20160401 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20050331

r
e.,.SW[o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 16, 2005
MEMO TO: Merger Team Members/ /?
FROM: Charles R. Cox, P.E. L? n
Project Development Unit Head
V
"1?,FF;P! tP j V
'?YOS? ?? ?OO
??PG s QD
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: NC 63. (Leicester Highway) from SR 1615 (Gilbert Road) to West of
SR 1004 (Newfound Road), Buncombe County, Federal Aid No.
STP-63(1), WBS No. 24909.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3301
CONCURRENCE MEETING MINUTES - POINT 1 & 2
February 10, 2005
A Concurrence Meeting was held on February 10, 2005 in the Department of
Administration Press Conference Room in Raleigh. The purpose of this meeting was to
discuss and reach concurrence on Points 1 and 2. Those in attendance were:
Sarah McBride
Marla Chambers
Chris Militscher
Brian Wrenn
Angie Pennock
Clarence Coleman
Veronica Davis
Dan Baechtold
Max Phillips
Greg Shuler
Benjetta Johnson
Beverly Williams
Jay Twisdale
Greg Brew
Brett Feulner
Colista Freeman
Beth Smyre
Charles Cox
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ANO ENVIRONVENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
DCR-HPO
NCWRC
EPA, Raleigh
NCDWQ
USACE, Asheville
FHWA
FHWA
French Broad River MPO (via teleconference)
NCDOT-Division 13 (via teleconference)
NCDOT-Division 13 (via teleconference)
NCDOT-Congestion Management
NCDOT-Transportation Planning Branch
NCDOT-Hydraulics
NCDOT-Roadway Design
NCDOT-PDEA-ONE
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
WEBSITE: WNVW.DOH.DOT.STATE NC.US RALEIGH NC
Marella Buncick (FWS) and Harold Draper (TVA) were unable to attend.
History:
Colista Freeman began the meeting with a brief history of the project, referring to the
merger packet. The project was originally scoped as widening the existing 2-lane facility
to a 4-lane divided typical section. Through the environmental analysis, the Leicester
Historic District was identified as a Section 4(f) resource on both sides of NC 63.
Therefore, a 3-lane section was then evaluated through the town to minimize impacts. In
addition, it was noted that both the 3-lane and 4-lane sections had considerable stream
impacts. Since the 3-lane section would still have a direct impact the historic district,
NCDOT also developed two new location alternatives to avoid the historic district. At
that point, NCDOT met with FHWA and USACE, (DWQ was invited but couldn't attend
the meeting). The group decided that the project should go through the Merger Process
and address Concurrence Points 1, 2 and possibly 2A in one meeting.
Concurrence Point 1 - Purpose and Need (P&N):
Colista Freeman stated that the project was primarily needed due to capacity problems
along NC 63. For 1999, the traffic ranged form 8,400 vehicles per day (vpd) to 12,100
vpd. For the year 2025, the traffic is expected to increase to 13,2000-20,300 vpd., which
would have a failing level of service (LOS). In addition, there are also failing intersection
LOS problems in Leicester (see merger packet dated 2/10/05).
Safety was also a problem. This section of NC 63 has a much higher average of accidents
than the statewide averages for similar highway. The high concentration of accidents is
located in the area of SR 1620.
Sarah McBride asked how long NCDOT had worked on the project. Colista Freeman
answered that planning began in 1995. Brian Wrenn asked if there was more recent
traffic data. Colista Freeman said there had not been an update. Beverly Williams
commented that the forecast was completed prior to a model of this area, but the traffic
was consistent with the model. She noted that the volumes are still very high near
Asheville. She said that we could provide an updated forecast later in the design.
Greg Brew suggested that we remove "near Asheville" from the P&N statement, as
capacity is an issue on the entire project.
Brian Wrenn asked if the current P&N statement would force us toward only new
location alternatives. Charles Cox said no, the only reason we have new location options
is due to the Section 4(f) resource in Leicester. He stated that widening alternatives
would still be valid under this P&N statement.
Sarah McBride asked Colista Freeman to point out the location of the Clark House.
Colista Freeman said that the Clark House is not within the study corridor, and there was
a "No Effect" call on this property.
1)
Decision: The Merger Team agreed to the P&Nstate rent as follows: "To increase the
traffic carrying capacity and improve safety along the subject section of NC 63. The
proposed improvements to the subject section of NC 63 are needed to improve travel
bethveen Asheville and Leicester, as well as to decrease the accident potential along
NC 63. The approved project study area is denoted in green on the vicinity map dated
2/20/2005. "
Concurrence Point 2 - Alternatives:
Colista Freeman showed the team the four alternatives that have been developed up to
this point. All involve widening NC 63 south of Leicester. The alternatives in the
Leicester vicinity are:
¦ Four-lane Widening Alternative (through town) - median-divided facility
¦ Three-lane Widening Alternative (through town) - undivided facility
¦ Northern Avoidance Alternative - four-lane, median-divided facility
¦ Southern Avoidance Alternative - four-lane, median-divided facility
The impacts for the widening alternatives (shown in Table 4 in the merger packet) are
based on field review and delineations, while only GIS level information was available
for the new location alternatives.
Chris Militscher asked what percentage of the project is widening verses new location.
Greg Brew answered that 75-80% of the project is widening.
Brian Wrenn noted that much of the safety and capacity problems were near the historic
district; could these be solved by intersection improvements? Greg Brew said that they
had evaluated this option; however, with the number of intersections in town and close
proximity of them, transitioning between 3 and 2 lanes was very difficult. Charles Cox
said that NCDOT's review of several other alternatives, including intersection
improvements, was one reason that the planning process has taken so long.
Chris Militscher asked for the corridor width of the new location sections. Greg Brew
said that the four-lane section on new location has a narrow median with 120 to 140-feet
of right of way, depending on utility impacts. Chris Militscher asked if the impacts on
Table 4 (in the merger packet) reflected this corridor. Colista Freeman stated that the
wetland and stream impacts for the avoidance alternatives are based on the design with
GIS level information, whereas the impacts for the widening alternatives are field
delineated.
Angie Pennock asked if any forest types showed up on GIS. Colista Freeman answered
that the NCDOT mapping didn't show anything for forest types. Charles Cox said that
Office of Natural Environmental staff would quantify the forest types and all remaining
natural systems resources after Concurrence Point 2. Brian Wrenn noted that the aerial
indicated farm or open pasture for most of the new location alternatives.
Chris Militscher asked Sarah McBride how the historic district boundary was determined.
Sarah McBride said that much of the district was determined by property limits. She also
noted the limits depended on the contributing properties. Brian Wrenn asked what was
the effect category for the widening alternatives. Sarah McBride said the effect was
visual. Chris Militscher added that noise impacts to properties from widening to three-
lanes would be likely. Sarah McBride said impacts to these properties would have an
