scoping report 49

23 USC § 409 NDDOT Reserves All Objections

SC

OP

ING

RE

PO

RT

Project No. PCN

Elgin to Glen Ullin

49

Prepared by

NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA

http://www.dot.nd.gov/

DIRECTOR William T. Panos

OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

Steve Salwei, P.E.

Principal Author: Michael Wilz, P.E. February 2021

DocuSign Envelope ID: 86132978-E697-4458-ADF8-ECD59FC6186D

1

SCOPING REPORT

A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Number: District: Bismarck Highway: 49 Location: Jct 21 – Elgin N to Glen Ullin Reference Point: 36.331 to 67.71 – 31.379 Counties: Grant, Morton Legal Description: T134N, R89W, Sec 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23 T135N, R89W, Sec 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, 27, 28, 34, 35 T136N, R88W, Sec 1, 12, 13, 22-24, 26, 27, 34, 35

T137N, R88W, Sec 31, 32 T137N, R89W, Sec 1, 2, 11-14, 23-26, 36 T138N, R89W, Sec 1, 11-14, 23-26, 35, 36 T139N, R89W, Sec 36

Functional and Funding Roadway Classification: District Corridor National Highway System: No Speed Limit: 25, 45, 55, 65 MPH Freight Level: 2 Freight Constraints: Width & Load Project Schedule: Proposed to be added to STIP as a minor rehabilitation and developed

earlier if additional funding becomes available

dTIMS Recommendations: RP 36.331 to 48.531 Constrained: Do Nothing

Unconstrained: Minor Sliver Grade 2028 RP 48.531 to 55.233

Constrained: PM Asphalt 2028 Unconstrained: PM Asphalt 2028 RP 55.233 to 67.71

Constrained: Do Nothing Unconstrained: Minor Sliver Grade 2028

B. PURPOSE, NEED, AND IMPROVEMENT

Purpose and Need of Project: This corridor is made up of 3 segments, all with existing pavement structures that require load restrictions. The current load limit is 7 tons, and the Freight Plan requires at least 8 tons for freight level 2. The distress is currently rated good however the IRI is only fair. There is consistent transverse cracking with occasional longitudinal cracking. The north and south segments also have a width restriction due to not meeting the Freight Plan’s minimum width of 26’ for freight level 2. The middle segment would likely become width restricted if an overlay is completed without widening. Traffic operation’s investigation into the


2

crash history showed a trend of single vehicle run off the road crashes on the north and south segments and recommends widening the roadway to address it. There are also areas of very steep sloughs on this entire corridor where the most recent (2009) overlay did not fit, and gravel wedges were put in where possible to provide a more reasonable slope. Roughly 8.6 miles has the gravel sloughs according to as built plans. In some locations, gravel has eroded away exposing the steep sloughs. There are approximately 70 subsegments over the 31 miles consisting of different width and slough conditions.

Corridor Width Summary

Segment/Width Length ‐ Miles

RP 36.331 to 48.531

24.5' 9.417

26' 2.762

RP 48.531 to 55.233

27' 1.909

28' 4.803

RP 55.233 to 67.710

24' 0.291

24.5 7.637

26' 4.507

Total 31.3

Proposed Improvement:

There are two scenarios that apply in removing load restrictions, the first would involve just meeting the freight level requirement of an 8 ton limit, and the second scenario would go further, taking the roadway to a legal weight requirement. In discussions with the district who is responsible for setting load restrictions, it was determined that a minor rehabilitation overlay is needed for either scenario. A minor rehabilitation sliver grading and overlay is proposed to widen the roadway and restore the pavement structure. Widening will also allow for the correction of the steep slough locations. Three different pavement widths options have been included for the north and south segments due to the variation in existing widths and to potentially add corridor consistency.

