Amendmend_0002_-_140L1221R0012_0002.pdf

Form Revised December 2013

Panther Creek Bridge

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT

INSPECTION TYPE: Special, Fire Damage

8 Mile Valley Road over Panther Creek

Central California District

Ukiah Field Office

FAMS Location #: L1835958

FHWA Structure #: NA

Date of Inspection: 9/12/2018

Date of Previous Inspection: 5/4/2016

MILEPOST: 2 MI

Aliquot Part: SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section: 10 Township: 14N Range: 11W Meridian: Mt. Diablo

Time: 8:00 am Temperature: 65°F

Weather: Partly cloudy

Inspection Team: Andrew Moss, Mark Kougl, Steve Myers

Team Leader:

Print: Andrew Moss Signature Date Report Reviewed By:

Print: David Roberts Signature Date Report Approval:

Print: David Roberts Signature Date

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM

1/30/2019

Panther Creek Bridge Ukiah Field Office FAMS Location #: L1835958 Inspection Date: 9/12/2018

1 | P a g e

IDENTIFICATION PHOTOGRAPH

Looking Ahead On Line

General Bridge Description:

Panther Creek Bridge is located 2 miles along 8 Mile Valley Road within the South Cow Mountain Recreation Area. Abutment 1 is located on the northwest side (left side looking downstream) and abutment 2 is located on the southeast side (right side looking downstream).

The railing is 3’ tall and constructed of self-weathering structural steel tubing with 3x3” upper rails and 2x2” lower rails and posts. The railing does not have the structural capacity to resist a heavy vehicle impact.

The deck is composed of transverse 4”x12” timber deck boards. The deck boards overhang 18” beyond the web of the exterior girders. The superstructure consists of 3- W21x44 structural steel girders at 42” center to center spacing. With three load paths to distribute the load, the structure is redundant and does not warrant a fracture critical rating.

The girders are bolted to steel plates that are welded to steel abutment frames that consist of 4x4” and 3x3” structural steel tube columns, struts, and horizontal members. The hollow components of the steel abutment frames are 0.18” thick. The abutment frames allocate the load to the concrete footing and restrain the backwall.

The backwall is composed of treated horizontal 4x12s and the wingwalls consist of treated horizontal 4x12s and 4x6s timber. The wing walls are restrained by steel pipe piles.

Panther Creek Bridge is not reported to the National Bridge Inventory because the route is officially designated as a 4x4 trail and not a public road.

2 | P a g e

STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL SHEET

Sufficiency Rating:

*Panther Creek Bridge is not reported to the NBI. Not all fields have to be populated Note: Use the NBI Coding Guide for reference. Enter all measurement in English Units. When applicable, describe NBI code that is entered (e.g. 01-Slab, 1-Highway, 5-Poor, etc). Items 67, 68, and 69 are automatically calculated by FHWA and do not need to be populated.

IDENTIFICATION

1.State 069-CA 8.Struc. # NA 2.Hwy District 00 7.Facility

Carried 8 Mile Valley Rd.

3.County Code

033-Lake 9.Location 1.6 mi SE of Mill Cr Rd

6.Feature Intersected Panther Creek 5A.On/Under 1-on 5B.Rte Sign. 6-federal 5C.Lvl. Serv. 1-mainline 5D.Rte. # 00000 5E.Directional Suffix

0 98A.Border State Code

98B.Border % Responsible

99.Border Bridge #

4.Place Code 0000 11.Mile Post 2 mi.

16.Latitude 39.08254 17.Longitude -123.06026

STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIALS

46.# Approach Spans

0000 45.# of Spans Main Unit

43A.Structure Material 3-steel 43B.Structure Type of Design 02-girder 44A.Approach Material 0-no approach span 44B.Approach Type of Design 00-no approach span 107.Deck Type 8-timber 108A.Wearing Surface 0-none 108B.Type of Membrane 0-none 108C.Deck Protection 0-none

AGE AND SERVICE

27.Year Built 2000 106.Year

Reconstructed

42A.Type of Service on 1-Highway 42B.Type of Service under 5-Waterway 28A.Lanes on 01 28B.Lanes Under 00 19.Detour Length 1 mi. 29.ADT 000025 109.Truck ADT % 30.Year of ADT 2018

GEOMETRIC DATA

48.Length Max Span

43.5 ft. 49.Structure Length 44.5 ft.

50A.Curb/Sidewalk Width Left

0 ft. 50B. Curb/Sidewalk Width Right

0 ft.

51.Width curb-curb 10 ft. 52.Width Out-Out 10 ft.

47.Route Total Horizontal Clearance 10 ft.

32.Approach Roadway Width (w/ Shoulders) 10 ft.

33.Median 0-No median 34.Skew 00 35.Structure Flared 0-no 10.Route Min. Vertical Clearance 99.99 53.Min. Vertical Clearance Over Bridge 99.99 54A.Min. Vertical Underclearance Reference N 54B.Min. Vertical Underclearance 0000 55A.Min. Lateral Underclearance Reference N 55B.Min. Lateral Underclearance Right 000 56.Min. Lateral Underclearance Left 000

NAVIGATION DATA

38.Navigation Control 0-no permit required 39.Vertical Clearance

0000-NA 40.Horizontal Clearance

0000-NA

111.Pier Protection

116.Lift Bridge Vertical Clearance

INSPECTION

91.Frequency 24 mos. 90.Insp. Date 0918 92A.Fracture Critical Frequency

N 93A.Fracture Critical Date

92B.Under Water Frequency

N 93B.Under Water Date

92C.Special Inspection Freq.

N 93C.Special Inspection Date

CLASSIFICATION

12.Base Hwy Network

0-Not on network

13B.Subroute #

13A.LRS Inventory Route 100.Defense Highway

0 101.Parallel Structure

N

102.Direction of Traffic

3-1 lane both direc.

