Report_Hydraulics.pdf

FINAL HYDRAULICS REPORT

Fitzwater Road and Waste Weir Bridge Replacements

Cuyahoga River

OH CUVA PRA 18(1) 164 (1)

Prepared by:

Scott Hogan, P.E.

Technical Services Hydraulic Engineer

July 2008

FINAL 2 7/2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Summary of Recommendations Project Location Project Data Existing Conditions Site Visit Hydrologic Analysis Hydraulic Analysis Hydraulic Analysis Results Bridge Scour Analysis Scour Countermeasure Design Channel Stability Assessment Conclusion References

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Location Map Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map Figure 3. Plan view of HEC-RAS model reach limits and cross section locations Figure 4. Existing Fitzwater Bridge and Road Profile (view downstream) Figure 5. Proposed Fitzwater Bridge Profile (view downstream)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of peak flow estimates for the Cuyahoga River at Fitzwater

Bridge and FEMA water surface elevations at Pleasant Valley Road Table 2. Summary of hydraulic results for the proposed Fitzwater Bridge replacement Table 3. Summary of scour estimates for the proposed bridge designs

FINAL 3 7/2008

APPENDICIES

Appendix A – Project Information and Photos

• Proposed Bridge Plans

• FEMA Floodplain Maps

• Letter from Village of Valley View floodplain administrator

• Flood Hazard Area Development Permit Application

• Project Site Visit Photos

Appendix B – Hydrology

• Hydrology Computations

• Cuyahoga River Flow Gage Information

Appendix C – Hydraulics

• HEC-RAS Model Layout Schematic

• Selected HEC-RAS Model Cross Sections

• Tailwater Rating Curve from FEMA data

• Comparison of Existing and Proposed Bridge Profiles

• Comparison of Existing and Proposed Water Surface Profiles

• HEC-RAS Output Summary Table

• Bridge Pier and Pile Schematic

• Bridge Scour Computations

• Riprap Sizing Computations

• Riprap Details

FINAL 4 7/2008

Introduction

The following hydraulics report summarizes the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that were performed by the Central and Eastern Federal Lands Highway (FLH)

Hydraulics Teams to support the development of replacement bridge designs for the

Fitzwater Road Bridge and the Waste Weir Bridge, in Cuyahoga National Park

(Park). The primary objectives of the analysis were to:

• Determine the design flow and range of flows for the hydraulic analysis

• Evaluate existing and proposed conditions water surface profiles

• Identify floodplain encroachments and channel stability issues

• Provide hydraulic recommendations for bridge replacements

• Evaluate scour potential

• Design bridge scour countermeasures

Summary of Recommendations

Based on the analyses presented in this report, a brief summary of the hydraulic recommendations are provided as follows:

Fitzwater Road Bridge

1. Bridge elevations: The proposed bridge low chord elevations should be set at a minimum elevation of 619.6 ft, which provides 2 ft of freeboard above the 50-year water surface elevation at the bridge.

2. Road profile: The road profile through the west overbank should be raised approximately 1 foot to reduce the frequency of road overtopping and improve access to the CVSR Maintenance Facility. An elevation of 615.3 ft was assumed for the hydraulic analysis of the proposed bridge condition.

3. Bridge span: The existing 200 ft bridge span with vertical abutments constricts flow within the main channel. The replacement bridge should extend this span to 270 ft with spill through abutments.

4. Bridge piers: The two proposed 5 ft wide x 13 ft long bridge piers should avoid the center of the channel to the extent possible to minimize debris buildup. The foundations must be designed to accommodate the minimum estimated scour elevation of 574.1 ft, assuming pile cap dimensions of 14 ft wide x 30 ft long x 4 ft thick, skewed 15 degrees to the flow.

FINAL 5 7/2008

5. Bridge Scour: Total scour depth estimates are approximately 18 – 20 ft for the abutments and 23 ft for the piers. The abutment and pier foundations should be designed to accommodate the loss of lateral and vertical ground support resulting from these total scour depths, which account for long-term degradation, contraction scour, and local scour.

6. Bridge abutment protection: Spill-through riprap abutments, with 2H:1V, or flatter, sloping abutments are recommended with Class 3 (d50~ 12 in.)

abutment protection. The layer thickness should be a minimum of 2.0 ft over a geotextile filter material. Plan and cross section details for the abutment protection placement are included in Appendix C.

7. Existing Fitzwater Bridge: The existing bridge and abutments should be removed. The repaired bankline should be protected with native vegetation and supplemented with rock riprap as necessary to provide erosion protection.

Waste Weir Bridge

1. Bridge configuration: The Waste Weir Bridge does not convey flood flows and only serves to accommodate local flows from the canal. A minimum bridge elevation is not specified and the bridge elevations may be set as necessary to accommodate the Fitzwater Bridge profile. There are no piers in the proposed bridge design, and the bridge will span the existing channel.

2. Bridge abutment protection: Although negligible scour is expected, the channel bank slopes beneath the bridge section will not likely support vegetation and should be lined with Class 3 riprap.

Floodplain Impacts

1. FEMA Floodplain Regulations – The proposed Fitzwater Bridge

Replacement and road improvements will not cause an increase to the FEMA

100-yr flood elevations. A permit application (Appendix A) certifying that this project results in no net rise in the 100-yr water surface must be submitted by the Park to the Village of Valley View.

2. West Overbank (floodplain) – The frequency of floodplain inundation will not be affected by the proposed bridge improvements, but the downstream conveyance of flow (overbank velocity) will be reduced at the moderate flood levels. Under current conditions, the section of Fitzwater Road in the floodplain is overtopped around a 2-yr flood level. With the proposed 1 ft profile raise, the frequency of overtopping will be reduced to approximately a

10-yr flood level.

