Appendix_I-Bridge 606 Preliminary Bridge Hydraulic Memo.pdf

FHWA: I.Rosado-Vazquez:6257:JS:: "M\data\PROJECTS\_STATE_DOT\PR\ER PRMNT RPR(1)\Techserv\Hydra\ Reports\Memo\Preliminary\606\Revised Jan2024\ER PRMNT RPR (1)-Bridge 606 Preliminary Bridge Jan 2024.docx"" CC: Hydraulics, Geotech, Env, HD Engineer, TS Engineer, Bridge

Form FHWA-201 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Rev. 11-87) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

MINUTE - MEMO

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. when message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA-121 for informal correspondence.

SUBJECT: ER PRMNT RPR(1) Preliminary Bridge 606 Hydraulics Memo

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

Edna Gomez- Rosario Project Manager

Chris Burnell Highway Design Manager

We have revised the preliminary hydraulic analysis for the Bridge 606 (Structure No. 006061) at PR962 KM 4.1 along Canovanas River in Canovanas, PR. (lat/lon: 18.361077, -65.886938).

We have re-run the SRH-2D SMS models using an updated software version, enhanced the mesh quality and addressed areas of concern of potential unstable water surface elevations (WSELs). We’ve also introduced slightly larger mesh elements at the SMS model inflow boundary condition to rectifying sinuosity in water surface elevations, and near the existing bridge to provide a better representation of pressure flow conditions.

Based on our latest analysis results, we've observed a significant rise in the computed water surface elevations in both existing and proposed conditions within the SMS model. While the discrepancy in water surface elevation between existing and proposed conditions for a 100-year flood event seems to be less than 0.5 foot; there's a significant discrepancy between the SMS computed existing water elevation and the FEMA-based flood elevations that could trigger a CLOMR process, even without factoring in the proposed conditions. These disparities are not uncommon, especially when comparing 1D HEC-RAS with SRH-2D SMS models and in scenarios involving extensive Lidar data. Hence, it is the AE responsibility to contact the local floodplain coordinator to determine the project requirements, the support technical data needs to be submitted, and to adjust the SMS model and mapping to align with these requirements.

The design standard is to provide 2 ft. of freeboard for the 100-year event as per Chapter 6, Bridges, of the PRHTA Highway Design Manual, dated 1979. The Canovanas River is in FEMA Zone AE mapped floodplains.

Hydrology is based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) # 7200CV001B, dated November 18, 2009. The FIS Canovanas River Flood Profiles, Panel 159P-160P shows the bridge is located at the approximately 8 km upstream of PR Highway 3. The drainage area was obtained using the USGS StreamStats web-based tool. Most of the peak flows rates used for this hydraulic analysis were interpolated from the FIS, Page 83, Table 4- Summay of Discharges for Rio Canovanas at PR Highway 3.

Isis Rosado- Vazquez Hydraulics Engineer

THROUGH

Wendy Hiciano Hydraulics Team Leader

01-29-2024

Reports\Memo\Preliminary\606\Revised Jan2024\ER PRMNT RPR (1)-Bridge 606 Preliminary Bridge Jan 2024.docx""

However, the National Streamflow Statistic (NSS) Program V6.1, which compiles regression equations for estimating the peak flow at ungagged sites was used for estimating the 2-year and 5-year events because the peak flows extrapolated from the FIS Table 4 were lower and not representative of the site.

Table 1 Bridge 606 Hydrology Summary

Note: Main channel peak flows were estimated using the NSS method. The DA for the Tributary Channel is below the minimum DA value for the NSS method. Therefore, the flow was estimated as follows: Q main * DA tributary/DA main.

Field survey was performed along the channel and supplemented with LiDar data. The Canovanas River section analyzed is approximately 2530 ft long and extend from the FEMA Cross Section P (XS-F), to the base flood elevation (BFE) of 20m. The location of evaluated BFEs and FEMA Cross Sections (XS) were obtained from the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM # 72000C0760J).

Hydraulic modeling was performed using the two-dimensional software Sedimentation and River Hydraulics – Two Dimensional (SRH-2D, V13.2) to obtain the water surface elevations (WSELs). The manning roughness coefficients used in the model are consistent with the Table 5 of the FIS. Since the FIRM only provides the location of BFE for a 100-year, the rating curves method was used for the other design year flows SMS exit boundary condition. Refer to Attachment 1 for SMS 100-yr Boundary Condition Summary.

