The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10.02 Soil Management PlanSPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD - PHASE 1 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN October 23, 2009 PREPARED FOR: Spring Valley Holding, LLC. 4000 County Road 115 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 PREPARED BY: Gamba & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors 113 Ninth Street — Suite 214 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: (970) 945-2550 Fax: (970) 945-1410 r - i +...IF -7,5-01/ t ttttt 11111ttt Michael Gamba, P.E. & P.L.S. 28036 INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION This report was prepared to meet the requirements of the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Preliminary Plan Resolution 2008-56, regarding the requirement that a Soil Management Plan be included with any final plat application. This report also is intended to comply with Section 5-501.E.4.g for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. AREAS OF PRINCIPAL CONCERN FOR SOIL MANAGEMENT The areas of Phase 1 which will require soil management are the areas which experience construction activities. More specifically these areas are limited to the proposed new road between the tracts titles OSR Parcel A and OSR parcel B. SOIL MANAGEMENT METHODS Prior to construction, and within the maximum and minimum time limits established by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) for the filing of a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), a formal SWMP will be submitted. A SWMP exists for some repair work done last year to re -grade and repair the existing ranch roads within Spring Valley Ranch property. The permitted SWMP was approved for Niebur Golf, for the project entitled Ranch Access Roads Re -grading. Following is an outline of the SWMP amendment that will be submitted to the CDPHE-WQCD prior to commencement of construction activities: 1. Site Description a. The construction activity will be both on the Spring Valley Ranch property, and on the adjacent County Road (C.R.) 115. The primary areas with significant potential for impacts on soil management will consist of the deep and shallow utility placement, and road grading. b. Major construction activities relative to Phase 1 of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. are currently expected to follow this sequence: i. Staging & Mobilization ii. Construction of Vehicle Fueling site storage containment berms. This will only apply if on-site fuel storage is used. iii. Construction of Portable Toilet facilities containment berms. iv. The only entrance for construction equipment will require a washed rock treatment area to reduce off-site tracking of soil. The entrance is near the intersection of County Road 115 (aka Red Canyon Road) and County Road 114 (aka CMC road), (Latitude 39° 29' 26" N; Longitude 107° 13' 12" W). The rock tracking areas should be a minimum of 24 -ft. wide, and 200 -ft. long, with at least 1 -ft. of screened rock (11/2 -inch preferable). This area must be maintained and replaced when soils begin to fill the voids in the screened rock, and the off-site tracking of materials begins to occur. v. Placement of Silt and Erosion Control Structures at all drainage and stormwater outlets. vi. Placement of protective fencing around all wetlands. Note: For this phase of construction there are no mapped wetlands within 400 -feet of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD — Soil Management Plan October 23, 2009 Page 2 of 5 proposed construction activities, and those wetlands that are within the closest proximity to the construction activities are located up -gradient from the construction activities. Therefore, for this phase of construction there is not necessity to place protective fencing around the wetlands. vii. Road grading and re -grading operations and concurrent construction of shallow and deep utilities. viii. Placement of Silt and Erosion Control Structures at the outlets of all Water Diversion Devices. These may be constructed concurrently with the construction of the Water Diversion Devices. ix. Revegetation shall be required in accordance with the Revegetation Specifications attached. c. The total area of the site is shown on the final plat. The total area of disturbance is estimated to be approximately 1.72 -Acres. d. The pre -developed runoff coefficient has been estimated as 0.35. e. The existing vegetation on the site is variable, based on the existing ground slope and the degree of previous ranch work. Large areas exist of relatively undisturbed gambrel oak, sagebrush, serviceberry, pifion pine, juniper, and native grasses, as well as areas that have been extensively farmed for hay/dryland wheat, in the past. The entire site continues to be grazed by cattle, as in the past. Agricultural areas have been identified on the maps. The total percentage of ground cover is estimated at 75% to 85%. f. The only anticipated potential pollution sources will be the vehicle fueling facilities and the portable sanitary toilet(s). The contractor will be required to construct separate containment berms for the portable toilet(s), and any materials that might produce any sort of material runoff. The minimum volume contained within the berms shall be equal to, or greater than, the total volume of any holding tank or other material containment(s) within the berm, plus a 1 -foot freeboard. g. There is not anticipated to be any disruption to the flow of existing springs or irrigation features. The location of all known water sources on the site are shown on the map. The locations of any wetlands present are identified on the final construction plans. h. The name of the receiving waters for the area that is subject to disturbance is the Roaring Fork River. All flows from this site will follow natural existing drainages. Principal drainages are depicted on the final construction plans. 2. Final Construction Plans • The final construction plans depict the general construction boundaries within Phase 1, including the waterline and sewer line extensions, and stormwater infrastructure extensions as shown on the construction plans. • The areas of soil disturbance are limited to the shallow and deep utility work, and road grading areas. The total area equals approximately 1.72 Acres. • There are numerous areas of cut and/or fill. These are shown on the plans. • There are no defined areas for the storage of fuel. It is anticipated that re -fueling will be accomplished by bringing fuel to the equipment on the roads, with fuel trucks. Placement of portable sanitation stations is anticipated to follow the road work, and must be accompanied by construction of containment berms. • There will not be any areas needed for dedicated asphalt or concrete batch plants. Spring Valley Ranch PUD — Soil Management Plan October 23, 2009 Page 3 of 5 • The location of erosion control facilities such as water turn -outs, broad-based dips, cross -drain culverts and water bars if necessary will be established in accordance with the attached document titled, Water Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains, prepared by the U.S. Forest Service. • The location of all known springs, streams and other surface waters are shown on the final construction plans. Wetland areas have been mapped and any present are so identified on the final construction plans. • The overall site contemplated for road grading activities is a hill side, well