aashto technical committee on hydrology and hydraulics...

AASHTO Technical Committee on Hydrology and Hydraulics – Spring 2009 Meeting, Lakewood, CO

AASHTO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS SPRING 2009 MEETING DRAFT MINUTES

MAY 5-7, 2009 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO

Meeting Objectives: Review manual revision progress. Correlate work progress and needs with the

team. Review research’s progress and other assignments. Communicate, share, inform.

AGENDA

5 May 2009, Tuesday 8:30 – (10:30EST) Call committee meeting to order – Introductions and housekeeping 8:45 AASHTO Presentation – Kelley Rehm 9:15 FHWA Presentation – Jorge Pagán-Ortiz 10:00 TRB/NCHRP Presentation – David Reynaud 10:30 Break (EST Short Lunch)

11:00 TCHH Business

Financial Report

Newsletter

Report on bylaws

AASHTO SOM – Pipe Joint Spec work – Report and Discussion – forming a new panel

Next meeting information – Indianapolis, IN – Merril Dougherty – Conjunction with TCED

Scan tours – No TCHH scan tour selected – report

2010 National Hydraulics Engineer Conference

1. How many people would be able or not be able to attend in 2010, yes, no or maybe

2. Would TCHH be willing to hold TCHH Fall 2010 meeting in conjunction with conference?

3. Any suggestions on Theme ideas, topics ideas, speaker ideas; what research will be done by 2010 and should be invited; exhibitors that you would like to visit with?

4. Tentatively looking at Aug/Sept 2010

13:00 Lunch 13:45 Drainage Manual Revision - Overview of Progress

1. Update on the contract with consultant to complete the AASHTO Drainage Manual

Pool Fund Obligations up to date

Memo of Understanding (AASHTO-UDOT)

Manual Executive Committee - function 2. If many people can't access the FTP site is it still the best place to keep files? If not there where/who compiles all of the documents for the consultant? 3. What to do if chapters will not be done before the consultant starts. What is the timeline?


14:00 Chapter by chapter assessment 15:30 Break – Dinner Notes:

6 May 2009, Wednesday 8:30 Call to order 8:45 Manual Revision Progress (Continue) 10:30 Break 11:00 Concerns of the States 13:00 Lunch 14:00 Technology Corner – Larry Arneson

SWM Program 15:00 Research Needs – Rick Renna General Discussion Last year ballot Possible Strategies New Projects? 16:30 Break for Dinner Notes

7 May 2009, Thursday 8:30 Call to order – reminders, other business 9:00 Chapter Review – Group Work 10:30 Break 11:00 Chapter Review – Group Work


12:00 Adjourn Notes

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS STATE JOINED REGION

Bill Bailey Wyoming 1994 4 Glenn DeCou California 1994 4 Merril Dougherty Indiana 1994 3 Hani Farghaly Ontario 2004 3 Mike Fazio, Chair Utah 2001 4 Preston Helms South Carolina 2001 2 (absent) Dave Henderson North Carolina 2000 2 Andrea Hendrickson Minnesota 2005 3 Roy Mills Virginia 1999 2 Douglas Morse New York 2008 1 Te Ngo Oklahoma 1991 4 Matt O’Connor Illinois 2001 3 Jorge Pagán-Ortiz, FHWA/Secretary Wash., D.C. 2003 1 Richard Phillips South Dakota 2002 4 Karuna Pujara Maryland 2005 1 Lotwick Reese Idaho 1996 4 Rick Renna, Vice-Chair Florida 2001 2 Jim Richardson Kansas 1996 3 Amy Ronnfeldt Texas 2006 4 Alvin Shoblom Oregon 2005 4 (absent) Stephen Sisson Delaware 2008 1 Amir Soltani Nevada 2005 4 (absent) David Moses Kentucky 2009 2 Duc minh Tran Quebec 1999 1 (absent)


A) WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION:

1. Chairman Mike Fazio welcomed members and friends of the AASHTO Technical Committee on Hydrology and Hydraulics (TCHH) to the spring 2009 meeting. This is the TCHH meeting number 76. He thanked Larry Arneson and Veronica Ghelardi for stepping up and help with the web-conference coordination. This is the first time that we offer the option of having members participate in our meeting via web-conference and it worked quite well. Glenn DeCou, Matt O’Connor, Merril Dougherty, Stephen Sisson, Roy Mills and Cynthia Nurmi participated via web-conference. This meeting was scheduled to be held in Indianapolis, Indiana, but due to the current tied budgets that many states are facing, it was decided to hold the meeting in Lakewood, Colorado and offer the web-conference option for those TCHH members that could not make the meeting in person.

2. Chairman Fazio briefed the committee members on recent changes in the TCHH membership: Brooks Booher resigned from the TCHH; Rae Van Hoven resigned from the TCHH due to her retirement from the NMDOT. Chairman Fazio welcomed Davis Moses as the new addition to the TCHH. He is the Chief Drainage Engineer with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. He graduated from the University of Kentucky and has a Master of Science in Hydrology and Hydraulics.

3. Chairman Fazio offered condolences to Douglas Morse for the loss of his father and to Jorge Pagán for the loss of his older brother. He also asked committee members to remember the late Mark Miles, a former member of the TCHH and colleague who passed away in 2006 while attending the Hydraulics Engineers Conference in San Diego, California. It was mentioned that David Reynald would not be joining us at this meeting as he is experiencing health problems.

4. A list presenting the TCHH members, their address and telephone numbers is presented in Appendix A.

5. A list of visitors that attended the TCHH meeting on August 25th is presented in Appendix B.

B) AASHTO:

6. Kelley Rehm, AASHTO liaison to the TCHH, proceeded to give an AASHTO update. a. AASHTO is discussing with the subcommittee on materials and subcommittee on bridges the

possibility of putting together a task force on pipes. AASHTO decided that the subcommittee on design, materials and bridges should pass a resolution this summer on this. After the resolution passes, then the subcommittee members will be appointed by AASHTO. The TCHH hopes that they assign members from our committee to this task force. Chairman Fazio indicated that he will do his work with Rick and Glenn to try having representatives from the TCHH on the task force.

b. Kelley suggested that we wait until there is a resolution is ready. She will work with Ken Kubetsky in writing the resolution and hopes that it will pass by this August.

c. Karuna suggested that the AASHTO Subcommittee on Maintenance may be interested in participating in the task force on pipes and that they may have good input to offer.

d. EPA has a proposed ruling on construction runoff (effluent ruling guideline) and the AASHTO Environmental group submitted comments to EPA. A rule is expected to be implemented by December 1, 2009. She said that the National Association of Home Buildings believes that EPA won’t be setting a numerical limit on NTU’s. Also, she said that AASHTO opted not to join the coalition and urged to use watershed approach. AASHTO is setting up a conference call in the next few weeks to set-up a coalition on the way that AASHTO wants to go. Rick Renna indicated that EPA’s approach appears to be non-engineering driven but instead it appears to be court leading and therefore, AASHTO may not be involved in a legal action. The action is expected in June and would need to be implemented by December 1, 2009. It was discussed that one approach the AASHTO TCHH


members may take on this regard it to have a joint effort from all States to go through our congressmen/women to get a change in the law.

