MASSACHUSETTS RIVER AND STREAM CROSSING STANDARDS
Developed by the
R
IVER AND STREAM CONTINUITY PARTNERSHIP
Including:
University of Massachusetts Amherst
The Nature Conservancy
Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration-Riverways Program
American Rivers
March 1, 2006
Revised March 1, 2011
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
1
MASSACHUSETTS RIVER AND STREAM CROSSING STANDARDS
Developed by the
RIVER AND STREAM CONTINUITY PARTNERSHIP
Including:
University of Massachusetts Amherst
The Nature Conservancy
Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration-Riverways Program
American Rivers
March 1, 2006
Revised March 1, 2011
C
ONTACTS
Scott Jackson
Department of Environmental Conservation
Holdsworth Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
(413) 545-4743; [email protected]
Alison Bowden
The Nature Conservancy
99 Bedford St., 5th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts, 02111
(617) 532-8300; [email protected]
Beth Lambert
Division of Ecological Restoration – Riverways Program
MA Department of Fish and Game
251 Causeway St., Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 626-1526; [email protected]a.us
Amy Singler
American Rivers
25 Main Street, Suite 220
Northampton, MA 01060
413-584-2183; [email protected]
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
2
For more information go to: www.streamcontinuity.org.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
3
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
These standards are not regulations. Local, state and/or federal regulatory authorities will decide the
degree to which these standards are adopted, implemented and enforced. For information about
regulatory requirements involving these standards please consult the applicable regulations, policies or
guidelines and the agencies responsible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contacts ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Goals .................................................................................................................................... 4
Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 5
Design Standards for New Crossings .............................................................................................. 7
General Standards ................................................................................................................ 7
Optimum Standards ........................................................................................................... 12
Standards Summary ........................................................................................................... 15
Applying the Standards to Culvert Replacement Projects ............................................................. 16
Construction Best Management Practices ..................................................................................... 18
Road and Crossing Location .............................................................................................. 18
Timing of Construction ...................................................................................................... 18
Dewatering ......................................................................................................................... 18
Storm Water Management, Erosion and Sediment Control .............................................. 19
Pollution Control ............................................................................................................... 19
Construction of Streambed and Banks within Structures .................................................. 20
Soil Stabilization and Re-vegetation ................................................................................. 20
Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 20
Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Notes and References .................................................................................................................... 24
Stream Simulation ............................................................................................................. 24
Openness ............................................................................................................................ 24
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
4
INTRODUCTION
Movement of fish and wildlife through river and stream corridors is critical to the survival of
individual organisms and the persistence of populations. However, as long and linear ecosystems,
rivers and streams are particularly vulnerable to fragmentation. In addition to natural barriers, a
number of human activities can, to varying degrees, disrupt the continuity of river and stream
ecosystems. The most familiar human-caused barriers are dams. However, there is growing concern
about the role of river and stream crossings, and especially culverts, in disrupting river and stream
continuity.
Road networks and river systems share several things in common. Both are long, linear features of the
landscape. Transporting materials (and organisms) is fundamental to how they function. Connectivity
is key to the continued functioning of both systems. Ultimately, our goal should be to create a
transportation network that does not fragment or undermine the essential ecological infrastructure of
the land and its waterways.
With funding from the Sweetwater Trust, Massachusetts Watershed Initiative, Nature Conservancy and
Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration – Riverways Program, the University of
Massachusetts–Amherst coordinated an effort to create river and stream crossing standards and a
volunteer inventory program for culverts and other crossing structures to more effectively identify and
address barriers to fish movement and river and stream continuity. Information was compiled about
fish and wildlife passage requirements, culvert design standards, and methodologies for evaluating
barriers to fish and wildlife passage.
1
This information was used to develop performance standards for
culverts and other stream crossing structures.
The first version of the Massachusetts River and Stream Crossing Standards was released in August of
2004. The Standards were developed by the River and Stream Continuity Partnership with input from
an Advisory Committee that included representatives from UMass-Amherst, MA Division of
Ecological Restoration – Riverways Program, Massachusetts Watershed Initiative, Trout Unlimited,
The Nature Conservancy, the Westfield River Watershed Association, ENSR International, MA
Department of Transportation, MA Department of Environmental Protection and the MA Department
of Conservation and Recreation. In developing the standards, the Partnership received advice from a
Technical Advisory Committee that included representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, American Rivers, Connecticut River
Watershed Council, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, a hydraulic engineering
consultant, as well as input from people with expertise in Stream Simulation approaches to crossing
design
2
. The standards are intended for new permanent crossings (highways, railways, roads,
driveways, bike paths, etc.) and, when possible, for replacing existing permanent crossings. After the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers referenced the Standards in the Massachusetts Programmatic General
Permit in 2005, a revised version with additional explanatory language was issued on March 1, 2006.
1
In developing the Standards the Partnership benefited greatly from work that has been done and materials developed over
the years in Washington State, Oregon, California, and Maine, and by the U.S. Forest Service.
2
Special thanks go to Ken Kozmo Bates and Kim Johansen for their review and useful comments on previous drafts of the
Crossing Standards.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
5
With the reissuance in January 2010 of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers General Permit for
Massachusetts, the River and Stream Continuity Partnership decided it was time to evaluate and, as
appropriate, to revise the Massachusetts River and Stream Crossing Standards. Feedback on the March
1, 2006 version of the Standards was sought via a web-based survey implemented in 2009. The web
survey was not a scientific survey but was essentially a targeted public comment process where input
was solicited to gain insight into the issues at hand and suggestions sought on how to improve the
Standards. What follows are updated versions of the previous Crossing Standards with modifications
based on experience and the input received.
Goals
These standards seek to achieve, to varying degrees, three goals:
1. Fish and other Aquatic Organism Passage: Facilitate movement for fish and other aquatic
organisms, including relatively small, resident fish, semi-aquatic amphibians & reptiles, and
large invertebrates (e.g. crayfish, mussels).
2. River/Stream Continuity: Maintain continuity of the aquatic and benthic elements of river and
stream ecosystems, generally through maintenance of appropriate substrates and hydraulic
characteristics (water depths, turbulence, velocities, and flow patterns). Maintenance of river
and stream continuity is the most practical strategy for facilitating movement of small, benthic
organisms as well as larger, but weak-swimming species such as salamanders and crayfish.
3. Wildlife Passage: Facilitate movement of wildlife species including those primarily associated
with river and stream ecosystems and others that may utilize riparian areas as movement
corridors. Some species of wildlife such as muskrats and stream salamanders may benefit from
river and stream continuity. Other species may require more open structures as well as dry
passage along the banks or within the streambed at low flow.
