rfql-f-g-2026-01--1-.pdf

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

Engineering Services to Improve Fish Passage at the Winnicut River Fishway in Greenland, NH

Winnicut River Fishway, Greenland, NH

February 17, 2026

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Inland Fisheries Division, Fish Habitat Program

11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301

Table of Contents

A. Introduction

B. Description of Agency or Program issuing the Request for Qualifications

C. Project Scope

D. RFQ Requirements

E. Desired Qualifications

F. Selection Criteria

G. RFQ Questions

H. Timeline

I. Disclaimer

J. Interviews and Final Selection

K. Appendix: USFWS Winnicut Design Analysis Memorandum

A. Introduction

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG) has been selected to receive funding from the NH Charitable Foundation Great Bay 2030 program (Great Bay 2030) to procure engineering services to develop solutions to address fish passage insufficiencies at the Winnicut River Fishway in Greenland, NH (see appendix).

The goal of this initial phase is to produce a package of design and permitting documents in coordination with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to position the project to be shovel-ready by 2028. The TAC is comprised of:

• NHFG will be leading the project as the owner of the Fishway and surrounding property.

Additionally, NHFG will provide technical expertise for all tasks and will lead grant reporting

• The NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will provide technical expertise related to fish passage and state and federal permitting

• The NH Department of Transportation (NHDOT) will provide technical expertise related to adjacent transportation infrastructure as well as data from recent hydraulic study and topographic and bathymetric survey

• The Town of Greenland will serve as a community representative to assist with decision making regarding potential impacts to town residents and/or the broader community

Deliverables will include site-specific hydraulic modeling, a transparent alternatives analysis, conceptual and final engineering designs, complete state and federal permitting packages, and a comprehensive technical report. Success will be measured by delivery of final stamped designs, securing all necessary permits, and establishing a durable interagency and community-supported decision-making framework.

B. Description of Agency of Program issuing the Request for Qualifications

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG) is the state agency responsible for conserving, managing, and protecting New Hampshire’s fish, wildlife, and their habitats, while also providing opportunities for outdoor recreation and promoting public safety. NHFG’s mission encompasses a wide range of programs and services, including wildlife and fisheries management, habitat conservation, law enforcement, hunter and angler education, and public outreach. The Department works closely with local communities, conservation organizations, and federal partners to ensure the long-term sustainability of New Hampshire’s natural resources.

C. Project Scope

NHFG is seeking a qualified consultant or team of consultants for engineering and technical support, community engagement, and permitting. The TAC will work closely with the consultant on each aspect of the project. Based on expertise, consultants may suggest changes or alternatives to the proposed Project Scope in their response to this RFQ.

Activity 1: Coordination with TAC

Vendor will convene five meetings of the TAC at key points in the project timeline. The TAC will consist of NHFG, NHDES, NHDOT, NOAA, USFWS, and the Town of Greenland.

Activity 2: Survey and Mapping

Vendor will assemble topographical and geospatial information about the surrounding landscape, including Route 33, bridge, fishway and Winnicut River.

A topographic survey of the vicinity near the Winnicut Fishway was performed by NHDOT in December 2024, which was conducted to facilitate a hydraulic analysis of the Winnicut River Bridge to determine its compatibility with NHDOT criteria. The NHDOT survey includes an as-built survey of the fishway and elevations of the upstream and downstream channel. In addition, a bathymetric survey of the Winnicut River channel was performed at the downstream railroad crossing. The NHDOT survey can be made available upon request.

Activity 3: Hydrology Analysis and Hydraulic Modeling

Hydrology Analysis: Vendor will obtain publicly available freshwater and tidal hydrology data to understand existing upstream and downstream flooding conditions. Vendor will procure new site-specific water level data from within the fishway and from downstream tidal conditions to characterize flow dynamics within the fishway structure.

Hydraulic Modeling: Vendor will utilize 3- Dimensional (3D) and/or Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) hydraulic modeling to represent the existing and potential future conditions of the Winnicut River Fishway. Vendor will demonstrate best practice for model calibration/verification and provide computational backup information.

A hydraulic analysis of the Winnicut River Bridge is currently underway through a separate effort led by NHDOT. The results of that effort are not currently available but are expected to be available in the next several months.

Activity 4: NHDOT Coordination

Vendor and NHFG will coordinate with NHDOT to seek input on any administrative or technical constraints (right-of-way, utilities, etc.) for the implementation of a fishway modification project, as it pertains to the safety of the NHDOT owned Winnicut River Bridge.

Activity 5: Alternatives Analysis

Vendor will work with TAC to select 5 - 7 alternatives to modify the performance of the Winnicut River Fishway. Vendor will analyze the hydraulics, fish passage performance, feasibility to construct, cost, (and other criteria determined by the TAC) of the 5-7 alternatives and will produce a technical memo that presents and contextualizes the results, as well as provides recommendations.

Activity 6: Conceptual Design

Vendor will work with the TAC to select (2) of the 5-7 alternatives to advance to the conceptual design stage. Vendor will provide more detailed analysis of the (2) selected alternatives, including hydraulic and fish passage performance, feasibility to construct, cost, and other criteria. Analysis of the (2) selected alternatives will be accompanied by a technical memo describing attainment of criteria. TAC will provide detailed written comment on the (2) conceptual designs to the Vendor. The conceptual designs will be provided to NHDOT for review and comment on selected alternatives. The TAC will make a recommendation to NHFG of the preferred alternative.

