Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Conceptual Model for Assessing Recreational Safety Related to Habitat Improvement Projects

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 16 Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Diaporamas pour vous (18)

Publicité

Similaire à Conceptual Model for Assessing Recreational Safety Related to Habitat Improvement Projects (20)

Plus récents (20)

Publicité

Conceptual Model for Assessing Recreational Safety Related to Habitat Improvement Projects

  1. 1. Conceptual Model for Assessing Recreational Safety Related to Habitat Improvement Projects R. Leif Embertson, MS, PE Salmon Recovery Funding Board – Salmon Habitat Conference April 27, 2011 WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  2. 2. Approach Recreational user safety is a function of; — Reach characteristics — Structure characteristics WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  3. 3. Reach Factors Define the recreational use — Frequency of use — Access to project reach — Recreational flow range WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  4. 4. Reach Factors Define the recreational use (continued) — Ability of users 1 2 3 WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  5. 5. Reach Factors Define the geomorphic indices — Channel type 1 2 3 WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  6. 6. Reach Factors Define the geomorphic indices (continued) — Channel gradient — Channel stability 1 2 WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  7. 7. Reach Factors Define the geomorphic indices (continued) — Frequency of natural large wood* wood • Low (<25th percentile(%)) • Moderate (>25th and <75th %) • High (>75th %) *.Fox, M., S. Bolton, 2007. A Regional and Geomorphic Reference for Quantities and Volumes of Instream Wood in Unmanaged Forested Basins of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:342-359, March 1, 2007. WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  8. 8. Structure Factors What is location of the structure? — Outside of a channel bend? — Within wetted area during recreational flow? SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK SKOOKUM REACH FOBES REACH WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  9. 9. Structure Factors What are the structure characteristics? — St i Strainer potential — Structure type* *.Abbe, T.B. and D.R.Montgomery. 2003. Patterns and Processes of Wood Accumulation in the Queets River Basin, Washington. Geomorphology 51:81-107. WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  10. 10. Structure Factors What is the avoidance potential? — Sight Distance — Can the structure be portaged? — Wading safety factor (WSF)* WSF = Velocity*Depth *.Abt, S.R., Wittler, R.J., Taylor, A., and D.J. Love, 1989. 1989 Human stability in a high flood hazard zone zone. American Water Resources Association, Water Resources Bulletin, 25(4) 881-889, August 1989. WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  11. 11. Assessment Model WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  12. 12. Project Example Cavanaugh Island Restoration South Fork Nooksack River Objectives 1. Increase duration and amount of flow within side channel 2. Increase pool habitat 3. Promote forested island stability WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  13. 13. Project Example (continued) j p ( ) WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  14. 14. Project Example (continued) ELJ 4 – APEX JAM RESULT MODERATE SAFETY RATING WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  15. 15. So Now What… Risk can be mitigated through — Public education/outreach — Public notification — Signage — Monitoring — Adapti e management Adaptive WE FIND A BETTER WAY
  16. 16. Questions / Discussion WE FIND A BETTER WAY

×