1. 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 Rayamajhi
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Youngstown
State University
Coauthors: Vasconcelos JG, Devkota JP, Baral D, Tritico HM

2. 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.

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

4. 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

5. HEC-RAS
• One-dimensional flow simulation software
developed by USACE.
• An additional code developed by Vasconcelos
JG. was used for fish passage simulation.

6. 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.

7. USGS Flow Predictions
• PK2 – Peak two year flood;
• FPS 25 – 25th percentile flow;
• Maximum and minimum average monthly
discharge for a year.

8. USGS Seamless Data Warehouse
• Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
• 1/9 arc sec (3 meter) resolution

9. 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.

10. Fish Used
Fish Name
Fish
Fish Height Fish Velocity
Length (ft)
(ft)
(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

11. FishXing Results
33%
Partial Passage
Total Barrier
67%

12. FishXing Results
30
Percentage Passed
25
20
15
Greenside Darter
Golden Shiner
10
Blacknose dace
5
0
Qmin
Monthly avg.
Qmax
FPS 25
Monthly avg.
Flow conditions
PK2

13. Culvert Locations

14. 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.

15. 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

16. Percent times (%)
HEC-RAS Result for Average Culvert
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
No barrier
Depth barrier
Velocity barrier
Fish Species

17. 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

18. 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.

19. QUESTIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS
Contact:
Bishes.Rayamajhi@pnnl.gov