1

AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - KANSAS CITY METRO CHAPTER

WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE - EROSION CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE

CONSENSUS DOCUMENT FOR UPDATES TO THE STANDARD DRAWINGS

MARCH 2015

A. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to 1) communicate to the APWA Kansas City Metro Chapter and Water Resources

Management Committee what the goals of the Erosion Control Sub-Committee are, and 2) gain consensus within

the APWA Kansas City Metro Chapter and Water Resources Management Committee on the updates to the

standard drawings that the Erosion Control Sub-Committee has developed.

The original erosion and sediment control specifications, design criteria, and standard drawings were created in

the early 2000’s. The specifications and design criteria were last updated in 2008 and 2010, respectively. The

standard drawings were in the most need of updates because they have not been updated since their original

development and they deviated from the current industry focus more than the other documents. Subsequent to

the creation of the current erosion and sediment control standard drawings, the industry shifted its focus to

erosion control BMPs (before erosion occurs) as the primary line of defense, with sediment control BMPs (after

erosion occurs) as a secondary line of defense. A significant change in the standard drawings will be required in

order to align with the current focus of the industry. This document serves to gain consensus on what the industry

standard of practice is for erosion and sediment control in the Kansas City Metro region before spending the

resources to make updates.

B. GOALS OF THE EROSION CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE

Below are the goals of the Erosion Control Sub-Committee. The items in bold represent the committees current

focus.

1) Define Functions of Erosion Control in the Kansas City Metro and Gain Consensus

a) Research current state of the practice, define the functions of erosion control as it relates to the Kansas

City Metro area, and gain consensus within the erosion control sub-committee.

b) Submit what the sub-committee feels is the current state of the practice to the overall committee for

broader consensus.

2) Standard Drawings for Erosion and Sediment Control

a) Review the revisions/mark-ups that were proposed for the standard drawings by the last erosion

control committee and determine what still applies.

b) Review the updates that have already been made to the standard drawings and determine what still

applies.

c) Submit new revisions to the standard drawings to the overall committee for approval.

3) Section 5100 – Guidance for Erosion and Sediment Control

a) Review 5100 and determine if any updates/revisions are necessary.

4) Section 2150 – Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control

a) Review 2150 and determine if any updates/revisions are necessary.

b) Coordinate with, and provide input to, the consultant hired by the Metro Chapter Executive Committee

to perform a needs assessment and update the specifications.

2

5) Metro-Wide Education and Adoption of the Guidance, Specifications, and Standard Drawings

a) Focus on educating the communities, inspectors, contractors, engineers, etc. about these documents and

what changes have been made.

b) Determine which cities are using the documents and how they can be improved to serve them better.

c) Create a list of reasons that cities do not use these documents.

Note: It is assumed that the reader has a working knowledge of erosion and sediment control. The current design guidance (5100) and

specifications (2150) should be referenced if more information on the “why” and “how” of erosion and sediment control is needed.

C. PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DRAWINGS

The purpose of the specifications and standard drawings is to provide minimum standards for design, materials,

and methods of construction for erosion and sediment control practices within the Kansas City region. The

standard drawings and specifications should represent current and proven practices. The purpose of the standard

drawings is to compliment the standard specifications by providing a visual representation of the requirements

when needed.

D. MEETINGS AND RESEARCH

The sub-committee met on a 3-week basis from June 2013 to July 2014. The first meetings focused on the work

that the previous erosion control committee pursued, as well as setting goals for the current committee. After the

goals were set, discussions and research were performed for each erosion and sediment control best management

practice (BMP) type so the committee could reach a consensus on their functions and applications. High-level

brainstorming was performed on each BMP type during the committee meetings. A list of topics was developed

and a task team was assigned to do further research on the topics between meetings. The task teams researched,

discussed, and documented their findings. In order to gain consensus, the task team presented their findings on

each topic to the rest of the sub-committee. Some of the typical questions answered by the task teams included:

• What is the intended function of each BMP type?

• What are the current issues?

• What is working well?

• What are the issues with the current standard drawings for each BMP type?

• What are the most widely used BMPs?

• What are the current standards of practice for each BMP type, and are they acceptable?

• What are the state of the art practices for each BMP type, and should we consider it as a standard practice?

