Strategic Approach to Fish Passage in British Columbia
Executive Summary
In response to various monitoring projects illustrating that maintaining fish passage on
resource roads is a significant issue in BC, a Fish Passage Working Group was recently
formed by Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forests and Range, and Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Through GIS analysis, the Fish Passage Working Group estimates
there are approximately 550,000 kilometres of resource roads with about 370,000 stream
crossings in BC, which is approximately 0.7 crossings per kilometres. Data from a
number of projects has shown that approximately 56% of these crossings have closedbottom culverts and of those about 38% are on fish streams. The estimate of the number
of culverts on fish streams is approximately 76,000. Past culvert assessment projects were
not designed to be representative and make inferences to other watersheds, but for the
sake of coming up with a provincial estimate, the Fish Passage Working Group has
applied a range of failure rates from historic and recent fish passage projects to estimate
the range of culverts that may be potential barriers to fish passage. The working groups
estimate of potential fish passage barriers is 30,000 to 70,000 culverts.
The Fish Passage Working Group has outlined a strategic plan to address the issue of fish
passage. Implementation of this plan will require $4 million annually in addition to the FIA
Landbase Investment Program funds. Immediate solutions include repairing priority
structures, conducting watershed / sub-basin overview assessments to identify barriers and
future priority restoration projects, targeted training and extension to forest industry and
government staff, and improving information about the extent and location of fish passage
problems in BC.
A protocol for selecting the highest fish value watersheds has been developed; it is based on
a standardized process that looks at variables such as species richness and escapement data.
The prioritization approach is to complete a systematic rapid assessment of fish stream
crossings within priority watersheds, and use this information to decide which structures
should be repaired first, based on habitat gained and connectivity of the aquatic ecosystem.
Short-term targets are recommended related to the number of priority watersheds
assessed, the number of crossings repaired or replaced, and the amount of fish habitat
restored. Data collected during the next few years would allow better understanding of
the number and distribution of fish passage problems.
In order to achieve government’s great goal of the best fisheries management bar none,
the problems associated with fish passage that have been highlighted through a number of
assessment projects, and further estimated for the province, need to be addressed. The
effects of distribution barriers on fish populations and compliance with federal and
provincial legislation need to be considered. Implementation of this proposed strategic
approach is required to help industry and government effectively manage BC’s valuable
fisheries resource.
2
1. Defining the Magnitude of Fish Passage Issues in BC
BC Ministry of Environment, BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Department of Fisheries
and Oceans Canada, and the Council of Forest Industries have collectively identified
significant fish passage problems associated with closed-bottom culverts through a number
of assessment projects. In response, government agencies have recently formed a Fish
Passage Working Group (Appendix 1) to begin to develop strategic solutions. The Fish
Passage Working Group, has estimated the provincial magnitude of the problem through a
background analysis and scope refinement GIS exercise to estimate the number of priority
closed-bottom culverts that may need to be repaired or restored, and how much this might
cost. The GIS analysis used all single line streams (less than 20 metres in channel width)
from the corporate watershed base overlaid onto all of the roads linework, including the
Digital Road Atlas (DRA), and Forest Tenure Roads (FTen), but rivers big enough to
require bridges were not included. This analysis found approximately 550,000 kilometres
of resource roads with about 370,000 stream crossings in BC. This averages approximately
0.7 crossings per kilometre, although there are significant differences in road, stream and
crossing densities across districts and watersheds.
Recent information looking at all crossings in a number of watersheds has shown that as
few as 28% and as many as 75% of the crossing structures may be culverts. The mean
number of crossing structures that are culverts has been estimated at 56%. Applying the
mean to our provincial crossing estimate yields approximately 200,000 culverts.
This estimate needs to be further reduced to only reflect culverts on fish streams. A GIS
project is currently underway which will improve this estimate but the results are not yet
available. Using the best project information currently available an estimate of 38% of
culverts are on fish streams which yields and estimate of 76,000 culverts that need to be
assessed for fish passage.
The locations of culverts in past assessment projects were not randomly selected, so the
sampling does not allow statistical inference to structures within other watersheds.
However, in order to assist with coming up with a provincial estimate, the Fish Passage
Working Group has referenced the 2006 assessment work from the Prince George Forest
District, which showed that the failure rate of 178 closed-bottom culverts inspected was
87%. Other recent projects have shown potential failure rates ranging from 33% to 93%.
If this range of failure rates is applied to the estimated number of culverts on fish streams
the estimated numbers of potential fish passage problems is 30,000 to 70,000 culverts
province wide that are likely in need of repair or replacement.
