed wildlife species and its critical

habitat and, if the project is carried out, must ensure

that measures are taken to avoid or lessen those

effects and to monitor them. The measures must be

taken in a way that is consistent with any applicable

recovery strategy and action plans.

Under the provisions of the Fisheries Act, any waterpower

projects on systems where Lake Sturgeon exist will be

categorized as projects where rare or endangered species

exist within the DFO Risk Matrix. These projects will

therefore be subject to greater scrutiny during regulatory

review (Figure 5). In these situations it is the proponent’s

responsibility to demonstrate to regulators that the scale of

negative effect for the project has relatively low/no impact

on sturgeon or sturgeon habitat or the project may be

deemed non-permissible by regulators.


3.4 Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act1

The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) is an

important piece of legislation of direct relevance to

almost all waterpower facilities. Dams, diversions, works

in water and improvements thereto are the key focus

of the Act. The MNR administers the Act, and as such

is the lead ministry for regulating siting, construction,

operation and maintenance of dams.

The LRIA has broad purposes, as set out in Section 2 of

the LRIA, including the:

a) management, protection, preservation and use

of the water of Ontario’s lakes and rivers and the

land under them;

b) protection and equitable exercise of public rights

in or over the waters of the lakes and rivers of

Ontario;

c) protection of the interests of riparian owners;

d) management, perpetuation and use of the fish,

wildlife and other natural resources dependent

on the lakes and rivers;

e) protection of the natural amenities of lakes and

rivers and their shores and banks; and

f) protection of persons and of property.

All new or redeveloped waterpower facilities that involve

the construction of a dam or modification to a dam

require approval under Section 14 or 16 of the LRIA (O.

Reg. 454/96 sets out the projects that require approval

under Sections 14 and 16).

In addition, Section 23(1) of the LRIA provides for

the Ministerial authority to require an owner of a dam

to develop a “management plan” in accordance with

approved guidelines. Within that management planning

framework, the regulator can require operational

guidelines/requirements, rule curves and environmental

flows etc. These conditions when applied to the

biological requirements of Lake Sturgeon can serve

as a primary tool for mitigating adverse effects on the

species. To date, this provision has been applied only to

waterways with existing waterpower facilities. For new

projects it is the expectation that a proponent will meet

the intent of water management planning, as expressed

through the resultant Dam Operating Plan

3.5 Endangered Species Act (Ontario) 1

In 2007, the government of Ontario introduced a new

Endangered Species Act. Compared to Ontario’s previous

legislation, the new act provides broader protection

provisions for species at risk and their habitats,

greater support for volunteer stewardship from private

landowners and partners, a stronger commitment to

recovery of species and more effective enforcement

provisions.

Ontario’s Endangered Species Act’s purpose is to:

a) identify species at risk based on the best

available scientific information, including

information obtained from community

knowledge and Aboriginal traditional

knowledge;

b) protect species that are at risk and their habitats,

and to promote the recovery of species that are

at risk; and

c) promote stewardship activities to assist in the

protection and recovery of species that are at risk.


The Act establishes a general prohibition against harming

listed, extirpated, endangered or threatened species and

damage or destruction to their habitat. Habitat is broadly

defined to include:

a) with respect to a species of animal, plant or

other organism for which a regulation is in force,

the area prescribed by that regulation as the

habitat of the species; or

b) with respect to any other species of animal,

plant or other organism, an area on which the

species depends, directly or indirectly, to carry

on its life processes, including life processes

such as reproduction, rearing, hibernation,

migration or feeding, and includes places in the

area described in clause (a) or (b), whichever

is applicable, that are used by members of the

species as dens, nests, hibernacula or other

residences.

Furthermore, the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA),

the Act also includes specific regulations and exemption

clauses for hydro-electric (waterpower) generating

stations (Ontario Regulation 242/08 – Section 11). The

tools and strategies presented within the BMP Guide

are therefore intended to strengthen rationale when

demonstrating agreement with the criteria listed in

Section 11 of the ESA (2007). Specifically Section 11 of

the ESA states:

(1) With respect to a species that is listed on the

Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated,

endangered or threatened species, clause 9 (1) (a)

and subsection 10 (1) of the Act do not apply to a

person who is operating a hydro-electric generating

station if all of the following criteria are met:

1. The person who operates the station

has entered into an agreement with the

Minister.

2. The agreement specifically provides that

it applies to the species.

3. The agreement states that,

i. the Minister is of the opinion

that the agreement requires the

person who operates the station to

take reasonable steps to minimize

adverse effects on the species,

ii. the Minister is of the opinion that,

if the agreement is complied with,

the operation of the station will not

jeopardize the survival or recovery

of the species in Ontario, and

iii. the Minister is of the opinion that

the agreement does not conflict

with the obligation of the Minister

to ensure the implementation of

any action under subsection 11 (9)

of the Act.

4. The agreement provides for monitoring

the effects of the operation of the

station on the species.

5. The agreement is in force.

6. The person who operates the station has

complied with the agreement.

Further to Section 11, section 17 and 18 of the ESA

also speaks to the requirement of an undertaking to

demonstrate an overall benefit to the species from a

proposed development and outlines the conditions and

pre-requisites required before the Minister may issue a

permit under the provisions of the ESA.

3.6 Conservation Authorities Act1

Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities are empowered by

the Conservation Authorities Act to undertake programs to

further the conservation, restoration, development and

management of natural resources on a watershed basis.

Under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and

O. Reg. 97/04 “Development, Interference with Wetlands,

and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses,” each

Conservation Authority has an individual regulation

approved by the Minister of Natural Resources. Section


28 regulations require CAs to grant permission (or not)

for certain activities in and adjacent to watercourses

(including valley lands), wetlands, shorelines of inland

lakes and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System, and

hazardous lands. Where no Conservation Authority exists

in Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources governing

district administers this regulation under the Lakes and

Rivers Improvement Act.

Subsection 28 (1) (b) speaks to “prohibiting,

regulating or requiring the permission of the authority

for straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in

any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream

or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way

with a wetland.”

Subsection 28 (1)(c) speaks to “prohibiting,

regulating, or requiring the permission of the authority

for development if, in the opinion of the authority,

the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or

pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by

the development.”

Section 28 (25) of the Conservation Authorities Act

defines development as:

a) the construction, reconstruction, erection, or

placing of a building or structure of any kind

b) any change to a building or structure that would

have the effect of altering the use or potential

use of the building or structure, increasing the

size of the building or structure or increasing

the number of dwelling units in the building or

structure

c) site grading, or

d) the temporary or permanent placing, dumping,

or removal of any material originating on the

site or elsewhere.

Where Conservation Authorities exist in Ontario,

proponents should be in contact early in the planning

process for information on the application process as well

as pertinent distribution information of Lake Sturgeon

within the CA’s regulated watersheds.

3.7 Ontario Water Resources Act (Ministry of the Environment)1

The Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) regulates the

taking of water from wells or surface water sources

and the treatment and disposal of sewage. The MOE

administers this act and approval may consist of a

certificate of approval and/or a Permit to Take Water

(PTTW) depending on the proposed undertaking. Section

34 of the OWRA requires anyone taking more than a total

of 50,000 litres of water in a day from a lake, stream,

river or groundwater source, with some exceptions, to

obtain a PTTW. In order to obtain a PTTW, a proponent

must complete and submit to the MOE an application

for permit to take water. With regards to Lake Sturgeon,

the requirement for a Permit to Take Water gives the RA

authority to implement conditions for flow release and

water quality which can be used as a mitigation tool

to minimise changes in the aquatic environment, thus

mitigating impacts on Lake Sturgeon.

1. At the time of writing the Ontario Legislature is proposing the Green Energy Act, which has the potential to significantly alter the legislative requirements for waterpower projects.


The Lake Sturgeon is indigenous to North America and

was once considered highly abundant throughout its

native range (Harkness and Dymond 1961). Reports

and publications such as Harkness and Dymond (1961)

document the species’ tumultuous relationship with man

throughout the history of settlement in Ontario. Historic

records of sturgeon destruction and prolific waste of

the resource are common. Reported as being a nuisance

species by commercial fisherman in the 1800s, sturgeon

were often cast ashore by the thousands when captured in

their nets. The waste sturgeon were then left onshore and

“stacked like cordwood” to season and used them as fuel

within wood burning steam ships on the Great Lakes.

The species was depicted as being useless and blamed

for destroying commercial fishing gear and perceived

as predators to lake trout and whitefish populations.

Accounts of sturgeon being speared by the thousands in

the Missiquoi River (which flows into Lake Champlain)

are described as the fish were hauled over the bridge by

a chord attached to the spear (Harkness and Dymond,

1961). The eggs would run from the spawning females

so freely that they covered the bridge. This practice was

eventually stopped, not for the waste but rather from the

smell of the rotting eggs.

Another account from 1942 (Harkness and Dymond,

1961), describes a woman’s memories of seeing the

sturgeon on the sand bars at Point Pelee, Lake Erie in May

and June in the mid-late 1800s. The sturgeon would be

harvested in the shallow water from a flat bottom boat,

the fish were so numerous that they could be harvested

by an axe blow to the head. Only the largest fish would

be taken and then boiled to release the oils from the

flesh. These oils were then used as paint oil and the flesh

was fed to pigs or ploughed into the ground. Very few fish

were ever cooked or smoked for human consumption

until the 1890s when the practice of smoking the flesh

was fed to pigs or ploughed into the ground. The use of

the roe for caviar gained popularity in the 1860s and led

to an increase in the commercial fishing demand which

is considered to have peaked in the late 1800s and likely

initiated the rapid decline in many native populations

(Harkness and Dymond 1961; Brousseau 1987; Houston

1987). Another valuable product in demand that

contributed to the change in the perception of Lake

Sturgeon was its use in the development of isinglass.

The isinglass was formed from the gelatin obtained from

the swim-bladders of the sturgeon. All of these products

and demands aided in changing the perception of the

species however, over fishing and mismanagement of

the resource along with cumulative effects of habitat

loss, fragmentation and degradation have ultimately all

contributed to the plight of Lake Sturgeon.

Today, the abundance of Lake Sturgeon has decline

significantly throughout North America to the point

where the species is considered to be at risk in many

regions of Canada and United States (Williams et al.

1989; Ferguson and Duckworth 1997). Along with the

reduction in populations from commercial fishing,

dramatic changes in riverine habitat (waste, effluent and

waterpower) throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s

are also considered to be a primary factor in the decline

of the species and its ability to recover to historical levels

(Houston 1987; Auer 1996a). In fact, globally, most

sturgeon species are currently considered to be at some

level of threatened status due to anthropogenic impacts

(Billard and Lecointre 2001).

4.0 History and Ecology of the Lake Sturgeon


4.1 Distribution

The current distribution of Lake Sturgeon in Ontario

is illustrated in Figure 1A and 1B. Within Canada, the

species is reported from Hudson-James Bay north to the

Fort George River to the east and the Seal River to the west

(Harkness and Dymond, 1961). Lake Sturgeon is reported

to occur within the North Saskatchewan River in Alberta

almost to Edmonton and within the South Saskatchewan

River. The species is also reported in Lake Winnipeg,

Assiniboine and Red rivers of Manitoba and all of the

Hudson Bay and Great Lakes Drainage systems in Ontario

and all of the Great Lakes. Finally, Lake Sturgeon occurs

east to Cap Brule or to the terminus of freshwater in the St.

Lawrence River (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada (COSEWIC) is responsible for assessing the status

of each wildlife species that it considers to be at risk.

Based on the committee’s assessment, recommendations

for listing under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) as

Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern

are made. In November 2006, COSEWIC divided Lake

Sturgeon in Canada into eight separate populations, or

designatable units (DU), and assessed each as presented

in Table 1. Designatable Unit areas in Ontario are also

presented Figure 1A and 1B (COSEWIC, 2006).

4.2 Biology

The Lake Sturgeon is a large bodied, long lived fish with

low adult mortality (Houston 1987) and a life span

of approximately 50-80 years (Scott and Crossman,

1973). One Lake Sturgeon, considered to be the oldest

known specimen, was captured on Lake of the Woods

and estimated to be 154 years old (Scott and Crossman

1973). Further to this, the largest documented Lake

Sturgeon was 140 kg, measuring 2.4 m and was captured

in Batchewana Bay, Lake Superior (Harkness and

Dymond 1961). Lake Sturgeon are a bottom feeding

species and search for food by remaining close to the

bottom of a water body and detects prey through sensory

barbells on the underside of the snout (Peterson et al.

2007). The Lake Sturgeon’s diet is highly variable and

composed primarily of macro-invertebrates and other

benthic organisms sucked up by the protrusible, tube-

like mouth (Peterson et al. 2007). The Lake Sturgeon

filters out non-edible material such as mud, gravel and

detritus and passes them out through the opercula.

Food is often worked with the mouth and is often cast

out and sucked in again before ingesting (Scott and

Crossman 1973). Stomach analysis of sturgeon have

found crayfish, molluscs, insect larvae (Chironomids),

nymphs (Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Neuroptera), fish

eggs, fishes, nematodes, leeches, amphipods, decapods

and some plants (Harkness and Dymond, 1961; Peterson

et al. 2007).

Normal age at sexual maturity in Lake Sturgeon ranges

from 12 to 20 years for males, with some reports of

sexual maturation occurring as early as 8 years of age

(Houston, 1987). Female Lake Sturgeon generally reach

sexual maturity between 20 to 30 years of age (Scott

and Crossman 1973) however, some studies note sexual

maturity occurring as early as 14 to 23 years (Houston,

1987).

Designatable Name of Population COSEWIC Status

Unit

DU1 Western Hudson Bay Endangered

DU2 Saskatchewan River Endangered

DU3 Nelson River Endangered

DU4 Red-Assiniboine Rivers – Lake Winnipeg Endangered

DU5 Winnipeg River – English River Endangered

DU6 Lake-of-the-Woods –Rainy River Special concern

DU7 Southern Hudson Bay – James Bay Special concern

DU8 Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence Threatened

Courtesy: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/faq/faq_lakesturgeon_e.asp

Table 1. Lake Sturgeon Designatable Units in Canada


The dispersion and migration of Lake Sturgeon throughout

their habitat is highly variable between spawning seasons

and may range from localised movement (<5 km)

(Threader and Brousseau, 1986) to large migrations

(150 km) between foraging, over-wintering and spawning

habitat (Sandilands, 1987). Of primary importance to

the distribution and abundance of Lake Sturgeon is water

velocity, temperature, depth and substrates within their

native habitat. Migration upstream into rivers may begin

just prior to or shortly after rivers become ice free (Figure

6). Further to this however, fish may also stage within

rivers, downstream of spawning areas the preceding fall

(Rusak and Mosindy 1997). Although many biologists

believe that juvenile Lake Sturgeon can recognize their

natal stream within only a few months after hatching and

are known to migrate up to 200 km when returning to

natal streams, spawning-site fidelity has not been well-

studied, and the environmental cues that trigger and guide

fish during these migrations are unknown (Peterson et al.

2007).

Feeding does not occur during the spawning migration

which may exceed 200 km and be as far as 400 km

up river (Kempinger, 1988; Vladykov, 1955). Males

generally arrive at the spawning grounds before females.

Observations of sturgeon congregating and completely

leaping out of the water in and around spawning sites are

common (Bruch and Binkowski, 2002). Females are in

spawning condition for only a very short period, typically

individual females complete spawning in 8 to 12 hours,

and observations of spawning females with free-running

eggs are rare (Harkness and Dymond, 1961; Peterson

et al. 2007). Males usually remain on the spawning

site as long as a ripe female is present (Peterson et al.

2007). Intervals between spawning periods is also highly

variable and may only occur every 4 to 6 years in females

and every 2 to 3 years in males (Harkness and Dymond,

1961; Scott and Crossman 1973; Kempinger 1988). Some

studies note 4 to 7 years (Roussow 1957).