outside the known 100 -year flood plain boundary of the Roaring Fork River, the closest body of water for which such information is available at this time. 3. BMPs for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Anticipated sequence of construction: Road grading activities will be coordinated with placement of Water Diversion Devices. All Water Diversion Devices shall be constructed along the road alignment in accordance with the attached document titled, Water Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains, prepared by the U.S. Forest Service. All Water Diversion Devices will be equipped with silt mitigation devices consisting of Silt Fences, Rock & Fabric Silt Barriers or Hay -Bale Dikes in accordance with the details provided on the final construction plans. A screened -rock "tracking -reduction" area will be constructed at the entrance to the site, consisting of an 8 -inch thick layer of 1 1/2 -inch screened rock layer. The area shall be 24 -ft. wide by 200 -ft. long. County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road), which provides access to the project entrance, is paved with a chip & seal surface. Off-site tracking of dirt will be dealt with by sweeping any tracked material off of the County Road. Portable sanitary facilities will be placed within berms at locations convenient to the crews working the site. On-site storage of any road base will be in areas not subject to major flooding, and shall be surrounded as applicable with silt fences. The contractor shall be responsible for providing absorptive and other cleanup materials onsite, which shall be readily accessible to promptly deal with any fuel or other spill that should occur on the site, in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local laws. Any earth contaminated with any such material shall be removed from the site and disposed of in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local laws. 4. Final Stabilization and Long-term Stormwater Management Any vegetated areas disturbed during construction, will be revegetated with native drought - tolerant grasses similar to the indigenous species found on the property in accordance with the Erosion Control, Stabilization and Revegetation specifications attached. 5. Other Controls Because of the limited nature of the work proposed, it is not anticipated that any "Other Controls" will be required. Spring Valley Ranch PUD — Soil Management Plan October 23, 2009 Page 4 of 5 6. Inspection and Maintenance The contractor shall be required to inspect all silt fences, rock and mesh filters, and all other erosion control features at least every 14 -days. In addition, all features shall be inspected after any period of snowmelt or precipitation event that causes any sign of surface erosion. Any deficiencies or damage to the features shall be repaired. Personnel familiar with the intent and language of the SWMP and the associated SWMP map shall perform this work. Any problem areas, or leaks, breaks or deficiencies in the BMPs shall be reported to the Contractor's manager as well as the Engineer. Records shall be kept by the contractor of all repairs or problems, including any spills, leaks or overflows of any fuel, sanitary waste, solid waste, or chemical of any description. Records shall show the time and date of the problem as well as the weather conditions at the time of the problem. Spring Valley Ranch PUD — Soil Management Plan October 23, 2009 Page 5 of 5 EROSION CONTROL, STABILIZATION AND REVEGETATION 1. SCOPE The work consists of the construction of erosion control, stabilization and revegetation appurtenances and the performance of best management practices before, during and after construction of the development project to prevent damage to other resources by sediment from soil erosion and to return the constructed cut/fill slopes to an aesthetically pleasing, natural and native condition. The work includes the furnishing of all labor, equipment, materials, excavation, installation of materials and site clean-up. 2. MATERIALS The type and estimated quantities of materials to be used in the work shall be indicated on the design drawings and/or described within these specifications. The following specifications shall apply for planting materials proposed for the Project: The following plants and planting recommendations shall be used as a guideline for the restoration of disturbed lands or the revegetation of developed lands. If the specific plant materials are not available, the plant species may be substituted with currently available planting materials that resemble the unavailable or native species under the direction of the Engineer. DRYLAND - Non -irrigated Common name Western Wheatgrass Thickspike Wheatgrass Streambank Wheatgrass Slender Wheatgrass Pubescent Wheatgrass Canby Bluegrass Green Needlegrass Indian Ricegrass DRYLAND - Irrigated Common name Tall Fescue (Turf Type) Basin Wildrye Kentucky Bluegrass STREAMBANK Common name Muttongrass Bluejoint Reedgrass Western Wheatgrass Bunchgrass Rushes Genus/species Rate Agropyron smithii Agropyron dasystachym Agropyron riparium Agropyron trachycaulum Agropyron trichophorum Poa canbyi Stipa viridula Oryzopsis hymenoides Genus/species Festuca arundinacea Elymus cinereus Poa Pratensis Genus/species Poa fendleriana Calamagrostis canadensis Agropyron smithii Sporobolus airoides Juncus balticus 8 lbs./Acre 6 lbs./Acre 6 lbs./Acre 6 lbs./Acre 4 lbs./Acre 3 lbs./Acre 5 lbs./Acre 3 lbs./Acre Rate 3 lbs./1,000 SF 1 Ib./1,000 SF 1 Ib./1,000 SF Rate 3 lbs./Acre 2 lbs./Acre 2 lbs./Acre 2 lbs./Acre 1 Ib./Acre WETLANDS Rushes Juncus balticus 3 lbs./Acre Scirpus americanus 3 lbs./Acre Sedge Carex, spp 3 lbs./Acre Spikesedge Eleocharis macrostachya 2 lbs./Acre Cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium 2 lbs./Acre Marsh Marigold Caltha leptosepala .5 lbs./Acre Lousewort Pedicularis groenlandica .5 Ib./Acre Rate refers to Pure Live Seed (PLS) and corresponds to USDA -SCS recommendations, Colorado Agronomy Note No. 61, March 16, 1981. 3. CERTIFICATION BY MANUFACTURER When requested by the Engineer, the Contractor shall furnish certification by the manufacturer(s) of the erosion control materials to be furnished on this project, certifying that they comply with the goals of the project and applicable specifications. All seed tags and containers shall be delivered to the Engineer upon request and planting material identification labels shall remain legible and attached to the individual plant until the Engineer authorizes removal. 4. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL During construction activities, efforts shall be made to minimize disturbed soil movement by both wind and water. Should wind erosion become an evident problem, a water truck shall be required to maintain a moist condition in the construction area. Existing natural vegetation shall be protected where possible. Straw bales or fabric silt fences shall be installed at critical points where potential water erosion with resultant soil movement off the site exists. The Engineer shall direct placement of temporary erosion control measures on a site specific basis as needed and as phase development of the project occurs. 5. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL Slopes shall be constructed per project drawings and specifications. Erosion control and revegetation procedures shall be implemented according to the angle of repose of the finish grade slope. Existing natural vegetation shall be protected where possible. 