Activity 7: Preliminary Design

Vendor will prepare a preliminary design of the preferred alternative that, along with a design basis memo, will be presented to the TAC for review and comment. At the completion of the preliminary design phase, Vendor will give a presentation to the NHFG Lands Team.

Activity 8: Final Design

Upon receiving TAC comments on the Preliminary Design and sign-off by the NHFG Lands Team, Vendor will conduct all necessary engineering to advance the Preliminary Design to Final.

Vendor will provide 95% design drawings to TAC and NHDOT for final approval.

Activity 9: Permitting

Vendor will procure all necessary federal, state, and local permits and approvals. This bid anticipates that the fishway modification project will require a NHDES Wetlands permit.

Activity 10: Technical Specifications and Bid Documents

Vendor will work with TAC to prepare a Project Manual (draft and final) that includes technical specifications, bid sheet, and general conditions.

Activity 11: Bid Services

The vendor will provide NHFG with bid services for the selection of a construction contractor.

Bid services shall include assisting with bid development and advertisement, review and scoring of bids, selection of lowest qualified bid, and final contracting.

Activity 12: Stakeholder Engagement

Vendor will collaborate with TAC to share information about the proposed project at (2) public forums.

Activity 13: Route 33 Design Charette

Vendor will participate in the Route 33 Design Charette convened by the Town of Greenland, including providing input on river restoration perspective for an upgraded bridge replacement.

D. RFQ Requirements

Applicants are required to submit one electronic copy as a PDF of their qualifications package.

Submissions, including all listed components below, shall be 15 or fewer pages in length (not including staff CVs). Submission shall not include a cost estimate. PDF documents can be submitted via email by 4:00 PM EST on April 9, 2026 to the following designated RFQ Points of Contact:

TO: Jared Lamy, Fish Habitat Biologist, NHFG, jared.b.lamy@wildlife.nh.gov

CC: Kevin Lucey, Coastal Habitat Coordinator, NHDES, kevin.p.lucey@des.nh.gov

Each consultant or team or team of consultants will submit a qualifications package that will include the following components:

1) Cover Letter: Include a primary contact for proposal and that person’s title, address, phone number and email address.

2) Project Understanding: Provide your general understanding of the project and describe any potential challenges or special concerns that may be encountered. Describe in narrative form the consultant’s approach (i.e. “philosophy”) to multi-species fish passage projects, skills and

2026 2027 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

1 Coordination with Technical Advisory Committee 2 Survey and Mapping 3 Hydrology Analysis and Hydraulic Modeling 4 NHDOT Coordination 5 Alternatives Analysis 6 Conceptual Design 7 Preliminary Design 8 Final Design 9 Permitting 10 Technical Specifications and Bid Documents 11 Bid Services 12 Stakeholder Engagement 13 Route 33 Design Charette

Activity specialties for which the respondent is qualified, and a summary of directly relevant work experience of the respondent.

3) Project Plan: Provide a technical plan for accomplishing the work listed herein, listing any analytical methods and/or tools it anticipates utilizing. The consultant is encouraged to elaborate and improve on the tasks listed in the RFQ. However, the consultant shall not omit any requested scope tasks, unless explicitly noted.

4) Project Schedule: Respondents will provide a schedule to conduct and complete the project.

The schedule will include project tasks, as identified in the Project Scope section and/or by the consultant. Project tasks will be laid out in a flow chart identifying the anticipated dates to complete each task and the interrelationship of conducting and completing these tasks. The project end date is December 30, 2027.

5) References (minimum 3): Include names, titles, and contact information. References are preferable to be clients for whom similar work has been performed within the past five years.

6) Firm(s) Description: detailing the firm size(s) and area(s) of specialization, location, as well as general management structure.

7) Project Team Experience: describing project team organization, team member qualifications and the anticipated level of involvement of key team members in each phase of the project as described in the Project Approach. Additionally, describe the skills and specialties for which the respondent is qualified, and a summary of directly relevant work experience of the respondent including CVs of key team members.

E: Desired Qualifications

Preference shall be given to those firms with experience in the following areas:

(a) Demonstrated experience leading planning, engineering design, and permitting for fish passage and fishway modification projects, with a primary focus on restoring passage for River Herring (Alewife and Blueback Herring) and demonstrated understanding of the passage requirements of other diadromous species common to New England, including American Shad, Rainbow Smelt, American Eel, and Sea Lamprey;

(b) Proven ability to design species-appropriate passage solutions that account for differences in swimming ability, behavior, timing, and life history, particularly in riverine and tidally influenced systems;

(c) Demonstrated success delivering engineering design and permitting projects on time and within budget, including use of clear scopes, phased deliverables, and cost-control strategies that reduce risk and limit cost escalation;

(d) Experience conducting hydraulic and hydrologic analyses, alternatives evaluations, and climate-informed design that support durable, cost-effective fish passage solutions under current and future flow, tidal, and sea-level rise conditions;

(e) Proven ability to manage complex, multi-agency projects and coordinate effectively with state and federal resource agencies, municipalities, and other stakeholders to achieve consensus-driven, implementable designs;

(f) Demonstrated ability to effectively solicit, assess, and incorporate stakeholder, agency, and community input into technical decision-making while maintaining schedule and budget discipline;

(g) Demonstrated success facilitating productive project team and public meetings across in-person, virtual, and hybrid formats for technically complex infrastructure and environmental restoration projects;

(h) Experience working in New Hampshire or comparable regulatory environments, including familiarity with state and municipal permitting processes, agency coordination, and local environmental conditions.