C. TRAFFIC AND CRASH ANALYSIS

RP 36.331 to RP 37.257 Year Pass Trucks Total AADT

Flex ESALS

Rigid ESALS

Current Traffic 2020 625 125 750 80 125 Forecast Traffic 2040 765 170 935 110 165


Flex ESALS

Rigid ESALS



3


Flex ESALS

Rigid ESALS


Crash Analysis: The 5 year study period used was 12/1/2015 – 11/30/2020. Animal crashes were not included. Note, on 8/1/2019 the cost threshold for a reportable crash increased from $1,000 to $4,000 due to legislative change, so recent years may show fewer crashes than previous years. Notes/Trends: RP 36.331 to 48.531 -6 total crashes -All crashes were single vehicles that ran off the roadway -No fatal or incapacitating crashes were reported

-The 2017-2019 Rural Highway Segment Crash Map shows this segment is in the low range for weighted crashes per mile.

RP 48.531 to 55.233

-3 total crashes -One incapacitating injury was reported

-All three crashes occurred on a curve -The 2017-2019 Rural Highway Segment Crash Map shows this segment is in the low range for weighted crashes per mile.

RP 55.233 to 67.71 -9 of the 10 crashes were single vehicle crashes; 8 of those ran off the roadway and 7 were rollovers

-2 of the single vehicle crashes reported incapacitating injuries. There were no fatalities.

-The 2017-2019 Rural Highway Segment Crash Map shows this segment is in the low range for weighted crashes per mile.

Recommendations = Widen roadway (RP 36.331 to 48.531 & RP 55.233 to 67.71)

D. EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS

International Roughness Index (IRI)

Distress Score

Rut

Excellent < =60 ≥ 98 < 0.25″ Good 61 – 99 88 – 97 0.25″ to 0.375″ Fair 100 – 145 77 – 87 0.376″ to 0.50″ Poor > 145 ≤ 76 > 0.50″

RP 36.331 to 48.531 Actual Age IRI IRI Rating SI or SCI Faulting 62 105 Fair 3 N/A Effective Age Distress Distress Score Rutting Rutting Score 21 91 Good 0.11 Excellent


4

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY Year Construction Depth (in) Width (ft) Oil 1955 Grade - 34.0 - 1958 Emulsified Base 7.0 30.0 SS-1 1958 Hot Bit Pavement 2.0 24.0 150-200 1983 Hot Bit Pavement 2.0 27.0 120-150 1992 Contract Chip Seal - 27.0 MC-3000 1997 Int Cont Patch-1.25” - 24.0 120-150 1998 Contract Chip Seal - 24.0 MC-3000 2009 Hot Bit Pavement 2.0 25.0 PG 58-28 2013 Federal Aid Chip Seal - 25.0 CRS2P


CONSTRUCTION HISTORY Year Construction Depth (in) Width (ft) Oil 1958 Grade - 38.0 - 1958 Emulsified Base 7.0 34.0 SS-1 1958 Hot Bit Pavement 2.0 24.0 150-200 1983 Hot Bit Pavement 2.0 27.0 120-150 1992 Contract Chip Seal - 27.0 MC-3000 1996 Int Mtce Patch-1.5” - 27.0 - 1997 Int Cont Patch-1.25” - 24.0 120-150 1998 Contract Chip Seal - 24.0 MC-3000 1999 Safety Project - - - 2009 Hot Bit Pavement 2.0 25.0 PG 58-28 2013 Federal Aid Chip Seal - 28.0 CRS2P


CONSTRUCTION HISTORY Year Construction Depth (in) Width (ft) Oil 1956 Grade - 34.0 - 1958 Emulsified Base 7.0 34.0 SS-1 1958 Hot Bit Pavement 2.0 24.0 150-200 1983 Hot Bit Pavement 2.0 27.0 120-150 1992 Contract Chip Seal - 27.0 MC-3000 1997 Int Cont Patch-1.25” - 24.0 120-150 1998 Contract Chip Seal - 24.0 MC-3000 2009 Hot Bit Pavement 2.0 25.0 PG 58-28 2013 Federal Aid Chip Seal - 25.0 CRS2P

Existing Foreslopes: 4:1


5

Existing Typical Sections The predominant typical sections are shown below. As noted, the widths vary along the corridor, see Purpose and Need of Project for width summary. RP 36.331 to 48.531 & RP 55.233 to 67.710 RP 48.531 to 55.233

E. EXISTING GEOMETRY

Horizontal Curves: Use existing Vertical Curves: Use existing.


