Presented By: Scott Peedle US Forest Service

Transcription

1 Presented By: Scott Peedle US Forest Service

2 Huron-Manistee NF Supervisors office Cadillac, MI Manistee National Forest Approximately 500,000 Acres District Offices Baldwin Manistee Huron National Forest Approximately 500,000 Acres District Offices Oscoda Mio

3 USFS - Region 9

4 Region 9 Headquarters is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin Other Forests in Michigan include the Hiawatha and Ottawa, which are both located in the Upper Peninsula.

5 What we do CARING FOR THE LAND AND SERVING PEOPLE We are entrusted with 193 million acres of forests and grasslands. It's a big task, but one that we take seriously. We are dedicated to restore and enhance landscapes, protect and enhance water resources, develop climate change resiliency and help create jobs that will sustain communities. -Chief Tom Tidwell

6 From , HMNF has been involved (funding, design & implementation) of 52 road stream crossings, of which 16 are complete. There has been a total of approximately $7.9 million in FS funding for these projects (ARRA, GLRI, CMLG, and HTAP). Projects by county: 8 - Alcona County 9 - Lake County 1 - Montmorency County 2 - Muskegon County 7 - Manistee County 8 - Newaygo County 4 - Oceana County 7 - Oscoda County 2 - Otsego County 5 - Wexford County

7 Forest Highways On January 6, 1983, Public Law , the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, was enacted and the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) was created. For the first time, federally owned roads were recognized to be in the national interest and would receive a portion of funding under the Highway Trust Fund. The FLHP provides funding for more than 137,000 miles of Federal and Indian roads that serve federal lands. Approximately 30% of the land in the US is under jurisdiction of the Federal Government. About 305,000 miles of public roads provide access to, through or within Federal and Indian lands.

8 Forest Highways The Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration administers the federal portion of funds which currently come though the current transportation act, known as SAFETEA-LU. Under SAFETEA-LU, the Forest Highway Program was developed, and Forest Highway funds are allocated by formula to each State. Under this program, the USFS works in a tri party agreement with FHWA (EFLHD) and the Michigan DOT to allocate funds at the project level.

9 Forest Highways In order to qualify for these funds, the roadway must be nominated and selected as a federal designated Forest Highway. These also include Scenic Byways. Huron National Forest currently has 159 designated miles of Forest Highway and Manistee National Forest currently has 215 miles of Forest Highway.

10 Forest Highways Recent and current construction projects include: Forest Highway 26 (Pierce Drive) Newaygo County Forest Highway 37 Wexford County. Each of these projects is valued at approximately $3 million.

11 National AOP policy National Forest Management Act - Implementing Regulations (36 CFR ) Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area No management practices causing blockages of water coursed, or deposits of sediment shall be permitted preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a natural forest. Clean Water Act - Silviculture road exemption (40 CFR 232.3) The design, construction and maintenance of the road crossing shall not disrupt the migration or other movement of those species of aquatic life inhabiting the water body.

12 National AOP policy USDA Forest Service Interim Directive for Designing Road-Stream Crossings Aquatic for Organism Passage Design (2008) Primary Design Priority: Aquatic organism passage and ecological connectivity is the goal and the first design priority of crossing streams that provide habitat for aquatic life. Other Design considerations: Minimizing the consequences of plugging and overtopping, including the ability to prevent stream diversion. Sufficient hydraulic capacity, including the requirement that headwater depth does not cause pressurized flow at the maximum flood. Maximize benefits while minimizing life cycle cost.

13 Design Methodology USDA Forest Service Interim Directive for Designing Road-Stream Crossings Aquatic for Organism Passage Design (2008) Road-Stream Crossing Design Methods: Stream Simulation Design: Bridge, arch, or embedded culvert designs providing stream simulation. The USDA Forest Service (2008) stream simulation design guidelines should be used when possible. Geomorphic-based Channel Design: Reconnects the upstream and downstream channel while meeting most fish and other aquatic organism movement and habitat needs. Hydraulic Design: Designs based primarily on hydraulic capacity should be limited to low stream gradients, where the structure is constantly partially submerged. Baffled culverts or structures designed with a fishway are discouraged and should be used as a last resort, especially if they also hinder terrestrial organism passage.

14 What is Stream Simulation? Stream simulation supports the ecosystembased approach to road-stream crossing design and aims to provide full aquatic organism passage; that is, all aquatic and semi-aquatic species should be able to travel through the crossing structure with no greater impediment than the natural channel would offer.

