Att 07_Design Analysis (230602).pdf

Structure No. 092202000001024 FR 15-MP7.9

Design Analysis for

Replacement – BOG DAM 4_15-7.9-0922

Superstructure Replacement

USDA Forest Service – Eastern Region

White Mountain National Forest – Androscoggin Ranger District

Coos County, New Hampshire

Prepared by:

U.P. Engineers & Architects, Inc.

2906 N. Stephenson Ave., Suite 2

Iron Mountain, MI 49801

June 2, 2023

UPEA Project Number: U28-02592

Table of Contents I. Project Scope and Design References

II. Review Comments and Responses

III. Bridge Size and Selection

IV. Hydraulic Analysis and Project Permitting

V. Streambed Simulation and Aquatic Organism Passage

VI. Scour Analysis

VII. Foundation Design

VIII. Superstructure Design

IX. Riprap Calculations

X. Approach Guardrail

Appendix A: Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................... i

Appendix B: Review Comments and Responses .................................................................................. ii

Appendix C: Correspondence ................................................................................................................. iii

Appendix D: Hydraulic Report ................................................................................................................. iv

Appendix E: Permit Application ................................................................................................................ v

Appendix F: Scour Analysis ...................................................................................................................... v

Appendix G: Report of Geotechnical Exploration ................................................................................. xi

Appendix H: Superstructure Design ...................................................................................................... xii

Appendix I: Riprap Design ......................................................................................................................xiii

I. Project Scope and Design References

The scope of work is as outlined in the “Scope of Work” (SOW) document as received from the USDA Forest Service (see Appendix A).

The project design is in accordance with the following specifications, guidelines, and standards:

FHWA Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14

AASHTO: “Guidelines for Geometric Design of Low-Volume Roads”, 2nd Edition, 2019 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, 2020 FSH 7709.56b Transportation Structures Handbook (USDA Forest Service)

II. Review Comments and Responses

The USDA Forest Service has provided review comments throughout the bridge design process. U.P. Engineers & Architects (UPEA) has provided responses to each comment and addressed the comments accordingly. See Appendix B for this documentation.

III. Bridge Size and Selection

The proposed superstructure replacement structure is a 40.58 foot long (overall length), single lane, single-span, steel stringer bridge with a 6” timber deck and 3” wearing surface. The bridge is approximately 15 feet wide (out-to-out) with a clear roadway width of 13 feet between timber railings.

Based on the good condition of the existing abutments and shallow bedrock elevations from the Geotech report, it was decided to only replace the superstructure as opposed to a complete bridge replacement. The shallow bedrock indicates that the concrete spread footings bear directly on the bedrock and therefore eliminates any scour concerns. See Appendix C:

Correspondence, for the pre 35% Brief Phone Discussion (BPD) notes.

IV. Hydraulic Analysis and Project Permitting

Hydraulic analysis was completed with HEC-RAS (version 6.3.1) software. Existing and proposed bridge and roadway geometries were analyzed with flow data as calculated with Stream Stats and National Streamflow Statistics software. Channel and floodplain characteristics were entered based on site conditions and topographic survey (survey was completed by Horizons Engineering). The following information was utilized for the analysis:

Q100 = 1530 cfs, Q50 = 1260 cfs, drainage area = 5.86 square miles, channel slope = 0.0384 ft/ ft, 0.05 Manning’s ‘n’ for the channel (mountain stream with cobbles and boulders), 0.1 Manning’s ‘n’ for the floodplain (Heavy stand of timber).

The intent of the analysis was to confirm a zero increase of backwater and adequate freeboard at the 100-year flood. The electronic HEC-RAS files have been provided to the USDA Forest Service for their review and records. See Appendix D: Hydraulic Report, for HEC-RAS input and output documentation.

The overbank reach lengths in the model import from Civil 3D as the same length as the channel reach lengths (by default). However, these values were compared to varying overbank reach lengths and show no changes in the flows or water elevations.

The Forest Service’s Office of the General Counsel has reviewed if the USDA Forest Service has to obtain permits from NHDES Wetlands Bureau and determined that the Forest Service is not subject to the authority of RSA 482-A and therefore is not required to obtain these Wetlands Permits. (see letter in Appendix C: Correspondence)

Furthermore, since the ground disturbance for the project totals less than 1 acre, no EPA permits are required. Also, due to the project location, no Shorelands permits are required.

However, a General Permit from the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) is required for the project for impacts to the stream. (see Appendix E: Permit Application)

V. Streambed Simulation and Aquatic Organism Passage

The stream conditions at the Upper Ammonoosuc crossing have been analyzed in accordance with the USDA Forest Service Aquatic Organism Passage Manual. There are no conditions with the stream that inhibit aquatic organism passage; however, there is a log jam located upstream from the bridge that redirected the natural flow of the river. It is proposed to remove the log jam during construction as directed on-site by the Contracting Officer.

VI. Scour Analysis

The “Hydraulic Design Function” tool within HEC-RAS software was utilized to calculate contraction and abutment scour based on HEC-18 scour procedures. Without riprap countermeasures, the total scour depth was calculated to be 3.91 feet at the left abutment and

5.37 feet as a result of a 100 year storm event. However, scour is limited to 2 feet due to the bedrock being located only 2 feet below the channel. See the scour output in Appendix F:

Scour Analysis. The scour does not extend below the bedrock elevation.

VII. Foundation Design

Due to the proposed project involving superstructure replacement only with estimated decreases in loading, foundation design is not required. A geotechnical report has been included for the site. (See Appendix G: Report of Geotechnical Exploration, and Appendix C: Correspondence)

The existing foundations are in good condition for their age, although minor concrete erosion was noted on the east abutment that is in the water. Since it is desired that the foundations last another 50 years or more, two methods of protection are proposed for the existing abutments. The first is to apply a specialty coating on the face of the abutment to provide additional protection from damage. The second is to install one row of rock along the face of each abutment to provide a second layer of protection and virtually eliminate moving water against the abutment except under flood conditions.

VIII. Superstructure Design

The bridge has been load rated with Brass-Girder software (v8.8) while the timber deck has been designed and load rated with TBAR (v2.4.2.1) software. See Appendix H:

Superstructure Design, for steel beam design, elastomeric bearing pad design, and timber deck design. The design live loading for the bridge is HL-93.

