fish passage

guidelines
for the Auckland Region

June 2000

Technical Publication No. 131 ISSN 1175 205X

fish passage
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

Acknowledgements

Project Leader: Mace Ward

Authors1: J. Boubee
E. Williams
J. Richardson

NIWA Client Report ARC 90229

Contributors: Sediment Control Team

Stormwater Management Team
Water Allocation Team
Chris Hatton
Earl Shaver
Brent Evans
David Glover

Cover Photograph: Rod Morris

Copyright 2000 © Auckland Regional Council

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system or transmitted in any form be any means electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

Printed on recycled paper

1
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage i
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 DISTRIBUTION OF FRESHWATER FISH IN THE AUCKLAND

REGION 2

3.0 PASSAGE REQUIREMENTS OF FISH 5

3.1 Migration and habitat requirements 5
3.2 Fish swimming ability 5
3.3 What constitutes a barrier to fish passage? 11
3.3.1 Height 11
3.3.2. Water velocity and turbulence 11
3.3.3 Water depth 11
3.3.4 Channel length 11
3.3.5 Light 12
3.3.6 Climbing medium 12

4.0 WHEN SHOULD FISH PASSAGE BE CONSIDERED 13

5.0 BARRIERS TO FISH PASSAGE IN THE AUCKLAND REGION 15

6.0 GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF INSTREAM

STRUCTURES 28
6.1 Culverts 28
6.1.1 General culvert design 28
6.1.2 Fish-friendly culvert designs 32
6.2 Low weirs and water/bed level control devices 41
6.3 Channels 41
6.4 Fish passes 42
6.4.1 General requirements of fish passes 43
6.4.2 Types of fish passes 44

7.0 REFERENCES 56

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage ii
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

Executive Summary

Of the 35 indigenous freshwater species currently recognised in New Zealand, 18 are

diadromous and undergo migrations between fresh and saltwater as a necessary part of
their life cycle. Apart from the degradation of adult habitats, one of the most significant
causes of the decline in freshwater fish populations in New Zealand is the construction of
structures such as dams and culverts that prevent fish from accessing otherwise suitable
habitats. Management of the numerous freshwater resources has so far focused on
avoiding, remedying, or mitigating the impacts of contaminants, physical activities and
abstractions. However, these initiatives are significantly undermined if the resident
aquatic biota do not have access to the resource.

The distribution of freshwater fish in the Auckland Region was analysed using data
recorded in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database. In total, 15 indigenous and eight
introduced fish species have been recorded in the Auckland Region. The majority of the
indigenous species (13 species) are diadromous and fish migration barriers are therefore
expected to have a major influence on fish distribution in the Auckland Region. Potential
migration barriers like waterfalls, rapids, chutes and debris jams are natural, however the
majority of instream obstructions are anthropogenic. These include badly positioned or
undersized culverts, fords, dams and diversion structures, weirs (including flow
measuring weirs), diversion channels, bed erosion control devices, and stream bed
modifications.

This report provides guidance for the construction and retrofitting of in-stream structures
to allow the upstream passage of fish. Although primarily aimed at road crossing culverts,
solutions for the numerous low head weirs, artificial channels and dams present in the
Auckland Region are also discussed.

As each potential barrier is different, and the species to be catered for are not always the
same, passage solutions will tend to vary from site to site. For culverts four options are
proposed. First, the no-slope (stream slope) design option allows passage of all species,
but requires the installation of a very conservative structure. Second, the stream
simulation design option recreates the natural channel within the culvert barrel and allows
the passage of species present at the site. Third, the hydraulic option is designed using the
velocity and depth requirements of a target fish species.

Auckland Regional Council

iii Executive Summary

Finally, the climber design option makes use of the climbing ability of many indigenous
freshwater species (e.g., elvers and koaro) to use the wetted margin to progress upstream.
In terms of design, the climber design option is the least restrictive, but is only useful in
high gradient streams where fish diversity is already limited. With all four options, bed
control devices designed to minimise the risk of erosion are essential and potential
solutions are therefore also discussed.

