OR DOT 18(2)_Hydraulic Report.pdf

OR DOT 18(2) OR-58: FIX-IT CORRIDOR

CULVERTS

HYDRAULICS REPORT

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

WSP USA

851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97204

MAY 23, 2022

OR DOT 18(2) OR-58 Fix-It Corridor Culverts Project No. 80498A

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

Page i

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Location

1.2 Scope of Work

2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 Project Requirements

2.2 Design Criteria

2.2.1 Hydrologic Methods

2.2.2 Hydraulics

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Culvert Inspection and Condition Assessment

3.2 Topography

3.3 Drainage Basin Delineation

3.4 Soils Data

3.5 Generalized Land use

3.6 Runoff Coefficients

3.7 Curve Numbers

4 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS

4.1 Time of Concentration

4.2 Bypass Flow

4.3 Rational Method

4.4 Regression Equation

4.5 NRCS TR-55 Method

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

Page ii

5 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

6 WATER MANAGEMENT

7 WATER QUALITY

8 FISH PASSAGE DESIGN

9 DESIGN SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

TABLES

TABLE 3-1: NRCS SOIL MAP UNITS

TABLE 3-2: SELECTED GENERALIZED LAND USE TYPES

TABLE 3-3: LAND USE AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT

TABLE 3-4: LAND USE AND CURVE NUMBERS

TABLE 5-1: MANNING’S ROUGHNESS COEFFCIENT

TABLE 6-1 TEMPORARY WATER MANAGEMENT

DISCHARGE TABLE FOR REQUIRED CULVERTS

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY

APPENDICES

A CONDITION ASSESSMENT

B DRAINAGE BASIN MAPS

C SOILS MAPS

D GENERALIZED LAND USE

E TIME OF CONCENTRATION

F RATIONAL METHOD RESULTS

G REGRESSION EQUATION RESULTS

H TR-55 RESULTS

I PEAK RUNOFF SUMMARY

J HYDRAULIC RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

K WATER QUALITY TREATMENT

OR58 Fix It Culverts

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

Page iii

L FISH PASSAGE

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

1 INTRODUCTION

The OR DOT 18(2) OR-58: Fix-It Corridor Culverts Project (Project) is a partnership between the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The Project proposes to repair or replace existing culverts on Oregon Route 58 (OR-58) beginning at approximate mile point (MP) 2.73 and ending at MP 84.97 that are rated as being in “Poor” or “Critical” condition in ODOT's Drainage Facility Management System (DFMS). ODOT has identified 102 culverts that are either in poor or critical condition. Culvert issues range from rusted out inverts, open joints, general barrel damage to complete collapse of the structure. ODOT has previously addressed condition issues of 5 culverts (D028003, D028017, D028027, D028029, and D034755) leaving 97 culverts to be addressed within the Project.

OR-58 is designated as an ODOT priority route. The purpose of the Project is to “harden” the corridor by repairing or replacing these culverts within an overall corridor allocation of funding. The goal of the Project is to manage these funds as efficiently as possible by targeting the most appropriate option for extending the useful life of each culvert and thereby stretching the funding to meet the need for correcting all poor or critical condition culverts in the corridor.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The Project is located in Lane County and Klamath County, Oregon. The Project begins on OR-58 at approximately MP 2.73, Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates 43° 58' 43.61" North, 122° 57' 42.46" West. The Project ends at approximately MP 84.97, GPS coordinates 43° 20' 46.34" North, 121° 46' 16.13" West. Figure 1 provides a Project location and vicinity map.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

WSP USA (WSP) was contracted to provide engineering and environmental services for the design of the repair or replacement of 97 culverts on OR-58. However, 43 culverts were removed from the scope of the work due to insufficient funding.. Thus, this final phase includes the design of total of 54 culverts.

Tasks for final phase includes:

— Updating hydrology and hydraulic (H&H) analysis from the intermediate phase and updating culvert and channel designs per ODOT design requirements

— Updating cost estimates

— Finalizing Area of Potential Effect (APE)

— Designing the culvert at MP 15.51 to meet Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) fish passage requirements and ODOT hydraulic design requirements

— Summarizing known potential work zone traffic issues in the corridor during construction

— Updating this Hydraulics Report to incorporate final culverts and channel designs

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

This page is intentionally blank.

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity

WFLHD & ODOT

This page is intentionally blank

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The primary goals of the Project are as follows:

— “Harden” the corridor – increase resiliency by addressing culvert deficiencies because OR-58 provides a lifeline route between Interstate 5 and US 97

— Stretch the available funding to provide the most benefit to the most culverts as possible

— Be cognizant of and minimize mobility impacts associated with culvert replacement construction

— Address fish passage requirements outlined by the ODFW and included in the ODOT Culvert Repair Programmatic Agreement Pilot Project (Programmatic Agreement), dated December 8, 2017

— Coordinate timing of culvert repair or replacement with adjacent, separate projects, including a bridge project

2.1 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

The Project will repair or replace existing culverts based upon the results of the field scoping effort conducted by WFLHD and WSP in November 2018, supplemented by ODOT’s previous condition assessment efforts. The minimum allowable pipe diameter for replaced culverts is 18 inches.

The Programmatic Agreement between ODOT and ODFW applies when repair action constitute a “trigger event” under ODFW’s Fish Passage Policy. Trigger events include (ODFW 2019):

— Creating a road which crosses a channel

— Widening the road footprint within a channel

— Filling or excavating at least 50 percent of the material directly above a culvert, unless this volume is exclusively composed of the top 1 foot of material

— Constructing of a new culvert, overflow pipe, apron, or wingwall, within the channel

— Widening/extending of a culvert, wingwall or apron

— Cumulatively through time making repairs or patches to over 50 percent of the culvert’s linear length.

— Replacing any part of a culvert except for culvert ends that have become misaligned or eroded and which are replaced to their original configuration.