For purposes of these standards full “aquatic organism passage” (AOP) is achieved when a road-stream
crossing allows unrestricted movement of all aquatic organisms indigenous to the water body. By
aquatic organisms we mean fish and the aquatic life stages of other vertebrates (amphibians), and
aquatic invertebrates including small benthic fauna that typically reside within the stream substrate.
Unrestricted movement means that all individuals and all life stages are able to move through the
structure as freely as they can through the natural stream channel and without delays or obstructions
caused by the crossing structure. Full AOP is generally achieved when goals 1 and 2 above are met.
Crossing structures that achieve full AOP are expected to maintain more natural river hydrology and
transport of sediment and woody debris.
There are a few approaches available for designing river and stream crossings. These Crossing
Standards are most consistent with a “Stream Simulation”
3
approach for crossing design. Given the
large number of species that make up river and stream communities and the almost complete lack of
3
U.S. Forest Service, 2008, Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at
Road-Stream Crossings, WEB: http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/aop_pdfs.html
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
6
information about swimming abilities and passage requirements for most organisms, it is impractical to
use a species-based approach for designing road-stream crossings. The Stream Simulation approach is
the most practical way to maintain viable populations of organisms that make up aquatic communities
and maintain the fundamental integrity of river and stream ecosystems. Stream Simulation is an
ecosystem-based approach that focuses on maintaining the variety and quality of habitats, the
connectivity of river and stream ecosystems, and the essential ecological processes that shape and
maintain these ecosystems over time.
Stream Simulation is a design approach that avoids flow constriction during normal conditions and
creates a stream channel that maintains the diversity and complexity of the streambed through the
crossing. Crossing structures that avoid channel constriction and maintain appropriate channel
conditions (channel dimensions, banks, bed, and bed forms) within the structure should be able to
accommodate most of the normal movements of aquatic organisms, and preserve (or restore) many
ecosystem processes that maintain habitats and aquatic animal populations. The goal is to create
crossings that are essentially “invisible” to aquatic organisms by making them no more of an obstacle
to movement than the natural channel.
Some stream and river corridors are also important for maintaining landscape-level connectedness for
terrestrial wildlife. In these cases the standards go beyond what is necessary for aquatic organism
passage and are intended also to facilitate the movement of a full range of vertebrate wildlife species
(mammals, amphibians, reptiles). When wildlife are able to move through road-stream crossings they
are less likely to be killed crossing over the road surface.
These standards are for general use to address issues of river and stream continuity, fish passage and
wildlife movement. In some cases, site constraints may make strict adherence to the standards
impractical or undesirable. For example, in some situations the road layout and surrounding landscape
may make it impossible or impractical to achieve the recommended standards for height and openness.
These standards may not be appropriate for degraded streams or highly urbanized areas where stream
instability may be a serious concern. Site-specific information and good professional judgment should
always be used to develop crossing designs that are both practical and effective.
Considerations
Here are some important considerations to keep in mind when using these standards.
1. These standards were developed specifically for freshwater, non-tidal rivers and streams and may
not be appropriate for coastal waterways.
2. They are intended for permanent river and stream crossings. They are not intended for temporary
crossings such as skid roads and temporary logging or construction access roads unless they impact
streams that support anadromous fish. The objective of the Crossing Standards is the long term
conservation of wildlife, fish and biodiversity resources that can be adversely affected by the
barrier effects of road-stream crossings. The impacts of those crossings are a concern when they
are manifested at the population level. To the degree that temporary crossings do not result in long-
term (sustained) adverse effects on populations of aquatic organisms they should not be the focus
of these Standards. For purposes of these Standards a temporary crossing is defined as one that will
be in place for three years or less unless the stream supports anadromous fish runs. Temporary
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
7
crossing of streams that support anadromous fish should either meet the crossing standards or be
otherwise designed not to disrupt the movement of anadromous species using the stream.
3. These standards are not intended for constructed drainage systems designed primarily for irrigation
or the conveyance of storm water. Examples include artificial channels, drainage ditches, grassy
swales and stone-lined channels when created for the sole purpose of irrigation or storm water
management. Natural channels that have been modified to serve an irrigation or storm water
management function may still be important for aquatic organism passage and may warrant the use
of these standards.
4. The purpose of these standards is to prevent barrier effects of road-stream crossings on populations
of fish and wildlife (including invertebrates). It is generally presumed that perennial streams and
rivers are always important as habitat and/or movement corridors for aquatic organisms. Many
intermittent streams serve as seasonal habitat for fish (especially brook trout) and stream
salamanders (two-lined, dusky and spring salamanders). It is not appropriate to dismiss intermittent
streams as unimportant for fish and wildlife passage. However, these standards are not intended for
channels that lack habitat for fish or wildlife and do not serve as movement corridors needed to
access appropriate habitat. That said it can be difficult to determine whether any particular
intermittent stream is important for fish and wildlife passage. Unless compelling evidence exists to
indicate otherwise, intermittent streams are assumed to have value for fish and wildlife passage.
5. These standards were developed with the objective of facilitating fish and wildlife movement and
the preservation or restoration of river/stream continuity. They may not be sufficient to address
drainage or flood control issues that must also be considered during design and permitting of
permanent stream crossings. These standards are not intended to address wetland crossings.
6. These standards are not prescriptive. They are intended as conceptual performance standards for
river and stream crossings. They establish minimum criteria that are generally necessary to
facilitate fish and wildlife movement and maintain river/stream continuity. Use of these standards
alone will not satisfy the need for proper engineering and design. In particular, appropriate
engineering is required to ensure that structures are sized and designed to provide adequate
capacity (to pass various flood flows) and stability (bed, bed forms, footings and abutments).
7. The design of any structure must consider the channel type and long profile and must account for
likely variability of the stream or river for the life of the structure. A “long profile” is a surveyed
longitudinal profile along the thalweg (deepest portion of the channel) of the stream extending well
upstream and downstream of the crossing.
8. In urbanizing environments there is greater potential for land use changes to result in stream
instability. Wherever there is potential for stream instability it is important to evaluate stream
adjustment potential at the crossing location and to factor this into the design of the structure. (This
is true of all crossing structures whether or not they are designed to these standards.)
9. For guidance on the technical issues associated with meeting these standards refer to the U.S.
Forest Service publication “Stream Simulation: an Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for
Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings” available at
http://www.streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
8
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW CROSSINGS
These standards are for new structures at sites where no previous crossing structure existed. Culvert
replacements are addressed in the following section “Applying the Standards to Culvert Replacement
Projects.”
