HomeMy WebLinkAbout20091312 Ver 1_More Info Received_20091218LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL lw'.?WK
DICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
720 Corporate Center Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 919.782.0495 tel. 919.782.9672 fax
TO: 401 Permitting Review Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTENTION: Laurie Dennison
01-
DATE: 12-16-09
RE: Newland By-Pass Channel Project
Design Development Plans
We are sending via: ? Overnight ® Regular Mail ? Pick-up ? Hand Delivered
The following items: ? Correspondence ® Plans ? Specifications ? Other as listed below:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
5 Dec 17, 2009 404 - PCN
~ r=
DENR • WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STOMIATER BlWqCR---
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
® For Approval ? As Requested ? Approved as Submitted
? Returned for Corrections
? For Your Use ® For Review and Comment ? Approved as Noted ? Forward to Subcontractor
REMARKS:
Just to let you know that there were a couple changes to the original PCN per comments received from
Tasha McCormick in the Asheville Office of the USACE. Let me know if you need anything else
Thanks.
COPY TO: 80499.00.RA SIGNED:
W ATF9OG
1 i > y
'D
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
FZ Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 13 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? TZ Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:
? Yes ® No
if. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below. ? Yes ®No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Town of Newland - Flood By-Pass Channel & Pineola Street Floodplain Improvements
for NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
2b. County: Avery
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Newland
2d. Subdivision name:
- N/A
N
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: &---a V_-J L-9 U V/ I M
A
N/A
A Lt5 N
3. Owner Information
DEC
2009
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: See Attached List of Landowners 1APn
l)EMR-1VATERwAuTy
3b. Deed Book and Page No. il
S10R1rf4'tg7F1t BRWH
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Municipality
4b. Name: Ms. Brenda Pittman (Town Manager)
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Town of Newland
4d. Street address: 301 Cranberry Street
4e. City, state, zip: Newland, North Carolina 28657
4f. Telephone no.: (828) 733-2023
4g. Fax no.: (828) 733-2069
4h. Email address: townmgr@newlandgov.com
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: David Kiker, PE
5b. Business name
(if applicable): WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
5c. Street address: 720 Corporate Center Drive
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
5e. Telephone no.: 919-782-0495
5f. Fax no.: 919-782-9672
5g. Email address: djkiker@wkdickson.com
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): See Attached List
Latitude: 36.088889
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Longitude: - 81.923889
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 4.73 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to North Toe River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-V; Tr
2c. River basin: HUC 06010108 French Broad
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Located in the Town of Newland. Surrounding area is developed light industrial and retail business. Floodway is lined with
large riprap and historic floodplain has been filled to accommodate businesses.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
No wetlands exist within the project boundary. Verified by US Corps of Engineers.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
1,600 linear feet.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The Newland by-pass channel and Pineola Street floodplain improvements project will reduce future flooding in the Town
by increasing floodplain capacity and hydraulic effiency along the North Toe River. The project will also improve channel
stability with natural channel design structures and bank protection.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
1. Install a 60-foot wide, 536-foot long grass-lined earthen by-pass channel to divert flows around a constriction area.
2. Install floodplain benches along the left and right overbanks in the vicinity of Pineola Street. These floodplain
improvements also include an asphalt greenway trail in the right overbank which ties into an existing park.
3.Install a new headwall with a beveled upstream face at the Pineola Street (U.S. Highway 194) box culverts.
4. Install a 43 linear feet footbridge upstream of Pineola Street to tie-in the proposed greenway trail to the existing
upstream park. The bridge superstructure is a pre-fabricated half truss with timber deck.
5. Install approximately 400 linear feet of 10-inch and approximately 380 linear feet of 12-inch diameter HDPE that
captures the Newland Shopping Center roof leaders and diverts flows into a recenetly constructed stormwater treatement
facility.
6. Install 27 If of boulder toe protection at the proposed footbridge to help direct flows off the right bank that is currentl
y
eroding.
7. Collect stormwater from the Newland shopping center and divert through an extended detention wetland.
8. Replace existing rip-rap with boulders to improve bank stability and habitat.
9. Planting tree clumps placed at pools.
10. Install 3 rip-rap pads to dissipate energy from the proposed culverts.
Typical earthmoving equipment will be utilized to construct this project.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
Comments: A review by the US Army Corps of Engineers of
the project area for wetlands was requested. The USACE
verbally verified that no wetlands are within the project area.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ? Preliminary ® Final
of determination was made.
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Amanda Jones - USACE Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
USACE June 15, 2008
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ?Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T) intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
(INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Boulder Toe Set
at Current Toe North Toe River ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 55 46
S2 ® P ? T Rip-rap pad North Toe River ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 33 9
S3 ®P ? T Rip-rap pad North Toe River ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 35 33
S4 ®P ? T Boulder Toe Set
Off Current Toe North Toe River ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 35 62
S5 ® P ? T Rip-rap pad North Toe River ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 35 10
S6 ®P ®T Boulder Toe
Protection North Toe River ? PER
? INT ? Corps
? DWQ
35
36
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 196
3i. Comments: S6 shown above reflects the impacts from S6 and S7 shown on the seoerately attach fiaure.
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
131 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Bypass elevation designed above the ordinary high water mark, natural material used (granite boulders) for stabilization and J-
hook structures, and the construction footprint in channel was reduced to minimum necessary to meet stabilization criteria.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Work will be staged from downstream to upstream. Contractor to work from top of bank or build a bench to work from.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank
? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: ? Yes ? No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 5.3%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
Project is located outside the NCDWQ mapped outstanding resource waters and high quality waters. The project results
in a net loss of impervious surface.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HOW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Project purpose is flood reduction. Areas affected are already developed or have resdential homes that have been
purchased through the FEMA buyout program.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat?
? Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? ® Yes ? No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ? Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The US FWS web site listing protetected species and the Natural Heritage program data base was reviewed for element
occurences. No habitat for listed protected species in Avery County is present. No element occurences within or near the
project area are recorded. The project area does not contain any Designated Critical Habitat. An official comment by the
USFWS did not indicate any concerns regarding protected species. Comments are attached.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
South Atlantic Habitat and Ecosystem IMS
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
t
t ® El Yes No
s
a
us (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
State Historic Preservation Office (ER 08-1269)
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? T Z Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
As part of the project, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been submitted to FEMA to address the
modification to the existing regulatory floodway.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Panel 1836J dated December 2, 2008 for
the Town of Newland, North Carolina (CID# 370012) and Avery County, North Carolina (CID #370010).
Ms. Brenda Pittman j?
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is mvided.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Attachment 1
Figures
x J
a G
s
Town of Newland
I Town of Crossnore l
y
3
x
N
N
Alm C)-N
t M«?trnLt r 5n, ? , ? ?• ? ? yy.
y
_ By-Pass Channel Site
Ptnr
?. Mat rt+c _A j
.17
?. w
i
L'
nuin 'sr I
Pineola Street Floodplain •??` r' ".? • `''
?b? •? Improvements Site
? ? • ? -y ? . ?'• :wry ""`"?'? " t'alv3 f G.?• I
o . ?.
;j
Figure 2
•??e ?aark lt a •_p? :°r?? Town of Newland
?1- O t >? • . Flood By-Pass Channel & Pineola
t• = Street Floodplain Improvements
ham;<: •• - d tr2 `?•
ti I
Miller ((; 1 USGS Map
? Cow Camp C pl
Gap 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
_ - ? \ °'?...i"-'^*••.. ? N. ?• Feet ?-.
??• `' ,? 1 inch = 2,000 feet
O p u.
i
.. p O
`f
A* &lm-ft
t, -
a ? a
? ant
f*
R ,. 3s,
?? .
-I
'fA ?? t {
i
L
t
f ? may. ?y a q? LL ? 1 T?k ? _ ?
.
q, r
?
M
fi
-? w r te;
LL L ,
c
r yV. ai a v
° S E 0O
a > v
c ad LL
10 a a a f}
#n`s , 5 w
O N a
N
O t r.
'
`Rya ti fi oa oa o r
r
c
co
Y
�C
0
— m u
U
0 1r J m
(r ~ 'N
i C
1
f CJ V 2
Q U _ N N M c
k Q o �Q
B
d d o a -
LL
J 2
d Q W
_ C
AP I— L _ J [
tSi m —
.. co
y�O -o
' N_
- ' (A boat
yd!,
+r
/ns1�
Myr / �.�}•
N
met � _ N cv
c
a o a
Ln ca
` J
CL
ELL E i
a '
d. Iq
cn ccO.i cn N10 E
�� 3
a.
10
CU
U)N LL "' - y� Ai
C U C J
CD
cu cu
\1 -
E � Cc J
a) LL
r V o
Attachment 2
Project Overview
Newland Bypass Channel Project Overview
In September 2004, remnants of Tropical Storm Frances and Hurricane Ivan caused severe flooding in
western North Carolina. One area that experienced some of the worst flooding was the Town of Newland.
As many as thirty-five (35) businesses and six (6) residential structures experienced flooding. Additionally,
numerous roads in the downtown area overtopped. As a result of the severe flooding experienced in this
area, the State of North Carolina through Senate Bill 7 developed a planning level report which identified a
series of projects intended to alleviate future flooding. One of these projects is the Newland By-Pass Project.
The proposed project will reduce 100-year flood elevations by approximately 1.5 feet by constructing a
by-pass channel and creating a floodplain bench for floodwaters to access.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources - Division of Water Resources
retained WK Dickson (WKD) to further evaluate the existing flooding potential in Newland and to make
recommendations for reducing it. The focus of this evaluation is large scale flooding along the North Toe
River on the downstream side of Newland. Flooding in the downtown area is exacerbated by the following
three downstream floodplain conditions:
High channel banks that approach 12 to 15 feet
in height for the first 300 feet downstream of
Pineola Street (State Highway 194). The banks
approach this height due to fill placed to raise
the rear of the commercial lots adjacent to the
channel. Natural bank heights approach 4 to 5 -it W__-I
feet for the area immediately downstream of
Town.
Pineola Street (State Highway 194) roadway
crossing with four 11-foot by 84oot reinforced
concrete box culverts (RCBCs).
A natural floodplain constriction located
approximately 1500 feet downstream of
Pineola Street (State Highway 194). This
floodplain constriction is vulnerable to debris accumulation and also
elevations to be higher than would be expected. Debris accumulation
approached 6 feet in height after remnants of Hurricane Ivan.
causes upstream flood
on the right floodplain
As shown on the separately attached set of design plans, the following will make up the main parts of
the project:
• Install a 60-foot wide, 536-foot long grass-lined earthen by-pass channel to divert flows around
the area currently constricting flood flows. This by-pass channel is located approximately 1,400
feet downstream of Pineola Street (US Highway 194).
• Install a floodplain bench along the left and right overbank in the vicinity of Pineola Street.
These floodplain improvements also include 810 linear feet of greenway trail in the right
overbank which tiestogether two existing parks that are located on either side of Pineola Street.
The purpose of these floodplain benches is to lower the tailwater elevation on the Pineola Street
culverts to improve hydraulic performance and also reduce upstream flood elevations.
