Highway Hydraulic Engineering State of Practice (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

B-1 A P P E N D I X B Survey Questionnaire Responses Question logic was used throughout the survey. Question logic presents the respondent with a question and if the condition was met with usually a “yes” or “previously” included response, the reader was directed to a more detailed question about the same topic. If the condition was not met, or a “no” response was given, the survey skipped the next, detailed question pertaining to the topic (SurveyGizmo 2017). It should be noted that due to question logic, responding states may not have answered each question.

Table B.1. Section 2, Roadway Drainage. b. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years to include design for a reduced inlet efficiency State a. Has your agency's hydraulic policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years with respect to Maximum Allowable Spread in travel lane and/or the design frequency for permanent/final designs? inlets pipe culvert/headwalls c. Has your agency's policy/guidance or the policy/guidance your agency follows changed within the last 10 years to include spread calculations for temporary construction? d. Do the limits for temporary construction differ from permanent max allowable spread? Alaska No No Previously Included No Arkansas No No No No California No Previously Included Previously Included No Colorado Yes Yes No No Connecticut No No No No Delaware No Previously Included No No Georgia No No No Hawaii No No No No Iowa No No No No Illinois No No No No Indiana No Yes No No Maryland No No No No Maine Yes No No No Michigan No Previously Included No No Minnesota Yes Previously Included No No Missouri Yes Previously Included No No Montana Yes No No No N. Carolina Yes Previously Included No Yes Yes North Dakota No No No No Nebraska No Previously Included Previously Included No N.Hampshire Yes No No No New Mexico Yes Yes No No New York No No No No Ohio No No No Yes Yes Oklahoma No No No No Oregon No Previously Included No Pennsylvania Yes Previously Included Previously Included No Rhode Island No No No No South Dakota Yes Yes No No Tennessee No Previously Included Previously Included No Texas Yes Previously Included No No Utah Yes Yes Yes No Virginia Yes Yes No No Vermont No No No No Washington No Previously Included Previously Included Previously Included Yes Wisconsin No Previously Included No Yes Policy Pending W. Virginia No No No No Wyoming No No No No Summary 13 yes, 25 no 6 yes, 19 no, 13 previously included, 0 policy pending 1 yes, 29 no, 6 previously included, 0 policy pending 3 yes, 34 no, 1 previously included, 0 policy pending 3 yes, 0 previously included, 1 policy pending

Table B.2. Section 3, Culverts. b. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years to include practices for sensitive aquatic organism passage and habitats in regards to these: a. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed in the last 10 years to include coordination with the State Department of Natural Resources, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, or another regulatory agency for assistance in identifying aquatic organism passage and habitats? i. Culvert rehabilitation ii. Culvert replacement Alaska Previously Included Previously Included These Previously Included These Arkansas No No No California Previously Included Previously Included These Previously Included These Colorado No No No Connecticut Yes No No Delaware Yes Yes Yes Georgia Yes No Yes Hawaii No No No Iowa Yes No Yes Illinois Yes No Yes Indiana No No No Maryland Yes Policy Pending Policy Pending Maine Yes Yes Yes Michigan Previously Included No Previously Included These Minnesota Previously Included Yes Yes Missouri No No Yes Montana Previously Included No Yes North Carolina Previously Included Policy Pending Previously Included These North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Nebraska Previously Included No No New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes New Mexico No No No New York Yes Yes Yes Ohio No No No Oklahoma Yes No No Oregon Yes Previously Included These Previously Included These Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Rhode Island No No No South Dakota No No Yes Tennessee Policy Pending Policy Pending Policy Pending Texas Yes No No Utah Yes Yes Yes Virginia Yes Yes Yes Vermont No No No Washington Yes Yes Yes Wisconsin Policy Pending Policy Pending Policy Pending West Virginia Previously Included Yes Yes Wyoming Previously Included No Previously Included These Summary 17 yes, 10 no, 9 previously included, 1 policy pending 11 yes, 19 no, 3 previously included, 4 policy pending 17 yes, 12 no, 6 previously included, 3 policy pending

Table B.3. Section 3c, Culvert rehabilitation. What references or sources of information does your agency use for aquatic organism passage and habitats? State hydraulic manual FHWA HEC- 26 Culvert Design for Aquatic Organism Passage (October 2010) USDA USFS Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach… HDS 5 Hydraulic Design of Culverts Other Alaska Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Arkansas California Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Colorado Culvert rehabilitation Connecticut Culvert rehabilitation: Recommendations from regulatory agency (Fisheries) Delaware Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Georgia Hawaii Iowa Illinois Indiana Maryland Presently, a case by case design as agreed upon with environmental agencies; 2. Future designs to be based on policy guidelines being developed by the Michigan DOT SHA/MDE Hydraulics Panel. http://gishydro.eng.umd.edu/hydraulics_panel.htm Maine Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Michigan Culvert rehabilitation Minnesota Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation: Minnesota DOT AOP Manual (published 2019), technical assistance from Minnesota DNR, and DNR general permit. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/reports/2019/201902.pdf Missouri Montana North Carolina Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation North Dakota Culvert rehabilitation Nebraska Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation New Hampshire Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation New Mexico New York Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Ohio Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Oklahoma Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation

Table B.3. Section 3c, Culvert rehabilitation (continued) What references or sources of information does your agency use for aquatic organism passage and habitats? State hydraulic manual FHWA HEC- 26 Culvert Design for Aquatic Organism Passage (October 2010) USDA USFS Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach… HDS 5 Hydraulic Design of Culverts Other Oregon Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation: Hydraulic Method and/or Stream Simulation Pennsylvania Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation: Publication 13M (DM-2). http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%2013M/September%202018%20Change%20 No.%203.pdf Rhode Island Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation South Dakota Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Tennessee Culvert rehabilitation Texas Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Utah Culvert rehabilitation Virginia Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation: Culvert countersinking (prescriptive regulatory requirements). http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/LocDes/DrainageManual/drain-manual-chapter-08.pdf Vermont Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation: Vermont ANR Guidance, not strictly followed. https://vtfishandwildlife.com/conserve/aquatic-habitat-conservation/aquatic-organism-passage-at-road- stream-crossings Washington Culvert rehabilitation: https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01501/wdfw01501.pdf Wisconsin Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation: HEC-RAS culvert and channel velocity evaluation. West Virginia Culvert rehabilitation Culvert rehabilitation Wyoming FishXing. https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/nsaec/fishxing/ Sum 10 15 3 17

Table B.4. Section 3c, Culvert replacement. What references or sources of information does your agency use for aquatic organism passage and habitats? State hydraulic manual FHWA HEC-26 Culvert Design for Aquatic Organism Passage (October 2010) USDA USFS Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings (August 2008) HDS 5 Hydraulic Design of Culverts Other Alaska Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Arkansas California Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Colorado Connecticut Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Delaware Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Georgia Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Hawaii Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Iowa Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Illinois Culvert replacement Indiana Maryland Culvert replacement Maine Michigan Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Minnesota Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Missouri Culvert replacement Montana Culvert replacement North Carolina Culvert replacement Culvert replacement North Dakota Culvert replacement Nebraska Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement New Hampshire Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement New Mexico New York Ohio Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Oklahoma Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Oregon Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Pennsylvania Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Rhode Island Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement South Dakota Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Tennessee Culvert replacement Texas Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Utah Culvert replacement Virginia Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Vermont Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Washington Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Wisconsin Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement West Virginia Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Culvert replacement Wyoming Culvert replacement Sum 18 20 8 20 12

Table B.5. Section 4, Bridges – Scour Computation. a. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years in regards to: b. What countermeasure design procedures or guidance does your agency prefer? Scour computations Scour countermeasures FHWA HEC- 23:b United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) American Society of Engineers (ASCE) US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) US Geological Survey (USGS) Isbash Method (1932) California Bank and Shore Rock Slope Protection Design (CalTrans) Other Alaska No No X X X Arkansas No No X X California Yes Yes X X Colorado Yes Yes X Connecticut No No X Delaware Yes Yes X X Georgia No No X X Hawaii No No X Iowa Yes Yes X Iowa DOT Illinois Yes Yes X Indiana Yes No X Maryland Yes Yes X X ABSCOUR 10. http://gishydro.eng.umd.edu/sha_soft.htm Maine No Yes X X Michigan No No X Minnesota No No X Missouri No No X Montana Yes Yes X North Carolina No No X North Dakota No Yes X Nebraska No No X X X New Hampshire Yes Yes X New Mexico Yes No X X X New York Yes Yes X Ohio No No X Oklahoma No No X X Proven maintenance methods from around the state. https://www.ok.gov/odot/Doing_Business/Pre- Construction_Design/Bridge_Design/Hydraulics_Operations/ Oregon Yes Yes X Pennsylvania Yes Yes X Publication 15M (DM-4). http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/ Publications/PUB%2015M.pdf Rhode Island No No X X South Dakota No No X Tennessee No No X X X X X

Table B.5. Section 4, Bridges – Scour Computation (continued). a. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years in regards to: b. What countermeasure design procedures or guidance does your agency prefer? Scour computations Scour countermeasures FHWA HEC- 23:b United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) American Society of Engineers (ASCE) US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) US Geological Survey (USGS) Isbash Method (1932) California Bank and Shore Rock Slope Protection Design (CalTrans) Other Texas Yes Yes X X Utah Yes Yes X Virginia Yes Yes X Vermont No No X Washington No No X X X X Wisconsin Yes Yes X West Virginia Yes No X Wyoming No No X Sum 18 yes, 20 no 17 yes, 21 no 36 12 2 4 3 1 1

