CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW
US101: Manzanita Ave - Neahkahnie Creek
August 31, 2010
Minutes
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Staff: Bill Jablonski, Project Leader; Don Morris, Traffic
Control Plans Designer; Paul Christiansen, Project Manager; Jeff Smith, Biologist; Larry McKinley, Area
Manager; Ryan Brown, Right of Way; Bill Johnston, Planner; Troy Johnson, Roadway Designer; John Lucas,
Roadway Designer; Sean White, Bridge Engineer; Dustin Haas, Geotechnical Engineer; Joanna Robert, Public
Affairs; Corissa Larvik, Environmental; Janice See, Area 1 Admin.
Attendees: Shirley Kalkoven, Mayor of Nehalem; Jerry Taylor, Manzanita City Manager; Liane Welch,
Tillamook Public Works Director; Craig Gries, Oregon State Bridge Construction; John Kalkoven, NVCA;
Dave Fisher, North Coast Citizen Newspaper; Tom Elting, Elting Northwest; Jack Scovel and Bev Scovel,
Scovel Towing; Marylyn Facchini, Realtor.
Residents: John Sorensen, Frank Russo, Marci Russo, Bob Borgford, Sharon Borgford
Project Name: US101: Manzanita Ave–Neahkanhine Creek
Culvert Replacement MP 43.01–43.33 Tillamook County
Project Components: Modernization–widening and striping
Fish Passage–culvert replacement
TO: Bill Jablonski, Project Leader, ODOT-Astoria, began by stating that the purpose of the meeting was for
ODOT‘s technical staff and the contracting community to review the details and scientific information in line
with their disciplines and needs. The project was considered to be at the concept stage and was a good time to
talk with the contracting community to determine whether ODOT was on the right path, what savings might
exist in the schedule or any budgets, etc. ODOT knows how to do one thing well, but would entertain and
discuss other alternative methods of construction or constructability items raised during the meeting. He
provided a brief overview of the project and its history with additional comments as follows:
• The agenda had been distributed and he explained that some items being discussed today included some
copies of the concept plan reviewed at the public open house in June. No new information would be shared
beyond what was heard at that June open house. He emphasized no decisions would be made today; the
meeting was really a dialogue exchange between the contracting community and the ODOT technical staff.
• The project had two components. A modernization component that would widen and stripe the left turn
lanes of Laneda Ave and Manzanita Ave, which was north of the proposed creek and tunnel being replaced.
[4:10]
٭The second component was the culvert replacement involving the fish passage and maintenance issue
just south of the City‘s water treatment facility at Milepost 53. Today‘s discussion would focus on how
to replace that pipe which sits down at the outlet at 50 ft.
• In the late 1990‘s, trenchless technology was new to ODOT and considered a new form of construction or
methodology to replace pipes and culverts. ODOT hired CH2M Hill, an engineering contracting company,
to come up with some ideas about how trenchless technology works. The process involved going through
the existing ground underneath the road base in order to replace a pipe or culvert. The technology was new
at the time.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 1 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
٭ Perham Creek on Interstate 84 east of Portland in the Columbia Gorge was the first test site. A 12-ft
diameter pipe had to go under four lanes of Interstate 84 as well as a railroad grade adjacent to the
highway, which was adjacent to the Columbia River. The project involved many more millions of
dollars, but it was a gamble that ODOT was willing to take, given the risk to the interstate highway
system and the freight with the trains.
٭He understood the project was pretty successful although it had some issues but for a first time
technology; it turned out okay.
• The analysis for the subject location in the late 1990s revealed that the cost of the trenchless technology
exceeded the price of a bridge at that time. So, the ODOT team agreed to build a bridge structure, which
they knew how to do.
• When he joined ODOT in 2004, ODOT came to the community and partnered with the City of Manzanita
because of the constraints with building a bridge on a curve. An open house was held on a Saturday
afternoon, enabling the community to share its values, what was important to Manzanita, and what was
important as far as transportation and the kind of impacts the community expected as part of this bridge
construction. The City also weighed in with its Transportation System Plan (TSP), having done an analysis a
couple of years prior showing the operational safety improvements for Hwy 101 at Laneda Ave and
Manzanita Ave.
٭ODOT took that information and returned at a future meeting with three alternative alignments for the
bridge‘s location. Since ODOT builds bridges that last 70-75 years, it was important to have the right
alignment considering the agency‘s long term investment. The alternative alignments included:
- Going over Rinehart Lake, essentially bypassing the entrance to Manzanita along a more easterly
route and providing a straighter connection between the two sections of Hwy 101, bypassing the
curves all together.
- Using the existing alignment, making any improvements needed on that alignment and placing the
bridge where the culvert is currently located.
- Cutting south through town and the City‘s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) adjacent to some
residential property, through some sand and come out near the Shell station just south of Manzanita.
٭Quite a lively discussion ensued at the meeting on the three options, but ultimately the option using the
existing Hwy 101 alignment won favor and was the alignment that ODOT would follow. The
community wanted something that used the existing alignment, was low impact and as simple as
possible.
- The community felt both routes over the existing lake involved too many environmental concerns
and impacts to property owners. Concerns also existed about the alignment to the south through the
UGB section because of too many impacts for the existing land uses and the speeds that might go
through that section.
٭ODOT returned with a bridge design for the existing alignment that was to full standards, including full
8-ft shoulders. ODOT tied into the City‘s approved TSP, which allowed for the improvements to the left
turn lanes at Laneda Ave and Manzanita Ave.
- When ODOT presented the full build out, the community believed ODOT was going to make
Manzanita look like another Cannon Beach. The entrance to Cannon Beach is quite engineered,
with on ramps, over ramps, and accesses that are not exactly adjacent to each other. The community
told ODOT to return with a solution more conclusive to the Manzanita community and what
Manzanita stands for—mainly a coastal community that does not want to be over designed or over
engineered.
٭ODOT then returned to the community with the alignment and culvert now being presented. ODOT
stepped away from the bridge concept because changes in State fish passage laws required the opening
to be less dramatic than originally mandated. ODOT initially decided on the bridge was because they
could not meet the requirements at that time for a 18 ft or greater diameter pipe for fish passage, so the
bridge made the most sense at the time.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 2 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
- Through scientific evidence and negotiations with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW), ODOT got the pipe size opening down to a 15-ft diameter, which was something ODOT
could build instead of a bridge, while actually having less impact on the community, less impact
during construction, and realizing a little more cost savings.
• ODOT brought their concept to a community meeting this June and took input on how to address the pipe
problems by replacing it with the culvert, and on how to build it.
- They had 50 ft of fill at the outlet of the pipe, typically in sandy soil. Sean White, ODOT‘s
Structural Engineer, would present an overview of the existing conditions.
• ODOT wanted to lessen the impact to the community and presented a couple construction options, such as
using the existing right-of-way adjacent to the highway, or possibly a mile-long detour route through
Manzanita and then the County facility on Necarney City Rd and come out at the Shell station.