E. RECOMMENDATIONS

This section presents general issues for each BMP type and recommendations for how the standard drawings

should be modified. Recommendations include a description of the intended function and intended application for

each BMP. The primary goals with the revisions are to reduce the clutter in the current standard drawings and

make them more useable. The impression of the committee was that only certain standard drawings are being

used on a regular basis, and some are never or very rarely used. In general, the committee recommends that

reference to proprietary materials be avoided.

Sample Layout

The committee concluded that it would be beneficial to include a sample site layout of an erosion and sediment

control system. This would include the most commonly used BMPs and how they might be used together to more

effectively reduce erosion on a typical project site.

3

EROSION CONTROL (PRIMARY LINE OF CONTROL)

Erosion control BMPs are intended to reduce the erosion of soil at its source, before the flow becomes

concentrated and more difficult to remove suspended sediment from. Some erosion control BMPs can also be

used to reduce wind-blown sediment and provide dust control.

Ground Cover

Ground cover significantly reduces erosion of sediment by controlling it at its source and is typically provided to

reduce sheet and rill erosion.

• Seeding & Sodding – The committee decided that the requirements for this type of BMP could be adequately

conveyed in the specifications, and including standard drawings would not provide a significant additional

benefit. The committee proposes to remove sheets ESC-02 and ESC-03 from the current standard drawings.

The committee also felt that the specifications for temporary seeding could be updated with more information

about fertilizers and different types of vegetation, especially native grasses.

• Mulch, Compost, Straw/Hay, & Hydro-Type Cover – The committee concluded that the requirements for this

type of BMP could be adequately conveyed in the specifications, and including standard drawings would not

provide a significant additional benefit. There is currently no standard drawing for this BMP, and the

committee agreed that a standard drawing is not needed for this BMP type. The committee also felt that the

specifications for these types of ground cover have changed over the past few years and also needs to be

updated.

• Surface Roughening – The committee concluded that the requirements for this type of BMP could be

adequately conveyed in the specifications, and including standard drawings would not provide a significant

additional benefit. There is currently no standard drawing for this BMP, and the committee agreed that a

standard drawing is not needed for this BMP type.

• Erosion Control Blankets/Mats (ECBs and ECMs) Class I – The committee concluded that the current standard

drawings do not address ECMs adequately. The basic requirements listed in the specifications are adequate,

but some modifications could be made based on changes that have occurred in the industry since they were

last updated. Updates to the standard drawings should include the following:

o The committee felt that the 2015 Overland Park detail and the 2015 KDOT details for ECBs/ECMs were a

good place to start with for creating updated standard drawings.

o A note should be included indicating selection and installation should be done according to the

manufacturer’s instructions. The specifications should be reference for determining which types to use.

o Show the typical layout patterns in relation to slope, overlap/splicing requirements, anchoring pattern,

and the difference between slope installations and channel in-channel installations (i.e. KDOT Class I

versus Class II).

Ditch/Channel Protection

The function of ditch and channel protection is to increase bed shear resistance to concentrated flow. This is

typically accomplished by installing materials that have a higher shear resistance than the applied shear of the

flow.

• Sod – The committee concluded that the requirements for this type of BMP could be adequately conveyed in

the specifications, and including standard drawings would not provide a significant additional benefit. The

committee proposes to remove sheets ESC-02 and ESC-03 from the current standard drawings.

• Erosion Control Blankets/Mats (Class II) – See recommendations for ECB/ECM Class I.

4

• Rock/Riprap and Outlet Protection – Riprap channel protection was considered a permanent erosion control

measure, and is covered under a separate document (APWA 5600). However, it is important to construct this

type of permanent erosion protection as soon as possible after construction of ditches and outfalls to reduce

the potential for significant erosion.

• Channel Crossings and Temporary Stream Relocation– Access road channel crossings and temporary stream

relocations are used to reduce erosion and sediment discharge into the channel during in-stream construction.

o The committee felt the need to address some of the non-structural items such as timing of construction

during low flows, complying with all proper permits, etc.; but that should be taken care of in the

specifications and not on the standard drawings.

o The committee decided that the current standard drawing for channel crossings was adequate, but that

the notes could be simplified and cleaned up. The 2015 Overland Park standard drawing was considered

a good starting point for updating the notes.