Table B.6. Section 5, Advanced Hydraulic Modeling. b. What methods are used? a. Change in unsteady flow modeling for some projects changed? 1D steady - bridge design 1D unsteady - bridge design 2D unsteady - bridge design 3D unsteady – bridge design 1D steady - culvert design 1D unsteady - culvert design 2D unsteady - culvert design 3D unsteady – culvert design Other Alaska No Most studies Few Some None Most studies Few Some None Arkansas No Most studies None Few None Most studies None Few None None California No Most studies Some Few None Most studies Few Few None Colorado No Most studies Some None Some Most studies Some None Connecticut No Most studies Few Few None Most studies Few Few None None Delaware No Most studies Most studies Some None Most studies Most studies Some None None Georgia No Most studies Few Some None Most studies Few Few None Hawaii No Most studies Most studies Iowa No Most studies Few Few None Most studies Few Some None 2D Steady - Bridge Design Illinois No Most studies Few Few None Most studies None None None Indiana No Most studies None None None Most studies None None None None Maryland Yes Most studies Few Most studies Few Maine Most studies None None None Most studies None None None SRH-2D Michigan No Most studies None None None Most studies None None None None Minnesota No Most studies None Few None Most studies None None None None Missouri No Most studies Most studies Montana No Most studies None None None Some None None None 2D Steady Bridge Design North Carolina Policy Pending Most studies Few Few None Most studies None None None North Dakota No Most studies None None None Most studies None None None Nebraska Yes Some Few Most studies None Most studies None Few None New Hampshire Previously Required Most studies Some Few Most studies Some Few Few New Mexico Policy Pending Most studies None Some None Most studies None None None New York Yes Most studies Few Most studies Ohio No Most studies Most studies None None Most studies Most studies None None None Oklahoma No Most studies None None None Most studies None None None None Oregon No Most studies None Few None Most studies None Few None None Pennsylvania No None None None None None None None None None Rhode Island No Most studies South Dakota Yes Most studies None None None Most studies Few None None Tennessee Policy Pending Most studies Few Some None Most studies Few Some None None Texas Yes Most studies Few Few None Most studies Few Few None Utah Yes Some None Some None Most studies None Few None None Virginia No Most studies None None None Most studies None None None None Vermont Some None Some None Most studies None None None None Washington Yes Some Some Some None Some Some Some None None Wisconsin No Most studies Most studies West Virginia No Most studies None None None Most studies None None None Wyoming No Most studies Most studies Sum 7 yes, 25 no, 1 previously required,3 policy pending 31 most studies, 3 some, 1 none 3 most studies, 2 some, 9 few, 15 none 1 most studies, 10 some, 11 few, 10 none 0 most studies, 0 some, 1 few, 30 none 34 most studies, 3 some, 0 few, 1 none 3 most studies, 2 some, 8 few, 18 none 0 most studies, 6 some, 10 few, 16 none 0 most studies, 0 some, 1 few, 30 none 2 2D steady, 1 SRH-2D, 15 none

Table B.7. Section 5c, Advanced hydraulic modeling (continued). Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years to require (for some projects) Sediment transport capacity calculations Full sediment transport models in 1D quasi- unsteady Full sediment transport models in 2D Full sediment transport models for Bridges in 1D Full sediment transport models for Bridges in 2D (e.g., SRH2D) Full sediment transport models for Culverts in 1D Full sediment transport models for Culverts in 2D Other Alaska No No No No No No No Arkansas No No No No No No No No California Policy Pending No No No No No No No Colorado No No No No No No No Connecticut No No No No No No No No Delaware No No Policy Pending Policy Pending Policy Pending Policy Pending Policy Pending No Georgia No No No No No No No No Hawaii No No No No No No No No Iowa No No No No No No No Illinois No No No No No No No Indiana No No No No No No No Maryland No No No No No No No Sediment mobility assessment Maine No No No No No No No No Michigan No No No No No No No No Minnesota No No No No No No No No Missouri No No No No No No No Montana No No No No No No No No North Carolina No No No No No No No No North Dakota No No No No No No No Nebraska No No No No No No No New Hampshire No No No No No No No New Mexico Previously Required No Policy Pending No Policy Pending No No New York No No No No No No No Ohio Policy Pending No Policy Pending Policy Pending No Policy Pending Policy Pending Oklahoma No No No No No No No No Oregon No No No No No No No No Pennsylvania No No No No No No No No Rhode Island Previously Required South Dakota No No No No No No No Tennessee No No No No No No No No Texas No No No No No No No No Utah No No No No No No No No Virginia No No No No No No No No Vermont No No No No No No No No Washington No No No No No No No No Wisconsin No No No No No No No West Virginia No No No No No No No Wyoming No No No No No No No Summary 0 yes, 34 no, 2 previously required, 2 policy pending 0 yes, 37 no, 0 previously required, 0 policy pending 0 yes, 34 no, 0 previously required, 3 policy pending 0 yes, 35 no, 0 previously required, 2 policy pending 0 yes, 35 no, 0 previously required, 2 policy pending 0 yes, 35 no, 0 previously required, 2 policy pending 0 yes, 35 no, 0 previously required, 2 policy pending