F. Selection Criteria

The TAC will jointly convene a selection committee to review Statements of Qualifications and rank responding firms. Firms will be evaluated and scored based on the following criteria:

Understanding of the Project (20 Points)

The selection committee will evaluate the applicant’s understanding of the Winnicut River fish passage design and permitting project, including:

• Responsiveness and completeness of the submission, including inclusion of all required components and clarity of presentation;

• Demonstrated understanding of the project purpose, scope, constraints, and intended outcomes, including advancing a shovel-ready fish passage solution;

• Clear comprehension of species-specific passage goals, with emphasis on River Herring and consideration of American Shad, Rainbow Smelt, American Eel, and Sea Lamprey;

• Overall suitability of the proposed approach for a complex, multi-agency, tidally influenced fish passage project.

Strength of the Project Plan (25 Points)

The selection committee will evaluate the applicant’s proposed approach and technical plan, with particular emphasis on feasibility, cost control, and likelihood of success, including:

• Quality and clarity of the proposed project plan, including task descriptions, sequencing, and integration of engineering, permitting, and stakeholder engagement;

• Demonstrated understanding of the Project Scope, schedule, and required deliverables outlined in the RFQ;

• Realistic and well-defined project schedule, including milestones for alternatives analysis, engineering design, and permitting;

• Demonstrated strategies for maintaining budget discipline during the design and permitting phase and minimizing risk of cost overruns;

• Experience producing implementable, cost-effective designs that reduce uncertainty and limit future construction costs.

Qualifications: Experience of the Firm/Team (30 Points)

The selection committee will evaluate the experience and qualifications of the firm or team, with emphasis on directly relevant fish passage work, including:

• Experience planning, designing, permitting, and supporting implementation of fish passage or fishway modification projects, particularly those focused on river herring and other New England diadromous species;

• Demonstrated success delivering similar projects on time and within budget;

• Examples of comparable projects that advanced from design and permitting to implementation;

• Experienced capacity to perform three dimensional hydraulic modeling;

• Familiarity with regulatory, hydrologic, and ecological conditions in coastal and tidally influenced New Hampshire watersheds, including the Piscataqua–Salmon Falls system;

• Experience working with New Hampshire municipalities and state and federal agencies, including NHDES, on complex aquatic restoration projects.

Qualifications: Experience of Personnel (25 Points)

The selection committee will evaluate the qualifications of key personnel proposed for the project, including:

• Relevant experience, technical expertise, and availability of principal team members;

• Clearly defined roles and responsibilities and demonstrated team cohesion;

• Individual experience with fish passage engineering, hydraulic modeling, permitting, and interagency coordination;

• Demonstrated experience delivering similar projects within established schedules and budgets.

G. RFQ Questions

Questions concerning this RFQ must be submitted via email by 4:00 PM EST on March 5, 2026, to the following designated RFQ Points of Contact:

TO: Jared Lamy, Fish Habitat Biologist, jared.b.lamy@wildlife.nh.gov

CC: Kevin Lucey, Coastal Habitat Coordinator, kevin.p.lucey@des.nh.gov

All questions and responses will be posted to the New Hampshire Department of Administrative Services Statewide Bids and Proposals Website by 4:00 PM EST on March 12, 2026.

H. Timeline

I. Disclaimer

This RFQ does not commit NHFG to award a contract or pay any costs incurred during the preparation of any submittal. NHFG reserves the right to reject any or all of the submittals while adhering to applicable laws. NHFG also reserves the right to eliminate the need for the selected team to complete one or more tasks, pending the outcome of preceding related tasks or issues.

To participate in the project and receive payment, the selected firm will be required to enter into a contract which stipulates that the contractor is eligible to receive State funding and certifies compliance with the State rules related to grant funded projects.

J. Interviews and Final Selection

After scoring the proposals, NHFG may choose consultants to continue through interviews. If warranted, interviews will be held during the week of April 23, 2026 and conducted remotely via an online meeting platform or in-person at NHFG office in Concord, NH. NHFG will then rank the interview candidates based on a structured review of proposals and interviews. NHFG will notify the highest-ranked consultant that NHFG intends to engage in contract negotiation.

NHFG will negotiate with the highest-ranked consultant to determine final project scope and cost based on fair and reasonable compensation for the services required. Negotiations may entail eliminating, amending or adding activities, and therefore a detailed schedule and budget that propose discrete segments of work will be favored. NHFG and the consultant will determine the most effective means of completing the project tasks given the budget, workflow and staffing conditions during final contract negotiations. If no agreement is reached on scope of services and price, NHFG will terminate negotiations and begin negotiations with the next-highest ranked consultant until a contract has been successfully negotiated.

