Report_3_Bridge_Inspection_Rustic_Bridge.pdf

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT

RUSTIC BRIDGE

NPS ROUTE 13 OVER CRUM ELBOW CREEK

VANDERBILT MANSION NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

LN

STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P

INSPECTION TYPE: ROUTINE

INSPECTION DATE: 7/22/14

Report prepared by: WD

Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Bridge Office Bridge Inspection and Management Program 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, Virginia 20166 http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/FLHBO/BIP http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/FLHBO/BIP

STRUCTURE SUMMARY STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P

RUSTIC BRIDGE INSPECTION DATE: 7/22/14

BRIDGE IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

MAIN SPAN MATERIAL: ....... CONCRETE NO. OF MAIN SPANS:

MAIN SPAN TYPE: ............... ARCH - DECK NO. OF APPR. SPANS:

# OF BEAMS, MAIN SPAN: .. 1 STRUCT. TOTAL LENGTH: .. 182.0 FT (55.5 M)

DECK TYPE: ......................... NOT APPLICABLE MAX. SPAN LENGTH: .......... 50.0 FT (15.2 M)

WEARING SURFACE: .......... NOT APPLICABLE DECK WIDTH: ...................... 17.8 FT (5.4 M)

ABUT. FOUNDATIONS: ........ UNKNOWN CURB TO CURB WIDTH: ..... 14.2 FT (4.3 M)

PIER FOUNDATION(S): ........ UNKNOWN YEAR BUILT: ........................ 1910 (EST.)

ABUTMENT / PIER MAT'L: ... MASONRY YEAR RECONSTRUCTED: .. 2000

PROJ./PLAN REF. NO: ......... VAMA 12(2) / SKEW ANGLE: ..................... 0 °

NPS ROAD CLASS: .............. 1 - PRINCIPAL PARK ROAD FRACTURE CRITICAL: ........ NO

STRUCTURE HISTORY: ...... 2000 - NEW SHOTCRETE ON ARCH UNDERSIDE, WEARING SURFACE WITH GEOTEXTILE

MOISTURE BARRIER, FRENCH DRAINS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WORK.

LOCATION

VANDERBILT MANSION NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE MILE POINT:

STATE: ................................. NEW YORK LOCATION: 0.1 MILES FROM COACH HOUSE

FACILITY CARRIED: ............ NPS ROUTE 13

FEATURE INTERSECTED: .. CRUM ELBOW CREEK

STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY

This two-span concrete arch bridge is currently in good condition overall, and has only minor problems. These include deterioration of the parapet masonry mortar joints, which is gradually resulting in a minor loss of stonework.

To correct this problem, the missing stones should be replaced and the mortar joints should be repointed as necessary.

In addition, erosion has partially undermined the northwest wingwall; a weep hole pipe is clogged at the north abutment breastwall; several timber approach guardrail posts are deteriorated; and trees are beginning to crowd the structure on both the upstream and downstream sides. Corrective measures for these problems should be taken as outlined in this report.

INSPECTION TEAM: M. REGER, J. BUCK

CONDITION ASSESSMENT:

MICHAEL REGER, P.E., FIELD TEAM LEADER 703-948-1424

REPORT REVIEW :

MARCUS MILLER, P.E., SENIOR INSPECTION ENGINEER 703-404-6252

REPORT APPROVAL: DATE: 11/25/14

JORGOMAI CEESAY, PH.D., P.E., BIP SUPERVISORY ENGINEER 703-404-6244

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P

A (Critical) - Structure is closed, in imminent danger of collapse, or presents a critical safety hazard.

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

C (Moderate) - Structure is deficient, functionally obsolete, or requires substantial repairs to prevent a serious deficiency or unsafe condition.

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

E (Special) - Structure is under construction or reconstruction.

D226 PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT

ITEM

NO.

MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

(GENERALLY NOT FLHP ELIGIBLE)

QTY. UNIT COST

UNIT

ESTIMATE

COST

PRELIM.

58.6 REPLACE MISSING STONES AND REPOINT MASONRY MORTAR JOINTS ON

PARAPETS AS NECESSARY.

1 LS

59 TRIM TREES AWAY FROM BRIDGE. 1 LS

60.9 REPAIR EROSION AND UNDERMINING ALONG NORTHWEST WINGWALL. 1 LS

222.3 REPLACE DETERIORATED TIMBER GUARDRAIL POSTS. 1 LS

PRELIM. MAINTENANCE TOTAL :

ITEM

NO.

REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION

(TYPICALLY NEEDED WITHIN 5 YEARS)

QTY. UNIT

UNIT

COST ESTIMATES

PRELIM. COST

REHAB. RECONSTR.