6. TOPSOIL Pre -Construction; Prior to any excavation within the project, Contractor shall provide a composite soil sample for each major plant community to an appropriate testing facility for evaluation. The soil evaluation shall consist of the following parameters: 1. Soil Texture 2. Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) 3. Electroconductivity 4. pH 5. Organic Content 6. Nutrient content Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium 7. Micronutrient needs During Construction; All available topsoil within the areas proposed for grading shall be stripped to a depth suitable for reuse (as determined from the pre -construction soil tests) and stockpiled for revegetation. Large, woody plant material shall be removed (grubbed) prior to topsoil stripping to minimize the amount of unsuitable materials in the topsoil, however a lesser amount of these materials is desirable since these materials contain native seed or plant parts (rhizomes, roots and sprigs) that will grow and aid in establishing plant cover. The woody plant material shall be either chipped and spread over the final surface as mulch, or removed from the site and properly disposed. Post -Construction, Revegetation; Prior to the use of the stockpiled topsoil, the Contractor shall collect and provide a composite topsoil sample to an appropriate testing facility for evaluation. The results of the evaluation shall indicate the required soil amendments to bring the topsoil to the acceptable chemical and organic quality desired for the successful establishment and optimum growing media standards for the specific revegetation treatments. The results of the soil evaluation shall be distributed to the Owner and Engineer upon completion of the evaluation. Additional topsoil required to complete the proposed erosion control and revegetation treatments shall be imported, stockpiled, tested and amended as needed to conform to the desired amounts and quality. 7. REVEGETATION PROCEDURE All proposed plantings (trees, shrubs and ornamental plants) shall be installed after topsoil placement and seedbed preparation and prior to seeding of the completed cut/fill slopes. Shrubs shall be spaced 3 to 4 feet apart in a random arrangement or grouping rather than in rows. Planting holes shall be dug perpendicular to the face of the slope and shall be large enough to accept the plant without bending or curling the roots. Remove containers before planting and pack firmly to eliminate air pockets. If soil moisture is deficient, water the plants immediately after transplanting. Protection of the plantings from wildlife foraging shall be accomplished by installing individual or group forage protection/exclusion devices or by the use of boundary electric (two -wire) fencing. Said protection appurtenances and methods shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineer prior to installation. For Repose Angle steeper than 2:1; Scarification shall be required on all slopes designated for topsoil application. Scarify hard surfaces to provide at least 6- inches of loosened material. Scarification operations shall be performed across the slope, not up and down. Where rock outcrops prevent scarification, additional rocks shall be worked into the slope and combined with cluster plantings of shrubs. Topsoil shall be applied at an average depth of six (6) inches (18.6 cubic yards per 1000 square feet). Surfaces shall be smoothed following topsoil application and all rocks (> 6 - inch diameter), debris and unsuitable materials shall be removed. Fertilizer (slow release nitrogen) and soil amendments should be applied in the final stages of seedbed preparation and worked into the soil surface prior to seeding. Application rates shall be determined by the site specific soil tests and/or as specified by the Engineer. Minimum application rates shall be approximately 40 to 80 lbs available Nitrogen and 50 to 100 lbs available P2O5 per acre. (Install Live Plantings) Seed mixtures shall be broadcast seeded by the use of hand held canister seeder or other approved mechanical means using the specified seed mixture and rate. Immediately following seeding, the area shall be raked to assure that the seed is buried to a depth ofV4inch. Seeded areas (Dryland Mix) shall be mulched with an application of Soil Guard, Bonded Fiber Matrix (Weyerhaeuser) by a certified applicator according to manufacturers instructions, utilizing standard hydraulic mulching equipment at a rate of 3,000 pounds per acre. The applicator shall not apply the product in advance of rainfall, such that the bonded fiber matrix has an opportunity to cure for a minimum of 24 hours after installation. For Repose Angle 2:1 or flatter; Scarification shall be required on all slopes designated for topsoil application. Scarify hard surfaces to provide at least 6- inches of loosened material. Scarification operations shall be performed across the slope, not up and down. Where rock outcrops prevent scarification, additional rocks shall be worked into the slope and combined with cluster plantings of shrubs. Surfaces shall be smoothed and topsoil shall be applied at an average depth of six (6) inches (18.6 cubic yards per 1000 square feet). Finished surface shall be smoothed following topsoil application and all rocks (> 6 -inch diameter), debris and unsuitable materials shall be removed. Fertilizer (slow release nitrogen) and soil amendments should be applied in the final stages of seedbed preparation and worked into the soil surface prior to seeding. Application rates shall be determined by the site specific soil tests and/or as specified by the Town of Gypsum. Minimum application rates shall be approximately 40 to 80 lbs available Nitrogen and 50 to 100 lbs available P2O5 per acre. (Install Live Plantings) Seed mixtures shall be broadcast seeded by the use of hand held canister seeder or other approved mechanical means using the specified seed mixture and rate. Immediately following seeding, the area shall be raked to assure that the seed is buried to a depth of % inch. Seeded areas (Dryland Mix) shall be Hydromulched with an application of Silva -Fiber Plus, wood fiber mulch and tackifier or Engineer approved equal, using only designated materials per manufacturers recommendations over the seeded area at a rate of 2000 lbs/acre. Some cut or fill areas may require an alternative treatment once the initial construction practices (Grading) are completed to assure success in erosion control and revegetation. 8. ALTERNATIVE PROTECTION Site excavation may produce slopes which shall not be conducive to the above erosion control and revegetation practices due to rock outcrops or other impervious subsurface materials. In this case, rock aggregate which is aesthetically pleasing to view, Crib Retaining Walls or stacked boulder walls may be substituted for topsoil and planting in limited areas. Revegetation of the rock slopes shall be performed by creating pockets of soil that provide adequate rooting depth. Treatment of bare root plantings with a polyacrylamide slurry to hold the moisture around the roots shall be performed at the direction of the Engineer. 