Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway AdministrationFHWA HomeFeedback

Hydraulics Engineering

 
<< Previous Contents Next >>

Design For Fish Passage at Roadway - Stream Crossings: Synthesis Report


List of Figures

  • Figure 1.1 Scour downstream from culvert "perches" the barrel above the streambed, making it inaccessible to many fish species (United States Forest Service 2006b)
  • Figure 1.2 Downstream channel degradation causing culvert to become perched, and presenting a low flow barrier to fish passage (Furniss 2006)
  • Figure 1.3 Multiple culvert installation located at a slope break where sediment is likely to deposit, creating a debris barrier (United States Forest Service 2006b)
  • Figure 2.1 Relative swimming abilities of adult fish, in customary units (Bell 1986)
  • Figure 2.2 Relative swimming abilities of young fish, in customary units (Bell 1986)
  • Figure 2.3 Minimum water depths for fish passage in Alaska (Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Department of Transportation 2001)
  • Figure 3.1 Changes in fish habitat use over time after roadway fragmentation (Jackson, Personal Communication)
  • Figure 3.2 Barriers to fish passage (Natalie Cabrera and the FishXing Team)
  • Figure 3.3 Perched outlet, leap barrier (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2005)
  • Figure 3.4 Drop and velocity barrier (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2005)
  • Figure 4.1 Longitudinal profile survey points (Clarkin et al. 2003)
  • Figure 4.2 Example of a coarse filter and regional screen in customary units (from Clarkin et al. 2003)
  • Figure 4.3 Alaskan fish-passage evaluation criteria, United States Forest Service Region 10, customary units (Flanders and Cariello 2000)
  • Figure 4.4 Flow chart for culvert assessment (adapted from Clarkin et al. 2003)
  • Figure 4.5 The erosional consequences of diverting stream flow onto non-stream slopes (Furniss et al. 1997)
  • Figure 4.6 Fill in the blank regional screen based on the California model (Clarkin et al. 2003)
  • Figure 5.1 Peak spawning periods for a selection of freshwater fish in Virginia, based on biological data from Scott and Crossman (1973) (adapted from Hudy 2006)
  • Figure 5.2 Synthetic flow duration curves from May Creek, customary units (Lang et al. 2004)
  • Figure 6.1 Range of ecological solutions at culvert installations (adapted from Gubernick 2006)
  • Figure 6.2 Culverts under outlet control (Norman et al. 2005)
  • Figure 6.3 Alignment options for a skewed roadway-stream crossing (Bates et al. 2006)
  • Figure 6.4 Depiction of bankfull channel width compared to active channel width (Taylor and Love 2003)
  • Figure 6.5 Critical bank height is inherently unstable and will result in bank failure and stream widening (Castro 2003)
  • Figure 6.6 Downstream riprap will dissipate energy and reduce scour, but must be placed with fish utilization in mind (USFS 2005)
  • Figure 6.7 Downstream grade control (Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure 6.8 Upstream regrade channel-steepening options (Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure 6.9 Notch weirs downstream of a culvert installation, acting to properly backwater the culvert, while maintaining manageable drops (United States Forest Service 2005)
  • Figure 7.1 Low flow channel in an open bottom structure (Bates et al. 2006)
  • Figure 7.2 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Stream Simulation approach for low slope situations, where bed slope < 4.0% (Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure 7.3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife High-Slope Stream Simulation Approach (Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure 7.4 WDFW No-Slope option (Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure 7.5 Steps in Hydraulic Design (Robison et al. 1999)
  • Figure 7.6 Hydraulic Design option, customary units (Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure 7.7 (a) Offset baffle; (b) slotted weir baffle; (c) weir baffle; (d) spoiler baffle; (e) Alberta fishweir; and (f) Alberta fishbaffle (Ead et al. 2002)
  • Figure 7.8 Culvert options (b) slotted weir and (c) weir baffle configurations (adapted from Ead et al. 2002)
  • Figure 7.9 Recommended styles of baffles for round and box culverts in Washington (Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure 7.10 Variation of Darcy-Weisbach friction factor (Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure 7.11 Energy coefficients for various baffle arrangements (adapted from Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure 7.12 Roughened-channel culverts using fish rocks and bed retention sills (Bates et al. 2003)
  • Figure. 7.13 Baffle configurations endorsed in Oregon in customary units (Trevis, Personal Communication)
  • Figure 7.14 8 inch plastic baffle used in Oregon, customary units (Trevis, Personal Communication)
  • Figure 7.15 12 inch plastic baffle used in Oregon, customary units (Trevis, Personal Communication
  • Figure 7.16 Detachable fishway design for culvert retrofit, customary units (Clancy 1990)
  • Figure 7.17 Fishway installed on Peacock Creek, California (Llanos 2004)
  • Figure 7.18 Example detail of low-flow channel sills, customary units (Twisdale, Personal Communication)
  • Figure 7.19 Lateral schematic of a culvert with a top-hinged tide gate attached to downstream end of culvert (Giannico and Souder 2005)
  • Figure 7.20 Tide gate operation cycle: (A) tide gate begins to open when water pressure in culvert overcomes pressure of water on downstream side during ebb tide; (B) tide gate is wide open during ebb tide; (C) tide gate begins to shut when upstream water level drops and tide begins to rise; and (D) tide gate is shut during flood tide (Giannico and Souder 2004)
  • Figure 7.21 Bottom-hinged pet door (Giannico and Souder 2005)
  • Figure 8.1 Example cumulative distribution curve for bed mix gradation using Fuller-Thompson method using n = 0.7 and n = 0.45
  • Figure 8.2 Example cumulative distribution curve for the Fuller-Thompson method using n = 0.55 and n = 0.45
  • Figure 8.3 Pre-project barrier culvert (United States Forest Service 2006b)
  • Figure 8.4 Replacement culvert (United States Forest Service 2006b)
  • Figure 8.5 Pre-project channel condition (1992)
  • Figure 8.6 Upstream of pre-existing structure looking downstream
  • Figure 8.7 Downstream of pre-existing structure looking upstream
  • Figure 8.8 Downstream of culvert, shortly after project completion in 1994
  • Figure 8.9 Upstream of current crossing in 2005
  • Figure 8.10 Upstream of current crossing during high-flow event
  • Figure 8.11 Example detail of culvert rehabilitation and corner baffle retrofit, John Hatt Creek (customary units)
  • Figure 8.12 Downstream view of culvert retrofit, John Hatt Creek
  • Figure 8.13 Pre-existing outlet of John Hatt Creek culvert perched at 0.46 m (1.5 ft) blocks migrating steelhead
  • Figure 8.14 Steel corner baffles welded to the pipe and spaced 1.22 m (4 ft) apart, John Hatt Creek
  • Figure 8.15 Baffles slowing water velocities at high flows while producing minimal turbulence, John Hatt Creek
  • Figure 8.16 Culvert outlet after installation, John Hatt Creek

<< Previous Contents Next >>

Updated: 04/07/2011

Contact:

Bert Bergendahl
720-963-3754
Bart.Bergendahl@dot.gov


FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration