01_2_2023_CUVA224822_MM20_BODR_Combined_Redacted1.pdf

AUGUST 2023

National Park Service | Cuyahoga Valley National Park 15610 Vaughn Road Brecksville, OH 44141

CUVA #224822 BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

Cuyahoga Valley National Park Mile Marker 20 South Site

PREPARED FOR:

PREPARED BY:

GPD Group

520 South Main St, Suite 2531 Akron, Ohio 443311

RiverReach 92 31st Street NW

Barberton, Ohio 44203

EnviroScience Inc.

5070 Stow Rd

Stow, Ohio 44224

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Table of Contents | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES

2.0 BASIS OF DESIGN

2.1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

2.2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

2.2.1 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

2.2.2 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

2.3 MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

2.3.1 Dimension

2.3.2 PATTERN

2.3.3 CHANNEL CAPACITY & SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

2.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

2.4.1 STREAMS

2.4.2 WETLANDS

2.4.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

2.5 HYDRAULIC MODELING

2.5.1 BASELINE MODEL

2.5.2 PROPOSED MODEL Analysis

2.5.3 MATERIAL SIZING AND SCOUR CALCULATIONS

2.6 STABILIZATION DESIGN

2.6.1 SELECTED DESIGN APPROACH

3.0 PERMITTING & COMPLIANCE

3.1 STATE & FEDERAL PERMITTING

3.2 LOCAL PERMITTING

3.3 AGENCY COORDINATION

4.0 CODES, STANDARDS, & GUIDELINES

4.1 CODES

4.2 STANDARDS & GUIDELINES

5.0 CONSTRUCTION COST

5.1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST

5.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT COST

6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS & RISK

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Table of Contents | iii

7.0 PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN

7.1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND SEQUENCE

7.1.1 SAFETY

7.1.2 ACCESS & STAGING

7.1.3 STABILIZATION SEQUENCE

7.2 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

9.0 REFERENCES

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Table of Contents | iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Slope Stability Results under Proposed Conditions Table 2. Schematic Design Flows Table 3. Existing Channel Velocities (ft/s) Table 4. Existing Shear Stresses (psf) Table 5. Existing Channel Depths (ft) Table 6. Proposed Channel Velocities (ft/s) Table 7. Proposed Channel Shear Stresses (psf) Table 8. Proposed Channel Depths (ft) Table 9. Water Surface Elevation Table 10. Maximum Channel Shear Stress Table 11. Maximum Channel Velocity Table 12. Left Overbank Velocity and Shear Stress Model Results Table 13. Right Overbank Velocity and Shear Stress Model Results Table 14. Substrate Estimates Table 15. Predicted Scour Depths Table 16. Combined Opinion of Probable Cost Summary Table 17. Construction Schedule

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Location Map Figure 2. HEC-RAS 2D Model Layout for Existing Conditions Figure 3. HEC-RAS 2D Model Layout for Proposed Conditions Figure 4. Bio-engineered Design Approach Figure 5. Access & Staging Route

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: Site Plan Appendix II: Basis of Cost Estimates Appendix III: Geotechnical Modeling Data Appendix IV: Hydraulic Modeling Data Appendix V: Scour & Material Calculation Worksheets Appendix VI: Permit Schedule Appendix VII: Quality Assurance Worksheets

Jonathan Mitchell Cross-Out

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Introduction| 6

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

This project includes a single, laterally migrating meander bend threatening the towpath trail. Multiple bank stabilization projects have been completed at the downstream extent of the project, but severe erosion continues along the right-descending bank.

This project is part of a wider bank stabilization project meant to protect critical park infrastructure. Consultants hired through the National Park Service (NPS) conducted analyses and developed bioengineered Schematic Design (SD) solutions for a total of eight sites located along the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR), which runs primarily along the left (west) bank of the Cuyahoga River, and along the Ohio & Erie Canal and Towpath Trail, which runs along the right (east) bank.

RiverReach and their Design-Build (D-B) Team were contracted to re-evaluate each site for necessary repairs, reconstruction, and stabilization requirements in relation to information provided from the previous studies. Documents included the SD Basis of Design Reports, SD Plans, hydraulic modeling files, and geotechnical data reports. Based on this document review and on-site observations, the eight sites were given priority ranking for implementation and construction. A full report of the initial evaluation can be found in the SD Evaluation report dated October 2022. Phase I included design and implementation of bank stabilization measures at MP-64.1, scheduled to start construction in July 2023. The “Four-Sites” project is Phase II and includes four of the seven remaining sites, based on proximity and scope of work. The Mile Marker 20 (MM2) project will be Phase III. The design refinement and investigatory process is summarized below.

1.2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES

As part of the Design Development (DD) phase, the D-B Team evaluated several modifications as suggested in the evaluation report:

1. Evaluate project extents and tie-in points.

2. Evaluate planform geometry of the laterally migrating meander bend and the profile of the river upstream and downstream to recommend a stable configuration.

3. Evaluate the implementational benefits of Longitudinal Fill Stone Toe Protection (LFSTP) verses toe rock or bendway weirs in terms of applicability, extents, material, and cost.

For the Construction Development (CD) phase of design, the D-B Team finalized the design approach and refined working models, and calculations as described in the following basis of design report.

