DOCSLIB.ORG

Fishway Ladder

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. 5. How will the property owners adjacent to the fishway be impacted during construction? The riverwalk will be closed during the construction of the fish ladder. Equipment and materials may need to be placed in the riverwalk area and the area between the riverwalk and the river. Any damage to this area would be fully restored as an integral part of the project. 6. Will additional property on either side of the dam need to be obtained to construct the fishway? No. The southern end of the fish passage will be constructed on property owned by the Village. The portions farther upstream will be constructed in or adjacent to the existing impoundment area. 7. What impact will building a fishway have on the current riverwalk and the overlook area? The design of the fishway will include temporary removal of the overlook area. It is the Village’s desire and a fundamental project goal for the overlook area to be rebuilt and include a grate that will allow viewing of fish swimming up the fishway. Any damage to the riverwalk beyond the overlook area will be fully restored. 8. Who will own and be responsible for the maintenance of the fishway? The Village of Grafton. 9. Will the fishway reduce the flooding of the riverwalk in the spring? The simple answer is “no.” Depending upon the ultimate design choices, however, the fishway may very modestly increase weir capacity, which may shorten the duration of the riverwalk flooding. 10. Is there a NOAA deadline for complying with the construction of the projects? By the end of October 2009, Ozaukee County must notify NOAA of the Village’s decision to either permanently remove the dam or install the fishway. All grant projects must be completed within the stipulated 18 month (December 2010) federal grant funding deadline. 11. What government agency will oversee the design and construction of either project? Ozaukee County is the lead agency for the NOAA grant. The Village will provide input to Ozaukee County. B. Riverwalk 1. Will the riverwalk need to removed or moved if a fish ladder is constructed? The fishway will not displace the riverwalk. However, the riverwalk will need to be closed during construction. One of the project goals is to make fish movement through the fishway visible to the public on the riverwalk, adding a very significant feature to the downtown. 2. Will the riverwalk be moved closer to the new river’s edge if the dam is removed? No, the new river’s edge is expected to be within 15 feet of the existing river’s edge. However, a bedrock escarpment will likely be exposed near the dam, placing the riverwalk well above the flowing river elevation. 3. What are the costs associated with extending the riverwalk north or south? If the dam remains in place, engineering challenges make it impossible for the Village to extend the riverwalk. If the dam is removed, the Village will be able to extend the riverwalk north of Washington Street and south of Bridge Street No estimates have been developed for the extensions. Funds from the NOAA grant can be used to offset the costs of a north riverwalk extension. C. DNR Compliance with NR 333 1. What does the DNR require of the Village for the current dam? On July 16, 2009, the DNR notified the Village that they had made a determination that the Bridge Street dam has a “Significant” hazard rating. Per NR 333.07, the Bridge Street dam is required to have a 500-year flood or spillway design capacity. It does not. Chapter NR 333.04(2)(b) of the Wisconsin Administrative code states: “the owners of existing dams shall bring their dams into compliance with the requirements of this chapter within 10 years after being notified of the dam’s hazard rating pursuant to sub (1), unless ordered to do so earlier under s. 31.19(5), Stats.” Consequently, DNR staff has informed the Village that the Village will have up to 10 years to comply with NR 333.07. As part of the DNR notification, the Village is required to perform a spillway capacity study within one year: July 16, 2010. Based upon the outcome of the study, the DNR will identify the specific spillway capacity deficiency of the dam and a timeline to bring the dam into compliance. The existing dam is a fixed crest, weir-style dam. Because this makes it impossible to increase the spillway capacity, the Village will be required to construct a new dam in order to comply with NR 333.07. 2. Why are dams assigned a Hazard Rating? The DNR oversees certain dams in Wisconsin. The DNR must ensure that dams are designed, constructed, and reconstructed so as to minimize the danger to life, health, and property. NR333.04 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code requires the DNR to assign a dam hazard rating to all large dams based upon findings of a dam failure analysis, which are usually conducted by the owner of the dam. 3. What generated the determination of the dam rating by the DNR at this time? The DNR reissued a dam failure analysis for the Bridge Street dam as a part of the Ozaukee County Map Modernization Project in 2007. The DNR inspected the dam on August 26, 2008, and conducted a site visit on July 7, 2009. The DNR issued its Dam Inspection Report for the Bridge Street dam on July 13, 2009, and its Hazard Assignment Rating on July 16, 2009. The DNR had previously issued an “apparent” hazard rating for the dam in September 1986. This was an estimate, however, and is not considered the formal Hazard Rating, which triggers the 10-year timeline for a spillway assessment. 4. What are the costs associated with the bringing the dam into compliance? Engineers have identified that the existing dam cannot be altered in order to meet NR 333.07. Consequently, the existing dam must be removed and a new dam constructed. The DNR estimated cost to remove the dam and construct a new dam is $4.0 million (in 2020 dollars). Additionally, the Village will need to devote operations and maintenance funds to keep the new dam in good working order and the dam’s gates in conformance with river flow. The Village should anticipate spending at least $100,000 every 10 years for this operations and maintenance effort. 5. What is the maintenance and costs to keep the existing dam for the next 10 years? The DNR-required engineering study will cost of $40,000. The study will evaluate the current structural condition as well as the spillway capacity deficiency. The study will also provide the Village with an update of the emergency action plan and create an operational and maintenance plan. In addition to this initial, comprehensive study, the recent revisions to State Statutes require an inspection to be completed three times within a ten year period. Typically, these inspections cost $8,000 to complete. 6. Has the Village initiated the update of the emergency action plan of the existing dam as required by the DNR to be completed by the end of 2010? No, the plan will be completed as part of the engineering study that will be done by July 2010. If the dam is removed, the emergency action plan will not be needed. D. Dam Removal 1. What is the pollutant content of sediment in the Bridge Street dam impoundment? Sediment samples were collected from the impoundment and analyzed for a variety of potential organic and inorganic chemical pollutants including polychlorinated biphynels (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals (e.g., lead). The results were compared to a range of criteria, and it was concluded that the sediments do not pose a threat to human health and the environment. 2. How will the sediments be managed in the Bridge Street dam impoundment area should the dam be removed? Sediments can safely be managed within the Bridge Street dam impoundment using a variety of bioengineered (e.g., native plants), engineered (e.g., rip rap), or combination of techniques.
Recommended publications
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis

    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) ......................................................................................
  • Operation Glen Canyon Dam Spiliway: Summer 1983

    Operation Glen Canyon Dam Spiliway: Summer 1983

    7jq Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Conference Water for Resource Development, HY Di v. /ASCE Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, August 14-17, 1984 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Spiliways - Summer 1983 Philip H. Burgi 1/, M., ASCE, Bruce M. Moyes 2/, Thomas W. Gamble 3/ Abstract. - Flood control at Glen Canyon Do, is provided by a 41-ft (12.5-rn) diameter tunnel spillway in each abutment. Each spillway is designed to pass 138 000 ft3/s (3907.7 m3/s). The spillways first operated in 1980 and had seen very little use until June 1983. In early June the left spiliway was operated for 72 hours at 20 000 ft3/s (566.3 m3/s). After hearing a rumbling aoise in the left spillway, the radial gates were closed and the tunnel was quickly inspected. Cavitation damage had occurred low in the vertical bend, resulting in removal of approximately 50 yd3 (38.2 rn3) of concrete. Flood flows continued to fill the reservoir. Both spillways were operated releasing a total of 1 626 000 acre-ft (2.0 x m3) over a period of 2 months. Exteri- sive cavitation damage occurred in both spiliways in the vicinity of the vertical bend. Introduction. - The tunnel spiliways are open channel flow type with two 40- by 52.5-ft (12.2- by 16.0-rn) radial gates to control releases to each tunnel. Each spillway consists of a 41-ft (12.5-rn) diameter inclined section, a vertical bend, and 1000 ft (304.8 m) of horizontal tunnel followed by a flip bucket.
  • 8 Chittenden Locks 47

    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.
  • The Efficiency of a Fish Ladder for Salmonid Upstream Migration in a Swedish Stream Potential Impact of a Hydropower Station on Connectivity and Recruitment

    The Efficiency of a Fish Ladder for Salmonid Upstream Migration in a Swedish Stream Potential Impact of a Hydropower Station on Connectivity and Recruitment

