20170239 Ver 1_Merger Process Documentation_20100727

41f k1sr
?U Ol/"
K 4 OI ?
ARR. w
s?uvp ?"tTFR 5
BUC ?00
ENGINl?ER1N Rq,q r c >,.
D
Ta ? 90
June 28, 2005
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting Minutes (Concurrence Point 2a) for the
Relocation of NC 119 from the I-85 Interchange to South of SR 1917 (White Level
Road) in Mebane, Alamance County, Federal Aid No. STP-119(1), State Project
No. 8.1470901, WBS Element 34900.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3109
PREPARED BY: Aileen S. Mayhew, P.E. e35yy-\
Buck Engineering
A NEPA/404 merger team meeting for the subject project was held on June 16, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. in the
Board Room of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. The following people were in attendance:
Felix Davila Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
John Thomas US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sue Homewood NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Christina Breen NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sarah McBride Department of Cultural Resources - SHPO
Phil Conrad Burlington-Graham MPO
David Hundley NCDOT - Division 7
Dewayne Sykes NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Tony Houser NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Bruce Payne NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
David Anderson NCDOT - Structure Design Unit
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics Unit
Earlene Thomas NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Mary Pope Furr NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis - OHE
Richard Silverman NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis - OHE
Tim Gardiner NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis - OHE
Brian Yamamoto NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Glenda Gibson Gibson Engineers
Craig Young Buck Engineering
Greg Price Buck Engineering
Aileen Mayhew Buck Engineering
The purpose of the meeting was to identify and reach concurrence on the bridge locations and lengths to
obtain concurrence on Point 2a, Bridge Locations and Lengths. Brian Yamamoto gave an overview of the
proposed project. He mentioned that since the Concurrence Point 2 (June 13, 2002) meeting, the
document has changed to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a consultant firm has been
retained to perform the planning and design studies associated with the project.
Aileen Mayhew began. the meeting with introductions and reiterated that bridging versus culvert decisions
at the five sites included in the revised Major Stream Crossings table provided by Buck Engineering would
be discussed. In addition, a field meeting was held on May 18, 2005 for the resource agencies to review
the stream crossings in the field prior to today's meeting. Ms. Mayhew reviewed the Major Stream
Crossings table, site by site. The following summarizes the comments made at the meeting:
to-w- ??; huc.k crir ince rin cane
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting Minutes
TIP Project No. U-3109
June 28, 2005
Page 2
Site 1: Site 1 is at Moadams Creek and is crossed by all three detailed study alternatives. The
recommendation made by the Merger Team is to construct a 3@10'x7' RCBC, contingent upon
re-verification of the existing wetland in the vicinity of Site 1 by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). The wetland is associated with a beaver pond; however, recent field surveys have
determined that the dam has been breached. Biologists from Buck Engineering will re-delineate
the wetland and will schedule a field verification meeting with USACE Representative, John
Thomas. Mr. Thomas stated in the meeting that he is willing to concur with the recommended
box culvert if the wetland has been substantially compromised. All other representatives of the
Merger Team agreed to a box culvert in this location.
Site 2: Site 2 is a tributary to Mill Creek (UT 14) and is crossed by all three detailed study alternatives.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requested a bridge for this site due to the nature of the
resource (HQW, WS-II) and its proximity to the Water Supply Watershed Critical Area. NCDOT
will develop a cost estimate for a bottomless arch culvert, re-visit the bridge lengths and
associated costs, and explore the idea of purchasing a conservation easement in order to provide
fencing around UT 14 as a means of disallowing cattle to enter the creek at this location. The
DWQ also requested an additional box on the culvert structure, one to accommodate base flow
and the other for storm flow. This information will be discussed with the team again no later than
the LEDPA meeting. There was also mention of the potential for on-site mitigation at this
location.
Site 3: Site 3 is at Mill Creek and is crossed by all three detailed study alternatives. A recommendation
to bridge Site 3 was concurred upon based on the high quality of the resource and its proximity to
the Water Supply Watershed Critical Area. In addition, NCDOT will re-visit the bridge lengths
and associated costs for this site; however, Jerry Snead estimated revised bridge lengths and
associated costs for discussion purposes during the meeting. The cost to bridge versus the cost to
provide a triple barrel box culvert was similar for Alternatives 9 and 10. Alternative 8 costs were
not as comparable; however, bridging was still recommended at this site for Alternative 8. All
team members concurred with this recommendation.
Site 4: Site 4 is at Moadams Creek and associated with the extension of Corrigidor Road. The proposal
was to replace the existing wooden bridge with a 2@10'x6' RCBC. All team members concurred
with this recommendation.
Site 5: Site 5 is a tributary to Mill Creek (UT 14) and is only crossed under Alternative 10, as part of the
proposed improvements to Mebane Rogers Road. The recommendation was to retain and extend
the existing 72-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP). All team members concurred with this
recommendation.
As discussed at the meeting, the Concurrence Point 2a form will be circulated for signature after Site 1 has
been re-verified by the USACE. The form will indicate that concurrence was reached for Sites 1, 3, 4, and
5. The form will also indicate that Site 2 will be re-visited either as part of Concurrence Point 3 or prior to
that meeting.
If any meeting participants find this memorandum in error, please contact Aileen Mayhew at (919)
459-9021 or by email at amayhew(abucken ing_ eering com.
cc: Doug Galyon, NCDOT
Mike Mills, NCDOT - Division 7
Ted Bisterfeld, EPA
Brian Wrenn, DWQ
yy M SLVFa
•?QUw?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 18, 2005
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: John Thomas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Felix Davila, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (c/o FHWA)
Ted Bisterfeld, Environmental Protection Agency
Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sarah M'Bride, N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Brian Wrenn, N.C. DENR, Division of Water Quality
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mike Nunn, MPO Planner
FROM: Missy Dickens, P.E., Project Manager l 4-
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Merger Team Meeting for Relocation of NC 119 from the I-85
Interchange to South of SR 1917 (White Level Road) in Mebane,
Alamance County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-119(1), State
Project No. 8.1470901, WBS Element 34900.1.1, TIP Project No.
U-3109
A merger team meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 16, 2005 in the Board Room of
NCDOT's Transportation Building in Raleigh. The agenda has not yet been set; however,
you will be notified regarding the meeting time as soon as the agenda is completed. The
meeting is being held to identify and reach concurrence on the bridge locations and lengths
(Concurrence Point 2a) for the proposed relocation of NC 119 in Alamance County (TIP
Project U-3109). Please review the enclosed information in preparation for this meeting.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this meeting, please contact me at
[phone], extension 218, or via email at [e-mail].
Attachment
cc: Mike Mills, P.E. - NCDOT Division 7
Tony Houser, P.E. - NCDOT Roadway Design
Jerry Snead, P.E. - NCDOT Hydraulics
David Anderson, P.E. - NCDOT Structure Design
Brett Feulner - PDEA Office of Natural Environment
Mary Pope Furr, - PDEA Office of Human Environment
Ed Lewis - PDEA Public Involvement & Community Studies
Earlene Thomas, - PDEA TIP Program Manager
Derrick Weaver, P.E. - PDEA
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
y µ 57A7F q
?^ASa? s
puM v®
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Concurrence Point 2a
Bridging and Alignment Review
for TIP Project No. U-3109
Relocation of NC 119
from the I-85 Interchange to South of SR 1917 (White Level Road)
Mebane, Alamance County
Federal Aid No. STP-119(1), WBS Element 34900.1.1,
State Project No. 8.1470901
Concurrence Team History
Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need of the Pro_lect
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to relocate
NC 119 from the NC 119/I-85 interchange southwest of Mebane to existing NC 119 near
SR 1917 (White Level Road) north of Mebane in Alamance County. From the I-85
interchange to approximately 0.86 miles northward, existing NC 119 would be widened
to a six-lane section. For the remainder of the project, a four-lane roadway with a 30-foot
wide grass median would be constructed on new location to the west of Mebane. The
proposed right of way width for the new location section would range from
approximately 150 to 300 feet. The length of the proposed facility is approximately
five miles. Limited control of access will be studied south of US 70 except at the I-85
interchange where full control of access is proposed. North of US 70, limited control of
access and access only at existing secondary roads (SR's) will be studied for each
alternative. The project location is shown on the attached map.
May 18, 2005
LYNDo TiPPETT
SECRETARY
The proposed project is included in the Draft 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition currently scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2010 and construction for FFY 2012. The total estimated cost for the proposed