For barriers other than culverts, only general principles are described and potential
solutions may need to be modified to suit the landscape features, the type of structure
proposed or installed, as well as the habitat and fish species present. Options for low
structures range from traditional designs like the vertical slot fish passes, to natural and
rock-cascade fishways. For dams, fish lifts and/or catch and transfer operations are
proposed. In all cases, it is recommended that only proven designs be used or that expert
advice be sought. Inevitably, even with standard designs, adjustments and repairs will be
required, and a monitoring and maintenance schedule should always be adopted.

As additional information is gathered, concepts and guidelines developed in this report

will need to be reviewed. Users are therefore encouraged to submit comments for
incorporation into future reviews and updates.

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage 1
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

1.0 INTRODUCTION

New Zealand possesses a relatively sparse fish fauna, with only 35 or so indigenous
species, at least another 20 introduced, and half a dozen marine wanderers that
periodically enter estuaries and lowland rivers. Of indigenous freshwater species, 18
are diadromous and undergo migrations between fresh and saltwater as a necessary
part of their life cycle.

Apart from degradation of the adult habitats, one of the most significant causes of the
decline in freshwater fish populations in New Zealand is the construction of structures
such as dams and culverts that prevent fish from accessing otherwise suitable habitat.
Management of the numerous freshwater resources has focused on avoiding,
remedying, or mitigating the impacts of contaminants, physical activities and
abstractions. However, these initiatives are irrelevant if the resident aquatic biota do
not have access to the resource.

This report was commissioned by the Auckland Regional Council to provide users
with guidelines for the construction and operation of in-stream structures. As each
potential barrier is different, solutions will also vary. Consequently, only general
principles are described here and these will need to be modified to suit the landscape
features, the type of structure proposed or installed, as well as the habitat and fish
species present. In most cases it is recommended that only proven designs be used or
that expert advice be sought. Inevitably, even with standard designs, adjustments and
repairs will be required, and a monitoring and maintenance schedule should always be
adopted.

Auckland Regional Council

2 Distribution of Freshwater Fish

2.0 DISTRIBUTION OF FRESHWATER FISH IN THE AUCKLAND REGION

The distribution of freshwater fish in the Auckland Region was assessed using data
from the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (NZFFD). Approximately three
quarters of the sites were sampled using electric fishing techniques which may have
underestimated the occurrence of some species (e.g,. smelt). On 1 July 1999, the
NZFFD contained 608 records for the Auckland Region dated from 1980 to the
present (Fig. 1). Of these, there were 14 sites with no species present and five with
only freshwater crayfish (Paranephrops planifrons). In total, 15 indigenous and eight
introduced fish species were recorded from the Auckland Region (Table 1). Eels, both
shortfinned and longfinned, were the most abundant species, but banded kokopu and
common bully were also frequently recorded. Redfinned bully, Cran’s bully
(Gobiomorphus basalis) and inanga were found at about 10% of the sites. Apart from
the introduced mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), all other species were found at less
than 5% of the sites. Other indigenous species that perhaps should be present but have
not been recorded include shortjawed kokopu (Galaxias postvectis), bluegilled bully
(Gobiomorphus hubbsi), and lamprey. Shrimps, which are not recorded in the NZFFD,
are common throughout the region. More information on fish distribution is available
on the NZFFD website at http://fwdb.niwa.cri.nz.

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage 3
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

0 20 km

Figure 1: Location of sites within the Auckland Region where freshwater fish information is
available on the New Zealand freshwater fish database.

Auckland Regional Council

4 Distribution of Freshwater Fish

Table 1: Freshwater fish species recorded on the New Zealand freshwater fish database for the
Auckland Region. The total number of sites dated 1980 to the present that contained
fish was 589. The majority of the information (77%) was collected by electric fishing
which may have underestimated the occurrence of some species (e.g., smelt).

