DOCSLIB.ORG

MAINE EROSION and SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (Bmps)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MAINE EROSION and SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (Bmps) MAINE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs – 10/2016 MAINE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) Manual for Designers and Engineers October 2016 MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 17 State House Station | Augusta, Maine 04333-0017 www.maine.gov/dep MAINE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs – 10/2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Production: 2016 Revision: Marianne Hubert, Senior Environmental Engineer, Division of Environmental Assessment, Bureau of Water Quality, Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Illustrations: Photos were obtained from SJR Engineering Inc., Shaw Brothers Construction Inc., Bar Mills Ecological, Maine Department of Transportation (DOT), Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) and Maine DEP. Technical Review: The following people participated in the revision of this manual: Steve Roberge, SJR Engineering, Inc., Augusta Ross Cudlitz, Engineering Assistance & Design, Inc., Yarmouth Susan Shaller, Bar Mills Ecological, Buxton David Roque, Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry Peter Newkirk, Maine DOT Bob Berry, Main-Land Development Consultants Daniel Shaw, Shaw Brothers Construction Peter Hanrahan, E.J. Prescott William Noble, William Laflamme, David Waddell, Kenneth Libbey, Ben Viola, Jared Woolston, and Kerem Gungor of the Maine DEP Revision (2003): The manual was revised and reorganized with illustrations (original manual, Salix, Applied Earthcare and Ross Cudlitz, Engineering Assistance & Design, Inc.). Original (1991): The original document was funded from a US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Clean Water Act grant to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Non-Point Source Pollution Program and developed under contract by the Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District. MAINE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs – 10/2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN .................................................................. 3 A. SITE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................... 6 1. DUST CONTROL .............................................................................................................................. 7 2. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE / EXIT ............................................................................................. 8 3. OVERWINTER CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................... 9 4. WATER DIVERSION ...................................................................................................................... 11 5. EXCAVATION DEWATERING ........................................................................................................ 13 6. CONCRETE WASHOUTS .............................................................................................................. 14 7. STOCKPILES .................................................................................................................................. 15 8. DEWATERING AND OFFSITE DISPOSAL .................................................................................... 16 9. TEMPORARY ROADS AND LAYDOWN YARDS .......................................................................... 18 B. SEDIMENT CONTROLS ......................................................................................................21 1. SILT FENCE.................................................................................................................................... 23 2. EROSION CONTROL MIX BERM .................................................................................................. 24 3. FILTER SOCKS .............................................................................................................................. 25 4. STONE CHECK DAMS ................................................................................................................... 26 5. STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION ........................................................................................... 27 6. HAY BALES .................................................................................................................................... 28 C. SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT ................................................................................................29 1. SEDIMENT TRAPS ......................................................................................................................... 30 2. SEDIMENT BASINS ....................................................................................................................... 31 3. GEOTEXTILE FILTER BAG ............................................................................................................ 38 4. FLOCCULANTS (POLYMERS) ...................................................................................................... 39 D. MULCHING ..........................................................................................................................40 1. HAY/STRAW MULCH ..................................................................................................................... 42 2. EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS ................................................................................................. 43 3. EROSION CONTROL MIX .............................................................................................................. 45 4. HYDRAULIC MULCH ...................................................................................................................... 46 E. VEGETATION ......................................................................................................................47 1. TOPSOIL ......................................................................................................................................... 49 2. SEEDBED PREPARATION ............................................................................................................ 50 i MAINE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs – 10/2016 3. VEGETATION APPLICATION ........................................................................................................ 51 4. SODDING ........................................................................................................................................ 