Culvert remediation projects to allow fish passage examples

S

Smike

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
233
Working on the basics for proposals to open up fish access to spawning/thermal refuge to tribs on a large river in PA. There are several tribs which have bridge structures (specially concrete box type culverts) which prevent fish passage. Most involve having created a plunge pool of 3'-4' lower then the bridge stream base.

Does anyone have any experience in remediation to allow fish passage, or know of where one can find specific information on this subject? Tons of info on fixing simple metal culvert type structures, but little dealing with concrete box types.

Any help or direction is greatly appreciated!

Mike
 
Searching for "culvert replacement" on TU National's home page yielded this:

http://www.tu.org/search/node/culvert%20replacement

Probably something there to get you started...
 
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/fishPassage/Chapter-7-Retrofit-Design.pdf

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/353873.pdf

http://clean-water.uwex.edu/pubs/pdf/fishfriendlyculverts.pdf

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/siuslaw/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5177211&width=full

http://http://precast.org/2013/07/precast-passage-restoring-natural-habitats/

Use the references in the document to find more.

Or just Google "concrete box culvert replacement fish passage" and lots of results come back.
 
Perhaps simply adding many large rocks below the concrete lip of the culvert, bringing the streambed up to grade with the box culvert, might be a less expensive fix than replacing the culvert.

The idea would be to the replace the current drop with more of rapids.

It might also be a good idea to use a series of rock cross vanes to create grade control, and "stepping" from the streambed of the incised channel up to the grade of the culvert.

Fish can move up over a series of small drops.




 
Unfortunately due to the P3 program there are bridges being replaced with box culverts that are being installed by in adequate contractors that lack experience across the state. This has led to a huge number of new bridges that prevent fish passage instead of helping improve passage. It without a doubt is a problem, unfortunately the best solution would be to replace the structure but financially that is hard to justify since its a brand new structure. It is also difficult to raise the stream bed up 3-4' to help remediate perched structures.

The best solution is better construction oversite to improve the quality of structures being built.
 
Many of the culverts and bridges have poor passage because the water drops down and carves out the streambed below. So the drop is too high for trout and other fish to negotiate.

But at these spots there are also often very high quality holding habitats, i.e. pools and cover. Often holding "big trout and lots of them" as on many streams these are the best pools on the entire stream.

Because of all the alterations to streams, the biggest limitation to trout populations is lack of good holding water (pools and cover).

It would be a shame if we gain the fish passage, but lose the pools and cover.

It should be possible (not easy) to have both pools and passage at bridges and culverts. There's a design challenge for all you engineers and would be engineers out there.

I think the solution is something along the lines of a series of grade control structures downstream from the bridge or culvert. So that you would have a series of short drops that the fish can negotiate. And a series of plunge pools below the grade control structures.


 
Links are very helpful, thank you!

Bridges in question are old (1920's). Replacement is cost prohibited. Loss of the pool to gain spawning is a justifiable trade off. If this project gets off the ground, I will provide more details.

Mike
 
Mike,

One of the first things I said to Nick regarding that river was to make the feeders accessable to fish to enter / exit. Refuge at times and spawning at other times. If you can get several of them open to fish passage, I think you will be pleasantly surprised 2-4 years down the road. Keep up the good work.
 
Exactly, depending on the effort for remediation of issues blocking trout from migrating into these tribs, it might work out to be the best bang for the buck in terms of increasing wild trout in the river.



 
Is this the rail culvert over Hickory Run that you are speaking of? I know the issue there if so.

Do you work for an engineering consulting firm? If not, it sounds like you need to hire one. Every structure is different and requires its own individual hydraulic analysis. This is not an easy task especially since replacement is not an option.

For those that think this is not taken into consideration for new structures, you are way off. I do this for a living. You have no idea.





 
Same, CLSports. Unfortunately no trout to consider in my part of VA - but regardless, the design and analysis can be a very complicated process.

Troutbert makes a good point about habitat though. Before altering any culvert that is creating a big pool, I'd suggest making sure it is actually a migration barrier. Trout can get over surprisingly large obstacles.

Consider what the stream would look like in a high water event when the water is a foot or two higher than normal. That kind of event can turn an impassable 3 or 4 foot drop into an easily passable 1 or 2 foot drop. Metal pipe or flat bottom concrete culverts are not very friendly because there is no break from the current for a fish swimming through, but many trout streams I fish have 3-5 foot high waterfalls with equal trout populations above and below. Just food for thought before spending a ton of money on a replacement.
 