Common name Scientific name Frequency of occurrence (%)

INDIGENOUS
Shortfinned eel Anguilla australis 40.6
Banded kokopu Galaxias fasciatus 35.6
Longfinned eel Anguilla dieffenbachii 35.5
Common bully Gobiomorphus cotidianus 31.2
Redfinned bully Gobiomorphus huttoni 13.8
Inanga Galaxias maculatus 9.5
Cran’s bully Gobiomorphus basalis 8.8
Torrentfish Cheimarrichthys fosteri 4.6
Common smelt Retropinna retropinna 3.4
Giant kokopu Galaxias argenteus 2.2
Giant bully Gobiomorphus gobioides 1.7
Koaro Galaxias brevipinnis 1.4
Yelloweyed mullet Aldrichetta forsteri 1.0
Grey mullet Mugil cephalus 0.5
Dwarf inanga Galaxias gracilis 0.3
INTRODUCED
Mosquito fish Gambusia affinis 7.5
Rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus 1.2
Goldfish Carassius auratus 1.0
Koi carp Cyprinus carpio 1.0
Tench Tinca tinca 0.8
Perch Perca fluviatilis 0.5
Brown trout Salmo trutta 0.5
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 0.2

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage 5
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

3.0 PASSAGE REQUIREMENTS OF FISH

3.1 Migration and habitat requirements

Most of the indigenous fish species that occur in New Zealand’s waterways have a
juvenile migrant stage, therefore their adult populations are dependent on the success
of the annual upstream migrations of juveniles. The migration times of some of the
most important freshwater species found or expected in the Auckland Region are
presented in Table 2. Critical factors considered to be important in the distribution and
spawning success of the various species present in the region are given in Table 3.

3.2 Fish swimming ability

The ability of fish to migrate upstream is influenced by several factors including

swimming ability, water temperature and behaviour (Boubée et al. 1999). The
swimming ability of fish is defined as the maximum velocity it can swim against for a
given period of time. Because indigenous New Zealand fish species migrate upstream
at a small size, they have an even lower swimming ability than larger sized species
considered weak swimmers overseas (Table 4). Therefore, New Zealand species are
not able to negotiate velocities as high or distances as long as most Northern
Hemisphere species.

In addition to swimming, several indigenous New Zealand fish species have the ability
to climb moist surfaces (Table 5). This climbing ability varies between species (Table
6).

Auckland Regional Council

6 Passage Requirements of Fish

Table 2: Upstream and downstream migration times of some of the most important freshwater
species found in the Auckland Region. ⇑, Upstream migration; ⇓, Downstream
migration. L, Larvae; J, Juvenile or whitebait; A, Adult; S, Spawning adults.

Species Life Summer Autumn Winter Spring

Stage D J F M A M J J A S O N
Eels J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
A. australis and
A ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
A. dieffenbachia
Grey mullet J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇑ ⇑
Mugil cephalus A ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇑ ⇑
Trout J ⇑ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇑ ⇑
Salmo trutta and A ⇑ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇑ ⇑
Oncorhynchus mykiss S ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
Lamprey J ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
Geotria australis A ⇑ ⇑ ⇑? ⇑? ⇑?
Torrentfish J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
Cheimarrichthys fosteri A ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
S ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
Smelt L ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
Retropinna retropinna J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
(riverine stock) A ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇑
Inanga J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
Galaxias maculatus A ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
S ⇓ ⇓ ⇓⇑ ⇑ ⇑
Giant kokopu L ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
G. argenteus J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
⇓ ⇓ ⇓
1
S
Banded kokopu and koaro L ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
G. fasciatus and G. J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
⇓? ⇓ ⇓
1
brevipinnis S
Common bully L ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
Gobiomorphus cotidianus J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
Redfinned bully L ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
G. huttoni J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑? ⇑? ⇑
Shrimp L ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
Paratya curvirostris J ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑
1
The migration of adult giant and banded kokopu is probably limited. Upstream movement after spawning or displacement
by floods is possible.