6

F. EXISTING STRUCTURES

Bridges:

Bridge No. Name Vert Clear

Length Width Rating

(ft) (ft) Deck Sup Sub Cul

49-037.677 Single, 12X7X89' SPP - 12 - N/A N/A N/A 3

Recommendation: SPP was built in 1956. Floor is heaved up approximately 1.5 ft on E and W ends 7 ft in from the ends, Pipe should be evaluated for sliplining or replacement. $ ??

49-042.060 Antelope Creek - 102 36 7 8 8 N/A

Recommendation: Built in 1988. Approach slabs appear to be in good shape except some spalling in NW corner, but if we do a deck overlay that would be the time to replace and address lip failure if present, Replace Appr Slabs and lip repair Deck overlay $ 140,000

49-046.056 Single 10X92' SPP - 10 - N/A N/A N/A 7

Recommendation: Built in 1956 and extended in 2001. Still looks good. Do Nothing

49-050.612 Single 14X13 RCA - 14 - N/A N/A N/A 8

Recommendation: Built in 1950. Bureau of Reclamation has maintenance responsibility. Not a DOT structure, Do Nothing

49-058.036 Single 10X104 SPP - 10 - N/A N/A N/A 8

Recommendation: Built in 1956 and extended in 1985. Do Nothing

49-058.230 Single 5X7X169' RCB - 5 - N/A N/A N/A 6

Recommendation: Seal Joint & Spall repair $6,000

49-061.561 Double 11X8X84' RCP CIP - 23 - N/A N/A N/A 7

Recommendation: Built in 1994, Do Nothing

49-061.994 Quad 10X12X84' RCB - 43 - N/A N/A N/A 7

Recommendation: Built in 1988, Do Nothing

49-064.043 Single 6X6X31' RCB 6X60' RCB - 6 - N/A N/A N/A 6

Recommendation: Built in 1933 and extended 48’ East with 84” RCP in 1956. There is spalling and exposed reinforcing at joint(s) with backfill material coming through. Either repair joints or if structure is in bad condition it should be replaced with pipe.

49-066.299 Single 10-8X6-11X102' SPPA - 11 - N/A N/A N/A 7

Recommendation: Built in 1956, extended in1985 and in 2001, Do Nothing

49-066.534 Triple 10X8X98' RCB - 32 - N/A N/A N/A 6

Recommendation: Built in 1935 and extended in 2001, Do Nothing

Centerline Pipes: Use Existing. Pipes affected by the sliver widening should be extended and have their end sections re-laid. There are approximately 70 centerline pipes. There are 8 pipes that are silted in and need to be cleaned. Four of those pipes are also in poor condition and have separation and erosion issues. This is especially the case at the pipe ends where the end sections and, in some cases, an additional pipe barrel have completely come off leading to substantial erosion. One of the poor condition pipes is a cattle pass that should be considered for removal or filling in/abandoning. Resetting and tying the pipe ends (end section and separated barrel) is included in the estimate for the poor condition pipe as well as cleaning the 8 plugged pipes.


7

G. LAND INTERESTS

Communities: Elgin (Pop. 677), Glen Ullin (Pop. 806) Reservation: None Public Land: Surface Trust Land (RP 54.5 to 55.1) Waterfall Production/Wildlife Management Areas: None Adjacent Land Usage: Residential, Agricultural Special: Heart Butte Dam – US Bureau of Reclamation

