Checklist of Montana Vascular Plants - Montana Natural Heritage
Natural Channel Design Review Checklist
Transcript of Natural Channel Design Review Checklist
Natural Channel Design Review ChecklistChecklist
Does the project have clear goals?
Was the restoration potential based on the assessment data provided?
2.1 Goals and Restoration Potential2.0 Preliminary Design
assessment data provided?
I th d i it i t ti f
Was a restoration strategy developed and explained based on the restoration potential?
2.2 Design Criteria
Were design criteria provided and explained?
2.3 Conceptual Design
Is the design criteria representative of reference reaches within the project area or of the same valley type, geology, and land use?
Was the conceptual channel alignment provided and developed within the design criteria?
Were typical drawings of in-stream structures provided and their use and location explained?
Were typical bankfull cross sections provided and developed within the design criteria?
criteria?
Richard StarrUSFWS Overall Conceptual Design Comment(s)
Was a draft planting plan provided?
N d f R i Ch kli tNeed for a Review Checklist
• Stream restoration
PROBLEMS
design complexity
• Many different design th d l imethodologies
• Inconsistency in design deliverablesdeliverables
• Communication difficulties
• Many failed projects
N d f R i Ch kli tNeed for a Review Checklist
• Outlined critical
SOLUTION
design steps established
D fi d d i• Defined design expectations
• ImprovedImproved communication
• Increased successful jprojects
• NCD Methodology
Checklist Components• Watershed and
Geomorphic Assessment• Watershed assessment
• Final Design• Natural channel design
• Sediment transportWatershed assessment
• Basemapping
• Geomorphic assessment
B kf ll ifi ti
Sed e a spo
• In‐stream structures
• Vegetation design
M i d• Bankfull verification
• Preliminary Design• Goals and restoration
• Maintenance and Monitoring Plans
• Overall Design ReviewGoals and restoration potential
• Design criteria
• Conceptual design
• Overall Design Review
• Site Visit• Conceptual design
What is Not in the Checklist• Additional design• Additional design
deliverables
• Permitting
• Erosion and sediment plans
• Flood studies• Flood studies
• Biological and physiochemical processesp y p
• Construction methods
• Not a “how to” design document
• Not a text book
W t h d A tWatershed AssessmentWas the watershed assessment methodology gy
described?
Watershed AssessmentW th j t d i id d?Was the project drainage area provided?
Comparison of Various Coastal Plain Regional Curves
1000.0
10000.0
10.0
100.0
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
Georgia Coastal Plain
1.00.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (mi2)
Western Florida Panhandle Coastal Plain
North Carolina Coastal Plain
Maryland Coastal Plain
Watershed Assessment
Was the percent impervious cover for the watershed provided?
Urban Watershed
Rural Watershed
W h d AWatershed AssessmentWas the current land use described along g
with future conditions?
Watershed Assessment
Were watershed hydrology calculations performed?
Mitchell River Stage Data
3 33.5
2.32.52.72.93.13.3
Stag
e (ft
)
1.51.71.92.1
30-Apr 10-May 20-May 30-May 9-Jun 19-Jun 29-Jun 9-Jul 19-Jul 29-Jul
Date
Base MappingDoes the project include base mapping?
Geomorphic Assessment
Was the geomorphic assessment methodology described?
Select a Representative or Typical Bank Condition for Prediction
Measure Bank Height
(A)
Root Depth
(A)
Measure
Bankfull
Height (B)
Measure Root Depth
(C)
Measure Root Density (D)
A/B C/A D*(C/A)Measure Bank Angle
Measure Surface Protectio
Adjust Index for Bank Materials
Adjust Index for Stratification
Obtain a Total Score
Depth (C)
Bankfull
Stu
dy B
ank
Hei
ght
(A)
Surface Protection
Bank Angle
Bankfull Height (B)
n
Start of BankRosgen 2006
G hi A tGeomorphic Assessment
Were vertical and lateral stability analyses
completed?
