Hydraulic analysis and risk assessment of a proposed fish barrier for Johnson Creek, Utah.

Transcription

1 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 2014 Jun 10th, 1:30 PM - 1:50 PM Hydraulic analysis and risk assessment of a proposed fish barrier for Johnson Creek, Utah. S. Hunter University of Wisconsin - Madison Follow this and additional works at: Hunter, S., "Hydraulic analysis and risk assessment of a proposed fish barrier for Johnson Creek, Utah." (2014). International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage This Event 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.

2

3 Johnson Creek

4 Johnson Creek Yellowstone Cutthroat Distribution

5

6 Stop Brook Trout 100 year flood = 326 cfs K. Morita image

7 Johnson Creek Plan: Vertical Wall 3/26/ Diversion Headgate Johnson Creek Plan: Vertical Wall 3/26/ Legend EG Q2 = 80 Legend WS Q2 = 80 EG Q2 = 80 Crit Q2 = 80 WS Q2 = 80 Ground Ground Ineff Bank Sta Bank Sta Elevation (ft) Proposed Barrier Location Breached Dam Station (ft) Station (ft)

8

9

10 Johnson Creek Plan: Vertical Wall 3/13/2014 Johnson Creek Main Legend 5010 EG Q50 = 279 WS Q50 = 279 Crit Q50 = 279 Ground yr. Flood Elevation (ft) ft Main Channel Distance (ft)

11

12 Greenhorn Creek Fish Barrier, Montana

13 Not Vented Vented Velocity Barrier

14 USBR

15 1.) EFFECTIVENESS = 4 COMPONENTS 2.) STABILITY = 2 COMPONENTS

16 1.) EFFECTIVENESS Free Overfall (Weir Height) Burst Speed Prolonged Speed Apron Elevation Less Effective < 1 > 1 More Effective

17 1.) STABILITY Water Impounded Dam Freeboard Least Stable < 1 > 1 Most Stable

18 RPC Weir + Burst + Prolonged + Apron + Impounded + FB = 6 Least Effective & Stable Most Effective & Stable

19 Cost vs. Risk of Reinvasion Is this Cost Effective / Prohibitive?

20 Vertical Barrier

21

22 3 Grade

23

24 Vertical Barrier 3 Weir / grade

25

26 The Goal Design an effective & stable barrier in an appropriate location that has minimal effects on the stream system

27 Comprehensive barrier design manual Better understanding of target species More precise hydrology predictions Site Location & stream type (geomorphically stable & effects of barrier on stream) Consistent long-term monitoring & maintenance Better hydraulic data at proposed barrier (3-D) Learn from our successes & mistakes

28 Understand the risks of installing a barrier Understand that barriers are not a long-term solution to control non native species Invasion vs. isolation

29 All things considered, an artificial barrier should be regarded as a stopgap measure; ultimately, the only permanent method for securing populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout will be removal of nearby nonnative trout populations and reestablishment of connectivity to larger stream networks (Hepworth et al. 2002).

30 Dale White: Forest Hydrologist, Gallatin N.F. Montana Jim DeRito: Trout Unlimited Ben Nadolski: Aquatic Biologist, Utah DNR Jason Carey: Engineer, River Restoration Matt McKell: Aquatic Biologist, Utah DNR Mark Lacy: Fish Biologist, White River N.F Colorado Mark Weinhold: Forest Hydrologist, White River N.F. Colorado

31