RBI-HUA-17-13599.pdf

RBI-HUA-17-13599

Routine Bridge Inspection Report Facility Number: 13599 NBI Structure No.: DAPTRAHUA013599 Ft. Huachuca, AL Luis A. De Jesus-Diaz, PE Inspection Date: 28 February 2017 Report Date: June 2017

Requests for this document shall be referred to the Commander USAG Fort Huachuca, ATTN: DPW, IMWE- HUA-PWE, 3040 Butler Road, Building 22422, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613-6000 or to the HQ IMCOM, G4 Public Works Division, Facilities Management Branch, 2405 Gun Shed Rd, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234- 1223.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.

Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

PREFACE

This report presents a routine inspection for facility number 13599 at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona and satisfies requirements for routine inspection as specified in Army Regulation (AR) 420-1 “Army Facility Management”, Chapter 7 “Transportation Infrastructure and Dams.”

The Army Bridge Inspection Program is sponsored by the Army Transportation Infrastructure Inspection Program (ATIIP) of the Headquarters Installation Management Command (IMCOM), San Antonio, TX. The IMCOM provided funding for this investigation. Questions shall be directed to Michael R. Andres, IMCOM ATIIP Program Manager, michael.r.andres.civ@mail.mil.

Personnel of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory (GSL), Vicksburg, MS, prepared this publication. The required field inspection was conducted in February and March 2017.

The evaluation team consisted of Edgardo Ruiz, Team Leader, Luis A. De Jesus-Diaz, and Henry Diaz, Structural Engineering Branch (StEB), GSL. Mr. Edgardo Ruiz, StEB, GSL, was the Project Lead.

The Installation POC is Freddie L. Anderson, (520) 5333-3472, freddie.l.anderson2.civ@mail.mil

The numbering convention for reporting purposes is from left to right looking from upstream to downstream or from the north and the west. All units of measure in this report are in U.S. (English) units unless noted otherwise.

Inspection Team Leader:

Edgardo Ruiz, PE, (601) 634-2549, edgardo.ruiz@usace.army.mil

Report Reviewer:

Edgardo Ruiz, PE, (601) 634-2549, edgardo.ruiz@usace.army.mil

Report Approver:

Gerardo I. Velazquez, (601) 634-3265, gerardo.i.velazquez@usace.army.mil

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 13599-1

BRIDGE ID & DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 13599-2

SKETCHES .................................................................................................................................. 13599-8

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 13599-9

STRUCTURE INVENTORY & APPRAISAL FORM .............................................................. 13599-27

INSPECTION RECORD ........................................................................................................... 13599-29

RBI-HUA-17-13599-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A routine inspection was performed at structure number 13599 on 28 February 2015 in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 650, Subpart C - National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) and the requirements for routine inspection as specified in Army Regulation (AR) 420-1 “Army Facility Management”, Chapter 7 “Transportation Infrastructure and Dams.” The previous NBIS inspection was performed on 10 March 2015. Subsequent routine NBIS safety inspections should be performed at regular intervals not to exceed twenty-four months in accordance with the NBIS.

Bridge 13599 is in poor condition overall (NBI Rating = 4). This condition has not changed significantly since the previous inspection. Following is a list of the most significant findings.

No load rating document of the structure.

Deficient traffic safety features.

Shear and flexure cracking and exposed rebar on T-beams.

Scour around abutments (degradation and aggradation).

Large scour hole with undermining in channel upstream from the structure.

Erosion and undercutting of the downstream channel banks.

Corrective action should be taken as outlined in this report to prevent the possible development of more serious or costly problems in the future.

None of the deficiencies at this bridge are considered critical, so no immediate corrective actions are needed. Current repair/maintenance recommendations include the following (described in more detail in Table 1 & 2):

Perform and document a load rating.

Upgrade traffic safety features.

Monitor crack growth in concrete T-beams.

Clean and patch exposed rebar area.

Install countermeasures to address scour and erosion.

The bridge is currently not posted for weight restrictions. The bridge requires a load rating to be performed and documented, and civilian posting signs installed if necessary.

RBI-HUA-17-13599-2

BRIDGE ID & DESCRIPTION

Main Span Material: Concrete

No. of Main Spans: 1

Main Span Type: Tee Beam

No. of Approach Spans: 0 No. of Beams, Main Span: 4

Max. Span Length: 27.83 ft Structure Total Length: 27.83 ft

Deck Type: Concrete Cast-In-Place

Deck Width: 24.54 ft Curb to Curb Width: 23.83 ft

Wearing Surface: Bituminous Skew Angle: 0 °

Abut. Foundations: Spread Footing

Pier Foundation(s): N/A

Abutment / Pier Mat'l: Concrete

Year Built: 1960 Year Reconstructed: N/A

Fracture Critical: No

Underwater Inspection: No Date of previous UW Inspection: N/A

Special Inspection (SI): No Date of previous SI: N/A

Structure Repair History: 2010- he end treatments were replaced and an erosion hole filled. 2014- Aggradation under the bridge was removed.

LOCATION

Installation: Ft. Huachuca State: Arizona

Facility Carried: Canelo Road Feature Intersected: Slaughterhouse Wash

Latitude: 31°34'01.88" N Longitude: 110°23'44.92" W

RBI-HUA-17-13599-3

BRIDGE LOCATION MAP

NOT TO SCALE

SATELLITE VIEW

RBI-HUA-17-13599-4

Figure 1. Elevation View Looking Northeast

Figure 2. Elevation View Looking Southwest

RBI-HUA-17-13599-5

Figure 3. Approach Looking Northwest

Figure 4. Approach Looking Southeast

RBI-HUA-17-13599-6

Figure 5. Upstream View

Figure 6. Downstream View

RBI-HUA-17-13599-7

Figure 7. Underside View looking to the abutment

RBI-HUA-17-13599-8

SKETCHES

RBI-HUA-17-13599-9

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Critical Findings / Sustainment Deficiencies and Recommendations:

Table 1 shows all critical findings that require immediate attention. Table 2 shows the deficiencies and recommendations for the bridge that should be completed over the next two years, or for larger rehabilitation or replacement projects where planning and design should begin. The estimated costs in Tables 1 and 2 are approximate costs based on the cost of material and labor required to complete the recommended repair, in U.S. dollars. All cost data is based on current bid tabulations from the California Department of Transportation’s report “2015 Contract Cost Data-A

Summary of Cost by Items for Highway Construction Projects.” These approximate cost estimates should only be used as a reference and for project planning purposes.

