HomeMy WebLinkAboutFSM Worksheet 2023 HB-0040 Bridge 22 (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: -34.217836, 77.796758
ROUTE (US / NC / SR): US74 (Salisbury Street)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace bridge 640022 over Lees Cut BRIDGE NO.: 640022
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
2
DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER
Jon Giles 910-341-2000 jwgiles1@ncdot.gov
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.mi
l
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
3
DIVISION (COMPLETED BY DIVISION STAFF AND SENT WITH THE FSM LETTER)
EXISTING FEATURES:
FEATURE BRIDGED: New Hanover 640022
(BRIDGE / CULVERT) LENGTH 88’ DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT): 49.8’
WATER DEPTH: 4’ HEIGHT BED-TO-CROWN: 15’
PRIOR SURVEY DATE: 2/7/23 POSTED: SV NO TTST: NO
STRUCTURE TYPE: Reinforced Concrete Slab Continuous Reinforced Concrete Caps and PPC piles
SPAN TYPE: Skew 15 – 1@22’9”, 2@21’3”, 1@22’9”
HISTORIC HIGH WATER (ELEV. TO THE TOP OF RAIL):
-L- BASE YEAR: 2017
-L- BASE YEAR: 2040
ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2021: 10,000
ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26,000
% TRUCKS/DUALS: 6
SUFFICIENCY RATING 2021: 76.44
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 76
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF DETOUR? 2 MILES
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ROAD ON DETOUR? COMMENTS: Yes, open discussion
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO BRIDGES 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? Y COMMENTS: Yes, open discussion
ARE THERE ANY RAILROAD CROSSINGS ON DETOUR? N COMMENTS: None
WILL RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT BE REQUIRED? N
SHOULD WORK ZONE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION?
REASONS: Yes, must provide (refer to NCDOT guidelines)
EXISTING R/W WIDTH: varies 60’ – 200’
IMPACT RATING TO UTILITIES: HIGH
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, CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY, 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
WHAT TYPE 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: None
BRIDGE TO PIPE CANDIDATE? No COMMENTS: None
WILL THIS PROJECT REQUIRE A STATE STORMWATER PERMIT? Will fall under umbrella permit
HOW WILL 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
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 SITE? COMMENTS: CAMA
ARE THERE ANY HISTORICAL AND / OR VIBRATION SENSITIVE STRUCTURES NEAR BY? COMMENTS: Yes,
houses 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? COMMENTS: No
DEPTH OF WEATHERED ROCK OR ROCK BELOW STREAMBED? (FT.) 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
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; hope for
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
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? 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? No
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: Possible
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? Minor ROW may be available
6
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
• Prefer girders
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: .05 miles NUMBER AND WIDTH OF LANES: 2, 12’ lanes
SHOULD THIS PROJECT HAVE CURB AND GUTTER OR SHOULDER APPROACHES? shoulder
COMMENTS: 6’ bike lanes on both sides and tie to the existing shoulder. 12’ MUP on the right side.
TOTAL SHOULDER WIDTH: 8’ (6’ as bike lane) PAVED SHOULDER WIDTH: N/A
CLEAR ROADWAY ON STRUCTURE: 49’
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? Bridge construction may require additional ROW or easement. COMMENTS: None
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
THE OPTIMUM LET DATE FOR THIS PROJECT IS:
SURVEY LIMITS: Shell plan sheets are available, official request still needed
POSSIBLE SUPERSTRUCTURE: Will need to look at different options
TYPE:
NUMBER OF SPANS: 2
LENGTH OF SPANS: (FT) TBD
TOTAL PROPOSED LENGTH: (FT) TBD
7
TOTAL PROPOSED WIDTH: (FT) 52’
BRIDGE SKEW: currently at 105 degrees; may move to 90 degrees
ROW BY:
PERMITS:
METHOD OF CLEARING: Hand clearing
SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS: TBD; contractor to make decision
REMOVAL OF REMENANT ABUTMENTS / PIERS: Yes
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