IFB_SOL_Book2_Hwy35.pdf

INVITATION FOR BIDS

Solicitation No. DTFH70-09-B-00019

OR FS ERFO 2007(1)-11(1) Book 2

HIGHWAY 35 BETTERMENT

Solicitation, Offer & Award, Bid Schedule, Contract Clauses, Minimum Wage Schedule, Special Contract Requirements, and Plans

This solicitation cites

Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-03 U.S. Customary

ISSUING OFFICE:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

610 EAST FIFTH STREET

VANCOUVER, WA 98661-3801

Phone: (360) 619-7520 – FAX: (360) 619-7932 Web site: http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/contracting/ e-mail : wfl.contracts@dot.gov

Bid Opening Date:

See Page A-3, Block 13A

QUICK INDEX

Page Item H-1 Permits I-1 Erosion and Sediment Control

Plan Narrative J-1 Fire Protection and Suppression

Plan K-1 Electrofishing Guidelines

BID REMINDERS

Electronic bids will not be accepted. Submit printed copy of bid to the address listed on the enclosed SF 1442. Before submitting your bid, please review the following:

Have you rechecked your bid figures?

Have you completed the bid schedule?

Have you completed and signed the SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer & Award?

Have you acknowledged all amendments?

Have you completed the Representations &

Certifications (Page B-1)?

Is your bid guarantee enclosed in proper form and amount (see FAR Clause 52.228-1), including Power of Attorney affidavit?

Does the lower left corner of the proposal envelope state “Bid Enclosed”?

Does the lower left corner include the Solicitation Number and the project number/name? A-1 Notice to Bidders

PROJECT NAME OR FS ERFO 2007(1)-11(1)

HIGHWAY 35 BETTERMENT

BEGINNING AT 11+00.00 (MP 61.10)

SUSPEND WORK 66+00.00 (MP 62.14)

RESUME WORK 140+00.00 (MP 65.32)

ENDING AT 293+84.16 (MP 68.23)

NATIONAL FOREST MT HOOD

COUNTY HOOD RIVER

STATE OREGON

LENGTH 3.955 MILES

FIXED COMPLETION DATE See FAR Clause 52.211-10 (FAR Clauses begin on page C-1)

H-1

Permits Project: OR FS ERFO 2007(1)-11(1) Highway 35 Betterment

PERMITS

The Government has not yet received a nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the White River portion (11+00.00 to 66+00.00). The Government has attempted to incorporate all anticipated permit requirements into the current contract package and expects minimal changes once the individual permit is received. For the Contractor’s information, the Government is including the Fact Sheet for the Nationwide Permit No. 14, along with Regional Conditions to the 2010 Nationwide Permits. Once the permit is obtained, it will be substituted for the Fact Sheet and the Regional Conditions.

Compliance with the permit terms is required under FAR 52.236-7 and such terms will not be deemed a change to the contract.

The Government has not yet received an individual permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Clark-Newton portion (140+00 to 293+84.16). The Government has attempted to incorporate all anticipated permit requirements into the current contract package and expects minimal changes once the individual permit is received. Once the permit is obtained it will be added to the Contract package. Compliance with the permit terms is required under FAR 52.236-7 and such terms will not be deemed a change to the contract..

H-2

Project: OR FS ERFO 2007(1)-11(1) Highway 35 Betterment

(This page intentionally left blank)

H-3

Project: OR FS ERFO 2007(1)-11(1), Highway 35 Betterment

H-4

H-5

H-6

H-7

H-8

H-9

H-10

H-11

H-12

H-13

H-14

H-15

H-16

H-17

H-18

I-1

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

I-2

(This page intentionally left blank.)

I-3

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Narrative

Project Name: Highway 35 Betterment Project OR-FS-ERFO-2007(1)-11(1)

Permit Number: 1200-CA, General Permit, NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit, ODEQ

Contact: Chuck Mikkola- Project Engineer- 360-619-7700, Elisa Carlsen- Environmental Protection Specialist-360-619-7674

PROJECT LOCATION

The project is located on Highway 35 in two segments east of Government Camp. One segment extends from MP 61.18 to 62.22 at the White River and the other segment from MP 65.31 to

67.17 between Clark and Newton Creeks.