Although they represent the costs for individual repair activities, they may not represent the total cost of a complete repair/rehabilitation project. Costs such as Engineers’

Office, Submittal Reviews, Mobilization and Demobilization, Maintenance of Traffic, Stream Diversion, Contractor's bond etc. would have to be added to the costs provided to develop a complete project cost.

There may be instances where it is recommended for DPW personnel to monitor a condition during the annual maintenance inspection or during an inspection frequency that does not coincide with the routine inspection cycle. DPW should report to the Inspection Team Leader (ITL) the results of that inspection via email and the ITL will determine if repairs or other actions will be required at that time.

R B

I-H U

A -17-13599-10

Table 1: Critical Findings

YEAR DEFICIENCY

NO. PHOTO DEFICIENCY RECOMMENDATION

REPAIR

TIMEFRAME

(MONTHS)

PLAN OF

ACTION

REQUIRED

(Y/N)

INSPECTION

FREQUENCY

(MONTHS)

QTY AMOUNT

($K)

N/A N/A N/A None N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 $0.0

TOTAL: $0.0

Table 2: Deficiencies & Recommendations

YEAR DEFICIENCY

NO. PHOTO DEFICIENCY RECOMMENDATION

REPAIR

TIMEFRAME

(MONTHS)

INSPECTION

FREQUENCY

(MONTHS)

QTY AMOUNT

($K)

2015 1 N/A No load rating documentation. Perform and document a load rating, and install civilian load postings if necessary. 12

LS $5.0

2015 2 1 Collision damage to Approach 2 upstream hazard marker. Replace hazard marker. 18 1 EA $0.3

2009 3 2 Rail posts spacing is inadequate.

Replace bridge rails, install approach rails and end treatments. 12 LS $27.3

2009 4 3 No approach rails.

2011 5 1 No end treatment at upstream side of Approach 2.

2009 6 N/A Upstream rail is loose due to collision damage.

2011 7 4 Several rail posts are heavily corroded including one with a perforation.

2011 8 5 Cracking at wearing surface.

DPW should monitor during maintenance inspection for crack widening and growth. N/A 12 0 $0.0

2011 9 6 Cracking at wingwalls.

2009 10 7 Cracking with efflorescence at underside of deck.

2009 11 8,9 Shear and flexure cracks at beams.

2009 12 10 Honeycombing and spalling with exposed rebar at the underside of the deck. Remove loose concrete and patch with suitable concrete material.

18 24

8 SF $1.7

2011 13 11 Honeycombing with exposed rebar at Beam 3. 2 SF $0.4

2011 14 N/A Utility pipe at downstream side of deck is trapping debris. Remove debris. 4 M-

Hr $0.2

B

I-H U

A -17-13599-11

YEAR DEFICIENCY

NO. PHOTO DEFICIENCY RECOMMENDATION

REPAIR

TIMEFRAME

(MONTHS)

INSPECTION

FREQUENCY

(MONTHS)

QTY AMOUNT

($K)

2011 15 12 Efflorescence and honeycombing at breast walls. Do nothing. N/A 0 $0.0

2011 16 12,13 Scour hole at downstream side of Abutment 2 exposing the toe.

Protect the Abutment 1 toe with suitable rip rap.

3 CY $0.9

2011 17 14 Aggradation next to Abutment 1. Remove the aggradation from under the bridge. 4 CY $0.3

2017 18 15,16 Scour hole and undermining at upstream side of channel.

Re-grade the channel to its original profile.

15 CY $1.5

Protect with suitable rip rap. 6 CY $1.8

2017 19 17 Aggradation at downstream side of channel. Remove aggradation from channel.

15 CY $1.2

2017 20 18 Erosion and undercutting of downstream channel banks.

Re-grade channel banks to their original profile. 6 CY $0.6

Protect channel banks with suitable rip rap. 3 CY $0.9

TOTAL: $42.1

RBI-HUA-17-13599-12

PHOTO #1

PHOTO #2

RBI-HUA-17-13599-13

PHOTO #3

PHOTO #4

RBI-HUA-17-13599-14

PHOTO #5

PHOTO #6

RBI-HUA-17-13599-15

PHOTO #7

PHOTO #8

RBI-HUA-17-13599-16

PHOTO #9

PHOTO #10

RBI-HUA-17-13599-17

PHOTO #11

PHOTO #12

RBI-HUA-17-13599-18

PHOTO #13

PHOTO #14

RBI-HUA-17-13599-19

PHOTO #15

PHOTO #16

RBI-HUA-17-13599-20

PHOTO #17

PHOTO #18

Aggradation

RBI-HUA-17-13599-21

Table 3: Completed Repairs since Last Inspection

Deficiency Resolution Critical Finding (Y/N)

Date

Several None N N/A

Structure Capacity: A load rating was not on file for this bridge. ERDC is in the process of load rating the Army’s inventory of bridges over a two-year time frame. The Load Rating

Document provides the required posting signs, if needed, and the following NBI items:

NBI Item Description Code

(31) Design Load Unknown 0

(41) Structure Open/Posted/Closed to Traffic Open A

(63) Operating Rating Method

(65) Inventory Rating Method

No rating analysis or evaluation performed 5

(64) Operating Rating XX RF / tons XX.X

(66) Inventory Rating XX RF / tons XX.X

(70) Bridge Posting Equal to or above legal loads 5

RBI-HUA-17-13599-22

Table 4: Civilian Capacity

Currently Posted (Y/N)

Legal Load / Posted Limit

Supporting Load Rating Document LR Date LR Calculation

Valid (Y/N)

LR Calculation Revised

(Y/N/NA)

N N/A N/A None N/A N N/A

Design Load : UNK Load Capacity Remains (Y/N) : N/A

Date of Previous Load Rating : N/A Load Capacity Reduced (Y/N) : N/A

Date of Current Load Rating : N/A Revised or New Load Posting (Y/N) : N/A

Specify Load Rating Methodology 1 : N/A

AASHTO LOADINGS

Load Rating Type

Load Type Weight (tons) RF RT

(tons)

Safe Posting Load Limit

(tons)

D es ig n

Lo ad at in g HL – 93 or

HS - 20

Inventory 36.0 Unk Unk

Operating 36.0 Unk Unk

Le ga l L oa d R at in g

Routine Commercial Vehicles

Type 3 25.0 Unk Unk Unk

Type 3-S2 36.0 Unk Unk Unk

Type 3-3 40.0 Unk Unk Unk

Specialized Hauling Vehicles

NRL 40.0 Unk Unk Unk

SU4 27.0 Unk Unk Unk

SU5 31.0 Unk Unk Unk

SU6 34.8 Unk Unk Unk

SU7 38.8 Unk Unk Unk

1. Enter ASR for Allowable Stress Rating, LFR for Load Factor Rating or LRFR for Load and Resistance Factor Rating.

2. HL-93 Design Vehicle applies only to LRFD/LRFR methodology. When multiplying 36 tons by the rating factor obtained from the

HL-93 to report tonnage, this value shall be taken as a fictitious or "pseudo" load rating since HL-93 is a notional vehicle consisting of a truck or a tandem plus a lane loading. This operation is done for the sole purpose of reporting a value to the NBI.

RBI-HUA-17-13599-23

Table 5: Military Load Classification

Posted

MLC

1-way Wheel

Calc

MLC

1-way Wheel

Posted

MLC

2-way Wheel

Calc

MLC

2-way Wheel

Posted

MLC

1-way Track

Calc

MLC

1-way Track

Posted

MLC

2-way Track

Calc

MLC

2-way Track

None Unknown None Unknown None Unknown None Unknown

Channel Scour: Even though the structure is not considered to be scour critical, it has severe scour and undermining issues that should be addressed.

Table 6: Channel Scour

Scour Screening (Level 1/2)

Low Risk (Y/N)

Priority (Low/High) Document

Document Date

(MM/YY)

Channel Profile

Change >3ft (Y/N)

Profile Base Year

1 Y Low RBI-HUA-17-13599 06/17 N 2009

Traffic Safety: The traffic safety features of structure do not meet the current standards due to inadequate spacing of the rail posts.

Table 7: Traffic Safety

NBI Item 36A Bridge Rails

NBI Item 36B Transition

NBI Item 36C Approach Rails

NBI Item 36D End Treatments

0 N 0 0

Seismic Assessment: An assessment of Structure 13599 as to its seismic vulnerability is required in the 2012 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Assuming a Site Class D (stiff soil), Structure 13599 will be subjected to a peak seismic ground acceleration coefficient (As) of

0.109 g, a short-period spectral acceleration coefficient (SDS) of 0.251 g, and a long-period spectral acceleration coefficient (SD1) of 0.111 g which places it in Seismic Zone 1 per AASHTO

3.10.

RBI-HUA-17-13599-24

Prior Report: The2015Inspection Report was on file and consulted or reviewed for comparison purposes.

Fracture Critical: Structure 13599 has no fracture critical elements.

Special Inspection Requirements: Structure 13599 does not require a special inspection.

RBI-HUA-17-13599-25

Installation Status Report (ISR): Facility Number 13599 has a recommended Mission

Functional ISR of 2.000, AMBER and a recommended Quality ISR rating of 2.600, RED.

Table 8a: ISR Mission Functional

Green Amber Red N/A

CAPACITY (10pts):

- Bridge capacity is sufficient for current mobilization requirements based on a valid load rating or engineering judgement document.

CAPACITY:

- Bridge can be strengthened to meet current mobilization requirements with minimal rehabilitation.

CAPACITY:

- Bridge capacity is insufficient or unable to be rehabilitated to meet current requirements. 0 [ X ]

BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS (10pts):

- Bridge has sufficient width, horizontal and vertical clearance for current mobilization requirements.

BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS:

- N/A [No Amber Condition] 0

BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS:

- Bridge width or clearances are insufficient or unable to be rehabilitated to meet current requirements.

0 [ ]

BRIDGE SAFETY FEATURES

(10pts):

- All features of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NBI Item #36 rated 1 or N (Bridge rail, transitions, approach guardrails, and end treatments)

BRIDGE SAFETY FEATURES:

- Any feature of FHWA Item #36 rated 0 but there is a valid project shown during the inspection that addresses deficiencies and is being scheduled.

BRIDGE SAFETY FEATURES:

- Any feature of FHWA Item #36 rated 0, with no upgrade actions planned.

10 [ ]

BRIDGE INSPECTIONS (10pts):

- Inspections are conducted within the required frequency (routine: 24 month, maintenance: 12 months).

- Complete bridge records are maintained.

- ACOM engineer has conducted an on-site review of bridge inspections within the last 3 years.

BRIDGE INSPECTIONS::

- Bridge inspection over 24 months old

- At least one routine and special inspection has been completed and

- Inspections recorded, and an inspection scheduled within one year

- ACOM engineer has conducted an on-site review within the last 5 years

BRIDGE INSPECTIONS::

- Bridge not on Installation inventory, or

- No routine or special inspections have been conducted, or

- No records are available, or

- ACOM engineer has not inspected bridges on-site in over 5 years

10 [ ]

MILITARY LOAD

CLASSIFICATION (MLC) (10pts):

- Complete MLC signs posted on both ends of the bridge if required.

