Hydraulic Report. County Road 595 Bridge over Yellow Dog River. Prepared By AECOM Brian A. Hintsala, P.E

Similar documents
Representative Site Photographs North Branch Pigeon Creek Mitigation Bank

BLACKSTONE RIVER FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECT AT WOONSOCKET, RHODE ISLAND

SOSSAMAN CLOUD PARK. Site Conditions

Amendment to the Engineer s Report for the Devine Municipal Drain. The City of Ottawa Cumberland Ward January 21, Prepared for: City of Ottawa

Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage Project (FERC No ) Desert Tortoise Study Plan

COUNTY OF LINCOLN, NORTH CAROLINA

Wattle Application on Linear Projects

2019 Broomfield Bald Eagle Watch Data Sheet

2019 Broomfield Bald Eagle Watch Data Sheet

Kansas Department of Transportation DISTRICT 6. Project(s): Max: Min:

ALL ABOUT: FOAM SEDIMENT CONTROL WATTLES

AN ASSESSMENTT OF THE BALD EAGLE AND GREAT BLUE HERON BREEDING POPULATIONS ALONG HIGH ROCK, TUCKERTOWN, NARROWS, AND FALLS RESERVOIRS

ALL ABOUT: FOAM SEDIMENT CONTROL WATTLES

2019 Broomfield Bald Eagle Watch Data Sheet

Water vole survey on Laughton Level via Mill Farm

2019 Broomfield Bald Eagle Watch Data Sheet

2019 Broomfield Bald Eagle Watch Data Sheet

27% 79K CAYUGA COUNTY, NY: PROFILE COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS

2019 Broomfield Bald Eagle Watch Data Sheet

Cheltenham Mall and Upper Rock Creek Litter and Creek Trash Photo Survey

Nest Site Creation and Maintenance as an Effective Tool in Species Recovery

Impacts of Hydrologic Change on Sandbar Nesting Availability for Riverine Turtles in Eastern Minnesota, USA

Using a Spatially Explicit Crocodile Population Model to Predict Potential Impacts of Sea Level Rise and Everglades Restoration Alternatives

Rock Wren Nesting in an Artificial Rock Wall in Folsom, Sacramento County, California

A REPTILE SURVEY AT THE LAND AT HILL ROAD AND ELM TREE DRIVE, ROCHESTER, KENT,

Monitoring Wetland Functional Recovery of Bottomland Hardwood Sites in the Yazoo Basin, MS

The Heifer Facility Puzzle: The New Puzzle Pieces

Property and infrastructure 1. INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Background. 1.2 Survey Site. Date

Planning and Zoning Staff Report for Grant Settle Conditonal Use Permit - PH2018-8

San Francisco 2014 Litter Study

THE HOOVER DAM EXPERIENCE

Representation, Visualization and Querying of Sea Turtle Migrations Using the MLPQ Constraint Database System

Effects of Cage Stocking Density on Feeding Behaviors of Group-Housed Laying Hens

Jay Calderwood Life during the Teton Flood. Box 5 Folder 28

September Prepared by. The Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute

E. E. E." M.E. the trap body through the annular air inlet.

COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY

The ultimate flexibility in pullet cage systems

Subject: Preliminary Draft Technical Memorandum Number Silver Lake Waterfowl Survey

Hope in the making. Belayneh Akalu March 08, 2013

Versatile Coir Wattles Offer Cost-Effective Sediment Control at Construction Sites

Complete Solutions for BROILER BREEDERS

The Herpetofauna and Ichthyofauna of the Cucumber Creek Watershed in the Ouachita Mountains, LeFlore County, Oklahoma

Interstate-5, Exit 260 Slater Road. Corridor Report and Preliminary Interchange Justification Evaluation

Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

Z Purlins C Sections Eaves Beams

PEREGRINE FALCON HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DIGITUS Network Cabinet Unique Series, 600, 800 mm width - 600, 800, 1000, 1200 mm depth

Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

Sample Paper HEC CAT A

SPRING STUDIES OF DALL SHEEP ALONG THE NORTHWEST ALASKAN PIPELINE ROUTE. Final Report. Prepared for and Funded by. Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company

Using social media research methods to identify hidden churches

Response to SERO sea turtle density analysis from 2007 aerial surveys of the eastern Gulf of Mexico: June 9, 2009

2017 Turtle Observations in the Jack Lake Watershed

Notes and INFORMATION

Proposal for a secure off-lead Dog Exercise area for Renwick (Dog Park) prepared by. Jane Buckman and Sue Macdonald. May 2017

Jupiter/Carlin Nourishment A Case of Adaptive Management, Cooperation and Innovative Applications

OPINIONS BY MARK C. JORGENSEN MAY 2, 2012

january 28, 2013 Dear Councilman Reyes and Members of the Ad Hoc River Committee:

The tailed frog has been found from sea level to near timberline ( m; Province of BC 1999).

This section provides a profile and vulnerability assessment for the flood hazard.

A final programmatic report to: SAVE THE TIGER FUND. Scent Dog Monitoring of Amur Tigers-V ( ) March 1, March 1, 2006

KNOXVILLE/KNOX COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION USE ON REVIEW REPORT

Desplaines Valley. Mosquito Abatement District. Prepared by the Desplaines Valley Mosquito Abatement District PROVISO LYONS OAK PARK RIVERSIDE

B 500 Kiosks: B 501 and B 551

Click on the paper title below to link directly to it.

EGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Dearborn, Michigan. March 07, 2016

City of Grand Ledge, Michigan Oakwood Cemetery Rules and Regulations

Agenda Item No.: Date: January 26, 2010

enable groups to track the occurrence of wasting disease on a local and coast wide scale.

HYDRAULIC DESIGN INFORMATION SHEET

Planning and Zoning Staff Report for Ekard Conditonal Use Permit CU

A Peek Into the World of Streaming

Map: TRS: Local Number: 6B

s w i s s e t h i c s

4MRVWG Dog Park Committee

REPORT ON SCOTTISH EID TRIALS

Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene carolina Fayetteville, Georgia Natural Area

For more information, see The InCalf Book, Chapter 8: Calf and heifer management and your InCalf Fertility Focus report.

SIZING THE DAM BUSTER RAINHEAD

Section III Part N Traffic Impact Report and Correspondence

Proposal for Dog Park at Virginia Avenue Park

Multi-Frequency Study of the B3 VLA Sample. I GHz Data

HOLBEACH CEMETERY CHAPELS TRUST Photography Competition 2017

Hillside Cultivator Co. LLC Prices and Parts

University of Canberra. This thesis is available in print format from the University of Canberra Library.

1.Heat/Suffocation 2.Natural Disasters 3.Disease 4.Chemical Residues

LEAST TERN AND PIPING PLOVER NEST MONITORING FINAL REPORT 2012

PROGRESS REPORT for COOPERATIVE BOBCAT RESEARCH PROJECT. Period Covered: 1 October 31 December Prepared by

Mini 4-H Wildlife Project

PORTRAIT OF THE AMERICAN BALD EAGLE

6.1 e Cassowary Survey Nov P. Buosi

Grade 4 Science Practice Test Answer Key

Kansas Department of Transportation DISTRICT C / SRTS-C030(802) Project(s): Min: Max:

NORTHERN GOSHAWK NEST SITE REQUIREMENTS IN THE COLORADO ROCKIES

Seventeenth Annual Multnomah Service Area Klondike Derby

LOOX 12 V ESSENTIALS

ReproMatic & FluxxBreeder

COMMUNITY PARK AUDIT TOOL

RULES AND REGULATIONS OF LAWNRIDGE CEMETERY City of Rochelle, Illinois EFFECTIVE January 01, 2018

Transcription:

Prepared for: Prepared by: Marquette County Road Commission AECOM Ishpeming, MI Marquette, MI 60240279 December 9, 2011 Hydraulic Report County Road 595 Bridge over Yellow Dog River Prepared By AECOM Brian A. Hintsala, P.E. 906.226.4966