PRELIM. REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION TOTAL :

COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

PRELIM. MAINTENANCE TOTAL:

PRELIM. REHABILITATION TOTAL:

PRELIM. RECONSTRUCTION TOTAL: ..

TOTAL ITEMIZED COSTS:

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE TOTAL* :

(*Includes typical contract costs for mobilization, traffic control, and design/construction engineering; but does not include detour bridges, work beyond the bridge limits, or work not listed above. Estimates are approximate and are for preliminary planning purposes only; they should not be used as a complete or final engineers estimate.)

REMARKS: Cost estimates assume that the recommended actions will be combined with similar work being performed on other structures.

FIELD INSPECTION REPORT STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P

G = GOOD (CODES 7 - 9) F = FAIR (CODES 5 - 6) P = POOR (CODES 0 - 4)

CONDITION RATING CODE EQUIVALENTS FOR SUB-ELEMENTS

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.

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.

“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.

FAILED CONDITION - out of service; beyond corrective action.

CONDITION RATING CODES FOR ITEMS 58 - 62, 222, 223

NOT APPLICABLE

EXCELLENT CONDITION

VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted.

GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems.

SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor deterioration.

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

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

N

58. DECK

ITEM REFERENCE AND REMARKS

OTHER

ALIGNMENT

DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION

FASCIA(E)

DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING

TRUSSES

FLOOR BEAMS AND STRINGERS

ARCH(ES) OR SLAB(S)

GIRDERS OR BEAMS

BEARING DEVICES

59. SUPERSTRUCTURE

OTHER

DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION

UTILITIES

DRAINS AND DRAINAGE

PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS

CURBS, SIDEWALKS, AND MEDIAN

RIDEABILITY

WEARING SURFACE

EXPANSION JOINTS

DECK SLAB

OTHER

SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

FOUNDATIONS

CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS

PILE BENTS

WALLS AND/OR COLUMNS

PIER(S)

OTHER

SLOPE PROTECTION

SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

EXPANSION JOINTS

WEEP HOLES

WINGWALLS

FOUNDATIONS

BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS

CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS

PILE BENTS

BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS

ABUTMENTS

60. SUBSTRUCTURE

1.

10.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

9.

8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

PAINT

11.

N

N N G N N N N G G

G G

(SPANDREL WALLS)

G N N N G G F N F G N N

G N N G G G N

11.

10.

9.

8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

58.3 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OVER BRIDGE WITH A GEOTEXTILE

MOISTURE BARRIER.

58.6 PARAPET MASONRY MORTAR JOINTS APPEAR TO BE VERY SANDY.

SEVERAL STONES ARE MISSING AT RANDOM LOCATIONS.

DELAMINATION OF CAPSTONES ALONG PARAPETS.

59.3,11 ARCHES HAVE BEEN REHABILITATED AND ARE IN GOOD

CONDITION. MINOR CRACKING WITH EFFLORESCENCE ON ARCH

UNDERSIDE NEAR RING STONES.

WEST SPANDREL WALL APPEARS TO BE BULGING SLIGHTLY AT

PIER. MINOR VEGETATION GROWTH ON SPANDREL WALLS.

60.1 MINOR DETERIORATION OF NORTH ABUTMENT BREASTWALL

MASONRY MORTAR JOINTS. NATURAL ROCK OUTCROP SERVES AS

SOUTH ABUTMENT BREASTWALL.

60.6,9 MINOR MORTAR JOINT DETERIORATION THROUGHOUT

WINGWALLS. APPROXIMATELY 32" TO 36" OF UNDERMINING OF

NORTHWEST WINGWALL ABOUT 15' UP FROM END OF NORTH

SPAN. DETERIORATED MORTAR JOINT (12" DEEP VOID)

NORTHEAST WINGWALL. DISLODGED CAPSTONE NORTH END OF

WEST RAIL.

60.7 MODERATE RUSTING WITH SEVERE SECTION LOSS NOTED FOR

NORTH BREASTWALL WEEP HOLE PIPE. HEAVY RUSTING OF WEEP

HOLE PIPES ON UNDERSIDE OF SOUTH ARCH.

60.9 FOOTING AT NORTH ABUTMENT HAS BEEN EXPOSED BY EROSION.

MINOR EROSION ALONG SOUTHEAST WINGWALL.

60.13 MINOR DETERIORATION OF PIER MASONRY JOINTS; MINOR TO

MODERATE CRACKING OF STONES ALSO VISIBLE WITH SOME

LOOSE STONES.

