20150398 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20150430

Minutes
Meeting with Regulatory Agencies
Public Works Building
April 30, 2015
The meeting was opened by McCray Coates at 3:OOPM
McCray informed the group that they were there to look at conceptual ideas of a
whitewater park in the City of Asheville
Everyone went around the room and introduced themselves (see attendance sheet
that Stephanie Monson -Dahl has)
Stephanie Monson -Dahl gave an overview on why we were meeting, and where the
City of Asheville is at in regard to holding this meeting. She explained that on March
24, 2015, an advocacy group gave a presentation to City Council on the desire to
place a whitewater park on the French Broad River. She stated that they asked
Council to consider:
a. Can this fit as described into RADTIP plan? (What are cost savings to
this group to do so — can they ride on CLOMR, LOMR, etc.)
b. Would the City of Asheville give the Parks and Greenway permission to
start fundraising for this project?
City, "No ", let us have staff evaluate and report back.
Staff has done four or five case studies of other communities doing this type of thing
currently, or have done this or tried to do this. We are all here today to solve any
technical coordination issues and answer what a timeline for the permitting process
steps of this project may look like.
McCray added that we wanted to get a timeline but also wanted to voice any
challenges or obstacles that could be seen with the project as proposed and to
brainstorm alternatives.
Stephanie referred everyone to page 42 in the study given by the group. She then
asked what concerns are there? What did you question when you read the study?
What do you want to see answered?
There was discussion of the success of Nantahala and gradient. The Neuse River
project near Raleigh was brought up but no one was familiar with it. Other inline
whitewater parks that have been permitted are located on higher gradient rivers or
were associated with a low -head dam removal.
DWR: Concern - Is this most likely the design that will be used? Or is it highly
conceptual?

Stephanie - City of Asheville is not involved in this process — looking at what is right
for our community and is this the right area for this type of project. There are lots of
factors that need to be looked at such as the land acquisition process because
cannot have this cause a conflict or overlap what currently in place. There is no COA
funding for this, City staff is only evaluating it and coming up with scenarios to report
back to Council. Stephanie then asked if the group had enough to go on to even
make a decision to which the answer was no but they could give broad guidelines just
no specifics regarding the process or approvals, etc.
Stephanie asked if this would be an individual permit. USACE said the short answer
is yes, it would be a recreational use of waterway but it would have to take many
things into consideration such as emergency response and chances for public
comment, etc. Need much more information in order to start the process. There
would need to be a development of purpose and need, suite of alternatives, where
the best fit for this would be as far as geographic location. There are other places that
are more suitable than the ones being proposed. The alternatives are that there are
other places for people to do the same thing 30 minutes to two hours from here with
no impact on the French Broad River. Less adverse impact — based on location.
These things will need to be addressed in the permit approval process. USACE said
they were hesitant for someone to spend on a design but would need to see it to be
able to determine if they would permit it or not which would trigger the process of
alternative use etc. There would be consultations with others that would be affected
by the project. Historic, social, and environmental impacts. Who would sponsor
project and take control of maintenance, liability? — If city park then COA would be
responsible.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) concerns included: this is a structure
across the river — how would non - whitewater users have safe passage? They are
encouraging the removal of barriers in the river and this would be placing a barrier in
the river. Want to reintroduce large river fish, this could prevent that. There is one
proposed location for this near one of their planned boat access points and would like
to know what the impact would be on the access point, use of federal funds requires
that it only be used for the purpose intended (concern of whitewater user parking
there, etc.), if not would have to return the funds. Also, WRC is charged with
maintaining all the buoys, etc. on the water so any of those that would be needed for
this project would go through them. If any land clearing will occurring, there is a
moratorium for a certain species of bat that would need to be looked at. Other users
will need to go upstream and downstream and this would prohibit that. Applicant
really needs to look at long term maintenance of the facility and also all of the what -if
scenarios associated with this type of project. Who controls /operates /maintains the
bladder system? Boat access needed for fishing Craven Street — this would cause a
user conflict. The cardinal sin in natural resource management is to take something
away from someone using it to give it to another group (i.e. taking the river away from
fishermen and anglers to give to the whitewater group — taking from many low income
that eat the fish, etc. to give to high income for a solely recreational purpose). This
report ignores major problems and user group conflicts — especially with drift boats
and tubers which are increasing.