Furthermore, some historic records of spawning activity indicate timid behaviour while spawning (Harkness and Dymond, 1961) yet others suggest relatively unabated behaviour amongst males and females suggesting variable behaviour (Bruch and Binkowski, 2002). Females deposit their eggs over several days and spawning groups generally consist of 1 or 2 males for each female (Scott and Crossman, 1973). No nest construction takes place as eggs are highly adhesive (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Eggs adhere to substrates during the incubation period. The presence of prime substrates during spawning is critical to the adhesion process as eggs will adhere to many surfaces (Threader et al. 1998). Optimal substrates for spawning are cobble and boulder (Threader et al.1998) while sub-optimal substrates such as fine cobbles, gravels and detritus can significantly reduce spawning success if flushing flows occur during the incubation stage and carry the eggs downstream (Tecsult pers. comm., 2008). Spawning within rivers occurs over large clean cobble and boulders in swift or rapidly moving water 0.3 to 6 m deep (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Threader et al.1998). Reports in the St. Lawrence have spawning occurring in as deep as 10 m (McGrath, 2008) while other reports in the Great Lakes suggest spawning may occur between 9 to 12 m deep, again indicating variable behaviour (Manny and Kennedy 2002). Spawning may also occur above groundwater up welling currents and on the outside of river bends and meanders. General substrate parameters include areas where substrates are greater than 15 cm in diameter and are silt free and not covered by algae. Spawning on the downstream side of impassable barriers and dams in approximately 1 to 5 m depth is a common location (Auer, 1982). One study noted optimal flows as 0.6 to 2.5 m/sec with a median flow velocity of 1.5 m/sec (Thuemler, 1991) while a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) noted optimal flows during spawning ranged from 0.15 to 0.70 m/sec (Threader et al.1998). A third study also reported spawning fish preferred shallow water with current velocities exceeding 0.15 m/sec with no eggs being found at sampling stations with water velocity was less than 0.1 m/sec (Kempinger 1988).


Spawning generally occurs in late May and continues until late June and is highly dependant on water temperatures (Harkness and Dymond, 1961; Peterson et al. 2007). It is also important to note that there may be separate spawning runs within a single season as temperatures change with the season (Auer and Baker 2002; Harkness and Dymond, 1961). Spawning activity is highly variable and may occur between 8.5 and 18°C (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Harkness 1923; Nichols et al. 2003) with optimal spawning temperatures reported between 14 and 16°C (Auer, 1982; Kempinger 1988; Auer 1996b). Reports from the St. Lawrence River also suggest optimal temperatures being between 12°C and 15°C (LaHaye et al. 1992).

Within lakes, spawning occurs along rocky shoals, high energy (wave washed) shorelines and ridges (Houston, 1987). Where suitable spawning habitat is not present, sturgeon have been noted to spawn along rocky ledges receiving high wave action or along the shorelines of islands (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

Eggs incubate for 8 to 14 days (Kempinger 1988; LaHaye et al. 1992) and upon hatching are nourished by a large yolk sac up to approximately 18 days old Newly hatched larvae are pelagic, negatively phototactic, and move about actively in search of suitable hiding places within the interstitial spaces of the rocky substrates where they were spawned (Kempinger 1988, LaHaye et al. 2007). The optimal temperature for egg development and survival has been noted between 14°C and 17°C with an upward lethal temperature of approximately 20 °C (Wang et al. 1985). Interesting to note is that natural hatching rate estimates are noted as less than 1% indicating high egg loss (Nicols et al. 2003). Within 13 to 19 days after hatching larvae emerge from the substrate at night and disperse downstream, often drifting with the current several kilometres before settling on the bottom again

(Kempinger 1988, LaHaye et al. 2007). Peak periods of drift are reported nocturnally between 2100 hrs and 0200 hrs (Kempinger 1988), the duration of which may last as long as 40 days (Auer and Baker 2002). The exact timing of the downstream dispersal appears variable however a minimum temperature of 16°C seems to trigger this behaviour (Smith and King 2005). Lake Sturgeon resemble miniature adults and may reach 123 mm by September of their first year (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Juveniles are known to reside on gravely shoals near river mouths, within rivers or in shallow water areas for the first couple of years. Growth among juveniles (up to five years of age) is considered to be quite rapid in length but limited in weight, whereas growth from juvenile to adulthood (5 to 15 years), the rate of growth is reported to decrease in length but focuses more on weight gain (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Adults are known to reside and forage along productive shoals in large river systems and lakes in depths ranging from 4.6 to 9.2 m (Harkness and Dymond 1961).

4.3 Life History Hydrograph

The following hydrograph depicts a generic regulated and unregulated river mean annual flow and highlights the key life history details for Lake Sturgeon in relation to annual flows (Figure 6). It is important to note that the following hydrograph is not typical of all systems rather a generic depiction of an Ontario river.


Figure 6. Typical Hydrograph for a Generic Regulated and Unregulated River with Key Lake Sturgeon Life

History Details Superimposed – NotesA. Migration upstream into rivers may begins just prior to

or shortly after rivers become ice free and coincides with the spring freshet. Males generally arrive at the spawning grounds before females. Observations of sturgeon congregating and completely leaping out of the water in and around spawning sites are common. Spawning on the downstream side of impassable barriers and dams in approximately 0.3 to 6 m depth is a common location. Reports in the St. Lawrence have spawning occurring in as deep as 10 m while other reports in the Great Lakes suggest spawning may occur between 9 and 12 m deep. Optimal flows for spawning are reported to range from 0.15 m/sec to 2.5 m/sec.

B. Spawning generally occurs in late May and continues until late June and is highly dependant on water temperatures. Also important is that there may be separate spawning runs within a single season as temperatures change. Spawning activity is highly variable and may occur between 8.5 and

18 °C with optimal spawning temperatures reported between 14 and 16 °C.

C. Eggs adhere to substrates during the incubation period. The presence of prime substrates during spawning is critical to the adhesion process as eggs will adhere to most surfaces. Optimal substrates for spawning are cobble and boulder while sub-optimal substrates such as fine cobbles, gravels and detritus can significantly reduce spawning success if flushing flows occur during the incubation stage and carry the eggs downstream

D. Eggs incubate for 8 to 14 days and upon hatching are nourished by a large yolk sac up to approximately 18 days old. The optimal temperature for egg development

and survival has been noted between 14 to 17 °C with an upward lethal temperature of approximately 20°C. After emergence, larval fish drift downstream with peak periods of drift reported nocturnally between 2100 hrs and 0200 hrs, the duration of which may last as long as 40 days. Lake Sturgeon larvae may reach 21 mm after 16 days from emergence and begin feeding after their yolk sac is absorbed

E. After two weeks form hatching young Lake Sturgeon resemble miniature adults and reach 123 mm before September of their first year. Juveniles are known to reside on gravely shoals near river mouths, within rivers or in shallow water areas for the first couple of years. Growth amongst juveniles (up to five years of age) is considered to be quite rapid in length but limited in weight, whereas growth from juvenile to adulthood (5 to 15 years), the rate of growth is reported to decrease in length but focus more on weight gain.

F. The dispersion and migration of Lake Sturgeon throughout their habitat is highly variable between spawning seasons and may range from localised movement (<5 km) to large migrations (150 km) between foraging, over-wintering and spawning habitat. Of primary importance to the distribution and abundance of Lake Sturgeon is water velocity, temperature, depth and substrates within their native habitat.

G. Adults are known to reside and forage along productive shoals in large river systems and lakes in depths ranging from 4.6 to 9.2 m. Some fish may also stage within rivers, downstream of spawning areas the preceding fall within refuge pools.


The ecological effects of dams on biodiversity both at the

local and global scale are well documented (Williams et

al. 1989; Zhong and Power 1996; Cada 1998). Further

to this however, the Lake Sturgeon is a species of fish

that is suspected of being susceptible to the effects of

waterpower facilities and dams (Haxton, 2007; Breining,

2003). For this reason, the identification of potential

impacts on Lake Sturgeon from waterpower facilities must

first begin with a firm understanding of the proposed

practices and processes of such a facility as well as a firm

understanding of life history requirement of the species.

The following section focuses on identifying potential

impacts as they relate to general activities of a waterpower

facility, namely the 1) construction and encroachment

of the facility, 2) the generation of power, 3) the spilling

of water and 4) the storage of water. It is the intention

of this BMP Guide to understand the systemic and

potential cumulative impacts of the primary activities of

a waterpower facility and trace these activities through

identified stressors related to Lake Sturgeon biology and

their ultimate impact on Lake Sturgeon. By understanding

the pathways in which these activities lead to impacts,

this BMP Guide shows how stressors can be minimized at

an earlier stage in the project. These strategies therefore,

may ultimately lessen or eliminate the impacts on Lake

Sturgeon.

5. Lake Sturgeon and Dams


The following sections focus on the identification of

impacts to Lake Sturgeon stemming from the four

activities associated with a waterpower facility as stated in

Section 2.3 of the BMP Guide. The means in which these

activities lead to potential impacts on Lake Sturgeon are

presented in Figures 7 to 10, Pathways of Effect Diagrams

and are based on the best available science, project

experience and case studies to date. Important to note, for

the purposes of the BMP Guide, the term “Generation” is

in regards to the regular intake (penstock) and discharge

(tailrace) of water for the purpose generating electricity.

In contrast, the term “Spill” is in regards to the temporary

discharge of water from a reservoir in response to surplus

water levels or to meet other objectives.

Anthropogenic or social impacts resulting from each of

the four activities related to waterpower facilities have

been identified below. Generally speaking, activities

associated with waterpower facilities have the potential

to increase the congregation and density of sturgeon

in certain areas, making them more vulnerable to

exploitation and over fishing. The mechanisms in

which this occurs differs among the four activities (1)

construction and encroachment of the facility, 2) the

generation of power, 3) the spilling of water and 4) the

storage of water), but the potential outcome of over-

exploitation or susceptibility of the species can be the

same unless effective mitigation is implemented.

6.1 Encroachment – Project Footprint

6.1.1 Impact Identification

The construction, permanent occupancy, and overall

project footprint of a waterpower facility are referred

to as the project encroachment. Impacts to the natural

environment, and Lake Sturgeon by extension, can be

characterized by six primary stressors as presented in the

following section. Specifically, these stressors include

(Figure 7):

1. Dam Footprint

2. Creation of Diversion Channel

3. Powerhouse Footprint

4. Head Pond / Reservoir Creation

5. Access Roads and Bridges

6. Power Corridor Footprint

It is widely accepted in the literature that one of the

primary threats to Lake Sturgeon from waterpower (i.e.

dams) are factors related to habitat loss (spawning

habitat) and habitat fragmentation (Houston 1987;

Ferguson and Duckworth 1997; Baker and Borgeson,

1999). Specifically, habitat fragmentation is typically

caused by the unmitigated physical obstruction of a dam

and can lead to changes in upstream and downstream

migration of Lake Sturgeon (Auer, 1999; Bemis and

Findeis, 1994; Breining, 2003; Lauer, 1988). Further to

this, prime locations for waterpower facilities are areas

where a natural drop (change in head) may be utilized

for generation. Coincidently, these locations are often

found at impassable barriers to fish and coincide with

prime Lake Sturgeon spawning habitat (Friday pers.

comm., 2008). To this end, there is ever increasing

evidence in the literature suggesting that regulated

flows on river systems can disrupt normal spawning

patterns (Fernández-Pasquier 1999). Further indirect

consequences of habitat fragmentation include impacts

6.0 Impact Identification


Figure 7. Encroachment – Project Footprint Pathways of Effect


to spawning and recruitment success (DesLandes et

al. 1994) and a loss of genetic diversity (Ferguson and

Duckworth, 1997), as well as restricting or isolating

sturgeon to reaches where habitat is not suitable for all

life history requirements (Beamesderfer and Farr, 1997).

In most instances, the footprint and encroachment of

a waterpower facility (including diversion channel and

power house footprint) ultimately results in a change

in stream morphology and river hydraulics (Carson

et al. 1991, Summer and Stritzinger, 1994) and has

been demonstrated to affect flow regimes, erosion and

turbidity levels (Lamontagne and Gilbert, 1990), as

well as changes in thermal dynamics (Lauer, 1988).

Changes in the natural dynamics of a stream hydrograph

and flow regime may result in changes to overall Lake

Sturgeon health, bioenergetics and physical alterations

to fish habitat (McKinley and Power, 1998). Changes

to flow regimes have also been demonstrated to result

in poor reproductive success and stranding of adults

(Auer 1998), exposure and desiccation of eggs due

to dewatering of spawning sites (Kempinger 1988),

egg mortality due to asphyxiation from egg clumping

(Tecsult pers. comm, 2008). Furthermore, in addition

to the aforementioned impacts related to habitat, the

construction of access roads and bridges has the potential

to cause further anthropogenic (social) impacts to Lake

Sturgeon. Specifically, roads and bridges into remote

locations provide the opportunity for increased access

to the resource by people and fishing pressure. The

encroachment and construction of these features also

leads to the removal and loss of riparian vegetation and

can lead to the overall degradation of fish habitat and

channel stability (FERC, 2007). Specific case studies

within the literature provide evidence that if unmitigated;

the effects of encroachment of a project can result in

changes to the productive capacity of the Lake Sturgeon

resource (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

6.2 Generation


Potential impacts to the natural environment and Lake

Sturgeon associated with generation of power can be

characterized by three primary stressors as presented in

the following section. Specifically, these stressors include

(Figure 8):

1. Social Stressors

2. Turbine Stressors

3. Operational Stressors

With respect to social impacts, waterpower facilities of all

scales have to potential to alter natural flow conditions

within a watercourse. With regards to generation, the

flows present at the base of the powerhouse and tailrace

have the potential for causing crowding of fish in refuge

areas, thus creating greater susceptibility to fishing

pressure. In these cases the physical barrier of the dam

does not cause the impact, rather the flows (if limiting)

may lead to further anthropogenic stressors (Findlay et al.

1994).


Figure 8. Generation Pathways of Effect


Furthermore, impacts related to turbine stressors on fish

in the generation of power are also well documented

(Cado et al. 2007, Sale et al. 1997) and commonly

relate to direct strike (EPRI, 2006), shear stress (Cado

et al. 2007, Killgore et al. 2001) and pressure stress

(Cada, 2001). These types of impacts can lead to effects

on survivorship and overall health of Lake Sturgeon

migrating downstream during larval drift and juvenile

stages (Cado et al. 2007). If unmitigated, turbine stresses

may ultimately impact the rearing and recruitment

success of Lake Sturgeon in a system and thus change the

productive capacity of the resource.

The flow requirements for generation from an operations

perspective can also result in a change in stream

hydraulics and water quality (FERC, 2007) based on

flow requirements and the type of operation. Changes

in stream flow and water quality has not only been

demonstrated to negatively affect erosion and aggradation

rates (Environnement Illimité inc. 2004a) but has the

ability to impact fish bioenergetics (McKinley and Power,

1998) and cause a net loss in sturgeon habitat (m2) during

periods of low flow (Brousseau and Goodchild, 1989;

Environnement Illimite Inc, 2004). The impacts of flow

requirements on larval drift and juvenile migration are of

particular importance to the survivorship of Lake Sturgeon

in a regulated system. A primary concern throughout

the literature focuses on the requirement for natural

flows during larval drift downstream of facilities (Lauer,

1988). Specifically, the concern is in regards to peaking

facilities and the practice of “shutting down” completely

in the evenings to allow for storage levels in reservoirs to

increase. The concern in regards to Lake Sturgeon, is that

larval drift is considered to be most active nocturnally and

has been reported to peak between 2100 hrs and 0200

hrs (Kempinger 1988). To this end, the requirement for

natural/minimum flow requirements in the evenings

appears to be of primary importance to larval fish survival

(Lauer, 1988). Furthermore, the exposure and desiccation

of eggs due to dewatering of spawning sites (Kempinger

1988) and egg mortality due to asphyxiation from

clumping (Tecsult pers. Comm., 2008) are further impacts

related to operational stressors in power generation.

