17BP.3.R.62 Brunswick 23 - updated 2017.02.24.pdf

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FIELD SCOPING MEETING WORKSHEET
Let Date: 11/1/18 (Let date revised due to businesses being
affected; date of availability should be January — April despite
school bus concern)
PROJECT NO.: FIELD SCOPING MEETING DATE: January 31, 2017
17BP.3.R.62 2:00 p.m.
DIVISION: 3 LOCATION: Brunswick 23
COLINTY: Brunswick
ROUTE (US / NC / SR): SR 1500
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge 23 over Branch of
River Swamp
TIER:
MPO / RPO AREA:
MUNICIPALITY:
BRIDGE NO.: 23
ATTENDEES NAME (PRINT) PHONE No E-MAIL ATTENDED
DIVISION BRIDGE Kevin Bowen 910-341-2000 [e-mail]
RESIDENT ENGINEER/PROJ A1 Edgerton 910-341-2000 [e-mail] �/
MANAGER
ASST PROJ MANAGER Caitlin Marks 910-341-2000 [e-mail]
DIVISION UTILITY Steve Davis 910-341-2000 [e-mail] �/
COORDINATOR
DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL Mason Herndon 910-341-2000 [e-mail] �/
OFFICER
ENVIRONMENTAL Anneliese Westphal 910-341-2000 [e-mail]
SPECIALIST
DDC REPRESENTATIVE David Leonard 910-341-2000 [e-mail]
HYDRAULICS Jon Moore 919-707-6738 [e-mail] �/
REPRESENTATIVE
HYDRAULICS Chris Lewis 919-707-6714 [e-mail] �/
REPRESENTATIVE
STRUCTURE DESIGN Greg Dickey 919-707-6469 [e-mail]
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION AND SURVEYS Rick Neal 910-341-0550 [e-mail]
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION AND SURVEYS CJ Sawyer 910-341-0550 [e-mail] �/
REPRESENTATIVE
STRUCTURE DESIGN Korey Newton 919-707-6539 [e-mail]
REPRESENTATIVE
DIVISION OF WATER Joanne Steenhuis 910-796-7306 [e-mail] �/
RESOURCES
1

US ARMY CORPS OF Brad Shaver 910-251-46ll [e-mail]
ENGINEERS
WILDLIFE RESOURCES Travis Wilson 919-707-0370 [e-mail] COMMENTS
COMMISSION SUBMITTED
US FISH & WILDLIFE Gary Jordan 919-856-4520, gary�[e-mail]
SERVICES ext. 32
DIVI5ION BRIDGE Ron Van Cleef 910-341-2000 [e-mail]
MAINTENANCE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF COASTAL Gregg Bodnar 252-808-2808 [e-mail]
MANAGEMENT - FISHERIES
DIVISION OF COASTAL Stephen Lane 252-208-2808 [e-mail]
MANAGEMENT
GEOTECHNICAL LJNIT Dean Argenbright 252-355-9054 [e-mail] �/
MOTT MACDONALD Tim Jordan 919-552-2253 [e-mail] �/
REPRESENTATIVE
MCKIM & CREED Rick Moore 910-343-1048 [e-mail] �/
REPRESENTATIVE
MCKIM & CREED Kathryn Espinoza 910-343-1048 [e-mail] �/
REPRESENTATIVE
DIVISION (COMPLETED BY DIVISION STAFF AND SENT WITH THE FSM LETTER)
EXISTING FEATURES
FEATURE BRIDGED: Sarah Hole
(BRIDGE / CULVERT) LENGTH: 37' DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT) 25.375'
WATER DEPTH: 4' HEIGHT BED-TO-CROWN: 11'
PRIOR SURVEY DATE: POSTED: SV N/A TTST: N/A
STRUCTURE TYPE: RC Caps on Timber Piles @ 7'-6 centers
SPAN TYPE: 12 lines of Sx12 I-Beams @ 2'2.5" centers; 2 spans @18'6"
HISTORIC HIGH WATER (ELEV. TO THE TOP OF RAIL ):
-L- BASE YEAR: 2013 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 5000 % TRUCKS/DUALS: 7%
SUFFICIENCY RATING: 6
POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN PROJECT VICINITY: (MPH / STATUTORY SSMPH) 55 MPH
DETOUR: OFF-SITE: Yes ON-SITE: No STAGE CONSTRUCTION: No
IF DETOUR IS OFF-SITE, PROVIDE DESCRIPTION OF DETOUR ROUTE: R on NC211; R on SR 1505 (turns to SR
1504); R on SR 1501; R on SR 1500
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF DETOUR? 7.9 miles
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ROAD ON DETOUR? COMMENTS: N/A
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO BRIDGES ON DETOUR? N/A
ARE BRIDGES ON DETOUR CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED ON TIP? COMMENTS:
ARE THERE EMS, SCHOOL, OR BUSINESS ACCESS ISSUES? Major Concerns COMMENTS: Detour will add
delays to bus route; student ride times increase and locations of stops may need changed; contact local Brunswick
County officials so that they are able to inform county wide residents of potential delays.
ARE THERE ANY RAILROAD CROSSINGS ON DETOUR? NO COMMENTS:
WILL RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT BE REQUIRED?