e. Research deadline – there was no new 20-07 proposals submitted y the TCHH other that resubmitting the proposal for the AASHTO MDM update.

f. A $30K proposal on “Establishing test methods for the 100-year service life for thigh density polyethylene thermoplastic pipe in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications” came in on April 29, 2009 (see Appendix C). Kelly will keep the TCHH informed on the status of this proposal – as of whether it is funded or not. Rick Renna said that a similar study is being done in Florida for the last seven years and it was suggested that he shared what Florida has done with others. It was noted that the proposal may not be a synthesis as the contractor selected may be writing a specification.

g. Kelly informed that there were 44 projects approved for 2010. NCHRP is soliciting panel nominations for the project on risk-based approach for scour prediction.

h. She briefly talked about the proposal from Jorgensen to work on Phase I of the AASHTO Policy and Procedures manual (see Appendix D). AASHTO is waiting for the Phase I money to get into one of their accounts. Mike Fazio sent a request to cut a check to AASHTO for $150K and it takes a few weeks to make it through their (Utah DOT) system. It was discussed that it would take at least a month to have the contract in place. Kelly said that Jorgensen’s profit on Phase I was negotiated to 9%. The compensation for Phase II may not be as much as it was first thought – not in the level of $300K to $400K.

i. The issue on units was discussed again during this meeting. There ware quite a few members of the TCHH members that wanted to know what is AASHTO’s final say on this. Chairman Fazio said that we should not remove dual units from the Policy and Procedures manuals, yet. Also, based on the minutes from previous meetings, the TCHH decided to stay in dual units. Jorge Pagán said that FHWA will stay with dual units on its hydraulics manuals. The conversion to be used in FHWA hydraulics publications will be English first followed with metric in parenthesis.

j. The AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways is re-writing its strategic plan. They will be meeting next week. One of the agenda items that would be discussed is to strive to be more consistent (this item came out of a survey). One way they plan to accomplish is by having the Subcommittee on Design and its technical committees to meet at the same time and not separate. If this is implemented, then our TCHH would have to shift its meetings to summer and winter each year. This has the potential of increasing the cost of our meetings. Rick Renna suggested that we need to have a resolution about our structure. There will be a Subcommittee on Design workshop on May 14, 2009. Mike will write a letter about our structure and share it with the TCHH members. The Standing Committee on Design will be working not only on the strategic plan but also on its mission and vision. The workshop is for all 50 members of the Subcommittee.

C) FHWA ACTIVITY UPDATE:

7. Jorge Pagán presented an update of FHWA hydraulics activities (see Appendix E for details): a. Focus areas continue to be on completing scour evaluations, plans of action for scour critical

bridges and eliminating bridges with unknown foundations from the NBI. b. Publications -- HEC 22: new edition expected to be completed in summer 2009; HEC 23:

new edition will consists on two volumes and publication is expected to be completed in spring 2009 – it presents expanded guidance on POAs, a revised countermeasure matrix, chapter on riprap specifications and additional design guides based on results from NCHRP projects; HEC 25 – second edition already available online; HEC 26 – final draft of new publication on design of stream crossing for aquatic organism will be disseminated to the


technical panel in June 2009; HEC 18 and 20 – major updated planned for late in 2009; HDS 5 – updates planned in 2009; Culvert Inspection Manual – problem statement submitted by TRB Committee AFF70 for FY 2010 funding. Also, FHWA plans to update the culvert chapter of the Bridge Inspection Reference Manual. This activity may begin late in 2009.

c. NHI Training – Course 135047 update has been completed and course is available; Course 135048 is being updated – completion expected in fall 2009; Course 135082 development completed and course is available.

d. Software – HY-8: Phase I released in July 2008; Phase 2 will have an interim release in May 2009; Phase 3 will go forward thanks to funding availability via pooled-fund participation. New storm drain software contract has been awarded. Hydraulic Toolbox has been released internally (within FHWA Hydraulics); it presents 7 modules.

e. Hydraulics Questionnaire – to identify state-of-the-practice in hydraulics engineering. Expect to release it in summer 2009.

f. Other activities – considering updating floodplain regulation (23 CFR 650 Subpart A); working with environmental units on climate change.

g. Request ideas for the 2010 Hydraulic Engineers Conference’s Theme D) BUSINESS:

8. Andrea Hendrickson thanked everyone for helping in putting forth the TCHH newsletter. There

are two editions out already. Suggested topics for next edition included: a. An article on rainfall maps. b. AASHTO Task Force on Pipe Culverts (if this moves forward) – it was suggested that Glenn

DeCou would be a good person to submit an article on this subject. c. Add a section on “Concerns of the States.” d. Add a short bio of David Moses as he is a new member of the TCHH e. Add a picture of the committee members.

9. By-Laws – our TCHH does not have by-laws. The TCHH need to follow the Subcommittee on Design (SCOD) bylaws. The TCHH can have operating guidelines, which have to be consistent with the SCOD. Also, it was stated that the SCOD bylaws dated January 2009 do not mention that the chairman of a TC has to be from SCOD. It was stated that the TCHH will have a member meeting with SCOD regularly (twice a year) and that member will give an update of our committee activities during that opportunity.

10. The next TCHH meeting will be in Indianapolis, Indiana in combination with the AASHTO Environmental Committee from October 6-8, 2009. Merrill Dougherty has already contacted some hotels and may pick the Embassy Suites Downtown. The TCHH will be meeting at the conference room of the Indiana DOT. The hotel is located within walking distance to the DOT facility. Jorge Pagán stated that he and other FHWA employees may not be able to attend the meeting as it will be held early on the beginning of the Federal fiscal year. He stated that it would be better if the meeting takes place later on in October or early November. Merrill will check with the other committee members on this. The spring meeting is planned to take place in San Francisco, California. Other possible locations are Minneapolis, Minnesota and Nashville, Tennessee.

11. There were two project proposals submitted for NCHRP funding for FY 2010, but were not selected. Also, another two proposals – Glenn’s on “Culvert Rehabilitation and Selection Practices” and Karuna’s “TMBL” missed the deadline – proposals are due in September 2009.