MILITARY LOAD

CLASSIFICATION (MLC):

- Incomplete MLC signs or missing at one end.

MILITARY LOAD

CLASSIFICATION (MLC):

- MLC is not posted, if required.

0 [ X ]

BRIDGE MARKINGS (10pts):

- Bridge and underpass is marked for weight limit, overhead clearance, speed, traffic markers, and width restrictions if needed.

BRIDGE MARKINGS:

- Bridge is marked for civilian weight limit, overhead clearance, speed, traffic markers, and width restructions.

- Underpass is not marked.

BRIDGE MARKINGS:

- No bridge or underpass markings 0 [ ]

PEDESTRIANS (6pts):

- Bridge has a separated pedestrian walkway where required

PEDESTRIANS:

- Roadway is used by pedestrians; walkway could be built to accommodate pedestrians

PEDESTRIANS:

- Roadway is used by pedestrians; walkway cannot be built to accommodate pedestrians

0 [ X ]

SPECIAL TRANSPORT (6pts):

- Bridge will accommodate special transport requirements

SPECIAL TRANSPORT:

- Bridge is unable to accommodate special transport, but an alternate route is available

SPECIAL TRANSPORT:

- Bridge is unable to accommodate special transport requirements; no alternate route is available

0 [ X ]

Totals Points (72 Max): 20 0 20

Component Rating: 2.000 AMBER 1.000-1.669: Green 1.670-2.339: Amber 2.340-3.000: Red

RBI-HUA-17-13599-26

Table 8b: ISR Quality Green Amber Red N/A

BRIDGE DECK CONDITION

(10pts):

- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NBI Item #58 condition rate in GOOD or better at 7, 8, 9, or N

BRIDGE DECK CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #58 requirements rate this bridge feature in fair condition at an inspection rating of 5, or 6.

- If BRIDGE CONDITION is RED but there is a project shown during the inspection that addresses the deficiencies with funding being requested, then rate the element Amber.

BRIDGE DECK CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #58 requirements rate bridge in POOR condition at an inspection rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4

10 [ ]

BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE

CONDITION (10pts):

- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NBI Item #59 condition rate in GOOD or better at 7, 8, 9, or N

BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #59 requirements rate this bridge feature in fair condition at an inspection rating of 5, or 6.

- If BRIDGE CONDITION is RED but there is a project shown during the inspection that addresses the deficiencies with funding being requested, then rate the element Amber.

BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE

CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #59 requirements rate bridge in POOR condition at an inspection rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4

0 [ ]

BRIDGE SUBSTRUCUTRE

CONDITION (10pts):

- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NBI Item #60 condition rate in GOOD or better at 7, 8, 9, or N

BRIDGE SUBSTRUCTURE CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #60 requirements rate this bridge feature in fair condition at an inspection rating of 5, or 6.

- If BRIDGE CONDITION is RED but there is a project shown during the inspection that addresses the deficiencies with funding being requested, then rate the element Amber.

BRIDGE SUBSTRUCTURE

CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #60 requirements rate bridge in POOR condition at an inspection rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4

0 [ ]

CULVERT CONDITION

(10pts):

- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NBI Item #62 condition rate in GOOD or better at 7, 8, 9, or N

CULVERT CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #62 requirements rate this bridge feature in fair condition at an inspection rating of 5, or 6.

- If BRIDGE CONDITION is RED but there is a project shown during the inspection that addresses the deficiencies with funding being requested, then rate the element Amber.

CULVERT CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #62 requirements rate bridge in POOR condition at an inspection rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4

0 [ X ]

BRIDGE CHANNEL

CONDITION (10pts):

- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NBI Item #61 condition rate in GOOD or better at 7, 8, 9, or N

BRIDGE CHANNEL CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #61 requirements rate this bridge feature in fair condition at an inspection rating of 5, or 6.

- If BRIDGE CONDITION is RED but there is a project shown during the inspection that addresses the deficiencies with funding being requested, then rate the element Amber.

BRIDGE CHANNEL

CONDITION:

- FHWA NBI Item #61 requirements rate bridge in POOR condition at an inspection rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4

10 [ ]

APPROACH ROADWAY

(10pts):

- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NBI Item #72 condition rating is 8, 9 for this element.

APPROACH ROADWAY:

- FHWA NBI Item #72 condition rating is 7, 6, or 5.

- If BRIDGE CONDITION is RED but there is a project shown during the inspection that addresses the deficiencies with funding being requested, then rate the element Amber.

APPROACH ROADWAY:

- FHWA NBI Item #72 condition rating is 4,3,2,1 or

0. 10 [ ]

Totals Points (60 Max): 0 20 30

Component Rating: 2.600 RED 1.000-1.669: Green 1.670-2.339: Amber 2.340-3.000: Red

RBI-HUA-17-13599-27

STRUCTURE INVENTORY & APPRAISAL FORM

Date Printed: 06/28/2017

(202) Structure Number: DAPTRAHUA013599

(8) NBI Structure Number: DAPTRAHUA013599

Geographic and Route Data Dimensional Data

(1) State Arizona (32) Approach Rdwy Width 7.3 M

(2) District 00 (39) Navigation Vert Clr 0.0 M

(3) County Cochise (40) Navigation Horz Clr 0.0 M

(4) Place Fort Huachuca (48) Max Span Length 8.5 M

(6) Feature Under SLAUGHTERHOUSE WASH (49) Str Length 8.5 M

(7) Facility on CANELO RD (50) Curb/Sidewalk Width Left 00.0 M

(9) Location DEAD MANS CURVE Right 00.0 M

(16) Latitude 31ø 34' 01.88" (51) Brg Rdwy Width,curb-curb 007.3 M

(17) Longitude 110ø 23' 44.92" (52) Deck Width out-out 007.5 M

(98) Border Bridge (53) Min Vert Clr over 99.99 M

(99) Border Bridge Str No (54) Min Vert Clr under N 00.00 M

(55) Min Lat Underclr R N 99.9 M

(56) Min Lat Underclr L 00.0 M On and Under Record Data (112) NBIS Bridge Length Y Route On (116) Navigation Min Vert Clr 0.0 M