There are two levels of standards (General and Optimum) to balance the cost and logistics of crossing
design with the degree of river/stream continuity warranted in areas of different environmental
significance.
General Standards
Goal: Fish passage, river/stream continuity, some wildlife passage
Application
Where new permanent stream crossings are planned on streams or rivers (including intermittent
streams) serving as habitat for fish and semi-aquatic wildlife that typically live within stream
channels (salamanders, turtles), they should at least meet general standards to pass most fish
species, maintain river/stream continuity, and facilitate passage for some wildlife.
4
Many intermittent streams serve as seasonal habitat for fish (especially brook trout) and stream
salamanders (two-lined, dusky and spring salamanders). Although intermittent channels that don’t
support fish and semi-aquatic wildlife may be used by terrestrial wildlife to move through the
landscape, passage for terrestrial wildlife is not the focus of the “General” Standards; they are
addressed in the “Optimum” Standards (below). Insects may use intermittent streams above those
sections used by fish and semi-aquatic wildlife. However, they typically have adult life stages
capable of flight thereby reducing concerns about the impact of road-stream crossing barriers.
General standards call for open bottom structures or culverts that span the river/stream channel
with natural bottom substrates that generally match undisturbed upstream and downstream
substrates. Stream depth and velocities in the crossing structure during low-flow conditions should
approximate those in the natural river/stream channel. A critical element of any stream crossing
structure or span design involves identifying the proper “openness”. Openness is the cross-
sectional area of a structure opening divided by its crossing length when measured in consistent
units.
5
An openness of 0.82 ft (0.25 meters) will pass some wildlife species but is unlikely to pass
all the wildlife that would be accommodated by the optimum standards.
Standards
1. Spans (bridges, 3-sided box culverts, open-bottom culverts or arches) that preserve the natural
stream channel are strongly preferred.
4
These standards are also appropriate for a portion of a stream where fish and wildlife were historically present but were
lost as a result of migratory barriers when there is a reasonable expectation that they could be restored to that stream
section.
5
New England District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division, Openness Ratio Spreadsheet, WEB:
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/Stream/OpennessRatioSpreadsheet.pdf
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
9
The preference for spans is to avoid or minimize disruption to the streambed. The structure’s
design and construction should allow the streambed’s natural structure and integrity to remain
intact, and work in the stream should be minimized to the greatest extent practicable.
Site constraints may make the use of spans impractical and in some cases well-designed
culverts may actually perform better than bridges (e.g. areas with deep soft substrate).
However, circumstances where culverts are likely to out-perform spans for aquatic organism
passage are very uncommon. Experience has demonstrated that the construction of culverts to
meet these standards is not easy. In the vast majority of cases it requires a structure large
enough to accommodate equipment for the construction of a stream channel and bed within the
culvert. Problems in the design and construction of stable and functional stream channels
within culverts are common. In areas where site constraints don’t limit the usefulness of these
structures, spans that preserve the natural stream channel are strongly preferred over culverts.
2. If a culvert, then it should be embedded:
- a minimum of 2 feet for all culverts,
- a minimum of 2 feet and at least 25 percent for round pipe culverts
- When embedment material includes elements > 15 inches in diameter, embedment depths
should be at least twice the D
84
(particle width larger than 84 % of particles) of the
embedment material
These minimum embedment depths should be sufficient for many culverts. However,
circumstances may dictate a need for deeper substrates that are based on site specific analysis.
These include high gradient streams and streams experiencing instability or with potential
instability that could result in future adjustments to channel elevation. In these cases long
profiles and calculations of potential channel adjustments should be used to determine
embedment depth.
The intent of this standard is to provide for:
Sufficient depth of material within the culvert to achieve stability of the culvert bed
material comparable to that of the upstream and downstream channel. For finer components
of the substrate natural movement of bedload could be expected to replace material in the
structure that is lost from the culvert during typical high flow events. However, the
embedment material must be designed to resist the complete loss of substrate during large,
infrequent storms (e.g. 100-year storms),
Sufficient depth of material to permit shaping of material to achieve natural water depths at
low-flow conditions, and
Sufficient embedment to account for long-term vertical channel adjustment anticipated for
the adjacent streambed.
For most crossings embedment material will need to be put in place using equipment; only
rarely can bedload transport be relied on to supply a culvert with adequate embedment material.
Use of sills or other similar structural elements designed to hold the substrate in place within a
culvert are strongly discouraged for new crossings. Should the substrate material be washed out
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
10
of a culvert by an infrequent storm the barrier effects of the sills are likely to be worse than that
of a bare culvert.
In some cases site constraints may limit the degree to which a culvert can be embedded. In
these cases pipe culverts should not be used and pipe arches (with at least 2 feet of
embedment), open-bottom arches, or bridges should be considered instead.
Use scour analyses to determine footing depths for open-bottom arches, open-bottom boxes and
bridges.
For guidance on the technical issues associated with culvert embedment refer to the U.S. Forest
Service publication “Stream Simulation: an Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for
Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings” available at
http://www.streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm.
3. Spans channel width (a minimum of 1.2 times the bankfull width)
It is critical to avoid channel constriction during normal bankfull flows. A width of 1.2 times
bankfull width is the minimum width needed to meet these standards. Bankfull width should be
determined as the average of at least three typical widths, ideally measured at the proposed
structure’s location, and then upstream and downstream of the proposed structure (except
where stream sections are not representative of conditions where the structure will be located).
The stream width should be measured at straight sections of the channel outside the influence
of existing structures and unusual channel characteristics. The structure should not be narrower
than the bankfull width at the crossing location.
6
In naturally constricted channels 1.2 times bankfull may also be adequate for passing large,
infrequent storm events and maintaining stability of both the structure and channel. However,
this should be verified through standard engineering practices and calculations.
A clear span of 1.2 times bankfull may not be sufficient to ensure adequate water conveyance
for large, infrequent flood events without destabilizing the stream channel. This is especially
true for streams with broad floodplains. In these cases, wider structures or alternative means of
conveying flood waters may be necessary. It is critically important that structure design on
these streams be based on sound engineering and, to the extent possible, take into account the
potential effects of climate change on future storm characteristics (e.g. storms are likely to be
more severe) and how the hydrology of the stream could change due to development within the
watershed.
For guidance on the technical issues associated with sizing crossing structures refer to the U.S.
Forest Service publication “Stream Simulation: an Ecological Approach to Providing Passage
for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings” available at
http://www.streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm.