White River: Section: 15-16,21-23,26-28 Township: 3 S Range: 9 E

Clark Newton Creeks: Section: 11-14, 5-8,18 Township: 3 S Range: 9, 10 E

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The improvements to the Clark and Newton creeks section of Highway 35 begins at the Clark Creek Sno-Park at approximately mile-post (MP)65.3 and ends just past the Newton Creek crossing at MP 68. The alignment will shift approximately 12 feet southward (down-slope) and parallel the highway for approximately 2 miles before transitioning to the existing alignment.

Vegetation along the roadside corridor will be removed. The proposed alignment is designed as close to the existing centerline as practical, while allowing construction of temporary traffic lanes that meet ODOT standards.

The grade will be raised approximately 4 to 5 feet above the existing roadway for the majority of this length. The travel way will be maintained at the current 40-foot width. Riprap protection is proposed for the up-slope side of the roadway embankment. A new rock armored ditch drainage channel (approximately 9 feet deep) is proposed along the up-slope side to direct runoff during flood events to large box culverts. Several box culverts (approximately 8 feet x10 feet) will be placed along the road to facilitate roadway drainage during storm events. The improved roadway will return to the existing alignment before the existing Newton Creek crossing, which will remain in place.

An approach road will be reconstructed to Pocket Creek Road and an existing blocked culvert will be replaced. The Clark Creek Sno-Park will be decommissioned and the roadbed will be obliterated. The surface will be re-graded and planted with native vegetation to restore wetland functions in the area. The Teacup Sno-Park will be expanded to account for the parking lost at the Clark Creek Sno-Park. The Pocket Creek Sno-Park will be maintained at its current location.

Best Management Practices (BMP’s) such as silt fence, sediment logs, check dams, etc. will be installed where ground disturbing activities occur and to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation to receiving waters. Four large (approximately 8’x30’) box culverts will be placed at locations where Newton Creek has been carried before, but are currently dry.

The new bridge crossing over Clark Creek will involve installing deep foundations to protect against scour (drilled shafts) and placing rip-rap on the banks to protect the approaches from the effects of scour. The existing two culverts currently carrying the flow of Clark Creek will be removed. The proposed Clark Creek Bridge will fully span the stream channel. The active channel width of Clark Creek is approximately 21 feet (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) field measurements in June 2009). Post construction, an approximate 32 feet unobstructed channel width will be maintained.

I-4

At the White River crossing, the highway alignment will be shifted south of the existing roadway, the roadway will be raised, and a multi-span bridge with deep foundations will span White River.

A new double span bridge with deep foundations will cross Green Apple Creek replacing the two existing culverts. Improvements will begin at approximately MP 61.2 and end at approximately MP 62.2. At White River, approximately a 285-foot-long bridge with three spans will be constructed. At Green Apple Creek, approximately a 240-foot-long bridge with a double span will be constructed. The increased length and increased height of the bridges will improve the passage of debris flows by reducing channel constriction. The grade will be raised to a maximum of about 6 percent, raising the elevation by approximately 10 to 15 feet at the both bridge locations. In addition, all other cross drains (culverts) throughout the project will be increased in size to allow for more flow. The proposed alignment is located approximately 50 feet downstream of the existing White River Bridge to provide a detour during construction.

Riprap protection is proposed up-slope side of the roadway embankment. Approach roads will be reconstructed for access to the Boy Scout Camp, Boy Scout Parking, Sno-Parks and FS Road

48. In kind replacement parking at Sno-Parks is planned for areas affected by the roadway improvement. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) such as silt fence, sediment logs, check dams, etc. will be installed where ground disturbing activities will occur and to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation to receiving waters. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) such as silt fence, sediment logs, check dams etc. will be installed to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation to receiving waters.

The new bridge crossings over the White River will involve installing deep foundations to protect against scour (drilled shafts) and placing rip-rap on the banks to protect the approaches from scour. The existing White River Bridge has a pier in the channel. The proposed White River Bridge will fully span the channel.

In order to construct the new bridge over the North and South Fork of Green Apple, the existing two 6-foot diameter culverts currently carrying the flow of Green Apple Creek will be removed.