103.Temporary Structure

104.Highway System

0-not in NHS 112.NBIS Length

Y- but trail bridge

105.Federal Lands Hwy

0-NA 110. National Truck Network

0-not a part of network

20.Toll Facility

3-free 26.Functional Class

09-rural local

37.Historical Significance 5-Not eligible 22.Owner 68-BLM 21.Maintenance Responsibility 68-BLM

CONDITION

58.Deck 3 59.Super 6 60.Sub 5 62.Culvert N 61.Channel/Channel Protection 7

LOAD RATING AND POSTING

65.Inventory Rating Method

5- No load rating

63.Operating Rating Method

5- No load rating

66.Inventory Rating

64.Operating Rating

31.Design Load 70.Posting 41.Posting Status K- Closed to public

APPRAISAL

36A.Bridge Rail 0 36B.Transition N 36C.Approach Rail

N 36D.Approach Rail Ends

N

71.Waterway Adequacy

6 72.Approach Alignment

113.Scour Critical 6- Undetermined

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

94.Bridge Cost 95.Roadway Cost

76.Length of Improvement

96.Total Cost 114.Future

ADT

000025

97.Year of Cost Estimate

115.Year of Future ADT

75A.Type of Work 75B.Work Done By

3 | P a g e

CRITICAL FINDINGS

Were any Critical Findings identified?: Yes If Yes, provide detailed explanation:

A wildfire in late August destroyed the timber deck near Abutment 1. The timber backwalls and wingwalls at

Abutment 1 were destroyed as well.

FOLLOW-UP PLAN

If a Critical Finding was identified, what is the recommended Follow-Up Plan?:

Local field office staff is aware of the fire damage. The bridge is currently closed to all traffic until the timber deck, backwalls and wingwalls can be replaced. At the time of the post-fire inspection, it was observed that the nearby private land owner attempted to replace the damaged 4x12 deck planks with 2x4’s without the permission of the BLM. The remediation work was done unconventionally and recommended for removal. Remaining deck planks exhibit checks, splits and abrasion damage. Recommend replacing the entire deck opposed to just the burned members. Cost estimate summary for replacing the deck and Abutment 1 backwall/ wing walls can be found at the end of this report.

STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY

Panther Creek Bridge is in poor condition. The fire damage to the timber deck and Abutment 1 backwalls and wingwalls are the main concerns. Considering the deterioration of the remaining deck members, recommend replacing the entire deck at the time of re-construction. Bulging of the substructure frame members was also evident, indicating water infiltration was occurring in the hollow steel members. The internal forces of the freezing water is enough to fracture the steel. One fracture was observed in the downstream vertical at both abutments (2 fractures total). Weep holes were drilled at the base of the hollow frame members since the inspection to drain all water infiltration. Future inspections should monitor any increase in the size of the fractures in the substructure frame verticals.

Panther Creek Bridge is identified on BLM maps as being on a Four Wheel Drive Trail. Therefore, the bridge is not reported to the National Bridge Inventory since it is not on a public road.

The NOC provides bridge inspection services upon request for bridges under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The bridge inspections services provided are in compliance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). As a minimum, any BLM owned, public vehicular structures having an overall length of 20 feet or greater should be inspected in accordance with the NBIS. Tunnels, trail bridges, major culverts and other significant structures may be inspected upon request.

4 | P a g e

FIELD INSPECTION REPORT

CONDITION RATING CODES FOR ITEMS 58 - 62

N NOT APPLICABLE

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems.

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor deterioration.

5 FAIR CONDITION - all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour.

4 POOR CONDITION - advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling, or scour.

3 SERIOUS CONDITION - loss of section, deterioration, spalling, or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible.

Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

2 CRITICAL CONDITION - advanced deterioration of primary structural elements.

Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the structure until corrective action can be taken.

1 IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION - major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Structure is closed to traffic but corrective action may return structure to light service.

0 FAILED CONDITION - out of service; beyond corrective action.

CONDITION RATING CODE EQUIVALENTS FOR SUB-ELEMENTS

G = GOOD (CODES 7 - 9)

F = FAIR (CODES 5 - 6)

P = POOR (CODES 0 - 4)

58 Deck Condition 3‐ Serious

1. DECK SLAB F Notes (w/item reference):

58.1‐ New Deficiency‐ Fire damage to the timber deck planks on the A1 side.

Nearby landowner has implemented a haphazard repair using 2x4’s that needs to be removed and replaced with the proper 4x12s used for the deck. There are also 8 planks with splits that extend the full depth of the member and there is general abrasion and weathering damage on all boards. The entire deck should be replaced at the time of re‐construction.

58.4‐ There is a 3” lip onto the bridge deck at Abutment 2.

58.7‐ The approach to A1 has poor drainage which is causing some minor surface erosion around the u/s side of the A1 wingwall.

2. EXPANSION JOINTS N

3. WEARING SURFACE N

4. RIDEABILITY F

5. CURBS, SIDEWALK AND MEDIAN N

6. PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS G

7. DRAINS AND DRAINAGE N

8. UTILITIES N

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. OTHER

59 Superstructure Condition 6 – Satisfactory

1. BEARING DEVICES G Notes (w/item reference):

59.2‐ Prior to the fire damage, gaps between the deck planks have allowed soil to accumulate on the top flange of the girders which will accelerate the rate of corrosion. Moderate rusting is prevalent on all girders with minor pitting and some steel flakes forming.

2. GIRDERS OR BEAMS F

3. ARCHES OR SLABS N

4. FLOOR BEAMS AND STRINGERS N

5. TRUSSES N

6. DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING G

7. PAINT N

8. CONNECTIONS/WELDS F

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. ALIGNMENT G

11. OTHER‐VEGETATION F

60 Substructure Condition 5‐ Fair

Abutments Notes (w/item reference):

60.1‐ New Deficiency‐ Bulging of the frame verticals indicates water infiltration into the members and freezing. The water infiltration was enough to cause 2 fractures in the steel, 1 on the d/s side of both abutments. 16 weep holes were drilled into the base of the frame members to drain any water that gets into the members. The size of the fractures should be monitored in future inspections.

60.3‐ Minor debris accumulation on the bearing seats could increase the rate of corrosion of the steel substructure framing at both abutments.

1. BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS G

2. PILE BENTS N

3. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS G

4. BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS G

5. FOUNDATIONS G

6. WINGWALLS G

7. WEEP HOLES N

8. EXPANSION JOINTS N

5 | P a g e

Substructure Condition, con’t.

9. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR G

10. SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION G

11. SLOPE PROTECTION N

12. OTHER

Piers Notes (w/item reference): NA

13. WALLS AND/OR COLUMNS

14. PILE BENTS

15. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS

16. FOUNDATIONS

17. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

18. SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION

19. OTHER

61 Channel and Channel Protection Condition 7‐ Good

1. ALIGNMENT G Notes (w/item reference):

61.3 & 4‐ No artificial channel protection but abundant vegetation and stable soil negate the need. The vegetation may also act as a waterway obstruction if debris accumulates on the brush.

2. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR F

3. CHANNEL PROTECTION N

4. WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS F

5. ADEQUACY OF OPENING F

6. STREAMBED COMPOSITION G

7. OTHER

62 Culverts NA

1. BARREL(S) Notes (w/item reference):

2. FOOTINGS

3. HEADWALLS

4. WINGWALLS

5. DEBRIS AND/OR SILT

6. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

7. SETTLEMENT AND/OR

DEFLECTION

8. ADEQUACY OF COVER

9. PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS

10. ROADWAY SURFACE

11. RIDEABILITY

12. OTHER

ASSESSMENT

71 Waterway Adequacy 6

72 Approach Roadway Alignment 6

113 Scour Critical Bridges (0‐9, T, U, N) 6‐ Undetermined

36A Safety Features – Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) 0

36B Safety Features – Transitions Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) N

36C Safety Features – Approach Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) N

36D Safety Features – Terminal Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) N

6 | P a g e

STRUCTURE LOAD RATING

Truck Type Inventory Rating Operating Rating

HL-93

Type 3 Type 3S2 Type 3-3 Design Loading Level:

Place X next to appropriate load rating description:

Original Design Load Valid Original Design Load Not Valid Original Load Rating Calculation Valid Original Load Rating Calculation Revise Date of Load Rating Calculation:

Load Rating Controlled By:

*Note* - If the Rating Factor (RF) for the HL-93 loading is > 1.00, then the legal loads (3, 3S2, 3-3) do not need to be calculated.

Load Rating Remarks:

Panther Creek Bridge is a trail bridge and not required to be load rated. The bridge was previously posted with a 15,000 LB Weight Limit, but the NOC has no design or load rating information to support where this value came from.

Detailed Deficiency Descriptions:

The 15,000 LB Weight Limit sign that was present in the 2012 inspection has been removed (likely from vandalism).

The height from the top of the deck to the thalweg on the upstream side was 8’-10” with 6” of water.

Abbreviation Descriptions:

A1 = Abutment 1 u/s = upstream

A2 = Abutment 2 d/s = downstream

NBI = National Bridge Inventory

7 | P a g e

RECOMMENDED WORK AND ESTIMATED COSTS

ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE (YEARS)? 0 years (At current load limits without major repairs or rehabilitation.)

IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED? Yes

PURPOSE OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT? 2

1 - Maintenance 2 - Rehabilitation and/or Reconstruction 3 – Construction

PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT? E

A - Structure is closed, in imminent danger of collapse, presents a critical safety hazard, or meets all three of the following criteria:

1) Has a severe structural inadequacy; 2) Has a high traffic volume; 3) Is of vital importance to the community or area.

B - Structure is critically deficient or presents a safety hazard, but can remain in service at reduced loads with frequent inspections.

C - Structure is deficient, functionally obsolete, or requires a high degree of maintenance.

D - Structure is generally in good condition. Preventative maintenance may be required.

E - Structure is under construction or reconstruction.

REF.

NO.

ITEM

RECOMMENDATIONS

ESTIMATED COSTS

MAINT.

REHAB.

CONSTR.

58.1

60.4

60.6

Replace deck planks and A1 backwall/ wingwalls

$45,500

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:

$45,500

Costs estimated above are for labor and materials only, and do not reflect additional costs associated with a construction contract, including equipment mobilization, traffic control, contract administration, roadway related construction, and overhead.

Cost Estimates:

Independent cost estimate was developed for replacing the timber deck and the A1 backwall/ wingwalls by John Treacy at the NOC. See cost summary at the end of the report. Estimate includes mobilization to and from the site, engineering and design fees as well as BLM administrative fees.

8 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Caption 1: Timber backwall and wingwalls were destroyed by the fire at A1. Also note the location of the recently drilled weep holes indicated by the red circles.

Caption 2: Fire damage to timber backwall at A1.

Caption 3: Fire damage to the timber deck was primarily on the A1 side. Unauthorized repairs by the nearby landowner using 2x4’s are not a standard design and will have to be removed.

Caption 4: Splits in remaining un-burned deck planks are a good indication the entire deck should be replaced.

9 | P a g e

Caption 5: Fracture in the downstream vertical of the A1 frame was caused by water infiltration into the hollow member then freezing. Also note the bulging of the sides of the rectangular member.

Caption 6: Fracture in the downstream frame vertical of A2.

Caption 7: No sag or deformation observed in the u/s beam due to the heat of the fire.

Caption 8: No sag or deformation in the d/s beam due to the heat of the fire. Also note the minor corrosion observed throughout the beams.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CONTRACT ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Estimator Date

JJT 9/24/2018

Contract Number

Project Description

Item Spec. Bid No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost Amount Days

1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1.00 $4,420.00 $4,420.00 1.00

Timber: Deck, Abutment and Wingwall Removal & Disposal LS 1.00 $7,793.00 $7,793.00 1.50

Timber: Deck, Abutment and Wingwall Replacement LS 1.00 $21,027.00 $21,027.00 2.50

4 Structure Excavation and Backfill LS 1.00 $1,990.00 $1,990.00 0.50

Total Estimated Construction Cost $35,230.00 5.50

BLM Administative Costs LS 12% $35,230.00 $4,227.60

Design & Engineering Fees LS 15% $35,230.00 $5,284.50

Miscellaneous LS 2% $35,230.00 $704.60

Total Estimated Project Cost (TECC) $45,446.70

5 Year Planning - Cost based on a annual inflation rate of 2%

Current Year Total Project Cost $45,446.70

1st Year Inflation Adjusted Total Project Cost $46,355.63

2nd Year Inflation Adjusted Total Project Cost $47,282.75

3rd Year Inflation Adjusted Total Project Cost $48,228.40

4th Year Inflation Adjusted Total Porject Cost $49,192.97

5th Year Inlation Adjusted Total Project Cost $50,176.83

Remove and replace timber: deck, single abutment backwall and wingwall. Principal items of work, include: removal and off site disposal of timber bridge components, minor strtucture excavation and backfill at abutment and wingwall.