Figure 1: Project Location Map

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 7

2.0 BASIS OF DESIGN

2.1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

GPD collected additional field data during fall/winter of 2022 and spring of 2023. Survey control was based on Ohio State Plane North Coordinates 3401 (NAD 83 and GRS80) and completion of the general topographic and bathymetric survey. The vertical datum was based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

Existing ground data was collected through the extents of the project reach, including banks, stream channel, and any adjacent park assets (i.e. trails). Control points were used during geomorphic stream assessment surveys and will be used for layout during construction.

When applicable, data collected in the field was supplemented with the 2018 topographical basemap developed for the DD work.

2.2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

2.2.1 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

As part of this study, GPD reviewed previous subsurface information prepared by HDR, dated August 18, 2021.

Information contained within the HDR report included three (3) borings performed at the top of slope at Mile Marker 20 South site. In addition, the boring logs (prepared by HDR) included description of the encountered soils, split-spoon samples, in-situ moisture contents, unconfined compression strengths, Atterberg Limit results, and grain size distributions.

According to these reports the site consisted of:

A combination of clays and silts were encountered to depths of 45-feet below existing grade. Material was considered very loose to medium dense and soft to medium stiff Bedrock was not encountered in the borings.

Supplemental Wildcats performed along the slope toes generally encountered soils with consistencies ranging from very loose to medium dense and very soft to stiff.

Detailed information can be found in the HDR report.

A detailed Geotechnical Engineering Report is provided in Appendix IV.

2.2.2 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

The proposed slope conditions along the project length as analyzed using a numerical application of the slice method called Discontinuity Layout Optimization (DLO) within the modeling software. This is achieved by creating multidirectional soil geometry slices (free-body diagrams) from a nodal network. The interslice forces are analyzed to find the path of least energy, which indicates a failure mechanism for each set of slices selected from the network within the models. Rotational failure is determined using a combination of rotation and translational analyses based on moment forces exerted on each slice. These discrete moment forces on each slice were combined in the model to create logarithmic spiral analyses.

The parameters for the modeling included soil strata, effective cohesion, effective internal friction angle, slope profile, and soil weights based on field data collection. The slope profile was derived from available topographic survey data. Available geotechnical data from Others, in conjunction with the three (3) supplement soil test locations performed by GPD, were used to establish estimated soil strength parameters for the stability models.

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 9 geometry.

While the primary goal of the project is stabilization of the bank, the active lateral migration of the meander at the site indicates that additional consideration must be given to the sediment transport and planform geometry of the final design. Active aggradation along the left descending bank, and field observations of stable meander bends upstream and downstream of the site, indicate that the current channel is overwide. Additional consideration was given to the potential impacts of previously installed rock toe and bank barb structures downstream of the site. A deep protrusion scour pool adjacent to the first large bank barb of the older bank stabilization project suggests that the barb is oversized and may be contributing to the instability of the site.

This site is unique in that the river still has lateral connectivity with its floodplain along both banks. The lack of steep valley wall slopes near the stream means that less structural fill is required to stabilize and revegetate the slopes after construction. Development of additional lateral connectivity at the bankfull elevation will further decrease scour potential and allow shear stresses in the channel to be alleviated at higher flows.

2.3.2 PATTERN

The current alignment of the meander bend, and the recent migration, are unusual in that the meander is migrating in an up-valley direction. This indicates that the belt width of the system is constrained by the trail and by historic bank stabilization along the right descending bank of the river.

To match upstream and downstream tie-ins and control the volume of excavation and fill, a revised meander curve consisting of two radii is proposed. The two radii, at the outer bankfull extent of the proposed channel, are approximately 207 feet and 152 feet. Using the field determined bankfull width, these correspond to radii to bankfull width ratios of 1.68 and 1.24, respectively. The upstream half of the existing meander bend, at the time of topographic data collection, has a radius of approximately 140 feet.

The project areas will become more resilient to pattern adjustment post-stabilization due to the modification of both the planform geometry, scour protection and bio-engineering proposed at the site.

2.3.3 CHANNEL CAPACITY & SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

The proposed meander geometry will promote sediment transport by improving the hydraulic efficiency of the meander bend. Additionally, as shown in the hydraulic modeling, the large bank barb at the downstream extent of the project causes a significant lateral scour pool. Re-work of this feature will remove this hydraulically inefficient point in the river, further promoting sediment transport and decreasing lateral erosion pressures in the project reach.

2.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

2.4.1 STREAMS

A Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) of the Cuyahoga River was completed by HDR and presented in their 2022 report. The MM 20 project reach (Stream B19 in the HDR report) scored a 71.5. This score is consistent with a narrative ranging of ‘Good’ and designates these reaches as a ‘Warmwater Habitat’ with regards to the aquatic life use (ALU) potential. Common substrates within this reach include boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, silt. The adjacent corridor lacked sufficient canopy and diversity to provide adequate coverage of the stream, and sever erosion is occurring along the right descending bank.

Based on these findings, the D-B Team agrees with the initial approach of HDR to include bio-engineering to promote diversity and quality of cover which will help improve aquatic habitat along this project reach. Woody

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 10 habitat features would also be desirable to increase roughness of the rock toe and provide habitat value, but the ability to incorporate woody material may be limited by the amount of clearing required to complete the project. Typically, trees and woody material removed as part of access and grading are re-used in the project.