• Retrofit the existing headwall with a beveled upstream face at the Pineola Street (Highway 194)
box culverts. Retrofitting a beveled front face to the concrete headwall will reduce energy
losses through the culvert and will reduce upstream water surface elevations.
• Installing a 43-feet long pedestrian steel truss footbridge that ties in the existing upstream park
with the proposed greenway and existing downstream park.
• Plant trout-habitat-friendly trees on the south bank of the channel to provide shade for trout.
Pineola Street Flooding from Hurricane Ivan
• Install two rock j-hook vanes upstream of Rneola Street to provide bank protection at the
proposed footbridge and greenway trail. In both areas the river is causing the right bank to
undergo erosion of the toe of the bank.
• Install 387 linear feet of 12" diameter PVC closed drainage system to collect runoff from the
Newland Shopping Center. This new closed drainage system will outfall into the recently
constructed extended detention wetland designed to treat water quality.
• Install 274 linear feet of 8" diameter PVC closed drainage system to collect runoff from the
proposed greenway.
• Extend Cranberry Street approximately 400 feet with a 10 feet wide gravel road that will provide
access for the private property owners who would be cutoff by the termination of Old Railroad
Street.
• Replace the existing undersized closed drainage system at Cranberry Street with 294 linear feet
of 42" diameter RCP and 126 linear feet of 48" RCP. The existing closed drainage system does
not meet minimum NCDOT design standards for a local collector road. Currently the road
overtops approximately 20 times per year and does not meet minimum NCDOT design
standards.
The project will provide both channel stability and flood reduction benefits in the downtown area. The
more severely flooded areas will experience 1 to 2 foot reductions in the 100-year flood elevations. As an
added benefit, the project will provide a greenway access connecting the two parks located on either side of
Rneola Street. The project is currently in final design with an anticipated date for construction to begin in
April 2010.
Attachment 3
Landowners
a)
(D 2 ) 2 2
ID
N - u) a a a ca
a)
-`O
L
. .0
C
co
a co
O ca
O co
O -
O
a)
a
O is F S E
Q c` a) a a - T
U
70
0 c
O
rn Cl)
Ch
O It C
O
r N
O
(1
00
O
-
O
Mm O
l 0
W
ca
C
)
co
o
(n
D
? N C c CD ^ O (n CD
c
0 c
o CO co co Y ? N
C\j CO N co OMM LO O N
00 M
(O - _
>
> O
N
O
C')
N 0
o LO
'D ti
d CO OD N co aD 07 'ct CO O
O
co
N
N O
N
N
N
co N
a
0 r- O
O O
O T OD M M
v ? C a0 CC)
N
O ^ CO Ch
N N CM
7 CO
M
f?
ca
LO CO -,t LO P-
0 O O O N O O OOO CV co O
(C O N r- 0 -
N 0
In 0
m 0
O 0
O
co
D O
0 W
0) w
O M
O O
O aO
m O
m O
O O
O 0
c 0
o
U N T • N T .- N N N N
a)
O rn
O N
co
co m
O
ao LO
r` 1*
co co
0) N
co O
N CO
CO
T
? M N M CO N O rn rn cO (O O)
- N Nt CO r- 'T N co co 11 co
Q) 't CN co M CO 't I It ? N LO 11
i ? 0
0 00 O
0 CO O
0 CO O
O O rn
Q-
Q _
O _
(O CO (O (D _
O (O _
O O _
CO CO (O O
- M
00 co
a0 co
O co
00 co
O co
a0 M
CO Cl)
CD CO
a0 M
a0 col
O CO
aD M
00
m
E
c?
a
aa))
C U)
ca
a
cco
(D
Z D
0
` a)
Q
0
L
U
') C m t
0 - U
Y H H
a
c
a)
co
a
c
cn
c
c c c
0
N
Z 0
c Cl
=
3 W
a u
i
a
a ?
a)
3 a)
z
y
a)
O
co L
d O
co
O
O -
L
a U
co
J
LL
O
C
co H ~
O
H
i
N
co
[t
LO
(D
N
OD
0)
O
T
Attachment 4
Correspondance
N a 104St O M \y M97M 1
Y
JUN 1 9 2008
n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Govetnor
113beth C. Evans, secretary
Jeffrey). Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 16, 2008
David Kiker
WK Dickson
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: Flood By-Pass Channel, Newland, Avery County, ER 08-1269
Dear Mr. Kiker:
Thank you for your letter of May 19, 2008, concerning the above project.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any. historic structures.
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based on
the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate
the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential
effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina
is available at www.arch.dg;t.state.nc.us/consults.htm. The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced
archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807-6579. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
eter Sandbeck
Location: 109 Fast Jooes Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mai! Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 807-6570/807-6599
community infrastructure consultants
November 23, 2009
Attention Field Supervisor
Mr. Allen Ratzlaff
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-1082
Subject: Environmental Scoping Request
Newland Bypass Channel Project and Pineola Street Floodplain Improvements
Avery County, City of Eden, NC.
Dear Mr. Ratzlaff,
On behalf of the Town of Newland (Owner), WK Dickson is requesting a review of the above
referenced project for the presence of any federally protected species that may be affected by the
proposed project. The project is located in the Town of Newland on the North Toe River starting
above Pineola Street (State Highway 194) and the confluence with Kentucky Creek (Figure 1).. The
project is in the French Broad River Basin (HUC 06010108).
Project Information
The purpose of this project is a reduction in large scale flooding along the North Toe River
downstream of the Town of Newland (Figure 2). The project is intended to alleviate the severe
flooding experienced by the Town during heavy rains, as was the case during Tropical Storm Frances
and the remnants of Hurricane Ivan. In September 2004, these storms flooded thirty-five (35)
businesses and six (6) residential structures in the Town. This project focuses on reducing upstream
flooding in the downtown business district.
