Indiana Biological Survey

Assessment of Fish Passage Status of Road-Stream Crossings

Recently the importance of maintaining 'passage friendly' road crossings has received increased attention. The interaction of streams with road crossings can be potentially destructive to aquatic biota. Road crossings, particularly culvert crossings, can impede the movement of aquatic organisms by altering stream morphology, increasing water velocity, and presenting physical barriers such as outlet drops that cannot be navigated (Clarkin et al. 2003). It is important for fish to be able to move freely through a stream to prevent population fragmentation (Detenbeck et al. 1992), allow for access to habitat (Fausch et al. 2002), and allow for recolonization after disturbance (Adams and Warren 2005). For these reasons, maintaining crossings that facilitate aquatic movement is important for maintaining aquatic biological diversity.

The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service has developed an inventory assessment procedure designed to identify where and how the road system restricts the movement of aquatic organisms, mainly stream fish. The assessment procedure developed by Clarkin et al. (2003) focusing on western Salmonid fishes and modified by Coffman (2005) for use with eastern fishes has proven effective in allowing managers to quickly determine the passage status of a particular road-stream crossing (Kyger et al. 2004, Coffman et al. 2005, Coffman et al. 2006, Coffman et al. 2007).

The goals of the National Inventory Assessment Protocal (NIAP) is to employ the ‘coarse screening filters’ and biological sampling to assess the passage status of individual culvert crossings. The coarse screening filters use stream and culvert dimensions, characteristics, shape, condition, and survey data to categorize a crossing as passable, impassable, or indeterminate based on the swimming and leaping abilities of fishes. Three screening filters will be used: filter A strong abilities (equal to adult trout); filter B (equal to juvenile trout and most Cyprinids); and filter C (equal to most darters and sculpin). Biological sampling of fish on each side of ‘indeterminate’ crossings will be used to compare biotic integrity, diversity, and community structure to further determine the impacts of the crossing. The data gained from the project will provide managers with information on crossing condition and impassable crossings that can become priority candidates for replacement. Identification and replacement of problem crossings will provide aquatic organisms access to critical habitat and facilitate repopulation.

Literature Cited

Adams, S.B. and M.L. Warren Jr. 2005. Recolonization of warmwater fishes and crayfishes after severe drought in Upper Costal Plain Hill streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 134: 1173-1192.

Clarkin, K.A., M.J. Furniss, B. Bubernick, M. Love, K. Moynan, and S.W. Musser. 2003. National inventory and assessment procedure for identifying barriers to aquatic organism passage at road-stream crossings. USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, CA.

Coffman, J.S. 2005. Evaluation of a predictive model for upstream fish passage through culverts. Master’s Thesis, James Madison University. Harrisonburg, VA.

Coffman, J.S., M. Minter, J.C. Roghair, and C.A. Dolloff. 2007. Fish passage status of road stream crossings on selected National Forests in the Southern Region, 2006. Unpublished File Report. Blacksburg, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Research Station, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. 132pp.

Coffman, J.S., M. Minter, and C. Roghair. 2006. fish passage status on selected road-stream crossings on the Apalachicola National Forest, Florida, 2006. Unpublished File Report. Blacksburg, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Research Station, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. 23pp.

Coffman, J.S., M. Minter, J. Zug, D. Nuckols, C. Roghair, and C.A. Dolloff. 2005. Fish passage status of road stream crossings on selected National Forests in the Southern Region, 2005. Unpublished File Report. Blacksburg, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Research Station, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. 93pp.

Detenbeck, N.E., P.W. DeVore, G.J. Niemi, and A. Lima. 1992. Recovery of Temporate stream fish communities from disturbance; a review of case studies and synthesis of theories. Environmental Management 16: 33-53.

Fausch, K.D., C.E. Torgursen, C.V. Baxter, and H.W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to Riverscapes; bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience 52: 483-498.

Kyger, C., C. Roghair, and D. Nuckols. 2004. Condition of culverts and fish passage at road-stream crossings on the Sumter National Forest, SC. 2004.Unpublished File Report. Blacksburg, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Research Station, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. 21pp.

After 250 Years of Classifying Life, 90 Percent Remains Unknown

Robin Lloyd
LiveScience Senior Editor
LiveScience.comTue Nov 13, 9:35 AM ET

BRONX, NEW YORK--Most people can tell the difference between some types of berries, or bugs or trees, but much of the planet's life remains unnamed and unseen.

A stunningly egotistical Swedish naturalist, Carl Linnaeus, tried long ago to set humanity on track to remedy that.

His book, "Systema Naturae," first published in 1735 at 13 pages long, proposed a hierarchical system for classifying plants, animals and minerals (we later chipped away minerals into the domain of geology) and launched an effort to identify and inventory all the world's living things.

Now 250 years after publication of the book's latter editions, scientists still have discovered as few as 10 percent of the species now living on Earth, said Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, who spoke here last week at an event at the New York Botanical Garden to celebrate a visit of Linnaeus' personal copy of the book's first edition.

"We live, in short, on a little-known planet. When dealing with the living world, we are flying mostly blind," Wilson said. "When we try to diagnose the health of an ecosystem, such as a lake or a forest, in order to save and stabilize it we are in the position of a doctor trying to treat a patient, knowing only 10 percent of organs."

Click to read full article