Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBP3-R010_FSM_Minutes MEETING MINUTES BP3-R010 – Field Scoping Meeting Date: 06 January 2022 Time: 9:00 a.m. Leader: Scott Cooke Location: Onsite Attendees: LJB: Scott Cooke, Rick Coffman, Jon Giles NCDOT: Keith Eason, David Candela, Ben Meyer, Mason Herndon, Anthony Law, Craig Lee, Dean Argenbright, Anneliese Westphal, Kristy Alford, Daniel Waugh, Monica Duval, Brian Harding USACOE: Brad Shaver Purpose: Field Scoping Meeting for BP3-R010, Onslow County Opening Comments Brian Harding opened the meeting and provided a brief synopsis of the proposed project purpose, need and location. Then Brian turned the meeting over to Scott Cooke. Scott requested that all the attendees introduce themselves. The project is approximately 0.15 mi. in length. The purpose of this project is to replace existing bridge 71 over Harris Creek on SR 1109 (Holly Shelter Road). Proposed Let Date is July 2025. Previous Meeting Minutes: No previous meetings. Discussion Topics: Scott opened the meeting to discussion about proposed project. Monica Duval asked if the existing limits of survey would be adequate for the proposed project. Scott stated that he would review what has been provided and determine if any additional survey would be required. Monica said that Locations Survey would be coming back out to perform additional survey work under the bridge and if she could have a determination prior to this work would be good so they could perform all work at that time. BP3-R010 – Field Scoping Meeting 06 January 2022 Page 2 Mason Herndon provided LJB with a copy of the study limits which included the Jurisdictional Features Map. He also stated that the division has both the wet and wex files available for LJB’s use. Mason confirmed that the NRTR, PJD, Geotech, Historical, Archaeological and Architectural documents are already in place. Scott discussed that the design bridge type determination will be dependent on the existing superelevation of the existing curve. This will be determined at a later date. Mason stated that the design needs to include 2:1 side slopes and slopes shall be armored with rip rap. Scott stated that this project will require an offsite detour. Monica stated that the only utilities located in the project limits are power, water and telephone. She said that they have reached out to the Division 3 District 1 Office for copies of any additional encroachment agreements in the project limits. However, as of the date of this meeting they have yet to provide a response. There was a discussion between Rick Coffman, Craig Lee, David Candela, Brad Shaver and Mason Herndon concerning the type and length of bridge to be designed. Craig stated that he would like to see 5’ end bent offsets with 95’-100’ single span bridge using 39” box girders. Rick said the box girders could not be used if the cross slope of the road was greater than 4% and the existing road cross slope like to be 8% but would verify using the survey. David asked if a single span bridge would be the best application for this location or would a multi-span be a better fit. Craig suggested a 35’ – 60’ two span design to keep bridge bent out of the water. Mason, Craig, Brad and David after some discussion and preliminary measurements determined that a 3-span design would work best to keep the bridge bents both out of the water and far enough from the edge of the stream to reduce the need to provide rip rap protection for bents. Mason proceeded to discuss the Environmental portion of the FSM worksheet. He addressed the following items:  PJD has been approved there are wetlands and jurisdictional streams present in the project limits BP3-R010 – Field Scoping Meeting 06 January 2022 Page 3  The NRTR has already been submitted and approved, however a NRTR memo update will be required. This memo shall address a review the site for the presence of either habitat or species for the following: o Cooley’s meadowrue o Golden sedge o Pondberry o Rough-leave loosestrife o Both the Atlantic sturgeon and Shortnose sturgeon had “unresolved” biological conclusions and should be re-visited in the memo. o The Eastern Black Rail was added to the iPac and should be included in the memo and the biological conclusion should be “no effect” o Northern Long-eared Bat programmatic biological opinion language should be added to the memo  Harris Creek is classified as NSW (nutrient sensitive waters).  No deck drains shall be used over open water.  No survey required for HEU or Architectural Roadway design was discussed, and the Division stated the following:  Bridge shall be 30’ from outside to outside,  2’ paved shoulders,  Guardrail where warranted shall have a 2:1 slope behind it and should transition to a 3:1 slope,  Paint shall be used for pavement markings. Monica, Rick, Dean Argenbright, Scott and Mason opened up a discussion concerning which CAD platform, V8i or ORD, should be used for the project design. The different NCDOT units are not all using the same platform. Brian Harding stated that he would discuss this with the Division staff and will inform LJB which platform will be preferred. BP3-R010 – Field Scoping Meeting 06 January 2022 Page 4 Scott posed the question concerning asymmetrical verses symmetrical widening since there is an aerial water line located on the downstream side of the stream. The group concurred that symmetrical widening would be preferred. Mason asked if the piles would be driven or would drilled shafts be required? Dean stated that the Geotech Unit has not made a final determination on this subject and would inform the group once a determination has been made. This led to a follow-up question concerning if a work trestle would be needed to construct the bridge? This determination will be unresolved until Geotech provides final guidance on the type of bent supports to be used in the design. Division staff discussed the need to inspect and possibly replace a 48” crossline pipe located just south of the bridge and within the project limits. Keith Eason and Scott discussed this mater briefly and it was determined that this crossing should be included in the scope of work for LJB. Mason stated that for design purposes LJB should use the wet file for the 25% plans until Location Survey can finalize the FS file Monica stated that Location Survey will be surveying in the wetland boundaries, jurisdictional streams and ordinary highwater mark. Action Items: NCDOT needs to provide clarification on the following design items as discussed in the meeting: 1. NCDOT to inform LJB which platform to use for design. 2. NCDOT to provide final guidance on use of driven piles or drilled shafts for bridge design. LJB shall provide bridge span design options to NCDOT prior to performing any modeling. The above represents LJB’s interpretations of the discussion held at the referenced meeting. These notes will be considered agreed to by all parties unless any errors, omissions or discrepancies are reported to the author.