Event (year)

Bridge Flow (cfs)

2 6460

5 14600

10 20980

25 24349

50 29962

100 33247

200 34663

500 38911

Reports\Memo\Preliminary\606\Revised Jan2024\ER PRMNT RPR (1)-Bridge 606 Preliminary Bridge Jan 2024.docx""

Table 2 - SMS Boundary Conditions

Existing Structure:

The existing bridge is a temporary ACROW bridge installed in 2018 to replace the original three span bridge that was damaged during Hurricane Maria. The existing ACROW bridge is 73.5ft long with a curb to curb of 18.08ft. Based on the BIP the existing low steel elevation (LSEL) seems to be 2.5 ft. below the top of bridge, which place the exiting LSEL approximately at 61.20

ft. Based on our preliminary analysis, the existing bridge has an approximately freeboard of -8.84 ft. for the 100-year peak flow. Therefore, the existing structure does not meet the PRHTA design standards of 2 ft of freeboard for the 100-year return.

Table 3 Existing Bridge 606 Hydraulic Summary

Notes: WSELs were taken at the entrance of the structure, not the roadway centerline.

Proposed Structure:

New three span bridge along new alignment Based on the preliminary TS&L dated December 2023, the proposed structure is 252 ft. long with a curb to curb of 33 ft and a LSEL of 72 ft. The proposed structure will be located north of the existing structure and will require significant stream grading. Based on our preliminary analysis, the proposed bridge has an approximately freeboard of 2.35ft. for the 100-year peak flow. Therefore, the proposed structure will meet the PRHTA design standards of 2 ft of freeboard for the 100-year return.

Event Percent Annual Chance

FIS,

Bridge (cfs)

SMS Inflow Boundary Condition

SMS Exist Boundary Condition

100 yr 1% 33247 FIS XS-E Q100 FIS BFE 20m 500 yr 0.2% 38911 FIS XS-E Q500 Rating Curve

Existing (LSEL = 61.20 ft)

Event (year)

Bridge Flow (cfs)

WSEL

(ft)

Freeboard (ft)

2 6460 62.72 -1.52 5 14600 65.91 -4.71 10 20980 67.47 -6.27 25 24349 68.15 -6.95 50 29962 69.41 -8.21

100 33247 70.04 -8.84 200 34663 70.37 -9.17 500 38911 71.17 -9.97

Reports\Memo\Preliminary\606\Revised Jan2024\ER PRMNT RPR (1)-Bridge 606 Preliminary Bridge Jan 2024.docx""

Table 4 Bridge 606 Proposed Hydraulic Summary

Notes:

1- The proposed bridge will be located downstream of the existing bridge. See Table 5 for wsels comparisons.

2-Preliminary wsels were taken at the entrance of the structure, not the roadway centerline.

3- Proposed scour contrameasure shown in SMS are conceptual. Please revise SMS to reflect final scour contrameasure recommendations layout and perform scour analysis.

Floodplain:

Preliminary water surface elevations for a 100-year storm were also evaluated at FEMA BFEs and FEMA Cross Sections. Please refer to Table 5 for an average WSELs summary.

Table 5 Preliminary 100-yr Average WSELs Summary

FIRM location

FEMA

WSEL

(ft)

Existing

WSEL

(ft)

Proposed

WSEL

(ft)

Difference, ft Difference, ft (FEMA vs Existing)

(Existing vs Proposed)

XS E – 20.4m (Bridge 606) 66.91 69.80 69.49 2.89 -0.31 Bridge Entrance (Ex-alignment) 67.21 70.04 69.66 2.83 -0.37

Bridge Entrance (New alignment) 66.49 70.00 69.65 3.51 -0.35 BFE 20 m 65.60 65.68 65.97 0.08 0.29

Notes:

1 -The preliminary wsels shown in Table 5 are for information only.

2 - Revise SMS and compute new wsels for any changes to the enclosed TSL, channel grading, and roadway geometry.

3 - Please contact local FEMA local floodplain coordinator to determine project requirements and what support technical data needs to be submitted.

4- Proposed scour contrameasure shown in SMS are conceptual. Please revise SMS to reflect final scour contrameasure recommendations layout and perform scour analysis.

Proposed (LSEL = 72.00 ft)

Event (year)

Bridge Flow (cfs)

WSEL

(ft)

Freeboard (ft)

2 6460 59.81 12.19 5 14600 64.58 7.42 10 20980 66.60 5.40 25 24349 67.68 4.32 50 29962 69.02 2.98

100 33247 69.65 2.35 200 34663 70.06 1.94 500 38911 70.89 1.11

Reports\Memo\Preliminary\606\Revised Jan2024\ER PRMNT RPR (1)-Bridge 606 Preliminary Bridge Jan 2024.docx""

Per our latest preliminary hydraulic analysis, this project is not expected to increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than 0.5 ft. However, there's a significant discrepancy between the SMS computed existing water elevation and the FEMA-based flood elevations that could trigger a CLOMR process, even without factoring in the proposed conditions.