SEDIMENT CONTROL (SECONDARY LINE OF CONTROL)

These types of BMPs are intended to capture sediment after is has eroded and before it enters receiving

waterways.

Linear Slope Protection

Linear slope protection is defined as BMPs that are intended to treat sediment laden sheet flow runoff from

slopes. They are intended to run perpendicular to the slope (along contours).

• Silt Fence – The committee reviewed KDOT, OP, and APWA standard drawings for silt fence. In general, silt

fence is intended for larger areas when slopes are flat, with runs at the toe and at intervals no more than

maximum spacing. It can be used with smaller areas when slopes are steep, but must include runs at the toe

and at intermediate intervals.

o Key Issues and Standard Drawing Updates

� Which Template to Use – The committee felt the 2015 Overland Park standard drawing for silt fence

was a good place to start a new APWA standard drawing, and that it best communicates the

committee’s ideas for what should be included in a silt fence standard, especially placement.

� Fabric Attachment – The committee discussed methods for attaching fabric to posts. The current

standard drawings require the using a minimum of one inch long, heavy-duty wire staples or tie-

wires. The KDOT standard detail allows for the use of zip ties. The committee decided that a general

recommendation to securely fasten the fabric to the stakes using staples or ties (wire or zip types)

was adequate.

� Post Spacing - The current standard drawing indicates a maximum post spacing of 6 feet, which is in

conflict with the specifications. Variable spacing was considered based on tighter spacing for pooling

areas and wider spacing for open runs, but the committee thought it would be too confusing. The

committee recommends using the 4-foot spacing as provided in the specifications.

� Use of Wire-Backed Silt Fence – The committee concluded that this type of silt fence might be useful

in some cases and recommends leaving it as an option. However, it is recommended that the existing

wire-backed silt fence standard drawing be consolidated and combined with the drawing for standard

silt fence.

� Materials and Permeability – The current standard drawing requires the use of “extra-strength

sediment fence fabric” be used, which is in conflict with the specifications. The committee

recommends using AASHTO M 288 fabric as provided in the specifications.

5

� Ponding Height – The current standard drawings require a 24-inch maximum ponding height against

silt fence, and the specifications require providing “maximum storage volume without overtopping”

and the “installation shall create a broad, shallow pool of retained runoff”. The committee concluded

that a ponding statement is not needed on the standard drawing, but recommends that the

maximum exposed height of silt fence be approximately 24-inches.

� Trenching versus Slicing – The current standard drawings provide details for both trenching and

slicing methods. The specifications give preference to slicing, only allowing the use of trenching when

slicing isn’t possible. The committee recommends consolidating the two current standard drawings

into one, and revising the standard drawing to conform to the specifications.

� Use as a Ditch Check – The general experience of the committee was that silt fence has not

performed well as a ditch check for various reasons. However, because the DOTs still consider this a

viable use for silt fence, the committee recommends leaving it in the standard drawings and adding

clarifying the requirements for installation. See the Temporary Ditch Checks topic in this document

for additional information.

� Wire Staples in Trench – The KDOT standard detail shows 6-inch sire staples at 3-foot centers. The

committee concluded that staples are not needed because of giving preference to slicing, and that

the trench back fill will be adequate to anchor the silt fence when using the trenching method.

Additionally, staples may be difficult to install for the cases when trenching is allowed (rocky soils,

roots, etc.).

� Length of Individual Runs – The current standard drawings and specifications do not indicate a

maximum length for a run of silt fence. The committee concluded that a maximum length was

needed in order to promote using silt fence as a series of “pockets”. In reviewing other standards,

most varied from 100 to 250 feet for maximum run length. The committee recommends using 100

feet maximum length for an individual run of silt fence.

• Compost and Wood Mulch Berm – General consensus of the committee that compost and mulch berms are

very effective at treating sheet flow runoff, and there have been many successful installations in the metro

area. Highly recommended when the material is available on site.

o The committee recommends that the 2015 Overland Park standard drawing be used as a base for

updating the standard drawing because it includes the use of wood mulch.