FINAL 6 7/2008

Project Location

Cuyahoga National Park is located near the southern shores of Lake Erie in northern

Ohio, roughly between Cleveland and Akron. The project area lies in Cuyahoga

County, situated on the Cuyahoga River, just east of the Town of Independence on

Fitzwater Road. A location map of the area is shown in Figure 1. The geographic coordinates for the project site are: North 41°21'23.84", West 81°35'53.16".

Lake Erie

Akron

Cleveland

Cuyahoga NP

Project Site

N O

R T

H

OHIO

Location Map

Lake Erie

Akron

Cleveland

Cuyahoga NP

Project Site

N O

R T

H

OHIO

Location Map

Figure 1. Project Location Map

The project area referenced in this report generally extends upstream (south) from

Pleasant Valley Road, to roughly 1000 ft south of Fitzwater Road, and is bounded on the east by Canal Road, and on the west by Riverview Road. A vicinity map showing the key features of the project area is shown in Figure 2. Fitzwater Road crosses the Cuyahoga River and provides the only access to the CVSR Maintenance

Facility.

FINAL 7 7/2008

Proposed realignment for replacement bridges

Waste Weir Bridge

Pleasant Valley Road

Fi tzw at er

R oa d

Canal Road

Riverview Road

N O

R

TH

Existing Fitzwater Road

Bridge

Alexander Road

O hio and Erie Canal

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad

Proposed realignment for replacement bridges

Waste Weir Bridge

Pleasant Valley Road

Fi tzw at er

R oa d

Canal Road

Riverview Road

N O

R

TH

Existing Fitzwater Road

Bridge

Alexander Road

O hio and Erie Canal

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map

Project Data

Aerial mapping and channel cross section survey data were provided by the Eastern

Federal Lands survey team for an area covering the width of the 100-year floodplain and extending from just downstream of Pleasant View Road approximately ½ mile upstream (south). Aerial data were used to develop the above water mapping, while surveyed channel cross section data were used to represent the below water areas. A total of 13 channel cross sections were surveyed. The horizontal and vertical datums referenced for the project are NAD83 and NAVD88, and the project units are US Customary.

Existing Conditions

The Cuyahoga River flows in a northwest direction through the Park towards Lake

Erie. The main channel (low flow) within the project area is approximately 150-200 ft wide, while the 100-year floodplain is approximately 1600 ft wide and generally extends from the railroad on the west to Canal Road on the east. Normal flow

CVSR Maintenance Facility

FINAL 8 7/2008

depths range from a few feet to nearly 10 feet, and flood flow depths can exceed

20 ft. The majority of flood flows are conveyed in the overbank areas, as the main channel has limited capacity and is exceeded on a frequent (roughly annual) basis.

Other descriptive hydraulic features of the Cuyahoga River include a mild slope of

0.0003 ft/ft, well-vegetated bank lines and overbank areas, significant in-channel woody debris, fine grained channel bed material, and relatively low flow velocities.

Despite the low velocities, the channel banks are easily erodible due to the fine grained native material. The overbank (floodplain) areas consist of fairly extensive undeveloped wetland/riparian areas. Photos of these areas and other features described are included in Appendix A.

The Fitzwater Bridge was originally constructed over the Cuyahoga River in 1922 and subsequently rehabilitated in 1995. The bridge consists of a single 200 ft span truss, supported by vertical concrete abutments. The bridge structure and abutments are in poor condition, and were noted in recent inspections to be critically deficient and functionally obsolete. In addition, a significant amount of scour is evident at both abutments, and the west abutment appears to be severely undermined. West of the bridge, the profile of Fitzwater Road drops to just above the adjacent ground elevation as it heads to the CSVR Maintenance Facility. Flood flows overtop most of the road section between the bridge and the railroad.

Along the east side of the project area, the Ohio and Erie Canal, which once connected Lake Erie with the Ohio River, closely parallels the Cuyahoga River.

The canal is no longer operated for freight traffic, but several of the historic canal features have been preserved, and the towpath along the canal has been redeveloped into a scenic recreational trail. One of the original locks (Lock No. 37) is located immediately upstream of Fitzwater Road, along with a water control gate to divert flows into the river for maintenance, and a waste weir that was used to divert flow around the lock during its operation.

Flows diverted from the canal over the waste weir form an auxiliary channel (waste way) adjacent to the canal that passes under Fitzwater Road and rejoins the canal a short distance downstream. The canal at Fitzwater Road is spanned with a 20 ft x

20 ft box culvert, while the waste weir channel is spanned by a 76 ft long bridge

(Waste Weir), which was constructed concurrently with the Fitzwater Road Bridge in

1922. The Federal Lands Highway Bridge Inspection Program also inspected the

Waste Weir Bridge in conjunction with the Fitzwater Bridge and found it to be

FINAL 9 7/2008

critically deficient and functionally obsolete. Photos of the Waste Weir Bridge and the other features described are included in Appendix A.

About 1,500 ft downstream of Fitzwater Road, Pleasant Valley Road is elevated above the floodplain; which blocks overbank flow and forces all flows to pass through the bridge opening. The bridge opening spans the main channel of the

Cuyahoga as well as the canal and Canal Road. The significant debris load in the

Cuyahoga is evidenced by the large amount of debris that has accumulated on the piers at the Pleasant Valley Road Bridge (photos included in Appendix A).

Site Visit

On November 13, 2007, the FLH Project Team conducted a site reconnaissance visit and participated in a project Value Analysis Workshop during the following days with the Park and other involved parties. Site observations served as the basis for the determination and evaluation of parameters needed to develop the hydraulic model for the project reach. The main parameters included channel roughness, overbank roughness, flow patterns, ineffective flow area, and boundary conditions.

Several project area photos pertaining to hydraulics are included in Appendix A.

Hydrologic Analysis

A hydrologic analysis was performed for the Cuyahoga River to determine design discharges at the project site for the hydraulic analysis and design of the replacement bridges. The analysis is based on a Log-Pearson III evaluation of gage data from the USGS Independence Gage (Gage No. 04208000), which is located about 3 miles downstream of the project site. The Independence Gage has an extensive flow record, dating back to 1906. The maximum recorded peak flow of

25,400 cfs occurred recently in 2006. Prior to that, the previous peak flow of record (24,800 cfs) was observed in January 1959.

