attachment_3_bid_3053_26.pdf

DAM TENDER’S HOME ROOF INSPECTION REPORT

MURPHY DAM

Coos County, New Hampshire

National Inventory of Dams ID: NH00185

New Hampshire Dam Number: D194012

Hazard Classification: High

October 2022

Murphy Dam

NID ID#: NH00185

NH Dam#: D194012

Prepared for:

The State of New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services

29 Hazen Drive

Concord, NH 03302-0095

Prepared by:

Gannett Fleming, Inc.

207 Senate Avenue

Camp Hill, PA 17011

GF Project No. 063935.021

Dam Tender’s Home Roof Inspection i October 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope of Work

1.2 Facility Description

1.3 Statement of Independence

2. FIELD INSPECTION

2.1 Inspection Approach

2.2 Field Observations

3. CONCLUSIONS

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

5. APPENDICIES

APPENDICES

Appendix A Caretaker’s House at Murphy Dam Property Management Plan, February 2000

Appendix B Field Observation Map

Appendix C Observation Photolog

1 October 2022

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to document the dam tender’s home roof observation performed for

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services’ (DES) Murphy Dam (hereinafter referred to as Murphy), as sanctioned by the general services contract authorized on February 12, 2018 to complete engineering services for state-owned dams and dikes in New Hampshire. This report provides a description of the dam tender’s home, the approach utilized for the field inspection, inspection observations, conclusions and recommendations.

1.1 Scope of Work

The intent of the inspection was to provide a detailed observation of the dam tender’s roof from readily accessible areas along the exterior and within the interior of the building.

Gannett Fleming mobilized a three-person inspection team to observe the condition of the roof.

During the inspection, the roof’s condition was noted with corresponding photographs.

1.2 Facility Description

Murphy is located downstream of Lake Francis along the Connecticut River east of Pittsburg, New

Hampshire. Francis Lake encompasses approximately 2000 acres and was originally constructed between 1937 and 1940 as a flood control project. The dam is currently owned by the DES and is operated primarily for the purpose of water supply, recreation, and flood control.

The facility currently utilized as the dam tender’s home was originally constructed in the mid-

1800’s. The 2-floor home rests atop a stone foundation and is attached to a two-car garage that once served as a horse barn. The front of the home exhibits a 3-season porch.

The home was originally constructed with a wood shingle roof which was replaced by asphalt shingles in the 1900’s. The roof covering as it exists today is believed to be composed of three primary types and is shown within Figure 1.:

1. 1960’s Aluminum Roofing

2. 1997 Asphalt Shingles

3. 1970’s Asphalt Shingles.

2 October 2022

Figure 1 – Roof Covering Plan View

Additional information related to the home’s construction and past maintenance can be found within the Caretaker’s House at Murphy Dam Property Management Plan, prepared by DES, dated

February 2000 and included within Appendix A.

1.3 Statement of Independence

The field inspections, review of previous facility data, conclusions, and recommendations are based upon the opinions of Gannett Fleming and were made independently from DES, its employees, and its representatives.

3 October 2022

2. FIELD INSPECTION

The roof observation took place on May 3rd of 2022.

The inspection was performed by Mr. Josh Paquet (Gannett Fleming), Mr. Don Read (Gannett

Fleming), and Mr. Scott Brough (Gannett Fleming) with assistance from DES staff.

2.1 Inspection Approach

Access to the exterior surface of the roof was by use of an extension ladder. Access to the interior of the roof within the home’s attic was via stairs within the home. Gannett Fleming did not remove roof coverings or perform any destructive observations as part of the inspection. All noted deficiencies are based on observable portions of the facility from foot or ladder.

2.2 Field Observations

The following observations correspond to the deficiency map included within Appendix B and photographic log included within Appendix C.

• OBS 1: Exposed portions of flue pipe show signs of degradation.

• OBS 2: Flashing between home and roof shingles of 3-season porch is pulling up on edge. Popped and missing nails.

• OBS 3: Paint failure along edge of fascia. Minimal rot noted.

• OBS 4: Flashing between siding on northern home section and asphalt shingles in the middle section appears to be in good condition.

• OBS 5: Start of granule loss and shingle damage (delamination, split).

• OBS 6: Complete shingle failure, granule degradation, split shingles.