100
90
95
8535 40 45 50
2004 2005
Geomorphic AssessmentW it h h th th i t bilitWas it shown whether the instability was
localized or system‐wide?
Geomorphic AssessmentWas the cause and effect relationship of
the instability identified?y
Geomorphic Assessment
Was the channel evolution predicted?evolution predicted?
Geomorphic AssessmentWere constraints that would inhibitWere constraints that would inhibit
restoration identified?
Hydraulic Assessment
Was a hydraulic assessment completed?completed?
288
290
Chalybeate Springs Plan: Flow Range 2/1/2007
Legend
WS PF 1
Chalybeate Reach 1
284
286
288
Elev
atio
n (ft
)
Ground
LOB
ROB
upstream
0 100 200 300 400 500 600280
282
Main Channel Distance (ft)
sampling X-SEC
X-SEC
Hydraulic Assessment
Was stream velocity, shear stress, and stream power shown in relation to stage and discharge?
Bankfull Verification
• Was bankfull verification analysis completed?
• Were USGS gauges or regional curves used to validate bankfull discharge?
North Carolina Piedmont Regional CurveMaryland Piedmont Regional Curvewith Benbow Park Data
100
1000
Are
a (ft
2 )
XS-Area (ft2) = 17.418x0.7316
R2 = 0 9461
Qbkf (cfs) = 84.564x0.7581
R2 = 0.9295
1000
10000
y g
y = 21.43x0.68
R2 = 0 95
y = 59.88x0.65
R2 = 0.9710
Ban
kful
l Cro
ss-S
ectio
nal A
Depth (ft) = 1.1784x0.3428
2
Width (ft) = 14.78x0.3887
R2 = 0.8325
R 0.9461
10
100
Ban
kful
l Cha
ract
eris
tics
R 0.951
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Drainage Area (mi 2 )
Urban Data Rural Data Benbow ParkPower (Rural Data) Urban Regression
R2 = 0.8844
11 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (mi2)
Bankfull VerificationBankfull VerificationIf gauges or regional curves were not available were other methods such asavailable, were other methods, such as hydrology and hydraulic models used?
940
PUZZLE CREEK RESTORATION Plan: TRIAL-UT 11/27/2006
Legend
EG PF 3
WS PF 3
Crit PF 3
Ground
UT Reach 1
900
920
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)
LOB
ROB
PUZZLE CREEK RESTORATION Plan: TRIAL-UT 11/27/2006
.06 .05 .05
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
880
Main Channel Distance (ft)
926
928
930
932
934
936
leva
tion
(ft)
Legend
EG PF 3
WS PF 3
Ground
Bank Sta
50 100 150 200 250920
922
924
926
Station (ft)
E
INTERMISSION
Goals and Restoration Potential
• Does the project have clear goals?
W th t ti t ti l b d• Was the restoration potential based on the assessment data provided?
• Was a restoration strategy developed and explained based on the restorationand explained based on the restoration potential?
D i C i iDesign CriteriaWere design criteria provided and explained?Were design criteria provided and explained?
Design Criteria
Common
Reference Reach Ratios
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX
Criteria Stream Type (Rosgen) C/E 4 B4
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 3.5 5.0 4.0 6.0
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 5.0 12.0 12.0 18.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4Is the design criteria representative of reference reaches
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 7.0 12.0 N/a N/a
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 1.2 2.0 N/a N/a
M d Width R ti Wblt/Wbkf 2 0 8 0 N/ N/within the project area or of the same valley type geology
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 2.0 8.0 N/a N/a
Sinuosity, K 1.20 1.60 1.1 1.2
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0150 0.020 0.030
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.5 2.0 1.1 2.5valley type, geology, and land use?
Run Slope Ratio, Srun/Srif 0.50 0.80 N/a N/a
Glide Slope Ratio, Sglide/Schan 0.30 0.50 0.3 0.5
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.20 0.0 0.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2 0 3 5 2 0 3 5Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.5
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.5 7.0 1.5 5.0
Conceptual DesignWas the concept channel alignment provided andWas the concept channel alignment provided and
developed within the design criteria?
