U-3445_complete file

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 11, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa Martin
Through: John DomeI
From: Cyndi Bell tL 3
A LT.RPFA
lo 0
4?ja
D E N R
Subject: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for SR 1007
(Mebane Oaks Road) Widening from I-85 Interchange to NC 119 (Fifth Street)
in Mebane
Alamance County
State Project No. 9.8071621, T.I.P. No. U-3445; DENR #98-0524;
DWQ #11984
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The project will involve no fill in
wetlands and no stream crossings. NCDOT has sufficiently addressed the questions DWQ
raised in our scoping comments. Based upon the impacts described in the EA/FONSI, a 401
Water Quality Certification will not be required for this project.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA/FONSI. Questions
regarding the 401 Water Quality Certification Program should be directed to Cyndi Bell at (919)
733-1786 in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Howard Hall, FWS, Raleigh
David Cox, WRC
U3445EA.DOC
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

e}
Tracking Sheet
_,nvironmental Review
DWQ - Water Quality Sectiol
Date:
MAR 6.
TO, Env Sciences Branch (VV Q La tiLF0; is 7
O Trish MacPherson (end. s . .?a:J_C-
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW)
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 91h)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401)
? di Bell (DOT)
O Eric Fleek (dredging)
O Eric Galamb (other)
"fsla
DENR # q 9 - CO-?
DWQ #
'&-E&Buchen (Archdale 9th)
O Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston -Salem
Planning Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (reclassifications)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
O Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
O Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
FROM: Lisa Martin, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch, 12th Floor, Archdale
PROJECT:
A-X'? D Cd

Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment,
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the appropriate
box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE: g,
NO CONINIENT F-1 COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date:
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 565
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAcircmemo - mac version

SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road)
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from the I-85 Interchange to NC 119 (Fifth Street)
_ Mebane, Alamance County
r State Project No. 9.8071621
TIP Project U-3445
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

APPROVED:
Date .Spr H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road)
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from the I-85 Interchange to NC 119 (Fifth Street)
Mebane, Alamance County
State Project No. 9.8071621
TIP Project U-3445
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
B verly ate Ro inson
Project Planning Engineer
D
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
.^1' •::.114. ? :
.?a= AL
1728,

°.
P. tiANS? g 8
t
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................... 1
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ............................................................................... 1
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements .................................................. 1
1. Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 1
2. Capacity .................................................................................. 1
3. Thoroughfare Plan .................................................................. 2
4. Accident Analysis ................................................................... 2
B. Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3
1. Existing Cross Section ............................................................ 3
2. Route Classification ................................................................ 3
3. Access Control ........................................................................ 3
4. Speed Limit ............................................................................. 3
5. Utilities .................................................................................... 3
6. Structures ................................................................................ 4
7. School Bus Data ...................................................................... 4
8. Right of Way ........................................................................... 4
9. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ................................. 4
M. PROPOSED RviPROVEMENTS ................................................................... 4
A. Project Length ..................................................................................... 4
B. Proposed Cross Section ....................................................................... 4
C. Alignment ........................................................................................... 5
D. Design Speed ...................................................................................... 5
E. Right of Way ...................................................................................... 5
F. Access Control .................................................................................... 5

G.
s
Structures ............................................................................................
5
H. Type of Intersection Control ............................................................... 5
I. Bicycles ............................................................................................... 5
` J.
............................................................................................
Sidewalks
K. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................... 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IV. ALTERNATIVES ....................................
................................................. .6
A. Project Scope ..................................................................................... . 6
B. Alternative Modes of Transportation .................................................. 6
C. "No-Build" Alternative ....................................................................... 6
V. ADJACENT PROJECTS ................................................................................ 7
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................. . 7
A. Land Use Planning ............................................................................. . 7
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ......................................... 7
2. Existing Land Use ................................................................... 7
3. Future Land Use ...................................................................... 7
4. Farmland ................................................................................. 7
B. Social and Economic Environment ..................................................... 8
1. Relocation Impacts .................................................................. 8
2. Social Impacts ......................................................................... 8
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ......................................................... 8
D. Natural Resources ............................................................................... 8
1. Biological Resources .............................................................. 8
a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................. 8
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic
Communities .................................................... 9
C. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ........ 9
2. Water Resources ................................................................... 10

3. Special Topics ....................................................................... F
10

a. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................. 10
b. Waters of the United States ....................................... 11
C. Permits ...................................................................... 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
...................................... 11
d. Federally Protected Species
e. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed
Species ........................................................... 11
4. Physical Resources ................................................................ 13
5. Geology and Soils ................................................................. 13
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis ....................................................... 13
F. Air Quality Analysis ......................................................................... 17
G. Hazardous Material Involvement ...................................................... 20
1. Hazardous Material Inventory .............................................. 20
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities ............ 20
b. Other Potential Hazards ............................................ 23
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns ............................ 23
I. Geodetic Markers .............................................................................. 23
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....... 24

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FIGURES
APPENDIX
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3A - 2001 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 3B - 2021 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 - Proposed Typical Cross Section
Figure 5A - Existing Lane Configuration at I-85 Bridge and Ramp Junctions
Figure 5B Future Lane Configuration needed at I-85 Bridge and Ramp Junctions
List of Tables
Table 1 - Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................... 2
Table 2 - Estimated Terrestrial impacts to Maintained Communities ......................10
Table 3 - Federal Candidates Listed for Alamance County ...................................... 12
Table 4 - Soils Occurring in the Project Area............................................................. 13
Table 5 - One Hour Concentrations ........................................................................... 18
i
SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road)
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from the I-85 Interchange to NC 119 (Fifth Street)
Mebane, Alamance County
State Project No. 9.8071621
TIP Project U-3445
SUMMARY
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to widen SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from the I-85 Interchange to
NC 119 (Fifth Street) in Alamance County. The 0.81 km (0.5 mile) project will involve
widening Mebane Oaks Road to a five lane curb and gutter facility with a typical section
of 20.4 meters (68 feet) from face to face of the curbs. Wide outside lanes at 4.2 meters
(14 feet) are proposed to facilitate bicycle travel.
The total estimated cost of the proposed project is $1,485,000 including
$1,100,000 for construction and $385,000 for right of way acquisition.
This proposed project is included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000
and construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2001. The estimated cost included in the
TIP is $1,600,000, including $950,000 for right of way acquisition and $650,000 for
construction.
2. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the Mebane area by
increasing the traffic carrying capacity of Mebane Oaks Road, and decreasing travel time
to downtown Mebane.
No residences or businesses will require relocation. No historic resources will be
affected.
No impacts to Waters of the United States are anticipated as a result of project
construction. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-
I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of
the project study area.
Construction of this project will not effect any federally protected plants or
animals.
3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMNUTMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all practical
measures to minimize and avoid impacts to the natural and human environment. Impacts
will be minimized by utilizing Best Management Practices during construction.
No special or unique environmental commitments are required for this project.
4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Revising the intersection of Mebane Oaks Road and NC 119 east to provide a
continuous route from the I-85 interchange to downtown Mebane was considered.
NC 119 west would "tee" into Mebane Oaks Road with this alternative.
Consideration was also given to extend the project limits to SR 2210 (Forest Oaks
Lane) to accommodate traffic from development south of I-85. Extending the limits of
the project south would require widening the bridge over I-85.
Both of these options were rejected because they are outside of the scope of the
proposed project and would increase the construction and right of way costs.
5. COORDINATION
The following federal, state and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
U. S. Geological Survey
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
State Clearinghouse
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Alamance County Board of Commissioners
Mayor of Mebane
6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional Information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained
by contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road)
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from the I-85 Interchange to NC 119 (Fifth Street)
Mebane, Alamance County
State Project No. 9.8071621
TIP Project U-3445
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to widen SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from the I-85 Interchange to
NC 119 (Fifth Street) in Alamance County. The 0.81 km (0.5 mile) project will involve
widening Mebane Oaks Road to a five lane curb and gutter facility with a typical section
of 20.4 meters (68 feet) from face to face of the curb.
The total estimated cost of the proposed project is $1,485,000 including
$1,100,000 for construction and $385,000 for right of way acquisition.
This proposed project is included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000
and construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2001. The estimated cost included in the
TIP is $1,600,000, including $950,000 for right of way acquisition and $650,000 for
construction.
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements
The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity of
Mebane Oaks Road, reduce congestion, and decrease travel time to downtown Mebane.
1. Traffic Volumes
Projected traffic volumes for Mebane Oaks Road range for the year 2001
from 6,413 vehicles per day (vpd) to 10,783 vpd. Year 2021 traffic volumes are
projected to range from 11,978 vpd to 26,696 vpd. Projected traffic volumes,
major turning movements, truck data and design hour data are shown in Figure 3.
2. Capacity Analysis
By providing an additional lane for through traffic, the proposed project
will reduce delay caused by turning traffic and slower through traffic.

