The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFSM Worksheet 2023 HB-0040 Bridge 24 (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: -34.216667, 77.794078 ROUTE (US / NC / SR): US74 (Salisbury Street) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace bridge 640024 over Banks Channel BRIDGE NO.: 640024 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 640024 (BRIDGE / CULVERT) LENGTH 616’ DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT): 40.3’ WATER DEPTH: 20’ HEIGHT BED-TO-CROWN: 30’ PRIOR SURVEY DATE: 1/24/23 POSTED: SV NO TTST: NO STRUCTURE TYPE: Reinforced Concrete Deck Girders (T-Beams), Reinforced Concrete Caps and PPC piles SPAN TYPE: Tangent –16 spans @37’ HISTORIC HIGH WATER (ELEV. TO THE TOP OF RAIL): -L- BASE YEAR: 2021 -L- BASE YEAR: 2040 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2021: 10,000 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 26,000 % TRUCKS/DUALS: 6 SUFFICIENCY RATING 2021: 72.03 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: 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’ – 130’ 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 MONTHS WHICH UTILITIES WILL REQUIRE PERMITS FOR RELOCATION? Yes; SMU prefers 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 • DCM prefers not to remove the sea wall if CAMA wetland would be impacted • The existing wall is cracked and leaking. Attaching to the existing sea wall has maintenance concerns – rip rap would be easier for long term maintenance as getting under the bridge would not be feasible should a crack form in the wall. Wetland impacts would need to be investigated. 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 – will need to review and verify. 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 – specifically on the island side 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: .2 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’ 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: TYPE: NUMBER OF SPANS: LENGTH OF SPANS: (FT) TBD 7 TOTAL PROPOSED LENGTH: (FT) TBD TOTAL PROPOSED WIDTH: (FT) 52’ BRIDGE SKEW: 105º 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