NA

Contract/Project Name

Project Location

Panther Creek Bridge - Deck Replacement

CA, Lake County - (lat: 39.08254, long: -123.06026)

Spruce Canyon Bridge

OHV Trail 17 over Spruce Canyon Creek

FAMS Location #: L59941

FHWA Structure #: Not in NBI

MILEPOST: 1.8 MI

Aliquot Part: NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section: 24

Time: 11:20 am Temperature: 65°F

Weather: Sunny

Print: Andrew Moss Signature Date Report Reviewed By:

Print: David Roberts Signature Date

Spruce Canyon Bridge Ukiah Field Office FAMS Location #: L59941 Inspection Date: 9/12/2018

Spruce Canyon Bridge is located 1.8 miles along Spruce Canyon Trail 17 within the South Cow Mountain trail complex. Abutment 1 is located on the south side (right side looking downstream) and abutment 2 is located on the north side (left side looking downstream).

There are 2 layers of timber deck boards. The top side running planks are longitudinal, 4x12”-wide planks across the entire width of the deck. The bottom side of the deck is composed of transverse 4x12” planks.

The curbs consist of 2 full-length 4x12” planks at each curb separated by 3’ long 4x12” blocking at each rail post.

The bridge railing consists of 3x10” rail members on 6x8” posts and is 38” tall.

The superstructure consists of two structural steel W21x50 shapes that are spaced 5’-6” center to center. There is a 4x12” timber nailing member along the entire top flange of each girder that transfers the deck load to the girder.

There are four C12x20.7 diaphragms, one at each bearing and one at each 1/3 span length.

There are no elastomeric bearing devices. The girders bear on steel plates that transfer the load to the concrete abutments. The plates at Abutment 2 are slotted to allow for expansion and the plates at Abutment are fixed. At Abutment 2, there were 4” thick concrete mats to help stabilize the steep slope, but most of the mats have now failed. There are corrugated plastic pipes at each abutment that drain water from behind the abutments.

The span length for Spruce Canyon Bridge is greater than 20’, but the bridge is not reported to the NBI because the route is designated as a trail and not a road.

There was a 7½ ton weight limit sign posted at the bridge in 2014, but it is no longer present.

*Spruce Canyon is a trail bridge and not reported to the NBI. Not all fields have to be populated.

Note: Use the NBI Coding Guide for reference. Enter all measurement in English Units. When applicable, describe NBI code that is entered (e.g. 01-Slab, 1-Highway, 5-Poor, etc). Items 67, 68, and 69 are automatically

1.State 069-CA 8. Struc. # NA 2.Hwy District 7.Facility

Carried OHV trail 17

3.County Code

033-Lake 9.Location 6 miles northwest of Lakeport

6.Feature Intersected Spruce Canyon Creek 5A.On/Under 5B.Rte Sign.

5C.Lvl. Serv. 5D.Rte. # 5E.Directional Suffix

98A.Border

4.Place Code 11.Mile Post 1.8 mi.

16.Latitude 39.06394 17.Longitude -123.01055

Spans

0000 45.# of Spans Main Unit

43A.Structure Material 3-steel 43B.Structure Type of Design 02-girder 44A.Approach Material 0-no approach span 44B.Approach Type of Design 00-no approach span 107.Deck Type 8-timber 108A.Wearing Surface 7-timber

27.Year Built 1987 106.Year

Reconstructed

42A.Type of Service on 1-highway 42B.Type of Service under 5-waterway 28A.Lanes on 01 28B.Lanes Under 00 19.Detour Length 4 mi. 29.ADT 000025 109.Truck ADT % 02 30.Year of ADT 2018

Span

48 ft. 49.Structure Length 51.7ft.

50A.Curb/Sidewalk Width Left

0 ft. 50B. Curb/Sidewalk Width Right

0 ft.

51.Width curb-curb 8.3 ft. 52.Width Out-Out 10.3 ft.

47.Route Total Horizontal Clearance 8.3 ft.

32.Approach Roadway Width (w/ Shoulders) 8 ft.

33.Median 0-no median 34.Skew 00 35.Structure Flared 0-no 10.Route Min. Vertical Clearance 99.99 53.Min. Vertical Clearance Over Bridge 99.99 54A.Min. Vertical Underclearance Reference N 54B.Min. Vertical Underclearance 0000 55A.Min. Lateral Underclearance Reference N

38.Navigation Control 0- no permit required 39.Vertical Clearance

0000-NA 40.Horizontal Clearance

0000-NA

111.Pier Protection

92A.Fracture Critical Frequency

Network

13B.Subroute #

13A.LRS Inventory Route 100.Defense Highway

101.Parallel Structure

N

102.Direction of Traffic

3- 1 lane both direc.

112.NBIS

Length

Y-not in NBI (non vehic.)

105.Federal Lands Hwy

110. National Truck Network

20.Toll Facility

3-free 26.Functional Class

09-rural local

37.Historical Significance 5-not eligible

58.Deck 0- Failed 59.Super 5 – Fair 60.Sub 5-Satisfactory 62.Culvert N 61.Channel/Channel Protection 7 – Good

Rating Method

5-no rating performed

63.Operating Rating Method

5-no rating performed

66.Inventory Rating

31.Design Load H7.5 70.Posting 41.Posting Status

36C.Approach Rail

N 36D.Approach Rail Ends

N

71.Waterway Adequacy

8 72.Approach Alignment

113.Scour Critical 6- not determined

95.Roadway Cost

97.Year of Cost Estimate

115.Year of Future ADT

Were any Critical Findings identified?:

If Yes, provide detailed explanation: Yes

The timber deck was destroyed by a wildfire in late August, 2018. All timber above the steel beams was affected.

There was some concern for damage to the steel beams as well but the inspection discerned there was minimal distortion of the steel. Close examination of the beam flanges and web yielded no buckling of the members.

In addition, substantial surface erosion has occurred at both abutments since 2014. The bottom of the footing of Abutment 1 is visible although no undermining is occurring at this time. Erosion at Abutment 2 has caused the slope protection to fail. Additional slope protection should be installed prior to replacing the deck.