Table B.8. Section 6, Regulatory requirements. a. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years (to include): State oversight for FHWA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 To comply with local floodplain requirements Requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements for Low Impact Development (LID) (e.g. bioretention, permeable pavement, etc.) Alaska Has Programmatic Agreement Programmatic Agreement Pending Yes Yes No Arkansas No No No No No California Has Programmatic Agreement No No Yes No Colorado No No Yes Yes No Connecticut Has Programmatic Agreement No Yes Yes Yes Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Georgia No Yes No Yes Yes Hawaii No Yes No No Yes Iowa Has Programmatic Agreement No Yes Yes Yes Illinois Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Indiana No Maryland No No Yes No Yes Maine No No No No No Michigan Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Programmatic Agreement Pending No Minnesota Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Missouri Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement No Has Programmatic Agreement No Montana Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Yes North Carolina Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement North Dakota Has Programmatic Agreement Yes Yes No No Nebraska Yes No No Yes No New Hampshire Has Programmatic Agreement No No Yes No New Mexico Has Programmatic Agreement No No Yes Yes New York Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ohio Yes No Yes Yes Yes Oklahoma Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Oregon No No No No No Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rhode Island Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement South Dakota Has Programmatic Agreement Yes No No No Tennessee Yes Yes No Yes No Texas Has Programmatic Agreement Yes No Has Programmatic Agreement No Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Table B.8. Section 6, Regulatory requirements (continued). a. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years (to include): Virginia Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement No Yes Yes Vermont No No No No No Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes State oversight for FHWA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 To comply with local floodplain requirements Requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements for Low Impact Development (LID) (e.g. bioretention, permeable pavement, etc.) Wisconsin Has Programmatic Agreement No No No No West Virginia Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement No Yes No Wyoming Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement Has Programmatic Agreement No Summary 8 Yes, 8 no 21 Has Programmatic Agreement 0 Programmatic Agreement Pending 11 Yes, 12 no 11 Has Programmatic Agreement 0 Programmatic Agreement Pending 12 Yes, 17 no 7 Has Programmatic Agreement 0 Programmatic Agreement Pending 17 Yes, 9 no 9 Has Programmatic Agreement 1 Programmatic Agreement Pending 13 Yes, 20 no 4 Has Programmatic Agreement 0 Programmatic Agreement Pending

Table B.9. Section 7, Floodplain impact and mitigation. a. Has your agency's policy/guidance or other agency's policy/guidance that you follow for floodplain impacts changed within the last 10 years in regards to: b. What is included in the ‘no adverse impact or zero rise’ policy or guidance: i. Flood frequency ii. Mitigation iii. No adverse impact/ zero rise i. Peak flow matching ii. Volumetric matching iii. Water Surface Elevation matching iv. Tolerance levels v. Different policy requirements for unsteady flow iv. Other Alaska Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Arkansas No No No California Previously included Previously included No Colorado Previously included Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 2017 Standard Operating Procedure. https://app.surveygizmo.com/response/download/file/185- 8b2e4ef9c7ff3f882bcccd8b106ee051_2017-07- 27_Final_CDOT_certification_steps_from_no- rise_to_LOMC.pdf/id/4811565 Connecticut No Policy Pending Policy Pending No Yes Yes Yes No No Delaware Policy Pending Policy Pending No Georgia No No No Hawaii No No No Iowa Yes No No Illinois Previously included No Previously included Yes No Yes No No No Indiana No No No Maryland No No No Maine No No No Michigan Previously included No Previously included Yes No Yes Yes No No Minnesota Previously included Previously included Previously included No No Yes Yes No Minnesota DNR Bridge and/or Culvert Floodplain Requirements. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/ floodplain/tech_resources.html Missouri Previously included Previously included Previously included No No Yes No No Montana Previously included No Policy Pending Yes No Yes Yes No North Carolina Policy Pending Policy Pending Previously included Yes No Yes Yes No No North Dakota No No No Nebraska No No No New Hampshire No No No New Mexico Previously included Previously included Previously included No No Yes Yes No New York Yes Yes No Ohio No No Yes Yes

Table B.9. Section 7, Floodplain impact and mitigation (continued). a. Has your agency's policy/guidance or other agency's policy/guidance that you follow for floodplain impacts changed within the last 10 years in regards to: b. What is included in the ‘no adverse impact or zero rise’ policy or guidance: i. Flood frequency ii. Mitigation iii. No adverse impact/ zero rise i. Peak flow matching ii. Volumetric matching iii. Water Surface Elevation matching iv. Tolerance levels v. Different policy requirements for unsteady flow iv. Other Oklahoma Previously included Previously included Previously included Yes Yes Yes No No No Oregon Previously included Previously included Previously included No No Yes Yes No No Pennsylvania Yes Yes Previously included Yes Yes Yes No No No Rhode Island Previously included Previously included Previously included Yes Yes Yes South Dakota No No No Tennessee Previously included Previously included Previously included No No Yes No No No Texas No No No Utah Previously included No Previously included Yes Virginia Previously included Previously included Previously included No No Yes No No No Vermont No No No Washington No No No Wisconsin No No No West Virginia Previously included Previously included Previously included No No Yes Yes No Wyoming Previously included Previously included Previously included Yes No Yes No No No Summary 4 yes, 16 no, 16 previously included, 2 policy pending 3 yes, 20 no, 12 previously included, 2 policy pending 3 yes, 18 no, 15 previously included, 2 policy pending 10 yes, 8 no 4 yes, 14 no 20 yes, 0 no 9 yes, 8 no 0 yes, 17 no 0 yes, 10 no, 2 web sites