• Compost and Mulch Filter Logs – Compost and mulch filter logs are similar to silt fence in their function and

should be placed in a similar manner.

o The committee concluded that the compost specification should also include wood mulch as an option.

o The committee recommends that a standard detail be added for compost and mulch filter logs. These

standard details could include their use as slope protection, inlet protection, ditch check, and concrete

wash-out. The height should be adjusted as needed for specific application.

o Place a note on the standard drawing that they are applicable to grass or pavement areas.

Flow Diversions

Diverted water may be full of sediment if coming from disturbed portions of the site, so should go to a sediment

trap/basin. Flow diversions can also be used to divert clean water around disturbed areas.

• Diversion Ditches/Berms – The committee felt that the current standard drawing for diversion did a good job

of describing the different types of diversions, but lacked information on how they should perform as part of a

system to divert water around disturbed areas or steep slopes.

o The standard drawing should be revised to include information on system function. The general phasing

and example sheet should also provide additional information on system function.

6

o The committee concluded that the 2015 Overland Park standard drawing for diversions was a start.

• Slope Drains – This type of BMP is typically used in combination with diversion ditches to drop them down a

steep slope.

o The committee noted that this BMP type is used occasionally, and they felt it should still be provided as

an option in the standard drawings.

o The committee recommended using the 2015 Overland Park or 2015 KDOT standard drawing for slope

drains was a good starting point.

Inlet Protection

Inlet protection involves those measures that are placed on or near the opening of storm inlets and culverts. They

are most often sediment controls or filters and act as a last line of defense before runoff enters a pipe system.

Define inlet protection and its issues.

General Issues and Standard Drawing Updates

o Which Template to Use - The committee felt the 2015 Overland Park and KDOT standard drawing updates

for area and curb inlets were a good start for new standard drawings for inlet protection.

o Inlet Types Covered - The committee recommends that the specifications and standard drawings be

applicable to multiple types of inlet protection. The three main types of inlet are area, curb, and culvert.

Area inlets primarily consist of grate/drop inlets, field/area inlets, and landscape inlets (12 inches or

smaller). Curb inlets consist primarily of curb inlets, combination inlets, and trench drains.

o Construction Phasing - The committee recommends that the standard drawings address both the rough

grading phase and final grading phase of construction. The first phase represents the time prior to

stabilization or paving of the area around the inlet, while the second phase represent the time after

stabilization or paving of the area around the inlet and up to the end of construction activities. Curb inlets

are effectively area inlets during the first phase of construction and should be protected as such.

o Ponding versus Filtering - The committee concluded that most standard inlet controls rely on ponding and

sedimentation as the primary mechanism, and should be understood as such. In most cases, filtering is a

secondary function. If a measure is proposed that involves filtering primarily, it should be shown to work

in that capacity without clogging.

o Proprietary Products - The committee recommends that the standard drawing be generic in nature, and

proprietary products should not be specifically recommended.

o Sump Inlets – The committee recommends adding a note to the standard drawings that addresses bypass

to sump inlets. Larger storm events should be allowed to bypass the protection and overtop into the inlet

to reduce bypass to sumps. The standard drawings should favor inlet protection that allows this to

happen.

o Maintenance - The committee recommends continuing to include maintenance notes on the plans

because they will be included in a SWPPP. The notes should be updated to conform to the specifications.

• Phase I (prior to stabilization of site, all inlet types)

o Ponding – The committee recommends that the area around the inlet be excavated to provide additional

ponding volume. This would help settle out additional suspended solids by increasing the detention time

before entering into the inlet.

o Installation Location – The committee recommends that the protection be placed as close as possible to

the inlet to reduce erosion of soil as the water spills over the protection.

7

• Phase II (after stabilization of the site)

o Flexible Contact Seal– The committee recommends that a flexible seal is needed to reduce bypass under

or around the sides of inlet protection.

o Straw Waddles – The committee recommends that straw waddles only be used with landscape drains and

where contributing drainage areas are very small.

• Culvert Inlets

o Use - The committee recommends that temporary sediment traps be used upstream of culvert entrances,

on small drainages. The type of barrier needs to be secure enough to withstand high flows, which in

many cases that will mean the use of a rock barrier.

o The committee concluded that culvert protection must depend on the size of drainageway being

protected. For large culverts that effectively serve perennial or intermittent streams, it may not be

appropriate to disturb the stream channel at all.

o The committee felt that the 2015 Overland Park or 2015 KDOT standard drawing for culvert inlet

protection was a good starting point for updates.

