Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dealing With Uncertainty When Assessing Fish Passage Through Culvert Road Crossings

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assessing the passage of aquatic organisms through culvert road crossings has become increasingly common in efforts to restore stream habitat. Several federal and state agencies and local stakeholders have adopted assessment approaches based on literature-derived criteria for culvert impassability. However, criteria differ and are typically specific to larger-bodied fishes. In an analysis to prioritize culverts for remediation to benefit imperiled, small-bodied fishes in the Upper Coosa River system in the southeastern United States, we assessed the sensitivity of prioritization to the use of differing but plausible criteria for culvert impassability. Using measurements at 256 road crossings, we assessed culvert impassability using four alternative criteria sets represented in Bayesian belief networks. Two criteria sets scored culverts as either passable or impassable based on alternative thresholds of culvert characteristics (outlet elevation, baseflow water velocity). Two additional criteria sets incorporated uncertainty concerning ability of small-bodied fishes to pass through culverts and estimated a probability of culvert impassability. To prioritize culverts for remediation, we combined estimated culvert impassability with culvert position in the stream network relative to other barriers to compute prospective gain in connected stream habitat for the target fish species. Although four culverts ranked highly for remediation regardless of which criteria were used to assess impassability, other culverts differed widely in priority depending on criteria. Our results emphasize the value of explicitly incorporating uncertainty into criteria underlying remediation decisions. Comparing outcomes among alternative, plausible criteria may also help to identify research most needed to narrow management uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) (2010) Fish passage improvement program. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARR/Fishpassage/fishpass.cfm. Accessed 2 April 2010

  • Albanese B, Angermeier PL, Peterson JT (2009) Does mobility explain variation in colonisation and population recovery among stream fishes? Freshwater Biology 54:1444–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2007) Conservation and the genetics of populations. Blackwell Publishing, Madlen 642

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates KM, Barnard RJ, Heiner B, Klavas JP, Powers PD (2003) Design of road culverts for fish passage. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Olympia

  • Belford DA, Gould WR (1989) An evaluation of trout passage through six highway culverts in Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:437–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton PD, Ensign WE, Freeman BJ (2008) The effect of road crossings on fish movements in small Etowah basin streams. Southeastern Naturalist 7:301–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourne CM, Kehler DG, Wiersma YF, Cote D (2011) Barriers to fish passage and barriers to fish passage assessments: the impact of assessment methods and assumptions on barrier identification and quantification of watershed connectivity. Aquatic Ecology 45:389–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkin K, Connor A, Furniss MJ, Gubernic B, Love M, Moyan K, Musser SW (2005) National inventory and assessment procedure for identifying barriers to aquatic organism passage at road-stream crossings. United States Forest Service (USFS) San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas

  • Coffman JS (2005) Evaluation of a predictive model for upstream fish passage through culverts. M.S. Thesis, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, p 104

  • Cote D, Kehler DG, Bourne C, Wiersma YF (2009) A new measure of longitudinal connectivity for stream networks. Landscape Ecology 24:101–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupé VMH, van der Gaag LC (2002) Properties of sensitivity analysis of Bayesian belief networks. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 36:323–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derksen AJ (1980) Evaluation of fish passage through culverts at the Goose Creek road crossing near Churchill, Manitoba, in April and May 1977. Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Manuscript Report 80-4. Winnipeg, p 103

  • Detenbeck NE, DeVore PW, Niemi GJ, Lima A (1992) Recovery of temperate-stream fish communities from disturbance: a review of case studies and synthesis of theory. Environmental Management 16:33–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diebel M, Fedora M, Cogswell S (2010) Prioritizing road crossing improvement to restore stream connectivity for stream-resident fish. In: Wagner PJ, Nelson D, Murray E (eds) Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, p 647–660

  • Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard A-H, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81:163–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fausch KD, Young MK (1995) Evolutionarily significant units and movements of resident stream fishes: a cautionary tale. In: Nielsen JL (ed) Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, p 360–370

  • Fausch KD, Rieman BE, Dunham JB, Young MK, Peterson DP (2009) Invasion versus isolation: trade-offs in managing native salmonids with barriers to upstream movement. Conservation Biology 23:859–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman MC, Pringle CM, Greathouse EA, Freeman BJ (2003) Ecosystem-level consequences of migratory faunal depletion caused by dams. In: Limburg KE, Waldman JR (eds) Biodiversity, status and conservation of the world’s shads. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 35, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, p 255–266

