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