The next phase of design will better estimate exact trees slated for removal.

2.4.2 WETLANDS

An initial delineation was performed by HDR in the Summer of 2021, and primarily included areas along the Cuyahoga River and adjacent corridor. During November and December 2022, EnviroScience performed a wetland delineation within the proposed construction limits, which included construction, staging, and access areas. Two wetlands (Wetland complex B16/17/18 delineated by HDR and Wetland W-9 delineated by ES) were identified within the MM 20 project reach. Wetlands were categorized using the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method (ORAM). Based on this assessment Wetlands B16/17/18 and W-9 assessed within the range of a Category 2 wetlands. All wetlands will be avoided for site access and construction activities. Permanent impacts to Category 2 wetlands will remain below the 0.5-acre regulatory threshold. Timber mats will be used as the primary means of avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands. The access routes from the Stanford Road barn and staging area as well as along the south side of the project meander will be moving through delineated wetland areas.

The data for wetlands at this site are included in the report prepared by HDR dated January 2022 and the Amendment report prepared by EnviroScience dated January 2023. The combined report includes all sites associated with this study.

2.4.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation Tool (IPaC) was used to research federally listed species that have ranges that include Cuyahoga County.

Endangered Species

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) & Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis): The Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat prefer living or dead trees no smaller than 3-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). In addition, sheds and barns may serve as roosting habitat for the northern long-eared bat. No winter hibernaculum, barns, or sheds were observed within the construction limits. Specific habitat trees were not identified as part of this project. However, any forested areas may provide habitat for federally listed bat species.

Proposed Endangered

Tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus): Tricolored bats roost in trees or man-made structures similar to that of the Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared bat, although they primarily utilize clusters of leaves of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. No winter hibernaculum, barns, or sheds were observed within the construction limits. Specific habitat trees were not identified as part of this project. However, any forested areas may provide habitat for federally listed bat species.

Threatened

Northern wild monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense): Preferred habitat for northern monkshood is cool, moist, shaded cliff faces or talus slopes in wooded ravines, near water seeps. Suitable habitat for the northern monkshood was not identified within the MM 20 project reach.

Protected

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The bald eagle prefers open bodies of water with an abundance of fish and requires mature stands of trees for roosting and nesting. No bald eagles or their nests were observed within or near the construction limits.

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 11

Mussels (various species): No federal or state-listed mussel species are identified within Cuyahoga County;

however, all native freshwater mussels are protected within the State of Ohio. The Cuyahoga River is listed as a Group 3 stream and requires a mussel survey per the Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol. A mussel survey was performed by Mad Scientist Associates in September 2021 which found no mussels within the survey limits at the MM 20 project reach. Data for the mussel survey conducted at the site is included in the combined mussel survey report prepared by Mad Scientist and dated October 2021. The combined report includes all sites associated with this study.

2.5 HYDRAULIC MODELING

2.5.1 BASELINE MODEL

Hydraulic modeling was performed along an approximately 15-mile stretch of the Cuyahoga River, but the analysis presented in this report focuses on the Towpath Mile Marker 20 South (MM20) site. The modeling was completed utilizing USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) modeling program version 6.3.1. The 2-dimensional (2D) hydraulic model was developed for this Design Development phase by layering surveyed terrain data with LiDAR and a burn-in stream layer which was developed during the SD project phase, meant to estimate channel depth across the entire project reach. Figures 2 and 3 below show the 2D mesh geometry and the polygons which were used to extract and analyze 2D hydraulic results in ArcMap.

Also shown are the profile polylines which were used to extract data for the scour analysis and 100-yr water surface elevation comparison between existing and proposed conditions.

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 12

Figure 2. HEC-RAS 2D Model Layout for Existing Conditions

Figure 3. HEC-RAS 2D Model Layout for Proposed Conditions

The Basis of Design Report for Preferred Schematic Design Alternatives completed by HDR in October of 2021

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 14 in Figure 2.

Table 3. Existing Channel Velocities (ft/s)

Shear Stress

The average channel shear stress calculated from the 2D output from HEC-RAS is 0.13-pounds per square foot (psf), with a maximum predicted value of 0.77-psf during the 1.5-year storm event. The 2D calculations in HEC- RAS provided a better estimate of shear stress in the channel versus 1D model results as the value is being calculated at each 2D cell face. Table 4 displays a summary of the 2D results from the channel polygon indicated in Figure 2.

Table 4. Existing Shear Stresses (psf)

Depth

The average predicted channel depths ranged from 10.29- to 13.26-feet across the different storm events. The maximum predicted channel depth of 25.90-ft occurred during the 100-year storm event. The greatest depth coincides with the lateral scour pool created by the structures in the previously constructed, downstream bank stabilization. Table 5 displays a summary of the 2D results from the polygons indicated in Figure 2.

Table 5. Existing Channel Depths (ft)

Water Surface Elevation

The Mile Marker 20 South site is located within the FEMA Zone A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). In Zone A SFHA’s, an increase in water surface elevation of up to 1-ft is permitted by the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program standards. The project RFP indicated that the target increase in water surface elevation is 0.05-ft upstream extent of the Mile Marker 20 South site. In the following section, Table 10 compares the existing and proposed water surface elevations.