IX. Riprap Calculations

The scour for the 100-year flood was calculated at 3.91 feet at the left abutment and 5.37 feet at the right abutment, however this will be limited by bedrock.

The footings for the existing abutments are suspected to be on bedrock for this bridge due to its proximity to the stream bottom. The stream also has significant bottom armoring along the river bottom and main banks. Much of this consists of rock that is twelve inches in diameter or larger.

Thus, additional riprap scour protection is not absolutely necessary, although additional protection is helpful in maintaining the stream channel and reducing the chance for stream meanders over time. Additional class II riprap is proposed along the toe of slope in the southwest bridge quadrant as there is no rock currently in this location. This is mainly to help prevent erosion at the toe of slope and protect the bank under higher flood conditions.

In order to provide additional protection along the edges of the abutments from water abrasion damage, a row of larger rocks is proposed in front of both abutments. The D100 stone size for the 50 and 100-year storms is 48.8” and 49.8” respectively. The calculated D50 stone size is 24.9” for the 100-year storm and 24.4” for the 50-year storm. Since there is already rock over bedrock at both abutments, it was felt that one row of three to four foot diameter stones would be sufficient as a additional protection and to eliminate running water along the face of each abutment. See Appendix I: Riprap Calculations, for the 50 and 100-year storm riprap calculations.

X. Approach Guardrail

In accordance with the design criteria in the scope of work document (Appendix A), approach guardrail is being proposed as part of this project. Approach guardrail is appropriate for this location since the bridge is located at a horizontal curve. Also, there is a significant drop from the edge of the road to the river, particularly in the southwestern quadrant.

i

Appendix A: Scope of Work ii

Appendix B: Review Comments and Responses

Bog Dam 4 35% Submittal Review Comments

Review Comments by: Patrick Hampston, R9 TST

Responses by: Daryn Carter, UPEA

No. Document, paragraph or drawing number

Forest Service Review Comment Designer Response

1 G-01 Bog Dam 4, Forest Road 15, Mile Marker 7.9

The project title was not changed from our previous submittal. During the BPD for this bridge we were provided an official name for the project. The official name we were provided was “Replacement – Bog Dam 4_15-7.9_0922”. This official title is what we have shown on our plan sheets and title page.

C-02 General notes 7th paragraph, states to “contract the engineer if stationing is incorrect” it should be forest service COR

Completed.

3 C-02 Paragraph 12 all equipment shall be cleaned according to the specification prior to entering Forest service land.

(Match what Rob Brooks note says)

Paragraph 12 in the general notes has been corrected to match the Rob Brook general note.

4 C-03 We want the signing at both ends of the road to indicate no “though road” not completely closed. Also would like it to say Bog Dam not FS 15

The signs labeled 1 and 4 now indicate no through road and name under the road closure signs has been corrected to say Bog Dam.

The signs on the barricades also indicate road closed to thru traffic.

5 C-04 Seeding: WMNF needs to make sure this is correct with botanist.

No action was taken on this comment as it is directed at the Forest.

6 C-04 Label asphalt depth in typical. An HMA table has been added to the lower right corner of the sheet.

This table indicates a pound per square yard application rate as well as the thickness in the remarks.

7 C-04 W24x96 label on bridge section. Typo.

Should be 24x94.

Upon further analysis of the bridge, the stringers have been adjusted to a lighter section in an effort to reduce cost. The labels have been updated to show the updated stringer size.

8 C-05 Proposed and existing CL’s do not match up at P.O.B.

The proposed alignment has been adjusted slightly and now matches at the P.O.B.

9 C-05 Can guardrail ends be flared out or do the steep existing side slopes make that impossible? Especially west approach where trailers may get caught navigating curve.

With some slight grade changes, it is possible to flare out the guardrail end sections. We have made the slight grade changes and the guardrail has been flared out at all quadrants.

10 C-05 The label on the CL FR 15-7.9 should just be FR 15. The bridge is at mile marker 7.9 How are they getting down to place the Riprap? Assess and clearing need to be shown.

The label along the CL of the road has been adjusted to FR15.

Clearing limits are shown on the plan page.

11 C-07 Aggregate depth labels (6”) conflict with typical sections on C-04 (8”)

Aggregate labels have been addressed. The labels now show the same depth of 8”

12 C-07 Label rail as TL-2 Complete 13 C-07 Label extent of riprap along toe of slope in SW corner next submittal.

Labels have been added to sheet C- 05 to show stations and offsets for the riprap along the slope in the southwest corner.

14 C-07 Guardrail terminal sections can be 25’ for TL2 unless they are intentionally kept longer.

The guardrail terminal has been kept longer to match the 37’-6” dimension shown in the details at the end of the plan set. The additional length also provides more protection in areas of steep slopes.

15 C-07 Is the entire abutment surface getting the concrete sealer treatment? Make this work more visible and clarify limits.

The entire abutment surface is getting this treatment. More detail has been provided in a note on the plans.

16 Plans Show steel framing plan, diaphragm attachment details, bearing details.

Completed.

17 Plans Will stream restoration work be included or not?

No, stream restoration is not included. The extent of any restoration would be the removal of the dam upstream of the bridge which is incidental to clearing and grubbing.

18 DA, BRASS

Input pg

Deck type should be spike-laminated The deck type has been updated in the BRASS input to spike-laminated to match the proposed deck type.

19 DA, BRASS

input Deck geometery, pg 117/118

Cantilevers should be 1.5’.

Distance to right edge should be 14’ Member Spacing should be 4’ Curb widths should be 12”

The bridge geometry has been updated with proper dimensions of the proposed bridge.

20 DA, BRASS

input pg

Do not allow plastic analysis. If this creates a change in the design, call to discuss.

We have turned off plastic analysis in BRASS. The current design is still ok after this change.

21 DA, TBAR

Cfactors, pg 146

CF for bending should be 1.3 for 6” boards.

Completed.

22 FSSS pg 26 Table 156-1. Reduce allowable closure time to something more like 45 days, confirm with forest.

The allowable closure has been changed to 45 days.

23 FSSS 552 Add “or equivalent” language to spec. The phrase “or equivalent” has been added to the materials section of this spec section.

