The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130743_Meeting Minutes_20090625 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR June 25, 2009 LYNDO TIPPETr SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers Marella Buneick, US Fish and Wildlife Service Chris Militscher, US Environmental protection Agency Charles Nicholson, Tennessee Valley Authority Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission Brian Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ/Wetlands Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC Dept of Cultural Resources - SHPO Craig Hughes, High Country RPO FROM: Steve L. Brown, P.E., Project Planning Engineer Project Development and Environmental Analysis Br a'\ ch/ SUBJECT: R-25198 US 19E Improvement Project From SR 1186 in Micaville to the existing multilane west of Spruce Pine Concurrence Point #4A Elevation Resolution A Concurrence Point 4A Merger team meeting was held on the subject project on April 17, 2007. At issue were four stream crossings carried forward for final decision from Concurrence Point 2A and Avoidance and Minimization efforts on the project. There has been disagreement among the Merger Team on one stream crossing location, the crossing of Big Crabtree Creek on the Yancey and Mitchell county line, since the Concurrence Point 2A meetings on the project. NCDOT had proposed extending the existing four-barrel culvert. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) have held the position that the existing culvert should be replaced with a bridge and have asked NCDOT at several points in the Merger process to perform further analysis and justification for extending the culvert. NCDOT has performed additional hydraulic analysis and studies on this crossing. In November 2006, NCDOT proposed reducing the extension of the culvert from the originally proposed 115 feet to a scenario using a retaining wall and extending the culvert approximately 23 feet. The Merger Team did not concur on Concurrence Point 4A due to disagreement on the Big Crabtree Creek crossing. The representatives from USFWS, WRC, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 'and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality (DWQ) did not concur with a culvert at this location. These four agencies submitted issue briefs outlining their objections to NCDOT following the merger team meeting, and the Merger Elevation process was initiated. MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 919-733-3141 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION FAX: 919-733-9794 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: L4 .DON.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 R-251911-US 19E Improvement Project Page 2 of 2 Concunence Point N4A Elevation Resolution Following the issuance of the combined Biological Opinion for R-2518A, R-2518B, R-2519A and R-2519B, which contained a condition requiring a bridge on R-2519B at Crabtree Creek, the US Army Corps of Engineers USACOE indicated to NCDOT that any elevation of this issue would first need to proceed through the Section 7 Consultation process to remove that condition, prior to continuing the Merger Elevation process. Since the last