— Any reduction to the inside perimeter of the culvert

— Making any replacements, modifications, patches, repairs to the existing culvert that are different to the original configuration and which reduces the level of fish passage by native migratory fish

The Programmatic Agreement allows certain types of repair actions including:

— Strip lining

— Spot and localized repairs

— Spray on coatings

— Cured in place technologies

— Spiral wound lining

— Paving inverts

— Adding or extending end treatments

— Replacing one to three segments of the interior sections of a culvert

— Replacing road pavement and subbase above culverts.

Fish passage improvements include, but are not limited to, weirs, baffles, fish rocks, roughened channels, rock weirs, or other treatments within or outside the culvert that decrease water velocities, increase water depths, or reduce jump heights. Options

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

such as stream alignment changes, embankment repair and scour fixes cannot be standalone projects. These options are only eligible if structural repair is required at the culvert.

Any proposed culvert replacement within a fish stream requires full compliance with ODFW’s fish passage policy.

2.2 DESIGN CRITERIA

The primary design manual for H&H design is the ODOT Hydraulics Manual (ODOT 2014). Additionally, the Programmatic Agreement was used to determine recommended fish passage design standards.

2.2.1 HYDROLOGIC METHODS

Three methods were used to determine peak flows from the drainage basins. The rational method was used to determine peak flows for non-stream drainage basins less than 200 acres. The United States Geologic Service (USGS) multiple regression equations were used for basins with stream or creek crossings. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) TR-55 methodology was used for non-stream basins greater than 200 acres.

The Project is located within intensity-duration-recurrence interval (IDR) curves zones 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10. The 10-, 50-, and 100-year, 24-hour peak rainfall intensity was interpolated from the ODOT IDR curves in Chapter 7, Appendix A of the ODOT Hydraulics Manual.

For stream crossings, the 10-, 50-, and 100- year peak discharges were determined using the most recent USGS multiple regression equations.

2.2.2 HYDRAULICS

Culverts have been designed to safely pass the 50-year, 24-hour storm event and were checked for overtopping using the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The selected culvert sizes should range in 6-inch increments from 18 to 120 inches in diameter.

The maximum allowable headwater-to-depth (Hw/D) ratio is 1.25 during the 50-year, 24-hour storm event. Higher Hw/D ratios may be allowed if the embankment is determined to be stable and existing conditions warrant a larger ratio (ODOT 2014) with no potential flooding of upstream properties. In these cases, a seepage collar should be considered. The maximum allowable Hw/D during the 100-year, 24-hour storm event should be limited to between 3.00 and 5.00. For new culverts, the maximum 50-year Hw elevation allowed is the bottom of the roadway aggregate base layer. The maximum allowed 50-year Hw elevation for existing culverts is the hinge point of the local roadway low point (i.e., no spread of stormwater onto the roadway is allowed).

The minimum allowable diameter for new culverts is 18 inches. For culverts used as cross-drains to carry away intermittent roadside ditch water, the minimum pipe slope should be 0.5 percent and whenever possible, it should not be flatter than 2 percent. Where practical, the pipe slope should equal or exceed the roadside ditch grade. The maximum slope should not exceed 10 percent for concrete pipe, or 25 percent for metal pipes, without using pipe anchors.

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 CULVERT INSPECTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT

WSP, WFLHD, and SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a condition visual assessment of the existing culverts in November 2018. No video inspections or measurement of wall thicknesses were completed during the visual assessment. The most frequent condition issues observed by the team were:

Failing embankment or culvert covered with embankment due to scour

— Scour

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

— Corrosion

— Deformation

— Joint displacement

A summary of the ODOT-provided condition assessment as well as WSP inspection notes are provided in Appendix A.

Photographs from the inspection were provided in the file “OR58_FixIt_Culverts_Photolog.kmz”. Two culverts (MP 46.75, MP 64.62) and the outlets of additional four culverts (MP 11.75, MP 61.71, MP 66.61, MP 84.97 were not located during the site reconnaissance.

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY

The Project is generally located within the Willamette Valley, Cascades, and Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills ecoregions. The Project is located within the following watersheds as delineated by the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2019b):

— Lower Coast Fork Willamette River

— Pudding Creek – Middle Fork Willamette River

— Lookout Point Lake – Middle Fork Willamette River

— Hills Creek Lake – Middle Fork Willamette River

— Salt Creek

— Browns Creek – Deschutes River

— Crescent Creek

The topography varies throughout the Project limits ranging from flat areas generally on the west end of the Project with steeper rolling hills and mountains eastward to the Project limits. The roadway is constructed on both embankment and cut sections and is generally un-curbed with roadside ditches on either side.

The Dexter Lake and Lookout Point Reservoirs, U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers (USACE) flood reduction projects, are located north of the roadway alignment approximately between MPs 11.4 and 27.0. The dams at both these lakes impound the Middle Fork of the Willamette River. The USACE flood season is generally between November and March. The permanent pool elevation is restricted to 690 feet (USACE 2019) all year long.

3.3 DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATION

The drainage basins of each of the Project culverts were delineated using two different sources of elevation and topographic data. The primary base data used in the analysis was Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR). Sixty-three (63) of the 97 culverts were in locations where LiDAR data was available. The following 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle tiles with bare earth digital elevation models (DEM) were used in the analysis:

— Lane County (dated 2013-2014)

— Deschutes County (dated 2009-2010)

— Cascade Volcano Observatory (CVO) Newberry study area (dated 2011)

— United States Army Corps of Engineers Fall Creek (dated 2011)

LiDAR data was not available between MPs 41.2 and 60.8. The USGS topographic datasets in 40-foot elevation contours were used to delineate drainage basin boundaries for the culverts within these mile points. The USGS contours did not capture the road elevation along OR-58 nor were all drainage basin divides confidently determined from the dataset. This was especially true for cross culverts located close to each other.

