1 / 21

American Shad Migration in the Westfield River, MA: Is Wastewater an Issue?

American Shad Migration in the Westfield River, MA: Is Wastewater an Issue?. Nathan Henderson B. Shreve-Gibb J. Pearson D. Billips. Project Support. City of Westfield, MA . Presentation Outline. Introduction Project Background Permitting requirements for expansion

conley
Download Presentation

American Shad Migration in the Westfield River, MA: Is Wastewater an Issue?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. American Shad Migration in the Westfield River, MA:Is Wastewater an Issue? Nathan Henderson B. Shreve-Gibb J. Pearson D. Billips

  2. Project Support City of Westfield, MA

  3. Presentation Outline • Introduction • Project Background • Permitting requirements for expansion • NPDES permit provision fish tagging study • Westfield River fish restoration • Methods • Fish Tagging • Radio Telemetry • Water Quality Sampling • Results (2002, 2004) • Radio Telemetry • Fish Tagging • Water Quality Sampling • Conclusions

  4. Project Background • Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), City of Westfield (1973) • Project Evaluation Report (PER) 1998 detailed upgrade • 50 percent expansion to treat up to 6.1 mgd • Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in 2000 • Comments from state and federal agencies indicated concern • During low flow, a zone of plume-free passage for anadromous fish may not exist in the Westfield River • Fish passage required additional investigation • Dye study conducted at 7Q10 (low flow) in 2000

  5. Permit Provisions • Final EIR issued in 2000 • Dye study indicated zone of passage on southern side of island • NPDES permit provisions • required City of Westfield to: • Conduct a fish tagging study in an attempt to determine the effect of discharge on fish migration • Specifically American shad migration

  6. Westfield River Fish Bypass Facility • DSI Dam in West Springfield • 7.0 miles downstream from outfall • Fishway completed in 1996 • Anadromous species reintroduced to upper watershed • 1,413 American shad (1996) • Peaked to 4,720 in 2001 • Recent declines to 1,237 in 2005 • Shad migration not known

  7. Westfield River

  8. Purpose of Study • Determine: Is there an issue related to outfall? • Collect data on shad passage past the WPCP outfall • Collect water quality data in association with fish passage • Use radio telemetry to track American shad upstream and through the Westfield WPCP mixing zone • Target worst case scenario (2002 study) • Low river flow where effluent mixing concentrations are highest • Target peak shad run (2004 study)

  9. Island Methods • Radio telemetry • Combination of fixed and manual tracking receivers • 1 station located 300 meters downstream of outfall - 1 station located 50 meters upstream of outfall

  10. Fish Tagging Methods • Shad were captured at the fish lift • Stomach tagging shad • Coded Lotek transmitter • Measured for length and condition

  11. Monitoring • Manual tracking • Downloading fixed receivers • Water quality sampling • River water quality at two stations (upstream and downstream of outfall) • Effluent water quality one station • Parameters (total Cu, Dissolved Cu, TRC, NO3, NH3, Cd, Cond, pH, Temp, DO)

  12. Results (2002) • Targeted low flow conditions below 300 cfs • 21 shad (10 females 11 males) • monitored for 30 days 30 Tagging date 25 Shad tagging date 6/19/02 20 15 10

  13. Average Daily Discharge Over 86 Year Period Average start of shad run Average end of shad run

  14. Results (2002) • High flows in spring 2002 • Shad tagged during end of migratory run • One week after tagging temperatures surpassed 20oC • Two fish approached and successfully passed outfall • All water quality parameters within acceptable limits • Remaining fish found in spawning habitat 2 - 5 miles below outfall • Regulatory agencies concluded a second study was necessary to further document shad migration

  15. Results (2004) • Targeted peak of the shad run (900 cfs) • 20 fish were tagged in May and monitored for 3 weeks • 3 fish did not leave the forebay • 2 fish moved downstream after tagging • 15 fish entered study reach (between dam and outfall)

  16. Shad Movement (2004) • 8 tagged fish passed outfall • 53% of shad that migrated into the study reach passed the outfall • 7 females and 1 male • 9.5 minutes to migrate past outfall • 1.5 miles upstream of discharge in ideal spawning habitat • No fish were found residing below the discharge • Remaining 7 fish were found in similar areas as 2002 study 2 - 5 miles below the outfall • Movement ranged from 0 to 7.3 miles per day

  17. Results of the 2004 study fish movement

  18. Water Quality and Flow (2004) • Flow averaged 524 cfs when 4 fish passed outfall • Cu, NO3, and NH3, slightly increased from upstream to downstream of outfall • Instream temperature averaged 15oC (20oC end of the study) • DO concentrations never fell below 8.25 mg/L • Temperature and DO were slightly lower in effluent than in river

  19. Discussion • In 2002 and 2004 shad passed outfall • Water quality parameters affected by outfall did not affect shad movement • No fish resided below outfall • Habitat not suitable for spawning or holding • Long term exposure to plume concentrations not anticipated as shad move quickly through area • Flow and temperature most critical parameters affecting shad migration • 2004 flow was considered low when 4 fish passed outfall

  20. Conclusions • American shad migration and spawning habitat was documented • Discharge did not represent a barrier to the migration of American shad in the Westfield River • USEPA and MA Division of Fish and Wildlife determined no further study was necessary • NPDES provisions met

More Related