4-28-15 Dam Management Program - Fish Passage

7/18/2019 4-28-15 Dam Management Program - Fish Passage

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4-28-15-dam-management-program-fish-passage 1/261

Environmental Business Council of New England

Energy Environment Economy

EBC Dam Management Program

Up and Over, Around and Through:

Dam Management’s Role in FishPassage & Stream Restoration



Chad Cox, P.E.

Chair, EBC Dam Management Committee

Civil Engineer / Principal

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.



Welcome



Chad Sumner

Program Chair & Moderator

Principal

SumCo Eco-Contracting



Introduction



Beth Lambert

Aquatic Habitat Restoration

Program Manager

Division of Ecological Restoration



Technical, Social, and Other

Challenges that May PreventDam Removal



Technical, Social, and Other Factors

That Prevent Dam Removal

(or, why some restoration projects

come to a screeching halt)



DER’s Aquatic Habitat Restoration Group





Outline

• DER prefers damremoval for river

restoration

• But that isn’t alwayspossible.

• Top 4 reasons why

high priority damsaren’t removed



Ecological Reasons for

Dam Removal

Dams• Damage ecosystem

processes that build habitat

• Cause lower DO; highertemp

• Block movement of fish and

wildlife

• Drown floodplains

• Removing the dam

eliminates these problems

immediately



Dams do more than block fish

• Low dissolved oxygen

• Drowned floodplain• Aquatic invasive plants Warm water spillover

Fish and wildlife can’tmigrate upstream

This sediment should be

heading downstream to

build up salt marshes

Non-native species



Societal Reasons for Dam Removal



3000 dams and 20,000 culverts(Only) 40 Dams Have Been Removed in MA

3000 dams in MA

43 are flood control dams 44 licensed hydropower dams

164 water supply dams

Worcester County has highest density in USA



Reason #4: Dam has an Active UseDrinking water supply

Pumping Station Dam,

Greenfield, 2011



Kendall Company

No. 1 Dam, Colrain

Reason #4: Dam has an Active UseIndustrial water supply


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4-28-15-dam-management-program-fish-passage 15/261Mill Street Dam, Green River, Greenfield

Reason #3: Upstream Infrastructure



Dam / Bridge

Utility line

Over-steepened,

eroding banks

More Mill Street Dam infrastructure challenges

(Utility line issues are common to many projects)



Ipswich Mills Dam, Ipswich

Reason #3: Upstream Infrastructure



Contaminated Sediment

Baker Chocolate Dam

T&H Dam

Map by Neponset River Watershed Association

Reason #2: Expense of Managing




Baker Dam, Neponset River, Milton/Boston



Tileston & Hollingsworth Dam, Neponset River



Expense of Managing Contaminated Sediment

Columbia Mill Dam, Housatonic River, Lee

Reason #2: Expense of Managing


Th #1 f i d



Watertown Dam, Charles River

The #1 reason for not removing a dam:

Public Sentiment, Attachment, and Fear

Th #1 f t i d



Public SentimentThe #1 reason for not removing a dam:

Public Sentiment, Attachment, and Fear

Fyfeshire Dam, Bolton



Solutions

4. Dam has an active use money

3. Upstream infrastructure money

2. Contaminated sediment money1. Public sentiment / fear local advocacy





“…I caught my first wild

brook trout in the spot

where the dam oncestood. I believe you can

say the project was a

success…”

- Jameson Bastarache

Beth Lambert

Aquatic Habitat

Restoration Program

Manager

617-626-1526

[email protected]



Nils Wiberg, P.E., CFM

Associate

Fuss & O’Neill



Up & Over: Rock Ramps –

Kenyon Mills Dam Rock Ramp

Fishway



Presentation to theEnvironmental Business Council

of New EnglandApril 28, 2015

Design and Construction ofKenyon Mill Dam Nature-Like

Rock Ramp Fishway



Presentation Overview

• Project Background• Site Constraints

• Fish Passage Design Alternatives

– Full Dam Removal vs. Rock Ramp

• Construction Phase

• Test Flows and Completion



Pawcatuck River Fish Passage Restoration Projects

Lower Shannock FallsDam Removal (2010)

Horseshoe Falls DamFish Ladder (2012)

Kenyon Mill Dam Nature-Like Rock Ramp (2013)