Table B.10. Section 7, Floodplain impact and mitigation (continued). e. Please list your agency's innovative solution and add the URL where it can be accessed or upload file. d. Has your agency achieved an innovative solution for mitigating floodplain impacts? Agency design method URL Alaska Arkansas California No Colorado Yes Connecticut No Delaware No Georgia Hawaii Iowa Illinois Indiana Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota No Missouri No Montana North Carolina No North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New Mexico No New York No Ohio Oklahoma No Oregon Pennsylvania Yes PUB 584/PUB 13M http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%20584.pdf Rhode Island No South Dakota Tennessee No Texas Utah Virginia No Vermont Washington Wisconsin West Virginia No Wyoming No Summary 2 yes, 14 no 1 reference 1 web site

Table B.11. Section 8, Coastal Hydraulics. b. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years in regards to coastal hydraulics design to include: a. Does your agency do coastal hydraulics? i. Structure hydraulic response to waves ii. Armor protection loading response iii. Foundation soil loads iv. Scour Protection v. Other Alaska No Arkansas No California Yes No No No No Colorado No Connecticut Yes No No No No No Delaware No Georgia No Hawaii Yes No No No No No Iowa No Illinois No Indiana No Maryland No Maine No Michigan No Minnesota No Missouri No Montana No North Carolina Yes Previously Included Previously Included No Previously Included Policy Pending. Vulnerability analysis. https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/hydro/Hydraulics%20Memos% 20Guidelines/NCDOT%20Wave%20Loading%20Final%20Report%2010- 27-2013.pdf North Dakota No Nebraska No New Hampshire Yes No Previously Included Previously Included New Mexico No New York Yes No No No Yes No Ohio No Oklahoma No Oregon Yes Previously Included Previously Included Previously Included Previously Included No Pennsylvania No Rhode Island No South Dakota No Tennessee No Texas Yes Policy Pending Policy Pending Policy Pending Policy Pending No Utah No Virginia No Vermont No Washington No Wisconsin No West Virginia No Wyoming No Summary 8 yes, 30 no 0 yes, 5 no, 2 previously included, 1 policy pending 0 yes, 4 no, 3 previously included, 1 policy pending 0 yes, 5 no, 1 previously included,1 policy pending 1 yes, 3 no, 3 previously included, 1 policy pending 0 yes, 5 no, 0 previously included, 1 policy pending,1 web site

Survey Questionnaire Responses B-17 Table B.12. Section 8, Coastal hydraulics (continued). Where is the coastal hydraulics design policy or guidance located: Roadway Design Manual Hydraulic Design/Drainage Manual Other Manual NA Alaska Arkansas California Hydraulic Design/Drainage Manual Colorado Connecticut Hydraulic Design/Drainage Manual Other Manual Delaware Georgia Hawaii Iowa Illinois Indiana Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana North Carolina NA North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire NA New Mexico New York NA Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Other Manual Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas NA Utah Virginia Vermont Washington Wisconsin West Virginia Wyoming Summary 0 2 2

Table B.13. Section 8, Coastal hydraulics (continued). c. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years to include design practices for flood protection of roadways from erosion due to waves or changes in water surface elevation, etc., to include: Landscaped berms for flood protection Flood closures: Flood/sea walls: Revetments Hardened (stone/ concrete core) dunes Greenway corridors or additional ponds or bioswales as buffer areas: These measures in duplicate as redundant protection measures Green or gray capture/filter/ protection infrastructure: Freeboard requirements Setback requirements More durable materials Alternate alignments away from coat: Other Alaska Arkansas California No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Colorado Connecticut No No No No No No No No No No No No No Delaware Georgia Hawaii No No No No No No No No No No No No Iowa Illinois Indiana Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana North Carolina No No No No No No No No Policy Pending No No No North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire Previously Included Previously Included Previously Included Yes Previously Included New Mexico New York Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ohio Oklahoma Oregon No No No No No No No No No No No No No Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Policy Pending No No Policy Pending No Policy Pending Policy Pending No Policy Pending No Policy Pending Policy Pending No Utah Virginia Vermont Washington