It's worth noting that such disparities are not uncommon, especially when comparing 1D HEC- RAS with SRH-2D SMS models and in scenarios involving extensive Lidar data. Hence, it is the AE responsibility to contact the local floodplain coordinator to determine the project requirements, the support technical data needs to be submitted, and to adjust the SMS model and mapping to align with their floodplain requirements.

Please also note the preliminary proposed contours were generated in SRH-2D SMS instead of Open Roads. The channel preliminary proposed contours have been exported from SMS to Cadd and a tin file generated for information only. The AE should revise the SMS proposed contours based on final roadway profile and final stream grading, in addition that all the SMS layers are correct to determinate if the final SMS model results will increase the water surface more than

0.5 ft.

If you should have any questions or concerns with the above recommendations, please feel free to contact us.

Attachments:

The following attachments can be found in the following folder path:

\\fhfl15fileserve.flhd.fhwa.dot.gov\data\PROJECTS\_STATE_DOT\PR\ER PRMNT RPR(1)\Techserv\Hydra\Reports\Memo\Preliminary\606\Revised Jan 2024\Attachments

• Attachment #1: Streamstats Reports Summary (Drainage Area, DA)

• Attachment #2: Bridge NSS Report

• Attachment #3: PEAKFQ Results - Gaged Station 50061800 (FYI only)

• Attachment #4: Preliminary Bridge Typical Section

• Attachment #5: Preliminary Stream Proposed Contours

• Attachment #6: SMS WSELs Plots

• Attachment #7: SMS 100-yr Floodway Plan View

• Attachment #8: SMS FEMA Plots

• Attachment #9: FEMA FIRM 72000C0760J

• Attachment #10: Preliminary TSL Dec 2023

• Attachment #11: Preliminary Roadway Typical Section

• Cadd: Bridge Typical Section

• Cadd: Proposed Contours (Stream)

• TIN files and Proposed Contours exported from SMS

• SMS files to share with consultant file://fhfl15fileserve.flhd.fhwa.dot.gov/data/PROJECTS/_STATE_DOT/PR/ER%20PRMNT%20RPR(1)/Techserv/Hydra/Reports/Memo/Preliminary/606/Revised%20Jan%202024/Attachments file://fhfl15fileserve.flhd.fhwa.dot.gov/data/PROJECTS/_STATE_DOT/PR/ER%20PRMNT%20RPR(1)/Techserv/Hydra/Reports/Memo/Preliminary/606/Revised%20Jan%202024/Attachments

��)*+,-./+0 - ��1 � ��23��� �4�����5 �6��������4 3�� 4����*+/�7889:;7<7 =8>? 1�@ ��*AB.0C80 0 ���6������@2D ��21DE� 4�3�21�C8�1�B.0 =8>F D �� ���*AC8GH;31 ����5 ���� @ I���2��6 �J ��D2�����C8���4�H;�D �� ���23�@ �5����@2�5�1��������� @��26�����4�I�4 �4�I�4 4�6K�@ �5���6 �J ��D2�����3��D ��1� C97>?= 3 ��D ��1�B/,)/.) )� �������4�������2���D2����2������� �1 C<>7 �LE�� 1�@ �.A.M 0 ���������.@ I���2� CC98 3 �.N-.,0O, 0 ������E�@�� 3 � �� � I�D2�����D�����2��3�21�- �1���02��� ���1 ��24 C;8C 1�@@�1 � ��+79P;Q 0�R�1E1�79:�2E��D� ��D�����2�������2��E���2���I ��5 �2�� ����;�K ��� F>C ���� �A�8C+0- - �� ����1D �I�2E�� ���23�6������� ��788C�,A�B 7>;7 D �� ��AS-A.,TNP A �5���23�@2�5 ���3@2J�D��� C=>9;? 1�@ �0+,�.A.M 0���1E1�6����� @ I���2� ;C>? 3 �-/.�+- 0 ���)��E�@�-� ��D�����2� C7=>= ���� �/O�UB.- B D����2��2�V 7>; 3 �**W/TO� - �� ���5 �23��� ��23�PK4�2@25���*2�@�NKD ���3�21�**W/TO ; D �� ��XYZY�[\]\�[̂_̀a\̂bcde�Xfac__�g]hcdî_c�_]\]cjk�\aa�j\]\k�bc]\j\]\�\fj�dca\]cj�b\]cd̂\a_�\dc�̀gf_̂jcdcj�]g�_\]̂_lm�]hc�no\â]m�_]\fj\dj_�dca\]̂pc�]g�]hc�qodqg_c�lgd�iĥ̀ h]hc�j\]\�icdc�̀gaac̀]cjr�sa]hgoth�]hc_c�j\]\�\fj�\__g̀ \̂]cj�bc]\j\]\�h\pc�uccf�dcp̂cicj�lgd�\̀ òd\̀m�\fj�̀gbqac]cfc__�\fj�\qqdgpcj�lgd�dcac\_c�um�]hc�XrYrZcgagt̂̀\a�Yodpcm�vXYZYwk�fg�i\dd\f]m�cxqdc__cj�gd�̂bqâcj�̂_�b\jc�dct\dĵft�]hc�ĵ_qa\m�gd�o]̂â]m�gl�]hc�j\]\�lgd�g]hcd�qodqg_c_k�fgd�gf�\aa�̀gbqo]cd�_m_]cb_k�fgd