- Using the existing right-of-way [stated highway] provided staging options to move lanes of traffic
in order to excavate down for the pipe removal and replacement, and then shift lanes of traffic over
time. This was also called the diversion option.
- Using a detour route had pros and cons. The detour route would allow ODOT to open up the
highway completely and have full access to the location.
- One disadvantage was that the detour route must be improved first before it could be used. The
detour route would follow the City‘s Classic St Extension, which was currently a gravel road that
connects to Necarney City Rd, a County facility. ODOT knew some design work and analysis
would be needed, as well as some rebuilding, regrading, and widening of both facilities to
accommodate the traffic needs for a detour.
٭The community opposed the detour route given the cost of the project and the potential two-year
construction timeframe. The detour would be built one season and the pipe replaced the second season
with the full closure.
٭One benefit of the diversion option is that ODOT anticipated it would be a one season project. This
option traffic would shift from the existing highway to the diversion lanes in the right-of-way. Single
lanes would be worked on at a time, but two lanes kept open during the critical tourist season.
• Again, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss those ideas with the construction folks and see how they fit
with their experiences with ODOT projects and culvert placements.
• The plan was to develop with a full set of plans by the end of 2011 for the 2012 construction season. He
reviewed the project site as follows:
٭The culvert was close to 500-ft long and had two sections of pipe. One was the original pipe section
from the 1940‘s that was under the road prism itself. The second section was about 440-ft long and was
added in the 80‘s when a slide occurred further south on Hwy 101. Material from the slide was
deposited there.
- The pipe was extended on the inlet side up to within the ODOT right-of-way adjacent to the
Rinehart‘s Dam. That was a good location for ODOT to put the spoils from the slide location.
٭Some pictures showed the deterioration on the original section of the pipe put in back the 1940‘s,
indicating the havoc that sand and the coastal environment had wreaked over time.
٭The dual benefit of replacing the pipe was to address maintenance concerns regarding the credibility of
the pipe‘s longevity, and to provide the required fish passage. ODOT would make access for fish to go
from the bay up to the rearing habitats at the northern reaches of Rinehart Lake.
• He concluded by inviting questions or requests for clarification.
Bob Borgford, [0:16:50] asked about the option where ODOT cut into the north a little bit to make a wider
passage in the bite or upward part of the curve, and a frontage road; it would take some of ODOT‘s land and a
bit of Rinehart‘s, and maybe bolster it up. Where was that in this whole process, was that 4 to 5 years ago?
Mr. Jablonski asked if that was the alignment on the northern corner across the lake.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 3 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
Mr. Borgford clarified it was through the curve, the upper part a little bit of widening maybe
40-ft that would take some of the pressure off the version being discussed. It was all in the existing right-of-way
now and he believed there was a wider red line at one time showing some construction or right-of-way to the
north or in the center of the curve‘s bite to make it wider.
John Lucas, Roadway Designer, replied that an earlier alignment showed flattening both the major curve of
that curve and the next curve to the south. The problem with that alignment was it went right down to the creek
bottom. It would had been a total channel change of creek, but ODOT was no longer allowed to blast through
creeks and realign channels.
Mr. Borgford understood ODOT was going to realign the creek with rocks and make sort of little waterfalls up
there anyway.
Mr. Lucas stated ODOT would be trying to reestablish the old channels. Downstream from the pipe, that
particular alignment would had gone right down on top of that stream and ODOT would have had to find some
place to channel it. Basically, ODOT was trying to keep the smallest footprint possible, away from the channel.
The alignment mentioned by Mr. Borgford would no longer work.
Mr. Unknown [19:05] asked if ODOT reanalyzed the trenchless option once the pipe diameter was downsized.
Mr. Jablonski answered no. ODOT knows excavation and was maintaining that concept. In the world of risk,
that was what they know. Today, ODOT hoped to hear some alternative methods or hear from representatives of
industries that have alternative methods for ODOT to consider and weigh in on.
Mr. Lucas stated the biggest reason ODOT did not look at the trenchless option was because it was a sand fill,
which does not always lend itself to that type of construction.
Mr. Unknown [0:19:44] added that originally it was intended to replace in kind, which was about 6-ft or so in
diameter, and the idea was to pipe jack, which would work fine if it was all sand, but it was half sand and half
rock fill. The problem was some horizontal directional drilling was done, similar to that done for utilities with
those machines, and two of three holes hit refusal. They were trying to follow the proposed replacement pipe,
but hit refusal and did not know what it was. The problem with pipe jacking is once it stops, you are stuck.
• Now, instead of a 6-ft or 8-ft culvert, they were talking about a 15-ft because of the fish passage
requirements. It was no longer about micro tunnel, now it was an actual man entry tunnel which provided a
lot more flexibility, so they hoped that might be a fruitful path to pursue.
Mr. Unknown [0:20:30] asked what would happen with the rest of the culvert heading up towards the lake.
Mr. Jablonski replied it would be removed. He reviewed the sheet titled ―Manzanita Neahkahnie Creek Known
Constraints‖ as follows:
• One constraint was the pipe size itself; the approximate length was 60-ft, which was yet to be confirmed.
• Probably 470-ft was going to be a graded stream channel up to the existing Weir Dam, which is on private
property.
• The 15-ft pipe diameter was actually a reduction from what ODFW dictated when the pipe ramming and
jacking and trenchless technology were considered in the 90‘s and an 18 ft or in excess of 18 ft in diameter
pipe were considered.
• New science on how fish passage pipe size is determined added sinuosity and entrenchment ratios to the
equation as well as how the channel would actually in-size [0:21:50] itself. ODFW believed the stream
could in-size and cut back and forth to a maximum of 15 ft, which was the constraint on the pipe size.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 4 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
٭ Fish passage laws are about what is good for the fish, not the money or what is convenient for
technology or construction; the fish get the upper hand.
• He clarified that the 60-ft pipe length came from some of his old notes and was discussed a bit last Friday,
which was why it was approximate.
Sean White, Bridge Engineer, believed it would be closer to 250 ft unless some type of retaining walls are put
in to shorten it up. With 45-ft of fill and a pipe that far down, if the soil is going to be sloped 2:1, you have 4
times the depth plus the roadway width. ODOT could use some kind of a structure like retaining walls to pull it
back; kind of a pseudo bridge structure.
Mr. Jablonski confirmed that as is, it would be in excess of 200-ft. He continued reviewing the projects
constraints with these comments:
• Because it is fish passage, ODOT has to accommodate the fish that either spawn or had historically spawned
in that creek.
• ODOT received an extension on the in-water work period, which was regulated by ODFW. The regular in-
water work period is the height of summer when flows are the lowest, from August 1st to September 15th.