Merger Team meeting, NCDOT has performed significant further analysis of the crossing and conditions surrounding this project. After careful consideration of all relevant factors of this situation, NCDOT is now recommending that the existing culvert at Big Crabtree Creek be removed and replaced with dual bridges at this crossing. Hopefully, this satisfies the concerns of the merger team members expressed regarding this crossing. Please find updated tables reflecting the revised impacts associated with the project, as well as a recap of avoidance and minimization efforts on the projects. The recommended bridge at Big Crabtree Creek is the only significantly changed condition since our last Merger Team meeting. Also, please find attached a revised Concurrence Point 4A form for your signature. Please sign and return with your original signature at your earliest convenience. Please contact me at (919) 733-7844, x-235, or via e-mail at slbrownna,dot.state. nc.us with any questions, comments, or if you need further information. Thank you for your participation and patience throughout this process. Attachments SECTION 404 / NEPA MERGER PROCESS CONCURRENCE AGREEMENT CONCURRENCE POINT 4A: AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION US 19E Improvement Study From SR 1186 (Old US 19) in Micaville in Yancey County to the existing multilane section west of Spruce Pine in Mitchell County, NCDOT Highway Division 13, Yancey and Mitchell Counties NCDOT TIP Project No.: R-2519B State Project No.: 6.909001T TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen approximately 7.5 miles of US 19E to a multi-lane facility from SR 1186 (Old US 19) in Micaville in Yancey County to the existing multilane west of Spruce Pine in Mitchell County. Avoidance and Minimization: The Merger Process Team last met on April 17, 2007, and discussed the Avoidance and Minimization for the Least Environmentally Practicable Alternative. Avoidance and Minimization areas are described in the Merger Packet for that meeting and on the attached Table 1. Concurrence Point 4A of the Section 404/NEPA merger process has been fulfilled. Bridging Decisions: The Merger Process Team last met on April 17, 2007, to discuss the preliminary hydraulics design for four major stream crossings carried over from Concurrence Point 2A for US 19E between Micaville and Spruce Pine (R-2519B). Based upon the current project development information, the Merger Team concurs with the preliminary proposed box-culvert extension and bridging decisions for the major stream crossings of US 19E, including those carried forward from the signed Concurrence Point 2A agreement, as presented in the attached Table 2. Concurrence Point 2A of the Section 404/NEPA merger process has been fulfilled. USACE David K. Baker Date USEPA Christopher A. Militscher Date TVA Charles P. Nicholson Date NCWRC Marla Chambers Date NCDOT Steve L. Brown Date USFWS Buncick Date NCDW Brian Wr64 Datd NCDCR Renee Gledhill-Earley Date TABLE 1 - Avoidance and Minimization Summary ? ??-.-• _ a? , }x,qx ku err s"v» '?''g "..