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: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference 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. 38. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2014/june10/38 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.
Johnson Creek
Johnson Creek Yellowstone Cutthroat Distribution
Stop Brook Trout 100 year flood = 326 cfs K. Morita image
Johnson Creek Plan: Vertical Wall 3/26/2014 5050 5020 5045 5040.09.05.09 Diversion Headgate Johnson Creek Plan: Vertical Wall 3/26/2014.09.05.09 Legend EG Q2 = 80 Legend WS Q2 = 80 EG Q2 = 80 Crit Q2 = 80 WS Q2 = 80 Ground Ground Ineff Bank Sta Bank Sta 5035 5010 Elevation (ft) 5030 5025 5000 5020 5015 5010 4990 Proposed Barrier Location Breached Dam 5005-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 5000 Station (ft) -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Station (ft)
Johnson Creek Plan: Vertical Wall 3/13/2014 Johnson Creek Main Legend 5010 EG Q50 = 279 WS Q50 = 279 Crit Q50 = 279 Ground 5008 5006 50 yr. Flood Elevation (ft) 5004 6 ft. 5002 5000 4998 610 620 630 640 650 Main Channel Distance (ft)
Greenhorn Creek Fish Barrier, Montana
Not Vented Vented Velocity Barrier
USBR
1.) EFFECTIVENESS = 4 COMPONENTS 2.) STABILITY = 2 COMPONENTS
1.) EFFECTIVENESS Free Overfall (Weir Height) Burst Speed Prolonged Speed Apron Elevation Less Effective < 1 > 1 More Effective
1.) STABILITY Water Impounded Dam Freeboard Least Stable < 1 > 1 Most Stable
RPC Weir + Burst + Prolonged + Apron + Impounded + FB = 6 Least Effective & Stable Most Effective & Stable
Cost vs. Risk of Reinvasion Is this Cost Effective / Prohibitive?
Vertical Barrier
3 Weir/Apron @ Grade
Vertical Barrier 3 Weir / Apron @ grade
The Goal Design an effective & stable barrier in an appropriate location that has minimal effects on the stream system
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
Understand the risks of installing a barrier Understand that barriers are not a long-term solution to control non native species Invasion vs. isolation
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).
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