The extension starts April 1st, so any work below the ordinary high-water mark could be done between April
1st and September 15th. It did not mean that earthwork or other work could not be done outside of that
ordinary high-water period. [‗not‘ omitted in statement; friendly edit]
• A temporary water management system must be installed for the creek conveyance. The creek can never be
dry at any time and must still be able to allow fish to survive downstream so the flow of water cannot be
disrupted. That water stream must be diverted, either by using an existing pipe or with whatever the designer
or contractor decides to use.
• By law, businesses and residential access must remain open at all times. A spec in ODOT 220 does allow a
driveway or some access scheduled for paving to be closed for two hours so the paving and improvements
can actually be done in connection to the highway.
• ODOT mobility standards require that two, 14-ft travel lanes be maintained at all times. Exceptions to this
are when flagging is being done where a single lane is being built for the diversion or where there are
detours. [24:40] A certain amount of time is allowed for equipment to come back and forth over the road, or
to move lanes of traffic over from one side or the other. However, ODOT‘s mobility staff said that two, 14-
ft lanes must be maintained for the permitted loads that use the highway.
• The City has a new water treatment facility on the northwest side of the culvert location. It is directly related
to the creek itself. Any construction activities must accommodate and maintain that foundation and keep
that structure intact. That process has still not been determined.
• Some buried utilities exist along the west side of the highway, a City water pipe and a sewer pipe from the
Nehalem Sewer District. There are also some aerial communications and power poles on the north side, or
east side, depending on how one looks at the roadway.
• Another item regarding mobility was that any temporary structure must be able to accommodate a
dimensional overweight vehicle. The bridge at Neahkahnie Mountain was restricted, so overweight
dimensional loads could not go very far north or come from the north to the south. North of the culvert, he
believed five access or location points existed for that type of vehicle to come into either Manzanita up to
Neahkahnie housing area or some logging areas maybe more on the east side if a truck hauling heavy
equipment must have access up there. ODOT would need to explore whether a permit could be granted for
an exception for a period of time.
Shirley Kalkoven, Mayor of Nehalem, informed Mr. Jablonski about the blow out that occurred behind the
Manzanita water filtration plant when it was under construction; a lot of fill was put in right by the culvert.
Mr. Unknown [0:27:14] explained that a valley pipe was not properly connected to the system and eroded the
entire side and blew out into the creek, leaving the sewage MBWA [0:27:28] waste water line hanging in the air.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 5 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
There was a blow out at that point. The building was in place at that time and the blow out went right up to the
building, but did not affect the foundations. He confirmed that records should be available from the engineer
regarding the type of fill used to replace the sand.
Mr. Jablonski confirmed the existing utilities ran through the sand fill, paralleling the highway above the
culvert. The aerials on the other side were PUD, power poles, as well as some buried telecom. It should not be a
big deal.
• He continued that the budget for the modernization side of the project, the part north of culvert, was $3
million. That was not the estimate, but the amount budgeted or earmarked for the project. The culvert
replacement cell [0:28:35] for the fish passage program was also $3 million.
• These were the budget constraints ODOT would have to work within, as far as whatever technology or
construction methods were used to replace the pipe.
Mr. Borgford [0:28:53] stated what seemed like the elephant in the room was that they had gone from 60 ft to
200 ft or 260 ft, which leaves just 200 ft or so of new creek. Was that still okay for fish passage because it would
be long and dark.
• He added that the project seemed to be better for tunneling, if they could find a light tunneling machine.
٭He understood there really was not much flexibility from 15 ft, but according to an engineer he talked to
from a tunneling company, the best thing was to search out what diameter machines are available
locally. The machine needs 30 ft or 35 ft to start to go uphill, so this was even a better one for tunneling
200 ft. [30:00]
Mr. Jablonski stated that was a good point and would be discussed further. He asked if anyone had questions
on the history or overview of the project before discussion was opened up to the disciplines and contractors.
Mr. Borgford stated one thing not covered in the introduction was the economic and commercial impacts,
which were ongoing issues from the meeting a while back. Also, the detour was almost off the table, the City
did not want it. The State needed to consider keeping the project to one season, but also the commercial impacts
of this version versus having a frontage road, then taking away from the businesses up on the highway. He heard
the other considerations mentioned, but hoped that it would continue to be a flexible thing, and that ODOT
really considers the commercial impact of the businesses up on the highway.
Mr. Jablonski replied that he did not have an answer on that. Typically, ODOT does not compensate businesses
for any kind of closure or anything like that.
Mr. Borgford clarified he did not mean compensation. He meant the long-term impact of the design, such as
taking away parking spots, making it harder as far as width of the road coming in, putting up curbs or not
putting up curbs, having an escape route, etc.
Mr. Jablonski interjected that the purpose of this meeting was the culvert placement. ODOT was still working
on the details of the other component.
Mr. Borgford said he understood that.
Paul Christensen, Construction Project Manager ODOT-Astoria, stated that after this job goes to bid and
gets a set of plans and specs, one of the two contractors present would be awarded the bid and become the
private contractor who manages the project for ODOT. He welcomed the many people who came on their own.
• He noted ODOT does not do many constructability reviews, unless a project involves something out of the
norm. In this case, the construction concept involved significant shoring pushing the limit of sheet pile. Sean
White had said it was about 45-ft deep at the deepest point, with more than a 200-ft run on either side.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 6 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
Mr. White clarified it would be 50-ft because they had to counter sink.
٭ODOT does not design the shoring, it is all contractor design. The shoring is included as a lump sum bid
item and would be a significant part of this job. ODOT was doing the constructability review to ensure
they were not out there somewhere as far as what the contractor would be asked to do.
٭Another significant part was the building of a temporary structure, which are also contractor design.
ODOT has some very basic criteria on what the structure must do, but the contractors would hire their
own engineers to design that temporary structure.
• Because so much of the job involved things ODOT would not be doing, like the shoring and the structure,
the constructability review would give contractors a chance offer input about whether the proposed concept
would work. Ultimately, ODOT wanted to know whether this was buildable or not. ODOT could figure out
the details.
• He noted that no plans were available; the phasing was still conceptual at this point. He described how
ODOT saw the construction being phased, according to Don Morris, Traffic Control Plans Designer, as
follows:
٭The pictures on the 8.5 x 11 sheets showed the existing culvert as a dotted line. What was not shown
very well was the limits of what was being built. At the bottom, it showed how far the outlet of the
culvert was from the centerline of the road; extending that line the other direction would roughly
indicate the roadway prism [35:50], which includes the road way, the slopes coming down and the
culvert running underneath it. Upstream of that was where they would remove the culvert, rebuild the
stream channel, and then install the new culvert.
٭Stage 1, Phase 1 did not show much other than doing some widening. The big flat area was where that
fill from the Brighton [0:36:24] slide was placed. Now, 30 years later, it was all being removed.
٭Stage 1, Phase 2, showed piling coming in. The sheet said sheet pile, but it may or may not be sheet pile.