Similarly, changes in the natural dynamics of a streams

hydrograph and flow regime have been shown to result

in changes to overall fish health, bioenergetics and a net

loss of fish habitat (Parsley and Beckman, 1994). These

impacts (and their potential to be cumulative) can lead

to changes in spawning success related to egg adhesion,

incubation (Parsley and Beckman, 1994), rearing and

recruitment success of Lake Sturgeon. Furthermore,

fluctuating water levels have also been discussed in the

literature related to impacts on critical overwintering

habitat downstream of dams, pre-spawning and spawning

habitat (Lauer, 1988), effects on egg hatching and larval

drift (Lauer, 1988). All of these factors contribute to

the potential changes to the productive capacity of the

sturgeon resource if unmitigated.

6.3 Operational Storage


Potential impacts to the natural environment and

Lake Sturgeon associated with the storage of water

for waterpower facilities can be characterized by two

primary stressors as presented in the following section.

Specifically, these stressors include (Figure 9):

1. Social Stressors

2. Variations in Water Levels


Figure 9. Storage Pathways of Effect


With respect to social impacts, large variations in

water levels in storage bays and reservoirs have been

demonstrated to cause the crowding of fish in refuge

areas or small reservoirs during periods of low water

levels or under ice conditions (Dumont et al., 2006;

Tecsult pers. comm., 2008). The crowding of fish, in

particular Lake Sturgeon, can lead to detrimental effects

(Messier and Roy, 1987) as the potential for increasing

their susceptibility to anthropogenic effects may result.

Further to this, reservoirs and impoundments have the

potential to significantly alter the quality of habitat on

regulated systems. Changes in thermal regimes (Lauer,

1988), nutrient dynamics and dissolved oxygen (gases)

(Greig et al. 1986; Jager and Smith, 2008), as well

as sediment and turbidity have all been noted in the

literature (Baxter and Glaude 1980). Such impacts may

negatively impact the aquatic environment downstream

in a regulated system. Variations in water levels have also

been documented to have effects on macroinvertebrate

density (Haxton and Findlay 2008). In regards to

thermal regimes, temperatures both upstream and

downstream of dams have been noted to change from

natural conditions on regulated rivers (Zhong and Power

1996). These impacts may be manifested in earlier

freezing and later thawing of reservoirs in regulated

rivers (Baxter and Glaude, 1980). Furthermore, standing

water in reservoirs has increased potential for solar

absorption and can result in increased surface water

temperatures and thermal stratification (Wetzel 2001).

In instances where top draw designs are constructed,

water temperatures downstream of a dam may be

dramatically altered. Similarly, water temperatures may

decrease or increase downstream of a dam depending

on where the water is drawn from in the water column

(hypolimnion or epilimnion) (Baxter and Glaude 1980).

Dams may also serve as sediment traps and have been

shown in some cases to decrease downstream turbidity

and sediment loading (Liu and Yu 1992). As a result,

systems transformed from unregulated to regulated may

effectively transform from allochthonous systems into

autotrophic systems (Friedl and Wuest 2002) resulting in

a loss of riverian habitat for Lake Sturgeon.

Other impacts related to variations in water levels include

changes in contaminant concentrations in water (either

through natural or anthropogenic processes) (Messier

et al. 1985). Variations in water levels and reservoir

impoundments have also been attributed to increases

in mercury methylation, an effect that may last up to

20-30 years after the initial impoundment (Rosenberg

et al. 1997; Hydro Quebec, 2001). The production

of methylmercury is in response to the flooding of

naturalized areas with large amounts of organic matter

present as well as anaerobic bacterial activity and

chemical parameters of the water (pH, dissolved oxygen,

oxidation-reduction potential) (Hydro-Quebec, 2001).

The quantity of methylmercury produced is primarily

dependant on the size, duration and water residence

time within the reservoir (Brouard et al., 1990; Jones et

al., 1986; Doyon et al., 1996). The uptake of mercury

in the food-chain is bio-accumulating with greatest

accumulation occurring within piscivorous fish (Hydro-

Quebec, 2001). Non-piscivorous fish however, in

particular benthivores such as Lake Sturgeon, remain

susceptible to increases in mercury concentrations and

may ultimately be affected by changes in the aquatic

community structure as a result of increased mercury

concentrations (Hydro-Quebec, 2001). There are some

references in the literature to effects of mercury in White

Sturgeon demonstrating a link to poor reproductive

physiology, growth and condition (Fiest et al. 2005),

however impacts on Lake Sturgeon remain largely

undefined. Regardless, changes in mercury concentrations

in Lake Sturgeon can/may lead to health risks if

consumed by humans (Messier and Roy, 1987).

Other impacts stemming from variations in water level

stressors include impacts to spawning success (egg

desiccation) within reservoirs as well as stranding of

juveniles in near shore areas effected by drawdown

(Tecsult pers. comm., 2008; Haxton pers. comm., 2009).

When reservoir water levels are drawn down in the spring,

egg incubation within reservoir tributaries


used as spawning habitat can be effected (Noakes et al

1999). These changes in environmental conditions can

ultimately change the structure of the aquatic community,

impacting sturgeon survival and health, spawning and

recruitment success (Environnement Illimite Inc, 2004;

Haxton and Findlay in print) and ultimately cause a

change in the productive capacity of the Lake Sturgeon

resource.

6.4 Spill


Potential impacts to the natural environment and

Lake Sturgeon associated with the spilling of water

at waterpower facilities can be characterized by two

primary stressors as presented in the following section.

Specifically, these stressors include (Figure 10):

1. Social Stressors

2. Variable Water Level Stressors / Temporary Flow

Events

Similar to the previously stated waterpower activities,

potential social impacts of waterpower projects on Lake

Sturgeon can be associated with variations in water levels

within the spillways of many facilities (Brousseau and

Goodchild, 1989). Large variations in water levels within

the spillways can cause the crowding or stranding of fish

in refuge areas or small standing pools creating greater

susceptibility to fishing pressure (Tecsult pers. comm.,

2008).

Other impacts related to the large variations in

spillway flows and the temporary flow events include

changes in water quality parameters (Sale et al. 1997),

dissolved oxygen concentrations and changes in

temperature (Bruch and Binkowski, 2002). In essence,

many of the changes and fluctuations in water quality

and temperature are a result of the environmental

changes occurring within the upstream reservoir/head

pond (as described in Section 6.3.1 – Storage Impact

Identification). As water is flushed from the reservoir

in times of surplus, the aquatic environment directly

downstream of the facility is dramatically altered over

a very short period of time. These large flushing events

have been documented to effect sediment transport

downstream (Summer and Stritzinger, 1994), physical

habitat structure (Brousseau and Goodchild, 1989),

and erosion rates (Brousseau and Goodchild, 1989). In

addition, flushing and displacement of Lake Sturgeon

within spillways during times of high flow has been

documented to cause stranding and injury to fish (Evans

et al. 1993). All of these variables result in changes

to environmental conditions and ultimately lead to

potential impacts on Lake Sturgeon health, as well as

spawning success (egg deposition, incubation, hatch and

larval drift), rearing and recruitment success (Tecsult pers.

comm., 2008).


Figure 10. Spill Pathways of Effect


Through the review of best available science and project

case studies, strategies to avoid, redesign, mitigate and

compensate/offset the potential impacts of the project

footprint, such as location of the facility, are more

easily implemented when they are considered during

the planning stage of the project in general (Section 9).

Avoidance begins through a firm understanding of the

subject ecosystem and Lake Sturgeon populations within

that system. Understanding the ecology of the project

environment and biota should be obtained through

a detailed fish and fish habitat baseline conditions

study. This study will vary with the size/scale and type

of waterpower facility but should be scoped through

regulatory agency consultation and should emphasize

sensitivities of the habitat/species within the system

and focus on the development of target thresholds for

monitoring pre, during and post construction (Figure 4 –

Project Screening Overview). Short term mitigations such

as those undertaken during construction of the facility

should follow the DFO Pathways of Effect Diagrams and

Standard Operational Statements (Appendix A and B).

Once constructed however, a variety of mitigations and

compensation/offsetting strategies may be implemented

based on the best available science and case studies to

limit long term and cumulative impacts to the Lake

Sturgeon resource. The following section focuses on the

Best Management Practices developed for the purposes

of this guide and are implemented through the Modified

Pathways of Effect Figures illustrated below (Figures 11

to 14). Specific references to case studies provided in this

section are expanded upon in the Annotated Bibliography

in Appendix C (Lake Sturgeon Literature Review).

7.1 M1 – Management of Recreational Fishing Pressure / Sanctuaries

Many conventional fisheries management approaches

focus on regulations to prohibit, or severely limit harvest

(Johnson 1987). As of January 1, 2009 the Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources has introduced regulations

limiting the recreational fishery for Lake Sturgeon to a

catch-and-release program (MNR, 2009). Furthermore,

the commercial fishing industry for Lake Sturgeon in

Ontario has also been closed as of January 1, 2009

(MNR, 2009).

Although such programs may result in higher numbers of

spawners, and higher recruitment, several authors suggest

that these types of restrictions alone are insufficient to

recover Lake Sturgeon stocks owing to the species’ low

reproductive rate and loss or degradation of habitat for

many populations (Peterson et al. 2007). In short, with

the level of fishing mortality on Lake Sturgeon already

presumed to be low, efforts to further decrease adult

mortality may have little effect on population growth.

Facilitating survival of juveniles however, may have the

greatest effect on populations.

Given the habitat and life history challenges, Lake Sturgeon

restoration or sustainability will require a long-term

approach addressing the protracted reproduction cycle of

the species that requires the success of many juvenile and

adult year classes to sustain a population (Noakes et al.

1999). Revisions to recreational fishing regulations and

the designation of fish sanctuaries represent two aspects of

a suite of Best Management Practices to mitigate potential

impacts and promote long-term sustainability of the

species. Further readings referencing the need and benefits

of harvest limitations and sanctuaries are provided in

Appendix C as follows:

7. Best Management Practices


Figure 11. Modified Encroachment – Project Footprint Pathways of Effect


Figure 12. Modified Generation Pathways of Effect


Figure 13. Modified Storage Pathways of Effect


Figure 14. Modified Spill Pathways of Effect


Brousseau, C.S. 1987. The lake sturgeon (Acipenser

fulvescens) in Ontario, p. 2-9. In C.H. Olver (ed.)

Proceedings of a workshop on the lake sturgeon

(Acipenser fulvescens). Ont. Fish. Tech. Rep. Ser. 23.

Brousseau, C.S., and G.A. Goodchild, 1989:

Fisheries and yields in the Moose River basin,

Ontario, p. 145-158

Cuerrier, J.-P. 1949b:

Observations sur l’esturgeon de lac (Acipenser

fulvescens Raf.) dans la region du lac Saint-Pierre au

cours de la période du frai.

Doroshov, S.I., R.M. Bruch, and F.P. Binkowski. 2004:

The past and present of sturgeon management and

rehabilitation.

Kohlhorst, D.W., L.W. Botsford, J.S. Brennan, and

G.M. Cailliet. 1991:

Aspects of the structure and dynamics of an exploited

central California population of white sturgeon

(Acipenser transmontanus).

Nowak, A.M., and C.S. Jessop. 1987:

Biology and management of the Lake Sturgeon

(Acipenser fulvescens) in the Groundhog and

Mattagami Rivers, Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2006:

Proposal for Managing the Recreational Fishery for

Lake Sturgeon in Ontario.

Swanson, G. 1986.

An interim report on the fisheries of the lower Nelson

River and the impacts of hydroelectric development,

1985 data. Manit. Dept. Nat. Res. Fish. Br. MS. Rep.

86-19: xx + 228 p.

Threader, R.W., and C.S. Brousseau. 1986:

Biology and management of the Lake Sturgeon in the

Moose River.

7.2 M2 – Public Education of Fishing Regulations

Public consultation and engagement is a primary tool

in educating the public regarding the Lake Sturgeon

resource. This may be achieved in the early stages of the

planning process through public notifications and public

information centers. The engagement of the public also

provides the opportunity to gain local knowledge of the

Lake Sturgeon resource as well as the potential for further

understanding natural processes typical of the project

study area. Further readings noting the importance

of public involvement as a form of management and

recovery are provided in Appendix C as follows:

Auer, N.A. (ed.) 2003:

A Lake Sturgeon rehabilitation plan for Lake

Superior.

7.3 M3 – Minimize Public Access and Alternative Navigation

Strategies such as minimizing public access to the project

area (Dubuc et al. 1996) are management strategies that

may be employed at facilities to minimize the potential

social/anthropogenic impacts of waterpower projects

(Tecsult pers. comm., 2008).

One case study from the Rivieres des Prairies dam

spillway in Quebec documents the excavation of a canal

strategically constructed to minimize public access to

a shallow area of the river located in front of the dam

spillway (Dubuc et al., 1996). The canal construction

was part of the habitat compensation plan which also

involved the restoration of Lake Sturgeon spawning

grounds within the dam spillway. The canal therefore,

acted as a barrier to the public and minimized access to

Lake Sturgeon spawning habitat. Management strategies

such as this, as well as construction of fencing around

dam tailraces and spillways, have shown to be effective

in minimizing public access to areas where fish may

congregate. To this end, limiting public access may be


used as an initial mitigation tool in minimizing impacts

to Lake Sturgeon (Tecsult pers. comm., 2008). The

following publication in Appendix C further details this

strategy:

Dubuc, N., S. Thibodeau, J. DesLandes, and

R. Fortin. 1996:

Utilisation du milieu en période de fraie

abundance des géniteurs et succès de

reproduction de l‘esturgeon jaune (Acipenser

fulvescens) á la frayère de la rivière des Prairies

au printemps de 1996.

Motivation for providing alternative access/navigation

around waterpower facilities is based on the intent

to minimize exposure of potentially sensitive Lake

Sturgeon habitat to increased human traffic. As noted

in the literature, Lake Sturgeon often congregate on the

downstream side of dams and spillways to spawn and

therefore become susceptible to anthropogenic impacts

(Scott and Crossman, 1973). Provisions for alternative

access/navigation in the form of portage trails, boat ramps,

boat launches, lock systems etc, around the facility may

serve as effective avoidance tools in minimizing exposure

of Lake Sturgeon sensitive habitat.

7.4 M4 – First Nations Consultation

Consultation with First Nations in the conservation of

Lake Sturgeon is an active management strategy that may

be employed at facilities to minimize the potential social/

anthropogenic impacts of a waterpower project as noted

in the literature (Dick and MacBeth, 2003 – Appendix C).

One case study from the literature (2007) involved a

partnership between the Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources, Wabaseemoong Independent First Nations,

Ontario Power Generation and The Department of

Fisheries and Oceans to undertake a study to assess the

status of the Winnipeg River sturgeon population and

attain the information that would ultimately be required

to design and implement a successful recovery plan

(Duda, 2008). The program was undertaken to use both

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge and current inventory/

sampling techniques to collect baseline information

on the dynamics of the populations and document the

distribution, habitat use and seasonal movement patterns

of the various life history stages. One of the primary

objectives of the study was to engagement of Aboriginal

peoples in the recovery of species at risk and their

habitats (Duda, 2008).

The traditional ecological knowledge provided by

First Nations communities is essential to the long

term conservation and recovery of the Lake Sturgeon

because many of the populations exist within these

communities. Further to this, in many areas of Northern

Ontario, the First Nations communities may be the only

source of historical information on local Lake Sturgeon

populations (Dick and MacBeth, 2003). To this end

the involvement of First Nations is also considered

an essential component to any detailed fish and fish

habitat baseline conditions study designed at the

outset of a project (Figure 4). Further readings noting

the importance of First Nations involvement in Lake

Sturgeon management and recovery are referenced in


Campbell, R. 2005:

Comments on the draft EIS for the EM-LA/

Rupert Diversion Project – as related to Lake

Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens).

