Tidal Restriction Prioritization Protocol
for the Restoration of Tidal Wetlands
New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands
United States
Environmental Protection
^1 m % Agency
February 2024
EPA-843-R2-3004
-------
Tidal Restriction Prioritization Protocol for the
Restoration of Tidal Wetlands
New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Isiands
February 2024
Suggested Citation: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. Tidal Restriction
Prioritization Protocol for the Restoration of Tidal Wetlands: New York, New Jersey, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Washington D.C., Document No. EPA-843-R2-3004.
Cover Photo Credits:
Top Photo (iStock)
Bottom Photos (Shutterstock)
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Protocol is the product of an Interagency Agreement between the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It was
developed under EPA Contract No. 68HERC21D0008 and managed by Jennifer Linn with
technical assistance from Amanda Santoni in the EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds, Jaclyn Woollard in EPA Region 2, as well as Michael Ruth and Richard Darden
from FHWA. The Protocol was prepared by Amy James, Ecosystem Planning and
Restoration, Inc (EPR). Paxton Ramsdell (EPR) assisted with the stakeholder workshop.
This Protocol was largely developed through feedback received during a stakeholder
workshop (see attendees in Appendix A) in November 2022. We are indebted to the
attendees for their valuable insights and recommendations. The Protocol also benefitted
greatly from review and comments from stakeholders and external reviewers, including:
Eric Ham (Maine Department of Transportation), Kat Hoenke (Southeast Aquatic Resources
Partnership), Scott Jackson (Northeast Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative), Joshua
LaFountain (The Nature Conservancy), Richard Mitchell (EPA), Jamie Onge (New York City
Parks and Recreation Department), Michael Setering (NJ FHWA), Isabelle Stinnette (NY/NJ
Hudson Estuary Partnership), and Brittney Wilburn (NJ Department of Environmental
Protection).
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1: BACKGROUND 1
I. Introduction 1
A. Existing Protocols 2
II. Protocol Structure and Use 3
A. Management Categories and Metrics 4
PART 2: USING THE PROTOCOL 6
III. Site Identification and Training 6
IV. Conducting an Assessment 7
A. Equipment, Safety, and Environmental Considerations 9
V. Data Collection 11
A. General Crossing Information 11
B. Field Data and Metrics 13
Degree of Restriction (E2) 13
Vegetation Comparison (E3) 17
Crossing Structural Condition (C1) 18
Current Inundation Risk and Lack of Clearance (C2) 19
Scour Severity (C3) 19
C. Desktop Data and Metrics 20
Tidal Wetland Complex Size (E1) 20
Heavy Rainfall Flood Risk within the Watershed (R1) 22
Risk of Sea Level Rise Inundation of Road/Crossing (R2) 23
Unvegetated Tidal Marsh Vulnerability (R3) 23
Tidal Wetland Migration Potential (R4) 24
Road Functional Classification (T1) 24
Evacuation Route (T2) 25
VI. Protocol Scoring and Crossing Prioritization 25
A. Ecological Enhancement Management Category 26
B. Climate and Ecological Resilience Category 28
-------
C. Transportation Network Resilience Management Category 30
D. Infrastructure Condition Management Category 31
VII. References 33
APPENDIX A: Virtual Meeting and In-Person Stakeholder Workshop Executive Summary
APPENDIX B: Field and Desktop Data Form
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Examples of structures with atypical interior width measurements (Steckler et al. 2017) 15
Figure 2. Maximum pool width vs. channel width 16
Figure 3. Tidal wetland complex example 1 21
Figure 4. Tidal wetland complex example 2 22
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Protocol management categories and associated metrics 5
Table 2. Metric crosswalk with the NAACC tidal protocol 7
Table 3. Applicable Cowardin wetland types for the tidal wetland complex size metric 20
Table 4. Tidal wetland complex size scores 26
Table 5. Degree of restriction (overall) scores 26
Table 6. Tidal range ratio scores 26
Table 7. Crossing ratio scores 27
Table 8. Erosion classification scores 27
Table 9. Vegetation comparison scores 28
Table 10. Heavy rainfall flood risk within watershed scores 28
Table 11. Risk of sea level rise inundation of road/crossing scores 29
Table 12. Unvegetated tidal marsh vulnerability scores for all E2EM wetlands and tidal PEM
wetlands excluding R and S tidal regime modifiers 29
Table 13. Unvegetated tidal marsh vulnerability scores for PEM-R and PEM-S wetlands 29
Table 14. Tidal wetland migration potential scores 30
Table 15. Road functional classification scores 30
Table 16. Evacuation route scores 30
Table 17. Structural condition scores 31
Table 18. Translating general condition ratings to a structural condition score 31
Table 19. Current inundation risk and lack of clearance scores 32
Table 20. Scour severity scores 32
ii
-------
PURPOSE
The Tidal Restriction Prioritization Protocoi for the Restoration of Tidai Wetlands {Protocol)
was developed to evaluate tidal restrictions and identify/prioritize those which could be
removed or replaced to meet multiple management objectives, including those that aid in
the restoration of tidal wetland habitats and functions for the states and territories of New
York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, as tidal restrictions
are often the result of transportation infrastructure, the Protocol also includes objectives
relating to transportation structures and their uses. The management objectives or
"categories" addressed in the Protocol include ecological enhancement, climate/ecological
resilience, transportation network resilience, and infrastructure condition. Importantly, the
Protocol is adapted from existing tools that assess and prioritize tidal restrictions, for
removal/remediation as well as those used for aquatic organism passage. It is designed as
a screening tool for resource managers to help focus resources on achievable projects that
rehabilitate/replace tidally restrictive structures and provide restorative benefits to tidally
influenced wetlands and built infrastructure.
-------
PART 1: BACKGROUND
I. Introduction
Tidal restrictions are built structures or landforms that limit or prevent tidal exchange
between upstream and downstream habitats. Common examples of tidal restrictions
include undersized bridges or culverts; road causeways; and water control structures such
as tide gates, weirs, levees, dikes, berms, and dams. Alteration of tidal exchange can lead
to direct loss of tidal wetlands or their function. Hydrologic and salinity changes associated
with tidal restrictions can result in adverse effects on wetlands and other coastal habitats,
water quality, wildlife, and coastal communities. In addition to effects on the natural
environment, restrictions may also create maintenance issues for transportation
infrastructure by increasing forces of erosion, scour, and flooding.
In 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Tidal Restriction
Synthesis Review (Review), an analysis of U.S. tidal restrictions and opportunities for their
avoidance and removal. The Review noted/indicated that location and severity of tidal
restrictions data in the U.S. are limited, and the data that are available often focus on the
passage of aquatic organisms rather than wetland habitat, resilience, or other related
objectives. To address this gap, the Review recommended to "use and adapt existing tidal
crossing field evaluation methods to confirm the existence of restrictions, determine their
severity, and prioritize them for removal."
In 2021, EPA partnered with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to help
implement this recommendation from the Review by initiating the development of a
regional tidal restriction prioritization protocol for New York (NY), New Jersey (NJ), Puerto
Rico (PR), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (which comprise EPA Region 2). This multi-year
effort was conducted with contractor support from Ecosystem Planning and Restoration,
Inc. and included a virtual meeting and in-person workshop with regional stakeholders to
solicit input and guide protocol development, mainly through discussion of existing
protocols, related efforts in the region, protocol management objectives and
measurements/observations to include (i.e., metrics), level of field effort, and
implementation strategies (see Summary in Appendix A).
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
This Protocol was completed in 2024. It consists of a single integrated protocol that
provides a generally consistent approach across the region but also accounts for
geographic variability where needed, largely due to differences in current data availability.
In order for the Protocol to be used and integrated with existing efforts related to aquatic
organism passage, we anticipate significant coordination and leveraging of existing online
data platforms. We also expect to identify opportunities to pilot the Protocol within the
geographic area of focus, which may help inform improvement or updates in the future.
Ideally, the Protocol for NY, NJ, PR, and USVI could be transferred to similar protocols in
other areas. We are interested to hear from stakeholders to both incorporate feedback on
the Protocol as well as opportunities for implementing the protocol.
A. Existing Protocols
The following existing protocols were reviewed for this effort. All of these existing
protocols are designed to assess tidal restrictions and/or aquatic organism barriers
associated with transportation crossings (e.g., bridges and culverts).
Tidal Crossing Handbook; Purinton and Mountain, 1998 (Purinton and Mountain
protocol).
o Largely field-based and assesses tidal restriction severity through metrics
and direct field measurement of the tidal range over one 12-hour tidal cycle.
New Hampshire Tidal Crossing Assessment Protocol; Steckler et a I., 2017 (NH
protocol).
o Field- and desktop-based metrics that are designed to both identify severely
restricted crossings and prioritize them for removal. Most of the NH protocol
desktop metrics rely on results from a Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model
(SLAMM) that was run for the state.