K. Appendix: USFWS Winnicut Design Analysis Memorandum

EVENT DATE LOCAL TIME

RFQ Released February 17, 2026 Deadline for Consultant Inquiries March 5, 2026 4:00 PM Responses to Consultant Inquiries Published March 12, 2026 4:00 PM Proposal Submission Deadline April 9, 2026 4:00 PM Estimated Timeframe for Consultant Interviews (if warranted) April 23, 2026 Estimated Notification of Selection April 30, 2026 4:00 PM Deadline for Cost Proposal from Consultant May 14, 2026 Estimated date for Contract Finalization May 28, 2026

Estimated Project Start Date (upon Governor & Council approval) End of June 2026

Project Kickoff Meeting End of June 2026

Region 5 ‐ Fisheries Fish Passage Team

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

SENT VIA EMAIL

Cheri Patterson Supervisor of Marine Programs N.H. Fish and Game Department 225 Main Street Durham, NH 03824

Subject: Review of Pool and Chute Fishways and Comparison with the Winnicut Fishway in Greenland, NH

Dear Cheri:

We have completed a cursory review of the Winnicut Pool and Chute fish ladder on the Winnicut River under the Route 33 Bridge. The following briefly describes pool and chute fishway characteristics, design “rule of thumb” guidance, and advantages and limitations of this type of fishway. An extensive literature review was conducted to accomplish the above tasks. Several similar designs on the West Coast were reviewed to compare with the Winnicut fishway. This review does not specifically analyze the design of the Winnicut fishway prepared by Stantec Engineering.

Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Brian J. Waz, P.E.

Civil Engineer brian_waz@fws.gov 413‐253‐8605

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

1.0 BACKGROUND

The Winnicut pool and chute fishway was designed by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. back in 2009 and 2010. The fishway was constructed and completed in the Fall of 2011. During construction there were some discrepancies between the design elevations and as‐built elevations of the key components of the weirs and fishway. There was also a discrepancy in the elevation of the most downstream 33 feet of the fishpass slab that was inspected by representatives of NHDES, NHFGD, Stantec, and fish passage engineers from USFWS and NOAA. A follow‐up HEC‐RAS model was done by Stantec to evaluate the 0.45’ discrepancy on the slab elevation, and look at the case of adding a 7’ slab with an invert set at the 0.0 elevation. The results of this analysis indicated that the modeled alternatives would provide for viable upstream fish passage of river herring. The elevated slab in the lower 30’ was determined not to affect the upstream fish passage potential.

The fishway was in operation during the Spring 2012 river herring (alewife and blueback herring) spawning migration window between mid‐April to the end of June. Staff from NHFGD observed the 4 most downstream pools being back watered and the river herring having problems ascending the ladder through the center chute at the fifth weir. The river herring could not physically overcome the forces and velocities of the streaming flow, and were not using the less turbulent areas of the pools to leap upstream from one pool to the next. The fishway was supposed to be designed for the species of interest (river herring) and river herring are known for their inability to jump/leap like that of salmonids. Therefore, the only main passage corridor for river herring would be ascending the ladder up through the center series of weirs. However, due to the fishway design the passage corridor appears to be a velocity barrier.

NHFGD asked fish passage engineers from the USFWS and NOAA to help determine if there is a problem with the current fishway design that affects the upstream passage of river herring, and are there any alterations that can be made to improve the upstream passage conditions. As an initial phase of this effort, USFWS engineers were asked to provide an informational memorandum looking at pool and chute fishways, design criteria/considerations, advantages/limitations, and comparing these to the Winnicut pool and chute fishway.

2.0 POOL AND CHUTE FISHWAY

The pool and chute fishway was originally developed by Ken Bates, Washington Department of Fisheries, in the early 1990’s and is a hybrid type fishway combining a pool and weir and a baffled chute. The fishway is designed to operate as a pool and weir fishway with a plunging flow regime at low flows and a baffled chute fishway with a streaming flow regime under higher river flows. A pool and chute fishway consists of side walls, angled baffles, a center weir, a floor, and traditionally orifices on each side of the center weir section (Refer to Figure 1).

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

Figure 1: Pool and Chute General Diagram.

The fishway achieves high water capacity for attraction by passing water down the center section (weir section) in a streaming flow pattern. The low to normal flow pattern and circulation is the plunging flow regime set up by the nappe from the upstream weir plunging toward the fishway floor, moving downstream along the floor, then rising along the upstream side of the next weir and dropping over or rolling back upstream along the surface. During streaming flow, a surface jet flows over the crests of the weirs and slides over the water surface of the pools. The water accelerates over the weirs without circulating through the downstream pool (Bates, 1991) (Refer to Photo 1).

Photo 1: View of Streaming and Plunging Flow Regimes‐Winnicut on April 9, 2013.

Plunging Flow

Streaming Flow

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSIDERATION

During the extensive literature review on the pool and chute fishway, several references and design projects recommend certain design parameters for this type of fishway. Most of what is published about the pool and chute fishway stems from the work of Ken Bates and Patrick Powers in the early 1990’s. Some of the critical design parameters for a pool and chute fishway are summarized below.

Several references have been used to compile this criteria; criteria provided by Ken Bates, Patrick Powers, California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual (July 2009) (CSSHRM), Design projects by Michael Love & Associates (MLA), and NMFS Salmonid Passage Facility Design (July 2011) (NMFS).

Overall Head Differential:

‐ No more than 6.0’ overall (Bates, Powers, MLA).

