D-3 (03-15)

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Checklist

www.dot.state.pa.us

PROJECT DETAILS

Road:
Waterbody:
District:
Municipality:
County:

H&H Report Sealed by

Licensed Engineer:
District or Company:

CHECKLISTS

Checklists Completed Designer(s) Reviewer(s) Date(s)

H&H Report
Abbreviated
Full
Hydrology
HEC-RAS
HY-8
Scour*

*Not required with a Preliminary H&H Report submission

Instructions:

1. These checklists are intended to provide documentation that a quality assurance review was performed. All applicable checklists
must be completed by an internal reviewer and included with H&H Report submission. If the report is submitted as a paper
copy for review, the completed QA checklists must be attached to the transmittal letter. If the report is uploaded to the
JPA2 Expert System for review, these completed QA forms must be placed in the "PennDOT Files" section of JPA 2 Expert.
These forms are not intended to be transmitted to PADEP with the permit submission. Information stored in the "PennDOT Files"
section of JPA2 Expert will not be transferred to PADEP with the permit application.

2. The check boxes on the right side of the H&H Report checklists are used to indicate whether an item has been included.
If the item is not required or does not apply to the particular project, check N/A.

3. When filling out the forms electronically, the individual sheet headings are automatically updated based on information from the
summary sheet input.

4. Additional space for comments is provided in the last tab; please indicate the applicable QA sheet and section.

5. Printing Instructions: When the applicable checklists have been completed, select those worksheets and select file - print.
(To select multiple worksheets, Hold the shift key and select the worksheet tabs at the bottom of the page).
The page numbers will automatically be updated to correspond to the total number of pages printed.

Notes:
The summary sheet should be printed and submitted with the applicable checklists. Depending on the project type, not all
checklists will be required for an H&H Report submission. For example, a small culvert replacement project may include
the H&H Report, Hydrology and HY-8 checklists (unless HEC-RAS was used). Whereas a bridge replacement project
may require the H&H Report, Hydrology, HEC-RAS and Scour checklists.

PennDOT H&H QA Forms - December 2012 1 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)

Abbreviated Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Checklist

www.dot.state.pa.us

Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date:
ITEM PRESENT?
DESCRIPTION
YES NO N/A
B.1.a. LOCATION MAP
Acceptable forms (one required):
USGS quadrangle map (or map of equal detail) page
✘
Aerial photographs page
B.1.b. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
1. PA Code Chapter 93 stream classification (check all that apply) page
WWF CWF MF
TSF HQ* EV*
*Note if HQ or EV Stream, Antidegredation analysis may be required - see DM2, Chapter 13.7
2. PA Fish and Boat Classification (check all that apply)
Approved Trout Stream (stocked) Class A Wild Trout page
Verified Natural Reproduction None
B.1.c. STREAM BED MATERIAL page
Type of material in stream bed from site inspection (i.e., sand, gravel, cobbles, etc.)

B.1.d. PHOTOGRAPHS page

a. Existing structure (upstream and downstream face)
b. Upstream / downstream channel and floodplain
c. Past floods (if available)
d. Roadway station ahead and station back (recommended)
e. Photo location map (recommended)

B.1.e. SITE INSPECTION RECORDS page

Dates and other information relative to site inspection(s) made by designer date

B.2. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

a. Show drainage area above proposed crossing (note method of page
determining area)
b. Include design discharge(s) per Section 10.6.E page

B.3. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

a. The project is located in a FEMA mapped area? yes no
If Yes is it a Detailed or Approximate area?
(1) Original FIS study and flood map(s) provided page
(2) Study is referenced in the text page
(3) Was FEMA model obtained or documentation provided if unavailable?
(4) Proposed structure encroaches on (check one): page
100-year floodplain (floodway fringe)
100-year floodway neither
(5) Were existing flood elevations compared to FEMA's published? page
(6) Were any differences in flood elevations > 0.5 ft explained? page
b/c. Existing versus proposed conditions:
(1) velocities* page
(2) backwater elevations* page
(3) bridge opening sizes (i.e., area of hydraulic openings) page
(4) Is there an increase in the proposed 100-year flood elevation? yes no
* Recommend including a table to compare all cross sections

Section I
2 of 39
PennDOT Abbrev H&H Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)

Abbreviated Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Checklist

www.dot.state.pa.us

Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date:
ITEM PRESENT?
DESCRIPTION
YES NO N/A
for the PennDOT design event and the 100-year event

Section I
3 of 39
PennDOT Abbrev H&H Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)

Abbreviated Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Checklist

www.dot.state.pa.us

Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date:
ITEM PRESENT?
DESCRIPTION
YES NO N/A
c. Acceptable hydraulic methods for the site (check the method used)
HEC-RAS (bridge and culvert design, water surface profiles)
HY-8 (culvert design)
Other Li
d. Estimated scour depths (refer to DM-4, Chapter 7) page
e. Riprap sizing for bank, pier, abutment, and/or culvert protection page
f. Construction measures (temp. stream crossings, causeways, roads, etc.) page
Comments or computations included page