adverse effect. It may not be the direct impact on the building itself, but the impact on the
associated property. Clarence Coleman reminded everyone that direct impacts to this
Historic District would require a Section 4(f) evaluation and that avoidance alternatives
were necessary.
Angie Pennock reminded everyone that the team couldn't go as far as Concurrence Point
2A until the resources and impacts have been quantified.
Chris Militscher stated that he was OK with the four alternatives, but the southern
alternative runs over an unnamed tributary (UT). Can this be straightened out? Charles
Cox said that Roadway Design had evaluated the entire roadway in Leicester to minimize
impacts to streams, and the alternatives shown today are a result of the minimization
effort. Greg Brew stated that we will re-examine that section during design.
Charles Cox also said that the new location alternatives stayed as close as possible to the
existing roadway to reduce impacts to natural resources. Greg Brew said another reason
to keep the alternatives close to the existing highway was that the terrain worsens farther
from the roadway and the construction costs would go up because of increased earthwork.
Angie Pennock clarified that the team would carry all four alternatives forward for further
study.
Veronica Davis asked why the avoidance alternatives weren't being considered for 2 or
3-lanes. Greg Brew answered that the rest of the project is slated for 4-lanes. While a 2
or 3-lane facility would probably suffice on new location, we would want to establish the
right of way for a future 4-lane section even if we only built 2 to 3 lanes.
Chris Militscher asked if there were considerations for bicycles and pedestrians. Dan
Baechtold stated that typically they would recommend 14-foot outside lanes for this
purpose. Charles Cox asked if we are incorporating it into the design. Greg Brew was
not sure. Chris Militscher wants this confirmed in the environmental document. Colista
Freeman checked her files and said NC 63 is on the Asheville/ Buncombe County Bicycle
Transportation Map, so bicycles will be accommodated.
Veronica Davis said that she didn't see where "no-build" was addressed. Colista
Freeman answered that this will be discussed in the EA.
Sarah McBride asked where the cemetery on the southern avoidance alternative was
located. Has there been a decision where to move them? Colista Freeman said that 200
grave relocation might be necessary.
Chris Militscher said that he'd agree to all alternatives with the caveat to look at re-
aligning the southern alternative to stay off the UT.
Decision: The team agreed to take all four alternatives forward. Roadway will re-
design Southern Avoidance Alternative to avoid the UT.
4
Preparation for Concurrence Point 2A:
Chris Militscher asked about the bridges. He said that Dix Creek and Gouge's Branch are
large crossings where culverts are recommended; he'd like to see bridges at these
locations. Jay Twisdale said that NCDOT is proposing to extend the culverts because
they are already there and can easily be extended. They are hydraulically adequate. Dix
Creek has a drainage area of 4 square miles, while Gouge's Branch has a drainage area of
2.7 square miles. Angie Pennock said that there are substantial box culverts already at
these locations and warrants some discussion for bridging. Brian Wrenn asked the length
of the box culverts. Jay Twisdale said that they are 50-60 feet. Jay Twisdale said that
one bridge (at Newfound Creek) would be replaced with a longer bridge.
Charles Cox said that Brett Feulner (ONE staff) will field verify the natural impacts for
the Concurrence Point 2A meeting. Chris Militscher asked if there were any wetlands at
Dix Creek. Brett said not in this location. Colista Freeman thought that the wetlands
were in Leicester.
Charles Cox asked if the Division had any comments. The Division had no cormments as
long as we had concurrence for both Points 1 and 2. Charles Cox said that the
concurrence forms would be sent to the MPO, FWS, and TVA.
Brian Wrenn said that the team had not agreed to the study corridor boundaries. Charles
Cox said that the study corridor would follow the existing alignment (300-ft corridor) and
then bubble out to include both avoidance alternatives. Chris Militscher asked that the
concurrence form include a statement about the study corridor and the map. Colista
Freeman made this change on the concurrence form.
Angie Pennock wanted to make sure the team would have an onsite meeting.
Action Plan: The next meetinb for the team will be in the field Meanwhile, PDEA
staff will complete an environmental analysis of resources on the avoidance
alternatives.
CRC/cc
Cc: Attendees
Teresa Hart, PE, PDEA
Marella Buncick, Fish and Wildlife Service
Harold Draper, Tennessee Valley Authority
A-01
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement z?o? 9 "'r OCR
Concurrence Point No. 1: Project Purpose and Need/Study Area
Project Name[Description: Improvements to NC 63 (Leicester Highway) near
Asheville from SR 1615 (Gilbert Road) to just west of
SR 1004 (Newfound Road) in Buncombe County
TIP Project No.: U-3301
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-63(1)
State Project No.: 8.1844901
WBS Element: 34909.1.1
The purpose and need for the proposed project:
The purpose of improving NC 63 is to increase the traffic carrying
capacity and improve safety along the subject section of NC 63. The proposed
improvements to the subject section of NC 63 are needed to improve travel
between Asheville and Leicester, as well as to decrease the accident potential
along NC 63.
Affro Jc d ro?ect s?u?? q yea ale noted ? n r?PrL ? ? ? i c; n ? f j? ?QP da? a /o-o?
The Project Team has concurred on this date of -16-D on the above
mentioned purpose and need and study area for TIP Project U-3301.
USACE
FHWA
NCDOT
USFWS
1
NCDWQ NCWRC
NCDCR
MPO
EPA
3/15/°5
TVA
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2: Alternatives for Detailed Study
Project Name/Description: Improvements to NC 63 (Leicester Highway) near
Asheville from SR 1615 (Gilbert Road) to just west of
SR 1004 (Newfound Road) in Buncombe County
TIP Project No.: U-3301
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-63(1)
State Project No.: 8.1844901
WBS Element: 34909.1.1
Alternatives for Detailed Study:
o Four-lane median divided section from SR 1615 (Gilbert Rd) to SR 1004
(Newfound Rd)
o Three-lane section from SR 1615 (Gilbert Rd) to just east of SR 1620
(Alexander Rd) and four-lane median divided section from just east of SR
1620 (Alexander Rd) to SR 1004 (Newfound Rd)
© Northern Avoidance Alternative: Four-lane median divided section from
existing NC 63 just east of SR 1380, extending to the north of the Leicester
Historic District for approximately 1.2 mi, then tying back into the existing.
NC 63 alignment just west of Newfound Church. NC 63 from west of
Newfound Church to SR 1004 (Newfound Rd) would be widened to a four-
lane median divided section.
o Southern Avoidance Alternative: Four-lane median divided section from
existing NC 63 just east of SR 1380, extending to the south of the Leicester
Historic District for approximately 1.2 mi, then tying back into the existing
NC 63 alignment just west of Newfound Church. NC 63 from west of
Newfound Church to SR 1004 (Newfound Rd) would be widened to a four-
lane median divided section.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of 2-10-D 5 on the above
mentioned alternatives for detailed study for TIP Project U-3301.
USACE NCDOT
FHWA j? .. SFWS
-ilb
NCDW4 / ",& /--? / 1, - NCWRC 411',
J f ???1
IT"
NCDCR,
MPO
EPA
TVA
0%
?lxll'
.BEGIN PROJECT