Cox, D. 2004:

History of fishing regulation development on

the Menominee Indian reservation.

Dick, T.A., and B. MacBeth. 2003:

First Nations participation in determining the

status of a species at risk.

Duda, M. 2008:

Winnipeg River Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser

fulvescens) Assessment Program 2008 Progress

Report.


7.5 M5 – Water Level Management in Reservoirs

Effective management of water levels within head pond/

reservoirs is essential in avoiding / mitigating both

upstream and downstream impacts to Lake Sturgeon

populations as discussed in Section 6.3 and 6.4. Large

variations in water levels in storage bays and reservoirs

have been demonstrated to cause the crowding of fish

in refuge areas or small reservoirs during periods of low

water levels or under ice conditions (Dumont et al., 2006;

Tecsult pers. comm., 2008). The crowding of fish, in

particular Lake Sturgeon, can lead to detrimental effects

(Messier and Roy, 1987) as the potential for increasing

their susceptibility to anthropogenic effects may result

(Dumont et al. 2006), (Tecsult pers. comm., 2008).

Some mitigation strategies noted through project

experience include low head weirs within littoral zones

of embayment to maintain water levels during periods

of low flow or spill to avoid juvenile mortality through

stranding (Hayeur, 2001; Tecsult pers. comm., 2008). To

this end, a Best Management Practice to minimizing such

effects is through the effective development, utilization

and implementation of the Water Management Plan

(WMP). The WMP will detail Lake Sturgeon life history

requirements related to water quality, temperature and

flow requirements that should be addressed in order to

minimize impacts on the local populations. Furthermore,

provisions made for Lake Sturgeon within the WMP will

contribute to satisfying the requirements of the Fisheries

Act, SARA and the Endangered Species Act as outlined in

Section 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5.

The detailed specifics of the WMP are developed on a

site specific level, however, a key guidance document for

water management planning is referenced and annotated

in Appendix C as follows.


Water Management Planning Aquatic Ecosystem

Guidelines (Draft – to be replaced by the new

LRIA Technical Guidelines).

Furthermore, additional readings and mitigation

strategies for minimizing impacts on fish in reservoirs

are also provided in the following reference annotated in

Appendix C;

Hayeur, Gaetan. 2001:

Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern

Environments from 1970-2000. Montreal:

Hydro-Quebec.

Brousseau, C.S., and G.A. Goodchild. 1989:

Fisheries and yields in the Moose River basin

Clarke D.K., T.C. Pratt T.C. and R.G. Randall, D.A.

Scuton and K.E. Smokorowski. 2008:

Validation of the Flow Management Pathway:

Effects of Altered Flow on Fish Habitat and

Fishes Downstream from Hydropower Dam.

Lauer, C. 1988:

Identification of critical life history periods

of Lake Sturgeon and factors that may affect

population survival.


7.6 M6 – Water Management Plans (existing facilities) and Dam Operating Plans (new facilities)

Riverine characteristics are strongly controlled and

defined by flow regime (MNR, 2003). Thus, subsequent

to the planning process for a new facility the effective

development, utilization and implementation of the

Dam Operating Plan (DOP) (Water Management Plan)

is one of the most versatile and robust Best Management

Practice in avoiding and mitigating impacts on Lake

Sturgeon in relation to Waterpower facilities. The strength

of Water Management Planning is that the concerns of all

stakeholders are considered. Water Management Planning

takes into account all flow and water level requirements,

including those related to Lake Sturgeon and other

fish, and provides the best balanced plan to achieve as

many objectives as possible. Auer (1992, 1994b, 1996b)

showed that when flows from a small hydroelectric

facility were made more constant (i.e., emulated natural

flow conditions), this change in flow triggered the

reproductive readiness of Lake Sturgeon, reduced time

spent on spawning sites (a benefit to sturgeon) and

allowed larger fish to migrate to spawning grounds in

greater numbers. Therefore, consideration of operating

regime should be taken into account in the design and

operation of hydroelectric facilities where/if possible.

Specific references are provided and annotated

within Appendix C and include:

Auer, N.A. 1992:

Conservation of the threatened Lake Sturgeon.

Prepared for 1992 Nongame Wildlife Fund

and Living Resources Small Grants Program,

Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

23 p. + app.

Auer, N.A. 1994b:

Effects of change in operation of a small

hydroelectric facility on spawning characteristics

of Lake Sturgeon. Lake Reservoir Manag.

9: 52-53.

Auer, N.A. 1996b:

Response of spawning Lake Sturgeons to change

in hydroelectric facility operation. Trans. Am.

Fish. Soc. 125: 66-77.

For operations of a facility, the DOP may specify flow

requirements and ramping rates to coincide with

seasonal migration of Lake Sturgeon spawning. The

DOP can also be used to minimize impacts to flow

regimes, downstream erosion rates and water quality

(Environnement Illimité inc. 2004a). Furthermore,

in regards to generation, the DOP can be used

to minimize impacts to recruitment in providing

appropriate flows for larval drift (LaHaye et al. 1992).

In addition, although limited avoidance strategies exist

for minimizing variations in water levels during storage

and spill, effective management to minimize changes

to nutrient loading, dissolved oxygen concentrations

and temperature may also be achieved through the

WMP (Jager and Smith, 2008). This is achieved through

limiting storage time within the reservoirs (i.e. emulated

natural flow conditions) which in turn may reduce

changes to water quality, sediment transport, habitat

structure, erosion rates and flushing/displacement of fish

downstream (Jager and Smith, 2008).

The detailed specifics of the WMP are developed on a

site specific level, however, a key document for water

management planning is referenced and annotated in

Appendix C as follows.






Furthermore, additional readings referencing the benefits,

successes and failures of water management planning are

annotated in Appendix C as follows:

Armstrong, K. 1988:




Boudreau, P., M. Leclerc, and Y. Secretan. 2004:

Centrale de l’Eastmain-1-A et dérivation Rupert

– Simulation des habitats de reproduction

piscicole de la rivière Rupert avec HYDROSIM/

MODELEUR. Report prepared for Hydro-

Québec and the Société d’Energie de la Baie

James.

British Columbia Instream Flow Guideline for Fish.

2004:

Instream flow thresholds for fish and fish

habitat as guidelines for reviewing proposed

water uses – Synopsis.


Fisheries and yields in the Moose River basin.

Carson, R.K., A.P. Sandilands and R.R. Evans. 1991:

Hydroelectric Generating Station Extansions

– Mattagami River. Mattagami River Hydraulic

Studies and Impacts on Fisheries Habitat.

Clarke D.K., T.C.Pratt, R.G. Randall, D.A. Scuton

and K.E. Smokorowski. 2008:

Validation of the Flow Management Pathway:

Effects of Altered Flow on Fish Habitat and

Fishes Downstream from Hydropower Dam.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada. 2005:

COSEWIC species assessments (short version),

May 2005.

Doroshov, S.I., Bruch, R.M., and Binkowski,

F.P. 2004: The past and present of sturgeon

management and rehabilitation.

Environnement Illimité inc. 1994:

Centrale Les Cèdres – Nouvel aménagement –

phase 2 – Études environnementales. Concepts

d’aménagement de frayères à esturgeon jaune et

d’ouvrages de montaison.

Environnement Illimité inc. 2004a:

Aménagement hydroélectrique de l’Eastmain-1

– Esturgeon jaune – Étude d’impact et

aménagements. Version finale.

Friday, M.J. 2004 - 2007.

The migratory and reproductive response of

spawning Lake Sturgeon to controlled flows

over Kakabeka Falls on the Kaministiquia River

Garceau, S., Simoneau, M., Bilodeau, P. 2007:

Modelling the sequence time for the

reproduction of lake sturgeon (Acipenser

fulvescens) in the River Prairie.

GDG Conseil inc. 2001a:

Réfection de la centrale de La Gabelle.

Programme de surveillance et de suivi

environnemental. Utilisation par les poissons

d’un nouveau secteur de fraie aménagé en aval

de la centrale de La Gabelle – printemps 2001.

GDG Conseil inc. 2001b:



environnemental. Utilisation par l’esturgeon

jaune d’un nouveau secteur de fraie aménagé

en aval de la centrale de La Gabelle – printemps

2000.

Guay, G., and M. Gendron 2004:

Suivi de l’utilisation du bassin de Pointe-des-

Cascades par l’esturgeon jaune et les autres

espèces – 2004.

Hendry, C., and C. Chang, C. 2001:

Investigations of fish communities and habitat

in the Abitibi Canyon Generating Station

tailwater.


KGS Group, Environmental Applications Group,

and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.

1991:

Evaluation of fish habitat mitigation at six

hydrotechnical projects.

Kilgo.1 ur, B.W.,J. Neary, D. Ming and D. Beach.

Preliminary Investigations of the Use and Status

of Instream-Flow-Needs methods in Ontario

with Specific Reference to Application with

Hydroelectric Developments.

LaHaye, M., and M. Gendron, 1994:

Reproduction de l’esturgeon jaune, bief d’aval

de Pointe-des-Cascades et de Beauharnois. Le

Groupe de Recherche SEEEQ Ltée.

Lauer, C. 1988:




McKinley, S., G. Van Der Kraak, and G.Power, 1998:

Seasonal migrations and reproductive patterns

in the Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in

the vicinity of hydroelectric stations in northern

Ontario.

Mingelbier, M., and J. Morin. 2005.

Modélisation numèrique 2 D de l’habitat des

poissons du Saint-Laurent fluvial pour évaluer

l’impact des changements climatiques et de la

régularisation. Nat. Can. (Qué.) 129: 96-102.

Phoenix, R.D., and C.J. Rich. 1988:

Utilization of a proposed small hydroelectric

site on the Groundhog River by Lake Sturgeon,

Acipenser fulvescens.

Roy, N., M. La Haye et C. Marche, 1997:

Étude hydrologique et géomorphologique

portant sur l’habitat de fraie de l’esturgeon

jaune (Acipenser fulvescens), rivière Saint-

François près de Drummondville, Québec.

Sturgeon Telemetry Project Chipman Lake, 2007:

Aguasabon River System Water Management

Plan.

Swanson, G.M., K.R. Kansas and S.M. Matkowski.

1990:

A report on the fisheries resources of the lower

Nelson River and the impacts of hydroelectric

development, 1988 data.

Thibodeau, S. 1997:

Déterminants environnementaux de la dérive

larvaire de l’esturgeon jaune (Acipenser

fulvescens Rafinesque) á la rivière des Prairies,

près de Montréal et potential d’utilisation du

strontium radioactive (85Sr) comme marquer

vital ácourt terme des stades précéndant la

dévalaison. Comme exigence partielle de la

maîtrise en biologie.

7.6.1 Incorporating the BMP for Lake Sturgeon into Water

Management Plans

Existing waterpower facilities in Ontario were required

to retroactively develop “Water Management Plans”,

beginning in 2002. The approved plans define the

operating regime for existing facilities, considerate of

the multiple social, economic and environmental values

associated with water level and flow management. WMPs

were developed to address impacts and benefits related

to water management (levels and flows) uses at existing

waterpower installations in Ontario. They are effective

in demonstrating how water level fluctuations affect the

aquatic ecosystem, shoreline erosion and recreational

activities. The legislation guiding waterpower project

requirements for developing WMPs is the Lakes and Rivers

Improvement Act.


Producers of waterpower were responsible for developing

WMPs that take environmental, social and economic

objectives into account and how various operating

regimes may affect values within the river system. If more

than one power producer operates within a watershed

and cumulative impacts are anticipated, WMPs may

require owners or proponents to develop joint plans to

address the specific needs of the ecosystem and targeted

fish species.

In general, WMPs will be developed on the basis that

they will:

a) Promote maximum net benefit to society –

identify the net benefits from how water levels

and flows are managed, including benefits to

river users and riparian owners, as well as to

power producers and find ways to maximize

those benefits.

b) Promote riverine ecosystem sustainability – describe any ongoing degradation of the river

ecosystem resulting from the manipulation of

water levels and flows, and seek to improve the

ecosystem.

c) Advance planning concepts based on best

available information.

d) Support adaptive management – characterize

an approach to improve resource management,

reduce areas of uncertainty, build on successes

and make adjustments to limit failures.

e) Address Aboriginal and treaty rights –

WMP to be undertaken without prejudice to

these rights.

The Best Management Practices for Lake Sturgeon will

assist waterpower project with approved WMPs by

identifying mitigation strategies that may be applied to

address potentially adverse impacts to Lake Sturgeon.

The BMP does not provide prescriptive measures to

address flow needs to protect Lake Sturgeon but does

identify strategic points at various stages where effective

water management planning can be used to mitigate for

expected impacts.

7.7 M7 – Provision of Sturgeon Passage

Although many Lake Sturgeon populations are now

protected, loss of habitat continues to threaten, or reduce

the recovery of many populations. For example, dams

have been constructed on every known Lake Sturgeon

spawning tributary in the Great Lakes (Peterson et al.

2007). Within the literature it has been noted that very

few fishways exist that specifically target passage of

large fish species (i.e., fish larger than adult salmon)

(Ead et al., 2004). Effective sturgeon fishways have

been constructed on some low-head impoundments,

and artificial spawning habitat has been introduced

successfully in some rivers (Bruch 1998). Nevertheless the

lack of effective fish passage systems around waterpower

facilities, and other high-relief dams, continues to

fragment Lake Sturgeon habitat on many river systems

(Baxter 1977, Jager et al. 2001). One report notes that

Lake Sturgeon passage of heads greater than five to ten

feet have not yet been successfully accomplished with

traditional-style fish ladders (Fish Passage Technologies,

1995). However, ongoing studies and construction of fish

passage structures specifically designed for Lake Sturgeon

may yet prove to hold some promise for sustaining and

restoring populations where dams limit access to suitable

spawning habitat (Peterson et al. 2007). Questions

focussing on the minimum length of non-fragmented

river segments required to support a viable Lake Sturgeon

population is an area of study amongst researchers but

minimal published research exists to date.


One passage structure on the Eastmain River in the James

Bay Region of Quebec has reported minimal success

in passing Lake Sturgeon (Tecsult, 2007). The specific

project involves the Eastmain River PK 207 weir that

includes a natural channel fishway integrated into the

structure to provide fish passage into the forebay where

additional forage and spawning habitat exists. This

example represents current industry practice regarding

Lake Sturgeon passage in Quebec, the monitoring of

which may direct future design and construction methods

for waterpower projects (Tecsult, 2007). It should be

noted that methods to allow for fish passage upstream

and downstream will be site specific and will require

consideration of the ability of the fish to find and use

the passage structure, the ability of the fish to navigate

through the structure, physical limitations of number of

fish that can pass.

Specific literature and case studies cited in Appendix C

related to Lake Sturgeon passage include:

Aadlund, A. 2005:

Passage and habitat restoration for Lake

Sturgeon.

Amaral, S., and T. Sullivan. 2005:

Downstream fish passage for sturgeon.

Amaral, S.V., F.C. Winchell, F.C., McMahon, B.J., and

D.A. Dixon, D.A. 2000:

Evaluation of an angled bar rack and a louver

array for guiding Lake Sturgeon to a bypass.

Ead, S.A., C. Katopodis, G.J. Sikora, and

N. Rajaratnam. 2004:

Flow regimes and structure in pool and weir

fishways.

Environmental Mitigations at Hydroelectric Projects.

1994:

Volume II. Benefits and Costs of Fish Passage

and Protection.






Evaluation of an Angled Louver Facility for Guiding

Sturgeon to a Downstream Bypass. 2006.

EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Holyoke Gas & Electric

Company, Holyoke, MA, and WE-Energies Inc.,

Milwaukee, WI: 2006. 1011786.

Fish Passage Technologies:

Protection at Hydropower Facilities, OTA-

ENV-641 (Washington, DC: U.S. Givernment

Printing Office, September 1995.