(5) Inventory Route 180000000

(10) Min Vert Clr 99.99 M Proposed Improvements

(11) Kilometer Point 0000.000 (75) Type of Work 381

(19) Detour Length 001 km (76) Improvement Length 15.1 M

(20) Toll 3 (94) Bridge Improv Cost 1

(26) Func Class 09 (95) Rdwy Improv Cost 1

(28) Lanes On/Under 0200 (96) Total Proj Cost 2

(29) ADT 001000 (97) Year of Cost Est 2015

(30) Year of ADT 2017 (114) Future ADT 1000

(47) Total Horz Clearance 07.3 M (115) Year of Future ADT 2037

(100) Defense Hwy 0

(101) Parallel Str N Condition Rating

(102) Direction of Traffic 2 (58) Deck 4

(103) Temportary Str (59) Superstructure 5

(104) Hwy System 0 (60) Substructure 5

(110) Natl Truck Network No (61) Channel & Channel Protect 4

(62) Culverts N General Data

(12) Base Highway Network 0 Appraisal Rating

(13) LRS Inventory Rt, Subrt. # (67) Structure Evaluation 3

(21) Maintenance Responsibility 74 (68) Deck Geometry 4

(22) Owner 74 (69) Underclrn Vert & Horz N

(31) Design Load 0 (71) Waterway Adequacy 7

(33) Bridge Median 0 (72) Approach Rdwy Alignment 3

(34) Skew 00 deg (36) Traffic Safety Features 0N00

(35) Str Flared No (113) Scour Critical Bridges U

(37) Hist Significance 5

(38) Navigation Control 0 Load Rate and Post

(42) Type of Service 15 (41) Str Open/Post/Close Open

(43) Structure Type Main 102 (63) Method to Detrmn. Oper. Rating 5

(44) Structure Type Approach 000 (64) Operating Rating t

(45) No of Span Main 001 (65) Method to Detrmn. Inv. Rating 5 Structurally Deficient

(46) No of Approach Spans 0000 (66) Inventory Rating t

(27) Year Built 1960 (70) Bridge Posting 5

(105) Federal land Highways 0

(106) Year Reconstructed 0000

(107) Deck Str Type 1

(108) Wear Surf/Protv Sys 688

(111) Nav Pier/Abut Protection

Inspection Data

(90) Inspection Date (MoYr) 0217

(91) Inspection Frequency 24 Mo

(92) Critical Feature Insp (93)Date Frac Crit Insp : N / Underwater Insp: N / Other Spec Insp: N /

RBI-HUA-17-13599-28

Over 200 Items

(200) COE Division

(201) COE District

(202) ABI Structure Number DAPTRAHUA013599

(203) Inspection Office ERDC

(204) Inspector L. DE JESUS DIAZ

(205) Inspection Cost 003000

(206) Cooper's Loading

(207) Railroad Stru Number

(208) Name of Railroad

(209) Recommended Speed Limit

(210) Posted Speed Limit (KPH)

(211) MACOM TR-TRADOC

(212) Installation Name FORT HUACHUCA

(213) MLC 1-Way Wheel

(214) MLC 1-Way Track

(215) Installation Number 04005

(216) Seismic Category

(217) Acceleration Coefficient 0.00

(218) Soil Site Coefficient 0.0

(222) Mission Func A ISR Qual. R

(223) MLC 2-Way Wheel

(224) MLS 2-way Track

RBI-HUA-17-13599-29

INSPECTION RECORD

ITEM # 72: APPROACH FEATURES

Rating Guidelines

CODE DESCRIPTION

8 Speed reduction is NOT required.

6 A VERY MINOR speed reduction is required.

3 A SUBSTANTIAL speed reduction is required.

Components Rating

Rating Component Remarks

3 1. Horizontal Alignment The structure is located on a sharp horizontal curve.

3 2. Vertical Alignment There is a significant grade at both approaches.

3 General Appraisal Rating (NBI ITEM #72)

RBI-HUA-17-13599-30

ITEM # 72: APPROACH FEATURES (CONTINUED)

Code Description

N NOT APPLICABLE

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION: No problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION: Some minor problems.

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION: Structural elements show some minor deterioration.

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

4 POOR CONDITION: Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.

SERIOUS CONDITION: Loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour has 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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

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

0 FAILED CONDITION: Out of service – beyond corrective action.

Rating Component Unit Amt Remarks

N 1. Relief Joints LF 0 None

N 2. Approach:

a) Guardrail LF 0 None

7 b) Pavement SF 1380 None

7 c) Embankment EA 4 None

N 3. Load Posting Sign EA 0 None

6 4. Hazard Markers EA 4 There is collision damage to the Approach 2 upstream hazard marker.

RBI-HUA-17-13599-31

ITEM #36: TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURES

CODE DESCRIPTION

1 Inspected feature MEETS currently acceptable standards.

0 Inspected feature DOES NOT currently meet acceptable standards or a safety feature is required and NONE

IS PROVIDED.

0 1. Bridge Rails LF 106 The rail posts spacing is inadequate.

N 2. Transition EA 0 None

0 3. Approach Rails LF 0 There are none at the structure but they are required at both approaches.

0 4. End Treatments EA 3 There is no end treatment at the upstream side of Approach 2.