AECOM i Contents 1.0 Introduction... 1 2.0 Method of Analysis... 1 3.0 Variables and Coefficients... 1 4.0 Starting Point... 1 5.0 Discussion... 1 6.0 Conclusion... 2 List of Appendices Appendix A HEC-RAS Computations Appendix B Profile Sheets Appendix C Topographic Map HEC-RAS River Sections Appendix D Bridge Plans Appendix E Cross Sections Appendix F Damage Waivers Appendix G Flow Rates Appendix H Site Photographs Appendix I USGS Topographical Map and River Gradient Calculations

AECOM 1 1.0 Introduction This hydraulic report is being prepared for the Marquette County Road Commission concerning the proposed County Road 595 crossing of the Yellow Dog River. The site is located in Section 13 of T50N, R29W, Quad Map Name Silver Lake Basin (Lat. 46.72628664/Long. -87.87209258) in Michigamme Township, Marquette County. Multiple road alignments were investigated. The chosen alignment crosses the river at the site of an existing bridge. The existing bridge, however, is both structurally and geometrically inadequate for the projected road traffic and requires replacement. 2.0 Method of Analysis The hydraulic analysis was performed using the HEC-RAS River Analysis System computer program, Version 3.1.1 developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Engineering Center. The steady flow data for the flood events were obtained from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Flood flow events with reoccurrence intervals up to 500 years were modeled and checked against the low chord elevation of the bridge. 3.0 Variables and Coefficients The river sections near the bridge use an expansion coefficient of 0.30 and contraction coefficient of 0.50 which are suitable for a typical bridge per Table 3.3 of the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual. The Manning s n-values for friction loss were selected using Table 3.1 of the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual. The main channel is fairly uniform with some weeds and rocks so a value of 0.035 was chosen. The overbanks are swampy areas covered with heavy brush so a value of 0.100 was chosen. Representative photographs of the site are included in Appendix H. 4.0 Starting Point The starting point of the analysis was a surveyed river section about 2140 feet downstream of the proposed road. This location was chosen because it was far enough downstream to be outside of the influence of the proposed bridge. The starting water surface elevation was calculated by HEC-RAS using the slope-conveyance method. An average channel slope of 0.0012 was estimated from a USGS quadrangle map and used for the normal depth boundary condition. The calculations are included in Appendix I. 5.0 Discussion The main channel of the Yellow Dog River is well defined and at the 10-year flood event conveys the bulk of the flow. At the 100-year flood event the main channel generally conveys more than 70% of the flow with the rest being carried by the overbank floodplains. The river gradient is relatively flat and the flow regime is sub-critical for all flood events. The existing bridge has a 12 foot wide timber deck supported by steel beams which span 40 feet. There are no abutments with the bridge founded directly on the river banks. The banks have been built-up to raise the bridge and have some stone riprap protecting the front slopes. The built-up banks

AECOM 2 form an artificial constriction on the original channel and will be removed as part of the proposed bridge project. This is indicated on the bridge plans in Appendix D. The proposed bridge includes a pre-cast concrete beam super structure with a span of 55 feet. The box beams will be placed directly adjacent to each other and also form the bridge deck. The concrete abutments are supported by driven steel piles. The restored stream banks will be protected with heavy riprap which is sized and placed in accordance with the Michigan Department of Transportation 2003 Standard Specifications for Construction. The proposed bridge will be placed directly over the location of the existing bridge (after is removed). The river cross sections are placed in HEC-RAS at the distances measured along the center line of the channel. In some cases the surveyed sections on each side of the bridge were adjusted up or downstream as required to model the bridge using the standard bridge/culvert input section of HEC- RAS. This is required because the actual location of the bridge was not known when the survey was performed. The final positions of the sections are shown in the plan view in Appendix C. The proposed road approach on the right side of the bridge cuts off a portion of the overbank flow during the higher flow events. Ineffective flow areas were included in the right overbank portions of the cross sections upstream and downstream of the bridge as suggested in chapter 5 of the HEC- RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual. The left overbank near the bridge is higher than all the flood water elevations, so ineffective flow areas were not required on the left side. Ineffective flow areas were not used for the existing condition because the existing road is relatively low and there is potential for overbank flow. Since the existing bridge encroaches on the main channel, the proposed bridge has a larger span. This reduces the water velocity and upstream water elevation for the proposed bridge. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the key model results for two configurations: 1. The existing 40 span bridge. 2. The proposed 55 span bridge. 6.0 Conclusion Analysis results indicate that the proposed bridge decreases water surface elevations and channel velocities for all of the flow events compared to the existing bridge.