Hydro-Quebec.

Peake, S., F.W.H. Beamish, R.S. McKinley,

D.A. Scruton and C. Katopodis. 1997:

Relating swimming performance of Lake

Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, to fishway design.

Scruton, D.A., R.S. McKinley, R.K. Booth, S.J. Peake

and R.F. Goosney. 1998:

Evaluation of swimming capability and

potential velocity barrier problems for fish,

Wlosinski, J.H. and C. Suprenant, 2001:

Fish passage through dams on the upper

Mississippi River.


7.8 M8 – Relocation of Lake Sturgeon

The physical relocation of sturgeon either downstream

or upstream of a waterpower facility may be employed as

a Best Management Practice when residual effects from

other mitigation strategies prove to remain unacceptable

to RAs. The relative effort required and intensive

management/monitoring reported in the literature

indicates this strategy as less than ideal however, when

compared to capital costs of retrofitting and re-designing

facilities the long-term relocation of Lake Sturgeon from

spillways or around existing dams may sometimes serve

to be cost effective (Fish Passage Technologies, 1995).

One specific case study is that of the Adam’s Creek

Spillway Lake Sturgeon relocation program on the

Mattagami River system (Sheehan, R.W. 1990-2000). The

Lake Sturgeon relocation program has been in place since

1990 when the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

indicated to Ontario Power Generation (OPG) that the

Adam’s Creek Control Structure pools must be monitored

after each spill period and stranded Lake Sturgeon were

to be relocated to the Little Long GS headpond. This

practice has continued since and research into finding

an effective means of minimizing the Lake Sturgeon

entrainment is ongoing.

Specific literature and case studies cited in Appendix C

relating to the relocation of Lake Sturgeon as a mitigation

tool include:


Fisheries and yields in the Moose River basin.

Evans, R.R., B.J. Parker and B.J. McCormick. 1993:

Strategy assessment – Sturgeon stranding in

Adam Creek.


Protection at Hydropwer Facilities, OTA-

ENV-641 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government





Hydro-Quebec.

McCormick, B.J., R.W. Sheehan and N. Turcotte.

1990:

Ontario Hydro incident report – Sturgeon

relocation at Adam Creek July/August 1990.

Phoenix, R.D., and C.J. Rich. 1988:

Utilization of a proposed small hydroelectric

site on the Groundhog River by Lake Sturgeon,

Acipenser fulvescens.

Seyler, J., J. Evers, S. McKinley, R.R. Evans,

G. Prevost, R. Carson and D. Phoenix. 1996:

Mattagami River Lake Sturgeon entrainment:

Little Long Generating Facilities.

Sheehan, R.W. 1990-2000:

Adam’s Creek Lake Sturgeon Relocation

Program Review.

Sheehan, R.W. 1992:

Adam Creek Lake Sturgeon monitoring program

August 1990 and July 1991.

Sheehan, R.W. 2001:

Lake Sturgeon diversion technology review

Adam Creek Lake Sturgeon relocation program.

Ontario Power Generation 1-18.


7.9 M9 – Barriers to Upstream Migration into Spillway

The implementation of barriers to upstream migration

into spillways is considered to be a site specific Best

Management Practice as some facility designs maintain

the spillway and tailrace within the same channel reach.

In cases where the spillway and tailrace are not in close

proximity however (i.e., spillway is remote from tailrace),

limiting fish migration upstream into the spillway

is often required. Thus strategies such as barriers to

upstream migration within the spillway are considered

as a Best Management Practice for minimizing impacts

on Lake Sturgeon. Specifically, these impacts include

displacement, entrainment and stranding (individual

and eggs) within spillways due to variable flows, as

discussed in Section 6.4. Specific reference to barriers

and diversion techniques related to spillway exclusion

are not noted in the literature, however, barriers and

diversion technologies that may be transferable are cited

in Appendix C including:

Basov, B. (1999):

Behaviour of Sterlet Acipenser ruthenus and

Russian Sturgeon A. gueldenstaedtii in Low-

Frequency Electric Fields.


G. Prevost, R. Carson and D. Phoenix. 1996:


Little Long generating station facilities.

Sheehan, R.W. 2001:

Adam Creek Lake Sturgeon relocation review

1990-2000.

Sheehan, R.W. 2001:

Lake Sturgeon diversion technology review

Adam Creek Lake Sturgeon relocation program.

7.10 M10 – Alternative Turbine Designs

Minimal published literature and case studies are

available to date regarding the use of alternative turbine

design to minimize the impacts to Lake Sturgeon. Due

to the size of adult Lake Sturgeon, it can be assumed that

they can generally be protected from entrainment by fish

protection measures (i.e., trash racks spaced close to one

another). As a Best Management Practice however, these

technologies should continue to be explored.

Some examples of current research includes the Electrical

Power Research Institute (EPRI) which continues

research and development on turbines for hydroelectric

application that are greater than 90% efficient and reduce

fish mortality to 5% or less. Further to this, Brookfield

Power has also indicated interest in testing an Alden/

Concepts National Robotics Engineer Center (NREC)

turbine for small rivers at a site on the Mohawk River

near Albany, New York (EPRI 2008). Further development

studies and case studies are cited in Appendix C as

follows:

Cado, G.F., L.A. Garrison and R.K. Fisher Jr., 2007:

Determining the Effects of Shear Stress on

Fish Mortality during Turbine Passage. Hydro

Review.

EPRI, 2008:

‘Fish Friendly’ Hydropower Turbine

Development and Deployment: Phase II.

Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alta, CA.


7.11 M11 – Provision of Fish Protection Measures for Entrainment

The provision for fish protection measures such as

diversions, deterrents and/or attraction measures for

upstream and downstream movement are discussed at

length in the literature however, minimal applications

have been successfully transferred to waterpower intakes

or spillways. In this regard, the use of angled bar racks,

trash racks and louvers spaced at approximately 10 cm

apart have proven to be most effective in excluding most

adult sturgeon from passing through facility intakes and

entering the penstock/turbines (Stanley pers. comm.,

2009). Selected literature provided in Appendix C

includes:

Amaral, S. 2001:

Evaluation of angled bar racks and louvers for

guiding juvenile Lake Sturgeon (age 1).

Amaral, S.V., J.L. Black, B.J. McMahon and

D.A. Dixon. 2002:

Evaluation of angled bar racks and louvers for

guiding lake and shortnose sturgeon.

Amaral, S.V., F.C. Winchell, B.J. McMahon and

D.A. Dixon. 2000:

Evaluation of an angled bar rack and a louver

array for guiding Lake Sturgeon to a bypass.

To a lesser extent, physical diversion systems employed

at many thermal generating stations to minimise impacts

to fish species may, in some cases, be transferable to Lake

Sturgeon at facility intakes. Placing physical diversion

structures upstream of spillways may not be desirable

from a flood risk perspective, however, some provision

for fish protection from entrainment at intakes may

include:

• Traveling Screens

• Wedge Wire Screens

• Modular inclined screens

• Porous dikes

• Cylindrical Wedge Wire Screens

• Submersible Travelling Screens

• Drum Screens

• Magnetic and electrical barriers

• Air bubble Curtains

• Illumination

• Acoustic Barriers

• Floating fences

Note that this BMP is a constant source of research and

study to explore possibilities for new methods and measures

of protection during downstream passage. This is done

in order to avoid the need for physical relocation of Lake

Sturgeon or hatchery/stocking operations to maintain

populations. Specific publications related to mitigation and

protection measures and cost benefits are referenced and

annotated in Appendix C as follows:


1994:


and Protection.






Further literature and case studies discussing the

application and effectiveness of such measures are

referenced and annotated in Appendix C as follows:

Carson, R., and R.S. McKinley. 1998:

Conceptual design of a protection scheme for

Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens).




Hydro-Quebec.

American Society of Civil Engineers Committee

on Hydropower Intakes, Committee on

Hydropower Intakes. (1995).

Chiasson, W.B., D.L.G. Noakes and F.W.H. Beamish.

1997:

Habitat, benthic prey, and distribution of

juvenile Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in

Northern Ontario rivers.

Lovell, J.M., M.M. Findlay, R.M. Moate, J.R. Nedwell,

and M.A. Pegg. 2005:

The inner ear morphology and hearing abilities

of the Paddlefish (Polyodon Spathula) and the

Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser Fulvescens).

McKinley, S., G.V.D. Kraak, and G. Power. 1998:

Seasonal migration and reproductive patterns

in the Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in the

Vicinity of Hydroelectric Stations in Northern

Ontario.

Noakes, D.L.G., F.W.H. Beamish, and A. Rossiter.

1999:

Conservation Implications of Behaviour

and Growth of the Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser

fulvescens, in Northern Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (1996):

Mattagami river Lake Sturgeon entrainment:

Little long generation station facilities.

Sagar, D.R., and C.H. Hocutt. 1987:

Estuarine fish response to strobe light, bubble

curtains and strobe light/bubble-curtain

combinations as influenced by water flow rate

and flash frequencies.

Sehgal, C. K. (1996):

Design Guidelines for Spillway Gates.

Sheehan, R.W. 2001:

Adam Creek Lake Sturgeon relocation review

1990-2000.

Seyler, J. 1997:

Biology of selected riverine fish species in the

Moose River basin.


G. Prevost, R. Carson, and D. Phoenix. 1996:


Little Long generating station facilities.

7.12 M12 – Existing DFO Pathways of Effect and Operational Statements

DFO Pathways of Effect (POE) (see Appendix A) are

an approach used within RA’s (i.e., DFO, MNR) to

determine possible cause-and-effect relationships

between in-water or near water activities on the aquatic

environment. At the beginning stages of project design,

all activities that have the potential to affect fish and fish

habitat in a negative way are identified, and methods

for eliminating or mitigating each of the ‘pathways’

of effect are evaluated. By following this approach, a

clear understanding of potential aquatic impacts can be

demonstrated up-front, and an assessment of residual

risk can be done.


The cause-and-effect relationships are represented in the

POE diagrams. These diagrams connect development

activities that may affect fish habitat to a potential

stressor and then to an ultimate effect. The pathways

are also connected with areas to which mitigation

or compensation can be applied to reduce the effect.

Existing DFO Pathways of Effect are presented as a

resource in Appendix A and relate primarily to the

construction aspects of a project. Many of the POEs are

applicable to most general construction activities that

would occur in or near water and therefore relate well to

waterpower facilities.

Furthermore, existing Operational Statements (OS) have

been developed by DFO for projects with low risk to

fish habitat. Operational Statements that may pertain to

waterpower facility construction and operation include

(Appendix B):

• Beaver Dam Removal

• Bridge Maintenance

• Clear Span Bridges

• Culvert Maintenance

• High Pressure Directional Drilling

• Ice Bridges and Snow Fills

• Submerged Log Salvage

• Routine Maintenance Dredging

• Isolated or Dry Open-Cut Stream Crossings

• Overhead Line Construction

• Isolated pond Construction

• Punch and Bore Crossings

• Maintenance of Riparian Vegetation in Existing

Rights-of-Way

• Temporary Stream Crossing

• Underwater Cables

Each OS provides measures and conditions, which if

followed should avoid a HADD (Harmful Alteration,

Disruption or Destruction) of fish habitat and thus be

in compliance with subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act.

Proponents are not required to submit their proposal for

review by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) when they

incorporate the measures and conditions outlined in the

OS into their plans. These statements prescribe both the

conditions under which the specified project is a low risk

to fish habitat and the measures necessary to mitigate

potential impacts, by isolating and breaking the pathways

of effect that may otherwise lead to negative impacts to

fish or fish habitat. Each statement promotes the current

best management practices for the activities and considers

the sensitivity of the fish habitat as well as the form and

function of the receiving water body. Existing Operational

Statement are presented in Appendix B.

Both of the above noted tools are effective Best

Management Practices related to general construction

aspects of a waterpower project (i.e., construction in

or near water as well as construction of access roads,

bridges and the power corridor). Other mitigations for

constructing the power corridor and access roads (in

addition to the above stated strategies) may involve

incorporating natural channel design principles and

using enhanced channel stabilization techniques when

vegetation is removed or small waterways are re-aligned

to permit access. Proper implementation of these

strategies will aid in minimizing cumulative impacts to

Lake Sturgeon as it relates to the ultimate footprint of a

project.


7.13 M13 –Natural Channel Design Principles

Natural channel design incorporates concepts from

fluvial geomorphology and is used to guide channel

re-alignments and channel restoration. Common

impacts of hydro projects include changes of the natural

sediment transport of a riverian system, changes in water

energy gradient distribution, and changes in channel

forming flows with storage and release of water to

generate power. Natural channel design principles are

used for downstream channel modifications to keep

the river flow energy and sediment transport regime

in balance to maintain existing downstream habitat.

Some issues related to implementing natural channel

design principles at high “head” facilities is sometimes

challenging due to conflicts with flood management

in spillways or a loss of head. For these reasons,

incorporating such principles may be more successful at

low “head” facilities (Pope pers. Comm., 2009).

Incorporation of natural channel design principles

within spillways, diversion channels, minor stream

re-alignments etc. is usually associated with components

of a compensation strategy or habitat enhancement.

This approach incorporates the natural geomorphological

structure of the stream to provide the framework to

support a range of self-sustaining terrestrial and aquatic

habitats. Thus the incorporation of these principles is

considered a Best Management Practice for mitigating

and compensating for impacts to Lake Sturgeon. It is

noted in the literature regarding Lake Sturgeon that the

most successful channel design programs are constructed

to adapt to variable flow conditions and accommodate

minimal flow requirements (Fortin et al. 2002), thus

providing critical habitat (i.e., migration, spawning,

feeding, over wintering) for Lake Sturgeon throughout all

flow conditions.

Literature and case studies cited in regards to natural

channel design and habitat enhancement are noted in

Section 8.20 and annotated in Appendix C.

7.14 M14 – Enhanced Channel Stabilization Techniques

Enhanced habitat function can be achieved when

natural channel design principles and enhanced channel

stabilization techniques are incorporated into the design

principles within spillways, diversion channels, minor

stream re-alignments etc. and are usually associated

with components of a compensation strategy or

habitat enhancement. Placement of appropriately sized

materials can also provide channel stability and reduce

erosion associated with variable flow conditions. Thus

the incorporation of enhanced channel stabilization

techniques using natural channel design principles is

considered a Best Management Practice for mitigating

and compensating for impacts to Lake Sturgeon.

Literature and case studies cited in regards to enhanced

channel stabilization techniques and habitat enhancement

are noted in Section 8.20 and annotated in Appendix C.

7.15 M15 – Fisheries Management Plans

This BMP Guide focuses on Lake Sturgeon, for which

recovery strategies and management plans are under

development. The development of recovery strategies and

management plans for Species at Risk are a requirement

under both SARA and ESA and each plan will identify

recovery targets for distribution and abundance as

well as known threats etc. These recovery targets

generally include specific objectives and direction for

implementation such as habitat creation, enhancement

and selective harvest of non-target species. Co-operative

partnership with resource managers to implement and

advance these types of objectives is therefore seen as a

Best Management Practice in mitigating and enhancing

the Lake Sturgeon resource when developing or operating

waterpower facilities. For example, one case study notes

the active management for desired species (selective

harvest) as a form of mitigating impacts to reservoir


creation and impoundments at waterpower facilities

(Hayeur, 2001). This reference is provided in annotated

form in Appendix C.




Hydro-Quebec.

7.16 M16 – Design/Re-design of Outlet Structures

The design/redesign of outlet structures within spillways

and tailraces is a form of mitigation that can be employed

at both the planning stage and post construction

of a facility. As noted in Section 9, Table 2, the

implementation costs of these types of mitigations vary

greatly between new developments and existing facilities.

A number of publications summarizing available

technologies to date and cost benefits with regards to

spillway design and fish protection including:


1994:


and Protection.





