A003_61520-00042_Nichols Coulee_2022_Inspection Full Report.pdf

BRIDGE INSPECTION AND APPRAISAL REPORT

NICHOLS COULEE

Bridge Number: 61520-00042

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

Region 6

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Type of Inspection: Routine

Date of Inspection: 7/27/2022

Prepared By: Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc

Prepared For: National Wildlife Refuge System Infrastructure Management Division Falls Church, VA

Date of Report: 9/15/2022

Type of Report: Full

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

61520-00042 9/15/2022 Rpt V4.2.1

Bridge Identification, Use, & Summary of Findings

225 Date of Report 9/15/2022

090 Inspection Date 7/27/2022

Inspector Organization Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc

Lead Inspector Paul J. Jordan, P.E.

The summary condition of the bridge is FAIR.

There is soil on the stringer bearing areas that traps moisture and promotes rot. The runner planks on the deck are narrow, and are heavily worn and deteriorated in places. There is moderate rot in the timber piles and pile caps at the bents and abutments. However, the piles and pile caps remain serviceable. The north three stringers in the east span are deeply checked and bordering on being split. The downstream nickpoint has not progressed significantly.

226 Type Use The bridge provides FWS and public access in the northwest region of the refuge. The narrow one-lane bridge carries two-way traffic.

213 Public Use Y 030 Year of ADT 22

029 Average Daily Traffic 000015212 In-Use Y

209 Type Construction/Materials Treated timber deck and stringers on treated timber abutments and bent.

108 Wearing Surface Wood or Timber

107 Deck Str Type Timber

106 Year Rebuilt 0000

052 Deck Width 012.0

051 Bridge Roadway Width 011.0

049 Structure Length 000031

048 Max Span Length 0015

045 Number of Main Spans 002

043 Structure Type Timber Stringer/Multi-beam or Girder

027 Year Built 1963

265 Asset Number 10025072

204 Bridge Number 61520-00042

203 Bridge Name NICHOLS COULEE

009 Location SECT 10 T21N R27E

007 Facility Carried ROAD 201

006 Feature Intersected NICHOLS COULEE

003 County 71 (Phillips County)

001 State 308 (Montana)

201 Region 6202 Station Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

Summary of Findings

Bridge Use

Bridge Features

Bridge Identification & Location ft, xxx.x ft, xxx.x xxx ft, xxxxxx ft, xxxx xxxxxx yy

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

Recommended Work & Estimated Costs Estimated Remaining Life (Item 219, Years): 5-10 (At current load limits without major repairs or rehabilitation)

ReplacementMaint/Repair/ Rehab

Priority Assessment

Recommendation (See Footnote 1)Item

Urgent Item j.

i.

h.

g.

f.

e.

d.

c.

b.

a.

Future Year Cost:

$570

Current Year Cost:

$517

Proj Total for Year of Est:

$350

Subtotal: $350

G.A.S.

Construction Management:

Preliminary Design

Planning/ Design/ Const. Mgmt:

Construction Contingency:

Construction Estimate:

$350

$5173Install lag bolts to repair deep checks in north three stringers of east span. Material: $60, Labor: 8 Hours at $30/Hour = $240, Adjustment for Location: $50

Urgent Item j.

i.

h.

g.

f.

e.

d.

c.

b.

a.

Future Year Cost:

$7,293

Current Year Cost:

$6,615

Proj Total for Year of Est:

$6,000

Subtotal: $6,000

G.A.S.

Construction Management:

Preliminary Design

Planning/ Design/ Const. Mgmt:

Construction Contingency:

Construction Estimate:

$6,000

$6,6154Place riprap below headcut in scour hole/plunge pool upstream of bridge. Grouted Riprap: 15 Cubic Yards @ $400/cubic yards = $6,000, Adjustment for Location: None

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

ReplacementMaint/Repair/ Rehab

Priority Assessment

Recommendation (See Footnote 1)Item

Urgent Item j.

i.

h.

g.

f.

e.

d.

c.

b.

a.

Future Year Cost:

$574

Current Year Cost:

$521

Proj Total for Year of Est:

$290

Subtotal: $290

G.A.S.

Construction Management:

Preliminary Design

Planning/ Design/ Const. Mgmt:

Construction Contingency:

Construction Estimate:

$290

$5215Clean soil from stringer bearing areas and from east end of deck to prevent rot. Labor: 8 Hours at $30/hour = $240, Adjustment for Location: $50

Urgent Item j.

i.

h.

g.

f.

e.

d.

c.

b.

a.