24 H&H Comments from WMNF Hydrologist:

Design:

Bog Dam: channel n=0.05 (2b in the table below), floodplain n=0.06 (c3 in the table below) Manning’s n are more representative of these systems:

Bog Dam: channel n=0.05 (2b in the table below), floodplain n=0.1 (d4 in the table below)

The photos and notes from our site visit were reviewed. After this review, we agree with manning’s n value of 0.1 for the floodplain. The HECRAS model was updated and show no significant changes in flow elevations. There is still adequate freeboard (5.9 ft).

Manning's n for Channels (Chow, 1959).

Type of Channel and Description Minimum Normal Maximum

Natural streams - minor streams (top width at floodstage < 100 ft)

1. Main Channels

a. clean, straight, full stage, no rifts or deep pools 0.025 0.030 0.033

b. same as above, but more stones and weeds 0.030 0.035 0.040

c. clean, winding, some pools and shoals 0.033 0.040 0.045

d. same as above, but some weeds and stones 0.035 0.045 0.050

e. same as above, lower stages, more ineffective slopes and sections

0.040 0.048 0.055

f. same as "d" with more stones 0.045 0.050 0.060

g. sluggish reaches, weedy, deep pools 0.050 0.070 0.080

h. very weedy reaches, deep pools, or floodways with heavy stand of timber and underbrush

0.075 0.100 0.150

2. Mountain streams, no vegetation in channel, banks usually steep, trees and brush along banks submerged at high stages

a. bottom: gravels, cobbles, and few boulders 0.030 0.040 0.050

b. bottom: cobbles with large boulders 0.040 0.050 0.070

3. Floodplains

a. Pasture, no brush

1.short grass 0.025 0.030 0.035

2. high grass 0.030 0.035 0.050

b. Cultivated areas

1. no crop 0.020 0.030 0.040

2. mature row crops 0.025 0.035 0.045

3. mature field crops 0.030 0.040 0.050

c. Brush

1. scattered brush, heavy weeds 0.035 0.050 0.070

2. light brush and trees, in winter 0.035 0.050 0.060

3. light brush and trees, in summer 0.040 0.060 0.080

4. medium to dense brush, in winter 0.045 0.070 0.110

5. medium to dense brush, in summer 0.070 0.100 0.160

d. Trees

1. dense willows, summer, straight 0.110 0.150 0.200

2. cleared land with tree stumps, no sprouts 0.030 0.040 0.050

3. same as above, but with heavy growth of sprouts

0.050 0.060 0.080

4. heavy stand of timber, a few down trees, little undergrowth, flood stage below branches

0.080 0.100 0.120

5. same as 4. with flood stage reaching branches

0.100 0.120 0.160

Bog Dam 4 95% Submittal Review Comments

Review Comments by: Patrick Hampston, R9 TST

Responses by: Daryn Carter

No. Document, paragraph or drawing number

Forest Service Review Comment Designer Response

1 C-02 Legal operating rating should be Service II, not strength II.

Corrected.

C-05 Proposed slope stake line leader does not point to earthwork extents.

Corrected.

3 C-07, C-11, EE

Change bid item 55704 from “Treated Structural Timber, Superstructure” to just “Treated Structural Timber”

This has been corrected in both the plan set and the estimate.

4 C-07 There are two lines for the “left” edge of water.

We have corrected the plans to show only one edge of water line for the left edge.

5 C-08 Backwall plate seems like too wet of an environment for weathering steel.

Consider an alternate coating that is appropriate for soil contact.

We are utilizing a waterproofing membrane on the back side of the backwall plates to protect it from soil contact.

6 C-08 Note in Beam & Diaphragm plan says diaphragm attachment should be “bolted connections per MFR details” but there is a diaphragm connection detail above.

Change note to point to detail above.

Corrected to say “per diaphragm connection detail”

7 C-11 Recommend moving this page to C-03 This page has been relocated to page C-03.

8 EE I believe the Removal of Old structure bid item is underestimated. I would estimate that work to be at least $50k based on previous projects.

It’s hard to disagree with $50k if you have seen these numbers. We have made the change. We had estimated less based on past similar projects.

9 EE Structural backfill looks very high. Should be no more than $50/CY.

The high price estimate has been adjusted to $50 per cubic yard. Our estimate was higher due to the low quantity and remote location.

10 DA, pg 5 Foundation Design, paragraph 2. Typo, double sentence.

The duplicate sentence has been removed.

11 DA, pg 97 Load Rating Summary

HL-93 operating rating should be strength I limit state, not service II.

The limit state in the Load Rating and Design Analysis has been corrected accordingly.

12 DA, pg 103 System Factors / Load Rating

System factor for Flexure and Compression should be 0.95 per MBE Table 6A.4.2.4-1.

The system factors for both Flexure and Compression have been reduced to 0.95.

13 DA, TBAR Missing last 3 pages of TBAR report. The missing pages have been added to the TBAR report.

Review Comments by: Mark Prout; White Mountain National Forest, Fisheries Biologist

Responses by: Daryn Carter

No. Document, paragraph or drawing number

Forest Service Review Comment Designer Response

1 Page 4, Streambed Simulation and AOP

The wood jam that is proposed for removal is not a beaver dam. The river is delivering a lot of wood debris because the river is rapidly downcutting a quarter mile upstream. However, many large trees are beginning to create log jams and dams which should begin to stabilize the downcutting, but some more wood delivery may still occur in the process. I support the removal of the wood jam but I would pile it along the river bank on the east side of the river to provide some protection to the valley wall as you return streamflow to this channel. I would allow all three channels above the bridge to flow during high water events to dissipate energy. I also agree with armoring of the road fill on the west approach of the bridge as this fill lies in the floodplain.

Understood, we had mistakenly called it out as a beaver dam, but knew it to be a log jam based on the site visit. The note on the plans and the design analysis has been updated accordingly. The log jam will be removed and piled along the east side of the riverbank. This work will be incidental to the clearing and grubbing included in the project.

Review Comments by: Bryanne Thompson; White Mountain National Forest

Responses by: Daryn Carter

No. Document, paragraph or drawing number

Forest Service Review Comment Designer Response

1 All All existing detail lines are very light when printed. PDF looks good but printing too light.

We have changed the transparency from 50% to 35%. This adjustment to the transparency will allow the existing linework to print darker.

2 C-05 Add soil control behind both sides of guardrail on slope, around sta 9+50.

(boxed 6).

(Plan of Site) The boxed 6 was located near the POB and was intended for the entire approach.