North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative Tidal Stream Crossing Protocol for
Aquatic Passability Assessments; Jackson, 2019 (NAACC tidal protocol).
o Field-based metrics that assess whether a crossing presents a barrier to
aquatic organism passage, as well as its severity. While the NAACC protocol
is designed to assess aquatic organism passage, it still has significant field
metric overlap with the NH protocol. The NAACC organization
geographically overlaps both NY and NJ; however, at the time of this
document's publication, the NAACC tidal protocol has been applied to a
limited extent in NY.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
The Nature Conservancy Road-Stream and Tidal Crossing Prioritization Tool; The
Nature Conservancy, 2021 (TNC tool).
o Developed for use in Suffolk County, NY and has been applied to those
crossings where field measurements and observations taken from the NH
and NAACC protocols were collected previously. The TNC tool also includes
desktop metrics developed or adapted for the tool. As with the NH protocol,
some of the desktop metrics in the TNC tool are reliant on results from
SLAMM products and model results that are only available for certain
geographic areas.
II. Protocol Structure and Use
Structure
The overall structure of the Protocol is modified from the TNC tool developed for Suffolk
County, NY (described above). The TNC tool was used as a model because: 1) many of the
metrics aligned with those identified by regional stakeholders as important; 2) it could be
used with field data collected using the NAACC tidal protocol, which is already being
deployed by some regional stakeholders; 3) field data collection time was manageable;
and 4) the scoring is relatively straightforward and customizable based on project goals.
Measurement
Like the TNC tool, the Protocol has both field and desktop metrics. Most of the field
metrics are taken straight from the TNC tool. However, measurement methods are those
employed by the NAACC tidal protocol (where applicable), while the scoring criteria are
largely adapted from both the TNC tool and the NH protocol. For the Protocol's desktop
metrics, some were taken directly from the TNC tool and did not require any modification
(e.g., heavy rainfall flood risk in the watershed). Others were either adapted to use different
data sources or were dropped altogether since they used SLAMM results not publicly
available for the entire region or were modified to include all tidal wetlands rather than just
salt marsh, which is the focus of the TNC tool.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
Use
The Protocol is best applied to transportation crossings or similar structures, which can
include bridges, culverts, and pipes, in all wetland areas influenced by the tide, including
saline, brackish, and freshwater tidal environments.
IMPORTANT: the Protocol is a screening tool only,
and DOES NOT:
Directly measure tidal hydrology,
Quantitatively determine structure condition,
Determine functional uplift associated with
tidal restriction removal for mitigation crediting
purposes, or
Determine flooding risk to nearby built
structures if a restriction is removed.
A. Management Categories and Metrics
The Protocol focuses on four management categories1 that broadly reflect potential
management objectives for removing a tidal restriction: ecological enhancement (e.g.,
wetland restoration), climate/ecological resilience, transportation network resilience, and
infrastructure condition. For example, management objectives to re-establish full aquatic
organism passage and upstream salt marsh communities would fall under the ecological
enhancement category.
Due to a difference in data availability for one of the desktop metrics, the Protocol for PR
and the USVI is slightly different from NY and NJ, as shown in Table 1. Metric scoring is
described in Section VI Protocol Scoring and Crossing Prioritization.
1 Adapted from the TNC tool.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
Table 1. Protocol management categories and associated metrics. If a data source is greyed out, the
metric is not used in that state or territory. An 'F indicates that the metric requires data from the
field; a 'D' indicates that the metric requires desktop data to complete. The use of both indicates a
mixture of field and desktop data are required to calculate the metric. Metrics where data collected
during a NAACC tidal protocol assessment can be used are bolded.
Category
Metric
Data Source(s)/ Protoco
Ecological
Enhancement
NY
NJ
PR
USVI
E1
Tidal Wetland Complex Size (D)
National Wetland Inventory
E2
Restriction Severity (F)
Measurement field methods from the NAACC
tidal protocol
E3
Vegetation Comparison (F)
Visual field assessment (like NAACC tidal and NH
protocols)
Climate/Ecological
Resilience
NY
NJ
PR
USVI
R1
Heavy Rainfall Flood Risk (D)
|\
lational Land Cover Dataset
R2
Risk of Sea-Level Rise Inundation of
Crossing (D)
NOAA SLR Viewer
R3
Unvegetated Marsh Vulnerability (F, D)1
UVVR + visual
observation
R4
Tidal Wetland Migration Potential (D)
NOAA SLR Viewer Marsh Migration Tool
Transportation
Network Resilience
NY
NJ
PR
USVI
T1
Road Functional Classification (D)
NY DOT
NJ DOT
PR JP
None;
Apply
standard2
T2
Evacuation Route (D)
Nassau &
Suffolk
Counties;
Apply
standard2
all others
Ready NJ
PR
Seismic
Network
VITEMA
Infrastructure
Condition
NY
NJ
PR
USVI
C1
Crossing Structural Condition (F)
Visual field assessment (I
protc
ike NAACC tidal and NH
>cols)
C2
Current Inundation Risk and Lack of
Clearance (F)
Measurement field methods from the NAACC
tidal protocol
C3
Scour Severity (F)1
Visual assessment
1
This metric was specifically developed for the Protocol and assessments for such a metric are not included in the TNC
tool or NAACC tidal protocol; however, the armoring measurement from NAACC may indicate greater scour.
2 Standard score is specific to this Protocol. See Protocol Scoring and Crossing Prioritization section.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
PART 2: USING THE PROTOCOL
III. Site Identification and Training
As stated above, the Protocol applies to crossings in the tidal zone that can include salt,
brackish, and freshwater tidal wetlands. To determine the extent of the tidal zone in a
given location for site identification and survey planning, desktop tools can be used in lieu
of direct observations. To identify the head of tide on larger inland rivers (e.g., the Hudson
River), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Tide Predictions
website2 or other reputable tide charts can provide an indication of this point. For smaller
tributaries and associated tidal wetlands, using the extent of wetlands classified as tidal by
the National Wetlands Inventory3 (NWI) is an acceptable method. Applicable wetland
types, using the Cowardin classification system employed by the NWI, are shown in Table 3
under the Tidal Wetland Complex Size metric. In NY and NJ, a model is available that
identifies potential tidal restrictions (by severity) based on an estimate of the historic loss
of mapped, upstream salt marshes in areas where they should occur given elevation and
tidal regime4. Depending on the age of the imagery, wetlands that were once tidal may no
longer be classified as such in the NWI. However, these same wetland areas may be
included in the model as tidal, as they may have been so historically. Areas predicted to be
tidal by the model should be evaluated, even if the NWI does not currently classify them as
an applicable wetland type.
To identify potential crossing sites to survey in the tidal zone, consult recent, high quality
aerial photos, recent and older topographic maps, as well as local trail maps, which, as
available, can each provide indication of crossing locations. Working with regional partners
such as NAACC (for NY and NJ) and the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership5 (SARP;
for PR and USVI) on site identification and survey prioritization is advised.
There is currently no independent training framework proposed for the Protocol; because
many of the field metrics are also used in the NAACC tidal protocol, it is suggested that
users in NY and NJ complete the trainings conducted by NAACC5. For PR and USVI, SARP
has trainers who are familiar with the NAACC tidal protocol and may be able to coordinate
2 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tide predictions.html
3 https://fwsprimarv.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/
4 https://nalcc.databasin.org/datasets/67eb4b83bldl41a388ed66debe820ea2/
5 https://southeastaquatics.net/sarps-programs/aquatic-connectivitv-program-act
6 https://streamcontinuitv.org/naacc/states/new-iersev: https://streamcontinuitv.org/naacc/states/new-vork
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
and/or provide training. For the vegetation comparison metric, it is recommended that at
least one member of the field crew has knowledge of regional natural vegetative
communities and plant species identification skills.
IV. Conducting an Assessment
This Protocols a stand-alone assessment method that can also utilize field data collected
as part of a NAACC tidal protocol evaluation for certain metrics, where available. Table 2
shows a crosswalk between shared metrics in the Protocol and the NAACC and how
measurements and observations taken as part of a NAACC assessment are applied in the
Protocol.
Table 2. Metric crosswalk with the NAACC tidal protocol.
Protocol Metric or Sub-
Metric
NAACC Metric(s)
Application of NAACC Data to Protocol
Tidal Range Ratio
(Degree of Restriction
Sub-Metric 1)
Tidal Constriction and
Outlet Perch at High
Tide
Direct measurements of upstream/
downstream (US/DS) tidal range taken
during a NAACC assessment can be used to
score this Protocol sub-metric, in
conjunction with NAACC observation and
quantification of high tide perching.
Crossing Ratio (Degree
of Restriction Sub-
Metric 2)
Constriction Ratio
Direct measurements of structure and
channel width taken during a NAACC
assessment can be used to score this
Protocol sub-metric.
Erosion Classification
(Degree of Restriction
Sub-Metric 3)
U pstrea m/Downstrea m
Scour
Direct measurements of US/DS pool width
and channel width taken during a NAACC
assessment can be used to score this
Protocol sub-metric.
Presence and Type of
Tide Gate (used in
Degree of Restriction
overall score)
Tide Gate Barrier
Severity
Observations of tide gate presence and
characterization of barrier degree made in a
NAACC assessment can be used to score
the Protocol degree of restriction metric.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
Protocol Metric or Sub-
Metric
NAACC Metric(s)
Application of NAACC Data to Protocol
Vegetation Comparison
Metric
Vegetation Change
Visual assessment of differences between
vegetation US and DS made during a
NAACC assessment can be used to score
this Protocol metric. The NAACC scoring
categories are slightly different, so some
level of professional judgement will apply
when using NAACC data to determine a
score using Protocolcriteria.