• OBS 7: Two layers of shingles.

• OBS 8: One layer of shingles.

• OBS 9: Missing shingle(s).

• OBS 10: Early-stage shingle granule loss, early-stage shingle curling.

• OBS 11: Minor mortar degradation around chimney, chimney flashing nails starting to pop.

• OBS 12: Roof vent looks to be in good condition, flashing nails show early-stage corrosion.

• OBS 13: Gutters are loose, separated, cracked.

• OBS 14: Flashing exhibits popped nails.

• OBS 15: Aluminum roof generally in good condition, multi-generations of fasteners

(nails/screws), popped screws observed.

• OBS 16: Failed paint, rotted fascia.

4 October 2022

• OBS 17: Garage roof exhibits a sag at center of slope on each face (east and west). The center of the eave on each face exhibits a corresponding upward bow.

• OBS 18: Shingles show swelling most likely due to saturation as shingles extend under the siding for the garage. This has led to granule degradation and moss growth.

• OBS 19: Fascia paint failure.

• OBS 20: Siding shows signs of damage most likely due to roof runoff running along the face.

• OBS 21: The garage interior framing appears to be generally in good condition. The rafters are composed of 7.5” x 7.5” rough cut logs spaced 120” center to center. The perlins are composed of rough-cut logs, are approximately 3 ½” diameter and are spaced approximately 21 inches on center.

• OBS 22: The sheathing is composed of ¾” board and range in widths from 6 inches wide to 18 inches wide. The spacing between the sheathing boards ranges from tight to 2 inches.

• OBS 23: The bow noted within OBS 17 appears to be a result of the relatively large spans associated with the two rafters responsible for supporting the center of the roof slopes.

From the interior, bows of 1 inch to 2 inches is observed. No other structural distress or degradation within the interior framing is noted and no splitting or cracking in the bowed framing members was noted.

• OBS 24: Minor water damage, rot.

• OBS 25: The interior framing within the attic of the home appeared to be in good condition. The rafters were generally composed of 3-inch x 4-inch rough cut beams. The sheathing was composed of 7/8-inch thick, rough-cut board that ranged in width from 6 inches to 18 inches.

5 October 2022

3. CONCLUSIONS

The overall condition of the exterior of the roof is indicative of the age of the roof covering as well as the geographical location of the facility. The asphalt shingles on the northern section of the home, that were believed to be originally installed in the mid-1970’s, are in complete disrepair.

Based on the observable edges of the roof, it is believed that these sections of the roof have two layers of shingles.

The asphalt shingles in the center portion of the home, believed to be installed in the mid-1990’s, are in better condition than the northern section of the home. However, the shingles show signs of early stages of failure which include granule degradation, splitting and loosening.

The aluminum roofing over the garage is generally in good condition. The lack of structural framing has caused an observable bow on each face of the roof. Various fasteners for the aluminum roofing are replaced, popped or missing, most likely due to a combination of the deflection of the roof surface combined with a lack of fastener support provided by the sheathing which exhibited large spacings between boards.

The sag and resulting bow in the eaves of the garage roof does not appear to pose an immediate threat to the roof structure but is indicative of sustained loading within long timber spans.

6 October 2022

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the field observations described within the report above as well as review of pertinent background information, the following recommendations are provided with regards to future maintenance of the roof:

- The asphalt shingles and adjacent flashing located above the home should be replaced in their entirety with a roof covering (shingles, metal, etc.) appropriate for the geographic exposure. A contractor should be consulted as to the potential need for an additional layer of sheathing above the existing rough-cut boards as to provide continuous support for the new roof covering and its fasteners.

- The aluminum roof and adjacent flashing above the garage should be replaced in its entirety with a roof covering (shingles, metal, etc.) appropriate for the geographic exposure. A contractor should be consulted as to the potential need for an additional layer of sheathing above the existing rough-cut boards as to provide continuous support for the new roof covering and its fasteners. A contractor should also be consulted as to choosing a flexible or rigid roof covering for the garage given the curvature of the roof pitch.

