## FHWA \...\...\...\...\...\..... DIVISION/ \...\...\..... STA CONTINUOUS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDY 2000 Temporary Erosion Control Review Guidelines

> **Background**
>
> The FHWA Division Office has identified as part of the Construction
> Monitoring Element of the Annual Stewardship Activities List in the
> \...\...\...\...\.... Division\'s FY 2000 Performance Plan, a
> continuous process improvement study to be performed to evaluate the
> State\'s procedures and controls relative to temporary erosion
> control, to verify that the process is being implemented as intended
> and is producing the desired product.
>
> **Scope**
>
> The scope of this review is to analyze and evaluate the current
> \...\...\...\... procedures for temporary erosion control and to
> recognize Best Practices utilized nationally and/or by the
> \...\...\...\...\... Active construction projects as well as recently
> completed projects on the NHS will be reviewed in the field. The
> review will also include review of design plans of active projects,
> recently completed projects as well as projects currently in the
> design phase. The design reviews will be conducted in the
> \...\...\...\..... Central Office in \...\...\...\....., and will
> include discussions with the appropriate personnel involved in the
> process.
>
> **Review Guidelines**
>
> **Design**
>
> Design Directive 204 \"Temporary Erosion Control\" dated 4/3/95 and
> the A\...\...\...\... Erosion and Sediment Control Manual, dated
> November 1, 1993 (English) and March 1, 1995 (metric) will be used for
> reviewing projects in the design phase.

1.  Has a copy of the preliminary plans been submitted to the
    appropriate resource agencies - \...\...\...\... for their review
    and comment?

>  

2.  Depending on the type of project, is the appropriate erosion control
    measures included in the preliminary plans?

>  
>
> Major Roadway projects - greater than 3 acres of land disturbance -
> individual 642 items
>
>  
>
> Small Bridges - Special Provision and pay item 642-14, Erosion and
> Sediment Control - Small Bridges@ and generic
> plan\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> Minor Roadway Projects - less than 3 acres of land disturbance - Item
> 642-13 \"Temporary Pollution Control\" with generic plan
>
>  

3.  If no land disturbance and no erosion control items required , is
    there a memorandum in the file stating such and included in the PS&E
    checklist?

>  

4.  Is there a response from the resource agencies in the file and on
    the PS&E checklist?

>  

5.  For major projects, check the 642 items and determine if the
    estimated quantities are correct as per DD 204:

> 642-01 - temporary berms\
> 642-02 - slope drains\
> 642-03-1 - ditch checks\
> 642-03-2 - check dams\
> 642-03-3 - sediment trap\
> 642-03-4 - sediment dam\
> 642-03-5 - riser\
> 642-03-6 - sediment removal\
> 642-03-7 - sediment pond\
> 642-04-1 - temporary seed\
> 642-05-1 - straw or hay mulch\
> 642-05-2 - wood cellulose fiber mulch\
> 642-06 - fertilizer\
> 642-07 - fiber matting\
> 642-08 - temporary pipe\
> 642-09 - contour ditch\
> 642-10 - agriculture limestone\
> 642-11 - hay or straw bales\
> 642-12 - silt fence
>
> **Construction**
>
> The [\...\...\...\...\..... Division Office 2000 Inspection Guide for
> Erosion and Pollution Control]{.underline} will be used for reviewing
> projects in the field.

## \...\...\...\...\...\... DIVISION OFFICE 2000 Inspection Guide EROSION AND POLLUTION CONTROL

> **General Project Data:**
>
> Date of Inspection:
>
> Project Number:
>
> County:
>
> Inspection Made By:
>
> In Company With:
>
>  
>
> **References:**

1.  \...\...\...\..... Division of Highways Standard Specifications and
    Supplemental Specifications;

2.  \...\...\...\..... Division of Highways Construction Manual;

3.  Applicable Special Provisions and Design Directives;

4.  \...\...\...\..... Department of Highways Erosion and Sediment
    Control Manual, November 1, 1993 (English) and March 1, 1995
    (metric).

> Date of Applicable Special Provisions
>
> **Scope of Inspection:**
>
> This inspection consists of an on-site review of the erosion and
> pollution control procedures being implemented to abate air and water
> pollution. The State\'s supervisory control procedures and enforcement
> of the specifications and special provisions should be observed. The
> contractor\'s operations and preventative measures should be
> evaluated.

I.  **Office Portion**

    A.  Review of Procedures:

        1.  **Stage I** (to cover first six weeks only). Did the
            contractor submit his Stage I plan at the pre-construction
            conference?

            a.  Date Submitted

            b.  Date Approved

            c.  Is an approved copy of the plan in the project files?

> Does the plan conform with the suggested minimum requirements set
> forth in Section IV of Erosion Control Manual?

2.  **Stage II**

    a.  Date Submitted

    b.  Date Approved

    c.  Did the Regional Engineer request comments and/or
        recommendations from other Divisions of \...\...\...\..... or
        outside agencies (IV-3 Erosion Control Manual)?

> If not, was time a major consideration?

d.  Date major excavation began?

e.  Is an approved copy of the plan in the project files?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Comment on dates of approvals relative to beginning of work.

>  

4.  Was a field review made prior to the pre-construction conference as
    suggested in Erosion Control Manual?

5.  Were resource agency personnel invited to attend field reviews on
    erosion control in accordance with the Erosion Control Manual?