Hydraulic Comparison of Various Bridge Options 3 County Road 595 Bridge Design Yellow Dog River 4/3/2010 Table 1 HEC-RAS Analysis Results Velocity in Channel at Bridge River Station 4.5 Flow thru Bridge Water Surface Elevation at Upstream Face of Bridge River Station 5 Energy Gradient Elev at Upstream Face of Bridge River Station 5 Energy Gradient Elevation at 1560' Upstream of Bridge River Station 9 (ft/sec) (cfs) (feet) (feet) (feet) Model Configuration 100 Year 10 Year 100 Year 100 Year 500 Year 100 Year 100 Year (600 cfs) (170 cfs) (600 cfs) (600 cfs) (1100 cfs) (600 cfs) Change (600 cfs) Change Existing Bridge 8.21 3.91 600 1416.61 1417.05 1416.71 1417.40 Proposed Bridge 2.76 1.45 600 1415.80 1416.87 1416.11-0.60 1417.33-0.07

AECOM Appendix A HEC-RAS Computations

AECOM Computations The HEC-RAS data files are included in a separate electronic folder named: HEC-RAS_Yellow Dog.zip In order to provide a brief summary of the analysis results, a Profile Output Table for the existing and proposed conditions are included on the following pages.

HEC-RAS Plan: Original Str River: Yellow Dog Reach: Yellow Dog Reach River Sta Profile 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) Yellow Dog 9 10 Year 170.00 1411.81 1415.91 1415.97 0.001066 1.94 87.74 50.18 0.26 Yellow Dog 9 50 Year 420.00 1411.81 1416.86 1416.97 0.001691 2.74 194.86 222.13 0.34 Yellow Dog 9 100 Year 600.00 1411.81 1417.29 1417.40 0.001445 2.88 480.60 996.54 0.32 Yellow Dog 9 500 Year 1100.00 1411.81 1417.97 1418.04 0.001003 2.81 1299.10 1312.43 0.28 Yellow Dog 8 10 Year 170.00 1411.61 1415.37 1415.41 0.001388 1.53 111.06 114.13 0.27 Yellow Dog 8 50 Year 420.00 1411.61 1416.60 1416.62 0.000389 1.20 568.99 854.12 0.16 Yellow Dog 8 100 Year 600.00 1411.61 1417.15 1417.16 0.000228 1.10 1121.64 1027.93 0.13 Yellow Dog 8 500 Year 1100.00 1411.61 1417.80 1417.82 0.000242 1.34 1808.96 1057.84 0.14 Yellow Dog 7 10 Year 170.00 1411.86 1414.64 1414.73 0.001063 2.35 72.49 30.81 0.27 Yellow Dog 7 50 Year 420.00 1411.86 1416.05 1416.24 0.001373 3.48 172.48 316.56 0.32 Yellow Dog 7 100 Year 600.00 1411.86 1416.84 1416.94 0.000787 2.95 631.89 639.67 0.25 Yellow Dog 7 500 Year 1100.00 1411.86 1417.47 1417.57 0.000983 3.57 1062.12 751.07 0.29 Yellow Dog 6 10 Year 170.00 1410.42 1413.82 1414.02 0.002477 3.51 50.62 46.00 0.41 Yellow Dog 6 50 Year 420.00 1410.42 1415.85 1415.88 0.000417 2.15 771.37 625.59 0.18 Yellow Dog 6 100 Year 600.00 1410.42 1416.73 1416.75 0.000211 1.73 1347.66 676.39 0.13 Yellow Dog 6 500 Year 1100.00 1410.42 1417.26 1417.29 0.000373 2.46 1715.63 709.00 0.18 Yellow Dog 5 10 Year 170.00 1410.24 1413.81 1412.07 1413.90 0.000882 2.39 74.42 30.92 0.25 Yellow Dog 5 50 Year 420.00 1410.24 1415.67 1413.06 