Maximum Fishway Slope:

‐ Maximum recommended fishway slope, 10% (CSSHRM).

‐ Slopes to not to be greater than 11.1%. Streaming flow cannot be achieved at higher slopes

(Bates).

‐ At higher slopes, pool lengths (upstream to downstream) have to be very short in order to get streaming flow over the notch weirs. The pool lengths become inadequate to achieve the required energy dissipation factor over the shoulder weirs (CSSHRM).

Drop per Pool:

‐ The range of the drop per pool is 0.25’ – 1.0’ (maximum), usually 0.5’ – 1.0’. The selected drop per pool depends on the leaping and/or swimming ability of the fish.

Angled Baffle Slope:

‐ 1:3 (V:H) (Bates), this provides approximately a 3’ wide fish passage corridor on the sides.

‐ 1:4 (V:H) or less (CSSHRM)(MLA). This lateral slope helps create sufficient depth in the center chute for streaming flow while maintaining a fish passage corridor along both sides.

Pool Dimensions and Weir Spacing (Refer to Photo 3):

‐ The pool dimensions should be a minimum of 8’ long (upstream to downstream), 6’ wide, and 5’ deep. These minimum dimensions may be smaller depending on specific site conditions, and fishway flow (NMFS).

‐ A minimum of 6’ weir spacing (Bates).

‐ A closer weir spacing will help maintain streaming flow, maximize roughness, and maximize slope of the fishway. At the lower limit of spacing, the design approaches that similar to a Denil fishway (Bates).

‐ Pool length should be 50% of the pool width. Pool depth should be 2.0’ – 4.0’, 2.0’ (min.)

(Bates, MLA).

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

‐ Pool length should be 45% ‐ 55% of the pool width (Powers).

(For Winnicut, 9’ ‐ 11’ long for 20’ wide pools)

Orifice Dimensions:

‐ The dimensions should be a minimum 15” high by 12” with the top and sides chamfered 0.75” on the upstream side, and chamfered 1.5” on the downstream side. (NMFS)

‐ The addition of orifices in this type of fishway may help to stabilize the plunging and streaming transition flow regime as well as providing fish passage (Powers, 2000).

‐ Orifices are sized to pass the minimum flow (2.6 cfs (min.) for Winnicut based on 2 cfs/sm).

Notch Weir Dimensions:

‐ Weir Length: 17 to 20% of the Pool Width (Powers)(3.4’ ‐ 4’ wide for Winnicut).

‐ Weir Height: Minimum 2.5 feet (Powers)(especially for orifice flow).

Figure 2 below, shows the flow patterns and fish passage corridors of a pool and chute fishway in California with 6” drops between pools. This fishway was designed to pass salmonids and is similar to the Winnicut fishway with no orifices, and the 6” drops per pool.

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

Figure 2: Pool and Chute Fishway Flow Patterns (MLA).

Energy Dissipation Factor (EDF):

Turbulence: The USFWS’s turbulence criterion is described by an Energy Dissipation Factor (EDF). EDF correlates well to observations of meso‐scale turbulence (e.g. eddies the size of fish) and aeration in pool‐type ladders:

p w

V

DQ

EDF

where EDF is the energy dissipation factor in ft‐lbf/s/ft3, Q is the flow through the pools in cfs, w is the specific gravity of water (62 lbf/ft3), D is the drop per pool in feet, and Vp is the volume of the pool in ft3.

In the U.S., many Federal agencies (including the Service) recommend a maximum EDF of

4.0 ft‐lbf/s/ft3 for passage of Salmonids and River Herring. Due to American shad susceptibility to turbulence, Larinier (2002) and others recommend a reduced level of turbulence for shad fishways.

The Service has established an EDF requirement of 3.15 ft‐lbf/s/ft3 or less in pool‐type fishways designed to pass shad. Future evaluations of the Winnicut fishway should include an analysis of the EDF’s for the existing pools.

Flow Velocity:

Flow through a pool‐type fish ladder may be partitioned into high velocities found at the weir crest and lower velocities found throughout the pool volume. Numerous authors have couched swimming performance in a three‐tiered model (Bell 1990, Bain 1999). The Cruising‐Sustained‐Darting swim speed model (Bell 1990) provides a useful context for establishing a velocity criterion in pool‐type fishways:

Cruising – a speed that can be maintained for long periods of time (hours)

Sustained (or prolonged) – a speed that can be maintained for minutes

Darting (or burst) – a single effort, not sustainable (short duration and distance)

Though short in duration, ascension over weir crest presents the greatest velocity barrier to a fish. At a minimum, the Service requires that weir crest flow maintain average velocities below the target species’ darting speed. Available literature suggests river herring (6” ‐ 11” in length) can produce burst swim speeds ranging from 5 to 7 feet per second; this is below typical fishway weir velocities at the Winnicut fishway for relatively low flow conditions. Refer to Appendix B, velocity readings taken and recorded by Kevin Lucy in the Fall 2012.

2.2 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF A POOL AND CHUTE FISHWAY

A pool and chute design has several benefits over a traditional pool and weir fishway (taken from the Willow Slough Pool and Chute Fish Ladder Model):

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

‐ For tributaries less than 5 square miles in drainage (Winnicut drainage area is 14.1 square miles), all of the flow can often be contained in the fishway.