The proposed project is located in the Town of Newland and much of the surrounding area is
developed land (Figure 3). The channel in the project area has been altered through filling of the
floodplain and constriction of the banks.
The proposed project consists of creating a flood bypass channel above the ordinary high water mark
downstream of the town and stabilizing approximately 600 linear feet of stream bank through
construction of boulder toes and in-stream rock vanes (Figure 3). Along the floodplain, a paved
walking trail and a raised footbridge will be constructed to connect two town parks. Additional
drainage modifications outside of the stream channel are also proposed, including culvert upgrades
and stormwater collection and diversion into a stormwater detention basin.
When completed, the project will improve stream flows and significantly reduce flooding in the
Newland business district. The in-stream headwall at Pineola Street will be modified to include a new
concrete beveled inlet to improve hydraulic efficiency. The design for the project is being developed
concurrently with environmental documentation and in compliance with applicable environmental
laws and regulations. This process offers you the opportunity to identify site-specific conditions to be
addressed prior to completion of the design.
Information was gathered regarding vegetation cover, land use, the location of jurisdictional waters of
the United States, and potential protected species habitat. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
web site list of protected species for Avery County (Table 1), the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database, and US Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5' topographic quadrangles (Figure 2)
were reviewed for information regarding the habitat and presence of protected species in the area.
Based on the USFWS and NHP databases, there are no known occurrences of the eight federally
protected species listed for Avery County within or near the project area.
Table 1. Protected Species Known From Averv Countv
Common Name Scientific name Federal
Status State
Status
Vertebrate
Northern saw-whet owl (Southern
Appalachian population) Aegolius acadicus pop. 1 FSC T
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T (S/A) --
Virginia big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii
virginianus E E
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC SC
Pygmy salamander Desmognathus wrighti FSC SR
Mountain blotched chub** Erimystax insignis eristigma FSC --
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus E E
Red crossbill (Southern Appalachian) Loxia curvirostra FSC SC
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC SC
Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii FSC SC
Allegheny woodrat Neotoma magister FSC SC
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee Poecile atricapillus practicus FSC SC
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC SC
Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Southern
Appalachian population) Sphyrapicus varius appalachiensis FSC SC
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC SR
Appalachian Bewick's wren* Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC E
Invertebrate
Grayson crayfish ostracod* Ascetocythere cosmeta FSC
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga E SR
Diana fritillary (butterfly) Speyeria diana FSC
Regal fritillary (butterfly)* Speyeria idalia FSC SR
Vascular Plant:
2
Common Name Scientific name Federal
Status State
Status
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC --
Roan False Goat's-beard* Astilbe crenatiloba FSC --
Mountain bitter cress Cardamine clematitis FSC SR-T
Cuthbert turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii FSC SR-L
Tall larkspur* Delphinium exaltatum FSC E-SC
Bent avens Geum geniculatum FSC T
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E E-SC
Roan mountain bluet Hedyotis purpurea var. montana E --
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC --
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri T T-SC
Gray's lily Lilium grayi FSC T-SC
Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus* Parnassia grandifolia FSC T
Bog blue grass Poa paludigena FSC E
Gray's saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC --
Blue Ridge goldenrod Solidago spithamaea T E
a liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC --
Lichen
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E T
a liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var.
sullivantii FSC SR-T
a liverwort* Plagiochila virginica var.
caroliniana FSC SR-T
E = Endangered
E-SC = Endangered - Special Concern
FSC = Federal Species of Concern
SC = Special Concern
SR-T = Significantly Rare - Throughout T = Threatened
T - SC = Threatened- Special Concern
* = Historic
** = Occurrence is Probable/potential
Sources:
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Updated: 31 January 2008
Natural Heritage Program Database
Updated: 7 August , 2009
Thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Return any comments to my
attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have
concerning this project through phone or e-mail.
Sincerely,
George Lankford
Project Scientist
WK. Dickson & Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
glankford@wkdickson.com
919-782-0495
cc: Darren England, NCDENR-Division of Water Resource, Project Manager
Keith Hoilman, Town of Newland, Public Works Director
Dave Kiker, PE, WK Dickson, Project Manager
File: 80499.00.RA I
Attachments:
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Overview Map
Figure 3 Project Map
4
PtM NT TyF
amt?'? United States Department of the Interior
9
N O
? D
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?4R-,?•° Asheville Field Office
s
160 7.illicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 28801
December 9, 2009
Mr. George Lankford
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Lankford:
Subject: Proposed Newland Bypass Channel Project and Pineola Street Floodplain
Improvements, Newland, Avery County, North Carolina
We received your letter of November 23, 2009, in which you requested our comments on the
subject project. The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e); Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703); and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to your letter, the Town of Newland (Town) is proposing the subject flood prevention
projects on the North Toe River starting above Pineola Street (State Highway 194) and the
confluence with Kentucky Creek. The purpose of this project is to reduce large scale flooding
along the North Toe River experienced by the Town during heavy rains. In September 2004,
storms flooded thirty-five businesses and six residential structures in the Town. This project
focuses on reducing flooding in the downtown business district.
The proposed project is located on the southwest side of the Town along the North Toe River.
Most of the surrounding area (except on the west side on the North Toe River) has been
developed. The North Toe River in the project area has been altered through filling of the
floodplain and constriction of the banks. The project includes creating a flood bypass channel
above the ordinary high water mark downstream of the town and "stabilizing" about 600 linear
feet of stream bank through construction of boulder toes and in-stream rock vanes. Along the
floodplain, a paved walking trail and a raised footbridge will be constructed to connect two town
parks. Additional drainage modifications outside of the stream channel are also proposed,
including culvert upgrades and stormwater collection and diversion into a stormwater detention
basin. The in-stream headwall at Pineola Street will be modified to include a new concrete
beveled inlet to improve hydraulic efficiency.