Sheet pile might be used where it is not that tall, but again, it would be a contractor design. He believed
in the middle it would be 45-ft to 50-ft, which would be close to the engineering limits of sheet pile.
o A soldier pile wall might be used that was H beams driven in with wooden boards in between those
to hold everything back. Either drill in from the side to anchor those or put bracing across to keep
the walls from collapsing. Both approaches have their own constraints and considerations.
Obviously bracing everything makes it tough to get construction equipment in.
Phase 2 showed the limits of what the contactors would be shoring. He also raised the concept of a
roadway prism; the sheet showed where the final layout of the prism would be and everything
upstream would be a rebuilt channel. This phasing step would probably happen during the springtime
and would probably have to be done before Memorial Day.
٭Stage 2, Phase 1 was where they start getting the traffic staged in order to do the excavation and replace
the culvert.
The bridge would be built on dry land where the widening was done. The contractor would build the
bridge and excavate out underneath the bridge with the deepest point being 50-ft from the bottom of
the bridge deck. Once shored and excavated out, it would be pretty dramatic.
Traffic would be running in two lanes on the original roadway as half of the temporary structure
was being built. The pilings would be holding everything back and again, the contractors would
design the temporary structure, which would have two 12-ft lanes and 2-ft shoulders, so the roadway
itself would be 28-ft wide. It would have a bridge rail, and probably guardrails on the ends.
There might be flagging now and again as girders are set for the temporary structure.
٭Stage 2, Phase 2, was the point where 24-hour flagging would be needed. A single lane would be closed
at all times, probably before Memorial Day. Mr. Morris would help develop a set of times in which the
single lane could and could not be closed, based on traffic volumes.
In this phase, the second half of the temporary bridge structure would be built and all traffic would
be shoved over to what was now the southbound lane, which would be flagged.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 7 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
٭ Stage 3, Phase 1 was the main construction window and probably the phase they were going to be
operating in the longest. At this point, all traffic would be two-way traffic on the temporary structure
and all the work would be going on underneath it.
Not lot going on would be seen from the roadway. An access would exist for equipment to get down
and do the work underneath, but a lot of the culvert replacement work would occur underneath the
roadway.
This was the money phase, where the significant excavation, culvert demolition and replacement
would happen during the summer and in-water work period for the most part. The contractor would
have to bypass the stream as they replaced the culvert, perhaps adding temporary piping. Again this
involved the contractor designing the bypass. The contractor would have to deal with the stream and
keep it flowing at that time.
Drivers traveling on the bridge would not see much difference from the roadway. They may wonder
what was going on beneath the bridge, but they would not see much from the road.
٭Stage 4, Phase 1 was the point in the project where everything was being done in the reverse order from
where they started taking everything apart. This phase looks a lot like the earlier phase with 24-hour
flaggers. This phase would likely happen after Labor Day at the end of the construction season because
the high traffic volumes at that time of year prohibited having a single lane.
In this phase, they would start to demolish or remove the temporary structure and bring up the fill a
bit underneath the existing culvert [stated ‗new/replaced‘--or bring up fill under existing structure,
also stated]
The fill could only be brought up so far because as the fill comes up, equipment would not be able
to get in there and work because of the temporary bridge overhead; so the fill would have to be
completed.
٭In Stage 4, Phase 2, the roadway is built back to its original configuration and current alignment, more
or less, with two lanes of traffic. Troy Johnson might adjust the alignment a little, but for all practical
purposes, the road would basically be in the same place it is now.
The last bit of work was to completely remove the existing structure. A lot of that work would be
happening off the highway, but at that point the culvert replacement portion would be done. Other
work going on, including curbs, sidewalks, striping, maybe seeding and landscaping, in addition to
the culvert replacement.
• The big challenge would be the culvert replacement and the shoring that would require, as well as the
temporary structure. He invited questions and discussion about the overview or concept plan that ODOT
was considering.
Comments and discussion items amongst the contractors, ODOT staff, and attendees were as follows:
• What kind of culvert would be used, Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP)? A huge culvert was being put in and
the strength of the material was a concern. CMP would probably have to be replaced.
٭It was believed CMP would be used. The cost is getting it in, but the actual material was not that
important; the best material was probably concrete.
٭Mr. Christensen [44:56] understood arch pipe was being put in. Arch pipe could be assembled rather
than having to use a crane to place sections with the temporary structure.
٭For constructability, bolted plate was a consideration. It is the same material as CMP, but much heavier
and not nearly as susceptible to corrosion. It is not a thin wall pipe.
• Mr. Unknown [45:32] understood the City‘s concerns as he drove through Cannon Beach. He asked if they
were building a bridge to get traffic across, why is ODOT paying extra to take it back out and put in a
culvert. Was there a constraint he missed because the bridge was not up by the intersection? No changes or
on ramps and off ramps were needed to access Laneda and Manzanita Avenues. Why they were actually
replacing this with a culvert? If they are building a bridge already, why not just leave the bridge in and take
out the channel?
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 8 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
٭ The main reason was because the temporary bridge was just a plank over the trench. The majority of the
structure holding the highway in place while the culvert is replaced was that enormous amount of
shoring, which was why models were made to visualize that.
٭Driving piling and deep piling obviously through the fill and down in would be stable enough if a
permanent bridge were being constructed. It would be about 250-ft long and be a lot bigger deal.
٭As shown in the drawing, the main reason not to do that was the water treatment facility‘s location and
the slope backs would be into that; aniseed walls or abutments with a lot of vertical could be put in. One
could say ―leave the temporary bridge in place,‖ but a temporary bridge was temporary work and not
built to standard. Putting in a permanent bridge would be a lot different.
• The temporary bridge would not be so incidental if it wasn‘t for all that shoring needed to shorten the span.
ODOT is paying for the shoring whether they design it or the contractor. Upgrading that shoring to
something more permanent to keep that span shorter and avoid impact to the treatment plant seemed worth
considering.
٭There would still be quite a bit of shoring just to fill the new bridge to try to stage traffic through as the
new bridge is being built, which was not an equal cost.
• It was possible that environmental constraints existed were involved with building the new bridge.
٭The project‘s footprint gets big. It would be the same as opening it up to replace the pipe, ending up
with about 300-ft of interruption in the road. The permanent bridge site would look a lot like that. Some
of that could be made up with abutments, pulling it in a little bit, maybe 20% or so. A new bridge would
result in big openings, a lot of impacts, and all kinds of environmental constraints. When finished, the
end result underneath might be better.
There was also a driveway in one corner and the water treatment plant on the other, which cause a
lot of trouble in a hurry. One reason this job was such a stinker was the pipe is 45-ft below road
grade in sand and in a tight situation.
٭From a fish passage standpoint putting bridges in are good for the environment.
٭Another issue would be wetlands and just the timing, the quality treatment of water, etc. The culvert
allows a little more room and area. It was possible that small environment impacts would come up, but
nothing major.
• Two other major factors at this site are the skew of the channel underneath the bridge, which creates quite a
bit of complexity, and even though that wide infield looking area exists inside the curve, the actually creek
crossing area is a really narrow site condition.
• The whole point of this project of course is fish passage. There was a lot conversation six or seven years ago
about water velocity during winter months, possibly putting in baffles, and whether the fish would be able to
maneuver it.
٭Jeff Smith, Biologist stated this amount of land length is sometimes a problem, although the culvert
they put in at Perham Creek in the Columbia Gorge was about 212-ft long and 12-ft in diameter and
actually had pretty good fish passage. The main thing on velocity is the slopes and of course, the
constriction. ODOT was trying to maintain the 15-ft sized active channel because of the velocity issue.
With a bigger opening than currently existed, a flow could be maintained where fish could pass about
90% of the time. The length is an issue. They are designing the culvert to be counter sunk. It would have
a natural bottom in it, which is also a plus for fish in the fish passage because they would not have to
rely on baffles.
He clarified they were not replacing the entire length; the length of the culvert being discussed was
about 60-ft or longer.
• It was unclear where the 60-ft notation came from; At 60-ft deep, the slope would have to be almost a 1:1.
The edge of the road would almost have to drop straight down; it could only go out 7½ ft either side. So the
60 ft made no absolutely no sense from an engineering standpoint. Everyone should just forget that number.
• It would be nice to recover that habitat, but the main thing was to get the fish through that section into the
lake and into that habitat above lake. If the money was going to be spent to do it, they must be certain it
worked.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 9 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
• When the first profile grade drawn up for the proposed profile was around 2%, so it is not as steep as typical
coastal watersheds, which was a pleasant surprise and that was even hitting the top of the Weir Dam. The
grade was fairly flat and it would have a natural bottom pitching down the sides [00:54:00].
• All the Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plans (NIMPS) and ODFW requirements would have to be met
for the project to receive approval. Engineers and biologists from the regulatory agencies would make sure
fish passage project was fish passable and met all federal and State requirements.
• It was clarified that a separation diversion must be used, not the old pipe.
٭It would be interesting to see how a boring machine would work following the line of that existing
culvert, and how the shear plane worked when cutting a bigger diameter with the smaller culvert. How
did that material hold in between the two when cutting through there? How would a diversion be built
first?
٭It was up to the contractors to come up with a solution as far as the diversion. Right now, upstream
passage did not exist at all flows, because of a drop at the outlet of the culvert. They had to maintain
[inaudible 55:42] right now unless they got some kind of variance from ODFW, some kind of
downstream passage. The important thing that needed to be maintained was the water downstream.
• Unknown [55:58] believed the project could be done with a tunnel or bore. There are different products,
such as a tunnel liner type of approach. Offsetting the new pipe over a bit could allow the existing culvert to
be left in the entire time, which would be a huge advantage to try to run a flow around this without pumping
it, which ODOT may not want to do.
٭Boring was not being ruled out, it was something ODOT does not know, but it was a possibility.
٭By running a new tunnel close alongside it, the existing flow could be maintained and no temporary
structures would have to be built. Driving 50-ft deep interlock sheeting could present a lot of problems.
The pictures on the front of the meeting packet were all interlock shoring. Boring would cause no
traffic impact because the work would be done down off on the sides. No bridge would need to be
built or removed; the road would stay as is, and, based on the budget numbers, [inaudible 58:32]
٭As far as the risks of tunneling on this site, there were different soils present, like sand and original
ground; there could be old Douglas fir stumps. But being as big as it was, smaller pieces of gear would
fit in there. If there was a stump, it would be cut up and dug out. The biggest risk was probably the sand,
some soil stabilization may have to be done, maybe some grouting or something, but it could be done.
٭The 250-ft length of a culvert should be able to be built exactly on grade because a bigger tunnel would
go in initially, and then be lined, so if you deviate off of grade some, the actual carrier pipe that the
water runs through would fit inside the bigger tunnel.
٭To maintain the 15-ft active channel width, they are talking a circular thing, it would have to be
countersunk.
٭While 50-ft to 60-ft tunnel boring rigs are used in the world, this project would not use a boring
machine, because of the shorter length, but a tunnel liner or steel casing advanced with a liner pipe in it.
A mini-hose type would probably do the actual digging out of the tunnel.
٭It is not a pipe ramming type operation, but a weaker, softer kind of tunneling operation. As you go
forward, you tunnel, line it, grout it, and then go forward and do the same.
Fowler did that job on Interstate 84 and casing-rammed a 144-inch pipe. [1:01:55] It was a 12-ft
culvert that they ran through.
This project was a possible casing ram, but tunnel liner was a guarantee. There was concern about
ramming casing.
• Environmentally, could the 15-ft wide pipe even be offset because the channel had very steep sides. It was
possible in an earlier design, but they had to hit it dead center where it was at right now.
٭No reason seemed to exist why it could not be offset from a fish passing perspective.
٭Now, a lot of channel change was being done.
• Why not leave the culvert alone and build around it to keep the water flowing?
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 10 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
٭ Moving the channel one way or another was discussed with regard to the bridge originally and that was
when that became an issue. With what is actually going to be encompassed in that culvert, it may not be
an issue, it still must meet the requirements.
٭The channel is roughly 15-ft wide at the outlet. Each [01:03:29] side there is a 6-ft downward pipe in
the middle, so by the time a 15-ft downward pipe is put in, a whole new channel is being built.
٭It is possible as long as ODFW agreed. The culvert is still a regulator.
٭No known constraints could be identified. The channel would be rebuilt upstream anyway, so
downstream a small amount of rechannel would be built and the only problem could be some right-of-
way issues.
• Looking at Stage 1, Phase 1, if the new tunnel culvert were placed to the right, toward the north, it would
actually intersect the channel better because of how the channel bends coming in. If put on the south, it
would need to be moved over, but it could tie into the existing channel if placed to the north. The north side
is the better choice.
٭Would doing it that way be somewhat restricted by the water treatment plant?
• The north arrow on the project documents was not wrong. Technically, everyone thinks of Hwy 101 running
north and south; but at this point it does it all.
• Mr. Borgford [1:05:49] had talked with Chris Stephenson, an engineer with the leading tunnel boring
machine company [Robbins?], and Robbins offers consultation to their customers, and one is Jim Gonzalez
Tunnel Boring. If tunneling was feasible and if the diameter could be matched, the tunnel-boring machine
would be perfect. Jim Gonzalez had a 12-footer that could easily go through without having to have liner
and muck it out; a conveyer would be needed to get it out doing that the other way. Jim‘s guesstimate over
the phone for 60 ft was less than $500,000.
٭He did not know what the opening up the stream part of it was, but it could not be bad with earth
moving equipment to go from the Weir Dam down and have cascades, or whatever.
٭If the tunneling was satisfactory to either the contractor or ODOT, it was worth pursuing. And, if
ODFW okayed a 12-ft diameter, then they were home free because there was a tunneling machine in the
Northwest. This could be a potential money saver and much simpler.
