Скачать 25.55 Kb.
Some of the below are comments/summaries/criteria from various references.
Do we need a national mon design?
Do we need pre- and post-crossing replacement data on fish movement to show replacement effectiveness?
Are designs being done according to FS AOP standards (eg. within 25% reference reach slopes and particle sizes, constructed bed structures if bed is immobile, with consideration of floodplain overflows, etc.)
Are structures being constructed in accordance with design specifications?
Do simulated streambeds retain their design conditions?
How similar to reference reach does simulated streambed have to be to (1) pass AOs, and (2) bed dynamically stable long-term. What are tolerance limits for difference from reference reach.
Is it possible to determine degree of passage limitation from physical characteristics of structure and streambed alone?
How important is it to fit ss into spacing of channel units in adjacent reaches (eg. pools, riffles).
Does bed load supply have important effect on whether ss works or not?
Do grade control structures added outside crossing to make up downcut elevations obstruct passage? How can we tell how big steps can be before they are barriers.
There is a broad continuum (Keith Nislow’s term) of monitoring related to organism movement and passage at crossings. We should understand the whole arena, and decide where FS field monitoring can fit, how it can support and be supported by more basic research.
How determine passage status of baffled culverts? What about other retrofits like adding boulder weirs downstream of culvert to submerge perched outlet.
“Monitoring and evaluation clearly need to be designed as part of the rehabilitation action.” From Roni et al 2005 abstract and p79
“Accurate project cost should be reported as part of comprehensive monitoring and evaluation to assist with future cost-benefit and economic analysis.” Roni et al 2005 p 79
From roni et al 2005 p 78 table 24. Common parameters to evaluate rehab projects
for instream structures: habitat units
large woody debris
from DVWK 2002 p. 107: a fish pass functions well if it can be proved that all fish spp actually present in the affected river stretch, in their different stages and relative abundance, can negotiate the pass. The pass can be considered functional even for extremely rare spp or spp that are not recorded b/c of the methodological difficulty to catch them, if other spp with the same ration of body size to pass dimensions and similar swimming performance are able to negotiate the pass.
Matt Blank’s 2005 ICOET paper. P 655: Care must be taken when applying only one technique to assess the barrier status of a culvert.
Are we concerned with just stream simulation culverts? Or do we want to include all types of crossings?
Email from Nick Schmal 1/29/09
Greetings Russ / Nick -
It is sounds very exciting to have the DOT's recognizing the need for additional design parameters than clearwater flood conveyance.
We do not have a specific monitoring effort....but there are a couple of issues that deserve some attention as the design method broadens beyond the USFS...
1) Ice build-up - installing a larger culvert has allowed the crossing to become filled with ice (not a concentrated flow and more cold contact air) such that there is actually less capacity at ice out than the smaller culvert it replaced. This is in an area where there is anchor ice (north shore). Hydrology is snowmelt dominated. Anchor ice is prevalent. Hence, may put road prism / public at more risk...... Perhaps too unique- but wonder if an issue with similar issues....Perhaps need to address with an additional overflow culvert , inverted arch, or other.....The concern over this issue is somewhat muted here because many of the roads are not open during the spring melt, but this could be an issue for road with continuous service...
2) Another item that needs to be addressed is how to design systems within highly disturbed systems that are still adjusting (not in regime). The forest service lands are generally pretty stable when compared to the wholesale adjustments going on in urbanizing areas / other (which can often be the case with other road authorities) . This is often unrecognized by engineers / others.
Finally, the use of specific project performance criteria is important for the success of the larger project implementation (see presentation information that I had used). Also very important for setting up monitoring protocol (what assumptions used for design and performance - how did these stand up). One of the biggest problems in monitoring the 'success' of stream restoration projects is the lack of specific project performance criteria.
Anyway, just a couple of my thoughts to do with what you will....
Marty E. Rye, P.E.
Superior Forest Hydrologist
8901 Grand Avenue Place
Duluth, MN 55808
ph (218) 626-4390
Marg Lang 2/19/09: will be hard to be in right place at right time.
email from Whitney Tilt 9/10/2002 NFWF RFP for culvert replacement evaluation: The goal is to glean the lessons learned in
culvert repair, replacement and removal to promote fisheries restoration
re prioritization: see my email to furniss and others after a conference call, 12/21/2001. includes meeting notes from slc meeting and some good stuff on prioritization. Is in old archive, bioass’t folder in fish passage. Printing out for background. See also NIAP prioritization discussion.