9. MAINTENANCE Successful plant establishment is obtained by the following principles: a. Provide for adequate water control of the area; b. Prepare a seedbed or site that will provide soil stability during plant establishment; c. Use proper planting techniques at the proper season; d. Mulch to protect the soil and provide a better environment for plant growth; e. Fertilize and apply soil amendments as needed; and f. Protection from wildlife (Deer and Elk, etc.) foraging. Artificial irrigation shall be provided and encouraged during the first and subsequent growing seasons, indefinitely, to assure establishment and continued success of the revegetated and planted areas. Apply irrigation water in a fine spray and at a rate that does not cause runoff and erosion. Irrigation system design and details shall be provided within the applicable project drawings and specifications. 10. SUCCESS AND APPROVAL OF REVEGETATION WORK The results of the work of seeding and mulching and other revegetation and landscape work can only be evaluated after a sufficient period of time has elapsed for germination to occur or for live plants to root and become established in the new environment. This period of time is normally a minimum of one growing season and may be as long as two years. The Engineer will evaluate the work after, what is in their best judgement, a reasonable period of vegetation establishment and will approve the work if, in their best judgement, functional success has been achieved. Deficiencies in functional success shall be corrected. 11. MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT Measurement shall be made by totaling the square yards of area revegetated according to the plans and specifications.. The accepted quantities of revegetated area will be paid for at the contract unit price per square yard. All work incidental to the Work of revegetation shall be included in the unit price. The term "accepted quantities" shall mean only those quantities necessary to revegetate the areas disturbed by the construction process as defined in the plans and specifications, and/or authorized and modified by the Engineer in the field. Any additional quantity used in the work which is not in any way authorized, and/or is the result of waste, or disturbing of greater areas than are designed, specified or authorized, shall not be paid for. Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Technology & Development Program 7700—Transportation Systems 2500—Watershed and Air Management September 1998 9877 1806—SDTDC Revised for Internet July 2003 Page 1 of 16 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Ronald L. Copstead, P.E. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station David Kim Johansen, P.E. USDA Forest Service Wilamette National Forest Jeffry Moll, P.E. USDA Forest Service San Dimas Technology and Development Center • Abstract • Acknowledgements • Introduction • What Are Surface Cross Drains • When and Where to Use • What To Consider • Design Criteria • Cross Drain Locations • Typical Materials, Construction, and Maintenance • Literature Cited http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 2 of 16 Abstract Copstead, Ronald L.; Johansen, David Kim; Moll, Jeffry. 1998. Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to surface cross drains. Report 9877 1806—SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program. 15 p. A variety of surface cross drains that are used on forest roads are described, including cross drain dips, waterbars, and open -top culverts. The applicability of different designs is given. Factors to consider when designing surface cross drains for forest roads are discussed, including location, geometry of dips, orientation, and erosion control. Some of the work that has been done to develop guides for cross drain spacing is discussed, and suggestions are made as to how to apply this work. Key words: Forest roads, drainage, cross drains, road erosion Acknowledgements Information for and technical review of this manuscript were provided by the Water/Road Interaction core team including Larry Cronenwett, Bill Elliot, Tom Moore, Richard Sowa, Bill Hartsog, and Dave Gibbons. Many of their comments and suggestions have been incorporated into this report. Introduction One element of the interaction between water and roads in forested areas is the concentration and flow of water on native or aggregate -surfaced roads. Roads with sustained grades have the potential to concentrate runoff to the point where erosion, sedimentation, and unstable slopes cause large changes in the stream habitat quality, stream channel development, surface and groundwater distribution, and, consequently, plant and animal health, and population composition and distribution. Devices and surface shaping techniques designed to direct runoff to the surrounding area in a way that minimizes effects to the watershed are briefly introduced. Existing technology, design criteria, and guides on use for surface cross drainage are also presented. What Are Surface Cross Drains Surface cross drains consist of surface shaping and devices designed to capture water that collects on and drains down the road and to release it in a manner that minimizes effects to adjacent areas and the watershed. Surface shaping includes broad-based (driveable) dips (figure 1), waterbars, and rolls in profile (twist of crown or inslope templates to outslope and back again). Devices include open -top or slotted culverts (figure 2) (Kochenderfer 1995), metal waterbars (figure 3), and rubber water diverters (figure 4) (Gonzales 1998). When and Where to Use For low-volume roads, surface cross drains provide an economical alternative to using ditches and culverts (Cook and Hewlett 1979). Surface cross drains can be designed into any shape of road surface template to divert water collecting on and running down the traveled surface. They may also be used to relieve ditches and the inside edge of insloped roadways without ditches. Ditch dams are used to direct ditch water into the cross drain (figure 5). Surface cross drains should be planned as part of an overall drainage strategy that may include ditch relief culverts. Broad-based dips are used primarily for draining the road surface, and are not usually relied on for draining ditches, although this can be done for small flow quantities. Rolls in profile can often be used on grades too steep for broad-based dips. http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 3 of 16 Waterbars are usually installed as simple erosion -control measures on roads, skid trails, and firelines—especially on roads that have been closed to traffic. Open -top culverts provide road surface drainage for traveled -way surfaces without requiring large -profile shape changes, and also allow minimal localized grade increases on steeper road sections (Kochenderfer 1995). One study of the number and types of distresses associated with broad based dips, relative to drainage using inside ditches with culverts for cross drainage, concluded by proposing a decision making guide for deciding which type of cross drainage to install (Eck and Morgan 1987). The applicability of the proposed guide was limited to the Appalachian region of the United States but probably could be adapted to other locations. In areas of cut slope instability, frost heave slough, or erodible ditches, properly located and constructed surface cross drainage can result in less erosion and disturbance to the surrounding watershed than in sole reliance on insloped roadways with ditches and culverts. In these locations, the surface cross drains can also reduce the need for maintaining the roadway surface accompanied by its associated sediment pulse by reducing ponding and erosion caused by concentrated surface flow. In summary, surface cross drains can