The available LiDAR- and USGS-based basin maps were further refined using the following information:

— The USGS National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2019b)

— WSP-digitized culvert locations, outside of the Project culverts, from the ODOT TransGIS website (ODOT 2019c).

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

The information obtained from topographic survey was used to refine basin boundaries to better reflect the available data and the field visit. Drainage basin maps are provided in Appendix B and a summary of drainage basin areas are provided in the respective hydrology results.

3.4 SOILS DATA

Soils data was obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey. The NRCS Soil Survey dataset includes spatial delineations for various soil classifications, in addition to characteristics and properties for each soil classification. The available data for the Project indicated that soils are Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) C, or soils with low to moderate infiltration rates and high runoff rates.

Data was available for non-forest land in Lane County (MPs 2–18 and 30–38); soil data was not available for the remaining portions of the Project corridor (MPs 18–30 and 38–85) that are located within Deschutes and Willamette National Forests.

Based on review of available data for MPs 2 to 18 and 30 to 38, four culverts are located in mapped hydric soils (D028052, D028053, D028044, and D028041) and one culvert is located in soils mapped as prime farmland ( , and D034723).Table 3-1 lists the general soil types that occur at culverts between MPs 2.0 and 18 and 30 and 38. Soil maps are provided in Appendix C.

Table 3-1: NRCS Soil Map Units

SOIL MAP UNITS

Briedwell cobbly loam, 0 to 7 percent slopes Hazelair silty clay loam, 7 to 20 percent slopes

Chehalis silty clay loam, occasionally flooded Peavine silty clay loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes

Cumley silty clay loam, 2 to 20 percent slopes Ritner cobbly silty clay loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes

Dupee silt loam, 3 to 20 percent slopes Rock outcrop-Witzel complex, 10 to 70 percent slopes

Fluvents, nearly level Salem-Urban land complex

Hazelair silty clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Salkum silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

3.5 GENERALIZED LAND USE

Generalized existing land use were assigned based upon available 2016 aerial imagery and land use maps are provided as Appendix D. The selected generalized land use types used on the Project are summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Selected Generalized Land Use Types

LAND USE

Gravel road

Improved land, 30% impervious

Improved land, 50% impervious

Open grass/swale

Open pasture

Paved road

Wetlands

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

Table 3-2: Selected Generalized Land Use Types

LAND USE

Woods – dense

Woods – light

3.6 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS

ArcGIS was used to intersect the drainage basins with generalized land use to develop sub-basin hydrologic response units.

Each hydrologic response unit was assigned a runoff coefficient based on the land use type. Area-weighted runoff coefficients were determined for each drainage basin using the response unit areas and assigned runoff coefficients.

Runoff coefficients used in hydrology analyses are summarized in Table 3-3 and were assigned using the general land use and the values summarized in Chapter 7, Appendix F, Table 1, of the ODOT Hydraulic Manual. Weighted runoff coefficients were calculated based upon basin area and are summarized in the appropriate hydrology section.

Table 3-3: Land Use and Runoff Coefficient

LAND USE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT

Gravel roads 0.90

Improved land, 30% impervious 0.41

Improved land, 50% impervious 0.55

Open grass/swale 0.20

Open pasture 0.20

Paved road 0.90

Wetlands 0.90

Woods – dense 0.20

Woods – light 0.20

3.7 CURVE NUMBERS

ArcGIS was used to intersect the drainage basins, land use and NRCS soils datasets to develop sub-basin hydrologic response units. Each hydrologic response unit was assigned a curve number based on the land use type and hydrologic soil group classification combination. Area-weighted curve numbers were determined for each drainage basin using the response unit areas and assigned curve numbers.

Curve numbers used in hydrology analyses are summarized in Table 3-4 and were assigned using the general land use and the values summarized in the NRCS Technical Release 55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Tables 2-2a, 2-2b, and 2-2c (NRCS, 1986). Weighted curve numbers were calculated based upon basin area and are summarized in the appropriate hydrology section. Curve numbers were assigned on existing land use and did not account for increasing imperviousness resulting from potential future development. Ten culverts were identified near existing private properties that have potential for future development and are subject to increased flow. All of them have Hw/D ratio less than or equal to 0.8, while five of them are flowing at less than half of the capacity.

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

Table 3-4: Land Use and Curve Numbers

LAND USE

HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP

A B C D Gravel road 98 98 98 98

Improved land, 30% impervious 57 72 81 86

Improved land, 50% impervious 69 80 86 89

Open grass/swale 39 61 74 80

Open pasture 39 61 74 80

Paved road 98 98 98 98

Wetlands 98 98 98 98

Woods – dense 30 55 70 77

Woods – light 36 60 73 79

4 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS

WSP completed hydrology calculations using topographic survey data.

4.1 TIME OF CONCENTRATION

Due to the rural nature of the Project area, WSP used the NRCS Watershed Lag Method to estimate time of concentration.

The Lag Method uses the average flow length, average watershed land slope and the curve number to calculate a travel time using the following equation:

WFLHD & ODOT

A summary of time of concentration calculations are provided in Appendix E.

4.2 BYPASS FLOW

Drainage basin boundaries are based upon readily available topography data in 10 to 40-foot contours as described in Section

3.3. Additionally, other, non-Project, culverts are located within the Project limits and their drainage areas were not specifically delineated nor were their hydraulic properties modeled. Bypass flow from these non-Project culverts was not quantified.

4.3 RATIONAL METHOD

The rational method was used to estimate the 10-year, 50-year and 100-year, 24-hour peak runoff rates from non-stream drainage areas less than 200 acres. A summary of the rational method results is provided in Appendix F.

