20071134 All Versions_Complete File_20070321

Draft Minutes for Permit Drawing Review Meeting
R-2519A
State Project 35609
US 19 FROM EAST OF SR 1336 (JACKS CREEK ROAD) TO SR 1186
(OLD US 19), YANCEY COUNTY, DIVISION 13
A Permit Drawing Review Meeting was held on Wednesday, March 21,
2007 in the Hydraulics conference room at the NCDOT Century Center
Complex, Raleigh.
Team Members: Andrew Nottingham-NCDOT Hydraulics (Present)
David Baker-USACE (Present)
John Hennessy for Brian Wrenn- NCDWQ (Present)
Marla Chambers-NCWRC (Present)
Marella Buncick-USFWS (Present)
Chris Militscher-EPA (Absent)
Kathy Matthews-EPA (Present)
Harold Draper-TVA (Absent)
Ricky Tipton- NCDOT Division 13 (Present)
Brenda Moore- NCDOT Roadway Design (Present)
Carla Dagnino- NCDOT NEU (Present)
Neb Bullock-NCDOT Structure Design (Present)
Mark Staley for David Harris- NCDOT REU (Present)
Donnie Brew-FHWA (Present)
Steve Brown for Linwood Stone-NCDOT PDEA (Present)
Participants: Karen Gulledge-NCDOT Hydraulics
Rekha Patel-NCDOT Roadway Design
Jeff Hemphill- NCDOT NEU
Randy Griffin- NCDOT NEU
Jamie Lancaster- NCDOT NEU
Marissa Rodman- NCDOT NEU
Jeff Walston- NCDOT REU
Heather Renninger- NCDOT NEU
The meeting began at 1:05 p.m. with introductions and NCDOT Hydraulics giving a brief
description of the project. Prior to reviewing the permit drawings the following
comments were provided:
NCWRC noted that there were no bridges on this project and that they have concerns
about large mammal crossings (especially bears) for this project. It was noted that bears
do not like to use culverts and that bridges and overpasses work best. They noted a recent
incident on the new I-26 project (which is in close proximity to this project) that resulted
in a bear mortality.
USACE asked if the R2518A, R2518B and R2519A projects would be constructed
separately. It was noted that they have separate let dates but that they would all be
permitted under one permit.
The Stormwater Management Plan was presented. Hydraulics noted that the stream
impact number listed in the environmental description section of the Stormwater
Management Plan should be changed from 5137ft to 6037 ft.
The team then proceeded to review the permit drawings. Copies of the "Final Minutes for
Hydraulic Design Review Meeting With Actions Taken Since the Meeting" were also
referenced as the permit drawings were reviewed.
Site 1: No changes recommended.
Site 2: Alternating baffles will be provided in the new pipe arch to provide a low now
channel through the culvert.
Site 3: No changes recommended.
Site 4: Permanent stream impacts will be extended to the end of the riprap at the outlet of
the 1800mm pipe and temporary stream impacts will be shown beyond that point.
Site 5: No changes recommended.
Site 6: No changes recommended. It was noted that a stormwater retention basin is
located right of -Y3- station 11+45 +/- north east of this site on the same page.
Site 7: No changes recommended.
Site 8: No changes recommended.
A new site will be added to show impacts where riprap is proposed where new ditch
enters stream right of-L- station 255+40. This will be called Site 9a.
Site 9: No changes recommended.
Site 10: No changes recommended. Energy dissipator basin will be used as shown. No
other treatment options were determined to be feasible at this location. Energy dissipator
basin will help reduce velocities and sediment erosion.
Site 11: No changes recommended.
Site 12: No changes recommended. EPA had previously questioned in the Hydraulic
Design review meeting if NCDOT had a policy on utilities in culverts. Hydraulics noted
that per discussions with the NCDOT Utilities section that the utility owner must get an
encroachment agreement with NCDOT. NCDOT will make a decision as to whether or
not to allow it depending on the situation and factors involved (type of material used,
how it will be connected, impedance on hydraulic flow etc.).