4. Natural bottom substrate within the structure
Careful attention must be paid to the composition of the substrate within the structure. The
movement of benthic aquatic organisms could be obstructed or their necessary life-cycle
movements could be substantially disrupted without a natural bottom forming a continuous
6
Determining bankfull width and appropriate crossing width can be particularly difficult or even impossible in degraded or
highly urban streams.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
11
medium through the structure. Substrate characteristics may be a more important determinant
of passability than water depth or velocity for animals that tend to crawl (salamanders,
crayfish) rather than swim in streams systems.
The substrate within the structure should match the characteristics of the substrate in the natural
stream channel (mobility, slope, stability, confinement) at the time of construction and over
time as the structure has had the opportunity to pass significant flood events. Substrate should
be designed to meet desired characteristics after a period of adjustment likely to occur after
construction.
The substrate should be designed to resist the complete loss of bed material during large,
infrequent storms and to maintain appropriate channel characteristics through natural bed load
transport. The goal is to achieve a dynamic equilibrium whereby substrate lost due to bed load
transport is balanced by the movement of substrate into the structure from upstream.
Sometimes in order to ensure bed stability (stability is not the same as rigidity) at higher than
bankfull flows it may be necessary to use larger substrate within the structure than is generally
found in the natural stream channel. In these cases the substrate should approximate the natural
stream substrate and when possible should fall within the range of variability seen in the natural
channel upstream and downstream of the crossing.
For guidance on the technical issues associated with substrate and culvert embedment refer to
the U.S. Forest Service publication “Stream Simulation: an Ecological Approach to Providing
Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings” available at
http://www.streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm.
5. Designed with appropriate bed forms and streambed characteristics so that water depths and
velocities are comparable to those found in the natural channel at a variety of flows
In order to provide appropriate water depths and velocities at a variety of flows and especially
low flows it is necessary to preserve or reconstruct the streambed within the structure.
Otherwise, the width of the structure needed to accommodate higher flows will create
conditions that are too shallow at low flows. The preference is to preserve the existing channel
through the use of open-bottom spans wide enough to preserve the entire streambed. It is
important that a continuous thalweg (deepest portion of the channel) be maintained through the
structure. When constructing the streambed special attention should be paid to the sizing and
arrangement of materials within the structure. If only large material is used, without smaller
material filling the voids, there is a risk that flows could go subsurface within the structure.
For guidance on the technical issues associated with the design and construction of stream
channels and bed forms refer to the U.S. Forest Service publication “Stream Simulation: an
Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings”
available at http://www.streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm.
6. Openness> 0.82 feet (0.25 meters)
Openness is the cross-sectional area of a structure opening divided by its crossing length when
measured in consistent units (e.g. feet). For a box culvert, openness = (height x width)/ length.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
12
For calculating openness length is measured as a straight line connecting the
channel midpoint where it enters a structure and where it exits the structure.
For crossing structures with multiple cells or barrels, openness is calculated separately for each
cell or barrel. At least one cell or barrel should meet the appropriate openness standard. The
embedded portion of a culvert is not included in the calculation of cross-sectional area for
determining openness.
7
Openness > 0.82 feet is recommended to make the structure more likely to pass small, riverine
wildlife such as turtles, mink, muskrat and otter that may tend to avoid structures that appear
too constricted (see note at the end of this document). This openness standard is too small to
accommodate large wildlife such as deer, bear, and moose. Structures that meet this openness
standard are much more likely than traditional culverts to pass flood flows and woody debris
that would otherwise obstruct water passage. It is likely that most structures that meet all the
other general standards will also meet this openness standard. However, for some very long
structures it may be impractical or impossible to meet this standard.
7. Banks should be present on each side of the stream matching the horizontal profile of the
existing stream and banks
To prevent failure, all constructed banks should have a height to width ratio of no greater than
1:1.5 (vertical:horizontal) unless the stream is naturally incised. They should be tied into the up
and downstream banks and configured to be stable during a 100-year storm event. The banks
should be designed and constructed so as not to hinder riverine wildlife use of the streambed
and banks for passage.
7
An Embedded Area Spreadsheet developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shows how to calculate the open area
for embedded pipe culverts to meet the 0.82 standard for openness. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the Online
Documents section of www.streamcontinuity.org.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
13
Optimum Standards
Goal: Fish passage, river/stream continuity, wildlife passage
Application
Where permanent stream crossings occur or are planned in areas of particular statewide or regional
significance for their contribution to landscape level connectedness optimum standards should be
applied in order to maintain river/stream continuity and facilitate passage for fish and wildlife.
Areas of particular statewide or regional significance for their contribution to landscape level
connectedness include, but are not limited to, rivers/streams and associated riparian areas that serve
as corridors or connecting habitat linking areas of significant habitat (>250 acres) in three or more
towns. There are no formal, recognized criteria for classifying streams as warranting optimum
standards. The Nature Conservancy and University of Massachusetts Amherst are engaged in a
project (“Critical Linkages”) to objectively assess landscape-scale connectedness and define areas
that serve as critical linkages for wildlife movement and connectivity. This (and potentially other
similar projects) will provide assistance in identifying areas where it would be appropriate to use
the optimum standards for road-stream crossings.
Where permanent stream crossings occur or are planned in areas of high connectivity value – areas
of particular statewide or regional significance for their contribution to landscape level
connectedness – crossings should be designed to maintain river/stream continuity and facilitate
passage for fish and wildlife. The best designs for accomplishing this involve bridges that not only
span the river/stream channel, but also span one or both of the banks allowing dry passage for
wildlife that move along the watercourse. Where the crossing involves high traffic volumes or
physical barriers to wildlife movement, the crossing structure should be sized to pass all wildlife
species (minimum height and openness requirements).
Standards
1. Use a bridge
Unless there are compelling reasons why a culvert would provide greater environmental
benefits only bridges should be used. Bridges are preferred over open-bottom culverts because
they can be installed with minimal impact to the stream channel and provide more headroom
for wildlife.
2. Span the streambed and banks
The structure span should be at least 1.2 times the bankfull width and provide banks on one or
both sides with sufficient headroom to provide dry passage for semi-aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife.
It is critical to avoid channel constriction during normal bankfull flows. A width of 1.2 times
bankfull width is the minimum
width needed to meet these standards. Bankfull width should be
determined as the average of at least three typical widths, ideally measured at the proposed
structure’s location, and then upstream and downstream of the proposed structure (except
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
14
where stream sections are not representative of conditions where the structure will be located).