  • Freeman MC, Irwin ER, Burkhead NM, Freeman BJ, Bart HL Jr. (2005) Status and conservation of fish fauna of the Alabama River system. In: Rinne JN, Hughes RM, Calamusso R (eds) Historical changes in large river fish assemblages of the Americas. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45, Bethesda, p 557–585

  • Gagen CJ, Rajput S (2002) The effects of road crossings on fish community structure and abundance in streams of the Ouachita Mountains. Report to the United States Forest Service (USFS), Hot Springs

  • Gibson JR, Haedrich RL, Wernerheim CM (2005) Loss of fish habitat as a consequence of inappropriately constructed stream crossings. Fisheries 30(1):10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfman GS (2007) Fish conservation: a guide to understanding and restoring global aquatic biodiversity and fishery resources. Island Press, Washington DC, p 584

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp PS, O’Hanley JR (2010) Procedures for evaluating and prioritizing the removal of fish passage barriers: a synthesis. Fisheries Management and Ecology 17:297–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcot BG, Holthausen RS, Raphael MG, Rowland MM, Wisdom MJ (2001) Using Bayesian belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land management alternatives from an environmental impact statement. Forest Ecology and Management 153:29–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcot BG, Steventon JD, Sutherland GD, McCann RK (2006) Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:3063–3074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meffe GK, Sheldon AL (1990) Post-defaunation recovery of fish assemblages in southeastern blackwater streams. Ecology 71:657–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millington HK (2004) Developing engineering design criteria for ecologically sound stream crossings for endangered fish in Georgia. M.S. Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, p 147

  • Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (2009) The Vermont culvert aquatic organism passage screening tool. Milone & MacBroon, Inc. South Burlington

  • Mirati AH Jr (1999) Assessment of road culverts for fish passage problems on state-and county-owned roads. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)-Southwest Region (2001) Guidelines for salmonid passage at stream crossings. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Long Beach

  • Neville HM, Dunham JB, Peacock MM (2006) Landscape attributes and life history variability shape genetic structure of trout populations in a stream network. Landscape Ecology 21:901–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman J, Franzen E, Millington H, Ensign B, Wenger S, Freeman M, Hagler M (2006) Stream crossing and culvert design policy. Etowah aquatic habitat conservation plan technical committee report, Athens. http://www.etowahhcp.org/research/documents/tech_rpt_stream_crossings_4-30-07.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2010

  • Norman JR, Hagler MM, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ (2009) Application of a multistate model to estimate culvert effects on movement of small fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:826–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hanley JR, Tomberlin D (2005) Optimizing the removal of small fish passage barriers. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10:85–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (2010) Fish programs: fish passage. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/passage. Accessed 2 April 2010

  • Osborne LL, Wiley MJ (1992) Influence of tributary spatial position on the structure of warmwater fish assemblages. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49:671–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page LM, Burr BM (2011) Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America North of Mexico, 2nd edn. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, p 688

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson JT, Evans JW (2003) Quantitative decision analysis for sport fisheries management. Fisheries 28(1):10–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petts GE (1984) Impounded rivers: perspectives for ecological management. Wiley, Chichester, p 326

    Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Hart DD (2002) How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. BioScience 52:659–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (QDPIF) (2004) Fish passage in streams: design considerations. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Reback KE, Brady PD, McLaughlin KD, Milliken CG (2004) A survey of fish passage in coastal Massachusetts, parts 1–4. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-15, 16, 17, and 18, Pocasset

  • River and Stream Continuity Partnership (RSCP) (2006) Massachusetts River and stream crossing standards. http://www.streamcontinuity.org/pdf_files/MA_Crossing_Stds_3-1-06.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2010