£^ s2 .y ITEMh SITE LOCATION (s e note el WATER CLASSQ'T`s ~VOIDCEAlYIMITTGATTON DESCRIPTION e b cw)a 1 All impacted streams Various Install rock sills to maintain normal channel width. Sta. 79+00 to Sta. 87+50 2 Plan lan Sheet 9 Class B;Tr; ORW Proposed retaining wall to reduce impact to South Toe River. I) No bridge supports in the channel of the river for South Toe bridge Sta. 122+00+/- replacement. 3-4 Plan Sheet 12 River Class B;Tr; ORW 2) Hazardous spill basins to be installed in the South Toe River crossing area. 5 Sta. 125+00 to Sta. 130+00 Plan Sheet 12 2D /Long Branch Class C;Tr Proposed retaining wall to reduce impact to Long Branch. 6 Sta. 127+50 +/- 2D/Long Branch Class C;Tr Remove existing culvert (- 125') and access road between US 19E and SR 1424 Plan Sheet 12 (Deneen Road). Sm.135+00 +/- & Sta. 7 137+00+/- 2DILong Branch Class C;Tr 1) Three Options for culvert extension/stream relocation Plan Sheet 12-13 2) Possible bridge removal at Sycamore Circle. Sta. 135+00+/- to Sta. 8 158+00+/- Various Various Revised Alignment of Sycamore Circle to reduce wetland and stream impacts. Plan Sheet 14 Stream I I/UT to Sta. 226+50 to Sta. 230+00 Big Crabtree Class C;Tr 9 Plan Sheet 19 Creek PEM IE Proposed retaining wall to reduce impacts to stream and wetland. Wetland I IB ^-. U b kSta245+-00 to Sia 249+50 tI CC /B tg;Crabtree zpi.s vit- _,f.-JL, { y V s in ?£iA4K8"a?3rf?4$'K='n`><a : YI''-. r2S43 z s_' .a..mo Proposed removal of existing culvert and iastallehon ofrdual;bndges to avoid + l : e-. ` .•. Plan Shecct20'2I ; J° 1 ? r £ Cre Class CTr. Brg Cr vmpecl to` b tree Creek j . . v , a t + Sta. 330+00 IGW to Brushy ] 1 Plan Sheet 26 Creek C;Tr Revised Alignment to reduce stream impact. Sta. 341+00 to Sta. 347+00 1 G/UT to Brushy 12 Plan Sheet 27 Creek C;ir Proposed retaining wall to reduce stream impact. TABLE 2 - Bridges and Major Stream Crossings Issue Summary 'i{ t .?s ?+ C9 a S? 5 :4n0 Wa L 1 ">.?`4e J 1 WW „d 1 - x 9tt ,..a 6 tiL ?„?xJ 1 ? a' 4 r y V +sw. u r?T y F1 ? d ;ISSUES FyOR spa ° ?f'a???i' c _ i 41 t? '?? r ¢ m,FFU= g U ? a? p e t ' EVAI?UTION:AT ALUATTONRESULTSAND '2 r c° 0 Z? d> p 'v- O .ti + P? k7 CONCURRENCES ' COALtIDVTS ., ; sa.. `fi . W41 ?tii U F `, h j M S i}'.1^S'Fe ' ? L, d 'F „?.c2 4 { µ :.i)+Y r(?1. _ _...ti ''152.,, 'R ua?iC-.?? uL1 ?..: : iv J' _ ? {ry?'.?.4Ne rv.4 ?t. ?e.?S..wat.... a' aY L ' 1 Sta. 44+00 Culvert 42 Little Class 4 Q 12'x9' Retain and extend 4 @ Not 1) Investigate Bottomless Bottomless culvert is not feasible - +/- Crabtree C;Tr RCBC (+/- 12'X9' RCBC S' up feasible Culvert Installation subsurface will not support. Creek 105' length) stream & 142' down Plan Sheet 6 stream 2 Sta. 122+00 Bridge 43 South Toe Class Bridge Remove and Replace N/A 1) Minimization and 1) Proposed retaining wall from -L- +/- River B;Tr, 300' Bridge Existing Bridge with Mitigation of Impact to Sta. 125+00 to Sta. 130+00 to ORW (6 Q 50' new dual bridges, +/- Stream 1d and Stream 3 protect Stream 2d. Plan Sheet 12 spans) 300' length, span river near South Toe River (no bents in water) 2) Remove +/- 125' of 6'x6' culvert on Stream 2d at Sta. 127+50. 3 Sm.135+00 Culverts Long Class 2 Q 6' x 6' Retain and Extend N/A 1) Assess bottomless Bottomless design is technically feasible +/- & Sta. Branch C;Tr RCBC existing, replace Black culvert designs at Long but not recommended. Design to be 137+00+1- Jack Rd. culvert Branch and Black Jack finalized at CP 4B/4C stage. Road culverts. Plan Sheet 12- 13 `Sta 248+00 { Culvert 48 Big 4 Class 4(a?