And regarding the PENNDOT P3 bridge replacement initiative; my company came in 2nd place on the bidding for that contract (design). If we had won it, then it would have been good to have me as a trout fisherman on the project team. I would look out for your best interest. Oh well. They should have chosen us. Maybe next contract . . . Actually I am glad we did not win it. It would have meant long hours and a lot of overtime for me. No time to fish!

Rest assured that every effort is made at my company to protect the trout in all projects involving Class A, HQ or EV streams.

 
sarce wrote:
Same, CLSports. Unfortunately no trout to consider in my part of VA - but regardless, the design and analysis can be a very complicated process.

Troutbert makes a good point about habitat though. Before altering any culvert that is creating a big pool, I'd suggest making sure it is actually a migration barrier. Trout can get over surprisingly large obstacles.

Consider what the stream would look like in a high water event when the water is a foot or two higher than normal. That kind of event can turn an impassable 3 or 4 foot drop into an easily passable 1 or 2 foot drop. Metal pipe or flat bottom concrete culverts are not very friendly because there is no break from the current for a fish swimming through, but many trout streams I fish have 3-5 foot high waterfalls with equal trout populations above and below. Just food for thought before spending a ton of money on a replacement.

But the timing of those high flow events is key. Yes, they enable the fish to move, but if the stream is low and dry for a two month period (say September and October), you potentially killed the migration of fish to their spawning gravel with a culvert that is passable sometimes. There may have been a dozen high flow events earlier in the year, but those may not help when needed.

As far as the 3-5 foot waterfalls, the mechanics of fish traversal is something I've always wondered about. It's easy enough to populate the area below the waterfall from fish washing down, but I would love to come across a migrating fishing traversing one of these, on the upstream move.
 
Fair point. If the fish can get above the barrier early in the year though, they are already positioned above it come spawning time. However your point stands that sometimes it could block a fish that has been living downstream but needs to get to an upstream spawning area.

Free flowing systems are best, but if you have limited money to do these projects, I'd put the "sometimes passable" ones kinda low on the priority list until you've taken care of the "never passable" ones.

As for the natural falls situations, I believe many times high flows open up less steep side channels. But not always, and those are the places that really amaze me because it suggests the populations above the falls have been sustaining themselves for a very long time.

There was a study done on the Savage River drainage recently where brook trout tagged in the lower part (of the upper savage) swam upstream 7 miles into a tributary, passing over a 3-4 foot waterfall at the mouth of the tributary to do so.
 
Is this the rail culvert over Hickory Run that you are speaking of? I know the issue there if so. Do you work for an engineering consulting firm? If not, it sounds like you need to hire one. Every structure is different and requires its own individual hydraulic analysis. This is not an easy task especially since replacement is not an option. For those that think this is not taken into consideration for new structures, you are way off. I do this for a living. You have no idea.

Hickory run is one, but not the biggest offender, but a general example of the issues with about 4 tribs on the east side. This is an information gathering stage. If anything substantial is to be proposed, an engineering firm will need to be engaged with. Overall even with costs of engineering and retrofit (if RBMN RR would entertain such) would be far cheaper then the long range effort to address the functional deficiencies with the FEW release tower. Currently this system of trib spawning/thermal refuge is supporting a wild trout population as is, the goal is to further enhance and support.


Consider what the stream would look like in a high water event when the water is a foot or two higher than normal. That kind of event can turn an impassable 3 or 4 foot drop into an easily passable 1 or 2 foot drop.

True, but the natural variability of such events causes to much year over year migration or refuge success rates.
 
https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ToolsForLandowners/RiverScience/Documents/BRG%20v.1.0%20final%20reduced.pdf


Some food for thought on the remediation topic.
 
https://docs.google.com/a/okanoganhighlands.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=b2thbm9nYW5oaWdobGFuZHMub3JnfG9oYXxneDo1ODRmMTMzZGY2ZTlkM2U4

Whether or not your situation could benefit from a Beaver Dam Analog, there is much valuable information in this paper about the basics of stream morphology, ecology, and processes. Essential concepts to think about when planning a stream remediation project. Good Luck.

 
Back
Top