2.5.2 PROPOSED MODEL ANALYSIS

Proposed conditions were modeled using the same software and baseline model as the existing conditions to analyze potential impacts to the hydraulic characteristics of the river. Proposed conditions reflect a shift in overall meander alignment of approximately 60 ft in the northwest direction. The proposed design includes comprehensive grading changes in the channel and overbanks at the site. The design includes a 2:1 (50%) slope along the right descending bank (rock toe) and a 20:3 (15%) to 10:1 (10%) slope along the left descending bank (point bar). The existing condition model was updated to a proposed condition by layering the

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 15 proposed design surface onto the terrain used by the model. Since the channel alignment varied significantly between existing and proposed conditions, breaklines were relocated within the 2D model to re-orient cells in the 2D mesh to follow the updated bank lines. The profile lines which were used in scour analysis were updated as well to capture the channel features in their new locations in the mesh. The polygon region used to capture model results in the channel was also updated and two new polygons were added to capture overbank data at the meander. See Figures 2 and 3 for profile line and polygon features within these models, as well as changes between the geometries of the models for existing and proposed conditions. Predicted values and comparative differentials are presented below. Full proposed hydraulic modeling output can be found in Appendix IV.

Velocity

The predicted average velocity increased from 1.13-ft/s to 1.31-ft/s from the existing to proposed condition.

The maximum velocity occurred for the 1.5-year event with a value of 5.26-ft/s. Table 6 displays a summary of the proposed 2D results from the polygons indicated in Figure 3.

Table 6. Proposed Channel Velocities (ft/s)

Shear Stress

The predicted average shear stress value in the channel was 0.13-psf across all events. The maximum shear stress of 1.14-psf occurred during the 1.5-yr event. Table 7 displays a summary of the results from the polygon indicated in Figure 3.

Table 7. Proposed Channel Shear Stresses (psf)

Depth

The average change in depth ranged from a decrease of –0.12 ft for the 1-yr event to an increase of 0.22 ft for the 100-yr event. Table 8 displays a summary of the proposed 2D results from the polygons indicated in Figure 3.

Table 8. Proposed Channel Depths (ft)

Water Surface Elevation

Table 9 compares the existing and proposed water surface elevations (WSELs) for the 100-year event at the upstream end of the project area based on the WSEL Cross section lines shown in Figures 2 and 3, in accordance with the requirements of the RFP. The current analysis indicates that the change in WSEL is within the tolerance

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 16 specified within the RFP.

Table 9. Water Surface Elevation

2.5.3 MATERIAL SIZING AND SCOUR CALCULATIONS

The proposed hydraulic modeling results were used to estimate appropriate material sizes in support of the stabilization design. The key parameters for material sizing include channel top width, channel velocity, and maximum and average flow depths.

Table 10. Maximum Channel Shear Stress

Table 11. Maximum Channel Velocity

Overbank regions were also assessed for materials selection. Refer to Figure 3 for the regions of the left and right overbanks which were used to analyze velocity and shear stress. On the left descending overbank area, a maximum velocity of 5.26 ft/s occurs during the 1.5-yr event and a maximum shear stress of 0.61 psf occurs during the 1-yr event. On the right descending overbank area, a maximum velocity of 5.27 ft/s occurs during the 1-yr event and a maximum shear stress of 1.06 occurs during the 1.5-yr event.

Table 12. Left Overbank Velocity and Shear Stress Model Results

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 17

Table 13. Right Overbank Velocity and Shear Stress Model Results

Based on this information the following design parameters have been selected at this design stage:

Rock Toe: Mix of 12- to 30-inch sized rock (Ohio DOT Type A, B, and C)

Overbank: Coconut fiber with net and/or live willow stakes

A scour analysis was performed to evaluate the design effectiveness against erosive forces during various flow conditions. Multiple types of scour representing instantaneous forces which cause bend and general scour, as well as long-term degradation, were evaluated. Long-term degradation type scour consists of evaluating the equilibrium slope and the formation of an armoring layer using equations from the National Engineering Handbook developed by U.S. Department of Agriculture. The average calculated scour depths are shown in Table 15. Key parameters from the proposed 2D HEC-RAS modeling included flow depth, hydraulic radius, energy slope, flowrate, maximum velocity, and maximum shear stress (see Table 11 and Table 12)Table 10.

The data was pulled from the 2D model along the scour profile lines indicated on Figures 2 and 3. EnviroScience provided an estimated D50 and D90 valueTable 10, see Table 14, based on pebble count data collected at the site that was used in the scour analysis.

Table 14. Substrate Estimates

Scour depth results were highest in the channel during the 1-yr design storm and decreased with each consecutive design storm. This is due to a higher percentage of the flow being conveyed in the floodplain versus the channel during the 1.5-yr, 10-yr and 100-yr events. Based on these values, the predicted scour depths ranged from 7.1-ft to 8.0-ft for the existing condition and 6.80-ft to 7.41-ft for the proposed condition across the design storm events – detailed scour calculations and equations can be found in Appendix VI.

Table 15 indicates the scour depth for the 1-, 1.5-, 10-, and 100-year events.

Table 15. Predicted Scour Depths

2.6 STABILIZATION DESIGN

The design objective was to restore the subject streambank and establish a stable geometry and toe armoring to promote sediment transport and prevent lateral migration.

