Agenda Date: 8/20/2013 Agenda Placement: 9D Set Time: 9:30 AM Estimated Report Time: 30 Minutes NAPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Board Agenda Letter TO: FROM: Board of Supervisors Lederer, Steven - Director of Public Works Public Works REPORT BY: MALLIKA RAMACHANDRAN, SUPERVISING CIVIL ENGINEER - 259-8194 SUBJECT: Highway Bridge Program RECOMMENDATION Director of Public Works requests discussion and possible action regarding the County s Highway Bridge Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 25, 2013, Public Works submitted Highway Bridge Rehabilitation & Replacement Program (HBRRP) applications to request funding for eight bridges in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). Seven of the eight bridges submitted have been approved. The bridges are programmed to be completed over the next ten to fifteen years. The total funding requested is approximately $10,000,000. Today's briefing is intended to update the Board on the bridges in question and the approximate schedule of bridge projects, and will also provide an update on the Oakville Crossroad bridge over the Napa River, which is in the final stages of design and permitting. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff reports. 2. Public comments. 3. Motion, second, discussion and vote should the Board chose to provide specific direction. FISCAL IMPACT Is there a Fiscal Impact? No
Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On August 20, 2012, Caltrans issued a letter to Cities and Counties requesting local agencies to review their public highway bridges for potential replacement, rehabilitation, or preventive maintenance and to take necessary actions to address any public safety issues and to extend the life of their bridge inventories. Caltrans also requested agencies to develop a Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program, to prevent deterioration of bridges that are in good condition. Caltrans routinely inspects public highway bridges and the information is posted on its Structures Maintenance and Investigation web site. Additionally, a Bridge Inspection Report is sent to the County. The report identifies required maintenance activity. The report also provides the sufficiency ratings of the bridges. Bridges with a Sufficiency Rating (SR) less than or equal to 50, which are also flagged Structurally Deficient (SD) or Functionally Obsolete (FO) are eligible for replacement. Bridges with a Sufficiency Rating (SR) less than or equal to 80, which are also flagged Structurally Deficient (SD) or Functionally Obsolete (FO) are eligible for major reconstruction or rehabilitation. In order for the bridges to be included into the Local Assistance Bridge Program and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), the funding application had to be submitted by January 31, 2013. In October and November of 2012, staff met with several consultants to discuss potential funding sources to program County bridges. The county selected Mark Thomas & Company, Inc to assist with performing structural investigations, and to prioritize and develop scopes and cost estimates for the applications. Under the Federal program that is administered by Caltrans, there is federal aid available to local agencies. For On-System Bridges (those located on arterials and major collectors), the program will fund 88.53%, with a required 11.47% local match. For Off-System Bridges (those located on local roads or minor collectors), the program will fund 100%, utilizing toll credits for the 11.47% local match. The prioritization of bridges was based on the following criteria: Off system bridges, because currently there is 100% funding available utilizing the toll credits (which may be depleted in the future) Location of the bridge, number of residents served and evaluation of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Sufficiency ratings and status identified as Structurally Deficient (SD) or Functionally Obsolete (FO) Site visits and visual inspection Feasibility of programming On January 25, 2013, staff submitted Highway Bridge Rehabilitation & Replacement Program (HBRRP) applications to program the following eight bridges in the FTIP at 100% Federal funding reimbursement, utilizing toll credits for the 11.47% local match:
Page 3 ITEM BRIDGE NUMBER 1 21C0056 2 21C0075 3 21C0088 4 21C0080 5 21C0058 6 21C0077 7 21C0108 8 21C0074 LOCATION SUFFICIENCY RATING STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT (SD) FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE (FO) REPLACE OR REHABILITATE Dry Creek Dry Creek 18 SD Replace Chiles- Pope Valley Rd over Chiles Creek 73.4 SD Rehabilitate Canyon Creek 47.5 FO Replace Loma Vista Drive over Creek 57.2 FO Rehabilitate Hardin Maxwell Creek 34.8 SD Replace Conn Valley Rd over Conn Creek 42.5 FO Replace Larkmead Lane over Dutch Henry Creek 56.8 FO Rehabilitate Berryessa- Knoxville over Eticuera Creek 25.4 SD Replace Subsequently, Caltrans reviewed the applications and provided feedback for the following bridges: Bridge No. 21C0075 Chiles-Pope Valley Rd over Chiles Creek (#2 above) - The bridge was reclassified as On System and it was programmed for HBRRP 88.53% Federal funding with 11.47% local match. Bridge No. 21C0108 Larkmead Lane over Dutch Henry Creek (#7 above) - The two span stone masonry arch structure was constructed in 1910 (approximately103 years old). Currently the bridge
