HomeMy WebLinkAboutFSM Worksheet 2023 HB-0040 Bridge 21 (2)
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FIELD SCOPING MEETING WORKSHEET
Return with Comments to Division by:
PROJECT NO.: HB-0040 FIELD SCOPING MEETING DATE: August 3, 2023
LET DATE: 3/2028
DIVISION/COUNTY: 3/New Hanover LOCATION: On-Site
LAT/LONG: -34.209094, 77.797556
ROUTE (US / NC / SR): US 76 (Causeway Drive)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace bridge No. 640021 over Banks Channel BRIDGE NO.: 640021
TIER: Regional
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Urban Minor Collector
MPO / RPO AREA: Wilmington
MUNICIPALITY: Wrightsville Beach
ATTENDEES NAME (PRINT) PHONE No E-MAIL
DIVISION CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER Anthony Law 910-341-2000 awlaw@ncdot.gov
ASSISTANT DIVISION
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
Dan Cumbo 910-341-2000 drcumbo@ncdot.gov
DIVISION MAINTENANCE ENGINEER Trevor Carroll
(not in attendance)
910-341-2000 tkcarroll@ncdot.gov
ASSISTANT DIVISION MAINTENCE
ENGINEER
Jessi Leonard
(not in attendance)
910-341-2000 jleonard6@ncdot.gov
ASSISTANT DIVISION BRIDGE
PROGRAM ENGINEER
Eric Murray 910-341-2000 ecmurray@ncdot.gov
DIVISION BRIDGE MAINTENANCE
ENGINEER
Daniel Perry 910-467-0520 dlperry5@ncdot.gov
AREA CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER David Candela 910-524-4931 dacandela@ncdot.gov
RESIDENT ENGINEER Joshua Pratt 910-398-9130 jtpratt@ncdot.gov
DIVISION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Katie Hite
(not in attendance)
910-341-2000 kehite@ncdot.gov
DIVISION DESIGN CONSTRUCT
REPRESENTATIVE
David Leonard 910-341-2000 dbleonard@ncdot.gov
CO-PROJECT MANAGER Krista Kimmel 910-341-2000 khkimmel@ncdot.gov
CO-PROJECT MANAGER Derek Pielech
(not in attendance)
910-341-2000 drpielech@ncdot.gov
DIVISION UTILITY ENGINEER Bo Hemphill
(not in attendance)
910-707-6981 bohemphill@ncdot.gov
DIVISION UTILITY COORDINATOR Eric Matuszewski 910-341-2000
ecmatuszewski@ncdot.gov
DIVISION PDEA ENGINEER Mason Herndon 910-341-2000 tmherndon@ncdot.go
v
DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER Jon Giles 910-341-2000 jwgiles1@ncdot.gov
2
HYDRAULICS UNIT
REPRESENTATIVE
Craig Lee 919-707-6708 cjlee@ncdot.gov
HYDRAULICS UNIT
REPRESENTATIVE
Galen Cail
(not in attendance)
919-707-6711 gcail@ncdot.gov
GEOTECHNICAL UNIT
REPRESENTATIVE
Dean Argenbright 252-439-2870 dargenbright@ncdot.gov
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT UNIT
REPRESENTATIVE
David Stutts
(not in attendance)
919-707-6442 dstutts@ncdot.gov
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT UNIT
REPRESENTATIVE
Kristy Alford 919-707-6531 kalford@ncdot.gov
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT UNIT
REPRESENTATIVE
Jeremiah Jobe 919-707-6531 jjobe@ncdot.gov
DIVISION RIGHT OF WAY AGENT Ben Sox 910-341-2000 bmsox@ncdot.gov
LOCATION AND SURVEYS
REPRESENTATIVE
CJ Sawyer
(not in attendance)
910-341-2280 cjsawyer@ncdot.gov
LOCATION AND SURVEYS
REPRESENTATIVE
Monica Duval 910-341-2283 mjduval@ncdot.gov
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Tom Steffens
(not in attendance)
910-251-4615 Thomas.A.Steffens@usace.army.mil
DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES Kim Harding
(not in attendance)
252-264-3901 Kimberlee.harding@ncdenr.gov
DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
Stephen Lane 252-208-2808 Stephen.Lane@ncdenr.gov
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Hannah Sprinkle
(not in attendance)
910-796-7306 hannah.sprinkle@ncdenr.gov
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES Travis Wilson
(not in attendance)
919-707-0370 travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org
US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES Gary Jordan
(not in attendance)
919-856-4520
ext. 32
gary_jordan@fws.gov