Potter Hill Dam Fish Ladder

White Rock DamRemoval (2015)

Bradford Dam FishLadder (2016)



Historic Kenyon Mill Dam



Kenyon Mill Dam - 1939



Existing Spillway (2009)



Dam Deficiencies

– Partial Breach at End of Spillway on

River-Left

– Spillway Section in Need of Repair

– No Low-level Discharge Outlet

– POOR Condition Structure – Would

Need Major Repair or Reconstruction

if Fish Ladder or Bypass ChannelSelected



Source: August 2007

Malone and MacBroom Feasibility Study

2007 Feasibility Study Alternatives Evaluation



Dam

PumpHouse

Fire Suppression System Pump Intake Structure



Fire Suppression System Pump Intake Structure



Fish Passage Design Alternatives

• Rock Ramp Construction

– Replaces Dam Spillway with a Rock Ramp (approx. 160-feet long)

– Minimal Water Level Change or Effect on Upstream WetlandResources

– Continued Use of River by Kenyon Industries’ Fire SuppressionSystem

– Portage Path Planned for Recreational Boaters

• Full Dam Removal

– Spillway Removed, Potential Modifications to River Channel toOptimize Fish Passage

– Water Level Lowered to Pre-Dam Levels, Some Effect onUpstream Wetland Resources

– River No Longer Used for Kenyon Industries’ Fire SuppressionSystem – WOULD REQUIRE 200k GAL. REPLACEMENT WATERSTORAGE TANK/INFRASTRUCTURE (> $500K)

i l d



Extensive Upstream Wetland Resources

Kenyon Dam

Worden Pond

Great Swamp

Alt ti E l ti C it i



Alternatives Evaluation Criteria

• Kenyon Industries Fire Suppression System and Local Fire Water

Supply

• Potential Effects on Wetland Resource Alterations,

Rare/Endangered Species and Habitat, Historic Resources

• Potential Effects on Shallow Groundwater Wells

• Potential Sediment Migration (transitional)

• Potential Bridge and River Channel Scour/Instability

• Potential Effects on Recreational Users (boaters, hunters)

• Potential Flood Impacts/Benefits

• Construction Costs / Post-Construction Maintenance Costs



Base Flow Water Surface Elevation Modeling

E i ti W t S f P fil



Existing Water Surface Profile

Amtrak Overpass

Kenyon Dam

Route 2 Bridge

Biscuit City Rd

Bridge

Worden Pond Outlet



Rock Ramp Water Surface Profile

Amtrak Overpass

Kenyon Dam

Route 2 Bridge

Biscuit City Rd

Bridge

Worden Pond Outlet

F ll D R l W t S f P fil



Full Dam Removal Water Surface Profile

Amtrak Overpass

Kenyon Dam

Route 2 Bridge

Biscuit City Rd

Bridge

Worden Pond Outlet

P t ti l Sh ll G d t W ll I t



Potential Shallow Groundwater Well Impacts

Alt ti E l ti



• Rock Ramp vs. Dam Removal

– Dam Removal is Best Option from Fish PassageStandpoint; Rock Ramp is Less than Optimal

– Alternatively, Dam Removal results in:

• Lowered Upriver Water Surface Profile (Well Impacts)

• Reduced Upriver Riverbank Widths

• Increased Potential Effects on Wetland Hydrology (Dependent onSoil Properties and Magnitude of Profile Change)

• Increased Potential Effects on Rare Species

• Increased Potential of Sediment Mobility and Riverbank Scour

– Dam Removal potentially Cost Prohibitive

– Other Considerations (Easements, etc.)

Alternatives Evaluation

Selected Design Approach Rock Ramp



Selected Design Approach - Rock Ramp

• Eliminating River as Supply for Kenyon’s Fire

Suppression System deemed Cost Prohibitive; RockRamp Alternative Selected

• Rock Ramp Design Highlights

‒ Overall Layout (4% Avg. Longitudinal Slope)

– Primary Grade Control Weir

– Downgradient Fish Passage Weirs

– Riverbank Stabilization

– Minimal WSE Change, Wetland Impacts, and Sediment Migration

– Minimum WSE of El. 85.42 must be maintained upstream ofRamp during 7Q10 Conditions; Two Dry Hydrants Installed

R k R G li d P fil



Rock Ramp Generalized Profile

Grade Control Structure With6’ Wide Low-Level Notch

Inv. El.=84.48

Raised Arched WeirsSpaced Every 20’ (Typ.)