The local Ukiah Field Office staff are aware of the damage to the deck and the erosion of the embankments. The bridge is currently closed to all traffic until the deck can be replaced. The slope protection at the base of each abutment should take place prior to replacing the deck due to the easier access under the bridge. The cost for both endeavors came out to $241,000 (see cost estimate summary at the end of report).

The bridge is considered failed due to the condition of the deck however the rest of the bridge is salvageable.

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), steel members subjected to fire damage can be re-used as long as distortion of the members is not so severe that adjoining members could not be re-attached.

The distortion of Spruce Canyon Bridge is not too severe that new deck planks could not be re-installed at the bridge. AISC does note that steel subjected to 1100 degrees F does lose ~50% of its strength. Temperatures of the wildfire have not been confirmed but if temperatures did approach 1000 degrees F it is recommended to post the bridge with a weight restriction. If the deck is to be replaced and the bridge remains in service to trail use, recommend posting the bridge at half of the original design load of 7.5 tons.

Prior to the wildfire the condition of the deck was rated as “poor” due to the heavy soil accumulation that washes down from the steep approaches. Long term plans should consider realigning each approach to reduce the slope down to the bridge and prevent/minimize water and soil from accumulating on the bridge. On the north side of the bridge, we recommend cutting a new trail in below the existing trail and adding at least two switchbacks to tie back into the existing trail. This will reduce the gradient down to the bridge and allow for water to drain off of the trail before the bridge. The estimated length of new trail construction on the north side is 1,000 ft. We recommend the same solution on the south side as well, but the estimated length of new trail construction is 500

ft. It is difficult to estimate the cost of this realignment without a survey since the amount of cut and fill is unknown. For planning purposes, we believe the realignment will cost $100,000 due to the remote nature of the site and the steep slopes to work with.

The NOC provides bridge inspection services upon request for bridges under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The bridge inspections services provided are in compliance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). As a minimum, any BLM owned, public vehicular structures having an overall length of 20 feet or greater should be inspected in accordance with the NBIS. Tunnels, 8 VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems.

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor deterioration.

5 FAIR CONDITION - all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour.

58 Deck Condition 0‐ Failed

1. DECK SLAB P Notes (w/item reference):

58.1‐ New Deficiency‐ A wildfire in late August 2018 destroyed the timber deck, curbs and railing.

2. EXPANSION JOINTS N

3. WEARING SURFACE P

4. RIDEABILITY P

5. CURBS, SIDEWALK AND MEDIAN P

6. PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS P

7. DRAINS AND DRAINAGE N

8. UTILITIES N

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION P

10. OTHER

59 Superstructure Condition 5 – Fair

1. BEARING DEVICES F Notes (w/item reference):

59.1‐ Bearing devices at both abutments were very dirty. Stems from the erosion off the steep approaches down to the bridge.

59.2‐ Moderate corrosion on the beams with some pitting, section loss and flaking. The worst corrosion is on the top flange due to the timber nailing board holding moisture against the steel.

2. GIRDERS OR BEAMS F

3. ARCHES OR SLABS N

4. FLOOR BEAMS AND STRINGERS N

5. TRUSSES N

6. DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING G

7. PAINT N

8. CONNECTIONS/WELDS G

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. ALIGNMENT G

11. OTHER

60 Substructure Condition 5 – Fair

Abutments Notes (w/item reference):

60.5‐ Heavy erosion at both abutments. The bottom of the Abutment 1 footing is now exposed although the footing is not undermined yet. The front face of the footing of Abutment 2 is exposed as well.

1. BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS G

2. PILE BENTS N

3. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS F

4. BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS F

5. FOUNDATIONS F

6. WINGWALLS N

7. WEEP HOLES G

9. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR P 60.9/11 – Heavy slope erosion is occurring at both abutments. At Abutment 2, the concrete mats on the d/s side have failed due to heavy runoff and there is erosion occurring around the footing. At Abutment 1, the runoff has cut an erosion trench on each side of the wingwalls and is exposing the bottom of the footing.

10. SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION G

11. SLOPE PROTECTION P

12. OTHER

Piers Notes (w/item reference): NA

13. WALLS AND/OR COLUMNS

14. PILE BENTS

15. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS

16. FOUNDATIONS

17. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

18. SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION

19. OTHER

61 Channel and Channel Protection Condition 7‐ Good

1. ALIGNMENT G Notes (w/item reference):

2. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR F

3. CHANNEL PROTECTION G

4. WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS G

5. ADEQUACY OF OPENING G

6. STREAMBED COMPOSITION G

7. OTHER

62 Culverts NA

1. BARREL(S) Notes (w/item reference):

2. FOOTINGS

3. HEADWALLS

4. WINGWALLS

5. DEBRIS AND/OR SILT

6. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

10. ROADWAY SURFACE

11. RIDEABILITY

12. OTHER

ASSESSMENT

71 Waterway Adequacy 8

72 Approach Roadway Alignment 3

113 Scour Critical Bridges (0‐9, T, U, N) 6‐ Undetermined

36A Safety Features – Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) 0

36B Safety Features – Transitions Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) N

HL-93

Type 3 Type 3S2 Type 3-3 Design Loading Level:

Place X next to appropriate load rating description:

Original Design Load Valid Original Design Load Not Valid Original Load Rating Calculation Valid Original Load Rating Calculation Revise Date of Load Rating Calculation:

Load Rating Controlled By:

*Note* - If the Rating Factor (RF) for the HL-93 loading is > 1.00, then the legal loads (3, 3S2, 3-3) do not need to be calculated.

Load Rating Remarks:

Spruce Canyon Bridge is not reported to the NBI and is not required to be load rated. The design load was a H7.5 vehicle (7.5 tons).

Approaches are very steep causing soil and debris to build up on the bridge deck. In 2016 there was 1’ of accumulation at the north abutment and 0.5’ at the south abutment. This has been an ongoing problem for the life of the bridge. Both approaches to the bridge need to be realigned in order to correct this problem.

There is heavy erosion of the embankment occurring at both sides of both ends of the bridge. The bottom of the footing for Abutment 1 is now exposed due to the erosion. There was no undermining of the concrete but if the erosion is allowed to progress the stability of the abutment could be compromised.

Erosion on the downstream side of Abutment 2 has caused the concrete slope protection mats to fail.