12. New members were reminded that they should send Rick Renna a note to get their hats. 13. Dave Henderson spoke about TCHH shirts. He said that the first shirt was free for each member

of the TCHH and will continue to be free for each new member. Any additional shirt will have to be purchased by anyone interested on it. Kaki color is the standard one. He will get a cost


estimate for the shirts and will be sending an e-mail out with this information. 14. The conference committee for summer 2010 has been established. The committee is comprised

of Karuna Pujara, Dave Henderson, Mike Fazio, Glenn DeCou and Andrea Hendrickson. It is planned for the last week of August 2010 or first week of September 2010. The committee is looking at a couple of locations in Utah: Salt Lake City (about 10 miles away from the airport) and Park City (about 40 miles away from the airport). The committee is proceeding as if it is a go! a. Ideas for the conference’s theme are welcomed b. Subtopics for sessions include: Climate Change, hydraulics in the future, new direction of

hydraulics in transportation, potential research topics. 15. There are quite a few members of the TCHH facing difficulties for out-of-state travel, which

would be impacting their ability to participate in the 2010 Hydraulic Engineers Conference. For example, there is no out-of state-travel for Indiana DOT employees until fall 2010; Virginia DOT is facing the same restrictions this year and next year – Roy Mills suggested that we try to tie the AASHTO meeting to the Hydraulic Engineers Conference; Lotwick said that he has gotten approval to attend the fall 2009 and spring 2010 but no commitment beyond that.

16. There will be other conferences of interest during 2010 such as the International Bridge Conference, and the International Scour Conference and others.

17. Bill Bailey said that the AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials is working on developing a pipe specification for flexible pipes. Rick Renna suggested that we form a task force with members of other technical committees that may have interest on pipe specifications. Glenn DeCou stated that comments received from members of the Subcommittee on Materials are not that uniform. The specifications are still ways to be ready for balloting. Dave Henderson stated that NCDOT brought in all three industries and requested they bring all their calculations for fill above a culvert. The state is developing standard installation procedures for all pipe materials across the board – all pipes will be installed the same ways. This is a multidisciplinary effort, which will be completed within the next eight weeks. All agencies were given a final draft of the procedures. Dave said that he will be glad to share the document when completed. Hani Falghaly said that Ontario requires that all plants must be certified for all pipe materials. All pipes that arrive to a site must go through a certification and there may be a need for multiple certification requirements on a pipe. Andrea Hendrickson stated that MN DOT tried plastic pipes in different places and found that some of them worked well and some other did not. Mike Fazio stated that we don’t have a continuous track record of the pipe materials and that when the industry changes the formula on their pipe material, it is going to be difficult to track what is being use here or there. Mike stated that in Utah DOT they use a pipe material service life of 35-50 years for pipes on highways and 50 years for pipes on the interstate. David Moses stated that he was not sure of what is the material service life in Kentucky and therefore, the state does not have a good handle of what tot expect. E said that there is a study by the University of Kentucky looking at all pipes on the ground. Karuna stated that the MDSHA does not have a good hand on what to expect as for pipe material service life. Hani stated that Ontario used 25/50/75 years design service life and that the material service life is longer than the design service life. They may end with five or six pipes that meet the design service life. Ontario has height of fill requirements and chemical testing requirements but no requirements for channel material testing for abrasion. All their pipes have to go through a screening process that goes throughout all testing – their manufacturers have to report on how a pipe will be inspected. Ontario has maps that provide general resistivity information. They had a moratorium on steel pipes, but this has been discontinued. David Moses asked if there are states getting 100-year service life and Rick Renna said that they believe that they do in FLDOT if they get the proper installation. Doug Morse said that NYDOT uses 70 years of service life on specific locations such as interstates and perennial streams. They use 70 years for concrete polyethylene and 70 years for Aluminum under normal conditions. He said


that a 1984 research showed that the metal loss rate on pipes throughout the state was about 2-4 mills. The NYDOT has very few issues with polyethylene. The longest pipe used with this material is a 5 feet long. Polyethylene pipes are used for closed drain and cross drain systems. They have had issues during construction and floating pipes. Andrea Hendrickson stated that MNDOT is more interested in service life than in life cycle and that they are working on improving the process. Their experience with PVC pipes is that they crack when installed. MNDOT construction units don’t like PVC pipes – they get bad feedback from construction. Rick Renna said that the issue of cracking on PVC pipes may be due to the long time these pipes may have been stock piled. Merril Dougherty stated that cracking problems with PVC pipes may be from loading/dropping them on/off the truck. PVC pipes have to be treated properly when loading them up to the truck. The main issue may be with the construction practice. Mike Fazio stated that the problem may reside with who enforces the construction standards. He also said that in Utah DOT there may be several pipes that are there in failure mode, but maintenance goes out there and fix them up. Andrea Hendrickson stated that there may be a need to set up performance measures to track the number of times these pipes are inspected. She said that there has been a tax increase implemented by the MN governor to allow for the inventory and fix of pipes. In addition, she brought up other issues that may be affecting pipes such as climate change (pipes may be undersized), fish passage (there may be a need to make pipes bigger), and yet there may be a need to reduce pipe sizing to reduce downstream flooding. Dave Henderson stated that NCDOT uses a 75-year life cycle for primary routes and 30-40 year for secondary roads. HDPEs are used on alternative routes (with a 20-25 year life cycle for rural routes) unless they are on curb-and-gutter sections. They do have minimum criteria for inspection and use inspection by camera – these are DOT-conducted inspections. For 75 years life cycle they use concrete and HDPEs (on lateral and ditched only). For crossed-drain systems they use concrete only. The NCDOT will be monitoring this for the next three years for any issues that may arise.

18. Mike Fazio passed around a booklet on segmental culvert liner installation produced by Utah DOT and the Utah University and a document on standard practice for pipe joint selection for highway culverts and storm drains.

19. The research digest on scour research was passed around. 20. Jorge Pagán passed around a document presenting the status on Plans of Action development and

implementation. 21. Roy Mills said that he is now a special assistant to the Administrator. He will be resigning from

the TCHH and hopes that his assistant is selected to replace him in the TCHH. He also expressed the same concern as other states have regarding charging for electronic copies of the FHWA Hydraulics Publications. Jorge Pagán informed the TCHH that a decision was made on 05/05/09 not to charge for the electronic downloads of the FHWA publications.

22. A demonstration was made on how to get into the ftp server to access the chapters that the committee members are working on. Also, it was recommended to use FileZilla for setting up an automatic protocol to access the ftp site.

23. Progress made on each chapter was discussed and is presented in the following table:

Chapter Level I (Policy)

Completion Status

Level II (Procedures)

Completion Status Commentary

1. Introduction 100% -- The only change needed is on the reference to the units.

2. Legal 100% --

3. Documentation -- -- Chaper 3 will be consolidated in Chapter 2.


4. 90% 90% 5. Planning 100% 100% 6. Data Collection 100% 100%

7. Hydrology 100% 100%

There is no chapter chair. It would probable go to David Moses.