Rock Ramp – El. 84.48 To El. 80.32 (-3%-5% Longitudinal Slope)

Tailout – El. 80.32 To El. 77.5(20% Longitudinal Slope)

Geotextile or Bentonite WaterproofingSheet/Membrane

TailwaterElevation

S l t d Alt ti R k R



Selected Alternative - Rock Ramp

S l t d Alt ti R k R




Selected Alternative Rock Ramp




Construction Phase Temporary Bypass Channel



Construction Phase – Temporary Bypass Channel









Construction Phase Weir Construction



Construction Phase – Weir Construction

























Construction Phase – Test Flows



Construction Phase Test Flows

















Construction Phase – Site Restoration



Construction Phase Site Restoration

Construction Phase – Site Restoration



Construction Phase Site Restoration

Completed Kenyon Mill Rock Ramp











Co p e ed e yo oc a p

U & O D il L dd & E l



Chad Cox, P.E.





Up & Over: Denil Ladders & Eel

Ramps – Upper Mystic Lake

Dam

EBC Fish Passage Forum 2015



Moving Fish and Eels overUpper Mystic Lake Dam

Fish Ladders and Eel Ramps

Chad W. Cox, P.E.


GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.Norwood, MA

Presentation Outline



1. Dam and Site Setting

2. Fisheries Issues

3. Pre-Project Fisheries Management

4. Fish Passage Alternatives

5. Design

6. Construction

7. Completed Structures

8. O&M

9. System Performance

1. Dam & Site Setting



Upper Mystic Lake Dam









2. Species of Concern



American eel Anguilla rostrata

Duane Raver/USFWS

American Shad Alosa sapidissima

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus

Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis

Cornell University Cornell University

NOAA

3. Pre-Project Fisheries Management



BUCKET BRIGADE!

4. Fish Passage Alternatives



• Fish Ladder• Denil

• Alaska steeppass

• Pool and Weir

• Fish Elevator

• Nature-Like Bypass Channel• Eel Ramp

• Temporary

• Permanent

Upstream Passage

Downstream Passage

• Chute

• Weir and Plunge Pool

4a. Upstream Passage Alternatives



DENIL FISH LADDER

Diagram of a denil fishway.

Source: The Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc.




ALASK STEEPPASS

FISH LADDER




POOL AND WEIR FISH LADDER

Diagram of a pool-and-weir fishway.

Source: The Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc.




Fish Elevator Nature-Like Bypass Channel

Northeast Utilities




PERMANENT EEL LADDER




TEMPORARY EEL LADDER




TEMPORARY EEL LADDER

4b. Downstream Passage Alternatives



CHUTE

WEIR ANDPLUNGE POOL

5. Design



6. Construction



6. Construction



6. Construction



6. Construction



7a. Completed Fish Ladder



7a. Completed Fish Ladder



7b. Completed Eel Ramp









7c. Completed Downstream Passage









8. Operation and Maintenance






Source: Mystic River Watershed Association




Source: Mystic River Watershed Association






M i Fi h d E l

EBC Fish Passage Forum 2015



Moving Fish and Eels over

Upper Mystic Lake DamFish Ladders and Eel Ramps

Chad W. Cox, P.E.



Norwood, MA




Chris Haker, P.E.

Principal Engineer

Tighe & Bond




Ramps – Stony Brook Fish

Passage

EBC Dam Management Program Series



Tighe&Bond

Stony Brook Fish Passage

Improvements Lower Mill Pond Dam

Rehabilitation

April 28, 2015

Christopher D. Haker, P.E.