However, for clarity it was moved near sta 9+50.

iii

Appendix C: Correspondence

Bog Dam 4 – Proposed Bridge

Superstructure Replacement – Utilize existing abutments – Steel Beam Bridge with Timber Deck or Steel Modular Superstructure

Soil Borings show bedrock to be 16 feet below ground surface. Based on site elevations, it is apparent that the existing footings bear directly on bedrock. Therefore, the concerns regarding scour and undermining are eliminated.

Bridge Specifics:

W24x94 weathering steel beams (4 beam config) o 39’-2” span (CL to CL bearing) o L/500 deflection criteria

6 inch nail laminated timber deck 3 inch timber wearing surface Timber bridge railing Approach guardrail o Yes – due to approach roadway curve and bridge height Gravel approaches

Hydraulics:

Same as the existing bridge!

The existing bridge was modeled and shows 4.7 feet of freeboard.

Total Cost Estimate = $440,000 Includes 10% contingency gjunttila Text Box yes, prefer timber gjunttila Text Box no modular per Jeff D, would like 75 year bridge gjunttila Text Box Other discussions:

- stream restoration by removing log jam and modifying or adding riprap? If not, still keep abuts.

apply coating treatment in either case. Also prefer to add riprap along abutments if permit allows.

- Road is a high use road, tough to close.

- Scott and Bryanne: Very tough permit to get...non-binding discussion...need meeting to discuss means and methods for these NH jobs plus the Sawyer bridge.

- Original estimate was $600k for replacement, $400k for super replace gjunttila Text Box armor the roadway sideslope along the "channel" branch that parallels the road gjunttila Text Box paved approach only as optional bid item gjunttila Text Box yes, full width gjunttila Text Box 101 -gjunttila Text Box Replacement - Bog Dam 4_15-7.9_0922 gjunttila Callout Official name of project gjunttila Rectangle gjunttila Line gjunttila Callout per onsite meeting with UPEA and USFS...abutments are in great shape gjunttila Text Box yes, Forest agrees, on both sides gjunttila Text Box (at Q100) gjunttila Rectangle gjunttila Text Box USFS selection.

gjunttila Text Box UPEA and USFS BPD 1/25/2023

Cloud

Other Options Considered Timber Slab Superstructure o Not cost effective for spans greater than 40 ft o Not as preferred by the WMNF

Side by side Prestressed Concrete Box Beam Superstructure o Competitive cost but not as preferred by the WMNF o Less desirable from an inspection standpoint o Forest would like to be able to potentially salvage the existing superstructure; be able to remove and replace it when new abutments are eventually needed. This option doesn’t as easily allow for that flexibility.

Text Box forest agrees gjunttila Text Box forest agrees. Steel beam option is the best for this site.

America’s Working Forests – Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

Logo Department Organization Information Organization Address Information

Forest Service White Mountain National Forest 71 White Mountain Drive Campton, NH 03223 603-536-6100

File Code: 2520 Date: April 19, 2023 Route To:

Subject: NHDES Wetlands Permits

To: All WMNF Employees

Through communications with our Office of General Counsel, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Service (NHDES), and Forest staff, we have determined that the Forest Service is not required to obtain NHDES Wetlands Permits, including permits-by-notification, for projects to comply with federal laws or the Forest Plan. Effectively immediately we can cease getting these permits for Forest Service activities.

This pertains specifically to the State of New Hampshire and does not apply to permits in the state of Maine.

New Hampshire is one of only three states that declined their role in Clean Water Act enforcement. The Forest still needs to comply with Clean Water Act requirements. This means projects that were required to obtain a NHDES Wetlands Permit previously may need to apply for EPA and Army Corps of Engineers permits. We are working to identify when and how to apply for those permits separate from the State Wetlands Permit process.

This change will not alter resource protection on the Forest. Our Forest Plan, interdisciplinary NEPA process, and appropriate involvement of resource specialists during implementation ensure soil, water, and wetland resources are conserved.

We are taking steps to determine how this new understanding of the State of New Hampshire’s role in Clean Water Act enforcement may impact other NH state permits associated with water resources, such as Alternation of Terrain and Shoreland permits. We will share additional information when it is available.

If you have any questions, please contact Forest Hydrologist Landon Gryczkowski (landon.gryczkowski@usda.gov).

X

DEREK J.S. IBARGUEN

Forest Supervisor https://onlineforms.nh.gov/Home/a6d08726-405c-40b8-8a59-fef1bbf0336c mailto:landon.gryczkowski@usda.gov iv

Appendix D: Hydraulic Report

HEC-RAS Version 4.1.0 Jan 2010 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street Davis, California

X X XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X XXXXXX XXXX X X X X XXXXX

PROJECT DATA

Project Title: Bog Dam Exst Project File : BogDamExst.prj Run Date and Time: 5/1/2023 5:52:33 PM

Project in English units

PLAN DATA

Plan Title: W24x76 With Boulders Plan File : y:\U28-02592 USDA FS R9 TST-USFS Bridge IDIQ - 21 Bridges\Calcs\Task 101 - WMNF Bog Dam 4\HEC RAS\BogDamExst.p06

Geometry Title: Proposed W24x76 Steel with Boulders Geometry File : y:\U28-02592 USDA FS R9 TST-USFS Bridge IDIQ - 21 Bridges\Calcs\Task 101 - WMNF Bog Dam 4\HEC RAS\BogDamExst.g05

Flow Title : Bog Dam Stream Stats Flow Data Flow File : y:\U28-02592 USDA FS R9 TST-USFS Bridge IDIQ - 21 Bridges\Calcs\Task 101 - WMNF Bog Dam 4\HEC RAS\BogDamExst.f01

Plan Summary Information:

Number of: Cross Sections = 10 Multiple Openings = 0 Culverts = 0 Inline Structures = 0 Bridges = 1 Lateral Structures = 0

Computational Information Water surface calculation tolerance = 0.01 Critical depth calculation tolerance = 0.01 Maximum number of iterations = 20 Maximum difference tolerance = 0.3 Flow tolerance factor = 0.001

Computation Options Critical depth computed only where necessary Conveyance Calculation Method: At breaks in n values only Friction Slope Method: Average Conveyance Computational Flow Regime: Subcritical Flow

FLOW DATA

Flow Title: Bog Dam Stream Stats Flow Data Flow File : y:\U28-02592 USDA FS R9 TST-USFS Bridge IDIQ - 21 Bridges\Calcs\Task 101 - WMNF Bog Dam 4\HEC RAS\BogDamExst.f01

