Ver 1_SR1800 Hereford Rd FSM Meeting Minutes_42020202

SR 1800 HEREFORD ROAD FIELD SCOPING MEETING
MEETING MINUTES
SR 1800 HEREFORD ROAD FSM
MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Information
Meeting held virtually on Microsoft Teams on November 4 2021 at 1pm
Meeting Attendee Information
Attendee Organization Email
NCDOT – DIVISION 5 BRIDGE PROGRAM MANAGER
Lisa Bullard-Gilchrist [e-mail]
NCDOT - DIVISION 5 PROJECT ENGINEER PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL
Chris Murray [e-mail]
NCDOT - DIVISION RIGHT OF WAY REPRESENTATIVE
Brian Rogers [e-mail]
NCDOT - DEPUTY DIVISION CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
Cameron Richards [e-mail]
NCDOT - DURHAM RESIDENT ENGINEER
James Nordan [e-mail]
NCDOT - DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
Heather Montague [e-mail]
NCDOT – Environmental Specialist
Mitchell Wimberley [e-mail]
NCDOT - Hydraulics
Erik Seiler [e-mail]
NCDOT - REGIONAL DESIGN ENGINEER
Jamey Batts [e-mail]
NCDOT - DISTRICT 2 ENGINEER
John Sandor [e-mail]
Dewberry - Roadway
Bryan Lambeth [e-mail]
Dewberry - Roadway
Rekha Patel [e-mail]
Dewberry - Planning
Beth Smyre [e-mail]
Dewberry - Structures
Matt Payne [e-mail]
Dewberry - Structures
Jessica Perry [e-mail]
USACE
Andy Williams [e-mail]
The Wooten Company
Ed Reams [e-mail]
Friends of Mountains-to-Sea Trail
Jim Grode [e-mail]
NC Parks
Smith Raynor [e-mail]
NCDENR
Rob Ridings [e-mail]
NC Wildlife
Travis Wilson [e-mail]

th
FSM Meeting Minutes – Nov. 4 2021
1

SR 1800 HEREFORD ROAD FIELD SCOPING MEETING
MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Minutes

Presentation
The meeting was started by Lisa Bullard-Gilchrist (NCDOT project manager) she began the meeting by introducing
the attendees and outlining the meeting material that had been distributed prior to the meeting, including the FSM
worksheet, FSM conceptual plans, and the pipe removal detail.
Dewberry then outlined the purpose of the project, which is to remove the failed pipe culvert underneath Hereford
Road and discuss possible replacement options. Dewberry’s presentation outlined the worsening slope failure on
both the north and south side of the causeway and the other constraints of the site, which include but are not limited
to on-site utilities, the location within the critical Falls Lake watershed, the presence of the Mountains to Sea Trail
(MST), limiting impacts to US Army Corps of Engineers property and complications with construction in the Falls Lake
Reservoir.
The road is currently closed to thru traffic, and the MST is currently being detoured around the site. Due to the
closure of the road, the site is being used for dumping of debris and NCDOT road barricades are currently being used
for target practice.
The environmental considerations and start of study letter responses received were discussed with the group.
The proposed method of pipe removal was presented to the group, which would be a wet excavation method similar
to the method used on the adjacent Redwood Road project. This would involve using turbidity curtains to contain
disturbance. This method was selected after it was determined to be not feasible to dewater the site for construction.
Design consideration for the site were presented, the typical section would be a two 11’ lanes with 4’ paved shoulders
for bike accommodations. The project will require guardrail replacement for the length of the project to bring it up to
current standards. Design alternatives considered for the structure are listed below

Alternative 1: 90’ Box beam 33” ()
Preferred

Alternative 2: 70’ Cored Slab (24”)

