Identifying important barriers in the Hudson River Estuary Andrew J. Peck, Ph.D. Michelle Brown...
-
Upload
angelina-pridgen -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Identifying important barriers in the Hudson River Estuary Andrew J. Peck, Ph.D. Michelle Brown...
Identifying important barriers in the Hudson River Estuary
Andrew J. Peck, Ph.D.Michelle Brown
Craig Cheeseman
The Nature ConservancyOctober 2012
Project Background
• Aquatic connectivity for streams and rivers is important
• Barriers can be dams, culverts, and natural fall lines
• Thousands of barriers exist in the Hudson River Estuary
How do you know which ones are the most important?
Project Background
• Partners: TNC, NYNHP, DEC-HREP
• Steering committee: TNC, NYNHP, HREP, DEC, DOT
Phase 1 Prioritize barriers Fall 2011
Phase 2 Field assess barriers January – Dec 2012
Phase 3 Prepare final products January – March 2013
Process and Timeline
Model
Components
1. Species
2. Condition
3. Connectivity
Model : Species Component
Partial Species List:
• Diadromous Fish• Brook Trout• Eastern Box Turtle• Comely Shiner• Northern Red
Salamander• Eastern Pond
Mussel
Species –Brook Trout
Species – Eastern Box Turtle
Model: Condition Component
1. Active River Area
2. Impervious Surface
3. Ecoregional Forest Matrix Blocks
4. Priority Tributaries
Condition – Active River Area
Condition – TNC Priority Tributaries
Model: Connectivity Component
Criteria Categories
1. Network Length
2. Absolute Gain
3. Downstream Barriers
Connectivity: Culverts and Dams
Remote Prioritization Results
Prioritization Metric Number of Possible Barriers
Total possible barriers 13,057
Total possible barriers on high condition streams 3,277
Total possible barriers with > 2000m network length 1,677
Total possible barriers with >=750m stream gain 924
Total possible barriers that intersect SGCN models 363
Possible barriers intersecting with SGCN’s that are culverts 283
Possible barriers intersecting with SGCN’s that are dams 80
Field Assessment
• Data Collection Methods– River and Stream Continuity Partnership
www.streamcontinuity.org
• Assessment Protocol– Lake Champlain Basin Fish Passage Initiative
2008- Final report• Juvenile Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
– 4 inch difference between bottom of culvert and top of water
– Least common denominator with published data
Field Results: Dams and Culverts
Field Results: Barriers and Non-Barriers
Field Assessment Prioritization
Degree of barrier to passage
+ Degree of habitat impact
Site Score
Prioritization:Tier 1 = 12 – 14
Tier 2 = 9 – 11
Tier 3 = 2 - 8
Barrier Ranking Criteria:
1. Inlet Drop (4 inches)2. Crossing slope matches
stream3. Depth in culvert matches
stream4. Outlet Drop5. Velocity
Impact Ranking Criteria:
1. Relative Scour Pool Size2. Crossing Alignment3. Span Description4. Wetted width (stream vs.
culvert)
Preliminary Results: Priority Barriers
Discussion
• False Negatives– There are probably more barriers out there
• Storm damage reduction aspects, not biodiversity, likely to fuel replacement
• Incorrect notion that FEMA will only replace what was there
Next Steps
• Differentiate between resident and diadromous fish barriers (Fall line layer)
• Develop field application
• Strategic replacement with partners
• DEC Funding Opportunities
Questions