The stream width should be measured at straight sections of the channel outside the influence
of existing structures and unusual channel characteristics. The structure should not be narrower
than the bankfull width at the crossing location.
8
For streams within floodplains 1.2 times bankfull may not be sufficient to ensure adequate
water conveyance for large, infrequent flood events without destabilizing the stream channel. In
these cases, wider structures or alternative means of conveying flood waters may be necessary.
It is critically important that structure design on these streams be based on sound engineering
and, to the extent possible, take into account the potential effects of climate change on future
storm characteristics (e.g. storms are likely to be more severe) and how the hydrology of the
stream could change due to development within the watershed.
For guidance on the technical issues associated with sizing crossing structures refer to the U.S.
Forest Service publication “Stream Simulation: an Ecological Approach to Providing Passage
for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings” available at
http://www.streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm.
3. Natural bottom substrate within the structure
Careful attention must be paid to the composition of the substrate within the structure. The
movement of benthic aquatic organisms could be obstructed or their necessary life-cycle
movements could be substantially disrupted without a natural bottom forming a continuous
medium through the structure. Substrate characteristics may be a more important determinant
of passability than water depth or velocity for animals that tend to crawl (salamanders,
crayfish) rather than swim in streams systems.
The substrate within the structure should match the characteristics of the substrate in the natural
stream channel (mobility, slope, stability, confinement) at the time of construction and over
time as the structure has had the opportunity to pass significant flood events. Substrate should
be designed to meet desired characteristics after a period of adjustment likely to occur after
construction.
The substrate should be designed to resist the complete loss of bed material during large,
infrequent storms and to maintain appropriate channel characteristics through natural bed load
transport. The goal is to achieve a dynamic equilibrium whereby substrate lost due to bed load
transport is balanced by the movement of substrate into the structure from upstream.
Sometimes in order to ensure bed stability (stability is not the same as rigidity) at higher than
bankfull flows it may be necessary to use larger substrate within the structure than is generally
found in the natural stream channel. In these cases the substrate should approximate the natural
stream substrate and when possible should fall within the range of variability seen in the natural
channel upstream and downstream of the crossing.
For guidance on the technical issues associated with substrate refer to the U.S. Forest Service
publication “Stream Simulation: an Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic
8
Determining bankfull width and appropriate crossing width can be particularly difficult or even impossible in degraded or
highly urban streams.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
15
Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings” available at
http://www.streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm.
4. Designed with appropriate bed forms and streambed characteristics so that water depths and
velocities are comparable to those found in the natural channel at a variety of flows
In order to provide appropriate water depths and velocities at a variety of flows and especially
low flows it is necessary to preserve or reconstruct the streambed within the structure.
Otherwise, the width of the structure needed to accommodate higher flows will create
conditions that are too shallow at low flows. The preference is to preserve the existing channel
through the use of open-bottom spans wide enough to preserve the entire streambed. It is
important that a continuous thalweg (deepest portion of the channel) be maintained through the
structure. When constructing the streambed special attention should be paid to the sizing and
arrangement of materials within the structure. If only large material is used, without smaller
material filling the voids, there is a risk that flows could go subsurface within the structure.
For guidance on the technical issues associated with the design and construction of stream
channels and bed forms refer to the U.S. Forest Service publication “Stream Simulation: an
Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings”
available at http://www.streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm.
5. Maintain a minimum height of 8 ft (2.4 meters) and openness of 2.46 feet (0.75 meters) if
conditions are present that significantly inhibit wildlife passage (high traffic volumes, steep
embankments, fencing, Jersey barriers or other physical obstructions
If conditions that significantly inhibit wildlife passage are not present, maintain a minimum
height of 6 ft. (1.8 meters) and openness of 1.64 feet (0.5 meters)
Height should be measured from the average invert of the streambed within the structure to the
inside top of the structure directly above. The invert is the elevation of the lowest point of the
stream channel within the structure.
Openness is the cross-sectional area of a structure opening divided by its crossing length when
measured in consistent units (e.g. feet). For crossing structures with multiple bridge cells
openness is calculated separately for each cell (do not add together the cross-sectional areas of
multiple cells). At least one cell should achieve the appropriate openness standard.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
16
For calculating openness length is measured as a straight line connecting the
channel midpoint where it enters a structure and where it exits the structure.
6. Banks should be present on each side of the stream matching the horizontal profile of the
existing stream and banks with sufficient headroom to provide dry passage for semi-aquatic
and terrestrial wildlife
To prevent failure, all constructed banks should have a height-to-width ratio no greater than
1:1.5 (vertical:horizontal) unless the stream is naturally incised. Banks within the structure
should generally align with the profile and cross section of banks upstream and downstream of
the structure and should be stable during a 100-year storm event. The banks should be designed
and constructed so as not to hinder wildlife use of the streambed and banks for passage.
Standards Summary
General Standards Optimal Standard
Structure Type Open-bottom span preferred Bridge
Embedment If a culvert, then it should be embedded:
A minimum of 2 feet for all culverts,
A minimum of 2 feet and at least 25
percent for round pipe culverts
When embedment material includes
elements > 15 inches in diameter,
embedment depths should be at least
twice the D
84
of the embedment material
NA
Crossing Span Minimum: 1.2 x bankfull width Minimum: 1.2 x bankfull width
Substrate Matches stream substrate Matches stream substrate
Water Depth &
Velocity
Matches water depth & velocity in natural
stream over a range of flows
Matches water depth & velocity in natural
stream over a range of flows
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
17
Openness (&
height)
Openness: 0.82 ft. (0.25 m) Conditions that inhibit wildlife passage
over road
Openness: 2.46 ft. (0.75 m)
Height: 8 ft. (2.4 m)
Otherwise
Openness: 1.64 ft. (0.5 m)
Height: 6 ft. (1.8 m)
Banks
On both sides of the stream
Match the horizontal profile of the
existing stream and banks
Constructed so as not to hinder use by
riverine wildlife
On both sides of the stream
Match the horizontal profile of the
existing stream and banks
Constructed so as not to hinder use by
wildlife
Sufficient headroom for wildlife
APPLYING THE STANDARDS TO CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
Given the number of culverts and other crossing structures that have been installed without
consideration for ecosystem protection, it is important to assess what impact these crossings are having
and what opportunities exist for mitigating those and future impacts. In the short term some barriers
can be addressed by culvert retrofits: temporary modifications to improve aquatic organism passage
short of replacement. However, culvert replacement and remediation generally offer the best
opportunity for restoring continuity and long-term protection of river and stream ecosystems.