2
3
2. Required Funding and Cost Estimates
The Fish Passage Working Group estimates that an investment of $4 million a year would
enable implementation of key elements of the strategic plan which include:
Prioritization – A protocol for selecting the highest fish value watersheds has been
developed; it is based on a standardized process that looks at variables such as species
richness and escapement data. The prioritization approach is to complete a systematic
rapid assessment of fish stream crossings within priority watersheds, and use this
information to decide which structures should be repaired first, based on habitat gained
and connectivity of the aquatic ecosystem.
Overview Assessments – fish passage culvert inspections, referred to as overview
assessments, need to systematically be carried out on high priority watersheds / subbasins. Overview assessments are estimated to cost between $15,000 and $30,000. They
must be completed on entire high-priority watershed/sub-basins, for all closed bottom
stream crossings, not just for some road segments or individual pre-Code sites.
Restoration – once potential barriers to fish passage are found and sites prioritized,
restoration work in the form of total structure replacements or repairs/retrofits will be
required to allow for fish passage.
- Engineered Site Designs – Some closed-bottom culverts have multiple
problems and/or are on large streams with significant flows, and may require
replacement with another pipe or with a bridge. Engineered site designs for
replacement projects can cost between $3,000 and $5,000 per site.
- Stream Crossing Replacements/Restoration – There is a wide range of costs
for sites that require full-scale stream crossing replacement to restore fish passage
and make upstream fish habitat once again accessible. In some cases, the original
closed-bottom culvert may be replaced with another closed-bottom culvert with
improved span and embedment, or a pipe with an open bottom arch. Other sites
may require a new crossing structure from a pipe to a clear span bridge. The
estimated cost of pipe replacement projects ranges from $20,000 to $150,000.
- Retrofits – In some cases, retrofits such as the addition of back-flood weirs,
riffle construction, culvert outflow modification, are an alternative to culvert
replacement. On average, designs and implementation of retrofits can cost $4,000
to $30,000.
Training and Extension – A training and extension program is required to assist
industry professionals and government staff understand the technical aspects of issues
associated with fish passage, in both the short term and long term.
3
4
Continued Scope Refinement – Data collected during overview assessments shall be
entered into a provincial database. Combining new and existing information will
improve our understanding of where fish passage problems are occurring, how much
habitat is being isolated by impassable structures, and average failure rates. This
information will lead to better targets for restoration and improved understanding of the
resources necessary to address the fish passage issue in BC.
Monitoring - While government agencies may also initiate compliance and enforcement
monitoring for structures that are causing barriers to fish passage that were built post
Forest Practices Code, this is outside the scope of the Fish Passage Working Group’s
strategic framework. However, evaluation monitoring so that resources expended fixing
fish passage problems are truly effective should be a part of the focus. Effectiveness
evaluations on past restoration projects will allow us to better understand what has
worked and support continuous improvement.
3. Fish Passage Protocol and Prioritization
Since the potential scope of this issue is large, there is a need to assess and restore fish
passage structures in a strategic manner to recover the most fish habitat for dollars spent.
Ministry of Environment has developed a protocol for identification of fish passage
issues and prioritization of remediation that entails:
• selection of target watersheds/ sub-basins for fish passage culvert inspections (planning
phase)
• overview culvert assessments (assessment phase)
• selection of high priority sites for restoration based on habitat gained and connectivity
of the aquatic ecosystem (analysis phase)
Details of each phase of the protocol are described below and are outlined in Figure I:
a. Planning Phase
The planning phase will begin with the selection of watersheds from the more than 19,000
watershed polygons in the BC Watershed Atlas. Each of these polygons is a third order
(or greater) watershed, with “fish value” based on two main criteria - biodiversity and
economic value – derived by the BC Ministry of Environment as a strategic planning tool.
The second step in the planning phase will be a GIS mapping exercise to overlay the
known fish presence information, as documented in the provincial Fisheries Information
Summary System (FISS) and other databases, with the road network. These maps can be
plotted and used to help with data collection.
4
5
b. Assessment Phase
The assessment phase will begin in spring 2008 with training sessions to ensure field
crews can conduct fish passage assessments. These sessions will be available on an
ongoing basis, contingent on demand.