�%�y#z -/{��|� �$��y#z -/787C8<8CC9=;9=HH?888"' �����z CH>=<C89��:<;>HH<F<� ��z 787C:8<:8C�C8�=<�8C�:8988 Attachment 1 isis.rosado-vazquez Rectangle

������())*+,-.+/0�1234+/05�67879�:.32-;:.-.4�:23<+,24�1234+/05�=7>7>>�?::�:23<+,24�1234+/05�>7=7>

National Streamflow Statistics Program Version 6.1 Based on Techniques and Methods Book 4‐A6 Equations from database H:\Team_Folders\Tech_Services\Hydro\NSS_v6.mdb Updated by tkoenig 5/9/2014 1:49:13 PM Add new StatLabels for NJ 2014_5012, KS

2004_5032, MT, RI 2014_5010

Site: unnamed, Puerto_Rico User:

Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 03:05 PM

Equations for Puerto_Rico developed using English units

Rural Estimate: Bridge 606 Basin Drainage Area: 16.2 square miles 1 Region

Region: Statewide_Multiparameter_Peak (none) Drainage_Area = 16.2 square miles Mean_Annual_Precipitation = 123 inches Depth_to_Rock = 30 inches Crippen & Bue Region 3

Results for: Bridge 606

Equations used:

PK2 = 19.9* (DRNAREA)^(0.603)* (PRECIP+0.1)^(0.852)

PK5 = 515* (DRNAREA)^(0.66)* (PRECIP+0.1)^(0.645)* (ROCKDEP)^(‐0.47)

PK10 = 3880* (DRNAREA)^(0.697)* (PRECIP+0.1)^(0.584)* (ROCKDEP)^(‐0.869)

PK25 = 24940* (DRNAREA)^(0.73)* (PRECIP+0.1)^(0.54)* (ROCKDEP)^(‐1.25)

PK50 = 72220* (DRNAREA)^(0.747)* (PRECIP+0.1)^(0.525)* (ROCKDEP)^(‐1.48)

PK100 = 180000* (DRNAREA)^(0.76)* (PRECIP+0.1)^(0.518)* (ROCKDEP)^(‐1.68)

PK500 = 1090000* (DRNAREA)^(0.781)* (PRECIP+0.1)^(0.509)* (ROCKDEP)^(‐2.07)

Value, Pred. Intervals Prediction Equivalent Statistic cfs Low High Error, % Years

PK2 6460 3350 12400 41 3

PK5 14600 5940 35900 32 8

PK10 23400 10300 53000 27 15

PK25 36500 16300 81700 24 24

PK50 47200 20300 110000 25 29

PK100 59700 24200 147000 26 31

PK500 97500 32900 288000 32 29

maximum: 34800 (for C&B region 3)

Attachment 2 Bridge 606 isis.rosado-vazquez Highlight

Highlight

Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.002.000 Version 7.2 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 3/28/2018 07/20/2021 05:40

‐‐‐ PROCESSING OPTIONS ‐‐‐

Plot option = Graphics device Basin char output = WATSTORE Print option = Yes Debug print = No Input peaks listing = Long Input peaks format = WATSTORE peak file

Input files used:

peaks (ascii) ‐ C:\Users\isis.rosado‐vazquez\Desktop\PR (1) SMS\Hydrology\Gaged for 606 and 653\PEAK.TXT specifications ‐ C:\Users\isis.rosado‐vazquez\Desktop\PR (1) SMS\Hydrology\Gaged for 606 and 653\PKFQWPSF.TMP Output file(s):

main ‐ C:\Users\isis.rosado‐vazquez\Desktop\PR (1) SMS\Hydrology\Gaged for 606 and 653\PEAK.PRT bcd ‐ C:\Users\isis.rosado‐vazquez\Desktop\PR (1) SMS\Hydrology\Gaged for 606 and 653\PEAK.BCD

*** User responsible for assessment and interpretation of the following analysis ***

Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.001 Version 7.2 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 3/28/2018 07/20/2021 05:40