1415.82 0.000832 3.24 228.60 273.89 0.27 Yellow Dog 5 100 Year 600.00 1410.24 1416.61 1413.63 1416.71 0.000542 2.96 679.59 632.21 0.22 Yellow Dog 5 500 Year 1100.00 1410.24 1417.05 1415.01 1417.22 0.000999 4.24 973.66 696.52 0.31 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR U 10 Year 170.00 1408.00 1413.58 1411.90 1413.82 0.001943 3.91 43.85 15.55 0.39 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR U 50 Year 420.00 1408.00 1415.04 1413.55 1415.64 0.003328 6.28 69.34 19.31 0.54 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR U 100 Year 600.00 1408.00 1415.38 1414.45 1416.40 0.005278 8.21 79.49 65.73 0.68 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR U 500 Year 1100.00 1408.00 1416.67 1416.67 1417.10 0.002897 6.87 542.41 581.71 0.52 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR D 10 Year 170.00 1408.22 1413.58 1411.82 1413.78 0.001738 3.55 47.86 15.99 0.36 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR D 50 Year 420.00 1408.22 1415.04 1413.35 1415.57 0.003270 5.84 71.96 17.05 0.50 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR D 100 Year 600.00 1408.22 1415.36 1414.13 1416.29 0.005381 7.72 80.65 57.69 0.64 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR D 500 Year 1100.00 1408.22 1416.54 1416.54 1416.99 0.003503 6.85 507.77 560.58 0.52 Yellow Dog 4 10 Year 170.00 1409.78 1413.57 1413.67 0.000917 2.47 69.08 24.88 0.25 Yellow Dog 4 50 Year 420.00 1409.78 1415.09 1415.32 0.001430 3.92 143.78 104.28 0.33 Yellow Dog 4 100 Year 600.00 1409.78 1415.51 1415.86 0.001993 4.91 207.47 280.43 0.39 Yellow Dog 4 500 Year 1100.00 1409.78 1416.29 1416.75 0.002663 6.26 544.64 561.34 0.46 Yellow Dog 3 10 Year 170.00 1408.80 1412.88 1412.96 0.000932 2.22 77.95 41.97 0.25 Yellow Dog 3 50 Year 420.00 1408.80 1414.19 1414.31 0.001123 2.95 322.04 631.56 0.29 Yellow Dog 3 100 Year 600.00 1408.80 1414.66 1414.75 0.000899 2.89 623.03 650.62 0.27 Yellow Dog 3 500 Year 1100.00 1408.80 1415.52 1415.59 0.000744 3.03 1195.14 685.40 0.25 Yellow Dog 2 10 Year 170.00 1407.28 1412.37 1412.43 0.000586 2.04 135.08 104.28 0.20 Yellow Dog 2 50 Year 420.00 1407.28 1413.46 1413.57 0.000961 3.11 324.48 299.87 0.27 Yellow Dog 2 100 Year 600.00 1407.28 1413.93 1414.06 0.001033 3.47 505.72 447.73 0.28 Yellow Dog 2 500 Year 1100.00 1407.28 1414.86 1414.97 0.000984 3.82 1036.46 696.44 0.29 Yellow Dog 1 10 Year 170.00 1406.57 1411.86 1410.09 1411.92 0.001200 2.58 203.81 225.33 0.24 Yellow Dog 1 50 Year 420.00 1406.57 1412.83 1411.78 1412.88 0.001202 3.02 498.98 359.96 0.25 Yellow Dog 1 100 Year 600.00 1406.57 1413.29 1412.05 1413.34 0.001202 3.21 675.95 408.52 0.25 Yellow Dog 1 500 Year 1100.00 1406.57 1414.23 1412.58 1414.28 0.001201 3.59 1105.70 507.45 0.26