Land Quality stated that their part of the process would occur after all other permitting
was done. They have 30 days to review the application and respond. This occurs
toward the tail end of everything. They require the 401 and 404 permit first.
NC Floodplain Management stated that the applicant would need to get a handle on
the permitting requirements for the area /location — CLOMR? etc. If the applicant ends
up being COA then would go through COA still and the State would provide technical
assistance. This is like Land Quality — all other permitting would need to be done first.
Cannot have adverse impact on any structures. One major concern of this project is
having it so close to downtown because of the impact it could have on structures.
McCray added that there would need to be modeling and demonstration to show no
rise or process. The current modeling on the French Broad is very old. The State is
looking at scoping WNC in the fall to have new modeling in place by 2020 or 2021.
John Gavin added that it is beneficial to have an updated model from the State
because it is expensive to hire a private firm to do the evaluation.
Stephanie asked the group to revisit the requirements of the 404 permit — asking if
the wave facility, steps into the water, greenway, and park itself all needed to be
permitting. USACE which has jurisdictional authority, stated that it goes by the high
water mark but depends on the project area and that the scoping may grow. The
NEPA document for this would be a statement of findings and environmental
assessment. A project like this requires a lot — gave list — see McCray for list. Must
obtain easement /approval from State Department of Administration. The French
Broad is classified as Section 10 waterway (navigable waters). If there will be any
type of structure crossing over the river, such as a pedestrian bridge, it would have to
be looked at as well for obstructions, etc. Those that would be included in process
are TVA, EPA, NC WRC, US Fish & Wildlife, DENR, NC DOT, Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, all adjacent property owners, and the general public. There will be
comments taken and then USACE would meet with the applicant to address the
comments. The message from USACE was that the more legwork the applicant could
do upfront, the easier the permitting process can be — with saying that there is still no
guarantee that the project will be approved. Really need to know who the applicant
will be — private? City? County? Partnership? And where located? USACE stated that
a good idea is to reach out to other facilities such as Nantahala or the one in
Charlotte to inquire about liability of having such a facility. More things that concern
USACE are: other users on the river, especially how it impacts fire /rescue. There
must be warning signs placed on the river for this — marked navigation, if lighted
signage where does the power come from? Who maintains the signs? What is the
maintenance plan for the project? All of the sites that are listed in the proposed
project plan are near major DOT right -of -ways, bridges (including new bridge being
discussed) — what is the impact to the footers, etc. May be specific hydraulic
concerns. Do not see anything right now that is a definite project killer, will need to go
through process to see if can be approved.
Stephanie asked how long it would take to get approval for the 401 permit. Answer:
approximately 1 year, however if more info is needed to make a decision then the

clock will stop until the information is received. McCray added that the 404 and 401
permits go hand in hand.
John Gavin asked what happens if the structures are abandoned? USACE said that
the applicant is responsible for the life of the project and therefore would have to
remove it and restore the river to its pre - project condition.
It was brought up that the French Broad River has bacteria issues.
Dan Baechtold of Transportation stated that the whitewater group has asked if COA
was removing any buildings for the RADTIP project and if that would benefit them in
anyway with regard to this project or if they could sue any of the modeling or research
COA has done. McCray stated that the permit for RADTIP would be separate from
this project and would only show current conditions which wouldn't help this project
but they may be able to use the data created by RADTIP to reduce costs for some
things. NC Floodplain Management cautioned that with no timeline for this project
there could be other projects that occur between RADTIP and this project or even
new modeling that occurs that can all affect the area.
Mark Matheny of DSD stated that the TRC review process is an initial 6 months and
then usually another 3 months after that.
COA buffer requirements were brought up but it was stated that they allow for
greenways.
No type of grants for this project because it is purely recreational.
It was asked by the group what the next steps were for the city. Stephanie stated that
there is a staff group of 12 people that is tasked with reporting to the City Manager on
all of this with a draft report by May 11 th, a final report by May 18th, and then it will go
to Council for May 26th. The group has collected case studies from 4 other
communities as well.
There are many concerns with this project — especially life safety, deed restrictions,
etc.
Stephanie thanked everyone for their time and input.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:28PM.