53 5. HYDROSEEDING ........................................................................................................................... 54 F. SLOPES ...............................................................................................................................55 1. CUTS AND FILLS ........................................................................................................................... 57 2. GEOTEXTILES ............................................................................................................................... 58 3. RIPRAP PROTECTION .................................................................................................................. 59 4. GABIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 62 5. TURF-REINFORCED MATTING (TRM) ......................................................................................... 64 6. CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 65 7. SLOPE DRAINS .............................................................................................................................. 66 G. SWALES AND DITCHES .....................................................................................................68 1. VEGETATED CHANNELS .............................................................................................................. 70 2. RIPRAP CHANNEL ......................................................................................................................... 72 3. TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT ...................................................................................................... 74 4. LEVEL SPREADERS ...................................................................................................................... 75 H. CROSS CULVERTS .............................................................................................................77 1. PIPE INLET PROTECTION ............................................................................................................ 79 2. PIPE OUTLET PROTECTION ........................................................................................................ 80 I. ROADS ..............................................................................................................................82 1. GRAVEL ROADS ............................................................................................................................ 83 2. DITCH TURNOUTS ........................................................................................................................ 84 3. FRENCH DRAINS AND ROCK SANDWICHES ............................................................................. 86 J. STREAM CROSSINGS .........................................................................................................87 1. CULVERT CROSSINGS ................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deposition Patterns and Rates of Mining-Contaminated Sediment Within a Sedimentation Basin System, S.E
    BearWorks Institutional Repository MSU Graduate Theses Spring 2017 Deposition Patterns and Rates of Mining- Contaminated Sediment within a Sedimentation Basin System, S.E. Missouri Joshua Carl Voss Missouri State University - Springfield, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, and the Hydrology Commons Recommended Citation Voss, Joshua Carl, "Deposition Patterns and Rates of Mining-Contaminated Sediment within a Sedimentation Basin System, S.E. Missouri" (2017). MSU Graduate Theses. 3074. http://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3074 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The orkw contained in it may be protected by copyright and require permission of the copyright holder for reuse or redistribution. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEPOSITION PATTERNS AND RATES OF MINING-CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT WITHIN A SEDIMENTATION BASIN SYSTEM, BIG RIVER, S.E. MISSOURI A Masters Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Missouri State University ATE In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science, Geospatial Sciences in Geography, Geology, and Planning By Josh C. Voss May 2017 Copyright 2017 by Joshua Carl Voss ii DEPOSITION PATTERNS AND RATES OF MINING-CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT WITHIN A SEDIMENTATION BASIN SYSTEM, BIG RIVER, S.E. MISSOURI Geography, Geology, and Planning Missouri State University, May 2017 Master of Science Josh C. Voss ABSTRACT Flooding events exert a dominant control over the deposition and formation of floodplains. The rate at which floodplains form depends on flood magnitude, frequency, and duration, and associated sediment transport capacity and supply.
    [Show full text]
  • I/ General Description and Characterization of the NBS Entity
    Objects/shapes/ physical projects > On the ground > system for erosion control “vegetation engineering systems for slope erosion control” STRONG SLOPE REVEGETATION (Steeper than 2:1) I/ General description and characterization of the NBS entity I.1 Definition and different variants existing Definition • Stabilizing soils structure on steepened slopes through revegetation in order to minimize or prevent the erosion of soil by wind or rain and landslides, avoiding sedimentation problems Smart slope-vegetated-retaining-wall, Dakota. Furbish 2013. © United Themes. When the slope is really steeped, the most common slope stabilization and erosion prevention method is some kind of retaining slopes method joined with revegetation. The origin of unstable slopes can be natural because of the soil geotechnical properties, or as consequence of human activities that create new cutting slopes or embankments during construction works. When soil is disturbed at a construction site, or the natural vegetation cover is retired, the erosion rate may increase significantly. Proper planning and use of erosion control prevention and mitigation measures can reduce the impact of human-caused erosion. In order to stabilize steepened slopes, some kind of soil retention method is nevertheless needed; joining it with a well-established vegetative cover is one of the most effective methods of reducing erosion in unstable slopes steeper than 2H:1V. The retention method keeps the soil meanwhile vegetation protects soil surfaces from rain generated splash erosion and can help to slow runoff flows across a disturbed ground. 1 / 11 In addition, plant roots hold their soil in place, keeping it from washing away during rainstorms. Lastly, trees help to prevent high winds from blowing away top soil because the trees provide windbreaks, which can prevent high winds.