A range of flood flows was estimated using a Log-Pearson III flow frequency analysis of the flow record. The results of the analysis were adjusted to reflect the difference in drainage area between the gage location (707 mi2) and the project site

(595 mi2). This adjustment accounts for local inflows associated with the Tinkers

Creek Drainage, which is about 1 mile downstream of the project site. A summary of the results are presented in Table 1. Additional details of the analysis are included in Appendix B.

FINAL 10 7/2008

Table 1. Peak flow estimates for the Cuyahoga River at Fitzwater Bridge and FEMA water surface elevations at Pleasant Valley Road

Recurrence Interval

(yrs)

Peak Discharge

(cfs)

Estimated water surface elevations downstream of

Pleasant Valley Road

(ft – NAVD88)*

2 7700 610.8

5 11760 613.5

10 12030 614.2

25 14350 615.7

50 16160 616.7

100 18030 618.6

500 22730 621.2

* From City of Independence FEMA FIS, July 19, 2001. Elevations at upper limit of FEMA detailed study – Section K. Converted from NGVD29 to NAVD88 vertical datum.

Hydraulic Analysis

The hydraulic analysis was completed using the US Army Corps of Engineers HEC-

RAS River Analysis System, version 3.1.3, to develop estimates of flow velocities and water surface profiles through the project reach for the range of specified flows. Geometric data for the hydraulic model were extracted from the project mapping along the cross section alignments shown in Figure 3. The section locations were selected to represent the bridge locations and changes in channel characteristics, and were also based on the location of available survey data.

Flow estimates developed from the hydrologic analysis were used as the inflow model boundary conditions, while estimates of the downstream water surface elevation boundary condition were obtained from the FEMA Flood Insurance Study

(FIS) for the City of Independence. A summary of these elevations is included in

Table 1.

FINAL 11 7/2008

Downstream hydraulic model limit

Upstream model limit

Hydraulic model cross sections

Cross section #

Existing Fitzwater Road Bridge

Proposed alignment for new bridges

Waste Weir Bridge

Pleasant Valley Road / Alexander Road

Fi tzw at er

R oa d

Canal Road

CVS Railroad

Downstream hydraulic model limit

Upstream model limit

Hydraulic model cross sections

Cross section #

Existing Fitzwater Road Bridge

Proposed alignment for new bridges

Waste Weir Bridge

Pleasant Valley Road / Alexander Road

Fi tzw at er

R oa d

Canal Road

CVS Railroad

Figure 3. Plan view of the HEC-RAS hydraulic model reach limits and cross section locations.

The project area is located within a FEMA regulated floodplain, but the detailed floodplain study completed for FEMA currently only extends upstream to Pleasant

Valley Road. From this point upstream, the floodplain is designated Zone A, which means that the flood limits are determined based on approximate evaluation methods, and there are no determined floodway limits or Base Flood Elevations

(BFEs). The FEMA floodplain information for the project area is split between two community’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The east side of the river centerline is shown on Community Panel Number 390134 0003 B (Effective date

Feb 18, 1981), Village of Valley View, Ohio, while the west side of the centerline is shown on the City of Independence, Community Panel Number 390111 0005 C

(Map Revised July 19, 2001). Copies of these maps are included in Appendix A.

FINAL 12 7/2008

According to FEMA and local regulations for Zone A floodplain areas, “… no new construction shall be permitted within the floodplain, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood (100-year) more than one foot at any point within the community”

(letter from Village of Valley View Engineer – included in Appendix A). A Flood

Hazard Area Development Permit Application (Appendix A) will need to be submitted by the Park to the Village of Valley View prior to construction of improvements within the floodplain.

Hydraulic modeling simulations were performed for the existing conditions and a range of bridge replacement alternative configurations and alignments. The following summary of results and comparison with existing condition is based on the proposed bridge design configuration dated 2/26/08 (Appendix A). This proposed configuration for the Fitzwater Bridge consists of a three-span, 270 ft long concrete girder bridge, located immediately downstream of the existing bridge, with an added skew of approximately 15 degrees. The center span is 120 ft and the side spans are each 75 ft. The spans are supported by two piers, 5.0 ft wide and 13.0 ft long. The effective width obstructing the flow, with a 15 degree skew angle, is 8.2

ft. The west abutment is shifted roughly 20 ft downstream of the existing abutment, while the east abutment is shifted approximately 80 ft downstream. The realignment is designed to tie into the existing intersection on Canal Road immediately north of the current Fitzwater Road location.

The Waste Weir Bridge and Fitzwater Road Box Culvert were eliminated from the hydraulic analysis after it was concluded that flood flows up to the 100-year event do not spill into the Ohio and Erie Canal upstream of the bridge and do not pass through these structures. However, it is necessary to maintain these structures, as the canal and wasteway do collect and convey local storm drainage.

Hydraulic Analysis Results

The hydraulic model results indicate that the main channel reaches capacity around a 2-year event. Above this level, flows begin to spill into the left (west) overbank areas. Flows on the west overbank spread to the railroad embankment, which is not overtopped until flows near a 100-year event. The canal berm (towpath) on

FINAL 13 7/2008

the east side of the river is higher than the west overbank and is not overtopped upstream of Fitzwater Bridge for flows less than a 100-yr event. Downstream of the bridge, the berm profile drops and is overtopped at a few locations during a 50-yr event. Model results show that Fitzwater Road in the west overbank is overtopped as the flow exceeds a 2-yr event, and are confirmed by CSVR

Maintenance Facility staff observations that the road is overtopped approximately every other year.