• As far as the rechanneling, they had to look at exactly where they would drive the pipe in that location. One
issue was the permitting; there were a list of [01:08:12] they are building with that NIMPS must buy off on.
Part of the Federal Endanger Species Act (ESA) coverage needed on this project was a slope score
document through the Corps of Engineers, and certain criteria had to be met. Significant stream relocation
would kick the project out of compliance with those criteria.
٭If that was the case, you could still tunnel where the existing pipe was now; just tear out 50 ft of the old
culvert and put in a 2-footer for a while and line it right up.
٭Tunneling would actually have some advantages; even though it would be lower starting out, it would
match up on the upper end.
• Regulatory aspects are always part of the equation. With the 12-ft, ODOT already got an exception to go
down a little smaller, and meeting the Slopes 4 document and the ODFW was one of the criteria.
٭Unknown [1:09:37] said originally they described the process they had gone through with Bill. They
did take back [1:09:46] channel that is out there and came up with 18-ft. Of course, there was nothing to
measure upstream in the culvert so they were downstream. In reality, in their discussion with NIMPS
and ODFW they have actually given in to a smaller size already.
• The tunnel boring machines work great for very large tunnels, but they are very expensive and have lot of
impact in terms of setting them up and operating them. This kind of project could be done with simpler
methods and more traditional soft material type of mining. On this project, you would be coming up against
cobbles and rocks in the sand, and maybe Model-T's, and burnt bridges, there is junk in there. With a
traditional type of mining operation, you could get in there and haul that out. A tunnel-boring machine
would probably not handle that well and it would not a get a good reaction against the sand when you are
pushing against the harder material. A tunnel-boring machine does not really fit here. The more traditional
mining does fit, and in that case, the 12 ft or 15 ft would not matter that much.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 11 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
٭ Dustin Haas, ODOT Geotechnical Engineer, [1:11:23] said tunneling was still new to them. This job
would be new since they had not done a lot of tunneling through sand per se; they had more experience
going through silts in the valley. He did not know if caving sands were a concern when trying to put the
pipe in; it sounded doable.
• According to ODOT contracting procedures, a contractor could always come in with a different method. All
they are trying to do was get a realistic contract together for a realist cost estimate. The shoring guy was
bidding against the tunneling guy, and in reality, let the best method win. The decision made for the
contract, was not mandating exactly how it was going to be built.
• Mr. Jablonski believed that boring or tunneling was something ODOT should consider, but reminded that
the discussion was about the possibility of doing the shoring and trenching. ODOT just has not done a lot of
tunneling.
٭He noted the Perham Creek project came in about three times over budget after it was all said and done.
٭There was a significant risk to ODOT, and as the construction project manager, he would love to do a
project like that, but driving pylon, shoring, and putting in culverts were ODOT‘s area of expertise.
• Staff was reluctant to talk about the cost of the first project discussed, involving the shoring and trenching.
While significantly less than $3 million, it was still a big chunk of change.
٭There are a couple different ways to approach it: the shoring and diversion, shutting it down and doing it
all at once, and then the tunneling method. All three involved some expense, risk, and danger. ODOT
just wanted to figure out which was the best.
• Tom Elting, Elting Northwest, [1:15:15] believed it was possible to build it that way [shoring and
diversion], difficult for sure, he agreed sheet piling would probably not work; it would be solder-filed so you
could drill a straight hole, but that was more Craig's line of work.
• Craig Gries, Oregon State Bridge Construction, [1:15:28] said it would not be too difficult to drive it
through the sand, but with the cobbles and other stuff, a pre-board pile might be needed, which skyrockets
the cost. The tieback idea is even more expensive, but obviously necessary. You could brace between the
two walls, but unless there is good access on either end to get your equipment in, putting braces across will
cut access. At that length, no section could be done that is not braced or not tied back.
٭The braces have to be kept a certain distance from the bottom in order to get in there to work and lift out
all those segments of culvert.
٭The tiebacks are obviously going to go back down the road for at least a part of it, causing another affect
on traffic. Nothing to do with the tunneling, but it seemed like a pretty good way to go. This was a really
tough site; not to say it cannot be done, you could probably drive some sheets at the end through the
sand in some shorter sections, but it would be some pretty tough driving and shoring to build there.
• Is the impact on the schedule significantly less with the tunneling route or the shoring/diversion method?
٭A majority of this work could probably still be done in one summer season, especially with that widened
in-water work window. Much of the shoring would be done outside the fish window from the [inaudible
1:17:14] ground too. The pipe would not really be affect while you are driving a lot of it, so the time
constraints are doable actually, in one season.
• While a detail for the contractor to address, it seemed like several of stages could be taken out if the shoring
was used as the support for the temporary structure rather than having a bridge span that shoring; put it in at
the same time as the shoring. Study each of those [1:17:50], you could cut those in half by doing them at the
same time. Basically, use the bridge girders as bracing for the shoring.
• One option that was kind of abandoned was just shutting the highway down. How quickly could you just
replace it, just daylight it, using as much equipment as you could.
• It was a lot of material, but it could probably be removed ahead of time on the part that was going to be
cleared out. The total yards of cut to be done was in the pile of documents somewhere.
٭Shutting the highway down would be a huge bill for the community to swallow, but if done quickly
enough, it might make more sense than going through all the staging.
٭It would probably not be that much quicker since a significant piece of the summer season would be
needed, at least a month just to get that material moved.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 12 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
٭ The ODOT culvert project Mr. Elting was doing for ODOT on Hwy 53 was about 30-ft deep and had a
10-week closure. At 45-ft deep, it could take 15 to 20 weeks; closing the highway and daylighting it was
not an option.
• The boring and tunneling might be combined with the shoring. Shore the slopes coming up, where it is not
as deep, and go with a 100-ft tunnel in the deepest part for the best of both worlds. The road stays open, and
in the shallower slope, the shoring would be less expensive. Maybe there was a blend there.
• With the sand, getting into stabilization seemed pretty significant. Was that what made the other project go
up three times over budget? Was it a huge budget killer if they did get into grouting?
٭No, having to grout it was unlikely, but being aware of the worst case out there was important. It was
believed that Fowler got into a lot of open, graded rock, and had trouble grouting [1:21:25] it out. A lot
of it was a skin friction thing.
• Maybe having some kind of permanent shoring would shorten the tunnel, which would help the fish
passage. [inaudible 1:21:55]
٭That is a good idea. The closest experience ODOT had was about two summers ago, they rammed a 6-ft
pipe through a little creek called Fall Creek, between Hug Creek and Arcadia Beach. It went okay, they
had some sediment in the roadway during the rain.
• Was the disruption of the roadway, settling, and vibration typical with that tunneling operation?
٭It happens with both methods, a lot of construction, driving pile for that matter, involves a lot of
vibrations so if whatever is there was not consolidated, for instance if there are voids under there,
everything will want to head downhill.