60.16,17 PIER FOOTING HAS BEEN EXPOSED BY EROSION BUT IS FOUNDED

ON SHALE-LIKE BEDROCK.

G G N F G N

N

N

N

N

INSPECTION DATE: 7/22/14

STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P FIELD INSPECTION REPORT

RUSTIC BRIDGE

ITEM REFERENCE AND REMARKS

AVERAGE CLEAR OPENING 8.

7. NORMAL VELOCITY

ADEQUACY OF OPENING 6.

5. OTHER

4. WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS

CHANNEL PROTECTION3.

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR2.

ALIGNMENT1.

61. CHANNEL 8

G G N G N

MED

SUFF

25 FT.

9. STREAM BED COMPOSITION :

ROCK

222. APPROACHES 7

OTHER 9.

ALIGNMENT 8.

SIGNS7.

SETTLEMENT 6.

EROSION5.

SURFACING4.

APPROACH GUARDRAIL 3.

2. RELIEF JOINTS

APPROACH SLABS1. N

N G G G G G F N

223. RETAINING WALL N

OTHER 6.

SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION5.

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR4.

FOUNDATION3.

WEEP HOLES2.

1. WALL

36. TRAFFIC AND SAFETY FEATURES

APPROACH GUARDRAIL ENDSD.

APPROACH GUARDRAILSC.

TRANSITIONSB.

BRIDGE RAILINGSA. 0

222.3 DELAMINATION OF CAPSTONE OF NORTH APPROACH GUARDWALL,

EAST SIDE.

SETTLEMENT AND ROTATION OF NORTHWEST STONE GUARDWALL

END POST. MODERATE TO SEVERELY DETERIORATED TIMBER

POSTS ON SOUTH APPROACH, WEST SIDE.

222.7 "ONE WAY" SIGN AT SOUTH APPROACH.

222.8 SHARP HORIZONTAL CURVES AT BOTH APPROACHES.

36.A,B PARAPET HEIGHT OF 1'-8" DOES NOT MEET AASHTO MINIMUM

HEIGHT SPECIFICATION OF 2'-3". APPROACH GUARDRAIL AT

SOUTHWEST CORNER IS NOT CONNECTED TO PARAPET.

TRAFFIC SAFETY RATING CODES

N

Does not meet standards or a safety feature is required and none is provided.

Meets currently acceptable standards.

Not applicable or a safety feature is not required.

STRUCTURE LOAD RATING STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P

TRUCK TYPE

INVENTORY RATING (NORMAL TRAFFIC) OPERATING RATING (MAXIMUM LOAD)

TONS METRIC TONS TONS METRIC TONS

H 15 13 25 22

HS 19 17 32 28

TYPE 3 17 15 28 25

TYPE 3S2 27 24 45 40

TYPE 3-3 33 29 55 48

DESIGN LOADING: UNKNOWN (H15 EQUIVALENT ASSUMED - SEE REMARKS)

X CAPACITY MEETS OR EXCEEDS DESIGN LOAD

CAPACITY IS LESS THAN DESIGN LOAD

ORIGINAL LOAD RATING CALCULATION APPLICABLE

ORIGINAL LOAD RATING CALCULATION REVISED

DATE OF LOAD RATING CALCULATION:

LOAD RATING CONTROLLED BY:

REMARKS: DESIGN LOADING IS UNKNOWN; ASSUMPTION IS BASED ON STRUCTURE TYPE, AGE, LOCATION, AND

CONDITION.

STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P

STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION

(201) PARK: VANDERBILT MANSION NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE (1) STATE: ....................................... 362 - NEW YORK (NY)

(202) STRUCTURE NAME: .......... RUSTIC BRIDGE (2) STATE HWY. AGENCY DIST:

(203) STRUCTURE KIND: ............ 1 - BRIDGE (3) COUNTY CODE: ........................ 027 - DUTCHESS

(204) STRUCTURE NUMBER: ..... 1797-003P (4) CITY/PLACE CODE:

(205) NPS REGION: .................... 3 - NORTHEAST (5) INVENTORY ROUTE:

(206) ROUTE CODE NUMBER: ... 13 (6) FEATURES INTERSECTED:....... CRUM ELBOW CREEK

(207) ROAD SECTION NO: .......... 003P (7) FACILITY CARRIED: .................. NPS ROUTE 13

(208) NPS ROAD CLASS: ............ 1 - PRINCIPAL PARK ROAD (8) STATE STRUCTURE NO: .......... 1797003P0000000

(209) WITHIN NPS BNDRY?: ....... YES (9) LOCATION: ................................ 0.1 MILES FROM COACH HO

(210) OPERATING UNIT: ............. NONE (10) INV. RTE. - MIN. VERT. CLR: .. 99.99 FT (99.99 M)

(211) PROJECT NO(S): ................ VAMA 12(2) (11) MILE POINT:

(212) DRAWING NUMBERS: ....... (27) YEAR BUILT:

(21) MAINTAINED BY: ................. 66 - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (106) YEAR RECONSTRUCTED:

(22) OWNER: ............................... 66 - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (20) TOLL: ........................................ 3 - FREE ROAD

(37) HISTORICAL DESIGNATION: .. 2 - ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTER

STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION, FOUNDATION, AND DECK TYPE

(43A) MAIN STR. MATERIAL: ..