The erosion has exposed the front face of the footings although no undermining was observed. The footing at the downstream side of Abutment 2 has been exposed 2’-2”. The bridge plans from 1987 show that the footing is only 1’-0” in depth. It appears that the footing depth was increased on the edges of the footing to tie in with the natural hill side. There are some areas where the footing is only 1’-0” deep.

There is a 1 inch gap between the concrete abutment and the deck at both abutments that allows for accumulation of soil on the bearing device. This holds in moisture and can greatly expedite rust.

The 7.5 ton load limit signs that were previously installed are no longer present. The sign should be replaced and object markers should be installed at all four corners to delineate the sides of the bridge.

The timber wearing surface planks have been replaced twice prior to the fire at the bridge, but the transverse deck planks underneath have not been replaced.

Abbreviation Descriptions:

A1 = Abutment 1 u/s = upstream A2 = Abutment 2 d/s = downstream NBI = National Bridge Inventory

ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE (YEARS)? 10 years

PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT? C

A - Structure is closed, in imminent danger of collapse, presents a critical safety hazard, or meets all three of the following criteria:

1) Has a severe structural inadequacy; 2) Has a high traffic volume; 3) Is of vital importance to the community or area.

B - Structure is critically deficient or presents a safety hazard, but can remain in service at reduced loads with frequent inspections.

C - Structure is deficient, functionally obsolete, or requires a high degree of maintenance.

58.6

60.11

Replace timber deck, railing and curbs. Install slope protection at both abutments.

$241,000

2 Re-align both approaches to mitigate soil and run-off from accumulating on the deck

$100,000

$341,000

Costs estimated above are for labor and materials only, and do not reflect additional costs associated with a construction contract, including equipment mobilization, traffic control, contract administration, roadway related construction, and overhead.

Independent cost estimate developed by John Treacy, in reference to RS Means standards. Estimate includes allocations for engineering and design fees as well as BLM administrative costs. See cost estimate summary at the end of this report.

Caption 1: Timber deck, curbs and railing were completely destroyed in the fire.

Caption 2: No distortion or buckling in the beams observed despite the limited thermal expansion capacity between abutment backwalls. Photo taken at top flange of u/s beam.

Caption 3: Bottom of the footing is exposed at A1.

Minimal undermining at this time but the erosion could progress if the slope is not stabilized.

Caption 4: Erosion path under A1. Embankment does consist of some rock but concern for additional erosion under A1 remains.

Caption 5: Erosion path on the u/s side of A1. Caption 6: Top flange of the d/s beam is in contact with the A2 backwall. No crushing of the concrete or distortion of the steel was observed.

Caption 7: Majority of footing exposed on d/s side of A2 although no undermining was observed.

Caption 8: The fire of the timber deck instigated damage to the connecting hardware but the underlying beams appear to be salvageable.

10 | P a g e

Caption 11: Corrosion of the top flange of the d/s beam is yielding minor section loss.

Caption 9: Heavy runoff has caused the concrete mat slope protection to fail at the d/s side of A2. The erosion is exposing the front face of the footing for 26” vertically.

Caption 10: On the d/s side of A1, the footing is exposed 25”- No change since the las inspection. The footing has a varying depth and the depth in this location is unknown.

CONTRACT ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Estimator Date

JJT 8/27/2018

Contract Number

Project Description

Item Spec. Bid No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost Amount Days

1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1.00 $6,848.00 $6,848.00 1.00

2 Remove Existing Bridge Debris & Fasteners LS 1.00 $24,082.00 $24,082.00 3.00

3 Timber Deck/Curb Complete Replacement SF 500.00 $206.50 $103,250.00 11.75

4 Slope Protection Drainage Swale SF 360.00 $68.00 $24,480.00 4.50

Total Estimated Construction Cost $158,660.00 20.25

Estimating Contingency LS 15% $158,660.00 $23,799.00

Adjusted Total Estimated Construction Cost $182,459.00

BLM Administrative Costs LS 12% $182,459.00 $21,895.08

Engineering & Design Fees LS 15% $182,459.00 $27,368.85

Miscellaneous LS 5% $182,459.00 $9,122.95

Total Estimated Project Cost (TEPC) LS $240,845.88

5 Year Planning Cost - Adjusted at the annual inflation rate of 2% per year

Current Year Cost LS $240,845.88

1st year inflation adjusted project cost LS $245,662.80

2nd year inflation adjusted project cost LS $250,576.05

3rd year inflation adjusted project cost LS $255,587.57

4th year inflation adjusted project cost LS $260,699.33

5th year inflation adjusted project cost LS $265,913.31

Replace fire damaged timber bridge deck/curb/railing on trail bridge (50'x10'). Principal work items include: remove debris and existing fasteners, furnish and install: new timber components, including: nailers, deck planks, built up curb, posts and railing, minor drainage improvements. New timber members assumed to be brought to the site with 4x4 vehicles.

NA

Contract/Project Name

Project Location

Spruce Cnayon Trail Bridge Replacement

South Cow Mountain, Lake County, CA (lat:39.06394; long: -123.01055)

Benmore Bridge

Benmore Loop (Trail 23) over Benmore Creek

FAMS Location #: L59170

FHWA Structure #: Not in NBI

MILEPOST: 2.6 MI

Aliquot Part: NW ¼ NW ¼ Section: 36

Time: 10:00 am Temperature: 65°F

Weather: Sunny

Print: Andrew Moss Signature Date Report Reviewed By:

Print: David Roberts Signature Date

Benmore Bridge Ukiah Field Office FAMS Location #: L59170 Inspection Date: 9/12/2018

Abutment 1 Approach

Benmore Bridge is located 2.6 miles along the Benmore Loop (Trail 23) in the South Cow Mountain Trail Complex. The route is classified as a four wheel drive trail so the bridge does not need to be reported to the NBI.

Abutment 1 is located on the northeast side (left side looking downstream) and Abutment 2 is located on the southwest side (right side looking downstream).

The railing is constructed of self-weathering structural steel tubing with 3”x3” upper rails and 2”x2” lower rails and posts. There is approach rail at both sides of the right abutment and posts and barrier cable at the left abutment.

The railing is only 3’ tall and would not withstand a vehicle impact.

The superstructure consists of three W21x44 steel girders at 42” spacing center to center. They are bolted to steel bearing plates that are welded to steel abutment frames.

