DOCSLIB.ORG

Design for Fish Passage at Roadway-Stream Crossings: Synthesis Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U.S. Department Publication No. FHWA-HIF-07-033 of Transportation June 2007 Federal Highway Administration DESIGN FOR FISH PASSAGE AT ROADWAY-STREAM CROSSINGS: SYNTHESIS REPORT Federal Highway Administration Office of Infrastructure Research and Development Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, Virginia 22101 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HIF-07-033 June 2007 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date June 2007 DESIGN FOR FISH PASSAGE AT ROADWAY-STREAM CROSSINGS: 6. Performing Organization Code SYNTHESIS REPORT 7. Author(s) Rollin H. Hotchkiss and Christopher M. Frei 8. Performing Organization Report No. 9. Performance Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Washington State University Pullman, WA 11. Contract or Grant No. Brigham Young University Provo, UT 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency and Address Final Report September 2004 – June 2007 Office of Infrastructure Research and Development Federal Highway Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101 15. Supplementary Notes Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Bart Bergendahl 16. Abstract Cataloging and synthesizing existing methods for the design of roadway-stream crossings for fish passage began in January 2005 with an extensive literature review covering the topics of culvert design and assessment to facilitate fish passage. A survey was posted online to gather input from design professionals across the country, and a Culvert Summit Meeting was held in Denver Colorado from February 15-16, 2006, to allow presentation and discussion of state-of-practice design and assessment techniques. Following the Summit meeting, a Technical Advisory Committee was developed with individuals specifically knowledgeable in the topics of interest. Members were crucial in shaping and reviewing the direction of these guidelines. This document places current culvert design techniques into four categories based on design premise and objectives. These categories include: No Impedance techniques, which span the entire stream channel and floodplain; Geomorphic Simulation techniques, which create fish passage by matching natural channel conditions within the culvert crossing; Hydraulic Simulation techniques, which attempt to closely resemble hydraulic diversity found in the natural channels through the use of natural and oversized substrate; and Hydraulic Design techniques, which may utilize roughness elements such as baffles and weirs to meet species specific fish passage criteria during periods of fish movement. Preliminary chapters covering the topics of fish biology and capabilities, culverts as barriers, fish passage hydrology, and design considerations aid in the selection of appropriate design techniques based on hydraulic, biologic, and geomorphic considerations. A further section presents examples of design techniques fitting the defined design categories. Design examples and case histories for a selection of design techniques are presented next, and are followed by a discussion on construction, maintenance, monitoring, and future research needs. 17. Key Words: 18. Distribution Statement Fish passage, Culverts, Bridges, No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the Culvert assessment, Design methods National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 280 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized ACKNOWLEDGMENT Dr. Rollin H. Hotchkiss and Mr. Christopher Frei are the primary authors of this document. Their work was guided by Mr. Bart Bergendahl, Senior Hydraulic Engineer, Central Lands Federal Highway Division. Significant and invaluable discussion, review, and input were provided by two review committees. Federal Highway Administration Technical Advisory Committee Andrzej (“Andy”) Kosicki Maryland State Highway Administration Marcin Whitman California Department of Fish and Game Mark Miles (deceased) Alaska Department of Transportation Michael Furniss United States Forest Service Robert Gubernick United States Forest Service Scott Jackson University of Massachusetts Bryan Nordland National Marine Fisheries Service Charles Hebson Maine Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Review Team Larry Arneson Resource Center, Hydraulic Engineer Eric Brown Resource Center, Hydraulic Engineer Mark Browning Federal Lands Highway Division, Hydraulic Engineer Paul Garrett Office of Environment, Ecologist Mary Gray Office of Environment, Environmental Specialist Scott Hogan Federal Lands Highway Division, Hydraulic Engineer Kevin Moody Office of Environment, Environmental Specialist Jorge Pagan Office of Infrastructure, Hydraulic Engineer Melissa Schnier Federal Lands Highway Division, Environmental Biologist -ii­ DEDICATION This document is dedicated to the memory of Mark Miles for his interest in promoting and preserving fish passage at roadway-stream crossings and his many overall contributions to the hydraulic engineering community. He is and will always be remembered as a valued source of knowledge, experience, and reason in his profession. His friendship, candor, and leadership will be sorely missed by all who knew him. -iii­ BACKGROUND Development of this publication began in January 2005 with a literature review covering the topics of culvert design and assessment to ensure fish passage. In February 2005 a project website was posted to keep others apprised of progress, as well as to enhance contact with professionals interested in fish passage design and assessment. In May 2005, a fish-passage survey was posted online to gather input from design professionals, non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties. Through February 2006 there were 67 respondents from 29 states representing biologists, fisheries managers, hydraulic engineers, bridge engineers, drainage engineers, and environmental managers. All respondents were actively involved in roadway-stream crossing issues; their opinions can be assumed to be representative of their agencies. Of the states represented, only five reported fish passage to be of minor importance including New Hampshire, Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Illinois. Furthermore, 13 states rated fish passage as an extremely important concern. Survey comments were used to shape the initial direction of the document. A Fish Passage Summit Meeting was held on February 15th – 16th, 2006 in Denver, Colorado. This comprised of 3 sessions – over one and a half days – covering the topics of culvert assessment, design and retrofit, and culvert replacement case histories. Speakers were selected, with design professionals known to be knowledgeable in each of our session topics, and care was taken to ensure that information was presented from regions that are under-represented in fish passage literature. Panel discussions were conducted at the conclusion of each session to invite audience participation and gain perspective on the topics presented. Overall, there were 110 people in attendance, including 16 speakers. Affiliation ranged from non-governmental-organizations to state departments of transportation. A Technical Advisory Committee Meeting was held at the conclusion of the Summit Meeting. Those in attendance are specifically knowledgeable in each of the topic areas, and were active in shaping this document. Members of the Technical Advisory Committee included: Andrzej (“Andy”) Kosicki Maryland State Highway Administration Marcin Whitman California Department of Fish and Game Mark Miles (deceased) Alaska Department of Transportation Michael Furniss United States Forest Service Robert Gubernick United States Forest Service Scott Jackson University of Massachusetts Bryan Nordland National Marine Fisheries Service -iv­ Mr. Hebson from the Maine Department of Transportation has since joined the Technical Advisory Committee. In addition to the Culvert Summit Meeting, consultation with members of the Forest Service Technology and Development Center in San Dimas, California, as well as with Michael Love and Associates and Michael Furniss (key developers in USFS’s FishXing) was important in shaping project scope and direction. These meetings included site visits to inspect completed fish passage restoration projects and tide gates. The following document represents the culmination of an effort to gather and share information necessary to understand the current state of bridge and culvert design for fish passage. -v­ This page intentionally left blank -vi­ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENT………………………………………………………………… ii DEDICATION………………………………………………........................................ iii BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………….…………...iv TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………..vii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………… xv LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………xvii GLOSSARY…………………………………………………………………………… xxi GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS……………………………………………………....xxix LIST OF SYMBOLS………………………………………………………………….. xxx 1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.........................................................................1-1 1.2 HIGHWAY PERSPECTIVE .....................................................................1-2 1.3 ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ...............................................................1-4
Recommended publications
  • SECTION 3 Erosion Control Measures