RBI-HUA-17-13599-32

ITEM #58: DECK FEATURES

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION: No problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION: Some minor problems.

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION: Structural elements show some minor deterioration.

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

4 POOR CONDITION: Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.

3 SERIOUS CONDITION: Loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour has 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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

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

6 1. Wearing Surface SF 664 There is transverse and map cracking at the wearing surface.

4 2. Deck Structural Condition SF 684

Bay 2- There is a 2 ft. x 2 ft. honeycombed area which is 2 in.

deep with exposed rebar. There is a full-length longitudinal crack with efflorescence at the center of the bay.

Bay 3- There is a 1 ft. x 3 ft. honeycombed area with exposed rebar.

There is a spall (2 ft. x 2 ft.) with exposed rebar and efflorescence at the downstream overhang. There are other spalls at the downstream overhang.

N 3. Curbs LF 0 None

N 4. Median SF 0 None

N 5. Sidewalk SF 0 None

N 6. Parapet LF 0 None

4 7. Railing LF 106 The upstream rail is loose with collision damage. Several rail posts are heavily corroded and one of them is perforated. A rail post space blocker is twisted.

N 8. Drains EA 0 None

N 9. Lighting EA 0 None

7 10. Utilities EA 2 The utility pipes at the downstream side of the deck are trapping debris.

N 11. Expansion Joints LF 48 The expansion joints are covered by the wearing surface.

4 General Condition Rating (NBI ITEM # 58)

RBI-HUA-17-13599-33

ITEM # 59: SUPERSTRUCTURE FEATURES

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION: No problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION: Some minor problems.

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION: Structural elements show some minor deterioration.

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

4 POOR CONDITION: Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.

3 SERIOUS CONDITION: Loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour has 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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION: Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in

N 1. Bearing Devices EA 0 None

5 2. Girders/Beams A. General LF 112

There are shear cracks (0.016 in. wide) at the ends of all the beams.

There are stress cracks (0.13 in. wide) at the mid-span of all the beams propagating towards the abutments. There is honeycombing with exposed rebar near Abutment 1, and a flexural crack at mid-spam of Beam 3.

N B. Cross Frame EA 0 None

N C. Bracing EA 0 None

N 3. Floor Beams EA 0 None

N 4. Arch

a) Barrel LF 0 None

N b) Spandrel Wall /Columns SF 0 None

N 5. Paint LF 0 None

5 General Condition Rating (NBI ITEM # 59)

RBI-HUA-17-13599-34

ITEM #60: SUBSTRUCTURE FEATURES

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION: No problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION: Some minor problems. Channel Profile has naturally balanced itself, a change less than 1 ft. is apparent (∆ < 1ft)

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION: Structural elements show some minor deterioration.

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

Channel Profile have change more than 1 ft. less than 3 ft. (1ft < ∆ < 3ft)

4 POOR CONDITION: Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.

SERIOUS CONDITION: Loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour has seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present. Channel Profile has change more than 3 ft. (∆ > 3ft).

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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION: Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in

6 1. Abutments

a) Wings SF UNK

There is a vertical crack at the upstream wingwalls/backwall interface. There is a diagonal crack at the upstream wingwall 2.

The downstream wingwalls have minor cracking. All four wingwalls are covered by embankment material.

N b) Backwall SF UNK Not visible.

N c) Bearing Seats EA 2 Not visible.

5 d) Breast Wall / Bulkhead SF 240 There is efflorescence throughout Breast Wall 1, near the bottom.

There is honeycombing at both breast walls.

N e) Footing SF 0 None

N f) Piles EA 0 None

N g) Bracing LF 0 None

5 h) Scour / Erosion There is a 10 in. scour hole at the downstream side of Abutment 2, exposing the toe. There is aggradation next to Abutment 1.

5 i) Streambed Change The streambed materials are sand and gravel, and its maximum change is 2 ft. 1 in..

7 j) Settlement None

RBI-HUA-17-13599-35

ITEM #60: SUBSTRUCTURE FEATURES (CONTINUED)

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION: No problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION: Some minor problems. Channel Profile has naturally balanced itself, a change less than 1 ft. is apparent (∆ < 1ft)

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION: Structural elements show some minor deterioration.

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

Channel Profile have change more than 1 ft. less than 3 ft. (1ft < ∆ < 3ft)

4 POOR CONDITION: Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour.

SERIOUS CONDITION: Loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour has seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present. Channel Profile has change more than 3 ft. (∆ > 3ft).

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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION: Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in

N 2. Piers / Bents / Piles

a) Caps EA 0 None

N b) Bearing Seats EA 0 None

N c) Column, Stem, Wall SF 0 None

N d) Footing SF 0 None

N e) Piles EA 0 None

N f) Bracing EA 0 None

N g) Scour / Erosion None

N h) Streambed Change None

N i) Settlement None

5 General Condition Rating (NBI ITEM # 60)

RBI-HUA-17-13599-36

ITEM # 61: CHANNEL / CHANNEL PROTECTION

N Not applicable. Use when bridge is not over a waterway (channel).

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION: There are no noticeable or noteworthy deficiencies, which affect the condition.

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION: Banks are protected or well vegetated. River control devices such as spur dikes and embankment protection are not required or are in a stable condition.

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

SATISFACTORY CONDITION: Elements show some minor deterioration. Bank is beginning to slump. River control devices and embankment protection have widespread minor damage. There is minor streambed movement evident. Debris is restricting the channel slightly.

5 FAIR CONDITION: Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or embankment have major damage. Trees and brush restrict the channel.

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

3 SERIOUS CONDITION: Bank protection has failed. River control devices destroyed. Streambed aggradation, degradation or lateral movement has changed the channel to now threaten the bridge and/or approach roadway.

2 CRITICAL CONDITION: Advanced deterioration. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken. The channel has changed to the extent the bridge is near a state of collapse.