4.4 REGRESSION EQUATION

West of MP 65.0 at stream crossings, the regression equations in the USGS Estimation of Peak Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in Western Oregon (USGS 2005) was used. The Region 2A regression equations included in Table 11 in the USGS document (USGS 2005) were used for locations with mean elevations greater than 3,000 feet and the Region 2B regression equations included in Table 12 (USGS 2005) for locations less than 3,000 feet. Area and slope were determined using ArcGIS and LiDAR data as described in Section 3. The mean minimum and mean maximum January temperatures were determined using Figure 16 and Figure 17 in the USGS document (USGS 2005). The 2-year, 24-hour rainfall depth was determined using the Oregon 24-hour Precipitation Maps (ODOT 2019a). WSP estimated the 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year, 24-hour peak flow rates.

East of MP 65.0, WSP used the regression equations in the USGS Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Eastern Oregon (USGS 1983). Channel length was determined using ArcGIS and LiDAR as described in Section 3. Mean annual precipitation was determined from Figure 2 of the USGS Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Eastern Oregon (USGS 1983).

A summary of the regression equation results is provided in Appendix G.

4.5 NRCS TR-55 METHOD

The TR-55 Method, using the equations within HydroCAD, was used to determine the 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year peak runoff rates from culvert crossings with drainage areas larger than 200 acres. Basin areas were determined using ArcGIS and refined based on topographic survey data. Area-weighted curve numbers were assigned as described in Section 3.7. Time of concentration values were determined using the NRCS watershed lag method as described in Section 4.1. Type 1 and Type 1A Soil Conservation Service rainfall distributions were applied based on the NRCS Oregon Engineering Handbook, Appendix B (NRCS 1987). A summary of the TR-55 results is provided in Appendix H.

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

A summary of the peak runoff flow of all 54 culverts is provided in Appendix I.

5 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

Hydraulic calculations were completed using topographic survey data. HY-8, version 7.50 was used to estimate the Hw/D ratio during the 50-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events for the existing pipe diameters. Pipe elevations and slopes were estimated using the topographic survey (refer to Section 3.3). WSP typically modeled trapezoidal channels to define the tailwater condition for each culvert crossing. Channel properties including bottom width, side slopes, and channel slope were estimated based upon survey data. Manning’s n roughness of the downstream channel was selected based on land use and expedite hydraulic modeling using the values from the ODOT Hydraulic Manual. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the assigned Manning’s n.

Table 5-1: Manning's Roughness Coefficient

CULVERT ID

CHANNEL

MANNING'S N CHANNEL DESCRIPTION

D028100 0.024 Downstream CMP pipe

D027990 0.024 CMP culvert cut in half

D034723, 0.100 Highway channel, grass, fair stand, length about 12 inches

D027832, D027833, D027842, D034741, D027992, D028041, D028044, D028045, D028050, D028052, D028086, D028090, D028091, D028094, D028095, D028137, D028159, D028160, D028161

0.050 Minor mountain streams, trees and

branches along banks, bottom cobbles and few boulders

D028033, D028053, , D028071, D028074, D034765, D028076, D028077, D028078, D028082, D028107, D028108, D028109, D028124, D028128, D028142, D028163, D02186, D028238,

0.150 Streams on plain, very weedy

reaches, floodways with heavy stand of timber and underbrush

D028051, D034764, D028088, D028127, D028130, D028131, D028132, D028139, D028158, , , D028273 0.200

Floodplain, trees, dense willows, summer, straight

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

D027828, D028047, 0.200 Natural channels and floodplains with dense, straight willows

D027825

Constant tail water elevation, Dexter Reservoir

The initial hydraulic analysis assumed that the existing pipe was functional. WSP did not reduce the pipe capacity based upon existing conditions such as sedimentation, blockages, deformation or corrosion nor were initial culvert lining repair strategies modeled. Each result was compared to the maximum allowable design storm Hw/D. A second hydraulic model was run assuming the inlet and outlet were mitered end sections with paved end slopes per ODOT Standard Drawing RD320 if the existing culvert diameter had sufficient capacity (Hw/D < 1.25) and if it was not overtopping during the check storm. Culvert diameters were increased and remodeled in HY-8 to meet the maximum criteria allowed, also assuming mitered, paved end sections.

A summary of the existing and proposed hydraulic analysis is included as Appendix J.

6 WATER MANAGEMENT

During the in-water construction period of low flow summer and fall months (July through August), flows through culverts (creeks/ditches) will be bypassed around the work area. It is recommended that work occur during June through October within the streams identified as potentially fish bearing or waterways identified (field delineated) as streams by the wetland/waters ecologist working on the Project. Temporary water management is the control of flow and sediment from surface water and groundwater seepage during construction activities to be performed within bodies of water such as streams, creeks, rivers, wetlands, estuaries, or lakes. The plan for temporary water management (TWM) is to construct one or more temporary dams across the creek/ditch upstream from the work area. One or more pumps will pump flows into a bypass pipe or hose that is run over the construction area over the existing road pavement to an area in the existing channel downstream from the construction area. There, the water will be released back to its natural channel. A temporary dam will be constructed if needed, on the downstream side of the construction area. This dam will prevent fish from entering the construction site.