(43B) MAIN STR. TYPE:

(45) NO. OF MAIN SPANS:

(48) MAX. SPAN LENGTH:

(49) STRUCTURE LENGTH:

(216A) ABUTMENT #1 FDN:

(216B) ABUTMENT #2 FDN:

(217A) PREDOM. PIER FDN.: ..

(217B) SECOND. PIER FDN: ...

(107) DECK TYPE:

1 - CONCRETE

11 - ARCH - DECK

50.0 FT (15.2 M)

182.0 FT (55.5 M)

0 - UNKNOWN

0 - UNKNOWN

0 - UNKNOWN

0 - UNKNOWN

N - NOT APPLICABLE

(44A) APPR. STR. MATERIAL: ........ 0 - OTHER

(44B) APPR. STR. TYPE: ................ 00 - OTHER

(46) NO. OF APPROACH SPANS: .. 0

(108) WEAR SURFACE/PROTECT SYSTEM:

A) TYPE WEARING SURFACE: .. N - NOT APPLICABLE

B) TYPE MEMBRANE: ................. 2 - PREFORMED FABRIC

C) TYPE PROTECTION: .............. N - NOT APPLICABLE

(218) IS SALT USED?: ..................... YES

LOAD RATING AND POSTING

(31) DESIGN LOAD: ................. 0 - UNKNOWN (41) LOAD RESTRICTION: ......... A - OPEN, NO RESTRICTION

(66) INVENTORY RATING: ...... 19.0 TONS (17.0 METRIC TONS) (70) BRIDGE POSTING: .............. 5 - NO POSTING REQUIRED

(64) OPERATING RATING: ...... 32.0 TONS (28.0 METRIC TONS)

INSPECTION DATES

(90) INSPECTION DATE: 7/14 (91) FREQ. OF INSP: 24 MONTHS (92 / 93) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION (CFI):

(219) ADD. STUDIES NEEDED: N - 0 - NONE (A) FRACTURE CRITICAL: ... NO

INSP. EVERY: MONTHS - LAST INSP. : (220) SPECIAL STUDY TYPE: 0 - NONE

(B) UNDERWATER: .............. NO

(221) SPECIAL STUDY DATE: INSP. EVERY: MONTHS - LAST INSP. :

(C) SPECIAL INSPECTION: .. NO

INSP. EVERY: MONTHS - LAST INSP. :

STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P

GEOMETRY, TRAFFIC, AND NAVIGATIONAL DATA

(16) LATITUDE: ............................. 41°47'27.30" (51) CURB TO CURB WIDTH: ........... 14.2 FT (4.3 M)

(17) LONGITUDE: ......................... 73°56'32.00" (52) DECK WIDTH: ............................ 17.8 FT (5.4 M)

(19) DETOUR LENGTH: ............... 1 MI (2 KM) (32) APPR. ROADWAY WIDTH: ........ 18.0 FT (5.5 M)

(28A) LANES ON STRUCT: .......... 01 (213) APPR. PAVEMENT WIDTH: ..... 17.0 FT (5.2 M)

(28B) LANES UNDER STRUCT: ... 00 LEFT SHOULDER: .................. 1.0 FT (0.3 M)

(42A) SERVICE ON: ..................... 1 - HIGHWAY RIGHT SHOULDER: ................ 0.0 FT (0.0 M)

(42B) SERVICE UNDER: .............. 5 - WATERWAY (33) BRIDGE MEDIAN: ....................... 0 - NO MEDIAN

(29) AVG. DAILY TRAFFIC: .......... 10 (34) SKEW ANGLE: ............................ 0 °

(30) YEAR OF ADT: ...................... 2010 (35) DECK FLARE?: ........................... NO

(114) FUTURE ADT: ..................... 11 (47) TOTAL HORIZ. CLEARANCE: .... 14.2 FT (4.3 M)

(115) YEAR OF FUTURE ADT: ..... 2030 (50) SIDEWALKS:

(101) PARALLEL STRUCTURE: ... N - NONE LEFT : ...................................... 0.0 FT (0.0 M)