provide effective cross drainage, while reducing the risk associated with plugged ditch relief culvert inlets, which can divert water over the road to unplanned or undesirable locations. What To Consider Road surfacing material properties, local climate, road grade, road service level (amount and type of traffic), and road service life are the primary factors affecting the types, applicability, and location of surface cross drains. Surfacing material characteristics affect the ability of dips to retain their shape and the rate of in -filling for any type of cross drain. For example, a rock -surfaced road will result in much less sediment than a soil -surfaced road. A decomposed, granitic soil surface of poorly graded sand and fine gravel will produce more sediment than a cohesive, silty sand surface. Climates with intense rainfall and rain -on -snow events result in higher runoff volumes and create the potential for more erosion and sedimentation than do milder climates. If all else is equal, steeper road grades exhibit greater surface flows and erosion than do lesser grades. Road service level (higher service -level roads are designed for more traffic and for larger or special-purpose vehicles) should be considered when determining surfacing material and dip geometry. High levels of traffic or heavy vehicles require dips that are deeper, longer, and surfaced with higher quality materials. For these situations, the design freeboard (hydraulic depth) of a dip should be about 300 mm (1 ft) (figure 1) (Hafterson 1973). Depths less than this will render the dip ineffective after a short time because ruts will cut through the top of the dip, especially if lower quality materials are used. On the other hand, passage of vehicles such as log trucks, lowboys, and recreational vehicles that are large or that include trailers should also be considered. Vehicle frames can be twisted or "racked" if the orientation angle is not 90 degrees (figure 1). If the dip geometry cannot be designed to satisfy hydraulic requirements and still meet requirements for vehicle passage and safety, then other types of drainage should be planned. Dips are less susceptible than open -top drains to being filled with sediment because they have a larger holding capacity. Most surface cross drains reduce the ability of a road to carry traffic (reduced travel speed and user comfort) relative to insloped roads constructed with ditches and culverts. Dips can result in localized increases in the effective road grade by one and one- half to two times (figure 6). http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains m 2Sm -Bamcinal pp 1 2.7 41 INtla gt`141:111M0 plxc459 l Ildra t c bat= brim pi rim inprO KA 51?talSjl lfl4 *mop chmactapstics Won 300 nim wtrfeslia.tla 1. 04111, or itpo Muspeclloc V9tw MUM] WOE 0.2 900310 Q< Omar onIli*maOm OI reArgi4 GO Mo erd wale hop c li. Trait both Vd®0'1 Vim* 41. Figure 1—Broad based dip typically used on forest roads. Dimensions are shown only for example. Actual designs should be planned after considering local site conditions. 10O 7 HIM .N p -payer mm &mx1 Oa 76 by 2105mn 70 Y fi ',�Yfyl YrlifiS OWL 1,1 Grin" M vivre. fdhd L 441 rbc lal Figure 2—Various open top culvert surface cross drain Page 4 of 16 http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 5 of 16 designs: (a) concrete, (b) pole, (c) wood box, (d) rail culvert, (e) orientation is typically up to 30 degrees from perpinducular to the direction of travel. 450 mm 75 min N. Figure 3—Metal waterbar cross drain design. SurTece Rkihnrr — Sklrting +0— 12 Min 0 f , r — Wisner Timber Lag Sc a —21ld PA AI 75 rim —4r0mrn+FSarf„�I 22s mm svnni o.i Figure 4—Rubber water diverter cross drain design: (a) installation on a crowned road surface, (b) typical design details. http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr_p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Rtt:kilidFch [ho[m 11,1r1 Doth duck lam Figure 5—Ditch dams are used for directing runoff toward surface cross drains. Page 6 of 16 Design Criteria Proper design and location of surface cross drainage are required in order to prevent water concentration, erosion of traveled -way surfaces, erosion of fill slopes, instability of fill slopes, longitudinal rutting, siltation, and ponding (Eck and Morgan 1987). Factors affecting performance of surface cross drains are shown in table 1. Design criteria for successful road surface cross drainage follow from the basic principles of erosion caused by rainfall and the need to meet transportation objectives. The factors controlling this type of erosion are amount and form of precipitation, soil type, topography, and the type and extent of any vegetative cover. For road surfaces, these factors correspond to local climate, road surface material properties, road grade, distance between drains, position on the slope, the location of road cuts and fills, and any vegetative cover present on the road surface. Transportation objectives may include the need to support a variety of traffic types without compromising erosion -control and slope -stability objectives. Table 2 relates the advantages and disadvantages of different types of surface cross drains. Table 1—Factors affecting performance and erosion of surface cross drains. Performance (ability to provide adequate drainage and support expected traffic) • Spacing (i.e., properly locating sufficient cross drains for the expected runoff volume) • Storm intensity (peak runoff) • Erodibility of surfacing material (affects sediment conveyed and ability to keep drain functional) http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 7 of 16 • Traffic volume, type, and weight (consider hardening to increase strength) • Strength of cross drain surfacing material • Drain geometry (freeboard, runout distance, approach grade) Erodibility (consider lining to reduce erodibility) • Soil and surfacing type • Grade and location on slope • Fill height • Frequency of maintenance (affects ponding and drain function) Cross Drain Locations A road design variable that has received substantial attention is the distance between cross drains on continuous, monotonic grades (table 3). Water must be drained before it concentrates in volumes that will cause erosion or unstable hillslopes, but transportation needs may not allow incorporating the undulating or outsloped roadway that would meet these hydraulic requirements. Figures 6 and 7 graph several surface cross drain spacing guidelines. Figure 6 shows relationships between dip spacing, overall road grade, and approach grade resulting in dip geometry that would allow reasonable driving conditions (Hafterson 1973). These relationships define a lower bound on dip spacing based on geometric and traffic considerations. Other published guidelines (figure 7) define upper bounds on the distance between contiguous surface cross drains in terms of soil characteristics and road grade. Many guides used in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service are based on a study, completed between 1958 and 1962, of roads on the Boise National Forest (Packer 1967). Criteria were proposed for the longitudinal flow distance that would limit 83 percent of road surface erosion rills to 25 mm (0.08 ft) or less. This work was based on measurement of 25 topographic and road characteristics for 720 road -segment sites over a 2 -year period. Based on this work, the most important factors influencing erosion of road surfaces were the percentages of water stable