project as shown in the Draft 2006-2012 TIP is $52,116,000, which includes $1,741,000
for wetland mitigation, $6,700,000 for right of way acquisition, $43,000,000 for
construction, and $675,000 for prior years cost.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATENC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Concurrence on the purpose and need (Concurrence Point 1) for the subject project was
reached at the merger team meeting on December 13, 2000. The purpose of the project
as shown on the signed concurrence form is:
The purpose of this project is to relieve traffic congestion in the downtown area, provide
access to the local area, and provide Alamance County with a primary north/south route.
Preliminary Discussion for Concurrence Point 2
Once concurrence was reached on Concurrence Point 1, the Merger Team discussed
Concurrence Point 2, specifically the alignment alternatives that would be carried
forward.
Seven alternatives were presented at the merger team meeting on December 13, 2000;
two alternatives were eliminated, Alternative 1 (ABEI) and Alternative 6 (ACFI), and
one additional alternative, Alternative 8 (ABGH), was added. Two more alternatives,
Alternative 2 (ABFI) and Alternative 3 (ABFH), were eliminated from further study at
the merger team meeting on April 18, 2001. Following both merger team meetings, four
alternatives remained under consideration to be studied in detail: Alternative 4 (ACFH),
Alternative 5 (ACGH), Alternative 7 (ADH), and Alternative 8 (ABGH).
Concurrence Point 2
The Merger Team met again on June 13, 2002 to discuss the outstanding issues
pertaining to Concurrence Point 2. This meeting was a follow-up of the concurrence
meetings from December 13, 2000 and April 18, 2001.
At this meeting, the NCDOT proposed that the merger team eliminate Alternatives 4, 5,
and 7. Alternatives 4 and 5 impacted the West End Community and passed through the
critical watershed area. Alternative 7 avoided both the critical watershed area and the
Cates Farm, but impacted the West End Community and would have a high number of
residential and business relocations (107 residences and 11 businesses). In addition, two
new alternatives were introduced for consideration, Alternatives 9 (ABGH2) and 10
(ABGH3). The two new alternatives are variations of Alternative 8. Alternative 9
reduces impacts to the critical watershed area, but impacts a small section of the Cates
Farm (northwest corner). Alternative 10 is located just outside of the critical watershed
area, but impacts the Cates Farm more severely than Alternative 9. The merger team
agreed to eliminate Alternatives 4, 5, and 7 and to add Alternatives 9 and 10 for further
study. It was decided that the three alternatives, Alternatives 8, 9, and 10 would be
studied in detail. Listed below is a description of the three study corridor alternatives.
Alternative 8 (ABGH) begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and
continues north on new alignment, then passes to the west of the West End
Community, and crosses US 70 just west of Craftique Furniture Company. From
there it passes west and north of the historic property boundary of the Cates Farm
and passes through the critical watershed area. The alignment ties into existing
NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
2
Alternative 9 (ABGH`) follows the same alignment as Alternative 8 until south of
SR 1921 (Mebane Rogers Road), where it turns east and runs parallel to
Alternative 8 as it passes through the northwestern corner of the Cates Farm
property (within the NR listed boundary) and passes through the critical
watershed area. The alignment ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White
Level Road). A portion of the proposed alignment is located within the critical
watershed area.
Alternative 10 (ABGH3) follows the same alignment as Alternative 8 until south
of SR 1921 (Mebane Rogers Road), where it turns east and runs parallel to
Alternatives 8 and 9 as it passes through the northwestern corner of the Cates
Farm property (within the NR listed boundary) and to the east (outside) of the
critical watershed area. The alignment ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917
(White Level Road).
The Merger Team concurred with the "Alternatives to Be Studied" as discussed at this
meeting and signed the Concurrence Point 2 signature sheet.
Proiect Status
Buck Engineering staff biologists have concluded their wetland and stream delineations.
A portion of these delineations have been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) representative and the remaining wetlands and streams are anticipated to be
verified in the near future. In addition, the wetlands and streams have all been
incorporated into the preliminary designs to be presented at the upcoming concurrence
meeting. Recent revisions to the preliminary design for Alternatives 8, 9, and 10 required
these additional wetland and stream delineations. The USFWS lists no species in
Alamance County under federal protection of the Endangered Species Act as of
February 3, 2003.
As mentioned previously, the preliminary designs for Alternatives 8, 9, and 10 have been
revised. The study area was expanded in various areas to accommodate these design
revisions, including the relocation of portions of existing NC 119 (Fifth Street) and Third
Street. Revisions to the preliminary designs are anticipated to occur once surveys of the
expanded study area are received.
A Phase II (Abridged) cultural resource survey was conducted to determine the Area of
Potential Effects (APE), and to identify and evaluate all significant resources within the
APE according to the National Register of Historic Places criteria. In April 1995, the
Phase II (Abridged) survey of the APE was completed and determined that of the 42
historic architectural resources within the APE, one of these properties was considered
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register, while 41 resources were not
eligible for National Register listing. The Paisley-Cates Farm was determined eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion B in the Historic
Architectural Resources Survey dated April 13, 1995, and under Criterion A in an
addendum to that Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report dated June 30, 1995.
In August 1996, an Addendum to the Phase H (Abridged) survey report was prepared
which evaluated three new study areas, including the I-85 interchange area, the West End
community avoidance area, and the Paisley-Cates Farm avoidance area. An intensive
3
field survey was conducted to establish an APE boundary that included all properties
located within and adjoining the new study areas. Thirteen properties were identified
during the survey, eight of which were determined not eligible for the National Register
and no further evaluation was required. The remaining five properties were evaluated in
the August 1996 Addendum and three were found to be eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. Cook's Mill and Dr. W. N. Tate Farm are both eligible for the
National Register under Criterion A and C, while House (#K) is eligible for the National
Register under Criterion C.
An Archaeological Survey was initially conducted in October 1994. Three prehistoric
sites were discovered during a reconnaissance survey of portions of the project area. The
results of the archaeological study indicated that severe erosion in much of the project
area made it unlikely that any archaeological sites eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places would be encountered. Further investigation was
recommended once a proposed corridor was selected. In May 1996 and March 1997,
Archaeological Surveys were prepared and presented the findings of two recorded
historic period sites within the newly proposed alternatives, one of which was deemed
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion B, C, and
D. The second historic site did not warrant further investigation. An Addendum to the
Archaeological Study was prepared in December 2000 and presented findings of an
archaeological investigation of a new reported site and adjacent land that may be
impacted by one of two proposed alternatives. However, no further investigation was
warranted for this site since the proposed project would not affect any sites eligible for
the National Register. Once the three alternatives (8, 9, and 10) were selected for
detailed study, NCDOT reviewed the previous archaeological work completed with the
Office of State Archaeology on January 27, 2003. They concluded that the previous
archaeological surveys covered the APE for the three alternatives considered and no
further archaeological work was expected for this project. However, a Phase I
Investigation of a newly reported site and adjacent land that may be impacted by one of
the proposed alternatives was prepared in November 2004., No further investigation was
warranted for this site since it was determined that the proposed project would not affect
any sites eligible for the National Register.
Concurrence Point 2a
Because the Merger Team has already reviewed the alignments for this project during
Concurrence Point 2, only the hydraulic structure recommendations will be discussed at
the Concurrence Point 2a meeting. Attached are copies of the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit's
hydraulic recommendations for the project, as well as maps depicting the major stream
crossings. An initial hydraulic review was completed in November 1995. Since then,
Alternates 8, 9, and 10 have been selected for further studies and an updated hydraulic
review was performed (March 2003). The Hydraulics Unit determined preliminary
bridge replacement structures at the request of PDEA (November 2003) and additional
information regarding the hydraulics aspects associated with the extension of Corrigidor
Road was provided in March 2005. In addition, a "Hydraulic Table" is attached and will
be the primary focus of the Concurrence Point 2a meeting.
MAD/asm
Attachments
4
z
n :u O
Dp? W D N
CC/)
-*n
aaa
w w m
W N N
n 2 :E
D
w
vw?,
C
CL
m
N
0
y
y
n
z
CD
CD
CD
CD
w
N
CL
n
w
CD
y
f
y
•n.
0
c
tQ
S
O
N
as
25* N N
N N
CLD o_
3 D
0-0
w v
a
o CD
3
n
m
CD
co
X
n
C_
m
z
c
,p W W W N N N y
a CD
CD