Methods have been developed, and are continuing to be refined and adapted, for evaluating culverts
and other crossing structures for their impacts on animal passage and other ecosystem processes.
Along with these assessments there needs to be a process for prioritizing problem crossings for
remediation. The process should take into account habitat quality in the river or stream and
surrounding areas, upstream and downstream conditions, as well as the number of other crossings,
discontinuities (channelized or piped sections), and barriers affecting the system. It is important to use
a watershed-based approach to river and stream restoration in order to maximize positive outcomes and
avoid unintended consequences.
Culvert upgrading requires careful planning and is not simply the replacement of a culvert with a larger
structure. Even as undersized culverts block the movement of organisms and material, over time, rivers
and streams adjust to the hydraulic and hydrological changes caused by these structures. Increasing the
size of a crossing structure can destabilize the stream and cause head cutting – the progressive down-
cutting of the stream channel – upstream of the crossing. There also may be downstream effects such
as increased sedimentation. Crossing replacement can result in the loss or degradation of wetlands that
formed above the culvert as a consequence of constricted flow. In more developed watersheds,
undersized culverts may play an important role in regulating storm flows and preventing flooding.
Before replacing a culvert or other crossing structure with a larger structure it is essential that the
replacement be evaluated for its impacts on:
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
18
downstream flooding,
upstream and downstream habitat (in-stream habitat, wetlands),
potential for erosion and head cutting, and
stream stability.
In most cases it will be necessary to conduct engineering analyses including long profiles of sufficient
length to understand potential changes in channel characteristics. A “long profile” is a surveyed
longitudinal profile along the thalweg (deepest portion of the channel) of the stream extending well
upstream and downstream of the crossing. The replacement crossing will need to be carefully designed
in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the potential for negative consequences resulting from
the upgrade. In many instances, some stream restoration will be needed upstream and/or downstream
of the structure in addition to culvert replacement in order to restore river/stream continuity and
facilitate fish and wildlife passage.
Culvert replacements need to be reviewed and permitted by the local conservation commission, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (§401 Water Quality Certification), and in
some cases the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
Applying the Standards
1. Replacement culverts should meet the design guidelines for either general standards or optimal
standards (see Standards for New Crossings above) unless:
Doing so would result in significant stream instability that can’t otherwise be mitigated
Meeting the standards would create a flooding hazard that can’t otherwise be mitigated
Site constraints make it impossible to meet the standards
2. If it is not possible to meet all of the applicable standards, replacement crossings should be
designed to avoid or mitigate the following problems.
Inlet drops
Outlet drops
Flow contraction that produces significant turbulence
Tailwater armoring
Tailwater scour pools
Physical barriers to fish and wildlife passage
3. If it is not possible to meet all of the applicable standards avoid Smooth High Density Polyethylene
Pipes (HDPP) or other pipes with a Mannings n equal or less than 0.010.
4. As indicated by long profiles, scour analyses and other methods, design the structure and include
appropriate grade controls to ensure that the replacement will not destabilize the river/stream
5. To the extent practicable conduct stream restoration upstream and/or downstream of the structure
as needed to restore river/stream continuity and eliminate barriers to aquatic organism movement
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
19
CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Construction of road-stream crossings has the potential to generate significant adverse impacts to
rivers and streams. Use of appropriate construction methods and best management practices (BMPs)
are essential for meeting design standards and avoiding unnecessary impacts to water and habitat
quality. Following are a list of BMPs that should be considered when installing or replacing road-
stream crossings.
9
Road and Crossing Location. Roads should be planned to avoid or minimize the number of road-
stream crossings. Where crossings cannot be avoided they should be located in areas that will
minimize impacts. Here are some rules of thumb.
Avoid sensitive areas such as rare species habitat and important habitat features (vertical sandy
banks, underwater banks of fine silt or clay, deep pools, fish spawning habitat).
Avoid unstable or high-hazard locations such as steep slopes, wet or unstable slopes, non-
cohesive soils, and bordering vegetated wetlands. Alluvial reaches (where soils were deposited
and are shaped by flowing water) are poor locations for road-stream crossings.
Where possible locate crossings on straight channel segments (avoid meanders)
To the extent possible align crossings perpendicular to the stream channel
Timing of Construction. In general the most favorable time for constructing, replacing or maintaining
road-stream crossings is during periods of low flow, generally July 1 through September 30. However,
there may be occasions when a stream or river supports one or more rare species that would be
particularly vulnerable to disturbances during low-flow conditions. Where rare species are a concern,
contact the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) for
information and advice on how to minimize impacts to those species. Such consultations are required
for crossings that would affect areas of Priority Habitat identified by NHESP.
Dewatering
Minimize the extent and duration of the hydrological disruption
Consider the use of bypass channels to maintain some river and stream continuity during
construction
Use dams to prevent backwatering of construction areas
Gradually dewater and re-water river and stream segments to avoid abrupt changes in stream
flow
Salvage aquatic organisms (fish, salamanders, crayfish, mussels) stranded during dewatering
Segregate clean diversion water from sediment-laden runoff or seepage water
Use anti-seep collars around diversion pipes
9
Much of the following information about construction BMPs comes from training materials used as part of the U.S. Forest
Service’s Aquatic Organism Passage project and and is included in the Forest Service publication “Stream Simulation: An
Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings.”
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
20
Use upstream sumps to collect groundwater and prevent it from entering the construction site
Collect construction drainage from groundwater, storms, and leaks and treat to remove
sediment
Use downstream sediment control sump to collect water that seeps out of the construction area
Use fish screens around the intake of diversion pipes
Use appropriate energy dissipaters and erosion control at pipe outlets
When using diversion pipes make sure adequate pumping capacity is available to handle storm
flows
After construction remove cofferdams downstream-to-upstream in a manner that minimizes
introduction of sediment to the waterway.
Storm Water Management, Erosion and Sediment Control
Use of a downstream sediment retention pond is strongly recommended for all projects that involve
work within the streambed.
Minimize bare ground
Minimize impact to riparian vegetation
Prevent excavated material from running into water bodies and other sensitive areas
Use appropriate sediment barriers (silt fence, hay bales, mats, Coir logs, mulch or compost
filter tubes)
Dewater prior to excavation
Manage and treat surface and groundwater encountered during excavation with the following
- sediment basins
- fabric, biobag or hay bale corals
- irrigation sprinklers or drain pipes discharging into vegetated upland areas
- sand filter
- geotextile filter bags
Turbidity of water 100-200 feet downstream of the site should not be visibly greater than
turbidity upstream of the project site.