    SECTION 3 Erosion Control Measures

    SECTION 3 Erosion Control Measures 1. SEEDING When • Bare soil is exposed to erosive forces from wind and or water. Why • A cost effective way to prevent erosion by protecting the soil from raindrop impact, flowing water and wind. • Vegetation binds soil particles together with a dense root system, increasing infiltration thereby reducing runoff volume and velocity. Where • On all disturbed areas except where non-vegetative stabilization measures are being used or where seeding would interfere with agricultural activity. Scheduling • During the recommended temporary and permanent seeding dates outlined below. • Dormant seeding is acceptable. How 1. Site Assessment. Determine site physical characteristics including available sunlight, slope, adjacent topography, local climate, proximity to sensitive areas or natural plant communities, and soil characteristics such as natural drainage class, texture, fertility and pH. 2. Seed Selection. Use seed with acceptable purity and germination tests that are viable for the planned seeding date. Seed that has become wet, moldy or otherwise damaged is unacceptable. Select seed depending on, location and intended purpose. A mixture of native species for permanent cover may provide some advantages because they have coevolved with native wildlife and other plants and typically play an important function in the ecosystem. They are also adapted to the local climate and soil if properly selected for site conditions; can dramatically reduce fertilizer, lime and maintenance requirements; and provide a deeper root structure. When re- vegetating natural areas, introduced species may spread into adjacent natural areas, native species should be used. Noxious or aquatic nuisance species shall not be used (see list below). If seeding is a temporary soil erosion control measure select annual, non-aggressive species such as annual rye, wheat, or oats.
  • Chapter 8 Drainage & Wastewater Infrastructure