Principal Engineer

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Background



Tighe&Bond

■ Stony Brook watershed provides 386 acres of

herring spawning habitat

■ Five fresh water ponds, salt marsh, wetlands

■ Over 900 acres of protected open space

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Site Background



Tighe&Bond

■ Historic herring run in Brewster, MA

■ Known as the “Disney World” of herring runs

■ Historic grist mill and museum – Stony Brook-Factory Village Historic District

– National and State Registers of Historic Places

Stony Brook Improvements



Tighe&Bond

■ Replace culvert at Route 6A crossing

■ Repair dam and improve herring run channel

■ General brook cleanup

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Lay of the Land



Tighe&Bond

Dam Deficiencies



Tighe&Bond

■ Upstream stone masonry wall and outlet gate

deteriorated and leaking

■ Insufficient freeboard during spillway design flood

Dam Deficiencies



Tighe&Bond

■ Seepage at left (west) abutment■ Trees and brush on dam and abutments

Fish Passage Issues



Tighe&Bond

■ Some weirs required modification to meetrecommended flow depth, velocity, and slope criteria

Fish Passage Issues



Tighe&Bond

■ Fish orifice acted as confined opening (herringprefer swimming through notch with free surface)

Dam Rehabilitation



Tighe&Bond

Dam Rehabilitation



Tighe&Bond

Dam Rehabilitation



Tighe&Bond

Dam Rehabilitation



Tighe&Bond

Dam Rehabilitation



Tighe&Bond

Dam Rehabilitation



Tighe&Bond

Fish Passage Improvements



Tighe&Bond




Tighe&Bond




Tighe&Bond




Tighe&Bond




Tighe&Bond

Results



Tighe&Bond

■ The 2013 and 2014 runs were largest in 20+ years■ Estimated herring counts since 2007:

– 2007: 22,300

– 2008: 25,300

– 2009: 11,100

Culvert replaced – 2010: 48,100

– 2011: 37,100

– 2012: 41,000

Dam and fish ladder

improvements – 2013: 153,300

– 2014: 271,400

Results



Tighe&Bond

Results



Tighe&Bond

Results



Tighe&Bond

■ The restoration of the Stony Brook watershedreceived the President’s U.S. Coastal America

Partnership Award in 2012

Results



Tighe&Bond

http://youtu.be/4h2V-VAPc-o

Acknowledgements









http://youtu.be/ctWyiil4hIE





Tighe&Bond

Many thanks to:

Town of Brewster

Chris Miller, Director, Natural Resources Department

Charles Sumner, Town Administrator

Dana Condit, Alewife Committee/Dam Caretaker

Association to Preserve Cape Cod

Jo Ann Muramoto, Mass Bays Program Regional

Coordinator, Cape Cod

Division of Marine Fisheries

Brad Chase, Senior Marine Fisheries Biologist



Tighe&Bond

Questions?

Around: Fish Bypass Channels –



Bjorn Lake, Ph.D., P.E.

Engineering Team Leader

Kleinschmidt



yp

Howland Dam Bypass Channel

Around: Fish Bypass Channels –



George P. Aponte Clark

Deputy Director

Penobscot River Restoration Trust



yp

Howland Dam Bypass Channel



EBC – DAM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

PLIMOUTH PLANTATIONAPRIL 28, 2015

George Aponte Clarke

Deputy Director

Penobscot River Restoration Trust

Bjorn A. Lake, PhD, PE

Engineering Team Leader

Dept. of Ecological Services

PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT



Restoring Sea-runFisheries and

Rebalancing

Hydropower on the



• Penobscot Basin is the second



• Penobscot Basin is the second

largest river system in New

England

• One of the largest freshwater

sources to the Gulf of Maine

• Historic fish community hasbeen severely altered

• Penobscot River supports the

largest run of Atlantic salmon in

the U.S.

Over 100 dams located in the

Penobscot Basin

1000s of road crossingsMap Courtesy of Tara Trinko Lake, NOAA

Dams, water pollution and over fishing have virtually

eliminated sea-run fish above Bangor in the Penobscot River

“After this the Great Works dam was built, and in 1834 or 1835 the Veazie

Dam. The latter dam was closed in the winter. When the fish came in the

spring they found an impassable barrier across their way; they gathered in

ltit d b l th d d t i i t t it A t



American shad 3-5 million Near 1000 1.5 million

Species Historic Current Potential

River herring 14-20 million Below 1,000 ~ 15 million

Atlantic salmon 75 – 100,000 1,300 (10 yr. avg.) 10,000-12,000

multitudes below the dam and strove in vain to surmount it. . . . A great many

shad and alewives lingered about the dam and died there, until the air was

loaded with the stench.” Maine Commissioner of Fisheries, Charles Atkins, 1869





Atlantic salmon fishing at the Bangor

Salmon Pool in June of 1926.