m p
ID oo (D

w (Q
O
W
co
p
CD
w °
CL °
o

0 3 d a o
fp Q. c w w m Qo wa
CD n n n -1 ?o O
Cl)
0 0 O
CD
COD
CD w

r n
.
@ T• r X,

n

n

n
vm

v
O CD
CD
;?7 C
D
77 CD
X,
co j W W 7 7 7 7
N CD
w 7
a s 7
a
1
1 °
'
O
p p CD N 0 _ O .O•. 0) n' 0) j0 3 Q
7 7 7 3 ,rte' 7 .,' 7 7
° X• S
x? a x F CD
x CD
x x? x? x? L
x

(a _ _
0
Fr 0
CO 0 a) a)
a)
a) 03
n
n
C7 O
m
..
.
w
3
0) 00 00 (o -4 Q rt
y .-C .C Y Cx FP r
s » x » + w ? ' 3
7
? C
3

co
w
co
-4 60

co

n
, {p W co C
N
A O 0

O

O
W O

O O

O O

O
0A
co
O
O
\ 00 W
CO CO - \ O
ffl O
O S9 {fl fo 60 C6977 60 W
N `
O
A p co
O N N N O
O
co
O \ O O O

O O

O co

O
CD
O O O °
n
n CP co T (D ?' Cl) (n fn (n q) n y N
z (A ' :E (A '- - '- z -9
(1) 2 S = 2 2 2
D ? n O
3
Y D D c

Z z z z z z p? w CD
A D D D D D D v' 3
CL
4 '
W ' N '
W A '
A
-O
o o -? W W D
n O W
0)
n V
0
co O

O O
Ln
n d
co
co
•?
0 :3 fD
y y 7
c CD CD y
O y y
O M M y n
O in y 7 y
O U 7 O
O
(MD O y= 0
-0
(D
o CD w m 3 w s BCD ID CD 3 w m w ° w m w 3 w a 3
o ?

CD
O N Cp CD Cp

O
O _ _
(D
O •?
CD
O =_ W _ _
(D
? _
_ y •
O
0
W
y
C CA
s n K
=c O O O. y fD
cc . N N
-c . N O
oc a y N y
p c; 5 . W O
=C a -?-• N (D 7 n
?
-C O•r Gy
t
N y O? y tD '^ CD y N 0 y N 2 y CD O CD 0
y (D _
w y CD N .r
'
ay O
a3 ?? O
ay ay
0 2
O
CL 0
CD ay p ay aO ay O
O
a
° w O
sn
v O 0
o p
m o SO C 0
3 3 o CD
?
3
m
3
D
CD 3
3
3 Cl) _m 3 3 °o 3 - 3 m 3 w
y - O O - - CD
in
7
("D

CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD
:3 CD
:3
-
7
w O
w 7
w 7
w 7
W >
w >
w 7
O1. 3
w
..
?
O
n S 3 S = 3 a n O C) O n S S
0?
> w
:0) 0)
mow. SD 3
> > ?w
>
>
j
w > > _
CD CD
m CD >
CD >
m (D >
a
(D
O m
CD
rL
a
Q.
CD
d
CD
Q
:E
CD
s
a e` CD
a
CD
a?
CD 0
CCDD M CD m
v Q
,
CD a
SJ .
o
SS a
SS CD Q a
'O p
'O
?
- O

SS M
S W A D A O Np 0 S
.p. A T E
r
A 91 00 0 H
A O co
O -1 0° 6° W° CO
O O O O
7 F*!
7
7 ;:r N
CD N
- (Q O

N -
i
N 'y0 X

? 7 W N
= fD
=• z z z z Z z z 0 7
:E on
SD D D D D D D D 0 o.

•
a c
J CL
V ?