As shown below in Figure 4, the low steel elevation of the existing bridge (El 616.8

ft) becomes partially submerged by approximately 1 ft during a 50-yr event (617.8 ft), and depths overtopping Fitzwater road in the west overbank reach approximately 3 ft. During a 100-yr event, the low steel is completely submerged, and water surface elevations at the road and bridge are roughly 2 ft higher than the

50-yr event.

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement

Station (view downstream) (ft)

El ev at io n (N

AV

D ft)

Legend

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

Figure 4. Existing Fitzwater Bridge and Road Profile (view downstream)

Although a replacement structure would be permitted by FEMA to further constrict flows in the river and cause up to a one-foot rise in upstream water levels for a

100-yr event, the proposed bridge avoids such impacts and actually improves the hydraulic conditions in the vicinity of Fitzwater Bridge.

The profile for the proposed Fitzwater replacement bridge, shown in Figure 5, is raised above the existing bridge profile to meet FHWA design criteria (2 ft freeboard during 50-yr event) and the road elevation in the overbank area has been raised to reduce the frequency of overtopping and associated access restrictions to the CVSR

Maintenance Facility. At the low point in the profile, the proposed road elevation is raised from elevation 614.3 ft to 615.3 ft. According to the model results, this will

Existing Road

Channel / Overbank

FINAL 14 7/2008

prevent the road from overtopping during events up to and slightly greater than a

10-yr event. The minor amount of flow conveyance eliminated by raising the road is offset by the increased conveyance area through the proposed bridge opening, which is 70 ft wider than the existing bridge. A profile plot comparing the existing and proposed bridge profiles is included in Appendix C. To maintain flow conditions in the overbank, the existing culverts under the road may be increased in size or number.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

Figure 5. Proposed Fitzwater Bridge Profile (view downstream)

The minimum bridge elevations (low chord) for the proposed bridge at the east abutment, center, and west abutment, are 619.45 ft, 621.65 ft, and 619.65 ft, respectively. All points of the bridge meet or exceed the FHWA minimum design freeboard of 2 ft above the 50-yr water surface, except for a very short section near the east abutment, which has 1.9 ft of freeboard. This minor variance is acceptable, considering that this low point is located near the edge of the channel.

The 100-yr flow also passes beneath the low bridge elevation with approximately

0.6 ft of freeboard at the abutments and over 2.0 ft near the center of the channel.

Freeboard is provided to safely pass floating debris and/or ice that often accompany high flows.

As shown in Table 2, the estimated water surface elevations for the proposed project improvements are essentially equivalent to or slightly less than the existing condition water surface elevations, and due to the widened bridge opening, the average cross section velocities through the bridge opening are reduced by 10-20 percent. Water surface profile plots comparing the existing and proposed conditions are included in Appendix C, along with HEC-RAS output summary tables.

FINAL 15 7/2008

The plots show that the only notable change in water surface elevation occurs at a

10-yr event, which is most impacted by the road profile raise in the west overbank.

Flow that previously overtopped the roadway is forced through the bridge opening for the proposed condition, resulting in a local increase in water surface elevations.

The differences observed in the other event profiles are negligible, and in all cases, the proposed condition profiles are slightly lower than the existing condition.

Table 2. Summary of HEC-RAS hydraulic results for the proposed Fitzwater Bridge replacement

WSEL upstream of existing bridge

(ft – NAVD88)

Average main channel velocity

(fps)

Return

Period

(years)

Q (cfs)

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed

2 7700 612.56 612.44 3.9 3.8

5 11260 614.84 614.81 4.7 4.3

10 12030 615.01 615.43 5.0 4.3

50 16160 617.46 617.56 4.2 3.6

100 18030 619.38 619.34 3.7 3.2

500 22730 621.86 621.88 3.5 3.0

Bridge Scour Analysis

Scour evaluations for the proposed Fitzwater Bridge were performed using HEC-18 methodology and HEC-RAS modeling results for the range of flow events. A summary of the scour estimates is presented below in Table 3. Detailed computations and supporting information are included in Appendix C. Since the

Waste Weir Bridge does not convey flood flows, scour estimates were not computed.

The long-term channel degradation estimate was derived based on channel profile information available in the FEMA flood insurance study for the City of

Independence. The FEMA profile shows a fairly abrupt drop in bed elevation (~13

ft) about three miles downstream of the project site. Assuming that this

‘knickpoint’ could eventually migrate upstream to the Fitzwater bridge, maintaining the average channel slope of 0.0003 ft/ft, the resulting elevation lies 9 ft below the

FINAL 16 7/2008

existing bed elevation at the bridge. Although this approach is conservative, an extensive channel stability study would be needed to provide a more refined estimate.

Table 3. Summary of scour estimates for the proposed Fitzwater Bridge

Location

Minimum

Channel

Elevation

(ft)

Assumed

Channel

Degradation

(ft)

Computed

Contraction

Scour

(ft)

Computed

Local

Scour

(ft)

Total

Scour

(ft)

Design

Scour

Elevation

(ft)

West

Abutment

610.0 9.0 4.4 7.9 21.3 588.7

East

Abutment

610.0 9.0 4.4 4.9 18.3 591.7

East Pier 596.7 9.0 4.4 9.2 22.6 574.1

West Pier 596.7 9.0 4.4 8.1 21.5 575.2

Contraction scour potential was reviewed for the range of evaluated flows and determined to be the greatest for the 100-yr event. Although the majority of the existing flow constriction is removed with the proposed bridge, some of the overbank flow is still contracted by the road embankment and bridge abutments, resulting in contraction scour. The estimated contraction scour depth is 4.4 ft.

Pier scour estimates were based on 5 ft wide x 13 ft long pier columns that are skewed 15 degrees to the flow, resulting in an effective pier width of 8.2 ft. The piers will be founded on 24 in. diameter piles and a pile cap with dimensions of 13 ft wide x 30 ft long x 4 ft thick, situated approximately 3-4 ft below the minimum channel bed at an elevation of 593.0 ft. Schematics of the piers, piles, and pile cap configurations are included in Appendix C. Since the sum of the long term channel degradation and contraction scour are below the pile cap elevation, the piles could be exposed to the flow. Consequently, a composite pier scour approach was used to evaluate the scour potential and the influence of the pile cap. The composite pier results predict scour depths up to 9.2 ft.