Crossing Structural
Condition Metric
None (not used in
scoring)
While the NAACC does not use crossing
structural condition in scoring, data on
condition is collected as part of a NAACC
assessment. Condition categories in the
NAACC are slightly different, so some level
of professional judgement will apply when
using NAACC data to determine a score
using Protocol cc\X.ena.
Current Inundation Risk
and Lack of Clearance
None (not used in
scoring)
While the NAACC does not use current
structure inundation risk in scoring, needed
data to determine whether the road is
inundated at high tide (e.g., road fill height,
structure height, and high tide water depth)
is collected as part of a NAACC assessment.
It is important to note that Section V Data Collection in this document includes all
measurement instructions (even for those adapted from the NAACC tidal protocol) and
scoring criteria for each metric in the Protocol. The Protocol has both desktop and field
metricsthe desktop analysis may be completed at any point before or after the field
evaluation and does not necessarily have to be completed by the field observers. The field
survey portion of the Protocol is designed to be conducted at low tide (or just before or
after low tide, generally within an hour before or after); for freshwater tidal crossings,
assessments should be conducted at low tide and during low flow periods, particularly
summer and early fall. Field assessments should take about 30 minutes per crossing (not
including desktop analyses)7.
7 Based on survey methods in the NAACC tidal protocol and stakeholder input.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols February 2024
-------
A. Equipment Safety, and Environmental Considerations8
The following equipment is required to complete a field assessment:
Data Forms (best printed on waterproof paper)
Clipboard, pencils, and erasers
Reel tape (100 ft.); 6 ft. pocket tape (or "pocket rod") for smaller lengths
Stadia rod (also called a leveling rod)
Hand level (or surveyor's level with tripod)
Rangefinder (optional)
Safety vest (brightly colored and reflective)
Waders or hip boots
Sun protection and insect repellent
First aid kit
GPS receiver
Digital camera
Safety is an important component of the Protocol, especially as field data collection is likely
to involve work around roads and in environments with slippery marine clays, mucky
substrates, and modifications that may produce tripping or falling hazards (e.g., ditches,
rip-rap). Following is a partial list of recommendations and precautions that should be
taken to mitigate known safety risks9.
Have a float plan or field plan for each field day with destination, route, expected
timing, names of persons in field crew, description of vehicle or boat, and contact
information. Make sure that a third party who is not going in the field is aware of
the plan and confirms the field crew's safe return.
A safety plan for field crew members should also be available and brought on-site,
including potential risks (e.g., heat, insects), nearest hospitals, emergency contact
information, and any forms needed for reporting work injuries or near misses.
Field surveys are best undertaken by teams of at least two people. This facilitates
measurements and decision-making in challenging situations and improves safety
outcomes.
8 Adapted from the NH protocol.
9 See NAACC tidal protocol for a more thorough discussion at:
https://streamcontinuitv.org/sites/streamcontinuitv.org/files/pdf-doc-
ppt/NAACC lnstructions%20for%20Tidal%20Crossings%208-23-19 O.pdf
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
Always wear brightly colored reflective vests along roads and other transportation
corridors. Avoid walking on railroad tracks. Take care when parking and exiting
vehicles and crossing busy roads.
Avoid wading into streams of all sizes at high flows and entering pools of unknown
depth. If direct measurements cannot be taken safely, make best estimates instead.
When using a telescoping stadia or leveling rod, be aware of and avoid contact with
overhead utility lines.
Follow wader safety guidelines, such as:
o Wear a personal flotation device.
o Use a wading belt when wearing chest waders.
o Always maintain two points of contact as you moveyou may use the
leveling rod as a point of support. Test water depths and substrate softness
with the leveling rod to avoid overtopping your waders and/or sinking into
the substrate.
Use caution when entering a stream crossing structure. Never enter a structure
without another person watching for your safety.
Be prepared for exposed conditions with limited shading, as well as biting insects
and poison ivy. Have access to sunscreen, ample water, and insect repellent, and
consider wearing long-sleeves and a hat. Check for ticks after each field day.
Users of this Protocol should follow best management practices to avoid inadvertently
contributing to the spread of aquatic invasive species, including non-native plants, animals,
and microorganisms (including microscopic life stages of larger animals) that damage
ecosystems or threaten commercial, agricultural, and recreational activities (e.g., European
green crab, zebra mussel, Brazilian waterweed, Melaleuca quinquenervia, etc.). These can
include species adapted for saline or freshwater environments and those that may not
have been documented in the region but have been found in states neighboring NY and
NJ. A partial list of best management practices to avoid the spread of invasive species is
below10.
10 See NAACC tidal protocol for a more thorough discussion at:
https://streamcontinuitv.org/sites/streamcontinuitv.org/files/pdf-doc-
ppt/NAACC lnstructions%20for%20Tidal%20Crossings%208-23-19 O.pdf.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
Conduct surveys within one HUC1211 watershed per day if evaluating multiple
crossings, beginning surveys at the upstream end of a HUC12 and progressing
downstream, if possible.
Do not use waders with felt soles (also helps with safety).
Before leaving a site, clean, drain, and dry (or treat) equipment. Inspect personal
(boots, waders) and survey equipment and remove/dispose of any attached mud,
debris, and plants.
Completely dry (at least 48 hours) or treat personal equipment after each survey
day, or when moving between HUC12 watersheds.
V. Data Collection
This section outlines all field and desktop data that must be collected as part of the
Protocol, including descriptions and measurement methods for each management
category metric (see Table 1). Required information is also found on the data collection
form (Appendix B), including data for both field and desktop metrics. Scoring criteria are
outlined in Section VI Protocol Scoring and Crossing Prioritization.
A. General Crossing Information
The following information prompts are found in the field data collection portion of the
data form (Appendix B) and provide contextual site information not used to score metrics.
The information needed for each metric is found in the management category sections
below.
Date Observed/Time - date, start and end time.
Observers - names of survey team.
Municipality/County - specify city/town or township, as appropriate.
Stream/river name - if unnamed, find nearest named stream and input "unnamed
tributary to [nearest named stream]".
GPS coordinates - in decimal degrees. Include a narrative description as well if
there is any doubt someone could find this crossing again or may mistake it for
another.
11 Smallest classification level (sub-watershed) of the hierarchical system dividing the U.S. into hydrologic units.
Each hydrologic unit is assigned a 2- to 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) that uniquely identifies each of the six
levels of classification within six two-digit fields, where the 2-digit code is the largest in area, and the 12-digit code
is the smallest. HUC maps are available at: https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
Crossing name - for roads, include any route numbers. For driveways, trails, or
railroads lacking known names, input "unnamed".
Crossing type:
o Public or private road.
o Driveway: serving only one or two houses or businesses,
o Trail: can include paved recreational paths (e.g., greenways) and railroad
beds without tracks,
o Railroad: with tracks, whether currently used or not.
o Other: any other crossing type not already described.
Road type (if applicable):
o Multilane (> 2 lanes, including divided highways),
o 1-2 Lanes,
o N/A (not a road).
Crossing surface type:
o Paved (any typeconcrete, asphalt, etc.).
o Gravel/stone,
o Dirt.
Crossing structure type - choose only one:
o Bridge.
o Single culvert or pipe,
o Multiple culverts or pipes,
o Other; describe type in comments.
Bridge or Culvert type (see Steckler et al. 2017 for type descriptions)
o Culverts: round, elliptical, or pipe arch (embedded or not), box, and open
bottom arch,
o Bridges: with abutments, side slopes, or both.
Tide stage - low slack tide, low ebb tide (outgoing), or low flood tide (incoming),
unknown if unsure.
Tide prediction - input time of nearest low tide and the data source used to
determine this information. Users can consult NOAA's Tide Predictions website12
other reputable tide charts for the site area to help determine tide stage. As a
reminder, assessments should only be conducted at (or within one hour of) low
tide.
12 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tide predictions.html
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
Flow condition - based on freshwater inputs to the system. Users can consult the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool13 to determine whether precipitation at the site has
been in a "normal" range.
o Dewatered: No water is flowing in the channel.
o Unusually low: conditions that are unusually low, even for the driest times of
a normal year.
o Typical low: most commonly used and expected value for surveys completed
during summer low flows,
o Moderate: water levels have climbed at or above the level of herbaceous
streambank vegetation,
o High: flows are very high relative to streambanks, making surveys difficult or
impossible. Avoid surveying crossings during high flows for safety reasons
and because accurate data will be difficult to obtain.
Adjacent land uses and historic land use (if known)
Collect photos - at a minimum, the following photos should be taken:
o Photos facing upstream and downstream from the structure, and
o Inlet and outlet structure photos taken from adjacent streambanks or other
nearby vantage point.
B. Field Data and Metrics
Degree of Restriction (E2)
Geography: All
This metric involves the combination of four field measurements/observations for an
overall rating. Three sub-metrics, tidal range ratio, crossing ratio, and erosion classification,
combine for a single overall score that indicates whether a restriction is likely present. This
score is then combined with observations of upstream tidal flow control mechanisms (e.g.,
tide gates) at the crossing to determine restriction severity. Because highly restricted
crossings can cause high velocity flows and/or lack of tidal exchange, they also act as
barriers to aquatic organism passage up and downstream, especially when combined with
mechanisms meant to impede tidal flooding. The overall Degree of Restriction evaluation
score is shown below, following the sub-metric descriptions and associated scores.