?? ? ?• Biack-
' _?'" Mcun ain q
s
13
- ;r
If
75 ,/
y
o W Q
G O
o, N 1h NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 63
FROM SR 1615 (GILBERT RD.)
TO SR 1004 (NEWFOUND RD.)
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
TIP NO. U - 3301
FIGURE 1
\1
OR
`?'?? .
(reek
ccq
f -cl cctd -ecAu.,, -l?zv --' wr y -- S )
-- ---
i
--------------
?Otkbvd5---_
4L, - ce --- +??,? • - _e?^? _ a F-_ ---- - __ __
V-ba - QCUIU- -be..--, 0? 51`JL--
- (?isTw?c - - TW -- L??`tYS -?5 SD SkQr? --{ -v,

- - -- --v?- -CIS

------ - - -t?1 °+r- SG.«_ a?-e..- `-? Le h.. a ?v? _- - - - -

? .? D'>C C1!, box `( nx _? ??Wb`

?I Q
D+s l]r,
I
bon
G1X
rho Z
d?a ti
3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
November 2, 1999
MENI TORANDUi\i

To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project-Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water QualityT'.??/
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed widening of NC63 (Leicester Highway) from SR 1615 (Whitt
Road) to West of SR 1004 (Newfound Road) in Buncombe County, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-63(1), State Project No. S. 1844901, TIP U-3301.
Reference your correspondence dated September 14, 1999 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Further investigations at a higher
resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the
area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that
NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the.project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 500% recycled/ 10°'o post-consumer paper
I
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
11/02/99
Pave 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
1. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
J. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges: However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
K. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
L. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
tii. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
N. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
0. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
11/02/99
Pa-e 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Joe Mickey, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
CAncdot\TIP U-3301\comments\U-3301 scoping comments.doc
w
a..sw?io
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JP-
GOVERNOR
f jam.
DAVID MCCoY
SECRETARY
September 14, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. John Hennessy
k
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
is
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for TIP Project U-3301, the Widening
of NC 63 (Leicester Highway) from SR 1615 (Whitt Road) to
West of SR 1004 (Newfound Road), Buncombe County, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-63(1), State Project No. 8.1844901
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the subject project
(see attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for October 20, 1999 at 10:00 am in room 470 of the Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch. You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or
mail them to us prior to that date (please reference page 4 of the scoping sheets).
F
I
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call James Bridges, Project
Development Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 246. (??,?• Li
WDG/plr
Attachments 1 ?y 1 V ??
i
k
P .
Date: 30 Sept
1999
Revision Date:
TIP No.: U-3301
Project Development Stage
Programming:
Planning: X
Design:
F.A. Project No.: STP-63(1) State Project No.: 8.1844901
Division: 13 County: Buncombe
Route: NC 63 Length: 4.2 miles
Functional Classification: Major Collector
Purpose Of Project: The purpose of this project is to provide a safer route between northwest Buncombe
County and Asheville.
Description Of Project (including specific limits) And Major Elements Of Work: Widen NC 63 (Leicester Highway)
to a multi-lane facility from SR 1615 (Whitt Road) to SR 1004 (Newfound Road), in Buncombe
County. Widening would be both symmetrical and asymmetrical to the existing NC 63 to minimize right of
way costs and improve the geometric alignment. Bridge #80 over Newfound Creek will be replaced as a part
of this project. Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts extensions are proposed for Dix Creek and Goughes
Branch. A new culvert is proposed at Sluder Creek.
Type Of Environmental Document To Be Prepared: Environmental Assessment
Environmental Study Schedule: Environmental Assessment due July 2000
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) due April 2001
Type Of Funding: Federal and State
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes: No: x
If YES, by whom:
If YES, by what amount? ($) , or
How and when will this be paid?
(%)
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Thoroughfare Plan Designation: NC 63 Minor Thoroughfare
Type Of Access Control- Full: Partial: None: x
Number of- Interchanges: 0 Grade Separations: 0 Stream Crossings: 6
Typical Section of Roadway: Two lane 22 foot (6.7 m) wide roadway
%TTST: 1 %DUAL: 4 %DHV: 11
Design Speed:
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate: 5 lane curb and gutter13 lane shoulder
Construction Cost
(including engineering and contingencies)
Right of Way Cost
(including relocations, utilities, and acquisition)
Force Account Items
Preliminary Enginnering
Total Cost
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction
Right of Way
Prior Year Cost
Total Cost
$ 15,900,0001
9,850,000
$ 3,800,000
$ 500,000
$ 20,200,0001
14,150,000
$ 12,537,000
$ 4,368,000
$ 500,000
$ 17,405,000
2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
5 lane curb and gutter/ 3 lane shoulder i
CONSTRUCTION
Estimated Costs of Improvements
_ Pavement
_ Surface $ 2,198,020/ 1,409,720
_ Base $
Milling & Recycling $
_ Turnouts $
_ Shoulders: _ Paved $
_ Earth $
_ Earthwork $ 2,465,000/ 1,315,000
_ Subsurface Items $
Subgrade and Stabilization $ 433,780/ 236,548
Drainage (List any special items) $ 1,071,000/ 756,000
Sub-Drainage $
Structures Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
_ New Bridge 64'(44') x 120' $ 529,920/ 364,320
Widen Bridge x $
Remove Bridge #80 26' x 113' 23,504
Remove CMP 103' x 71' $ 1,800
New Culverts- Size: 7'x7' Length: 160' Fill Ht.: $ 135,900/ 112,700
Culvert Exten. Size: 9'x 8' Length: 60' $ 76,900/ 59,800
Size: 8'x 7' Length: 53' $ 84,300/ 54,600
Retaining Walls- Type: Avg. Ht.: Shew: $
_ Noise Walls $
Concrete Curb & Gutter $ 532,224/ 0
Concrete Sidewalk $
Guardrail $ 41,800
Fencing- WK: and/or C.L.: $
Erosion Control $ 307,800
Landscape $
Lighting $
_ Traffic Control $ 210,000
Signing: _ New $
Upgrading $
Traffic Signals: _ New $
_ Revised $
_ RR Signals: _ New $
_ Revised $
If 3R: _ Drainage Safety Enhancement $
_ Roadside Safety Enhancement $
Pavement Markings- Paint: _ Thermo: x Markers: x $ 117,600/ 63,000
Utilities Construction (Water & Sewer $ 332,700 F
Other (clearing, grubbing, mobilization, Misc. 5,166,752/
_ 3,255,708
Contract Cost (Subtotal) $ 13,729,0001
8,545,000
3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering $ 2,171,0001
1,305,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs $ 500,000
Force Account $
Construction (Subtotal) $ 16,400,000/
10,350,000
RIGHT OF WAY
Existing Right of Way Width:
Will Contain Within Existing Right of Way- Yes: No: x
New Right of Way Needed-
Width: 100 ft. Est. Cost $
Easements- Type:
Width: Est. Cost $
Utilities $
Right Of Way (Subtotal) $ 3,800,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 20,200,000/
14,150,000
The above scoping has been review and approved by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Mgr. Program & Policy
Structure Chief Engineer-Precon
Design Services Chief Engineer-Oper
Geotechnical Secondary Roads Off.
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. & Surveys Roadside Environmental
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
Prel. Est. Engr. Bridge Maintenance
Planning & Environ. Statewide Planning
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator
Traffic Engineering Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res.
City/Municipality Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
INIT. DATE
If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks
Section and initial and date after comments.
4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
COMMENTS OR REMARKS SECTION:
5

