DOCSLIB.ORG

Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design ANADROMOUS SALMONID PASSAGE FACILITY DESIGN NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHWEST REGION www.nwr.noaa.gov July 2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Bryan Nordlund, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Hydraulic Engineer, is the primary author of this document. He was assisted by Larry Swenson, Hydraulic Engineer; Melissa Jundt, Hydraulic Engineer; Ed Meyer, Hydraulic Engineer; Scott Carlon, Fishery Biologist; and John Johnson, Hydraulic Engineer; all with NMFS. In addition, he was assisted by Steve Rainey, GEI Consultants, Inc. Reviews were provided by Denny Hudson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Pat Powers and Tom Burns, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Ray Hartlerode, Tom Stahl, and Bernie Kepshire, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Lynn Stratton and Matt Hightree, Idaho Department of Fish and Game; and Ken Bates, Koszmo, Inc. Suggested changes, additions, or questions should be directed to Bryan Nordlund at [email protected] for consideration in updating this document. Assistance from NMFS fish passage specialists can be obtained by contacting the NMFS Northwest Region Hydropower Division at 503-230-5414. Suggested citation: NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design July 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.............................................................................................................................. viii 1. DEFINITION OF TERMS................................................................................................... 12 2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 21 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Site Information ............................................................................................................. 21 2.3 Biological Information ................................................................................................... 22 2.4 Design Development Phases .......................................................................................... 23 3. DESIGN FLOW RANGE..................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Design Low Flow for Fish Passage ............................................................................... 24 3.3 Design High Flow for Fish Passage ............................................................................... 25 3.4 Fish Passage Design for Flood Flows ............................................................................ 25 4. UPSTREAM ADULT FISH PASSAGE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 26 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Fishway Entrance ........................................................................................................... 28 4.2.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 28 4.2.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines ........................................................................ 29 4.3 Auxiliary Water Systems ............................................................................................... 31 4.3.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 31 4.3.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – AWS Diffusers ........................................... 31 4.3.3 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – AWS Fine Trash Racks .............................. 32 4.3.4 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – AWS Screens .............................................. 32 4.3.5 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – AWS Flow Control ..................................... 32 4.3.6 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – AWS Excess Energy Dissipation ............... 33 4.4 Transport Channels ........................................................................................................ 34 4.4.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 34 4.4.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines ........................................................................ 34 4.5 Fish Ladder Design ........................................................................................................ 34 4.5.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 34 4.5.2 Types of Fish Ladders ........................................................................................ 34 4.5.3 Specific Criteria and Guidelines ........................................................................ 42 4.6 Counting Stations ........................................................................................................... 43 4.6.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 43 4.6.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – Counting Stations ....................................... 44 4.6.3 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – Counting Window ...................................... 44 4.7 Fishway Exit Section ..................................................................................................... 45 4.7.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 45 4.7.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – Fishway Exit Section .................................. 45 i NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design July 2011 4.8 Fishway Exit Sediment and Debris Management .......................................................... 46 4.8.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 46 4.8.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – Coarse Trash Rack ...................................... 46 4.8.3 Specific Criteria and Guidelines – Debris and Sediment................................... 47 4.9 Miscellaneous Considerations ....................................................................................... 48 4.9.1 Specific Criteria and Guidelines ........................................................................ 48 4.10 Roughened Chutes ......................................................................................................... 48 4.10.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 48 4.10.2 Types of Roughened Chutes .............................................................................. 49 5. EXCLUSION BARRIERS ................................................................................................... 52 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 52 5.2 Types of Exclusion Barriers........................................................................................... 52 5.3 Picket Barriers ................................................................................................................ 53 5.3.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 53 5.3.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines ........................................................................ 53 5.4 Velocity Barrier ............................................................................................................. 54 5.4.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 54 5.4.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines ........................................................................ 55 5.5 Vertical Drop Structures ................................................................................................ 56 5.5.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 56 5.5.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines ........................................................................ 56 5.6 Horizontal Draft Tube Diffusers .................................................................................... 57 5.6.1 Description and Purpose .................................................................................... 57 5.6.2 Specific Criteria and Guidelines ........................................................................ 57 6. ADULT FISH TRAPPING SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 58 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 58 6.2 Trap Design Scoping...................................................................................................... 59 6.3 Fish Handling ................................................................................................................. 59 6.3.1 Specific Criteria and Guidelines ........................................................................ 59 6.4 General Trap Design ...................................................................................................... 60 6.4.1 Specific Criteria and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report
    PNNL-23051 Rev.1 Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report AH Colotelo KD Ham RA Harnish ZD Deng BW Jones RS Brown AC Hanson MA Weiland DM Trott X Li MJ Greiner T Fu GA McMichael December 2014 PNNL-23051 Rev.1 Passage Distribution and Federal Columbia River Power System Survival for Steelhead Kelts Tagged Above and at Lower Granite Dam, Year 2 Final Report AH Colotelo KD Ham RA Harnish ZD Deng BW Jones RS Brown AC Hanson MA Weiland DM Trott X Li MJ Greiner T Fu GA McMichael December 2014 Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Preface The study reported herein was funded as part of the Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program (AFEP), which is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The AFEP study code is ADS-W-12-1: Steelhead kelt passage distributions and Federal Columbia River Power System survival and return rates for fish tagged above and at Lower Granite Dam. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was the prime contractor for the USACE Walla Walla District. The USACE technical lead was Chris Pinney. The PNNL project manager was Alison Colotelo (509-371-7248).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis
    Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources February 5, 2018 Nature-like Fishway at Thiensville Dam on Milwaukee River in Ozaukee County, WI Table of Contents Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1 History of Fish Passage at Dams Policy in Wisconsin ............................................................................ 7 2 Regulatory Framework and Department Procedures and Guidelines ................................................ 11 3 Types of Fish Passage .......................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Upstream Fish Passage Technologies ......................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Fishways (Passive) ............................................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Fish Lifts and Locks (Active) ................................................................................................ 26 3.2.3 Collection and Transport (Active) ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Chittenden Locks 47
    Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Hiram M. Chittenden Locks The following write-up relies heavily on the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks/Salmon Bay Subarea Chapter by Fred Goetz in the Draft Reconnaissance Assessment – Habitat Factors that Contribute to the Decline of Salmonids by the Greater Lake Washington Technical Committee (2001). Overview The Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (Locks) were Operation of the navigational locks involves constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raising or lowering the water level within either (the Corps) in 1916 and commissioned in 1917. the large or small lock chamber so that vessels may The Locks were built as a navigation project to pass between the two waterbodies. The filling and allow boats to travel from the marine waters of emptying of the large lock chamber is achieved by Puget Sound to the protected freshwaters of Lake use of a system of two large conduits that can Union and Lake Washington. The Locks are either fill the entire lock or half of the lock. This comprised of two navigational lock chambers: a is achieved by using a miter gate that divides the large lock that accommodates both large and small large lock chamber into two sections. Water is vessels and a small lock used by smaller vessels. In taken into the conduits via two culvert intakes addition to the lock chambers, the Locks include a located immediately upstream of the structure. dam, 6 spillway bays, and a fish ladder. Water is conveyed through each conduit and is The Locks form a dam at the outlet of the Lake discharged into the lock chamber through outlet Washington and Lake Union/Ship Canal system culverts on each side of the chamber.
    [Show full text]