Future Year Cost:

$8,811

Current Year Cost:

$7,992

Proj Total for Year of Est:

$4,450

Subtotal: $4,450

G.A.S.

Construction Management:

Preliminary Design

Planning/ Design/ Const. Mgmt:

Construction Contingency:

Construction Estimate:

$4,450

$7,9926Install transverse gravel stop plank at each end of bridge, replace timber runner planks and widen to 3 planks. Material:

210 Square Feet at $15/square feet = $3,150, Labor: 20 Hours at $30/hour = $600, Adjustment for Location: $700

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

ReplacementMaint/Repair/ Rehab

Priority Assessment

Recommendation (See Footnote 1)Item

Urgent Item j.

i.

h.

g.

f.

e.

d.

c.

b.

a.

Future Year Cost:

$419

Current Year Cost:

$380

Proj Total for Year of Est:

$380

Subtotal: $380

G.A.S.

Construction Management:

Preliminary Design

Planning/ Design/ Const. Mgmt:

Construction Contingency:

Construction Estimate:

$380

$3802Install signs in accordance with 'Sign Recommendations' in the next section of this report. Material: $300, Labor: 6 Hours at $45/hour = $180, Adjustment for Location: $100

Footnotes:

1/Recommended work are items noted by the inspection team on the date of inspection. Urgent items are those which pose a current threat to the strength or stability of the bridge, or involve a significant safety concern. Items are listed in their order of importance. Item 1 considered most important. Adjustments for location include geographical region and remoteness of the bridge adjustment. For multi-use structures such as water control structures or dam spillways, repair or reconstruction estimates, if applicable, are for the bridge component only.

2/Item c., when needed, is used for items up to $100,000 in construction value, except replacements, and includes a mark-up of approximately 18% assuming MMS program accomplishment. If the item is accomplished by other than MMS, the mark-up should be adjusted accordingly.

3/Items d. and e., when needed, are used for replacements, and work items over $100,000 in construction value, and use a sliding scale based on the construction estimate. If the item is accomplished by MMS, the mark-up should be adjusted accordingly.

4/Priority assessment value is a reflection of the criticality of a recommendation, with a value of 1, 2, or 3 representing a high priority safety hazard that requires immediate attention, and a 7 representing a non-urgent repair with little-or-no safety ramifications.

$16,025Totals

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

41.0

38.1

24.1

30.522.699.2

T3-3

T3S2

T3

HS20 74.5

303 Sign Recommendation Remarks

302 Sign Status "Weight Limit 24 Tons" signs at both approaches. Object markers are in place.

301 Sign Recommendations Post load capacity of 24 tons, 36 tons, 40 tons for AASHTO truck types 3, 3S2 & 3-3, or 24 tons for a single load limit sign.

Sign for one lane bridge. Object markers are recommended at all corners of the bridge.

StringerDeckElement

The load rating from 1993 is still considered valid. No significant changes in the condition of the bridge which would affect the rating were observed during the 2022 inspection. The load capacity and weight limit posting recommendations remain as shown above.

306 Rating Verified By Paul Jordan, 7/27/2022305 Rating Prepared By Wayne Patras, 2/8/1993

304 Load Rating Remarks RUNNER PLANKS: Two 2" x 12" timber runner planks. DECK: 4" x 10" treated timber deck planks. STRINGER: 4" x 15" treated timber, spaced at 1'-4", spanning 14'-10 3/4". Stressed Used: Bending = 1,400 psi, Shear = 95 psi. Shear controls.

Project leaders (and others) should be aware that the posting recommendations are for the absolute maximum load levels to which a structure may safely be subjected for limited passages of the loads. Should the need arise to subject the bridge to sustained loading at or near this level, the Project Leader should contact the Regional Engineer for guidance regarding an appropriate safe load capacity.

Load posting recommendations are based on Operating rating values. See note regarding posting recommendations, below.

Op = Operating RatingIn = Inventory Rating

Important Note Regarding Posting Recommendations

Load Ratings (Tons)

Sign Recommendations

Sign Recommendations & Load Ratings

In In In In InOp Op Op Op Op

310 Element 1 320 Element 2 330 Element 3 340 Element 4 350 Element 5

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

Additional Information & Comments

211 Description of Bridge The bridge was constructed in 1963 and consists of two spans of simply supported treated timber stringers with treated timber plank decking. The spans are supported on treated timber pile bent and abutments.