The new bridge crossing over the North and South Fork of Green Apple will involve installing deep foundations to protect against scour (drilled shafts) and placing rip-rap on the banks to protect the approaches from scour.

At the North Fork of Mineral Creek, a 20-foot diameter culvert will be installed to replace the existing 4-foot culvert. At the South Fork of Mineral Creek a 12-foot diameter culvert will be installed to replace the existing three 4-foot diameter culverts. Rip-rap will be placed at the inlet and outlet of the culvert for scour protection

In an effort to contain and treat surface storm runoff, a roadside gravel filled trench serving for storm water containment, initial treatment and subsequent distribution across the vegetated slope will be constructed. This treatment facility will be constructed along either side of the roadway, where runoff is expected. Terraced bio-retention slopes will be located downstream at the bridges where runoff from the bridge structures is conveyed to a single point for filtration and treatment.

All areas disturbed by construction within the project area (stream banks, slopes etc) will be mulched and planted with native vegetation. The Forest Service is developing a native re-vegetation plan that will be implemented as soon as practical during and post construction. This plan will provide for sediment and erosion control, habitat restoration, storm water management and wetland mitigation. Re-vegetation of wetland areas temporarily impacted by the project will provide an opportunity for wetland restoration and should account for the majority of mitigation for the proposed action. Additional mitigation for wetland impacts will come from removing and obliterating the roadbed at the Clark Creek Sno-Park area and re-grading the disturbed area, applying mulch and re-planting with native vegetation to restore a large historic wetland complex.

I-5

Staging areas will be located at the White River East and West Sno-Park, Clark Creek Sno-Park, Teacup Sno-Park, Pocket Creek Sno-Park and ODOT maintenance facility. All materials and equipment will be removed for winter shutdown. Tamarack Quarry may also be used for staging and will be used for the production of asphalt. All conditions of use for Tamarack Quarry, as outlined in the FS FEIS and ROD will be met. Additionally, all staging areas will be located at least 150 feet away from live streams or surface water. The contractor will be required to submit a spill plan that will identify how to respond to an accidental spill of hazardous or harmful materials prior to construction.

Major construction activities include:

Installation of temporary sediment and erosion control measures

Construction of temporary traffic lanes /lane widening for temporary traffic

Construction of road embankment

Construction of bridges

Placement of new drainage structures (culverts)

Placement of aggregate and asphalt

Installation of storm water treatment facilities

Shaping debris materials to restore natural floodplain conditions

Removal of the existing structures (bridges, culverts) and old roadway

Placement of riprap

Constructing approach roads

Removal of the roadbed at Clark Creek Sno-Park

Re-vegetation

Total project area: 250 ac. (Very Approximate)

Area cleared/graded: 64.5 ac.

Soils: Soils in the area are predominantly gravelly, silty sand containing cobbles and boulders field classified as SM, SP, and SP-SM materials in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

Nature of fill: gravelly, silty sand containing cobbles and boulders

LOCATION MAPS

Project Map: See Attached Project Plans, page A.1

Sediment/Erosion Control Plans and Details: See Attached Project Plans, page F.2- F.9

I-6

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

Wetlands adjacent to the rivers and creeks and wetlands near the Clark Creek Sno Park. Clark Creek provides habitat for Lower Columbia River steelhead and coho. Consultation with NMFS and the USACE on project impacts is ongoing. The structures were designed to meet NMFS criteria and the proposed action is being authorized under the SLOPES IV Programmatic Biological Opinion.

ADJACENT AREAS

Description of adjacent areas which may be affected by site disturbance:

X Streams

X Lakes

X Wetlands

Residences

X Roads

X Ditches, pipes, culverts

Other

Receiving waters: Mineral Creek (North Fork and South Fork), White River, Green Apple Creek, Iron Creek, Clark Creek

Description of the downstream drainage path leading from the site to the receiving body of water:

Surface water during storm events will primarily flow south of the newly constructed roadway.

Stormwater facilities have been designed to capture and treat runoff from storm events and are incorporated into the project. These designs are described below. Plan Sheets F.2-9 indicate the direction of flow and location of stormwater treatment facilities.