We have several concerns with this project, not the least of which is the fact that most of the
southern end of the Town of Newland is built within the 100-year floodplain and will likely
remain in the floodplain even after the project is completed. The loss of riparian habitat and
extensive amount of impervious surface the Town has placed in the floodplain, along with the
channelization and constriction of the North Toe River channel, are exacerbating the flooding
that would naturally occur in the area, i.e. the floodplain. Continued development without proper
stormwater management and any future development within the 100-year floodplain will only
lead to future flooding problems not addressed by the subject project and may render the subject
project inadequate. We strongly recommend that consideration be given to using the funds
intended for this project to relocate businesses and residential structures outside of the 100-year
floodplain and that floodplain restoration be initiated. As you are aware, Executive Order 11988
requires federal agencies (and their designated nonfederal representatives) to consider and
protect floodplain functions. We believe the examples of flooding in this area provided in your
letter highlight the importance of avoiding the long- and short-term impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of floodplains and that we should avoid any direct or indirect
support of floodplain development.
Additionally, because the project occurs within an upper drainage of the Tennessee River Valley,
a Nationwide Section 26a Permit from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will be needed for
this project. Section 26a of the TVA Act contains regulations regarding both the location of
construction projects and the types of activities carried out within the Tennessee River or any of
its tributaries. A tributary is defined as any watercourse whose contents, if not obstructed,
diverted, or consumed, will ultimately flow into the Tennessee River; thus, TVA's jurisdiction
extends to the limits of the Tennessee River watershed. Section 26a is designed to ensure that
construction along the shoreline and in waters of the Tennessee River system does not have a
negative effect on the agency's management of the river system or its ability to carry out what
the TVA Act describes as the "unified development and regulation of the Tennessee River." By
copy of this letter, we are notifying TVA about this project.
Similarly, the placement of boulder toes and rock vanes in the North Toe River will require a
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). You should notify the Corps1 about
this project and ask their assistance in determining what types of permits will be needed for the
entire project.
Stream Channel and Bank Modifications
Your letter states that the proposed project includes the construction of boulder toes and in-
stream rock vanes as well as a concrete beveled inlet on Pineola Street. If properly constructed,
we have no objection to these activities. However, if improperly installed, these actions could
severely alter the rivers hydrology - project design should focus on maintaining as natural of a
stream channel as possible. A natural, stable stream system is one that is able to transport a wide
range of flows and associated bed load (sediment) while maintaining channel features and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006; Telephone: (828) 27 1 -
7980; Fax: (828) 281-8120
2
neither degrading (accelerating the erosion of banks and scour of the channel bed) nor aggrading
(accelerating the deposition of sediment within the channel). Alterations to the dimension
(cross-sectional view of the channel), pattern (the sinuosity of the channel), or profile
(longitudinal slope) of the stream channel as well as changes to stream-bank vegetation,
floodplains, hydrology, or sediment input can significantly alter this equilibrium. As we
previously stated, the vast majority of property damage associated with recent flood events in
areas that contain, or are adjacent to, streams can be largely tied to human-caused alterations
within the stream corridor (e.g., channelization and dredging, placement of fill within
floodplains, removal of stream bank vegetation, etc.). Consequently, in order to avoid future
damage and associated costs, it is critical that this project emphasize the restoration of natural,
stable stream conditions. Accordingly, we recommend the following:
Only the absolute minimum amount of work should be done within stream
channels to accomplish necessary channel/stream-bank restoration. All
channel work should emphasize natural channel design methodologies. Here
restoration design is based on the bank-full, or channel-forming, stage of the
stream, which maintains the natural channel dimensions and transports the
bulk of sediment over time (see attached reference list). Natural channel
conditions can be identified using a reference reach (perhaps in areas
upstream or downstream, where stream stability was maintained and adjacent
properties were undamaged during floods). Restoration design should match
the pattern, dimension, and profile of the reference reach. Without
consideration of restoring the natural channel dimensions in restoration
design, the likelihood of future erosion problems (on the site, upstream, and
downstream) and ecological impacts, will increase. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is willing to assist with the identification of reference reaches
and to review stream restoration plans.
2. Equipment should not be operated in the stream unless absolutely necessary.
It should be operated from the banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance
to woody vegetation. Equipment should be (a) washed to remove any
contaminant residue prior to project construction, (b) in good working order,
and (c) checked to ensure there are no leaks of potential contaminants (such as
oil or other lubricants) prior to and during construction.
Stream banks with deep-rooted woody vegetation are the most stable, and
stream restoration efforts should incorporate the use of native vegetation
adapted to the site conditions. Biodegradable erosion-control materials may
be incorporated into bank restoration design in order to stabilize soils as
vegetation becomes established. Live, dormant stakes (such as black willow)
may be used to reestablish root structure in riparian areas. In areas where
banks are severely undercut, high, and steep, whole-tree revetment or rock
may be used as a stabilization treatment (small rock, gravel, sand, and dirt are
not recommended due to their erosive nature), and it should not extend above
the bank-full elevation (the elevation of the channel where the natural
floodplain begins). Deep-rooting woody vegetation should be established
along banks where any channel work is accomplished. Tree and shrub
plantings should be spaced at intervals no greater than 10 feet along banks.
Vegetated riparian zone widths should be as wide as practical but should
extend at least 20 feet from the stream channel. Suggested species include
black locust (on dry rocky banks), silky willow and/or black willow (Salix
spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), dog hobble (Leucothoe spp.), cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), and/or rhododendron (Rhododendron catawbiense) (note reference
below for additional species).