B.4. RISK ASSESSMENT OR ANALYSIS*

Narrative description of factors related to the 100-year flood page
Narrative description of factors related to the 2-year flood (temporary page
conditions)
* Refer to Section 10.7.C.4 for the definition and additional requirements of a risk analysis

B.5. SUMMARY DATA SHEET

Complete all information listed in the Summary Data Sheet (Figure 10.7.1) page
(available for download from http://www.dot.state.pa.us/hh/Summary-Data-Sheet.Zip)
Summary data matches the report tables, output/calculations, and TS&L

B.6. DRAWINGS AND FIGURES

a. Roadway plans and profiles indicating the following information:
1. Locations of existing and/or proposed structures, stream page
channels and wetlands
- Structure or culvert plan showing plan and elevation view
(Box culvert plans should show baffle layout)
2. 100-year floodplain boundary page
3. Temporary stream crossing, access road, cofferdam, page
diversion facility, etc.
4. The magnitude, frequency and pertinent water surface page
elevation for PennDOT design and 100-year flood
b. Plan drawing showing the location and orientation of all cross sections page
used in the hydraulic model (with scale, contours, and all important
hydraulic features)
Cross-sections perpendicular to flood flow (minimum): page
Upstream (500 ft)
Immediately upstream of proposed and/or existing crossings
Immediately downstream of proposed and/or existing crossings
Downstream (500 ft)
Items 6.c and 6.d below do not require separate drawings provided that the information
is available in the HEC-RAS model submitted with the report
c. Profile of stream showing bed slope, normal water surface, and flood page
water surface elevations
d. Cross section output of all cross sections used for backwater analysis page
e. Floodway maps and flood profiles from FEMA Flood Insurance Studies page
(when in a detailed FEMA study area)

ELECTRONIC FILES

Section I
4 of 39
PennDOT Abbrev H&H Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)

Abbreviated Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Checklist

www.dot.state.pa.us

Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date:
ITEM PRESENT?
DESCRIPTION
YES NO N/A
Electronic files for the hydrologic and hydraulic models (as applicable)

Section I
5 of 39
PennDOT Abbrev H&H Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Checklist

www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899
ITEM PRESENT?
DESCRIPTION
YES NO N/A
C.1.a. LOCATION MAP
Acceptable forms (one required):
USGS quadrangle map (or map of equal detail) page
Aerial photographs page
Required information:
(1) Project location including proposed highway alignment
(2) Drainage area
(3) Label stream and direction, river reach studied

C.1.b. EXISTING STRUCTURES (IF APPLICABLE) page

1. Identify existing hydraulic structures (by map), including upstream and
downstream of site
2. Must describe:
(1) Type of structure, span lengths, pier orientation
(2) Cross section beneath structure - stream clearance and skew
3. Compare stream and existing structure locations with the proposed crossing
4. Indicate whether existing structures are to remain in place

C.1.c. FLOOD INFORMATION page

1. Elevations of available highwater marks along the stream w/ dates of occurrence
2. Critical flood elevations of interest (possible damage)
3. Local testimony of flooding (if available) or structure performance (non-flooding)
per Section 10.7.C.1.i

C.1.d. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

- PA Code Chapter 93 stream classification (check all that apply) page
WWF CWF MF
TSF HQ* EV*
*Note if HQ or EV Stream, Antidegredation analysis may be required - see DM2, Chapter 13.7
PA Fish and Boat Classification (check all that apply)
Approved Trout Stream (stocked) Class A Wild Trout page
Verified Natural Reproduction None
- Comments on other environmental concerns
- Perennial, ephemeral, or intermittent stream?
C.1.e. HISTORY OF DRIFT, ICE AND STREAM BANK STABILITY page
- Stability of stream banks (i.e., exposed soil, slumping, tilting trees, etc.)
- Type of material in stream bed from site inspection (i.e., sand, gravel, cobbles, etc.)
- History of ice accumulation or damage

C.1.f. PHOTOGRAPHS page

- Existing structure (upstream and downstream face)
- Upstream / downstream channel and floodplain
- Past floods (if available)
- Roadway station ahead and station back (recommended)
- Photo location map (recommended)
- Upstream and downstream structures

C.1.g. FACTORS AFFECTING WATER STAGES page

1. High water from other streams
2. Reservoirs (existing or proposed) and approximate date of construction
3. Flood control projects and status (e.g., control structures, operator, operating policy)
4. Other controls

Section I
6 of 39
PennDOT H&H Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Checklist

www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899
ITEM PRESENT?
DESCRIPTION
YES NO N/A
C.1.h. DEBRIS
Indicate if debris can be a problem at the structure site page

C.1.i. SITE INSPECTION RECORDS page

- Dates and other information relative to site inspection(s) made by designer date
- If applicable, documentaion of local testimony is included