8. Channels 85% 85% 9. Culverts 100% 70%

10. Bridges 100% 100% The only work needed is on the references and table of content.

11. Energy 60% 10% This is the status as of the previous meeting.

12. Storage 60% 20%

13. Storm Drains 50% 40% Need help to separate Level I from Level II

14. Pump Stations 100% 100% 15. Environment 80% 80%

16. Erosion and Sediment Control 100% 85%

Its completion status has changed due to some concerns with the EPA legislation. Chapter chair needs clarification on Level I and Level II and based on that the chapter chair is working on the re-writing of this chapter.

17. Channel Bank Protection

Steve wants to transfer some material to Chapter 8.

18. Coastal Zone 100% 95% This chapter is almost done. It will be significantly reduced.

19. Construction 90% 100% Need feedback from TCHH members.

20. Maintenance 100% 95% Table of content and references remain to be completed.

21. Wetlands 100% 95% 22. Groundwater 90% 75%

24. The chapter chairs will have until the fall 2009 meeting to review and complete their

corresponding chapters. The contractor will begin the chapter revisions after the fall 2009 meeting. The control of the chapters will stay with the chapter chairs until we start with Phase 2 of the AASHTO Drainage Manual.

25. A reading will be made on what goes in a level I and Level II manual. 26. Andrea Hendrickson went over the Level I and Level II outline and sited that: Volume 1 will

include the What, Why, Policy and Criteria; Volume 2 will include the How’s – examples and how to do computations.

27. The TCHH went over the procedures chapter on Culverts (Chapter 9). It was suggested to elaborate on design conditions where routing may be necessary to be considered by the designer. Roy Mills stated that VADOT does not account for upstream storage. Culverts are designed for peak flows. He stated that roadway embankments should not be considered to be used as dams unless they are designed as such. Also, it was decided to add a general statement on this chapter about the use of software for culvert design. As a suggestion the following statement was


redacted: “There are numerous commercial programs for culvert design available if the designer wants to use.”

28. Chapter 12 (Storage) was reviewed. Merrill agreed to reformat this chapter. It was agreed to add a section to this chapter on recharge (infiltration) as this topic may not be covered in any other chapter. Roy Mills indicated that VADOT is moving towards having infiltration practices be the main force for a storm water design regarding water quality. He stated that everything in VA has to be infiltrated or evaporated. Merrill agreed to add a section on recharge and environmental aspects in this chapter. Other topics regarding design issues with stagnated water, safety, and salt concentration in ponds should be in included, too. Roy Mills talked about issues with placing detention facilities near airports as these facilities encourage birds to reside, which in turn could represent a safety issue for airplanes. Also, it was discussed that the policy section on this chapter (section 12.4) may not actually be covering policy. It was suggested that this section included guidance on the following topics: Where to place ponds, quality, quantity, safety, environmental regulations, and maintenance assess. The topic on safety could be subdivided into health, clear zone issues, traffic and others. There were quite a few additional sections edited such as: 12.5.2; 12.5.3; 12.5.4.2; 12.5.4.3; 12.5.6; and 12.6. With regards to the latter section (12.6), the Chapter 2 Chair needs to check if the Safe Dams Act is listed in Chapter 2.

29. Bill Bailey indicated that the criteria presented in Chapter 13 will need to be moved from the procedures to policy based on discussion that took place on what goes on Volume 1 and 2. It was agreed that cross slope should refer to the AASHTO Green book slope requirement. There was a discussion about how much detail on hydrology should reside on this chapter since there is a separate chapter on hydrology. Bill questioned how strong is the urban hydrology procedure in the hydrology chapter and how it may affect this chapter on storm drain. He voiced his concern about water quality treatment – there is a small discussion on this issue in Chapter 13, but it points to the environmental chapter. Bill said that he is inclined to expand both, the water quality and environmental sections of Chapter 13. He will proceed in that direction and will be sending his recommendations to the TCHH for comments.

30. Chapter 17 was discussed – Steve Sisson said that this chapter needs a broader approach and recommended to add a discussion on stream stabilization analysis and river stream morphology. A general discussion took place on this Chapter and members voiced their concern about engineers not doing more detailed geomorphic analysis before a design is done, and that one needs to get out in the field to quantify issues with the channel. It was stated that this chapter should include language to help the engineer make a decision on when to study the channel morphology and when not to. The TCHH decided to move a discussion on stream morphology from Chapter 8 to Chapter 17.

31. The TCHH went over Chapter 22 on Groundwater. Karuna is concerned about the material presented in this chapter as it may be going too much into theory and as such it may not be practical. Also, she was not sure if the material is properly divided into policy and procedures. The TCHH suggested that this chapter include topics on ocean driven groundwater curves, and groundwater modeling for temporary dewatering when dealing with wetlands or water contamination. Also, it was suggested that this chapter be reviewed by geotechnical and environmental specialists and that equations be moved to the procedures. A discussion followed-up about whether or not this chapter should be retained or combined with the wetland chapter as groundwater is a major component of wetlands. It was pointed out that the 2003 minutes identify the need to have this topic addressed in new documents. A team lead by Karuna was put together to evaluate if the wetlands and groundwater chapters could be combined. The team reported that a lot of the work on groundwater is actually performed by geotechnical specialists and that hydraulics engineers need to be aware of that work. Also, the team reported that there is no need to have a dedicated procedures chapter on groundwater and that policy sections on groundwater can be covered in other chapters such as culverts, environment and storage. Therefore it was


decided to eliminate the groundwater chapter from both Volume 1 and 2.

h. TECHNOLOGY CORNER: 32. Larry Arneson made a presentation on the Hydraulics Toolbox, version 1.0. The toolbox is being

tested internally by FHWA. He gave a brief presentation on each of the five components of the toolbox: Channel Analysis, Weir Component, Curb and Gutter Analysis, Rational Method and Retaining Basin. The release of version 1.0 may be happening within a month. Version 2.0 may include HEC-15 technology, including a riprap calculator module, improved reporting module and plotting. There is also an effort to develop a user’s manual document for the toolbox.

33. Larry presented an update on HY-8. The maintenance phase is being going on for the last 6-7 months. The contractor is fixing some calculation issues within the program. A new version will be distributed later on this month and don’t know at this point in time what would be its numerical version).

34. Larry briefed the TCHH on the hydraulics survey on state of practices. FHWA is doing an internal review of the survey. He asked for four volunteers from State DOTs to review the survey. NY, NC, MN and UT volunteered. Larry will follow up with these states.

35. Larry discussed arrangements being made for SMS and WMS – FHWA will be putting together a curriculum for sessions on these software for the next 12 months. There would be six sessions on WMS and six on SMS. Each session would be approximately one hour long. These sessions would go from basic to advance. WMS version 8.2 and SMS version 10.1 are available.

36. Larry talked about the quality of photos in the FHWA hydraulics training courses. He said that FHWA hydraulics would welcome ideas on how to funnel photos to us on hydraulics engineering features as we would like to start classifying them. The idea is to be able to use them during the next time that FHWA updates any of its NHI training courses. If we receive photos, we would like to have a disclaimer from the sender that gives FHWA permission to collect and use the photos in our training courses and publications.