Fish passage will be blocked throughout the construction period. The natural discharge estimates for the culverts that require TWM are obtained from USGS streamflow statistics and spatial analysis tools (available at: https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/) and are reported in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1 Temporary Water Management Discharge Table for Required Culverts

No. DFI No. Mile Post

AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE IN GALLONS PER MINUTE

JULY AUGUST

1 2 3 1 2 3

1 D027828 MP 13.56 5.1 3.1 2.3 3.1 1.7 1.1

2 D027842 MP 15.51 26.9 16.2 11.9 16.1 8.7 5.8

3 D027853 MP 17.67 140.5 81.9 59.9 95.2 46.0 35.7

4 D028076 MP 41.91 112.6 65.7 48.1 76.3 36.9 28.6

5 D028078 MP 42.12 247.4 144.3 105.6 167.7 81.0 62.8

6 D028095 MP 44.06 58.8 34.3 25.1 39.9 19.3 14.9

7 D028102 MP 44.54 102.8 60.0 43.9 69.7 33.7 26.1

8 D028128 MP 47.07 26.7 15.6 11.4 18.1 8.7 6.8

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

9 D028132 MP 47.80 38.0 22.2 16.2 25.7 12.4 9.6

10 D028142 MP 50.30 80.5 47.0 34.3 54.6 26.3 20.4

11 D028160 MP 53.76 1497.1 1109.0 838.2 1053.5 812.2 613.2

12 D028189 MP 58.02 14093.9 10439.9 7891.4 9917.9 7645.7 5772.7

13 D028190 MP 58.16 990.9 734.0 554.8 697.3 537.6 405.9

4 D028238 MP 64.27 16757.5 12412.9 9382.7 11792.3 9090.6 6863.6

15 D028239 MP 64.60 936.5 693.7 524.4 659.0 508.0 383.6

16 D028240 MP 64.62 125.8 93.2 70.4 88.5 68.2 51.5

17 D028256 MP 66.61 51.8 38.3 29.0 36.4 28.1 21.2

Table 6-1 (continued)

No. DFI No. Mile Post

AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE IN GALLONS PER MINUTE

SEPTEMBER OCTOBER

1 2 3 1 2 3

1 D027828 MP 13.56 4.2 1.7 0.9 13.1 2.4 1.0

2 D027842 MP 15.51 21.9 8.9 4.7 68.9 12.6 5.2

3 D027853 MP 17.67 74.5 49.2 35.7 176.4 102.2 59.4

4 D028076 MP 41.91 59.7 39.4 28.7 141.4 82.0 47.6

5 D028078 MP 42.12 131.1 86.6 62.9 310.6 180.0 104.6

6 D028095 MP 44.06 31.2 20.6 15.0 73.9 42.8 24.9

7 D028102 MP 44.54 54.5 36.0 26.2 129.1 74.8 43.5

8 D028128 MP 47.07 14.1 9.3 6.8 33.5 19.4 11.3

9 D028132 MP 47.80 20.1 13.3 9.7 47.7 27.6 16.1

10 D028142 MP 50.30 42.7 28.2 20.5 101.1 58.6 34.0

11 D028160 MP 53.76 812.2 574.1 427.3 854.6 642.5 492.5

12 D028189 MP 58.02 7645.7 5404.2 4022.4 8044.9 6049.0 4636.6

13 D028190 MP 58.16 537.6 380.0 282.8 565.6 425.3 326.0

14 D028238 MP 64.27 9090.6 6425.5 4782.6 9565.3 7192.2 5512.8

15 D028239 MP 64.60 508.0 359.1 267.3 534.6 401.9 308.1

16 D028240 MP 64.62 68.2 48.2 35.9 71.8 54.0 41.4

17 D028256 MP 66.61 28.1 19.9 14.8 29.6 22.2 17.0

1) 5 Percent Exceedance Discharge (Average daily discharge expected to be exceeded 2 days each month.)

2) 25 Percent Exceedance Discharge (Average daily discharge expected to be exceeded 8 days each month.)

3) 50 Percent Exceedance Discharge (Average daily discharge expected to be exceeded 16 days each month.)

In- water work period extends from 1 July through 31 October Listed discharges are surface water from the upstream watershed. The estimated discharges are based on StreamStats.

Discharges in the subject watershed may differ.

WFLHD & ODOT

7 WATER QUALITY

Structural excavation and fill for culvert replacements will reconstruct the roadway from the subgrade. Per chapter 14 of the ODOT Hydraulics Manual (ODOT 2014), this is a water quality treatment trigger. Appendix K presents the reconstructed impervious areas for 29 culverts that impact wetland or water features.

OR-58 within the project limits is mostly uncurbed and surrounded by the Willamette, Deschutes and Umpqua national forests. The dense forests treat stormwater runoff by maintaining sheet flow and allowing dispersion, filtration and infiltration downstream of the culverts before reaching the receiving water bodies. Riprap at culvert outlets dissipate energy and spread the flow from culverts. Additional natural treatments are provided by vegetated roadside embankments and ditches.

A desktop study was performed to evaluate natural treatment in the project. Google Earth, photos from scoping site visit, and the project plan sets were used in the evaluation. Treatment downstream of a culvert is possible when sheet flow conditions occur (i.e., the road sheet flows to the outlet or the road slopes to the inlet but the culvert is not a stream culvert).

Downstream treatment is not feasible when the road slopes to the inlet and the culvert is a stream culvert, because flow is confined to the channel. Treatment by upstream ditches is, therefore, evaluated for stream culverts that receive flow from the road. Ditches leading to culverts D028159 (MP 53.69) is partially vegetated and soil amendment is proposed to promote treatment. The amendment is 12 inches deep and done in areas 4 feet wide by 100 feet long. Summary of the visual evaluation, site photos, reconstructed pavement areas and locations of the natural treatment for each culvert are included in Appendix K. Totally, 0.25 acres of pavement is reconstructed, all of which is treated by natural dispersion, infiltration and filtration. Appendix K summarizes the geometry of the natural treatment areas, the receiving water bodies and length to the water body.

8 FISH PASSAGE DESIGN

Six culverts were identified as possible fish passage culverts. ODFW was consulted to determine current and historical fish presence and which of the culverts would require fish approval. Based on ODFW’s determination, D027842 (MP 15.51) requires fish passage design. Culvert D028160 (MP 53.76) do not trigger the fish passage design requirements while MP 44.54 and MP 64.27 were exempt. Waivers were issued with mitigation required for D027828 and D028132.