Conceptual DesignWere typical bankfull cross sections provided andWere typical bankfull cross sections provided and
developed within the design criteria?
C l D iConceptual DesignWere typical drawings of in‐stream structures provided and their use and location explained?
Conceptual Design
Was a draft planting plan provided?Was a draft planting plan provided?
Natural Channel DesignWas a proposed channel alignment provided andWas a proposed channel alignment provided and
developed within the design criteria?
Natural Channel DesignWere proposed channel dimensions provided andWere proposed channel dimensions provided and
developed within the design criteria?
Natural Channel DesignDo the proposed channel dimensions show the
adjacent floodplain or flood prone area?
N l Ch l D iNatural Channel DesignWas a proposed channel profile provided andWas a proposed channel profile provided and
developed within the design criteria.
Kraft Reach Profile
100
102
94
96
98
100
atio
n (F
T)
NaturalDesign
88
90
92Elev
a Design
860 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Feet
Sediment Transport
• Was sediment transport analysis required? If required, was the type of sediment transport analysis explained?
• Were existing versus design relationships of shear stress, velocity, and stream power versus stage or discharge provided?
• Did sediment transport capacity analyses show that the stream bed would not aggrade or ggdegrade over time?
S di TSediment TransportDid sediment transport competency analysisDid sediment transport competency analysis show what particle sizes would be transported
with a bankfull discharge?with a bankfull discharge?
S di TSediment TransportFor gravel/cobble bed streams does theFor gravel/cobble bed streams, does the
proposed design move particles that are larger than the D100 of the stream bed?than the D100 of the stream bed?
Comparision of Pavement Particle Distribution 2003 and 2004
Riffle Location 10+45Riffle Location 10+45
80
100
t
Pavement 2003
Pavement 2004
0
20
40
60
Perc
ent
00.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm) Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder
In‐stream Structures
Were in‐stream structures required?q
In‐stream StructuresIf i d th f th i l tiIf required, was the reason for their location
and use explained?
I t St tIn‐stream StructuresWas the relationship between the type of in‐stream structure p yp
used and its role in providing stability explained?
ROCK/LOG VANE/
Profile View
Plan View
I SIn‐stream StructuresWere detail drawings provided for each in‐stream structure?
N l Ch l D iNatural Channel DesignS ec tio n 5 : Eros ion a nd S edim ent Con tro l
A. DESCR IPTION
Were specifications provided and
1. E ro s ion a nd S e dim e nt Co ntrol shall b e pe rform ed in accord an ce with th e 20 03 D istr ict of Co lum b ia S tan dards an d S pe c if icatio ns fo r S oil E ro s ion a nd S e dim e nt C on trol, as pu blishe d by De pa rtm e nt o f H ea lth, En viron m e ntal H ea lth Ad m inis tra tio n, B urea u of E nv iro nm en ta l Q ua lity , W a ters h ed P rotec tion D iv is io n.
2. E ro s ion a nd S e dim e nt Co ntrol will c on sis t of th e ins talla tio n, m ain tena nc e, an d re m o va l o f a ll s e dim e nt co ntrol de vic es s ho wn in th e C ons tru c tio n S pe cif icatio ns a nd P lan s, e xc lud ing th e tem p orary s trea m diversio n, an d ad dit ion al E ro s ion a nd S ed im en t Co ntro l m ea su re s re qu ire d b y the P rojec t In spe ctor or the Dis tric t S ed im en t Co ntro l In sp ec tor.provided and
explained for in‐stream structures
S ed im en t Co ntro l In sp ec tor.
3. Th e C ontrac tor sha ll inspec t an d m a intain ( re pa ir) a ll e ro sio n a nd s ed im en t con tro ls da ily to e nsure tha t the co ntro ls a re fu nc tio nin g prop er ly.