Infiltration trenches

Infiltration trenches are located immediately adjacent to the road surface. The trenches are designed to infiltrate, treat and distribute water from the road runoff. They and are intended to collect water from road runoff, infiltrate that water into a gravel lined trench and then biologically and physically treat that water through the actions of compost (biological treatment) and a layer of silt size material (physical treatment) which is able to adhere many impurities in the water.

Further, these trenches are designed to distribute water into the treatment slope in a manner that eliminates surface run-on, which would create a great deal of surface erosion. The proper function of the infiltration trench will depend on adequate functioning and robust plant root reinforcement in the treatment slope.

Treatment slopes

Treatment slopes are essentially fill slopes that are built to be able to operate at a high level of biological function. This high biological function allows high levels of water infiltration from rain, snowmelt and surface run on (water coming on the site from above). Surface run off is the most difficult to address directly. Thus, the infiltration trenches have been designed in tandem with the treatment slopes to accept and distribute run off from the road surface.

I-7

Treatment slopes are recapitalized with high carbon organic matter, loosened to allow maximum infiltration and root penetration and ultimately seeded with fiberous rooted grasses and plants and then protected with a ultra-stable and long lasting mulch. The approach to rebuilding the treatment slopes is borrowed directly from self-sustaining native systems. This type of treatment has been used on slopes as steep as 1.25H:1V with some adjustments. The basic design principle is that if water cannot run off of the slope, it cannot carry sediment. This leads to infiltrated water which can be treated in a biologically active soil. The collateral advantages include easy root penetration, increased soil water which is available for plants, maximum soil oxygen exchange and a more robust plant community.

Treatment swales

The treatment swales are designed to allow a maximum contact time for accumulated runoff so that copper, sediment and other pollutants can be stripped from the water and biologically fixed and/or physically adhered to soil particles before entering the White River and other adjacent water courses and wetlands. The treatment swales are designed in steps so that water velocities are slowed enough to maximize contact time. Rock is used in the flow paths to both slow and oxygenate water so that high velocity flows do not down cut through the treatment swales. Rock steps are used to transfer water from one level to the next without head cutting the bed or treatment material. These designs place us significantly closer to Clean Water Act requirements to limit specific pollutants from entering waters of the U.S. We also, through embedded monitoring ‘wells’, will be able to assess the throughput and infiltration of certain pollutants. They also model how biological or ‘low impact design’ features can be used to both treat runoff water and beautify highway corridors.

TMDL (TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD) WATERS

White River - water quality listed for temperature, and sedimentation (1998) ODEQ 303(d) list

PLANNED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES

Install all erosion and sediment controls not in the direct path of work before any land disturbance.

Culvert Installation: Culverts will be constructed in the dry by isolating the work site from stream flow. Construction equipment will work from the road fill and cross the stream within the dewatered area. Contractor is responsible for submitting a Stream Diversion Plan that will identify BMP’s for erosion and sediment control during in-water work activities. These BMPs’ may include sandbags, silt fence, compost berms, etc.

Turbidity Monitoring Plan: Contractor is also responsible for submitting a Turbidity Monitoring Plan that will identify natural background turbidity and sample turbidity during in-water work activities. Turbidity monitoring will be performed per ODEQ’s 401 Water Quality Certification Specifications.

Fiber Roll/Sediment Log Berm: Sediment wattles will be installed as indicated on the plan sheets and as may be necessary in the field.

Check Dams: Rock check dams will be installed at locations identified on the plans to reduce velocities of surface / storm water runoff.

Dust Control: Water or other dust palliatives will be applied to gravel or dirt road surfaces to alleviate dust generated by construction activities. Dust palliatives will not be used along sections of the road where run-off of the palliative into an adjacent water body may occur.

I-8

Temporary Soil Stabilization: All soils that are exposed and disturbed by construction-related activities will be temporarily stabilized by the road contractor using bonded fiber matrix.

Unworked areas will be stabilized within 14 days of exposure by applying a temporary water soluble natural vegetable gum tackifier or temporary mulch. All finished areas will be temporarily stabilized from the beginning of the construction season until August 15 of each year within 14 days of completing the work.