Flow Data (cfs)

* River Reach RS * 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year *

* Bog Dam Bog Dam River CL800.15 * 335 572 773 1040 1260 1530 *

Boundary Conditions

* River Reach Profile * Upstream Downstream *

* Bog Dam Bog Dam River CL2 Year * Normal S = 0.03849 *

* Bog Dam Bog Dam River CL5 Year * Normal S = 0.03849 *

* Bog Dam Bog Dam River CL10 Year * Normal S = 0.03849 *

* Bog Dam Bog Dam River CL25 Year * Normal S = 0.03849 *

* Bog Dam Bog Dam River CL50 Year * Normal S = 0.03849 *

* Bog Dam Bog Dam River CL100 Year * Normal S = 0.03849 *

GEOMETRY DATA

Geometry Title: Proposed W24x76 Steel with Boulders Geometry File : y:\U28-02592 USDA FS R9 TST-USFS Bridge IDIQ - 21 Bridges\Calcs\Task 101 - WMNF Bog Dam 4\HEC RAS\BogDamExst.g05

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 800.15

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 33 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1735.66.139999 1735.78 6.68 1735.45 12.96 1732.03 17.61 1730.8

19.43 1730.67 21.48 1731.13 24.97 1731.73 28.92 1732.64 30.94 1733.11

35.91 1734.24 36.88 1734.02 37.89 1733.79 37.93 1733.78 38.12 1733.75

39.18 1733.16 40.07 1732.63 41.42 1731.77 43.63 1731.58 50 1731.02

53.67 1730.69 54.96 1730.77 59.17 1731.16 60.75 1731.25 68.28 1732.19

70.46 1732.39 70.75 1732.41 74.82 1734.26 79.02 1734.96 83.86 1735.29

93.05 1734.73 98.95 1736.86 100 1737.35

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val

0 .1 37.89 .05 74.82 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

37.89 74.82 170.48 170.48 170.48 .1 .3

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 629.67

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 48 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1733.517.800003 1733.31 20.82 1731.82 21.97 1731.78 23.16 1731.71

34.7 1731.35 35.86 1731.19 37.54 1730.4 39 1728.84 42.74 1728.23

45.52 1727.57 45.65 1727.69 45.82 1727.51 46.19 1726.88 52.77 1726.53

56.31 1726.55 56.51 1726.72 57.52 1727.91 61.86 1728.86 62.84 1728.98

64.35 1729.3 64.82 1729.38 70 1728.44 72.23 1728.04 73.54 1727.66

73.84 1727.59 73.92 1727.62 74.35 1726.05 74.38 1725.9376.99001 1725.68

86.65 1725.08 88.52 1724.94 89.71 1725.07 92.52 1725.3495.00999 1725.94

95.27 1727.31 95.34 1727.46 96.82 1727.59 98.17 1727.76 102.25 1728.12

103.82 1728.35 106.38 1729.34 115.73 1731.82 117.84 1731.77 120.39 1731.52

130.2 1729.69 133.1 1730 140 1728.86

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 39 .05 95.27 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

39 95.27 87.59 87.59 87.59 .1 .3

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 542.08

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 51 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1732.6 1.25 1732.764.190002 1733.057.559998 1733.349.949997 1733.27

13.02 1733.26 19.9 1732.43 20.98 1732.29 22.1 1732.1 27.48 1729.46

29.87 1727.96 31.53 1726.46 34.51 1723.65 34.79 1723.16 40.31 1722.59

41.83 1722.57 44.26 1722.94 47.85 1723.32 50.41 1722.75 50.83 1723.18

51.49 1723.69 54.16 1724.48 61.95 1724.9 62.05 1724.89 67.04 1722.84

67.07 1722.75 67.08 1722.74 67.24 1722.7 70 1722.46 70.45 1722.42

72.08 1722.43 79.82 1722.21 82.69 1722.3 84.98 1722.68 92.8 1723.82

93.34 1724.66 93.44 1725.68 95.09 1726.8 95.21 1727.18 103.73 1728.27

106.38 1728.2 114.23 1728.74 119.05 1729.71 121.9 1730 123.35 1729.96

125.17 1729.58 129.74 1728.43 134.04 1726.7 138.68 1725.75 139.19 1724.87 140 1724.71

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 34.51 .05 93.34 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

34.51 93.34 70.08 70.08 70.08 .1 .3

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 472

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 29 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1731.621.800003 1731.466.949997 1731.039.110001 1730.91 16.01 1729.21

29.09 1724.11 32.88 1722.33 33.9 1721.43 34 1721.33 34.36 1720.2

35.88 1720.03 41.52 1719.3 45.47 1719.37 46.52 1719.29 48.77 1719.39 50 1719.29 57.78 1718.63 59.6 1718.41 63.88 1719.08 64.5 1719.18

64.57 1719.24 65.02 1720.66 66.95 1721.31 75.53 1724.58 80.42 1724.89

95.27 1726.02 96.28 1726.11 96.85 1726.13 100 1727.8

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 33.9 .05 65.02 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

33.9 65.02 20.08 20.08 20.08 .1 .3 Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 0 5.2 1731.85 F

84.8 100 1731.85 F

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 451.92

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 29 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1731.987.470001 1731.7 11.2 1731.65 19.68 1731.61 23.39 1731.69

25.07 1731.18 26.05 1730.4 26.21 1721.16 28.21 1721.16 30.21 1720.56

30.21 1719.5 36.79 1719.5 42.87 1719.44 47.58 1719 49.12 1718.61 50 1718.61 51.74 1718.46 54.73 1718.28 59.47 1718 59.48 1718.5

63.83 1719.95 63.84 1728.67 63.84 1729.69 66.4 1731.59 71.28 1731.7

75.73 1731.49 86.47 1731.52 94.81 1731.39 100 1731.35

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 26.05 .05 63.84 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

26.05 63.84 14.21 14.21 14.21 .3 .5 Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 0 25.2 1731.85 F

64.8 100 1731.85 F

BRIDGE

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 445

INPUT

Description:

Distance from Upstream XS = 1 Deck/Roadway Width = 13 Weir Coefficient = 2.6 Upstream Deck/Roadway Coordinates num= 11 Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord 0 1732.45 10 1732.09 201731.924