C.1.j. LINE AND GRADE APPROVAL page

Indicate date of Line and Grade Approval or if pending date

C.2. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

a. Show drainage area above proposed crossing (note method of page
determining area)
b. List flood records available page
c. Include design discharge(s) per Section 10.6.E page
d. Show flood-frequency curve for the site page
e. Show stage-discharge-frequency curves for the site (existing and page
proposed conditions)

C.3. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

a. The project is located in a FEMA mapped area? yes no
If Yes is it a Detailed or Approximate area?
(1) Original FIS study and flood map(s) provided page
(2) Study is referenced in the text page
(3) Was FEMA model obtained or documentation provided if unavailable?
(4) Proposed structure encroaches on (check one): page
100-year floodplain (floodway fringe)
100-year floodway neither
(5) Were existing flood elevations compared to FEMA's published? page
(6) Were any differences in flood elevations > 0.5 ft explained? page
b. Existing versus proposed conditions:
(1) velocities* page
(2) backwater elevations* page
(3) bridge opening sizes (i.e., area of hydraulic openings) page
(4) Is there an increase in the proposed 100-year flood elevation? yes no
* Recommend including a table to compare all cross sections
for the PennDOT design event and the 100-year event
c. Acceptable hydraulic methods for the site (check the method used)
HEC-RAS (bridge and culvert design, water surface profiles)
HY-8 (culvert design) HDS-5 (culvert design - equivalent to HY-8)
HEC-2 (water surface profiles)WSPRO (only if FEMA map revision necessary)
Visual Urban (HY-22 - mostly urban drainage applications)
Other Lis
d. Was the HEC-RAS or HY-8 checklist completed?
e. Model validation page
(1) Calibration with high water marks, storm events, and local testimony
(2) Explanation of model warnings and errors
f. Estimated scour depths (refer to DM-4, Chapter 7) page
g. Riprap sizing for bank, pier, abutment, and culvert protection page
h. Construction measures (temp. stream crossings, causeways, roads, etc.) page

Supporting model or calculations included page

Section I
7 of 39
PennDOT H&H Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report Checklist

www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899
ITEM PRESENT?
DESCRIPTION
YES NO N/A
C.4. RISK ASSESSMENT OR ANALYSIS*
Narrative description of factors related to: page
- 100-year flood
- overtopping flood
- 2-year flood for temporary conditions
* Refer to Section 10.7.C.4 for the definition and additional requirements of a risk analysis

C.5. SUMMARY DATA SHEET

Complete all information listed in the Summary Data Sheet (Figure 10.7.1) page
(available for download from http://www.dot.state.pa.us/hh/Summary-Data-Sheet.Zip)
Summary data matches the report tables, output/calculations, and TS&L

C.6. DRAWINGS AND FIGURES

a. Roadway plans and profiles indicating the following information:
1. Locations of existing and proposed structures, stream channels page
and wetlands
- Structure or culvert plan showing plan and elevation view
(Box culvert plans should show baffle layout)
2. Adjacent topographic features with key elevations or page
contours shown
- Profile drawing showing proposed structure and ground line
3. 100-year floodplain boundary page
4. Flood easement (if required) page
5. Temporary stream crossing, access road, cofferdam, page
diversion facility, etc.
6. The magnitude, frequency and pertinent water surface page
elevation for specified floods
b. Profile of stream showing bed slope, normal water surface, and flood page
water surface elevations
c. Plan drawing showing the location and orientation of all cross sections page
used for backwater analysis (with scale, contours, and all
important hydraulic features)
Cross-sections perpendicular to flood flow (minimum): page
Upstream (500 ft)
Immediately upstream of proposed and/or existing crossings
Immediately downstream of proposed and/or existing crossings
Downstream (500 ft)
d. Floodway maps and flood profiles from FEMA Flood Insurance Studies page
(when in a detailed FEMA study area)

ELECTRONIC FILES
Electronic files provided for hydrologic & hydraulic models (as applicable)

Section I
8 of 39
PennDOT H&H Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

1. FEMA CONSIDERATIONS
Is the proposed project in a detailed FEMA study area?
If yes, are the following provided:
- Published FIS flows page
- Is FEMA hydrologic method acceptable per DM-2, Chapter 10? page
- Are FEMA flows compared with calculated flows using PennDOT acceptable methods?
- Is FEMA's published 100-year flow included in the analysis?

Comments:

2. ACT 167
Is there a DEP approved Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan?
How were the flows developed in the Act 167?
Were there flows provided in the vicinity of the project site?
Have the flows been included for comparison to calculated flows? page

Comments:

3. DESIGN FLOODS
PennDOT roadway classification
PennDOT design event (check one) 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr
PADEP event (check one) 25-yr (rural) 50-yr (suburban) 100-yr (urban)

Comments:

4. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
Drainage area at site (DA) is correct square miles
Applicable hydrologic method used (check all that apply)
WRC method EFH2 (1 to 2000 ac)
Rational method (up to 200 acres)* TR-55* (10 ac to 3.1 sq mi)
PSU-IV (comparison only) WinTR-55 (1ac to 25 sq mi)
USGS WRIR 2000-4189* USGS SIR 2008-5102*
HEC-1/HEC-HMS* Other**
* Methods may be used within the Watershed Modeling System (WMS) program
** Project Engineer should ensure that the model is appropriate and that approvals
are obtained from the Department
Which method was chosen for the design flows?
Was justification provided for the selection of the peak flow method? page