US COAST GUARD Hall Pitts
(not in attendance)
757-398-6222 CGDFiveBridges@uscg.mil
Local MPO/RPO Mike Kozlosky 910-341-3258 mike.kozlosky@wilmingtonnc.gov
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT Phil May (CEI) Phil.may@carolinaeco.com
DESIGN CONSULTANT Charles Cox (RS&H) 919-926-4126 Charles.cox@rsandh.com
DESIGN CONSULTANT Ashley Hemming (RS&H)
(not in attendance)
704-940-4717 Ashley.hemming@rsandh.com
DESIGN CONSULTANT Alex Vinson (RS&H) 919-926-4109 Alex.vinson@rsandh.com
DESIGN CONSULTANT Sean Kortovich (RS&H) 919-926-4107 Sean.kortovich@rsandh.com
DESIGN CONSULTANT Richard Bollinger (RS&H) Richard.bollinger@rsandh.com
DESIGN CONSULTANT Bradley Gaham (RS&H) Bradley.gahan@rsandh.com
UTILITY CONSULTANT Freddie Bunn (SAM) 919-752-8563 fbunn@sam.biz
UTILITY CONSULTANT Mathew Ward 919-752-8563 Matthew.ward@sam.biz
3
DIVISION (COMPLETED BY DIVISION STAFF AND SENT WITH THE FSM LETTER)
EXISTING FEATURES:
FEATURE BRIDGED: New Hanover 640021
(BRIDGE / CULVERT) LENGTH 870’ DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT): 58’
WATER DEPTH: 18’ HEIGHT BED-TO-CROWN: 27’
PRIOR SURVEY DATE: 2/8/23 POSTED: SV 32 TTST: 35
STRUCTURE TYPE: Reinforced Concrete Slab on Continuous Prestressed Concrete Girders
SPAN TYPE: Tangent – 14 spans. Max span 61’
HISTORIC HIGH WATER (ELEV. TO THE TOP OF RAIL):
-L- BASE YEAR: 2021 -L-
BASE YEAR: 2040
ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2021: 13,500
ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 27,000
% TRUCKS/DUALS: 6
SUFFICIENCY RATING 2021: 53.73
POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN PROJECT VICINITY: MPH w/i City Limits / STATUTORY 25/35
DETOUR: OFF-SITE: XX ON-SITE: STAGE CONSTRUCTION:
IF DETOUR IS OFF-SITE, PROVIDE DESCRIPTION OF DETOUR ROUTE: US 74
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF DETOUR? 2 Miles
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ROAD ON DETOUR? COMMENTS: Yes, open discussion
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO BRIDGE ON DETOUR? Yes, open discussion
ARE BRIDGES ON DETOUR CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED ON TIP? N
COMMENTS: They are programmed to be replaced with State Funds
ARE THERE EMS, SCHOOL, OR BUSINESS ACCESS ISSUES? Yes
COMMENTS: Church and school are located nearby
ARE THERE ANY RAILROAD CROSSINGS ON DETOUR? No COMMENTS: None
WILL RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT BE REQUIRED? No
SHOULD WORK ZONE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION? Yes
REASONS: Yes, must provide (refer to NCDOT guidelines)
EXISTING R/W WIDTH: Varies 60’ – 75’
IMPACT RATING TO UTILITIES: High – AT&T
POWER DISTRIBUTION LINES: YES AERIAL/UG/BOTH: Both IN CONFLICT: YES
TELEPHONE: YES AERIAL/UG/BOTH: Both IN CONFLICT: YES
CABLE TV: YES AERIAL/UG/BOTH: Both IN CONFLICT: YES
FIBER OPTIC: YES AERIAL/UG/BOTH: Both IN CONFLICT: YES
WATER: YES IN CONFLICT: YES
SEWER: YES IN CONFLICT: YES
NATURAL GAS: NO IN CONFLICT: NO
OTHER: AT&T/D, DUKE ENERGY, CROWN CASTLE, NCDOT (TRAFFIC/FIBER), CHARTER COMM., VERIZON,
TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH IN CONFLICT: YES
BASED ON THE PAST HISTORY NEAR THIS PROJECT SITE, WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED TO
COMPLETE UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS TBD MONTHS
WHICH UTILITIES WILL REQUIRE PERMITS FOR RELOCATION?
• Yes, SMU prefers that utilities not be attached to bridge; will need a cost comparison. There will be one permit
package that covers all three bridge locations.
4
• Also need to check what the large pipe adjacent to the bridge is carrying; someone noted that it was associated with
UNCW
WHAT TYPE OF PERMIT? TBD
WHO WILL BE OBTAINING PERMITS FOR UTILITY RELOCATION? NCDOT
IS THERE ANY FUTURE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION ANTICIPATED IN THE PROJECT AREA?