4. Adequate measures to control sediment and erosion must be implemented
prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize effects on downstream
aquatic resources. Temporary (e.g., rye grain, wheat, millet) or permanent
herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 5 days of
ground-disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Biodegradable erosion-control matting should be used in conjunction with
appropriate seeding on disturbed soils in steep slope and riparian areas.
Matting should be secured in place with staples; stakes; or, wherever possible,
live stakes of native trees
5. At each restoration site, cross-sections (at intervals based on restoration reach
size), longitudinal profiles, and stream pattern plans should be measured and
mapped prior to and immediately following any channel work. In addition,
photographs should be taken to document the condition of the project site(s)
prior to initiating the work and upon completion of the work.
Diversion Channel
We also have some concerns with the proposed flood bypass channel (diversion channel).
Though diversion channels are preferred to modifying the main channel to convey flood flows
(The original stream substrate and meanders are maintained, as well as in-stream cover and
riparian vegetation), there are many design considerations that must be taken into account to
prevent serious stream impacts and insure proper functioning flood control. To be effective in
reducing the flood stage, the distance between the point of diversion and point of return to the
main channel must be of sufficient length to prevent backwater effects and it is essential to
consider potential morphologic effects on both the main channel and receiving channel.
According to Nunnally and Shields (1985), diversion channels generally have steeper slopes
than the main channel. This can lead to stability problems such as erosion of the channel bed and
banks. The bed of tributary channels may be higher than that of the floodway channel, and bed
degradation may migrate upstream of the tributary, resulting in excessive sediment transport and
deposition in the floodway. Methods to mitigate channel instability such as grade control,
channel lining, and bank stabilization may be required on diversion projects.
z Nunnally, N. R., and Shields, F. D. 1985. "Incorporation of environmental features in flood control channel
projects," Technical Report E-85-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
4
Additionally, diversion flows can have an adverse impact on the main channel - reducing the
river flow in the main channel due to a diversion, with the slope and particle size remaining
constant, will result in a decrease in sediment transport capability, thus aggradation could occur
in the channel between the point of the diversion and the point of re-entry. If too much bed
material is diverted, the sediment transport capability of the stream may increase, thus
accelerating channel instability. Flow returning to the main channel from a diversion can also
result in accelerated erosion of the channel and banks. It is essential that a detailed geomorphic
and sediment transport analysis be conducted at the design stage of a diversion project to plan for
potential problems. The hydraulic design of diversion channels can be accomplished with
standard hydrology and hydraulics analysis techniques, while determinations of sediment
transport through the diversion are much more difficult. Because the floodway invert is higher
than that of the main channel, there is a tendency for the channel to become unstable and
degrade. Grade control structures may be necessary on the downstream end of the floodway to
prevent upstream migration of bed degradation, and on any perched tributaries that are
hydraulically connected to the diversion channel.
Culverts
Your letter states the project will include "culvert upgrades." We recommend using bridges for
all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands. All stream crossings
should be made perpendicular to the stream. We recommend bridges that span the entire
floodplain because it is important for streams to have access/connectivity to the floodplain.
Bridges that span the stream and floodplain are the best option because they minimize impacts to
aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic organisms, and eliminate the need to place
fill in streams and floodplains. Bridges should be designed and constructed so that no piers or
bents are placed in the stream, and approaches and abutments should not constrict the stream
channel. Bridges should also be designed to allow for safe terrestrial wildlife passage. To
provide for terrestrial wildlife passage, the new bridge design should span beyond the waterway
so that unsubmerged land is also bridged. If bank stabilization is necessary, we recommend that
the use of riprap be minimized and that a riprap-free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge
to allow for wildlife movement. Longer bridge spans also cost far less than a separate wildlife
crossing under an existing roadway. Also, floodplain culverts must be installed if fill is placed in
the floodplain for bridge construction.
If bridges are not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts.
Bottomless culverts do not need to be buried, thereby preserving the natural creek substrate and
not disturbing the streambed. Culverts should be sufficiently sized to mimic natural stream
functions and habitats located at the crossing site; allow for water depth, volume (flow), and
velocity levels that will permit aquatic organism passage; and accommodate the movement of
debris and bed material during bank-full events. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Consideration should be given to minimum water depth during low-flow/dry periods when
designing culvert placement. Sufficient water depth should be maintained during low flows to
accommodate both the upstream and downstream movement of aquatic species. Water depth
inside the culvert must be adequate for fish to be completely immersed and not scraping the
bottom of the stream. The culvert should be designed and installed at the same slope as the
stream grade to maintain an acceptable water velocity for fish passage, and the stream substrate
characteristics should be retained within the culvert. Where feasible, we recommend the use of
multiple barrels (other than the base-flow barrel), placed on or near stream bank-full or
floodplain bench elevation, in order to accommodate floodwaters within the stream corridor.
These should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished
by using sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base-flow barrel(s). If the
culvert is longer than 40 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a manner
that mimics the existing stream pattern. This should enhance the passage of aquatic life by:
(1) depositing sediment in the barrel, (2) maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and
(3) providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Recommendations to Prevent/Reduce Future Flooding
To help prevent and reduce future flooding in the Town of Newland, we offer the following
additional recommendations.