H. ISSUES AND APPURTENANCES CHECKLIST

1. Curb and Gutter? Yes No X 2. Sidewalk? Yes No X 3. Multi-Use Path? Yes No X 4. ADA Ramps? Yes No X 5. State Bicycling Network? Yes X No This segment is a proposed Tier 1 Bike corridor. Minimum infrastructure expectation is

signage. 6. Lighting? Yes X No There are destination lights at each end of this corridor, Jct 21 (Elgin) and Glen Ullin. Lights

should be upgraded to LED if not already. 7. Signals? Yes No X 8. Storm Sewer? Yes No X 9. Manholes? Yes No X 10. Other Underground Work? Yes No X 11. Parking Facilities? Yes No X 12. Frontage Roads? Yes X No There are frontage roads on both sides of the highway in Elgin, but they are on city right of

way. No suggested improvements. 13. Utility Issues? Yes No X There are buried telephone, fiber optic, water along the corridor along with overhead

electric lines. 14. Landscaping? Yes No X


8

15. Approach or Ditch Block Flattening? Yes No X 16. T Intersection Recovery Approaches? Yes No X 17. Fence? Yes No X 18. Railroad Crossings? Yes No X 19. Detours? Yes No X 20. Automatic Traffic Recorder Locations? Yes No X 21. Weigh-In-Motion Sites? Yes No X 22. ITS (Deicing, Snow Gates, VMS, RWIS, etc.)? Yes No X 23. Highway Patrol/Truck Pullouts or Rest Areas? Yes No X 24. Additional Right of Way? Yes X No Right of way widths vary significantly along the corridor. There are some deep fill areas

where widening may impact private property. Also, the highway segment on the Heart Butte Dam appears to be on easement from the US Bureau of Reclamation.

25. Drainage Issues? Yes No X 26. Snow Impact Areas? Yes No X 27. Subgrade Issues? Yes No X 28. Noise Analysis: Type I Project? Yes No X Maybe 29. Maintenance Issues? Yes No X 30. Guardrail? Yes X No There is box beam guardrail protecting Heart Butte Dam and W-Beam guardrail protecting

structure 0049-042.060. The box beam is anticipated to be replaced and is included in the estimate.

31. Milling? Yes X No It is anticipated 1” milling will be completed to provide for RAP.

I. Load Restrictions

Travel Information Map Proposed Load Restriction: 7 Ton Freight Level Required Minimum Load Restriction: 8 Ton Projected Load Restrictions after project is complete: Legal Weight


9

J. Roadway Widths

Required Minimum Roadway Width: 24’-26’ Freight Level Required Minimum Width: 26’ Surrounding Corridors: ND 49 – 27.0’ ND 21 – 31.0’

K. PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES Design Speed: Use posted speed limit. Clear Zone: Use Existing. Foreslopes: 4:1

L. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS A minor rehabilitation sliver grading and overlay is proposed to widen the roadway, restore the pavement structure to get the roadway to legal weight requirements, and address steep slough areas. Three different pavement widths options have been included for the north and south segments due to the variation in existing widths and to potentially add corridor consistency. Proposed Typical Sections RP 36.331 to 48.531 & RP 55.233 to 67.710 28.5’ Pavement Width 30’ Pavement Width 32’ Pavement Width


10

RP 48.531 to 55.233 32’ Pavement Width* *Widening is not anticipated over Heart Butte Dam. A 30’ pavement width option was not provided since the widening would be limited to 1’ on each side of the roadway, which is not practical or cost effective. Future Outlook Pavement management philosophies do change as new treatments/technology becomes available, but as a preliminary forecast of future projects the Bismarck district anticipates the following work over the next 20 years:

Year Treatment

2 Chip Seal

10 Chip Seal or Microsurface

15 PM Overlay Each option provides an identical short-term future. The differences come in on the long term. The following table compares the variations in future overlay details based on current requirements of the NDDOT’s Freight Plan and Design Guidelines.

Future Overlay Info*

28.5' Roadway 30' Roadway 32' Roadway

Number of Subsequent PM Overlay that reintroduces width restriction 3 4 5

Thickness of pavement & seal coats when Width restriction reintroduced >12" >14.5" >17"

Number of Subsequent PM Overlays before minimum width of 24' is reached 4 5 6

Thickness of pavement & seal coats when minimum width of 24' is reached >15" >17" >20"

*The table is an approximate future based off of 4:1 sloughs being used. Actual values would vary if flatter sloughs were used as well as if any milling is done. The overall thickness does not include any patching that may have been done.


11

M. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Bismarck District: - We are doing a chip seal project in 2021 from RP 48 to 67.71 to try and hold the surface

together until we get a minor rehab.

