Chapter 1Introduction

1.1 What Are Low-Water Crossings?

Three main types of crossing structures are designed to be submerged at

Words shown in bold some ows: (1) unvented (simple) fords, (2) vented fords, and (3) low-
throughout this water bridges. Because basic designs require tailoring to individual site
document are defined requirements and locally available materials, many variations of each of
in the glossary these basic types of low-water crossing structures were developed over
time. Figure 1.1 shows the basic low-water crossings types.

Figure 1.1Basic low-water crossing types.

11
Low-Water Crossings

Unvented or simple fords cross streams at or slightly above the elevation

of the streambed without pipes (vents). Unvented fords fall into two
categoriesunimproved and improved.

Unimproved fords are simply natural crossings. Figure 1.2 shows an

example of an unimproved ford.

Figure 1.2Unimproved ford on the Fishlake National Forest, Utah.

Improved fords have a stable driving surface of rock, concrete, asphalt,

concrete blocks, concrete planks, gabions, geocells, or a combination
of materials (g. 1.3). Sometimes a small channel or slot is included at
the structures low point to pass very low ows and aquatic animals.
The downstream roadway edge may be stabilized and dened with logs,
riprap, gabions, or Jersey barriers.

Vented fords have a driving surface elevated some distance above the
streambed with culverts (vents) that enable low ows to pass beneath
the roadbed. The vents can be one or more pipes, box culverts, or open-
bottom arches. In streams carrying large amounts of debris, the driving
surface over the vent may be removable, permitting debris to be cleared
after a large ow event.

12
 Chapter 1Introduction

Figure 1.3Improved ford on an ephemeral tributary of the Agua Fria River,

Arizona.

Vented fords fall into two categorieslow vent-area ratio (VAR) and
high VAReach of which affects stream channels differently (g. 1.4).

Vented fords with culverts that are small relative to the bankfull channel
area have a low VAR.

A vent opening that approximates or exceeds the size of the bankfull

channel has a high VAR.

Figure 1.4VAR-ratio denition sketch.

13
Low-Water Crossings

Bankfull is the ow that just overtops the streambanks and begins to

ow out over the ood plain (g. 1.5) (Leopold et al. 1964, Leopold
1994). In many areas of the United States, ow approaches or exceeds
bankfull on average once every 1 to 2 years. Generally this frequent high
ow is considered to do much of the work of rearranging streambeds and
maintaining aquatic habitats by transporting and depositing sediment
and woody debris.

For information on identifying bankfull, see the two-DVD set Identifying

Bankfull Stage in the Eastern and Western United States. It is available
on the USDA Forest Service Stream Systems Technology Center Web
site.

Figure 1.5Bankfull level in a natural stream channel.

14
 Chapter 1Introduction

Figure 1.6 illustrates the difference between high- and low-VAR fords.
The California example (g. 1.6A) is an old structure that mostly blocks
the bankfull cross section area. The Arkansas vented ford (g. 1.6B) was
constructed in 2004 with the express goal of allowing sh and sediment
passage.

Figure 1.6(A) Low-VAR ford on the Eldorado National Forest, Northern

Sierra Nevada, California. (B) High-VAR ford on the Ouachita National Forest,
Arkansas. Note that this site is on a curve and needs safety warning signs.

A common type of high-VAR ford is a series of box culverts that approaches

or matches stream width and bankfull depth (gs. 1.6B and 1.7). These
structures typically look like bridges and, where the bottoms are embedded,
can be mistaken for bridges. High-VAR fords may not signicantly obstruct
ow until the water surface rises to the top of the structure.

15
Low-Water Crossings

Figure 1.7High-VAR ford composed of three box culverts, Mark Twain National
Forest, Missouri.

In this publication, we dene low-water bridges as open-bottom

structures with elevated decks and a total span of at least 20 feet (g.
1.8). They may be designed with one or several piers. Low-water
bridges generally have greater capacity and are able to pass higher ows
underneath the driving surface than most vented and unvented fords. As
with fords, however, low-water bridges are designed and installed with
the expectation they will be under water at higher ows. Forest Service
Manual (FSM) 7720 (Transportation System Development) requires
all structures receive specic hydrologic, hydraulic, structural, and
foundation design in accordance with the American Association of State
Highway Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO) Standard Specications
for Highway Bridges. A qualied engineer must design the low-water
bridge and review the completed structure.

Figure 1.8Low-water bridge at Boiling Springs, Big Piney River, Missouri.

16
 Chapter 1Introduction

1.2 Potential Benets of Low-Water Crossings

Choosing the type of structure for any crossing is highly site-dependent.

Depending on the site, the main advantages of low-water crossings over
culverts and bridges may include the following:
Lower construction and maintenance costs.

Less channel and ood plain blockage.