‐ The pool and chute has higher flow capacity than other fishway types of a similar size.

‐ Flows and flood flows that are contained in the fishway often scour debris from the fishway, reducing maintenance time and costs.

‐ The fishway offers diverse upstream passage routes, through leaping and swimming (orifice pathway). This is an experimental fishway for River Herring.

‐ Fishway pool sizes can be half as large relative to a traditional pool and weir for the same flow.

One of the big advantages of a pool and chute is it can pass flow under a wider range of stream flows without additional flow control measures (only for salmonids).

Some of the limitations of a pool and chute fishway are:

‐ This type of fishway is fairly new, and physical models and analysis of completed fishways is not extensive. More studies of the complex hydraulics need to be conducted.

‐ A possible limitation is bed load deposition within the pools of the fishway. Deposition and filling of the pool areas along the walls of the fishway decrease the volume and therefore decrease the high design flow (Bates, 1991)(not expected at the Winnicut fishway).

‐ Pool widths and geometric details should be further studied to optimize these details for fish passage (Bates, 1991). More experimental data is needed for developing criteria for River Herring.

‐ As seen on some of the constructed pool and chute fishways on the West Coast, physical models of these fishways should be studied before they are completely designed and constructed to help determine optimum slopes, pool dimensions, and weir configurations.

‐ The length of the passable pool and chute fishway is basically untested. A long pool and chute fishway was built on Lees Creek near Port Angeles, WA and consists of 16 weirs in series with no orifices. Observations of the flow in this fishway are that after the fourth weir the flow starts to oscillate back and forth, and the passage corridors are not consistent as the flow moves down the fishway (taken from the Willow Slough Pool and Chute Fish Ladder Model).

‐ The velocities increase as the water travels downstream through the fish ladder. This is to be expected with a pool and chute fishway. The chute segment of a pool and chute is not generally used for fish passage, but for attraction flow for the fish to find the fish ladder (taken from the Willow Slough Pool and Chute Fish Ladder Model).

3.0 WINNICUT POOL AND CHUTE FISHWAY

The Winnicut pool and chute fishway was completed in the fall of 2011. The fishway has a total length of 132.0 feet and consists of 16 weirs, a fishway entrance weir (D/S), and a fishway exit weir (U/S) (Refer to Photo 2). The baffled sections were not designed with any orifices. The fish passage corridor is the plunging flow on the sides of the pool near the walls, and the main chute section up through the notches.

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

Photo 2: View of Winnicut Fishway Looking Upstream on July 26, 2012.

The design parameters of the Winnicut pool and chute fishway are listed below for comparison to the standards described above:

Overall Head Differential:

‐ 7.5’, from the entrance weir (D/S) to the exit weir (U/S).

Maximum Fishway Slope:

‐ 5.7%, 7.5’ drop in 132.0’.

Drop per Pool:

‐ The drop per pool is 6” (0.5’).

Angled Baffle Slope:

‐ 1:8, Weirs 1 ‐ 13.

‐ 1:16, Weirs 14 ‐ 16.

‐ No slope, Exit Weir (U/S).

‐ 1:8, Ent. Weir (D/S).

Pool Dimensions and Weir Spacing (Refer to Photo 3):

‐ 20.0’ wide (side wall to side wall) x 6.267’ long (weir to weir, U/S to D/S) ‐ Weirs 1 ‐ 16.

‐ 30.0’ wide (side wall to side wall) x 12.0’ long (weir to weir, U/S to D/S) ‐ Exit Weir (U/S).

‐ 30.0’ wide (side wall to side wall) x 10.0’ long (weir to weir, U/S to D/S) ‐ Ent. Weir (D/S).

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

Pool Depths (floor to weir sill):

‐ 1.0’ deep ‐ Weirs 1 ‐ 16.

‐ 1.0’ deep ‐ Ent. Weir (D/S).

‐ 1.5’ deep ‐ Exit Weir (U/S).

Photo 3: View of Winnicut Fishway Upstream Pools on April 9, 2013.

Orifice Dimensions:

‐ There are no orifices in the 16 weir sections.

Notch Weir Dimensions:

Weir Length:

‐ 2.0’ wide at bottom to 6.0’ wide at the top ‐ Ent. Weir (D/S).

‐ 1.0’ wide at bottom to 4.0’ wide at the top ‐ Weirs 1‐16.

‐ 2.0’ wide at bottom to 4.0’ wide at the top ‐ Exit Weir (U/S).

Weir Height (weir sill to inflection point):

‐ 2.0’ high ‐ Weirs 1 ‐ 14.

‐ 1.5’ high ‐ Weir 15.

‐ 1.0’ high ‐ Weir 16.

‐ 2.0’ high ‐ Ent. Weir (D/S).

‐ 0.5’ high ‐ Exit Weir (U/S).