The wingwalls consist of treated horizontal 4”x12”s restrained by steel pipe piles. The backwalls are comprised of treated horizontal 4”x12”s. The superstructure and backwall are supported by steel frames of 4”x4” structural steel tube columns, struts, and horizontal members. The steel frames are supported by large concrete footings.

BRIDGE IS NOT A NBI BRIDGE AND ALL ITEMS DO NOT NEED TO BE POPULATED

Note: Use the NBI Coding Guide for reference. Enter all measurement in English Units. When applicable, describe NBI code that is entered (e.g. 01-Slab, 1-Highway, 5-Poor, etc). Items 67, 68, and 69 are automatically

1.State 069-CA 8.Struc. # NA 2.Hwy District 7.Facility

Carried Benmore Loop (Trail 23)

3.County Code

033-Lake 9.Location 6 miles northeast of Hopland

6.Feature Intersected Benmore Creek 5A.On/Under 5B.Rte Sign.

5C.Lvl. Serv. 5D.Rte. # 5E.Directional Suffix

4.Place Code 11.Mile Post 2.6 mi.

16.Latitude 39.03194 17.Longitude -123.02513

Spans

0000 45.# of Spans Main Unit

43A.Structure Material 3-steel 43B.Structure Type of Design 02-girder 44A.Approach Material 0-no approach span 44B.Approach Type of Design 00-no approach span 107.Deck Type 8-timber 108A.Wearing Surface 0-none

27.Year Built 2000 106.Year

Reconstructed

42A.Type of Service on 1-highway 42B.Type of Service under 5-waterway 28A.Lanes on 01 28B.Lanes Under 00 19.Detour Length 3 mi. 29.ADT 109.Truck ADT % 30.Year of ADT

Span

44 ft. 49.Structure Length 45.7 ft.

50A.Curb/Sidewalk Width Left

0 ft. 50B. Curb/Sidewalk Width Right

0 ft.

51.Width curb-curb 10 ft. 52.Width Out-Out 10 ft.

47.Route Total Horizontal Clearance 10 ft.

32.Approach Roadway Width (w/ Shoulders) 10 ft.

33.Median 0-no median 34.Skew 00 35.Structure Flared 0-no 10.Route Min. Vertical Clearance 99.99 53.Min. Vertical Clearance Over Bridge 99.99 54A.Min. Vertical Underclearance Reference N 54B.Min. Vertical Underclearance 0000 55A.Min. Lateral Underclearance Reference N

38.Navigation Control 0-no permit required 39.Vertical Clearance

0000-NA 40.Horizontal Clearance

0000-NA

111.Pier Protection

92A.Fracture Critical Frequency

Network

13B.Subroute #

13A.LRS Inventory Route 100.Defense Highway

101.Parallel Structure

N

102.Direction of Traffic

3-1 lane both direc.

112.NBIS

Length

Y but not NBI (non vehic.)

105.Federal Lands Hwy

3-free 26.Functional Class

09-rural local

37.Historical Significance 5-not eligible

58.Deck 0 59.Super 6 60.Sub 6 62.Culvert N 61.Channel/Channel Protection 7

Rating Method

63.Operating Rating Method

66.Inventory

31.Design Load 70.Posting

36C.Approach Rail

N 36D.Approach Rail Ends

N

71.Waterway Adequacy

7 72.Approach Alignment

95.Roadway Cost

Were any Critical Findings identified?: Yes If Yes, provide detailed explanation:

Fire damage has destroyed four deck planks above each abutment (8 total). The timber backwalls and wingwalls at both abutments were destroyed as well.

Local field office staff is aware of the fire damage. The bridge is currently closed to all traffic until the timber deck, backwalls and wingwalls can be replaced.

The structure is in poor condition, primarily due to the fire damage sustained in late August. The timber backwalls and wingwalls were destroyed at both abutments. Four timber deck planks above each abutment were burned as well. Considering the deterioration of the remaining deck members, recommend replacing the entire deck at the time of re-construction. Cost estimate summary for replacing the timber deck, backwalls and wingwalls at both abutments is included at the end of the report. The only other maintenance needs are to clean the debris and soil from the bearing areas, improve the roadway drainage on the southwest side and trim the vegetation around the bridge.

Bulging of the substructure frame members was evident, indicating water infiltration was occurring in the hollow steel members. The internal forces of the freezing water is enough to fracture the steel. Weep holes were drilled at the base of the hollow frame members since the inspection to drain all water infiltration.

The NOC provides bridge inspection services upon request for bridges under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The bridge inspections services provided are in compliance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). As a minimum, any BLM owned, public vehicular structures having an overall length of 20 feet or greater should be inspected in accordance with the NBIS. Tunnels, 8 VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems.

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor deterioration.

5 FAIR CONDITION - all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour.

58 Deck Condition 0‐ Failed

1. DECK SLAB P Notes (w/item reference):

58.1‐ New Deficiency‐ There were 4 burned planks above each abutment for a total of 8 members destroyed by the fire. The remaining planks exhibit some checking and abrasion throughout. Large gaps have opened between deck planks because of the missing clips. Recommend replacing entire deck, not just the burned members.

58.6‐ Railing is undersized and inadequate to resist OHV impacts.

58.7‐ Poor drainage from the southwest approach roadway runs down onto the bridge.

58.10‐ No object markers.

2. EXPANSION JOINTS N

3. WEARING SURFACE N

4. RIDEABILITY F

5. CURBS, SIDEWALK AND MEDIAN N

6. PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS G

7. DRAINS AND DRAINAGE P

8. UTILITIES N

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. OTHER

59 Superstructure Condition 6‐ Satisfactory

1. BEARING DEVICES G Notes (w/item reference):

59.1‐ Some debris around steel abutment frames will retain moisture and expedite rusting.

59.2‐ Moderate corrosion on the girders with some pitting and flaking but minimal section loss. The ponded water in 2016 was dripping through the deck from the poor drainage on the southwest approach will expedite the corrosion of the steel near Abutment 2.

59.8‐ Some missing or loose deck clips.