4. A ll of th e wo rk sha ll b e pe rform e d as ind ica ted in th e Co ns tru ctio n P lan s an d S pe c if icat io ns , o r as spec if ied b y th e P ro jec t Insp ec tor. Co ns tru ction sh all no t b eg in un til a ll E ros ion an d S ed im en t C on trol fac ilit ies have b ee n ins talle d an d a pproved by the P roje ct Inspe cto r.
5. Th e C ontrac tor sha ll stay with in the lim its o f d is tu rb an ce (LO D ) show n o n the C on struc tio n P lan s , a nd m in im ize dis turba nce w ith in the w ork ing a re a wh erev er
ib lstream structures and erosion control
measures?
po ssib le.
6. I t is th e respo ns ibility o f the Co ntra c to r to prev en t a ny m ud a nd su rface d eb ris accum ulatio n be yo nd th e lim it o f d istu rb an ce , a nd is re sp on sib le for d aily c le an u p.
7. A ll per im e te r con trols and eros ion an d se dim e nt co ntrol struc ture s a nd d ev ice s sh all be m ain taine d throug h out the life of the p ro jec t, confo rm in g to the d etaile d seq ue nc e of con struc tio n, or a s d irec ted by th e P ro jec t In sp ec tor o r the D is tr ict S ed im en t C on trol Inspe c to r.
8. Lo ad P ro te ctio n M ats are not inc lud ed in this item . measures?B . MATER IALS 1. Te m po ra ry se ed ing sh all co nform to th e requ ire m en ts g ive n for “Tem porary S e ed in g ”
(S e c tio n 2 3).
C . MEASUR EMENT AND PAYMEN T 1. Th is item w ill n ot be m ea su re d bu t w ill b e p aid fo r at th e C on trac t lu m p s um p rice for
E ro s ion a nd S e dim e nt Co ntrol pe r ea ch P roj ec t A rea. The lu m p sum p rice sha ll b e full c om p en sa t io n for th e ins talla tio n, m ain ten ance , a nd rem o va l of all se dim e nt con trol d ev ice s a s in dicated in th e C on struc tio n S pe c ificatio ns an d P lans or a scon trol d ev ice s a s in dicated in th e C on struc tio n S pe c ificatio ns an d P lans , or a s re qu ire d b y the P roje ct In sp ec tor or th e Dis tric t S e dim e nt Co ntrol In spe ctor , exc lud in g th e “Te m p orary S trea m D ivers ion ” (S e ctio n 7) . A ll labo r, too ls, eq uipm en t, an d in cid en ta ls in clu din g tem p orary see ding ne ce ss a ry to co m ple te th e w ork are inc lud ed in the lu m p sum p rice pe r e ach P ro jec t A rea .
2. A Co nting e ncy item for Silt Fen ce is in clu de d on th e bid ite m iza tio n. S ilt Fe nc e sho wn o n the Co ns tru ction P la ns shall b e inc lud ed in th e lum p su m pr ice fo r E ro s io n
V t ti D iVegetation Design• Was a vegetation design provided?
• Does the design address the use of permanent vegetation for long term stability?
ASSURANCES
Maintenance Plan
Was a maintenance plan provided?
M i t PlMaintenance Plan
Does it clearly state when maintenance will beDoes it clearly state when maintenance will be required and if so, is it quantifiable?
M i t PlMaintenance PlanDoes it clearly state how erosion will be
addressed and by whom?
M i i PlMonitoring Plan
• Was a monitoring plan provided?
• Does it have measurable quantifiable• Does it have measurable, quantifiable performance standards?
D it h l l d fi d th h ld f• Does it have clearly defined thresholds of success and failure?
M it i PlMonitoring Plan• Is monitoring required for at least 3 years?g q y
• Does it state who is required to conduct the monitoring?monitoring?
O ll D i R iOverall Design Review
• Does the design address the project objectives?objectives?
• Is there any component of the design that adversely affects the success of the project?adversely affects the success of the project?
G hi AGeomorphic Assessment
Was the geomorphic assessment
Stream: 41 94SD Total Score:RRS KDR Data: KR Q A/Q C:O bserver(s):HICKEY RUN
methodology described?