FINAL 17 7/2008

Estimated abutment scour depths range from 4.9 ft at the east abutment to 7.9 ft at the west abutment. The computations assume spill-through riprap abutments with a maximum slope of 2H:1V. Per HEC-18 and AASHTO guidance, the abutment pile foundations should be driven below the elevation of the thalweg, including long term degradation and contraction scour, to assure structural integrity in the event that the channel shifts and the material around the piling scours to the thalweg elevation. The piling should also be designed for the additional lateral restraint and column action associated with the increase in unsupported length after scour.

Scour Countermeasure Design

Abutment slope protection at each bridge was evaluated using the HEC-RAS simulation results and FHWA HEC-18 and HEC-23 methodology for sizing rock riprap at abutments. The average velocities in the vicinity of the sloping abutments are around 5 ft/s with average flow depths of approximately 15 ft during a 100-yr event. A FLH FP-03 Class 2 riprap (7.5” D50, 12” D100) abutment protection is sufficient for these conditions, but a minimum of FP-03 Class 3 riprap (12” D50, 24”

D100) is recommended for this application. A minimum layer thickness of 2.0 ft is recommended, including a placed geotextile material between the rock and native bank material. HEC-18 computations supporting this recommendation are included in Appendix C.

The abutment protection should extend longitudinally a minimum of one bank height distance upstream and downstream of the bridge, and vertically from an elevation of 619.6 ft (2 ft above 50-yr WSEL) down the slope to an elevation of

605.0 ft, which roughly corresponds to the mean daily water surface elevation. To provide favorable flow transitions, the up- and downstream limits of revetment should be transitioned (tapered) at 45 degrees down to the toe of the slope.

To prevent undermining of the abutment protection, the flanks and toe should be supplemented with additional layer thickness. The flank thickness (up- and downstream) should be doubled (4 ft) for a distance of 5 ft. The toe of the abutment protection should be keyed into the channel bed with a launchable toe trench, a minimum depth of 5 ft and bottom width of 5 ft. Details for these edge treatments are included in Appendix C.

FINAL 18 7/2008

Due to the magnitude of the estimated total scour depth, it is not practical to provide abutment scour protection to this depth. Consequently, channel degradation and local scour should be monitored, and the abutment protection supplemented as necessary.

Scour countermeasures are not recommended for the base of the bridge piers. The foundations should be designed to accommodate the total estimated scour depths.

Channel Stability Assessment

With the exception of the west bank downstream of the Fitzwater Bridge, the banks of the Cuyahoga River in the vicinity of the Fitzwater Bridge appear to be fairly stable, and there are no signs of recent erosion or channel instabilities. However, the Park staff noted that bank erosion is common along the river during high flows and that the channel banks have been repaired and supplemented in several locations with various forms of erosion protection. Additional bank protection is not recommended as part of this project, but the banklines upstream of Fitzwater

Bridge should be monitored and maintained to preserve favorable hydraulic approach conditions. The bank section immediately downstream of the bridge shows signs of recent erosion, which is likely due to the turbulence caused by the bridge constriction. Stabilization of this bankline is not necessary for the bridge replacement, but the bank should be monitored in the vicinity of the west abutment and stabilized if it begins to threaten the stability of the sloping riprap abutment protection.

Conclusion

The proposed replacement design for Fitzwater Bridge offers improved hydraulic conditions within the main channel and west overbank area of the Cuyahoga River.

The proposed three-span 270 ft long bridge is 70 ft longer than the existing bridge and significantly reduces the channel flow constriction and scour potential. The proposed Fitzwater Road profile through the west overbank is raised 1 ft at its lowest point to reduce the frequency of overtopping and provide more reliable access to the CVSR Maintenance Facility. The minor reduction of overbank conveyance resulting from the raised road profile is offset by the improved conveyance through the bridge opening, and the net result is a slight decrease in water surface elevations through the project reach. With the exception of the 10-yr event, the changes resulting from the proposed improvements are negligible and

FINAL 19 7/2008

essentially equal to the existing conditions. The raised road profile blocks overbank flow up to approximately a 10-yr event, directing the flow through the bridge opening and causing a few inch increase in water surface elevation at the bridge, which diminishes within 700 ft upstream of the bridge.

Sloping riprap abutment protection is proposed for both Fitzwater Bridge abutments to provide scour protection. However, it is not practical to provide sufficient protection to the estimated potential scour depth of approximately 30 ft. The abutment slope protection should be maintained and channel degradation and scour should be monitored at the bridge. The abutment and pier foundations must be designed to accommodate the loss of sediment resulting from the estimated scour.

The hydraulic analysis showed that the Ohio and Erie Canal does not convey flood flows from the Cuyahoga River, upstream of Fitzwater Road, and as a result there are no hydraulic criteria specified for the Waste Weir Bridge. However, the canal and wasteway collect local storm drainage so the conveyance area through the bridge should be preserved.

Design References

Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures, HEC-23, Second Edition, Publication No. FHWA NHI 01-003, March 2001.

Evaluating Scour at Bridges, HEC 18, Fourth Edition, Publication No. FHWA NHI 01-

001, May 2001.

Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), Federal

Highway Administration, FHWA-DF-88-003, June 1996.

Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System, HEC-RAS, Version 3.1.3, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), May 2005.

Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels, United States Geological Survey

Water Supply Paper 1849, Washington D.C., 1967.

City of Independence Flood Insurance Study, Cuyahoga County, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Community Number 390111, July 19, 2001.

Village of Valley View Flood Insurance Study, Cuyahoga County, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Community Number 390134, August 18, 1980.