    Chapter 8 Drainage & Wastewater Infrastructure

    Chapter 8 Drainage & Wastewater Infrastructure Chapter 8 Drainage and Wastewater Infrastructure .................................. 8-1 8.1 Key Terms ...................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.1.1 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.1.2 Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 8-3 8.2 General Information ..................................................................................................... 8-6 8.2.1 Comprehensive Plans, Codes, and Policies ................................................................................ 8-7 8.2.2 System Maps ...................................................................................................................................... 8-8 8.3 General Requirements .................................................................................................. 8-8 8.3.1 Standard Specifications and Plans ................................................................................................. 8-8 8.3.2 Regulations ........................................................................................................................................ 8-9 8.3.3 Industry Standards and other Agency Standards ..................................................................... 8-10
  • River Dynamics 101 - Fact Sheet River Management Program Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

    River Dynamics 101 - Fact Sheet River Management Program Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

    River Dynamics 101 - Fact Sheet River Management Program Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Overview In the discussion of river, or fluvial systems, and the strategies that may be used in the management of fluvial systems, it is important to have a basic understanding of the fundamental principals of how river systems work. This fact sheet will illustrate how sediment moves in the river, and the general response of the fluvial system when changes are imposed on or occur in the watershed, river channel, and the sediment supply. The Working River The complex river network that is an integral component of Vermont’s landscape is created as water flows from higher to lower elevations. There is an inherent supply of potential energy in the river systems created by the change in elevation between the beginning and ending points of the river or within any discrete stream reach. This potential energy is expressed in a variety of ways as the river moves through and shapes the landscape, developing a complex fluvial network, with a variety of channel and valley forms and associated aquatic and riparian habitats. Excess energy is dissipated in many ways: contact with vegetation along the banks, in turbulence at steps and riffles in the river profiles, in erosion at meander bends, in irregularities, or roughness of the channel bed and banks, and in sediment, ice and debris transport (Kondolf, 2002). Sediment Production, Transport, and Storage in the Working River Sediment production is influenced by many factors, including soil type, vegetation type and coverage, land use, climate, and weathering/erosion rates.
  • Stream Restoration, a Natural Channel Design

    Stream Restoration, a Natural Channel Design

    Stream Restoration Prep8AICI by the North Carolina Stream Restonltlon Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant INC STATE UNIVERSITY I North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T State University commit themselves to positive action to secure equal opportunity regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. In addition, the two Universities welcome all persons without regard to sexual orientation. Contents Introduction to Fluvial Processes 1 Stream Assessment and Survey Procedures 2 Rosgen Stream-Classification Systems/ Channel Assessment and Validation Procedures 3 Bankfull Verification and Gage Station Analyses 4 Priority Options for Restoring Incised Streams 5 Reference Reach Survey 6 Design Procedures 7 Structures 8 Vegetation Stabilization and Riparian-Buffer Re-establishment 9 Erosion and Sediment-Control Plan 10 Flood Studies 11 Restoration Evaluation and Monitoring 12 References and Resources 13 Appendices Preface Streams and rivers serve many purposes, including water supply, The authors would like to thank the following people for reviewing wildlife habitat, energy generation, transportation and recreation. the document: A stream is a dynamic, complex system that includes not only Micky Clemmons the active channel but also the floodplain and the vegetation Rockie English, Ph.D. along its edges. A natural stream system remains stable while Chris Estes transporting a wide range of flows and sediment produced in its Angela Jessup, P.E. watershed, maintaining a state of "dynamic equilibrium." When Joseph Mickey changes to the channel, floodplain, vegetation, flow or sediment David Penrose supply significantly affect this equilibrium, the stream may Todd St. John become unstable and start adjusting toward a new equilibrium state.
  • Fishway Ladder

    Fishway Ladder

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS A. Fishway B. Riverwalk C. DNR Compliance with NR 333 D. Dam Removal E. Property Issues F. Fish and Aquatic Life G. Wildlife H. Recreational Use A. Fishway 1. What is the estimated cost to build a fishway at Bridge Street dam? The engineering consultant, Bonestroo, has estimated the cost at $1.3 million per the NOAA grant. 2. If the fishway is constructed next year, will it have to be rebuilt when the dam needs to be removed and replaced? Essentially no. Most of the fishway is a separate upstream structure and will not be impacted by demolition and construction of a new dam. The fishway entrance area may need to be modified if a new dam is installed or if the dam abutments are altered. 3. Why is the fishway being constructed on the west bank of the river? The west bank allows land owned by the Village of Grafton to be used for a portion of the channel alignment. Furthermore, the heaviest construction will likely be in the area currently owned by the Village (penetration of the west dam abutment). Other advantages include the appeal to tourists able to view fish entering and ascending the fishway from the riverwalk, and the known presence of shallow bedrock helping assure good foundation characteristics. Furthermore, the historic mill race crosses the area, and a portion of the mill race alignment may assist with fishway construction. 4. How long will it take to complete the construction of the fishway? The fishway will be completed by late fall of 2010.
  • Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019

    Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019

    FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA 2019 37.2’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region June 2019 Fish and Aquatic Conservation, Fish Passage Engineering Ecological Services, Conservation Planning Assistance United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA June 2019 This manual replaces all previous editions of the Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Suggested citation: USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria. USFWS, Northeast Region R5, Hadley, Massachusetts. USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Equations ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii 1 Scope of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Role of the USFWS Region 5 Fish Passage Engineering ............................................
  • Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report

    Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report

    Potter Valley Project Ad Hoc Committee Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report December 2019 Developed by the Fish Passage Working Group Fish Passage Working Group Report Contributors Scenarios and Options Subgroup Scoring Subgroup Craig Addley (Consultant to PG&E) Craig Addley (Consultant to PG&E) Joshua Fuller (NMFS) Joshua Fuller (NMFS) Paul Kubicek (PG&E) Damon Goodman (USFWS) Jon Mann (CDFW) Paul Kubicek (PG&E) David Manning (Sonoma Water) Jon Mann (CDFW) Scott McBain (Consultant to RVIT) David Manning (Sonoma Water) Darren Mierau (CalTrout) Scott McBain (Consultant to RVIT) Steve Thomas (NMFS) Darren Mierau (CalTrout) Allen Renger (CDFW) Steve Thomas (NMFS) Larry Wise (PG&E) The scenarios subgroup developed the conceptual passage scenarios and options. The scoring subgroup developed and used a passage scoring matrix to evaluate the passage options. Facilitation Team Facilitators Gina Bartlett and Stephanie Horii of Consensus Building Institute assisted the subgroups to document the process and compile results into this final report. 2 Executive Summary Background and Purpose The Potter Valley Project on the Eel River is a set of hydroelectric facilities that includes two large dams (Scott and Cape Horn), water-diversion facilities, and a powerhouse. The project involves an inter-basin transfer that stores winter runoff from the upper Eel River and diverts much of that water to the Russian River to generate hydroelectric power and meet contract water demands. Scott Dam, which creates Lake Pillsbury, is a complete barrier to native fish species, preventing access to high value habitat for federally Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed anadromous salmonids. To balance diverse Potter Valley Project interests, Congressman Jared Huffman established an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of representative stakeholder groups across four counties, who have agreed to work collaboratively towards a two-basin solution.
  • Mitchell Creek Watershed Hydrologic Study 12/18/2007 Page 1

    Mitchell Creek Watershed Hydrologic Study 12/18/2007 Page 1

    Mitchell Creek Watershed Hydrologic Study Dave Fongers Hydrologic Studies Unit Land and Water Management Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality September 19, 2007 Table of Contents Summary......................................................................................................................... 1 Watershed Description .................................................................................................... 2 Hydrologic Analysis......................................................................................................... 8 General ........................................................................................................................ 8 Mitchell Creek Results.................................................................................................. 9 Tributary 1 Results ..................................................................................................... 11 Tributary 2 Results ..................................................................................................... 15 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 18 Stormwater Management .............................................................................................. 19 Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 20 Stream Channel Protection .......................................................................................
  • Stream Visual Assessment Manual

    Stream Visual Assessment Manual

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Stream Visual Assessment Manual Cane River, credit USFWS/Gary Peeples U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Conasauga River, credit USFWS Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 What is a Stream? .............................................................................................................1 What Makes a Stream “Healthy”? .................................................................................1 Pollution Types and How Pollutants are Harmful ........................................................1 What is a “Reach”? ...........................................................................................................1 Using This Protocol..................................................................................................................2 Reach Identification ..........................................................................................................2 Context for Use of this Guide .................................................................................................2 Assessment ........................................................................................................................3 Scoring Details ..................................................................................................................4 Channel Conditions ...........................................................................................................4
  • C. Natural Stream Processes