1 IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION: Major deterioration. Bridge closed to traffic because of channel failure. Corrective action may put back in light service.

0 FAILED CONDITION: Bridge closed because of channel failure. Replacement necessary.

Rating Component Remarks

4 1. Channel Scour There is a 4 ft. scour hole at the upstream side of the channel with 4

ft. of undermining. There is aggradation at the downstream side of the channel.

5 2. Embankment Erosion There is erosion and undercutting of the downstream channel banks.

7 3. Waterway Obstructions None

7 4. Vegetation None

N 5. Channel Protection None

7 6. Adequacy of Opening (NBI Item #71)

None

4 General Condition Rating (NBI ITEM #61)

RBI-HUA-17-13599-37

ITEM # 113: SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES

N Bridge not over waterway.

U Bridge with "unknown" foundation that has not been evaluated for scour. Until risk can be determined, a plan of action should be developed and implemented to reduce the risk to users from a bridge failure during and immediately after a flood event. (see HEC 23).

T Bridge over "tidal" waters that have not been evaluated for scour, but considered low risk. Bridge will be monitored with regular inspection cycle and with appropriate underwater inspections until an evaluation is performed. ("Unknown" foundations in "tidal" waters should be coded U.)

9 Bridge foundations (including piles) on dry land well above flood water elevations.

Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition: Scour is determined to be above top of footing (Example A) by assessment (i.e., bridge foundations are on rock formations that have been determined to resist scour within the service life of the bridge4), by calculation or by installation of properly designed countermeasures (see HEC 23).

8P Bridge is a culvert-type structure with paved bottom.

8L Bridge has been evaluated / assessed as a low risk structure and no further study is required.

Countermeasures have been installed to mitigate an existing problem with scour and to reduce the risk of bridge failure during a flood event. Instructions contained in a plan of action have been implemented to reduce the risk to users from a bridge failure during or immediately after a flood event.

6 Scour calculation/evaluation has not been made. (Use only to describe case where bridge has not yet been evaluated for scour potential.)

6R Bridge is scheduled for major rehabilitation or replacement within the next 5 years; the scour study is deferred to the location/design phase of the bridge project. Periodic monitoring may be necessary.

6U

Bridge foundations are unknown. The bridge site conditions have been evaluated / assessed with cursory study in the field and office, and the risk of potential damage from scour is judged to be moderate or mild.

Structure has no history of scour problems. Further evaluation is deferred. If the risk of damage from potential or actual scour damage is judged to be severe, additional scour studies will be undertaken including borings or others means of subsurface exploration to ascertain foundation and supporting soil conditions.

Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour condition: Scour is determined to be within the limits of footing or piles (Example B) by assessment (i.e., bridge foundations are on rock formations that have been determined to resist scour within the service life of the bridge), by calculations or by installation of properly designed countermeasures (see HEC 23).

RBI-HUA-17-13599-38

4 Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour conditions; field review indicates action is required to protect exposed foundations (see HEC 23).

Bridge is scour critical; bridge foundations determined to be unstable for assessed or calculated scour conditions:

- Scour within limits of footing or piles.

- Scour below spread-footing base or pile tips.

3M Bridge is rated as scour critical on the basis of an evaluation and/or analysis; the potential risk is judged to be mild or moderate, and no actions are planned other than monitoring during routine inspections and after flood events.

3C Bridge is rated as scour critical on the basis of an evaluation and/or analysis; the potential risk is judged to be severe and scour countermeasures are planned. Monitoring is to be performed until scour countermeasures are in place.

Bridge is scour critical; field review indicates that extensive scour has occurred at bridge foundations, which are determined to be unstable by:

- a comparison of calculated scour and observed scour during the bridge inspection, or

- an engineering evaluation of the observed scour condition reported by the bridge inspector in Item 60.

Bridge is scour critical; field review indicates that failure of piers/abutments is imminent. Bridge is closed to traffic. Failure is imminent based on:

- a comparison of calculated and observed scour during the bridge inspection, or

- an engineering evaluation of the observed scour condition reported by the bridge inspector in Item 60.

0 Bridge is scour critical. Bridge has failed and is closed to traffic.

Component Rating

Rating Component

POA

In place

(Y/N/NA)

Remarks

U NBI ITEM # 113 N Draft POA under development.

* If Item 113= 0, 1, 2, 3, or U POA is required.

RBI-HUA-17-13599-39

Scour & Waterway Evaluation - Field Review Report

Real Property # 13599 Analysis Date: 28-Feb-17 Location: Ft. Huachuca, AZ Facility Carried: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

1. SCOUR VULNERABILITY RATING (PER FHWA)

a. Scour Critical: Yes No

Scour Potential (Bed Material): Yes No

Foundation: Known Unknown

Structure Type: Bridge Culvert

b. Reasons for Rating: 2 year routine bridge inspection.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

a. Countermeasures: Riprap Scour Monitor Inspection Other

b. Phase II Analysis Recommended Yes No

c. Phase II Priority: High Low None

d. Remarks: None.