3 ?.
z z z z z z z z d
D D D D D D D D c
6
N C

A

:.N

F r y?? r
T All X
h4 ..
?n
1109t, At
N
r 1Y ?'f" ?"? Jt y, ? L f i rt. . 1' G y
a:
,? s y
r ,ski'
k
IV

6I
1r r # ` v
f
06
ikt
_N ?1tiy d30 SST t - \ t C, 'r _}??? .:?
o r K +?•
Ift9l
4 * . ?Mf
O
m
SIC
o 44-
CD --1 v o.
Q o
n o Q r z ?:,
Q n N ,
a CD
N m ,,
()o w
O }
CD c
e `
Y
CD _0
I I 7 0 y r
-r ?
;- AW
leg$

NI

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 24, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
ATTN: Karen Boshoff Taylor, P.E.
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
FROM: fY D. R. Henderson, P.E.
State Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: Hydraulic Aspects of the Environmental Impact for the
Proposed Relocation (Alternates 8, 9 and 10) of NC 119
from I-40/85 to south of White Level Road (SR 1917) in
Mebane, Alamance County, State Project No. 8.1470901,
TIP No. U-3109
This project proposes to relocate NC 119 from I-40/85 to south of White Level Road (SR
1917) in Mebane, Alamance County. The proposed roadway section being investigated
consists of a four-lane median divided facility with grass shoulders. The Hydraulics Unit
staff conducted an investigation and preliminary study for the subject project in
November of 1995, and the information contained within that report is still valid. Since
that time, alternates 8, 9 and 10 have been selected for further studies. These alternates
are located between just south of Mebane Roger's Road (SR 1921) and just south of the
northern terminus. The hydraulic recommendations for alternates 8, 9 and 10 are
summarized as follows:
Hydraulic Structure Recommendations:
Three major stream crossing are associated with proposed project. Site 1 (McAdams
Creek) is located between I-40/I-85 and US 70 and is common to all alternates. Site 2
(tributary to Mill Creek) is located approximately 1,600 feet north of Mebane Roger's
Road (SR 1921) and is part of the restudy for alternates 8, 9 and 10. Site 2 alternates
cross Tributary to Mill Creek within close proximity to one another and the stream flows
from east to west. Therefore it is anticipated that the environmental impacts will likely
increase from alternate 10 (least impacts) shifting west to alternate 9 (medium impacts)
and then to alternate 8 (most impacts). The anticipated increase of impacts. for site 2 is
basis on floodplain widths and fill heights. Site 3 (Mill Creek).is located approximately
3,000 feet north of Mebane Roger's Road (SR 1921) and is also part of the restudy for
alternates 8, 9 and 10. Site 3-alternate 8 is the least desirable alignment as it crosses Mill
Creek linearly for approximately 1,000 feet and would result in the most environmental
impacts. Site 3-alternate 9 is the preferred alignment as it crosses Mill Creek near
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
HYDRAULICS UNIT BUILDING B
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27699-1590 RALEIGH NC
perpendicular and will likely have the least amount floodplain impacts. Site 3-alternate
10 is the second best alignment as it crosses Moll Creek near perpendicular; however, it
appears to have more floodplain impacts than alternate 9. It is recommended that
alternate 9 be selected as the preferred alternate with the structure sizes listed below.
Site Stream Alternate Recommendation
1 McAdams Creek Common To All 3 @ 3.Om x 2.lm (10'x 7') RCBC
2 Tributary to Mill Cr. 8, 9 (preferred) & 10 1.8m x 1.8m (6'x 6') RCBC
3 Mill Creek 8, 9 (preferred) & 10 3 @ 3.7m x 3.7m (12'x 12') RCBC
Recommendations of this report are preliminary and could be subject to change based on
a more detailed analysis during the final design phase of the project.
Fooodplain Management:
Both Alamance County and the Town of Mebane are participants in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Site 1 (McAdams Creek) and Site 3 (Mill Creek) are in
designated flood hazard zones where detailed flood studies have been performed. It is
anticipated that a floodway modification will be required at sites 1 and 3. Site 2 (tributary
to Mill Creek) is not located within a flood hazard zone. Attached are copies of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map on which are delineated the established limits of the 100-year
floodplain at site 1 and 3; however, the floodway limits are not shown. Attached also is a
USGS quad map on which are delineated the approximate limits of the 100-year flood
floodplain at site 2. The floodplain area in the vicinity of the stream crossings is rural and
undeveloped. The terrain throughout most of the project is rolling, with streams and
natural draws located such that the project can be drained without difficulty. Existing
drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable.
Environmental Considerations:
Watershed:
The project is located within the Cape Fear River Basin. The northern portion of the
project (north of US 70) is located within water supply watershed protected area and
within one-half mile of the water supply watershed critical area. The northern portion of
the project is also designated. as high quality waters. Groundwater resources should be
evaluated in the final design to ensure that measures are taken to prevent groundwater
contamination.
Regulations:
401/404 certification will be required. Floodway modification approval for McAdams
and Mill Creeks will be required from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Design Constraints:
Hazardous spill retention measures will be required for the portion of the project north of
US 70. Also, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the specification,
installation and maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control measures appropriate
for high quality waters in this portion of the project. South of US 70, the project is not in
a water supply watershed, nor a high quality water zone, and standard erosion and
sedimentation control measures are acceptable.
Permit Required:
Sites 1 and 2 are located above headwaters, and site 3 is below headwaters. Since the
proposed project is on new location, crossing several major floodplain areas and
wetlands, it is anticipated that construction of the project may be authorized under a
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) individual environmental permit.
The Hydraulics Unit will assist the Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, in coordinating with the USACOE and other governmental regulatory agencies to
ensure that all environmental concerns are appropriately addressed.
DRH/MSL/djn
Attachments
cc: Ms Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Ms Beth Harmon, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
• is
f
•,l(llil[IRRllllitiliRill(ll
l iiiii't1t???111
,"will
. 1tiiltilllllllil
liliiii(llillllillillllil `,r',,I?I
iillili (I
C nel -n
aI`"? 191
1921
9
o 2
1.0
1916 1915
n d? h
Q / Cnn
Kitm 1918

h 4
b -198

1921 x•13 2005 7
1915 S 'i 1918
`5 1917
Quaker 1917 1919

J Creek r'
15 6!: r
1921
Ras
.
a 1988 19 SITE 3

1927 1948 ? •:D +1 D
_
?.
-
SITE 2

ff
'
S?iJ1 •} I ?j
951
1
F1aw River
' :1? \R6 FAU EXT. : 3 r
70 -3

J
j 1.2 1936
1940 EX7

1 v ,
2011 :? .
:
:?
a 1991 `?/
Qj SITE 1 119

1940 f.,
R
- 1 ?
jN
LEEG STUDY AREA 1
• 5

'