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 18

2.6.1 SELECTED DESIGN APPROACH

The design includes installation of a keyed rock toe along the outer bend of the new meander. The existing bank and pool will be filled with alluvial material and capped with topsoil, bioengineered soil fill with native plantings along the bankfull elevation will create a transition from the rock toe to the bankfull bench. The depth of the rock toe key is governed by the potential scour depth determined by hydraulic modeling of the proposed conditions. Additional roughness elements can be incorporated into the rock toe to further move flow toward the center of the channel including inclusion of logs and other woody materials. Due to the lack of clearing required for access to the site and for the proposed grading, the availability of large wood elements to incorporate into the rock toe may be limited and, therefore, was not assumed at this design phase.

Figure 4. Bio-engineered Design Approach

3.0 PERMITTING & COMPLIANCE

3.1 STATE & FEDERAL PERMITTING

The D-B Team will secure applicable permits and/or provide support to NPS during preparation and coordination with the following regulatory agencies.

USACE Buffalo District Office:

Nationwide Permit (NWP) 13: The project will exceed the threshold of 500-linear feet; however, this project can still be permitted under a NWP 13 per pre-coordination with USACE for this project. Permit acquisition is estimated to take 60- to 90-days, best case scenario.

Section 10 Permit: This project will require work within the Cuyahoga River, a Traditionally Navigable Water. Therefore, a Section 10 Permit is required to meet the conditions of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Permit acquisition is estimated to take 60- to 90-days, best case scenario.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)

Director’s Authorization (DA): This reach of the Cuyahoga is “purple zone” and therefore Ineligible for

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 19

WQC under the NWP #13. Instead, it is recommended a Director’s Authorization is obtained for work within ineligible watersheds and for work exceeding the 500-linear foot threshold for the NWP #13 permit. If this is granted the anticipated authorization can be obtained within 30 days following acquisition of the provisional permit from USACE.

3.2 LOCAL PERMITTING

The D-B Team will coordinate with applicable local agencies having jurisdiction subject to impacts and mitigation of protected aquatic, habitat, and/or cultural features. The following reviews, permits and/or certifications are anticipated:

Floodplain Permitting – City of Brecksville and Sagamore Hills Township, OH

The City of Brecksville §1159.13(g)(5) and Sagamore Hills Township §1345.03(i)(5) exempt Federal development projects from permit requirements.

SWPPP - City of Brecksville and Sagamore Hills Township

The D-B Team shall provide the city/township with copy of Construction Plans for cursory review of proposed activities, including grading and erosion/sedimentation control best management practices subject to the proposed streambank stabilization work.

3.3 AGENCY COORDINATION

The NPS has initiated coordination with both federal and state agencies. Coordination documents will be provided by NPS to include with federal and state permit applications (Section 3.1).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS):

Four federally listed species are identified to have known ranges within Summit County, including three protected bat species. Therefore, tree clearing will have a time of year restriction from April 1 through September 30. If tree clearing is required, clearing is recommended during the winter clearing window of October 1 though March 31. It is recommended that an Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) review results, provided by NPS, be included in the permit package to streamline coordination between USACE and USFWS (within 1-day). Additionally, IPaC results will be included a full Endangered Species Act Consultation request to be submitted to USFWS for review. Results of this review is anticipated to take approximately 30 days, best case scenario.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR):

A full environmental review includes coordination from all four (4) divisions of ODNR including Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP), Division of Wildlife (DOW), Ohio State Parks & Watercraft, and Division of Forestry. The full environmental review response was received on August 25, 2021.’

The Cuyahoga River is not a seasonal salmonid stream; therefore, restrictions for salmonid streams do not apply. However, in water work within perennial streams is restricted from March 15 through June

15. If work during this time is necessary, a waiver from ODNR and USACE is recommended.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Compliance / Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Concurrence:

The D-B Team will provide project information to NPS in support of their effort to achieve Section 106 NHPA compliance and SHPO concurrence.

The D-B Team is aware that cultural resources have been identified in the vicinity of the work limits.

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Permitting & Compliance | 20

Avoidance of these areas has been considered in establishing the extents of proposed disturbance.

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Codes, Standards, & Guidelines | 21

4.0 CODES, STANDARDS, & GUIDELINES

4.1 CODES

The Summit County Codified Ordinance Chapter 937 Riparian Setbacks was referenced subject to streambank stabilization and erosion control measures. In accordance with §937.06(b)(1) Uses Permitted in Riparian Setback, streambank and erosion control measures are permissible such that measures are ecologically compatible and substantially utilize natural materials and native plant species where practicable. Such activity requires an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

The City of Brecksville §1159.13(g)(5) and Sagamore Hills Township §1345.03(i)(5) applicable ordinances were referenced for permitting subject to floodplain development. In accordance with these ordinances the project is exempt from filing a floodplain development permit due to activities undertaken by a federal agency and which are subject to Federal Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management. Per the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program standards, there was an allowable increase in water surface elevation up to 1-foot in accordance with for FEMA Zone A Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) for which this project met in accordance with the given tolerances as stated in the RFP.

4.2 STANDARDS & GUIDELINES

The following guidelines were referenced for design and material selection:

Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Construction & Material Specifications, latest edition.