Pool Width

Pool Length

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

Table 1: Comparison of Winnicut As‐Built Dimensions to Pool and Chute Design Criteria

Pool and Chute Design Criteria

(Literature Review)

Winnicut Pool and Weir As‐Built Dimensions

Difference

Overall Head Differential

6 feet (max) 7.5 feet 1.5 feet over maximum

Maximum Fishway Slope

10%1 or 11.1%2 (max) 5.7% Within parameters

Drop per Pool 0.25’‐1.0’ (max)

0.5’‐1.0’ (usually) 0.50’ Within parameters

Angled Baffle Slope 1:32 V:H

1:41,3 V:H

1:8, weirs 1‐13

1:16, weirs 14‐16

No slope, Exit Weir

1:8, Entrance Weir

No weirs fall within parameters

Pool Dimensions and Weir Spacing

Pool length (weir to weir), width (sidewall to sidewall), and depth

Minimum8’ long X 6’ wide X 5’ deep(5)

Pools between weirs 1‐16

6.267’ X 20.0’X1.0’ Exit Weir

12.0’X30.0’X1.0’ Entrance Weir

10.0’X30.0’X1.5’

All internal pools (1‐16) do not meet the parameter of 8’ minimum pool length.

Pool Depth (Notch Weir Sill to

Pool Floor)

2’ minimum

2’‐4’ (2,3)

5’ (5)

See above All pools do not meet the parameter of 2’ or 5’ minimum pool depth.

Pool length to width ratio

Pool Length 50% of pool width2

Pool Length 45%‐50% of pool width4

Pools between weirs 1‐16

31.34%

Percentage does not fall within parameters

Weir Spacing 6’2 (min) Weirs 1‐16 = 6.267’ Weir spacing meets parameters

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

Orifice Dimensions

Orifice size 15” high X 12” wide

No orifices

N/A

No orifices

N/A Chamfered top and sides of orifice.

Upstream side: 0.75”

Downstream side:

1.5”

Notch Weir Dimensions

Weir Length 17%‐20% of pool width

Weirs 1‐12 = 2.0’‐6.0’

Weirs 13‐16 = 1.0’ – 4.0’

The average length of weirs 1‐12 meets the parameters of 17‐20%.

The average length of weirs 13‐16 do not meet the parameters of 17‐20%

See Table 2

Weir Height 2.5’ (min)

Weirs 1‐14 = 2’

Weir 15 = 1.5’

Weir = 1.0’

Entrance Weir = 2.0’

Exit Weir = 0.5’

None of the weir notches meet the minimum parameter of 2.5’ weir height

1. CSSHRM

2. Bates

3. MLA

4. Powers

5. NMFS

Table 2: Percent of weir width to pool length of Winnicut Pool and Weir Fishway.

Weir length (feet)

Pool width (feet)

% of weir width to pool length

Weirs 1‐12 2 20 10%

6 20 30%

Average 4 20 20%

Weirs 13‐16 1 20 5%

4 20 20%

Average 2.5 20 13%

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

4.0 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

The velocities of streaming flow in the center chute of the Winnicut fishway appears to be too strong for the river herring to overcome and ascend the fish ladder. The fishway was designed with no orifices, and the traditional fish passage corridors of a pool and chute fishway (refer to Figure 2) are on the sides of the pools near the outer walls. This fish passage corridor is for species that have a leaping ability like the Pacific Salmonids. When the fishway is carrying all of the streamflow, the chute section is not generally used for fish passage as the velocities increase as the water travels downstream through the fish ladder. This memorandum presents the information to compare the Winnicut pool and chute fishway to ones in existence on the West Coast, and to general design criteria and guidance that has come from designing these fishways.

Conclusions:

‐ The pool and chute is a salmonid specific fishway. It is experimental for other species.

‐ The head difference at the Winnicut fishway is at or above the maximum design recommendations. Resulting in excessive flow and velocities in the center chute section traditionally used for attraction flow.

‐ Other than small culvert sites, not all of the river flow is expected to pass through the fishway.

‐ Winnicut pool dimensions meet only minimum recommendations by Bates. Resulting in excessive flow through the center chute section and limiting the energy dissipation of the pools. Using the entire pool volume for the EDF calculation appears to be mis‐applied.

As a follow‐up to this initial effort, USFWS engineers recommend the following:

‐ Continue taking physical velocity measurements at each weir for differing flows and head pond elevations. Document the results for comparison to the original design of the fishway.

‐ The USFWS engineers will conduct some comparisons with West Coast projects on the operating range of the fishway, looking at fishways with adjacent spillways, and contributing drainage areas where all of the flow is contained in the fishway.

‐ The USFWS engineers will conduct some calculations on the streaming and plunging flow regimes and at what flow does that transition happen. In addition, look at the hydraulics of the fishway for each weir using the weir equations and the Chezy equation for open channel flow.

‐ From these comparisons and calculations, a plan of possible “quick” fixes to the fishway that might help improve upstream passage for next year’s spawning migration window.

‐ A long term plan should be developed to address the upstream fish passage issues, and recommendations for permanent repairs to help alleviate the velocity barrier that exists in the main chute of the fishway.

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

5.0 REFERENCES

Pool and Chute Fishway References:

Bain, M., Stevenson, N. (ed.) 1999. Aquatic Habitat Assessment: common methods. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Bates, Ken, 1991, Pool‐and‐Chute Fishways, American Fisheries Society Symposium 10: pp. 268‐277.

Bell, M. 1990.Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program. 3rd Edition.

California Department of Water Resources, 2005, Lower Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass, Willow Slough Weir Fish Passage Project, Preliminary Engineering Technical Report.