    C. Natural Stream Processes

    Natural Stream Processes Guide No. 03 Streams in their natural state are dy- agency officials, and others to start a recycle nutrients from natural pollution namic ecosystems that perform many thoughtful inquiry into the true source sources, such as leaf fall, to purifying beneficial functions. Natural streams of local stream management problems. the water. The natural stream tends and their flood plains convey water The material contained in this guide to maintain itself through the flushing and sediment, temporarily store excess makes evident that the source of many flows of annual floods that clear the flood water, filter and entrap sediment stream problems is in the watershed, channel of accumulated sediments, and pollutants in overbank areas, far from the main stream channel. debris, and encroaching vegetation. recharge and discharge groundwater, Landowners, local officials, and oth- Extreme floods may severely disrupt naturally purify instream flows, and ers concerned with streams need to the stream on occasion, but the natural provide supportive habitat for diverse work together across property lines balance of the stream ecosystem is plant and animal species. The stream and jurisdictional boundaries to find restored rapidly when it is in a state of corridors wherein these beneficial func- suitable solutions to stream problems dynamic equilibrium. tions occur give definition to the land and to implement practices to protect, and offer “riverscapes” with aesthetic restore and maintain healthy stream qualities that are attractive to people. ecosystems. CHANNEL FORMING Human activities that impact stream AND RECONDITIONING ecosystems can and often do cause STREAMS ARE problems by impairing stream functions PROCESSES and beneficial uses of the resource.
  • Open House Summary Report

    Open House Summary Report

    Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report Open House Summary Report Rancho Cordova, California US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Game February 2011 Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview of the Public Involvement Process ..............................................1 1.2 Description of the Public Involvement Process to Date ..............................2 2. Meeting Overview ..................................................................................................5 3. Comment Summary ...............................................................................................7 4. Future Steps ............................................................................................................9 4.1 Summary of Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities ..............9 4.2 Contact Information .....................................................................................9 Table Page 3-1 Summary of Comments ...........................................................................................8 Appendix Draft EIS/EIR Public Involvement Materials Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project EIS/EIR February 2011 Open House Summary Report i Acronyms Acronym Full Phrase CCAO Central California Area Office CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California
  • Draft District of Columbia Stormwater Management Guidebook Page 10 Chapter 2

    Draft District of Columbia Stormwater Management Guidebook Page 10 Chapter 2

    STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GUIDEBOOK Prepared for: District Department of the Environment Watershed Protection Division District of Columbia Prepared by: Center for Watershed Protection 8390 Main Street Ellicott City, MD 21043 August 2012 i ii #!&,'!* ',$-0+2'-, 0#%0"',% $3230# 3."2#1 2- 2&# '120'!2 -$ -*3+ ' 2-0+52#0 ,%#+#,2 3'"# --) 5'** # 4'* *# 2 Q &22.S ""-#T"!T%-4 .3 *'!2'-, 12-0+52#0V%3'"# --) #-2'!#1 0#%0"',% $3230# 4#01'-,1 -$ 2&# +,3* 5'** # .-12#" 2 2&'1 5# 1'2#T $3230# 4#01'-,1 0# #6.#!2#" 2- -!!30Q 2 +-12Q -,!# 7#0T Acknowledgements A major undertaking such as this requires the dedication and cooperative efforts of many individuals. Dr. Hamid Karimi, Director of Natural Resources, Sheila Besse, Associate Director of Watershed Protection, Jeff Seltzer, Associate Director of Stormwater Management, and Timothy Karikari, Branch Chief of Technical Services each deserve credit for their overall leadership and support for this project. Their willingness to allow staff to pursue ideas to their fullest and provide necessary time, resources and managerial support, laid the foundation for much innovation. Project Manger Rebecca C. Stack, DDOE-technical services Lead Authors Greg Hoffmann, P.E., Center for Watershed Protection Rebecca C. Stack, DDOE-technical services Brian Van Wye, DDOE-stormwater Contributors and Peer Reviewers Joseph Battiata, P.E., Center for Watershed Protection Gerald Brock, Ph.D., George Washington University Josh Burch, DDOE-planning & restoration Collin R. Burrell, DDOE-water quality Walter Caldwell, DDOE-inspection enforcement Jonathan Champion, DDOE-stormwater Reid Christianson P.E., Ph.D., Center for Watershed Protection Laine Cidlowski, Office of Planning Richard DeGrandchamp, Ph.D., University of Colorado/Scientia Veritas Elias Demessie, DDOE-technical services Diane Douglas, DDOE-water quality Alex Foraste, Williamsburg Environmental Group, Inc.