(38) NAVIGATION CONTROL?: ... 0 RIGHT : ................................... 0.0 FT (0.0 M)

(39) VERTICAL CLEARANCE: ...... 0.0 FT (0.0 M) (214) BRIDGE RAIL TYPE:

(40) HORIZ. CLEARANCE: ........... 0.0 FT (0.0 M) RAIL CONFIGURATION: ......... 3 - PARAPET ONLY

(111) ABUT. OR PIER PROT: ....... MATERIAL: .............................. 9 - OTHER

DESIGN TYPE: ........................ 1 - CONTINUOUS RAIL

LATERAL UNDERCLEARANCE:

(55) RIGHT: ....................... 0.0 FT (0.0 M) (215) BRIDGE RAIL HEIGHT: ............ 1.67 FT (0.51 M)

(56) LEFT: ......................... 0.0 FT (0.0 M) (53) MIN. VRT. CLEAR. OVER DECK: 99.99 FT (99.99 M)

(54) MIN. VRT. UNDERCLEARANCE: 0.00 FT (0.00 M)

CONDITION AND APPRAISAL DATA, PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, AND COST

(58) DECK: ................................. N

(59) SUPERSTRUCTURE:

(60) SUBSTRUCTURE:

(61) CHANNEL:

(62) CULVERT: ........................... N

(222) APPROACHES:

(223) RETAINING WALL: ........... N

(36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEAT: ... 0011

(75A) TYPE OF WORK: .............. 35 - GENERAL REHAB

(75B) WORK DONE BY: ............. 1 - CONTRACT

(76) IMPROVEMENT LENGTH: ..

(67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION:

(68) DECK GEOMETRY:

(69) UNDERCLEARANCES:

(71) WATERWAY ADEQUACY:

(72) APPROACH ALIGNMENT:

(113) SCOUR CRITICAL:

(225) PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

(226) PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT:

(227) MAINTENANCE COST:

(228) REHAB./RECONSTR. COST: ...

(229) CONSTRUCTION COST:

N

5 - Stable; scour within limits of

1 - MAINTENANCE

D - MINOR

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

(230) STRUCTURE HISTORY:

2000 - NEW SHOTCRETE ON ARCH UNDERSIDE, WEARING SURFACE WITH GEOTEXTILE MOISTURE BARRIER, FRENCH DRAINS, AND

OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WORK.

(231) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:

(330) ADDITIONAL CONFIG. INFO.:

http:73�56'32.00 http:41�47'27.30

APPENDIX STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P

PHOTOGRAPHS STRUCTURE NO. 1797-003P

FLOW

PHOTO #1 - LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD COACH HOUSE (AGAINST

ONE-WAY TRAFFIC)

PHOTO #2 - EAST (UPSTREAM) SIDE, SOUTH SPAN

PHOTO #3 - GENERAL TOP SIDE VIEW LOOKING SOUTH

PHOTO #4 - MISSING STONE IN PARAPET, WEST SIDE ABOVE NORTH

SPAN

PHOTO #5 - DISLODGED CAPSTONE AT NORTH END OF WEST RAIL

PHOTO #6 - LAMINAR DELAMINATION OF CAPSTONE ON EAST

PARAPET, NORTH END

PHOTO #7 - GENERAL UNDERSIDE VIEW OF

NORTH SPAN LOOKING SOUTH

PHOTO #8 - GENERAL UNDERSIDE VIEW OF

SOUTH SPAN LOOKING SOUTH; NOTE

CRACKING WITH EFFLORESCENCE

PHOTO #9 - TYPICAL CRACKING WITH EFFLORESCENCE NEAR RING

STONES, NORTH SPAN, EAST EDGE SHOWN

PHOTO #10 - GENERAL VIEW OF SOUTH ABUTMENT

PHOTO #11 - RUSTING WITH SECTION LOSS FROM WEEP HOLE PIPE

AT NORTH ABUTMENT BREASTWALL

PHOTO #12 - TYPICAL LOOSE STONES AND DETERIORATION OF PIER

MASONRY JOINTS, SOUTH FACE OF PIER SHOWN

PHOTO #13 - UNDERMINING OF NORTHWEST WINGWALL

PHOTO #14 - VEGETATION GROWTH ON NORTHEAST WINGWALL

PHOTO #15 - DETERIORATED APPROACH GUARDRAIL POST AT SOUTH

APPROACH, WEST SIDE

PHOTO #16 - VIEW FROM BRIDGE LOOKING UPSTREAM

PHOTO #17 - LOOKING DOWNSTREAM THROUGH BRIDGE