soil aggregates in the road surface that were larger than 2 millimeters in diameter and the percentage of road grade (Packer 1967). A widely used guide that has become the basis for most of the regional and local guides used in the Forest Service was written by Packer and Christensen and is based on these measurements (Packer and Christensen 1964). The cross -drain spacing guidance in this pocket -sized publication is presented as a table of maximum distances between cross drains on a continuous grade for each of six soil groups, which are derived from bedrock lithology. Road grade covered by the table ranges from 2 to 14 percent. The user enters known road grades and soil groups into the table. After determining the maximum distance based on the table, adjustments are made, based on the location of the road on the slope, directional aspect, and steepness of the sidehill slope. For example, if a road is on the lower one-third of a 20 percent hill slope with a southern aspect, the guide recommends reducing the distance between cross drains by 25 m (82 ft) from the tabled value. This would result in a cross -drain spacing ranging from 0 to 25 m (0 to 82 ft). http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 8 of 16 Although this guide and the guides derived from it were written with practical field application in mind, they may not be appropriate in locations outside the northern Rocky Mountain region where the supporting data were obtained. Factors that were not included in this work were the infiltration and water -holding capacity of the soil and surfacing materials, the shape and surface angularity of the road surfacing materials, and climatic factors such as total precipitation amounts or snowmelt characteristics, nor were allowances made for vegetative cover, if it existed. Of the factors omitted, the properties of surfacing materials and climatic factors are probably most important because designers usually make the conservative assumption that vegetative cover does not exist on roadway surfaces. The soil group classification used for the Packer and Christensen guide, which apparently considers only parent material bedrock lithology, may not adequately consider local soil erodibility that is dependent on local climatic, physical, chemical, and biological factors. In general, erosion of exposed soil surfaces (including native -surfaced roads) decreases with increasing organic content and cover and clay -size fraction. Erosion also depends on soil texture, moisture content, compaction, pH, and composition or ionic strength of eroding water. Based on field observations of cross -drain spacing applications in seven regions of the Forest Service, no single existing guide encompasses the range of road -surface soils found across all locations. It is common for cross -drain spacings to exceed the maximum recommended in Packer and Christensen's guide (50 meters) (Packer and Christensen 1964) and in other guides based on it, without experiencing appreciable erosion. This may be because road - surfacing material (which is applied in part to protect against surface erosion) may not have been taken into account, or it could be a result of differences in climate, topography, or traffic. In many cases, geometric and physical constraints (e.g., suitability for vehicular traffic and ease of maintenance) require cross -drain spacing greater than the 25 meters calculated for the example above (figure 6). Therefore, Packer and Christensen's guide would preclude the use of road designs employing surface shaping for large percentages (80 to 90 percent) of the combinations of road grades and soil groups listed. Other guides give maximum spacings, which seem to correlate better with what has been used successfully on native -surface roads in areas having erosion -resistant soils or on aggregate -surfaced roads (Swift 1985). Another modification that has typically been made to guides derived from the Packer and Christensen guide is to redefine the spectrum of soil erodibility in terms of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). This modification helps the guide relate easily to information that may be available to the practicing engineer (for example, see Baeder and Christner 1981). This redefinition is based on the idea that soils can be grouped into approximate erodibility classes based on grain size distribution and cohesiveness (Gray and Leiser 1982). Packer and Christensen's soil categories have been converted to this grouping based on soil erodibility, and this grouping is used to recommend maximum surface cross -drain spacing based on the USCS soil types and road gradient (table 4). New cross -drain spacing guidelines using the Water Erosion Prediction Program (WEPP) to model surface erosion from roads have been derived (Morfin et al. 1996). Approximately 50,000 iterations of the WEPP were made for input ranges of local climatic conditions, surfacing material characteristics, maintenance frequency, distance between cross drains, and road grade typical for U.S. national forests. One output of these analyses is the distance that the sediment plume travels from the road. One way that this effort was made usable for field personnel is through a computer-based lookup table (Elliot et al. 1998). It is hoped that this product will serve the dual purposes of facilitating the determination of proper cross -drain spacing and of helping to predict probable sediment yields based on local values for the above http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 9 of 16 factors. The advantage of this computer-based tool is that it is specifically applicable as a cross -drain spacing guide for a wider range of conditions than paper-based guides can be. In all cases, however, suitability of a particular location for broad-based dip design should be reviewed by a soil scientist or geotechnical specialist to evaluate the stability of fill slopes. Preliminary results based on 7,000 of the runs from the above described WEPP modeling effort show recommended distances between cross drains as generally less than the figures shown in table 4, indicating that the table may be conservative (Morfin et al. 1996). Some guides point out that there is no set spacing that should be followed in any specific setting (Schwab 1994). It is pointed out that "frequent cross ditches are optimal," but that the spacing of cross drains should fit the natural drainage requirements of the terrain. Certainly, it should be recognized that cross -drain spacing guides apply only to the surface -erosion aspect of the location of surface cross drains. Where roads occur in areas of highly dissected and variable terrain, greater frequency and more careful assessment may be required for cross - drain locations than would be the case in areas where surface erosion is the predominant concern. Location, geometry, orientation, and erosion -protection considerations for surface cross drains are given in figures 8 through 11. Because of the cost involved in planning, constructing, and maintaining surface cross drains, it is important to locate the cross drains to meet economic and resource objectives, while minimizing the cost of maintaining and repairing forest roads. Further studies are being planned to compare cross -drain locations to the various recommendations and to evaluate what may be needed to adequately protect resources and transportation facilities. Specifications for surface cross drains are usually described by drawings or by written specifications developed by an engineer (USDA FS 1996). 