Station ‐ 50061800 RIO CANOVANAS NR CAMPO RICO, PR

TABLE 1 ‐ INPUT DATA SUMMARY

Number of peaks in record = 53 Peaks not used in analysis = 1 Gaged peaks in analysis = 52 Historic peaks in analysis = 0 Beginning Year = 1968 Ending Year = 2020 Historical Period Length = 53 Skew option = STATION SKEW Regional skew = ‐‐

Standard error = ‐‐ Mean Square error = ‐‐

Gage base discharge = 0.0 User supplied high outlier threshold = ‐‐ User supplied PILF (LO) criterion = ‐‐ Plotting position parameter = 0.00 Type of analysis BULL.17B PILF (LO) Test Method MGBT Perceptible Ranges = Not Applicable Interval Data = Not Applicable

TABLE 2 ‐ DIAGNOSTIC MESSAGE AND PILF RESULTS

Attachment 3 - Bridge 606 PeakFQ Results, FYI Only

*WCF107I‐ACCEPTED GEN SKEW OUTSIDE MAP LIMITS.‐999.000 ‐0.400 0.800

**WCF109W‐PEAKS WITH MINUS‐FLAGGED DISCHARGES WERE BYPASSED. 1

**WCF113W‐NUMBER OF SYSTEMATIC PEAKS HAS BEEN REDUCED TO NSYS = 52

WCF134I‐NO SYSTEMATIC PEAKS WERE BELOW GAGE BASE. 0.0

EMA003I‐LOW OUTLIERS WERE DETECTED USING MULTIPLE GRUBBS‐BECK TEST 5 1680.0

THE FOLLOWING PEAKS (WITH CORRESPONDING P‐VALUES) WERE DROPPED:

258.0 (0.0190)

673.0 (0.0856)

681.0 (0.0077)

1140.0 (0.0973)

1210.0 (0.0381)

WCF163I‐NO HIGH OUTLIERS OR HISTORIC PEAKS EXCEEDED HHBASE. 31697.7

**WCF164W‐HISTORIC PERIOD IGNORED. 53.0

*WCF151I‐17B WEIGHTED SKEW REPLACED BY USER OPTION. ‐247.111 ‐0.002 ‐1

WCF002J‐CALCS COMPLETED. RETURN CODE = 2

Kendall's Tau Parameters

MEDIAN No. of

TAU P‐VALUE SLOPE PEAKS

GAGED PEAKS ‐0.171 0.075 ‐55.833 52

Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.002 Version 7.2 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 3/28/2018 07/20/2021 05:40

Station ‐ 50061800 RIO CANOVANAS NR CAMPO RICO, PR

TABLE 3 ‐ ANNUAL FREQUENCY CURVE PARAMETERS ‐‐ LOG‐PEARSON TYPE III

FLOOD BASE LOGARITHMIC

EXCEEDANCE STANDARD

DISCHARGE PROBABILITY MEAN DEVIATION SKEW

SYSTEMATIC RECORD 0.0 1.0000 3.6413 0.3831 ‐0.815

BULL.17B ESTIMATE 0.0 0.9038 3.6844 0.3032 ‐0.002

BULL.17B ESTIMATE OF MSE OF AT‐SITE SKEW 0.0994

TABLE 4 ‐ ANNUAL FREQUENCY CURVE ‐‐ DISCHARGES AT SELECTED EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITIES

ANNUAL <‐‐ FOR BULLETIN 17B ESTIMATES ‐‐>

EXCEEDANCE BULL.17B SYSTEMATICLOG VARIANCE CONFIDENCE INTERVALS

PROBABILITY ESTIMATE RECORD OF EST. 5% LOWER 95% UPPER

0.9950 232.9 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.9900 338.8 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.9500 862.1 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.9000 1976. 1346. ‐‐‐‐ 1547.0 2403.0

0.8000 2687. 2204. ‐‐‐‐ 2189.0 3194.0

0.6667 3580. 3337. ‐‐‐‐ 2998.0 4205.0

0.5000 4836. 4930. ‐‐‐‐ 4115.0 5683.0

0.4292 5477. 5719. ‐‐‐‐ 4670.0 6467.0

0.2000 8701. 9317. ‐‐‐‐ 7319.0 10680.0

0.1000 11830. 12220. ‐‐‐‐ 9724.0 15100.0

0.0400 16400. 15630. ‐‐‐‐ 13070.0 22010.0

0.0200 20260. 17920. ‐‐‐‐ 15780.0 28130.0

0.0100 24500. 20000. ‐‐‐‐ 18670.0 35130.0

0.0050 29160. 21880. ‐‐‐‐ 21770.0 43080.0

0.0020 36000. 24080. ‐‐‐‐ 26190.0 55200.0

Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.003 Version 7.2 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 3/28/2018 07/20/2021 05:40