255 Comparison to Previous Inspection There is no significant changes in the condition of the bridge since the previous inspection. There is a headcut forming upstream of the bridge. The Channel has degraded 3' under the east span since the 2018 inspection. The condition rating of the Channel was downgraded from Good to Satisfactory due to headcut forming upstream of bridge. Object markers were installed at all four corners of the bridge.

256 Next Inspection Recommendations The next inspection for this bridge is recommended as a routine inspection with a full report in two years.

257 Additional Comments Scour Evaluation Report dated August 31, 2021.

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

Condition Ratings (Items 218, 58, 59, 60) Code Condition Description

N Not applicable

9 Excellent

8 Very Good No problems noted.

7 Good Some minor problems noted.

6 Satisfactory Structural elements show some minor deterioration.

5 Fair All primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour.

4 Poor Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling, or scour.

3 Serious 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 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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

1 Imminent Failure Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service.

0 Failed Out of service; beyond corrective action.

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

218 Approaches Item Condition

Rating Remarks

218 Approaches 6

218.01 Approach Slab N

218.02 Relief Joints N

218.03 Approach Guardrail N

218.04 Surfacing 6

218.05 Embankment 7

218.06 Signs 7

218.07 Vegetation 7

Native soil - Grass growing between wheel lines, rutted slightly, typical of roadway.

"Weight Limit 24 Tons" at both approaches, non-standard but adequate for low-level, low-volume usage. Object markers, yellow and blac, at all four corners are in accordance with MUTCD.

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

058 Deck

Rating Remarks

058 Deck 6

058.01 Deck Structure 6

058.02 Expansion Joints N

058.03 Wearing Surface 5

058.04 Rideability 7

058.05 Curbs 6

058.06 Parapets/Railings N

058.07 Drains/Drainage 7

058.08 Cleanliness 6

058.09 Utilities N

058.10 Lighting N

Treated timber planks - Minor checks and splits. Minor rot.

Treated timber runner planks - Worn, split, edges rounded, 2' long section broken at northwest corner. South edges of planks are splintered.

Runners are narrow.

Treated timber curbs, blocked up for drainage - Weathered and minor checks, minor rot. 6' length broken at northeast corner.

Some soil on deck and runner planks.

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

059 Superstructure

Rating Remarks

059 Superstructure 5

059.01 Bearing Devices N

059.02 Girders N

059.02A Diaphragms N

059.02B Bracing N

059.03 Floor Beams N

059.04 Stringers 5

059.05 Trusses N

059.05A Portals N

059.05B Bracing N

Treated timber with cross-bracing at 1/3 points - Deep checks on several stringers especially at exterior stringers. Areas of minor core rot. Stringer bearing areas dirty. North three stringers in east span are deeply checked and bordering on being split. Other deep checks in west span.

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

059 Superstructure (cont)

Rating Remarks

059.06 Paint N

059.07 Splices and Connections N

059.08 Rivets & Bolts N

059.09 Welds N

059.10 Corrosion N

059.11 Timber Decay 6

059.12 Deflection N

059.13 Vibration Under Load N

059.14 Collision Damage N

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

RemarksCondition Rating

Item

060 Substructure

060 Substructure 5

060.01 Wings 5

060.02 Backwalls/Bulkheads 6

060.03 Bearing Seats 5

060.04 Breastwalls/Columns N

060.05 Weep Holes N

060.06 Footings/Sills N

060.07 Piles/Bracing 5

060.08 Erosion/Scour 7

060.09 Settlement 7

Treated timber piles and cribbing - Deep checks, core rot at tops of several piles, moderate to heavy core rot in end piles at southeast and southwest and first pile from bridge at northwest.

Soil at stringer bearing areas - Cap at west abutment is warped, twisted and deeply checked. Does not bear evenly on piles. Moderate rot.

Four treated timber piles at each abutment - Moderate to deep checks, minor splits at top of some. Moderate core rot. South pile at east abutment is split at top.

ABUTMENTS

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

RemarksCondition Rating

Item

060 Substructure (cont)

060.10 Bearing Seats 6

060.11 Caps 6

060.12 Columns/Walls N

060.13 Piles/Bracing 5

060.14 Footings/Sills N

Soil at stringer bearing areas.

Deep checks, minor to moderate core rot.