1 otter BarA,Ardsvdle
tq. `?
illln¢h -
?
y 1 8 `
s
19 Stocksnlle y
77 1

l•

an o
Al" r `
Weaverville
O
..
B U
5 N
1 leices r woodf n o 0
E
IF E Black w
69, ountain
-
` , • 75 - Swannano q1 -

17 ? 10 74A Fa

4 f ced 191 er 25A Srview 9
'
7
1
.f q._ " ' 1 ?kyland Gerton
A¢dale • ver Arden •. ?ooh rec 3? i

- .. ,. -. r

4 _
i
1615 o ._ _ ._ ..,

k
?
??
h 612
1620 -
1619
,

???
•
?
,61 ?
618 if 18 A
a
G0 y, •. 1623
115
16
20 ??,'
1641"

' 6 1
•
3-•
1607
` BROA
J
-
(
63
Ja 1617
LEICESTE
68 • _ _.. -
.?y
_ '
?
` ell .? ` i eK
E • 1622 Gre?+'?"•?it
Ch. 2
1647
END PROJEC T 1378
ee, r•-
(
2 : a,
a
G
63
•
t
97 .5 1381 •m
i
1645 1649 -

01
i4a,13 641 -=- -
i 1 2 1363
1378; Iz .1
i
13
'13 1 ` 1 ?•' ?
1429 47/ 13 CRAG
6
1004
?t? 4'/ ' •1 18
r
5 ?-
137
197
!
cb - ,
\
i 1374
f 0 9 12 i \C T I _? 1367
i
-
,"Grace
0 1298
1306 ` - 338 8
,
Chapel 1308 r 1307 BEGIN PROJECT -
Zion
Hill Ch. i c?) .,3:. 2 I
1307 - 1
J)
1220 i
26
ice' 6 1309 1/
?"Z) I SPIVEY -
06 J • i
w i? l l ..
11

•°° NORTII CAROLINA DEPARTIIIENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
i
DIVISION OF IIIGIIWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONIIIENTAL
BRAIVCII
NC63 (LEICESTER HIGHWAY)
FROM SR 1615 (WHITT ROAD)
TO WEST OF SR 1004 (NEWFOUND ROAD)
ASHEVILLE
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3301 I ,
FIGURE!'
i!

H-' 7
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1: Project Purpose and Need/Study Area
Project Name/Description: Improvements to NC 63 (Leicester Highway) near
Asheville from SR 1615 (Gilbert Road) to just west of
SR 1004 (Newfound Road) in Buncombe County
TIP Project No.: U-3301
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-63(1)
State Project No.: 8.1844901
WBS Element: 34909.1.1
The purpose and need for the proposed project:
The purpose of improving NC 63 near Asheville is to increase the traffic carrying
capacity and improve safety along the subject section of NC 63. The proposed
improvements to the subject section of NC 63 are needed to improve travel
between Asheville and Leicester, as well as to decrease the accident potential
along NC 63.
V,-6'?. Sal W"- d?'k W L, g--L? ki?' aY, rtav? d?W
The Project Team has concurred on this date of , on the above
mentioned purpose and need and study area for TIP Project U-3301.
USACE NCDOT
FHWA USFWS
NCDWQ NCWRC
NCDCR EPA
MPO TVA
6/6S-

Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2: Alternatives for Detailed Study
Project Name/Description: Improvements to NC 63 (Leicester Highway) near
Asheville from SR 1615 (Gilbert Road) to just west of
SR 1004 (Newfound Road) in Buncombe County
TIP Project No.: U-3301
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-63(1)
State Project No.: 8.1844901
WBS Element: 34909.1.1
Alternatives for Detailed Study:
o Four-lane median divided section from SR 1615 (Gilbert Rd) to SR 1004
(Newfound Rd)
o Three-lane section from SR 1615 (Gilbert Rd) to just east of SR 1620
(Alexander Rd) and four-lane median divided section from just east of SR
1620 (Alexander Rd) to SR 1004 (Newfound Rd)
o Northern Avoidance Alternative: Four-lane median divided section from
existing NC 63 just east of SR 1380, extending to the north of the Leicester
Historic District for approximately 1.2 mi, then tying back into the existing
NC 63 alignment just west of Newfound Church. NC 63 from west of
Newfound Church to SR 1004 (Newfound Rd) would be widened to a four-
lane median divided section.
o Southern Avoidance Alternative: Four-lane median divided section from
existing NC 63 just east of SR 1380, extending to the south of the Leicester
Historic District for approximately 1.2 mi, then tying back into the existing
NC 63 alignment just west of Newfound Church. NC 63 from west of
Newfound Church to SR 1004 (Newfound Rd) would be widened to a four-
lane median divided section.