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage 7
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

Table 3: Critical habitat requirements for the life functioning and spawning of shrimps and
freshwater fish species present or likely to be present in the Auckland Region.

Species Larvae Preferred adult habitat Spawning

INDIGENOUS
Shortfinned eel at sea Lowland waterways at sea

Longfinned eel at sea Upper catchments at sea

Grey mullet at sea Estuarine and lowland waterways ? at sea ?

Yelloweyed at sea Estuaries at sea?

mullet

Lamprey silt deposits at sea upper catchments

Torrentfish sea or estuary? estuary to upper catchments estuary?

Smelt sea or lake lakes and low to midland waterways lower reaches of flowing
waterways ?

Inanga at sea lowland waterways on spring tide in upper

reaches of estuary

Dwarf inanga lakes lakes lakes

Giant kokopu sea or lake/pond lake edges and slow flowing waters mid to low reaches of
with good overhead cover flowing waterways

Banded kokopu sea or lake small streams with good overhead during freshes in adult
cover habitat

Koaro sea or lake/pond bush clad streams with high water during freshes in adult
quality habitat

Common bully Lowland lowland waterways, lake/pond adult habitat

waterways,
lake/pond

Redfinned bully at sea streams streams

Cran’s bully streams streams streams

Giant bully at sea estuaries and lowland waterways unknown

Shrimps estuaries estuaries and lowland waterways adult habitat

INTRODUCED
Rainbow and streams high quality water clean gravel with high
brown trout quality water

Mosquito fish adult habitat ponds, lakes and low to midland adult habitat (live bearer)
waterways

Rudd, goldfish, adult habitat ponds, lakes and low to midland adult habitat
koi carp, tench waterways
and perch

Auckland Regional Council

8 Passage Requirements of Fish

Table 4: Swimming speeds, migration rates and velocity preferences of indigenous New
Zealand freshwater fish species, including a comparison with some North American
data for weak and strong swimmers. Sustained speed = the velocity that can be
maintained for long timeframes; Steady speed = the velocity that can be maintained
for minutes; Burst speed = the velocity that can be maintained for seconds. LCF =
length to caudal fork.

Species Speed (m s –1) Comments Source

New Zealand
Inanga (whitebait) 0.01–0.18 Upstream migration gain in the Stancliff et al. 1988
Waikato River

Inanga (whitebait) 0.07–0.39 Catch release experiments in Boubée et al. 1992

estuarine region

Inanga (adult) <0.15 Water velocity which fish select Mitchell and Boubée 1995
and can easily negotiate

≈0.07 Preferred velocities Mitchell and Boubée 1995

0.30–0.34 Maximum water velocities in Mitchell and Boubée 1995

which the fish will swim freely

Banded kokopu (whitebait) 0.05 Upstream migration gain in the Stancliff et al. 1988
Waikato River

Elver (55–80 mm) 0.20–0.34 Sustained speed Mitchell 1989

Grey mullet (85–96 mm LCF) 0.12–0.20 Sustained speed Mitchell 1989

Mean NZ species 1 0.20–0.32 Sustained speed Mitchell 1989

(excluding mullet)
(mean 47–63 mm LCF)

Overseas
Elvers (100 mm) 0.0–0.15 Sustained speed Bell 1986

Arctic grayling (50–100 mm) 0.46–0.76 Steady speed Bell 1986

Arctic grayling (adult) 0.81–2.1 Steady speed Bell 1986

Grey mullet (13–69 mm) 0.14–0.46 Burst speed Bell 1986

Brown trout 0.76–2.14 Steady speed

2.14–3.97 Burst speed Bell 1986
1
From observations using juvenile shortfinned eels, common bullies, common smelt, inanga, and banded kokopu.

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage 9
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

Table 5: Locomotory classification of some New Zealand freshwater fish species (modified
from Mitchell and Boubée 1989).