Permanent Soil Stabilization: Finished cut and fill slopes will be permanently stabilized by the US Forest Service using a compost mulch and permanent vegetation. Revegetation efforts will be consistent with pre-existing conditions in the White River floodplain where little to no vegetation is present due to the routine flood events that occur in the area.

Hazardous Spill Plan: Contractor will prepare a project specific hazardous spill plan prior to any construction activities.

EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES

The contractor will be responsible for proper installation and maintenance of all erosion and sediment control measures.

The Contractor is responsible for implementation of the ESC plans, and construction, maintenance, replacement, and upgrading of ESC measures until all construction is completed.

The boundaries of the clearing limits will be clearly marked in the field prior to construction.

No disturbance is permitted beyond the clearing limits.

The ESC measures shown on this plan must be constructed in conjunction with all clearing and grading activities, and in such a manner as to insure that sediment and sediment-laden water does not enter adjacent roadways, private property, or violate water quality standards.

The ESC measures are minimum requirements for anticipated site conditions. During construction, these measures will be revised as needed to address changing site conditions, unexpected storm events, and to ensure that sediment and sediment laden water does not leave the construction site.

INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE

In accordance with State and Federal regulations, the FHWA is responsible for inspecting all sediment and erosion control measures at the construction site. The road contractor is responsible for proper installation and maintenance of all erosion and sediment control measures.

Erosion and sediment control devices will be inspected daily during storm water runoff or snowmelt runoff and at least once every seven (7) calendar days and within 24 hours after any storm event of greater than 0.5 inches of rain per 24-hour period. (FP-03 157)

During inactive periods of greater than seven (7) consecutive calendar days, erosion and sediment control devices will be inspected once every 2 weeks. (FP-03 157)

Prior to discontinuing activities at the site at the end of the construction season, the entire site will be stabilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation. (FP-03 157)

Maintain waddles, sediment traps, and sand bags and other erosion and sediment control devices to provide an adequate sediment holding capacity. Sediment will be removed when accumulation reaches ¾ of the barrier height. If silt fence is installed, trapped sediment will be removed before it reaches ⅓ of the above ground fence height. (FP-03 157)

I-9

Clean up significant amounts of sediment that leave the construction site within 24 hours and place back on the site or properly dispose. Perform any clean up of in-stream sediment. (FP-03 157)

Remove in-water work structures (temporary culverts, silt fence, sandbags etc.) immediately upon completion of in-water work activities. (SCR 157.09)

Conduct observations and record color and turbidity or clarity in receiving waters upstream and downstream per ODEQ Turbidity Monitoring Guidelines. (FP-03 157, SCR 157.08)

All visual inspections of erosion and sediment control devices, and turbidity monitoring will be documented following 1200-CA Schedule B guidelines and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 401 Water Quality Certification. (Turbidity Monitoring Plan, Section 157.08)

Keep all inspection records on-site and make them available to the ODEQ, its Agent, or local municipality upon request. (SCR 157.08)

ESCP MODIFICATIONS

This plan is only a guide and may not adequately address all conditions on the construction site.

If erosion and sediment control on the construction site is not adequately addressed by the ESCP, it is the responsibility of the Project Engineer and Contractor to modify the plan.

Contractor modifications to the ESCP must be submitted to the Project Engineer for approval.

Changes can be made by hand on the ESCP and plan sheets. The modified ESCP and plan sheets must be documented and kept on file at the project site. Notes on the updated ESCP and plan set should indicate the location, date, and status of each change.