    The Efficiency of a Fish Ladder for Salmonid Upstream Migration in a Swedish Stream Potential Impact of a Hydropower Station on Connectivity and Recruitment Anton Larsson Degree project for Master of Science in Biology Animal Ecology, 30 hec, AT 2016 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Gothenburg Supervisors: Johan Höjesjö, Lars-Olof Ramnelid, Daniel Johansson Examiner: Charlotta Kvarnemo Abstract Assessments of the function of fish passages are typically rare, although the approach is frequently implemented to mitigate adverse effects of hydropower plants. In this study 249 electro fishing samples from 1979-2015, were used to assess the efficiency of a fish ladder to allow upstream migration of salmonids past a hydropower station in Örekilsälven, Sweden. Densities of brown trout (both young of the year, 0+, and older juveniles, >0+) did not increase in the area upstream the hydropower station after construction of the fish passage; neither did the densities of salmon 0+. >0+ salmon had a higher density upstream the hydropower station after completion of the fish ladder, however this is most likely explained by extensive fish translocations. 0+ salmon were only found in 5 % of the sampling occasions upstream the power station when translocations were removed, whereas 0+ brown trout were found in 44.3 %. No effect of discharge for ascension was found in the study. The efficiency of the passage was determined low and non-satisfactory for Atlantic salmon and brown trout, although the evaluation is more difficult for brown trout as a consequence of resident forms. Smolt models indicate that contemporary smolt escapement of both salmon and brown trout almost exclusively originate from the downstream areas.
  • Download Poster of AUBURN RAVINE FISH LADDER PROJECT Overview

    Download Poster of AUBURN RAVINE FISH LADDER PROJECT Overview

    ENHANCING OUR REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM : AUBURN RAVINE FISH LADDER PROJECT nto s e uc m k ra e ttonwo c r o o a c d s Why Build a Fish Ladder ? Fish such as salmon and steelhead are anadromous, meaning they are born in freshwater streams and rivers, migrate downstream to the ocean where Plantings Fish they spend a few years maturing, then return to Sierra streams to spawn. Fish To improve ecosystem function and diversity, ladders are designed to provide migrating fish with support to pass around The fish in Auburn Ravine include Chinook native vegetation species were planted salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a particular obstruction like this gauging station. The streambed in Auburn within the bed and along banks of the steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Ravine has gravel areas that make suitable spawning habitat for anadromous Auburn Ravine fish ladder. Site specific plants were chosen to promote Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus salmonids like fall and late fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. grandis), Sacramento sucker natural nutrient filtration, water quality, By installing this fish ladder on Auburn Ravine, a partial barrier to upstream (Catostomus occidentalis), Lamprey WHEN DO sediment trapping functions, and s (Entosphenus tridentatus) and Speckled te habitats has been removed making it easier for salmon and steelhead to erosion and bank stabilization controls. Dace (Rhinichthys osculus). Salmon, elhead reach these upstream spawning areas. THE FISH RUN? These vegetation species include steelhead and lamprey all use Auburn native sedge and rush grasses, willow, l a Ravine for spawning while the remaining alder and cottonwood. This restored fish are year-round residents.
  • Ashley National Forest Visitor's Guide

    Ashley National Forest Visitor's Guide

    shley National Forest VISITOR GUIDE A Includes the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Big Fish, Ancient Rocks Sheep Creek Overlook, Flaming Gorge Painter Basin, High Uinta Wilderness he natural forces that formed the Uinta Mountains are evident in the panorama of geologic history found along waterways, roads, and trails of T the Ashley National Forest. The Uinta Mountains, punctuated by the red rocks of Flaming Gorge on the east, offer access to waterways, vast tracts of backcountry, and rugged wilderness. The forest provides healthy habitat for deer, elk, What’s Inside mountain goats, bighorn sheep, and trophy-sized History .......................................... 2 trout. Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, the High Uintas Wilderness........ 3 Scenic Byways & Backways.. 4 Green River, High Uintas Wilderness, and Sheep Creek Winter Recreation.................... 5 National Geological Area are just some of the popular Flaming Gorge NRA................ 6 Forest Map .................................. 8 attractions. Campgrounds ........................ 10 Cabin/Yurt Rental ............... 11 Activities..................................... 12 Fast Forest Facts Know Before You Go .......... 15 Contact Information ............ 16 Elevation Range: 6,000’-13,528’ Unique Feature: The Uinta Mountains are one of the few major ranges in the contiguous United States with an east-west orientation Fish the lakes and rivers; explore the deep canyons, Annual Precipitation: 15-60” in the mountains; 3-8” in the Uinta Basin high peaks; and marvel at the ancient geology of the Lakes in the Uinta Mountains: Over 800 Ashley National Forest! Acres: 1,382,347 Get to Know Us History The Uinta Mountains were named for early relatives of the Ute Indians. or at least 8,000 years, native peoples have Sapphix and son, Ute, 1869 huntedF animals, gathered plants for food and fiber, photo courtesy of First People and used stone tools, and other resources to make a living.
  • Dam Awareness May 2018