Locomotory classification Species

Anguilliforms:
These fish are able to worm their way through interstices in Shortfinned and longfinned eels, and
stones or vegetation either in or out of the water. They are to some extent juvenile kokopu and
able to respire atmospheric oxygen if their skin remains koaro. Torrentfish may also fit into this
damp. category, but unlike eels they need to
remain submerged at all times.
Climbers:
These species climb the wetted margins of waterfalls, rapids Lamprey, elvers, juvenile kokopu and
and spillways. They adhere to the substrate using the koaro, shrimp. Juvenile common and
surface tension and can have roughened “sucker like” redfinned bullies to a limited extent.
pectoral and pelvic fins or even a sucking mouth (lamprey).
The freshwater shrimp, a diadromous native crustacean, is
an excellent climber.

Jumpers:
These species are able to leap using the waves at waterfalls Trout, salmon, and possibly (on a
and rapids. As water velocity increases it becomes energy scale of 20–50 mm) smelt, inanga
saving for these fish to jump over the obstacle. and kokopu spp.

Swimmers:
Species that usually swim around obstacles. They rely on Inanga, smelt, grey mullet and
areas of low velocity to rest and reduce lactic acid build-up juvenile bullies.
with intermittent “burst” type anaerobic activity to get past
high velocity areas.

Auckland Regional Council

10 Passage Requirements of Fish

Table 6: Climbing ability (ranked from 1 = poor climber to 4 = good climber) of some common
indigenous fish species found in the Auckland Region. J, Juveniles; A, Adults; S,
Spawning adults.

Species Life 1 2 3 4
stage (poor climbers) (good climbers)
Shortfinned and J 4
Longfinned eels A 4
1
S

Torrentfish J 4

A 4

S1 ?
Banded kokopu and J 4
koaro A ?
S ?
Giant kokopu and bully J 4
spp. (not giant) A ?
S ?
Smelt and inanga J 4
(not dwarf) A 4

S 1 4

Mullet spp. J 4
(and giant bullies ?) A 4

S1 4

1
Species with some or all of the spawning occurring downstream, or at sea. Where climbing ability is shown it is for the
returning adult.

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage 11
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

3.3 What constitutes a barrier to fish passage?

3.3.1 Height

Any in-stream configuration, whether natural or artificial can become an

insurmountable obstacle for fish if it causes a sudden change in the water surface or
bed level. In the case of an artificial structure, this situation may occur at installation
or develop as a result of subsequent erosion.

3.3.2. Water velocity and turbulence

Steepness, constricted flows, and low bed roughness may lead to water velocities that
exceed the swimming capability of fish and so prevent upstream passage. In addition,
uniform conditions of gradient, roughness, and depth can lead to an absence of low
velocity zones where fish can rest and recover after swimming to exhaustion.

Until recently, the expectation has been that building additional roughness into a
channel would improve fish passage. Thus, the use of corrugated pipe or the inclusion
of baffles and weirs has often been recommended to improve fish passage through
culverts. However, increased roughness can also result in levels of turbulence that can
restrict the movements of small fish (Bates and Powers 1998).

3.3.3 Water depth

Insufficient water depth in channels and culverts often causes passage problems for
the larger swimming species. Aprons at the outlets of culverts can present barriers
during periods of low flows. In New Zealand, many upstream migrating fish species
are small, can spend a considerable amount of time out of water, and have good
climbing ability. Therefore, shallow depth is not necessarily a problem and could even
be exploited as a means of excluding the larger introduced species.

3.3.4 Channel length

Channel length may be a problem for fish if water velocity restricts the distance they
can travel at any one time to less than the full channel length. Even if the fish can
maintain a stationary position between periods of forward movement, the high-energy
cost involved may mean that they become exhausted before they reach the end.