Station ‐ 50061800 RIO CANOVANAS NR CAMPO RICO, PR

TABLE 5 ‐ INPUT DATA LISTING

WATER PEAK PEAKFQ

YEAR VALUE CODES REMARKS

1968 3440.0 1969 10200.0 1970 10600.0 1971 10600.0 1972 2300.0 1973 8200.0 1974 3630.0 1975 9400.0 1976 2510.0 1977 258.0 1978 6220.0 1979 8870.0 1980 3320.0 1981 3590.0 1982 15000.0 1983 6910.0 1984 5260.0 1985 6080.0 1986 6960.0 1987 2070.0 1988 12500.0 1989 10400.0 1990 1760.0 1991 3160.0 1992 5140.0 1993 4050.0 1994 1210.0 1995 3680.0 1996 10100.0 1997 4010.0 1998 17300.0 1999 ‐4090.0 G 2000 4040.0 2001 6320.0 2002 3770.0 2003 5090.0 2004 13400.0 2005 9260.0 2006 5070.0

2007 673.0 2008 16000.0 2009 3460.0 2010 2910.0 2011 9120.0 2012 3360.0 2013 3860.0 2014 1140.0 2015 1960.0 2016 681.0 2017 15100.0 2018 2140.0 2019 1680.0 2020 2830.0

Explanation of peak discharge qualification codes

PeakFQ NWIS

CODE CODE DEFINITION

D 3 Dam failure, non‐recurrent flow anomaly G 8 Discharge greater than stated value X 3+8 Both of the above L 4 Discharge less than stated value K 6 OR C Known effect of regulation or urbanization H 7 Historic peak

‐ Minus‐flagged discharge ‐‐ Not used in computation ‐8888.0 ‐‐ No discharge value given ‐ Minus‐flagged water year ‐‐ Historic peak used in computation

Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.004 Version 7.2 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time 3/28/2018 07/20/2021 05:40

Station ‐ 50061800 RIO CANOVANAS NR CAMPO RICO, PR

TABLE 6 ‐ EMPIRICAL FREQUENCY CURVES ‐‐ WEIBULL PLOTTING POSITIONS

WATER RANKED SYSTEMATIC B17B

YEAR DISCHARGE RECORD ESTIMATE

1998 17300.0 0.0189 0.0189 2008 16000.0 0.0377 0.0377 2017 15100.0 0.0566 0.0566 1982 15000.0 0.0755 0.0755 2004 13400.0 0.0943 0.0943 1988 12500.0 0.1132 0.1132 1970 10600.0 0.1321 0.1321 1971 10600.0 0.1509 0.1509 1989 10400.0 0.1698 0.1698 1969 10200.0 0.1887 0.1887 1996 10100.0 0.2075 0.2075 1975 9400.0 0.2264 0.2264 2005 9260.0 0.2453 0.2453 2011 9120.0 0.2642 0.2642 1979 8870.0 0.2830 0.2830

1973 8200.0 0.3019 0.3019 1986 6960.0 0.3208 0.3208 1983 6910.0 0.3396 0.3396 2001 6320.0 0.3585 0.3585 1978 6220.0 0.3774 0.3774 1985 6080.0 0.3962 0.3962 1984 5260.0 0.4151 0.4151 1992 5140.0 0.4340 0.4340 2003 5090.0 0.4528 0.4528 2006 5070.0 0.4717 0.4717 1993 4050.0 0.4906 0.4906 2000 4040.0 0.5094 0.5094 1997 4010.0 0.5283 0.5283 2013 3860.0 0.5472 0.5472 2002 3770.0 0.5660 0.5660 1995 3680.0 0.5849 0.5849 1974 3630.0 0.6038 0.6038 1981 3590.0 0.6226 0.6226 2009 3460.0 0.6415 0.6415 1968 3440.0 0.6604 0.6604 2012 3360.0 0.6792 0.6792 1980 3320.0 0.6981 0.6981 1991 3160.0 0.7170 0.7170 2010 2910.0 0.7358 0.7358 2020 2830.0 0.7547 0.7547 1976 2510.0 0.7736 0.7736 1972 2300.0 0.7925 0.7925 2018 2140.0 0.8113 0.8113 1987 2070.0 0.8302 0.8302 2015 1960.0 0.8491 0.8491 1990 1760.0 0.8679 0.8679 2019 1680.0 0.8868 0.8868 1994 1210.0 0.9057 0.9057 2014 1140.0 0.9245 0.9245 2016 681.0 0.9434 0.9434 2007 673.0 0.9623 0.9623 1977 258.0 0.9811 0.9811 1999 ‐4090.0 ‐‐ ‐‐

End PeakFQ analysis.