The Project Team has concurred on this date of , on the above
mentioned alternatives for detailed study for TIP Project U-3301.
USACE NCDOT
FHWA USFWS
NCDWQ NCWRC
NCDCR EPA
MPO TVA
.,. AN[ o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO: U-3301 Merger Team
FROM: Colista S. Freeman, P.E.ws JV411-60A?J
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: Revised Merger Agenda for U-3301 (NC 63 Improvements
near Asheville)
Please be advised that the U-3301 Merger meeting on February 10, 2005 will only
address Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose and Need/Study Area Defined) and Concurrence
Point 2 (Alternatives for Detailed Study). The original agenda, as listed in the merger
packet, included Concurrence Point 2a; however, after further discussion with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, it has been determined that more definitive wetland
information will likely be needed in order to address Bridging and Alignment Review.
Please also note that the figures sent in the original packet are still valid. No wetland
areas have been identified in the project area by GIS (Geographic Information Systems).
I look forward to seeing you on February 10. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (919)
733-7844 ext. 227 or at csfreeman(a,dot.state.ne.us if you have any questions.
CSF/csf
February 4, 2005
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
F U
EB 7 2005
DCNR
?`ET1AIDSAtdp SATER QUALITY
Orll flYATER B,JN V1
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX [phone]
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
WEBSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG

PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
F@20W[20
JAN 2 4 2005
_TW4 S NJD ToiJdW11TER ERAISCH
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, proposes to widen NC 63
(Leicester Highway) near Asheville to multi-lanes from SR 1615 (Gilbert Road) to
just west of SR 1004 (Newfound Road) in Buncombe County (see Figure 1). The
length of the project is approximately 4.3 miles. The proposed project is included
in the approved 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with
right of way acquisition scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 and
construction for FFY 2006; however, the draft 2006-2012 TIP shows right of way
acquisition in FFY 2007 and construction in FFY 2009. The total estimated cost
for the proposed project as shown in the 2004-2010 TIP is $22,900,000, which
includes $6,500,000 for right of way acquisition, $15,400,000 for construction, and
$1,000,000 for prior years cost (planning and design). The draft 2006-2012 TIP
includes $6,500,000 for right of way and $17,400,000 for construction.
Project planning for U-3301 began in 1995. Since then, a feasibility study has
been done, preliminary designs have been developed, and natural and human
environmental studies have been completed. Citizen input was obtained during
two workshops that were held in Leicester. Once all environmental features
were identified, NCDOT attempted to minimize impacts by reducing the
footprint of the project. A three-lane typical section was developed through
Leicester to reduce impacts to streams and the historic district. The three-lane
section was further revised in an attempt to further reduce impacts. It was then
determined that a Corps of Engineers 404 Permit would be required due to the
amount of stream impacts, despite the minimization attempts.
PROTECT PURPOSE AND NEED/STUDY AREA DEFINED
o GENERAL INFORMATION
Existing Roadway Characteristics
NC 63 provides service to the predominantly rural northwestern region of
Buncombe County. Local residents use this route to commute into Asheville for
shopping and employment. NC 63 also serves as a connection to Madison
County.
NC 63 is functionally classified as a major collector. The existing cross section is
two lanes. East of the proposed project, NC 63 is a multi-lane facility (four-lane
2
44
facility with curb and gutter). There is currently no control of access along the
subject section of NC 63, and no accommodations for bicycles or pedestrians
exist.
Existing Roadway Deficiencies
There are two horizontal curves along NC 63 that do not meet minimum
standards for a design speed of 50 mph. One is located approximately 100 ft east
of SR 1378 (Old Newfound Rd). The second is located approximately 500 ft west
of Hampton Rd.
One sag vertical curve along NC 63 is substandard. It is located near the eastern
project terminus. This long curve results in limited sight distance along NC 63.
Existing Land Use and Transportation Plans
Land use in the project study area consists of primarily rural land with sparse
commercial and residential development located linearly along NC 63. The
northern project limits include Leicester Elementary School and the "downtown"
Leicester area. Leicester is a small, unincorporated mountain community just
outside of Asheville. Residential development in the study area is primarily
located linearly along NC 63 with few exceptions.
Land use, according to the Buncombe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, has
historically been associated with the development of its principal roads.
Residential areas originally occurred around the intersections of these principal
roads, where infrastructure services were provided. Development has spanned
out along these corridors extending radially from the heart of the county, f
Asheville.
According to the Buncombe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there is no
countywide zoning ordinance presently; however, townships within the county
may adopt zoning ordinances. There is presently no zoning in the study area,
and the field interviews revealed a strong dislike among the Leicester
community for zoning ordinances.
The proposed project is included in the following local land use and
transportation plans: Asheville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and The Buncombe
County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
3
. It
Future Land Use and Transportation Plans
The Buncombe County Coinprehensive Land Use Plan indicates the study area will
include potential office and industrial park sites along NC 63 with
traditional/community commercial hubs at its termini. The plan recognizes that
urban growth, including much of the commercial development and higher
density residential development that will occur in Buncombe County in the
future, will depend on the provision of public infrastructure. According to
personnel from the City of Asheville Water Department, the provision of public
infrastructure with the widening of NC 63 will depend on the availability of
funding at the time of construction.
Historic Resources
Two properties in the study area have been evaluated and are eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.
Harold Clark House
The Harold Clark House is located near the western edge of the Area of
Potential Effect (APE), 0.2 mi west of SR 1615 (Gilbert Street). The
building qualifies for eligibility under Criterion C as significant both
locally and regionally in the area of architecture.
Leicester Historic District
The Leicester Historic District encompasses both sides of NC 63, from just
west of SR 1378 to approximately 0.7 mi to the east. Sixteen structures
contribute to its historical identity, including buildings from the earliest