Auckland Regional Council

12 Passage Requirements of Fish

3.3.5 Light

The effect of light, or the lack of it, on fish migration remains an area of debate both
here in New Zealand and overseas. Darkness is not a barrier for elvers and there is
evidence that banded kokopu can migrate through long dark culverts. Information on
other species is lacking, but observations indicate that many indigenous fish only
require very low light levels in order to migrate. Fish release trials undertaken in
Auckland culverts showed that fish will pass through when light levels are as low as
0.4% of natural light levels.

3.3.6 Climbing medium

In order to surmount obstacles, climbing fish species such as elvers and koaro require
a continuous smooth wetted margin. A small break in this wetted margin, water
turbulence and/or wave action can block the upstream passage of the most determined
migrators.

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage 13
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

4.0 WHEN SHOULD FISH PASSAGE BE CONSIDERED

When considering the need to facilitate fish passage, it is essential that the following
points are considered (see also Figure 2):

• Species present and distribution within the catchment. The distribution of fish
will indicate whether migrants pass through a potential barrier site to access
waters higher in the catchment. Knowing which species are present (and thus their
swimming abilities and behaviours) enables potential passage problems to be
identified, and the design to be adjusted accordingly. Furthermore, the barrier may
have allowed a desirable species to develop and the population could be
compromised if passage for other species is eased. The need to contain a noxious
species may also have to be considered.

• The size and type of habitat available up stream. If the habitat is not of the
correct type or extensive enough to support a population of a particular species it
may not be necessary to provide passage. Furthermore, if contaminated sites exist
upstream, allowing passage may have undesirable consequences.

• The presence of other migration barriers both upstream and downstream of

the culvert. This will determine whether fish passage is an issue (it may be
pointless to ensure passage at a structure if there are barriers just above or below
which cannot be overcome). These barriers may be man-made (such as dams and
other culverts) or natural (like waterfalls and rapids). If an artificial downstream
barrier exists opportunities for fish passage should not be foreclosed. The option
of restoring passage over that barrier needs to be assessed in terms of feasibility,
the likely timeline and responsibility for the restoration of passage.

• The timing of fish migrations, duration and their flow requirements . The
timing of migrations can be used to set the flows at which the design will need to
provide passage, and help to schedule construction to minimise disruption to fish
migration. The timing of migration may vary slightly between years and location.

• Altitude and distance from the sea. The few diadromous fish species which are
found at high elevations (> 200 m) have good climbing abilities and can negotiate
sections of river that are impassable to lowland species. Fish passage requirements
at such sites need not be as stringent as at lower elevations. Determining which
species, if any, are present at what densities is therefore essential.

Auckland Regional Council

14 When Should Fish Passage be Considered

ASSESSMENT OF AN IN-STREAM STRUCTURE

YES Are there fish species present

that require passage?

NO

Would fish species that

require passage be present if NO
anthropogenic barrier(s)
downstream were made
passable.

YES
YES
Are there ecological reasons
for not providing passage?

NO

Is there extensive or
NO
significant in-stream habitat
upstream or could there be
with remediation?

YES
NO Is there a significant barrier
between the structure and the
upstream habitat?

YES
NO
Is the barrier man made?

YES
NO
Can it be made passable?

YES
Allow for fish No fish passage required.
passage/provide mitigation Mitigation may be sought.

Figure 2: Flow chart to aid in the assessment of potential in-stream fish barriers.

Auckland Regional Council

fish passage 15
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region

5.0 BARRIERS TO FISH PASSAGE IN THE AUCKLAND REGION

Several types of barriers were identified in a survey of key catchments within the
Auckland Region (Evans and Glover 1999). Some were natural features such as
waterfalls, rapids, chutes and debris jams (Plates 1 and 2).