APPENDIX A

PROJECT

INFORMATION

Summary of enclosed information:

Proposed Bridge Plans

FEMA Floodplain Maps

Letter from Village of Valley View floodplain administrator

Flood Hazard Area Development Permit Application

Project Site Visit Photos

06/08 Appendix A 1/19

06/08 Appendix A 2/19

06/08 Appendix A 3/19

06/08 Appendix A 4/19

06/08 Appendix A 5/19

06/08 Appendix A 6/19

06/08 Appendix A 7/19

06/08 Appendix A 8/19

06/08 Appendix A 9/19

06/08 Appendix A 10/19

Figure 1 - Fitzwater Road Bridge - view downstream from right bank

Figure 2 – Fitzwater Road Bridge - view downstream from left bank

06/08 Appendix A 11/19

Figure 3 - Fitzwater Bridge - view upstream from left bank - note bank erosion downstream of abutment

Figure 4. Fitzwater Bridge right (east) abutment

06/08 Appendix A 12/19

Figure 5 - View downstream from Fitzwater Bridge

Figure 6 - View upstream from Fitzwater Bridge

06/08 Appendix A 13/19

Figure 7 - Fitzwater Bridge - left (east) abutment

Figure 8 - Fitzwater Bridge - upstream side of left abutment - flow currents appear to be underneath end of abutment

06/08 Appendix A 14/19

Figure 9 - Ohio and Erie Canal - Lock 37 - view downstream across Fitzwater Road

Figure 10 - View upstream along Ohio and Erie Canal from Lock 37 - water control gate on right - waste weir on left

06/08 Appendix A 15/19

Figure 11 - Ohio and Erie Canal waste weir located immediately upstream of Lock 37

Figure 12 - Waste Weir Bridge - view downstream

06/08 Appendix A 16/19

Figure 13 - View downstream from Fitzwater Road at Ohio and Erie Culvert Crossing

Figure 14 - Ohio and Erie Canal - view upstream toward Fitzwater Road culvert crossing - WasteWeir

Bridge visible on the left

06/08 Appendix A 17/19

Figure 15 - View west along Fitzwater Road - overbank area

Figure 16 - View east along Fitzwater Road from overbank area - bridge in background

06/08 Appendix A 18/19

Figure 17 - Upstream face of Pleasant Valley Road Bridge

Figure 18 - Debris blockage upstream of Pleasant Valley Road Bridge

06/08 Appendix A 19/19

APPENDIX B

HYDROLOGY

Hydrology computations

Cuyahoga River Flow Gage Information

06/08 Appendix B 1/18

06/08 Appendix B 2/18

06/08 Appendix B 3/18

06/08 Appendix B 4/18

06/08 Appendix B 5/18

06/08 Appendix B 6/18

06/08 Appendix B 7/18

06/08 Appendix B 8/18

06/08 Appendix B 9/18

06/08 Appendix B 10/18

06/08 Appendix B 11/18

06/08 Appendix B 12/18

06/08 Appendix B 13/18

06/08 Appendix B 14/18

06/08 Appendix B 15/18

06/08 Appendix B 16/18

06/08 Appendix B 17/18

06/08 Appendix B 18/18

APPENDIX C

HYDRAULICS

HEC-RAS Model Layout Schematic

Selected HEC-RAS Model Cross Sections

Tailwater Rating Curve from FEMA data

Comparison of Existing and Proposed Bridge Profiles

Comparison of Existing and Proposed Water Surface Profiles

HEC-RAS Output Summary Table

Bridge Pier and Pile Schematic

Bridge Scour Computations

Riprap Sizing Computations

Riprap Details

Cuyahoga River

Cuy ah oga

06/08 Appendix C 1/33 shogan Callout Fitzwater Road - shifted bridge alignment shogan Typewritten Text

FITZWATER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OH CUVA 18(1) 164(1)

HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

HEC-RAS MODEL CROSS SECTION LAYOUT

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 2414

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .08 .04 .06

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 2304

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .08 .04 .06

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 2189

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .08 .06

06/08 Appendix C 2/33 shogan Typewritten Text Upstream Model Limit

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 1962

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .08 .06

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 1777

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .08 .06

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 1668

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.06 .04 .08 .06

06/08 Appendix C 3/33

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 1552

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.3 .04 .

.04 .

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 1520 MO

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.06 .04 .

.04 .

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 1520 MO

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.06 .04 .

.04 .

06/08 Appendix C 4/33 shogan Callout Proposed Fitzwater Bridge Profile

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 1506

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.1 .04 .

.04 .

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 1367

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.15 .04 .

.04 .06

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 1117

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .

.06

06/08 Appendix C 5/33

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 855

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .08 .06

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 577

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .

.06

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 368

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .

.06

06/08 Appendix C 6/33

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 310 BR

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .

.06

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 310 BR

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .

.06

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 264

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .

.06

06/08 Appendix C 7/33 shogan

Pleasant Valley Road Bridge

Cuyahoga Fitzwater Bridge Replacement Plan: Proposed Bridge 2-26-08 MO 6/25/2008

RS = 0

Station (view downstream) (ft)

E le va tio n (N

A V

D ft)

Legend

WS 500yr

WS 100yr

WS 50yr

WS 25yr

WS 15yr

WS 10yr

WS 5yr

WS 2yr

WS Daily Mean Q

Ground

Levee

Ineff

Bank Sta

.08 .04 .