26.2 1732.09 1724 26.21 1732.09 1729.59 63.8 1732.09 1729.59

63.81 1732.09 1724 701731.844 801731.891

901731.916 1001731.874

Upstream Bridge Cross Section Data Station Elevation Data num= 29 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1731.98 7.47 1731.7 11.2 1731.65 19.68 1731.61 23.39 1731.69

25.07 1731.18 26.05 1730.4 26.21 1719.5 34.71 1719.5 35.75 1719.5

36.41 1719.5 40.6 1719.5 42.87 1719.44 47.58 1718.44 49.12 1718.44 50 1718.44 51.74 1718.46 54.73 1718.28 60.13 1718 60.34 1717.7

63.83 1718.38 63.84 1728.67 63.84 1729.69 66.4 1731.59 71.28 1731.7

75.73 1731.49 86.47 1731.52 94.81 1731.39 100 1731.35

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 26.05 .05 63.84 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

26.05 63.84 .3 .5 Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 0 25.2 1731.85 F

64.8 100 1731.85 F

Downstream Deck/Roadway Coordinates num= 11 Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord 0 1732.45 10 1732.09 201731.924

26.2 1732.09 1724 26.21 1732.09 1729.59 63.8 1732.09 1729.59

63.81 1732.09 1724 701731.844 801731.891

901731.916 1001731.874

Downstream Bridge Cross Section Data Station Elevation Data num= 29 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1731.88 3.62 1731.75 7.24 1731.8 8.79 1731.58 24.47 1731.85

24.56 1731.81 26.32 1730.48 26.35 1719.5 34.93 1719.5 37.66 1719.5

38.94 1719.5 49.57 1718.44 49.83 1718.44 50 1718.44 50.35 1718.46

60.47 1717.69 63.84 1718.38 63.84 1723.03 63.84 1729.35 63.84 1730.99

65.22 1731.13 65.43 1731.14 65.43 1731.19 65.91 1731.78 87.28 1731.67

88.67 1731.65 91.89 1731.68 93.27 1731.9 100 1731.84

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 26.32 .05 63.84 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

26.32 63.84 .3 .5 Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 0 25.2 1729.58 F

64.8 100 1729.58 F

Upstream Embankment side slope = 0 horiz. to 1.0 vertical Downstream Embankment side slope = 0 horiz. to 1.0 vertical Maximum allowable submergence for weir flow = .98 Elevation at which weir flow begins = Energy head used in spillway design = Spillway height used in design = Weir crest shape = Broad Crested

Number of Abutments = 2

Abutment Data Upstream num= 4 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev

26.2 1723.5 28.21 1722.5 30.21 1720.56 30.21 1719.5 Downstream num= 4 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev

26.2 1723.5 28.21 1722.5 30.21 1720.56 30.21 1719.5

Abutment Data Upstream num= 4 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev

59.47 1716.48 59.48 1718.5 61.5 1719.95 63.81 1720.4 Downstream num= 4 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev

59.47 1716.48 59.48 1718.5 61.5 1719.95 63.81 1720.4

Number of Bridge Coefficient Sets = 1

Low Flow Methods and Data Energy Selected Low Flow Methods = Highest Energy Answer

High Flow Method Energy Only

Additional Bridge Parameters Add Friction component to Momentum Do not add Weight component to Momentum Class B flow critical depth computations use critical depth inside the bridge at the upstream end Criteria to check for pressure flow = Upstream energy grade line

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 437.71

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 29 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1731.883.620003 1731.757.239998 1731.88.790001 1731.58 24.47 1731.85

24.56 1731.81 26.32 1730.48 26.33 1721.16 28.22 1721.16 32.22 1720.56

32.22 1719.5 49.57 1718.44 49.83 1718.44 50 1718.44 50.35 1718.46

59.47 1717.69 59.48 1718.5 63.84 1719.95 63.84 1729.35 63.84 1730.99

65.22 1731.13 65.43 1731.14 65.43 1731.19 65.91 1731.78 87.28 1731.67

88.67 1731.65 91.89 1731.68 93.27 1731.9 100 1731.84

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 26.32 .05 63.84 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

26.32 63.84 19.16 19.16 19.16 .3 .5 Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 0 25.2 1729.58 F

64.8 100 1729.58 F

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 418.55

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 29 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1728.927.089996 1726.06 8.68 1725.739.029999 1725.57 9.43 1725.27

16.7 1723.98 21.82 1723.54 26.64 1721.61 34.57 1719.47 35.6 1719.28

36.46 1719.04 36.62 1718.75 37.13 1718.29 38.89 1717.57 42.35 1717.02

44.53 1716.55 48.13 1716.46 50 1716.54 52.46 1716.64 55.53 1717.17

58.09 1717.41 61.11 1717.26 63.88 1717.78 64.17 1718.71 64.98 1719.3

73.49 1721.39 83.07 1728.14 98.61 1726.78 100 1726.76

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 36.46 .05 64.98 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

36.46 64.98 100.22 100.22 100.22 .1 .3 Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 0 5.2 1729.58 F

84.8 100 1729.58 F

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 318.33

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 39 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1741.82.349998 1740.037.739998 1735.9 11.62 1734.71 22.19 1727.14

22.51 1726.9 22.79 1726.69 22.94 1726.59 26.93 1723.28 27.28 1723.11

36.53 1717.5 36.62 1717.45 36.66 1717.44 39.38 1717.19 40.92 1716.52

41.16 1714.55 41.22 1714.45 41.99 1714.31 49.91 1713.11 50 1713.13

56.12 1714.22 59.21 1714.43 60.08 1714.55 60.37 1714.57 60.68 1714.61

64.86 1715.11 65.33 1715.62 66.87 1717.17 67.96 1717.41 71.64 1718.48

73.49 1720.07 74.64 1720.19 76.91 1721.68 85.03 1721.82 85.15 1721.83

85.2 1721.82 91.1 1722.71 92.45 1723.17 100 1723.29

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 36.66 .05 73.49 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

36.66 73.49 145.42 145.42 145.42 .1 .3

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 172.91

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 28 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1722.41 12.32 1716.38 14.08 1715.54 14.67 1715.34 15.46 1714.96

