Should Fish Passage through Culverts be a Concern for Midwest Engineers and

Planners: Determining the Percentage of Culverts that act as Barriers to Fish Passage

in NE Ohio

Bishes RayamajhiPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Youngstown

State University

Coauthors: Vasconcelos JG, Devkota JP, Baral D, Tritico HM

Goals of the Project

• Evaluate fish migration barrier culverts in NE Ohio.

• Reasons for the culverts to act as barriers.• Results comparison between two fish passage

modeling software; FishXing and HEC-RAS.

Resources Used

• Culvert specification data from ODOT;• Discharge predictions from USGS Streamstats;• USGS seamless data inventory;• ArcGIS;• Fish data: Ohio Gap analysis and FishXing.

FishXing

• A computer model developed by the US Forest Service,

• Compares the fish performance with the culvert hydraulics– Culvert water velocity with fish swimming speed– Culvert water depth with fish depth

HEC-RAS

• One-dimensional flow simulation software developed by USACE.

• An additional code developed by Vasconcelos JG. was used for fish passage simulation.

Culvert Data

• From 5,837 culverts in ODOT database 169 culverts having sufficient information of material, slope, diameter, and shape.

• At present 55 culverts were analyzed using FishXing.

• One average culvert was modeled in HEC-RAS as well as FishXing.

USGS Flow Predictions

• PK2 – Peak two year flood;• FPS 25 – 25th percentile flow;• Maximum and minimum average monthly

discharge for a year.

USGS Seamless Data Warehouse

• Digital Elevation Model (DEM)• 1/9 arc sec (3 meter) resolution

Fish Data

• From Ohio Gap Analysis, only the fish with known swimming speed were taken.

• FishXing fish data was used for obtaining the swimming speed.

Fish UsedFish Name Fish

Length (ft)Fish Height

(ft)Fish Velocity

(ft/s)Central stoneroller 0.2 0.05 1.31

White sucker 1.25 0.22 2.52

Northern pike 2.08 0.3 1.58

Greenside darter 0.17 0.02 1.02

Pumpkinseed 0.42 0.18 1.22

Longear sunfish 0.29 0.11 1.28

Smallmouth bass 1.13 0.3 2.68

Largemouth bass 1.38 0.39 3.44

Golden shiner 0.46 0.14 2.43

Blacknose dace 0.14 0.02 1.26

FishXing Results

33%

67%

Partial PassageTotal Barrier

FishXing Results

Qmin Qmax FPS 25 PK20

5

10

15

20

25

30

Greenside DarterGolden ShinerBlacknose dace

Flow conditions

Perc

enta

ge P

asse

d

Monthly avg. Monthly avg.

Culvert Locations

Average Culvert• Seven fish species in its watershed;• Circular plain concrete reinforced culvert; • Diameter = 36 inches, Length = 100 ft, Slope = 1 in 100. • Flow predictions; Qmin = 0.03 cfs, Qmax = 0.51 cfs, FPS 25 = 0.02 cfs, PK2 = 38.4 cfs.

FishXing Result for Average Culvert

Fish Species Qmin Qmax FPS25 PK2

White Sucker d d,v d v

Central Stoneroller d,v v v l,d

Pumpkinseed d,v d,v d v

Longear sunfish d,v v d,v,l v

Smallmouth bass d d,v d v

Largemouth bass d d d v

Blacknose dace v v l v

HEC-RAS Result for Average Culvert

Central st

onerolle

r

White

suck

er

Pumpkinseed

Longear s

unfish

Smallmouth bass

Largemouth bass

Blacknose dace

0102030405060708090

100

No barrierDepth barrierVelocity barrier

Fish Species

Perc

ent ti

mes

(%)

Differences between FishXing and HEC-RAS

• Every month modeled• Velocity distribution modeled for reduced

velocity zones (Vasconcelos et al., 2011)• Multiple cross-sections upstream and

downstream

Conclusion

• The most common cause culverts acted as barriers in NE Ohio was excessive velocity

• Results obtained with the HEC-RAS tool showed moderately better passage conditions compared to FishXing.

• Results will be helpful for better culvert designs and increased fish passage.

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Contact:Bishes.Rayamajhi@pnnl.gov