Four treated timber piles with treated timber diagonal braces - Moderate to deep checks, south pile is split at top.

060.15 Erosion/Scour 6

060.16 Settlement 7

2' to 3' deep scour hole begins 25' upstream to 10' downstream under east 2/3 of bridge.

PIERS

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

Condition Ratings (Item 61 Channel) Code Description

N Not applicable. Bridge is not over a waterway.

9 There are no noticable or noteworth deficiencies which affect the condition of the channel.

8 Banks are protected or well vegetated. River control devides such as spur dikes and embankment protection are not required or are in a stable condition.

7 Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and embankment protection have a little minor damage. Banks and/or channel have minor amounts of drift.

6 Bank is beginning to slump. River control devices and embankment protection have widespread minor damage.

There is minor stream bed movement evident. Debris is restricting the channel slightly.

5 Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or embankment have major damage. Large deposits of debris are in the channnel.

4 Bank and embankment protection is severely undermined. River control devices have severe damage. Large deposits of debris are in the channel.

3 Bank protection has failed. River control devices have been destroyed. Stream bed aggradation, degradation or lateral movement has changed the channel to now threaten the bridge and/or approach roadway.

2 The channel has changed to the extent the bridge is near a state of collapse.

1 Bridge closed because of channel failure. Corrective action may put back in light service.

0 Bridge closed because of channel failure. Replacement necessary.

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

061 Channel and Channel Protection

Rating Remarks

061 Channel & Channel Protection

061.01 Scour/Erosion 6

061.02 Channel Protection N

061.03 Spur Dikes/Jetties N

061.04 Waterway

Obstructions

061.05 Adequacy of Opening 6

061.06 Normal Velocity 7

060.17 Average Opening 6

060.18 Stream Bed Material 7

061.05 Adequacy of Opening Barely

Sufficient

061.06 Normal Velocity Low

Low banks, grass on top - Good alignment. 1' deep nickpoint 35' downstream (approximately the same depth as the scour hole beneath the bridge). Headcut 25' upstream; channel drops 6' from top of headcut to scour hole/plunge pool.

Minor debris on upstream side of bent and upstream end of west abutment. Aggradation and vegetation downstream cause water to pond under bridge.

Previous debris on deck is evidence of overtopping before 2006. No evidence of recent overtopping.

Channel aggraded approximately 1' between 1992 and 1996 inspections, degraded slightly between 1996 and 1998, aggraded approximately 1' between 1998 and 2000, agg,aded approximately 6" to 1' between 2000 and 2002, aggraded 4" between 2002 and 2006 (no change between 2006 and 2016) degraded/scoured below bridge up to 4' between 2016 and 2018, and an additional 3' of degradation under the east span between 2018 and 2020 inspections, and an additional foot in 2022.

Silt.

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

Condition Ratings (Item 62 Culverts) Code Description

N Not applicable. Structure is not a culvert.

9 No deficiencies.

8 No noticable or noteworty deficiencies which affect the condition of the culvert. Insignificant scrape marks caused by drift.

7 Shrinkage cracks, light scaling, and insignificant spalling which does not expose reinforcing steel. Insignificant damage caused by drift with no misalignment and not requiring corrective action. Some minor scouring has occurred near curtain walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal culverts have a smooth symmetrical curvature with superficial corrosion and no pitting.

6 Deterioration or initial disintegration, minor chloride contamination, cracking with some leaching, or spalls on concrete walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal curverts have a smooth curvature, non-symmetrical shape, significant corrosion or moderate pitting.

5 Moderate to major deterioration or disintegration, extensive cracking and leaching, or spalls on concrete or masonry walls and erosion at curtain walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal culverts have significant distortion and deflection in one section, significant corrosion or deep pitting.

4 Large spalls, heavy scaling, wide cracks, considerable efflorescence, or opened construction joint permitting loss of backfill. Considerable settlement or misalignment. Considerable scouring or erosion at curtain walls, wingwalls or pipes. Metal culverts have significant distortion and deflection throughout, extensive corrosion or deep pitting.

3 Any condition described in Code 4 but which is excessive in scope. Severe movement or differential settlement of the segments, or loss of fill. Holes may exist in walls or slabs. Integral wingwalls nearly severed from culvert.

Severe scour or erosion at curtain walls, wingwalls or pipes. Metal culverts have extreme distortion and deflection in one section, extensive corrosion, or deep pitting with scattered perforations.