21.02 1712.48 25.06 1711.53 29.02 1710.87 30.01 1709.94 30.72 1708.81

35.9 1708.54 46.54 1707.71 50 1707.69 53.11 1707.68 53.66 1707.61

54.17 1707.67 58.27 1708.08 61.46 1709.55 66.9 1712.22 69.53 1713.47

72.96 1714.44 74.84 1714.46 76.05 1714.47 88.37 1712.81 88.97 1712.76

96.9 1716.54 97.35 1716.71 100 1716.98

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 29.02 .05 66.9 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

29.02 66.9 122.89 122.89 122.89 .1 .3

CROSS SECTION

RIVER: Bog Dam REACH: Bog Dam River CL RS: 50.02

INPUT

Description:

Station Elevation Data num= 33 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 1710.082.510002 1710.08 12.07 1709.27 14.33 1708.73 21.97 1707.09

22.96 1705.91 23.76 1705.64 25.41 1705.43 26.58 1705.13 30.23 1704.75

31.06 1704.27 34.11 1704.93 35.14 1704.73 35.84 1704.4 36.68 1704.24

38.32 1703.28 44.62 1703.09 48.69 1702.64 50 1702.72 53.21 1702.91

60.9 1703.38 61.49 1704.23 63.19 1705.29 65.53 1706.28 68.42 1707.48

69.57 1707.57 73.12 1707.55 83.77 1708.17 86.87 1708.33 87.13 1708.3

95.8 1711.58 98.31 1713.03 100 1713.15

Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .1 21.97 .05 68.42 .1

Bank Sta: Left Right Coeff Contr. Expan.

21.97 68.42 .1 .3

SUMMARY OF MANNING'S N VALUES

River:Bog Dam

* Reach * River Sta. * n1 * n2 * n3 * *Bog Dam River CL* 800.15 * .1* .05* .1* *Bog Dam River CL* 629.67 * .1* .05* .1* *Bog Dam River CL* 542.08 * .1* .05* .1* *Bog Dam River CL* 472 * .1* .05* .1* *Bog Dam River CL* 451.92 * .1* .05* .1* *Bog Dam River CL* 445 *Bridge * * * *Bog Dam River CL* 437.71 * .1* .05* .1* *Bog Dam River CL* 418.55 * .1* .05* .1* *Bog Dam River CL* 318.33 * .1* .05* .1* *Bog Dam River CL* 172.91 * .1* .05* .1* *Bog Dam River CL* 50.02 * .1* .05* .1*

SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHS

River: Bog Dam

* Reach * River Sta. * Left * Channel * Right * *Bog Dam River CL* 800.15 * 170.48* 170.48* 170.48* *Bog Dam River CL* 629.67 * 87.59* 87.59* 87.59* *Bog Dam River CL* 542.08 * 70.08* 70.08* 70.08* *Bog Dam River CL* 472 * 20.08* 20.08* 20.08* *Bog Dam River CL* 451.92 * 14.21* 14.21* 14.21* *Bog Dam River CL* 445 *Bridge * * * *Bog Dam River CL* 437.71 * 19.16* 19.16* 19.16* *Bog Dam River CL* 418.55 * 100.22* 100.22* 100.22* *Bog Dam River CL* 318.33 * 145.42* 145.42* 145.42* *Bog Dam River CL* 172.91 * 122.89* 122.89* 122.89* *Bog Dam River CL* 50.02 * * * *

SUMMARY OF CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION COEFFICIENTS

River: Bog Dam

* Reach * River Sta. * Contr. * Expan. * *Bog Dam River CL* 800.15 * .1* .3* *Bog Dam River CL* 629.67 * .1* .3* *Bog Dam River CL* 542.08 * .1* .3* *Bog Dam River CL* 472 * .1* .3* *Bog Dam River CL* 451.92 * .3* .5* *Bog Dam River CL* 445 *Bridge * * *Bog Dam River CL* 437.71 * .3* .5* *Bog Dam River CL* 418.55 * .1* .3* *Bog Dam River CL* 318.33 * .1* .3* *Bog Dam River CL* 172.91 * .1* .3*

*Bog Dam River CL* 50.02 * .1* .3*

Profile Output Table - Standard Table 1

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

* * * * * (cfs) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft/ft) * (ft/s) * (sq ft) * (ft) *

* Bog Dam River CL * 800.15 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1730.69 * 1734.87 * 1734.87 * 1736.27 * 0.028230 * 10.46 * 189.91 * 73.30 *

1.04 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 800.15 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1730.69 * 1734.87 * 1734.87 * 1736.27 * 0.028230 * 10.46 * 189.91 * 73.30 *

1.04 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 629.67 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1724.94 * 1729.75 * 1729.75 * 1731.06 * 0.027788 * 9.36 * 178.30 * 76.05 *

0.99 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 629.67 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1724.94 * 1729.75 * 1729.75 * 1731.06 * 0.027788 * 9.36 * 178.30 * 76.05 *

0.99 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 542.08 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1722.21 * 1725.95 * 1725.95 * 1727.31 * 0.027002 * 9.39 * 166.40 * 64.04 *

1.00 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 542.08 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1722.21 * 1725.95 * 1725.95 * 1727.31 * 0.027002 * 9.39 * 166.40 * 64.04 *

1.00 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 472 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1718.41 * 1724.29 * * 1725.61 * 0.012552 * 9.38 * 181.77 * 46.14 *

0.74 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 472 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1718.41 * 1724.26 * 1723.49 * 1725.60 * 0.012774 * 9.44 * 180.61 * 46.01 *

0.74 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 451.92 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1717.70 * 1724.14 * 1723.13 * 1725.29 * 0.014002 * 8.61 * 177.70 * 37.67 *

0.70 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 451.92 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1718.00 * 1724.23 * 1722.96 * 1725.26 * 0.011761 * 8.13 * 188.14 * 37.68 *

0.64 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 445 * * * Bridge * * * * * * * * *

* Bog Dam River CL * 437.71 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1717.69 * 1723.03 * 1723.03 * 1724.90 * 0.029224 * 10.98 * 139.39 * 37.51 *

1.00 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 437.71 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1717.69 * 1722.80 * 1722.80 * 1724.67 * 0.029370 * 10.96 * 139.59 * 37.51 *

1.00 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 418.55 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1716.46 * 1721.70 * 1721.70 * 1723.61 * 0.020746 * 11.32 * 154.76 * 47.49 *

0.94 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 418.55 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1716.46 * 1721.71 * 1721.71 * 1723.61 * 0.020575 * 11.29 * 155.25 * 47.54 *