37. Larry made a presentation on Portable Apps, which allows one to quick access to ftp sites.

I) CONCERNS OF THE STATES:

38. California – Glenn DeCou reported the following issues: a. All State employees are still on 2-day/month furloughs planned thru June 2010 due to State

budget deficit - creating a nearly 10% reduction in staff time. Completing various projects on time becoming increasingly difficult.

b. California State Water Resources Control Board is requiring entities to consider the extent to which projects impact the natural rainfall/runoff hydrograph - and the term "hydromodification" is used to describe this phenomena. Some entities are using continuous hydrograph simulation modeling to identify not just changes to peak flow, but to precipitation event flow volumes and durations, with the desire by the regulators to have the post project hydrograph match the pre-project hydrograph in it's entirety. Caltrans is working with the State Board to try to come up with a simplified process for our designers to implement that considers the limited footprint that most highways have within any given watershed, and thus the limited impact to any watershed hydrograph.

c. New Senate Bill under legislative review that will place additional emphasis on prioritizing fish passage for highway stream crossings and require Caltrans to complete statewide surveys for passage barriers. Could lead to expenditures of several million dollars and increase annual progress reporting requirements to the legislature.

39. Delaware: Stephen Sisson reported that outside of the moving carrot budget short fall, the TMDL issue reared its ugly head shortly after the forewarnings by MD, FL and Hawaii last August. Delaware waterways are nearly 90% impaired by EPA standards, mostly from non-point source


farm runoff, failing septic systems and ambient breakdown of atmospheric pollution. A recent report has indicated that no amount of point source improvements will offset water quality issues in Sussex and Kent Counties (2 of 3). He reported that there are two separate internal battles going on in an attempt to address the issue. The first would be the state and counties battle with landowners to restore and preserve riparian buffers. The second would be convincing DNREC and DelDOT that we work for the same state and have a common interest in saving our waterways. In addition, DNREC is in the process of revising the Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. So far they have moved to a 1 year water quality event with a greater emphasis on good disconnection practices and more infiltration, in addition to a watershed timing approach for water quantity. He is participating on both the Technical Committee and BMP maintenance Committee. The Technical Committee is meeting next Wed morning and is just beginning to get into the “how” part of the rewrite. He reported that he is probably going to go since it will be pertinent to all. They have been discussing the expanded tool box and quantifications, but there are no details as of yet. Also, he reported that the bridge section is working with DNREC to identify ownership and asses the condition of numerous mill dams that have been converted to roads and bridges over the years. He indicated that he is not involved in the process.

40. Florida: Rick Renna reported the following concerns: a. EPS’s Proposed Effluent Guidelines -- Onerous proposed erosion and sediment control

requirements by EPA that were resolutely opposed by AASHTO. EPA may be still moving forward. Kelley would be a good one to communicate this issue to the TCHH. BD, Karuna, and Cynthia were also involved.

b. Laser Pipe Inspection -- Having initiated laser ring inspection about two years ago, FDOT is finding the need for refinement of laser ring/video micrometer remote inspection standards, including operator training, independent 3rd party equipment certification, and onsite calibration. They are working with laser ring manufacturers, laser ring contractors, and NAASCO to resolve these issues and want to include other states that may be able to benefit from this work.

c. Refinement of Remote Meeting Technology and Leadership Skills -- With ongoing travel restrictions, agencies must (1) harvest improved technologies such as GoToMeetings, video conferencing, webinars, etc., (2) be able to jump agency firewalls to broaden our meeting audiences, and (3) learn the leadership skills to lead groups remotely.

d. Nutrient Removal Standards for New Construction and TMDLs -- With detention ponds removing only about 40% TN and 70% TP, other BMPs are needed. FDOT is researching stormwater re-use, pervious pavement, floating wetland islands, sorption media, etc. Re-use is an effective nutrient disposal mechanism but is problematic within the travel way due to pavement subgrade impacts and the maintenance associated with installing pipes throughout shoulders and medians. Pervious pavement has low structural value, wetland islands provide decent improvement to ponds, but require ongoing maintenance. The cost of these tools is difficult in these austere economic times. Rick indicate dthat he will be delighted to share some of their BMP research, but they are finding no “silver bullet.”

e. Unknown Foundations – Florida is working on a pilot project to address their bridges with unknown foundations per the FHWA January 9, 2008, memorandum. Various techniques are been considered.

41. Idaho: Lotwick Reese reported on the following: a. They are experiencing problems with hiring and are currently on a travel freeze. b. There is an impasse with the highway funding. The governor wants to raise gas tax, but the

legislature does not want to pass the bill. c. They have been working for the last couple of years on getting bridge watch implemented –

one of the issues they are facing is that they do all scour evaluations and the big concern is how to get maintenance personnel out there when scour watch send the alert. They are


looking into a real time program to let them know when rainfall or snow melt occurs to send people to a bridge. Bridge watch provides this so that they can better monitor the bridge. Monitoring bridges is done from Lotwick’s office. They assign a threshold to a gaging station and the system alerts whoever is assigned when the threshold is reached by e-mail or call phone call. It is an interactive tool. Their long-term plan is to use bridge watch as a long-term countermeasure. The state has a check list of what the inspectors have to do when they get the alert from the system. Lotwick stated that meteorologist have to come on board to be able to link all rainfall to work properly with bridge watch. With regards to snowmelt, there needs to be better tools to aid define what the radius of influence should be used to estimate runoff so that it could be communicated to bridge watch. Mike Fazio stated that he would like to receive more information about bridge watch.

42. Illinois: Matt O’Connor reported on the following: a. Illinois StreamStats -- Developed by the USGS, came on-line in 2005 (web-based “point

and click” hydrologic method- regression equations that transpose gage runoff data to annual maximum\peak discharges). He would like to know how it is performing in other states, such as Idaho, Indiana and if there are any issues or problems that could be shared with him. Also, he would like to know if there are states using it for urban settings, without adjustment. He said that Illinois USGS wants to develop regression equations for urban areas and build an urban StreamStats. Matt asked if Indiana is using the same equations and Merril said that INDOT is not and that not all of their streams are regulated by DNR. Also, Lotwick stated that they use rural runoff regression equations, but not for urban.

b. Float-out devices -- This type of countermeasure, which is used to monitor scour, is introduced at the NHI Scour Countermeasures class last year -- these are relatively inexpensive devices that are placed beneath pier riprap in such a manner that they pop-out when riprap is dislodged and rise to water surface, triggering a report or signal to the bridge owner. He wants to know if anyone is using this countermeasure. Also, he would like to know if there is testing or research planned to assess\improve its performance.

