Town council approves $300,000 cost share for Castle Creek culvert project; engineering contract included

Castle Valley — The Castle Valley Town Council on Feb. 19 approved a motion to provide a $300,000 town cost share to pursue Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) funding for repairs and armoring at the Castle Creek culvert on Castle Valley Drive and to include the Jones & Namala engineering contract in the package.

The decision came after an extended presentation and discussion with Jones & Namala engineer Hugh Flannery, who described a proposal to line the existing corrugated metal culvert with a structural high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and add concrete headwalls and riprap to protect the crossing from scour and undercutting. “The liner is structural,” Flannery said. “The proposed pipe will take the load.”

The council’s motion authorized up to $300,000 in combined cash and in‑kind match to pursue EWP funding and to contract Jones & Namala for design and construction engineering work. A council member moved the motion and it was seconded; the council voted in favor (all aye recorded). The meeting record does not show a roll-call tally of individual yes/no votes.

Why it matters: The Castle Creek crossing is a critical access point, council members and the consultant said, and has been damaged by recent flood events. The NRCS EWP program can reimburse a portion of design and construction for watershed protection work, but the program does not pay for all structural elements, and the town is required to provide matching funds for construction costs that are not EWP‑eligible. The town was denied an emergency CIB application for a larger project and narrowed the scope to the culvert to meet NRCS timelines and available local match.

What was proposed: Flannery said Jones & Namala recommended lining the existing corrugated metal pipe with an HDPE structural liner and backfilling the annular space with grout to restore structural integrity. He added that lining typically reduces hydraulic roughness and can maintain or increase capacity despite a reduced internal diameter. The design would include concrete headwalls, riprap scour protection and possibly upstream debris-capture measures to reduce clogging in storms. Flannery cautioned that EWP does not pay for culverts; it pays to protect existing infrastructure, so the town must cover some structure costs.

Costs and funding mechanics: Jones & Namala presented a dynamic cost-estimate spreadsheet showing multiple scenarios: a design-and-construction total estimate (example scenario in the presentation was roughly $743,250) and a breakdown that shifts with the amount the town agrees to contribute. In the council’s approved scenario the town agreed to provide $300,000 in cash and/or in‑kind match; Flannery’s spreadsheet modeled how higher or lower EWP awards would change the town’s required match and the allocation of funds for design, construction, inspection and contingency.

Timing and construction impacts: The consultant estimated a typical construction window of about two months and noted that some lining work can proceed with water passing through the site using temporary pumping and bypass measures. Flannery also said projects of this type often require an extension of program deadlines if construction would otherwise fall during local monsoon or flood-prone months; he said NRCS has granted extensions in similar cases when a compelling scheduling reason is presented.

Council concerns: Council members asked about hydraulic capacity differences between 96‑inch and 108‑inch liner options (the consultant said the 96‑inch option was likely the practical choice), structural capacity of the liner to carry roadway loads (Flannery: “the proposed pipe will take the load”), grout composition (concrete-like flowable grout), contingency and materials testing, and how construction staging/ingress would affect local access during work.

Implementation steps: Jones & Namala will complete surveys and design under the NRCS process; construction will be publicly bid and awarded to a contractor. Flannery said the plan is to bid the culvert lining and the EWP armoring items together as a single contract so the same contractor performs both civil armoring and the liner work. The council’s approval authorized the town manager/staff to proceed with the cost share and the engineering contract, subject to the final contract documents.

Outcome: Motion approved; town to provide up to $300,000 cost share and to proceed with Jones & Namala engineering contract for the Castle Creek culvert project. The council record shows an affirmative voice vote and the meeting moved on to other business.

For the record: The EWP program and NRCS participation were discussed repeatedly; the council was told the town had received the NRCS Notice of Award (NOA) paperwork and that NRCS cost-share rules constrain how much the town must match. The council was also informed that the town’s capital fund would be largely depleted by the match (staff said about $260,000 would remain in capital funds for other needs after the $300,000 commitment).