Crews will conduct a fish passage assessment for each closed-bottom structure on a fish
stream within the prioritized watersheds. The data collected will indicate which
structures fail to meet one or more of fish passage criteria, which include:
 culvert slope
 outlet drop
 culvert embeddedness
 culvert length
 stream channel width
 culvert size
 estimate of depth of road fill
 estimate of habitat value of the crossing site and upstream
c. Analysis Phase
Once the planning and assessment phases are completed, analysis can begin to identify a
prioritized list of sites for restoration, using the following four steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
determine fish presence based on known information
analyze risk
determine habitat value gained
identify remediation options
These steps are sequential, and are designed to focus on sites where restoration will yield
the most benefits. This phase of the methodology should be viewed as dynamic, and the
result could be revised as more or better information becomes available.
i. Determining Fish Presence Based on Known Information
In order for a stream crossing to be considered, the answer to both of the following
criteria must be yes:
1. Fish known downstream or within one stream order of the steam crossing
(1:50,000 scale)
2. No downstream barriers (from the provincial dataset or known locally) and
stream gradients less than 20% (30% for bull trout systems)
As more information is made available, additional streams will become candidates for
restoration.
5
6
ii. Analyze Risk
The methodology to assess fish passage includes a series of criteria such as outlet drop,
culvert slope, culvert diameter vs. channel width. Measurements of hydraulic surrogate
criteria taken during the overview assessment will determine whether or not a culvert
passes or fails these criteria.
Some jurisdictions in the Pacific Northwest (Idaho State Lands, 1997, Robison et al.
1999, Bates et. al., 2003, and NOAA Fisheries Southwest Region, 2000 among many
others) have established surrogate criteria as a way to determine compliance with
administrative guidance or rules, or even statutes.
Criteria and even research reports give differing values for fish performance depending
on many factors. For instance, Powers et al (1997) indicates that fish passage for juvenile
fish is impaired at 0.5% while Kane et al. (2000) indicates adequate fish passage to 1.0%
or even 1.5%. Because of this variation and in order to increase the level of confidence
that a particular crossing is a barrier to fish passage, a risk analysis step has been
developed. The rationale for this step is as follows.
Whether a particular crossing passes or fails is based on whether a measurement meets a
given threshold for that individual parameter. For example, if the culvert slope (non
stream-simulation design) is greater than 1%, a non-embedded culvert may be a barrier to
juvenile fish and may even be a barrier to adults at certain flow stages, but there is some
reasonable doubt that the crossing is definitively a barrier to fish passage based on this
one parameter. As a result, the crossing would not meet the threshold of that parameter.
Obviously, as this measurement further exceeds the threshold value, the level of
confidence increases that the crossing could be a barrier to fish passage. Other studies
have used similar approaches, including Robison and Walsh (2003) that had complete,
partial and no barrier designations instead of levels of risk, giving each level a numerical
value for use in prioritization, and Clarkin et al. (2003; Appendix A) that proposed a
similar numbering scheme for degree of barrier.
This risk analysis step looks at the results of the overview assessment from a cumulative
score standpoint and establishes an overall threshold based on the results for the four
main hydraulic surrogates. Exceeding this threshold serves to increase confidence that an
individual crossing is indeed a barrier to fish passage. These surrogates are:




outlet drop
slope
stream width ratio
length
Values are assigned to each of these surrogates based on both the sensitivity of the
surrogate and the likelihood of the measured value being sufficient to label the crossing
as a barrier to fish passage. A cumulative value of 10 has been established as a threshold
6
7
value that has a high likelihood of being a barrier to fish passage. For example, an outlet
drop exceeding 30 cm is likely a barrier to all fish life stages, has a value of 10 and is
considered a fish barrier. Similarly, an outlet drop of 19 cm combined with a slope of
2.5% is also likely to be a fish barrier. A crossing must have a cumulative score of at
least 10 for further consideration.
Table 1: Risk Assessment Scoring
Risk
Low
Mod
High
Outlet
drop
< 15
15 - 30
> 30
Value Slope
0
5
10
<1
1-3
>3
Value
0
5
10
Stream
Width
Ratio
1.2 or <
1.2 - 1.5
> 1.5
Value
Length
0
2
6
< 15
15 – 30
> 30
Value
0
2
6
iii. Determine Habitat Value Gained Index (HGI)
The third step of the analysis phase determines the value of the habitat gained as a result
of restoring or establishing fish passage upstream of a specific crossing. This is arrived at
by combining a subjective assessment of habitat quality at the crossing site, determined at
the time of the overview assessment, with the area of upstream habitat. Habitat quality is
assessed as low (1), moderate (2) and high (3), based on criteria identifying the presence
or absence of:



residual pools more than 15 cm in depth
functional cover such as LWD, large boulders, streamside vegetation
habitat variation – pools, riffles gravel, cobbles, boulders
The area of upstream habitat is derived through a map-based estimate of the length of
habitat available upstream of the structure. When this estimate of habitat is combined
with the habitat value, a relative habitat-gained value can be derived. This information is
essential to making decisions regarding which structure to fix first.