LOCATION OF ESCP REQUIREMENTS IN PROJECT PLAN AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

DESCRIPTION TITLE LOCATION

Site Map Cover Page, Plans for Proposed Project OR PFH 92-1(1)

Plan sheet A.1

Temporary Erosion/Sediment Control Locations

Erosion Control Plan Plan sheets F.1-10

Permanent Erosion Control Revegetation Plan USFS

Erosion Control Details Erosion Control Details Plan sheets F.10-12

Drainage Structures Culvert Installation Details Plan sheets H.1-38

Erosion Control Tabulation Tabulation of Erosion Control Quantities

Plan sheet H.1

Storm Water Treatment Storm Water Management Plans WFLHD

Storm Water Treatment Typical Sections, Design Details Plan sheet C.8-10

I-10

DESCRIPTION TITLE LOCATION

Wetland Mitigation / Site Restoration

Plan Sheet G.1-2 WFLHD / USFS

Hazardous Spill Plan Special Contract Requirements 107.10(b)

WFLHD/ Contractor

Turbidity Monitoring Plan Special Contract Requirements 157.08

WFLHD/ Contractor

Stream Diversion Plan Special Contract Requirements 157.09

WFLHD/ Contractor

FIRE PROTECTION AND SUPPRESSION PLAN

J-1

Fire Protection and Suppression Plan Project: OR FS 2007(1)-11(1), Highway 35 Betterment

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

ELECTROFISHING GUIDELINES

K-1

Electrofishing Guidelines

(This page is intentionally left blank.)

K-2

National Marine Fisheries Service

Guidelines for Electrofishing Waters Containing Salmonids Listed Under the Endangered Species Act June 2000

Purpose and Scope The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for the safe use of backpack electrofishing in waters containing salmonids listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is expected that these guidelines will help improve electrofishing technique in ways which will reduce fish injury and increase electrofishing efficiency.

These guidelines and sampling protocol were developed from NMFS research experience and input from specialists in the electrofishing industry and fishery researchers. This document outlines electrofishing procedures and guidelines that NMFS has determined to be necessary and advisable when working in freshwater systems where threatened or endangered salmon and steelhead may be found. As such, the guidelines provide a basis for reviewing proposed electrofishing activities submitted to NMFS in the context of ESA Section 10 permit applications as well as scientific research activities proposed for coverage under an ESA Section 4(d) rule.

These guidelines specifically address the use of backpack electrofishers for sampling juvenile or adult salmon and steelhead that are not in spawning condition. Electrofishing in the vicinity of adult salmonids in spawning condition and electrofishing near redds are not discussed as there is no justifiable basis for permitting these activities except in very limited situations (e.g., collecting brood stock, fish rescue, etc.). The guidelines also address sampling and fish handling protocols typically employed in electrofishing studies. While the guidelines contain many specifics, they are not intended to serve as an electrofishing manual and do not eliminate the need for good judgement in the field.

Finally, it is important to note that researchers wishing to use electrofishing in waters containing listed salmon and steelhead are not necessarily precluded from using techniques or equipment not addressed in these guidelines (e.g., boat electrofishers). However, prior to authorizing the take of listed salmonids under the ESA, NMFS will require substantial proof that such techniques/equipment are clearly necessary for a particular study and that adequate safeguards will be in place to protect threatened or endangered salmonids. Additional information regarding these guidelines or other research issues dealing with salmon and steelhead listed under the ESA can be obtained from NMFS’ Protected Resources Divisions in:

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho California Leslie Schaeffer Dan Logan

NMFS NMFS

525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500 777 Sonoma Ave., Room 325 Portland, Oregon 97232-2737 Santa Rosa, California 95404-6515 Phone: (503) 230-5433 Phone: (707) 575-6053

FAX: (503) 230-5435 FAX: (707) 578-3435

Internet Address: Leslie.Schaeffer@noaa.gov Internet Address: Dan.Logan@noaa.gov

K-3

Electrofishing Guidelines Project: OR FS ERFO 2007(1)-11(1), Highway 35 Betterment mailto: Leslie.Schaeffer@noaa.gov mailto: Dan.Logan@noaa.gov

Appropriateness of Electrofishing Backpack electrofishing for salmonids has been a principal sampling technique for decades, however, recent ESA listings underscore the need to regulate the technique and assess its risks and benefits to listed species (Nielsen 1998). With over 25 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of threatened or endangered salmonids now identified along the U.S. West Coast, researchers can expect to encounter one or more listed species in nearly every river basin in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. There are few if any non-invasive ways to collect distribution, abundance, or morpho-physiological data on salmonids in freshwater. This is reflected in the requirement that all activities that involve intentional take of juvenile salmonids for research or enhancement of an ESA listed species require an ESA Section 10 permit from NMFS. While NMFS has not precluded the use of electrofishing in all cases, researchers must present rigorous study designs and methods for handling fish prior to NMFS authorizing electrofishing to take listed salmonids under the ESA.