160 100 6$ 0 G = average Travel iipsfreeboard Max Verl. speed accel. road grade - 32 = 300 - 1,5 kph rem' iri's' porcei II ` u I 4 ' _ • ' ,•Y,.,..; rr vign 'PY"f••+"t rJfbl C: 4 .v. ti "" rh••i'r•r k. •I1•P 0 2 4 0 8 10 12 1+1 16 18 20 Aporwcl1 91s:ir•, ;01.::1:1,1 KsnuO1tI Figure 6—Constraints on broad based dip geometry and location as a result of the need to accomodate traffic (Hafterson 1973). Approach grade is the local slope on the uphill side of the bottom of the dip. http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains m i 1 G € 184 110 120 100 80 as 40 x41 a 0 2 a 6 B 1' 0 12 14 6 t1,11 ! 11e9PMten1) Figure 7—Typical maximum distances specified in various published guidelines for locating surface cross drains. These maximum distances are often used for guidance on the location of ditch -relief culverts. L O011 oad•b 4 d d [Swift 1995] Cilefidkriped tutveri (Nau .Sii4o11 1913] W&aeitims (liau55man 19731 5,115 and clays (Rothwell 1978] 5Iy 5antl511aams 1Rcrtlwe4 1918) RixIcy soils. sands. fr4U€#5 Mcirareell 19760 F'7'GRer and CIrrs&en5en 1951 Page 10 of 16 Table 2—Advantages and disadvantages of different types of surface cross drains. Type Advantages Disadvantages Broad based dips • Lower cost' than ditches and culverts • Can disperse water • Can impede some traffic •Erodes and ruts unless armored Drain dips and waterbars • Lowest cost' surface cross drain .Easy to construct • Difficult for some traffic (worse than broad based dips) • Erodes and ruts unless armored with rock Open top culverts • Stays in place • Okay for traffic • Higher cost' 'Lower durability • Requires hand maintenance • Potential for approach problems Slottet metal pipe • Stays in place • Does not impede traffic • Vulnerable to plugging or filling with sediment, debris, or loose surface rock • Requires hand maintenance (flushing) Flexible rubber strip • Stays in place • Does not impede traffic • Low capacity • Erodible unless armored • Low durability, limited life 1 Guidance on cost estimates is included in some published material (Kochenderfer 1995) (Gonzales 1998). Site-specific cost estimate are best prepared, however, in accordance with regional Cost Estimating Guides by experienced estimators familiar with local conditions and construction practices, equipment, material, and la • http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr_p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Irates. Page 11 of 16 Table 3—Range of published surface cross drain spacing recommendations for native soil surfaced roads.' Maximum surface cross drain recommendation (meters) Road grade (percent) 2-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 Haupt 1959 41-76 24-41 18-24 14-18 Haussman 1973 95-150 60-95 35-60 103 Packer 19672 23-51 17-44 11-39 Rothwell 1978 46 31-61 15-46 Swift 1985 67-85 37-67 6-37 1 These guides generally do not specify climate or location, but caution the practitioner to consider the variety of conditions that may be encountered. 2 Includes additional reductions for slope location, side -slope angle, and aspect that typically would need to be applied according to this guide. (See table 4, note 1) Table 4—Guidelines for maximum distance' between contiguous surface cross drains based on USCS soil erodibility groups2. Road Grade Group 1 GW, GP, Aggregate Surfacing Group 2 GM, GC Group 3 CH, CL Group 4 MH' SC, SM Groups 5&6 SW, SP, ML percent meters 2 120 97 75 52 29 4 103 84 65 45 26 6 88 71 55 39 23 8 74 60 47 33 20 10 61 50 39 28 17 12 50 41 32 233 143 14 423 343 263 193 113 1 Distance between cross drains should be reduced according to the following (based on Packer and Christensen 1964): Reduce the distance by: If the road is located: 5 meters in the middle one- third of a slope 11 meters in th ebottom one- third of a slope http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 12 of 16 3 meters on an east or west exposure 6 meters on a south slope If, after applying the above, the resulting distance is less than 20 meters, set the distance between cross drains at 20 meters and apply aggregate surfacing and erosion protection measures, such as vegetative seeding of road, fills, shoulders, ditches, and embankments. J 2 Adapted from the distance recommendations summarized in table 3, and soil erodibility hierarchy suggested by Gray and Leiser. 3 Not recommended for dips because they may require approach grades steeper than 15 percent. Oudard tor Striae ae Kiaaa Duan Lo canon 9 3srfror ara1Yi dram ltrtaK be twain, at Novi dna mood re pries%iie+are arreeaanan tha g amin *encs reiaaenar trfidir skim "'J Meade crani drawn far enough ins do= ooargeb oil robing iaewr wad's Noir Anuli SAM a4 iicb dd. WOO. Ya illiblef wy#UpwI WW1 t neem *Mil MeV lee nal aid blurred Raaf. alma lok VAN* *AM.a' rtrit e4yartia.. 'a 1Marregalail Fowltail oaa.a+l111wgf.M!ndPI * drOporidereddil tot 'ref e ildepdm dro rraa%%r% re rani a a part Poimir Arai meas tea irailf'al b aMrin aariatp.. and to Po rlor 1s nor .liwn c i along Poe meta array beer Is wirer do di. • tom dram ~al re ieueai 1110".0 t+rai.%...radical die Par idiot le'=fepfait tPPomtre brio onille wird ram a}srrty.genal Kraatene Amen as al slow pada • lith w.. 00014. biii#Mra fxtW tot WON b kwfeairrr+r anc.' 'z % ePna a rues ,lai4 Fat rami* raft is! 1 1 Opt Wild OW M POI Mil M Mini dd din mil a rain Winn tont manse an *oran Mend bond WOW lbey may coo* Aerare 4aei.ior wilds Irma ▪ $%e144aapieArealrirfPr01~fwglad,e7Or 10 pawl.raawearthe meenrr++alPedip awombgroft ser wean Lie nnpaad I+ae yre W R9800141 Figure 8—Checklist for location of surface cross drains. Onecnet 4+r Sodom Op c..w....*rr Cana dorm dram be, Ecniudedi ail andinar yank d Ina 4 pool r eddied edging raw ape�yaair*,.Wird clkneey Ode. woe and as treWw-iliq heaN><._ aatYupr wade Wood dri ▪ rr &MOWdid do amid* laa4arn nail be rid rrilbeeden lair a rill EUI **rapt, or d read e awes ilt, lir la wigwag. Morrow varix ba eiiildnti ei afar kr Pre leedr c :i Ire op wa rola Es Wane 8i writ/it Owe t j. • dpi ria simile mist Oro EadIddir bybilddfwrra Odin PPM iieepr alrtlaa yrriea dire roc nrreriirdilleiaeleeM Ce n h If i7rliirebn OM r bin litietoar el lred a hater • Thr Mow vitori nail nose ural. he efrwie bed if raw ktner a Earnat piederf l b en.wf rn rew.ra ilworreeri.. Rreboa t ax1 reeds Odd *di be Mildred no Mat nitro! cul Prot -95 ire tilt of id rlo ,oil grim nedward tvagr myna /*wider. • Ind Awe *arae% On•Ar i.r elpisted according le Odd Vinare rodeo', owl run will *trance Word to eiaeaard f,;r wtaee Ops and Memos whoa Erni wire. cola be twpt, R9800142 Figure 9—Checklist for surface dip geometry. treraiv. ter Orem li ion ei Surface Cant Dram / tartan*, , diu .sl S. 1srpladilaipta aatd ia+fanar. gym; it 4ep.r41.04 *WI el VAC eepetird aide ie it ail kid EMU Pin6 rail'Peru* ani ser rale 1i Mil bald IMO tilt i}ar,[V a awn 1, lean to ipL Bial la erieelei pedarabidoreeiw afM®enaf Wilk. Old eii_r onion*%Ir rot tooereroroda ilionwair *aft AwljoeQ pldrk tr. .rens (award! oerardwi and d 4nq. mood as ,loin down ding iYiei Peon • Oran Omni tar*er4%. end !salsa cci t p ra ^^ill tssa ie41 va a il0 Orn* roan l ra,ed - 1 donna' we [)Broin( used Er Oman dr -treat rel, ..ail rant. and tl.alt I lat annn i Wk. hau ...,irr-...tu ben rub,eir.of ne3pad ... 