Bank Height / Bankfull Height Ratio
Root Depth / Bank Height Ratio
Weighted Root Density
Bank Angle
Bank Angle91-1198.0-9.0
ValueIndex
61-80
Root Depth / Bank Height
0.14-0.058.0-9.0
0.89-0.501.00-0.901.0-1.9 4.0-5.92.0-3.9
1.00-1.10 1.11-1.19 1.20-1.50 1.60-2.00 2.10-2.80 >2.80
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
5.82 Bank Height / Bankfull Height
ValueBank Height
Erodibil ity Variables
Bankfull Height
Bank Height
Extreme
Index
Value10.98
Root Depth Bank Erosion Potental
0.53
Erod
ibili
ty V
aria
bles
High
High
0.17
Bank Erosion Potental
Very High
Notes
Value
Index
8.12
Bank Erosion PotentalIndexValue
75.00
5.82
Root Depth / Bank Height
1.00
Bank Angle ( o )
Root Density (%)
3/17/2003
0.17 7.60
6.2182.00
10.00Bank Erosion Potental Notes
Notes
Surface Protection
Adjustments
Index14-10
8.0-9.0
HR - 3Stream:Reach:Location:Date:
XS - 6
12.89
Index
2.0-3.9
2.0-3.979-55Value
1.0-1.9Weighted Root
Density
Notes:Comments:
41.94
Very HighLeft Bank - Took BF from cross-section, side of rod flush with rebar cap closest to bank
SDGPS Coordinates: LM:38˚ 91' 29.8" / 76˚ 96' 56.3" +/-14' RM:38˚ 91' 27.8" / 76˚ 96' 58.9" +/-13'
Total Score:
Notes
79-55 54-30
1.0-1.9Value 0.49-0.30
4.0-5.92.0-3.9
ValueIndex
21-60
Index
100-80
1.0-1.9100-80 54-30
4.0-5.9<1010
6.0-7.929-15
29-15
10<0.05
10<5
6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0
14-5
0.29-0.156.0-7.9
RRS, KDR Data: KR Q A/Q C:O bserver(s):
Bank Erosion Potential
Index
HICKEY RUN
>11981-906.0-7.9
0-204.0-5.9
108.0-9.04.0-5.9 6.0-7.9
1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 10
100
Surface Protection
Bank Materials
Bank Stratification
Vertical Height
(0.51)0.00
(1.13)
High
(1.48)
TO TAL SCORE
SL BRKSL BRK
41.94
10.00
G TPIN(0.68)
6.21
Surface Protection (%)
5.00
8 .00
(0.51)
Bank Profi leHorizontal
Distance
(2.40)
1.201.201.20
Notes
Adjustment
Index
Bank
Mat
eria
l
Notes0.00
Adjustment
0.00
NotesBank Erosion Potental
Extreme
Add 5-10 points depending on posit ion of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage.
Bedrock banks have a very low erosion potential.
Stratification
AdjustmentsBedrockBoulders
Notes
TTPING TPIN
Silt / Clay No adjustment.
Cobble Substract 10 points. No adjustment if sand/gravel compose greater than 50% of bank.
Sand/Silt/Clay LoamGravel Add 5-10 points depending on percentage of bank material composed of sand.Sand Add 10 points.
Boulder banks have a low erosion potential.
Add 5 points.
4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Bank Profile 90
95
1.00
2.913.253.80
Vertical Height
(0.5 )
(2.40)2.00
5.24
0.73
Notes
BankfullHorizontal
Distance
0.73
3.533.59
3.96
2.50
4.103.20
5.645.82
4.13
2.001.50
. 02.352.76
SL BRK
G NSL BRKSL BRKSL BRKSL BRKSL BRK
TOE BANK
UNDERCUT SL BRK
(1.50)(1.00)(0.50)0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
(4.00)(2.00)0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
Bank Profile Bankfull
8535 40 45 50
2004 2005