IS A FEMA BUY-OUT PROPERTY BEING IMPACTED? No
EXISTING UTILITY DRAWING ATTACHED? No
WILL TEST HOLES BE REQUIRED? Most likely
HYDRAULICS (COMPLETED BY HYDRAULICS ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE FSM)
WILL THIS PROJECT REQUIRE A FEMA PERMIT? No
IS THERE UNUSUAL SCOUR POTENTIAL? No IS PROTECTION NEEDED? No
ARE BANKS STABLE? Yes IS PROTECTION NEEDED? Standard
DOES STREAM CARRY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF LARGE DEBRIS? No
WILL THE PLACEMENT OF BENTS IN THE WATER BE ALLOWED? Yes COMMENTS: 5’ off existing
BRIDGE TO PIPE CANDIDATE? No COMMENTS: None
WILL THIS PROJECT REQUIRE A STATE STORMWATER PERMIT? Will fall under umbrella permit
HOW WILL THE ROADSIDE DRAINAGE AND / OR TREATMENT OF STORMWATER VIA THE BRIDGE DECK BE
ADDRESSED FOR EACH QUADRANT?
• Deck drains – Hydraulics will run model
• Expect it to have 1 box at each corner and go out
• DCM – wants NCDOT to take sea level rise into account for the clearance under the bridge; possible to have
extra 6 inches additional clearance
• Existing bridge end bents believed to be buried – resulting in potentially shorter bridge
NE QUADRANT:
SE QUADRANT:
SW QUADRANT:
NW QUADRANT:
GEOTECHNICAL UNIT (COMPLETED BY GEOTECHNICAL UNIT PRIOR TO THE FSM)
EXISTING FOUNDATION REPORTS? NO IF SO, ATTACH.
KNOWN GEOLOGICAL FEATURES IN AREA WHICH MAY AFFECT DESIGN: Shallow rock
ARE PERMITS NEEDED FOR INVESTIGATIVE WORK AT THE SITE? COMMENTS: CAMA
ARE THERE ANY HISTORICAL AND / OR VIBRATION SENSITIVE STRUCTURES NEAR BY? Yes
COMMENTS: Adjacent homes are close and might be affected by vibration.
ARE THERE ANY KNOWN LANDFILLS AND / OR GEOENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD SITES AT OR WITHIN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT SITE? No.
COMMENTS:
DEPTH OF WEATHERED ROCK OR ROCK BELOW STREAMBED? TBD; limestone 40 ft deep
ARE ANY IMPACTS ANTCIPATED TO NATURAL SPRINGS OR ARTESIAN WELLS: COMMENTS: No
POSSIBLE FOUNDATION TYPE: Pile driven or drilled. Proposed bents will need to be approximately 5’ away from the
existing.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL (COMPLETED BY DEO STAFF PRIOR TO THE FSM)
WETLANDS AT SITE? Yes COMMENTS: CAMA/404 wetlands primarily
WETLAND MITIGATION? Yes RATIO? 2:1 STREAM MITIGATION? No RATIO? N/A
KNOWN ENDANGERED SPECIES POPULATIONS IN AREA? Yes COMMENTS: Sturgeon (not likely in area),
turtles, manatee (will need a commitment on Greensheets); NLEB; E black rail
WRC is also concerned with nesting waterbirds south of Bridge 21, and requested conservation measures for activities such
as barge mooring
BUFFER REQUIREMENTS? AEC Estuarine Waters
CAMA COUNTY: Yes PRIMARY NURSERY AREA: No
DCM CLAIMING: Yes
MORATORIA: None needed IF YES-DURATION
COMMENTS:
IS WATER FEATURE CLASSIFIED AS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER? No COMMENTS: None
WHAT IS THE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS PROJECT: SB STREAM ID# 18-87-24/18-87-24-1
WILL A COAST GUARD PERMIT BE REQUIRED? COMMENTS: Mason is coordinating with the USCG; anticipate
advanced approval
IS THE PROJECT SITE IN OR NEAR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
NATIONAL FOREST: No
WILDLIFE REFUGE: No
STATE, COUNTY, OR LOCAL PARK: Wrightsville Beach Park and boat ramp (adjacent to bridge)
AIRPORT: No
A LAKE FOR RECREATION OR POWER GENERATION: No
WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR: No
NUTRIENT SENSITIVE WATERS: No
PUBLIC USE BOAT RAMP: Adjacent to the study area
CEMETARIES: None within study area
WILL A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) PERMIT BE REQUIRED? No
IS THIS BRIDGE IN A FEDERAL PROJECT AREA THAT IS SUBJECT TO SECTION 408 PERMISSIONS? No
IS THE PROJECT AREA KNOWN FOR POTENTIAL INDIAN, COLONIAL, OR OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES? No
KNOWN OR POTENTIAL HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE AREA? Adjacent to study area: James D and Frances Sprunt