A capacity analysis was performed including the ramp terminals,
unsignalized intersecting roads, and the signalized intersection of Mebane Oaks
and NC 119. Results are listed below:
Table 1. Capacity Analysis
INTERSECTION TYPES OF CONTROL LEVEL OF SERVICE
2001 pm 2021 pm
NC 119-Falcon /Mebane Oaks Road Signalized B C
8th Street/Mebane Oaks Road Stop Sign A B
Fielddale Road/Mebane Oaks Road Stop Sign A B
I-85 EB off-ramp /Mebane Oaks Road Stop Sign A F
I-85 WB off-ramp/ Mebane Oaks Road Stop Sign A F
Improvements to the interchange and new signals will be needed in the
future to provide acceptable operation of the ramps. Dual turn lanes on the ramps
will be needed in the future and would require the bridge over I-85 to be widened.
Widening the bridge is outside the scope of the proposed project and will need to
be done in the future as a separate project. The existing lane configuration for the
ramp junctions and the I-85 bridge is shown on Figure 5A. The future design
expected to be implemented under a separate project is shown on figure 5B.
3. Thoroughfare Plan
The Alamance County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in
1990 by the City of Mebane, Alamance County, and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
Mebane Oaks Road is classified as a minor thoroughfare on the Alamance
County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and an urban collector on the functional
classification system. The proposed improvement to Mebane Oaks Road is in
conformance with the thoroughfare plan and construction of this project will be a
step toward implementation of the thoroughfare plan.
4. Accident Analysis
Accident rates for Mebane Oaks Road were obtained from studies
conducted from October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1996. The accident rate for the
facility is 430.11 accidents per one hundred million vehicles miles (acc/100
mvm). In comparison to the statewide average rate for similar facilities of 248.47
acc/100 mvm, Mebane Oak Road is significantly above the statewide rate. A total
of 16 accidents occurred during the three years mentioned above. Of these, 5
were rear-end type accidents and 4 were angle type accidents. Improvements to
Mebane Oaks Road should reduce the accident potential of this facility.
B. Existing Conditions
Existing Cross Section
The existing Mebane Oaks Road consists of a two to three lane shoulder
section. Curb and gutter exists on the approaches to I-85. The roadway width
varies from 6 to 10 meters (20 to 34 feet).
2. Route Classification
Mebane Oaks Road is classified as a minor thoroughfare on the Alamance
County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and an urban collector on the Functional
Classification System.
3. Access Control
There is no control of access along Mebane Oaks Road except in the area
of the I-85 interchange which has full control of access.
4. Speed Limit
Current posted speed limit along Mebane Oaks Road is 70 km/h (45 mph).
5. Utilities
The town of Mebane has a water service along the west side of SR 1007
(Mebane Oaks Road) and a sewer line along the east side. The water line is
approximately 5.5 meters (18 feet) west of the centerline and the sewer is
approximately 3.6 meters (12 feet) east of the centerline of SR 1007.
Duke Power has a three phase pole line approximately 9.4 meters (31 feet)
east of the present centerline of Mebane Oaks Road. Tel-Media Company of
North Carolina has cable television service lines attached to the Duke Power
poles.
MEBTEL Communication has a pole line 8.2 meters (27 feet) west of the
existing centerline of SR 1007 with multiple aerial cables attached. They also
have underground service along the east and west side of the present road.
Public Service Gas Company of North Carolina has a 100 millimeter
(4 inch) steel line under the east lane of SR 1007. This is a 60 psi line. The gas
company is in the process of extending the gas line under I-85 to serve
development on the south of I-85.
The utility impact rating is medium.
6. Structures
There is one structure in the vicinity of the proposed project. Bridge
No. 177 carries Mebane Oaks Road over I-85. This structure was built in 1994
and has two through lanes and a left turn lane. The clear deck width is
approximately 18 meters (59.1 feet) with a roadway width of 17 meters (56 feet)
and 67.4 meters (221 feet) long.
7. School Bus Data
A total of 6 buses, with 17 trips per day use Mebane Oaks Road from
NC 119 to the I-85 interchange.
8. Right of Way
Existing Mebane Oaks Road has approximately 15 meters (50 feet) of
existing right of way symmetrical about the centerline. Recent development
along the project has dedicated additional right of way in preparation for the
widening of Mebane Oaks Road. Additional right of way exists in the vicinity of
the I-85 interchange.
9. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
Farrar Lane, Fielddale Road, Eighth Street and Falcon Lane/NC 119
intersect Mebane Oaks Road in the vicinity of the project. Farrar Lane, Fielddale
Road and Eighth Street are all stop sign controlled. Mebane Oaks-Falcon
Lane/NC 119 is a signalized intersection:: =The I-85 interchange ramps are
unsignalized.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Project Leng_kh
The project length is approximately 0.81 km (0.5 miles).
B. Proposed Cross Section -
It is recommended that Mebane Oaks Road be widened to a five lane curb and
gutter section 20.4 meters (68-feet) from face to face of curb. The proposed typical
section consists of two 3.6 meters (12-foot) through lanes in each direction with a
continuous center left turn lane on Mebane Oaks Road. Wide 4.2 meters (14-foot)
outside lanes are proposed to accommodate bicycle traffic. The typical section is shown
on Figure 4.
4
C. Ali Epment
Most of the proposed widening will be aligned symmetrical to the existing
roadway centerline.
D. Design Speed
Due to the urban nature of the proposed project and the proposed curb and gutter,
the recommended design speed is 80 km/h (50 mph). The posted speed limit is expected
to be 70 km/h (45 mph).
E. Right of Way
It is anticipated approximately 27 meters (90 feet) of right of way plus easements
will be required for the improvements to Mebane Oaks Road.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed on Mebane Oaks Road from the I-85 interchange
to NC 119. The existing control of access at the I-85 interchange will be maintained.
G. Structures
No revisions to the existing I-85 bridge are proposed.
H. Type of Intersection Control
No new traffic signals are proposed. Signalization of the ramp terminals will not
be needed initially, but will be done in future years as traffic volumes increase.
I. Bicycles
Mebane Oaks Road is part of a designated Alamance County bicycle route
system. Wide outside lanes 4.2 meters (14 feet) are proposed to facilitate bicycle travel.
Two-bar metal rails are proposed for the I-85 interchange bridge to accommodate bicycle
travel.
J. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are currently proposed.
K. Cost Estimate
The estimated cost for the proposed improvements includes $385,000 for right of
way acquisition and $1,100,000 for construction.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Scone
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project:
1. Due to the expected high traffic volumes south of I-85 extending the
proposed five lane curb and -gutter facility from south of I-85 to Forest Oaks Lane
was considered.
Improving the existing facility from NC 119 to Forest Oaks Lane would
extend the scope of the original project. This alternative would require widening
the existing bridge over I-85 and would greatly increase the project cost. This
increase in cost cannot be funded with the budget established for this project.
2. Realigning the Mebane Oaks Road/NC 119 intersection to form a
"through movement" from the I-85 interchange to downtown Mebane was
considered. With this alternative, NC 119 west would "tee" into Mebane Oaks
Road.
Analysis indicates the current intersection configuration will work well.
Also, this realignment would involve a substantial increase in both right of way
and construction costs. Therefore, this intersection revision was rejected.
3. Improving the existing facility to a five lane curb and gutter facility from
NC 119 to the I-85 interchange
This alternative is recommended because it improves the subject section of
Mebane Oaks Road within the limits of the project budget.
B. Alternative Modes of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the project area, and
the project involves widening an existing highway.
C. "No Build" Alternative
If the "no-build" alternative were chosen, it would have a negative impact on
transportation on Mebane Oaks Road. With anticipated increases in traffic volumes, the
level of service provided by the existing facility would decrease even more. Increased
congestion would lead to higher operating costs and increased travel time. Therefore, the
"no-build" alternative has been rejected.
V. ADJACENT PROJECTS
North Carolina's 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists one
additional project in the area.
U-3109 - NC 119 relocation, from I-85 to south of SR 1917 (White Level Road). This
project will be built in two parts. Part A will begin at I-85 and end at US 70, with right of
way scheduled to begin in FY 1999 and construction in FY 2001. Part B will begin at
US 70 and end at SR 1917 (White Level Road) with right of way scheduled for FY 2002
and construction scheduled for FY 2004. U-3109 will construct a multi-lane facility on
new location. This project will provide a bypass to carry NC 119 through-traffic around
the west side of Mebane.
VI. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Land Use Planning
1. Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvements are located within the municipal limits and
extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Mebane. The City adopted its Land Use
Plan in 1989, and enforces a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations based
on that plan.
2. Existing Land Use
The project corridor under consideration is partially undeveloped,
although the entire Mebane area is experiencing rapid residential development.
Several commercial businesses are located along the project corridor, most of
which are highway business commercial uses.
3. Future Land Use
According to the 1989 Land Use Plan, primarily commercial and
office\institutional land uses are anticipated in the project area.
The City's zoning ordinance and map is consistent with the land use
designations in the Plan.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies
to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils, as designated by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service.
Land which has been developed or is committed to urban development by the
local governing body is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The proposed
improvement is located in an area where commercial growth is anticipated.
Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts to farmland soils is
required.
B. Social and Economic Environment
1. Relocation Impacts .
The proposed project will require approximately 27 meters (90 feet) of
right of way. No businesses or residences are expected to be relocated due to
construction of the proposed project.
2. Social Impacts
The proposed improvements will provide a safer highway facility for all
users. In addition, the improvements will provide for a safer facility to deliver
goods and services. The proposed action will not disrupt neighborhood cohesion.
It will not interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources conducted a search of their
files and no structures of historical or architectural importance was found within the
planning area. Therefore, no survey was recommended for historic architectural
resources.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources also stated there are no
known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based upon present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. They recommended no archaeological survey be constructed as part
of this project.
D. Natural Systems
1. Biological Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
One terrestrial community, maintained roadside, exists within the
project area. This community runs the length of the project. The
community consists of roadside areas heavily impacted and maintained by
human development activities. Significant soil disturbance and
compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide application, keep
this community in an early successional state. As a result, the vegetation
of this community is dominated by grasses and herbs.
Dominant plants in the heavily maintained portions of this
community type include fescue, crabgrass, wild onion, clover, and
plantain. In the areas which receive lower levels of maintenance, more
diverse communities can develop. These communities tend to be
populated by plants such as blackberry, aster, Japanese honeysuckle,
Queen Anne's lace, dog fennel, plume grass , trumpet creeper, red clover,
rose, grape, and privet. Virginia pine, loblolly pine, Blackjack oak, white
oak, willow oak, red maple, black gum, mockernut hickory, black cherry,
wisteria, redbud, and dogwood are trees which are present in those areas
which are maintained less frequently.
Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists
primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited to
coexistence with human development. Mammals common to disturbed
edge areas, such as eastern cottontail and gray squirrel may inhabit forest
fringes. The most common reptiles found in such habitats are eastern box
turtles and predators such as black racer, and eastern garter snake. Birds
likely to frequent such habitats include common crow, American robin,
mourning dove, and European starling.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in
terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary versus
permanent impacts are considered as well, along with recommendations to
minimize or eliminate impacts.
C. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project
construction due to the clearing and paving of portions of the project area,
and thus the loss of community area. Calculated quantitative impacts to
terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area (Table 2). Estimated impacts are derived based
on the project length of 0.81 km (0.5 mi.) for NC 119 to I-85. The
proposed right-of-way 27 m (90 ft) including existing cross section was
used for this calculation. The entire right-of-way will probably not be
impacted, therefore actual impacts to the disturbed communities may be
considerably less.
Table 2. Estimated Terrestrial Impacts to Maintained Communities.
Project Boundaries Estimated Impacts
NC 119 to 1-85 2.5 ha (6.1 ac)
The projected loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from project
construction will have minimal impact on populations of native flora and
fauna. The project will only impact disturbed areas such as roadside
shoulders and commercial or residential areas, and thus will not have
large-scale effects on the natural communities of the project region. The
affected communities are already highly altered from their natural state,
and residual species are well adapted to such disturbed conditions. Flora
and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common
throughout North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging
environmental factors. Moreover, similar roadside shoulder community
will be re-established after construction. Animals temporarily displaced
by construction activities should repopulate areas suitable for the species
following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that existing
species will be displaced significantly from the project area following
construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of project
construction, all-cleared areas along the roadway will be revegetated
promptly to minimize erosion.
2. Water Resources
Field surveys revealed that no jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters are
located within the project area.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi.) of project study area.
3. Special Topics
a. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to
two significant regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and
protected species. These issues retain particular significance because of
federal and state mandates which regulate their protection . This section
deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory
authority prior to project construction.
10
b. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States", as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or
place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the
jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S. C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to
the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or
part of the growing season.
C. Permits
No impacts to Waters of the United States are anticipated as a
result of project construction. Therefore, no permits from the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers are required for this project.
d. Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T) Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. An endangered species is
considered to be a species that is in danger of becoming extinct throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is considered
to be a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
As of 4 November 1997, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) does not list any federally protected species for Alamance County.
e. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are two Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for
Alamance County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal
protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions,
11
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed of listed at
Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as
those species which may or may not be listed in the future. These species
were formally candidate species, or species under consideration for listing
for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species
are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species,
the species state status and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Candidate Species Listed for Alamance County.
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel No T
Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap No C*
Note:
*Historic record-the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
KT" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is
designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
KC" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with
1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if present land
use trends continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened).
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A
review of the N. C. Natural Heritage Program data base of the rare species and
unique habitats on 28 July 1997 revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or
protected species in or near the project study area. Habitat does not exist for
either species in the project area.
12
4. Physical Resources
Water and soil resources, which occur. in the study area, are discussed
below. The availability of water and soils directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Alamance County is near the center of the Piedmont physiographic region
of North Carolina. Most of the county is characterized by gently rolling to hilly
landscapes. Topography at the project site varies between 189 in and 198 m
(620.0 ft and 650.0 ft) above mean sea level.
5. Geology and Soils
Tirzah-Georgeville is the dominant soil series occurring at the project site.
It consists of silt loam or silty clay loam over silty clay. The soil is well drained
as residual overlying unconsolidated, weathered, dark-colored slate. These are
gently sloping to.steep soils found mainly on uplands in the piedmont. Slopes
range from 2 to 15 percent. Table 4 provides an inventory of the specific soil
types which occur in the project area.
Table 4 Soils Occurring in the Proiect Area
Map Unit Symbol Specific Mapping Unit Slope (%) Erosion Hazard Hydric Class
TaC Tirzah silt loam, sloping 6-10 slight NH
phase
TaB2 Tirzah silt loam, eroded 2-6 moderate NH
gently sloping phase
Note: NH indicates Non-hydric soils
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening on
noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation.included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in
the study area. It also included a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the
ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from
the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures
for the abatement of highway traffic noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code
of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation
of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts
must be considered.
13
Characteristics of Noise
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the
range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound
pressures to some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures
described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of
frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N1 (Appendix page A-18).
Review of Table N1 indicates the most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2 (Appendix page A-19). The Leq, or
equivalent sound level is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time
period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same
energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide
a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level in
the project area as measured at 15 meters from the nearest roadway was 64.7 dBA. The
ambient measurement location is presented in Figure N1 (Appendix page A-17).
14
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108).
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The
project proposes to widen Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) to a five lane curb and gutter
section from the I-85 interchange to Fifth Street (NC 119). Existing natural and manmade barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed
intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the
"worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are
highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being
analyzed.
Peak hour design and level of service (LOS) volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the
design year 2021 would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA
noise abatement criteria and land uses predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase.
A summary of predicted noise levels and impacted receptors is listed in Table N3
(Appendix page A-20).
Table N4 (Appendix page A-21) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors for each alternative by the roadway section. The predicted
noise level increases for this project range from +4 to +7 dBA. When real life noises are
heard, it is possible barely to detect noise level changes of 2 to 3 dBA. A 5 dBA change
is more readily noticeable.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning
within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels.
The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in
either category.
15
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied
with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures
to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measure may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough
and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It
then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters (49 feet) from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 120 meters (394 feet) long. An access opening of 12 meters (39 feet) (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also
considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 13 receptors would experience traffic
noise. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise
levels in the range of 2 to 5 dBA.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the
project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to
moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
16
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
F. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air quality. The traffic is the center of concern when determining
the impact of a new highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02) and
lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be
the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis
presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity
of the project due to traffic flow.
CO Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway,
two concentration components must be used: local and background. The local
concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near
vicinity (i.e. distances within 100 meters (328 feet) of receptor location). The
background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the
result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge
of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined using line source computer
modeling and the background component was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine the
ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to compare the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20
kilometers (6.2 to 12.4 miles) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and
highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere,
17
and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and
other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog
which forms in Los Angeles, California.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling
Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was
used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations.
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the years 2001 and 2021, using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions
computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable
for most suburban and rural areas.
The worst case air quality scenario was determined to be located along the limits
of the right of way at 13.7 meters (45 feet) from the centerline of the roadway. The
"build" and "no-build" one-hour concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptors for the
year 2001 and 2021 are shown in the following table:
Table 5 One Hour Concentrations
One Hour Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Sensitive Receptor Build No Build
2001 2021 2001 2021
CO Concentration 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.3
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level; does not exceed
the standard. See Tables Al through A4 for input data and output (Appendix page A-22-
A-25).
18
Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will
cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. In the
future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the
lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 make
the sale, supply, and transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after
December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
The project is located in Alamance County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will be .done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will
be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the
dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.
19
G. Hazardous Materials Involvement
1. Hazardous Material Inventory
a. Underground Storage Tank ST Facilities
A field reconnaissance survey identified four facilities with the
possibilities for USTs along the main project and two south of I-85.
It is not anticipated that any of these UST sites will be involved.
with this project. This information is included in case later design requires
construction limits to extend further than currently expected.
Main Project: SR 1007 from the I-85 interchange to NC 119 (Fifth Street)
Site 1
Arrowhead Texaco
1126 Mebane Oaks Road
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
Property Owner: Huffman Oil Company, Inc.
1021 Queen Anne Street
Burlington, North Carolina 27215
Facility I.D. #: 0-024163
This active gas station is located in the northeast quadrant of the
I-85/Mebane Oaks Road interchange. According to the field
reconnaissance and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) registry, five (5)
USTs are currently in use at the site and one (1) was removed in 1994.
Contaminated soils were encountered within the DOT right of way when
improvements were made to SR 1007 in conjunction with the widening of
I-85. In July of 1993, approximately 229 cubic meters (300 cubic yards)
of contaminated material was removed, stockpiled and incorporated into
embankment on the project. Of the current USTs the closest is 20 meters
(66 feet) from the centerline of SR 1007 and the closest pump island is 38
meters (125 feet) away. There is a UST parallel to the I-85 off-ramp and
is approximately 24 meters (79 feet) from the centerline of the ramp. No
monitoring wells were noted at the site and it does not appear the site is
under remediation at this time.
Site 2
Former Arrowhead Sunoco
1121 Mebane Oaks Road
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
20
Property Owner: James Nicholson
3822 I-85 Frontage Road
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
Facility I.D. #: Unknown
This former gas station is located. in the northwest quadrant of the
I-85/Mebane Oaks Road interchange. The building is now utilized as a
tire garage for the adjacent active gas station. According to the property
owner, USTs were removed from the site about 10-15 years ago. No
closure report could be located for the site, but evidence of removal was
noted near the concrete pad. The former UST area is approximately 31
meters (102 feet) from the centerline of SR 1007, while the former pump
island is about 43 meters (141 feet) away. Monitoring wells were on the
site, but they are associated with the active Amoco station adjacent to the
site. It does not appear the site is under remediation at this time.
Site 3
Arrowhead Amoco
1121 Mebane Oaks Road
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
UST Owner: McLeod Oil Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 99, Highway 70
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
Facility I. D. #: 0-024133
This active gas station is located approximately 65 meters (213
feet) south of Farrar Lane on the west side of SR 1007. According to the
field reconnaissance and DWQ registry, four (4) USTs are currently in use
at the site and six (6) were removed in 1987. The former UST area is
approximately 37 meters (121 feet) from the centerline of SR 1007, while
the current UST field pump island are about 20 meters (66 feet) away.
There is also a shed containing a hydraulic lift approximately 30 meters
(98 feet) from SR 1007. Both soil and groundwater (Incident # 13316)
have been impacted at the property. Eight (8) monitoring wells are on the
property and DWQ has been monitoring them for the last few years.
Further remediation work is planned for the site in the near future.
Site 4
Tommy's Mini Mart (Citgo)
NC 119 South
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
21
UST Owner: Thomas Stephens
1901 US 70 East
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Facility I.D. #: 0-032138
This station/convenience store is located in the northeast quadrant
of the SR 1007 and NC 119 intersection. The DWQ registry lists three (3)
USTs currently in use at the site. The UST tank bed is approximately
45 meters (148 feet) from the centerline of SR 1007, while the pump.
island is approximately 41 meters (135 feet) away from SR 1007. No
monitoring wells were noted at the site and it does not appear the site is
under remediation at this time.
Additional Area: SR 1007 from I-85 south to SR 2210 (Forest Oaks Road)
Site 5
Express Stop #21 (Shell)
I-40/85 Mebane Oaks Road
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
UST Owner: Express Stop
P.O. Box 53557
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28305
Facility I.D. #: 0-034593
This active gas station is located in the northwest quadrant of the
SR 1007/SR 2210 (Brundage Road) intersection. According to the field
reconnaissance and the DWQ registry, three (3) USTs are currently in use
at the site. The UST field is approximately 34 meters (112 feet) from the
centerline of SR 1007. The pump island is about 31 meters (102 feet)
from SR 1007. Three (3) monitoring wells and four (4) recovery wells
were located on the property and there is an active remediation system
operating at the site (Groundwater Incident #2999).
Site 6
Pagalia's Deli
1236 Mebane Oaks Road
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
Property Owner: Vicki Pagalia
5604 Jewell Road
Graham, North Carolina 27253
22
Facility I.D. #: Unknown
This former gas station is located in the southeast quadrant of the
I-85/Mebane Oaks Road interchange. The gas station stopped operating
about 15 years ago and the building has been utilized as a deli shop for the
past 12 years. There are four (4) USTs at this site, approximately
30 meters ( 98 feet) from the centerline of SR 1007. The former pump
island is about 26 meters (85 feet) from SR 1007. No registry information
could be located for any of the USTs and it does not appear the site is
under remediation at this time.
b. Other Potential Hazards
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the
project corridor. The research shows that no regulated or unregulated
landfills or dumpsites occur within the project limits.
Based on the field reconnaissance and records search, there should
be no further environmental conflicts other than those mentioned in this
report, which could potentially impact this project.
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
There are no major streams crossed by the project, and from field review, it was
observed that the terrain in the project vicinity is rolling with natural draws such that the
project may be drained without difficulty.
Alamance County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. This project does not cross any identified flood hazard areas. The
project drains into a water supply watershed west of the project, but not into high quality
waters nor into the watershed critical area. Therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be
controlled through the appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of standard
erosion and sedimentation control measures. The project will not effect wetlands or other
environmentally sensitive areas; therefore, an individual environmental permit will not be
required. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable.
Groundwater resources should be evaluated in final design to ensure that measures are
taken, if necessary, to avoid groundwater contamination.
1. Geodetic Markers
it is anticipated that this project may impact 1 geodetic survey marker.
23
VII. COMMENTS COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On March 13, 1997 a letter was mailed to the following federal, state, and local
agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed
project (Note: an asterisk indicates those agencies who responded to this letter). Copies
of correspondence are included in the Appendix.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
U S. Geological Survey
*North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
*State Clearinghouse
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Alamance County Board of Commissioners
Mayor of Mebane
*North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
*North Carolina Department Of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
On October 20, 1997 a citizens informational workshop was held in Alamance
County. This workshop was held in order to obtain comments and suggestions about the
project from the public. Approximately 17 persons attended this meeting. Most of the
citizens in attendance spoke in favor of the proposed project. Many of the questions and
comments concerned impacts to individual properties and questions regarding the
proposed typical section. Other comments included the schedule for the proposed action.
BGR/plr
24
FIGURES
TRANS CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
., BRANCH
SR 1007 (MEBANE OAKS ROAD),
1-85 TO NC 119 (FIFTH STREET)
WIDEN ROADWAY TO FIVE LANE FACILITY
ALAMANCE COUNTY,
T-I-P. PROJECT U-3445
FIG. 1
Ilk'
pew
p x! 1
K
74
Agm
z
44
1?.
A. ?§ e
3* 44
I-11?4 IN
,. ? rta` r" ?? ?'. a',,;.. _ ?.?'?r r+?',??• ?, 4 ? ? µ?.: 9' q ?ly.R.'
?• '?!?; ? Winn - Dixie
Yn +
J m Y4 4' y
J
' , ?•qk a t _
,
3d. *4
OT, ,A
WWI
y3
u
ti
10-
M,
e
u k # Proposed Right of
s,
a jot
'' y e t " •,
r
IV t. i
w
17
i w m . 4:
rv
'.tbi? ?? ?•Y«.k,a? xe
AM"
s
4 Sep •i? V rt F ?n ?' R 1 y s 7 ?''Y t'• 5' ? ? yTr ?,?'¢'*•'R.. ,Jv
?till,
v KIP-
?4
low
,
,_ -? ? at??r ' .,mow r ' •''
1h
x a q,
•' r
0
4 ?.
5
' ? tee.. , ,rM
,
a t1
r" Lit
-, ' Nt, 14TA1_
a
wo P"
2001 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
MEBANE OAKS ROAD
TIP PROJECT U-3445
A
t N
vy? Jf
?y N
S. &L STREET NC 119 5591 4476 59? 59 4126 10070 S.&L STREET NC 119
AM AM
1230 117 352 I 59.3 55 13.21 10
y
3.21 10 ?
55 13.2)7o-
r
N'i 791 2609 OR 1"2) &L STREET
G A AM
?A. 1817 55 13.21 10
O ct
7
2 H
117 -
1230
D
?I
m
z
m
x

56200
AM
10 14.121 55
BRUNDAOE LANE 150
AM
10 13.21 55
14V 1691

1671 , 2076
6701
7
391 576
97 170
im
OHV = 10% AOT
Dte = 55% i 45%
TTST = 2% ADT
DUALS = 3% ADT
AM - = PEAK FLOW
10 13.21 55
56600
AM
10 14.121 55
965
FOREST OAKS LANE
AM
55 13.21 10
I/
FIGURE 3rd
2021 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
MEBANE OAKS ROAD
TIP PROJECT U-3445
A7'
Y ?9
C J nL
v2)
1 JJ?
?A o
&&L STREET NC U9 0543 5e70 +02 +02 5257 16?n &&L STREET NC 119
AM 55 (3.2) 10
2883 201 613 +1161
55 13.2( 10
r
J ? IP
r
'? ri ? tA8 5652
L-. OR 1992) &L STREET
G Ar AM
Q•?
? - 55 (3.2) 10
? I o
,o
20. N DHV
10% ADT
a
DIR 55% / 45%

2..3 TTST 2% ADT
DUALS = 3% ADT

AM - PEAK FLOW

O 10 (3.2) 55

1
z
11
A
m
3713 i i.?.
.? 326
111200 n? 109200
AM AM
10 0.121 55 10 14.12) 55
45J43, 570
3017179
193 1348 +970 2791
LANE FOREST OAKS LANE
AM AM
10 (3.2) SS- 311 IF 55 1372+ 10
I/
FIGURE 3B
o?
UC
L
O E..
Uv
U?
L.
^ U
V1
O?
L-
CC
O
r=i
a
0
a
O
O?
?a
iOr
d
a

a
en
N
V
w ?
y+ M
U
c?
w -
v E
0 M
g a
d M
N
°1 -
a
N
Itt
a
en
0
c?
x
i
o ?
0

(V

?o
0
2
x
O
(=1
a
w
gut
J 14,

----------------------------------
----------------------------------
?t l 1
R4Mp '
C
-------------------------=
'I
l t
%o
sl
EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION
AT BRIDGE AND RAMP JUNCTIONS
TIP U-3445
--------------------------- rr---
FIGURE 5a
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
•- -r-
-4? ---------------------------------?
.-Ir ----------------------------------
--------------=---------- --------------------
1-40 f ---
1-40 / 1-85
II 1
II I
II I
II I
II I
I
I
II I
II I
II 4 1
I I I
I I ? I
I I ',
?' I I •
I I
I 1
I I
1 I
1 I I
Il!i00? 100 00
?I 1 I
00
,.?'' Q I 11 I
?- O I 1
------------ -------------------------
- 1 I I 1
- - - - - - - - - --------------------4- ---------------------- I I II
•- ----------------------------------------- ------- ------ I II
I 1 1
II
'I
I ? I I
-- ------------------------------------- ---------------------- II I
-=-? ------------------------------------ _ _ ----------
------------------------------------ 47---------------------- j ??"? I
i ,.
Z II i I
44p
~
:I
1
I
I
I
I
1