The existing culvert D027842 (MP 15.51) is a 36-inch CMP for approximately 85 feet of the culvert length and changes to 48-inch CMP for the remaining half of the length. The outlet is perched above the ground line more than 2 feet and a large scour hole was observed on the downstream end. The outlet is deformed with significant damage to corrosion protection, rust and pitting. The culvert is, therefore, proposed to be replaced and designed for fish passage. ODOT Hydraulics Manual, HEC-26, and ODFW fish passage criteria were consulted for the fish passage design.

Besides the peak flow, fish passage designs incorporate minimum and maximum discharges for passage. The high passage flow (QH) and the low passage flow (QL) are taken as the 5% and 95% exceedance discharges, respectively. In-water work period for the project extends from July through October. The 5% discharge is needed for January, the wettest month. The 95% discharge is needed for October, the driest month outside of the in-water work period.

StreamStats (2021) was used to estimate the 5% and 95% exceedance discharges. The drainage area of 0.12 square miles is lower than the minimum recommended for the StreamStats regression equations. Therefore, discharges were obtained for a nearby Minnow Creek (within 0.5 miles of MP 15.51) and scaled down with the drainage area ratio. QH and QL for MP 15.51 are 2.79 cfs and 0.0 cfs, respectively. HY8 (v. 7.60) is used for the fish passage design and a value of 0.10 cfs is used for QL.

ODFW’s preferred fish passage design method is the Stream Simulation method. In this method, fish passages should maintain average water depth and velocities that simulate the surrounding stream channel. The structures should have beds that are at least equal to the active stream channel width and composed of material gradation that maintains the bed structure.

The fish passage design elements are as follows:

culvert basin area is 0.12 square miles, WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

peak runoffs computed using USGS regression equations are 11.7 cfs, 20.0 cfs, 27.20 cfs, and 30.20 cfs for the 2-year, 10-year, 50-year and 100-year events, QL and QH are 0.10 cfs and 2.79 cfs, respectively the active channel width is approximately 7.0 ft., the proposed culvert is an 8-foot diameter, 191-foot long CMP culvert with riprap headwall , the culvert is on a 7.2% slope, similar to the natural stream channel, the invert would be buried 3.0 feet into the stream bottom, a series of sediment retention baffles inside the culvert, and the culvert is filled with 1 foot of streambed material and 2 feet of oversized bed layer to mimic the natural bed and to provide stability against bed mobility during peak flows.

The natural streambed is mainly composed of small cobbles and silt. D95 is approximately 5” for small cobble and the Fuller- Thompson method was used to estimate the stream bed gradation (HEC-26). Per HEC-26, the oversized bed layer is at least 1.5D95 resulting in D95 of 1.33 ft. D5 should be no larger than 2 mm to limit interstitial flow. The oversized bed gradation was estimated using the Lagasse equation (HEC-26).

HY8 input and output data and details of the fish passage culvert are included in Appendix L.

A 0.5-foot triangular channel is provided within the stream bed to attain the minimum depth during QL. Depth of flow at QL is

0.52 ft and velocity at QH is 1.46 fps. These values are acceptable when compared to simulated existing values within the stream.

9 DESIGN SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

Hydrology and hydraulic analysis of all culverts is included in this report. The detailed plan and profile of each repair/replacement culvert along with summary of quantities can be found in construction drawings submitted in the final package. Improvement strategies for each culvert is summarized in Appendix J. The following is a list of recommendations for proposed culvert repair or replacement:

— Thirty-Eight (38) culverts are proposed for open-trench replacement because the existing pipe condition is critical, the capacity is insufficient for the hydrology estimates, and the depth of cover is less than 10 to 15 feet. However, only sections of the twenty (20) culverts will be replaced, outside the edge of pavement and the culvert will be lined. Only one (1) culvert is proposed for trenchless replacement.

— The inlets and outlets of replaced culverts will be improved with mitered, paved end slopes and riprap.

— Fifteen (15) culverts are proposed for repairs. Repairs include: adding inlet and outlet protection (e.g., paved end slopes and riprap); lining, either full or paving the invert; excavating and resetting pipe sections; grouting displaced joints; adding corrosion protection; scour repair; inlet ditch realignment, and improving the inlet and outlet with mitered, paved end sections and riprap.

— One (1) culvert was designed to meet ODFW fish passage requirements and ODOT hydraulic design requirements. Detailed fish passage design is included in Appendix L.

— Fifteen (15) culverts were TV inspected during this design in December 2020. This additional TV inspection, outside of the TV pre- and post-repair TV inspections completed during construction were summarized in a separate memo and submitted under independent cover.

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

REFERENCES

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

1999 Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 41039C1695F. Lane County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas. June 2, 1999.

Federal Lands Highway (FLH)

2012a Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM). July 2012. [Available online at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/design/pddm/].

2012b Chapter 7 Hydrology and Hydraulics. December 2012. [Available online at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/design/pddm/Chapter_07.pdf]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

2012 State Coastal Zone Boundaries. February 9. [Available at:

https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/media/StateCZBoundaries.pdf]. Accessed February 8, 2019.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 2019. Oregon Map. Available at: https://www.rivers.gov/oregon.php. Accessed February 8, 2019.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS)

2019 Web Soil Survey. [Available at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx]. Accessed January 2019.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

2019 Current Nonattainment Areas in Oregon. [Available at: https://www.oregon.gov/deq/aq/Pages/Nonattainment- Areas.aspx]. Accessed February 1, 2019.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

2019 Oregon Fish Passage. [Available online at https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/passage/] Accessed January 2019.

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI)

2019 LiDar viewer. [Available online at https://gis.dogami.oregon.gov/maps/lidarviewer/]. Accessed January 2019.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)

2014 Hydraulics Manual. August 2014. [Available online at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/GeoEnvironmental/Pages/Hydraulics-Manual.aspx] Accessed January 2019.