13 https://www.epa.gov/wotus/antecedent-precipitation-tool-apt
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
Tidal Range Ratio (Sub-metric 1)
The tidal range ratio compares the tidal range (elevation difference between high tide and
low tide) on the upstream side of the crossing to the tidal range on the downstream side.
Because assessments occur at or close to low tide, the high tide elevation is estimated
based on a "High-Water Indicator" (or HWI), such as water stains on nearby structures or
vegetation (preferred method), wrack lines, or sediment deposition on vegetation. Users
should be mindful of recent rainfall events and high flows (e.g., bankfull or greater) when
locating the high-water indicator, especially upstream of a potential restriction where
freshwater inflows occur, so that recent evidence of high flows is not mistaken for the high
tide elevation in these cases.
To measure, find the difference between the high-water indicator and the water surface
elevation in decimal feet on either side of the crossing. Depending on where the high-
water indicator is located and the crossing size, users may find the difference using a reel
tape, pocket rod, or stadia rod, the latter of which may be paired with a hand level to find
the relative elevation difference, if practicable. When paired with a hand level, one person
will hold the stadia rod at the desired feature (water surface or high-water indicator) and
the other will sight the elevation on the stadia rod. To enable reading the stadia rod from
the same location for all feature measurements, the person using the hand level should be
situated at or higher than the highest feature being sighted. Because elevations for the top
of the structure and the crossing surface relative to the high-water indicator are also
needed for the Current Inundation Risk and Lack of Clearance metric, it is recommended
that the person with the hand level set up at the elevation of the crossing surface and take
all measurements at once from this location. To find accurate feature height differences
with this method, it is imperative that the person with the hand level stay in the same
location for all measurements. If users have an available tripod and survey level, these can
be used in lieu of a hand level; however, as above, this set-up must also stay at the same
location for all measurements.
For culverts, also note whether downstream invert(s) are perched (i.e., the outlet is elevated
above the channel bed or water surface) at low (direct observation) or high (using high-
water indicator) tide (i.e., the high-water indicator is below the culvert outlet).
Crossing Ratio (Sub-metric 2)
The crossing ratio compares the width of the crossing opening to the channel width. The
crossing opening width of most structures will be measured at the widest interior point
that is not embedded in the substrate; though measurement location(s) can vary based on
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
structure type (see Figure 1). In all cases, the width should be measured for both the
upstream (inlet) and downstream (outlet) ends of the structure.
Channel width can be measured in the field with a reel tape or rangefinder if conditions
allow for it to be done safely (e.g., for smaller channels). If measuring in the field, use the
normal high tide channel width (the channel can often be demarcated by a lack of
terrestrial vegetation). Otherwise, channel width can be estimated from aerial imagery if
the imagery scale is known. Channel width should be estimated both upstream and
downstream of the crossing, using the average of 3 measurements in each case, generally
within 300 feet of the crossing (Figure 2). Avoid measurements at sharp channel bends,
scour features immediately up- or downstream of the crossing itself, split or divided
channels, and above or below a confluence. For example, if there is a confluence with
another stream 100 feet downstream of the crossing, limit width measurements to within
100 feet downstream. If either up- or downstream is significantly braided, take the width
measurement across the main channel carrying flow.
Bridge with Side Slopes and Abutments; Average of 'A' and 'C dimensions = crossing
width
Figure 1. Examples of structures with atypical interior width measurements (Steckler et al.
2017).Illustrations and photos of other structure types can be found in Steckler et al. (2017)
and Jackson (2019).
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols February 2024 | 15
Open Bottom Arch Culvert; 'A Bridge with Side Slopes (no abutments);
dimension = crossing width Average of 'A' and 'C dimension = crossing
width
-------
Erosion Classification (Sub-metric 3)
The erosion classification metric compares the width of scour pools up- and downstream
of a crossing to the channel width, as measured for the crossing ratio. Erosion or scour
pools are indicators that a structure is undersized for the stream system, which is also a
sign of tidal restriction. In this case, maximum pool width is a surrogate for determining
the degree of erosion (see example in Figure 2).
Figure 2. Maximum pool width vs. channel width. In this example, the upstream max pool is
wider than the upstream channel width, while downstream they are about the same.
Presence and Type of Tide Gate
Tide gates are doors or flaps mounted on the downstream ends of culverts that generally
allow upstream waters to drain while preventing inflows from tidal surges or flood events.
Traditional tide gates open when hydrologic head on the upstream side is greater than the
downstream side, usually at low or ebb tide, resulting in high velocity outflows and a
default closed position (Souder et al. 2018). These types of gates (e.g., flap gates) can be
assumed to block most tidal flow upstream. Self-regulating tide gates allow tidal flow
upstream during normal conditions but restrict high flows to prevent upstream flooding.
See Jackson (2019) or Giannico and Souder (2005) for descriptions and illustrations of
common tide gate types.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols February 2024 | 16
-------
Vegetation Comparison (E3)
Geography: All
Native tidal wetland plant communities are comprised of species adapted to the range of
flooding and salinity changes associated with the local tidal regime. For instance, in NY and
NJ, "low salt marsh" is found in areas of lower elevation (e.g., along banks of tidal creeks
and depressions on the marsh surface) and is regularly flooded by high tide. Alternatively,
"high salt marsh" is found between mean high tide and the upland edge, generally
experiencing lower levels of flooding and salinity than low salt marsh. Because each
vegetative community reflects different flooding and salinity levels, comparing plant
communities up- and downstream of a tidal crossing can provide a field indicator of
potential restriction that limits natural tidal flooding upstream. Tidal wetland vegetation
differs greatly across NY, NJ, PR, and USVI; a brief discussion of the types found in NY and
NJ vs. PR and USVI follows. The scoring criteria for this metric (see Section VI Protocol
Scoring and Crossing Prioritization) rely on vegetative community type, structure, and
presence of invasive species; therefore, having some knowledge of regional wetland
community types and identification of species (native and invasive) typical of these
communities is recommended.
New York and New Jersey
Tidal wetlands in NY and NJ are usually dominated by emergent (i.e., marsh) or low-
growing scrub-shrub vegetation. As mentioned above, the most common emergent
vegetation in highly saline environments is often termed "low salt marsh," which is
often a monoculture of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora; tall form).
Vegetation in slightly less saline environments (often behind the low marsh) is often
termed "high salt marsh," which is dominated by smooth cordgrass (short form),
saltmeadow cordgrass (5. patens), spike grass (Distichlis spicata), and black needle
rush (Juncus gerardii). Brackish marsh is generally characterized by high marsh
species as well as those that are less salt tolerant (including more woody species),
whereas freshwater tidal marsh is characterized by species adapted to inundation
but intolerant to saline conditions. Freshwater tidal marshes typically develop far
enough upstream that the salts in sea water fully deposit out of the water column,
producing freshwater conditions. Upstream from a highly restricted crossings,
more salt intolerant species will likely occur, including invasives that may out-
compete native species. "Invasive species" in this context are those that are non-
native or naturalized and may include, but are not limited to, common reed
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
(.Phragmites oustroiis var. oustroiis), narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), purple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica).
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
In PR and the USVI, forested mangrove swamps are more common than salt marsh,
characterized by four low-growing tree species with similar growth habits and
tolerance of saltwater: red (Rhizophora mangle), black {Avicennia germinans), and
white (Laguncularia racemosa) mangrove, and to a lesser extent buttonwood
(iConocarpus erectus). Emergent tidal marsh, where it occurs, is usually found in
more irregularly flooded areas upland of the mangrove forests; in the USVI, it may
be uncommon or absent entirely. In PR, tidal marsh is generally characterized by
two different types based on salinity level and soils. Tidal marsh dominated by
dense stands of leatherleaf fern (Acrostichum spp.) is generally found in brackish
environments on organic soils. Sometimes, these marshes will grade into freshwater
marsh dominated by southern cattail (Typha domingensis) and common reed. Tidal
marsh dominated by succulent species such as saltwort (Batis maritima) and sea
purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum) are found on hypersaline soils with little organic
matter, usually in more arid regions of PR. Areas of lower salinity in these
environments can be dominated by seaside rush (.Sporobolus virginicus).
Crossing Structural Condition (C1)
Geography: All
Removal of a restriction may best be paired with replacement and/or maintenance of
failing infrastructure; therefore, a structure in bad condition will receive a higher score. This
metric evaluates the overall condition of the structure, including the structure itself and any
wingwalls, headwalls, abutments, footers, etc., depending on structure type. The score is
based on all structures (if multiple), especially those that are the largest or carrying the
most flow. Focus on the condition of structure materials and whether the conveyance is
functioning as intended. For culverts, a good resource for determining condition is the
NAACC culvert condition assessment manual14.
General condition ratings15 are used as part of the National Bridge Inspection Standards to
rate the condition of bridges and culverts that carry traffic and have an opening of more
14 https://streamcontinuitv.org/sites/streamcontinuitv.org/files/pdf-doc-ppt/CulvertManual 2019 082919.pdf
15 https://www.penndot.pa.gov/ProiectAndPrograms/Bridges/Pages/Bridge-lnspection-Terminology.aspx
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
than 20 feet. If current (generally within 2 years) general condition ratings15 (scored from
0-9, where 9 is excellent and 0 is failed) for a particular bridge or culvert are available to
the user, these can be used to inform the structural condition score.