'9440
I\ 4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------------------ I -------------------------------?=----
1-44 / 1-85
------------------------- -------
--------------
i
I
I .
I
I
I a
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I.
?I
11
I
li
00 ---------------------------
i-
' ?P
FUTURE LANE CONFIGURATION NEEDED
AT BRIDGE AND RAMP JUNCTIONS
Note - Revision of the 1-85 Interchange is beyond
the scope of Project U-3445 and will need
to be done under a separate project.
FIGURE 58
APPENDIX
I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 23, 1997
IN REPLY REFER TO
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager {t' "
Planning and Environmental Branch ??-
North Carolina Division of Highways ?ti?''
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1997, requesting our comments on
"SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from 1-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street), Mebane, Alamance
County, State Project No. 9.807162, TIP No. U-3445" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D.
No. 199700855).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W
E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
A-1
June 23, 1997
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from 1-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street), Mebane, Alamance
County, State Project No. 9.807162, TIP No. U-3445" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D.
No. 199700855)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional limits of the town of
Mebane, which participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of
Panel 3 of the November 1980 Mebane Flood Insurance Rate Map, the project site is
not located within an identified flood hazard area. This is verified by a review of the
pertinent United States Geological Survey 1:24000 scale topographic map of the area
("Mebane, N.C.) The roadway appears to be located along a drainage divide.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Field Office,
Reaulatory Branch, at [phone], Extension 25
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work is unlikely to involve the
discharge of excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands. The project is on
the interstream divide between the drainage basins for unnamed tributaries of Haw
Creek, above headwaters.
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for any discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project,
including the disposal of construction debris. It is probable, if there are any minor
impacts to waters, including wetlands, from the proposed project, that the work could be
authorized under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.
Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Thomas.
A-2
ENT op
QPPtM ?? ry?w
o"
? o
?4RCH 3 `ea
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND `VILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Boa 33 726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 14, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201

• k`
s j j :\ S
1
c K 1 ? 1p01
r
Subject: Widening of SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road), TIP No. U-3445,
Alamance County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 1997, requesting
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above-
referenced project. This report provides sco_Dinn information and is
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C..1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to
federal and state resource agencie-c for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 1007 to a five lane curb
and gutter roadway from I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street). The total
length of the project would be approximately 0.5 miles.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations, we
are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time.
However, the following recommendations should help guide the
planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practical as outlined in the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Regarding avoidance
and minimization of impacts, we generally recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways,
utility corridors, or previously developed areas in order to
minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed
A-3
and/or region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and
associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not
feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and
circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife
passage should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths
should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and
fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control
devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside the seasons of fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits
at the time of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination
should occur early in the planning process to resolve land use
conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we-recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following
(the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project,
including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action and an analysis of the
alternatives for the proposed project that were cor_=_dered,
including the upgrading of existing roads, if applicable, and a
"no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the
action area of the proposed project which may be directly or
indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling, dredging,
clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact acreages
should be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland
classification scheme of the National Wetlands Inventory.
Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 ores
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and
permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result of
the proposed project. The assessment should also include the
extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary
impacts to natural resources and how this and similar projects
contribute to cumulative adverse effects;
A-4
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be
employed to avoid or minimize the fragmentation or direct loss
of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other
mitigation measures which would be employed at wetland
crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize.
impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that
every effort be made to identify compensatory mitigation sites
in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland
impacts. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in
perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The attached page indicates that as of August 23, 1996, there were
no federally-listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species
known to occur in Alamance County. However, the yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa) and the sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) are
federal species of concern (FSC). This designation includes those
species for which the Service does not have enough scientific
information to support a listing proposal or species which do not
warrant.listing at the present time. These species receive no
statutory protection under the ESA, but could become candidates in
the future if additional scientific information becomes available
indicating that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing
places the species under the full protection of the ESA, and
necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is
unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any
adverse impacts to any FSC or its habitat. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning
process, including your official determination of the impacts of
this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 919-856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely,
Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachment
FWS/R4:HHall:4/14/97:WP:A:alau3445.497
A-5
FEDERALLY-LISTED, CANDIDATE AND FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCEKN
(revised August 23, 1996)
ALAINLALNCE COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Invertebrates
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Vascular Plants
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP 4 taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental. non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
** Obscure record, the date and/or location of the specis observation is uncertain.
*** Incidental/migrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
**** Historic, obsure and incidental record.
A-6
?' .dµSrATgo
?? 0_f

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 14, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
oric Pre&??Az?t
r
Deputy State Hist
SUBJECT: Widen SR 1007 from 1-85 to NC 119 in
Mebane, Alamance County, U-3445,
State Project No. 9.807162, 97-E-4220-
0569
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. We,
therefore, recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for his
project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Alamance County Historic Properties Commission
109 East Jones Street - Raleioh N-th Carolina 27601-2807
A-7
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 2, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dome
From: Cyndi Bell cl?6
?A4
Ida
C) F= F1
FAXED
t: 1991
Subject: Environmental Assessment for SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from I-85 to NC 119
(Fifth Street), Mebane
Alamance County State Project DOT No. 9.807162, T.I.P. No. U-3445; EHNR # 97-0569
Reference NCDOT correspondence dated March 13, 1997, in which the Planning and Environmental
Branch requested information from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to complete the planning
document. Based upon a project presentation held in a scoping meeting on February 11, 1997, and upon
our records, this project will probably not involve any stream crossings or jurisdictional wetlands.. We
assume that NCDOT will prepare a Natural Resources Technical Report to be included in the EA/FONSI.
If field investigations prove that no wetlands or surface waters will be affected, then a 401 Water Quality
Certification will not be required. We will review the EA/FONSI when it is circulated through the State
Clearinghouse. DWQ appreciates NCDOT's early coordination for this project. Questions regarding the
401 Certification process should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Michelle Wagoner Fishbume, PM., NCDOT, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U3445EA.DOC
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone]
FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
501, recycled/10%post consumer paper
A-8
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office: 1,( I Q R n
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS sp ect Number Due t
After review of this project it has been determined that the.EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtain d in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same I
Regional Office. Normal Process

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
i ime
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit!
Permit to construct 6 operate wa;tl;vrater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extenslahs. S sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging inkq tate surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge intoosurface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.12C davs
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (N.A;
:4. time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit
Pre application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N.A)
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. (15 tlays

/edge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
owner. On-site inspection. Pre-apolication conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department o! 190 da%s;
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abatement

facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06
N/A 60 days
(90 daysI
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.e=.
. %dLQ0
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A

NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal
N/A 60 clays
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820.

Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800 19o days/
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion 8 sec mentan
r{
c
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sec: ) a: least 30 20 ca-
-
I
days before becimmrie activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or part must accomoanv the otan .
130 davs:
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days;
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR
Bond amount
Mining Permit .
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permitec The appropriate bond (60 days:
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more

counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
than live acres of ground clearing activities are involved
Inspections 1 day
.
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned." (N/A)
Oil Refining Facilities N/A 120
nays

IN/A)
(
NI
If permit required. application 60 days before -.egin construction

Dam Safety Permit Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer tc: prepare plans. 30 days
inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNA aoprov•
ed plans. May also require permit under moscuito control program. And (60 daysl
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces.
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of S200 0C must ac-
company the application. An additional processing tee based on a
Percentape or the total project cost will be recurred upon comcletion
Conl rued on re.e•se
A-9
Norma! Proces!0
Time I
C
C
C
C
C
C
i
r-
L_
(statutory. time .
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon' '(NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions d drawings of structure b proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development. 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
[CAMA. Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Seve•a) geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify.
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abaneonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Nonficaticn of the proper regional office is requested if *'orphan" underground storage tanks (IJSTSi are discovered during any excavation operation
Com;:jance with 15A NCAC 21-1.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N!A?
Otner comments (attach additional
ages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
p