Site 13: No changes recommended. NCWRC asked if a new culvert could be used at this
location to facilitate fish passage. After discussion it was determined that the grade and
length of structure that would be required at this location would not make it practicable.
Site 14: Temporary stream impact will be changed to permanent stream impact where
riprap is place below normal water level. It was noted that the existing riprap had
naturalized at this location over time.
Site 15: No changes recommended.
Site 16: No changes recommended.
Site 17: NCDOT will investigate the wetland boundary and see if the drainage can be
discharged outside of wetland. If it can not they will ensure that it will discharge into
wetland at non-erosive velocities.
Site 18: No changes recommended.
Site 19: No changes recommended.
Site 20: No changes recommended.
Site 21: No changes recommended.
Site 22: No changes recommended.
Site 23: No changes recommended.
Site 24: No changes recommended.
Site 25P: No changes recommended.
Site 25: No changes recommended.
Site 26: EPA had concerns that some of the variables in the morphological table were
differing and wanted to make sure the stream was stable. NCDWQ also expressed some
concerns about some of the numbers. NCDWQ noted that other reference reaches should
be investigated to insure that the design is consistent. They noted that a sediment
transport analysis should be included with the natural stream design information.
I .
NCDOT noted that there were other reference reaches available for the area that had been
used for the R-2518 projects that could be compared and that a sediment transport
analysis could be included. NCDWQ questioned the use of coir fiber matting in the active
channel. NCDOT noted that the coir fiber matting detail shows it placed above the
normal water surface but within the bankfull channel and that this has been working well.
NCDOT will adjust the coir fiber matting location on the stream relocation detail to be
more consistent with the coir fiber matting detail. USACE expressed concern about the
logistics of using the bed material excavated from the existing channel in the new
channel. NCDWQ noted that it was typically not necessary to do this, as the existing
material where the new channel is located is generally consistent with the existing
channel material. NCDOT will investigate and determine the appropriate course of
action.
Site 27: No changes recommended.
Site 28: No changes recommended. NCWRC expressed concerns about having the low
flow going through more than one barrel. NCDOT noted that it is presently going
through two barrels and the normal low flow channel is wider than one barrel.
Site 29: NCDWQ had same comments for the stream relocation about reference reaches
and sediment transport as noted at site 26.
Site 30: No changes recommended.
Site 31: No changes recommended.
Site 32 and Site 33: NCDWQ had same comments for the stream relocations about
reference reaches and sediment transport as noted at site 26. It was noted that quarried
stone from the area would be used for the rock cross vanes backfilled with native stone at
the downstream end of the culvert on Plum Branch at Site 33.
Site 34: No changes recommended.
Site 35: No changes recommended.
Site 36: No changes recommended.
Site37: NCWRC asked if lowering the stream grade at the inlet end could reduce the
grade on the 1500mm csp extension. NCDOT will investigate if this could be done.
In closing NCDOT noted that they were planning on using extra stream mitigation credits
from the R-2518 project on this project.
/ion
,ri7
1?r,5rr?
?. ?.?,? .
?OF uV ATFR William v. Koss - ., QV,, --.1
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
0 r Division of Water Quality
> -I
April 25, 2007
To: Steven L. Brown, P.E., Project Planning Engineer, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Brian Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, Division of Water Quality
From:
Through: John Hennessy, Supervisor, Transportation Permitting Unit, Division of Water Quali
Subject: Elevation Brief for R-2519B, Improvements to US 19E in Mitchell and Yancey Counties
1 Project Name: TIP Project No. R-2519B, US 19E Improvements from Micaville to west of Spruce
Pine, Yancey and Mitchell Counties.
2 Concurrence Point and Meeting Date: 2AAA, April 17, 2007
3 Proposal and Position:
NC DOT is proposing to widen and impthree US 19E between alternatives were developed for pthe crossing of Mitch B ell an
Yancey Counties. As part of this project,
Crabtree Creek. The existing structure is a four-barrel, 11'x11' reinforced concrete box culvert. NC
DOT's three alternatives for this crossing include the following:
Retain and extend the existing culvert 42' on the upstream side and 74' on the downstream
side. The total construction cost of this. alternative is $2,250,000.