S
4
1991
6 8
1

.8
FAQ <
.
f-
Y
2123 1.1 152 .,, i\ 2129 1007
1981 2126 6
- 9
;5 ' ry
2125 4

2248 2130

I .? Lliv i u-numenttaI J l,Ully' A Ca i

1340

s
r
f
•
?
13
16 H /
END STUDY Af,-E"
1345 1343
?r -
.3 Rama

1384
F,qS 1
I
1 Miles
1
i
NOIt'I'H CAROLINA I)EPA101+•iENT 01
TRANSPO11TA11ON
G as DIVISION Oil HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND L•'NVIRONIti1I;NTAL
teuxex>`g? BRANCH
NC 119 RELOCATION
1- 85 TO SOUTH OF SR 191T
MEBANE, ALAMANCE COUNTY
T. 1. P. PROJECT NO. U - 3109
Approx. Scale: 1" = 1 mile
OD

ZONE B
LATHAN
I j / { v NATIONAL FLBOB INSURLNCE PROGRAM I

E
ONE A4
562 y
M 51 N' c?^
ONE RMRM53 ,
B 52 ;ZONE RM54
II ??
FIRM
i F1.000 INSURANCE RATE MAP
f - '
to ALAMANCE COUNTY,
??O I NORTH CAROLINA
'( •4 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
SITE 1 PANF1600F«120 I
58:1 a .
ZONE B
l
Ij COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
1 - 370001 0060 R
i EFFECTIVE DATE:
1111 DECEMBER 1. 1881,
. 3
i idad ?^wV?M mrugm?{?pwcy
?I
1- II
3? \
I1
I I
ll
11
lay be
'his m:
arily si
II plani
or adjE
anels.
F
refer tc
ate sho,
trU ctu rf
stablish
'o deter
ontact
rogram
- " Lj ???.?: ,. - .632 •-... 1@ ? :\ ? •_ ?i 1 _
X28' v"
1?`-"r ; 5 -?'? _ ? ; ,:ice .-? (? ^1 '?,,' ?,) 6??---- _, ? •? ? ' :. .. _ of . -\\
t 3998
_S 5
" ?' / ?i' ` i '? :?. \ I SITF- 2/ #'?•. (` J/^` FEET
` g? ? Go- „ t;, -'J #1 - \1'?'' .`I ?1 . r'\? ?: .• 1, ?; i ? ? .
L _ II; 650 J /I ??, M1`? 11 ?? ?\
50
MA 6
1 ?\" ?/? ?? \ '?!?? 624• \1 0 ?? . ?I ` 'i; T: L.. I l 650 -
- .^'? ??. \•`? '1? I V? •/. '?i?? ,? ?? I ,` '\\1 I?I 399
st-
`':\?.
r%' : i /? ` i $t ? 1. ' - i^(?`? a `i 1 I 'S1 1 ; 1 ? 1 ??N• :. j • • i ? ' ~( ?...
1. ?? ?Y• -:-, •I- Ste` ' i. ,I c - ?' •'ST .?_ •d \
VJT Ch
/ •^BM ??? ••• j It SOUTHE! IB 7 4 l? \11 ?i?•'\ ;? ?^ so 3996
jk-
? = ?` "I 6SOri'i;!•\?'. +.••? ''/ij?? ?.%??`Je•\1 ? `' Oak ?• _ -/ •;=T1??. !`_ ??
OWT
_ ..?
-? \ •??. _ i?/?U ;./I - /?''S.evr- .-. _ _ South anh ?• ?S-?,,>•_?.-' ? •--! --_?--?--:1? ? VI• `.? I ? ?' ,.?__
3995
? _ VAN-\ ,Jy[ :?/•.•?.•`-" - L•i?', `? '-tl( L..??,;
Disposal
'/'. •.?? • \:?` "-f . Ili r /
! l?^ J 650 _J1 962 % ./ I• i ( - I II \ !I\ (_ ?-
tilt
?? l ?- /- __ ?? ?^ / J 686:• I •'\ '?
N\ / i i? iJ11`) ?, y 1 j
...i ?? , ?•?--'iii' 111 L'----? - r?. ios
%. ,{ APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF
/% 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN = 94
.0
If Course i ' _.?
1", 650
Trailer
_ C Park ?`" e.• i,` ; ?? ? •l•:, J ?
r `'o
\ 3993
-\ ` 1 .. .
rte _.- __ _ ?: _ ,r '- III :I ?: 'I •?.?,=`'J ?;?i 1,
3U
0)
Y ?f p
It ?Y
d C7 LL W Q
OWJZ"J
p,L O W
W2N\ 1
?y
?/laid S
??r7I 1 /
?? i ?I lr
m
W
Z UO
cW
o m
?z

CZ

3
0 w

d state w
z?
?:?? -_ s NOQ W

C)

X16\ n?S
r?N a a
Z
$ i
I f - W
' ?? T
i o

`?
< L _ Co jpz ?
LL. W G Z ? B

W N
F
z 56ti
n, a O W
N
J
Z? W a- om
oc 7W N
F- L)
°W_.ILJ O9s L lA
pLL?OW
LL W
Lli u<- W
Zca N
OQ
°°w
zcoct
O 0
pU
1 OwWE ?
/ ?' ow2 W
_ -1 . _..k
aw.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 17, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
ATTN: Karen Boshoff Taylor, P.E.
FROM:
D. R. Henderson, P.E.
State Hydraulics Engineer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Additional information regarding bridges at major stream
crossings for the Proposed Relocation (Alternates 8, 9 and
10) of NC 119 from I-40/85 to south of White Level Road
(SR 1917) in Mebane, Alamance County, State Project No.
8.1470901, TIP No. U-3109
This project proposes to relocate NC 119 from I-40/85 to south of White Level Road (SR
1917) in Mebane, Alamance County. The proposed roadway section being investigated
consists of a four-lane median divided facility with grass shoulders. Hydraulics Unit staff
reevaluated this project in March 2002 for the added alternates 8, 9 and 10 and it was
determined that the original hydraulic structure recommendations are hydraulically
adequate. However, at the request of Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, preliminary bridge replacement structures will be determined. The new bridge
lengths for the three alternates are summarized as follows:
Bridge Structure Recommendations:
Site Alternate Stream Original Minimum Bridge Length From a
No. Name Recommended Hydraulic Point of View
Structure
1 8, 9, & 10 McAdams 3 @ 10'x 7' RCBC 70' bridge with spill-through slopes
Creek
2 8 Tributary to 1 @ 6'x 6' RCBC 90' bridge with spill-through Slopes
Mill Creek
2 9 Tributary to 1 @ 6'x 6' RCBC 100' bridge with spill-through slope
Mill Creek
2 10 Tributary to 1 @ 6'x 6' RCBC 100' bridge with spill-through slope
Mill Creek
3 8 Mills Creek 3 @ 12,x 12' RCBC 160' bridge with spill through slope
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HYDRAULICS UNIT
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1590
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
BUILDING B
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC
. ' &
3 9 Mills Creek 3 @ 12,x 12' RCBC 80' bridge with spill-through slopes
3 10 Mills Creek 3 @ 12,x 12' RCBC 80' bridge with spill-through slopes
Note: Bridge lengths are estimated assuming 10' roadway fill above floodplain.
Proposed roadway grades and on the ground alignments will be required for a
more accurate estimate.
RCBC indicates Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert.
It is recommended that alternate 9 be selected as the preferred alternate.
Recommendations of this report are preliminary and could be subject to change based on
a more detailed analysis during the final design phase of the project.
DRH/MSL/djn