Table B.13. Section 8, Coastal hydraulics (continued). c. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years to include design practices for flood protection of roadways from erosion due to waves or changes in water surface elevation, etc., to include: Landscaped berms for flood protection Flood closures: Flood/sea walls: Revetments Hardened (stone/ concrete core) dunes Greenway corridors or additional ponds or bioswales as buffer areas: These measures in duplicate as redundant protection measures Green or gray capture/filter/ protection infrastructure: Freeboard requirements Setback requirements More durable materials Alternate alignments away from coat: Other Wisconsin West Virginia Wyoming Summary 1 yes, 5 no, 1 previously included, 1 policy pending 1 yes, 6 no, 0 previously included, 0 policy pending 1 yes, 4 no, 1 previously included, 0 policy pending 2 yes, 4 no, 1 previously included, 1 policy pending 1 yes, 6 no, 0 previously included, 0 policy pending 1 yes, 5 no, 0 previously included, 1 policy pending 0 yes, 6 no, 0 previously included, 0 policy pending 2 yes, 6 no, 0 previously included, 0 policy pending 1 yes, 4 no, 1 previously included, 2 policy pending 1 yes, 6 no, 0 previously included, 0 policy pending 1 yes, 5 no, 0 previously included, 1 policy pending 1 yes, 5 no, 0 previously included, 1 policy pending 4

Table B.14. Section 9, Alternative project delivery methods. a. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years to include? b. Where is the alternative delivery policy or guidance that includes provisions for hydraulic design located? i. Prescriptive alternative delivery policy for hydraulic aspects of projects ii. Standard request for qualifications (RFQ) language for hydraulic aspects of alternatively delivered projects iii. Standard request for proposal (RFP) language for hydraulic aspects of …: Hydraulic policy combined in alternative delivery project delivery manual Separate hydraulic alternative delivery project manual Alternative delivery policy in hydraulic manual Request for proposal template Other Alaska No No Policy pending No No No No Arkansas No No No No No No No California No No No No No No No Colorado No No No Yes No No No Connecticut Policy pending Policy pending Policy pending No No No No To be determined (work in progress) Delaware No No Yes No No No No Georgia No Yes Yes No No No Yes Hawaii No No No Iowa No No Yes No No No No Illinois No No No No No No No Indiana Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No technical provisions Maryland No No No No No No No Case by case project specs Maine No No No Design-Build. https://www.maine.gov/mdot/cpo/apdm/#apdm1 Michigan No No No No No No No Minnesota Previously included these Previously included these Previously included these Yes No No No Design-Build Manual Section 4 RFQ/RFP and RFP template Book 2 Section 12 for drainage. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/resources.html Missouri No Yes Yes No No No Yes Montana No No No No No No No North Carolina No No No Yes No No Yes Design Build process. https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Pages/Design-Build-Resources.aspx North Dakota No No No Nebraska No No No No No No No New Hampshire No No Yes No No No No https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/bridgedesign/manual.htm New Mexico No No No No No No No New York No Yes Yes No No No No Ohio Yes Yes Yes It's specific for the project and the delivery type. Contact Eric Kahlig at below URL to discuss. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ConstructionMgt/design- build/Pages/Design_Build.aspx Oklahoma No No No No No No No Oregon Policy pending Policy pending Policy pending No No No No Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes No No No No Alternate delivery still followed all applicable Penndot Publications Rhode Island Previously included these Previously included these Previously included these No No South Dakota No No No No No No No

Table B.14. Section 9, Alternative project delivery methods (continued). a. Has your agency's policy or guidance changed within the last 10 years to include? b. Where is the alternative delivery policy or guidance that includes provisions for hydraulic design located? i. Prescriptive alternative delivery policy for hydraulic aspects of projects ii. Standard request for qualifications (RFQ) language for hydraulic aspects of alternatively delivered projects iii. Standard request for proposal (RFP) language for hydraulic aspects of …: Hydraulic policy combined in alternative delivery project delivery manual Separate hydraulic alternative delivery project manual Alternative delivery policy in hydraulic manual Request for proposal template Other Tennessee No No No Yes No No No Hydraulic design is same whether traditional or alternative project delivery. https://www.tn.gov/tdot/tdot-construction-division/transportation- construction-alternative-contracting.html Texas Previously included these Previously included these Previously included these No No No Yes N/A Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Design Build. https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:4552,72396 Virginia No No No No No No No Vermont No No No No No No No Washington Previously included these Yes Yes Yes No No Yes http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/delivery/designbuild/PDMSG.htm Wisconsin No No No No No No No West Virginia No Yes Yes No No No No Wyoming No No No No No No No Summary 4 yes, 28 no, 4 Previously included, 2 Policy pending 9 yes, 24 no, 3 Previously included, 2 Policy pending 12 yes, 21 no, 3 Previously included, 3 Policy pending 6 yes, 26 no, 0 Previously included, 0 Policy pending 0 yes, 32 no, 0 Previously included, 0 Policy pending 0 yes, 33 no, 0 Previously included, 0 Policy pending 6 yes, 28 no, 0 Previously included, 0 Policy pending 11