    [Show full text]
  • State-Of-The-Practice: Evaluation of Sediment Basin Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures
    Research Report No. 1 Project Number: 930-791 STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE: EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT BASIN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES Prepared by: Wesley C. Zech Xing Fang Christopher Logan August 2012 DISCLAIMERS The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of Auburn University or the Alabama Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES Wesley C. Zech, Ph.D. Xing Fang, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE Research Supervisors ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Material contained herein was obtained in connection with a research project “Assessing Performance Characteristics of Sediment Basins Constructed in Franklin County,” ALDOT Project 930-791, conducted by the Auburn University Highway Research Center. Funding for the project was provided by the Alabama Department of Transportation. The funding, cooperation, and assistance of many individuals from each of these organizations are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank all the responding State Highway Agencies (SHAs) for their participation and valuable feedback. The project advisor committee includes Mr. Buddy Cox, P.E., (Chair); Mr. Larry Lockett, P.E., (former chair); Mr. James Brown, P.E.; Mr. Barry Fagan, P.E.; Mr. Skip Powe, P.E.; Ms. Kaye Chancellor Davis, P.E.; Ms. Michelle Owens (RAC Liaison), and Ms. Kristy Harris (FHWA Liaison). iii ABSTRACT The following document is the summary of results from a survey that was conducted to evaluate the state-of-the-practice for sediment basin design, construction, maintenance, and inspection procedures by State Highway Agencies (SHAs) across the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • SEDIMENT BASIN (No.) Code 350
    SEDIMENT BASIN (No.) Code 350 Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard I. Definition filter strips, etc., to reduce the amount of sediment flowing into the basins. A basin constructed to collect and store debris or sediment. The basin shall be located to intercept sediment before it enters streams, lakes, and wetlands. For II. Purpose maximum effectiveness, the basin must be located close to the sediment source. To preserve the capacity of reservoirs, lakes, wetlands, ditches, canals, diversions, waterways, and The capacity of the sediment basin shall equal streams; to prevent undesirable deposition on bottom the volume of sediment expected to be trapped at lands and developed areas; to trap sediment the site during the planned life of the basin or the originating from construction sites; and to reduce or improvements it is designed to protect. abate pollution by providing basins for deposition and storage of silt, sand, gravel, stone, agricultural Sediment basins meeting these design criteria are wastes, and other detritus. assumed to have an 80% trapping efficiency. III. Conditions Where Practice Applies volume = calculated erosion * planned life * SDR * trap efficiency * 23.5 ft3/ton This practice applies where physical conditions or land ownership preclude treatment of a sediment Where: source or where a sediment basin offers the most 3 practical solution to reduce sediment delivery to Volume = cubic feet (ft ) downstream areas. Calculated erosion = sheet and rill, gullies, etc. (Tons / year) Sediment basins having the primary purpose of controlling suspended solids loading and attached SDR= sediment delivery ratio pollutants from runoff with a permanent pool of Trap Efficiency Assumed to be 80% watershall meet the criteria set forth in Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Standard If it is determined that periodic removal of 1001, Wet Detention Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Cellular Confinement Systems
    Cellular Confinement Systems EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUE Revegetation [1] Temperate Climates ✔ Short-Term [2] Non Vegetation ✔ Wet Tropics ✔ Long-Term [2] Weed Control Semi-Arid Zones ✔ Permanent ✔ [1] Vegetation, such as grasses, can be established within the cells. [2] Can be used for short-term erosion control, but is most commonly used as a permanent treatment. Symbol Photo 1 – Cellular confinement system Photo 2 – Cellular confinement system used to restrict gravel movement on a used to retain soil and assist in the permanent car park establishment of grass on a steep slope Key Principles 1. Critical design parameters are the size and depth of the cells, choice of cell wall texture (smooth or rough, solid or perforated), type of anchorage system (applicable to slopes and concave surfaces), and the choice of infill material. 2. It is critical to ensure the top of the cellular confinement system (CCS) is set flush with, or slightly below, the adjacent terrain to avoid stormwater run-on water being diverted along the edge of the matrix. Design Information The following design information applies to applications not within a drainage channel. For use as a channel/chute lining, refer to the separate fact sheet within the ‘Drainage Control’ section. Step 1 Determine the type of cell wall: smooth, textured, or perforated. Textured or perforated surfaces (Photo 4) are required when the honeycomb matrix is installed with a concave profile that may cause the matrix to lift from the ground. Perforated cell walls are required when it is necessary for water flow to pass laterally through the cell walls (Photos 5 & 6).