Current Inundation Risk and Lack of Clearance (C2)
Geography: All
Restrictions may cause ponding up- or downstream, leading to greater flooding
probability, especially with low-lying transportation infrastructure. This metric estimates
current flooding risk to the structure by comparing the relative elevation of the high-water
indicator to the top of the structure or the crossing surface elevation (e.g., road; may be
approximately the same if the structure is a bridge). Depending on the location of the
high-water indicator and the crossing size, these measurements can be done with a reel
tape, pocket rod, or a stadia rod, the latter of which may be paired with a hand level to
find the relative elevation difference, if practicable. For instructions on how to use a stadia
rod and hand level, please see the Tidal Range Ratio sub-metric under Degree of
Restriction. Keep in mind that the elevation difference between the high-water indicator
and the top of structure and the crossing surface will often be a negative number and
should be written as such on the data form (e.g., the high-water indicator is at a lower
elevation than these features). If historic aerial photos (available through Google Earth)
from the past ten years show flooding of the crossing, this can also be used to indicate
that inundation risk is greater.
Scour Severity (C3)
Geography: All
Scour at the structure may be an indication that the crossing is undersized for the stream,
much like the Erosion Classification sub-metric under Degree of Restriction. However, this
metric captures the degree to which scour is undermining the structure and/or causing
ongoing maintenance issues. Evidence of scour can include: armoring at the inlet or outlet
to try and halt further erosion; perching, water visibly flowing under or to the side of a
culvert; structure materials sloughing into the channel; or the exposure of structure areas
typically covered by stream bed material (e.g., bridge footings).
16 https://www.penndot.pa.gov/ProiectAndPrograms/Bridges/Pages/Bridge-lnspection-Terminology.aspx
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
C. Desktop Data and Metrics
Tidal Wetland Complex Size (E1)
Geography: All
This metric evaluates the acreage of tidal wetlands that may be hydraulically re-connected
to each other through restoration of tidal flow if a restriction is removed, where greater
acreage receives a higher score. It uses the NWI17 to estimate the tidal wetland complex
size at the area being assessed. To calculate, determine the acreage of tidally influenced
wetlands hydrologically connected to the tidal crossing area, which can be upstream
and/or downstream (see examples in Figures 3 and 4.). The NWI uses the Cowardin
wetland classification system18; wetland types applicable for this metric are shown in Table
3. The NWI Mapper19 allows users to visualize NWI polygons and provides Cowardin
classification of each, as well as acreages. If custom measurements are needed, there is an
area measurement tool available to users in the mapper itself.
Table 3. Applicable Cowardin wetland types for the tidal wetland complex size metric.
System
Subsystem, Class, and Modifiers
Estuarine (E)
All Intertidal (2) wetlands in the Emergent (EM), Shrub-Scrub (SS), and
Forested (FO) classes
Palustrine (P)
EM, SS, and FO classes with S, R, T, or V water regime modifiers
Depending on the age of the imagery used to derive the NWI layer, users may need to
adjust wetland acreage to account for development or other changes taking place in the
intervening years by using more recent aerial imagery, additional data sources20, and/or
field observations. It is possible that, where a restriction is in place for a long period of
time, NWI mapping developed using more recent imagery may show the conversion of
tidal wetlands to non-tidal wetlands or even uplands. Therefore, this metric may be
adjusted based on desktop (e.g., elevation data) and/or field observations of whether
existing topography and lack of development constraints may indicate that restriction
removal has the potential to restore tidal wetlands upstream. The estimated restoration
area can then be counted towards the overall wetland complex size. In NY and NJ, there is
a model available that identifies potential tidal restrictions (by severity) based on an
17 https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventorv/wetlands-mapper
18 https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/wetlands-and-deepwater-map-code-diagram.pdf.
19 https://fwsprimarv.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/
20 For example, the New Jersey Land Use/Cover map layer includes tidal wetlands and may be more accurate than
the NWI: https://www.ni.gov/dep/landuse/eservices/webmappingtool.html.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
estimate of the historic loss of mapped, upstream salt marshes in areas where they should
occur given elevation and tidal regime21, which may also help in this analysis.
Figure 3. Tidal wetland complex example 1.
For the evaluated crossing, all wetlands shown are applicable to this metric (NWImapper).
21 https://nalcc.databasin.org/datasets/67eb4b83bldl41a388ed66debe820ea2/
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols February 2024
-------
Figure 4. Tidal wetland complex example 2. For the evaluated crossing, only the E2EM
wetlands vsould count for this metric, as the PEM wetlands do not have tidal water regime
modifiers (NWImapper).
Heavy Rainfall Flood Risk within the Watershed (R1)
Geography: All
Climate change is super-charging the hydrological cycle as warmer oceans increase the
amount of water evaporating into the air, leading to more intense precipitation events and
associated flooding. The intensity of precipitation events and resultant flooding are
exacerbated by large amounts of impervious surfaces, which increase surface runoff rates.
This metric approximates the flood risk to a crossing using the estimated amount of
impervious surface in the immediate upstream watershed (or catchment) as a proxy. The
National Land Cover Dataset2" (NLCD; Dewitz and USGS 2021) provides a "developed"
layer class that can be used to estimate impervious surface in the upstream watershed
22 https://www.mrlc.gov/
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
(class categories 21-2423). Though not always advised for use in tidal areas, StreamStats24
may be used to produce the upstream catchment area if needed.
Risk of Sea Level Rise Inundation of Road/Crossing (R2)
Geography: All
As the climate warms, sea level rise (SLR) has the potential to flood crossings in the current
tidal zone. Those crossings more likely to be flooded under lower levels of SLR are less
resilient to climate change and may benefit from replacement or retrofitting while also
removing a restriction. This metric uses the SLR tool at the Sea Level Rise Viewer
developed by NOAA25 to estimate crossing flood risk (i.e., inundation) under different SLR
scenarios. Data can be viewed online or downloaded.
Unvegetated Tidal Marsh Vulnerability (R3)
Geography: NY and NJ
This metric gages how vulnerable existing tidal marsh is to open water conversion
upstream of a potential restriction. This is important because removing restricted crossings
with higher unvegetated tidal marsh vulnerability may result in more ponding or
"drowning" of the upstream marsh unless there are ecological interventions conducted in
concert with the removal. Tidal marshes that have experienced decreased tidal flushing for
long periods of time due to restriction may experience a reduction in sediment supply
from tidal sources. Less sediment availability can lead to greater conversion of the marsh
plain to unvegetated, open water, because the sediment required to sustain vegetation is
not replenished. Loss of vegetated surface may also be compounded by past land use
practices that caused soil compaction (e.g., salt hay farming). Ponding on the marsh plain
can result in an acceleration of marsh loss since unvegetated areas have greater erosion
potential.
The Unvegetated to Vegetated Marsh Ratio dataset25 (UVVR; Couvillion et a I., 2021) can be
used for screening purposesthis dataset displays a ratio of unvegetated to vegetated
area at each pixel (approximately 30x30 meter rectangles) calculated from Landsat 8
satellite imagery (2014-2018) for the contiguous U.S. The dataset includes salt, brackish,
and freshwater emergent tidal marsh. Because the resolution of the UVVR is relatively
23 https://www.mrlc.gov/data/legends/national-land-cover-database-class-legend-and-description
24 https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/
25 https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html
26 https://marine.usgs.g0v/c0astalchangehazardsp0rtal/ui/item/J0DCAiXG#: not available for PR or the USVI
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
broad, the score for this metric should be confirmed in the field and/or using more recent
imagery, if available. Unvegetated areas can include open water (with or without floating
or submersed vegetation), mud flats, and ditches, but not the tidal stream channel itself if
present.
Tidal Wetland Migration Potential (R4)
Geography: All
Existing tidal wetlands are threatened by SLR, as it is likely that rapidly rising sea levels will
outpace the rate at which tidal wetland habitats can build elevation and sustain
themselves. As former tidal wetlands are converted to unconsolidated shore or open
water, the ability for tidal wetlands to migrate upstream will be an important mechanism
for maintaining this habitat type. This metric uses the Marsh Migration tool at the Sea
Level Rise Viewer developed by NOAA27 to estimate the potential for tidal wetlands to
migrate above a crossing with SLR, given development and elevation constraints. In this
case, "tidal wetlands" are categorized as either "salt marsh" or "brackish/transitional
marsh," even if the actual wetland type is forested. For example, tidal mangrove forest in
PR is termed "salt marsh" by the tool even though it is not an emergent wetland type.
Scoring assumes low levels of sediment accretion under an intermediate-high SLR
scenario, using 2080 as the planning horizon.
Road Functional Classification (T1)
Geography: NJ, NY, and PR
The FHWA categorizes road types by their functions, which are largely based on levels of
mobility and access control. It is assumed for this metric that principal arterials, which have
high levels of mobility and limited access control are more important from a network
resilience perspective than minor arterials, and so on. For instance, a restriction can cause
flooding issues that would be more problematic on a major vs. minor collector road;
therefore, a major collector is given a higher score. Road functional classifications can be
found for each state or territory, except for the USVI, at the following locations. See
Section VI Protocol Scoring and Crossing Prioritization for information on how to treat the
USVI for this metric.
New Jersey: https://www.state.ni.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/fcmaps.shtm.