0.93 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 318.33 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1713.11 * 1718.98 * 1718.98 * 1720.91 * 0.026397 * 11.15 * 138.88 * 38.14 *

1.00 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 318.33 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1713.11 * 1718.98 * 1718.98 * 1720.91 * 0.026397 * 11.15 * 138.88 * 38.14 *

1.00 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 172.91 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1707.61 * 1712.36 * 1712.36 * 1714.13 * 0.024036 * 10.72 * 147.66 * 45.66 *

0.98 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 172.91 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1707.61 * 1712.36 * 1712.36 * 1714.13 * 0.024036 * 10.72 * 147.66 * 45.66 *

0.98 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 50.02 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1530.00 * 1702.64 * 1707.37 * 1707.37 * 1708.99 * 0.026368 * 10.22 * 149.93 * 47.45 *

1.00 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 50.02 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1530.00 * 1702.64 * 1707.37 * 1707.37 * 1708.99 * 0.026368 * 10.22 * 149.93 * 47.45 *

1.00 *

Profile Output Table - Standard Table 2

* Reach * River Sta * Profile * Plan * E.G. Elev * W.S. Elev * Vel Head * Frctn Loss * C & E Loss * Q Left * Q Channel * Q Right * Top Width *

* * * * * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (cfs) * (cfs) * (cfs) * (ft) *

* Bog Dam River CL * 800.15 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1736.27 * 1734.87 * 1.40 * 4.77 * 0.03 * 321.42 * 1207.28 * 1.30 * 73.30 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 800.15 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1736.27 * 1734.87 * 1.40 * 4.77 * 0.03 * 321.42 * 1207.28 * 1.30 * 73.30 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 629.67 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1731.06 * 1729.75 * 1.31 * 2.40 * 0.01 * 0.44 * 1467.77 * 61.79 * 76.05 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 629.67 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1731.06 * 1729.75 * 1.31 * 2.40 * 0.01 * 0.44 * 1467.77 * 61.79 * 76.05 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 542.08 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1727.31 * 1725.95 * 1.36 * 1.24 * 0.01 * 6.06 * 1522.29 * 1.66 * 64.04 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 542.08 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1727.31 * 1725.95 * 1.36 * 1.26 * 0.01 * 6.06 * 1522.29 * 1.66 * 64.04 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 472 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1725.61 * 1724.29 * 1.32 * 0.27 * 0.05 * 11.52 * 1475.20 * 43.29 * 46.14 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 472 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1725.60 * 1724.26 * 1.34 * 0.25 * 0.09 * 11.32 * 1475.81 * 42.88 * 46.01 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 451.92 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1725.29 * 1724.14 * 1.15 * * * * 1530.00 * * 37.67 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 451.92 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1725.26 * 1724.23 * 1.03 * * * * 1530.00 * * 37.68 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 445 * * * Bridge * * * * * * * * *

* Bog Dam River CL * 437.71 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1724.90 * 1723.03 * 1.87 * 0.47 * 0.01 * * 1530.00 * * 37.51 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 437.71 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1724.67 * 1722.80 * 1.87 * 0.47 * 0.01 * * 1530.00 * * 37.51 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 418.55 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1723.61 * 1721.70 * 1.91 * 2.34 * 0.00 * 35.44 * 1465.97 * 28.59 * 47.49 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 418.55 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1723.61 * 1721.71 * 1.90 * 2.33 * 0.00 * 35.67 * 1465.51 * 28.82 * 47.54 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 318.33 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1720.91 * 1718.98 * 1.93 * 3.66 * 0.05 * 3.71 * 1526.29 * * 38.14 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 318.33 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1720.91 * 1718.98 * 1.93 * 3.66 * 0.05 * 3.71 * 1526.29 * * 38.14 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 172.91 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1714.13 * 1712.36 * 1.77 * 3.09 * 0.05 * 11.95 * 1518.04 * 0.01 * 45.66 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 172.91 * 100 Year * 24x76 Boulders * 1714.13 * 1712.36 * 1.77 * 3.09 * 0.05 * 11.95 * 1518.04 * 0.01 * 45.66 *

* Bog Dam River CL * 50.02 * 100 Year * Exist Condition * 1708.99 * 1707.37 * 1.62 * * * 0.11 * 1529.89 * * 47.45 * v

Appendix E: Permit Application v

Appendix F: Scour Analysis

Replacement - Bog Dam 4_15-7.9_0922

U28-02592 Task 101 DBC Date: 1/22/2023 GBJ Date: 2/28/2023

Engineer:

Checked By:

Scour Calculations

Project:

Project Number:

Note:

The calculations do not account for bedrock. The scour will not extend below the bedrock x

Appendix G: Report of Geotechnical Exploration

REPORT

22-1452 S

December 7, 2022

Explorations and Geotechnical Engineering Services

Proposed Bridge Replacement Bog Dam Road Over Upper Ammonoosuc River Randolph, New Hampshire

Prepared For:

Attention: Timothy S. Purdy, Priniciple 100 Partage St.

Houghton, MI 49931

Prepared By:

S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc.

10 Centre Road Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878 T: 603-692-0088

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Purpose

1.2 Site and Proposed Construction

2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING

2.1 Explorations

2.2 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil and Bedrock

3.1.1 West Abutment (B-1)

3.1.2 East Abutment (B-2)

3.2 Groundwater

4.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Bedrock Acceleration and Site Response

4.2 Liquefaction Assessment

5.0 FOUNDATION EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General

5.2 Foundation Options and Discussion

5.3 Foundation Design

5.4 Abutments and Wingwalls

5.5 Excavation and Dewatering Considerations

5.6 Backfill and Compaction

5.7 Design Review and Construction Testing

6.0 CLOSURE

Appendix A Limitations Appendix B Figures Appendix C Exploration Logs & Key Appendix D Laboratory Test Results

Attention: Timothy S. Purdy, Principal 100 Partage St.

Houghton, MI 49931

Subject: Explorations and Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Bridge Replacement Bog Dam Road over Upper Ammonoosuc River Randolph, New Hampshire Dear Tim:

In accordance with our Proposal dated September 6, 2022, we have performed subsurface explorations for the subject project. This report summarizes our findings and geotechnical recommendations, and its contents are subject to the limitations set forth in Appendix A.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Purpose

The purpose of our services was to explore subsurface conditions at the site in…