Stations processed : 1 Number of errors : 0 Stations skipped : 0 Station years : 53

Data records may have been ignored for the stations listed below.

(Card type must be Y, Z, N, H, I, 2, 3, 4, or *.)

(2, 4, and * records are ignored.)

For the station below, the following records were ignored:

FINISHED PROCESSING STATION: 50061800 USGS RIO CANOVANAS NR CAMPO RICO,

For the station below, the following records were ignored:

FINISHED PROCESSING STATION:

0.215102040607590959899.5 Annual exceedance probability, in percent

1,000

10,000

100,000 A nn ua l p ea k di sc ha rg e, in c ub ic fe et p er s ec on d

PILF (LO)

Confidence limits: 5 percent lower, 95 percent upper

Peakfq v 7.2 run 7/20/2021 5:36:18 AM B17B using Station Skew option

0.0254 = Skew (G)

0.0991 = Mean Sq Error (MSE sub G) Multiple Grubbs-Beck 0 Zeroes not displayed 0 Censored flows below PILF (LO) Threshold 5 Gaged peaks below PILF (LO) Threshold isis.rosado-vazquez Stamp

Stamp

Attachment 06a :

Attachment 06b :

Attachment 06c :

Attachment 06d :

Text Box Attachment 06e :

Attachment 06f:

ER PRMNT RPR (1) FEMA Bridge 606 Attachment 7: SMS 100‐yr Floodway Plan View No Scale

FEMA 100‐yr Floodplain delineation (Dashed area)

SMS Inflow Boundary Condition

FEMA Q @ XS‐ F

New Bridge 606 (North Alignment)

SMS 100‐yr WSEL (Blue Area)

SMS Outflow Boundary Condition FEMA BFE 20m

Existing Bridge 606

70 .._.

ER PRMNT RPR (1) - Bridge 606 - PR 962 WSELs @ FEMA XS P (SMS Inflow)

Inflow- FEMA XS F - 22m (72.16 ft), PRO Draft North Align StreamRdwy USE\z

Inflow- FEMA XS F - 22m (72.16 ft), 1-EX Rev- USE\z

Inflow- FEMA XS F - 22m (72.16 ft), PRO Q100 North (SRH-2D)\Water_Elev_ft

Inflow- FEMA XS F - 22m (72.16 ft), 1- EX Q100 (SRH-2D)\Water_Elev_ft

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Distance {ft)

Attachment 08a:

Attachment 08b:

C:

ca 60

ER PRMNT RPR (1) - Bridge 606 - PR 962 WSELs @ FEMA BFE 20m (SMS Outflow)

FEMA BFE 20m (65.6 ft), PRO Draft North Align StreamRdwy USE\z

FEMA BFE 20m (65.6 ft), 1-EX Rev- USE\z

FEMA BFE 20m (65.6 ft), PRO Q100 North (SRH-2D)\Water_Elev_ft

FEMA BFE 20m (65.6 ft), 1- EX Q100 (SRH-2D)\Water_Elev_ft

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Distance {ft)

Attachment 08c:

OM

CHEVRON

C Rdwy.L barrier (typ.)

Concrete

Exis ting C P

R-9

Gabion wall

Existing bridge

5 7

Overhead telephone Overhead power

R/W

R/W

R/W

R/W

Sta. 109+20.00

Begin Bridge @ C Rdwy.

Gutterline

Sta. 111+72.00

End Bridge @ C Rdwy.

15° concrete I-beam (typ.)

AASHTO III prestress

C West abut. C East abut.C Pier 1 C Pier 2

(typ.)

Approach Slab, 6 Spa. @ 6'-0" = 36'-0"

19'-0"

1'-6"

41'-0"

14'-0" 5'-0"

1'-6"

Gutterline Sidewalk

90'-0" 78'-0"78'-0"3'-0" 3'-0"

Bridge Length = 252'-0"

2'-6" 2'-6"

11'-0" 11'-0"8'-0"

3'-0" Shldr.

(typ. all 4 corners)

Structure transition railing Wingwall (typ.)

Proposed C PR-962

11'-0"11'-0"8'-0"

Shldr.

2%

Profile grade (top of pavement)

2% way

Traveled way

Traveled

5'-0"

Sidewalk

3'-0"

Shldr.

246'-0"

78'-0"

Approx. existing ground @ C Rdwy.

Profile grade

El. 72.00

Approx. low chord railing (typ.)

Structure transition concrete I-beams

AASHTO III prestress barrier

Concrete

C West abut.

3'-0"

Bridge Length = 252'-0"

C East abut.

3'-0" abutment (typ.)