SHOULD WORK ZONE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION?
REASON S:
EXISTING R/W WIDTH:
IMPACT RATING TO UTILITIES:
POWER TRANSMISSION LINES: Brunswick EMS AERIAL/UG/BOTH: Overhead IN CONFLICT:
TELEPHONE: ATMC AERIAL/UG/BOTH: UG IN CONFLICT: --------
CABLE TV: TWC AERIAL/UG/BOTH: UG IN CONFLICT: --------
FIBER OPTIC: AERIAL/UG/BOTH: IN CONFLICT: --------
WATER: Brunswick County IN CONFLICT: --------
SEWER IN CONFLICT: --------
NATURAL GAS: IN CONFLICT: --------
OTHER: IN CONFLICT: --------
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? PUE and Relocation for Power Line; others tbd
WHAT TYPE PERMIT? UBO and UC plans should be completed clearly showing where utility bores will be
WHO WILL BE OBTAINING PERMITS FOR UTILITY RELOCATION? Mott Mac (or your sub) should handle the
entire utility coordination including design, permitting, and relocation for all utilities; wet utilities will be moved by the
construction contractor and needs to be included in the construction contract.
IS THERE ANY FUTURE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION ANTICIPATED IN THE PROJECT AREA?
IS A FEMA BUY-OUT PROPERTY BEING IMPACTED?
EXISTING UTILITY DRAWING ATTACHED?
HYDRAULICS (COMPLETED BY HYDRAULICS ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE FSM)
WILL THIS PROJECT REQUIRE A FEMA PERMIT? No
IS THERE LTNUSUAL SCOUR POTENTIAL? No IS PROTECTION NEEDED? Std
ARE BANKS STABLE? Yes IS PROTECTION NEEDED? Std
DOES STREAM CARRY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF LARGE DEBRIS? No
WILL THE PLACEMENT OF BENTS IN THE WATER BE ALLOWED? No COMMENTS:
BRIDGE TO PIPE CANDIDATE? No COMMENTS:
WILL THIS PROJECT REQUIRE A STATE STORMWATER PERMIT? N/A
HOW WILL ROADSIDE DRAINAGE AND / OR TREATMENT OF STORMWATER V1A THE BRIDGE DECK BE
ADDRESSED FOR EACH QUADRANT?
NE QUADRANT: DI's and pipe outlet
SE QUADRANT: DI's and pipe outlet
SW QUADRANT: DI's and pipe outlet
NW QUADRANT: DI's and pipe outlet
POSSTBLE SPAN LAYOUT: 1@70"^'�; it has been determined that this bridge will need to be a girder bridge to
accommodate potential future improvements; please send a preliminary roadway grade and span layout to Jon Moore before
the BSR is submitted
GEOTECHNICAL UNIT (COMPLETED BY GEOTECHNICAL UNIT PRIOR TO THE FSM)
3

EXISTING FOLJNDATION REPORTS? No IF SO, ATTACH.
KNOWN GEOLOGICAL FEATURES IN AREA WHICH MAY AFFECT DESIGN: Limestone
ARE PERMITS NEEDED FOR INVESTIGATIVE WORK AT SITE? No COMMENTS:
ARE THERE ANY HISTORICAL AND / OR VIBRATION SENSITIVE STRUCTURES NEAR BY? Yes COMMENTS: Private
Residence and Church
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? 20 feet (FT.)
ARE ANY IMPACTS ANTCIPATED TO NATURAL SPRINGS OR ARTESIAN WELLS? No COMMENTS: Our boreholes
will be sealed
POSSIBLE FOiJNDATION TYPE: Pile or drilled shafts — Recommend bents be placed a minimum of 5 feet away from existing
bents.
ENVIRONMENTAL �coMpLETED BY DEo sTaFF P�oR To TxE FSM�
WETLANDS AT SITE? No COMMENTS: pjd already in hand
KNOWN ENDANGERED SPECIES POPULATIONS IN AREA? TBD COMMENTS: N/A
BUFFER REQUIREMENTS? None
CAMA COLTNTY: Yes PRIMARY NURSERY AREA: No DCM CLAIMING: No
MORATORIA: No IF YES-DURATION: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
IS WATER FEATURE CLASSIFIED AS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER? No COMMENTS: N/A
WHAT IS THE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS PROJECT: C;sw STREAM ID# 15-25-1-6-2
WILL A COAST GUARD PERMIT BE REQUIRED? No COMMENTS: N/A
IS THE PROJECT SITE IN OR NEAR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
NATIONAL FOREST: No
WILDLIFE REFUGE: No
STATE, COL7NTY, OR LOCAL PARK: No
AIRPORT: No
A LAKE FOR RECREATION OR POWER GENERATION: No
WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR: No
NUTRIENT SENSITIVE WATERS: No
PUBLIC USE BOAT RAMP: No
CEMETARIES: Yes, located appro�mately 600 ft W of site
WILL A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) PERMIT BE REQUIRED? No
IS THE PROJECT AREA KNOWN FOR POTENTIAL INDIAN, COLONIAL, OR OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES? No
KNOWN OR POTENTIAL HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE AREA? No
IS THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE ITSELF, OR ANY PART THEREOF, CONSIDERED HISTORIC? No
WILL THE PROJECT IMPACT A CHURCH, COMMUNITY CENTER, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITY? A church is located
approximately SSOft of site
IS THIS PROJECT ON A STATEWIDE BICYCLE ROUTE OR A LOCAL NON-MARKED BICYCLE ROUTE? No
4