'butter }ntaVatai%gtaik"el brn'AerwnM.6rdnil mart 3r;rr•et ea toddle sir b rod.. re.tanern R9800143 Figure 10—Checklist for orientation of surface cross drains. http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 13 of 16 Idda, i treed d Oman r SLrlarr Com. ()as* -II crow dorm Ward Wawa** +iwe %oft art isSjVgl dadtie w - did rank +ipPo++ riumv AWN "WOW YMb PW'eG5 u +GM G. ri. $le W }W 5P Red Y 711 Pvmrrt Brown CO rd inn. ;ar+r req tor Via.:woriallard shad be ere x as ami R9800144 Figure 11—Checklist for control of erosion in surface cross drains. Typical Materials, Construction, and Maintenance Waterbars, broad-based dips, and drain dips are excavated into road surface materials. Rock aggregate and grass are often used to stabilize the crest and trough areas (Kochenderfer and Helvey 1987). Adding geotextile material to the construction of dips (figure 1) can substantially improve the stability and drainage characteristics of these installations. Open -topped culverts have been made from a variety of materials, including dimension lumber, small logs, half -metal culverts, railroad rails, concrete, or shaped soil -cement mixtures (Gonzales 1998) (figure 2). Slotted metal pipes can be either steel or aluminum (Kochenderfer 1995). Surface cross drains can be built and maintained with standard construction equipment such as a dozer or grader. A road grader or dozing blade is needed to shape cross -drain dips. Open -topped culverts, slotted metal pipes, and other surface -drain devices require hand labor to replace backfill against the structures or to excavate deposited sediment. Occasionally, pipes need to be replaced, which requires a backhoe to excavate the damaged structure. Care must be taken to avoid building up a soil berm at the outlet of surface cross -drainage structures during maintenance operations. Regular maintenance of surface cross drains is required. As sediment and debris in storm runoff settle in surface cross drains, capacity is quickly reduced. Surface cross drains should be inspected, cleaned, or reshaped to their original capacity after each storm. Routine surface maintenance (primarily blading) can be more time consuming, and thus costly, where reshaping of dips is necessary. This is also true for other types of cross drains where care must be taken not to push surface material into the drain, leave it piled in front of or at the outlet of the drain, or dislodge installed cross -drain structures, such as sheet metal waterbars. Unit Conversions Multiply by To get mm (millimeters) 0.0394 in (inches) cm (centimeters) 0.394 in (inches) m (meters) 39.4 in (inches) m (meters) 3.28 ft (feet) hectares 2.47 ac (acres) m3 (cubic meters) 1.31 yd3 (cubic yards) http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 14 of 16 Literature Cited Baeder, Larry and Jere Christner. 1981. "Revision of the Guide for Spacing Relief Culverts for the Willamette National Forest." Eugene, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Willamette National Forest; 18 p. Cook, Walter L., Jr. and John D. Hewlett. 1979. "The Broad -Based Dip on Piedmont Woods Roads." Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 3(3): 77 81. Eck, Ronald W. and Perry J. Morgan, 1987. "Culverts versus dips in the Appalachian Region: a performance- based Decision -Making Guide." Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Low -Volume Roads; 1987 August 16-20; Ithaca, NY. In: Transportation Research Record. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board; 1106(2): 330-340. Elliot, William J., Susan M. Graves, David E. Hall, and Jeffry E. Moll. 1998. "The X -DRAIN Cross Drain Spacing and Sediment Yield Model." In: Water/Road Interaction Technology Series, rep. no. 9877 1801--SDTDC. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. 23 p. Gonzales, Ralph. 1998. "Cross Drain Update." Publication 9877 1804—SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology Development Center. 14 p. Gray, Donald H. and Andrew T. Leiser. 1982. "Biotechnical Slope protection and erosion control." NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Hafterson, H. D. 1973. "Dip Design." Engineering Field Notes. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service, Engineering Technical Information System; 5(10): 1-18. Haupt, H. F. 1959. "A method for controlling sediment from logging roads." Misc. Pub. No. 22. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 22 p. Haussman, Richard F. and Emerson W. Pruett. 1973. "Permanent Logging Roads for Better Woodlot Management." Upper Darby, PA: USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Northeastern Area. 45 p. Kochenderfer, J. N. 1995. "Using Open -Top Pipe Culverts to Control Surface Water on Steep Road Grades." Gen. Tech. Rep. NE -194. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. Kochenderfer, J. N. and J. D. Helvey. 1987. "Using Gravel to Reduce Soil Losses from Minimum Standard Forest Roads." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 42: 46-50. Morfin, S., W. Elliot, R. Foltz, and S. Miller. 1996. "Predicting Effects of Climate, Soil, and Topography on Road Erosion with the WEPP Model." Paper No. http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr_p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 15 of 16 965016. Presented at 1996 ASAE Annual International Meeting. St. Joseph, MO: ASAE. 12p. Packer, P. E. 1967. Criteria for Designing and Locating Logging Roads to Control Sediment. Forest Science. 13(1): 2-18. Packer, P. E. and G.F. Christensen. 1964. "Guides for Controlling Sediment from Secondary Logging Roads" [Pamphlet]. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 42 p. In cooperation with: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. Rothwell, R. L. 1978. Watershed management guidelines for logging and road construction in Alberta . Inf. Rep. NOR -X-208. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Forestry Service, Northern Forest Research Centre. 43 p. Schwab, J. W. 1994. "Erosion control: planning, forest road deactivation and hillslope revegetation." In: A Guide for Management of Landslide -Prone Terrain in the Pacific Northwest, 2nd ed. Victoria, British Columbia: Research Branch, Ministry of Forests: pp 173-203. chap 4. Swift, Lloyd W., Jr. 1985. "Forest Road Design to Minimize Erosion in the Southern Appalachians." In: Blackmon, B.G., ed. Proceedings of Forestry and Water Quality: a Mid -South Symposium; 1985 May 8-9; Little Rock, AR. Monticello, AR: University of Arkansas, Department of Forest Resources: 141-151. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Forest Service Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges. EM -7720-100. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service, Engineering Staff. 637 p. IP For Additional Information Contact: Project Leader San Dimas Technology & Development Center 444 East Bonita Avenue, San Dimas CA 91773-3198 Phone 909-599-1267; TDD: 909-599-2357; FAX: 909-592-2309 E-mail: mailroom wo sdtdcfs.fed.us Information contained in this document has been developed for the guidance of employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, its contractors, and cooperating Federal and State agencies. The USDA Forest Service assumes no responsibility for the interpretation or use of this information by other than its own employees. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official evaluation, conclusion, recommendation, endorsement, or approval of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009 Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to Surface Cross Drains Page 16 of 16 To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/wr p/98771806/98771806.htm 10/27/2009