Ditch/Channel Protection

The primary sediment control BMP for ditch and channel protection is ditch checks. Check dams can be used to

reduce velocity and lower shear stress in the channel, as well as provide some small ponding areas that give

suspended sediment an opportunity to settle out. They are typically used for temporary ditches and channels

during mass grading, while erosion control measures are used during and after final grading.

• Temporary Ditch Checks – There are multiple types of ditch checks available, but they should all perform the

same primary function. The most common types are rock, compost/mulch logs, silt fence, and A-frame or

triangular silt dikes.

o Which Template to Use – The committee felt that the KDOT standard drawings were a good

representation of how the ditch check standard drawing should look. They are concise and show multiple

types of ditch checks on two pages.

o Contributing Drainage Area – This is one of the biggest issues with ditch checks, and the committee

recommends setting limits on the contributing drainage area. The design criteria states 10 acres for ditch

checks, but research indicated that most other entities had a maximum drainage area of 5 acres. Due to

lack of information about this topic, the committee did not come to a consensus and recommends that

the maximum drainage area remain as currently shown in the current 5100 design critera.

o Clear Zone – A note should be added to the standard drawing to make sure that ditch checks that remain

in place after traffic is open aren’t violating clear zone requirements.

o Ground Cover – The committee felt it was important to emphasize stabilization of the ditch/channel as

soon as possible to reduce erosion in the ditch/channel.

o Materials – The committee concluded that the materials listed in the specification were adequate and the

standard drawings should conform to that. However, updates are needed to the specifications in order to

allow the use of compost/mulch logs.

o Removal or Reuse – The committee recommends allowing the contractor the option to spread out the

rock from the ditch check and reuse it as channel lining.

Sediment Trap/Basin

Sediment traps and basins consist of relatively large ponding areas that promote settlement of suspended soil

particles. A sediment basin includes outlet works that will drain or partially drain the basin in one to two days, and

8

includes a spillway to pass larger flows. Sediment traps do not include an outlet works and serve smaller drainage

areas. Both types are typically used in conjunction with diversion dikes or other runoff conveyance as a

downstream sediment control device.

• Sediment Trap - The committee felt that the 2015 Overland Park sediment trap standard drawing was a good

template to start with because it modified and combined the APWA sediment trap detail with the APWA

culvert inlet sediment trap detail, which were both very similar. The additional notes and drawing updates

were also more concise.

• Sediment Basin -The committee concluded that the sediment basin detail was out of date and needed to be

updated. It was decided that the 2015 Overland Park detail was a good starting point for updates to the

sediment basin details.

Good Housekeeping

• Construction Entrance – Used to reduce the amount of sediment that leaves the site from construction traffic.

o The 50 foot length may not be enough in some cases. The general note states that 50 feet is the

minimum and that additional length may be needed to adequately remove mud and debris from tires.

Additional clarification should be added.

o The washouts and rumble strips are not being used, so the committee recommends that they be removed

from the standard drawing and added as a note to be optional.

o The specifications state the rock should be 4 inches, but the standard drawings state 2-3 inch rock should

be used. The size of the rock should be large enough to “rattle” off mud and debris, and not stick to or

get stuck in tires as there was a concern with the smaller rocks breaking windshields. The committee

recommends that the standard drawings show 4 inch rock to conform to the specifications.

• Concrete Washout – The committee concluded that the requirements for concrete washouts could be

adequately conveyed in the specifications at this time. The need for future updates should be assessed during

future reviews. There is currently no standard drawing for this BMP, and the committee agreed that a

standard drawing would not provide a significant benefit.

• Dewatering – The committee concluded that the requirements for dewatering could be adequately conveyed

in the specifications at this time. There is currently no standard drawing for this BMP and the committee

agreed that a standard drawing would not provide a significant benefit.

• Trash and Debris - The committee concluded that the requirements for trash and debris removal could be

adequately conveyed in the specifications at this time. There is currently no standard drawing for this BMP,

and the committee agreed that a standard drawing would not provide a significant benefit.

