owa bmp sturgeon report 09
TRANSCRIPT
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
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 2
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
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 3
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 5
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)
6 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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).
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 7
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 9
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
10 • Ontario Waterpower Association
Figure 3. Best Management Practices – Conceptual Process
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 11
Figure 4. Project Screening Overview
12 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 13
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
14 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 15
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
16 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 17
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.
18 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 19
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 21
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
22 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 23
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).
24 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 25
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 27
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
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 29
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
30 • Ontario Waterpower Association
Figure 7. Encroachment – Project Footprint Pathways of Effect
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 31
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
6.2.1 Impact Identification
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).
32 • Ontario Waterpower Association
Figure 8. Generation Pathways of Effect
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 33
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
6.3.1 Impact Identification
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
34 • Ontario Waterpower Association
Figure 9. Storage Pathways of Effect
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 35
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
36 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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
6.4.1 Impact Identification
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).
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 37
Figure 10. Spill Pathways of Effect
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 39
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
40 • Ontario Waterpower Association
Figure 11. Modified Encroachment – Project Footprint Pathways of Effect
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 41
Figure 12. Modified Generation Pathways of Effect
42 • Ontario Waterpower Association
Figure 13. Modified Storage Pathways of Effect
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 43
Figure 14. Modified Spill Pathways of Effect
44 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 45
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
Appendix C as follows:
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.
46 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2003:
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 47
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.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2003:
Water Management Planning Aquatic Ecosystem
Guidelines (Draft – to be replaced by the new
LRIA Technical Guidelines).
48 • Ontario Waterpower Association
Furthermore, additional readings referencing the benefits,
successes and failures of water management planning are
annotated in Appendix C as follows:
Armstrong, K. 1988:
Identification of critical life history periods
of Lake Sturgeon and factors that may affect
population survival.
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.
Brousseau, C.S., and G.A. Goodchild. 1989:
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:
Réfection de la centrale de La Gabelle.
Programme de surveillance et de suivi
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 49
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:
Identification of critical life history periods
of Lake Sturgeon and factors that may affect
population survival.
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.
50 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 51
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.
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.
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.
Hayeur, Gaetan. 2001:
Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern
Environments from 1970-2000. Montreal:
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.
52 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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:
Brousseau, C.S., and G.A. Goodchild. 1989:
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.
Fish Passage Technologies:
Protection at Hydropwer Facilities, OTA-
ENV-641 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, September 1995.
Hayeur, Gaetan. 2001:
Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern
Environments from 1970-2000. Montreal:
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 53
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.
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 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.
54 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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:
Environmental Mitigations at Hydroelectric Projects.
1994:
Volume II. Benefits and Costs of Fish Passage
and Protection.
Fish Passage Technologies:
Protection at Hydropwer Facilities, OTA-
ENV-641 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, September 1995.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 55
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).
Hayeur, Gaetan. 2001:
Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern
Environments from 1970-2000. Montreal:
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.
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 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.
56 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 57
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
58 • Ontario Waterpower Association
creation and impoundments at waterpower facilities
(Hayeur, 2001). This reference is provided in annotated
form in Appendix C.
Hayeur, Gaetan. 2001:
Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern
Environments from 1970-2000. Montreal:
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:
Environmental Mitigations at Hydroelectric Projects.
1994:
Volume II. Benefits and Costs of Fish Passage
and Protection.
Fish Passage Technologies:
Protection at Hydropwer Facilities, OTA-
ENV-641 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, September 1995.
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).
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 59
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:
Hayeur, Gaetan. 2001:
Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern
Environments from 1970-2000. Montreal:
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).
60 • Ontario Waterpower Association
One manual for Lake Sturgeon culture is also cited in
Appendix C as follows:
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
Appendix C as follows:
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.
Hayeur, Gaetan. 2001:
Summary of Knowledge Acquired in Northern
Environments from 1970-2000. Montreal:
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
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 61
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.
62 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
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.
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.
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:
Réfection de la centrale de La Gabelle.
Programme de surveillance et de suivi
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:
Impact de l’aménagement d’un nouveau
secteur de frayère sur l’utilisation du milieu
en période de frai et le succès de reproduction
de l’esturgeon jaune (Acipenser fulvescens) à la
frayère de la rivière des Prairies au printemps de
1999.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 63
Thibodeau, S.,J. D’Amours and R. Fortin. 1998:
Impact de l’aménagement d’un nouveau
secteur de frayère sur l’utilisation du milieu
en période de frai et le succès de reproduction
de l’esturgeon jaune (Acipenser fulvescens) à la
frayère de la rivière des Prairies au printemps de
1998.
Verdon, R., and M. Gendron. 1991:
Creation of artificial spawning grounds
downstream of the Riviere-des-Prairies Spillway.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 65
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
66 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 67
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
68 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 69
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
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 71
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
72 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 73
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.
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. Report prepared for
Hydro-Québec, Montréal, QC. ix + 98 p. + apps.
Environnement Illimité inc. 2004a:
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.
74 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.
Fish Passage Technologies:
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.
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. 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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 75
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.
76 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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, 2003:
Water Management Planning Aquatic Ecosystem
Guidelines (Draft – to be replaced by the new
LRIA Technical Guidelines).
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 77
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.
Best Management Practices Guide • Lake Sturgeon • 79
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.
80 • Ontario Waterpower Association
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.