In addition to the increased storm-water flows caused by the lack of or loss of riparian buffers
and any floodplain development, increased development outside the floodplain will also
contribute to the quantity and quality of storm water entering project area waterways. Recent
studies' have shown that areas of 10- to 20-percent impervious surface (such as roofs, roads, and
parking lots) double the amount of storm-water runoff compared to natural cover and decrease
deep infiltration (groundwater recharge) by 16 percent. At 35- to 50-percent impervious surface,
runoff triples, and deep infiltration is decreased by 40 percent. Above 75-percent impervious
surface, runoff is 5.5 times higher than natural cover, and deep infiltration is decreased by
80 percent. Additionally, the adequate treatment of storm water in development areas is essential
for the protection of water quality and aquatic habitat in developing landscapes. Additionally,
these impervious surfaces collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and
quickly transmit them (via storm-water runoff) to receiving waters. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, this nonpoint-source pollution is one of the major threats to
water quality in the United States, posing one of the greatest threats to aquatic life, and is linked
to chronic and acute illnesses in human populations from exposure through drinking water and
contact recreation. Increased storm-water runoff also directly damages aquatic and riparian
habitat, causing stream-bank and stream-channel scouring. In addition, impervious surfaces
reduce groundwater recharge, resulting in even lower than expected stream flows during drought
periods, which can induce potentially catastrophic effects for fish, mussels, and other aquatic
life. Accordingly, we recommend that all new developments, regardless of the percentage of
impervious surface area they will create, implement storm-water-retention and -treatment
measures designed to replicate and maintain the hydrograph at the preconstruction condition in
order to avoid any additional impacts to habitat quality within the watershed.
3Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (15 federal agencies of the United States Government).
October 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs
No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
6
We recommend the use of low-impact-development techniques,' such as reduced road widths,
grassed swales in place of curb and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention areas, for
retaining and treating storm-water runoff rather than the more traditional measures, such as large
retention ponds, etc. These designs often cost less to install and significantly reduce
environmental impacts from residential development.
Where detention ponds are used, storm-water outlets should drain through a vegetated area prior
to reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention structures should be designed to allow
for the slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm-water
surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the
purpose of storm-water-control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no
storm-water-control measures or best management practices should be installed within any
stream (perennial or intermittent) or wetland.
We also recommend that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials (i.e., pervious
concrete, interlocking/open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction of roads, driveways,
sidewalks, etc. Pervious surfaces minimize changes to the hydrology of the watershed and can
be used to facilitate groundwater recharge. Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and
store heat and allow the cooler soil below to cool the pavement. Additionally, pervious concrete
requires less maintenance and is less susceptible to freeze/thaw cracking due to large voids
within the concrete.
One of the most important and effective measures that can be taken to protect stream health is
the preservation of riparian buffers. Wide, contiguous riparian buffers have greater and more
flexible potential than other options to maintain biological integrity5 and can ameliorate many
ecological issues related to land use and environmental quality.6 Importantly for this project,
riparian areas act as "sponges" by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods) and,
by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels, maintain stream flows during
dry periods. Additionally, riparian buffers accomplish the following:
1. catch and filter runoff, thereby preventing nonpoint-source pollutants from
reaching streams;
2. enhance the in-stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source
pollutants;
3. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and
creating logjams;
4. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
'We recommend visiting the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lidl)for
additional information and fact sheets regarding the implementation of low-impact-development techniques.
5R. Horner, C. May, E. Livingston, and J. Maxted. 1999. Impervious Cover, Aquatic Community Health, and
Storm Water BMPs: Is There a Relationship? In: Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Storm Water Research and
Watershed Management Conference. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, FL.
6R. J. Naiman, H. DeCamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional
biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3:209-212.
7
provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the
dissolved organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food
web; and
maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.
For most projects, we recommend the maintenance or establishment of minimum
100-foot native forested buffers along each side of perennial streams and 50-foot native
forested buffers along each side of intermittent streams and wetlands throughout the
present and future service areas of the entire municipal jurisdiction.7 We additionally
encourage the implementation of buffers on ephemeral streams due to the important
functions they provide as headwater streams. 8, 9 Buffers should be measured horizontally
from the edge of the stream bank,10 which may result in wider buffers at higher gradients,
and must be provided over the entire length of the stream, including headwater streams,
springs, and seeps. Further, we recommend leaving 30 percent of the development area
as green space, which would include buffers and wetlands and ensure that the green space
is connected to aquatic resources.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a "Guidance Memorandum
to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife
Resources and Water Quality" that we support and encourage you to use. It can be accessed via
the Internet as follows:
http://www.ncwildlife.orglpg07 wildlifespeciescon/pg7c3_impacts.pdf.
We are also concerned with the introduction and spread of invasive exotic species in association
with the proposed project. Without active management, including the revegetation of disturbed
areas with native species, the project area will likely be a source of invasive exotic plant species.
Exotic species are a major contributor to species depletion and extinction, second only to habitat
loss. Exotics are a factor contributing to the endangered or threatened status of more than
40 percent of the animals and plants on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. 11 It is estimated that at least 4,000 exotic plant species and 2,300 exotic animal
species are now established in the United States, costing more than $130 billion a year to
7J. S. Stewart, D. M. Downes, L. Wang, J. A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian corridors on
aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209-214 in P. J. Wigington, Jr., and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in
multi-land use watersheds, Portland, OR.
8R. B. Alexander, R. A. Smith, and G. E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of Stream Channel Size on the Delivery of
Nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758-761.
9B. J. Peterson, W. M. Wolheim, P. J. Mulholland, J. R. Webster, J. L. Meyer, J. L. Tank, E. Marti, W. B. Bowden,
H. M. Valett, A. E. Hershey, W. H. McDowell, W. K. Dodds, S. K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D. D. Morrall. 2001.
Control of Nitrogen Export from Watersheds by Headwater Streams. Science 292:86-90.