iv. Identify Remediation Options
The final step in the analysis phase is to identify the proposed solution in order to
calculate a cost benefit for establishing fish passage at a given location. Options include:
1. Replace the structure with a bridge or other open-bottom structure.
2. Replace the structure with a streambed simulation design culvert.
3. Add substrate material to the culvert to reduce velocity and provide low velocity
areas. (Note: This option works only if culverts are installed with less than 6%
gradient, have minimal outlet drop and have widths at or near stream width with
stream profiling that indicates the installation can be effective.)
7
8
4.
Backwater the structure to reduce velocity and turbulence. (Note: This option
should be considered only on sites where OD is less than 30 cm, slope is less
than 2%, stream width ratio is less than 1.2, and where fish crossing and stream
profiling indicates it would be effective.)
5. Remove the structure and deactivate the road if access is not required.
To determine a cost benefit, crude estimates for the first two solutions (bridge and
streambed simulation) can be derived by estimating costs based on measurements taken
during the overview assessment. The last two options - backwatering or removal, require
additional information. The feasibility associated with backwatering requires further
analysis obtained through stream profiling – data can be reviewed during the analysis
phase using the criteria outlined in point 3 above to identify sites that may lend
themselves to backwatering. Structure removal can be considered as a solution only with
input from all affected parties at a regional/sub-regional level.
d. Decision Phase
The final phase involves taking the results of the first three steps to develop an
implementation plan that determines the prioritization of structures for restoration.
This should take place at the regional or sub-regional level, and involve all affected
parties that have an interest in maintaining the road structure as per their respective legal
and administrative obligations. It is at this stage that removal of the structure and
deactivation of the road can be considered if it is the most cost-effective option.
The implementation plan should be reviewed annually, updated and endorsed by affected
parties as new information is received.
e. Targets
While the main goal of the strategic plan is to restore fish access to upstream habitat, it is
difficult to establish targets for the quantity/quality of habitat restored because of geographic
differences and the lack of current provincial information on the number and nature of barriers.
However, the number of overview assessments and restoration projects completed can be used
as surrogate measures of success at addressing the fish passage issue. By making additional
FIA funds available, there is an expectation that forest licensees will increase the focus on fish
passage activities in their overall FIA work plans starting in 2008/09.
The Fish Passage Working Group recommends that FIA adopt these specific performance
targets for each forest licensee:


Complete systematic fish passage overview assessments on at least one highpriority watershed/sub-basin for 2008/09 fiscal, and communicate with the
appropriate BC Forest District resource community to ensure coordination and
avoid duplication.
Complete at least three projects that restore fish passage to priority crossings,
based on the amount and values of upstream habitat, by the 2009/10 fiscal year.
8
9
Inherent in meeting these targets is completion of work related to the prioritization of
potential barriers, development of designs and cost estimates, data entry, and reporting.
These associated fish passage activities will not require their own quantitative
performance targets so licensees have flexibility in how they choose to achieve outcomes.
The Fish Passage Working Group also recommends that FIA provide a further incentive
by linking each licensee’s total FIA funding to participation in fish passage activities.
Additional targets related to the amount of upstream habitat restored can be developed as
more data is collected and the fish passage issue is better defined. This will help to
ensure that the problem is being addressed, and that efforts to remove fish passage
barriers are achieving results.
4. Training and Extension Strategy
A training and extension program is required to assist industry professionals and
government staff understand the technical aspects of issues associated with fish passage.
The training will mirror the strategic approach to addressing fish passage issues. The
short-term focus will be on issues related to existing structures that are impeding fish
passage, and the long-term focus will be on the design and installation of new structures
to ensure safe fish passage.
Focused training sessions will be delivered externally to industry professionals through training
institutions, and internally to government staff through contractors and in-house staff.
a. Short Term: Non Fish-Passage of Existing Structures
In the first quarter of 2008/09, the focus will be on prioritization to ensure that
assessment work is carried out efficiently and effectively, along with data collection and
analysis. There will be a workshop where those knowledgeable in fish passage
restoration techniques will develop and document technical techniques, including
installation at existing structures.