Adaptability.
Stormproong.
Cost Low-water crossings are generally less expensive to construct. More often
than not, designs are less complicated, construction is quicker, and fewer
materials are involved. Although the initial cost of more complex low-
water crossings may exceed those of simple culvert installations, the lower
long-term maintenance and repair costs may still make selecting a low-
water crossing more economical.

Low-water crossings may also make sense when there is little funding for
structure condition monitoring and maintenance, especially on roads with
yearlong or seasonal closures. Unvented fords are more reliable in passing
peak ows than culverts (which can plug with debris), and usually require
less maintenance than other structure types (Doyle, personal communication;
Warhol 1994; Warhol and Pyles 1989). Economic evaluation should take into
consideration all lifecycle costs including maintenance, repairs, user costs, and
the cost of environmental impacts.

Channel and Flood

Plain Blockage When streamow approaches the design capacity of a crossing structure,
water tends to pond upstream of the inlet, causing sediment deposition
and often bank erosion. The less a crossing structure blocks the channel
during sediment-transporting ows, the more it can avoid these effects.
Unimproved at-grade fords and low-water bridges generally have the least
potential for impeding ow and sediment transport through a crossing.

On broad ood plains, road approaches must ramp up to a high-prole

bridge or large culvert, damming the ood plain to some degree. Unless
drainage through the roadll is provided for, the roadll obstructs the
downstream transport of water, wood, and sediment across the ood plain
during large oods, reducing the erosional and depositional processes
that create diverse ood plain habitats. Road approaches to low-water
crossings can be low across the ood plain and generally dip down toward
the stream, minimizing any impairment of ood plain processes.

17
Low-Water Crossings

Adaptability Simple low-water crossings like unvented fords are useful in naturally
unstable channels such as alluvial fans and braided streams, or in channels
with extreme ow variations. Because they obstruct ows less than most
culverts, they are less likely to cause ow diversions or accelerations both
of which can exacerbate a channels inherent tendency toward instability.
They can also be inexpensive to reconstruct in a new location if the
channel does move.

Stormproong At ordinary culvert crossings, streamow can back up when the culvert
plugs or when its capacity is exceeded during a ood. If this happens
where the road surface or ditch slopes away from the crossing, water
can run down the road or ditch before breaking over the roadll, and it
can cause major erosion on receiving slopes and channels (Flanagan and
Furniss 1997). Because fords are shaped as dips in the road prole, water
is likely to stay in the channel rather than diverting down the road or ditch.
Well-designed overtoppable structures avoid the roadll failures that occur
during large oods when deep roadlls over culverts are breached. The
types of structures appropriate for these incised channel locations are,
however, limited (case study 16).

For the same reasons, low-water crossings are very useful in watersheds
that have experienced severe disturbances and where substantial
mobilization of rock and woody debris is expected.

Other Possible
Functions Like other crossing structure types, low-water crossings can be designed
to do the following:

Enable passage of aquatic organisms.

Protect endemic species from invasive competitors.
Provide a grade control in an incised stream system for protection or
restoration of upstream reaches.
Many low-water crossings and culverts create passage problems for
aquatic organisms. For this reason, the current trend is designing both
culverts and low-water crossings to provide passage for as many of the
local species as possible (section 4.3).

Conversely, the survival of a native population may depend on preventing

an exotic species from invading new habitats. Although exclusion was
usually an unintentional effect of existing road crossings, crossings can be
designed as barriers. This choice, however, requires careful consideration

18
 Chapter 1Introduction
(Fausch et al 2006). Exclusion can also prevent nontarget species from
accessing their habitats, possibly putting their populations at risk over the
long term.

Like culverts, low-water crossings can function as grade-control structures

in situations where a headcut is moving upstream. In these situations, it
may be necessary to provide alternative passage for aquatic organisms.
For more information on headcuts and channel degradation, see Castro
(2003). Case study 15 is a good example of a vented ford with a sh
ladder used as a grade control.

The following list summarizes the general advantages and disadvantages

of low-water crossings. Individual structures may or may not exhibit these
characteristics depending on how well they are designed to t their sites.

Advantages of low-water crossings are as follows:

Structures designed for overtopping.

Less likely than culverts to be damaged by debris or vegetation
plugging.
Typically less expensive structures than large culverts or bridges.
Less susceptible than other structures to failing during ows higher
than the design ow.
Good for stormproong roads where large amounts of sediment and
debris are expected, like after a large storm event or forest re.

Disadvantages of low-water crossings are as follows:

Have periodic or occasional trafc delays during high-ow periods.

Are not well-suited to deeply incised drainages.
Are typically not desirable for high use or high-speed roads.
Can be difcult to design for aquatic organism passage.
Can be dangerous to trafc during high-ow periods.
Can be dangerous to boaters and other recreational users.

19