٭In this particular case, with this type of roadway that was not a huge negative thing. The water treatment
plant sitting around the corner was the concern.
• Are there concerns about the amount of shoring that would have to go in to protect the foundation of the
water treatment facility? A significant part of the overall project was to hold that facility in place.
٭Jerry Taylor, City Manager of Manzanita, [1:23:50], stated he not seen the site much, but if they are
talking about blowouts right up to the foundation and fill put back in. He would say that was a huge
concern and possibly having to do shoring walls on that side, where they normally would not have to;
make a turn in your regular shoring wall or something similar to protect it.
٭If you walk the slope, it was sand just sitting at a natural slope. It was just barely hanging there by the
vegetation.
٭There is a small reservoir underneath that building. It looks like a house from the top, but actually there
is a small reservoir there where all the water filters through to storage. The foundation was
approximately 8 ft high; the exact height was unknown. It is like a mini-concrete underground reservoir.
It was believed to be engineered for seismic, but that was uncertain.
• What about a design build process? Tunneling, soft tunneling, and deep shoring had all been discussed.
٭ODOT has not have good experience with design build in the past. It may not have been the concept but
the way it was managed. They had tried it a few times, but it had been a disaster every time.
٭The project involved more natural products like existing fills, as opposed to building materials like
when building a skyscraper where you had a lot more certainty rather that unknowns. Again, ODOT‘s
bidding process allows a contractor to present different proposals, so in reality, they are kind of there
already.
٭It looked like ODOT might bid the traditional job they know how to bid, which was the trenching and
shoring. ODOT‘s contract language enabled the contractor to propose a cost savings alternative, which
might be the tunneling prospect. ODOT would not include bid documents for tunneling because they
really did not know how to do that. They would hope for a proposal that looks good, and then there
would be some risk involved that would be shared with the contractor.
• Does ODOT have any established standards regarding reliable vibration levels during operation, similar to a
noise standard? The concern regarded safeguarding the water treatment plant operations.
٭Noise standards are usually local ordinances. ODOT does not have standards, but Cal-Tran has
standards that ODOT typically copies and they have hired private consultants to monitor vibrations
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 13 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
during construction. When paving through downtown, there were no vibration specs for the rollers and
pavers, etc.
٭A pre-construction survey would not be a bad idea. Someone could come in and map all the cracks
[1:28:25]. They would look at the individual structures and create an acceleration spec that needed to be
maintained, structure by structure.
• A drawing was distributed to the contractors interested in boring. It was from an earlier proposal where the
pipe ramming was being proposed and they were going to do it on a different line. On this project, they were
looking to replace the existing culvert in the same place. The drawing had a notation about horizontal
drilling that was attempted and two out of three hit refusal.
٭The biggest risk on the job was that no one really knew what was under there, but the drawing had some
of the best information. It was believed they were public documents.
• Going back to the ramming, if they go off there and cannot use a slopes document, and if they knew prior to
it and had time, they could try to do a BA.
• The biggest issue was going to be fish. ODOT has a slopes document that they are supposed to fit into, but if
not, they could do a biological assessment but time was needed prior because it could take six months.
٭As noted, an in-water work extension had been negotiated on, so they had from the 1st of April until
September 15th to do the project. They went through and got active channel widths, which came up with
18-ft and negotiated with NIMPS and ODFW to lower that requirement to the 15-ft being discussed.
٭This had been ODFW‘s number one fish passage project since surveys were done back in 1997. ODOT
had the latest information on habitats above the reservoir line done in 2003. They have really good
spawning gravels and rearing areas in the lake. The reason this was the number one fish passage project
on the north coast was that they have OC Coho, which are listed fish.
There was not a lot of habitat where they had a lake requirement for those Coho to rear in. In lakes
to the south where the Coho could rear, they get much bigger before going out into the ocean, and
survival rates are much higher. So, that was one reason why they did not have a lot of spawn habitat
below, but if they could get the fish back into the lake and into the habitat above the lake, it would be
very productive.
• During construction, capacity is needed for large amounts of rain during the in-water work period. The
contactor will have to figure out how to make it work. This area carries a large amount of rain, so confining
the water to really small pipes could be an issue. They have to leave enough water to flow through there.
٭That was an important point, if they put in a diversion, they needed something that would stay intact
during a major rain event.
٭The ODFW permit had language about the amount of flow and what had to be maintained. It was a large
amount. It was not likely they were going to put a 2-ft or 4-ft culvert out there to hold the water.
٭It was important as a contractor to know, and again, they had to come up with the idea about how they
want to deal with that and think about how much flow they could have.
• The Reinhart family was a player in this, too. They had the Weir Dam on their private property. The
contractor was free to explore maybe using part of the lake for some of the storage for the flow they might
have, and also have their outfall to accommodate the rest. Some discussion could take place with the owner
as well.
• One thing not discussed as part of the project was that in actively trying to get fish back into the lake, the
project had to extend to the Weir, which was actually 20-ft off ODOT‘s right-of-way. The dam is on the
Reinhart property, so there would be work there as to how they maintained that. They were trying to make
the stream a gradient that meets the top of the Weir, so the fish could just swim into the lake.
• The existing culvert was a 6-footer now and it worked just fine. There was no chance of it backing up. There
are no boards in the Weir right now, so it was free flowing.
٭The issue was raised in case somebody thought of using a 4-ft or 3-ft culvert in there. If it was possible
and the flows worked, then that is what the contractor does. The point is a lot of water comes through
there; it rains on the coast even in the summertime and the extension included April and May.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 14 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
• The 18-ft bank to bank active channel width measurement involved specific criteria, not just heavy rain.
Other indicators included vegetation, debris lines, and silt changes [1:36:29]. Even though they were in high
water, it was still a visible line on the vegetation and stuff within the stream.
• Mr. Unknown [1:36:44] said he was down there yesterday and at his age could walk from one bank to the
other, just stepping across. As you measure 18-ft down past the 6-ft culvert, would it make sense, if it saved
some money and if ODFW in meetings with ODOT agreed, that the 12-ft boring would work; part of it
could be the 100 ft mentioned for deep boring, and part could be 12 ft and widen out, where the velocities
would drop. Would there be a taper that ODFW would approve?
He realized two government agencies talking to each other and there had already been a
compromise. ODOT was already doing an analysis, would it work to make it narrower and then
wider. They could have a bit of the fish passage up near the Weir.
[ ٭Inaudible 1:3810] are not good trying to get fish through them because it increases the velocity of the
culvert. The trigger that gets the Coho Salmon moving into these streams to spawn was rainfall, so they
are dealing with somewhat high flows when the adult fish come in.
In measuring an active channel, if they cannot visibly see what was there and determine an active
channel width, ODOT uses the hydraulic information from their hydraulics people, which was
usually a 2-year flood event.
One could step across the stream now, when they had not had rainfall for a while, but they were
talking about flows that are a bit higher. Again, when they measured that active channel, it was
pretty wide, it was surprising. Nothing had been measured above the reservoir, but it was fairly
significant as far as the width of the stream.