The workshop will be followed later in the year by a training program to pass on the
technical information, as well as supporting the analysis and decision phases.
b. Long Term: Design and Installation of New Structures
In the longer term, training will be needed for those involved in the design and
installation of new structures in fish streams. The process and techniques outlined in the
Fish Stream Crossing Guidebook (2001) will be revisited and updated, and this may
involve workshops with professionals and practitioners from industry and government in
the Pacific Northwest who are currently engaged in this activity. Training programs
associated with the design and installation of new structures would be delivered through
the same mechanisms outlined for existing structures above and are envisioned for
delivery in late spring of 2009.
9
10
5. Implementation Considerations:
If $4 million is made available through FIA funds to address the issue of fish passage and
implement this strategic approach, there are three key factors that need to be recognized
to ensure success:
1. Planning: Forest licensees must complete the planning needed to implement fish
passage work in their 2008/09 FIA work plans, which means having projects ready to
start in spring/summer 2008.
2. Capacity: The capacity of Forest licensees to systematically address the large scale
problem of fish passage issues needs to be acknowledged. The solution entails a
sharing of work, and each Forest Licensee with access to FIA funds must take on
activities related to restoration of fish passage.
3. Accuracy of Cost Estimates: Assumptions have been made regarding the cost of
different fish passage activities and the amount of FIA funds required to start to
address the problems on a provincial scale. These guidelines can be further refined
with more information and analysis on project costs.
Implementation Schedule
As noted in Figure 2 the timing of the activities includes:
January to March 2008
• government agencies/licensees refine strategies for increased focus on fish
passage
• fish passage assessment protocol finalized and adopted as a new FIA standard
• communication with licensees on the importance of including fish passage
activities in 2008/09 FIA work plans
• training modules developed and delivered on planning, assessment and analysis
phases of fish passage assessment protocol
• as part of training plan, conduct workshop on fish passage restoration techniques
• proponents prioritize watersheds and plan for overview assessments and
restoration work.
• licensees communicate FIA program plan and fish passage implementation
strategy.
• some licensees may also plan effectiveness monitoring of fish passage
restoration work completed in previous fiscal years.
April to June 2008
• develop training program for decision phase of fish passage assessment protocol
(selection of structures that will be restored to address fish passage).
10
11
June to September 2008
• deliver training on decision phase of fish passage assessment protocol (selection
of structures that will be restored to address fish passage).
• implement on-ground fish passage work (assessments, restoration, monitoring) .
September to November 2008
• as part of training plan, hold workshop on fish passage design and installation
for new structures and design more full blown training program on this topic
• the fall is a good time to focus on provincial database data entry, report writing,
subsequent prioritization of any identified potential barriers to fish passage, and
development of designs and cost estimates. The intent is to prioritize remediation
for stream crossings, which will derive the best return of fish habitat for resources
expended.
January to March 2009
• as part of extension plan, deliver training on fish passage design and installation
for new structures
• repeat fish passage work cycle
This general timing cycle will repeat itself in subsequent fiscal years, and many different
projects can be in different stages year to year. Typically, fish passage work will span
two field seasons with the first year focusing on assessment, prioritization, development
of designs and implementation planning; restoration works can then begin in the
following field season within designated in-stream work windows.
Figure 2: Implementation Schedule
Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Fish Passage
Activities
Implementation Strategy
Communication
Planning
Materials Order
Training
Overview Assessments
Effectiveness Monitoring
Designs of known
Proirities
Restoration Work
Data Entry
Reporting
Prioritization of
Restoration
11
Dec
12
6. Risk
If no additional action is taken to address fish passage problems, resulting risks include:






greater risk to fish populations if they remain below levels that could be supported by
habitat;
reduced ability of fish populations to adapt to climate change if they do not have
access to the full range of habitat;
continued fish passage problems and risk of failures due to undersized structures;
additional federal legislation governing provincial lands in BC;
federal focus on compliance and enforcement in areas of identified problems; and
public concerns about what is viewed as poor forest practices on resource roads.
Appendix I: Members of the Fish Passage Working Group
MFR: Diane Medves (Chair); Brian Chow; Howard DeBeck; Dave Maloney;
Peter Tschaplinski; Charlie Western; Shirley Turcotte (Coordinator)
MOE: Richard Thompson, Leslie McKinley, Craig Mount; Andy Witt
ILMB: Richard Mark
DFO: Melody Farrell; Jeff Guerin; Jason Hwang
12