National Engineering Handbook

USACE Engineering Manuals and Case Studies

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Construction Cost | 22

5.0 CONSTRUCTION COST

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Additional Considerations & Risk | 24

6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS & RISK

The following additional considerations and risks discussed below are based on preliminary identifiers that will be re-evaluated throughout the design and construction period.

Value Engineering

The D-B Team acknowledges that the cost of each project should ideally match with the preliminary estimates;

however, changed site conditions have been recognized since the time when the Schematic Design was conducted causing additional needed material that will inherently increase project costs. Thus, in order to remain cognizant of best budget utilization, the D-B Team will endeavor to seek value engineering opportunities to achieve cost savings when available and practical. Value engineering ideas have been vetted during the design period, including the following considerations and decisions:

Minimizing trail and ecological impact with access.

o The use of a staging area which will not require significant impacts to trail usage through use of a single crossing point but will require a construction access using timber mats which crosses wetlands.

Repurposing material from adjacent onsite sources.

o Expansion of the project area to include re-work of previously installed bank stabilization features could allow re-use of rock.

Staging & Access

Site access and staging extents as well as traversing techniques have been identified to minimize overall impacts to the surrounding area. The layout depicted per plan intends to utilize park property along the towpath trail for all sites along towpath, which may cause impact to newly paved surfaces and will require potential for trail pavement restoration. Access to the railway bank may also consider high rail equipment routing along the railway. Prior to construction activity, the D-B Team will layout planned access routes to identify potential constraints and obstacles that may affect staging and access extents so as to prevent damage to vegetation, soils, utilities, and archeological resources, and to minimize air, water, soil, and noise pollution. As layout requirements continue to develop the D-B Team will be sure to consult / coordinate with the Park Resource Manager for approval.

Cultural / Historical Infrastructure

The D-B Team acknowledges that there are assets (i.e., trails, utilities, etc.) in close proximity to the construction site that must be protected / preserved throughout the construction process. All activities will adhere to the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requirements and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

As specified by NPS, archaeological monitoring will be provided during excavation work and subsurface disturbance at each applicable site. The D-B Team shall retain and schedule qualified personnel to monitor earthwork activity in accordance with the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) permit. Due to potential subsurface unknowns, a stop-work order may be issued should anything be discovered that may have historical significance.

Ecological Impacts

The D-B Team is aware that the area has been identified as an ecologically sensitive habitat for the Indiana and bat, northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, the bald eagle, and potentially other species applicable under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Based on this information the foreseeable time of year restriction for tree cutting is anticipated to be set between April 1 and September 30 of any year.

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Additional Considerations & Risk | 25

Underground Utilities

The D-B Team has requested available utility record information and will update the project mapping to identify potential utility constraints and requirements subject to adjacent construction activities. Based on information obtained thus far, there is a potential active communications utility located at the site. Exposed conduit is visible.

Further investigation is underway.

Water Quality & Erosion / Sediment Control

Water quality during and immediately after construction will remain a priority until permanent native vegetation has been established. In general, large fluctuations in water volume between base flow and storm flow can create difficulties for stream construction. Uncontrolled water in a restoration site can create unfavorable working conditions, such as difficulty in assessing as-built conditions, grade verification problems, and the discharge of excess sediment.

Temporary impairments to water quality will be minimized through erosion prevention following the guidelines established in the project stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Issues will be discussed and addressed daily once construction begins to guarantee the effectiveness of the installed measures and to make sure that erosion control features are maintained and continue to operate as intended. All disturbed areas will be seeded immediately after construction activities are completed in that area. A mixture of temporary native stabilizing seed and permanent native seed will be applied to all disturbed areas. NPS approval will be sought for all seed specifications used on-site.

Permit Acquisition & Agency Coordination

Acquisition of permits can be a lengthy process. For this reason, the D-B Team will initiate permitting activities as soon as possible to expedite the review and approval process. Anticipated permitting and agency coordination is as follows:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide 13 Bank Stabilization Permit

USACE Section 10 Permit

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) or Director’s Authorization (DA)

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Ohio Historic Preservation (OHPO)

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Additional Considerations & Risk | 26

Public Safety / Visitor Experience

With a majority of the sites being active trailheads used by the public, the sites are ultimately accessible from a constructability standpoint with the most obvious concern being the safety of the public. Provisions, such as construction fencing, and appropriate barriers will be in place prior to construction to keep park users safe at all times. The D-B Team will work closely with the National Park staff to prepare a process for maintaining pedestrian traffic (Process) for the project, including critical items such as potential phasing alternatives, public meetings, signage, trail closures, temporary routing and new trail alignments to provide a safe environment and minimize any impact to the ongoing operation of the park. Whenever possible, public access along trails and the waterway shall be maintained, thus each project shall provide a signage plan including installation of warning signs for public safety. In addition, each project will have a project specific safety manual containing general safety programs, policies, site-specific hazard analyses, and Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to facilitate a safe work environment for employees.

Construction Schedule

Wet weather often drives the schedule for stream restoration projects. During storm events project construction will need to be suspended until the stormwater has been rescinded. As the project continues to develop, the D- B Team will coordinate with applicable agencies for any requirements subject to a design storm event.