27 https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
New York: https://gis.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=FC
Puerto Rico: https://ip.pr.aov/mapas
Evacuation Route (T2)
Geography: NY (Suffolk and Nassau counties only), NJ, PR, and USVI
Similar to the road functional classification metric, it is assumed that flooding or any other
road access issues related to a restriction would be more problematic on a hurricane or
tsunami evacuation route. In NY, areas outside of Nassau and Suffolk counties do not have
designated evacuation routes; scoring for crossings outside Long Island is addressed in
Section VI Protocol Scoring and Crossing Prioritization. To determine if the crossing is an
evacuation route, consult the following for each state or territory:
Suffolk County, NY:
https://www.suffolkcountyny.gOv/Portals/0/FormsDocs/fres/Forms/OEMDQCS/Suffolk%20
CER.pdf
Nassau County, NY: https://nassau-
county.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0bb83341f55f4df6842c957214
890699
New Jersey: https://ni.gov/nioem/plan/pdf/maps/statecoastal evac.pdf.
Puerto Rico: https://redsismica.uprm.edu/english/tsunami/evacuation maps.php
U.S. Virgin Islands: https://vitema.vi.gov/plan-prepare/tsunamis
VI. Protocol Scoring and Crossing Prioritization
As described above, the Protocol is comprised of management categories with related sets
of metrics. These metrics are rated on a 1 to 5 scale, where a lower number corresponds to
a lower priority for replacement/rehabilitation of the tidal restriction. Metric scores are
then averaged across each management category and added together for a total
prioritization score between 4 (lowest priority) and 20 (highest priority). In addition, each
management category may be scored separately or in different combinations to align with
specific management objectives, if desired. For example, if a practitioner is more interested
in benefits to tidal wetland communities and coastal resilience from restriction removal,
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
they could use the ecological enhancement and climate/ecological resilience category
scores only to determine an overall prioritization score using two categories instead of four
(so, the total prioritization score would be between 2 and 10). Scoring criteria for each
metric is shown below, by management category.
A. Ecological Enhancement Management Category
E1. Tidal Wetland Complex Size
Table 4. Tidal wetland complex size scores.
Scoring Criteria
Score
>15 acres
5
<15 acres
3
Limited connectivity to marsh complex
1
E2. Degree of Restriction (overall)
Table 5. Degree of restriction (overall) scores.
Scoring Criteria
Score
Average of metric sub-scores is > 4 OR a tide gate is present that prevents most
upstream flow (whether by design or because of maintenance issues).
5
Average of metric sub-scores is >3 but <4
4
Average of metric sub-scores is >2 but <3
3
Average of metric sub-scores is >1 but <2
2
Average of metric sub-scores is <1
1
E2 Sub-metric 1 (Tidal Range Ratio)
Upstream tidal ranae/downstream tidal ranae x 100: %
Table 6. Tidal range ratio scores.
Scoring Criteria
Score
For culverts, downstream invert is perched at high tide OR tidal range
upstream is less than 50 percent of downstream range
5
Tidal range upstream is between 50 and 70 percent of downstream range
4
Tidal range upstream is between 70 and 80 percent of downstream range
3
Tidal range upstream is between 80 and 90 percent of downstream range
2
Upstream tidal range is >90% of downstream tidal range AND there is no
downstream invert perch at low tide (for culverts only)
1
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
E2 Sub-metric 2 (Crossing Ratio)
The crossing ratio is the channel width/crossing width (both downstream and upstream).
The final score is the higher of the two sub-scores.
Table 7. Crossing ratio scores.
Scoring Criteria
Sub-scores
Upstream Downstream
Final Score
Channel width greater than 5 times crossing width
5
5
Channel width 2 to 5 times crossing width
4
4
Channel width up to 2 times crossing width
3
3
Channel width = crossing width
2
2
Channel width < crossing width
1
1
E2 Sub-metric 3 (Erosion Classification)
The erosion classification is the maximum pool width/channel width (both downstream and
upstream). The final score is the higher of the two sub-scores.
Table 8. Erosion classification scores.
Scoring Criteria
Sub-scores
Upstream Downstream
Final Score
Erosion class >2; pool width is more than twice as
wide as channel
5
5
Erosion class >1.5 but <2; pool width is between 50
and 100% wider than channel
4
4
Erosion class >1.2 but <1.5; pool width is between 20
and 50% wider than channel
3
3
Erosion class >1 but <1.2; pool width is up to 20%
wider than channel
2
2
Erosion classification <1; pool width is approximately
the same as channel width
1
1
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
E3. Vegetation Comparison
Use any natural vegetation to score this metric, even if the extent of natural vegetation is
less on one side than the other. If there is no vegetation because of development on either
side of the crossing, or the vegetation present is not indicative of natural vegetation (i.e.,
lawns, other planted vegetation) do not score this metric and leave out of the overall
ecological enhancement score (do not use in averaging).
Table 9. Vegetation comparison scores.
Scoring Criteria1
Score2
Up- and downstream plant communities are very different wetland types, in vegetative
structure (including non- or sparsely vegetated areas) and/or suite of plants. Invasive
species may be prevalent across the marsh plain upstream, but are largely absent, or
only concentrated near the crossing structure, downstream.
5
Up- and downstream plant communities are moderately different wetland types, or
the same types are present but the proportion of each differs substantially on either
side of the crossing (e.g., ratio of low marsh to high marsh). Invasive species may be
present upstream but are not as common as native species or may only be
concentrated near the crossing structure.
3
Up- and downstream plant communities are comparable wetland types and different
types are present in similar proportions. Little to no invasive species are present in the
upstream community.
1
1 Comparison categories are not the same as those used for the vegetation change metric in the NAACC tidal
protocol. Use best professional judgement and intermediary scores (see below), as needed to translate
NAACC observations.
2 Intermediary scores of 2 and 4 may be used if needed to better reflect a range of conditions.
Overall Ecological Enhancement Score:
B. Climate and Ecological Resilience Category
R1. Heavy Rainfall Flood Risk in Watershed
Table 10. Heavy rainfall flood risk within watershed scores.
Scoring Criteria
Score
40% or greater
5
30-40%
4
20-30%
3
10-20%
2
10% or less
1
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
R2. Risk of Sea Level Rise Inundation of Road/Crossing
Table 11. Risk of sea level rise inundation of road/crossing scores.
Scoring Criteria
Score
Crossing partially or totally inundated by 1 ft. of SLR
5
Crossing partially or totally inundated by 2 ft. of SLR
4
Crossing partially or totally inundated by 3 ft. of SLR
3
Crossing partially or totally inundated by 4 ft. of SLR
2
Crossing partially or totally inundated or not inundated by >5 ft.
of SLR
1
R3. Unvegetated Marsh Vulnerability
Metric scoring differs for PEM wetlands with seasonally flooded-tidal (Cowardin modifier
"R") and temporarily flooded-tidal (Cowardin modifier "S") regimes since these types of
tidal regimes would naturally have been less significant sediment supply sources (Table 13).
Important: If tidal wetlands being evaluated are not classified as emergent, do not use this
metric in scoring.
Table 12. Unvegetated tidal marsh vulnerability scores for all E2EM wetlands and tidal PEM
wetlands excluding R and S tidal regime modifiers.
Scoring Criteria
Score
UVVR shows majority of upstream marsh as having a vulnerability index <0.1
OR unvegetated areas comprise <10% of upstream marsh area (field
observation and/or aerial interpretation)
5
UVVR shows upstream marsh vulnerability index as >0.1 OR unvegetated
areas comprise >10% of upstream marsh area (field observation and/or aerial
interpretation)
1
Table 13. Unvegetated tidal marsh vulnerability scores for PEM-R and PEM-S wetlands.
Scoring Criteria
Score
UVVR shows majority of upstream marsh as having a vulnerability index
<0.3 OR unvegetated areas comprise <30% of upstream marsh area (field
observation and/or aerial interpretation)
5
UVVR shows majority of upstream marsh as having a vulnerability index
>0.3 OR unvegetated areas comprise >30% of upstream marsh area (field
observation and/or aerial interpretation)
1
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
R4. Tidal Wetland Migration Potential
Table 14. Tidal wetland migration potential scores.
Scoring Criteria
Score
Increase in tidal wetlands above the crossing under an intermediate-high
SLR scenario with low levels of accretion by 2080.
5
No increase in tidal wetlands above the crossing under an intermediate-
high SLR scenario with low levels of accretion by 2080, OR only loss of tidal
wetlands shown (converted to open water or unconsolidated shore) with no
associated migration of tidal wetlands.
1
Overall Climate/Ecological Resilience Score:
C. Transportation Network Resilience Management Category
T1. Road Functional Classification
For all USVI crossings, this metric will be scored as a '3'.
Table 15. Road functional classification scores.
Scoring Criteria
Score
Principal Arterial (Interstate, Freeway/Expressway, Other)
5
Minor Arterial
4
Major Collector
3
Minor Collector
2
Local Roads, other crossings with no functional classification
1
T2. Evacuation Route
For all crossings in New York outside of Long Island, this metric will be scored as a T.
Table 16. Evacuation route scores.
Scoring Criteria
Score
Yes
5
No
1
Overall Transportation Network Resilience Score:
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
D. Infrastructure Condition Management Category
CI. Crossing Structural Condition
Table 17. Structural condition scores.