The above noted resources provide a broad range of

mitigation strategies and construction design options for

limiting impacts on fish at waterpower facilities. Specific

references in the literature have noted the consistent

detriment of bottom draw spill gates (Sheehan, 2001).

These spill gates are often designed to draw from the

hypolimnetic layer of the upstream reservoir and as

such, impact benthic oriented fish species such as Lake

Sturgeon.

Currently, some industry initiatives are investigating

the mitigative potential of implementing spill gate

designs that are wider than typical gates and of lower

height. Furthermore, initiatives exploring the potential

for drawing water from the metalimnion layer of the

reservoir are also being explored. The hypothesis for such

designs are to determine whether suction flow within the

reservoir may be concentrated within the metalimnion

layer rather than the hypolimnion layer to avoid impacts

to benthic oriented fish. Thermal effects to the aquatic

environment downstream related to such designs are also

taken into consideration.

Selection of the most appropriate design for optimal fish

protection and mitigation however, is highly site specific

and cannot be prescribed without specific site level details

associated with a waterpower facility. These types and

details and contexts are highly variable and cannot be

prescribed within the context of this BMP Guide.

7.17 M17 – Mercury Accumulation (Bioconcentration) Control Measure

As noted in Section 6.3, literature to date notes

the elevations in mercury concentrations within

impounded reservoirs is the result of the production of

methylmercury in response to the flooding of terrestrial

organics (Hayeur 2001). Variations in water levels

and reservoir impoundments have been attributed to

increases in mercury methylation, an effect that may

last up to 20 – 30 years after the initial impoundment

(Rosenberg et al. 1997; Hydro Quebec, 2001). The uptake

of mercury in the food-chain is bio-accumulating with

greatest accumulation occurring within piscivorous fish

(Hydro-Quebec, 2001). There are some references in the

literature noting mercury body burden in White Sturgeon

being linked to poor reproductive physiology, growth and

condition (Fiest et al. 2005). Regarding Lake Sturgeon

however, one study noted no detectable relationship

between mercury body burden and growth or condition

in lake Sturgeon on the Ottawa River (Haxton and

Findlay, 2007).


The quantity of methylmercury produced is primarily

dependant on the size of the floodzone and water

residence time within the reservoir (Brouard et al., 1990;

Jones et al., 1986; Doyon et al., 1996). In addition,

observed extent and rate of increase of mercury

concentrations in fish was positively correlated with

the decomposition of organic matter during the first

years of impoundment (Messier et al. 1985). Thus an

effective mitigation measure for minimizing mercury

accumulation in small reservoirs may include brush

and scrub removal along the proposed shorelines

prior to flooding (Tecsult pers. comm., 2008). As

water residence time in reservoirs appears correlated to

mercury accumulation, the potential to reduce mercury

accumulation may be investigated through effective

development, implementation and utilization of a water

management (i.e., emulated natural flow conditions).

Specific references to mercury accumulation monitoring

and case studies are included in Appendix C as follows:




Hydro-Quebec.

Messier, D., Roy, D., and Lemire, R. 1985:

Réseau de surveillance écologique du Complexe

La Grande 1978-1984: Évolution du mercure

dans la chair des poissons. Société d’énergie de

la Baie James, Montréal, QC. xi + 170 p. + apps.

Ontario Hydro. 1990:

Hydroelectric generating station extensions

Mattagami River environmental assessment.

Ontario Hydro, Toronto, ON. Various

pagination.

7.18 C1 – Stock Specific Hatchery Programs

Stock specific hatchery (streamside or off-site) programs

are noted in the literature as a viable Best Management

Practice for compensating impacts to Lake Sturgeon

from waterpower development and operation (Auer,

2008; Branchaud et al. 1996). Studies such as Branchaud

(1996) were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of

using artificial spawning techniques in remote locations,

the premise of which is transferable to a waterpower

context. The study noted relative success in inducing

final maturation in Lake Sturgeon through injecting carp

pituitary extract (CPE). The results were fertilization rates

between 70% - 89% with hatching occurring an average

of six days after fertilization. The implications of such a

study may promote increased larval:egg survival ratios

and therefore may lend to successful stocking programs

as a form of compensation for impacts related to

waterpower development and operation.

Further to this, a second study investigation the viability

of streamside culturing of Lake Sturgeon has also been

discussed in the grey literature (Auer, 2006-2008), the

results of which have not yet been noted. Due to the

increased concern of stocked Lake Sturgeon migrated

to native streams and genetically mixing with native

stocks, the prospect of rearing cultured Lake Sturgeon

within stream side hatcheries to promote imprinting on

distinct rivers is discussed (Auer, 2008). The implications

of this study are important toward the management

and recovery of the species, the premise of which is

transferable to waterpower projects where impacts on

Lake Sturgeon larvae:egg survival may be anticipated or

observed. These types of studies, if proven successful, may

lend to promoting stocking as a form of compensation

for impacts related to waterpower development and

operation. The literature noted that with carefully

controlled environmental conditions in the hatchery,

first-year survival of raised fry is higher than what is

typically observed in the wild (Peterson et al. 2007).


One manual for Lake Sturgeon culture is also cited in


Environmental Applications Group Limited. 1988a:

Lake sturgeon culture techniques manual.

Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources, Northern Region, South Porcupine,

ON. 108 p.

This manual contains information considered to be

pertinent to the aquaculture of Lake Sturgeon. The

manual systematically discusses methods of sperm

and egg collection, fertilization procedures and other

culturing techniques such as the rearing and feeding of

hatched sturgeon. Further to this, potential problems

associated with bacterial and fungal pathogens are

also discussed as well as various designs and costs for

constructing and operating a hatchery.

Further literature and case studies related to the culturing

and stocking of Lake Sturgeon are cited and annotated in


Auer, N.A. (ed.) 2003:

A Lake Sturgeon rehabilitation plan for Lake

Superior.

Beamesderfer, R.C.P., and R.A. Farr. 1997:

Alternatives for the protection and restoration

of sturgeons and their habitat.

Boumhounan Committee. 2005b:

Boumhounan News Flash. Eastmain-1-A

Powerhouse and Rupert Division.

Branchaud, A., A.D. Gendron, C. Lemire, and

R. Dion, R. 1996:

Artificial spawning of Lake Sturgeon in northern

Québec.

Chiotti, J.A., M.J. Holtgren, N.A. Auer, S.A. Ogren,.

2008:

Lake Sturgeon Spawning Habitat in the Big

Manistee River, Michigan.

Graham, K. 1984c:

Reintroduction of Lake Sturgeon in Missouri.




Hydro-Quebec.

Holtgren, M., S. Ogren, J. Baumann, S. Fajfer, and

A. Paquete. 2005:

Implementation of a streamside-rearing facility

for sturgeon rehabilitation.

Peake, S. 1999:

Substrate preferences of juvenile hatchery-reared

Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens.

Stone, L. 1901:

Sturgeon hatching in the Lake Champlain

basin.

7.19 C2 – Habitat Creation and Enhancement Programs

In response to habitat loss, degradation or destruction

from a new or existing waterpower facility, the creation

and or enhancement of habitat has been noted as a

viable Best Management Practice for compensation

throughout the literature (GDG Conseil Inc, 2001a;

Dubuc et al. 1996 and 1997). One such case study from

Riviere des Prairie in Quebec noted the restoration and

enhancement of Lake Sturgeon habitat within a dam

spillway as compensation for habitat loss of the project.

The evaluation of the effectiveness of the spawning

habitat was undertaken by Dubuc et al., (1996) and first

focussed on identifying the areas within the spillway

where concentrations of Lake Sturgeon were highest

during spawning activity. This area was later identified as

degraded and subsequently enhanced between spawning

seasons in 1994/1995. A spawning assessment study was

undertaken in 1995 and concluded that approximately

1,235,000 larval Lake Sturgeon hatched from the

enhanced spawning grounds representing a larvae:egg

survival ratio of 0.46% - 0.62%. This survival rate was


the same magnitude observed in 1995 (0.67%) when

spawning took place on what was deemed lesser quality

habitat. This study was repeated again in 1997 (Dubuc et

al., 1997) and found that fish were associating more with

the new spawning ground than the previous year (1996).

It was determined that fewer fish spawned in 1997

compared with the previous two years and thus, a lower

catch-per-unit-effort and egg count totals were noted.

However, it is interesting to note that, the estimated larval

abundance in 1997 was 6.3 million which represented

a dramatic increase in larvae:egg ratio survival from the

previous two years (Dubuc et al., 1997).

A second case study of habitat creation and Lake

Sturgeon culture was conducted by Environnement

Illimité (2004) at the Eastmain-1 generating station on

the Eastmain River, upstream from the Opinaca reservoir

(James Bay). One of the potential impacts of the project

was the loss of an 890 m2 Lake Sturgeon spawning site

within the Eastmain River due to decreased water levels.

To compensate for the loss of spawning habitat, three

artificial spawning grounds were constructed at separate

locations. These three sites were strategically placed as

being the only rapids accessible for Lake Sturgeon once

water levels decreased during operation. In addition to

habitat creation, until natural production and use of

the constructed spawning habitat was/is confirmed, a

stocking program involving the removal of fertilized eggs,

incubation and subsequent release of approximately

60,000 alevins per year was/is also being undertaken.

Furthermore, suspected increases in turbidity downstream

of the facility through increased erosion were also

anticipated to affect overwintering habitat for Lake

Sturgeon. In response to the increase in turbidity, water

quality was/is constantly monitored and large stones

were placed within the river to ensure higher water levels

and overwintering habitat were maintained.

Finally, a study by Bruch (1998) attributes the successful

recovery of Lake Sturgeon in the Lake Winnebago System

(Wisconsin) to the construction of 40 spawning sites

throughout its native range. These types of studies lend to

the suggestion that Lake Sturgeon have positive responses

to habitat creation/enhancement programs and as such,

may be used as a form of compensation to minimize

impacts on Lake Sturgeon related to waterpower facilities.

A series of literature and case studies citing both

the successes and failures of habitat creation and

enhancement are provided below and are fully annotated

in Appendix C. In addition, associated costs are also

provided where possible.

Alliance Environment, 2002:

Restoration of habitats favourable for the

reproduction of the Lake Sturgeon in the

Saint-François river-sector of Drummondville –

Utilization of the arranged spawning grounds

– spring 2002.

Boumhounan Committee. 2005a:

Boumhounan News Flash. Eastmain-1-A

Powerhouse and Rupert Division.

Breining, G. 2003:

Rapid changes on the Red River.

Bruch, R.M. 1998:

Management and trade of Lake Sturgeon in

North America.

Dubuc, N., S. Thibodeau, and R. Fortin, R. 1997:

Impact de l’aménagement d’un nouveau

secteur de frayère sur l’utilisation du milieu en

période de fraie et le succès de reproduction

de l’esturgeon jaune (Acipenser fulvescens) à la

frayère de la rivière des Prairies au printemps de

1997.


Dubuc, N., S. Thibodeau, J. DesLandes and r. Fortin,

R. 1996:

Utilisation du milieu en période de fraie

abundance des géniteurs et succès de

reproduction de l’esturgeon jaune (Acipenser

fulvescens) à la frayère de la rivière des Prairies

au printemps de 1996.







Aménagement hydroélectrique de l’Eastmain-1

– Esturgeon jaune – Étude d’impact et

aménagements. Version finale.

Faucher, R. 1999:

Projet de réfection de la centrale La Gabelle –

Aménagement d’une frayère pour l’esturgeon

jaune. Bilan des travaux – 1999.

Faucher, R. et M. Abbott, 2001:

Restauration d’habitats propices à la

reproduction de l’esturgeon jaunedans la rivière

Saint-François – secteur de Drummondville –

Bilan des travaux – 1999-2001.

Fortin, R., J. D‘Amours and S. Thibodeau. 2002:

Effets de l‘amenagément d‘un nouveau secteur

de frayère sur l‘utilisation du milieu en période

de fraie et sur le succès de reproduction de

l’esturgeon jaune (Acipenser fulvescens) à la

frayère de la rivière des Prairies.




environnemental. Utilisation par les poissons

d’un nouveau secteur de fraie aménagé en aval

de la centrale de La Gabelle – printemps 2001.

GDG Conseil inc. 2001b:



environnemental. Utilisation par l’esturgeon

jaune d’un nouveau secteur de fraie aménagé

en aval de la centrale de La Gabelle – printemps

2000.

Gendron, M., P. Lafrance and M. Lahaye. 2002:

Suivi de la frayèr aménagée en aval de la

centrale de Beauharnois – printemps 2002.

LaHaye, M. 1992:

Comparaison de la biologie et de l’écologie des

jeunes stades de l’esturgeon jaune (Acipenser

fulvescens) dans les rivières des Prairies et

L’Assomption, près de Montréal.

LaHaye, M. 1992:

Comparaison de la biologie et de l’écologie des

jeunes stades de l’esturgeon jaune (Acipenser

fulvescens) dans les rivières des Prairies et

L’Assomption, près de Montréal.

LaHaye, M., A. Branchaud, M. Gendron, R. Verdon

and R. Fortin, R. 1992:

Reproduction, early life history, and

characteristics of the spawning grounds of the

Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in Des

Prairies and L’Assomption Rivers near Montréal,

Québec.

LaHaye, M., and M. Gendron, M. 1994:

Reproduction de l’esturgeon jaune, bief d’aval

de Pointe-des-Cascades et de Beauharnois.

Thibodeau, S., J. D’Amours and R. Fortin1999:


secteur de frayère sur l’utilisation du milieu

en période de frai et le succès de reproduction



1999.


Thibodeau, S.,J. D’Amours and R. Fortin. 1998:


secteur de frayère sur l’utilisation du milieu

en période de frai et le succès de reproduction



1998.

Verdon, R., and M. Gendron. 1991:

Creation of artificial spawning grounds

downstream of the Riviere-des-Prairies Spillway.


Most regulatory agencies base their decision on the extent

to which a facility impacts a fisheries resource by how

many fish (or species) are affected. While this broad

based approach is suitable for population management

or risk assessment; the literature shows that the overall

impacts of a waterpower facility are less predictable

and more complex than simple changes in numbers of

fish. Decisions regarding the impacts of constructing,

modifying or operating a waterpower facility often

involve relying on the assessment of the “overall impact”

of the facility on the fisheries resource. In the case of

this Best Management Practices Guide, the collective

contribution of various components of a waterpower

project or operation is referred to as the projects “overall

impact” on the sturgeon resource.

At the project or site level, overall impacts refer to the

additive or subtractive effects of various components

such as turbine design, turbine operation (efficiency)

and water management/use on the overall net effect of

that project on the sturgeon resource. At the operations

level however, impacts stemming from the synergies and

antagonisms between several projects along a regulated

system are referred to as the “cumulative impacts” of a

project. At this level, cumulative impacts arise from how

one waterpower operation directly and indirectly relates

to impacts from other operations on the same system.

In this way, site/project level impacts will also apply

to a larger geographic area on the operations level and

contribute to the identification of cumulative impacts.

For the purposes of this Best Management Practices

Guide, cumulative impacts are discussed in relation to the

sturgeon resource.

The identification of cumulative impacts first requires

an understanding of the sturgeon resource within a

particular river system, or watershed basin, and all the

various ways a series of projects can cause impacts.

At the project or site specific level, the most effective

way to do this is to apply the Pathways of Effect for

sturgeon contained in this guide. These pathways

will identify the major areas of impact and provide

guidelines for mitigating or compensating those impacts

at each step. In many cases the impacts associated with

various components of the project will have a common

mitigation strategy. In these instances applying the

appropriate mitigation is a cost effective resolution.

In other instances the impacts and subsequent

management strategies at the project/site level are less

predictable and more complex. These cases are those

considered to be project specific and require focused

investigation. The identification of such impacts may still

require additional avoidance, mitigation or compensation

strategies not identified through this Best Management

Practices Guide as they require specific engineering

and consulting input to understand and mitigate. They

can, nonetheless, have significant impacts to the overall

net effect of the project and must be addressed in the

planning and design stage of a projects development or

upgrade.