Accuracy of Opinion of Probable Cost

The D-B Team intends to provide individual approaches in accordance with the cost set and agreed upon by NPS. However, it should be noted that the cost is dependent on availability of materials, market conditions, or data related to field constraints / obstacles. These are mostly determined by the current extreme market conditions affected by COVID-19 and escalated inflation. We are experiencing a volatile market for material costs, material availability, equipment shortages, rapid price fluctuations, and shortage of labor.

The D-B Team will work towards identifying potential cost fluctuations or changes that may affect any expected unit cost and limiting potential risk by seeking to lock in pricing on materials where available.

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Project Execution Plan | 27

7.0 PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN

7.1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND SEQUENCE

7.1.1 SAFETY

The D-B Team understands that this is an active park with patrons anticipated along walking and water trails.

The team will work closely with the National Park Service staff to prepare a process for maintaining pedestrian traffic for the project sites, including critical items such as potential phasing alternatives, public meetings, signage, trail closures, temporary routing and new trail alignments to provide a safe environment and minimize any impact to the ongoing operation of the park.

In addition to pedestrian traffic measures, provisions such as construction fencing, and appropriate barriers will be placed along the working perimeter to keep park users safe out of active work areas. Flyers will be posted at portage areas to notify paddlers that “in-water” construction work may present temporary hazards and recommend planning alternatives.

In addition, a project specific safety manual containing not only general safety programs and policies but also a site-specific hazard analysis and Health and Safety Plan (HASP) will be developed to facilitate a safe work environment for employees.

7.1.2 ACCESS & STAGING

Access and staging for Towpath Trail Mile Marker 20 South will be off of Standford Road with staging of material behind the barn shown or another suitable laydown area (see Figure 8). A haul road across the field to the project site will be established as access for material and equipment.

Figure 5. Access & Staging Route

7.1.3 STABILIZATION SEQUENCE

Phase I – Access & Staging

Mobilization to the site will begin with staging at the barn on Standford Road. The area around the barn or

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Project Execution Plan | 28 another suitable location nearby will be used for staging stone and equipment. Avoidance of delineated wetlands will be a requirement for staging and storage areas. At this time, it is anticipated that no trees will be removed, and the barn will not be impacted as part of this effort. This staging area is away from typical Park use and will minimize encounters with Park users.

Access to the project areas will be established by a single access road/path through the wetland area west of the barn. A direct path will be established through the driest areas of the wetland, where practicable, and to align with the project site such that minimal use of the towpath is necessary. A singular crossing point over the towpath will minimize Park users and construction equipment interactions. After the towpath crossing, on the west side of the towpath, additional timber mats will be used to traverse other delineated wetlands as equipment follows the existing streambank to the south and west. The access path will then cross over the river in the shallower riffle area to gain access to the point bar. This crossing will be established using a combination of existing river substrate and imported rock for a ford crossing.

Water control will be a key aspect of the Phase I staging and access. Currently, the plan identifies a proposed baseflow diversion channel across the existing point bar. Diverting the baseflow as much as possible around the active work site will minimize transport of fine sediments downstream during construction disturbance. The team used a similar approach on our recent Jackson Field restoration project for Cleveland Metroparks on the Chagrin River with positive result. The diversion channel does require significant excavation and time to create the bypass therefore, the team also has an alternative flow diversion for consideration as well. This alternative involves the installation of an overwide rock toe along the new, proposed geometry. This toe would act similar to the base stone working platform used on MM64.1. Alluvial fill material behind the stone access road would be placed out of direct flow and turbidity would essentially be contained out of direct river flow by the already installed rock toe.

Phase II – Site Preparation

Once Phase I activities have been completed, additional clearing and grubbing of trees/plant material will occur along the banks and a rough subgrade will be cut to remove any loose or unsuitable material.

Phase III – Bank Stabilization

Once Phase II activities have been completed, imported sandstone material will be placed along the toe location and choked with excavated material cut from the existing point bar. The remaining excavation from the inside point bar will be used to infill the restored bank behind the rock toe and bucket compacted. Rock keys will then be installed at locations identified on the plan set to prevent flanking of the rock toe. Imported topsoil is then placed on top of the subgrade to provide a suitable base for plant growth on the restored bank. All exposed topsoil is to be wrapped in an erosion control fabric and planted during Phase IV activities.

Phase IV – Site Restoration

Site restoration activities will include seeding and planting disturbed areas. Live stakes or other planting material will be planted along the restored bank during the seasonally appropriate planting window. The intent of the project schedule is to coincide completion of construction activities with a planting window such that planting can be completed immediately.

PMIS: CUVA 224822 Quality Assurance | 30

8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

The D-B Team reviewed and updated the Sustainability and Constructability Worksheets provided as part of the SD submittal package. Changes reflect site specific requirements and design changes as noted above. In addition, the team reviewed the Quality Assurance Checklists available through the Denver Service Center to ensure that the standard requirements are met. These will continue to be reviewed and monitored throughout the design and construction phases of the project. The appropriate Quality Assurance documentation has been provided for design and construction activities (refer to Quality Control Plan via separate cover).

PMIS: CUVA 224822 References | 31

9.0 REFERENCES

Chang, H. (1988). "Permissible Canal Velocities" by Fortier, S., and Scobey, F.C. (1926). Fluvial Processes in River Engineering, 89, pp. 940-984.

CTL Engineering, Inc. (2021). Geotechnical Engineering Report: Cuyahoga Scenic Rail Road Bank Stabilization.