> If attended, representative were from?
>
>  

6.  Does a specific person on the project have the responsibility of
    checking erosion control periodically?

> If so, describe his authority:
>
>  

B.  Review of Erosion Control Plan, Stage I and II

    1.  Does that plan adequately designate specific locations and
        dimensions for erosion control facilities? (Slope drains,
        sediment ponds, check dams, sediment traps, etc.)

    2.  Does the plan indicate the schedule of erosion control
        activities relative to the sequence of work operation?

        a.  Evaluate the scheduling of temporary seeding and mulching

        b.  Evaluate the scheduling of permanent seeding and mulching.

        c.  Evaluate the scheduling of other sediment controls, basins,
            ponds, traps, dams, berms, hay diversions, etc.

    3.  Does the plan adequately provide measures to be used to prevent
        stream pollution from waste sites, borrow sites, haul roads,
        contractor storage areas, maintenance-service areas, and truck
        washing areas?

    4.  If the contractor intends to exceed the 70 000 m5 limitation,
        does the plan indicate that he has planned for additional
        measures to satisfactorily maintain pollution control to the
        level contemplated by this limitation? (Reference 1994 Standard
        Specifications 642.4).

    5.  Comment on the completeness of the plan with respect to the
        intent of the requirements to maximize prevention of water
        pollution.

C.  Review waste/borrow pit approvals for inclusion of permanent and
    Temporary measures (Reference Form HL-445).

D.  Air Pollution

    1.  Have permits been obtained for burning?

> Is daily permission for burning being obtained?

2.  Were dust control facilities considered during certification of
    batch plants?

3.  Were dust (particulates) control measures considered when choosing
    and approving haul roads, borrow and waste sites?

> Comments:
>
>  

II. **Field Review**

    A.  Clearing and Grubbing

        1.  What erosion measures were installed before and during the
            clearing and grubbing operation?

        2.  Were measures effective in preventing siltation during this
            operation?

        3.  Is the method of debris disposal satisfactory? (Logs,
            branches, stumps, ashes, etc.)

    B.  Earthwork and Drainage

        1.  **Major Channel Relocations**

            a.  Have channel relocations been properly made in a manner
                that prevents pollution?

            b.  Has a permanent lining been installed before diverting
                water?

            c.  Comment on compliance with E.I.S. commitments if
                applicable.

>  

2.  **Excavation**

    a.  Are cuts being seeded and mulched as work progresses (every 4.6
        m or two weeks as suggested in Erosion Control Manual)?

    b.  Comment on Timeliness:

>  

3.  **Embankment Work**

    a.  Are embankment slopes being built to template and compacted to
        reduce run-off siltation?

    b.  Are fills being seeded and mulched as work progressed (every 3 m
        or two weeks as suggested in Erosion Control Manual?

    c.  Comment on Timeliness:

>  

4.  **What measures are being taken to enforce the erosion control
    specifications?**

>  

5.  **Haul Roads**

> Comment on control measures being used (temporary seeding, dust
> palliative, temporary pipes, ditching, etc.)
>
>  

6.  **Waste and Borrow Pits**

    a.  Waste pit control measures should be similar to embankment
        measures.

> Comment -
>
>  

b.  Have waste pits been located adjacent to streams and/or constructed
    such that high water would cause erosion of the waste material?

> Comment -
>
>  

c.  Borrow pit control measures should be similar to excavation
    measures.

> Comment -
>
>  

7.  **Stockpiles of Embankment Material**

> Are the locations and measures applied consistent with erosion control
> requirements?
>
>  

8.  **Rivers and Streams**

    a.  Are construction operations in or adjacent to rivers or streams
        being controlled to prevent pollution?

    b.  Are appropriate tests being taken in compliance with Section
        715.7.2 (check proposal)?

    c.  Has a background level been established from tests or from
        existing data?

    d.  Are there any guidelines (formal or informal) on when tests are
        to be taken in the project office?

9.  **Minor Drainage Channels**

> Are permanent linings being provided as soon as practicable and in
> conjunction with temporary controls?
>
>  

III. **General Questions on Pollution Control**

     A.  Has the need for measures other than those shown in the erosion
         control plan become apparent, but not implemented in the
         abatement efforts?

> If yes, give your analysis of the reasons for this inaction.
>
>  

B.  Were the erosion control features observed in the field adequately
    designed, constructed, and maintained?

C.  Will any temporary control structures be left as permanent measures?

D.  Are subcontractors conducting their work in a manner consistent with
    the prime contractor\'s requirements and erosion control plan?

E.  Are sanitary and other solid and liquid wastes from the project
    being properly controlled?

F.  Are dust control measures effective: (Haul roads, batch plants, work
    areas, etc.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
IV. **General Comments**

    A.  Personnel

        1.  Project and District Personnel

            a.  Comment on their interest and knowledge with respect to
                erosion control and pollution control.

            b.  Do they have a copy of the Erosion Control Manual?

        2.  Does the contractor and project erosion control
            representative (weekly or after a storm event) jointly
            review measures for adequacy, maintenance and need for
            additional controls?

    B.  Have efforts to date been reasonably effective and responsive to
        the intent of pollution control requirements?

    C.  Is the contractor following the approved erosion control plan as
        evidenced by field operation?

> Comment -
>
>  
>
> **TENTATIVE LIST OF PROJECTS FOR REVIEW**
>
> **Construction Field Reviews**
>
> District 2
>
> District 3
>
> District 4
>
> District 6
>
> District 8
>
> **Design Office Reviews**
>
> District 2
>
> District 5
>
> District 8
>
> District 10