°1'1'x1 1 ' Remove the existing 216 feet I)'" Fully Evaluate CDOT+recommenrls removal of she ± / ?'. . t Cmbtree- CTr, RCBC stucmrd and insta II long and lmpacN h easfing'culvert structure and Iosta6 Creek r ie' (1255 yi"a +Dual 216 Bridges'v xs feet ri z.Envrronmentol ' dual bridges over BsgCrabtree Cree - s Plan'Sbcet 20 { r C r vst4 rr ' J e Ieng[h).« + + a I -xwtdew r04 ffo0` Ben t` ai?>I7t_'s ? " w t f t- a x f? 21 ` t v a-v z ° +i ? y, 1, ?Cx 4 A - : rat ya) Brtdgar ...c k t, Y. ,,d ry, r . t p + a° q k yr t 1 . i s l a ¢ 5Y r v t4 '. ` 'i e. k, b) Firainde`d t , ? ' 2' ' r a P :, ?, ?y r ,e«? S T b ;, . ? E l •rt"? ;?- 'a -GY V4 ?- ? 1 s n , AY h , n av u .P cur"er r = 4r a s'' , v' .rr A A ?r? . ?_ 'a $s ? s ? t g , 1 - „, _ , ?' r . ? ? .c)Battomless.. T t ? ..i &°r ?" ? F ? 1-^ iy Ku : k ..? . ?'t'Y"S.nF(F'1%nt it 4r !. Culvert .r'r ?' ? ' -p.. ?a a u Nate: Project has final surveys and mapping- Station locations were previously based on preliminary mapping. All stations now reflect final mapping from preliminary plans. Table 3 - Anticipated Project Impact Summary f .,.. ,r?-,•^Yk fC. Cate or 'u <r a• ; --c:,?' s^y S .rv Umts ' e? a?.. - 2 -? "L `f? 3'aal rl':..s j i ;BestFrttAlternate g y 4 a; v ^ t Length miles 7.5 Residential Relocations total 65 minority 0 Business Relocations total 12 minority 0 Farm Relocations each 0 Total Relocations total 80 Non-Profit Relocations total 3 Potential Hazardous Mat. Sites each 20 Wetlands acres 0.0088 Stream Impacts linear feet 6494. Natural Communities acres 162 impacted receptors 100 Noise (residence and business) Protected Species each Appalachian elktoe mussel 1 Historic Architecture properties (No Adverse Effect - Conditional Archaeology sites 2 carbon monoxide Air Quality 1-Hour 2.0 (parts per million) Construction Cost Dollars y$65 702 OOOx ` " ? 2 ? a_ vsY . ? Right of Way Cost Dollars r Y i -. Y.F s7? f- ? ? e $20!348;000 Fw Total Cost Dollars _ $86 050;000='e National Ambient I-hour Air Quality Standards: 35 ppm Table 4 - Project Stream and Wetland Characteristics I 8ID ? delVia ; •.ttde ? r'(3 e8tgT1'B? iIIcatio6 ?` South Toe River STR 7-2-52-(30.5 B; Tr, ORW Little Crabtree Creek 2A 7-2-52-33 C; Tr Big Crabtree Creek 1CC 7-2-48 C; Tr Lon Branch 2D, 6UT2D 7-2-48-52-31 C; Tr Mine Branch UT STR 7-2-52-32 C; Tr Brushy Creek 2BC 7-248-4 C; Tr En lishCreek IF, 2UT1F 7-242 C; Tr Ayles Creek 3UT2A 7-2-52-33-11 C; Tr Eio en a Go e ?o?ri w N e " re Ehe n 5UT2D PEM1E 35 Medium 6UT2D PSS1E 37 Medium 2DN PSS1E 33 Medium 2DM PEM1E 43 Medium II and 2-11 PEM1E 46 Medium UT2BC PEM1E 28 Low 1GD PEM1E 30 Low Table 5 - Updated Jurisdictional Stream Impacts sT. Stream Impact Impact Difference Name Stream ID ft Stream Name Stream ID ft (ft) Reason piped under 2ut2a 188 2ut2a 43 -145 bridge A les Creek 3ut2a 0 Ayles Creek 3ut2a 0 0 Little Crabtree Little Crabtree Creek 2a 236 Creek 2a 148 -88 culvert design ut2b 15 ut2b 21 6 2b 308 2b 319 11 2c 154 2c 85 -69 retaining wall South Toe South Toe River STR 304 River STR 284 -20 Long Branch 2d 216 Long Branch 2d 123 -93 retaining wall 3utstr 345 3utstr 432 87 ,Erevtousl _IdenhfiedrIm acts R. ... ...:. . ...