years of the town's existence. While the district is predominantly
residential, it also contains two churches (one associated with a cemetery),
two commercial buildings, and a barn as contributing resources. The
buildings are all oriented to NC 63 (Leicester Highway) and the majority
are sited in close proximity to the road.
The Leicester Historic District was added to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Study List in 1996 as an area of significance
warranting further investigation. The district qualifies for eligibility for
the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C as
significant both locally and regionally in the areas of community
development and architecture.
4
o NEED: CAPACITY
Table 1 shows the existing (1999) Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and the
projected (2025) AADT, as well as the resulting levels of service (LOS).
TihlP 1 _ A ADT and Levels of Service
1999 AADT 2025 AADT 1999 2025 LOS 2025 LOS 2025 LOS
(vpd) (vpd) LOS No Build 3/4-lane 4-lane
SR 1615 (Gilbert Rd)
to SR 1620 8,400-9,200 13,200-15,000 C C C A
(Alexander Rd)
SR 1620 to SR 1302 11,000-11,400 16,900-18,700 D E A A
SR 1302 to SR 1004 11,800-12,100 20,000-20,300 E F B B
(Newfound Rd)
Although mainline analysis indicates the section of NC 63 through Leicester will
continue to operate at an acceptable level of service in the design year, the
intersections with NC 63 listed below will experience significant LOS
deterioration by 2025, as shown in Table 2.
T-t,la I TnfPrcPrHnn MR - Nn Build Scenario
Intersection
with NC 63 Signalized Approach Movement LOS 1999 LOS 2025
SR 1615 No Southbound Shared left-right C F
'SR 1610 No Southbound Shared left-right C E
SR 1468 No Northbound Shared left-right D F
SR 1378 No Northbound Shared left-right C F
SR 1620 Yes All All B F
o NEED:SAFETY
Safety Analysis
An accident study conducted between July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2002 shows that 162
accidents occurred along the subject section of NC 63. The overall accident rate
for NC 63 is higher than the statewide average for rural two-lane NC routes
during this time period. Additionally, the accident rates along NC 63 were
higher than the statewide average for all accident types, except for nighttime
5
accidents. More than a third of the accidents (67 out of the 162 accidents) were
rear-end collisions. Left turn collisions also comprised a significant portion of
the total accidents (35 out of the 162 accidents). See Table 3 for the comparison of
accident rates.
T-nhIP 3 Arrid(,nt Rates (ner 100 million vehicle miles)
Accident
Type NC 63
SR 1615 to SR 1004 Statewide Average
Rural NC Routes
All Accidents 248.60 186.06
Fatal 4.60 2.41
Non-Fatal w/ Injury 139.64 79.80
Nighttime 49.11 61.64
Wet Conditions 35.29 32.03
Summary of Need
The need for the proposed project is based on capacity problems and safety
deficiencies. Increasing development along the NC 63 corridor is causing
congestion and a strain on the existing two-lane facility. As a result, NC 63 has an
accident rate that is higher than the statewide average. Additionally, NC 63 will
operate at a poor level of service in the design year 2025 with no improvements to
the facility.
Summary of Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity
and improve safety along the subject section of NC 63 .
6
ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
All of the proposed alternatives described below are shown on the attached aerial photographs
(Figures 2a-2d).
The following best-fit widening alternatives have already been studied for the
project:
o Three-lane divided section from SR 1615 (Gilbert Rd) to just east of SR 1620
(Alexander Rd) and four-lane median divided section for the remainder of
the project, from just east of SR 1620 (Alexander Rd) to SR 1004 (Newfound
Rd)
o Four-lane median divided section for the entire length of the project, from
SR 1615 (Gilbert Rd) to SR 1004 (Newfound Rd)
The following new location alternatives were developed to avoid direct impacts
to the Leicester Historic District:
o Northern Avoidance Alternative: The northern new alignment alternative is
a 4-lane divided section and would leave existing NC 63 just east of SR 1380
and would extend to the north of the Leicester Historic District for
approximately 1.2 mi, then tie back into the existing NC 63 alignment just
west of Newfound Church. NC 63 from west of Newfound Church to SR
1004 (Newfound Rd) would be widened to a four-lane divided section.
o Southern Avoidance Alternative: The southern new alignment alternative is
a four-lane divided section and would leave existing NC 63 just east of SR
1380 and would extend to the south of the Leicester Historic District for
approximately 1.2 mi, then tie back into the existing NC 63 alignment just
west of Newfound Church. NC 63 from west of Newfound Church to SR
1004 (Newfound Rd) would be widened to a four-lane divided section.
Historic Resources
A description of the historic resources in the project area is located in the Project
Purpose and Need section. NCDOT presented the design plans and aerial
photography, which were reviewed by SHPO and FHWA at a joint session. It
was determined that both the 3-lane and 4-lane alternatives would have an
adverse effect on the Leicester Historic District and no effect on the Harold Clark
House.
Public Involvement and Comments
Citizens' Informational Workshops were held in Leicester in May 2000 and
October 2001. Comments received from the public included:
o Support for multi-lane widening due to traffic and safety concerns
o Concern about impacts to the historic district
o Concern about impacts to properties and homes
7
4)
u
;?

a

s

a
^

a

c

°o

°o
d

LO o 0 0 o
r-+
+
Z
o
o
Z
;>j

"
a
a

C
M
M
°

a

w
.

z
a
p

z t:l

a

ti CD C) (D

gyn.