Table B.15. Section 10, Case study review. i. If yes, what is the subject of the case study information? a. Would you participate in a follow-up interview to collect case study information? Spread calculations 2D or 3D modeling Scour computations or countermeasures Successfully implementing innovative coastal flood protection designs Aquatic organism passage and habitats Mitigation of floodplain impacts Other (related to survey questions): Alaska Yes Yes Arkansas Yes Yes Yes Yes California Yes Yes Colorado Yes Yes Yes Connecticut Yes Delaware No Georgia Yes Yes Yes Hawaii No Iowa Yes Yes Yes Illinois No Indiana No Maryland No Maine Yes Yes Yes Yes Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Missouri No Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes North Carolina Yes Pending Vulnerability index for all structures- GIS based. Programmatic MOA for floodplain compliance. NPDES programmatic agreement North Dakota No Nebraska Yes Yes Yes Yes New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes Yes New Mexico No New York Yes Ohio No Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rhode Island No South Dakota No Tennessee No Texas Yes Yes Utah Yes Virginia Yes Yes Vermont Yes Yes Yes Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wisconsin No West Virginia No Wyoming No Summary 23 yes 16 no 10 yes 13 yes 9 yes 2 yes 8 yes 7 yes 1 reference

Survey Questionnaire Responses B-23 Table B.16. Regional Trends in Survey Results Based on EPA Standard Federal Regions for Roadway Drainage, Culverts Aquatic Organism Passage, Bridge Scour. 2. Roadway Drainage 3. Culverts Aquatic Organism Passage 4. Bridge Scour Region 1 Connecticut: no for all Rhode Island: no for all Vermont: no for all New Hampshire: yes to Maximum Allowable Spread (MAS) Maine: yes to Maximum Allowable Spread Connecticut: yes to identifying Rhode Island: no for all Vermont: no for all New Hampshire: yes to all Maine: yes to all Connecticut: no for both Rhode Island: no for both Vermont: no for both New Hampshire: yes for both Maine: yes counter Region 2 New York: no for all New York: yes to all New York: yes for both Region 3 Delaware: previously included to inlets Maryland: no for all Pennsylvania: yes to Maximum Allowable Spread, previously included to inlets and culverts Virginia: yes to Maximum Allowable Spread and inlets West Virginia: no for all Delaware: yes to all Maryland: yes to identifying, policy pending to rehab and replacement Pennsylvania: yes to all Virginia: yes to all West Virginia: previously to identifying, yes to rehab and replacement Delaware: yes for both Maryland: yes for both Pennsylvania: yes for both Virginia: yes for both West Virginia: yes to comp Region 4 Georgia: no for all North Carolina: yes to MAS, temporary construction, permanent max, previously to inlets, yes to perm Tennessee: previously to inlets and culverts Georgia: yes to identifying and replacement North Carolina: previously included to identifying and replacement Tennessee: policy pending for all Georgia: no for both North Carolina: no for both Tennessee: no for both Region 5 Illinois: no for all Indiana: yes to inlets Michigan: previously to inlets Minnesota: yes to MAS, previously to inlets Ohio: no for all, yes to perm Wisconsin: previously to inlets, yes to temporary Illinois: yes to identifying and replacement Indiana: no for all Michigan: previously to identifying and replacement Minnesota: yes to rehab and replacement, previously to identifying Ohio: no for all Wisconsin: policy for all Illinois: yes for both Indiana: yes comp Michigan: no for both Minnesota: no for both Ohio: no for both Wisconsin: yes for both Region 6 Arkansas: no for all New Mexico: yes to MAS and inlets Oklahoma: no for all Texas: yes to MAS, previously to inlets Arkansas: no for all New Mexico: no for all Oklahoma: yes to identifying Texas: yes to identifying Arkansas: no for both New Mexico: yes comp Oklahoma: no for both Texas: yes for both Region 7 Iowa: no for all Missouri: yes to MAS, previously to inlets Nebraska: previously to inlets and culverts Iowa: yes to identifying and replacement Missouri: no for all Nebraska: previously to identifying Iowa: yes for both Missouri: no for both Nebraska: no for both Region 8 Colorado: Yes to MAS and inlets Montana: yes to MAS North Dakota: no for all South Dakota: yes to MAS and inlets Utah: yes to MAS, inlets and culverts Wyoming: no for all Colorado: no for all Montana: previously to identifying, yes to replacement North Dakota: yes to all South Dakota: yes to replacement Utah: yes to all Wyoming: previously to identifying and replacement Colorado: yes for both Montana: yes for both North Dakota: yes counter South Dakota: no for both Utah: yes for both Wyoming: no for both Region 9 California: previously to inlets and culverts Hawaii: no for all California: previously to all Hawaii: no for all California: yes for both Hawaii: no for both Region 10 Alaska: previously to culverts Oregon: previously to inlets Washington: previously to inlets, culverts and temp, yes to perm Alaska: previously to all Oregon: previously to rehab and replace, yes to identifying Washington: yes for all Alaska: no for both Oregon: yes for both Washington: no for both