Cottage; Survey to be completed
IS THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE ITSELF, OR ANY PART THEREOF, CONSIDERED HISTORIC? No
WILL THE PROJECT IMPACT A CHURCH, COMMUNITY CENTER, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITY? Uncertain, but
church and local park are nearby
IS THIS PROJECT ON A STATEWIDE BICYCLE ROUTE OR A LOCAL NON-MARKED BICYCLE ROUTE? Yes
ANY CLARIFICATION OR COMMENTS ON ITEMS ABOVE:
CONSTRUCTABILITY AND ACCESS (DISCUSSED AT THE FSM BY DIVISION BRIDGE MANAGER)
METHOD OF ACCESS: Roadway access
TOP-DOWN: Work bridge
6
MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT ACCESS TO SITE: Barge – no
TRACTOR-TRAILER ACCESS: Possibly BARGE ACCESS: No HEAVY EQUIPMENT ACCESS: Possibly
POSTED ROADS AND POSTED BRIDGES IN VICINITY THAT MAY AFFECT ACCESS? No
ARE CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS AVAILABLE NEAR SITE? No
ANY ANTICIPATED AREAS OF TEMPORARY SHORING REQUIRED? None
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
• Florida I-Beams OK - Girders preferred; 24” cored slabs be considered for all three bridges
• Concern with driving piles
• High winds may require 2-bar rail
• Wall maintenance – suggest pulling wall and riprap sides; DCM prefer to take out wall
• Utilities will be a major contributor in determining the construction method on this bridge
ROADWAY (COMPLETED BY ROADWAY ENGINEER PRIOR TO FSM)
ALIGNMENT: EXISTING HORIZONTAL: Maintain existing alignment
EXISTING VERTICAL: Maintain existing alignment
POSSIBLE DESIGN STANDARDS: 2024 NCDOT Standards and Specs, AASHTO
POSSIBLE DESIGN SPEED: 40 mph
POSSIBLE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS: N/A COMMENTS: None
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LENGTH: .25 miles NUMBER AND WIDTH OF LANES: (3) 11’ lanes
SHOULD THIS PROJECT HAVE CURB AND GUTTER OR SHOULDER APPROACHES? Curb and Gutter
COMMENTS: Existing roadway conditions are c&g with sidewalk on one side. This will be maintained and replaced in
place if needed. 6’ bike lanes on both sides and 10’ MUP on the left side.
TOTAL SHOULDER WIDTH: N/A PAVED SHOULDER WIDTH: N/A
CLEAR ROADWAY ON STRUCTURE: 56’
WILL EXISTING DRIVEWAYS, BUSINESS ACCESS, -Y- LINES OR RAMPS NEED TO BE RELOCATED? No
COMMENTS:
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY / PERMANENT EASEMENTS / TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ANTICIPATED
FOR CONSTRUCTION? Yes COMMENTS: Bridge construction may require additional ROW or easement. Water line
attached to the bridge may need additional PUE for relocation since it will not be allowed to be attached to the bridge.
ARE ANY RETAINING WALLS ANTICIPATED? Possibly at either end of the bridge
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Will need to review vertical impacts based on proposed structure depth.
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED / RESOLVED AT FSM BY ATTENDEES
ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED BY ROADWAY DESIGN (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OFF-SITE DETOUR ON-SITE DETOUR NEW LOCATION
CHECK ONE
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (CHECK ONE)
LIBR ATT G
PROGRAMMATIC CATIGORICAL EXCLUSION (PCE)
MINIMUM CRITERIA RULE COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
7
THE OPTIMUM LET DATE FOR THIS PROJECT IS:
SURVEY LIMITS: Shell plan sheets are available
POSSIBLE SUPERSTRUCTURE:
TYPE:
NUMBER OF SPANS:
LENGTH OF SPANS: TBD
TOTAL PROPOSED LENGTH: TBD
TOTAL PROPOSED WIDTH: 60’
BRIDGE SKEW:
ROW BY:
PERMITS:
METHOD OF CLEARING: Hand clearing
SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS: TBD; contractor to make decision
REMOVAL OF REMENANT ABUTMENTS / PIERS:
DECK OVERLAY TYPE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
APPROACH SLAB ON SKEW OR PERPENDICULAR:
SHOULD PILES BE NON-CORROSIVE MATERIAL: Yes; all components need non-corrosive
WILL TEST HOLES BE REQUIRED? Yes, for utilities