  • Roghair CN, Dolloff CA (2005) Brook trout movement during and after recolonization of a naturally defaunated stream reach. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:777–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer JF, Marsh-Matthews E, Spooner DE, Gido KB, Matthews WJ (2003) Effects of barriers and thermal refugia on local movement of the threatened leopard darter, Percina pantherina. Environmental Biology of Fishes 66:391–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Koster B, Bunn SE, Mackay SJ, Poff NL, Naiman RE, Lake PS (2010) The use of Bayesian networks to guide investments in flow and catchment restoration for impaired river ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 55:243–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer DL (2006) Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25:271–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RN, Love M (2003) Part IX: fish passage evaluation at stream crossings. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Toepfer CS, Fisher WL, Haubelt JA (1999) Swimming performance of the threatened leopard darter in relation to road culverts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utzinger J, Roth C, Peter A (1998) Effects of environmental parameters on the distribution of bullhead Cottus gobio with particular consideration of the effects of obstructions. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:882–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Gaag LC, Coupé VMH (2000) Sensitivity analysis for threshold decisions making with Bayesian belief networks. In: Lamma E, Mello P (eds) AI*IA 99: Advances in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 37–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walters DM, Leigh DS, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ, Pringle CM (2003) Geomorphology and fish assemblages in a Piedmont river basin, USA. Freshwater Biology 48:1950–1970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward JV, Stanford JA (1979) Ecological factors controlling stream zoobenthos with emphasis on thermal modifications of regulated streams. In: Ward JV, Stanford JA (eds) The ecology of regulated streams. Plenum Press, New York, pp 35–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren ML Jr, Pardew MG (1998) Stream crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:637–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (2009) Fish passage barrier and surface water diversion screening assessment and prioritization manual. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger SJ, Peterson JT, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ, Homans DD (2008) Stream fish occurrence in response to impervious cover, historic land use and hydrogeomorphic factors. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65:1250–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger SJ, Hagler MM, Freeman BJ (2009) Prioritizing areas of the Conasauga River sub-basin in Georgia and Tennessee for preservation and restoration. Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings 51:31–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger SJ, Freeman MC, Fowler LA, Freeman BJ, Peterson JT (2010) Conservation planning for imperiled aquatic species in an urbanizing environment. Landscape and Urban Planning 97:11–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to those who helped conduct field sampling: Christina Baker, Bill Bouthiller, Jeffery Garnett, Jason Hunt, Rachel Katz, Jason Lang, Sam Miles, Amanda Neese, James Norman, Nicole Pontzer, and Randy Singer. We also thank Brett Albanese and Katie Owens for supplying us with an impoundment layer for the Coosawattee River system. Brenda Rashleigh, William Fisher, Joe Anderson, Frank Dirrigl, Jr. and an anonymous referee provided insightful comments and helpful suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript. Funding for this research was provided by a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Use of trade, product, or firm names does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The Georgia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the University of Georgia, and the Wildlife Management Institute.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Gregory B. Anderson

    Present address: Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, 24061, USA

  2. James T. Peterson

    Present address: USGS Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 30602, USA

    Gregory B. Anderson, Carrie A. Straight & Megan M. Hagler

  2. United States Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 30602, USA

    Mary C. Freeman

  3. Odum School of Ecology and Georgia Museum of Natural History, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 30602, USA

    Byron J. Freeman

  4. United States Geological Survey, Georgia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 30602, USA

    James T. Peterson

Authors
  1. Gregory B. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary C. Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Byron J. Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carrie A. Straight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Megan M. Hagler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. James T. Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary C. Freeman.

Appendix

Appendix

Mapping Impoundments

It was important initially to locate and map impoundments because, by imposing additional movement barriers, impoundments could constrain the amount of habitat potentially gained by remediating culverts. Thus, impoundment locations were used to stratify sites for field measurements and in the analysis of potential habitat gain. A GIS data layer of stream impoundments within the project area was constructed using aerial photography, data from the National Inventory of Dams (NID) and the impoundments included in the 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). The NHD and NID data only represented a subset of existing impounded water-bodies. Locations for dams not shown in either the NID or NHD were identified within the Conasauga (n = 2486) and Etowah (n = 4861) portions of the study area using 1999 color infrared aerial photography, and plotted in ArcGIS 9.2 or ArcView 3.3 (Esri, Redlands, California). For the Coosawattee portion of the study area, we used a feature class created by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, geo-referenced using 2007 aerial photography that identified 660 impoundments on streams defined by the 1:24,000 NHD. Impoundments identified as on-stream using aerial photography were combined with those in the NID and NHD layers to provide a more complete map of barriers created by dams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, G.B., Freeman, M.C., Freeman, B.J. et al. Dealing With Uncertainty When Assessing Fish Passage Through Culvert Road Crossings. Environmental Management 50, 462–477 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9886-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9886-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation