R-2594

vn?lra?re Zx?S±_ ?- -------
?
- ---- --- -
_-bT---9 -1-

AnA
V-i

- --- - --
I L
-ar--?----? - - --- -es? ?`seo?---- -------
I
I
e
-- --?- Zo 1? Iotr---Sri ---
i
--------------

I
- ` - --

--- - - -- -- -- - -- -- - -- - - -- ---- ---- --- --- --------- --------- . ---- ------
- ,

CONCURRENCE MEETING
INFORMATION PACKET
FOR YOUR REVIEW
PRIOR TO MEETING ON
August 14, 2007
PROJECT ENGINEER
Ahmad Al-Sharawneh
R-2594
Please bring this packet
to the meeting.

AGENDA
Western Concurrence Meeting
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
1:00 PM to 3:00 PM, Ahmad Al-Sharawneh, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch
TIP Project No. R-2594, NC 215 from US 64 at Cherryfield to SR 1326 south of Balsom Grove
Transylvania County, Division 14
Team Members:
David Baker, USACE
Ahmad Al-Sharawneh, PDEA
Jake Riggsbee, FHWA
Chris Militscher, EPA
Karen Compton, USFS
Marella Buncick, FWS
Marla Chambers, WRC
Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Chuck Nicholson, TVA
Tyler Howe, EBCI
Carrie Runser-Turner, Land of Sky RPO (non-signatory)
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:
Joel Setzer, Division 14
Jamie Wilson, Division 14
Tony Houser, Roadway Design
Dewayne Sykes. Roadway Design
Andrew Nottingham, Hydraulics
Neb Bullock, Structures
Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Jody Kuhne, Geotechnical
John Pilipchuk, Geotechnical
Jim Dunlop, Congestion Mngt.
Matt Wilkerson, HEU
Mary Pope Furr, HEU
Michael Turchy, NEU
Stacy Oberhausen, PDEA
Teresa Hart, PDEA
* The purpose of this meeting is an update on the project and revi + T ' y t
bridging calls based on completed design. t
JUL 2 A 2007
V.ET'(AW
DS AN'±.R B`YA PiC=4
A A
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING
NC 215 FROM US 64 AT CHERRYFIELD TO SR 1326
SOUTH OF BALSAM GROVE, TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NC
TIP PROJECT NO. R 2594
STATE PROJECT NO. No. 8.1000601
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP 213 (1)
AUGUST 14, 2007
MEETING AGENDA
1. Introductions
II. Purpose of Meeting
III. Revi
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
V.
vi.
ew of Project Information
Overview
Project History
Purpose & Need Summary
Alternatives
Water Resources and Floodplains
Hydraulic Recommendations
IV. Discussion of Previous Hydraulic Recommendations
V. Discussion of Updated Hydraulic Recommendations
VI. Concurrence on Hydraulic Recommendations
VII. Completion of Concurrence Point 2A Signature Form
?aa
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPErr
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 14, 2007
Revised Concurrence Point 2a
Stream Crossings Review for TIP Project R-2594
NC 215 from US 64 at Cherryfield to SR 1326 South of Balsam Grove, Transylvania
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP 215 (1), State Project No. 8.1000601, TIP
Project No. R 2594. WBS Element 34475.1.1
Purpose of the Meeting
The Merger Team initially reached concurrence for crossing structures on May 18, 2004.
However, at that time, preliminary design for the project was not completed. With the
completion of the preliminary design and the hydraulic recommendation report, NCDOT
determined that an update to the Merger Team would be appropriate. The purpose of the
August 14, 2007 meeting is to provide the latest crossing recommendations and cost
information to the Merger Team for their review and input.
In addition to providing updated hydraulic information and costs, a proposed change to
the crossing at Big Mountain Branch for the "New Location" Alternative will be
presented. The change in the length of this structure is requested due to safety and cost
concerns.
Concurrence Team History
Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need of the Project
Concurrence Point 2: Project Alternatives to be Carried Forward
A Merger Team meeting was held on July 7, 2000. The purpose of the meeting was to
discuss Concurrence Point 1, the Purpose and Need of the proposed improvements to NC
215 as well as Concurrence Point 2, the project alternatives to be carried forward. At that
time, concurrence was not reached. The second Merger Team meeting was held on
October 18, 2000. The Merger Team reached agreement at this time for both
Concurrence Points 1 and 2. Signed Concurrence Forms attached.
Two construction alternatives (described below) and the No Build Alternative were
carried over for further evaluation.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH. DOT. STATE.NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Concurrence Point 2(a)
On November 4 and 5, 2002, the Merger Team conducted a field site visit to review the
stream crossings and proposed structures for the NC 215 improvements in Transylvania
County. Based on decisions reached at the field meeting, preliminary crossings structures
were agreed upon by the Merger Team. The minutes from the field meeting are attached.
The third Merger Team meeting was held on May 18, 2004. The purpose of this meeting
was to discuss Concurrence Point 2a, concurrence on major stream crossing structure
types and lengths. Concurrence was reached on the stream crossings at the 2a meeting.
Signed Concurrence Form and tables are attached.
Proiect Background
NCDOT proposes to improve NC 215 from US 64 to Macedonia Church Road (SR 1326)
in Transylvania County. This 5.9-mile portion of NC 215 is a narrow, curvy, two-lane
mountain roadway located partly within the Pisgah National Forest and is part of a Forest
Heritage Scenic Byway. Portions of the route lie between nearly vertical rock walls on
one side and steep cut slopes leading to the North Fork French Broad on the other side.
These topographical constraints, as well as the scenic and environmental concerns within
the Pisgah National Forest present construction challenges. The existing roadway
alignment is characterized by numerous curves and restricted sight distance. The
sharpest curves reach a maximum of 75 degrees. Current design speeds range from 15 to
35 mph.
In some areas, the soil shoulders are failing and the guardrails are settling, thereby
potentially compromising the ability to protect vehicles from running off the roadway.
Routine roadway maintenance is needed every few years to patch cracks in the failing
pavement surface. In addition, the narrow (8-foot) travel lanes provide difficulty for
buses and large vehicles using the facility.
Two alignment alternatives are being considered in this study (see enclosed map):
"Improve Existing" Alternative - This proposed alternative widens existing NC 215
to the extent practical and straighten areas of the road with dangerous curves. The
road would be improved from two 8-foot lanes to two 11-foot lanes; shoulders would
be increased from approximately 3 feet to 8 feet. In some cases, the shoulder width
will be narrowed and/or the posted speed limit will be lowered to minimize impacts to
surrounding areas.
"New Location" Alternative - This proposed alternative relocates NC 215 from the
US 64/Old US 64 intersection in Cherryfield to the NC 215/ Macedonia Church Road
(SR 1326) intersection near Balsam Grove. The new roadway would consist of two
12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders. This alternative would include measures to
preserve the scenery and natural resources along the new roadway.
2
Project History
Initiated in response to citizens' concerns about the poor alignment of NC 215, NCDOT
began the planning studies for the development of a new location to existing NC 215 in
1993 and completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 1998. In 1999, high project
costs, low projected traffic volumes, and interest groups' concerns about a new location
facility in Forest Service Lands led to the development of an alternative to improve
existing NC 215. A history of the NEPA/404 Merger Process and public involvement
activities are shown below:
Initiation of Merger Process
Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose and Need)
Concurrence Point 2 (Alternatives Analysis)
Citizen's Information Workshop
Meeting with Agencies, USFS
Concurrence Point 2a Field Meeting
Concurrence Point 2a Agreement
Meeting with Public Officials, USFS
March, 2000
October 18, 2000
October 18, 2000
September 25, 2001
August 19, 2002
November 2 and 4, 2002
May 18, 2004
March 6, 2007
Progress since the Last Merger Team Meeting
Preliminary Design
Additional aerial photography was acquired in September 2005. Design criteria were
established in January 2006. The preliminary hydraulics recommendation report was
submitted to NCDOT in March 2006, as was the preliminary design. The preliminary
design was finalized in January 2007. Construction cost estimates, summarized below,
were obtained in March and May 2007. Costs for utility and right of way were obtained
in May 2007.
NCDOT has requested that additional designs be developed for the proposed off-site
detours that would be necessary if the "Improve Existing" Alternative is chosen. These
designs are currently being developed. In addition, capacity analyses for the US 64
intersection with both build alternatives as well as for the intersection of the detour
options with US 64 are also being performed.
Detour Analysis
The Detour Analysis Report for the "Improve Existing" alternative is designed to evaluate
the suitability of potential detours that might be used during periods when NC 215 is
temporarily closed during the construction for the "improve existing" alternative. The
following sites are being evaluated to determine if they can be improved to serve as
temporary detours:
• Detour Alternative 1. US 64/ Silversteen Road (SR 1309)/ Macedonia Church Road
(SR 1326)
• Detour Alternative 2. US 64/ NC 281/ Silversteen Road (SR 1309)/ Macedonia
Church Road (SR 1326)
Information on traffic, pavement, and bridge conditions for the two alternatives has been
collected. New aerial photography was completed this spring. Stream and wetland
delineations, and Threatened and Endangered Species evaluations will be conducted along
3
areas of bridge replacements. Preliminary designs for the detours will be developed using
NCDOT's 3-R Guidelines.
Constructability Anal,
The constructability analysis will include a review of existing geotechnical and natural
resources data, as well as information gathered during the detour analysis. The study will
outline project staging requirements, construction sequences, traffic control issues,
excavation methods, and waste disposal for both the "New Location" and "Improve Existing"
alternatives. There will be a discussion of construction noise, erosion and sediment control,
and aesthetic considerations. The constructability analysis will be completed once the
evaluation of the project detours is completed.
Other Evaluations
Other evaluations that have been carried out for the proposed build alternatives include Air
Quality and Traffic Noise Technical Reports, Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR),
Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) review, Community Characteristics Report, and the
Preliminary Hydraulic Recommendations Technical Report. An updated Threatened and
Endangered Species survey for Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) was conducted
for both build alternatives and the proposed detours in May and June, 2007 (the blooming
period of the species).
Project Costs
NCDOT has recommended the use of 2:1 slopes or flatter except in three areas, totaling
3,100 feet (0.6 miles) along the "Improve Existing" alternative, which may be constructed
using 1.5:1 slopes. Due to the steep topography in the study area, extensive cut and fill
sections were necessary in the preliminary design. Initial estimates based on the accepted
preliminary design estimated the following waste quantities:
New Location Alternate (40 mph design speed):
Cut = 5,158,000 cubic yards
Fill = 1,840,746 cubic yards
Waste = 3,317,524 cubic yards
Improve Existing Alternate (40 mph design speed):
Cut = 8,794,000 cubic yards
Fill = 72,000 cubic yards
Waste = 8,722,000 cubic yards
Retaining walls will be used in the preliminary design only to minimize impacts to historic
resources or stream impacts. When a preferred alternative is selected, retaining walls will be
evaluated where practicable to minimize waste disposal costs.
Both of the project build alternatives will require right of way acquisition, clearing, blasting
and excavation, bridges and culverts, drainage, retaining walls, pavement, guardrail, traffic
control, and striping. Because of the grades along the "Improve Existing" corridor, greater
excavation is required for this alternative. The "New Location" alternative has a greater
number of bridges, and will have higher costs for structures. Based on the quantities
estimates shown above, NCDOT estimates the following costs for the project build
alternatives (not including detour costs for the "Improve Existing" Alternative):
4
New Location:
Construction: $71,500,000
ROW: $2,098,150
Utilities: $0
Total $73,598,150
Improve Existing:
Construction: $91,000,000
ROW: $3,462,825
Utilities: $317,125
Total $94,779,950
Schedule
Task Date
Draft EIS December 2008
Final EIS January 2010
Record of Decision ROD August 2010
Right of Way (ROW) Acquisition FY 2013
Project Let Date Unfunded
Design Changes Since the May 2004 CP2(a) Concurrence Meeting
NCDOT Roadway Design Input
NCDOT Roadway Design recommended a number of changes in the preliminary design
when it was originally submitted in March 2006. Changes were made to ensure that the
proposed designs more closely conformed with current AASHTO standards, resulting in
design adjustments to the proposed horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway.
Vertical grades along the project were reduced to the extent practicable, resulting in increased
bridge and culvert lengths at some of the stream crossings.
Chanizes to Crossing Structures since Mav 2004 Concurrence on CP2a
Preliminary hydraulic recommendations were presented at the May 2004 CP2a meeting and
concurrence was reached on the proposed crossing structures. In 2006, a Preliminary
Hydraulics Recommendation Report for NC 215 was completed by Ko & Associates at the
request of NCDOT. This report included some differences in the recommended major stream
crossing structures when compared with those recommended at the May 2004 CP2a meeting.
The recommended structures discussed in the Ko & Associates report are summarized in
Table 1. The main differences (highlighted in green) are the replacement of the culvert at
Jason Branch in the "Improve Existing" alternative, the size of the recommended culvert for
the UT to Sawmill Creek along the "New Location" alternative; and the changes in the
vicinity of Big Mountain Branch, discussed below. In May 2007, NCDOT met to discuss the
crossings structures in light of the completed designs and hydraulics report. NCDOT
Roadway raised concerns about the proposed structure over Big Mountain Branch on the
New Location Alternative. Due to the length and height of the structure, NCDOT felt that
the bridge would tend to ice over during winter weather events, which are frequent in this
area. For this reason, the proposed structure was shortened to the extent practical.
Recommended bridge lengths are summarized in Table 2.
5
Table 1. Required Crossing Structure & the Structure Agreed Upon at the Previous 2a
Meeting.

Stream Name (No.) Agreed Upon
Structure at 2a Required Hydraulic
Structure at 2a Required Hydraulic
Structure Hydraulics
Report
(Major Crossings Only)
IMPROVE EXISTING
ALTERNATIVE
UT to North Fork French Broad River
lE Culvert Extension Culvert Extension 10 ft)
UT to North Fork French Broad River
2E Culvert Extension Culvert Extension 5 ft
UT to North Fork French Broad River
3E Culvert Extension Culvert Extension 10 ft)
UT to Big Bearwallow Creek 4E Culvert Extension Culvert Extension 5 ft
UT to Big Bearwallow Creek 5E Culvert Extension Culvert Extension 5 ft
UT to North Fork French Broad River
6E
Bottomless Culvert or
Little Bearwallow Creek 10E Arch Bottomless Culvert or Arch
W-4
Big Bearwallow Creek 20E Bottomless Culvert Bottomless Culvert 19 12'x 7'x 320' RCBC
UT to North Fork French Broad River
21E Culvert Extension Culvert Extension 10 ft
UT to Big Bearwallow Creek 22E No New Structure No Extension Required
72 inch CP (Roadway W-3
Big Mountain Branch 30E Bride Relocated 1 12'x Tx 460' RCBC
UT to North Fork French Broad River
31E Culvert Extension Culvert Extension 60 ft)
UT to North Fork French Broad River 30 inch CP (Roadway W-2
40E Bride Relocated 54" x 430' RCP, Class V
UT to North Fork French Broad River
41E Culvert Extension Culvert Extension 12 ft
W-1
(1) 8'x Tx110'RCBC
Culvert now outside of NC
215 construction limits for
Jason Branch 50E No New Structure No Extension Required Improve Existing Alternative
North Fork French Broad River 60E No Structure Required No Structure Required
North Fork French Broad River 70E No Structure Required No Structure Required
North Fork French Broad River 80E No Structure Required No Structure Required
NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVE
UT to Cherryfield Creek 1R CP Culvert 36 inch CP for 120 ft
A-5
Mason Creek 10R Bride 6 ft b 8 ft RCBC for 400 ft 3 8'x 6'x 370' RCBC
A-4
Cherryfield Creek 20R Bride 2 7 ft 6 7 ft RCBC for 300 ft 2 10'x 9' 440' RCBC
UT to Sawmill Creek 21R CP Culvert 36 inch CP for 725 ft

UT to Big Mountain Branch 31 R Bridged with 40R
UT to Big Mountain Branch 32R Bridged with 40R
A-4
(2) 60" x 760' RCP, Spec
Big Mountain Branch 40R Bride 66 inch CP for 425 ft Design
UT to Big Mountain Branch 41R Bridged with 40R 30 inch CP for 360 ft
UT to North Fork French Broad River
50R CP Culvert 36 inch CP for 360 ft
A-1
Jason Branch 60R Bride 66 inch CP for 125 ft 1 8'x 6'560' RCBC
The May 2004 CP2(a) meeting also specified proposed minimum bridge lengths, although it
was stated that bridge lengths were preliminary in nature and subject to change. The table
below shows the differences between the bridge lengths agreed upon at the May 2004 CP2(a)
meeting and those proposed in the current preliminary design.
Table 2. Recommended Bridge Lengths, May 2004 and July 2007

Stream Name (No.)
Bridge Length Listed
in CP2(a) Current Preliminary
Design
Bridge Length
IMPROVE EXISTING ALTERNATIVE
Big lea ali6W' eeY (
650 feet (O
-SOR feet
UT to North Fork French Broad River (40E)
330 feet W
.65&feet
REVISED ALTERNATIVE 3
Mason Creek 10R 400 feet 225 feet
Cherryfield Creek 20R 725 feet 1,050 feet
Bi Mountain Branch 40R 1,400 feet 1,020 feet
Jason Branch 60R 250 feet 160 feet
New Structure at 132+35 to 130+00 Not a stream crossing 665 feet
410
?VU
?W
.,vr T52A
+SSO
ta0
7
R-2594: Potential Environmental Impacts of Project Alternatives
USFS Lands Impacts
Impact Improve Existing New Location
Alternative Alternative
Akemative Length___. 5.9 miles 3.7 miles
USFS Acres 131.3 80.2
Number of Interchanges 0 0
Historic Architecture Sites 0 0
Archaeological Sites 0 4
Federal Listed S ecies No No
State Listed S ecies
100-Year Flood lain Crossings 0 0
Natural Community Impacts
Hemlock Forest 81.4 36.5
Upland Oak Forest 37.2 43.3
White Pine Forest 10.7 0
Maintained/Disturbed 2 0.4
Rock Outcry <0.1 0
Total Acres 131.3 80.2
Hazardous Materials Sites 0 0
Delineated Wetland Impacts 0 0
Delineated Stream impacts 370 2340
Riparian Buffer Impacts
Zone 1 No Buffer Rules No Buffer Rules
Zone 2 No Buffer Rules No Buffer Rules
Water Supply Watersheds 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Gamelands 0 0
On-site Restoration Potential Yes Yes
Section 4 Im pacts TBD TBD
,Significant Natural Heritage Program Areas 0 0
Qa?
n:
G
z
a
s
5
n
S
A'
'n
n
i
ba
n
r
n
i
0
e
C
c
n '
Y
a
^
3A
n
n
i
n
on
N
:A Ina
n ?
s•
o
_ •d
a
n
:n r
r

c
Q
z
2 u:
r,
C l:
r
IJ
G J
X
17
G
O ?
N
7
a
N ?
H ?
7 C
r
YJ - w
Vl
X
N N ? Y Y. N ?
^ ^ X
l
H
Z
c
" C C S C C .? .- n ? ? 7

s = - ^ O R r. ? G ^
. r
+

Y
? z z z
C
v.
z
z
= z
r. z
n z
c z
? z
r ?
n z
7: z
c ? z
-
Z
O Z Z
0 Z
0 Z Z Z

n Z
0
? `L z
0
n z

n

1 1 1 i 1

- ts 1J ... 1

n
- C -
Z S

J'

y

N
N
- 7.
s -
ue.
X Z Z

n !? n n n n
- J N ?./ N Q - i r

V 'J• _ = J? •Jt x i _ = Y

N >
L :f
Y
%s

OC
J
%'
? x
%

`a
<
D
i
Ve
i
V
x
J
/? Z
0 0
C i
G tJ1
e?
d 'a
? -s
O
7? Ul
D
.?+ N
0? ?
iD
A
O
N
N
O
Q
V
Out
Archaeological Site 31TV859 I\?
41 E
'T" s,
4 LOR J!
?„ 31 E r ?1
40E f ! Revised Alternative 3a
JJ ??
iJ J _ j r ?. i ?1 a ?l 71-
22E 21 R
Old Gloucester Road ?'-
--) %? %t ??_? r ?,?% ?? ` `+ ,? .;rte ?? •' ?? t'??l 0 • y? ,: ?? ?? . .?ti? ?-' > i
10R ( i
215
?f (? ?`? • / .'.? ?j''{-?i i ?? ?? ' ri i ?? ?? -ter. !?? ?r ?? 1 R
`\ (r ,` (r i ?/ ' ?.,•1J y. ' I (-.'ia p ble Spr: ng<
ranc Kui8 r Lake r
' i
9 y Camp Cherryfield
M9rgan Hill J F
'_ r ti C a? y Cri ake T eaay 6 i
;?o?? ?? ?°? ?g};, ?I ;e??? ? Ail ? ?'l _?)? - r1 ?,? ? ? ? ?\V ,•? _ ? ?'` ?!
< 1318)
- ~,off' `? ( 0 ??ivl ? \, l)ll C ? i ?+ C? ? ?`// ?"% , ? ?'t?;, ` est at,o? C?
0 h ?t ??. t\ r. i
t??•,Warer
c;rHu
ttDe / - f ?- / '?Cr(\.r i z.?, -Y??. I _ ATioN
Legend
D ;tz? ?R?osrnan
??uebec
Mtn 3 3
l? ' "??' 20H %r 7L .r
15? a^I IQ` Pisgah Parcels
Steam Number Stream Name
IOF Little Bear\yallovc Creek
IOR Mason Branch
I E l f to North Fork French Broad Ricer
IR LT to Chernfield Creek
20E Big Beane illu?? Creek
20R Chemfield Creek
21E Ul'a, North Fork French Broad Ricer 215 Project Area
21R Ul'to Samnill Creek
22E UT to Big Mountain Brwrch
2E Ul'to North Fork French Broad Rner
30E Big Mountain Brwrch 64
30R UT to Sa"inill Creek
31E UT to 401:
_
31R UT to Big Mountain Brarich 32R Uf to Big Mountain Brarich Transylvania County
3E Uf to North Fork French Broad RivCr l -- -- - --
40E U'f to Nordi Fork French Broad River
40R Big Mountain Braich
41F Ul'lo Nunn Fork French Broad Ricer R-2594 Overview Map
41R UT to Big Mountain Brarich
4E UftoBig Bean,allo„Creek Improve Existing NC 215 and
50E Jason Brarich Revised Alternative 3 Stream Crossings
50R UT to North Fork French Broad Ri?cr
JE UftoBigBeamallo,cCreek Transylvania County, North Carolina
60E Noah Fort: French Broad Riper
6011 Jason Brwrch
6F UTto North Fork French Broad Ricer 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000
70E North Fork French Broad Ricer
80E Nonlr Fork French Broad Ricer Feet

APPENDIX A
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No-I. - Purpose and Need.
Project No./TIP No.IName/Description:
8.10006011 R-2594, NC 215, From US 64 to SR 1326, Transylvania County,
North Carolina
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project:
The purpose of the project is to improve the safety on NC 215 by providing a
roadway facility with improved geometric design conditions (see attached
purpose and need document dated September 1, 2000)
The Project Team concurred on this date of October 18,_ 2000 with the
purpose of and need for the proposed project as stated above.
USACE t bi
NCDOT i1`• -cl
`t.
USEPA`? ? _`
USDA FS (see attached letter)
NCDW
NCDC
USFWS
TVA
NCWR r J?l
FHWA t ,::?/ ?.~ •C
United States Forest National Forests 160A Zillicoa Street
Department of Service In North Carolina P.O. Box 2750
Agriculture AsheAlle, N.C. 28802
File Code: 2730
Date: October 18, 2000
Mr. Mark Reep, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Reep:
This letter is in response to your request regarding our concurrence with the Purpose and Need and
Alternatives being considered in the environmental assessment for the improvement of NC 215 located in
Transylvania County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-2594).
The U.S. Forest Service can concur with the document once the following changes have been addressed:
Under Alternative B, New Location, several options are being considered for the existing portion of NC
215 that is located on National Forest System lands. Of these, the proposal that removes the existing road
from the State Highway System and places it on the Forest Service System should not be considered as an
option. As previously discussed, we are not accepting new roads due to the lack of funds to maintain
existing roads. Please remove the last sentence "ft could remain in place as a private access road or as a
Forest Service road' located on page 2 of this document.
It should be noted that the removal of NC 215 from the State Highway System should continue to be
considered as an option. The final disposition of the road should remain open as it is currently designated
as part of the Forest Sonic Highway System and if this becomes a viable alternative, it should be
considered in this context.
Concurrent with this, we recommend that you add to the background information located in the Purpose
and Need (page 9), that your agency also approved the July, 1998 Environmental Assessment, and under
the Alternatives (page 1) that you add the posted speed limit under each alternative as the design speed is
often higher and can be misleading.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that the environmental documents meet the standards set
forth in the National Environmental Policy Act and the Nantahala/Pisgah Land and Resource
Management plan.
If you have any questions regarding this, please contact Ray Johns at [phone].
Sincerely,
}I6HN F. RAMEY
Forest Supervisor
Caring for the Land and Serving People ?aa on asaydea Pap« W
September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000)
CONCURRENCE POINT NO. 1
NC 215
US 64 at Cherryfield to SR 1326
South of Balsam Grove,
Transylvania County,
State Project Number 8.1000601
Federal Aid Number STP 215 (1)
T.I.P. Number R-2594
PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The purpose of the project is to improve the safety of NC 215 by providing a
roadway facility with improved geometric design conditions.
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Safety
1. Existing Roadwa Characteristics
From US 64 to Macedonia Church Road (SR 1326), NC 215 exists as a two-lane,
16-foot roadway with 3 to 4-foot unpaved shoulders (see Figure 1). In areas with the
most rugged terrain, the roadway is nestled between nearly vertical rock walls on one
side and steep down-slopes on the other side. The alignment is characterized by
numerous curves and restricted sight distance. The sharpest curves reach a maximum of
75 degrees. The speed limit is not posted, but a 55 mph statutory limit applies to this
facility. Advisory signs are posted along some curves, recommending lower speeds.
Current design speeds range from 15 to 35 mph.
In some areas, the soil shoulders are sinking, and the guardrails are settling so
they are no longer high enough to safely protect vehicles from running off the roadway
shoulders. Routine maintenance is needed every few years to patch cracks in the
pavement surface. These are ongoing maintenance issues which compromise safety for
motorists using this facility.
2 Route Function, System Linkage, and Vehicle Usage
NC 215 is functionally classified as a major collector. This facility is an
important link between US 64, Balsam Grove, and neighboring communities. In
addition, it connects with SR 13261 SR 1309 (Macedonia Church Road/ Silversteen
Road) and NC 281 North for access to the northwestern part of the county, as'shown in
the 1999 Transylvania County Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 2).
Four school buses travel this route, resulting in 8 trips per day during the school
year. School buses are unable to remain within the 8-foot travel lanes on this roadway.
September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000)
According to public comments made in 1993 at the Citizens' Informational Workshop for
the project, several school bus accidents happened prior to 1991. A school bus driver
reported having collided with a fuel tanker truck. A parent indicated that his child was
involved in three school bus accidents on this road.
Dual-tire trucks comprise 3 percent of the average daily traffic on NC 215 and
tractor trailer semi-trucks comprise 2 percent of the traffic. According to the AASHTO
publication entitled A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, these trucks
have an average width of 8.5 feet. Ambulances or other emergency vehicles can be
wider. When traveling around curves, motorists must pull onto the narrow unpaved
shoulders to make room for large trucks approaching from the opposite direction. In
June. 2000, a truck with a mobile home trailer ran off the road while traveling one of the
sharpest curves near SR 1326. The vehicle was trapped between the guardrail and ditch,
blocking the entire roadway. This incident required NCDOT and local emergency
workers to close the road for several hours until the vehicle and trailer could be removed.
NC 215 serves tourists traveling along the Forest Heritage Scenic Byway. This
65-mile byway follows US 276 from Brevard to Bethel and NC 215 from Bethel to
Rosman. This portion of the scenic byway is difficult for drivers who are unfamiliar
with the roadway conditions.
This facility is also designated as Route 5 on the Transylvania County Bicycle
Map, connecting Rosman with the Blue Ridge Parkway. NC 215 is intended to be a
bicycle route for experienced adults riders, yet the poor alignment, narrow lanes, and lack
of paved shoulders present hazards for any bicyclist in sharing the roadway with
motorists.
The current (2000) average daily traffic estimate along existing NC 215 ranges
from approximately 1000 vehicles per day (vpd) north of SR 1326 to 1400 vpd north of
US 64. The design year (2025) average daily traffic estimate ranges from 1900 to 2400
vpd in the same locations.
Calculated values for level of service (LOS) indicate the existing facility operates
at LOS C in the current year and LOS D by the year 2025. These calculated values
assume a 50 mph speed and 9-foot travel lanes. However, actual levels of service are
anticipated to be worse since the design speed for this facility is between 15 and 35 mph
and since large vehicles may occupy both lanes in curves.
3. Local Government and Public Input
This project was initiated locally in response to citizen's concerns for safety on
this poorly aligned segment of roadway. The project was incorporated in the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in 1989. Transylvania County officials have
expressed concern that NC 215 and many other roads within the county are in poor
condition and difficult for commercial vehicles to use. The conditions of these main
roads create safety problems and bottlenecks and limit economic development within the
2
September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000)
County. The County's highest priorities are projects to correct these situations, and
NC 215 is its top priority.
In September, 1993, a Citizens' Informational Workshop was held for the project
in Rosman. All of the 55 written comments from the workshop supported the project.
Many of the workshop participants expressed their concern for the public's safety,
particularly school-age children, on this narrow, curvy highway. Other supporting
reasons included improving travel for motorists, emergency response vehicles, and
bicycles.
In November, 1998, an informal Public Hearing was held in Balsam Grove.
Approximately 100 people attended the hearing, and 16 people provided written
comments. Fourteen people supported the project for many of the same reasons
mentioned at the previous workshop. Two people did not support the project. These
people did not believe enough vehicles travel NC 215 to justify the cost and impacts
required for building a new highway.
In 1999, two environmental interest groups responded to the Environmental
Assessrnent for the project. These groups were opposed to the relocation of NC 215
through the Pisgah National Forest when other possible improvements to the existing
road had not been considered.
4. Accident Data
From July, 1991 to September, 1994, 18 accidents were reported. Of these, 11
(61 percent) of the accidents involved vehicles running off the road and three (17 percent)
were sideswipe accidents. The remaining accidents (22 percent) included an overturned
vehicle, a rear-end collision, an angle accident and a head on collision. No fatalities
occurred.
During this period, the total accident rate for NC 215 was 272.7 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles (mvm) and was 39 percent higher than the statewide average rate
for similar facilities (see Table 1).
TABLE 1
1991-1994 Accident Data
(Accident Rates/ per 100 million vehicle miles)
Accident Type Rates Along Statewide
NC 215 Average Rates
Fatal 0.0 2.6
Non-fatal Injury 75.8 91.0-
Nighttime 75.8 61.3
Wet conditions 45.5 44.8
Total rate 272.7 195.5
September 1, 2000
Rev. October 19 2000)
From January, 1996 to September, 1999, 26 accidents were reported. Of these. 19
(73 percent) of the accidents involved vehicles running off of the road and three (12
percent) were rear end accidents. The remaining accidents (15 percent) included a
sideswipe collision, an overturned vehicle, and collisions with an animal or fixed object.
No fatalities occurred.
. During this period, the total accident rate was 331.8 accidents per 100 mvm and
was 45 percent higher than the statewide average for similar facilities. However, this rate
is 20 percent lower than the average rates for facilities within Division 14 (see Table 2).
Division 14 includes Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon.
Polk, Swain. and Transylvania Counties.
TABLE 2
1996-1999 Accident Data
(Accident Rates/ per 100 million vehicle miles)
Statewide Division 14
Rates Along Average Rates Average Rates
Accident Type NC 215 (Rural NC Routes) (Rural NC Routes)
Fatal 0.0 2.9 4.3
Non-fatal Injury 165.9 102.7 195.2
Nighttime 76.6 75.2 95.5
Wet conditions 63.8 46.6 80.9
Total rate 331.8 228.9 413.4
NC 215 is one of many highways within Division 14 where safety improvements are
needed. Table 3 lists similar safety improvement projects included in the TIP for
Division 14. These improvements are expected to reduce the average accident rates on
NC routes within the Division.
5. Correlation Between Geometric Features and Safety
Based on research conducted by the Kentucky Transportation Center at the
University of Kentucky, substandard roadway geometric features contribute to a higher
accident rate on low-volume rural roads. This research included accidents from 1993 to
1995 on rural Kentucky roadways with fewer than 5000 vehicles per day. The results
showed the highest percentage of crashes (approximately 47 percent) occurred on
facilities with 8 to 9-foot lane widths, resulting in an accident rate of 5.4 accidents per
million vehicle miles (mvm) or 540 accidents per 100 mvm (see Figure 3A). The second
highest percentage of crashes (37 percent) occurred on facilities with 3 to 5-foot
shoulders, resulting in an accident rate of 3.5 accidents per mvm or 350 accidents per 100
mvm.
4

September- 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000)
TABLE 3
Similar NC Route Safety Projects in Division 14
Coun Route TIP
SR 1314. From 0.16 Mi. NW of SR 1314, to 0. 13 Mi. SE of
SR 1314, Length 0.29 Mi,
R-3622 Upgrade existing road to improve safety From Tenn. State 10/20/06E 10/16/07E
line to US 64-74, Length 13.29 Mi.
R-3802 Realign existing road to straighten dangerous curve From 7/11/OOE 8/8/00E
SR 1150 to SR 1312, Length 0.40 Mi.
Graham NC 143 R-2822 Upgrade existing road to improve safety. From Cherohala
Skyway to SR l 127, Length 5.90 Mi.
Haywood NC 209 R-4047 Replace existing RIR Bridge and widen existing road to 6121102E 10/19/04E
multilanes From US 19/23/74 to SR 1523, Length 0.30 Mi.
Jackson NC 107 R-2224A Construct climbing lanes near Cashiers From 6.5 Mi. N. of 4/30/96C 11/21/200C
Cashiers to 1.2 Mi. S. of SR 1120
R-2224B Construct climbing lanes near Cashiers (Completed) From .5 4/30/96C 3/18/97C
Mi. N. of SR 1157 to 0.65 Mi. S. of SR 1158. Length 1.85
Mi.
Jackson NC 281 R-619A From SR 1756 to Wolf Lake Dam, Length 4.59 Mi. 7/950 3/28/96C
R-619B From Wolf Lake Dam to Bridge # 83 at Tanasee Lake, 314/96C
Length 1.4 Mi.
R-619C From Bridge # 83 at Tanasee Lake to SR 1140, Length 1.55 6/30/OOE 12/19/00E
Mi.
R -619D From SR 1140 to Transylvania Co. Line, Length 1.40 Mi. 12/15/00E 2/16101E
Transylvania NC 281 R-619E From Jackson Co. Line to End of Pavement, Length 5.10 2/23/01 E 7/20/01 E
Mi.
Macon NC 28 R-2408A Upgrade Roadway and make Safety Improvements SR 1323 10/15104E 10/17/06E
From Riverview St. to NC 28, Length 4.4 Mi.
R-2408B Upgrade Roadway and make Safety Improvements From SR 10/20/06E 10/16/07E
1323 to SR 1335, Length 4.4 Mi.
Description
R/W Date Let Date Completion
Date
Cherokee NC 294 R-3621 Replace Bridge # 30, and realign intersection of NC 294 and 7/27/99C 9/19/OOE 5/25101 E
Note: Abbreviations after Schedules:
C = Complete, E= Estimated
101 t 3100E
10/22/98C
10/31/960
10/31196C
7/20/01 E
7/31/01 E
3/02/02E
5 1
September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000)
6. Accident Data for Similar Improved Highways
Accident information was also examined for similar highways where
two-lane widening and realignment improvements were recently constructed.
A comparison of accident data before and after construction is provided
below and shown in Table 4.
A 2.1 -mile portion of NC 209 near Crabtree, Haywood County was
improved under TIP Project R-2118. From January, 1983 to May, 1986, this
facility existed as a 16-foot roadway with a minimum design speed of 25
mph. Four accidents occurred during this period. The total accident rate of
320 accidents per 100 mvm for this facility was 43 percent higher than the
statewide average rate. In 1994, this facility was improved to a 24-foot
roadway with a 50 mph design speed. From January, 1996 to May, 1999.
nine accidents occurred, mostly involving vehicles running off the road. The
total accident rate of 237 accidents per 100 mvm for the improved facility
was slightly above the statewide average rate but 26 percent lower than the
1983-86 rate. Although more accidents occurred after NC 209 was improved,
the 1996-99 traffic volume was 200 percent higher than the 1983-86 volume,
resulting in a higher vehicle exposure and a lower accident rate.
A 5.1-mile portion of US 25170, near Hot Springs, Madison County
was improved under TIP Project R-1011. From January, 1982 to December,
1985, this facility existed as an 18-foot roadway with a minimum design
speed of 15 mph. Thirteen accidents occurred during this period. The total
accident rate of 208 accidents per 100 mvm for this facility was slightly
above the statewide average rate. In 1994, this facility was improved to a 24-
foot roadway with a 45 mph minimum design speed. From January, 1996 to
December, 1999, 19 accidents occurred, mostly involving rear-end collisions
and vehicles running off the road. The total accident rate of 116 accidents per
100 mvm for the improved facility was 40 percent lower than the statewide
average rate and 44 percent lower than the 1982-85 rate. Although more
accidents occurred after US 25170 was improved, the 1996-99 traffic volume
was 175 percent higher than the 1983-86 volume, resulting in a higher vehicle
exposure and a lower accident rate.
According to these results, the number of accidents increased with the
widening and realignment improvements on NC 209 and US 25J 70;
however, the total accident rates decreased on these facilities as the volume of
traffic substantially increased.
September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000}
TABLE 4
Before and After Accident Comparisons With Similar Projects
NC 209 Near Crabtree, US 25170 Near Hot Springs
Haywood County, 2.1 miles Madison County, 5.1 miles
TIP Project R-2118 TIP Project R-1011
Time Period 1/83 to 5/86 1/96 to 5/99
Roadway Width (feet) 16 24
Minimum Design Speed 25 50
(mph)
Traffic Volume (vpd) 500 1500
Total Accidents 4 9
Fatal 0 1 (*)
Non-Fatal Injury 0 5
Total Accident Rate 320 237
(acc/100mvm)
Statewide Avg. Rate 224 229
(ace/ l 00mvm)
Total Vehicle Exposure 1.2 3.8
(100mvm)
1/82 to 12/85 1/96 to 12/99
18 24
15 45
800 2200
13 19
1 0
5 8
208 116
201 194
6.2 16.4
* Note: An alcohol-related fatality occurred on NC 209 in February, 1997. The driver ran off
the road while traveling at a high speed (65 mph) during dry nighttime conditions
B. Roadway Deficiencies
The 16.9-mile length of NC 215 from US 64 to the Blue Ridge Parkway was
divided into the following sections to compare the roadway widths, design speeds, and
horizontal curvature:
• US 64 to SR 1326 (5.9 miles)
• SR 1326 to 1.1 mile north of SR 1321 (4.4 miles)
• North of SR 1321 to the Blue Ridge Parkway (6.6 miles)
The subject portion of NC 215 is the most deficient of the three sections that were
compared. This 5.9-mile segment exists as a two-lane, l6-foot roadway with 3 to 4-foot
unpaved shoulders and a maintained right of way width of 30 to 100 feet. This facility is
well below the 24-foot AASHTO standard roadway width, and school buses and other
large commercial or emergency vehicles are unable to remain within the 8-foot travel
7

September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000)
lanes around curves. Roadside interference is heavy due to the sharp curves, trees,
substandard guardrails, rock walls on cut sections, and steep slopes along fill sections.
The existing alignment is characterized by numerous curves that range from
approximately 4 to 75 degrees. Four areas along the roadway, totaling 3.8 miles (64
percent), have a design speed range of 15 to 25 mph. The remaining five areas, totaling
2.1 miles (36 percent), have a design speed range of 30 to 35 mph (see Table 5 and
Figure 3).
The remaining 11 miles of NC 215 north of the project area were widened and
realigned in the early 1960's. These sections exist as a 20-foot roadway with 4 to 6-foot
unpaved shoulders and a right of way width of 100 to 132 feet. From SR 1326 near
Balsam Grove to 1.1 mile north of SR 1321, the existing curvature ranges from 3 to 18
degrees. The design speeds are highest along this portion of NC 215, ranging from 40 to
50 mph along 4 miles (92 percent) of its length and 30 to 35 mph along 0.4 mile
(8 percent) of its length. From north of SR 1321 to the Blue Ridge Parkway, the existing
curvature ranges from 4 to 60 degrees. The design speeds in this area range from 30 to
40 mph along 4.6 miles of its length (69 percent) and 15 to 25 mph along 2 miles (31
percent) of its length.
TABLE 5
NC 215 Existing Roadway Conditions
Percent of Design Maximum
Location and Length Segment Speed Curvature
Description miles Length % (mph) (degrees)
US 64 to SR 1326 2.1 36 30-35 19
3.8 64 15-25 75
5.9
SR 1326 to 1.1 Mile 2.1 48 45-50 8
North of SR 1321
1.9 44 40 12
0.4 8 30-35 18
4.4
North of SR 1321 to 1.1 16 40 12
Blue Ridge Parkway
3.5 53 30 20
2.0 31 15-25 60
6.6
8
.•
September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Project Status
This project was initiated locally in response to citizen's complaints focusing on
the poor alignment of NC 215. Sharp curves, a narrow roadway, and narrow shoulders
contribute to accidents as vehicles are unable to remain in the travel lanes.
The draft 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for constructing a two lane facility on new location from US 64 to SR 1326. The
estimated TIP cost is $28,800,000, including $500,000 for right of way, $9,000,000 for
construction, $1,300,000 spent in previous years, and 18,000,000 for post year
construction (after the year 2008). The project is currently scheduled for right of way
acquisition to begin in fiscal year 2006 (FY 2006) and construction to begin in FY 2008.
A historical summary of the project is provided as follows:
November, 1989 The project was included in the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
November, 1990 A feasibility study was completed.
May, 1993 Planning studies began for the project.
September, 1993 An Informational Workshop was held in Rosman.
July, 1998 An Environmental Assessment was approved by the
Federal Highway Administration, the N.C. Department of
Transportation, and the USDA Forest Service.
November, 1998 An Informal Public Hearing was held in Balsam Grove.
December, 1998 The proposed alignment was revised in the areas of Big
Mountain Branch and Sawmill Creek. The revised
alignment lowers the fill height at Big Mountain Branch
and eliminates two crossings of Sawmill Creek.
October, 1999 Because of high project costs, low projected traffic
volumes, and interest groups' concerns with a new location
facility in Forest Service Lands, an alternative for
improving existing NC 215 was included in the project
study.
March, 2000 The first Merger Team Meeting was held in Asheville to
discuss the Purpose and Need and Alternatives.
(Concurrence Points 1 and 2) for the project. The Project
Team recommended changes to be incorporated into these
points.
9

September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000)
To more thoroughly address potential environmental
impacts and concerns, NCDOT decided an Environmental
Impact Statement would be prepared for the project.
June, 2000 A second Merger Team Meeting was held in Raleigh to reach
concurrence on the Purpose and Need and Alternatives. The
Project Team proposed further revisions to the Purpose and
Need before concurrence could be reached on this step.
B. NEPA/ Section 404 Merger Agreement Process
This project is following the NEPA/ Section 404 Merger Agreement process.
Federal and state agencies which have participated in the Merger Team Meetings are
listed below. Cooperating Agencies are marked with an asterisk (*):
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. DENR - Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Transportation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
10

CHESTNUT MT
CEDAR ROCK mTN.
1

.1
;..?
END PROJECT
fteadonso Cn --' _..i ,
'"-;
Tv
Wit

S3l? '
s
3i5R i
BEGIN PROJECT
-A I
438
Y
TONY KNOB
0
BEGIN PROJECT
i-11-1
FIGURE 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
'•'•s? OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 215
FROM US 64 TO SR 1326
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
R-2594
1 0 I Z 3
MLES
x ?
w o
$ z i
3
W o
? a p 0
Z
ry C
w +c
~ P.s 3 y
•
0 ~ L ZQ V

'J « ? Q1
S?
a
C Q a I
? }
..d. Z
fIl\S?li ! [
!
O a Z Z 3 2<
1 ` g? }E

V a _
I
?
I.
F
112.
IN `,, ' o1S
o i
I! . a.
0
l ti
I • .\ V t
1 +J ?? 3
i
t -°
ti•C , i ~s ?.
'rte 1 .? 7
1
r ,

.i MWOM W 1AAt IN
rµ1MgW?; AIM
1 I
+SENIARD ATTN.
? •i RI DO OEvu North of St 1322.1 to p
1 Lt Mm RWp pt4rkWOr ?Y ?? a?
® `20' , M' RAN
TANASEE BALD
ELEv.5,622 2 W. at 15-25 mph
l c3? 4.8 mi. (49%) d 30-0 mph a
2.7
•
' n 89"
raul7 ?jO '
_ ,F r
ROCKY KNOB v
• '' r L fie" n %M kwa1lsr
JOHN ROCK
ELEv.3.000
i s CHESTNUT MTN.
CEDAR ROCK MTN.
+xI ti 1321
{ALO ROCK ATTN..;0
SR 1326 to
a
?• _ North of SR 1321 a a
(! r , 20' Roadwoy,100,432' RAN lil?p3?011 ? `.
?, e••?_?
0.4 mi. d 30-33 mph 2.0 aair®rA 215 THREE FORKS MTN. qo, i
«-- 4 at (9M d 40-x0 mph 1 '
r L i
Mccedonla Ch.
,* d 1310 :t:
1326 ,•, US to SR 1326 I
1311 ? ? '• 18
ReadWW, 30400` RAN
1308 i i
b =s , 0 ' .* 3.0 wll. (3 N d 15-25 mph
1 ' !1 a . - 1 3.1 ml. PA of 40-35 mph '
1306 s 1372 wEsr
- 1307'1 rY ?'?cF ' 9 1322
?•? _ r i' j r
?' ?' - •? ..,,,' +w?l. 1309 .0.E 64
ld,
CGNW
•N t,2_ _.. s _ ?i
?? ?•I?py ?•y ,Q 13}3 ??; ?. ,i
??Tt ROCKY 1314 Q
t MTN. p, NC 215 EXISTING
1 0 1 2 3 d COMMONS
MILES ? :... ??
r ROSMAN
NO. 44% FIGURE 3
i 1316. r •
l? ?,.. . a Asa w
0 GEOMETRIC FEATURES '& ?.--i
i
CRASHES MR MIL. VMr
I i
4 t ----?
z.
0
so-sm10111 R12t 08.91710011 _012+
(FEET) (FEET)
LANE WIDTH, P-LaW RURAL Rows
GEOMETRIC FEATURES &
PERCENT CRASHES CRASHES PER MIL VMT
I 0 i
1943 03.516+ ¦ t3 83 5 Rb F
(F cr) t1sET1
SHou=zR WtoTH, ZLZW RURAL Rands
Source. Stamatiadis, N., Jones, S., A Aultman-Hall, L. (1999). Causal
factors for accidents on Southeastern low-volume rural roads.
Tronsportatian Research Record 1651, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, pp. 111-117.
Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, Design
Guidelines and Safety, Thinking Beyond the Pavement - Workshop on
Context-Sensitive Design, (Lexington, KY, 1999), pp. 9-10.
FIGURE 3A
PERCENT CRA8HE5
50 -
Section 4041NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 - Altwudves to be studied In detail
in the NEPA document
ProJIeet No TIP NeMarcne/Des a:
8. 1000601, R-2594, NC 215, From US 64 to Sit 1326, Transylvania County,
North Carolina
Aftnwatives to be studied in deta7 in the NEPA document:
t. AIW=dve to lmpwve Existing NC 215
2. New Location Alternative
'Chess alternatives are described in the attached alternatives document dated
September It 2000.
The Project Team bas concurred on this date of October 18, 2000, with the
"alteratives to be Audied in detail" in the NEPA document as stated above.
USACE
USEPA ` Sls.2 n` %?- c?
NCDOT-0&4
USFWS *,I". 4t-
TV
NCWRC
FHWA /01/
USDA FS (see attached letter)
United Slates Forest Natlonal Forest$ 160A Zitlkoa Street
Department of Service In North CarolMa P.O. Box 2758
Agricullere Asheville, N.C. 23M
File Code: 273()
Date: October 18, 2000
Mr. Mark Reap; P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysts Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Reap:
This letter is in response to your request regarding our concurrme, with the Purpose and Need and
Alternatives being considered in the environmental assessment for the improvement of NC 215 located in
Transylvania County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-2594).
The U.S. Forest Service can concur with the document once the following changes have boar addressed:
Under Alternative B. New Location, several options are being considered for the existing portion of NC
215 that is located on National Forest System lands. Of these, the proposal that removes the existing road
from the State Highway System and places it on the Forest Service System should not be considered as an
option. As previously discussed. we are not accepting new roads due to the lack of funds to maintain
existing roads. Please remove the last sentence "1t could remain in place as a private access road or as a
Forest Service road" located on page 2 of this document.
[t should be noted that the removal of NC 215 from the State Highway System should continue to be
considered as an option. The final disposition of the road should remain open as it is currently designated
as part of the Forest Scenic Highway System and if this becomes a viable alternative, it should be
considered in this context.
Commrrent with this, we recommend that you add to the background information located in the Purpose
and Need (page 9), that your agency also approved the July, 1998 Environmental Assessment and under
the Alternatives (page 1) that you add the posted speed limit under each alternative as the design speed is
often higher and can be misleading.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that the environmental documents meet the standards set
forth in the National Environmental Policy Act and the NantahalaMsgah Land and Resource
Management plan.
If you have any questions regarding this, please contact Ray Johns at [phone].
Sincerely,

JOHN F. RAMEY
Forest Supervisor
Caring for the Land and Serving People FOR *an.gr0-paw co
September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19, 2000)
CONCURRENCE POINT NO.2
NC 215
US 64 at Cherryfield to SR 1326
South of Balsam Grove,
Transylvania County,
State Project Number 8.1000601
Federal Aid Number STP 215 (1)
T.I.P. Number R-2594
ALTERNATIVES
The Alternative to Improve Ming NC 215 and the New Location
Alternative are being studied in detail for the project, The No-Build Alternative is
also being co mideraL
A. Alternative to Improve Existing NC 215
The Alternative to Improve Existing NC 215 consists of widening as much of the.
existing roadway as possible and realigning sharp curves where the existing roadway
cannot be retained (see Figure 4). In accordance with NCDOT's Roadway Design
Manual, a two-lane, 22-foot pavement width with 8-foot shoulders and a 40 mph design
speed 5 h maximum p2go seed will initially be considered for this alternative.
A narrower lane width, shoulder width, and/ or lower design speed may be needed in
some areas with sharp curves and steep terrain to minimize impacts to adjacent properties
and natural resources and reduce costs.
This alternative will include measures to presavd the scenic qualities and natural
resources along the existing alignment. It will also include considerations for traffic
detours to be used during construction. On site detours as well as detours using existing
roads will be examined.
0. New Location Alternative
The New Location Alternative relocates NC 215 from the US 641 Old US 64
intersection in Cherryfield to the NC 215! SR 1326 (Macedonia Church Road)
intersection near Balsam Grove. This alternative provides a two-lane, 24-foot, shoulder
section with a minimum design speed of 50 mph (45 mph minimum posted speed). The
proposed corridor, approximately 1500 feet wide, is centered about the Alternative 3
(Revised) alignment that was previously considered for the project (see Figure 4).
Consideration will be given to preserving natural resources along this corridor.
With the construction of a new location alternative, several options are being
considered for the existing portion of NC 215 that remains between US 64 and SR 1326:
September 1, 2000
(Rev. October 19,200D)
• Maintain Existing NC 21 S
This option would maintain NC 215 as a state highway for local access.
• Close Existing NC 215 to Through Traffic
This option would close the northern portion of the existing highway within
Forest Service land to through traffic and maintain access to adjacent private
tracts.
• Remove Existing NC 215 from the State Highway System
This option would remove the existing NC 215 alignment from the state
highway system. '
C. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build or Do-Nothing Alternative will also be considered during the
project's development.
2
BUC.K.
EN(J INE,ERiNC-3
??i-
November 26, 2002
Y 1) o o R ?• n, 1, u x k %V a 5 u 1 u :. tY 1)
t. ? y \ ?? 1 i ti l a> n( r1 a i I[
11$ .1 a, 1 4 sx
412 4q c i 1y1s1
SUBJECT. November 4-5, 2002 Meeting Minutes, NC 215 from US 64 at Cherryfield to
SR 1326 South of Balsam Grove, Transylvania County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP 215 (1), State Project No. 8.1000601, TIP Project No. R-2594
PREPARED BY: Greg Price, Buck Engineering
On November 4 and 5, 2002, field site visits were held to review the stream crossings and proposed
structures for the NC 215 improvements in Transylvania County. The following people attended the
field site visits:
Michael Penney
Will Harman
Greg Price
Kathy Lassiter
Lee Ann Moore
Michael Turchy
Phillip Todd
Jody Kuhne
Warren Lamb
Marla Chambers
Marella Buncick
Lorie Stroup
John Hendrix
Cynthia Van der Wiele
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Buck Engineering
Buck Engineering
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT Geotechnicai Unit
Ko and Associates
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US Fish and Wildlife Service
USDA Forest Service, NF in NC Pisgah Ranger District
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
NC Division of Water Quality
A meeting at the Pisgah Ranger Station in Pisgah Forest was held to briefly discuss stream crossings
for the Improve Existing and New Location alternatives and review maps in preparation for the field
site visits. Major topics of discussion are described in the following summary for each stream
crossing. It was noted then that only major stream crossings (USES blue-line) would be viewed
during the field visit.
November 4, 2002
Jason Branch
• New Location (60R)
-- AS stream type
Prefer bridging due to steep slopes and potentially long culvert (approx. 250 feet long)
- Bridging would allow animal crossing
- Start one side of bridge at logging road
- 20 mayfly, stonefly, caddisfly (EPT) taxa; rainbow and brown trout found
• Existing Location (50E)
- AS (upstream side)/G5 (downstream side) stream type
W ?.+ w , 11 11'; k e it .'t.i t'1 C U 1' 1 r1.'--1 C c, 1i1
November 26, 2002
Page 2
- Prefer maintaining and extending culvert provided passage is maintained
- Likely not to require mitigation along lower section since it is already stable
- 21 EPT taxa; rainbow and brown trout found
Big Mountain Creek
• New Location (40R)
- E4b stream type; grades into B stream type at wide floodplain
- Near confluence of three tributaries
- Prefer to bridge; length of bridge approx. 350 feet
- Hold elevation at approx. 830 meters
- If alignment is shifted to avoid impacts to Big Mountain Creek and tributaries, it would likely
cross steeper terrain, increase the amount of earthwork, and increase fill height at Big Mountain
Creek
- Possible impact to Sawmill Creek if alignment is shifted north
- 21 EPT taxa; brown trout found
• Existing Location (30E)
C4b stream type
Will have "new alignment" impacts (crossing shifted to approx. 1200 feet downstream)
Bridge according to proposed plans
20 EPT taxa; brown trout found
Unnamed Tributary to Sawmill Creek (30R) New Location
- Did not locate in field
- G4 stream type
18 EPT taxi; no fish found
- Sawmill Creek contains southern strain of native brook trout
Unnamed Tributary to North Fork of French Broad River
• New Location (50R)
- G4 Rosgen stream type
- Investigating potential for culverting based on amount of fill
- If possible, use arch span that would allow for animal crossings
- Concerns were made about how culvert may affect the existing downstream culvert at NC
215. If culvert is designed properly, no adverse effects should occur to existing culvert
downstream at NC 215. The culvert at new location would be located far enough upstream to
allow velocity of outlet water to dissipate before entering culvert at existing location. The
new culvert will not alter the Rosgen stream classification at existing location of NC 215.
- 19 EPT taxa; no fish found
• Existing Location (40E)
-- A4 (upstream side)/A4a+ (downstream side) stream type
- Will have "new alignment" impacts (crossing shifted to approx. 300 feet downstream)
November 26, 2002
Page 3
- Investigate bridging due to grade of stream (14%)
- Existing CMP culvert is hanging at downstream side of NC 215; barrier to fish migration
- 20 EPT taxa; no fish found
Big Bearwaliow Creek (20E) Existing Location
- G4 (upstream side)IB4a (downstream side) stream type
- Brook trout were found on both sides of road (confirmed with Normandeau 11114102)
- Investigate replacing existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with bottomless culvert
- Existing CMP is elliptical
- New alignment of NC 215 shifts the crossing slightly upstream (approx. 10 feet) of existing
crossing
- Concerns were made regarding impacts to rock along left streambank just upstream of
existing crossing
- 17 EPT taxa
November 5, 2002
Little Bearwallow Creek (10E) Existing Location
- Boa stream type
- Confluence with Big Bearwallow Creek approx. 50 feet downstream
- Investigate replacing existing CMP with bottomless culvert or arch culvert
- New alignment of NC 215 shifts stream crossing approximately 75 feet upstream of existing
crossing
- Investigate constructing "steps" for mitigation credit downstream of proposed
bottomlesslarch culvert
- 27 EPT taxa; no fish found
Cherryfield Creek (20R) New Location
- E4b stream type
- appears to have been channelized in the past and relocated next to hillslope
- Will Harman explained that all E stream types are vulnerable to disturbances such as removal
of riparian vegetation from road construction, because of their low bankfull width/depth
ratios and high average velocities
- May be good potential mitigation site all the way to North Fork of French Broad River
- Investigate culverting using floodplain culverts; bridging was also discussed
- 19 EPT taxa; rainbow trout found
Mason Creek (10R) New Location
- E4b stream type
- Vulnerable to erosion like Cherryfield Creek
- Prefer to bridge stream
- Span enough to leave flood prone width undisturbed
- Investigate shifting alignment north to avoid impacts at bend of stream
- 21 EPT taxa; rainbow and brown trout found
If any meeting participants find this memorandum in error, please contact Greg Price at (919)
459-9009 or by email at gprice r@bucken ing eering.com.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ooVERNOR
September 22, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lund
FROM:
Marella Buncick
Ray Johns
Harold Draper
Chris Militscher
Becky Fox
Clarence Coleman
Brian Wrenn
Marla Chambers
Renee Gledhill-Earley
Joel Setzer, PE
Jamie Wilson
Mark Davis
Tony Houser, PE
Lee Moore
D. R. Henderson, PE
Neb Bullock, PE
Keith Paschal, PE
Lindsey Riddick
Michael Turchy
Jake Gilmer
Tim Buck, PE
Michael Penney, PE
LYNDo MPPETr
sscnE my
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Forest Service
TVA
EPA Region IV
EPA-Wetlands Protection Section
FHWA
NCDENR-DWQ
NCWRC
NCSHPO-
NCDOT-Division 14
NCDOT-Division 14
NCDOT-Division 14
NCDOT-Roadway Design
NCDOT-Roadway Design
NCDOT-Hydraulics
NCDOT-Structures
NCDOT-Structures
NCDOT-PDEA ONE
,NCDOT-PDEA-ONE
Land of Sky RPO
Buck Engineering
NCDOT-PDEA
ti; +
SUBJECT: NC 215, from US 64 at Cherryfield to SR 1379 south of Balsam
Grove; TIP Number R-2594; State Project Number 8.1000601;
WBS No. 34475.1.1; Transylvania County; Division 14
Attached for your files is a signed copy of Concurrence Points 2A with attachments for the above
referenced project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [phone]
extension 260.
Attachment
K A0011ESSs TELfPMM 914733-3141 LOCATION:
NC ORMRnW9 OF TRAN=FORTAVM FAX' 819-7374794 TRAN&DWATM B1
P11)=t nLVn p"ffAw Ewoom WALANALYM 1 WN ftwaTON Swou
15O W& SERVCi MM WEBSIMP WWW.DON DOT.STATENCA S RA MM "C
RMAM NC 27899.1545
Section 4041NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting
Concurrence Point No. 2A --
Bridging and Alignment Review
Project NoJTIP NoMame/Description:
FA Project Number:
State Project Number:
WBS Number:
TIP Project Number:
Project Description:
STP-215(1)
8.1000601
34475.1.1
R-2594
NC 215 Improvements, From US 64 to SR 13269
Transylvania County, North Carolina
Based on a field meeting with members of the Merger Team on November 4 and 5
2002 to review stream crossings of the alternatives (Improve Existing Alternative
and the 3 Revised New Location Alternative), additional engineering analysis by
NCDOT, and a review of the proposed culvert and bridge recommendations as
presented May 18, 2004, the Project Team has concurred on this date of May 18,
2004 with the bridged and culverted locations as shown on the attached
USACE -e= .- 42, ?Lj
SWm Lund
USEP
Chris Militscher
USDA FS See Attached Letter
Ray Johns
NCDWQ / . - -
Brian Wrenn
NCDCR Plot Applicable
Sarah McBride
NCDOT
Michael Penney
USFWS - ?-..
Mamlla Buncick
TVA P/-'Ot_
Harold Draper
NCWRC
Marla Chambers
FH'WA re4',
Clarence Coleman
United Staid Forest National Forests iti North Cars"a IOA ZiNcoa Street
Department of Service Supervisor's Offia P.O. Bo: 2790
Agriculture Asheville. NC 28802
SM2574200
File Cade: 2730-2
Dstc August 26, 2004
Michael Penney
State ofNorth Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Penney:
Based on the field meetings with members of the Merger Team on November 4 and 5 to review
Concurrence Point 2A, Bridging and Alignment for the NC 215 project (TIP No. R-2594)
located on the Pisgah Ranger District, the Forest Service concurs with the bridge and culvert
locations as -shown on the map attached to your August 20 letter.
Kyou have any questions regarding this, please contact Ray Johns at 828-2574$59.
Sincerely,
Ice
J
JOHN F. RA L'
Forest Supervisor
Caring for the Land sed Serving People P*AW m PWW

1. 50E, W- t Jason Branch @NC 215
3. 50E view through culvert
5. 41E, W-2 UT to N Fork French Broad Riv
4. 50E upstream
6. 41E, Upstream view
2. 50E downstream
7. 41E Upstream opening of culvert.
8. 41 E Downstream of culvert.
10. 30E Downstream view
12.30E view downstream with view of bank

•
aI ¢-'?
^
`
As ail i
. ??'
?
-
_.?
1
??
h
.?
P ? I

• ?? ? '
`
?4?z -! }r. +l ? ?
v ""
-
:tit'? ?

rFr 14 t a? ,;,
13. 20E, W4, Big Bearwallow Creek downstream
14. 20E culvert downstream

, 4 .. ?? . jai iV

At?

}

16. 20E Upstream
15. 20E, culvert upstream entrance
17. 10E, Little Bearwallow Creek
18. 10E, Confluence with 20E

23. 60E, N Fork French Broad
Y .3
4

Jrm ls" A`1F S"'?
20. 6E Downstream view

c,
77M 'Z
24. 60E, Upstream

19. 6E, W5, UT North Fork French Broad River
22. 6E Confluence with N Fork French Broad
21. 6E Downstream View
e
µ _ 777777 i Y , .' i
V too
' u.
p -5..
1. 60R, A-1 Jason Branch looking upstream

woo

5. 40R View of streambed
2. 60R Downstream view
3. 40R, A-2 Big Mountain Branch at crossing
4. 40R Downstream view
6. 40R View of waterfall
I
i
9. 30R Streambank
7. 30R, A-3 UT to Sawmill Creek, downstream
8. 30R Upstream
11. 20R, A-4 Cherryfield Creek upstream
12. 20R Downstream view
t ?
. a
r. Q (`+hT 111 1Y
Erg d ..
s ? tt
41,
+?s. t_ °"x:?D .ems t ?'' ,;? ?? ?

17. lOR Streambed material at crossing 18. IOR Downstream in Cherryfield
13. 20R Crossing 7'x 9.5' elliptical pipe
14. 20R Sloughing banks
15. IOR, W-5 Mason Branch upstream
16. lOR Downstream at crossing