ANY CLARIFICATION OR COMMENTS ON ITEMS ABOVE:
CONSTRUCTABILITY AND ACCESS (DISCUSSED AT THE FSM BY DIVISION BRIDGE MANAGER)
METHOD OF ACCESS: Road Closure will provide room for all of the following:
TOP-DOWN: Yes
MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT ACCESS TO SITE: Yes
TRACTOR-TRAILER ACCESS: Yes BARGE ACCESS: Yes HEAVY EQUIPMENT ACCESS: Yes
POSTED ROADS AND POSTED BRIDGES IN VICINITY THAT MAY AFFECT ACCESS? TBD
ARE CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS AVAILABLE NEAR SITE? Yes
ANY ANTICIPATED AREAS OF TEMPORARY SHORING REQUIRED? No
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
ROADWAY (COMPLETED BY ROADWAY ENGINEER PRIOR TO FSM)
ALIGNMENT: EXISTING HORIZONTAL: TBD
EXISTING VERTICAL: Very Good (curve to be included in survey)
POSSIBLE DESIGN STANDARDS: Regional tier (is now a Primary Route: NC 906)
POSSIBLE DESIGN SPEED: 60
POSSIBLE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS: COMMENTS:
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LENGTH: 600' NUMBER AND WIDTH OF LANES: 2@ 11'
SHOULD THIS PROJECT HAVE CURB AND GUTTER OR SHOULDER APPROACHES?
COMMENTS:
TOTAL SHOULDER WIDTH: 6' (9' w/ guardrail) PAVED SHOULDER WIDTH: 4' FDPS
CLEAR ROADWAY ON STRUCTURE: (36' OTO)
WILL EXISTING DRIVEWAYS, BUSINESS ACCESS, -Y- LINES OR RAMPS NEED TO BE RELOCATED? TBD
COMMENTS: A church is right by the bridge
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY / PERMANENT EASEMENTS / TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ANTICIPATED
FOR CONSTRUCTION? Yes COMMENTS:
ARE ANY RETAINING WALLS ANTICIPATED? No
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
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: 11/1/18
SURVEY LIMITS: 75' Left and Right; �600' with curve included in survey
POSSIBLE SUPERSTRUCTURE: ''"" ^^r�a �'�'�� Girders 1@ 70'
TYPE: Concrete (potentially 45")
NUMBER OF SPANS: 1
LENGTH OF SPANS: 70'
TOTAL PROPOSED LENGTH: 70'
TOTAL PROPOSED WIDTH: TBD (Brunswick 25 has 36'3 OTO with a 42'-3" cap for
future widening)
BRIDGE SKEW: 90 degrees
ROW BY: August 1, 2018
PERMITS: August 1, 2018
METHOD OF CLEARING: Modified Method III; hand clear for utilities
SALVAGEABLE MATERIALS: No
REMOVAL OF REMENANT ABUTMENTS / PIERS: Completely
DECK OVERLAY TYPE Concrete
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Do not use deck drains, plans should use a scale of 50,
APPROACH SLAB ON SKEW OR PERPENDICULAR: perpendicular
SHOULD PILES BE NON-CORROSIVE MATERIAL: Yes; ref Fig. 12-30 of the SMU design manual, and Chapter 12 of the design
manual per Greg Dickey
6

J
� ._ � .. ' . _ . .
I�J �! ��t E�ti s� 4� �.+'i� 7� e�sa�
-—. �. ,. - l�•—�v
i
:RY�
-• . •�"E • i ,II
1^��
..H-;,.r .y,
.1�
� � -
� ' w
}`M � �
J �
� �
�, ..
�,.
� 9�'S� �'�7•7a�
Ne� �'`,�iR��l � M7'�A��d�JPlf7�
��� ���� .i�
1!1 � �
A�I