c. Unsteady flow models – The state-of-practice in Illinois remains 1-D, steady flow models. The main reason is no push from regulatory agencies. (Also, IDOT training\travel $$ have taken a beating for about 6 years. He would like to know if there are unsteady flow models making inroads. Also, he would like to know if there are any states using them with greater frequency than the occasional, as-dictated study.

d. HEC-18 scour adjustments -- He reported that at bridge sites with cohesive soils, the ILDOT Bridge Foundations Unit adjusts computed scour. The adjustment is tied directly to Qu, unconfined compressive strength. The reduction scale slides from 100% (non-scourable rock) to 70% (Qu>4.0 TSF) to 40% (2.0<Qu<4.0) to 20% (1.0<Qu<2.0) to 0% (Qu<1.0). IDOT is fine-tuning the reduction scale concept with an on-going USGS research project. Preliminary study data is in good agreement with the Foundations Unit’s Qu scale. In that same project, we are also studying the use of EFA-SRICOS in Illinois. EFA-SRICOS is the soils testing flume and scour software package for computing scour in cohesive soils. He would like to know if there are other states making attempts to adjust or reduce HEC-18 scour depths in cohesive soils by applying soils parameters in some manner. Rick stated that FLDOT has a procedure for rock and clay and that there is an NCHRP project looking at rock scour. Dave Henderson stated that NCDOT has a procedure between their hydraulics and geotechnical units to evaluate unusual deep scour predictions with geological scour predictions. They look at the geotechnical material from borings. They see where the rock line may be and then the hydraulics and geotechnical units sit down to see if they can apply some judgment to see if they can reduce the predicted scour depth. They look at the type of rock or soil within the predicted scour depth. The final decision resides with the geotechnical and hydraulics units. He also stated that NCDOT had an original EFA – it was used quite a


bit and was very labor intense to use. The results needed a subject decision making. Rick Renna stated that Kornel Kerenyi is developing a new apparatus. Kornel stated that once he completes the apparatus his first step would be to validate the erosion curves that have already been developed by others. The apparatus that he is developing will be measuring shear stress directly over the sample. Matt requested states to e-mail him any information and/or experience they may have with the EFA.

43. Minnesota: Andrea Hendrickson reported that the State has a big push on considering underground storage, used as both water quality devices and peak flow attenuation. She is interest in policy and standards for underground storage used by other states. She asked if there is there any AASHTO guidance, or what are other states doing. Also, she reported that the State is being required to infiltrate up to 1 inch of total impervious in some watershed districts and there is a lot of talk of adopting volume control requirements. She asked what are other states experiences with implementation of infiltration devices and if there are any good tips or design criteria. Rick Renna said that FLDOT has a manual on policy on infiltration. He will be sharing it with Andrea and any other TCHH members interested on it.

44. New Mexico: Rae Van Hoven reported that their main issue still is the sediment transport problem.

45. New York: Douglas Morse reported that the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation is beginning an update to the SPDES permits. There are upcoming EPA Effluent Limitation Guidelines. He reported that they are still dealing with USACE (NWP Regional Conditions) regarding aquatic passage with culverts and bridges. Also, he reported that there is no word on EPA Class V wells (infiltration basins) and the associated SPDES regulations.

46. North Carolina: Dave Henderson reported that municipal bridges are an issue. The state cannot do scour analysis on municipal bridges. He said that trying to get municipalities to respond to bridge inspections is a challenge, and that requiring that scour evaluations be completed is even a bigger challenge. Also, he stated that state legislation requires continues training. They are looking at doing internal training using their senior staff to instruct.

47. Ontario: Hani Farghaly wrote that their main concerns at the Ministry of Transportation are: a. Lack of information on the life cycle of culvert liners. b. The challenge of quantifying the impact of climate change on the hydrology of streams and

inland/great lakes and how this can be translated into modification of design standards. c. Developing and reaching a consensus with construction staff on the practical means for post

installation inspections of drain and culvert pipe. Work on this area is progressing. d. Updating of IDF curves for homogeneous climatologic regions based on a limited rainfall

dataset and access to analysis methods. 48. South Dakota: Rich Phillips wrote that their current issues deal with completing project for the

Stimulus package. In additions they have areas of the state experiencing severe flooding. There are Bureau of Reclamation or similar dams in North and South Dakota that have experienced their first this year being full or using the spillway for the first time. These dams go back to the 1950's and 1960's. One large river has experienced considerable lateral shifting this year causing one Indian Reservation road to be lost and in the last two years has shifted 100 ft or more into the abutment of one of our bridges. He wrote that their large Missouri River reservoir a few miles north of the office has raised nearly 30 ft in the last years and again reaches out sister state Capitol city. Also, Veronica Ghelardi reported on Rich’s behalf that they are working with the COE on a bridge with a river that is moving towards the abutment.

49. Texas: Amy reported that TXDOT is reorganizing their division offices which could affect her participation in future meetings. Also, she indicated that TXDOT probably would not be meeting the Item 113 deadlines – Amy, could you please clarify if you mean the deadlines for scour evaluations and POAs and/or eliminating U’s from Item 113?

50. Utah: Mike Fazio reported that their main concern is with water quality and regulations.


51. Virginia: Roy Mills reported on the following issues: a. Reduced Revenue – Since, by state law, maintenance costs comes off the top of the budget,

this has had a major impact to the construction program. Maintenance of bridges and pavements are top priority in their list.

b. Proposed Staff Reductions – Result of reduced revenue and reduced construction program. Proposed reduction in maximum full time staffing from 8400 to 7500 by 7/2010. Engineering and construction side of the house most affected (35% reduction in positions).

c. MS4 Program Permit -- Concerns with funding the cost of program. Inability to get administration to recognize penalties and impacts for non-compliance.

d. SWM Program – New state regulations proposed to require more onsite retainage of run-off volume (infiltration and evapo-transpiration). Regulations designed to meet Chesapeake Bay water quality requirements that appear to be based on somewhat suspicious numbers. Regulation requirements appear difficult to meet for linear projects.