Pollution Control
Wash equipment prior to bringing to the work area to remove leaked petroleum products and
avoid introduction of invasive plants
To avoid leaks, repair equipment prior to construction
Be prepared to use petroleum absorbing “diapers” if necessary
Locate refueling areas and hazardous material containment areas away from streams and other
sensitive areas
Establish appropriate areas for washing concrete mixers; prevent concrete wash water from
entering rivers and streams
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
21
Take steps to prevent leakage of stockpiled materials into streams or other sensitive areas
(locate away from water bodies and other sensitive areas, provide sediment barriers and traps,
cover stockpiles during heavy rains)
Construction of Streambed and Banks within Structures
Check construction surveys to ensure slopes and elevations meet design specifications
Use appropriately graded material (according to design specifications) that has been properly
mixed before placement inside the structure
Avoid segregation of bed materials
Compact bed material
After the streambed has been constructed wash bed material to ensure that fine materials fill
gaps and voids
Construct an appropriate low-flow channel and thalweg
Carefully construct bed forms to ensure functionality and stability
Construct well-graded banks for roughness, passage by small wildlife, and in-stream bank-edge
habitat
Tie constructed banks into upstream and downstream banks. Banks within the structure should
generally align with the profile and cross section of banks upstream and downstream of the
structure, and should be installed so that the juncture between natural bank and constructed
bank is stable. The banks should be designed and constructed so as not to hinder wildlife use of
the streambed and banks for passage.
Soil Stabilization and Re-vegetation
Surface should be rough to collect seeds and moisture
Implement seeding and planting plan that addresses both short term stabilization and long term
restoration of riparian vegetation
Water vegetation to ensure adequate survival
Use seed, mulch, and/or erosion control fabrics on steep slopes and other vulnerable areas
Avoid netting and other erosion control materials that contain coarse mesh capable of trapping
and killing fish and wildlife if it gets washed into streams or rivers.
Use native plants unless other non-invasive alternatives will yield significantly better results
Monitoring
Ensure that BMPs are being implemented
Inspect for erosion
Evaluate structure stability
Inspect for evidence of stream instability
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
22
Inspect for presence of debris accumulations or other physical barriers at or within crossing
structures
Ensure streambed continuity is maintained
Inspect for problems with infiltration in constructed streambeds (subsurface flows)
Inspect for scouring of the streambed downstream or the aggradation of sediment upstream of
the structure
GLOSSARY
Aquatic Organism Passage – Full “Aquatic Organism Passage” (AOP) is achieved when a
road-stream crossing allows unrestricted movement of all aquatic organisms indigenous to the
water body. Aquatic organisms are fish and the aquatic life stages of other vertebrates
(amphibians), and aquatic invertebrates including small benthic fauna that typically reside
within the stream substrate. Unrestricted movement means that all individuals and all life stages
are able to move through the structure as freely as they can through the natural stream channel
and without delays or obstructions caused by the crossing structure.
Bankfull Width – Bankfull is a geometric parameter that corresponds with the amount of
water that just fills the stream channel and where additional water would result in a rapid
widening of the stream or overflow into the floodplain. Indicators of Bankfull width include:
o Abrupt transition from bank to floodplain. The change from a vertical bank to a horizontal
surface is the best identifier of the floodplain and Bankfull stage, especially in low-gradient
meandering streams.
o Top of point bars. The point bar consists of channel material deposited on the inside of
meander bends. Set the top elevation of point bars as the lowest possible Bankfull stage.
o Bank undercuts. Maximum heights of bank undercuts are useful indicators in steep
channels lacking floodplains.
o Changes in bank material
. Changes in soil particle size may indicate the operation of
different processes. Changes in slope may also be associated with a change in particle size.
o Change in vegetation. Look for the low limit of perennial vegetation on the bank, or a sharp
break in the density or type of vegetation.
Bed Adjustment Potential – Potential change in the elevation, width, depth, slope or meander
pattern of the stream channel as it adjusts to a source of stream instability (changes in
discharge, sediment supply, or base elevation). Instability may be caused by changes at a
stream crossing site or conditions upstream or downstream of the crossing site or within the
watershed (urbanization).
Bedforms – Natural bedforms include isolated boulders, particle clusters, steps, pools, head of
riffles and pool tail crests, large woody debris, transverse bars, longitudinal ribs, and gravel
bars. Constructed bedforms may include any of the above as well as rock and log weirs and
roughened channels.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
23
Bridge – As used in this document, a bridge is a bottomless structure erected over a river or
stream to provide passage from one bank to the other. In this document bridges are grouped
under the term “spans” along with open-bottom arch and open-bottom box culverts.
Conditions that significantly inhibit wildlife passage – These include high traffic volumes,
steep embankments, fencing, Jersey barriers or other physical obstructions that prevent wildlife
passage over the road surface
Culvert – As used in these Standards, culverts are round, elliptical or rectangular structures
that are fully enclosed (contain a bottom) designed primarily for channeling water beneath a
road, railroad or highway. Bottomless structures, though sometimes considered culverts by
others, are treated separately in these Standards.
D
84
– Particle width larger than 84 % of particles within a sampled streambed. Width is the
diameter of the intermediate axis of a particle; not the longest axis (length) or the shortest axis
(thickness).
Embedded Culvert – A culvert that is installed in such a way that the bottom of the structure
is below the streambed and there is substrate in the culvert.
Flow contraction – When a culvert or other crossing structure is significantly smaller than the
stream width the converging flow creates a condition called “flow contraction.” The increased
velocities and turbulence associated with flow contraction can block fish and wildlife passage
and scour bed material out of a crossing structure. Flow contraction also creates inlet drops.
Inlet drop – Where water level drops suddenly at an inlet, causing changes in water speed and
turbulence. In addition to the higher velocities and turbulence, these jumps can be physical
barriers to fish and other aquatic animals when they are moving upstream and are unable to
swim out of the culvert.
Invert – The elevation of the lowest point of a crossing structure or if embedded (or an open
bottom structure) the lowest point of the stream channel within the structure.
Long Profile – A long profile is a surveyed longitudinal profile along the thalweg (deepest
portion of the channel) of the stream extending well upstream and downstream of the crossing.
Open Bottom Arch – Arched crossing structures that span all or part of the streambed,
typically constructed on buried footings and without a bottom.
Openness– Equals cross-sectional area of the structure opening divided by crossing length
when measured in consistent units (e.g. feet). For a box culvert, openness = (height x width)/
length. For crossing structures with multiple cells or barrels, openness is calculated separately
for each cell or barrel (do not add together the cross-sectional areas of multiple cells or barrels).