2017 ODOT Culvert Repair Programmatic Agreement Pilot Project. December 8, 2017.

2019a Chapter 7, Appendix H of the ODOT Hydraulic Manual. [Available online at https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/GeoEnvironmental/Docs_Hydraulics_Manual/Hydraulics-07-H.pdf]. Accessed

2019b ODOT Traffic Count Data [Available online at https://highway.odot.state.or.us/cf/highwayreports/traffic_parms.cfm]. Accessed January 2019.

2019c ODOT TransGIS. [Available online at https://gis.odot.state.or.us/transgis/]. Accessed March 2019.

StreamNet. 2019. StreamNet Mapper. Available at: https://www.streamnet.org/data/interactive-maps-and-gis-data/.

Accessed February 1, 2019.

United States Army Corps of Engineer (USACE)

1987 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1.

Online edition. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Available at:

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/wlman87.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2018.

WFLHD & ODOT

WSP

2005 Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05: Ordinary high-water mark identification. [Available at:

https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16021coll9/id/1253/rec/1.] Accessed September 13, 2018.

2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Edited by J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3.

Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

2019 Dexter Lake. [Available online at https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Locations/Willamette-Valley/Dexter/].

Accessed March 2019.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

2019a WATERS GeoViewer. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer. Accessed February 1, 2019.

2019b Cleanups in My Community Map. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/cleanups/cleanups-my-community.

Accessed February 1, 2019.

2019c Sole Source Aquifers Interactive Map. Available at:

https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047ba3ec41ada1877155fe31356b.

Accessed February 1, 2019.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. National Wetlands Inventory dataset. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.

United States Geologic Service (USGS)

1983 Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Eastern Oregon. [Available online at https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1982/4078/report.pdf]. Accessed January 2019.

2005 Estimation of Peak Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in Western Oregon. [Available online at https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5116/#download]. Accessed January 2019.

2019a TMN Download (V1.0). [Available online at https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/]. Accessed January 2019.

2019b USGS National Hydrography Dataset. [Available online at https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography]. Accessed January 2019.

2021 5% and 95% exceedance discharges. [Available online at https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ ]. Accessed April

APPENDIX

A CONDITION

ASSESSMENT

OR DOT 18(2), OR-58 FIX-IT CORRIDOR CULVERTS

CONDITION ASSESSMENT

S p a n in

R is e in

Le n g th ft

Shape Material S p a n in

R is e in

Le n g th ft

Shape Material G e n e ra l

B a rr e l C o n d it io n

Structural

Blockage

Sediment

Blockage Cracking Invert

Open

Joints Distortion Settlement Piping Drift

Vegetation

Obstruction

D034723 Poor 2.73 05/06/14 Right Cross Roadside

Drainage Drop Inlet Mitered 2.2 3.5 12 12 77 Circular

HDPE Smooth

Wall Roadway Fill Riprap

Pipe appears to be punched by guard rail post, see pic L.

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Critical Poor (Good)

Critical

(Good) Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

Existing riprap (D50=12") apron on outlet appears stable.

G2 Inlet on end panel, not against curb. Miter end section. Guardrail may have penetrated the pipe. Inlet appears to be in good condition.

D027793 Poor 6.92 05/07/14 Right Cross Roadside

Drainage

Mitered Slope

Paved

Mitered Slope

Paved 4 6 18 18 92 Circular Concrete Roadway Fill Rip Rap

Pipe appears to be punched by guard rail post, see pic L.

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Critical Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

Joints on both ends have separated at the paved end sections. Large trapezoidal ditch on east side. Some aggregate exposure on joints. Staining on bottom fifth of invert. Paved inlet and outlet appear stable. May be stream, flows to north onto private property?

D034732 Poor 8.22 06/27/16 Left Cross Roadside

Drainage Drop Inlet Catch Basin 2.4 2.4 12 12 95 Circular Conc Pipe Roadway Fill RDF

Outlet of 8.2200 flows into catch basin at 8.2300.

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Poor

No Data

(Poor) Good No Data Good Good Good Good Good Good (Poor)

Inlet at end of mountable curb. Lots of debris on grate top. Downstream inlet is filled with sediment. Unable to tell pipe diameter but appears to be larger than 12". Outlet from second CB is a paved end section with some riprap.

D034733 Poor 8.23 05/07/14 Right Pipe Right Roadside

Drainage Drop Inlet

Mitered Slope

Paved

2.6 5 12 12 37 Circular Conc Pipe Roadway Fill Roadway Fill

Inlet of 8.2300 is outlet of

8.2200.

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Critical Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good D034732 drains to this pipe. It was completely full of sediment

D027817 Poor 11.13 05/08/14 Right Cross Roadside

Drainage Projecting Projecting 4 5 18 18 72 Circular Concrete Roadway Fill Roadway Fill

Inlet of 8.2210 is outlet of

8.2200.

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

Joints have separated. Outlet has exposed rebar and is projecting. Some spalling at the end section is occurring.

D027819 Poor 11.42 05/08/14 Right Public

Approach Rt

Roadside

Drainage Projecting Projecting 0.0 2.0 18.0 18.0 60.0 Circular Concrete Roadway Fill Roadway Fill Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Fair Fair

End section is spalling with little cover. Joints have separated/ subsided approximately 1 inch. Some spalling at the joints. Abrasion on the bottom of the pipe. Vegetation at inlet indicates that some backwater may be occurring. Appears there may be a bend or deflection in the pipe alignment.

D027821 Critical 11.75 06/16/14 Right Pipe Left Roadside

Drainage Projecting No Data 0.0 2.0 12.0 12.0 175.0 Circular

HDPE

Corrugated Roadway Fill Roadway Fill

CNL outlet, estimated ht. of cover & length, ratings done from inlet end only.6/16/14 no outlet found

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Critical Critical Critical Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Fair Could not located outlet. Pipe is 3/4 full of sediment. Erosion into roadway embankment has occurred.