H) FINANCIAL REPORT:

52. See Appendix F for details. a. Current balance is $2,678.10.

L) TCHH FUTURE MEETING LOCATIONS:

53. Proposed locations: 2008 Fall Portland, Maine (In conjunction with the 2008 National Hydraulic Engineering

Conference) 2009 Spring Lakewood, Colorado 2009 Fall Indianapolis, Indiana 2010 Spring San Francisco, California 2010 Fall TBD (In conjunction with the 2010 National Hydraulic Engineering Conference)

M) GROUP PICTURE:

54. Picture of the AASHTO TCHH members (see Appendix G).


Appendix A

AASHTO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON HYDOLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

MEMBERS/MEMBER’S REPRESENTATIVES MEMBER

ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

Mr. Bill Bailey Hydraulics Engineer

Wyoming Transportation Department 5300 Bishop Blvd., Cheyenne, WY 82009

(307) 777-4045 (o) (307) 777-4279 (f) [email protected]

Mr. Brooks Booher Staff Hydraulic Engineer

AR State Highway & Transportation Dept. 10324 I-30, Little Rock, AR, 72209 PO Box 2261, Little Rock, 72203-2261

(501) 569-2589 (o) (501) 569-2057 (fax) [email protected]

Mr. Glenn DeCou Headquarters Hydraulic

Engineer State Highway Drainage Design

CALTRANS, 1120 N Street, Room 2208, Sacramento, CA 95814, P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001


Mr. Merril E. Dougherty Hydraulics Engineer Supervisor

Indiana Department of Transportation 100 North Senate Avenue, Rm N642 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2228


Dr. Hani Farghaly Senior Hydrotechnical Engineer Design and Contract Standards Office

Ontario Ministry of Transportation 301 St. Paul St, 2nd Floor North St. Catherines, Ontario L2R 7R4


Mr. Mike Fazio TCHH Chair Deputy Director of Research

Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

(801) 957-8595 (o) (801) 633-6228 (m) (801) 965-4564 (f) [email protected]

Mr. Preston Helms Hydraulic Design Engineer

SC Department of Transportation P.O. Box 191, Columbia, SC 29202 955 Park Street, Columbia, SC 29201


Mr. David Henderson State Hydraulics Engineer

NC DOT, 1590 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 1020 Birch Ridge Rd., 27610 (deliveries)


Ms. Andrea Hendrickson State Hydraulics Engineer

Minnesota Department of Transportation 3485 Hadley Avenue North Oakdale, MN 55128


Mr. Roy T. Mills State Hydraulics Engineer

VA Dept. of Transportation 1401 East Broad St. Richmond, Virginia 23219


Mr. Douglas Morse Civil Engineer 2

New York State Department of Transportation Design Services Bureau 50 Wolf Road - POD 24 Albany, NY 12232

(518) 457-4843 (o) (518) 457-2916 (fax) [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

Mr. Te Anh Ngo Roadway Drainage Engineer Roadway Design Division

Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation 200 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105


Mr. Matt O’Connor Hydraulics Engineer

Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway Springfield, Illinois 62764


Mr. Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz TCHH Secretary Principal Bridge Engineer –

ydraulics H

FHWA1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Room E75-322, HIBT-20 Washington, D.C. 20590


Mr. Richard Phillips Bridge Hydraulics Engineer Office of Bridge Design

South Dakota Department of Transportation 700 East Broadway Pierre, South Dakota 57501

(605) 773-3285 (o) (605) 773-4993 (desk) (605) 773-2614 (f) [email protected]

Ms. Karuna Pujara Chief, Highway Hydraulics Division

Maryland State Highway Admin. 707 N. Calvert St., MS C-201 Highway Hydraulics Div. Baltimore, MD 21202


Mr. Lotwick I. Reese Hydraulics Engineer

Idaho Transportation Department P.O. Box 7129, Boise, Idaho 83703 3311 West State Street Boise, Idaho 83707-1129


Mr. Rick Renna State Hydraulics Engineer

Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street M.S. 32 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450


Mr. James R. Richardson Road Design Leader

Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Design, Road Section 700 SW Harrison Street Topeka, Kansas 66603-3754


Ms. Amy Ronnfeldt Hydraulics Engineer

TXDOT 200 E. Riverside Dr. Austin, Texas 78704


Mr. Alvin Shoblom Senior Hydraulics Engineer

Oregon Department of Transportation 355 Capital Street NE Room 308A Salem, Oregon 97301

(503) 986-3365 (o) [email protected]

Mr. Stephen M. Sisson Project Engineer IV

Delaware Department of Transportation P.O. Box 778 800 Bay Road Dover, Delaware 19903

(302) 760-2553 (o) (302) 354-0979 (c) (302) 739-2217 (f)











ADDRESS

TELEPHONE

Mr. Amir Soltani Nevada Department of Transportation (775) 888-7619 (o) (775) 986-3407 (f) [email protected]

Dr. Duc minh Tran

Ministère des Transports du Québec 930 Chemin Sainte-Foy 7è étage Ville Québec Province Québec, Canada G1S 4X9


Mr. David Morse Chief Drainage Engineer

KY Transportation Cabinet 200 Mero St. Station E5-05-02 Frankfort, KY 40622


AASHTO HIGHWAY SUBCOMMITTEE ON DESIGN OFFICERS Dr. Kam K. Movassaghi (Chair) Secretary, LA DOT & Development

P.O. Box 94245 1201 Capitol Access Road Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245


Mr. Dwight Horne (Secretary) Director, Office of Program Administration

FHWA, HIPA-1 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Room E75-113 Washington, D.C. 20590


Ms. Kelley C. Rehm, P.E. AASHTO Staff Project Engineer - Technical Committee on Hydrology and Hydraulics

AASHTO 602 Idlewood Dr. Mt. Juliet, Tennessee 37122








Appendix B

VISITORS AASHTO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

SPRING 2009 MEETING LAKEWOOD, COLORADO

MAY 5-7, 2009

Name Address Telephone/Fax/E-Mail Kornel Kerenyi FHWA-TFHRC

6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, Virginia 22101

(202) 493-3142 (Office) (202) 493-3442 (Fax) [email protected]

Veronica Ghelardi FHWA Resource Center

12300 West Dakota Avenue Suite 340 Lakewood, CO 80

(720) 963-3240 (Office) [email protected]

Bart Bergendahl FHWA-FLHP

12300 W. Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228


Larry Arneson FHWA-Resource Center

12300 West Dakota Avenue Suite 340 Lakewood, CO 80228


Dan Ghere FHWA-Resource Center

19900 Governors Drive Suite 301 Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461

(708) 283-3557 (Office) (708) 283-3501 (Fax) [email protected]

Cynthia Nurmi FHWA-Resource Center









Appendix C


Appendix D


Appendix E

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Activity Update

FHWA Hydraulics Update

Presented for:

AASHTO Technical Committee on Hydrology and HydraulicsSpring 2009 Meeting

May 5, 2009

By:

Jorge E. Pagán-OrtizPrincipal Bridge Engineer – Hydraulics

Leader, Hydraulics and Geotechnical TeamFederal Highway Administration

Office of Bridge TechnologyWashington, D.C.

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Public Service Recognition Week

Thanks for your commitment to serve our nation as public service

employees and for all you do on your daily work for the safety of the public

users!

