1

Using Three Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling and Fish Swimming Energetics to Assess Culverts as Potential

Physical Barriers to Upstream Fish Movement

Matt Blank, Western Transportation Institute

Joel Cahoon, Montana State University

Tom McMahon, Montana State University

2

Overview of PresentationOverview of Presentation

•• Aquatic barriersAquatic barriers•• Factors affecting passageFactors affecting passage

•• Assessment methodsAssessment methods•• 33--D hydrodynamic method (and 1D hydrodynamic method (and 1--D)D)

•• Comparison to fish movementComparison to fish movement•• Future research directionsFuture research directions

3

•• 2.5 million aquatic barriers in U.S. by 2.5 million aquatic barriers in U.S. by culverts, dams and canals (National culverts, dams and canals (National Fish Passage Summit, 2006).Fish Passage Summit, 2006).

•• Estimated 1.4 million streamEstimated 1.4 million stream--road road crossings in U.S. (U.S. Fish and crossings in U.S. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Fish Passage Wildlife, National Fish Passage Program, unpublished data).Program, unpublished data).

•• 1,500 culverts on fish bearing streams 1,500 culverts on fish bearing streams within Montanawithin Montana’’s National Forests: s National Forests: 47% barriers, 15% passable and 38% 47% barriers, 15% passable and 38% unclassified (Williams, 2007).unclassified (Williams, 2007).

Aquatic BarriersAquatic Barriers

4

Physical Factors Influencing Fish Physical Factors Influencing Fish PassagePassage

•• High water velocityHigh water velocity• excessive turbulence

•• Shallow water depthShallow water depth•• Outlet drop Outlet drop

• pool depth/leap height ratio• jump location• air entrainment

•• Debris/sediment blockageDebris/sediment blockage

5

Fish LocomotionFish Locomotion

•• Species and sizeSpecies and size•• TemperatureTemperature•• Dissolved oxygenDissolved oxygen•• MotivationMotivation•• GenderGender•• Physical conditionPhysical condition•• DiseaseDisease•• Sexual maturitySexual maturity

6

Types of BarriersTypes of Barriers

•• Total BarrierTotal Barrier•• Partial BarrierPartial Barrier•• Temporal BarrierTemporal Barrier•• No BarrierNo Barrier

7

Direct Approach Field experiments that measure fish movement directly and compare movement to flow conditions in a structure.

Indirect Approach Approximate movement potential using thresholds, modeling or comparisons between population characteristics measured upstream and downstream of a crossing.

•Tagging studies: mark-recapture, PIT tagging or others (e.g. radio telemetry)

•Visual observations

•Video camera

•Regional screens based upon field and laboratory experiments

•Hydraulic modeling

•Comparisons between upstream and downstream fish population characteristics

AssessmentAssessment TechniquesTechniques

8

Direct Approach Field experiments that measure fish movement directly and compare movement to flow conditions in a structure.

Indirect Approach Approximate movement potential using thresholds, modeling or comparisons between population characteristics measured upstream and downstream of a crossing.

•Tagging studies: mark-recapture, PIT tagging or others (e.g. radio telemetry)

•Visual observations

•Video camera

•Regional screens based upon field and laboratory experiments

•Hydraulic modeling

•Comparisons between upstream and downstream fish population characteristics

AssessmentAssessment TechniquesTechniques

9

Upper Clearwater River BasinUpper Clearwater River BasinAbove Seeley Lake outletAbove Seeley Lake outlet

••143 square miles143 square miles

••121 miles of stream121 miles of stream

••Assessed 46 culvertsAssessed 46 culverts

Seeley Lake

Highway 83

All Base Maps Courtesy of the MSU Environmental Statistics Group: Map overlays created by Drake Burford

10

Summary of Results for Sites Where Summary of Results for Sites Where Multiple Methods Were AppliedMultiple Methods Were Applied

Direct Passage Results

Site Identification

Adult Juvenile Passage Indicator

Size Abundance

2 B B -0.36 no no10 B B 0.35 x x11 B P 0.2 yes no13 B B -1 x x19 B B 0.13 no no20 B B 0.03 no no23 P P -0.56 no no27 B B -0.19 no no28 B B -0.54 no no33 B B -0.85 yes no35 B B -0.69 no no43 B B -0.22 no no

FishXing Results Upstream vs. Downstream

11

N

Yellowstone River

Mulherin Creek

Cinnabar Creek Upper Mulherin Creek

Culvert studied 2004 and 2005

Culvert studied 2005

Main study culverts

Culverts in companion study

Development and Testing of 3Development and Testing of 3--D D Method Method –– MulherinMulherin CreekCreek

•Concrete Box Culvert•Length ~ 37 ft•Width ~ 12 ft•Slope ~ 1.1%•Outlet Drop ~ 1.5 ft

12

Direct Passage MeasurementDirect Passage Measurement

•• Visual observations Visual observations •• PIT tagging w/ PIT tagging w/

antennaeantennae•• MarkMark--RecaptureRecapture

13

Hydrodynamic Model DevelopmentHydrodynamic Model DevelopmentCFD model development using ANSYS CFX platform.

