1

Testing the Ability of Native Cutthroat Trout to Pass Through Small Culverts on

Steep Slopes

N. Phil Peterson, Ryan K. Simmons, Jeffery T. LightForest & Channel Metrics

Plum Creek Timber Company

Cooperative Monitoring Evaluation and Research Committee

March 22, 2011

Olympia, Washington

2

• Alteration of channel processes• Direct loss of habitat• Loss of ecological connectivity• Potential hindrance or barrier to fish

passage

Potential impacts of culverts

3

Impacted road crossings in the PNW

• WASHINGTON

• OREGON

• BRITISH COLUMBIA

Forest lands: 6,505 barriers in 1997, ~50% have been replaced today (total cost $100M to $200M)

WSDOT: 1,904 (1,470 significant habitat) culvert barriers ($900M)

76,000 culverts on fish streams, moderate to high risk for passage problems in 58% of cases

ODOT: Western OR 733 barriers ($100s M)

4

• Excessive velocities within barrel• Inadequate depths within barrel• Turbulence effects• Excessive drop at culvert outlet• Lack of plunge pool• Accumulation of debris & sediments

Potential culvert-related fish passage issues

5

• Test the ability for wild cutthroat trout to pass through a culvert under a range of flow conditions

Study Objective

6

- Slope capacity: 0 – 10%- Flow capacity: controllable up to 25 cfs- Adjustable tailwater pool depth- Capacity for testing multiple pipe diameters, shapes and configurations

Culvert Test Bed FacilityWDFW Skookumchuck Hatchery

7

8

Test Conditions

• Targeted average velocities: 2 - 8 fps• Slopes of 0.5 – 8.6%• Discharge: 2 – 14 cfs• All trials using a 6’ ID culvert, 40’ length

9

Average Velocity Flow Slope Date2 2.02 0.52 6/18/2010

2.5 4.28 0.52 6/26/20103 7.40 0.52 6/24/2010

4.5 5.10 3.14 7/10/20105 7.67 3.14 7/1/2010

5.5 10.58 3.14 7/8/20106 14.56 3.14 7/3/20106 5.10 8.60 7/24/20107 8.03 8.60 7/22/2010

7.5 9.80 8.60 7/31/20108 11.94 8.60 7/29/2010

Test Conditions

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210

Fork length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y (n

)Test Fish Size

(n = 274)

11

PIT Antenna Array

Pass-throughantenna

Right side pass-underantenna

Pass-throughantenna Left side pass-under

antenna

Pass-throughantenna

12

PIT Antenna Array

tailwater tank

flow direction

headwater tank

Plan View

flow direction

13

Pass-under PIT Antennas

14

Cross-sectional Hydraulic Asymmetry

higher velocity

lower velocity

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Trial (Arbitrary)

Dis

t A

vg B

ulk

Vel

ocit

y (ft

/sec

)

Trial (arbitrary)

Aver

age

velo

city

(ft/s

ec)

Targeted Average Velocities

16

Inlet Conditions

2.0 feet/sec velocity (0.52% slope; 2 cfs discharge)

17

Outlet Conditions

2.0 feet/sec velocity (0.52% slope; 2 cfs discharge)

18

Inlet Conditions

8.0 feet/sec velocity (8.6 % slope; 12 cfs discharge)

19

Outlet Conditions

8.0 feet/sec velocity (8.6 % slope; 12 cfs discharge)

20

Average Velocity Fish (n) Avg. FL mm (SD) Participation Success Trial No.

2 21 123 (20.2) 100% (21) 86% (18) 1

2.5 20 130 (20.1) 95% (19) 89% (17) 3

3 26 122 (25.8) 96% (25) 100% (25) 2

4.5 23 123 (25.8) 78% (18) 61% (11) 7

5 23 117 (19.9) 96% (22) 77% (17) 4

5.5 29 111 (18.0) 100% (29) 83% (24) 6

6 27 121 (24.0) 67% (18) 39% (7) 5

6 22 115 (28.1) 82% (18) 33% (6) 9

7 26 122 (25.2) 77% (20) 75% (15) 8

7.5 28 117 (16.6) 79% (22) 27% (6) 11

8 26 120 (21.5) 62% (16) 31% (5) 10

Preliminary Results

21

Participation and Passage

95%

78%82%

77% 79%

62%

100%100% 96% 96%

67%

31%27%

33%

75%

61%

83%86%

89%

100%

77%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2 2.5 3 4.5 5 5.5 6 6 7 7.5 8

Bulk velocity (ft/sec)

Prop

orti

on (%

)

Participation

Success

Average velocity (ft/sec)

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

22

Fish Size & Passage Success

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

2 2.5 3 4.5 5 5.5 6 6 7 7.5 8

Bulk velocity (ft/sec)

Ave

rag

e fo

rk l

eng

th i

n m

m (

± S

E)

Non-participants

Participants

Successful

Average velocity (ft/sec)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

odds ratio = 0.57; 95% CI for odds ratio: (0.473, 0.696)

Target Velocity

Pas

sage

Pro

babi

lity

24

Summary of results to date

• Participation by test fish is high• Fine scale spatial and temporal components to the rates of

participation and successful passage captured using the PIT antenna detection system

• ONCL are successful in passage conditions beyond that predicted by laboratory swim tests and models

• Fish size appears to be more important at the high end of test conditions

25

Next Steps

• Continue test trials by filling in target velocity gaps• Address the need for quantifying hydraulic conditions across

the range of trials tested• Target finishing date: Fall 2011