• Liane Welch, Tillamook Public Works Director, stated she was looking at replacing two culverts. One
was an active channel work for 12-ft, the City had to replace 18, which was 2½ times. The other one was
going to be at [inaudible 1:39:35] Creek and it was 24 and they are looking at 37-ft wide. As a reviewer for
the permit, she questioned why was something fair for this project and not for the other projects when
ODOT had more money than the County?
٭Mr. Smith explained that part of it involved the situation with the lake [inaudible 1:39:52] and there
was no stream up above so they are going with what they got.
٭The other thing they negotiated with those agencies was over the type of fill material in there and the
stream basically flows through sand dunes. At this point, because of the site conditions, ODOT
convinced them that they could go 15 ft because going beyond that would cause real problems. For
instance, they did not want to lose the water treatment facility and those kinds of things. ODOT did not
get their way all the time.
٭Ms. Larvik added that to make up for the size, ODOT was continuing their mitigation and doing that
extra 20-ft to continue onto the dam, so they could finish the part. As Jeff said, part of the stream is in
case; widening the stream might not do much, but ODOT is doing mitigation, this was a negotiation, it
was not like we are going to do this for you.
٭Mr. Smith clarified it was part of the negotiation process; he did not want to use the word mitigation.
• Reducing a barrel on a culvert was not something ODOT liked to do, especially on the west side of Oregon
where a lot of woody debris exists. They did not want to create a spot where a log could get into the barrel
and then jam.
٭While no hydraulic engineer was present, they surely did not want to introduce width changes in the
middle of a culvert because a hydraulic jump and all kinds of unpredictable behavior could result.
• Dustin Haas, Geotechnical Engineer, said it had been a good discussion that had got him thinking. He would
go back and bounce some ideas off the trench list guys and get it figured out.
• Taking the detour was off the table was the direction ODOT was heading. They were talking about just
keeping the road open, having temporary bridging and so on. The potential road closure was 15 to 20 weeks,
based on what they had at [inaudible 1:43:17] if that had 12 weeks for 30-ft deep, this project was 50 ft.
٭Mr. Unknown [1:43:29] believed in getting something permanent out of it if they could, and they ran
some very quick numbers to see if it was realistic to send survey crews out there. It looked promising at
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 15 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
first, but then they started measuring widths of the pavement and started running vehicle, off-tracking
bottles through it, and quickly discovered it was going to be substantially more money.
• Mr. Elting confirmed that the project could still all happen in one season, either way, being that the shoring
could be done outside that summer pitch window somewhat,
• Could the detour variable be checked off now, so it was not a red herring?
٭Ms. Unknown [1:44:36] understood that a cost benefit analysis was going to be done, so she was
uncertain that the detour was clearly off the table. She was certain it was not a deal killer for the County,
it was believed ODOT was looking at doing a better cost estimate.
٭Mr. Jablonski [1:45:03] replied ODOT did want to commit resources for exploration on the rebuild for
the City and the County section be, until they had some discussion today. If there was no greater benefit
to doing the detour, it would be silly to do a greater cost benefit for that route.
The discussion today would be reflected in the notes for people to review.
٭Part of the goal today was to address making a final decision on a detour, and from the discussion, the
benefit was not there. Once the highway is open, the hole is there until the project is complete and fixed.
There was risk of having a wet summer or torrential rains making the flows are higher, so at what risk
does ODOT have to the public and community in having that hole open until it was completed.
٭The detour was off the table.
• Troy Johnson, Roadway Designer, stated he did not have anything to add except that the site was
constrained, there would not be much room for any kind of shifting of the alignment, one way or the other.
They should do whatever they could to stay on that existing alignment.
• The new culvert should match the current outlet. The permitting was again underscores [inaudible 01:47:51]
pretty much they could restore the stream upstream of the existing culvert to the Weir, and still stay within
the permit conditions, but if significant changes are made to the line downstream that would definitely be an
issue.
٭Ms. Larvik offered to ask the Permit Specialist what is considered significant and email the reply to
Bill who could send it out to everyone.
٭Significant was a fish passage thing, basically what is done to that stream. Significant would be coming
out 10 ft from the proposed location, and impacting the environmental like removing trees and having to
rebuild the stream for several hundred feet.
• Another thing about the culvert is that double barrels were out; in other words, two 8-ft culverts did not
equal a 15-ft culvert. ODOT wanted a single pipe in order to get the stream simulation, and everything they
needed. Ramming an 8-ft culvert would be risky.
• The sand should have less reverberation than most of soils.When ODFW and NIMPS talk about vibrations
in the water, the area of sand and mud must have less reverberation than a dirt or stony area.
• Don Morris, Traffic Control Plans Designer, noted the 2-D plan looked real simple, but in reality it had a
third dimension. He would encourage everyone to look at Mr. White‘s model, which gave an idea of how
deep they are going with this project, it was significant and involved a lot of material.
٭He represented the mobility world and his job was to work with other designers to minimize the impacts
to the motoring public and make sure the job was safe and buildable for traffic.
٭Great mobility has a strong political arm in this State and they wanted to be able to have their trucks
make deliveries to Manzanita and so forth. ODOT had already contacted them and they are willing to
cooperate but they still want passage. The detour option was a consideration in the alignment that went
down through there for local vehicles, because nowadays deliveries are being made with larger vehicles.
٭The 24-hour flagging in this plan would cause minor delays for people who had to go through, but the
area being flagged was very short. Because of the limited length of the closure, the queues would clear
quickly, even though their analysis showed that potential exists for some queuing. No huge backups
were expected.
• It was the nature of construction to be disruptive. In the end, ODOT would try to be as least disruptive as
possible. Hopefully when they are done, their product looked better than it was currently; which was what
ODOT liked to do on every project.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 16 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes
• The one-way flagging on this project should be somewhat analogous to the temporary signal used two years
ago on Neahkahnie Mountain with similar times of year and traffic volumes. The delays on this project
should actually be a bit shorter.
Mr. Jablonski recapped the issues and conclusions as follows:
• ODOT, being risk adverse and wanting to be good stewards of its money for the State of Oregon, wanted to
follow the current concept they proposed on the shoring and excavation as discussed today. However, the
ODOT bidding process did not preclude other contractors from submitting bids to ODOT to be considered
in the bid process.
• ODOT did not have the background, knowledge, or specs shored up enough to where they were comfortable
submitting plans for shoring and tunneling, but they would review bids and share the risk with the contractor
selected.
• The plans for both parts are expected to be out for bid in the fall of 2011, a little more than a year from now,
and the project would be for the 2012 construction season.
Everyone was encouraged to walk around and look at some of the displays. Anyone wanting to go out to the job
site could drive down to the end of the street and take a look.
The meeting ended at 11:15am.
Astoria ODOT Construction Review Page 17 of 17
August 31, 2010 Minutes