Structural Condition1
Score2
Poor or Failing: significant deterioration of structure, such as rotted metal (not just
surface rust), spalling (cracking) concrete, or culvert joint separation leading to potential
voids around the structure; extreme overall shape distortion (e.g., flattened culvert);
and/or structures that are already collapsing or in danger of imminent failure.
5
Fair: some deterioration that does not indicate a risk of failure, such as surface rust, low
to moderate cracking, or culvert joint separation with minor infiltration; localized
distortion in shape; still functionally adequate
3
Good or New: like new, with little or no deterioration; consistent shape; joint
misalignment, if present, is minor; structurally sound, and functionally adequate.
1
If general condition ratings are available, the rating might correspond to the full range of
condition scores as shown in Table 18.
Table 18. Translating general condition ratings to a structural condition score.
General Condition Rating1
Structural Condition Score
0-2
5
3-4
4
5-6
3
7-8
2
9
1
1 General condition ratings of 4 or less are generally considered 'structurally deficient'.
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
C2. Current Inundation Risk and Lack of Clearance
Table 19. Current inundation risk and iack of clearance scores.
Inundation Risk and Lack of Clearance
Score
High-water indicator (HWI) is at or above the crossing surface elevation or structure
ceiling; OR structure is submerged at low tide; OR historic aerial photos (past ten years)
show the crossing being totally or partially flooded at least once
5
HWI is less than T below the structure's ceiling OR less than 1.5' below the crossing
surface elevation
4
HWI is less than 2' below the structure's ceiling OR less than 3' below the crossing surface
elevation
3
HWI is less than 3' below the structure's ceiling OR less than 6' below the crossing surface
elevation
2
HWI is greater than 6' below the crossing surface elevation AND greater than 3' below
the structure ceiling
1
C3. Scour Severity
Table 20. Scour severity scores.
Scour Severity
Score1
Severe scour is present - jeopardizes structural integrity of crossing components or
crossing structure as a whole. Immediate maintenance is required. Stabilization
methods (e.g., armoring) are likely apparent.
5
Noticeable scour is observed - left unmaintained, scour will continue to undermine and
jeopardize structure components. Armoring or other methods may have been used to
stabilize structure.
3
Little to no scour is observed - where scour is present, it does not pose an immediate
threat to the crossing structure.
1
1 Intermediary scores of 2 and 4 may be used if needed to better reflect a range of conditions.
Overall Infrastructure Condition Score:
Overall Prioritization Score:
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
VII. References
Couvillion, B.R., N.K. Ganju, and Z. Defne. 2021. An Unvegetated to Vegetated Ratio (UVVR)
for coastal wetlands of the Conterminous United States (2014-2018): U.S. Geological Survey
data release.
Dewitz, J., and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
2019 Products (ver. 2.0, June 2021): U.S. Geological Survey data release.
Giannico, G.R., and J .A. Souder. 2005. Tides Gates in the Pacific Northwest. Prepared for
Oregon Sea Grant, Corvallis OR. Publication no. ORESU-T-05-001, 33 pp. Online at:
https://seaarant.oreaonstate.edu/sites/seaarant.oreaonstate.edu/files/sgpubs/onlinepubs/
t05001.pdf
Jackson, S.D. 2019. NAACC Tidal Stream Crossing Instruction Manual for Aquatic Passability
Assessments. North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative (NAACC), University of
Massachusetts Amherst. Online at:
https://streamcontinuity.org/naacc/assessments/documents
Purinton, T.A., and D.C. Mountain. 1998. Tidal Crossing Handbook: a volunteer guide to
assessing tidal restrictions. Parker River Clean Water Association, Byfield, MA. Online at:
https://pie-rivers.org/documents/TidalCrossingHandbook 1996.pdf
Souder, J.A., L.M. Tomaro, G.R. Giannico and J.R. Behan. 2018. Ecological Effects of Tide
Gate Upgrade or Removal: A Literature Review and Knowledge Synthesis. Report to
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State
University. Corvallis, OR. 136 pp. Online at:
https://www.oregon.gov/oweb/Documents/Tide-Gate-Ecological-Effects.pdf
Steckler, P., K. Lucey, D. Burdick, J. Glode, and S. Flanagan. 2017. New Hampshire's Tidal
Crossing Assessment Protocol. The Nature Conservancy. Prepared for the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services Coastal Program. Online at:
https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/nh-tidal-crossing-
assessment-protocol.pdf
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
The Nature Conservancy. 2021. Road-Stream and Tidal Crossing Prioritization Tool. Online
at:
https://tnc.maps.arcais.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=db144f948c4d4512b3f2c4
b3267d50a3.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Tidal Restriction Synthesis Review: An Analysis
of U.S. Tidal Restrictions and Opportunities for their Avoidance and Removal. Washington
D.C., Document No. EPA-842-R-20001. Online at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
12/documents/tidal restrictions synthesis review final 12.01.20.pdf
Part 1. Background: Introduction - A. Existing Protocols
February 2024
-------
APPENDIX A
Virtual Meeting and In-Person Stakeholder Workshop Executive
Summary
-------
Tidal Restriction Protocol Project:
NY, NJ, PR and USVI (EPA Region 2)
Final
Meeting and Workshop Executive Summary
Virtual Meeting
October 4, 2022
&
In-Person Workshop (with Virtual Option)
November 1, 2022
Ted Weiss Federal Building, NY, NY
Report Date: February 2023
-------
Executive Summary
In 2020, EPA released the Tidal Restriction Synthesis Review document, which aimed to
summarize existing information on tidal restrictions in the coastal U.S., including common
types, their abundance and distribution, adverse effects to tidal wetlands and species that
depend on them, and existing policies, practices, or tools that could facilitate their
avoidance and/or removal. In addition, the document presented a set of 11
recommendations for further eliminating tidal restrictions from the landscape, one of
which was to "use and adapt existing tidal crossing field evaluation methods to confirm the
existence of restrictions, determine their severity and prioritize them for removal". These
existing protocols were developed outside Region 2 or have a greater focus on aquatic
organism passage than tidal wetland restoration/rehabilitation.
The overall goal of this project is to develop a tidal restriction protocol for EPA Region 2
(New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands) that will serve as a
screening tool to focus resources on achievable projects that rehabilitate/replace tidally
restrictive structures and provide restorative benefits to tidally influenced natural habitats
and built infrastructure. As part of this project, a virtual meeting and an in-person
workshop with regional stakeholders were held in October and November 2022. This
report is a summary of the material presented and discussions that occurred at each of
those meetings. The meeting and workshop summaries are presented separately and are
arranged by topic.
Some of the main take-aways from the discussions included:
Six (6) management objectives, as derived from the New Hampshire Tidal Crossing
Assessment Protocol, were found to be important to include in a Region 2
protocol. However, some may need further definition to fully encapsulate all
management concerns (e.g., maintain and increase carbon sequestration).
Fourteen (14) metrics derived from both the NH protocol and the North Atlantic
Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative (NAACC) Tidal Stream Crossing Protocol that
assesses aquatic organism passage, were deemed to be important to include in a
Region 2 protocol. Metrics were selected by participants and from a "straw poll"
conducted by EPA prior to the workshop, and included those measuring:
o Crossing condition and inundation risk of structure and surrounding
development
o Tidal range and crossing ratios
-------
o Presence of barriers and their severity, including perching, tide gates, and
other barriers (e.g., debris/sediment, fencing)
o Vegetation comparison
o Erosion/scour at crossing
o Salt marsh migration potential
This suite of metrics will need to be modified for use in sub-tropical portions of
Region 2 (PR and the USVI) due to differences in habitat, natural tidal range, and
availability of data.
Existing field protocols only address transportation crossings, though other types of
tidal restrictions exist (e.g., dikes/berms, dams). Participants determined that a
separate protocol with modified or different metrics for these types of restrictions
was not needed to evaluate them.
A protocol where the field portion can be completed in 30 minutes or less is ideal.
A protocol that allows end users to customize the outcome based on different
prioritization factors is important.
Regional efforts are already underway in NY and NJ to assess and prioritize tidal
crossings with the NAACC protocol and the Nature Conservancy (TNC) Road-
Stream and Tidal Crossing Prioritization Tool (Long Island only currently, with plans
for expansion). The TNC protocol was not considered when discussing metrics and
includes a few metrics (mostly desktop) not found in the NH and NAACC protocols.
TNC has also developed a map that houses and visualizes the data for crossings
assessed with the method. EPA plans to explore coordination with these
stakeholders as the protocol is developed to avoid duplicative efforts in these
states.
PR is part of the Southeast Aquatic Resource Partnership (SARP), which maintains a
database of aquatic barrier assessments, including those using the NAACC tidal
protocol (used in the Southeast states, though not in PR). Given this existing
framework, SARP is a potential data management partner for this effort.