From Mark H’s ppt in San Diego AFS, 2003: Are culverts changing aquatic assemblages? If so where and to what extent. See MiFu email of 4/22/2003 in old archive (bioasst fldr). Mark was reporting on spp abundance abv and below culverts (fewer above, but ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ culverts showed no diffs). Looks like this is where he got first indication that pipe length x slope was the important issue.
Dan C. 2/20/09 phone How much time do you want to spend at a site for monitoring?
Tony Olsen email 2/2/7/09 How many road-stream crossings are there on NFS lands? How many are barriers? How do we know thery are barriers? What type/severity of barriers are they?
How many have had passage restn since pgm began (when did pgm begin?)?Where are they? Type of replacement culvert? Level of restored passage? Problems noted eg with structure, stream response to replacement, etc. miles x quality habitat restored to access.
2/27/09 Tony Olsen
Interesting project. My expertise is on statistical survey design
especially for aquatic resources so my contribution would be in that
area (if I find time) and not in specifics about what is measured to
determine effectiveness of AOP at a stream crossing. Several things
come to mind. My assumption is that AOP program and monitoring is only
associated with NFS administered lands. I would start at the top by
creating a national GIS layer of all roads within NFS lands and separate
GIS layer of all streams on NFS lands. Both of these at highest
resolution possible. These would then be intersected to create a GIS
layer of all road-stream crossings. Maybe you already have this -
possibly at NF level - if the latter then would want to pull them all
together to do the above. This would be basis for constructing a survey
design or designs to address questions of interest. Would want to
consider what additional information have available about the
road-stream crossing, e.g. road type, stream type/size, which NF, State,
etc. I recognize that roads do change over time as new ones are built,
First question that could be answered is what percent of road-stream
crossings currently restrict AOP? This could be answered nationally,
regionally or by NF depending on how large sample size can afford.
Needless to say likely want to collect additional information about type
of structure, type of restriction, whether improvements have been made,
etc. This question is not an effectiveness monitoring question but it
certainly defines the scope of the problem. You may already have the
information required to answer this question.
Second assumption is that the number of improvements to
bridges/culverts, has occurred or will happen at a relatively small
percentage of all road-crossings. This means that a survey design that
only uses information as described above is unlikely result in a
sufficient number of road-stream crossings with AOP improvements to
determine their effectiveness - sample size will be too small. If this
is the case, then it will be critical to acquire locations of all AOP
improvements to add to the road-stream crossing GIS layer above. This
should be requirement for new AOP improvements. Question is can gather
that information for past improvements. Certainly would like to know
more specific information about an improvement such as year implemented,
type of crossing structure, improvement made, stream information, etc.
Information required depends on what specific questions you want
effectiveness monitoring to answer.
Phil reminded me that state of Oregon has done an effectiveness
monitoring program for this type of question. Liz Dent is person who was
You mentioned a possible steering committee meeting in mid-April. I
have a meeting in Alaska week April 13 and meeting in Santa Barbara
April 28-30 (as does Phil). I do need to know the level of time
commitment being on the steering committee would involve before making a
decision. Any travel costs would have to be covered - surprise,
surprise.... Now if my involvement would also lead to all NFs making a
commitment to complete field sampling in national forests as part of the
National Aquatic Resource Surveys (streams, lakes, wetlands, coastal
waters; http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/reporting.html), I would make
the time! I have had discussions with Joe Furnish about this and he has
raised the issue with USFS in DC.
Anthony (Tony) R. Olsen, Chief
Freshwater Ecology Branch
Western Ecology Division
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Voice: (541) 754-4790
Fax: (541) 754-4716
The steering committee meeting is set for April 15-16--a month and a half away---and several people are unable to come. I'm thinking we can start the ball rolling by exchanging ideas here in advance of the meeting. Maybe we can get some of the questions stated before the meeting, and get enough perspective to identify areas of controversy.
|To be an effective learning tool the Discussion Thread questions require your active discussion of the topic in answering the question and in discussing the||Uv air Treatment Steering Committee|
|Uv air Treatment Steering Committee||The Adult Learning State of the Field Steering Committee|
|"Orthomolecular" is not the answer to any questions posed in medical school.”||Degree Level and Type to be awarded for program or part of program|
|[This site campaigns for a press conference at all Bilderberg venues and a declaration from the steering committee that any consensus reached must be in our public, not their private interest]||Disclaimer: The purpose of these pages is to provide a "jump-start" to new researchers and minimize "surfing time". The reader must use his/her own criteria to decide what has merit. Some of these essays raise more questions than they answer|
|4. speaking and listening skills practice questions for Oral Discussion, Role Play Exercises, Word Stress and Pronunciation. 7 Vocabulary||A student Handbook is the additional skill and reference material found at the end of books. The Student Handbook can help answer these questions|