D. a \ , 0.S G.?7 t1'?pt' i '+'b G? P R1.rZ d (CI 13

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(704) 2516208 [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
A-10
State of North Carolina
IDepartment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Division of Land Resources
1
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor E3 E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
Project Number: J 7-D 6 6 9 County:
4.n e e.
Project Name: _$A /ad 7 (o4-4o, Div,'. -44- 9. S 07leo2
r
NC Office of state Planning - geodetic Surve
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional .
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey office at 919/733-3836.
?Mq W at[-d a 1 " q7
Review r Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contactl the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
.3 12- 9 7
Geological Survey SeFffvewer Land Quality Section Date Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] ::.. FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-A 4ephone 919-733-3233 FAX [phone]
An Eaud Ooportunity Affirmative Action Emoloy A-11 50% recycled! 10% oc- r^ns ^,?• ^c
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
April 28, 1997
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building -
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Re: SCH File # 97-E4220-0569; Scoping Proposed Widening of SR 1007 (Meban Oaks Rd.) to a
Five Lane Curb and Gutter Section from I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth St.) in Mebane; TIP #U-3445
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
be addressed in the environmental review document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region G
Melba McGee, DEHNR
C s j '
t
?Y•
gar U
z
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Atiicmative Action Employer
A-12
V • L.J 14U . UUL. r . Un
EJ North Carolina WAdlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. ):ullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordi r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks
Road) widening, from I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street) in Mebane, Alamance
County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-3445, SCH Project No. 97-0569.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject pr(?jecl. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NC.WRC) have reviewed the proposed project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-
1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
Al this time, we have no specific recommendations regarding the subject project.
However, to help facilitate document preparation, our general informational needs are
outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
A-13
- -- --- --- ---- „r., - -, ?I
rlrI Z? o•_? ivu.uuL r.U(
Memo 2 April 24, 1997
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
S. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. 11 1 can further assist your office, please contact meat [phone].
A-14
Public Schools of North Carolina
State Board of Education
Jay Robinson, Chairman
_ Department of Public Instruction E C
Michael E. Ward, State Superintendent /00 ?Vv / L
March 27, 1997
MEMORANDUM
0
_ M4R
L:. 3 1°07
TO: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE., NC Department of Transportation
FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning
SUBJECT: SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Stree , Mebane, Alamance
County, State Project No. 9.807162, TIP No. U-3445
Enclosed is the response from Alamance-Burlington School System to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure
301 N. Wilmington Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 21, 601-2825
An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
A-15
Alamance-Burlington School System
1712 Vaughn Road
Post Office Box 938
Burlington, North Carolina 27217
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Division of
Administrative Services
March 25, 1997
Mr. Gerald H. Knott, AIA
Section Chief
School Planning
Public Schools of North Carolina
301 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
Dear Mr. Knott:
J. A. Freeman
Assistant Superintendent
?41:?•t ,lip 2 71992 ?' ?,
Pursuant to the information received from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and
Highway Safety relative to SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street) Mebane,
Alamance County, State Project Number 9.807162, TIP No. U-3445, please be advised that in
communication with Al Smith, Director of School Bus Transportation, this project will not be a problem
for us. We do have several buses using Mebane Oaks Road; hopefully the route will not be closed for
traffic or we will need to direct the buses to use an alternate passage.
Sincerely,
r
Assistant Superint ent for Administrative Services
JAF/amb
pc: Al Smith, Director of School Bus Transportation
A-16
FIGURE N1
PROJECT LOCATION & AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
MEBANE OAKS ROAD
WIDEN SR 1007 TO A FIVE LANE CURB AND GUTTER
SECTION FROM I-85 TO NC 119 (FIFTH STREET)
ALAMANCE COUNTY
TIP# U-3445 State Project # 9.8071621
M- Ambient Noise
Measurement Site
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGH«AYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
r BRANCH
SR 1007 (MEBANE OAKS ROAD),
1-85 TO NC 119 (FIFTH STREET)
WIDEN ROADWAY TO FIVE LANE FACILITY
ALAMANCE COUNTY,
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3445
A-17
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130 -------
-- --- -----------------___
---
-
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 ---____-----------------------------

Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
80 ---------------------------------------
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
-
___ ______ ----------
---------?________- ---------____--
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 - - _

Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 --------- ------•-• -
-- ---------------------- -
-
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
____-----------
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
A-18
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category

A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Lea(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
A-19
M
Z
w
J
m
F-
LO
r-
0
O M
tr
tr *k
CL.
O
Y p
cc U
O m
CD 0
c
cc m
.0 E
Cm ?
G Q
G w O O
w O
F-
d Z n
O O
? D H

o
a
v
%Up? U O O
w Q LL
U
Q
?
c cn
o
?ON ca
w
0 Lu
C. W ~
p. cc
Q
O
O
Q
Q ?

co
w ca

'0
^
I?

N

U
»
Z

co
Q

F-
Q
O
Q 0
n O
O
U O
V
N
n
O
O
_U w
>
0 O O
w
w J ...
N?
?

_• ch
co
O Z
c
m
x J

01
C LO
r co
Z CD

a U
z
cr.
O
w O
co

O
U.
cc
Y
cc
O
m
c
eo
m
m
3
'O
co
O
C m
t6 N
O
a
o
?o a
v O
? C
c ?
O m
L
L i+
E
d O
V ?
m ?
L L
E H
c0
w E
V
? m
? t0
CA y
c0 m
m V
E C
.m.
m y
W
ayi L
CJ
c
? O
H V
E in
0-0
CO N
CO
C
? C
C t0
ch Q
.m
E
cn N
N
. N
A-20
}
Q
LO
N n ?
cr)
N O
W
N CL
Z U -o F-
Z eo
m W C
N O
Joy
LLI m
? c c
O ea
d E
Z E
U-
U.
Q
H

m o w`
U m
N O O
cr-
O
0 U
d

J
Q w w
H > in
z J W
O
O
w cc
fn to U

O ?
Co
z
to
Ln
N
fn ?? O O
N A
Q

w
cr- it

C?

O

O
Z
- N
J
w
}
w
w LA

O
Z
O O O O
_
w
X
w
co
co
C: La
O
U -
w r
0
u o 0
v
n
J
F-
O

Z m
O
a_ U
z
m
m

w
O
m

O
0

ti
'o
Y
R
O
m
c
ea
N
A-21
N
Z
w
m
H
0
0
0
d
d
cn
y N
N Z
d
U w
J
C
m
C C
m
7 m
N ?
l0 V
? r
c o
0.0
.0 .0
M 'o
CD m
c c
d d
w N
as
? N
_ _
Table Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3445: SR 1007, Alamance County RUN: SR 1007, Build, Year 2000
SITE a METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
---- - -------------- - ---------
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BEG TYPE VPH EF H W WC QUEUE
* Xi Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VES)
------------------------R----------------------------------------R----------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 605.0 * 1610. 360. AG 413. 13.9 .0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 413. 13.9 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y 2
-------------------------R-------------------------------------R
1. R/W., 13.7m From CL * -8.3 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maxi=m concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.3
DEGR. * 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.30 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-22
Table A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOSH: U-3445: SR 1007, Alamance County RUN: SR 1007, Build, Year 2020
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
w'
-------------------------------
VS . ,0 CM/S VD • .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U . 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM. - 60. MINUTES ml= - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK, VARIABLES
--------------
LINR DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF B W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------R------------------------------- _-__-____R_________-_______-_-------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 795. 10.6 .0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 795. 10.6 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 13.7m From CL * -6.3 .0 1.8 *
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.5
DEGR. * 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.50 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-23
Table A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3445: SR 1007, klam nce County RUN: SR 1007, No-Build, Year 2000
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
------------------------------ 'Y
VS • .0 CM/S VD . .0 CM/3 ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
Lnm VARIABLES
NLZIRC DESCRIPTION
* LINK COORDINATES (M)
* LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
w WC QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
-»----»----------- *---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------------------------------
1, tar Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 413. 13.9 .0 9.6
2. Rear Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 413. 13.9 .0 9.6
RSCZP=R LOCATIONS
----------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
-------»---------------*-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 6.1m From CL * -4.3 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARE.S : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR) * REC1
MAX * 2.5
DEGR. * 4
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.50 PPM AT 4 DEGREES FROM REC1 .

A-24
Table A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3445: SR 1007, Alamance County RUN: SR 1007, No-Build, Year 2020
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS . .0 CM/S VD . .0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 MIS CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH
EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *--------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 795. 14.8 .0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 795. 14.8 .0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------*-------------------------------------R
1. R/W, 6.1m From CL * -4.3 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.3
t DEGR. * 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.30 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
T
A-25
--?,10'_
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
A ??
Oak
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 2, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn 9V7
From: Cyndi Bell C V
[D EHNR
FAXED
1997
Subject: Environmental Assessment for SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from I-85 to NC 119
(Fifth Street), Mebane
Alamance County
State Project DOT No. 9.807162, T.I.P. No. U-3445; EHNR # 97-0569
Reference NCDOT correspondence dated. March 13, 1997, in which the Planning and Environmental
Branch requested information from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to complete the planning
document. Based upon a project presentation held in a scoping meeting on February 11, 1997, and upon
our records, this project will probably not involve any stream crossings or jurisdictional wetlands. We
assume that NCDOT will prepare a Natural Resources Technical Report to be included in the EA/FONSI.
If field investigations prove that no wetlands or surface waters will be affected, then a 401 Water Quality
Certification will not be required. We will review the EA/FONSI when it is circulated through the State
Clearinghouse. DWQ appreciates NCDOT's early coordination for this project. Questions regarding the
401 Certification process should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Michelle Wagoner Fishbume, P.E., NCDOT, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U3445EA.DOC
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone]
FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
?P?roject Number: County: Date: Date Respons ue (firm d adline):
'%CeVED
* 2 5 19,
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: _-"VIC' rAtdSC/FA1,,__
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas oil and Water El Marine Fisheries
ill
El F ,Air Coastal Management Water Planning
ayettev
e Water ? Water Resources -ktnvironmental Health
? Mooresville
VGroundwater
Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
V

? Raleigh
"L Land Quality Engineer ,
N
Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as ?Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
El Wilmington ?Others Environmental Management
?

Winston-Salem
PWS _'°" _es. nW" `-
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS-104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
aw ?tE q
d •.'auq
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 13, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street),
Mebane, Alamance County, State Project No. 9.807162, TIP
No. U-3445
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun studying
the proposed improvements to Mebane Oaks Road. The project is included in the 1997-2003
North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal
year 2000 and construction in fiscal year 2002.
The subject project will widen Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) to a five lane curb and
gutter section from I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street), approximately 0.5 miles.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation
of a State funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact. This document
will be prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your
agency respond by April 30, 1997 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ms. Beverly J. Grate,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Extension 247.
HFV/plr
Attachment REC'EIVED
MAR 14 1997
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
T
March 11, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Beverly J. Grat
Project PlanningVi wCJC K
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from I-85 to NC 119(Fifth
Street), Mebane, Alamance County, State Project No.
9.807162, TIP Project NO. U-3445
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470) on February 11, 1997. The
following persons were in attendance:
Glendel Stephenson City of Mebane - Mayor
Robert L. Wilson City of Mebane - Manager
Darrell Russell City of Mebane - City Engineer
Phil Conrad Alamance County MPO
Mike Cowan Division 7 Construction Engineer
Warren Walker Alamance County Resident Engineer
Geoff Holmes Division 7
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preservation Office
Don Sellers , Right of Way Branch
Eugene Tarascio Geotechnical Unit
Debbie Barbour Roadway Design
Wayne Best Roadway Design
Parks Icenhour Location Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Lanette Cook Program Development
Derrick Lewis Congestion Management
Alena Cook Congestion Management
Buddy Murr Signals and Geometrics
JoAnn Oerter Traffic Control
Robin Young Traffic Control
Dan Duffield Hydraulics Design
Jerry Hayes Statewide Planning
Rob Hanson Planning and Environmental Branch
Angie Allinder Planning and Environmental Branch
Beverly J. Grate Planning and Environmental Branch
The following is a summary of the comments made at the meeting and through
written and telephone comments.
The purpose and need for the subject project is to increase the traffic carrying
capacity of Mebane Oaks Road, reduce congestion, and decrease travel time to downtown
Mebane.
Functional Classification
Mebane Oaks Road is classified as an Urban Collector.
Project Termini
The limits of the proposed project as described in the TIP will begin at I-85 and
end at NC 119 (Fifth Street).
Statewide Planning has requested a change in the limits of the proposed project.
The limits proposed by Statewide Planning would begin just south of SR 2210 (Forest
Oaks Lane) and end at Mebane Oaks Road. Forest Oaks Lane is currently a minor
thoroughfare on the Alamance County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. Plans are
understood to be underway for significant land development south of and adjacent to the
interchange area.
Per Statewide Planning Extending the proposed project to SR 2210 would
accommodate anticipated development in that area. It was decided this will be
investigated after traffic projections are analyzed.
Intersections
Mebane Oaks Road intersects NC 119. This intersection is currently signalized.
The signal at this intersection will be upgraded to accommodate proposed improvements
per recommendation from the Area Traffic Engineer. Farrar Lane also intersects Mebane
Oaks Road. This intersection is stop sign controlled. Falcon Lane was realigned with
Mebane Oaks Road and NC 119 as a part of the Biscuitville development. The signal at
Mebane Oaks Road and NC 119 was revised to include Falcon Lane. (See Figure 2 for
location of Falcon Lane and Farrar Lane).
Statewide Planning has proposed revising the intersection of Mebane Oaks Road
and NC 119 east to provide a continuous route from I-85 to downtown Mebane. NC 119
west would become a secondary route. This will also be evaluated once traffic projections
are analyzed.
Typical Section
Mebane Oaks Road is currently a two to three lane shoulder section. Curb and
gutter exists on the approaches to I-85. The roadway.width varies from 20 to 34 feet.
Proposed improvements will widen Mebane Oaks Road to a five lane curb and
gutter section 68 feet from face to face of curbs. Wide (14 feet) outside lanes are
recommended to facilitate bicycle travel. -
Right of Wgy
Existing Mebane Oaks Road has approximately 40 to 60 feet of right of way.
Approximately 90 to 100 feet is required for improvements.
Structures
There is one existing bridge in the vicinity of the proposed project. This structure
carries Mebane Oaks Road over I-85. This structure was built in 1994 and has two
through lanes and a turn lane. The clear deck width is approximately 59.1 feet with a
roadway width of 56 feet. Currently no improvements are proposed for this structure. If
it is decided to begin the project at SR 2210 (Forest Oaks Lane) however, the bridge will
require widening to accommodate a five lane section.
Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) commented at the scoping
meeting. There are no known historical structures or sites therefore, no architectural or
archaeological surveys is likely to be required.
Natural Resources
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) had no comments concerning this project.
There are no stream crossings or environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity of the
proposed project.
Utilities
The town of Mebane has a water service along the west side of SR 1007 (Mebane
Oaks Road) and a sewer line along the east side. The water line is approximately 18 feet
west of the centerline and the sewer is approximately 12 feet east of the centerline of SR
1007.
Duke Power has a three phase pole line approximately 31 feet east of the present
centerline of Mebane Oaks Road. Tele-Media Company of North Carolina has Cable
Television service lines attached to the Duke Power poles.
MEBTEL Communication has a pole line 27 feet west of the existing centerline of
SR 1007 with multiple aerial cables attached. They also have underground service along
the east and west side of the present road.
Public Service Gas Company of North Carolina has a 4 inch steel line under the
east lane of SR 1007. This is a 60 psi line. The gas company is in the process of extending
the gas line under I-85 to serve development on the south of I-85. The permitting and
design should be ready for construction by mid 1997. The gas company would like to
incorporate any required changes resulting from this project into their placement of the
line under I-85.
The utility impact rating is medium.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Mebane Oaks Road is part of a designated Alamance County bicycle route system.
The Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation recommends wide outside lanes for
bicycle accommodations
Traffic Projections
Traffic projections were not available at the scoping meeting but will be made
available early April 1997. .
Funding
The TIP cost of the proposed project is $1,600,000 which includes $950,000 for
right of way and $650,000 for construction. The current estimated cost is $1,750,000
which includes $650,000 for right of way (TIP right of way cost) and $800,000 for
construction.
Document
The environmental issues for U-3445 was proposed to be covered by a State
Environmental Assessment (SEA) and State Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
After beginning to study the proposed project it appears that a combined SEA/FONSI
would be sufficient to cover environmental issues related to the project.
Schedule
Milestones have been established as follows:
Traffic Projections
Citizen's Informational Workshop
Preliminary Design
Environmental Assessment/FONSI
Public Hearing
Right of Way Acquisition
Construction
Early April 1997
June 1997
July 1997
November 1997
Winter 1998
Fiscal Year 2000
Fiscal Year 2002

1
O
1
"? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGIIW.-M
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
?»s BRANCH
SR 1007 (MEBANE OAKS ROAD),
1-85 TO NC 119 (FIFTH STREET)
WIDEN ROADWAY TO FIVE LANE FACILITY
ALAMANCE COUNTY,
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3445
FIG. 1

.. ,"
MFegHF
ARp?RT RD
' S
FT?
co
D
z
fl-l
'N'l NOdNOI

? r--N
oM
cn
C-
•
S. 8TH ST.

Ilk,
fun

-TI
C
N
!_ ®_Jmmftb

March 11, 1997 R?Cc??FC?
1.99?
MEMORANDUM TO: File ?'?'rRo
NMF ?T^c scr
FROM: Beverly J. Grate, 1 y FNC
Project Planning n'
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from I-85 to NC 119(Fifth
Street), Mebane, Alamance County, State Project No.
9.807162, TIP Project NO. U-3445
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470) on February 11, 1997. The
following persons were in attendance:
Glendel Stephenson City of Mebane - Mayor
Robert L. Wilson City of Mebane - Manager
Darrell Russell City of Mebane - City Engineer
Phil Conrad Alamance County WO
Mike Cowan Division 7 Construction Engineer
Warren Walker Alamance County Resident Engineer
Geoff Holmes Division 7
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preservation Office
Don Sellers Right of Way Branch
Eugene Tarascio Geotechnical Unit
Debbie Barbour Roadway Design
Wayne Best Roadway Design
Parks Icenhour Location Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Lanette Cook Program Development
Derrick Lewis Congestion Management
Alena Cook Congestion Management
Buddy Murr Signals and Geometrics
JoAnn Oerter Traffic Control
Robin Young Traffic Control
Dan Duffield Hydraulics Design
Jerry Hayes Statewide Planning
Rob Hanson Planning and Environmental Branch
Angie Allinder Planning and Environmental Branch
Beverly J. Grate Planning and Environmental Branch

The following is a summary of the comments made at the meeting and through
written and telephone comments.
The purpose and need for the subject project is to increase the traffic carrying
capacity of Mebane Oaks Road, reduce congestion, and decrease travel time to downtown
Mebane.
Functional Classification
Mebane Oaks Road is classified as an Urban Collector.
Project Termini
The limits of the proposed project as described in the TIP will begin at I-85 and
end at NC 119 (Fifth Street).
Statewide Planning has requested a change in the limits of the proposed project.
The limits proposed by Statewide Planning would begin just south of SR 2210 (Forest
Oaks Lane) and end at Mebane Oaks Road. Forest Oaks Lane is currently a minor
thoroughfare on the Alamance County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. Plans are
understood to be underway for significant land development south of and adjacent to the
interchange area.
Per Statewide Planning Extending the proposed project to SR 2210 would
accommodate anticipated development in that area. It was decided this will be
investigated after traffic projections are analyzed.
Intersections
Mebane Oaks Road intersects NC 119. This intersection is currently signalized.
The signal at this intersection will be upgraded to accommodate proposed improvements
per recommendation from the Area Traffic Engineer. Farrar Lane also intersects Mebane
Oaks Road. This intersection is stop sign controlled. Falcon Lane was realigned with
Mebane Oaks Road and NC 119 as a part of the Biscuitville development. The signal at
Mebane Oaks Road and NC 119 was revised to include Falcon Lane. (See Figure 2 for
location of Falcon Lane and Farrar Lane).
Statewide Planning has proposed revising the intersection of Mebane Oaks Road
and NC 119 east to provide a continuous route from I-85 to downtown Mebane. NC 119
west would become a secondary route. This will also be evaluated once traffic projections
are analyzed.