Integral or semi-integral

5.37%

Retaining wall see Geotechnical Data Report No. 22190124.000

For boring logs and other geotechnical information, Drilled shaft (Typ.)

78'-0" 90'-0"

Sleeper slab (Typ.)

Date of Last Inspection: 02/01/2023

Q100

20'-0"20'-0" slab

Approach slab

Approach

G E

O M

E T

R

IC

S

TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION

SUPER ROTATED ABOUT

RATE

RATESTA.

CROWN

PROFILE GRADE DIAGRAM

EL. ARE AT GRADE

AT

H Y

D R

A U

L

IC

S

Q2

50Q

Q

Q

Q Vm WS EL.

REMARKS

SLOPE PROTECTION TYPE:

TOP EL.:

CLASS:

BOTTOM EL.:

DEPTH:

SLOPE:

S C

O U

R

SCOUR

REMARKS

RECEIVED

RECEIVED

HYDRAULICS REPORT NO.

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NO.

D E

S

IG

N D

A T

A

TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION

OVERLOADLIVE LOAD SPECIAL LOADS

SUPERSTRUCTURE

CONCRETE F'C

EPOXY REINFORCEMENT

RAIL

SIDEWALKS

REMARKS

DRAINS

TRANSITION

UTILITIES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION, DENVER, COLORADO

PRELIMINARY LAYOUT

STREAM NAMEBRIDGE NAME

ROUTE NAME AND NUMBER

FOREST/PARK/OTHER

ACCOUNT NO.

PREPARED BY

SCALE: DATE:

ESTIMATED STRUCTURE COST

RG NO.

STA.

ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft

TERRITORY MUNICIPALITY

/1

/2

M

P R

O J E

C T

S

S T

A T

E D

O T

\P R

\E R

P R

M N

T R

P R

(1

B ri d g e \M ic ro s ta ti o n \T

S

L \6 t s l

(N o rt h A li g n m e n t, n o C

L O

M R d g n

C Rdwy.L

Top of profile

6460 59.81

HL-93 N/A

8.0 ksi (Beams), 5.0 ksi (Cast-in-Place Deck)

5'-0"

1"= 40'-0"

N/A

606 (North Alignment, No CLOMR) Canovanas River

PR-962

Puerto Rico

Nathan Marshall / Kevin Nguyen

Canovanas

N/A

F-Shape Configuration (MASH TL-3) Bridge Transistion Module <45 mph w/ Hrie-Beam Type II

N/A

NoneNone

" concrete deck2

AASHTO III Prestressed Concrete I-Beams with 8

2.00% 2.00%

N

C a n o v a n a s R iv e r

L

PLAN

N 84°41'24" E

L

L

L(typ.

L LL L

Sidewalk

D e p th

S tr u c tu r e

LaneShoulder Lane

1.00%

2.00%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition

ELEVATION

L

EXP

EXP

FIX

FIX

PIER 1 PIER 2

ABUT.

WEST

ABUT.

EAST

C

L

(typ.)

1.5

L

L

29962

33247

34663

69.02

69.65

70.06

December 2023 SHEET NO.: R01

E n d B ri d g e

C R d w y

S ta

.0

E le v

.4

B e g in

B ri d g e

L R d w y

S ta

.0

E le v

.0 isis.rosado-vazquez

Attachment 10- Bridge 606 TSL (Dec 2023)

Varies

1V:3 H o r fl att er

8' 2.5'

Paved

Shoulder Paved

Shoulder

Travel laneTravel lane

11' 11'

CL

Sidewalk

5'

Curb - 0.5'

Va rrie s 1V:3H or flatter

PR-962 PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION

(BRIDGE 606 REALIGNMENT)

1% 4%2%2%4%

4" Aggregate Base

4" Concrete

18" Depth Non-Mountable PCC CurbProposed Pavement (Depth and type TBD)

Aggregate Base (Depth TBD)

(Depth Varies)

Embankment Construction

NOT TO SCALE

NO. DATE BY REVISIONS

OFFICE OF FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TYPICAL SECTION

PR-962 (BRIDGE 606 REALIGNMENT)

PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

:3

A

M

O c to b e r

S h e e t

B r id g e

A p p r o a c h T y p ic a l

C

U s e rs

\m ic h a e l.

to o m e r\

D e s k to p

\C u rr e n t W o rk

\P R

E R

P R

M N

T R

P R

(1

C A

D D

\0

-E R

-P R

M N

T -R

P R

(1

B R ty p

.d g n

STATE PROJECT

NUMBER

SHEET

PR PR ST ER PRMNT RPR(1)

Typewritten Text Attachment 11 - Bridge 606 - Preliminary RoadwayTypical Section