daa SfA?°
?• s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
ATTN: Karen B. Taylor, P.E.
FROM: /44, D. R. Henderson, P.E. 'K?5?
State Hydraulics Engineer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: TIP No. U-3109 - Additional information regarding the
hydraulics aspects associated with extension of Corrigidor
Road (SR 1997) and Roosevelt Street (SR 1970) as part of
the Proposed Relocation of NC 119 from I-40/85 to south
of White Level Road (SR 1917) in Mebane, Alamance
County, WBS No. 34900.1.1
In response to your request dated December 17, 2004 for additional information regarding
the hydraulics aspects of the proposed inclusion of the subject road extensions, the
Hydraulics Unit staff has completed a preliminary study and field review, resulting in the
following comments and recommendations.
Hydraulic Structure Recommendations:
The proposed extension of Roosevelt Street (SR 1970) to Tate Avenue (SR 1973) will
cross an unnamed tributary of McAdams Creek. Based on a preliminary hydraulic
analysis, this stream crossing will require a single-barrel 6 ft. by 5 ft. reinforced concrete
box culvert (RCBC).
For the proposed extension of Corrigidor Road (SR 1997), there were two alternatives
originally presented in the December 17, 2005 memorandum. Both begin approximately
750 ft. north of Third Street (SR 1962), and end at the proposed Roosevelt Street
(SR 1970) extension, one approximately 250 ft. east of Tate Avenue (SR 1973), and the
other approximately 260 ft. further to the east. Since that time, information has been
provided indicating that the more westerly of the two alternatives is the one that is
currently considered most feasible based on recent information from meetings and
correspondence with local authorities. Hydraulics Unit concurs with this alternative due
to the potential of the more easterly alternate for lateral encroachment into the unnamed
tributary to McAdams Creek, which could require considerable stream relocation work.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
HYDRAULICS UNIT BUILDING B
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC. US 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27699-1590 - RALEIGH NC

This alternate crosses the unnamed tributary just downstream from the Roosevelt Street
stream crossing mentioned above. Consequently, an identically sized structure
(1 @ 6 ft. x 5 ft. RCBC) would also be recommended for this crossing, and depending
upon the final design alignment, it may be possible to build a single culvert structure that
could carry both Roosevelt Street and Corrigidor Road.
The proposed Corrigidor Road extension will also cross McAdams Creek approximately
0.4 miles north of Third Street. The recommended structure at this stream crossing is a
2 @ 10 ft. x 6 ft. RCBC. If abridge is considered, it would need to be approximately
60 feet in length, with a minimum gradient of 033% to facilitate deck drainage, and a
vertical clearance of approximately 7 ft. above the stream bed.
Floodplain Management
The proposed crossings of the unnamed tributary to McAdams Creek mentioned above
are not in a designated flood zone. A copy of the USGS Quad map is attached, on which
the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain are delineated in the project vicinity.
McAdams Creek, as has been noted in previous correspondence, is included in a detailed
flood study for Alamance County, having a regulated floodplain and floodway with
associated established water surface elevations. As such, the proposed Corrigidor Road
extension will require a floodway revision at the McAdams Creek crossing. The
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and local authorities in the final design phase regarding the floodway revision in
order to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances. Attached is a copy of
the Flood Insurance Rate Map on which are depicted the established limits of the 100-
year floodplain and floodway in the vicinity of the proposed stream crossing.
Environmental Considerations:
The general environmental considerations specified in our earlier comments for this
project remain applicable, and there are no additional specific concerns which need to be
addlessed in association with the proposed additional scope of work. Recommendations
of this report are preliminary and could be subject to change based on a more detailed
analysis during the final design phase of the project.
DRH/MSL/jms
Attachments
cc: Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Ms Beth Harmon, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
/ `cr p I u ?` S;E
LL
0 ? Q v) 2 y W ??? m M Q 07 eVp I
ail.
€s°?
V ??EEu
`w
xo0 4 ag
aELO?
?rrLLE
® EE .
o
pND
PHEEPS
NNORK ROAD
r x _
w O
Z ? •pl 1
O ?1 r+ ` IyppD
N
O c O CO?IG
"Vb',1 4..1
a?+ .N yJ
W W aj
A ? pt.
.(dry Ny'6?? V ° N pZ F' a> >. ? s1O"E'`P :c
nOJ ?JN O ?J o = o° ' N m p t
btyy? ?a ,° O o M ,
b ? •w
O anN7nv
3{bl V i
iC
W
X e08 v x
w
Z s W
O Z
N 6? N
I ?
a^?yD ° y9a ?
d d X¢
s ? U 6gA
M
LL o ?O
C h X
O
N u Z
D x N
sN O\ Z
M X O
O N
t4. w
n
O o m O i ? ?
1..1 v N e?
CU ? ? ? W
W
W
Q U IL
w ¢ Z O
O
m 7 Q
N ? <U
0
w 7
Z
z
0
1?..,
r=
?U
0 :LLS
N
N
n m
? N
? W
W ZO X.
Qo Z N °
a X
?
o
d ? d ? Wg ? M p

W W

Q

Q
?
? ?

?

S=^ Z V

? N v j
I
(
r ??_ a 0 H CC y
V ?? ? M W
O O? a z ?S W
Q Ri O O $_£ C T
`
o OG W ? ? c?'i :?fi c
?
o Z Z OV ? Z ?a4
o ? O
O d ?•' q
0 w? a E ?
? =a
S
? i..? ro u
r4? 'O
2 ? Q
'C d ? u
F ff
i?i

Y
Robert L. Wilson

City Marwger ?-tIJ of Arhaltr
Glendel Stephenson
Mayo
Co.mcil 106 E. Washington Street
Ed Hooks, Mayor Pro Tem Mebane, N.C. 27302
Alice Bordsen
Tim Bradley [phone]
Bob Hupman
Henry Johns
August 8, 2001
John. Hennessy
Dot Coordinator
Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
1621 Mail Service Center / 1 AUG f 5M
4401 Reedy (:reek Road
Mr, Hennessy,
Elaine J. Hicks
A.>•,r. Mgr./CityClerk/FinanceOfficer
Marilyn. Carter
Tar Collector
Gary Bumgamer
ChiefofPolice
Jimmy Jobe
Public Works Director
Mike Hite
Waste Treatment Director
Dean Ray
Recreation & Parks Director
Bob Louis
Fire Chief
Montrena Hadley
Plotin ng Director
Attached is a copy of a Resolution that was approved by the Mebane
City Council at their August 6, 2001 meeting. The Resolution expresses
the position of the City of Mebane on the connector roads onto the
north side of the proposed 119 outer loop project. I do believe this will
clear any misunderstandings that have been expressed to you, your
department and others. Please feel free to share this resolution with
other agencies. The City of Mebane is willing to do whatever we can to
get this project back. on track. If you or your department needs any
additional information to help guide this project along, please contact
me. Let's share information and work together.
'T'hank yo ,
Robe Filson,
City Manager, City of Mebane
Chartered in 1881