• Dust Control – The committee concluded that the requirements for dust control could be adequately

conveyed in the specifications at this time. There is currently no standard drawing for this BMP, and the

committee agreed that a standard drawing would not provide a significant benefit. See Ground Cover for

more information. The committee also discussed the use of asphalt emulsion as a standard dust control

method, as stated in the specifications, and concurred that it should only be used if required for construction

of pavement.

9

F. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STANDARD DRAWINGS

Preliminary 2015 Standard Drawings List

Sheet No. Sheet Title Purpose

ESC-TC Cover Page / Table of Contents with General Phasing

and Example of Erosion and Sediment Control

System

Index and General

Information

ESC-1 Slope and Ditch Protection - Erosion Control

Blankets and Turf Reinforcement Mats Erosion Protection

ESC-2 In-Stream Work – Temporary Stream Crossings and

Diversions Erosion Protection

ESC-3 Linear Slope Protection - Silt Fence Sediment Control

ESC-4 Linear Slope Protection - Compost and Mulch Logs Sediment Control

ESC-5 Linear Slope Protection and Flow Diversion-

Diversion and Filter Berms Sediment Control

ESC-6 Flow Diversion - Slope Drains Sediment Control

ESC-7 Inlet Protection - Curb Inlet Sediment Barriers Sediment Control

ESC-8 Inlet Protection - Area Inlet Sediment Barriers Sediment Control

ESC-9 Inlet Protection - Culvert Inlet Sediment Traps and

Temporary Sediment Traps Sediment Control

ESC-10 Ditch Protection – Silt Fence and Triangular Silt Dike

Ditch Checks Sediment Control

ESC-11 Ditch Protection – Rock and Biodegradable Log Ditch

Checks Sediment Control

ESC-12 Ditch Protection - Ditch Checks Sediment Control

ESC-13 Sediment Basins Sediment Control

ESC-14 Good Housekeeping - Construction Entrance Sediment Control

An example set of standard drawings is provided in the Appendix to this document. The standard drawings in that

example set are pulled from the 2015 Overland Park and KDOT standard drawings with some minor edits to some

sheets.

10

G. SCHEDULE FOR UPDATES TO STANDARD DRAWINGS

Once approval of this document is achieved, then work on updating the standard drawings will begin. After the

standard drawings are updated, they will be submitted to the overall committee for review and approval before

being released to the general public.

• Spring 2015 – Gain consensus from KC Metro Chapter (Water Resources Committee) on this erosion control

consensus document.

• Summer 2015 – Update standard drawings

• Fall 2015 – Submit new standard drawings to overall committee for comments

• Winter 2015-2016 – Make updates based on comments and submit final version

H. SPECIFICATION UPDATES

The Metro Chapter Executive Committee has hired a consultant to perform a review and update of the APWA

Metro Chapter specifications as a whole. This committee performed an ancillary review of the current 2150

specifications for erosion and sediment control, and a short list of potential updates was compiled. This list was

provided to the executive committee to give to the specifications consultant, and additional coordination is

planned. If anyone wishes to provide comments on the current 2150 specifications, or add items that could be

addressed by the consultant, then please send them to the erosion control committee.

I. REFERENCES

APWA KC Metro Chapter Website

• Erosion and Sediment Control Design Criteria:

http://kcmetro.apwa.net/content/chapters/kcmetro.apwa.net/file/Specifications/APWA5100.pdf

• Erosion and Sediment Control Specifications:

http://kcmetro.apwa.net/content/chapters/kcmetro.apwa.net/file/Specifications/APWA2150.pdf

• Erosion and Sediment Control Standard Drawings:

http://kcmetro.apwa.net/content/chapters/kcmetro.apwa.net/file/Specifications/Division%20III%20Standard

%20ESC%20Drawings.pdf

KDOT Erosion and Sediment Control Standard Drawings

http://kart.ksdot.org/StandardDrawings/StandardDetail.aspx

Overland Park Erosion and Sediment Control Standard Drawings

http://www.opkansas.org/doing-business/civil-engineering/construction-details/

11

Appendix

Example 2015 APWA KC Metro Chapter Erosion and Sediment Control Standard Drawings Plan Set

LA852F

1

A

A

Staples (typ.)Upstream Apron

Downstream Apron

( max. )

4’’ ( min. )

TYPICAL ELEVATION

PLAN

Direction of Flow

3’

6’’

NO SCALE

Direction of Flow

SECTION A - A

Apron

6:1 or varies4:1

or varie

s

Standard or Special DitchShoulder Typical Foreslope Typical Backslope

TYPICAL ELEVATION

Flowline of Ditch

4’ max. (typ.) 4’ max. (typ.) 4’ max. (typ.)