06/08 Appendix C 8/33 shogan

Downstream Model Limit - FEMA X-Section K

Cuyahoga River at Pleasant Valley Road Tailwater rating curve development for HEC-RAS model Based on FIS profile data for FEMA Section K (City of Independence FIS 2001) (Section K is located immediately downstream of Pleasant Valley Road)

Return Period Flow (cfs) NGVD 29

(ft)

NAVD 88

(ft)

Estimated based on best fit line

(NAVD 88)

2 7700 610.8 5 11260 613.5 10 12030 615.0 614.2 15 13000 614.8 25 14350 615.7 50 16160 617.5 616.7

100 18030 619.4 618.6 500 22730 622.0 621.2

From FEMA FIS

The NGVD 29 Datum is 0.758 ft higher than the NAVD 88

Datum

TW Rating Curve at FEMA XS K (Pleasant Valley Road)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Discharge (cfs)

W at er S ur fa ce E le va tio n

(N A

VD

8)

06/08 Appendix C 9/33

C uy ah og a Fi tz w at er

B rid ge R ep la ce m en t

R S

M

O C om pa ris on o f E xi st in g vs . P ro po se d

B rid ge W at er

S ur fa ce

P ro fil es

S ta tio n

(v ie w d ow ns tre am ft)

Elevation (NAVD88) (ft)

Le ge nd

- E xi st . C on d.

G ro un d

- E xi st . C on d.

In ef f - E xi st

. C on d.

B an k S ta

E xi st . C on d.

- P ro po se d

- P ro po se d

- P ro po se d

- P ro po se d

G ro un d

- P ro po se d

In ef f - P ro po se d

B an k S ta

P ro po se d

06/08 Appendix C 10/33 shogan Callout Existing Bridge/Road Profile shogan Callout Proposed Bridge/Road Profile shogan Callout Existing Bridge Low Chord shogan

Proposed Bridge Low Chord

C uy ah og a Fi tz w at er

B rid ge R ep la ce m en t

P la n:

) P ro p2

M

O

) E xi st

. C on d.

W at er

S ur fa ce

P ro fil e

C om pa ris on o f E xi st in g vs

. P ro po se d

M ai n C ha nn el D is ta nc e

(ft

Elevation (NAVD88) (ft)

Le ge nd

W S yr

P ro p2

M

O

W S yr

E xi st . C on d.

W S yr

P ro p2

M

O

W S yr

E xi st . C on d.

W S

0y r - P ro p2

M O

W S

0y r - E xi st

. C on d.

W S

5y r - E xi st

. C on d.

W S

5y r - P ro p2

M O

W S

5y r - E xi st

. C on d.

W S

5y r - P ro p2

M O

W S

0y r - E xi st

. C on d.

W S

0y r - P ro p2

M O

W S yr

E xi st

. C on d.

W S yr

P ro p2

M O

W S yr

E xi st

. C on d.

W S yr

P ro p2

M O

G ro un d

R ig ht L ev ee

G ro un d

26...

1962...

C uy ah og a C uy ah og a

R iv er

06/08 Appendix C 11/33 shogan Callout Proposed Fitzwater Bridge shogan Callout Existing Bridge Location shogan

Pleasant Valley Road Bridge

HEC-RAS River: Cuyahoga Reach: Cuyahoga River Reach River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl

(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Cuyahoga River 2414 2yr Prop22608MO 7700.00 601.39 613.25 608.17 613.78 0.001618 5.89 1500.77 1031.96 0.34 Cuyahoga River 2414 2yr Exist. Cond. 7700.00 601.39 613.35 608.16 613.87 0.001549 5.81 1541.71 1035.69 0.33 Cuyahoga River 2414 5yr Prop22608MO 11260.00 601.39 615.67 609.62 616.20 0.001343 6.18 2476.72 1228.49 0.32 Cuyahoga River 2414 5yr Exist. Cond. 11260.00 601.39 615.68 609.65 616.21 0.001337 6.17 2484.50 1229.57 0.32 Cuyahoga River 2414 10yr Prop22608MO 12030.00 601.39 616.16 609.94 616.69 0.001280 6.21 2682.30 1280.10 0.31 Cuyahoga River 2414 10yr Exist. Cond. 12030.00 601.39 616.24 609.94 616.39 0.000531 4.01 6420.50 1280.90 0.20 Cuyahoga River 2414 15yr Prop22608MO 13000.00 601.39 616.58 610.30 616.73 0.000526 4.07 6851.78 1289.62 0.20 Cuyahoga River 2414 15yr Exist. Cond. 13000.00 601.39 616.70 610.29 616.84 0.000496 3.98 7010.85 1301.32 0.20 Cuyahoga River 2414 25yr Prop22608MO 14350.00 601.39 617.35 610.79 617.48 0.000451 3.92 7844.92 1318.53 0.19 Cuyahoga River 2414 25yr Exist. Cond. 14350.00 601.39 617.48 610.77 617.61 0.000424 3.83 8023.55 1321.57 0.18 Cuyahoga River 2414 50yr Prop22608MO 16160.00 601.39 618.26 611.41 618.38 0.000391 3.82 9040.45 1356.80 0.18 Cuyahoga River 2414 50yr Exist. Cond. 16160.00 601.39 618.35 611.41 618.46 0.000382 3.79 9154.06 1360.96 0.18 Cuyahoga River 2414 100yr Prop22608MO 18030.00 601.39 619.80 612.28 619.89 0.000285 3.49 11108.14 1420.28 0.16 Cuyahoga River 2414 100yr Exist. Cond. 18030.00 601.39 619.80 612.28 619.89 0.000285 3.49 11108.48 1420.29 0.16 Cuyahoga River 2414 500yr Prop22608MO 22730.00 601.39 622.20 614.42 622.28 0.000213 3.32 14456.82 1466.20 0.14 Cuyahoga River 2414 500yr Exist. Cond. 22730.00 601.39 622.16 614.44 622.24 0.000215 3.33 14398.61 1465.12 0.14