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEBANE
URGING THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO EXPEDITE THE PLANNING
AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE N.C. 119 CONNECTOR
IN THE CITY OF MEBANE, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
Transportation Improvement Program of Alamance County, North Carolina both include
proposed construction of a relocated N.C. 119 Connector beginning at I40/85 and
extending across U.S. Highway 70 to a point North of the City Limits, of the City of
Mebane; and
WHEREAS, said project has been in the planning stages for a number of years
and has been the subject of numerous public meetings and public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mebane has concluded that it is in the
best interest of the City and of its citizens that such highway improvement be undertaken
as quickly as possible; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mebane is severed by the North Carolina railroad which
operates a number of freight and passenger trains through the community on a daily
basis; and
WHEREAS, the closest non-grade crossing for said rail structure is located more
than four miles from the Mebane downtown area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mebane has the responsibility for fire protection for
significant populations lying both North and South of the North Carolina railroad tracks
and to that end has constructed a modern fire station within the City at a cost in excess of
$1.5 million; and
WHEREAS in the event of an emergency requiring a rapid response of either fire
or police personnel, such response could be materially hampered by traffic on the North
Carolina railroad line blocking crossing access; and
WHEREAS, one of the key features of the proposed highway improvement is the
construction of an overpass across the North Carolina railroad which said overpass
structure under the alignments being contemplated by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation are within one mile of the headquarters of the fire station facility of the
City of Mebane and it is imperative that the public safety of the citizens of Mebane be
protected and enhanced as rapidly as possible by the construction of the overpass feature
of the N.C. 119 Connector; and
e
WHEREAS, the construction of said N.C. 119 Connector will materially benefit
industrial and commercial development in those areas of the City of Mebane and its
environs which lie south of U.S. Highway 70; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the proposed alignments of N.C.
119 that are north of U.S. Highway 70 pass within environmentally sensitive areas and
that construction of roadway improvements should not be designed in such a way as to
promote environmentally unwise development in those portions of the community lying
north of U.S. Highway 70;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City o+ Mebane,
North Carolina that:
1. The City Council urges the North Carolina Department of Transportation
and such other agencies of the State as shall be involved in the planning and construction
of the N.C. 119 Connector to expedite the planning, design and construction of said
connector in order to promote the safety of lives and property lying north and south of the
North Carolina railroad tracks in this area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mebane urges the
North Carolina Department of Transportation to conclude the planning stages of said
project as expeditiously as possible and to that end the City Council would encourage the
North Carolina Department of Transportation to, insofar as practicable, ensure that the
N.C. 119 Connector does not intrude into the water quality critical. area of the City of
Graham/Mebane water supply and to that end urges the North Carolina Department of
Transportation or such other agency as shall be appropriate to seek such waivers as shall
be necessary or desirable to facilitate said highway construction in the proximity of the
proposed Cates Farm Historical site in such a manner as to not unduly intrude or distract
from the historical significance of said site.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council goes on record as supporting a site
in the general vicinity of those currently planned by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, it being the consensus of the City Council that an overpass structure
located to the east of the City area would not allow sufficient response time for
emergency vehicles and would in fact impede the safety of the persons and property
within the City of Mebane and its environs.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council goes on record by stating its policy
that the City will not encourage development along N.C. 119 North of U.S. Highway 70
and will institute such zoning and subdivision protection as shall be reasonably required
to protect the environmental resources of the community as shall be consistent with North
Carolina and Federal law.
FURTHER RESOLVE that the City Council policy, as expressed herein, shall be
to discourage those developments which will require new points of access to N.C. 119
s
North of U.S. 70 other than those areas of access deemed to be necessary in the planning
stages for the service of existing communities and institutions.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at its regular meeting
held on August 6, 2001, Mebane, North Carolina
Mayor
Attest:
City Cl
Copies of this Resolution was sent to Boyd DeVane and Steve Zonfoly of
Division of Water Quality, Dept. of ENR.
A copy was sent to John Hennessy, DOT Coordinator, Division of
Water Quality.
Copies of the Resolution and a copy of a preliminary plat of North
Carolina Industrial Center (South Side proposal 119 outer loop) was
sent to Doug Galyon, James Bridge's, Mike Mills and Secretary Tippett.
Q
dM5rA TE?
a,MVm'`

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy :
March 21, 2001
LYNDo TIPPErr
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: 404/NEPA Process Team Meeting on TIP Project U-3109 in Mebane, Alamance
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-119(1), State Project No. 8.1470901
Please review the enclosed information in preparation for the 404/NEPA Process Team
Concurrence meeting scheduled for April 18, 2001 at 3:00 PM. The meeting will be held in the
Photogrammetry Conference Room at NCDOT's Century Center.
Thank you for your assistance and participation. For questions or comments, please
contact me at [phone], extension 222.
Sincerely,
J mes F. Bridges, P. E.
Project Development Engineer
JFB/plr
Enclosure
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW. DON. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
3/20/01
Study Alternatives for TIP U-3109
NC 119 Relocation
From 1-85 to just north of SR 1917 (White Level Road)
Alamance County
Study Corridor Alternatives
Seven (200 ft. wide) corridors were identified for study on this project. At the
Team meeting on December 13, 2000 two alternatives were eliminated (ABEI & ACFI)
and an additional alternative (ABGH) was identified. A summary of the impacts from
each corridor is shown on the attached alternative comparison worksheet. Listed below is
a description of remaining alternative corridors (see map).
Corridor 2 (ABFI) begins at existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses US 70
at Craftique Furniture factory. It crosses White Level Road near Cooks Mill road, and
ties back into existing NC 119 approximately 0.4 mile north of SR 2005 (Landi Lane).
South of US 70 Corridor 2 is similar to corridor 1 (ABEI). North of US 70 it runs
just parallel to and further away from Graham Lake than Corridor 1. This is a 4F-
avoidance alternative for this project.
Corridor 3 (ABFH) begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at Craftique. From there it passes through the back half of the Cates Farm
property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
This corridor will avoid the Craftique Furniture factory as well as the West End
Community. While this corridor goes through the watershed, the linear distance of
impacts is .96 mile.
Corridor 4 (ACFH) begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). It passes through the northern half of the Cates
Farm property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
The Cates Farm is a historic property determined eligible for the National
Register. The owners of the property are proceeding with plans to develop the northern
half of the property. The remainder of the property with boundaries that include the
southern part only will be submitted for inclusion on the National Register.
While reducing the watershed impacts, this corridor also divides West End. West
End is a low-income minority community. This corridor creates environmental justice
problems by disproportionately impacting the West End community.
Corridor 5 (ACGH) Begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). From there it passes through the western and
3/20/01
northern sides of the Cates Farm Property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917
(White Level Road).
Like alternative 4 this corridor divides and disproportionately impacts the West
End community.
Corridor 7 (ADH) Begins at existing NC 119/1-85 interchange, and crosses US 70
approximately 1150 feet east of SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) and ties into existing NC 119
.8 mile south of SR 1917 (White Level Road).
Although this corridor avoids the watershed completely, it has an extremely high
number of residential relocations.
Corridor 8 (ABGH,) is an additional alternative identified at the last team meeting.
The actual alignment is shown on the aerial photo. It begins at the existing NC 119/I-85
interchange and crosses US 70 at Craftique. From there it passes through the western and
northern sides of the Cates Farm Property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917
(White Level Road).
r
•
> >
C9 w
n n
^?
O n A
'