In addition to these natural access problems, artificial barriers created by urban

development have consistently ignored the needs for indigenous fish passage to and
from the sea. The most common of these artificial barriers in the Auckland Region are
the badly positioned or undersized culverts (Plates 3 and 4). Other types of barriers
include fords (Plate 5), dams and diversion structures (Plates 6 and 7), weirs
(including flow measuring weirs, Plate 8), channelisation (Plate 9), bed erosion control
(Plate 10), and streambed modifications (Plate 11). In many cases, water flowing over
or through these structures was found to be too swift (Plate 12) or too shallow (Plate
13) for fish to pass through with ease. Means of preventing these problems at
construction, and retrofitting options where the structure already exists, are shown in
Plates 3 to13.

The flashy nature of Auckland streams which, combined with prolonged periods of
very low flows, can also severely limit fish passage. The high flows not only require
the installation of very large in-stream structures, but also result in a very high
incidence of bank and streambed erosion. During low flows, although indigenous fish
are well adapted to survive in shaded remnant pools, upstream passage of new recruits
is often limited by water depth.

Auckland Regional Council

16 Barriers to Fish Passage

Plate 1: Waterfall on Okiritoto Stream. Most fish species, except for elvers and climbing
galaxiids (i.e. koaro and banded kokopu), would find such natural structures
impassable. Only climbing species, or species able to form landlocked populations,
need to be considered above such natural structures.

Plate 2: Rapids on Okiritoto Stream. Most fish species, except for poor climbers like mullet,
smelt and inanga, would easily negotiate such features.

Auckland Regional Council

 Auckland Regional Council

EXISTING PROBLEM
Climbing fish species are unable to reach the culvert at low flows, and barrel
velocities are too great at medium and high flows.
Low energy dissipation
Erosion of stream bed capacity due to smooth
Shallow water depth concrete
Overhanging outlet in culvert
Erosion of stream bank above streambed

SOLUTIONS AT CONSTRUCTION RETROFITTING OPTIONS

• Use a large culvert with the invert • Build notched weir(s) downstream
(i.e. the culvert floor) positioned of the outlet to flood the toe of the
below the streambed. culvert (also see Fig. 3, Page 30).

• Construct notched water/bed level • Armour stream banks with rocks

control device at outlet. and mortar to create a rounded
headwall.
• Armour streambed.
• Insert baffles or spoilers on culvert
• Armour stream banks. invert to reduce water velocities at
low and medium flows.

Plate 3: Small culvert with overhanging outlet on Puhinui Stream.

fish passage 17
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region
 Barriers to Fish Passage 18

EXISTING PROBLEM
High water velocities, turbulent flows at outlet, vertical drop at end of outlet apron,
and no wetted margins for climbing species.

Turbulent flows Vertical drop

High water No wetted margin
velocities

SOLUTIONS AT RETROFITTING OPTIONS

CONSTRUCTION
Preferred option:
• Fill streambed with rocks and
• Use a larger culvert. mortar to remove vertical drop.
• Set culvert invert below
• Construct flow control weir(s)
streambed.
downstream of outlet to flood the
toe of the culvert and create resting
• Armour stream banks with pools.
riprap.
Climbing species option:
• Armour streambed. • Install climbing media along culvert
wall (e.g. brush material).
• Construct a dished apron to
accommodate low flows.
• Install access ramp.

Plate 4: Culvert on Oteha Stream.

Auckland Regional Council

 Auckland Regional Council

EXISTING PROBLEM
High barrel velocities restrict upstream fish passage to low flow periods and to
anguilliform locomotors and climbers only. Some passage possible during floods
when the ford is overtopped.

High water velocities

SOLUTION AT CONSTRUCTION

Option 1: RETROFITTING OPTIONS

• Use bridge (pictured above ford).
• Remove structure.
Option 2:
• Use large arch shaped culvert with • Construct flow control weir(s) to
the invert positioned below the increase the depth of water through
streambed. the ford.

Option 3: • Remove a section of the ford and

• Construct multi-barrel system of bridge over the gap (cattle stop
culverts, with the culverts closest to concept).
stream banks sitting higher than the
central culvert(s) (see below).

Plate 5: Ford on Oratia Stream.

fish passage 19
Guideline and Review for the Auckland Region