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Basin
    Water Resources Division Sediment Basin Definition Sediment basins are temporary ponds with appropriate control structures, used on construction sites to capture eroded or disturbed soil that are washed off during or after rainstorms or other runoff events. Sediment basins are designed to protect the water quality of nearby streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands, and to protect neighboring properties from damage. Some sediment basins are converted to permanent storm water controls following the completion of construction activity. Purpose and Description The primary purpose of sediment basins is to prevent sediment from entering streams, rivers, lakes, or wetlands. They do this by collecting and detaining runoff, allowing suspended solids to settle out prior to the runoff leaving a site. Sediment basins are also sometimes called settling basins, sumps, debris basins, or dewatering basins. Pollutant Controlled: Suspended solids Treatment Mechanism: Settling Removal Efficiency Sediment basins remove only 70 to 80 percent of medium- and coarse-sized sediment particles, so use them in conjunction with other erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Sediment basins are not effective at controlling fine soil particles such as silt or clay. Companion and Alternative BMPs Construction Barrier Mulching Polyacrylamide Riprap-Stabilized Outlet Seeding Sodding www.michigan.gov/deq MDEQ NPS BMP Manual SB-1 Rev20190208 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Sediment basins are a cost-effective measure for treating sediment-laden runoff from drainage areas ranging from five (5) to 100 acres in size, with soil particle sizes of predominantly sand, or medium to large silt. Sediment basins are relatively easy to construct. Disadvantages The construction and proper functioning of sediment basins require adequate space and topography.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook
    TENNESSEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK A Stormwater Planning and Design Manual for Construction Activities Fourth Edition AUGUST 2012 Acknowledgements This handbook has been prepared by the Division of Water Resources, (formerly the Division of Water Pollution Control), of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Many resources were consulted during the development of this handbook, and when possible, permission has been granted to reproduce the information. Any omission is unintentional, and should be brought to the attention of the Division. We are very grateful to the following agencies and organizations for their direct and indirect contributions to the development of this handbook: TDEC Environmental Field Office staff Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage University of Tennessee, Tennessee Water Resources Research Center University of Tennessee, Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Georgia Department of Natural Resources California Stormwater Quality Association ~ ii ~ Preface Disturbed soil, if not managed properly, can be washed off-site during storms. Unless proper erosion prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used for construction activities, silt transport to a local waterbody is likely. Excessive silt causes adverse impacts due to biological alterations, reduced passage in rivers and streams, higher drinking water treatment costs for removing the sediment, and the alteration of water’s physical/chemical properties, resulting in degradation of its quality. This degradation process is known as “siltation”. Silt is one of the most frequently cited pollutants in Tennessee waterways. The division has experimented with multiple ways to determine if a stream, river, or reservoir is impaired due to silt.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclamation of Tailings Ponds
    Journal American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2012 Volume 1, Issue 1, COMPARISON OF HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS FROM TWO DIFFERENTLY RECLAIMED TAILINGS PONDS; GRAVES MOUNTAIN, LINCOLNTON, GA1 Gwendelyn Geidel2 Abstract: This study compares and evaluates the hydrologic characteristics between two kyanite ore process tailings ponds that were reclaimed with different reclamation strategies; one reclaimed with an impermeable membrane and the other with an open, surface reconfiguration (OSR) methodology. During the extraction and processing of kyanite ore from the Graves Mountain mine, Lincoln County, Georgia, fine grained tailings were produced. The tailings were transported by slurry pipeline to various tailings ponds which were created by the construction of dams using on-site materials. The first study site, referred to as the Pyrite Pond (PP), was constructed and filled during the 1960’s and early 1970’s. In early 1992, the PP was capped with an impermeable membrane, covered with a thin soil veneer and vegetated and in 1998 the upslope reclamation was completed. The second tailings pond, referred to as the East Tailings Pond (ETP), was constructed and filled in the 1970’s and early 1980’s and was reclaimed in 1995-96 by surface reconfiguration and the addition of soil amendments. Piezometers and wells were installed into the two tailings ponds and also in close proximity to the tailings ponds. While the initial study was aimed at comparing the two reclamation strategies, it became apparent that the ground water was a dominant factor. Results of the evaluation of the potentiometric surface data for varying depths within each tailings pond indicate that while both tailings ponds exhibit delayed response to precipitation events suggesting infiltration effects, the delay in the ETP deep wells and PP wells could not be adequately described by a surface infiltration model.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.00 Storm Water Pond Systems