Page 4 is not on National Registry, according to Caltrans database. However, in order to preserve the stone masonry arch structure, staff and the consultant proposed only to correct scouring problems and did not propose widening of the bridge. The existing width of the bridge is 24 feet and the minimum required width per current standards is 32 feet. The proposed rehabilitation (which would maintain the current 24 foot width) would not remove the Functionally Obsolete (FO) classification; therefore, it will not be eligible for bridge replacement funding. This bridge will be resubmitted under the Bridge Maintenance Program (BMP). In summary, seven of the eight bridges submitted are programmed. County staff is awaiting FHWA obligation of funds in September/October 2013 before proceeding with a Request for Authorization for Preliminary Engineering. The bridges are programmed to be completed over the next ten to fifteen years. The total funding requested is approximately $10,000,000. Because of the incredibly long lead time for these projects, staff thought it important to brief the Board and obtain feedback at this early stage. Project decisions made early in this process are expensive and time consuming to change later on. There is one other bridge that was programmed in the FTIP circa 1996, the Oakville Crossroad Bridge over the Napa River. This project is currently in the final design (95%) and environmental permitting phase. Construction is tentatively planned for FY 2014/2015. Pictures of the current bridge (a nonhistoric, concrete structure) and what the replacement bridge will look like, are attached. CEQA (including public notice) and design decisions associated with the bridge were made in the late 1990s. As the project is finally nearing construction, on June 12, 2013 Public Works staff conducted a neighborhood meeting to discuss potential traffic impacts associated with the bridge replacement. Neighbors commented about how important it was to not have a complete road closure, a request we had already planned to accommodate by building the bridge in two sections, thus always maintaining one lane of traffic open. A recent newsletter sent to the neighbors summarizing the meeting is also attached. During the meeting, and in communications later with at least one Supervisor, neighbors also requested that the bridge be redesigned to have more a rural character. While the County is proud of its many existing lovely bridges, staff has significant concerns in being able to accommodate this request. These concerns include: Safety: This bridge is in the Caltrans inspection system. Caltrans looks at the bridge annually and based on the age and structural integrity, the bridge has been identifed for replacement. Based on this inspection system, we have taken interim actions including signage and other traffic control measures, to minimize the traffic across the existing bridge to maximize its life span. Cost & Schedule: Over $800,000 has been spent on design and permitting to get the project to its current stage. The project to date has been 80% funded by federal funds (the remaining costs are county). Going forward the Feds are committed to 100% of the costs of the current design. Several Resource Agencies (Army Corps, NOAA, Fish and Wildlife (State and Federal), Regional Board, etc.) are involved, as well as FEMA for flood protection and mapping. Each element of the design, including height, width, location of footings, even the railing design, is interconnected with these sometimes conflicting agency requirements. Changing even seemly minor elements of the design affects the permitting requirements of all. Taking a step back at this late hour would cause tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs for design, additional environmental studies, and permitting. It is also likely that these additional costs would fall solely on the county as the Federal Government is unlikely to want to (or be able to) fund rework. It is also expected that the County would become responsible for the full cost of bridge construction,
Page 5 approximately $2,000,000. The County might also be obligated to return existing funds already spent. The County is also under schedule pressure from the Federal Government to move the project forward in 2014, or construction money will be deobligated, once again moving construction costs from the Federal Government to the County. It is expected that redesigning and re-permitting the project would cause a delay of at least one, maybe several, construction seasons. Traffic: Should the project be delayed, as discussed above, and should the existing bridge deteriorate further in the meantime such that it needs to be closed, we run the risk of having a complete closure of Oakville Crossroad for a significant period, perhaps years. This is in direct contradiction of the stated desires of many residents and businesses in the area to maintain the road open at all times, and would significantly impact traffic patterns throughout the central part of the valley. Staff welcomes any comments or guidance the Board wishes to provide, though no specific action is needed. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS A. Existing bridge B. Example of replacement bridge style C. Community newsletter CEO Recommendation: Approve Reviewed By: Molly Rattigan