HEC-RAS Plan: 55 Br at 4.5 River: Yellow Dog Reach: Yellow Dog Reach River Sta Profile 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) Yellow Dog 9 10 Year 170.00 1411.81 1415.89 1415.95 0.001090 1.96 86.69 49.49 0.26 Yellow Dog 9 50 Year 420.00 1411.81 1416.83 1416.95 0.001776 2.78 188.92 213.03 0.34 Yellow Dog 9 100 Year 600.00 1411.81 1417.19 1417.33 0.001825 3.14 385.10 921.48 0.36 Yellow Dog 9 500 Year 1100.00 1411.81 1418.15 1418.20 0.000689 2.42 1544.69 1355.76 0.23 Yellow Dog 8 10 Year 170.00 1411.61 1415.34 1415.38 0.001386 1.57 108.03 106.30 0.28 Yellow Dog 8 50 Year 420.00 1411.61 1416.54 1416.56 0.000437 1.24 523.51 717.82 0.17 Yellow Dog 8 100 Year 600.00 1411.61 1416.98 1417.00 0.000320 1.24 957.09 1020.64 0.15 Yellow Dog 8 500 Year 1100.00 1411.61 1418.03 1418.05 0.000174 1.20 2052.53 1068.24 0.12 Yellow Dog 7 10 Year 170.00 1411.86 1414.60 1414.69 0.001119 2.38 71.29 30.74 0.28 Yellow Dog 7 50 Year 420.00 1411.86 1415.92 1416.12 0.001606 3.68 138.59 198.26 0.35 Yellow Dog 7 100 Year 600.00 1411.86 1416.42 1414.55 1416.64 0.001653 4.04 365.22 627.79 0.36 Yellow Dog 7 500 Year 1100.00 1411.86 1417.81 1417.88 0.000604 2.93 1330.64 789.38 0.23 Yellow Dog 6 10 Year 170.00 1410.42 1413.68 1413.90 0.003007 3.76 45.35 25.46 0.44 Yellow Dog 6 50 Year 420.00 1410.42 1415.49 1415.57 0.000854 2.90 553.17 607.20 0.26 Yellow Dog 6 100 Year 600.00 1410.42 1416.19 1416.23 0.000465 2.39 990.90 643.56 0.20 Yellow Dog 6 500 Year 1100.00 1410.42 1417.68 1417.70 0.000241 2.07 2018.98 741.35 0.15 Yellow Dog 5 10 Year 170.00 1410.24 1413.66 1412.08 1413.76 0.001060 2.53 69.73 30.37 0.28 Yellow Dog 5 50 Year 420.00 1410.24 1415.28 1413.06 1415.48 0.001215 3.69 139.46 118.66 0.32 Yellow Dog 5 100 Year 600.00 1410.24 1415.80 1413.64 1416.11 0.001617 4.61 166.65 334.01 0.37 Yellow Dog 5 500 Year 1100.00 1410.24 1416.87 1415.03 1417.49 0.002561 6.64 224.51 669.55 0.49 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR U 10 Year 170.00 1409.90 1413.68 1411.31 1413.71 0.000302 1.44 117.88 41.68 0.15 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR U 50 Year 420.00 1409.90 1415.33 1412.11 1415.41 0.000439 2.19 192.10 47.74 0.17 