Comments:

Section II
9 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

5. METHOD SELECTION DETAILS
Fill out the appropriate section below based on the hydrologic method(s) used in Section 4.
A. WRC Method (gage) page
USGS gage #
Gage location (i.e, town and stream/river name)
Gage is on the same main stem as the project site
Print out of gage record is included
DA at gage square miles
DAsite is between 0.5 and 1.5 DAgage
Years of record
Record is greater than 10 years
Historic peaks (i.e., not recorded by gage) are excluded
Record not partially influenced by regulation or diversion (e.g., reservoir, levee, etc.)
Watershed characteristics consistent for entire record (e.g., landuse)
Skew calculation method is appropriate (check one):
Station
Regional
Weighted
If gage is not at project site, were flows correctly translated to the site?

Return Period Qgage (cfs) Qsite (cfs)

(yrs)

Comments:

Section II
10 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

B. Rational Method page
DA is less than 200 acres
Weighted C value is correct C=
Time of concentration (Tc) is correct Tc =
Storm duration equals the Tc for intensity determination
Rainfall intensity from PDT-IDF curves

Return Period
Intensity (in) Q (cfs)
(yrs)

Comments:

C. USGS WRIR 2000-4189 Method page

DA at site between 1.5 and 2,000 square miles
Region is correct (check one) B
% Forest is reasonable %
% Urban is reasonable %
In Region B, urban % does not exceed 5%
% Carbonate is reasonable %
% Controlled is reasonable %

Return Period
Q (cfs)
(yrs)

Comments:

Section II
11 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

Section II
12 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

D. USGS SIR 2008-5102 Method page
DA at site between 1.0 and 2,000 square miles
Region is correct (check one) 3 4
% Forest is reasonable %
% Urban is reasonable %
% Carbonate is reasonable %
% Storage is reasonable* %
*surface area of lakes, ponds, wetlands, etc.
Mean basin elevation is is correct (Region 3)

Return Period
Q (cfs)
(yrs)

Comments:

Section II
13 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

E. PSU IV (Comparison Method Only) page
DA at site between 1.5 and 150 square miles
Region is correct (check one) 1 4
Standard Deviation is correct
Skew Coefficient is correct
Divide Elevation is correct feet
% Forest is reasonable %
Adjustment for carbonate area applied
Indicate other adjustments applied

Return Period
Q (cfs)
(yrs)

Comments:

Section II
14 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

F. TR-55 Method / WinTr-55 page
DA at site is between 10 and 2,000 acres (< 3.1 square miles) for TR-55
DA at site is between 1 acre and 25 square miles for WinTR-55
Note if multiple drainage areas are used, attach additional sheets for CN, etc.
CN calculated correctly CN =
Time of concentration (Tc) calculated correctly hrs (0.1<Tc<10 hr)
Sheet flow length no greater than 100' feet
Shallow concentrated flow length appropriate feet
Channel flow length appropriate feet
Rainfall from PDT-IDF curves (24-hour duration)
PDT-IDF Curve or SCS Type II 24-hr rainfall distribution used

Return Period
Rainfall (in) Q (cfs)
(yrs)

Comments:

Section II
15 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

G. EFH2 Method page
DA at site between 1 and 2,000 acres (< 3.1 square miles)
CN calculated correctly CN =
Urban % does not exceed 10% %
Hydraulic length is between 200 and 26,000 feet feet
Average watershed slope, Y %
Y is the average overland slope between drainage divide and stream channel
Rainfall from PDT-IDF curves (24-hour duration)
PDT-IDF Curve or SCS Type II 24-hr rainfall distribution used

Return Period
Rainfall (in) Q (cfs)
(yrs)

Comments:

Section II
16 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

H. HEC-1 / HEC-HMS Method page
DA subareas ≤ 3.1 square miles or justification provided for larger subareas
Note if multiple drainage areas are used, attach additional sheets for CN, etc.
CN calculated correctly CN =
Lag time, tL hours
Lag time calculated with SCS method
If subdivided, routing was performed
Rainfall from PDT-IDF curves (24-hour duration)
PDT-IDF Curve or SCS Type II 24-hr rainfall distribution used

Return Period
Rainfall (in) Q (cfs)
(yrs)

Comments:

Section II
17 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Hydrology Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

I. Other Method page
Calculations included
Method appropriate for location
Rationale / justification provided

Return Period
Rainfall (in) Q (cfs)
(yrs)

Comments:

Section II
18 of 39
PennDOT Hydrology QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (03-15)
HEC-RAS Model Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899
1. File Management**
HEC-RAS program version
Project file name (*.prj)
Plan name for existing conditions
Plan Short ID
Geometry file name (*.gxx)
Steady flow file name (*.fxx)
Final date of run file (*.rxx)
Plan name for proposed conditions
Plan Short ID
Geometry file name (*.gxx)
Steady flow file name (*.fxx)
Final date of run file (*.rxx)
Plan name for temp conditions (if applicable)
Plan Short ID
Geometry file name (*.gxx)
Steady flow file name (*.fxx)
Final date of run file (*.rxx)

**The following HEC-RAS files must be submitted for review: project (*.prj), geometry (*.gxx), steady flow (*.fxx),
plan (*.pxx), run (*.rxx), and output (*.oxx). The run file and output file extensions will correspond to the appropriate
plan file extension.

