My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-009 (6)
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2000's
>
2008
>
2008-009 (6)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2016 10:20:46 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 11:53:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Contract
Approved Date
01/08/2008
Control Number
2008-009
Agenda Item Number
11.I.1
Entity Name
H & J Contracting
Subject
CR 512 Phase IV Improvements
Area
CR 512
Project Number
9611
Bid Number
2008012
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
6832
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chapter - Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control <br /> 4.05 S T RAVV BP,C E BARRIER <br /> (ES BMP 1 , 05) <br /> Definition <br /> " A temporary sediment barrier consisting of a row of entrenched and anchored straw bales . <br /> Purposes <br /> • 1 . To intercept and detain small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas of limited <br /> extent. <br /> 2 . To decrease the velocity of sheet flows and low-to-moderate level channel flows . <br /> " ' Conditions Where Practice Applies <br /> 1 . Below disturbed areas subject to sheet and rill erosion . <br /> r <br /> 2 . Where the size of the drainage area is no greater than 1 /4 acre per 100 feet ( 1 .3 <br /> ha/100 m) of barrier length ; the maximum slope length behind the barrier is 100 feet <br /> (30 m) ; and the maximum slope gradient behind the barrier is 50 percent (2: 1 ) . <br /> 3 . In minor swales or ditch lines where the maximum contributing drainage area is no <br /> greater than 2 acres(0. 8 ha) . <br /> 4. Where effectiveness is required for less than 3 months . <br /> ` 5 . Under no circumstances should straw bale barriers be constructed in streams or in <br /> swales where there is a possibility of a washout. <br /> r <br /> Planning Considerations <br /> Improper use of straw bale barriers has been a major problem. Straw bale barriers have <br /> been used in streams and drainageways where high water velocities and volumes have <br /> destroyed or impaired their effectiveness . Improper placement and installation of the <br /> barriers, such as staking the bales directly to the ground with no soil seal or entrenchment, <br /> has alloyed undercutting and end flow. This has resulted in additions instead of removal <br /> of sediment from runoff waters. Finally, inadequate maintenance lowers the effectiveness <br /> of these barriers . Trapping efficiencies of carefully installed straw bale barriers on one <br /> project in Virginia dropped from 57 percent to 16 percent in one month due to lack of <br /> • <br /> maintenance. <br /> There are serious questions about the continued use of straw bale barriers as they are <br /> presently installed and maintained. Averaging approximately $3 to $6 per linear foot <br /> installed ($10 to $20 / m) the thousands of straw bale barriers used annually in Florida <br /> represent sufficient expense that optimum installation procedures should be emphasized . <br /> If such procedures are carefully followed , straw bale barriers can be quite effective . <br /> 4-1 .3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.