Bangor Salmon

Pool in April of1912.

Delivery of the presidential

salmon to President Hoover .







Lower



Lower

Penobscot RiverDams

Factors contr ibu t ing to

the reduction in DFS

num bers inc lud e the

cumulative impact of

mult ip le dams, a

signi f icant known yet

unaddressed impact.

(Laser ‘09 and NRC ’04)

Partners in the Penobscot River Restoration Project

Penobscot River



Restoration Trust

http://www.nfwf.org/index.htm



Removed Two Dams

closest to sea – Veazie & Great Works



Bypass Howland Dam

for inland habitat access

Improved Fish passage

at four other dams

Increased Energyto maintain power generation.

Enhanced Habit Access

1,000 miles of historic habitat

Help Restore

11 species of native sea-run fish

associated traditions, culture, and

economic opportunities

enobscot River Restoration roject

Before and After Habitat Access



Existing Access for

Sea-Run Fish

Significantly Improved

Access for Sea-Run Fish to

Nearly 1,000 Miles

Restored use of upriver

spawning habitat for

salmon, shad, alewife,

blueback herring, and eels

Mattawa mkeag River

East Branch Penobscot River

Piscataquis River

Pleasan t River

Bangor

Orono Old Town

West Enfield

Howland

Penobscot River

Bucksport

M att awamkeag Riv er

East Branch Penobscot R iver

Piscataquis River

P leasant R iver

Bangor

OronoOld Town

West Enfield

Howland

Penobscot River

Bucksport

M att awamkeag Riv er

East Branch Penobscot River

Piscataquis River

P leasant R iver

Bangor Orono

Old Town

West Enfield

Howland

Penobscot River Bucksport

Diminished use of

upstream spawning

habitat by salmon

and eels

Underused state

of the artupstream fish

passage

Little or no

commercial,

recreational,

or tribal

sustenance

fisheries

Little if any passage of

shad, alewife, blueback

herring, striped bass,

sturgeon, smelt, and

tomcod, impaired passage of eels

Restored use of

upriver spawning

habitat for salmon,

shad, alewife,

blueback herring,

and eels

State of the art

passage for salmon,

alewife, shad,

blueback herring,

and eels

Restored

commercial,

recreational,

and tribal

sustenance

fisheries

Full restoration of

historical habitat and

access for salmon, shad,

alewife, blueback herring,

eel, striped bass, sturgeon,

smelt, and tomcod















Photo by R.W. Estella







ATLANTIC SALMON 255RIVER HERRING 187,429

AMERICAN SHAD 805

STRIPED BASS 18SEA LAMPREY 641









Howland Dam…



http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/image.asp?S=10&T=1&X=2634&Y=25048&Z=19&W=2










IN-LINE BYPASS CHANNEL ALTERNATIVE

STREAMSIDEPARK

INLINE

BYPASS

CHANNEL

Retain brick building if

desired

POND ELEV.

TO REMAIN AS IS

HOWEVER FLASH-

BOARDS MAY BE

REMOVED

DAM

EXTENSION

REMOVE EXISTING

FISH LADDER

AND HYDRO

FACILITY















































UPLAND BYPASS CHANNEL ALTERNATIVE

UPLAND

BYPASS

CHANNEL

STREAMSIDE

PARK

Retain brick building if

desired

Example of a bypass

channel in Austria

POND ELEV.

TO REMAIN AS IS

HOWEVER FLASH-

BOARDS MAY BE

REMOVED

REMOVE EXISTING

FISH LADDER

AND HYDRO

FACILITY

Nature-like Fish Bypass






































PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES



Provide safe, timely, and effective upstream and downstream passageof all species that historically had access at the site

Maintain or enhance in-stream habitat value

Reconnect the Penobscot River and its watershed to the Gulf of Maine

Restore the fishery and cultural heritage of the Penobscot Nation

Provide appropriate opportunities for recreation, public access, andriver-related economic development

Address environmental and permitting considerations by avoiding orminimizing impacts