Comments:

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

2. FEMA Study (this section required if the project is in a detailed FEMA study area)
- Hydraulic model used in the FEMA study page
- Was the original FEMA model obtained? (check all that apply)
Paper copy of model input page
Paper copy of model output page
Electronic files
- If FEMA modeling data was unavailable, letter from FEMA stating such is provided?
- Datum: FEMA Project
- Datum Conversion (FEMA to project): ft
- List the FEMA cross sections used as-is in existing conditions model

- List the FEMA cross sections modified with current survey in existing conditions model

- List the new survey cross sections in existing conditions model

- Does the hydraulic cross section plan show all FEMA sections and
surveyed sections used in the existing conditions model? page

Comments:

Section III
19 of 39
PennDOT HEC-RAS Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (03-15)
HEC-RAS Model Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

3. Steady Flow Data
Boundary Conditions Upstream Downstream
Normal depth S= S=
Known WS WS Elev= WS Elev=
Critical depth
Rating curve source= source=
- Are the boundary conditions appropriate?
- Are the same boundary conditions used in the existing and proposed models?
- If applicable, was a known WS used for the FEMA published flow?

Discharge Information (see also Hydrology checklist)

- 100-year, DEP and PennDOT design events were modeled
- Temporary conditions event modeled year
- Flows for the modeled events match peak flows in the H&H Report
- Flow change(s) reflects tributary location(s)

Comments:

4. Geometric Data
Plan Information / River System Schematic
- Plan showing the location and orientation of all cross sections provided
(with scale, contours, and all important hydraulic features) page
- Number of reaches
- Number of junctions
- Cross section numbers increase from downstream to upstream
Cross Section Geometry
- Cross sections extend across 100-year floodplain
- Cross sections are perpendicular to flow direction (except at bounding structure sections)
- Cross sections do not overlap
- Cross section data is entered from left to right (looking downstream)
- Left and right bank stations: - are reasonable
- have consistent elevations
- Reach lengths are correct
- Manning's n values are reasonable (Table 3.1 in Reference 1)
- Contraction/expansion coefficients are reasonable
(contr = 0.3, exp = 0.5 bounding structure sections)
- Ineffective flow areas reflect contraction / expansion reach near hydraulic structure
(Reference 2)
- Ineffective flow areas in overbanks are used where appropriate
- Levees are used where appropriate
- Blocked obstructions are used where appropriate

Comments:

Section III
20 of 39
PennDOT HEC-RAS Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (03-15)
HEC-RAS Model Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

Geometric Data continued
4a. Bridge Geometry*
- Plan with high/low chord elevations included page
- Bridge cross section (E) (P)
- Bounding bridge sections are at or beyond the embankment toe and parallel to each other
- High chord (max.) (E) (P)
- Low chord (min.) (E) (P)
- High/low chords match the report/drawings
- Bridge width (E) (P)
- Bridge widths match the report/drawings
- Distance to US section (E) (P)
- US distances match the hydraulic section plan
- Number of spans (E) (P)
- Normal clear span length(s) (E) (P)
- Bridge normal clear span lengths match the report/drawings
- Number of piers (E) (P)
- Existing pier centerline(s), width(s) and elevation(s) are correct
- Proposed pier centerline(s), width(s) and elevation(s) are correct
- Ineffective areas "turn off" when weir flow passes over bridge
- Minimum weir flow elevation is reasonable
- Bridge modeling methods Existing Proposed
Low flow
High flow
- Methods are appropriate per Reference 1

* Check for existing (E) and proposed (P) structure; low chord elevations and normal clear span
lengths are not applicable to arch structures.

Comments:

Section III
21 of 39
PennDOT HEC-RAS Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (03-15)
HEC-RAS Model Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

Geometric Data continued
4b. *Culvert Geometry
- Plan with inverts elevations included page

- Structure cross section (E) (P)

- Bounding culvert cross sections are at or beyond the embankment toe
- Ineffective areas "turn off" when weir flow passes over road
- Minimum weir flow elevation is reasonable
Existing Proposed
- Number of barrels
- Shape
Diameter
Span x Rise
- Spans/diameters are correct
- Chart #
- Scale #
- Chart and Scale match the culvert type and entrance conditions
- Distance to US section ft ft
- US distances match the hydraulic section plan
- Culvert length ft ft
- Culvert lengths match the hydraulic section and structure plans
- Entrance loss coeff
- Exit loss coeff
- Loss coefficients are appropriate for entrance/exit conditions
- Manning's n for top
- Manning's n for bottom
- Manning's n for top and bottom are appropriate
- Depth to use bottom n
- Depth blocked
- Blocked depth reflects the depressed depth for fish passage
- US invert elevation ft ft
- DS invert elevation ft ft
- Invert elevations match the report/drawings
- High chord (max.) ft ft
- High chords match structure drawings