NMFS believes there is ample evidence that electrofishing can cause serious harm to fish and the general agency position is to encourage researchers to seek out other less invasive ways to sample listed species. Direct observation by snorkeling is one of the least invasive ways to collect information concerning abundance and distribution, although there can be both practical (e.g., poor viability) and statistical (e.g., large numbers of fish, low observation probability) constraints to direct observation. Preliminary efforts should be directed at study designs that use less invasive methods. If such methods cannot provide the quality of data required or when the benefit exceeds potential mortality risk, then electrofishing can be considered. Electrofishing used on a limited basis to calibrate direct observations (e.g., Hankin and Reeves 1988) is commonly used and methods are currently under development that increase the use of direct observation counts (e.g., bounded counts, “multiple snorkel passes”) which, in many cases, will further reduce the need for electrofishing.

Electrofishing Guidelines Training Field supervisors and crew members must have appropriate training and experience with electrofishing techniques. Training for field supervisors can be acquired from programs such as those offered from the U.

S. Fish and Wildlife Service - National Conservation Training Center (Principles and Techniques of Electrofishing course) where participants are presented information concerning such topics as electric circuit and field theory, safety training, and fish injury awareness and minimization. A crew leader having at least 100 hours of electrofishing experience in the field using similar equipment must train the crew. The crew leader’s experience must be documented and available for confirmation; such documentation may be in the form of a logbook. The training must occur before an inexperienced crew begins any electrofishing and should be conducted in waters that do not contain ESA-listed fish. Field crew training must include the following elements:

1. A review of these guidelines and the equipment manufacturer’s recommendations, including basic gear maintenance.

2. Definitions of basic terminology (e.g. galvanotaxis, narcosis, and tetany) and an explanation of how electrofishing attracts fish.

3. A demonstration of the proper use of electrofishing equipment (including an explanation of how gear can injure fish and how to recognize signs of injury) and of the role each crew member

K-4 performs.

4. A demonstration of proper fish handling, anesthetization, and resuscitation techniques.

5. A field session where new individuals actually perform each role on the electrofishing crew.

Research Coordination Research activities should be coordinated with fishery personnel from other agencies/parties to avoid duplication of effort, oversampling small populations, and unnecessary stress on fish. Researchers should actively seek out ways to share data on threatened and endangered species so that fish samples yield as much information as possible to the research community. NMFS believes that the state fishery agencies should play a major role in coordinating salmonid research and encourages researchers to discuss their study plans with these agencies prior to approaching NMFS for an ESA permit.

Initial Site Surveys and Equipment Settings

1. In order to avoid contact with spawning adults or active redds, researchers must conduct a careful visual survey of the area to be sampled before beginning electrofishing.

2. Prior to the start of sampling at a new location, water temperature and conductivity measurements should be taken to evaluate electroshocker settings and adjustments. No electrofishing should occur when water temperatures are above 18°C or are expected to rise above this temperature prior to concluding the electrofishing survey. In addition, studies by NMFS scientists indicate that no electrofishing should occur in California coastal basins when conductivity is above 350 µS/cm.

3. Whenever possible, a block net should be placed below the area being sampled to capture stunned fish that may drift downstream.

4. Equipment must be in good working condition and operators should go through the manufacturer's preseason checks, adhere to all provisions, and record major maintenance work in a logbook.

5. Each electrofishing session must start with all settings (voltage, pulse width, and pulse rate) set to the minimums needed to capture fish. These settings should be gradually increased only to the point where fish are immobilized and captured, and generally not allowed to exceed conductivity-based maxima (Table 1). Only direct current (DC) or pulsed direct current (PDC) should be used.

Table 1. Guidelines for initial and maximum settings for backpack electrofishing.

Initial settings

Maximum settings

Notes

Voltage 100 V Conductivity (µS/cm) Max. Voltage < 100 1100 V 100 - 300 800 V > 300 400 V

In California coastal basins, settings should never exceed 400 volts.