15 Stream Simulation Since the mid 1990 s Forest Service has committed extensive resources to study and develop these theories. Forest Service National Technology and Development Program in San Dimas, CA released stream simulation manual.

16 What is a Stream Simulation Road- Stream Crossing? Maintains geomorphologic and ecological continuity through the roadsteam crossing The Design channel bed has similar channel dimensions, sediment characteristics, and spatial variability as those in the natural channel Water velocities, flow depths, and resting areas through the crossing are similar to those in the natural channel Crossing is transparent to fish and other aquatic organisms so that movement is not impeded

17 What's the Problem? Potential adverse impacts of road stream crossing structures include negative effects of channel processes and aquatic habitats, as well as negative effects on aquatic organism passage (AOP). Road stream crossing structures can impede movement by: Debris accumulation Inlet or outlet drops Physical barriers (weirs, collapsed culvers) Water velocities exceed swimming ability (too fast for too long) Absence of bank-edge areas Excessive turbulence Insufficient water depth Discontinuity of channel substrate

18 How do we do it? Simulate a natural channel Fits in with adjacent reaches Bankfull cross section shape and dimensions Channel slope Channel structure

19 Three Guiding Principles for the Design of Road-Stream Crossings 1. The Design should fit both the stream and the road, not just the road.

20 Three Guiding Principles for the Design of Road-Stream Crossings 2. Minimum intervention in the stream process results in the least risk.

21 Three Guiding Principles for the Design of Road-Stream Crossings 3. Crossings should present no greater challenge to organism movement than the stream being crossed.

22 6 Maintenance & Monitoring 5 Construction 1 Initial Assessment Stream Simulation Project Phases 4 Final Design & Contract Preparation 2 Site Assessment 3 Stream Simulation Design

23 Stream Simulation Design Process Assess stream simulation feasibility Examine profile and alignment Find reference reach Determine bed shape and material Define structure width, elevation, details Mobility / stability Design profile control

24 Stream Simulation Design Process Assess stream simulation feasibility Examine profile and alignment Find reference reach Determine bed shape and material Define structure width, elevation, details Mobility / stability Design profile control

25 Scour pool vs. incised channel Outlet Scour Most projects have these Original Channel Grade Incised Channel Some Channels Original Channel Grade Incised Channel Grade Nick point

26 Design profile control, transitions Stream Simulation Design Process Assess stream simulation feasibility Examine profile and alignment Find reference reach Determine bed shape and material Define structure width, elevation, details Mobility / stability

27 Selection of reference reach Represents project channel Primarily selected by project gradient Provides input to stream simulation Out of the influence of existing crossing Try to avoid very complex channels

28 Reference reach measurements Pattern (site sketch) Variability/controlling structures (site sketch) Slope (profile survey) Dimensions (cross-section survey, bankfull measurements) Substrate (pebble count)

29 Design profile control, transitions Stream Simulation Design Process Assess stream simulation feasibility Examine profile and alignment Find reference reach Determine bed shape & material Define structure width, elevation, details Mobility / stability

30 Bed design objectives Simulate natural bed shape diversity roughness mobility permeability

31 Bed shape Bankfull width?

32 Bankfull?

33 Margins, banklines Bankline or bands Debris Margin, bank Reference channel shape

34 Bed material examples Walk-behind Bobcat to install materials Fan for air quality in confined space Sheet piling to divert water

35 Example, continued

36 Design profile control, transitions Stream Simulation Design Process Assess stream simulation feasibility Examine profile and alignment Find reference reach Determine bed shape & material Define structure width, elevation, details Mobility / stability

37 Stream simulation culvert width First estimate: Span channel and banks Hydraulic capacity Reference Reach Cross-section

38 Stream simulation culvert width Some benefits of structures wider than bankfull width: Banks match reference channel. Minimize inlet contraction during high flow events. Provides increased variability of hydraulic conditions during high flows. Can create dry habitat conditions for passage of additional organisms increases openness.

39 Structure types Bridge Box Pipe Arch Bottomless Arch Embedded Round

40 Design profile control, transitions Stream Simulation Design Process Assess stream simulation feasibility Examine profile and alignment Find reference reach Determine bed shape & material Define structure width, elevation, details Mobility / stability

41 Stream Simulation Design Process Assess stream simulation feasibility Examine profile and alignment Find reference reach Determine bed shape & material Define structure width, elevation, details Mobility / stability Design profile control, transitions

42 Profile control options Move aggraded material to fill scoured area, then armor both surfaces. For an insiced channel, a steeper connecting channel can be used A stability analysis is required

43 Transitions Hourglass shape Restore downstream banks for stability and continuous banklines Restore upstream alignment and transition to remove backwater scour and restore sediment and bed material transport.