    Dam Awareness May 2018

    Dam Awareness May 2018 Introduction There is a general lack of knowledge, understanding, and awareness of dams and their risks, leaving those most affected by dams unprepared to deal with the impacts of their failures. This fact sheet provides a general overview of dams for consideration and use by the intended audience, based on their situation. Responsibility and Liability for Dam Safety Dams are owned and operated by individuals, private and public organizations, and various levels of government (federal, state, local, tribal). The responsibility for operating and maintaining a safe dam rests with the owner. Common law holds that the storage of water is a hazardous activity. Maintaining a safe dam is a key element in preventing failure and limiting the liability that an owner could face. The extent of an owner’s liability varies from state to state and depends on statutes and case law precedents. Federally owned and regulated dams are subject to federal regulations and guidelines and applicable federal and state laws. Owners can be fiscally and criminally liable for any failure of a dam and all damages resulting from its failure. Any uncontrolled release of the reservoir, whether the result of an intentional release or dam failure, can have devastating effects on persons, property, and the environment (FEMA, 2016a). Any malfunction or abnormality outside the design assumptions and parameters that adversely affect a dam’s primary function of impounding water is considered a dam failure. Lesser degrees of failure can progressively lead to or heighten the risk of a catastrophic failure, which may result in an uncontrolled release of the reservoir and can have a severe effect on persons and properties downstream (FEMA, 2016b).
  • Wiswall Falls Fish Ladder Construction Multi-Media Center Maps Background: News in 2011-2012, the Fish Ladder at Wiswall Falls in Durham Was Constructed

    Wiswall Falls Fish Ladder Construction Multi-Media Center Maps Background: News in 2011-2012, the Fish Ladder at Wiswall Falls in Durham Was Constructed

    Home About Us Related Sites Parks Contact Us SEARCH Enter your request here... Join us! ABOUT THE RIVER EDUCATION & OUTREACH FOR FUN MULTI-MEDIA CENTER RECREATION Like the Packers Falls Bridge, the LRAC seeks to connect people to the river. Photo by Ecophotography MULTI-MEDIA CENTER > Slide Shows > Wiswall Falls Fish Ladder Wiswall Falls Fish Ladder Construction Multi-Media Center Maps Background: News In 2011-2012, the fish ladder at Wiswall Falls in Durham was constructed. This project began as a job to address Brochures safety issues with the Wiswall Dam. Dam work is expensive and complicated, but the Town of Durham saw an opportunity to repair the dam and construct a badly needed fish ladder at the same time under the same permitting Videos cycle. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provided a grant to fund about half of the $1.9 million Slide Shows price tag. Lamprey River Research Lamprey River Art The New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game was consulted and engineering plans were drawn up for the dam NH Legislature Tracking repair and fish ladder. The process was looking good and moving forward. Because Wiswall Falls is listed on the Register of Historic Places both in New Hampshire and federally, personnel from the NH Bureau of Historic Resources were invited to review the plans and do a site visit. This visit was when the original plan met its first major obstacle. The planned fish ladder would have permanently obscured and obliterated the historic sawmill foundation along the river. This was deemed unacceptable and the plan was rejected.
  • The Nimbus Fish Passage Project

    The Nimbus Fish Passage Project

    incorporating whitewater boating in: The Nimbus Fish Passage Project Alex Koutzoukis 2012 Senior Project Accepted and approved by: __________________ Heath Schenker Professor & Senior Project Advisor, Program of Landscape Architecture, University of California Davis __________________ Claire Napawan Associate Professor, Program of Landscape Architecture, University of California Davis __________________ Andrew Fulks, Committee Member Manager, Putah Creek Riparian Reserve, Office of Resource Management and Planning, University of California Davis __________________ Josh Galt, Committee Member River Director, Primal Quest Adventure Racing Abstract This project focuses on a half mile stretch of the Lower American River directly below Nimbus Dam in Rancho Cordova, California. It explores the possibility of incorporating recreational whitewater features in a river restoration project. Currently, the United States Bureau of Reclamation is obligated to make improvements to the fish collecting system at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery. As part of Alternative 1 in the Nimbus Fish Passage Environmental Impact Report, it is possible to construct recreational whitewater features with the removal of an old, damaged weir that spans the river. This project aims to evaluate the structures that are used in whitewater park design and how they can be conducive to salmonid spawning habitat. The design of the site includes the surrounding landscape which will serve to provide interpretive and educational opportunities for learning about salmonid species and the importance of protecting the American River Watershed. This project demonstrates how fish passage, stream restoration, and recreational whitewater boating can coexist for multiple benefits. INTRODUCTION About the Author I am fascinated with the interaction between humans and nature. Being an avid whitewater enthusiast, this project was a perfect platform to combine my interests in Landscape Architecture, Ecological Restoration, and Outdoor Recreation.