- The SPP at RP 37.677 should be replaced. All SPP from 1956 should be considered for replacement. Once the floors start to move in SPP they deteriorate quickly.

- The District would recommend the 30’ or 32’ width option, especially from I-94 to the Heart

Butte Dam recreation area. - Disagree with the number of future overlays before a width restriction is needed. A 2” overlay

drawn up at a 4:1 has an 8” slough but we rarely build HMA sloughs less than 1.5’ on each side. Any less than that and they break off and become a maintenance headache.

L. COST ESTIMATES

(Inflation factor of 4% was used to estimate costs for bid year)

RP 36.331 to 48.531

Item 28.5' Roadway Estimated Cost

30' Roadway Estimated Cost


Contract Bond & Mobilization $325,000 $350,000 $380,000 Removals $375,000 $375,000 $375,000

Dirtwork $775,000 $925,000 $1,075,000 Aggregate $750,000 $925,000 $1,175,000 HMA $2,500,000 $2,650,000 $2,800,000

Concrete $0 $0 $0 Structures $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 Pipe/Drainage Issues $85,000 $85,000 $85,000

Striping/Signing/Guardrail $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Erosion Control $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 Trees/Landscaping/Fencing $0 $0 $0

Field Office/Labs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Work Zone Traffic Control $375,000 $400,000 $425,000

Subtotal= $5,825,000 $6,350,000 $6,955,000 Inflation= $720,000 $760,000 $850,000

Engineering= $1,165,000 $1,270,000 $1,391,000

Estimated Total Cost = $7,710,000 $8,380,000 $9,196,000 Approximate Per Mile Cost $618,000 $672,000 $737,000


12

RP 48.531 to 55.233

Item 32’ Roadway Estimated Cost

Contract Bond & Mobilization $200,000

Removals $230,000

Dirtwork $400,000

Aggregate $385,000

HMA $1,550,000

Concrete $0

Structures $0

Pipe/Drainage Issues $45,000

Striping/Signing/Guardrail $300,000

Erosion Control $190,000

Trees/Landscaping/Fencing $0

Field Office/Labs $50,000

Work Zone Traffic Control $225,000

Subtotal= $3,575,000

Inflation= $440,000

Engineering= $715,000

Estimated Total Cost = $4,730,000

Approximate Per Mile Cost $705,970

RP 55.233 to 67.710

Item 28.5' Roadway Estimated Cost



Contract Bond & Mobilization $325,000 $355,000 $390,000

Removals $380,000 $380,000 $380,000

Dirtwork $800,000 $950,000 $1,100,000

Aggregate $775,000 $950,000 $1,200,000

HMA $2,550,000 $2,700,000 $2,850,000

Concrete $0 $0 $0

Structures $6,000 $6,000 $6,000

Pipe/Drainage Issues $125,000 $125,000 $125,000

Striping/Signing/Guardrail $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

Erosion Control $350,000 $350,000 $350,000

Trees/Landscaping/Fencing $0 $0 $0

Field Office/Labs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000

Work Zone Traffic Control $375,000 $400,000 $425,000

Subtotal= $5,836,000 $6,366,000 $6,976,000

Inflation= $725,000 $780,000 $860,000

Engineering= $1,167,200 $1,273,200 $1,395,200

Estimated Total Cost = $7,728,200 $8,419,200 $9,231,200

Approximate Per Mile Cost $620,000 $675,000 $740,000


13

M. DECISIONS

1. Which option(s) should advance with the project for each segment?

RP 36.331 to 48.531

.Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grading Overlay to 28.5’ Pavement Top Estimate Cost = $7,710,000

.Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grading Overlay to 30’ Pavement Top Estimate Cost = $8,380,000


RP 48.531 to 55.233


RP 55.233 to 67.710

.Minor Rehabilitation Sliver Grading Overlay to 28.5’ Pavement Top Estimate Cost = $7,728,000



DDE Comments:

_________________________________ Deputy Director for Engineering Date

X

X

X

Try to coordinate project with Bureau of Reclamation work on Heart Butte Dam.


5/18/2021

scoping report 49

Documents