At the operations level, cumulative impacts can be more

difficult to identify because:

a) facilities may have different owners and

information about specific project impacts may

not be readily available;

b) the impacts of specific projects may not be fully

understood (studies ongoing or absent) at the

time of new project design or existing project

upgrade;

c) understanding cumulative impacts at the river or

watershed level requires co-ordination of funds

and responsibility between facility owners and

proponents – not easy to negotiate; and perhaps

may be handled by the Crown as a part of

waterpower planning allocation exercise.

d) cumulative impacts often require datasets to

be compiled from multiple years to capture

natural variations in temperature, hydrology,

and population dynamics in order to accurately

capture the net effects of the multiple operations.

8.0 Cumulative Effects / Impacts for Proposed and Modified Facilities


Despite these hindrances, the identification of cumulative

effects must be addressed in the planning and design

stage of a project (as per the requirements under CEAA)

and should be consistently revised during the long term

monitoring of any waterpower facility.


Implementing avoidance, mitigation and protection

measures for Lake Sturgeon should be considered an

important cost of any project proposal. The actual costs

of implementing appropriate avoidance, mitigation and

compensation strategies will depend on the following

criteria.

• Type of Project

Hydroelectric projects can be either Greenfield

installations, i.e., new installations in an area where

no hydroelectric project existed previously, or

project upgrades and expansions. Greenfield projects

generally have the greatest economic advantages

for incorporating mitigation or compensation since

required measures can be addressed at the project

design and operational (financial) commitment

level. Existing facility upgrades or expansions

typically incur higher economic liabilities since

mitigation and compensation often involves retrofit

of existing design, and some amount of operational

slow-down or shutdown, and dismantling of existing

facilities to undertake renovations to accommodate

new designs. In some cases, implementing

mitigation and compensation in existing sites will

require extensive structural integrity assessments,

re-engineering or redesign of existing facility

components such as dams and turbines.

• Type, Magnitude and Duration of Expected Impact

Impacts to sturgeon can be numerous, and long

term (blockage to migration, long term effects of

seasonal spill) or short term (occasional spill);

acute (short term change in base temperature due

to spill) or chronic (bioaccumulation of mercury)

(Reeves and Bunch 1993., Headon and Pope 1990).

Consequently mitigating these impacts will have

vastly different economic requirements. For example,

providing upstream and downstream passage

requires a one-time up front cost of designing and

building fish passage structures (maintenance costs

acknowledged as minimal). However, maintaining

specific flows to ensure no impact to sturgeon will

occur over the life of the project and depending on

the type of facility and seasonal water availability

these costs will not only be variable from year to year

but may also increase over the life of the project as

utility base rates rise since lost water is lost revenue.

In some cases, mitigation strategies may be effective

at addressing multiple impacts.

Understanding the costs of any mitigation strategy

prior to detailed impact assessment will be difficult.

Consequently, it is not always clear what approach is

best to effectively deal with the impact, and at what

stage in the Conceptual Process (Figure 3) mitigation

should be considered or pursued. To assist in a

general understanding, Table 2 identifies the relative

costs for greenfield and modified existing facilities

relative to the Conceptual Process (Figure 3).

9.0 Feasibility of Implementation

Table 2. Relative Costs of Implementing

BMPs during Planning, Avoidance

and Redesign Phases of Projects

– Greenfield and Existing Upgrade

Developments

Conceptual Greenfield Modified ExistingProcess Stage

Planning Low Low/Moderate

Avoidance Low/Moderate Moderate

Redesign Moderate/High High

Mitigation Moderate Moderate/High

Compensation Moderate Moderate/High


For both Greenfield and Existing facilities, addressing

mitigation and compensation through planning is the

most feasible since required changes can be incorporated

into the final project design. Avoiding impacts once a

project is designed or planned carries a higher cost and

will be less feasible since it requires reconsideration

of the project location, design or operation. Redesign

of a potential project carries the highest cost since it

requires additional allocation of engineering, economic,

environmental and planning resources to address the

problem at hand. Implementing mitigation at the

re-design stage is still feasible but costly.

Implementation of mitigation measures at existing facility

expansions or upgrades will generally be less feasible and

more costly than Greenfield installation because of the

need to re-engineer existing structural components,

re-negotiate pre-existing approvals (may not be possible),

and develop new or renegotiate partnerships with

stakeholders.

In consideration of the above, the cost and subsequent

feasibility of any hydroelectric project depends directly on

an assessment of the actual costs to achieve no net effect

to sturgeon relative to the expected return on investment,

assuming the required mitigation adequately addresses

the impacts to sturgeon and satisfies DFO requirements

under the Fisheries Act.


This project undertaking was performed under the

guidance of the Ontario Waterpower Association

and acknowledges the contribution of the Class

Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects as a

contributor to this document. Further acknowledgement

to the project steering committee is noted.

Steering Committee

• Paul Norris – President, Ontario Waterpower

Association

• Colin Hoag – Ontario Waterpower Association

• Peter Carter – Ministry of Natural Resources

• Tim Haxton – Ministry of Natural Resources

• Debbie Ming – Fisheries and Oceans Canada

• Dave Stanley – Ontario Power Generation

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions

from those who attended the December 17-18, 2008 Lake

Sturgeon Workshop in Trois-Rivières, Quebec and the

January 26, 2009 Lake Sturgeon Workshop in Markham,

Ontario. The authors would also like to acknowledge the

contributions from the following groups and individuals

that served as resource contacts, advisors and peer

reviewers on this project.

Contributors

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Ontario-Great

Lakes Area

• Hydro Quebec

• Manitoba Hydro

• Michael Power – University of Waterloo

• Ministry of Natural Resources

• Ontario Power Generation

• Ontario Waterpower Association

• Tecsult – AECOM Canada

• Queen’s University Research Group

10.0 Retrospective


Auer, N. 1996: Importance of habitat and migration to sturgeons with emphasis on Lake Sturgeon. Canadian.

Auer, N.A. 1982: Identification of larval fishes of the Great Lakes Basin with emphasis on the lake Michigan Drainage. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Special Pub. 82-3: 744pp.

Auer, N.A. and E.A. Baker. 2002: Duration and drift of larval Lake Sturgeon in the Sturgeon River, Michigan. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18: 557-564.

Auer, N.A., 1999a: Lake Sturgeon: a unique and imperilled species in the Great Lakes, p. 515-536. In W.W. Taylor and C.P. Ferreri (ed.) Great Lakes fisheries policy and management: A binational perspective. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI.

Auer, N.A., 1999b: Population characteristics and movements of Lake Sturgeon in the Sturgeon River and Lake Superior. J. Gt. Lakes Res. 25: 282-293.

Auer, N.A., 2006-2008: Streamside Lake Sturgeon Culture for the Ontonagon River, Michigan. Unpublished study to date.

Baker, E.A. and D.J. Borgeson. 1999: Lake Sturgeon abundance and harvest in Black Lake, Michigan, 1975-1999. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 1080-1088.

Baxter, R.M. 1977: Environmental effects of dams and impoundments in Canada: experience and prospects. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries Aquatic Science 205: 34 p.

Baxter, R.M. and P. Glaude. 1980: Environmental effects of dams and impoundments in Canada: experience and prospects.

Beamesderfer, R.C.P. and R.A. Farr. 1997: Alternatives for the protection and restoration of sturgeons and their habitat. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 407-417.

Bemis, W.E. and E.K. Findeis, 1994: The sturgeons’ plight. Nature 370: 602.

Benz, and C.M. Hoover (eds). Caviar and conservation: Status, management and trade of North American sturgeon and paddlefish. TRAFFIC North America Washington D.C. World Wildlife Fund.

Bethesda, M.D.

Characteristics of spawning grounds of the Lake

Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in Des Prairies

and L’Assomption rivers, near Montreal, Quebec.

Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 1681-1689.

42 pp.

Billard, R. and G. Lecointre. 2001:

Biology and conservation of sturgeon and paddlefish.

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10: 355-392.

Branchaud, A., A.D. Gendron, C. Lemire and R. Dion,

1996:

Artificial spawning of Lake Sturgeon in northern

Québec. Final report on spring 1995 research

presented to the James Bay Mercury Committee,

Montréal, Québec. v + 24 p.

Breining, G., 2003:

Rapid changes on the Red River. Minnesota

Conservation Volunteer November-December: 45-51.

Brouard, D., D. Demers, R. Lalumiere, R. Schetagne and

R. Verdon. 1990:

Summary Report: Evolution of Mercury Levels in Fish

of the La Grande Hydroelectric Complex, Quebec

(1978-1989). Report by Groupe Environment

Shooner Inc. for Vice-preseidance Envrionnement,

Hydro-Quebec.

11. References


Brousseau, C.S. 1987:

The Lake Sturgeon in Ontario. Pages 2-9 in C.H.

Olver, editor. Proceedings of a Workshop on the Lake

Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens). Ontario Fisheries

Technical Report No. 23.

Brousseau, C.S. and G.A. Goodchild, 1989:

Fisheries and yields in the Moose River basin,

Ontario, p. 145-158. In D.P. Dodge (ed.) Proceedings

of the International Large River Symposium (LARS),

Honey Harbour, Ontario, Sept. 14-21, 1986. Can.

Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106.

Bruch, R.M. 1998:

Management and trade of Lake Sturgeon in North

America. In: Williamson, D.F.G., G. Benz, and C.M.

Hoover (eds). Caviar and conservation: Status,

management and trade of North American sturgeon

and paddlefish. TRAFFIC North America Washington

D.C. World Wildlife Fund.

Bruch, R.M. and F.P. Binkowski, 2002:

Spawning behavior of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser

fulvescens). J. Appl. Ichthyol. 18: 570-579.

Cada, G. 1998:

Efforts to reduce the impacts of hydroelectric power

production on reservoir fisheries in the United States.

International Review of Hydrobiology 83: 43-50.

Cada, G.F. 2001:

The development of advanced hydroelectric turbines

to improve fish passage survival. Fisheries 26.

pg 14-23.

Cado, G.F., L.A. Garrison and R.K. Fisher Jr., 2007:

Determining the Effects of Shear Stress on Fish

Mortality during Turbine Passage. Hydro Review.

Carson, R.K., A.P. Sandilands and R.R. Evans, 1991:

Hydroelectric Generating Station Extansions –

Mattagami River. Mattagami River Hydraulic Studies

and Impacts on Fisheries Habitat. NEPG Records

Management – Report # 90367 Committee on the

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2005.

COSEWIC species assessments (short version), May

2005. COSEWIC. 4 p. Available from http://www.

cosewic.gc.ca/rpts/Short_Species_A ssessment_e.pdf

[accessed 30 March 2006].

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada. 2006:

Lake Sturgeon Status Assessment

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1986:

Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa,

Ontario.

DesLandes, J., S. Guénette and R. Fortin, 1994:

Evolution of fish communities in environments

affected by the development of the La Grande

Complex, phase I (1977-1992). Hydro-Québec and

the Université du Québec a Montréal. 85 p. + map.

Dick, T.A. and B. MacBeth, 2003:

First Nations participation in determining the status

of a species at risk, p. 291-300. In J. Oakes, R. Riewe,

K. Wilde, A. Edmunds and A. Dubois (ed.) Native

Voices in Research. Department of Zoology, Faculty

of Environment and Faculty of Graduate Studies,

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Doyon, J.-F., A. Tremblay and M. Proulx. 1996:

Regime alimentaire des poissons du complexe La

Grande et teneurs en mercure dans leurs proies

(1993-1994). Hydro-Quebec document.

Dubuc, N., S. Thibodeau and R. Fortin, 1997:

Impact de l’aménagement d’un nouveau secteur de

frayère sur l’utilisation du milieu en période de fraie

et le succès de reproduction de l’esturgeon jaune

(Acipenser fulvescens) á la frayère de la rivière des

Prairies au printemps de 1997. Rapport préparé pour

la Direction Production, Beauharnois-Gatineau,

Hydro- Québec. Université du Québec á Montréal,

Département des sciences biologiques. xiv +

81 p. + apps.


Dubuc, N., S. Thibodeau, J. DesLandes and R. Fortin,

1996:

Utilisation du milieu en période de fraie abundance

des géniteurs et succès de reproduction de l’esturgeon

jaune (Acipenser fulvescens) á la frayère de la rivière

des Prairies au printemps de 1996. Rapport préparé

pour le Module Environment, Services Techniques,

Région Maisonneuve et pour la Vice-présidence

Environnement, Hydro-Québec. Université du

Quebéc á Montréal, Département des sciences

biologiques. ix + 91 p.

Dumont, P., J. Leclerc, S. Desloges, P. Bilodeau, Y.

Mailhot, P. Brodeur, R. Dumas, M. Mingelbier, R.

Verdon, M. La Haye, J. Morin and R. Fortin, 2006:

The biology, status and management of Lake

Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the Québec part

of the St. Lawrence River: a summary. Presented at

the Lake Sturgeon Recovery Planning Workshop,

February 28 - March 2, 2006, Winnipeg, MB. 11 p.

Ead, S.A., C. Katopodis, G.J. Sikora and N. Rajaratnam,

2004:

Flow regimes and structure in pool and weir fishways.

J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 3: 379-390.

Electric Power Research Institute, 2008:

“Fish” Friendly Hydropower Turbine Development

and Deployment: Phase II. Project Data Sheet.





d’ouvrages de montaison. Report prepared for

Hydro-Québec, Montréal, QC. ix + 98 p. + apps.


Aménagement hydroélectrique de l’Eastmain-1 –

Esturgeon jaune – Étude d’impact et aménagements.

Version finale. Présenté à Hydro-Québec, Montréal,

QC. iv + 32 p. Evaluation of an Angled Louver

Facility for Guiding Sturgeon to a Downstream

Bypass. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Holyoke Gas & Electric

Company, Holyoke, MA, and WE-Energies Inc.,

Milwaukee, WI: 2006. 1011786.

EPRI. 2008:

‘Fish Friendly’ Hydropower Turbine Development

and Dpeloyment: Phase II. Electric Power Research

Institute. Palo Alta, CA.

Evans, R.R., B.J. Parker and B.J. McCormick, 1993:

Strategy assessment – sturgeon stranding in Adam

Creek. Ontario Hydro, Northern Development

Department Report No. 935013: iv + 14 p.

Faucher, R. 1999:

Projet de réfection de la centrale La Gabelle –

Aménagement d’une frayère pour l’esturgeon jaune.

Bilan des travaux – 1999. Rapport présenté à Hydro-

Québec par GDG Conseil inc., Montréal, Québec. i +

10 p. + apps.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1999:

Relicensing the Holyoke Hydroelectriuc Project

on the Conneticut River (FERC Project Numbers

2004-073 and 11607-000); Franklin, Hampden and

Hampshire, Massachusetts. EPA number: 990263,

774 pages and Maps.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2007:

Spokane River and Post Falls Hydroelectric Project,

Kootenai and Benewah Counties, Idaho and

Spokane, Lincoln, and Stevens Counties, Washington

(FERC Project Nos. 2545 and 12606).

Feist, G.W., M.A.H. Webb, D.T. Gundersen, E.P. Foster,

C.B. Schreck, A.G. Moule and M.S. Fitzpatrick. 2005:

Evidence of detrimental effects of environmental

contaminants on growth and reproductive

physiology of white sturgeon in impounded areas

of the Columbia River. Environmental Health

Perspectives 113: 1675-1682.

Ferguson, M.M., and Duckworth, G.A. 1997:

The status and distribution of Lake Sturgeon,

Acipenser fulvescens, in the Canadian provinces

of Manitoba, Ontario and Québec: a genetic

perspective. Environ. Biol. Fishes 48: 299-309.


Fernández-Pasquier, V. 1999:

Acipenser sturio L. in the Guadalquivir River, Spain.