2 Integral wingwalls collapsed, severe settlement of roadway due to loss of fill. Section of culvert may have failed and can no longer support embankment. Complete undermining at curtain walls and pipes. Corrective action required to maintain traffic. Metal culverts have extreme distortion and deflection throughout with extensive perforations due to corrosion.

1 Bridge closed. Corrective action may put back in light service.

0 Bridge closed. Replacement necessary.

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

062 Culverts

Rating Remarks

062 Culvert(s) N

062.01 Embankment

062.02 Surfacing

062.03 Shoulders

062.04 Headwalls

062.05 Wingwalls

062.06 Barrel

062.07 Footings

062.08 Design Opening

062.09 Opening Remaining

062.10 Debris/Silt

062.11 Erosion/Scour

062.12 Grade Percent

PrintDate: 10/14/2022

036 Traffic Safety Features Item Assessment Remarks

036A Bridge Rail 0 No bridge railing exists.

036B Transitions 0

036C Approach Rail 0

036D End Treatment 0

No approach railing exists.

0 Does not meet current FWS new rail guidelines 1 Meets current FWS guidelines N Not applicable or a safety feature is not required

Traffic Safety Features Legend:

113 Scour Critical Bridges Item Assessment Remarks

113 Scour Critical Bridges 5 Scour Depth Within Limits of Ftg/Piles. Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour condition. Scour is determined to be within the limits of footing or piles by assessment (i.e., bridge foundations are on rock formations that have been determined to resist scour within the service life of the bridge), by calculations or by installation of properly designed countermeasures (see HEC 23). Bridge Scour Evaluation report dated August 31, 2021 The runoff event causing the greatest depth of scour was found to be the 50-year event. This depth of scour at the abutments was computed to be 4.90 feet and the depth of scour at the pier was computed to be 4.83 feet, measured from the existing ground level. This is less than the assumed depth to the bottom of the piles, indicating that the piles will not be undermined, and the bridge is at a very low risk of becoming unstable during worst case scenario scour events. The bridge should conclusively be classified as having a low risk of scour. Even though the bank protection needs minor repairs, the bridge foundation was determined to be stable for the calculated scour depths, which are within the limits of the piles. These conditions result in a rating of 5 for Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) item 113.

041 Bridge Posting Item Assessment Remarks

041 Bridge Posting P Posted for load (may include other restrictions such as temporary bridges which are load posted). Posted "Weight Limit 24 Tons" at both approaches at the time of inspection.

PrintDate: 10/14/2022 ft

As su m ed b ot to m o f t im be r p ile a bu tm en ts ft

As su m ed b ot to m o f p ie r.

M ea su re m en ts a re fr om th e to p of th e tim be r c ur b on th e no rth u ps tre am s id e.

2'

D is ta nc e fro m

M ea su rin g Po in t (

M P) d ow n to th e bo tto m o f s up er st ru ct ur e.

Ye ar

M P

W es t A

M id sp an

Ea st

A

W

TR

D is t.

to A

0'

' 9

' 6

4'

4'

4'

D ry

3'

5'

3'

D ry

4'

9'

5'

0" 6'

0"

5'

6'

0"

8'

7'

5'

8'

8'

D ry 0 0 0

ST

R

EA

M

B

ED

C R

O

SS

-S

EC

TI

O

N H

IS

TO

R Y

W es t A

M id sp an

Ea st

A

LO

C

H O

R D

0 5 10

DISTANCE FROM BOTTOM OF

LOW CHORD (FEET)

C

LE

AR

D

IS

TA

N C

E

IN

F

EE

T

FR

O M

W

ES

T

AB

U

TM

EN

T

(A 1)

C .M

. R us se ll

N

R

0-

N ic ho ls

C ou le e

Dr y

Structure Number/Name: 61520-00042/NICHOLS COULEE

View down centerline of bridge roadway looking west

Elevation looking upstream

Elevation looking downstream

Load posting sign at east approach

Load posting sign at west approach

Edges of runner planks worn and splintering at northwest corner of deck

Edges of planks worn and splintering in south wheel path

Split curb at northeast corner

Core rot northwest wingwall pile, similar at southwest and southeast

Timber cap tilted back and not bearing evenly on piles at west abutment, similar at east

Plunge pool and headcut forming in channel upstream of bridge

Typical view of underside of bridge

Upstream channel looking north

Looking east

Downstream channel looking south

Looking west