4’’ (ty

p.)

Silt Fence Fabric

NO SCALE

SILT FENCE DITCH CHECK

TRIANGULAR SILT DIKE DITCH CHECKS

SILT FENCE DITCH CHECKS

6’’

TRIANGULAR SI LT DI KE DITCH CHECK

Revised Standard MRM SHS

Scott H. Shields

SHS SHS

Revised Standard MRM SHS

STATE

KANSAS

PROJECT NO. YEARSHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DATE REVISIONS BY APP’DNO.

DESIGNED

DESIGN CK.

DETAILED

DETAIL CK.

QUANTITIES

QUAN.CK.

APP’DFHWA APPROVAL

CADD

CADD CK.

Std.

Base

File:

la852f.d

gn

12-

MA

R-2015 11:3

3

melissa

Plotte

d

By:

File:

Landscape

Plot

Locatio

n:

Plot

Date:

2

POLLUTION CONTROL

TEMPORARY EROSION AND

in Anchor Trench.

Soil or Gravel Backfill

(typ.)

2’

(typ. each side)

Fabric to fit slopes.

Fold Silt Fence

Trench.

Backfill in Anchor

Soil or Gravel

finish grade (typ.)

of stake 12’’ above

Set end stakes with top

plowing depth

6" minimum

3/01/15 Revised Standard SHS

B

B

SECTION B-B

of FlowDirection

3’ wide

Geotextile fabric

Tire compaction zone

6" - 12" depth

Machine slice

post embedment

2’ min.

4’ max. spacing

4’ min. length post at

SILT FENCE INSTALLATION

in top 8".

(50 lb. tensile strength) located

approved by the field engineer

Plastic zip ties, or other material

3/10/2015

Sheet No.Sheet No.

20XXProject No. 0 0

0

6/01/13

3

Stakes shall be set at an 2’ minimum depthSilt Fence Fabric

Stake

6’’

6’’

of Flow

Direction

in Anchor Trench.

Soil or Gravel Backfill

(min.) @ 3’ o/c

6’’ long x 1’’ wide

Wire Staples:

SECTION B-B

(50 lb. tensile strength) located in top 8".

approved by the field engineer,

Plastic zip ties, or other material

depth. Trenching is acceptable in certain cases.

7. Silt fence plowing is acceptable at a 6" minimum

than 2 percent.

than 2.4 acres or when ditch gradient is greater

6. Use support fencing when tributary area is greater

fence required.

5. Refer to plan sheets to estimate the length of silt

4. Use of high flow material is acceptable.

3. Attach fence fabric securely on 6" centers (max.).

2. Cross pieces shall be of same material as stakes.

d. Synthetic - same strength as wood stakes.

c. Steel U, T, L, or C Section - .95 lbs. per 1’-0";

b. Southern Pine (No. 2) - 2 �" x 2 �";

a. Hardwood - 1 �" x 1 �";

the following materials:

1. Stakes shall be 4’ (min.) long and one of

SILT FENCE:

SILT FENCE INSTALLATION

end of ditch check.

necessary to ensure water does not flow around

3. Use as many triangular silt dike sections as

2. Wire staples shall be 6" long by 1" wide (min).

with apron material overlapping end-to-end by 6’’.

1. Place triangular silt dike sections tightly together

TRIANGULAR SILT DIKE:

RA

RARA

7/24/13

KD

OT G

raphics C

ertified

KDOT Graphics Certified 03-12-2015

ROCK DITCH CHECK NOTES

1. Rock shall be clean aggregate, D50 = 6’’.

6"Ground Level

la852g.d

gn

NO SCALE

NO SCALE

L

5’’

6’’6’’

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

50

43

36

33

29

60

Direction of Flow

Direction of Flow

TYPICAL ELEVATION

SECTION B - B

PLAN

TYPICAL ELEVATION

SECTION A - A

SECTION C - C

PLAN

Direction of Flow

B

B

A

A

Staples (typ.)