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Focus Areas

• Bridge Scour Evaluations– 34,900 evaluations remaining as of 2008 NBI database (Coded 6, T, or

Null For Item 113 of the NBI)– Review of 2009 NBI logged for 14 DOTs shows a significant reduction

trend

• Develop and Implement POAs for Bridges Identified by Owners as Scour Critical– 20,904 Scour Critical Bridges (not including Federal Owners)– Code 0, 1, 2, or 3 for Item 113– 61.3% of bridges currently identified as scour critical have a POA

Implemented Infr

astr

uct

ure

Focus Areas

• Eliminate Bridges Coded “U” (Unknown Foundations) from the National Bridge Inventory– 67,240 bridges coded “U” for Item 113

– FHWA Unknown Foundations team working on Q’s & A’s

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Policy Memorandums

• Scour Evaluations and POAs– http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/policymemo/20080104.cfm

• Eliminate Unknown Foundations– http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/policymemo/20080109.cfm

• FHWA is tracking progress on POA Development and Implementation– http://intra.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/attachmentc/summary03_total.cfm

– http://intra.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/attachmentc/summary04_total.cfm Infr

astr

uct

ure

Publications

• HEC 22, Urban Drainage Design– Second Edition – scheduled for completion in summer 2009

• New methodology in Chapter 7 for computing energy losses in junction chambers (new procedure already included in NHI Course 135047)

• Editing numerous typos and equations

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Dan Ghere


Infr

astr

uct

ure

Publications (continuation)

• HEC 23, Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures– Third Edition -- target date for its completion is late spring 2009

– Two Volumes

– Expanded guidance on Plans of Action for Scour Critical Bridges

– Added new countermeasure group to Countermeasure Matrix on Biotechnical Engineering

– 18 Design Guidelines

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz

Infr

astr

uct

ure


• HEC 25, Highways in the Coastal Environment– Second Edition dated June 2008

– Presents guidance for the analysis, planning, design and operation of highways in the coastal environment

– Publication Number is FHWA-NHI-07-096

– Available at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/07096/07096.pdf

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Joe Krolak

Infr

astr

uct

ure


• HEC 26, Design for Aquatic Organism Passage at Roadway Stream Crossings– First Edition -- target date for its completion is September 2009

– Engineering-based procedures that focuses on the mobility characteristics of natural sediments over a full range of discharges which represent fish behavior and swimming capabilities

– Technical committee representing Forest Service, NOAA, California Department of Fish and Games, DOTs (MD, ME) and FHWA (Hydraulics and Environment)

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Bart Bergendahl

Infr

astr

uct

ure


• HECs 18 and 20– Targeted to start updates during FY 2009 (subject to funding availability)

– NHI Course 135046 will be updated, too

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz

• HDS 5– Targeted to start updates during FY 2009 (subject to funding availability)

– NHI Course 135056 will be updated, too

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Eric Brown

Infr

astr

uct

ure


• Culvert Inspection Manual– Problem statement submitted by TRB AFF70 Committee on Culverts

and Hydraulic Structures• Committee’s top priority

• Phase I -- updating culvert inspection manual

• Phase II – develop a culvert inspection management system

– FHWA combined effort to update to the Culvert Chapter on the Bridge Inspection Reference Manual

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Tom Everett and Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz

Infr

astr

uct

ure

NHI Courses

• NHI 135047, Stream Stability and Scour at Highway Bridges for Bridge Inspectors – Update completed

– Pilot held in Minnesota (February 2009)

– Field Guide for Bridge Inspectors on Stream Instability, Scour and Countermeasures

• Containing tips on Stream Instability, Scour and Countermeasures

• Copies of the Field Guide will be nationally distributed by memorandum

– Technical Course Manager: Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz


Infr

astr

uct

ure

NHI Courses (continuation)

• NHI 135048, Countermeasure Design for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability– Currently being updated -- completion expected in early summer 2009

– Updates implement changes on HEC-23• Expanded coverage on Plans of Action for scour critical bridges

• Expanded coverage on Countermeasure Design Guidelines

– Animation presentations on stream stability and scour countermeasures

– Technical Course Manager: Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz

Infr

astr

uct

ure

NHI Courses (continuation)

• NHI 135082, Highways in the Coastal Environment– Based on HEC 25

– Includes the use of a portable flume for demonstration of key concepts on wave actions on countermeasures

– FHWA Technical Course Manager: Joe Krolak

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Software

• HY-8, Culvert Hydraulic Analysis, Version 7.1– Phase 1 -- released by FHWA on July 1, 2008

– Available at FHWA Hydraulics Web site at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/software/hy8/

– Phase 2 (Maintenance) on-going; interim release (bug fixes) expected in May 2009

– Phase 3 -- met initial funding commitment– RFP advertisement expected soon

– Additional funding from DOTs is welcomed

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Joe Krolak Infr

astr

uct

ure

Software (continuation)

• New Storm Drain Software– Contract awarded; product expected in fall 2010

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Joe Krolak

• Hydraulic Toolbox– Internal (FHWA) resease of first version made on April 30, 2009

– Seven Modules Available: Hydrology, Channel Hydraulics, Curb and Gutter Hydraulics, Weir Analysis, Detention Basin Analysis, Notes Module and Reporting Module

– FHWA Technical Project Manager: Larry Arneson, Bart Bergendahl

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Hydraulics Engineering Practice Questionnaire

• Being drafted by FHWA

• State-of-the-Practice in Hydraulics Engineering

• Electronic survey will go to all DOTs

• FHWA Contacts: Larry Arneson and Cynthia Nurmi

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Other Activities

• Floodplains– Investigating updating regulation, 23 CFR 650 Subpart A

– Meetings held with FEMA and FHWA legal staff– FHWA Hydraulics Team Contact: Joe Krolak

• Climate Change– Assisting the FHWA Office of Environmental Planning

• Formulating climate change and adaptive and vulnerability assessment strategies

– FHWA Hydraulics Team Contact: Joe Krolak


Infr

astr

uct

ure

Thank You!!!


Appendix F

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

SCOH Committee Annual Financial Report, June 2007 - May 2009

Subcomittee on Design

Technical Committee on Hydrology and hydraulics

Item Description Quantity Cost per

AASHTO Technical Committee on Hydrology and Hydraulics – Spring 2009 Meeting, Lakewood, CO Page 46

Appendix F

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

SCOH Committee Annual Financial Report, June 2007 - May 2009

Subcomittee on Design

Technical Committee on Hydrology and hydraulics

Item Description Quantity Cost per Total Previous Balance June 2008 $3,912.37

Income Registration Portland, ME (Aug 2008) 21 $85.00 $1,785.00 Service Charge Refund Bank Adjustment on 9/26/08 $24.00 Total Income $1,809.00

Expenditures

Caps for TCHH Karuna Pujara N/A $192.75 $192.75

Shirts for TCHH East Coast Promotional Products (C/O BD) N/A $841.00 $841.00

2008 AASHTO SCOD Meeting Michael Fazio N/A $838.66 $838.66 Fall 2008 Meeting - Portland Meeting & meal Expenses 2008 NHEC $1,133.77 $1,133.77 Gift for Dan Ghere Amazon.com via Michael Fazio $37.09 Total Expenditures $3,043.27

Balance - May 2009 $2,678.10


Appendix G

aashto technical committee on hydrology and hydraulics...

Documents