* Check for existing (E) and proposed (P) structure

Comments:

Section III
22 of 39
PennDOT HEC-RAS Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (03-15)
HEC-RAS Model Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

Geometric Data continued
4c. *Roadway Profile
- Roadway profile plan provided page
- Roadway stations are entered from left to right (looking downstream)
- Roadway (high chord) stations and elevations match drawings (exist and prop)
- Highest roadway elevation is coded as the US side so that weir flow is correctly calculated.

* Check for existing (E) and proposed (P) structure

Comments:

4d. Temporary Conditions

- Temporary fill and/or structure(s) proposed in the channel? (check all that apply)
Cofferdam (e.g., sheet piling, Jersey barrier, sand bags)
Causeway
Temporary road
Other
- Dimension and locations match report and E&S Plan page
- Geometry reflects worst-case construction scenario (i.e., generally the most obstructed area)

Comments:

5. Plan File
Flow Regime
Subcritical
Supercritical
Mixed
- If subcritical only, is the Froude number < 1.0 at every section?
- If supercritical only, is the Froude number > 1.0 at every section?

Comments:

Section III
23 of 39
PennDOT HEC-RAS Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (03-15)
HEC-RAS Model Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

6. Output
Existing versus Proposed Output
- Water surface profiles are in the correct order in the cross section output
- Is the existing low chord elevation equal to or below the proposed?
- Hydraulic opening area stated (sf) Exist. (sf) Prop.
- Is the proposed opening area equal to or larger than the existing?
- Errors, warnings, and notes reviewed and discussed page
- Are there increases at any cross section for the proposed 100-year event?
- Existing and proposed HEC-RAS cross section plot output are included page
- Existing and proposed HEC-RAS profile output are included page
(table & plot)
- Output shows 100-year, DEP and PennDOT design events

Comments:

Temporary Conditions Output

- The H&H report states that the year event does not overtop the temporary measures
- The magnitude and extent of temporary increases are quantified page
- Are the temporary increases contained within the channel? page
- Do the temporary wsels tie in to existing wsels within the study limits? page

Comments:

References

1
Hydrologic Engineering Center. 2002. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Davis, CA.
2
Hydrologic Engineering Center. 1995. RD-42, Flow Transitions in Bridge Backwater Analysis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis,
CA.

Section III
24 of 39
PennDOT HEC-RAS Report QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (03-15)
HY-8 Model Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO
1. File Management
HY-8 Version
Project file name
Is HY-8 Run (input/output) attached?

Comments:

2. Discharge Data (Crossing Properties)

Flows Input:
Minimum cfs
Design cfs
Maximum cfs
Discharge Information
100-year and DEP's & PennDOT's design events were modeled
Flows for the modeled events are correct

Comments:

3. Tailwater Data (Crossing Properties)

Channel Type (check one)
Rectangular Irregular
Trapezoidal Rating Curve
Triangular Constant Tailwater Elevation

Channel type selection is reasonable

Channel input dimensions are consistent with plans

Comments:

4. Roadway Data (Crossing Properties)

Roadway Profile Shape (check one)
Constant
Irregular

Roadway profile dimensions are consistent with plans

Comments:

Section IV
25 of 39
PennDOT HY-8 QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (03-15)
HY-8 Model Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO
5a. Existing Culvert Data (Culvert Properties)
Culvert Name
Shape (check one)
Circular Arch-Open Bottom
Concrete Box Low Profile Arch
Elliptical High Profile Arch
Pipe Arch Metal Box
User Defined Arch-Box-Concrete

Culvert material and size:

Culvert specifications are consistent with plans and/or site survey data

Comments:

5b. Proposed Culvert Data (Culvert Properties)

Culvert Name
Shape (check one)
Circular Arch-Open Bottom
Concrete Box Low Profile Arch
Elliptical High Profile Arch
Pipe Arch Metal Box
User Defined Arch-Box-Concrete

Culvert material and size:

Culvert specifications are consistent with plans

Comments:

6. Site Data (Culvert Properties)

Site Data Input Option (check one)
Culvert Invert Data
Embankment Toe Data

Site data is consistent with plans

Comments:

Section IV
26 of 39
PennDOT HY-8 QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (03-15)
HY-8 Model Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO
7. Results
Overtopping?
If yes, overtopping discharge:
Existing cfs
Proposed cfs
Upstream 100-year water surface elevation
Existing ft
Proposed ft
Is the proposed 100-year flood elevation greater than existing?
Velocities
Design storm velocity
Existing ft/s
Proposed ft/s
100-year flood velocity
Existing ft/s
Proposed ft/s