L

cv

t?
a q O
° +?
z +
z ++
z %44

C ++
z +?

z ?o N

th. N

fill

p
v
u

;? ?

o?
a

o?
s

o>
a
^
v
?

o?
a

ca
a

o

o

o
O O O O O O z 0 0 z CU a a N t,? ° a ?
z a O x 0 0 0 GOO CD 00

cu
?

?

z c

z

z ..

°

z z
ti
z M

q
CD

CF)

O °
c
M
z

> ;
o
?
G
O O O O O O Bpi
F? e-4 O z O Ln t.% O e O O O O ? ?O 00
M CJ cu
lj:l t00
N
fA

u w
,n
0 o
0
0
CD v+
? b

v D
M
cl
CIS
°o

0
CD
O

0
CD
O
„~
Cr? O O O O O O z t--1 O z }? V) u
Cd
N
O
N
cA
O b 'C3
t-1
O
O
O
O O
CCD ?
[V
CE O
N

cu ?fl M cu
? a
?
? ?
Eli 4
U3
tC y v
u
cl *?
Ln
o o
°
N
O M

rl 04 a.+
u

W
.N

-4
.ry
cIJ
Rs
04
q

p

b

v
.? y V r5 O
*0 US D
CU u 4: O ...? ?i a a .O r, O rn
a V O 4 ?n r+r y ' v
u ?' u O

o
o
-5 4
U
o
u
o
0
?
?.
?
?
?
c
n
O
b
,
.
o
a
r

L ? *; :? h
yy 'c0 '1 Ts p ° k E •?n N R( C
p, u 4 k p o
?
?
04 9 (n wC U U w V ° wp a4 iii ? ? ? cn ).4
?
x
(.7
?
U
E.
V)
GJ
?a
0
0
•ry
0
u
d?
ctt
E-+
00
STRUCTURES
Streams and Wetlands
Four streams and their tributaries are crossed by NC 63 for a total of seven
stream crossings that may be affected by highway widening. Of these seven
crossings, three small wetlands, which are associated with streams, could also be
impacted by widening. One additional wetland located at the western terminus
of the project could potentially be impacted. All streams are located in the
French Broad River Basin in subbasin 04-03-02. Major streams on the project
empty into Newfound Creek before joining the French Broad River.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-11) nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mi of the project study
area.
Stream impacts are quantified as follows:
4-lane: 4800 linear ft (delineated and verified)
3-lane: 3200 linear ft (delineated and verified)
Northern Avoidance: 3900 linear ft (estimated)
Southern Avoidance: 4600 linear ft (estimated)
Wetland impacts are estimated to be 0.05 acre for both widening alternatives.
Wetlands have not been delineated along either of the avoidance alternatives.
The table below provides characteristics of the streams found within the project
area.
Table 5. Stream Characteristics
Stream Stream Water Water Channel Channel
Stream Classification Index No. Width Depth Width Depth
Sluder Branch C 6-84-5 4 ft 3 in 20 ft 8 ft
UT to Newfound (UT- C 6-84-5 1.5 ft 2 in 9 ft 3 ft
Nl)

UT to Newfound C 6-84-5 4 ft 2 in 10-20 ft 8 ft
(UT-N2)

Newfound Creek at C 6-84-5 10 ft 1 ft 23 ft 4.5 ft
Bridge
Goughes Branch C 6-84-4 5 ft 6 in 25 ft 3 ft
UT to Goughes Branch C 6-84-4 2 ft 2 in 4 ft 4 ft
(UT-Gl)
Dix Creek C 6-84-7 5-6 ft 1-6 in 30 ft 4 ft
9
The Hydraulics Unit has made the following recommendations, based on the
widening alternatives. Each proposed structure is labeled on the attached aerial
photographs (Figures 2a-2d).
Table h. Structure Recommendations
Stream Existing Recommended Recommended
Crossing Structure Structure Detour
Retain and extend On-site, phased
Sluder Branch 2 @ 6' x 6' RCBC 2 @ 6'x 6' RCBC construction
Tributary to Retain and extend On-site, phased
Newfound 1 @ 7'x 6' RCBC 1 @ 7'x 6' RCBC construction
Creek
Retain and extend On-site, phased
Goughes Branch 2 @ 9'x 8' RCBC 2 @ 9'x 8' RCBC on construction
the east side
Retain and extend On-site, phased
Dix Creek 3 @ 8' x 7' RCBC 3 @ 8'x 7' RCBC construction
Newfound New 120' bridge to On-site, phased
Creek 113' bridge the south of existing construction
10
id)
1d)
U-3301 Figure I
l