>!,U dated.Im acts Stream Name Stream ID Impact ft ?j ':`7 Stream Name Stream ID Impact It Difference (it) Reason Long Branch 2d 45 Long Branch 2d 0 -45 retaining wall Long Branch 2d 459 Lon Branch 2d 35 -424 retaining wall ut2d 154 ut2d 146 -8 2ut2d 95 2ut2d 90 -5 Long Branch 2d 236 236 alignment 3ut2d 233 3ut2d 83 -150 alignment Long Branch 2d 47 Long Branch 2d 0 -47 slope Long Branch 2d 100 Long Branch 2d 0 -100 slope 7ut2d 102 7ut2d 95 -7 Lon Branch 2d 536 Long Branch 2d 266 -270 alignment Long Branch 2d 187 Long Branch 2d 239 52 IOut2d 13 IOut2d 0 -13 Long Branch 2d 61 61 Lon Branch 2d 544 Lon Branch 2d 0 544 alignment Long Branch 2d 636 Lon Branch 2d 0 -636 Alignment 11ut2d 6 11ut2d 0 -6 12ut2d 120 12ut2d 95 -25 Long Branch 2d 48 Long Branch 2d 21 -27 -- Long Branch 2d 71 71 Long Branch 2d 407 407 alignment/recalc ulation 13ut2d 96 13ut2d 94 -2 Long Branch 2d 249 Long Branch 2d 285 36 Lon Branch 2d 381 Lon Branch 2d 81 -300 recalculation lh 51 lh 42 -9 utlh 29 utlh 43 14 2utlh 55 Parsnip Branch 2utlh 152 97 I i 252 l i 0 252 retaining wal I li 46 I i 147 101 Recalculation utl i 78 utli 0 -78 Recalculation ii 402 _ li 296 -106 retaining wall ' Big Crabtree P Creek ? k ,z ? fi 3 ,,`_?lc?,y ,; ,? r ? ' ?? tee,' . 230„ o t? 3 a BiglCrabtree fab? Creek f s t ' OF i R u a 230 Remove culverUtnstall ( dulabidges°z' 2e 229 2e 290 61 Brushy Creek 2bc 96 Brushy Creek 2bc 107 11 Ig 256 Ig 300 44 ,' -..4a r;?Y S.r- is T „?•'t y i F_,. '. Pteviotlisl ;-IdentiSedrIm acts.Ra. e ?; ?,,, ?U v dated3m_ acts.. ;_,:s ?. - : t Stream Name Stream ID Impact ft) ,x Stream Name Stream ID Impact f[ Difference (ft) Reason ]g 158 Ig 224 66 7utlg 56 7utlg 58 2 Ig 351 Ig 125 -226 alignment/slope 1 143 1 0 -143 retaining wall 8utt 46 8utl 62 16 2-Ig 448 Ig 12 -436 retaining wall 5utl 167 5utlg 0 -167 retaining wall 5ut1 56 5utlg 67 11 Ig 384 384 Ig 11 Ig 0 -I1 Ig 17 Ig 0 -17 Id 83 Id 38 -45 lb 86 lb 108 22 Ic 134 Ic 114 -20 lz 71 lz 165 94 Alignment Total 9368 Total 6494 ;' Total Stream Impact Difference X2874 Notes: Previous Impacts calculated at Concurrence Point 2 using preliminary surveys/mapping Current Impacts calculated using Final surveys/mapping Impacts calculated to preliminary construction line ( toe of cut/fill slope) + 10 feet Table 6 - Updated Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts Prevfotisl'._Iaentst d Im acts ..; U"dated Im acts . Wetland fD Im act (acres) e Wetland ID Impact (acres) 2d 0 2d 0.00 5ut2d 0.01 5ut2d 0.00 5ut2d 0.00 (0.002) 5ut2d 0.00 6ut2d 0.00 (0.003) 6ut2d 0.00 6ut2d 0.74 6ut2d 0.00 IOut2d 0.00 10ut2d 0.00 2dn 0.03 2dn 0.00 9ut2d 0.00 9ut2d 0.00 2dm 0.04 2dm 0.00 (0.0028) 2do 0.00 2do 0.00 2utlh 0.00 2utlh 0.0 Ih 0.00 1h 0.00 1 i 0.00 1 i 0.00 lib 0.02 lib 0.00 lic lic 0.00 (0.003) utlcc utIcc 0.00 utIcc-b uticc-b 0.00 utIce-c Ap utIcc-c 0.00 3ut2e 3ut2e 0.00 2e 2e 0.00 ut2bc ?l ut2bc 0.00 etland ID mpact etland ID RAW 1? "NUM RIM VIM), Impact acres acres Pond I C 0(0.003) lg-d 0.00(0.006) Ig-d 0.00 Ig-b 0 I -b 0.00 2utlg 0 2ut1 0.00 utlg 0 utlg 0.00 Ig-C 0 1 -C 0.00 Ia 0 la 0.00 Total 0.9 Total 0.0 0.0088 Total Wetland Impact Difference -0.9