Also, no electrofishing should occur in these basins if conductivity is greater than 350 µS/cm.

Pulse width 500 µs 5 ms

Pulse rate 30 Hz 70 Hz In general, exceeding 40 Hz will injure more fish

K-5

Electrofishing Technique

1. Sampling should begin using straight DC. Remember that the power needs to remain on until the fish is netted when using straight DC. If fish capture is unsuccessful with initial low voltage, gradually increase voltage settings with straight DC.

2. If fish capture is not successful with the use of straight DC, then set the electrofisher to lower voltages with PDC. If fish capture is unsuccessful with low voltages, increase pulse width, voltage, and pulse frequency (duration, amplitude, and frequency).

4. Electrofishing should be performed in a manner that minimizes harm to the fish. Stream segments should be sampled systematically, moving the anode continuously in a herringbone pattern (where feasible) through the water. Care should be taken when fishing in areas with high fish concentrations, structure (e.g., wood, undercut banks) and in shallow waters where most backpack electrofishing for juvenile salmonids occurs. Voltage gradients may be high when electrodes are in shallow water where boundary layers (water surface and substrate) tend to intensify the electrical field.

5. Do not electrofish in one location for an extended period (e.g., undercut banks) and regularly check block nets for immobilized fish.

6. Fish should not make contact with the anode. Remember that the zone of potential injury for fish is 0.5 m from the anode.

7. Electrofishing crews should be generally observant of the condition of the fish and change or terminate sampling when experiencing problems with fish recovery time, banding, injury, mortality, or other indications of fish stress.

8. Netters should not allow the fish to remain in the electrical field any longer than necessary by removing stunned fish from the water immediately after netting.

Sample Processing and Recordkeeping

1. Fish should be processed as soon as possible after capture to minimize stress. This may require a larger crew size.

2. All sampling procedures must have a protocol for protecting held fish. Samplers must be aware of the conditions in the containers holding fish; air pumps, water transfers, etc., should be used as necessary to maintain safe conditions. Also, large fish should be kept separate from smaller prey-sized fish to avoid predation during containment.

3. Use of an approved anesthetic can reduce fish stress and is recommended, particularly if additional handling of fish is required (e.g., length and weight measurements, scale samples, fin clips, tagging).

4. Fish should be handled properly (e.g., wetting measuring boards, not overcrowding fish in buckets, etc.).

5. Fish should be observed for general condition and injuries (e.g., increased recovery time, dark bands, apparent spinal injuries). Each fish should be completely revived before releasing at the location of capture. A plan for achieving efficient return to appropriate habitat should be developed before each sampling session. Also, every attempt should be made to process and release ESA-listed specimens first.

8. Pertinent water quality (e.g., conductivity and temperature) and sampling notes (e.g., shocker settings, fish condition/injuries/mortalities) should be recorded in a logbook to improve technique and help train new operators. It is important to note that records of injuries or mortalities pertain to the entire electrofishing survey, including the fish sample work-up.

K-6

Citations and Other References

Dalbey, S. R., T. E. McMahon, and W. Fredenberg. 1996. Effect of electrofishing pulse shape and electrofishing-induced spinal injury on long-term growth and survival of wild rainbow trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:560-569.

Hankin, D. G., and G. H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:834-844.

Hollender, B. A., and R. F. Carline. 1994. Injury to wild brook trout by backpack electrofishing. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:643-649.

Nielsen, J. L. 1998. Electrofishing California’s endangered fish populations. Fisheries 23:6-12.

Nielsen, L.A., and D.L. Johnson, editors. 1983. Fisheries techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Reynolds, J. B., and A. L. Kolz. 1988. Electrofishing injury to large rainbow trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:516-518.

Sharber, N. G., and S. W. Carothers. 1988. Influence of electrofishing pulse shape on spinal injuries in adult rainbow trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:117-122.

Sharber, N. G., S. W. Carothers, J.P. Sharber, J. D. deBos, Jr., and D. A. House. 1994. Reducing electrofishing-induced injury of rainbow trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:340-346.

Schreck, C.B., and P.B. Moyle, editors. 1990. Methods for fish biology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

K-7

K-8