Caltrans, 2009, Pool and Chute, Hybrid Fishways, Chapter 9 Fishways, Fish Passage Design for Road Crossings, p

9‐6.

Forest Service Operations Center, Fishway Types and Species Use Matrix.

Love and Associates, April 2009, Design Report for a Fish Passage Improvement Project, San Anselmo Creek at

Lansdale Avenue.

Love, Michael & Associates, Caspar Creek Fishways Presentation, from Joint Salmonid Restoration Federation and California‐Nevada Chapter of the American Fisheries Society 2010 Conference.

Larinier, M. 2002, Triangular weir‐type pool fishways, Bull. Fr. Peche Piscic., 364 suppl. Pp. 54‐82.

Moris, Don, 2009, Evaluate New Smaller Efficient Types of Low Head Fishways, USBR, Denver, Co..

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), July 2011, Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design.

Pool‐and‐Chute Fishways, California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, Part XII Fish Passage Design and Implementation, pp. XII‐120 to123.

Powers, Patrick, Pool and Chute Fishways, Discussion and Design Process, Presentation (for personal use only)

Truebe, Jon, 1994, Pool and Chute Fishways after Bates(1998), from Fish Passage Engineering Course Notes.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2000, Draft Fishway Guidelines for Washington State.

Wood Rodgers and Ken Bates, August 2006, Draft Alternatives Evaluation Report, Lower Alameda Creek/BART

Weir Fish passage Assessment, prepared for Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District.

300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, Massachusetts 01035

APPENDIX A:

Compilation of Velocity Measurements at the Notch Weirs for the Winnicut Fishway

Weir

Depth of Sensor

(measured from the bottom‐ tenths of feet)

7/13/2012

Discharge= 2.7

10/15/2012

Discharge= 5.7

10/23/2012

Discharge= 9.5

11/01/2012

Discharge=15

10/31/2012

Discharge=21

10/30/2012

Discharge=35 outlet ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

1 2.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1 1.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1 0.10 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.44 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2 2.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.93 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 1.25 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.12 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 1.00 ‐‐ 0.70 ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 0.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 0.10 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.61 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

3 2.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.38 ‐‐ 3 1.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.92 ‐‐ 3 1.25 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3 1.00 ‐‐ 1.30 4.11 ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.11 3 0.50 ‐‐ 0.93 2.40 4.46 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3 0.10 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.64 1.87 0.12 5.25

4 2.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.12 ‐‐ 4 1.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.53 ‐‐ 4 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.85 8.66 4 0.50 ‐‐ 2.40 5.50 6.74 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4 0.10 ‐‐ 1.25 3.21 4.64 0.98 5.78

5 1.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.26 ‐‐ 5 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.78 9.83 5 0.50 ‐‐ 4.44 6.33 7.15 4.47 ‐‐ 5 0.20 2.23 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5 0.10 ‐‐ 3.10 3.81 4.8 1.93 5.4

6 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.86 6 0.60 1.87 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 0.50 ‐‐ 4.50 6.02 7.66 7.63 10.6 6 0.20 4.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 0.10 ‐‐ 2.90 6.07 5.79 5.17 5.8

7 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.35 7 0.50 ‐‐ 4.85 6.25 7.26 7.5 ‐‐ 7 0.20 4.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7 0.10 ‐‐ 3.90 4.90 5.5 5.82 5.6

8 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.52 8 0.50 ‐‐ 5.05 6.40 8.29 8.4 ‐‐ 8 0.20 4.44 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8 0.10 ‐‐ 3.50 5.75 5.82 6.2 5.91

9 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.32 9 0.50 ‐‐ 5.00 6.40 7.6 8.58 ‐‐ 9 0.20 3.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9 0.10 ‐‐ 3.60 5.75 5.92 6.62 5.91

10 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.96 10 0.50 ‐‐ 5.60 6.36 8.16 8.9 9.1 10 0.20 4.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Winnicut River Fish Pass‐ Greenland, NH: a compilation of velocity measurements through the fishpass at a variety of discharges

11 0.50 ‐‐ 4.60 6.54 7.5 7.67 9.09

11 0.50 ‐‐ 4.60 6.54 7.5 7.67 9.09 11 0.20 4.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11 0.10 ‐‐ 4.10 4.88 5.69 5.29 7.02

12 0.50 ‐‐ 5.60 6.90 8.02 9.08 9.76 12 0.20 4.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 0.10 ‐‐ 4.00 6.30 6.08 7.56 7.09

13 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.21 13 0.50 ‐‐ 5.00 6.67 7.53 7.58 7.89 13 0.20 4.43 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 13 0.10 ‐‐ 3.50 5.22 5.97 6.5 7

14 0.50 ‐‐ 4.40 6.11 7.24 6.94 6 14 0.20 4.30 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 14 0.10 ‐‐ 2.55 6.05 6.89 6.35 5.8

15 0.50 ‐‐ 5.56 5.66 5.48 4.53 2.95 15 0.20 4.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 15 0.10 ‐‐ 3.40 5.60 5.28 3.16 3.06

16 0.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.91 3.42 3.3 2.98 16 0.20 3.34 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 16 0.10 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.93 3.6 2.63 3.99

Inlet 0.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.1 1.3 ‐‐ Inlet 0.20 2.23 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Inlet 0.10 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.06 1.38 ‐‐