University of Massachusetts - Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage 2012 Jun 6th, 1:50 PM - 2:10 PM Session B5 - Culvert Roughness Elements for Native Utah Fish Passage Suzanna Monk Brigham Young University Civil and Environmental Engineering, suji.monk@gmail.com Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference Monk, Suzanna, "Session B5 - Culvert Roughness Elements for Native Utah Fish Passage" (2012). International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage. 22. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2012/june6/22 This is brought to you for free and open access by the The Fish Passage Community at UMass Amherst at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact scholarworks@library.umass.edu.
Natural Substrate Best Alternative for Native Utah Fish Passage at Culverts Suzanne Monk, Lindsay Esplin Wait, Mark Belk, Rollin Hotchkiss
Acknowledgments Denis Stuhff, Utah Dept. of Transportation Brent Mefford, BuRec Eric Billman Karsten Busby Guillermo Bustamante Sarah Clark Biology research group
Background Culvert design for fish passage compares average flow velocities to fishes prolonged swim speeds (Hotchkiss and Frei, 2007) Method developed for salmonid passage Smaller species can take advantage of reduced velocity zones near boundaries within the culvert Lack of well documented data to prove it! http://www.wildlifeandroads.org/decisionguide/2_1_1.cfm
Scope of Work Investigate fish passage through culverts for native Utah fishes Longnose dace Leatherside chub Speckled dace Work was performed in two phases Phase I: Laboratory tests Phase II: Field tests
Phase I: Treatments 1. Smooth boundary (bare flume) 2. Cylinders on smooth boundary 3. Natural substrate boundary
Water velocity set between the fish s sustained and burst swim speeds (~1 m/s) Phase I: Testing
Phase I: Velocity Measurements Velocities measured 1 and 5 cm above the boundary 5 cm above 10 cm/s contours Plan view Flow from right to left
E/F p (J/N) Phase I: Results and Conclusions Energy calculations were made to more effectively compare the three treatments (Behlke) Substrate that scaled with fish size will allow for fish passage for native Utah fishes Fish were able to pass even when the velocity exceeded their prolonged swim speed 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 5 cm height 1 cm height Control Cylinder Substrate
Phase II: Sites Corrugated metal arch culvert Stream site N Double barrel concrete box culvert All located within 1 km of each other on Salina Creek Box Stream Q Arch 146 m
Phase II: Methods Marking 3 sites 4 groups at each site Recapture three weeks later Two passes in 10-m segments
Phase II: Velocity Measurements Taken 2 cm above substrate 1-m by 1-m grid across entire area at each site Plan view, flow to the left
Percent Finer (%) Phase II: Pebble Counts Zig-zag method Measurements taken every 0.3 m Performed at arch culvert and stream sites Box culvert was bare except for some sand 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Arch Culvert Diameter (mm) Stream Site Difference (arch - stream) D 16 (mm) 11 4 7 D 50 (mm) 44 26 18 D 84 (mm) 205 126 79 Arch Culvert Site Stream Site
Population density at each site Phase II: Results and Conclusions 160 Leatherside chub Population 140 Speckled dace 120 densities at each 100 site were 80 60 estimated 40 20 Fish were able to 0 Box Culvert Arch Culvert Stream Site Site use arch culvert site as refuge Substrate should roughly scale with the size of the fish 180 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 Pool Section 7.5
Recommendations Provide a layer of suitably scaled substrate in barrel Match size distribution of adjacent reaches Can follow procedures in recent FHWA publication HEC-26 High assurance of successful fish passage, less invasive, more cost effective More work on substrate replenishment
Sources Aedo, J. R., 2008. Does Shape Predict Performance? An Analysis of Morphology and Swimming Performance in Great Basin Fishes. Thesis prepared for Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 52 pp. Allan, J. D. and M. M. Castillo, 2007. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Behlke, C. E., 1991. Power and Energy Implications of Passage Structures for Fish. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10. American Fisheries Society. 289-298. Hotchkiss, R. H., and C. M. Frei 2007. Design for Fish Passage at Roadway-Stream Crossings: Synthesis Report. McLean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration. Wilson, K. W., and M. C. Belk 2001. Habitat Characteristics of Leatherside Chub at two Spatial Scales. Western North American Naturalist 61(1) 36-42.