Results are acceptable for HY-8 use

Entrance velocities < 5 fps

Comments:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) HY-8 Version 7.0, March 16, 2007
Software developed by: Environmental Modeling Systems, Inc.
Based on HDS-5 Documentation

Section IV
27 of 39
PennDOT HY-8 QA Form - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

1. Streambed Particle Size
- D50 in = ft
Typical D50 Values:
Clay and silt 0.00024 - 0.062 mm
Sand 0.062 - 2.00 mm 0.002 - 0.08 in
Gravel 2 - 64 mm 0.08 - 2.5 in
Cobbles 64 - 250 mm 2.5 - 10 in

- Method used to determine D50

visual inspection sieve analysis
pebble count core boring* (see notes on applicability below)
- Location of streambed sample
- Streambed material description page
- Is bedrock visible?
- Is D50 appropriate for studied reach?
- Evidence of long-term streambed elevation change (aggradation or degradation)?
* For limitations on core borings use see requirements in DM-4, Chapter 7. Also for most
PA streams core borings may underestimate the size of the streambed material. If the
approximate D100 particle size is less than the core diameter and the sample is taken in
the stream channel, the core borings may provide a reasonable D50 for the armor layer.
Comments:

2. Contraction Scour
HEC-RAS Sections - fill in the appropriate information from the proposed HEC-RAS model

XS: ________

Length = _______ ft
XS: ________
XS: ________ Length = _______ ft

Key
1. Upstream uncontracted cross section (XS output)
2. Internal bridge cross section (BR U or BR D in HEC-RAS output)
3. Upstream bounding cross section (XS output)

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 28 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

Comments:

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 29 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

2 (continued)
Critical Velocity
- Was HEC-18, Equation 6.1 used?
- Ku coefficient is correct (6.19 - SI units / 11.17 - English units)
- y is channel hydraulic depth variable from XS (1)
- V is channel velocity from XS (1)
- 100-year scour type (check one) Clear Live
- 500-year scour type (check one) Clear Live
- HEC-RAS output tables are included with input parameters labeled page
Comments:

Live-Bed Scour - calculate for the event(s) determined to be live-bed*

*Where coarse sediments are present, it is recommended that scour depths be calculated for live-
bed scour conditions using the clear-water and live-bed equations, and the smaller scour depth
be used.
- Were HEC-18, Equations 6.2 and 6.3 used?
- y1 is channel hydraulic depth variable from XS (1)
- yo is hydraulic depth variable from XS (2)
Botto
- W1 (check one) ft Top
m
- W1 is the estimated bottom or top channel width from XS (1)
Botto
- W2 (check one) ft Top
m
- W2 is the estimated bottom or top channel width from XS (2)
- W1 and W2 are consistent (both top or both bottom)
- Q1 is the channel flow from XS (1)
- Q2 is the flow in the contracted channel** from XS (2)
- k1 coefficient correct
(0.59 - mostly contact, 0.64 - some suspended, 0.69 - mostly suspended)
- ys (100-yr event) ft
- ys (500-yr event) ft
- HEC-RAS output tables are included with input parameters labeled page
**If the proposed bridge abutments are located in the channel (HEC-18, Case 1a) or at
the channel banks (HEC-18, Case 1b), Q2 should be the flow through the bridge opening.
Comments:

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 30 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 31 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

Clear-Water Scour - calculate for the event(s) determined to be clear-water

- Were HEC-18, Equations 6.4 and 6.5 used?
- Ku coefficient is correct (0.025 - SI units / 0.0077 - English units)
- yo is hydraulic depth variable from XS (2)
Botto
W (check one) ft Top
m
- W is the bottom or top channel width from XS (2)
- Q is the flow through the bridge opening or on the set-back over bank area
at the bridge associated with the width, W, from XS (2)
- HEC-RAS output tables are included with input parameters labeled page

Comments:

3. Pressure Flow Scour (Vertical Contraction Scour)

*Pressure flow scour should be calculated for all events that submerge the low chord

- Were HEC-18, Equations 6.4, 6.14 and 6.16 used (Clear-water Application)?
- Were HEC-18, Equation 6.2, 6.14, and 6.16 used (Live-bed Application)?
- hb, vertical size of the bridge opening prior to scour (same as Y0) ft
- hb dimension calculations provided/appropriate?
- hu Upstream channel flow depth is from XS (1) (same as y1) ft
- ht Distance from the water surface to the lower face of the bridge girders = hu - hb, ft
- T, Height of the obstruction including girders, deck, and parapet ft
- If bridge railing has openings, T extends up to the lower edge of railing opening
- ht is greater than T for which event (overtopping case)? year
- hw Weir flow height = ht - T for ht > T (overtopping), hw = 0 for ht ≤ T (non overtopping)
- Was hue (adjusted upstream channel flow depth) used instead of y1 for Live bed
overtopping application?
- Was Que calculated using HEC-18 equation 6.15 and applied in HEC-18 Equation 6.2
instead of Q1 for Live Bed overtopping application?
- ys (100-yr event) ft
- ys (500-yr event) ft
- HEC-RAS output tables are included with input parameters labeled page
Comments:

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 32 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 33 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

3. Local Pier Scour (if applicable)

Local Pier Scour for Simple Piers
- Was HEC-18, Equation 7.1 used?
- Pier nose shape
- K1 pier nose coefficient is correct (HEC-18, Table 7.1)
- Angle of attack of flow, θ
(θ is 0 when the pier is aligned with the flow direction)
- K2 angle of attack coefficient is correct (HEC-18, Table 7.2)
- K3 bed condition coefficient is correct (HEC-18, Table 7.3)
- y1 is hydraulic depth directly upstream of the pier from XS (3) flow distribution table
- V1 is velocity directly upstream of the pier from XS (3) flow distribution table
- g, acceleration of gravity (check one) 9.81 m/s2 32.2 ft/s2
- Fr1 is the Froude number directly upstream of the pier from XS (3) and Fr1 = V1 / (gy1)0.5
- a, pier width ft
- a is the pier width perpendicular to the flow direction (i.e., projected pier width)
- Equation 7.32 is used to calculate effective width of weir (a*d) if debris is present
and a*d is used instead of a in HEC-18 Equation 7.1 or Equation 7.3
- K1 in Equation 7.32 is either 0.79 (rectangular debris) or 0.21 (triangular debris)
- Kw calculated with Eqn. 7.1 or 7.3 if y/a < 0.8, a/D50 > 50, and Fr < 1
- ys (100-yr event) ft
- ys (500-yr event) ft
- HEC-RAS output tables are included with input parameters labeled page
Comments:

4. Total Scour
- If live-bed contraction scour depths are limited by streambed armoring,
was the lesser of the clear-water and live-bed contraction scour depths used?
- If multi-layered riprap protection is proposed for the piers, was the local
pier scour depth reduced by 50%?
- If the structure has piers, was the total pier scour depth calculated as the sum of the contraction
scour or pressure scour (whichever equation is applicable), and local scour that includes both
the pier scour and scour from debris, if applicable.
- Scour prism plot is illustrated on the HEC-RAS bridge section page
- Total scour depths are included in the H&H Report page
- If any aggradation or degradation was indicated in bridge inspection reports
was it included with total scour?
Total Scour Continued

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 34 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

Scour depths were calculated for the temporary bridge (25-year event) per DM-4, Chap 5.
*Note 1: Per DM-4, Chapter 7 local abutment scour calculations are not required
when the substructure is protected with multi-layered riprap protection.

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 35 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

4 (continued)
**Note 2: The use of Equations 6.2 or 6.4 in combination with Equation 6.14 incorporates the
contraction of the channel and floodplain flows (lateral contraction) and pressure flow
(vertical contraction).
***Note 3: Pressure flow scour can occur even when there is no lateral contraction due to
vertical contraction of the flow and the development of the flow separation zone.
Comments:

5. Riprap Sizing

- Unfactored velocities
Abutment Piers
V100 ft/s V100 ft/s
V500 ft/s V500 ft/s
- For abutments, V is the BR Open Vel variable for the velocity inside the bridge
- For piers, V is the avg upstream velocity in the section upstream of the piers - XS (3)
- HEC-RAS bridge output table shows inside bridge velocity page
- What event has the highest velocity inside the bridge? year
- Was the highest velocity used?**
Abutments
- Was the 1.8 safety factor applied to the velocity before sizing the riprap?
- Riprap size meets DM-4 Chapter 7 requirements R-
Piers
- Was the 1.5 safety factor applied to the velocity before sizing the riprap?
- Riprap size meets DM-4 Chapter 7 requirements R-
Temporary Bridge
- Was the 1.8 safety factor applied to the 25-year velocity per DM-4, Chapter 5?
- Riprap size meets DM-4 Chapter 7 requirements R-

**Note: Per DM-4 Chapter 7, riprap has to be designed to withstand the 500-year velocity only
when the 500-year scour depth is below the bottom of footing elevation. If a lower event has the
highest velocity inside the bridge, it should be used for riprap sizing.

Comments:

US Department of Transportation, FHWA. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 (HEC-18), Evaluating Scour at Bridges, 5th Edition. April 2012.

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 36 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Scour Analysis & Riprap Sizing Checklist
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0
Reviewer(s): 0 Date: 12/30/1899

DESCRIPTION YES NO N/A

PennDOT Scour QA Form - July 2014 37 of 39

 D-3 (3-15)
Additional Comments
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0

Checklist Section

Checklist Section

Checklist Section

Checklist Section

Checklist Section

Checklist Section

Checklist Section

Additional Comments
38 of 39
PennDOT H&H QA Forms - December 2012
 D-3 (3-15)
Additional Comments
Quality Assurance Review
www.dot.state.pa.us
Project: 0 0 District: 0
Municipality: 0 County: 0

Additional Comments
39 of 39
PennDOT H&H QA Forms - December 2012