Project No. 21050003CLE. Brunswick, Ohio: EDG.

Derrick, D. (2022, March 11). Longitudinal Peak Stone Toe Protection (LPSTP) & Longitudinal Fill Stone Toe Protection (LFSTP). River Research & Design, Inc.

Engineering Design Group. (2021). BODR: Schematic Design Alternative @ CVSR MP 59.3. Project No. 224822, Akron, Ohio.

Engineering Design Group. (2021). BODR: Schematic Design Alternative @ CVSR MP 64.1. Priject No. 224822, Akron, Ohio.

Fischenich, C. (2001). Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials. USAE Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory.

HDR. (2021). Access & Staging Overview Map. CUVA: 223822.

HDR. (2021). BODR: Stabilize Riverbank at High Priority Areas Along Towpath Trail and Valley Railway. Project No. 224822, Nebraska, Omaha.

Ken Hahn Architects. (2021). Geotechnical Report: Cuyahoga Valley National ParkStabilize Riverbank at High Priority Areas along Towpath Trail. Project No. 224822. Omaha, Nebraska: HDR.

Sin, K. S. (2010). Methodology for Calculating Shear Stress in a Meandering Channel. Colorado State University.

Techinical Suppliment 14B - Scour Calculations. (2007). In National Engineering Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture.

0+00

1+00

2+00

3+00 4+00

5+

6+

7+

8+

9+

10+00

11+00

NOTES:

1. EX. WETLANDS WILL BE FLAGGED PRIOR TO THE START

OF CONSTRUCTION.

LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

EX. CONTOURS

EX. THALWEG

EX. TOP OF BANK

EX. TOE OF SLOPE

EX. WOODED AREA

DISTURBANCE LIMITS

EX. SPOIL AREA

EX. TEMP. STOCKPILE

STAGING AREA

EX. DELINEATED

WETLAND

EX. CULVERT TO BE

REMOVED

EX. PAVEMENT TO BE

REMOVED

EX. TREE TO REMAIN

EX. TREE TO BE

REMOVED (REUSE)

2+00

3+00

4+00

5+

6+

7+

0+00

1+00

2+00

3+00

4+00

5+

5+99

LEGEND

0+00

2+00

3+00

4+00

5+

PROP. SURFACE

(ALONG BASELINE)

PROP. TW SURFACE

PROP. PROJECT ALIGNMENT

PROP. TW ALIGNMENT

EX. SURFACE

(ALONG BASELINE)

EX. TW SURFACE

CUYAHOGA RIVER

4+

5+00

6+00

7+00

8+00

0 63

PROP. PROJECT ALIGNMENT

PROP. TW ALIGNMENT

CUYAHOGA RIVER

PROP. SURFACE

(ALONG BASELINE)

PROP. TW SURFACE

EX. SURFACE

(ALONG BASELINE)

EX. TW SURFACE

EX GROUND

NOTES:

1. ELEVATIONS PROVIDED IN CROSS

SECTIONS REPRESENT FINISHED GRADE.

2. FINAL GRADES AND SLOPES WILL BE

ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD AS NECESSARY

AT THE DIRECTION OF THE

ENVIROSCIENCE CONSTRUCTION

REPRESENTATIVE. SLOPES WILL BE

GRADED TO CREATE A NATURAL

APPEARANCE.

PROP. GRADE

APPROX. LOW FLOW

WATER SURFACE

NOTES:

1. ELEVATIONS PROVIDED IN CROSS

SECTIONS REPRESENT FINISHED GRADE.

2. FINAL GRADES AND SLOPES WILL BE

ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD AS NECESSARY

AT THE DIRECTION OF THE

ENVIROSCIENCE CONSTRUCTION

REPRESENTATIVE. SLOPES WILL BE

GRADED TO CREATE A NATURAL

APPEARANCE.

PROP. GRADE

NOTES:

1. ELEVATIONS PROVIDED IN CROSS

SECTIONS REPRESENT FINISHED GRADE.

2. FINAL GRADES AND SLOPES WILL BE

ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD AS NECESSARY

AT THE DIRECTION OF THE

ENVIROSCIENCE CONSTRUCTION

REPRESENTATIVE. SLOPES WILL BE

GRADED TO CREATE A NATURAL

APPEARANCE.

PROP. GRADE

NOTES:

1. ELEVATIONS PROVIDED IN CROSS

SECTIONS REPRESENT FINISHED GRADE.

2. FINAL GRADES AND SLOPES WILL BE

ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD AS NECESSARY

AT THE DIRECTION OF THE

ENVIROSCIENCE CONSTRUCTION

REPRESENTATIVE. SLOPES WILL BE

GRADED TO CREATE A NATURAL

APPEARANCE.

PROP. GRADE

POTENTIAL LIVE STAKE LOCATIONS ON BANK STABILIZATION AREAS*

BETWEEN CP1 AND CP2 (BANKFULL)

1-FT ABOVE BASE FLOW WATER SURFACE

LIVE STAKE PLANTING

LIVE STAKE CROSS SECTION

LIVE STAKE

TAMP SOIL AROUND CUTTING OR LIVE STAKE

SQUARE CUT

LEAVE MINIMUM 4" AND MAXIMUM

1/3 TOTAL LENGTH EXPOSED

ANGLE CUT

FIN…