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR U 100 Year 600.00 1409.90 1415.88 1412.59 1416.00 0.000602 2.75 218.52 48.81 0.20 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR U 500 Year 1100.00 1409.90 1417.03 1413.63 1417.28 0.000988 3.98 276.07 51.00 0.26 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR D 10 Year 170.00 1409.90 1413.67 1411.31 1413.70 0.000305 1.45 117.42 41.64 0.15 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR D 50 Year 420.00 1409.90 1415.32 1412.11 1415.39 0.000444 2.20 191.33 47.71 0.17 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR D 100 Year 600.00 1409.90 1415.86 1412.59 1415.97 0.000611 2.76 217.43 48.77 0.20 Yellow Dog 4.5 BR D 500 Year 1100.00 1409.90 1416.99 1413.63 1417.24 0.001012 4.01 274.06 50.98 0.27 Yellow Dog 4 10 Year 170.00 1409.78 1413.57 1411.58 1413.67 0.000917 2.47 69.07 24.88 0.25 Yellow Dog 4 50 Year 420.00 1409.78 1415.09 1412.68 1415.32 0.001422 3.91 137.55 104.12 0.32 Yellow Dog 4 100 Year 600.00 1409.78 1415.51 1413.30 1415.87 0.002024 4.95 167.80 281.11 0.39 Yellow Dog 4 500 Year 1100.00 1409.78 1416.26 1415.13 1417.02 0.003812 7.46 224.18 550.65 0.55 Yellow Dog 3 10 Year 170.00 1408.80 1412.88 1412.96 0.000933 2.22 77.91 41.92 0.25 Yellow Dog 3 50 Year 420.00 1408.80 1414.19 1414.31 0.001123 2.95 322.04 631.56 0.29 Yellow Dog 3 100 Year 600.00 1408.80 1414.66 1414.75 0.000899 2.89 623.11 650.63 0.27 Yellow Dog 3 500 Year 1100.00 1408.80 1415.52 1415.59 0.000744 3.03 1195.14 685.40 0.25 Yellow Dog 2 10 Year 170.00 1407.28 1412.37 1412.43 0.000586 2.04 135.08 104.28 0.20 Yellow Dog 2 50 Year 420.00 1407.28 1413.46 1413.57 0.000961 3.11 324.48 299.87 0.27 Yellow Dog 2 100 Year 600.00 1407.28 1413.93 1414.06 0.001032 3.47 505.88 447.83 0.28 Yellow Dog 2 500 Year 1100.00 1407.28 1414.86 1414.97 0.000984 3.82 1036.46 696.44 0.29 Yellow Dog 1 10 Year 170.00 1406.57 1411.86 1410.08 1411.92 0.001200 2.58 203.81 225.33 0.24 Yellow Dog 1 50 Year 420.00 1406.57 1412.83 1411.77 1412.88 0.001202 3.02 498.98 359.96 0.25 Yellow Dog 1 100 Year 600.00 1406.57 1413.29 1412.07 1413.34 0.001200 3.21 676.49 408.66 0.25 Yellow Dog 1 500 Year 1100.00 1406.57 1414.23 1412.58 1414.28 0.001201 3.59 1105.70 507.45 0.26