Water regulation as factors in stock decline from

1932 to 1967. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15:

133-135.

Findlay, C.S., Lagarec, D., McGillivary, R., Houlahan,

J., and Sawada, M. [1994?]:

An assessment of the risks to Lake Sturgeon

(Acipenser fulvescens) in the vicinity of The Pas,

Manitoba. Preliminary Interim Report. University of

Ottawa, Ottawa, ON. 21 p. + app.


Protection at Hydropwer Facilities, OTA-ENV-641

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

September 1995).

Fortin, R., D’Amours, J., and Thibodeau, S. 2002:

Effets de l’amenagément d’un nouveau secteur de

frayère sur l’utilisation du milieu en période de fraie

et sur le succès de reproduction de l’esturgeon jaune

(Acipenser fulvescens) à la frayère de la rivière des

Prairies. Rapport synthèse 1995-1999. Pour l’Unité

Hydraulique et Environnement, Hydro-Québec

et la Société de la faune du Québec, Direction de

l’aménagement de la faune de Montréal, de Laval

et de la Montérégie. Département des Sciences

biologiques, Université du Québec á Montréal. xiv +

131 p. + map.

Friday, M.J. 2008:

Personal communication regarding habitat loss and

fragmentation of Lake Sturgeon in Lake Superior

tributaries.

Friedl, G. and A. Wuest. 2002:

Disrupting the biochemical cycles – consequences of

damming. Aquatic Sciences 64: 55-65.


Réfection de la centrale de La Gabelle. Programme de

surveillance et de suivi environnemental. Utilisation

par les poissons d’un nouveau secteur de

fraie aménagé en aval de la centrale de La Gabelle –

printemps 2001. Rapport présenté à Hydro-Québec,

vice-présidence Exploitation des équipments de

production, Unité Hydraulique et Environnement,

Montréal, Québec. vi + 29 p. + apps.

Greig, L.A., L.P. Rattie, R.R. Everitt, and M.L. Jones. 1986:

Potenitial Environmental Effects of the Proposed

Mattagami Hydroelectric Extension Project. ESSA

Environmental and Social Systems Analysts Ltd.

Guay, G., and Gendron, M. 2004:

Suivi de l’utilisation du bassin de Pointe-des-

Cascades par l’esturgeon jaune et les autres

espèces - 2004. Rapport d’Environnement Illimité

inc. pour Hydro-Québec, Production Barrages et

environnement, unité Environnement, Montréal,

Québec. viii + 43 p. + apps.

Harkness, W.J.K. and J.R. Dymond. 1961:

The Lake Sturgeon. The history and problems of

conservation. Ontario Department of Lands and

Forests, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Toronto.

Haxton T. 2009:

Personal Communications related to juvenile

recruitment within head ponds / reservoirs.

Haxton, T.J, and Findlay, S.C. 2007:

Variation in Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

abundance and growth among river reaches in a large

regulated river. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65: 645-657.

Haxton, T. 2007:

Impacts of waterpower management on select fish

in the Ottawa River, Canada, with an emphasis on

Lake Sturgeon. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of

Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies University of

Ottawa

Headon, C.M., and Pope, F.M. 1990:

Heavy metals program, mercury in reservoirs –

cumulative impact of mercury contamination of

fish in the Moose River system: a review of MOE

data. Ontario Hydro, Environmental Studies and

Assessments Department Technical Memorandum

90/4: Pagination unknown.


Hickey, S. Chernyák, R. Haas and M. Thomas. 2003:

Assessment of Lake Sturgeon 252 (Acipenser

fulvescens) spawning efforts in the lower St. Clair

River, Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29:

383-391.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988:

Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with

a family level biotic index. Journal of the North

American Benthological Society 7: 65-68.

Houston, J.J. 1987:

Status of Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens in

Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 101 (2): 171-185.

Jager, H.I and Smith, B.T. 2008:

Sustainable Reservoir Operation: Can we Generate

Hydropower and Preserve Ecosystem Values? River.

Res. Applic. 24: 340-352.

Jager, H.I., K. Lepla, J. Chandler, and W. Van Winkle.

2001:

A theoretical study of river fragmentation by dams

and its effects on other riverine fishes. Environmental

Biology of Fishes 60: 347-361.

Johnson, J.E. 1987:

Protected fishes of the United States and Canada.

American Fisheries Society.

Jones, M.L., G.L. Cunningham, D.R. Marmorek, C. Wren

and D. Degraaf. 1986.

Mercury Release in Hydroelectric Reservoirs.

Montreal: Canadian Electrical Association.

K. McGrath, 2008:

Investigation of Lake Sturgeon Spawning Activities

at Iroquois Dam on the St. Lawrence River in 2008.

Personal communication.

Kempinger, J.J. 1988:

Spawning and early life history of Lake Sturgeon in

the Lake Winnebago system, Wisconsin. American

Fisheries Society Symposium 5: 111-122.

Killgore, K.J., S.T. Maynord, M.D. Chan and R.P. Morgan

II. 2001:

Evaluation of Propeller induced mortality on early

life stages of selected fish species. N. Am. J. Fish.

Manag. 21: 947-955.

Kohlhorst, D.W., L.W. Botsford, J.S. Brennan, and G.M.

Cailliet. 1991:

Aspects of the structure and dynamics of an exploited

central California population of white sturgeon

(Acipenser transmontanus), p. 277-293. In P. Williot

(ed.) Acipenser, Actes du Colloque. Premier Colloque

International sur l’esturgeon. Centre National

Machinisme Agricole du Génie Rural des Eaux et des

Forêts (CEMAGREF). 3-6 October, 1989, Bordeaux,

France.

La Gabelle, 1990:

G.D.G. Environnement ltée, pour la Vice-présidence

Environnement, Hydro-Québec, Montréal, Québec.

xvii + 111 p. + apps.

LaHaye, M., Branchaud, A., Gendron, M., Verdon, R., and

Fortin, R. 1992: Reproduction, early life history, and

characteristics of the spawning grounds of the lake

sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in Des Prairies and

L’Assomption Rivers near Montréal, Québec. Can. J.

Zool. 70: 1681-1689.

LaHaye, M., S. Desloges, Cote, C., Deer, J., Philips, S.

Jr., Giroux, B., Clermont, S. and Dumont, P. 2003:

Location of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

spawning grounds in the upper part of the Lachine

Rapids (St. Lawrence River).

Lamontagne, D., and Gilbert, L. 1990:

Étude des frayères du Saint-Maurice en aval de la

centrale de La Gabelle, 1990. G.D.G. Environnement

ltée, pour la Vice-présidence Environnement, Hydro-

Québec, Montréal, Québec. xvii + 111 p. + apps.

Lauer, C. 1988:

Identification of critical life history periods of Lake

Sturgeon and factors that may affect population

survival. Correspondence/Memo to Ontario Ministry

of Natural Resources, Kapuskasing District Manager,

Kapuskasing, ON. 9 p.

Liu, J.K. and Yu, Z.T. 1992:

Water quality changes and effects on fish populations

in the Hanjiang River, China, following hydroelectric

dam construction. Reg. Riv.: Res. Manage. 7: 359-368.


Lord, K. 2007:

Movements and habitat use of juvenile Lake

Sturgeon in the north channel of the St. Clair River.

M.Sc. Thesis, Natural Resources and Environment,

University of Michigan.

Manny, B.A. and G.W. Kennedy. 2002:

Known Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) spawning

habitat in the channel between lakes Huron and Erie

in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Applied

Ichthyology 18: 486-490.

McKinley, S., Van Der Kraak, G., and Power, G. 1998:

Seasonal migrations and reproductive patterns in the

Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in the vicinity of

hydroelectric stations in northern Ontario. Environ.

Biol. Fishes 51: 245-256.

Messier, D., and Roy, D. 1987:

Concentrations en mercure chez les poissons au

complexe hydroélectrique de La Grande Rivière

(Québec). Nat. Can. (Qué.) 114: 357-368.

Messier, D., Roy, D., and Lemire, R. 1985:

Réseau de surveillance écologique du Complexe La

Grande 1978-1984: Évolution du mercure dans la

chair des poissons. Société d’énergie de la Baie James,

Montréal, QC. xi + 170 p. + apps.

Milbrink, G. 1983:

An Improved Environmental Index Based on

the Relative Abundance of Oligochaete Species.

Hydrobiologia 102, 89-97.

Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister and J.E. Deacon. 1989:

Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or

of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14: 2-20.

Nicols, S.J., G. Kennedy, E. Crawford, J. Allen, J. French

III, G. Black, M. Blouin, J. Noakes, D.L.G., F.W.H.

Beamish, and A. Rossiter. 1999:

Conservation implications of behaviour and growth

of the Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvenscens, in nothern

Ontario. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55: 135-

144.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002:

Atlas of Lake Sturgeon Waters in Ontario.





Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2009:

Ontario Fishing Regulations.

Ontario Power Authority. 2006:

Ontario’s Integrated Water System Plan – Scope and

Overview.

Ontario Waterpower Association, 2005:

Evaluation and Assessment of Ontario’s Waterpower

Potential – Final Report.

Ontario Waterpower Association, 2008:

The Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower

Projects.

Parsley, M.J, and Beckman, L.G. 1994:

White sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat in the

Lower Columbia River. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 14(4), pp. 812-827.

Parsley, M.J., Beckman, L.G., and McCabe, G.T., Jr. 1993:

Spawning and rearing habitat use by white sturgeons

in the Columbia River downstream from McNary

Dam. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 122: 217-222.

Peterson, D.L., P.V. Vecsei, and C.A. Jennings. 2007:

Ecology and biology of the Lake Sturgeon: a

synthesis of current knowledge of a threatened North

American Acipenseridae. Review Fish. Biol Fisheries

17: 59-76.

Reeves, R.R., and Bunch, J.N. (ed.) 1993:

Forum on science and resource-related issues in

hydroelectric development. An unpublished report

prepared for the Office on Energy Research and

Development, Canada, Department of Energy, Mines

and Resources, Ottawa, Ontario. vi + 37 p.

Resh, V.C., M.J. Myers, M.J. Hannaford, 1996:

Macroinvertebrates as Biotic Indicators of

Environmental Quality – Methods in Stream Ecology.

Academic Press, Inc.


Rosenberg, D.M., F. Berkes, B.A. Bodaly, R.E. Hecky,

C.A. Kelly and J.W.M. Rudd. 1997:

Large-scale impacts of hydroelectric development.

Environmental Review 5: 27-54.

Roussow, G. 1957:

Some considerations concerning sturgeon spawning

periodicity. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of

Canada 14: 553-572.

Rusak, J.A. and T. Mosindy. 1997:

Seasonal movements of Lake Sturgeon in Lake of

the Woods and the Rainy River, Ontario. Canadian

Journal of Zoology 74: 383-397.

Sale, M.J., Cada, G.F. and Rinehart, B.E. 1997:

Progress report on DOE’s advanced hydropower

turbine systems program. ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and

Fisheries Abstracts.

Sandilands, A.P. 1987:

Biology of the Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

in the Kenogami River, Ontario. In Threader R.W.,

Pope R.J. and Schaap P.R.H. 1998: Development of

a Habitat Suitability Index Model for Lake Sturgeon.

Report No. H-07015.01 – 0012sdsd.

Scott W.B. and E.J. Crossman 1973:

Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board

Canada, Bull. 184. 966 pp.

Summer, W., W. Stritzinger, and W. Zhang. 1994:

The impact of run-of-river hydropower plants on

temporal suspended sediment transport behaviour.

Pages 411-419 in Variability in Stream Erosion and

Sediment Transport (Proceedings of the Canberra

Symposium, December 1994) IAHS Publ. No. 224,

1994.

Tecsult. 2007:

Project Technical Report on Eastmain River PK 207

Weir construction and Implementation.

Tecsult. 2008:

Personal communications regarding Lake Sturgeon

Project Experience.

Threader R.W., Pope R.J. and Schaap P.R.H. 1998:

Development of a Habitat Suitability Index Model

for Lake Sturgeon. Report No. H-07015.01 – 0012.

Threader, R.W. and C.S. Brousseau. 1986:

Biology and Management of the Lake Sturgeon in

the Moose River, Ontario. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 6: 383-390.

Thuemler T. 1991:

Personal Communications on Lake Sturgeon

spawning habitat. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res.

Vladykov, V.D. 1955:

Poissons du Québec – Les esturgeons. Département des

Pêcheries, Province de Québec. Album 5. 11 p.

Wetzel, R.G. 2001:

Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. 3rd Ed.

Academic Press, London, UK.

Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson,

S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. Navarro-

Mendoza., D.E., McAllister., and J.E. Deacon. 1989:

Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or

of special concern. Fisheries 14: 2-20.

Zhong, Y. and G. Power. 1996:

Environmental impacts of hydroelectric projects on

fish resources in China. Regulated Rivers: Research

and Management 12: 81-98.


12. Glossary

Risk Management

Watercourse

Pathways of effect

Risk assessment matrix

Residual effects

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

Compensation/Off-setting

Conservation (of habitats)

Fish

Fish Habitats

Fish Habitat Management Program

Fish Habitat Management Plan

The systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating and monitoring risk.

A defined channel with bed and banks within which concentrated water flows continuously, frequently or infrequently.

A process of identifying and focusing on adverse effects via the physical and biophysical environment. The pathways of effect also provide a focus for the information about the existing environment that need to be collected.

A table used to sequentially evaluate the magnitude of each identified risk.

Effects that remain after mitigation has been applied.

The purpose of the Act is to ensure that projects are considered in a careful manner before federal authorities take action in connection with them, in order that such projects do not cause significant adverse environmental effects. In addition, the Act encourages the promotion of sustainable development in federal decision making, and public participation in the environmental assessment process.

The replacement of natural habitat, increase in the productivity of existing habitat, or maintenance of fish production by artificial means in circumstances dictated by social and economic conditions, where mitigation techniques and other measures are not adequate to maintain habitats for Canada’s fisheries resources.

The planned management of human activities that might affect fish habitats to prevent destruction and subsequent loss of fisheries benefits.

“includes (a) parts of fish: (b) shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts of shellfish, crustaceans or marine animals: and (c) the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals.” (Fisheries Act, Sec. 2).

“Spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.” (Fisheries Act, sec. 34(l)).

Those activities, legislative responsibilities and policies administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the purpose of conserving, restoring and developing the productive capacity of habitats for the fisheries resources.

A plan prepared for a region or a specific geographic area of a region which includes an outline of the Department’s requirements for conserving, restoring and developing fish habitat to meet fisheries stock production objectives and for use as the basis for consultation in integrated resource planning.


Fisheries Resources

Mitigation

Net Gain

No Net Loss

Productive Capacity

Protection (of habitats)

Critical Habitat (SARA)

Restoration (of habitats)

Fish stocks or populations that sustain commercial, recreational or Native fishing activities of benefit to Canadians.

Structural and non-structural measures undertaken to limit the adverse impact of natural hazards, environmental degradation and technological hazards.

Actions taken during the planning, design, construction and operation of works and undertakings to alleviate potential adverse effects on the productive capacity of fish habitats.

An increase in the productive capacity of habitats for selected fisheries brought about by determined government and public efforts to conserve, restore and develop habitats.

A working principle by which Fisheries and Oceans Canada strives to balance unavoidable habitat losses with habitat replacement on a project-by-project basis so that further reductions to Canada’s fisheries resources due to habitat loss or damage may be prevented.

The maximum natural capability of habitats to produce healthy fish, safe for human consumption, or to support or produce aquatic organisms upon which fish depend.

Prescribing guidelines and conditions, and enforcing laws for the purpose of preventing the harmful alteration, destruction or disruption of fish habitat.

“Critical habitat” means the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species.

The treatment or clean-up of fish habitat that has been altered, disrupted or degraded for the purpose of increasing its capability to sustain a productive fisheries resource.

owa bmp sturgeon report 09

Documents