10 K. L. Knutson and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181 pp.
1 1D. S. Wilcove, D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species
in the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.
control. 12 Additionally, the U.S. Government has many programs and laws in place to combat
invasive species (see www.invasivespecies.gov) and thus cannot spend money to counter these
efforts. Specifically, Section 2(a)(3) of Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species (February 3,
1999) directs federal agencies to "not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are
likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or
elsewhere." Despite their short-term erosion-control benefits, many exotic species used in soil
stabilization seed mixes are persistent once they are established, thereby preventing the
reestablishment of native vegetation. Many of these exotic plants' 3 are also aggressive invaders
of nearby natural areas, where they are capable of displacing already-established native species.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that only native plant species be used in association with all
aspects of this project.
We do not believe this project will have any effect on federally listed species. Therefore, the
requirements under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of
the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 229. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-10-046.
cc:
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Ms. Tasha McCormick, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208,
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Susan B. Fuhr, Tennessee Valley Authority, 3726 E. Morris Boulevard, MOC lA-MOT
Morristown, TN 37813-1270
12D. L. Pimentel, L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous
species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-65.
13Lists of invasive exotic plants can be found at http://Www.tneppc.org/and http://www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/on
the Internet.
9
References:
B.A. Doll, G.L. Grabow, K.R. Hall, James Halley, W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings,
and D.E. Wise. 2003. Stream Restoration, A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant (Web
link: http: //www. bae. ncsu. edu/programs/extension/wgglsri/stream_rest_
guidebook/sr_guidebook pdf); available online at North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC.
Karen Hall. 2001. Recommended native plant species for stream restoration in
North Carolina. Mountain Physiographic Region. North Carolina Stream
Restoration Institute. (Web link: http://Www5.bae.ncsu.edu/bae/programs/
extensionlwgglsrilRecommended%20Native%20PIant%20Species.htm#Mountain
%20Region).
W.H. Harman, et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for
North Carolina Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings.
Edited by: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium.
Bozeman, MT. (Web link: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/
Documents/Stream/Appendices/Appendix VI. pdf.
Cheryl C. Harrelson, C.L. Rawlins, and John P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel
reference sites: an illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report.
RM-245. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 61 pp. (Web link:
http: //www.stream.fsfed. us/publications/PDFs/RM245E.PDF.
10
Page 1 of 1
George Lankford
From: George Lankford
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:17 PM
Subject: Town of Newland Flood Bypass Channel
Mr. Linville,
On behalf of the Town of Newland (Owner), WK Dickson is requesting a review
comments the proposed project. The project is located in the Town of Newland on
Pineola Street (State Highway 194) and the confluence with Kentucky Creek (Figure 1)
River Basin (HUC 06010108).
of the above referenced project for
the North Toe River starting above
.. The project is in the French Broad
Project Information
The purpose of this project is a reduction in large scale flooding along the North Toe River downstream of the Town of
Newland (Figure 2). Subsequent to the flooding in September 2004 from Tropical Storm Frances and Hurricane Ivan,
approximately six homes were bought out as part of FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). This project focuses
on reducing upstream flooding in the downtown business district.
The proposed project is located in the Town of Newland and much of the surrounding area is developed land (Figure 3).
The channel in the project area has been altered through filling of the floodplain and constriction of the banks. The project
consists of creating a flood bypass channel above the ordinary high water mark downstream of the town and stabilizing
approximately 600 linear feet of stream bank through construction of boulder toes and in-stream rock vanes (Figure 3).
Along the floodplain, a paved walking trail and a raised footbridge will be constructed to connect a town park and an
existing greenway trail. Wing walls will be constructed upstream of the reinforced concrete box culverts under Pineola
Street to improve hydraulic efficiency. Additional drainage modifications outside of the stream channel are also proposed,
including culvert upgrades and stormwater collection and diversion into a stormwater detention basin.
When completed, the project will improve stream flows and significantly reduce flooding in the Newland business district.
The design for the project is being developed concurrently with environmental documentation and in compliance with
applicable environmental laws and regulations. This process offers you the opportunity to identify site-specific conditions to
be addressed prior to completion of the design. Attached are the figures and select plan sheets.
Please contact me with any questions and your comments.
Thank you,
George Lankford
Technical Project Manager
WK Dickson
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Voice: (919) 782-0495
Mb: (919) 610-0168
Fax: (919) 782-9672
glankford@wkdickson.com
12/2/2009
Attachment 5
Photo Log
Photo Log
Town of Newland Bypass Channel Project
Existing Conditions
1 Facing upstream from Pineola Street. Kentucky
south (right).
OM
_0 I * , It, I
r?
?'sr - f3'a• ..v
2 Facinp, downstream
hnx cidvPrtc hPnaath Pinanla ,trppt
Photo Log
Town of Newland Bypass Channel Project
Existing Conditions
a
s+4rom ? az ,. _
.a
s
•
t
u S . 3' b.
s racing downstream trom Pineola Street
t amp so
- 4k
? ...
,,,
?
ice,,,.
a °BM1?t r
,_.
1
1 .
,
4 Facing left bank -culvert entering rhannal ?niith nn n; rtlAt nrntortinn
2
Photo Log
Town of Newland Bypass Channel Project
Existing Conditions
Photo Log
Town of Newland Bypass Channel Project
4
4 4
OPWI,
10 Facing upstream - bank protection near middle of stabiliMinn
5
Photo Log
Town of Newland Bypass Channel Project
Photo Log
Town of Newland Bypass Channel Project
MAIM 111, LUIIUlUUl15
, t.
i
I I rdCing uownsiream - bank protection near middle of stabilization.
6
vcit- Ig uownstream - businesses along top of bank near middle of project.
P e,
Attachment 6
Plan Sheets