2. GIRDERS OR BEAMS G

3. ARCHES OR SLABS N

4. FLOOR BEAMS AND STRINGERS N

5. TRUSSES N

6. DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING G

7. PAINT N

8. CONNECTIONS/WELDS F

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. ALIGNMENT G

11. OTHER

60 Substructure Condition 6‐ Satisfactory

Abutments Notes (w/item reference):

60.1‐ New Deficiency‐ Bulging of the frame verticals indicates water infiltration into the members and freezing. No fractures were observed. 16 weep holes were drilled into the base of the frame members to drain any water that gets into the members.

60.3‐ Some debris accumulation on the bearing seats.

60.4‐ Timber backwalls and wingwalls were destroyed by the fire at both abutments.

1. BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS N

2. PILE BENTS N

3. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS G

4. BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS P

5. FOUNDATIONS G

6. WINGWALLS P

7. WEEP HOLES N

9. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR G

60.11‐ Slow stream velocities and stable soil reduce the need for rip‐rap or any other artificial channel protection. No indications of scour at either abutment.

10. SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION G

11. SLOPE PROTECTION G

12. OTHER

Piers Notes (w/item reference): NA

13. WALLS AND/OR COLUMNS

14. PILE BENTS

15. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS

16. FOUNDATIONS

17. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

18. SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION

19. OTHER

61 Channel and Channel Protection Condition 7‐ Good

61.4‐ Heavy vegetation in the channel is encroaching on the bridge. Despite the recent wildfire, vegetation remains and should be trimmed at the time of deck replacement.

2. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR G

3. CHANNEL PROTECTION G

4. WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS F

5. ADEQUACY OF OPENING G

6. STREAMBED COMPOSITION G

7. OTHER

62 Culverts NA

1. BARREL(S) Notes (w/item reference):

2. FOOTINGS

3. HEADWALLS

4. WINGWALLS

5. DEBRIS AND/OR SILT

6. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

10. ROADWAY SURFACE

11. RIDEABILITY

12. OTHER

ASSESSMENT

71 Waterway Adequacy 7‐ Good

72 Approach Roadway Alignment 4‐ Poor

113 Scour Critical Bridges (0‐9, T, U, N) 6‐ Undetermined

36A Safety Features – Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) 0

36B Safety Features – Transitions Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) N

HL-93

Type 3 Type 3S2 Type 3-3 Design Loading Level:

Place X next to appropriate load rating description:

Original Design Load Valid Original Design Load Not Valid Original Load Rating Calculation Valid Original Load Rating Calculation Revise Date of Load Rating Calculation:

Load Rating Controlled By:

*Note* - If the Rating Factor (RF) for the HL-93 loading is > 1.00, then the legal loads (3, 3S2, 3-3) do not need to be calculated.

Load Rating Remarks:

Benmore is a trail bridge and not reported to the NBI. No load rating is required.

The remaining transverse 4x12” deck planks are in fair condition. Some increased damage from weathering and abrasion are causing checking, splitting, and some brooming. Recommend replacing entire deck not just the damage timbers from the fire.

Water is accumulating on the deck from the southwest approach roadway. The moisture stems from a natural spring flowing onto the road 50’ from Abutment 2. The moisture will increase the rate of decay in the timber and corrosion of the underlying steel super and substructure members. Water bars should be dug into the approach roadway to divert the water off the road before the bridge.

The girders show some corrosion and pitting, but minimal loss of section.

The riprap was placed at the right abutment only.

Vertical channel clearance is sufficient. The distance from the bottom of the girders to stream bed was measured at 9’-11”. The channel depth was 9’-11” in 2014 and 9’-4” in 2012. Future inspections should monitor any fluctuations in the channel depths. No signs of overtopping were visible at the time of inspection.

ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE (YEARS)? 0 years

PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT? E

A - Structure is closed, in imminent danger of collapse, presents a critical safety hazard, or meets all three of the following criteria:

1) Has a severe structural inadequacy; 2) Has a high traffic volume; 3) Is of vital importance to the community or area.

B - Structure is critically deficient or presents a safety hazard, but can remain in service at reduced loads with frequent inspections.

C - Structure is deficient, functionally obsolete, or requires a high degree of maintenance.

60.4 60.6

Replace deck planks and timber backwalls/ wingwalls.

$54,000

Improve roadway drainage on southwest approach

$4,000

61.4

10256

Clear vegetation

$880

60.3

10240

Clean bearing areas

$240

$5,120

$54,000

Costs estimated above are for labor and materials only, and do not reflect additional costs associated with a construction contract, including equipment mobilization, traffic control, contract administration, roadway related construction, and overhead.

COST ESTIMATES

Independent cost estimate was developed for replacing the timber deck, backwalls and wingwalls. See cost summary at the end of the report. Cost for removing vegetation and cleaning the bearing areas stem from the FY18 Bridge Maintenance Cost Models:

Item 10256- Clear Debris/Trees/Vegetation Overhanging and Under Bridge (dispose debris on-site, outside channel) (PH = per hour) = $440.80 x 2 hrs = $880

Item 10240- Cleaning Abutment Seat - using Water Truck and Hand Methods = $120.32 x 2 abutments = $240

Caption 1: 4 deck planks were destroyed above each abutment. Recommend replacing entire deck.

Caption 2: Timber wingwalls and backwalls were destroyed at both abutments. Photo at A1.

Caption 3: Destroyed backwall at A1. Caption 4: Destroyed wingwall at A2.

Caption 5: Backwall damage at A2. Caption 6: Corrosion throughout the superstructure is yielding minor section loss.

CONTRACT ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Estimator Date

JJT 9/24/2018

Contract Number

Project Description

Item Spec. Bid No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost Amount Days

1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1.00 $4,520.00 $4,520.00 1.00

Timber: Deck, Abutment, Wingwall Removal & Disposal LS 1.00 $8,081.00 $8,081.00 1.50

Timber: Deck, Abutment and Wingwall Replacement LS 1.00 $24,302.00 $24,302.00 3.00

4 Structure Excavation and Backfill LS 1.00 $4,797.00 $4,797.00 1.00

Total Estimated Construction Cost $41,700.00 6.50

BLM Administative Costs LS 12% $41,700.00 $5,004.00

Design & Engineering Fees LS 15% $41,700.00 $6,255.00

Miscellaneous LS 2% $41,700.00 $834.00

Total Estimated Project Cost (TECC) $53,793.00

5 Year…