Project Team
Jennifer Linn and Amanda Santoni (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds)
Jaclyn Woollard (EPA Region 2)
Mike Ruth and Richard Darden (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA])
Amy James and Paxton Ramsdell (Ecosystem Planning and Restoration [EPR]; contractor)
-------
Participants
Attendance
Name
Affiliation
Virtual
Meeting
In-Person
Workshop
Jade Blennau
Peconic Estuary Partnership
v'
v/
Richard Bolton
NYS Department of Transportation (DOT)
s/
s/
(Virtual)
Jeremy Campbell
NY Department of State, Lonq Island South
Shore Estuary Preserve
s/
Terry Doss
NJ Sports and Exhibition Authority
s/
Dr. Augustin
Enqman
University of Tennessee
v/
Elizabeth Freiday
USFWS NJ Ecoloqical Services
v/
Piotr Gajewski
USVI Dept. Public Works
v'
Heather Gierloff
NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC)
Dr. Gregory Guannel
University of the Virqin Islands
s/
LeeAnn Haaf
Partnership for the Delaware Estuary
v/
Emily Hall
Seatuck Environmental Association
s/
v/
Heidi Hanlon
Cape May National Wildlife Refuqe (USFWS)
v/
Kat Hoenke
Southeastern Aquatic Resource Partnership
(SARP)
v/
David Hsu
Montclair University/Connectinq Habitats
v'
v/
Across New Jersey (CHANJ)
Scott Jackson*
University of Massachusetts; North Atlantic
v/
Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative (NAACC)
(Virtual)
Gregg Kenney
NYS DEC
s/
Josh LaFountain
The Nature Conservancy (NY)
v/
v/
(Virtual)
Megan Lung
NYS DEC; Hudson River Estuary Proqram
v/
Victoria O'Neill
NYS DEC
v/
v/
(Virtual)
Jamie Ong
NYC Department of Parks and Recreation
v/
Dr. Concepcion
Rodriguez-Fourquet
University of Puerto Rico Bayamon
s/
v/
Michael Seterinq
FHWA NJ
s/
s/
(Virtual)
Joseph Smith
Forsythe National Wildlife Refuqe (USFWS)
s/
Jose Soto
EPA Reqion 2 (Caribbean)
v/
Isabelle Stinnette
NY/NJ Hudson River Estuary Partnership
v/
v/
Burton Suedel
USACE ERDC
v/
-------
Name
Affiliation
Attendance
Virtual
Meeting
In-Person
Workshop
Cayla Sullivan
EPA Region 2 (Long Island Sound Study)
v/
v/
Melissa Toni
FHWA NY
s/
Barry Volson
NYS DEC / Peconic Estuary Partnership
v/
v/
Brittany Wilburn
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
v/
v/
(Virtual)
Gregg Williams
NYS DOT
v/
v/
*Present to provide context and input related to NAACC protocol
-------
APPENDIX B
Field and Desktop Data Form
-------
TIDAL RESTRICTION PRIORITIZATION PROTOCOL for the
RESTORATION OF TIDAL WETLANDS
FIELD DATA COLLECTION12
Date Observed:.
Observers:
. Start Time:.
. End Time:.
Municipality/County:
GPS Coordinates (Decimal Degrees):.
Location Description:
Stream/River:.
Crossing Name:
Crossing Type: Public Road Private Road Driveway
Trail Railroad Other (Describe):
Culvert/Pipe Type: Round Elliptical Pipe Arch Box
Open Bnttnm Arrh Nn nf Culverts'
Embedded: Yes No
Road Type: > 2 Lanes (Multilane) 1-2 Lanes N/A
Crossing Surface Type: Paved Gravel/Stone Dirt
Crossing Structure Type: Bridge Culvert/Pipe
Other (Describe)
Tide Stage: Low Slack Low Ebb Low Flood
Unknown/Other (Describe!:
Tide Prediction: Time of Nearest Low Tide
Data Source
Bridge Type: Abutments Side Slopes Both
No. of Bridge Cells:
Flow Condition: Dewatered Unusually Low Typical Low
Moderate High
Adjacent Land Use (Current and Historic, if known):.
[C2] Elevation Difference between the Road and the High-Water Indicator (HWI; ft.):
Is Road Susceptible to Flooding at High Tide (as indicated by measurement above)? Yes No
[E2] Downstream: Channel Width (ft.) Max Pool Width (ft.) Tidal Range (ft.)
[E2] Upstream: Channel Width (ft.) Max Pool Width (ft.) Tidal Range (ft.)
[E2] Tide Gate: Yes No
[E2] Tide Gate Type: Traditional Self-regulating Other (Describe):
[E3] Vegetation Comparison Upstream/Downstream: Comparable Moderately Different Very Different
Vegetation Description (note typical species, including invasive species, if present):
[R3] Field Estimate of % Unvegetated Area Upstream (emergent tidal marsh only):
Structure Location (if more than one):
FC11 Structure Condition: Good or New Fair Poor or Failing
Structure Condition Description:
[C3] Scour Severity: Little to None Noticeable Severe
Scour Description (note extent of armorina. if present):
OUTLET
Outlet Information (ft.): FE21 Width [C21 Elevation Difference Between the HWI and the: Top of Structure (can be a
neaative #) and the FE21 Water Surface
TE21 Outlet Perch Above Water Surface (ft.): Hiah Tide (use HWI) Low Tide None
INLET
Inlet Information (ft.): [E21 Width [C21 Elevation Difference Between the HWI and the: Top of Structure (can be a
neaative #) and the FE21 Water Surface
TE21 Inlet Perch Above Water Surface (ft.): Hiah Tide (use HWI) Low Tide None
For Additional Structures, See Additional Sheets Starting on Page 2
i
<
z
o
Additional Crossina or Structure Notes:
1
o
o
<
Photo File Nos.: Outlet Inlet Upstream
Downstream
Other (Describe)
Tidal Restriction Prioritization Protocol for the Restoration of Tidal Wetlands - FIELD DATA FORM
-------
fC1l Structure Condition: Good or New Fair Poor or Failing
Structure Condition Description:
[C3] Scour Severity: Little to None Noticeable Severe
Scour Description (note extent of armorina. if present):
OUTLET
Outlet Information (ft.): [E21 Width [C21 Elevation Difference Between the HWI and the: Top of Structure (can be a
neaative #) and the [E21 Water Surface
TE21 Outlet Perch Above Water Surface (ft.): Hiah Tide (use HWI) Low Tide None
INLET
Inlet Information (ft.): [E21 Width FC21 Elevation Difference Between the HWI and the: Top of Structure (can be a
neaative #) and the [E21 Water Surface
TE21 Inlet Perch Above Water Surface (ft.): Hiah Tide (use HWI) Low Tide None
For Additional Structures, See Additional Sheets Starting on Page 2
i
<
z
o
Additional Crossina or Structure Notes:
1
o
o
<
Photo File Nos.: Outlet Inlet Upstream
Downstream
Other (Describe)
rcil Structure Condition: Good or New Fair Poor or Failinq
Structure Condition Description:
[C3] Scour Severity: Little to None Noticeable Severe
Scour Description (note extent of armorina. if present):
OUTLET
Outlet Information (ft.): FE21 Width [C21 Elevation Difference Between the HWI and the: Top of Structure (can be a
neaative #) and the FE21 Water Surface
TE21 Outlet Perch Above Water Surface (ft.): Hiah Tide (use HWI) Low Tide None
INLET
Inlet Information (ft.): [E21 Width FC21 Elevation Difference Between the HWI and the: Top of Structure (can be a
neaative #) and the [E21 Water Surface
TE21 Inlet Perch Above Water Surface (ft.): Hiah Tide (use HWI) Low Tide None
For Additional Structures, See Additional Sheets Starting on Page 2
i
<
z
o
Additional Crossina or Structure Notes:
1
o
o
<
Photo File Nos.: Outlet Inlet Upstream
Downstream
Other (Describe)
1Field Measurements or observations not included in the NAACC tidal protocol are indicated in orange. If completing this protocol as a
supplement to the NAACC, data for these measurements or observations must be collected separately.
2Relevant metric numbers are indicated in brackets, as applicable.
Tidal Restriction Prioritization Protocol for the Restoration of Tidal Wetlands - FIELD DATA FORM
-------
TIDAL RESTRICTION PRIORITIZATION PROTOCOL for the
RESTORATION OF TIDAL WETLANDS
DESKTOP DATA COLLECTION1
Crossing/Stream Name:
[E1] National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Cowardin Tidal Wetland Type:
Downstream (record all).
Upstream (record all)
[E1] Do the wetlands on-site approximately match the Cowardin wetland type:
Yes No; if No, please describe
[E1] Approximate Area of NWI Tidal Wetlands (Acres): Downstream
Upstream
[E1] What sources were used to determine potential presence of upstream tidal wetlands (if any)?
[R1] Approximate Upstream Watershed Area (Acres):
[R1] Percent Impervious of Upstream Watershed Area (NLCD values 21-24):
[R2] Level of Sea Level Rise Likely to Inundate or Partially Inundate the Crossing:
[R3] Ratio of Unvegetated to Vegetated Marsh Upstream of Crossing (UWR):
<10% >10% <30% >30% (PEM-R and-S wetlands only)
[R4] Tidal Wetland Migration Potential Upstream: Increase No Increase or Only Loss
[T1] Road Functional Classification: Principal Arterial Minor Arterial : Major Collector Minor Collector
Local Roads/No Functional Classification
[T2] Evacuation Route: Yes No
1As the NAACC tidal
| tidal assessment.
protocol does not use desktop metrics, all desktop information will need to be filled in independently of a NAACC
Tidal Restriction Prioritization Protocol for the Restoration of Tidal Wetlands - DESKTOP DATA FORM
------- |