At least one cell or barrel should achieve the appropriate openness standard. The embedded
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
24
portion of a culvert is not included in the calculation of cross-sectional area for determining
openness.
For calculating openness length is measured as a straight line connecting the
channel midpoint where it enters a structure and where it exits the structure.
Outlet drop – An outlet drop occurs when water drops off or cascades down from a structure
outlet, usually into a receiving pool. This may be due to the original culvert placement, erosion
of material at the area immediately downstream of the culvert, or downstream channel
adjustments that may have occurred subsequent to the culvert installation. Outlet drops are
barriers to fish and other aquatic animals that can’t jump to get up into the culvert.
Physical barriers to fish and wildlife passage – Any feature that physically blocks fish or
wildlife movement through a crossing structure as well as features that would cause a crossing
structure to become blocked. Beaver dams, debris jams, fences, sediment filling a culvert,
weirs, baffles, aprons, and gabions are examples of structures that might be or cause physical
barriers. Weirs are short dams or fences in the stream that constrict water flow or fish
movements. Baffles are structures within culverts that direct, constrict, or slow down water
flow. Gabions are rectangular wire mesh baskets filled with rock that are used as retaining
walls and erosion control structures. Steeply sloping channels within a structure resulting in
shallow flows and/or high velocity flows can also inhibit movement of fish and other aquatic
organisms.
Pipe Arch – A pipe that departs from a circular shape such that the width (or span) is larger
that the vertical dimension (or rise), and forms a continuous circumference pipe that is not
bottomless.
River/Stream Continuity – Maintaining continuity of the aquatic and benthic elements of
river and stream ecosystems, generally through maintenance of appropriate substrates and
hydraulic characteristics (water depths, turbulence, velocities, and flow patterns)
Span – A bridge, 3-sided box culvert, open-bottom culvert or arch that spans the stream with
abutments landward of the bankfull width
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
25
Stream Simulation – A design method in which the diversity and complexity of the natural
streambed are created inside a culvert, open-bottom arch, or open-bottom box in such a way
that the streambed maintains itself across a wide range of flows. The premise is that if
streambed morphology is similar to that in the natural channel the crossing will be invisible to
aquatic species.
Tailwater armoring – Concrete aprons, plastic aprons, riprap or other structures added to
culvert outlets to facilitate flow and prevent erosion.
Tailwater scour pool – A pool created downstream from high flows exiting the culvert. The
pool is wider than the stream channel and banks are typically eroded. Some plunge pools may
have been specifically designed to dissipate flow energy at the culvert outlet and control
downstream erosion.
Thalweg – A line connecting the lowest points of a stream or river bed (the deepest part of the
channel).
NOTES AND REFERENCES
Stream Simulation
An important source of information in this document comes from training materials used as part of
the U.S. Forest Service’s Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) project. “Stream Simulation: An
Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings” is a
detailed manual published by the Forest Service in 2008. The complete citation for this document
is:
U.S. Forest Service Stream Simulation Working Group. 2008. Stream Simulation: An
Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream
Crossings. San Dimas: U.S. Forest Service Technology and Development Program.
The document can be downloaded from the Online Documents section of the
Streamcontinuity.org web site.
http://www.streamcontinuity.org/online_docs.htm
Openness
There is both published and anecdotal evidence from a variety of sources that some animals
(including fish) may be reluctant to enter structures that appear too dark or confining. The
occurrence of dead turtles, beavers, muskrat and other riverine animals on roadways above or near
road-stream crossings suggests that certain structures may be too small or too confining to
accommodate some wildlife.
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
26
The inverse of confinement is the concept of openness: the size of a structure opening relative to its
length. Openness is defined as the cross-sectional area of the structure opening divided by crossing
length measured in consistent units (e.g. feet).
Unfortunately, there is little information available on the openness requirements for fish and
wildlife. Reed et al. (1979) concluded that 0.6 meters (2.0 feet) is the minimum openness needed
for mule and whitetail deer to use a structure. In a study of box culverts in Pennsylvania the
average openness for structures used by deer was 0.92 meters (3.0 feet) with a range of 0.46 (1.52
feet) to 1.52 meters (5.02 feet; Brudin 2003). A report from the Netherlands cites data indicating
that crossing structures with openness < 0.35 meters (1.16 feet) were never used by deer while
structures with openness > 1.0 meters (3.3 feet) were always used (The Netherlands Ministry of
Transport 1995).
Although there are no data or studies available on the openness requirements for species other than
deer, we chose to include openness as one of the standards in order to ensure some minimum level
of openness. The openness standard of 0.82 feet (0.25 meters) in the general standards is well
below that required by deer. The intent is to create an openness standard that is sufficient for fish
and small riverine wildlife species. For most roadways, the openness standard in the optimum
standards (1.64 feet; 0.50 meters) also falls below that generally required by deer. Only when
applying the optimum standards under conditions that would inhibit wildlife passage over the road
surface (Jersey barriers, fencing, high traffic volumes) does the openness standard (2.46 feet; 0.75
meters) fall within the range of values for deer. We expect that an openness standard of 2.46 feet
(0.75 meters) also will be sufficient for other large mammals such as moose and bear.
Brudin, C.O. 2003. Wildlife Use of Existing Culverts and Bridges in North Central Pennsylvania. Pp.
344-352 In 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and
Transportation, edited by C. Leroy Irwin, Paul Garrett, and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC:
Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, 2003..
Ministry of Transport, P. W. and W. M. 1995. Wildlife Crossings for Roads and Waterways. Road
and Hydraulic Engineering Division, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management, Delft, The Netherlands.
Reed, D.F., T.N. Woodard, and T.D. Beck. 1979. Regional Deer-Vehicle Accident Research.
Federal Highway Administration. Rep. No. FHWA-RD-79-11.
Reed, D.F. 1981. Mule deer behavior at a highway underpass exit. J. Wildl. Manage 45(2):542-
543.
M
ODIFICATION
1. On January 31, 2012, the following deletion and addition in italics were made to General
Standard 7 on page 11: “To prevent failure, all constructed banks should have a height to
width ratio of no greater than 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) 1:1.5 (vertical:horizontal) unless
the stream is naturally incised.”
______________________________________________________________________________
3/1/11 Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (Corrected 3/8/12)
27
2. On March 8, 2012, the following deletion and addition in italics were made to Optimal
Standard 6 on page 16: “To prevent failure, all constructed banks should have a height to
width ratio of no greater than 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) 1:1.5 (vertical:horizontal) unless
the stream is naturally incised.”