2. Remove the existing structure and replace with a 191' bridge. The total construction cost of
this alternative is $4,750,000.
3 Retain and extend the existing culvert 23' on the downstream side with retaining walls on. the
upstream and downstream side to minimize impacts. The total construction cost of this
alternative is $2,800,000.
NC DOT's preferred alternative is Alternative 3. mis feel dis ussedin the Aprial7`? minimizMeetingation
impacts. that alternative 3 is an appropriate compro still, has concerns with NC DOT's
Alternative 3 seems to be an appropriate compromise. However, DWQ
preferred alternative.
4. Reasons for Non-Concurrence: During the Merger Meeting, both NC WRC and US FWS provided
several compelling arguments for a bridge crossing of Big Crabtree Creek. DWQ found the most
compelling argument to be the presence of designated and occupied critical habitat for the Appalachian
require good wa?ertquality endangesurvivalred
Elktoe mussel. Big Crabtree Creek (C;Tr) is critical mussel and
Appalachian Elktoe mussel. The Elktoe and other musBig Crabtree Creek immediately downstream of
As evidenced during the November 30, 2006 field visit,
the culvert has unnaturally widened. This the culvert. widening Stis due to ream bank ninstability increases sediment loads to
effect" from the channel constraints o
the stream and is detrimental to existing Appalachian Elktoe and trout populations and to water quality.
Further lengthening of the culvert could exacerbate this situation.
No Carolina
?turallr?
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone]Internet: htt :Ilh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper
R-2519B Elevation Brief
April 25, 2007
Page 2 of 2
In addition, it has come to DWQ's attention that the cost estimate per square foot for the proposed bridge
is extremely high. According to NC DOT's plans, the proposed bridge length is approximately 191' and
the width is approximately 85' for a total area of 16,235 square feet. At a total construction cost of
$4,750,000, this would put the unit price at approximately $293 per square foot. It is our understanding
that NC DOT construction costs for bridges are between $100 and $150 per square foot (per conversation
with NC DOT Hydraulics Unit staff). It is unclear why the construction costs for the proposed bridge
structure over Big Crabtree Creek are so much greater.
Another concern DWQ has regarding this project involves the hydraulic passage of the existing culvert.
In past meetings, it has been stated by NC DOT Hydraulics Unit staff that the hydraulic head of the 100
year storm is one to two feet above the top of the box culvert ceiling. This is a water quality concern as
well as a safety concern. This concern is magnified by the fact that part of the purpose and need of the
project is related to economic. development. As the watershed continues to develop and more and more
stormwater flow is directed into Big Crabtree Creek, the flood stages will become larger. This could
further restrict the hydraulic passage of the culvert causing upstream flooding. Downstream problems
could occur as well leading to increased instability of streambanks due to a "fire hose effect."
Considering the close proximity of Big Crabtree Creek to the North Toe River (C;Tr), additional bank
stability issues could affect not only the immediate resource but also downstream resources as well.
5. Potential Violated Laws/Regulations:
15A NCAC 2H .0506(b)(1-6); 15A NCAC 2B .0110
6. Alternative Course of Action:
As stated earlier, DWQ feels that Alternative 3 may be an appropriate compromise but, unanswered
questions remain regarding the impacts on Appalachain Elktoe, bridge construction costs, and hydraulic.
passage. It is. DWQ's opinion that NC DOT should provide some rationale for the elevated per square
foot cost estimates for the proposed bridge crossing. In addition, NC DOT should provide some
estimate/modeling to show that increasing development and impervious surface will not overwhelm the
hydraulic passage and thus, disrupt the natural sediment transport processes of the stream. DWQ will
provide a formal decision on the preferred alternative based on the answers provided for the elevated cost
estimate and the hydraulic passage issues.
Cc: Chris Militscher, US EPA
Marella Buncick; US FWS
Marla Chambers, NC FWS
David Baker, US ACE, Asheville Field Office
Mike Parker, DWQ, Asheville Regional Office
File Copy