D027825 Poor 13.07 06/27/16 Right Cross Roadside

Drainage Projecting Projecting 2.5 5.0 24.0 24.0 76.0 Circular

Corrugated

Metal Pipe Roadway Fill Riprap

Inlet end smashed, but not completely closed.

Good Good Good Fair Good Good Good Good Critical Poor Good No Data Good Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good

Inlet is deformed with hydraulic capacity compromised by at least 70%. Bottom 1/3 of pipe is rusted with pitting. Some corrugations appear to be completely rusted through. May be some deformation of the barrel. Outlet projects into the reservoir. Appears invert may have been paved in the past. Class 2000 riprap along bank. May need barge to access outlet.

Outlet is round and straight and can see through the culvert. Inlet is crushed, potentially hit by car.

D027828 Poor 13.56 06/27/16 Right Cross Stream Projecting Projecting 3.9 7.0 18.0 18.0 78.0 Circular Conc Pipe Roadway Fill Roadway Fill

Outlet end piece starting to separate with others from rest of culvert.

Good Good Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair No Data Good Good Fair Good Fair Poor Good Good

This drains a steep slope/draw. Minor join separation on inlet. Bottom 1/3 of pipe is filled with sediment/rocks. Some abrasion / pitting on invert. Outlet is perched at least 2 feet above ground line. Outlet has separated/settled at least 3 inches. Some backfill can be seen at the separation. Some minor pitting on downstream end. More sediment on the upstream end may mean a blockage some where along the barrel is causing backwater. Private access is west of this culvert.

No signs of overtopping. No signs of scour. ?Can see through the cuvlert from the outlet. 1" to 2" joint separation at the outlet (3 joints in). Deflection at 30 ft from the outlet?

Recommend CCTV to see if any cracks or crushing at non-visible joints. Separation at second joint from outfall and joint settled. Culvert is clean with no immediate or visible breaks at outfall.

D027832 Poor 13.93 06/16/14 Right Cross Roadside

Drainage Projecting Projecting 3.8 5.8 18.0 18.0 53.0 Circular

Corrugated

Metal Pipe Roadway Fill Roadway Fill Inlet end has rip in the crown. Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Poor Critical Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

Inlet is in depression. Some old riprap around the inlet. Pipe is deformed/crushed with a split on the top of the pipe. Gravel/sediment is on the bottom 1/4 of the pipe. Some sediment residue on top of pipe indicates it might flow full. Abrasion is present on the bottom half of the invert. Pipe discharges at top of steep bank. Some erosion at outlet

Damage is only at inlet and outlet

D027833 Poor 14.03 06/16/14 Right Cross Roadside

Drainage Projecting Projecting 4.2 5.2 18.0 18.0 54.0 Circular

Corrugated

Metal Pipe Roadway Fill Roadway Fill Good Good Good Critical Good Good Good Fair Good Poor Poor Critical Good Good Good Good Good Good Fair Good

Inlet and outlet is damaged/deformed. Scour hole on downstream. Some joint separation.

Downstream end is higher than upstream end and may be causing backwater. Sediment in the pipe approximate 1/4 of invert. Some sediment residue on top of pipe indicates it might flow full.

Outlet looks new with minor damage compared to MP 13.93. Lots of sediment. Inlet has some deflection

D027842 Poor 15.51 06/17/14 Right Cross Stream Projecting Projecting 7.1 14.2 36.0 36.0 173.0 Circular Corrugated

Metal Pipe Rip Rap Roadway Fill

36" CMP at inlet, 48" CMP

(approx. 60 - 80' long) at outlet.

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Good Poor Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Poor Good Good

Could not locate inlet as it was covered by blackberries. Outlet is 48" CMP. Outlet is perched above the ground line at least 3 ft. Large scour hole on downstream end. Large erosional hole around outlet back towards inlet, approximately 6.5 feet long. Water is piping around the culvert. Outlet is deformed with significant damage to corrosion protection, rust and pitting. Outside of pipe is rusted and pitted. Not a lot of flow in pipe.

D027844 Poor 15.67 06/28/16 Right Cross Stream Projecting Projecting 29.0 35.6 36.0 36.0 219.0 Circular Corrugated

Metal Pipe Riprap Roadway Fill

Tree roots at outlet and a log laying on the inlet. Minor damage to crown/Joint at outlet end.

Good Good Good Good Good Good Fair Good Good Poor Poor No Data Good Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Good

Inlet is down a very steep bank to safely access. Outlet is deformed with flowing water almost to spring line. Sediment has accumulated to at least 1/4 height. Large trees are growing around and into the outlet. Appears this may have been asphalt paved/lined in the past. Channel downstream is showing signs of a erosion and is incised.

D027848 Poor 16.87 06/28/16 Right Cross Roadside

Drainage Projecting Projecting 16.9 43.0 36.0 36.0 258.0 Circular

Corrugated

Metal Pipe Roadway Fill Roadway Fill Blockage is at the outlet end. Good Good Good Fair Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor No Data Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Good Good

Could not locate outlet. Inlet has 2 channels coming into it from the west and north. No channel erosion. Culvert has been lined in the past. No deformation of the pipe. Water mark up to the spring line. Some damage to the lining.

D034741 Critical 17.29 06/28/16 Right Pipe Right Roadside

Drainage

Mitered Slope

Paved Mitered 1.7 2.3 12.0 12.0 146.0 Circular

Corrugated

Metal Pipe Roadway Fill Roadway Fill

Joint seam pinched in as seen from outlet inside photo.

Blockage is both structural & sediment.

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Fair Critical Critical No Data Good Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Good

Paved inlet is damaged and corroded. Pipe is flowing full. Outlet is in a depression.

Communication pedestal is located east of the culvert on mound. Pipe has corrosion around nearly 3/4 of the invert (above spring line)

D027853 Poor 17.67 06/17/14

DISGUST

CREE…