replacement xing worksheet march 2016.docxEvaluation Criteria
Alternative 1: Replace in-kind
________________________(dimensions)
Alternative 2: Meet General Performance Standards for Bank and LUWW1
________________________(dimensions)
Alternative 3: Meet minimum applicable Stream Crossing Standards2
________________________(dimensions)
1) potential for downstream flooding
2) upstream and downstream habitat
3) potential for erosion and head-cutting
4) stream stability
5) habitat fragmentation caused by the crossing
6) amount of stream mileage made accessible
Evaluation Criteria
Alternative 1: Replace in-kind
________________________(dimensions)
Alternative 2: Meet General Performance Standards for Bank and LUWW1
________________________(dimensions)
Alternative 3: Meet minimum applicable Stream Crossing Standards2
________________________(dimensions)
7) storm flow conveyance
8) engineering design constraints
9) hydrologic constraints
10) impacts to wetlands that would
occur
11) potential to affect property and infrastructure
12) cost of replacement
1 Bank Standards at 310 CMR 10.54 and LUWW Standards at 310 CMR 10.56 (LUWW = Land Under Water Bodies & Waterways)
2 Per the Massachusetts River & Stream Crossing Standards (March 1, 2011, Revised March 8, 2012), Page 18, Item #2 - If it is not possible to meet all of the applicable standards, replacement
crossings should be designed to avoid or mitigate the following problems: (1) Inlet drops; (2) Outlet drops; (3) Flow contraction that produces significant turbulence; (4) Tailwater
armoring; (5) Tailwater scour pools; (6) Physical barriers to fish and wildlife passage.