Boundary Conditions

Inlet: mass flow rate, turbulence intensity

and length scale

Outlet: static pressure (water depth)

Culvert sides and floor: no-slip wall boundaries

Initial Conditions

Inlet: grid of water velocities

Outlet: water depth

Velocities: 0 m/s

VOF: step function

14

2.42.1

1.81.51.2

1.51.2

0.9

0.9

0.6

0.6

0.3

0.3

2.11.8

1.51.2

0.9

1.20.90.60.3

0.60.3

Observed

Predicted Flow

Model Validation Model Validation

15

Model ValidationModel Validation

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Observed Velocity (m/s)

Pre

dict

ed V

eloc

ity (m

/s)

95.0,90.0

93.0,86.0

2

mod2

mod

==

==

fitfit rr

rr

16

Barrier Assessment 1Barrier Assessment 1--DD

Fish Movement

1) Vf - Vw = Vprogress

2) Time = 1 /Vprogress

3) If Total Time > 5 seconds, then fail, otherwise pass.

8.20 ft/s8.62 ft/s8.91 ft/s9.02 ft/s9.13 ft/s9.22 ft/s9.31 ft/s9.38 ft/s9.46 ft/s9.53 ft/s9.59 ft/s

Flow

17

Barrier Assessment (3D)Barrier Assessment (3D)

1

2

3

6

9

4

5

7

8

10

2.5

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

June 25 Model•Estimate 3-D velocity field.

•Find minimum energy path for each starting point.

•Estimate passage using velocities along each path.

Flow

18

12

3

6

9

0

45

78

10

2.5

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.51.0

1.00.5

0.5

June 29 Model

MinimumEnergy Path

ObservedEnergy Paths

MaximumEnergy Path

Flow

Energy PathsEnergy Paths

19

Fish Swimming DataFish Swimming DataSpecies Burst Speed Burst Speed Burst Speed Range Size Range Size Range Time Range

Temperature Range Source and Notes

ft/s m/s m/s cm inches s C

Cutthroat Trout 13.50 4.12 1.82 to 4.12 - - - Bell (1991).

Rainbow Trout - 1.86 to 2.26 58 to 67 23 to 26 10 to 15 Paulik and Delacy (1957) as cited in Hoar and Randall, eds. (1978).

Rainbow Trout - 5.36 to 8.17 61 to 81 24 to 32 1.5 Weaver (1963) as cited in Hoar and Randall, eds. (1978).

Rainbow Trout - 0.3 to 2.5 14.3 5.6 0.08 Webb, as cited in Hoar and Randall, eds. (1978).

Rainbow Trout 0.3 to 1.8 14.3 5.6 0.04 Webb, as cited in Hoar and Randall, eds. (1978).

Rainbow Trout 2.72 0.83 - - - Jones et al. (1974) as listed in FishXing Swimming Speed table.

Rainbow Trout 5.33 1.62 - 10.3 to 28 4.1 to 11 1 to 20 Bainbridge (1960) as cited in Hunter and Mayor (1986).

Rainbow Trout 6.91 2.11 - 10.3 to 81.3 4.1 to 32 1 to 20 7 to 19Bainbridge (1960), Weaver (1963) and

Beamish (1978) as cited in Hunter and Mayor (1986).

Rainbow Trout 10.75 3.28 - 61 to 81.3 24 to 32 1.6 to 12.5 7 to 19 Weaver (1963) and Beamish (1978) as cited in Hunter and Mayor (1986).

Cutthroat Trout 4.12 Bell (1991)

Rainbow Trout 2.11** Hunter and Mayor (1986)

Four Different AssessmentsFour Different Assessments

20

1. 1-D flow model with Bell (1991) data.

2. 1-D flow model with Hunter and Mayor’s (1986) data.

3. 3-D flow model with Bell (1991) data.

4. 3-D flow model with Hunter and Mayor’s (1986) data.

21

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

4/3/04 5/23/04 7/12/04 8/31/04 10/20/04

Date

Flow

 (m3 /s)

Comparison of Predictions to Comparison of Predictions to Direct ObservationsDirect Observations

1. 1-D with Bell.

2. 1-D with Hunter and Mayor.

3. 3-D with Bell.

4. 3-D with Hunter and Mayor

•Documented Passage and Failed Attempt

•Documented Passage

22

Future Research Future Research

•• Further validate 3Further validate 3--D hydrodynamic modeling for D hydrodynamic modeling for barrier assessment. barrier assessment.

•• Determine high end (burst) swimming speeds. Determine high end (burst) swimming speeds. •• Assessment should be in terms of probabilities, Assessment should be in terms of probabilities,

not yes/no.not yes/no.•• Marriage of aquatic ecology and hydraulics. Marriage of aquatic ecology and hydraulics.

23

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

•Western Transportation Institute

•Montana Department of Transportation

•Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

•United States Forest Service

24

Thank You!Thank You!

Matt Blank, Ph.D.

Research Scientist/Assistant Research Professor

Western Transportation Institute and Civil Engineering Department

Montana State University

mblank@coe.montana.edu

406-994-7120

25

Energy PathsEnergy Paths

x

z2

2

2.1

2

2

2.3

1.5

1.9

1.2

1.0

1.1

1.5

1

0.9

0.5

0.5

26

Energy PathsEnergy Paths

Select flow rate of interest.

Model velocity through culvert using ANSYS-CFX.

Export velocity field on plane 0.06 m above culvert bed from ANYS-CFX to Microsoft Excel.

Calculate energy paths using Microsoft Excel with VBA code.

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290

310

330

350

3-Apr 23-Apr 13-May 2-Jun 22-Jun 12-Jul 1-Aug

Date and Time

Stag

e (m

m)

dsFEs

∫=0

F C A V Vd s f= −05 2. ( )ρ

27

Energy PathsEnergy Paths

1 3 421 2 3 4