Typical Section
Mebane Oaks Road is currently a two to three lane shoulder section. Curb and
gutter exists on the approaches to I-85. The roadway width varies from 20 to 34 feet.
Proposed improvements will widen Mebane Oaks Road to a five lane curb and
gutter section 68 feet from face to face of curbs. Wide (14 feet) outside lanes are
recommended to facilitate bicycle travel.
Right of Wad
Existing Mebane Oaks Road has approximately 40 to 60 feet of right of way.
Approximately 90 to 100 feet is required for improvements.
Structures
There is one existing bridge in the vicinity of the proposed project. This structure
carries Mebane Oaks Road over I-85. This structure was built in 1994 and has two
through lanes and a turn lane. The clear deck width is approximately 59.1 feet with a
roadway width of 56 feet. Currently no improvements are proposed for this structure. If
it is decided to begin the project at SR 2210 (Forest Oaks Lane) however, the bridge will
require widening to accommodate a five lane section.
Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) commented at the scoping
meeting. There are no known historical structures or sites therefore, no architectural or
archaeological surveys is likely to be required.
Natural Resources
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) had no comments concerning this project.
There are no stream crossings or environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity of the
proposed project.
Utilities
The town of Mebane has a water service along the west side of SR 1007 (Mebane
Oaks Road) and a sewer line along the east side. The water line is approximately 18 feet
west of the centerline and the sewer is approximately 12 feet east of the centerline of SR
1007.
y
Duke Power has a three phase pole line approximately 31 feet east of the present
centerline of Mebane Oaks Road. Tele-Media Company of North Carolina has Cable
Television service lines attached to the Duke Power poles.
MEBTEL Communication has a pole line 27 feet west of the existing centerline of
SR 1007 with multiple aerial cables attached. They also have underground service along
the east and west side of the present road.
Public Service Gas Company of North Carolina has a 4 inch steel line under the
east lane of SR 1007. This is a 60 psi line. The gas company is in the process of extending
the gas line under I-85 to serve development on the south of I-85. The permitting and
design should be ready for construction by mid 1997. The gas company would like to
incorporate any required changes resulting from this project into their placement of the
line under I-85.
The utility impact rating is medium.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Mebane Oaks Road is part of a designated Alamance County bicycle route system.
The Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation recommends wide outside lanes for
bicycle accommodations
Traffic Projections
Traffic projections were not available at the scoping meeting but will be made
available early April 1997.
Funding
The TIP cost of the proposed project is $1,600,000 which includes $950,000 for
right of way and $650,000 for construction. The current estimated cost is $1,750,000
which includes $650,000 for right of way (TIP right of way cost) and $800,000 for
construction.
Document
The environmental issues for U-3445 was proposed to be covered by a State
Environmental Assessment (SEA) and State Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
After beginning to study the proposed project it appears that a combined SEA/FONSI
would be sufficient to cover environmental issues related to the project.
Schedule
Milestones have been established as follows:
Traffic Projections "
Citizen's Informational Workshop
Preliminary Design
Environmental Assessment/FONSI
Public Hearing
Right of Way Acquisition
Construction
Early April 1997
June 1997
July 1997
November 1997
Winter 1998
Fiscal Year 2000
Fiscal Year 2001
1
O
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
wb BRANCH
SR 1007 (MEBANE OAKS ROAD),
1-85 TO NC 119 (FIFTH STREET)
WIDEN ROADWAY TO FIVE LANE FACILITY
ALAMANCE COUNTY,
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3445
FIG. 1

\4NE
S
m
CC)
D
z
m
ARp?Rp I ?? "NI NO4NOI
o?1d ?
-P co
o cn
d0o'V,
S*dO
•O
S. 8TH ST.

71
0
C
m
N
v O
O -r,
r -'
z
9? .
tiF
!- ®_JNMIM
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP

Q
DA 057
- F. NO. R'ROOM, BLDG.
D ?N-.D??iutt 1?b
REF. 20R.ROOM. BLDG.
E
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
NOTE AND RETURN TO ME
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAI ? PER YOUR REQUEST
YOUR APPROVAL
LS- ?FOR
,
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER
?-PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SI ?FOR YOUR. COMMENTS
GNATURE ? 'SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
- (?
ikel 4o

mIndr- Ur?Gn rvGtU Gt/rOl°(? ????
D S4l

we -( Maw

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 14, 1997
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
JAN 2 it 1"/
ENVtRON!ENrAL SCIENCES
,,,,tJ
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager lAr v ?Q y
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from
I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street), Mebane, Alamance County, State
Project No. 9.807162, TIP Project No. U-3445
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 February 11, 1997 at 10:00 A M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference
Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us
prior to that date.
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 Ms. Beverly J. Grate, Project
Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 247.
BJG/plr
Attachment
MCI*
1'
TIP # U-3445
PROJECT # 9.8071621
F.A. PROJECT #. N/A
PROJECT SCOPING
DIVISION: 7 COUNTY: Alamance
SHEET
Date January 14, 1997
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
? Programming
® Planning
? Design
ROUTE: SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) from I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Urban Collector
LENGTH: 0.5 mile
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: To increase the traffic carrying capacity of SR 1007 (Mebane
Oaks Road). SR 1007 is a major facility providing access to the Town of Mebane from I-
85/I-40.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: The proposed project will include widening SR 1007 (Mebane
Oaks Road) to a five lane curb and gutter section from I-85 to NC 119 (Fifth Street).
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: State EA/FONSI
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: SEA completion - November 1997
SFONSI completion - May 1998
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? Yes ? No N
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: ($) , or (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full ? Partial ? None
NUMBER OF: Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 0
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: Two to three lane shoulder section. Curb and gutter exists
on approaches to I-85.
Proposed: Five lane curb and gutter section
TRAFFIC (ADT): Current (1997): 7,310
Design Year (2021): 9,950*
% TTST DUAL DHV
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO ® 3R ?
* Preliminary estimate - project traffic projections will be available March 5, 1997.
DESIGN SPEED: 80 km/h (50 mph)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ....................... $ 800,000
Right of Way Cost (including relocation, utilities and
acquisition) (T] UP Right of Way Estimate) ... ..... $ 950,000
Force Account Items ........................... $
Preliminary Engineering ......................... $
Total Cost ................................... $ 1,750,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction .................................. $ 650,000
Right of Way .................................. $ 950,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .................. $ 1,600,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
® Pavement:
®Surface ......................................... $ 53,000
®Base ............................................ $ 140,760
? Milling & Recycling ................. ............ .. $
? Turnouts ....................................... $
? Shoulders:
? Paved .......................................... $
? Earthern ........................................ $
® Earthwork ............................................ $ 100,800
® Subsurface Items ....................................... $ 20,700
® Subgrade and Stabilization ................................ $ 43,200
® Drainage (List any special items) ........................... $ 100,000
? Sub-Drainage ......................................... $
? Structures Width x Length
? Bridge Rehabilitation x ......... . $
? New Bridge x ......... . $
? Widen Bridge x ......... . $
? Remove Bridge x ......... . $
? New Culvert: Size Length ......... . $
? Culvert Extension ................................. $
® Retaining Walls .................................. $ 11,550
? Noise Walls ..................................... $
? Other Misc. Structures ............................. $
® Concrete Curb & Gutter ................................. $ 42,300
? Concrete Sidewalk ..................................... $
? Guardrail ............................................ $
? Fencing: W.W. ? and/or C.L.? .......................... $
® Erosion Control ....................................... $ 6,000
? Landscaping .......................................... $
? Lighting ............................................. $
® Traffic Control ........................................ $ 14,000
? Signing:
? New .......................................... $
? Upgraded ....................................... $
? Traffic Signals:
? New .......................................... $
? Revised ......................................... $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
? RR Signals:
? New ........................................... $
? Revised.... ................................... $
? With or Without Arms .............................. $
? If 3R:
? Drainage Safety Enhancement......................... $
? Roadside Safety Enhancement ........................ $
? Realignment for Safety Upgrade ....................... $
® Pavement Markings:
? Paint .......................................... $
® Thermo. & Markers ................................ $ 8,800
? Delineators ........................................... $
®Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc ...................... $ 171,890
Contract Cost Subtotal ................................ $
Engineering & Contingencies ................................. $ 87,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs ................................ $
Force Account ............................................ $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: ..................... $ 800,000
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 40 to 60 feet
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN RVIPROVEMENTS?
Yes ? No ® _
® New Right of Way Needed: Width 90 to 100 feet .......... $
? Easements: Type Width .......... $
? Utilities: .............................................. $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal:.... (TIP) .......................... $ 950,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 1,750,000
Prepared By: Beverly Grate Date: 1/10/97
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Design Services Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys Construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Envir. Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
1
1
O
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
o TRANSPORTATION
? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
TMw` BRANCH
SR 1007 (MEBANE OAKS ROAD),
1-85 TO NC 119 (FIFTH STREET)
WIDEN ROADWAY TO FIVE LANE FACILITY
ALAMANCE COUNTY,
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3445
FIG. 1