B-24 Highway Hydraulic Engineering State of Practice Table B.17. Regional Trends in Survey Results Based on EPA Standard Federal Regions for Advanced Hydraulic Modeling: unsteady flow, Sediment Transport, Regulatory Requirements. 5. Adv. Hyd. Modeling: unsteady fl. 5. Sediment Transport Policy Change Regulatory Requirements Region 1 Connecticut: no Rhode Island: no Vermont: n/a New Hampshire: previously Maine: n/a Connecticut: no Rhode Island: previously Vermont: no New Hampshire: no Maine: no Connecticut: has NEPA, yes local, NPDES, LID Rhode Island: has all Vermont: none New Hampshire: has NEPA, yes NPDES Maine: none Region 2 New York: yes New York: no New York: yes NEPA, CWA, local, NPDES Region 3 Delaware: no Maryland: yes Pennsylvania: no Virginia: no West Virginia: no Delaware: no Maryland: no Pennsylvania: no Virginia: no West Virginia: no Delaware: yes all Maryland: yes local and LID Pennsylvania: yes all Virginia: has NEPA and CWA, yes NPDES and LID West Virginia: has NEPA and CWA, yes NPDES Region 4 Georgia: no North Carolina: policy pending Tennessee: policy pending Georgia: no North Carolina: no Tennessee: no Georgia: yes CWA, NPDES, LID North Carolina: has all Tennessee: yes NEPA, CWA, NPDES Region 5 Illinois: no Indiana: no Michigan: no Minnesota: no Ohio: no Wisconsin: no Illinois: no Indiana: no Michigan: no Minnesota: no Ohio: policy pending Wisconsin: no Illinois: has all but LID Indiana: n/a Michigan: has NEPA, CWA, local, pending NPDES Minnesota: has all Ohio: yes NEPA, local, NPDES, LID Wisconsin: has NEPA Region 6 Arkansas: no New Mexico: policy pending Oklahoma: no Texas: yes Arkansas: no New Mexico: previously Oklahoma: no Texas: no Arkansas: no all New Mexico: has NEPA, yes NPDES and LID Oklahoma: has all Texas: has NEPA and NPDES, yes CWA Region 7 Iowa: no Missouri: no Nebraska: yes Iowa: no Missouri: no Nebraska: no Iowa: has NEPA, yes local, NPDES, LID Missouri: has NEPA, CWA, NPDES Nebraska: yes NEPA, NPDES Region 8 Colorado: no Montana: no North Dakota: no South Dakota: yes Utah: yes Wyoming: no Colorado: no Montana: no North Dakota: no South Dakota: no Utah: no Wyoming: no Colorado: yes local and NPDES Montana: has all, yes LID North Dakota: has NEPA, yes CWA and local South Dakota: has NEPA, yes CWA Utah: yes all Wyoming: has all but LID Region 9 California: no Hawaii: no California: policy pending Hawaii: no California: has NEPA, yes NPDES Hawaii: yes CWA, LID Region 10 Alaska: no Oregon: no Washington: yes Alaska: no Oregon: no Washington: no Alaska: has NEPA, pending CWA, yes local and NPDES Oregon: no all Washington: yes all

Survey Questionnaire Responses B-25 Table B.18. Regional Trends in Survey Results Based on EPA Standard Federal Regions for Floodplain Mitigation. 7. Floodplain Mitigation Region 1 Connecticut: no frequency, pending mitigation and no adverse, no peak flow Rhode Island: previously all, yes peak, volumetric, WSE Vermont: no all New Hampshire: no all Maine: no all Region 2 New York: yes frequency and mitigation Region 3 Delaware: pending frequency and mitigation Maryland: no all Pennsylvania: yes frequency and mitigation, previously no adverse, yes peak, volumetric and WES Virginia: previously all, yes WSE West Virginia: previously all, yes WSE and Tolerance Region 4 Georgia: no all North Carolina: pending frequency and mitigation, previously no adverse, yes peak, WSE and Tolerance Tennessee: previously all, yes WSE Region 5 Illinois: previously frequency and no adverse, yes peak, WSE Indiana: no all Michigan: previously frequency and no adverse, yes peak, WSE, tolerance Minnesota: previously all, yes WSE and tolerance Ohio: yes no adverse, yes WSE Wisconsin: no all Region 6 Arkansas: no all New Mexico: previously all, yes WSE and tolerance Oklahoma: previously all, yes peak, volumetric, and WSE Texas: no all Region 7 Iowa: yes frequency Missouri: previously all, yes WSE Nebraska: no all Region 8 Colorado: previously frequency, yes mitigation and no adverse, yes peak, WSE, and tolerance Montana: previously frequency, pending no adverse, yes WSE North Dakota: no all South Dakota: no all Utah: previously frequency and no adverse, yes WSE Wyoming: previously all, yes peak and WSE Region 9 California: previously frequency and mitigation Hawaii: no all Region 10 Alaska: yes frequency and no adverse, yes peak, WSE Oregon: previously all, yes WSE and tolerance Washington: no all

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 H ighw ay H ydraulic Engineering State of Practice N CH RP Synthesis 551 TRB ISBN 978-0-309-48156-4 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 1 5 6 4 9 0 0 0 0