    This guidance is not a regulatory document and should be considered only informational and supplementary to the MPCA permits (such as the construction storm water general permit or MS4 permit) and local regulations. CHAPTER 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5.00 STORMWATER-DETENTION PONDS............................................................................5.00-1 5.01 Pond Design Criteria: SYSTEM DESIGN.........................................................5.01-1 5.02 Pond Design Criteria: POND LAYOUT AND SIZE.........................................5.02-1 5.03 Pond Design Criteria: MAIN TREATMENT CONCEPTS...............................5.03-1 5.04 Pond Design Criteria: DEAD STORAGE VOLUME .......................................5.04-1 5.05 Pond Design Criteria: EXTENDED DETENTION ...........................................5.05-1 5.06 Pond Design Criteria: POND OUTLET STRUCTURES ..................................5.06-1 5.07 Pond Design Criteria: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..........................5.07-1 5.08 Pond Design Criteria: SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................5.08-1 5.10 STORMWATER POND SYSTEMS..........................................................................5.10-1 5.11 Pond Systems: ON-SITE VERSUS REGIONAL PONDS ................................5.11-1 5.12 Pond Systems: ON-LINE VERSUS OFF-LINE PONDS ..................................5.12-1 5.13 Pond Systems: OTHER POND SYSTEMS.......................................................5.13-1 5.20 Ponds: EXTENDED-DETENTION PONDS..............................................................5.20-1
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Field Guide for Contractors
    Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Field Guide for Contractors Maine Department of Environmental Protection ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Production 2014 Revision: Marianne Hubert, Senior Environmental Engineer, Division of Watershed Management, Bureau of Land and Water Quality, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Illustrations: Photos obtained from SJR Engineering Inc., Shaw Brothers Construction Inc., Bar Mills Ecological, Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) and Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: The following people participated in the revision of this manual: Steve Roberge, SJR Engineering, Inc., Augusta Ross Cudlitz, Engineering Assistance & Design, Inc., Yarmouth Susan Shaller, Bar Mills Ecological, Buxton David Roque, Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry Peter Newkirk, MaineDOT Bob Berry, Main-Land Development Consultants Daniel Shaw, Shaw Brothers Construction Peter Hanrahan, E.J. Prescott William Noble, William Laflamme, David Waddell, Kenneth Libbey, Ben Viola, Jared Woolston, and Marianne Hubert of the Maine DEP Revision (2003): The manual was revised and reorganized with illustrations (original manual, Salix, Applied Earthcare and Ross Cudlitz, Engineering Assistance & Design, Inc.). Original Manual (1991): The original document was funded from a US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Clean Water Act grant to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Non- Point Source Pollution Program and developed
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Basin Design Fact Sheet
    Sediment Basins SEDIMENT CONTROL TECHNIQUE Type 1 System Sheet Flow Sandy Soils Type 2 System Concentrated Flow Clayey Soils Type 3 System Instream Works Dispersive Soils Symbol Photo 1 – Type A basin Photo 2 – Type C basin Key Principles 1. Sediment trapping is primarily achieved through particle settlement. Some basins may incorporate a filtration system within the outlet structure, but these filters are generally unreliable. Consequently the focus should always remain on achieving effective particle settlement. 2. Achieving optimum particle settlement relies upon achieving uniform flow conditions across the settling pond, and if chemical dosing is required, selecting the most appropriate flocculant and/or coagulant, and then achieving effective ‘mixing’ prior to the treated flows entering the settling pond. 3. The size of the settling pond is directly related to the ‘volume’ of runoff and/or peak design ‘discharge’. Pond volume is critical for basins operate as plug flow systems; while the pond surface area is critical for sediment basins that operate as continuous flow systems. Both pond volume and surface area are critical for Type A basins. 4. It should be noted that even if a basin is full of water, it can still be effective in removing coarse sediments from inflows. Therefore, unlike permanent stormwater treatment ponds, flows in excess of the design storm should still be directed through the sediment basin. Design Information A sediment basin is a purpose built dam designed to collect and settle sediment-laden water. It usually consists of an inlet chamber (forebay), a primary settling pond, a decant system, and a high-flow emergency spillway.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Specifications, Special Provisions and Supplemental Terms and Conditions HALDEMAN CREEK WEIR REPLACEMENT
    Technical Specifications, Special Provisions and Supplemental Terms and Conditions For HALDEMAN CREEK WEIR REPLACEMENT Collier Co. Project No.: 60103 Collier Co. Work Order No.: 4500158645 Atkins Project No.: 100045545 Date: October 20, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ..........................................................1 ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 2 SECTION 101 - MOBILIZATION ..............................................................................3 SECTION 110 - CLEARING AND GRUBBING ......................................................6 SECTION 120-SPECIAL – DITCH FINISH GRADING .........................................7 SECTION 400.1-SPECIAL – DEWATERING .........................................................8 SECTION 425 - INLETS, MANHOLES, AND JUNCTION BOXES .....................9 SECTION 515 – PEDESTRIAN/BICYLE RAILINGS, GUIDERAILS, AND HANDRAILS ...................................................................................................10 SECTION 570 - PERFORMANCE TURF .............................................................13 SECTION CF-SPECIAL – COCONUT FIBER EROSION CONTROL FABRIC ...........................................................................................................14 SECTION ELEC-SPECIAL – ELECTRICAL WORK ...........................................18 SECTION GATE-SPECIAL – HINGED CREST GATES ....................................24 SECTION GW-SPECIAL – GEOWEB STABILIZATION ....................................36
    [Show full text]