Alternative 3: Double 102” CAP (Rejected for further study because of dewatering requirement)
The Hydraulic and Geotechnical studies for the site were presented as well as additional considerations for the site.
Project Discussion
1. The project team was asked if it would be possible to dewater the site for construction. The response from
the design team was that dewatering was considered but it had been determined not to be feasible due to
the constraints of working within Falls Lake as was determined on the adjacent Redwood Road project. It is
currently anticipated that around 8’ of excavation may occur in the wet but will be dependent on level of Falls
Lake at the time of construction.
NCDOT stated that wet removal process actually went better than expected on the Redwood Road project
and there were currently no objections to moving forward with the method for this project. It was noted that
on Redwood Road when the causeway was breached, that work needed to be paused while water levels
equalized between the two sides of Falls Lake and that the turbidity curtain needed to be reset before work
resumed.
Division 5 noted that all the agencies agreed that methods of construction used at Redwood Road would be
the best method for construction at Hereford Road site due to similar site conditions. This information was
obtained from the regulatory agencies in January 2021.
2. Andy Williams with the USACE recommended that a NWP14 or RGP 50 might need to be used for this
project. He stated that coordination with the Wilmington office might be needed (i.e. possible Section 408
permit) as well to determine what is required since this is a USACE managed property. They would also
need to know impacts to WOTUS with each alternative being considered and would prefer minimum
impacts.
th
FSM Meeting Minutes – Nov. 4 2021
2

SR 1800 HEREFORD ROAD FIELD SCOPING MEETING
MEETING MINUTES
Division 5 stated that all work (i.e. impacts to jurisdictional features) required for the project would be
permitted by NCDOT and is expected to be well under 0.5 acres. Wake EMC relocation work would be done
under NCDOT’s permit.
The second issue is the submittal of the Non-recreation Outgrant Application to the USACE. This is
necessary to obtain easements from the USACE. A submittal of the application will be required from the
NCDOT for the project activities associated with pipe removal, fill removal and construction of a stable, rip
rap lined channel. A separate submittal of the application will be required from Wake EMC for activities
associated with relocation of the overhead power pole.
3. NCDENR stated that the similar construction project along Redwood Road worked out well and that they
were generally ok with the same approach and permitting in this instance. They noted that buffer impacts
were present but not unusual for this type of project and did not see any major impacts that required
mitigation. At this time expected project to fall under NWP 3.
4. NC Wildlife Resource Commission (NC WRC) noted that they had not expected utility realignment and
additional clearing on USACE property. It was noted that most of the utility relocation is over the reservoir
and clearing, not grubbing is expected only from the new pole back to NCDOT’s ROW. Expectation is that
the utility owner (Wake EMC) will move one time and remain in new location. NC WRC will provide
comments on this activity to NCDOT.
USACE stated that the impact would have to be reviewed. Division 5 stated that they were preparing to
submit the preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) which would allow for review of the project and
impacts. Division 5 stated that NC WRC would be copied on permit application.
5. Representatives from the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation and the Friends of Mountains-to-
Sea Trail asked if it would be possible if the road were reopened to have trail restored. It was stated that
detour in place now could be a permanent route, but that there were concerns about having trail users cross
the road. NC State Parks representatives expressed concern that the trail if restored to its previous
alignment along Hereford Road, would not be separated from roadway traffic by guardrail. It was explained
that currently there was no trail outside of the guardrail present on Hereford Road, there are also emergency
funding restrictions are in place about betterments that can be implemented with the new project. In this
case a larger structure and concrete barrier rail would be needed to accommodate a new separated path.
The design team asked for information from the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation on what
typical section they are asking for and to provide the general statute that requires it. The design team will
review and provide a response.
FSM Worksheet Discussion

The Division had no issue with the information shown.

The Hydraulics Unit had no issue with information shown and noted that the structure was not hydraulically
controlled. As such did not have a preference on structure.

The Geotechnical Unit did not have any issues with information shown and did not have concerns about the
site.

No issues from the group about information in PD & EA and NEU section.

Roadway noted that due to the new NCDOT Roadway Design Manual a design exception would no longer be
needed for the stopping sight distance on the sag vertical curve.

The Structures group had no issue with information shown.

It was discussed that construction access would likely occur along the closed Hereford Road with vehicles
coming from I-85. It was noted that the contractor should not use the boat access area to access Falls Lake
as that road is not made to support heavier vehicles.
th
FSM Meeting Minutes – Nov. 4 2021
3

SR 1800 HEREFORD ROAD FIELD SCOPING MEETING
MEETING MINUTES

Current preferred alternative is 90’ Box beam, but NCDOT is also considering permanent closure of the road.

The environmental document for the project would be a CE.

Next Steps
The initial step will be to move forward with permitting of the pipe removal. That will be followed by a decision on
whether to permanently close the road or replace with a structure.

th
FSM Meeting Minutes – Nov. 4 2021
4