Cuyahoga River 2304 2yr Prop22608MO 7700.00 601.41 613.14 608.02 613.58 0.001513 5.52 1824.99 1004.88 0.32 Cuyahoga River 2304 2yr Exist. Cond. 7700.00 601.41 613.25 607.99 613.68 0.001435 5.42 1881.21 1017.06 0.31 Cuyahoga River 2304 5yr Prop22608MO 11260.00 601.41 615.64 609.48 616.02 0.001072 5.46 3155.10 1092.33 0.28 Cuyahoga River 2304 5yr Exist. Cond. 11260.00 601.41 615.65 609.47 616.03 0.001071 5.46 3143.12 1094.87 0.28 Cuyahoga River 2304 10yr Prop22608MO 12030.00 601.41 616.15 609.78 616.52 0.001004 5.44 3430.41 1201.40 0.27 Cuyahoga River 2304 10yr Exist. Cond. 12030.00 601.41 616.17 609.77 616.33 0.000574 4.12 5950.83 1203.70 0.21 Cuyahoga River 2304 15yr Prop22608MO 13000.00 601.41 616.50 610.15 616.67 0.000588 4.24 6350.02 1225.61 0.21 Cuyahoga River 2304 15yr Exist. Cond. 13000.00 601.41 616.63 610.17 616.79 0.000553 4.14 6508.79 1235.36 0.21 Cuyahoga River 2304 25yr Prop22608MO 14350.00 601.41 617.28 610.73 617.43 0.000502 4.08 7326.42 1290.92 0.20 Cuyahoga River 2304 25yr Exist. Cond. 14350.00 601.41 617.42 610.71 617.56 0.000472 3.98 7507.08 1299.97 0.19 Cuyahoga River 2304 50yr Prop22608MO 16160.00 601.41 618.21 612.08 618.34 0.000432 3.96 8515.50 1322.56 0.18 Cuyahoga River 2304 50yr Exist. Cond. 16160.00 601.41 618.29 611.71 618.42 0.000418 3.91 8630.24 1325.04 0.18 Cuyahoga River 2304 100yr Prop22608MO 18030.00 601.41 619.76 612.75 619.86 0.000318 3.63 10570.29 1402.18 0.16 Cuyahoga River 2304 100yr Exist. Cond. 18030.00 601.41 619.76 612.73 619.86 0.000318 3.63 10570.62 1402.18 0.16 Cuyahoga River 2304 500yr Prop22608MO 22730.00 601.41 622.17 614.17 622.25 0.000236 3.44 13950.82 1476.06 0.14 Cuyahoga River 2304 500yr Exist. Cond. 22730.00 601.41 622.13 614.16 622.21 0.000238 3.46 13891.32 1475.42 0.14

Cuyahoga River 2189 2yr Prop22608MO 7700.00 601.18 613.06 607.66 613.39 0.001277 4.78 1990.07 619.32 0.28 Cuyahoga River 2189 2yr Exist. Cond. 7700.00 601.18 613.18 607.66 613.50 0.001210 4.69 2040.36 640.91 0.27 Cuyahoga River 2189 5yr Prop22608MO 11260.00 601.18 615.56 609.02 615.89 0.000996 4.97 3152.17 991.53 0.26 Cuyahoga River 2189 5yr Exist. Cond. 11260.00 601.18 615.57 609.01 615.90 0.000992 4.96 3158.12 994.10 0.26 Cuyahoga River 2189 10yr Prop22608MO 12030.00 601.18 616.07 609.29 616.40 0.000947 4.99 3422.35 1129.64 0.25 Cuyahoga River 2189 10yr Exist. Cond. 12030.00 601.18 615.89 609.29 616.23 0.001014 5.11 3324.62 1097.63 0.26 Cuyahoga River 2189 15yr Prop22608MO 13000.00 601.18 616.32 609.60 616.59 0.000826 4.72 4965.42 1178.07 0.24 Cuyahoga River 2189 15yr Exist. Cond. 13000.00 601.18 616.46 609.61 616.71 0.000776 4.61 5130.41 1219.25 0.23 Cuyahoga River 2189 25yr Prop22608MO 14350.00 601.18 617.13 610.16 617.36 0.000705 4.55 5946.65 1265.25 0.22 Cuyahoga River 2189 25yr Exist. Cond. 14350.00 601.18 617.28 610.14 617.50 0.000659 4.44 6135.18 1271.75 0.21 Cuyahoga River 2189 50yr Prop22608MO 16160.00 601.18 618.08 610.83 618.28 0.000594 4.38 7137.86 1292.68 0.21 Cuyahoga River 2189 50yr Exist. Cond. 16160.00 601.18 618.18 610.80 618.37 0.000571 4.31 7255.94 1294.74 0.20 Cuyahoga River 2189 100yr Prop22608MO 18030.00 601.18 619.68 611.64 619.82 0.000407 3.90 9195.92 1378.02 0.17 Cuyahoga River 2189 100yr Exist. Cond. 18030.00 601.18 619.68 611.65 619.82 0.000407 3.90 9196.33 1378.02 0.17 Cuyahoga River 2189 500yr Prop22608MO 22730.00 601.18 622.12 613.03 622.23 0.000290 3.62 12550.55 1449.15 0.15 Cuyahoga River 2189 500yr Exist. Cond. 22730.00 601.18 622.07 613.03 622.19 0.000293 3.64 12491.21 1447.76 0.15

Cuyahoga River 1962 2yr Prop22608MO 7700.00 596.36 612.77 606.43 613.10 0.001341 4.67 1785.31 409.24 0.26 Cuyahoga River 1962 2yr Exist. Cond. 7700.00 596.36 612.90 606.44 613.22 0.001277 4.60 1818.64 413.90 0.26 Cuyahoga River 1962 5yr Prop22608MO 11260.00 596.36 615.24 607.85 615.64 0.001249 5.24 2443.58 722.21 0.26 Cuyahoga River 1962 5yr Exist. Cond. 11260.00 596.36 615.25 607.82 615.65 0.001242 5.23 2447.04 723.65 0.26 Cuyahoga River 1962 10yr Prop22608MO 12030.00 596.36 615.87 608.12 616.19 0.001006 4.86 3559.60 796.44 0.24 Cuyahoga River 1962 10yr Exist. Cond.