7 October 2022

5. APPENDICIES

A. Caretaker’s House at Murphy Dam, Property Management Plan

B. Field Observation Map

C. Observation Photolog

Appendix A. Caretaker’s House at Murphy Dam, Property Management Plan

Appendix B. Field Observation Map jpaquet Text Box

EXTERIOR OBSERVATION MAP

jpaquet Rectangle jpaquet Callout

OBS 1 / 11

jpaquet Callout

OBS 2

jpaquet Callout

OBS 3 / 4

jpaquet Callout

OBS 5

jpaquet Callout

OBS 6

jpaquet Callout

OBS 7

jpaquet Callout

OBS 8

jpaquet Callout

OBS 9

jpaquet Ellipse jpaquet Ellipse jpaquet Callout

OBS 10

jpaquet Callout

OBS 12

jpaquet Ellipse jpaquet Callout

OBS 13

jpaquet Callout

OBS 14

jpaquet Callout

OBS 15

jpaquet PolyLine jpaquet PolyLine jpaquet PolyLine jpaquet PolyLine jpaquet Callout

OBS 16

jpaquet Callout

OBS 17

jpaquet Callout

OBS 19/20

jpaquet Callout

OBS 18

Appendix C. Observation Photolog

Appendix C

Observation Photolog

MURPHY DAM TENDER HOME ROOF INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPHS – MAY 3, 2022

Photo No. 1: Overall view of dam tender’s home, looking east.

Photo No. 2: Overall view of dam tender’s home, looking north.

Photo No. 3: Overall view of dam tender’s home, looking south.

Photo No. 4: Overall view of dam tender’s home, looking west.

Photo No. 5: Flue pipe degradation at top of chimney (OBS 1).

Photo No. 6: Flashing pulling up at edges. Popped and missing nails (OBS 2).

Photo No. 7: Paint failure along edge of fascia (OBS 3).

Photo No. 8: Flashing between siding on northern home section and asphalt shingles in the middle section appears to be in good condition (OBS 4).

Photo No. 9: Start of granule loss and shingle damage (delamination and splitting)

(OBS 5).

Photo No. 10: Complete shingle failure, granule degradation, splitting shingles (OBS 6).

Photo No. 11: Complete shingle failure, granule degradation, splitting shingles (OBS 6).

Photo No. 12: Two layers of shingles (OBS 7).

Photo No. 13: Two layers of shingles (OBS 8).

Photo No. 14: Missing shingle(s) (OBS 9).

Photo No. 15: Early-stage shingle granule loss, early-stage shingle curling (OBS 10).

Photo No. 16: Minor mortar degradation around chimney, chimney flashing nails starting to pop (OBS 11).

Photo No. 17: Roof vent looks to be in good condition, flashing nails show early-stage corrosion (OBS 12).

Photo No. 18: Gutters are loose, separated and cracked (OBS 13).

Photo No. 19: Flashing exhibits popped nails (OBS 14).

Photo No. 20: Aluminum roof generally in good condition, multi-generations of fasteners (nails/screws), popped screws observed (OBS 15).

Photo No. 21: Fascia exhibits failed paint and rotted fascia (OBS 16).

Photo No. 22: Garage roof exhibits a sag at center of slope on each face. The center of the eave on each face exhibits a corresponding upward bow (OBS 17).

Photo No. 23: Garage roof exhibits a sag at center of slope on each face. The center of

Photo No. 24: Garage roof exhibits a sag at center of slope on each face. The center of

Photo No. 25: Shingles show swelling most likely due to saturation as shingles extend under siding (OBS 18).

Photo No. 26: Fascia paint failure (OBS 19).

Photo No. 27: Siding show signs of damage most likely due to roof runoff running along face of siding (OBS 20).

Photo No. 28: Garage framing appears to be generally in good condition (OBS 21).

Photo No. 29: Sheathing is composed of ¾” board and range in widths from 6 inches wide to 18 inches wide. The spacing between the sheathing boards range from tight to 2 inches (OBS 22).

Photo No. 30: The bow noted within OBS 17 appears to be a result of the relatively large spans associated with the two rafters. 1” to 2” at the center of the rafter (OBS 23).

Photo No. 31: Minor water damage, rot (OBS 24).

Photo No. 32: Interior framing within attic of primary house appears to be in good condition (OBS 25).

2024.11.08_073685_TO 21 - NHDES Dam Tender Roof Specifications

Final Murphy Dam_Dam Tender Roof Inspection_10_24_2022