ROCK DITCH CHECK

Direction of Flow

BIODEGRADABLE LOG DIKE NOTES

GEO-RIDGE PERMEABLE BERM NOTES

Staples (typ.)Upstream Apron

Downstream Apron

Stakes (typ.)

4’ ( max. )

4’ ( max. )

3. Do not use rock ditch checks in clear zone.

M-Pin (typ.)

6’’ ( min. )

2’

10’

BIODEGRADABLE LOG DITCH CHECK

Apron

4’’ ( min. )

3’ (max.)

Direction of Flow

9/15/2014 Scott H. Shields

12/31/09 Revised Standard MRM SHS

ROCK DITCH CHECKS

BIODEGRADABLE LOG DITCH CHECKS

LA852G

9/01/10 Revised Standard MRM SHS

STATE

KANSAS

PROJECT NO. YEARSHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDATE REVISIONS BY APP’DNO.

DESIGNED

DESIGN CK.

DETAILED

DETAIL CK.

QUANTITIES

QUAN.CK.

APP’DFHWA APPROVAL

CADD

CADD CK.

Std.

Base

File:

la852g.d

gn

15-S

EP-2014 14:13

melissa

Plotte

d

By:

File:

Landscape

Plot

Locatio

n:

Plot

Date:

GEO-RIDGE PERMEABLE BERM DITCH CHECKS

POLLUTION CONTROL

TEMPORARY EROSION AND

over, not around ditch check.

2. Place rock in such manner that water wi l l flow

flow around end of ditch check.

as necessary to insure water does not

3. Use as many Geo-ridge Berm sections

check.

prevent scour above and below the ditch

4. Use silt fence material as the apron to

secure geo-ridge Berm sections.

2. Use M-Pins supplied by manufacturer to

apron material by 6’’.

1. Overlap Geo-ridge Berm sections and

1’’ wide, minimum.

5. Wire Staples shall be 6’’ long by

Temporary Ditch Check (Rock) (Set Price).

This work shall be subsidiary to the bid item

and compact any over excavated soil to ditch grade.

of 6" (150mm). After placement of the rock, backfill

of the Rock Ditch Check and to a minimum depth

rock, the ditch shall be excavated to the dimensions

fill any eroded areas. Prior to placement of the

4. Excavation: The ditch area shall be reshaped to

(%)

SLOPE

DITCH C

(FEET)

INTERVAL

SPACING

for Rock Ditch Checks.

NOTE: Use this spacing only

in Anchor Trench.

Soil or Gravel Backfill

Biodegradable Log Section

18’’ ( min. ) diameter

edge of ditch check

Overlap apron over upstream

CHECK SPACING

TEMPORARY ROCK DITCH

with M-Pin

Two-piece Geo-ridge Sections

when conditions warrant their use.

6. The Engineer may approve the use of larger aggregates

alternate to the 6" rock, if approved by the Engineer.

5. Aggregate excavated on site may be used as an

9/15/14 Revised Standard SHS

Sheet No.

SHS SHS

2

1

Sheet No.

20XXProject No. 0 0

0

(Optional)

Downstream Apron

(Optional)

Downstream Apron

(Optional)

Alternative Staking

OR Filter Sock Ditch Check

the contract unit price

by the Engineer. Apron material will be paid at

6. A downstream apron is required when directed

Control (class 2) (any type) channel lining.

5. Use 9" diameter logs when used with Erosion

downstream apron when required.

4. Use Erosion Control (class 1) (type C) as the

the log.

stakes shall be a minimum of 2 x the diameter of

2114 of the standard specifications. Length of

3. Stakes shall be wood or steel according to section

2. Overlap sections a minimum of 18"

end of ditch check.

necessary to ensure water does not flow around

1. Use as many biodegradable log sections as

3 RAA

MRM RAA RAA

CA

Dconform C

ertify T

his File

CADconform Certify This File