Achieve the objectives at a reasonable cost

Avoid unnecessary work

Manage permitting challenges

Address difficult construction

Minimize O&M demands

DESIGN TEAM



•Project Management•Powerhouse Modifications•Bridge

•Soils Management•Geotechnical

•Hydraulics•Channel Design

•Soils Management•Construction Oversight

SITE HISTORY



1952 1997

EXISTING CONDITIONS



UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE





FISH PASSAGE DESIGN CRITERIA



Operational Range

250 to 10,600 cfs

April 15th to

December 1st

Velocity should be 6

fps or less

Minimum depth of

1.5 feet Six diadromous

species

DESIGN PROCESS & OBJECTIVES



1. Balancing fish passage effectiveness withchannel stability and impoundment levels

2. Minimize operation and maintenance3. Minimize construction cost

Design Team Agency Staff

UPSTREAM ATTRACTION FLOW



BYPASS CHANNEL DESIGN



BYPASS CHANNEL DESIGN



250 cfs

1,000 cfs

4,000 cfs

8,000 cfs

FLOW SPLIT



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000

F l o w S p l i t P e r c e

n t a g e

P

e r c e n t E x c e e d a n c e i n P i s c a t a q u i s R i v e r

Flow in the Piscataquis River (cfs)

Channel

Spillway

Peak Salmon Immigration

DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE



CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION



www.penobscotriver.org



www.facebook.com/PenobscotRiver

Through: Dam Removal & River

Restoration – Whittenton Dam



Nick Nelson

Fluvial Geomorphologist

Inter-Fluve, Inc.



Removal

Whittenton Dam Removal



Environmental Business Council Dam Management ProgramPlymouth, MA

April 28, 2015

Nick Nelson, Inter-Fluve



Site Background



Mill River Dams



Taunton River:

Wild & Scenic

Mill River

Morey’sBridge Dam

Mill River Restoration

MA Di i i f E l i l R t ti



• MA Division of Ecological Restoration

• The Nature Conservancy

• American Rivers

• NOAA

• USFWS

• Save the Bay

• Southeast Regional Planning and EconomicDevelopment District

• MA Audubon

• Dam owners – MA Department of Mental Health,Jefferson Development Partners, Reed & Barton

Goals



• Remove owner liability associated withdilapidated dams

• Improve fish passage

• Improve water quality• Restore hydrologic and sedimentologic flow

conditions

Morey’s Bridge Dam – Replaced in 2013with Eel Ramp and Fish Ladder





Whittenton – Removed in 2013



2010



2013

West Britannia Dam – In Designs forRemoval





1896

West Britannia Dam



West Britannia Designs



Hopewell Mills Dam – Removed in 2012



Hopewell Mills/State Hospital



Hopewell Mills/State Hospital





Hopewell Mills Dam Looking Upstream June, 2012



Hopewell Mills Dam Looking Upstream May, 2013



Hopewell Mills Dam Looking West June, 2012



Hopewell Mills Dam Looking West High Flows, June, 2013

Whittenton Dam





2005



2005



2005



2005



2005



2005



2005



2005



2013

Components of Whittenton Dam Removal



• Sediment Management• Endangered Species

• Historical Buildings

• Crazy landowners• Channel Construction

• Plantings

Sediment Management



Hopewell Mills – Sediment Removal and Disposal

Whittenton Impoundment:

Low Flows



FullImpoundment

Edge



Stumps

Longitudinal Profile



Whittenton DamMorey’s Bridge

Endangered Mussels - Relocated





Historical Buildings/Resources



Landowners



Landowners



Dam Demolition/Channel Construction



2010













Channel and Bank Construction













2013



2013



2013



2014



2012



2014



2013



2013

Th k Y



Thank You

Nick Nelson

Inter-Fluve, Inc.617-714-5537

[email protected]

www.interfluve.com

Networking Break





Panel Discussion

Moderator: Chad Sumner, SumCo Eco-Contracting

Speakers





Speakers• Beth Lambert, MA Div. of Ecological Restoration

• Nils Wiberg, Fuss & O’Neill

• Chad Cox, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

• Chris Haker , Tighe & Bond

• Bjorn Lake, Kleinschmidt

• George P. Aponte Clarke, Penobscot River Restoration Trust

• Nick Nelson, Inter-Fluve, Inc.

EBC Dam Management Program

Up and Over Around and Through:



Up and Over, Around and Through:Dam Management’s Role in Fish

Passage & Stream Restoration

Thank you for attending.

4-28-15 Dam Management Program - Fish Passage

Documents