1 / 21

Identifying important barriers in the Hudson River Estuary

Identifying important barriers in the Hudson River Estuary. Andrew J. Peck, Ph.D. Michelle Brown Craig Cheeseman The Nature Conservancy October 2012. Project Background. Aquatic connectivity for streams and rivers is important Barriers can be dams, culverts, and natural fall lines

enan
Download Presentation

Identifying important barriers in the Hudson River Estuary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Identifying important barriers in the Hudson River Estuary Andrew J. Peck, Ph.D. Michelle Brown Craig Cheeseman The Nature Conservancy October 2012

  2. 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?

  3. Project Background • Partners: TNC, NYNHP, DEC-HREP • Steering committee: TNC, NYNHP, HREP, DEC, DOT Process and Timeline

  4. Model Components Species Condition Connectivity

  5. Model : Species Component • Partial Species List: • Diadromous Fish • Brook Trout • Eastern Box Turtle • Comely Shiner • Northern Red Salamander • Eastern Pond Mussel

  6. Species –Brook Trout

  7. Species – Eastern Box Turtle

  8. Model: Condition Component Active River Area Impervious Surface Ecoregional Forest Matrix Blocks Priority Tributaries

  9. Condition – Active River Area

  10. Condition – TNC Priority Tributaries

  11. Model: Connectivity Component Criteria Categories Network Length Absolute Gain Downstream Barriers

  12. Connectivity: Culverts and Dams

  13. Remote Prioritization Results

  14. 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

  15. Field Results: Dams and Culverts

  16. Field Results: Barriers and Non-Barriers

  17. Field Assessment Prioritization Barrier Ranking Criteria: Inlet Drop (4 inches) Crossing slope matches stream Depth in culvert matches stream Outlet Drop Velocity Degree of barrier to passage + Degree of habitat impact Site Score Prioritization: Tier 1 = 12 – 14 Tier 2 = 9 – 11 Tier 3 = 2 - 8 Impact Ranking Criteria: Relative Scour Pool Size Crossing Alignment Span Description Wetted width (stream vs. culvert)

  18. Preliminary Results: Priority Barriers

  19. 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

  20. Next Steps • Differentiate between resident and diadromous fish barriers (Fall line layer) • Develop field application • Strategic replacement with partners • DEC Funding Opportunities

  21. Questions

More Related