AECOM Appendix B Profile Sheets

1422 1420 1418 1416 Kennecott Eagle Mine - Yellow Dog Plan: Original Structure 4/3/2010 Yellow Dog Yellow Dog Legend EG 500 Year WS 500 Year EG 100 Year WS 100 Year EG 50 Year WS 50 Year Crit 500 Year Crit 100 Year EG 10 Year WS 10 Year Elevation (ft) 1414 Crit 50 Year Crit 10 Year Ground 1412 1410 1408 1406 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Main Channel Distance (ft)

1422 1420 1418 1416 Kennecott Eagle Mine - Yellow Dog Plan: NEW BRDG 55 FT, Located over existing br 4/3/2010 Yellow Dog Yellow Dog Legend EG 500 Year WS 500 Year EG 100 Year WS 100 Year EG 50 Year WS 50 Year Crit 500 Year Crit 100 Year EG 10 Year WS 10 Year Elevation (ft) 1414 Crit 50 Year Crit 10 Year Ground 1412 1410 1408 1406 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Main Channel Distance (ft)

AECOM Appendix C Topographic Map HEC-RAS River Sections

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Project Map Figure 1a Yellow Dog River Crossing November 21, 2007 Lake Superior Marquette Ishpeming Negaunee Symbol Legend Final Route Section Lines Stream Location Key Map (Marquette County, Michigan) 0 I 200 Page 1 of 1 400 1 inch equals 400 feet

AECOM Appendix D Bridge Plans

AECOM Appendix E Cross Sections

AECOM Cross Section Cross sections are included for the existing condition and the proposed bridge condition.

AECOM Existing Channel Condition

AECOM Proposed Bridge Condition

AECOM Appendix F Damage Waivers

AECOM No Damage Waivers Required

AECOM Appendix G Flow Rates

DEQ - Flood Frequency Discharges http://www.deq.state.mi.us/flow/hflow.asp?filenumber=20110446-1 Page 1 of 1 12/12/2011 Joint Permit Application DEQ Home CIWPIS Online Services Permits Programs Site Map Contact DEQ Flood Discharge Request Record 20110446-1 12/12/2011 Home Water Management Lowflows Discharge Requests Watersheds Map Discharge Information Watercourse: YELLOW DOG RIVER Location: Clowery Road Drainage Area: 26.37 mi 2 Basin Name: 48L - Falls (Lake) Contributing Area: 26.37 mi 2 County: Marquette Tn/Rng/Sec: 50N29W/13 Township: Michigamme Latitude: 46.726326 Quad Name: Silver Lake Basin Longitude: -87.872065 Quad ID: D11NE Requested By: Sheila Meier (DEQ-LWM- Received Date: 11/23/2011 Ishpeming) Request Type: Trans. - County Issued Date: 12/5/2011 File Number: 20110446-1 Reference Number: 20090423-5 Discharge Frequencies: Volume Frequencies: 10%: 170 cfs 2%: 420 cfs 1%: 600 cfs 1%: 2200 acre-ft 0.5%: 750 cfs 0.5%: 2800 acre-ft 0.2%: 1100 cfs Access to the Flood Flow Database is provided as a service to allow you to check the status of your flood flow requests or to view discharges from previous requests for preliminary design purposes. The discharges values are only valid for the original requestor and for one year after the original request date. To obtain discharge information from the Hydrologic Studies Program, a flood flow discharge request form may be submitted electronically to the DEQ. A written or email response to your request will be returned to you and must accompany your permit application. Michigan.gov Home DEQ_Home Online Services Permits Programs Site Map Contact_DEQ State Web Sites Privacy Policy Link Policy Accessibility Policy Security Policy Copyright 2011 State of Michigan

AECOM Appendix H Photos

County Road 595 over the Yellow Dog River.DOC Existing Bridge Looking NE Looking Upstream from Existing Bridge

County Road 595 over the Yellow Dog River.DOC Looking Upstream from Existing Bridge Looking Upstream from Existing Bridge

County Road 595 over the Yellow Dog River.DOC Looking Downstream from Existing Bridge Looking Downstream from Existing Bridge

County Road 595 over the Yellow Dog River.DOC Existing Bridge Looking Downstream Approach to Existing Bridge

AECOM Appendix I USGS Topographical Map and River Gradient Calculations Map includes portions of Quadrangle maps: Bulldog Lake Silver Lake Basin

087 54' 0.00" W 087 53' 0.00" W 087 52' 0.00" W 087 51' 0.00" W 046 44' 0.00" N 046 44' 0.00" N 046 43' 0.00" N 046 43' 0.00" N 046 45' 0.00" N 046 45' 0.00" N Proposed bridge location Yellow Dog River 5m Intv 5m diff =16.4' = 16.4/13,497'=0.0012 or 0.12% 435 430 510 4 W 087 54' 0.00" W 087 53' 0.00" W 087 52' 0.00" W 087 51' 0.00" W Copyright (C) 1999, Maptech, Inc.