44 Tie channel edges to stream simulation bed edges

45 Design profile control, transitions Stream Simulation Design Process Assess stream simulation feasibility Examine profile and alignment Find reference reach Determine bed shape & material Define structure width, elevation, details Mobility / stability

46 FR9577 at Mena Creek Location: Newaygo County, MI Construction Cost: $35, x59 CMP Pipe Arch Replaced a 36 CMP and 18 Steel Pipe AOP Barriers: Velocity and Excessive Turbulence, Completion Date: August 2011

47 FR9577 at Mena Creek Upstream view in normal flow Upstream view at flood stage

48 FR9577 at Mena Creek

49 FR9577 at Mena Creek

50 FR9577 at Mena Creek

51 FR9577 at Mena Creek

52 FR9577 at Mena Creek

53 FR4121 at Pine River Location: Alcona County, MI Construction Cost: $400, Span Timber Bridge Replaced a 16 Wide by 8 High CMP AOP Barriers: Velocity, Excessive Turbulence, and Outlet Drop Contractor: John Henry Excavating Completion Date: September 2011

54 FR4121 at Pine River

55 FR4121 at Pine River

56 FR4121 at Pine River

57 FR4121 at Pine River

58 Bosschem Road at Pine Creek Location: Manistee County, MI Construction Cost: $210, Span Timber Bridge Replaced a 42 CMP AOP Barriers: Velocity, Excessive Turbulence, discontinuity of channel substrate, and Outlet Drop Partners: Manistee CRC, FHWA, Krenn Bridge Company, and KPM Engineering Completion Date: September 2011

59 Bosschem Road at Pine Creek

60 Bosschem Road at Pine Creek

61 Bosschem Road at Pine Creek Existing embankment results in minimal impacts downstream during construction Proposed 13 streambed Existing 42 CMP Velocity & step barrier on downstream end Artificial banks will be constructed with riprap and topsoil Average 13 bankfull width

62 Bosschem Road at Pine Creek

63 Sources of funding Non-Governmental Agencies: Conservation Resource Alliance ( Huron Pines ( The Nature Conservancy ( Trout Unlimited ( Fish America Foundation ( National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ( Tribal Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

64 Sources of funding Governmental Agencies: US Fish and Wildlife US Forest Service National Park Service Environmental Protection Agency (Great Lakes Restoration Initiative) Michigan Department of Natural Resources Inland Fisheries Grants (currently not available) Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Michigan

65 Sources of funding Governmental Agencies Continued: State Coastal Management Programs NOAA Open Rivers Initiative - The NOAA Restoration Center anticipates up to $6 million in project funding, with a focus on implementing projects that will directly benefit migratory species such as salmon, sturgeon, shad, river herring, striped bass, and American eel. Projects under the initiative will also improve community vitality and public safety and encourage economic growth.

66 Sources of funding Governmental Agencies Continued: USFW National Fish Passage Program The Fish Passage Program Leverages Federal Funding! Working with over 700 partners, the National Fish Passage Program is highly effective at leveraging Federal appropriations, with an average match of $3 in partner funding for each Federal dollar. True to the Service s mission, the work to date has directly benefited over 85 federal trust fish and other aquatic species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs efficiently and effectively administer grant programs and work with fish and wildlife agencies in a mutually responsible, cooperative and creative grant partnership to protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and habitat resources for present and future public benefit. Region 3's Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs administer over $183 million in grants to the states and tribes in the region.

67 Sources of funding Governmental Agencies Continued: USFW National Fish Passage Program: Contact Information Andrea Ania Fishery Biologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Alpena FWCO 480 West Fletcher Street Alpena, MI Phone: (989) x1020 Rick Westerhof Fish Biologist USFWS Green Bay Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 6644 Turner Road Elmira, MI Phone:

68 The End

69 Thank you Acknowledgements: The Forest Service San Dimas Team Mark Fedora, USFS Dale Higgins, USFS Jon Meeks, USFS Rich Corner, USFS Bob Stuber, USFS Jeff Silagy, MDEQ