3. SITE FIELD REVIEW

a. Evidence of Scour at Structure

1) Abutment Tilting or Moving In Yes No

2) Slopes Washing in or Sloughing Yes No

3) Scour Holes Near Abutments / Bents Yes No

4) Bed Deposits Downstream Yes No

5) Bridge Railing Sagging Yes No

6) Debris Yes No

7) High-water Mark Yes No

b. Feasibility of Monitoring During High Flow

1) Rod / Pole / Weight from Deck Yes No

2) Fixed Monitoring Device Yes No

c. Feasibility of Adding Riprap or Other Scour Countermeasures Yes No

RBI-HUA-17-13599-40

Real Property # 13599 Analysis Date: 28-Feb-17 Location: Ft. Huachuca, AZ Facility Carried: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

4. ABUTMENTS:

a. Type

Sill

Counterfort

Pile Bent

Gravity

Spill-Through (Open)

Buttress

Cantilever

Bridge Concrete Culvert Channel Walls

Dimensions (ft) Embedment (ft) Scour Exposure (ft)

b. Foundation L W D None

Spread Footings Pile Caps Piles Drilled Shaft

Source of Data Field Review Design Plans As-built Drawings

Pile Driving Record Inspection Reports Other

c. Location from Bank Left (ft) Right (ft)

1) Set Back Yes No

2) In Channel Yes No

3) At Bank Yes No

d. Protection

1) Riprap Sand Cement Grouted Rubble Other

Seawall None Commercial Block

2) Condition Good Fair Poor

Left

Right

RBI-HUA-17-13599-41

Real Property # 13599 Analysis Date: 28-Feb-17 Location: Ft. Huachuca, AZ Facility Carried: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

5. PIER (None)

a. Type

Solid Wall

Column Bent

Column with Web Wall

Hammerhead

Open Bent

Pile Bent

Double Hammerhead

Steel Bent

b. Shape Square Rounded Sharp Nose

c. Width Length Number:

d. Angle of Attack: Flood Flow: Normal Flow:

e. Foundation Dimensions (ft) Embedment (ft) Exposure (ft)

(Worst pier) L W D

Pile Spread Footing Pile Cap Drilled Shaft

Source of Data Field Review As-built Drawings Design Plans

Pile Driving Records Inspection Reports Other

f. Protection

1) Riprap Sand Cement Grouted Comm. Block Rubble

Seawall None None Apparent Other

2) Condition Good Fair Poor

RBI-HUA-17-13599-42

Real Property # 13599 Analysis Date: 28-Feb-17 Location: Ft. Huachuca, AZ Facility Carried: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

6. CHANNEL LATERAL STABILITY

a. Bends

1) Bridge Location Upstream of Bend Downstream of Bend In Bend

2) Migration Yes No Migration towards Abutment 2.

3) Countermeasures Yes No Type: None

b. Bank Condition Upstream Downstream

1) Eroding Yes No Yes No

2) Stable Yes No Yes No

3) Vegetated Yes No Yes No

4) Seawall Yes No Yes No

5) Countermeasures Yes No Yes No Type: None

c. Angle of Attack: Flood Flow: 0° Normal Flow: 0°

d. Point Bar Under Bridge Yes No

e. Islands or Bars Upstream Downstream

1) Island Yes No Yes No

2) Bar Yes No Yes No

f. Floodplains

Small (<2x channel)

Narrow (2-10x channel)

Wide (>10x channel)

g. Valley Setting

No valley

Low relief (<30 m)

Moderate (30-300 m)

High relief (>300 m)

RBI-HUA-17-13599-43

Real Property # 13599 Analysis Date: 28-Feb-17 Location: Ft. Huachuca, AZ Facility Carried: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

7. CHANNEL VERTICAL STABILITY

a. Exposed Footing Yes No Unknown Not Applicable

b. Exposed Piles Yes No Unknown Not Applicable

c. Contraction Scour (Encroachment)

1) Overbank Flow Left Right

2) Relief Bridge Yes No

3) Roadway Over Topping Yes No Unknown Possible

4) Bridge Over Topping Yes No Unknown Possible

d. Long Term 1) Aggradation Yes No Unknown

2) Degradation Yes No Unknown

e. Bed Material

Silt-Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles Other

8. GEOMORPHOLOGY

a. Channel Boundaries Alluvial

Semi-alluvial

Non-alluvial

b. Dam or Reservoir Yes No

c. River Sinuosity

Straight (1-1.05)

Sinuous (1.06-1.25)

Meandering (1.25-2.0)

Highly Meandering (>35%)

Man Made

d. In-stream Mining/Dredging Yes No

e. Headcuts or Nickpoints Yes No

f. Diversions Yes No

g. Channel Modification Yes No

h. Stream Size Small (<100 ft) Medium (100-500 ft) Large (> 500 ft)

i. Flow Habit Ephemeral Intermittent

Perennial but flashy Perennial Tidal

RBI-HUA-17-13599-44

Real Property # 13599 Analysis Date: 28-Feb-17 Location: Ft. Huachuca, AZ Facility Carried: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

j. Braided Streams Not braided (<5%)

Locally braided (5-35%)

Generally (>35%)

k. Anabranched Stream No (<5%)

Locally (5-35%)

Generally (>35%)

l. Stream Width

Equiwidth

Wider at bends

Random

Narrow point bars

Wider point bars

Irregular points

m. Natural Levees Little or none

Concave

Well developed

n. Apparent Incision Not Incised

Probably Incised

9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

a. Sediment Transport

1) Live Bed Condition Yes No Unknown

2) Clear Water Condition Yes No Unknown

3) Armored Bed Yes No Unknown

b. Watershed Agricultural Forested Swamp Urban

c. Tidal Influence Yes No Possible

d. Tributaries Upstream Downstream No factor

Distance to confluence of next stream/water body: 60 ft. US

e. Observed Stream Velocity: The channel was dry at the time of the inspection.

10. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

a. Remarks: None.

RBI-HUA-17-13599-45

CHANNEL PROFILE

-12 ft

-8 ft

-4 ft

0 ft

0 ft 5 ft 10 ft 15 ft 20 ft 25 ft

Upstream Channel Profile Bridge 13599 Reference Point: Top of Deck

Supports at scale for horizontal location purposes only

Upstream (Baseline-2009) Upstream (2013) Upstream (2015) Upstream (2017)

-12 ft

-8 ft

-4 ft

0 ft

0 ft 5 ft 10 ft 15 ft 20 ft 25 ft

Downstream Channel Profile Bridge 13599 Reference Point: Top of Deck

Supports at scale for horizontal location purposes only

Downstream (Baseline-2009) Downstream (2013) Downstream (2015) Downstream (2017)