00
O
wti
^
n
o
"'
?
_ b7
y
00
?"
• `°
°: U
00
a
° ?
o
w co
w o o° oc d
Q? w ?
, aa, ?, ?, y c
> w v
a
a CD g ao n a ti C"J
b
o o? r m
CO Rt7 n w `? a• =n w i? Z' coo ? X 77 x. X :°-.n w
r
a c o x J O ?° 7 X f9 n .? N
o '^ o v w
• - w y O N 3 N.' ? G 7
o° w o S°
a
N T' to °
?. ?
GG
R
R O o O `O 0. rty
p
G X 00 P. G n
n
Q
j
?' O S 7 Q
•
y_» C7 p n W 0.w' (n r' Z 0
C" p O O v. O

O Z
' n 00
a n /7 O O w
G A Z N cr.
N ('? ?
a O y?

N y C 'D
A,
v A o
A o A v, a
3
A w

69
N EA N
N A
G? "Op

<
'A
?
O
C
p
O O O
O O
? p
O O
O O
Cl
p

W
:O
EA o0
O OC
C_ N
A

U
l J U
O
O

O
C
O O
bq
69

?
?"? W
C
O yr

'p•
n ? N
to O
O O
O
O CD
? I
7
O
3
rn
z
>
m
z
>
m
`A
n O n ;'c
_ c
o O
f ?• o ?
? ?= a7
O n C
7 v 'n
m --
N
z
m
z
m
z
m
w
o P
vo ?? o
0
3
O
z
m
3
N
y
0
z
z
m
z
m
z
m
60

3
w
N V?

lJ n
y
n
lD
N
0
0
z
O
e
d "
r
OC
2 CL!
ry
z5
C
n
O
rj
V
N N C"

C %Z
z j
;.cn r 3 <
C

_ _
OC
C1 ? n
r--. C

61

" y C
? Z

y a N
c n ? >
-?zC
U.
'i7 n
Z ? m Z
°
3
r ?
?,? l
?; ° W Z n

m
z ? ^ >o

x
?
z y .e
m
N A r+ N

.? ? cn> C

I
N
U:
o L

zm T?
r
? C C
? n W
O a O
6
a
w
0
0
? x
C
C f

(D n
N r+
O
c n
n

S ?
O
O
O

7
n
O

n
0
B
m

y
?x.w ooo? ?
0 ooo0 < o
C x
- to O 00 a•
X C-
O
z S n ..
fJ
' n~
y ~• .4
G
°
S w w
°

c x
n
- w cr c I
'c o ao
y
CD 3
C.

cn
-
E c z N
o

C- ti F y z d
z

J
o
E J? .On

A J w a

B ? 3. 3

vj
N
x

C
C
O
O os
N
in
C
O
C
O
C
x
N
?

O ?
w
N
J
O
C
O
w

N
?.n
C
O 69
w
00
N
J
O
O
O

?
A ? ?1
O A ?] W fD r
_ O r
F3 n n

- f
r <

r\

r x
?
n
O
z z

r
z z
m ..
z z

z z

?

r
C
V. 0
w
n
?
y
C ?
t
i lilo

r l lq,
cro.tia.to 1+ il[ n..l.r
iMlq? rol.m.fae...0 c
?..aimi I.n .. e. r...o
\i.wp10. rol+it . _c. r._no
IIwoUD?1101+If .F C. 0. WO
P+e. Ig. .1 x0.i
IO.IC eil[f
V iCU'

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy :
SUBJECT: 404/NEPA Process Team Meeting on TIP Project U-3109 in Mebane, Alamance
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-119(1), State Project No. 8.1470901
Please review the enclosed information in preparation for the 404/NEPA Process Team
Concurrence meeting scheduled for April 18, 2001 at 3:00 PM. The meeting will be held in the
Photogrammetry Conference Room at NCDOT's Century Center.
Thank you for your assistance and participation. For questions or comments, please
contact me at [phone], extension 222.
Sincerely,
dames F. Bridges, P. E.
Project Development Engineer
JFB/plr
`0a awM ?°'`
March 22, 2001
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
`rr1

" av ' n
?
C rv -
?-
o ?rn
CD

?o
w
r*t
Enclosure
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

3/20/01
Study Alternatives for TIP U-3109
NC 119 Relocation
From I-85 to just north of SR 1917 ()White Level Road)
Alamance County
Study Corridor Alternatives
Seven (200 ft. wide) corridors were identified for study on this project. At the
Team meeting on December 13, 2000 two alternatives were eliminated (ABEI & ACFI)
and an additional alternative (ABGH) was identified. A summary of the impacts from
each corridor is shown on the attached alternative comparison worksheet. Listed below is
a description of remaining alternative corridors (see map).
Corridor 2 (ABFI) begins at existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses US 70
at Craftique Furniture factory. It crosses White Level Road near Cooks Mill road, and
ties back into existing NC 119 approximately 0.4 mile north of SR 2005 (Landi Lane).
South of US 70 Corridor 2 is similar to corridor 1 (ABEI). North of US 70 it runs
just parallel to and further away from Graham Lake than Corridor 1. This is a 417-
avoidance alternative for this project.
Corridor 3 (ABFH) begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at Craftique. From there it passes through the back half of the Cates Farm
property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
This corridor will avoid the Craftique Furniture factory as well as the West End
Community. While this corridor goes through the watershed, the linear distance of
impacts is .96 mile.
Corridor 4 (ACFH) begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). It passes through the northern half of the Cates
Farm property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
The Cates Farm is a historic property determined eligible for the National
Register. The owners of the property are proceeding with plans to develop the northern
half of the property. The remainder of the property with boundaries that include the
southern part only will be submitted for inclusion on the National Register.
While reducing the watershed impacts, this corridor also divides West End. West
End is a low-income minority community. This corridor creates environmental justice
problems by disproportionately impacting the West End community.
Corridor 5 (ACGH) Begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). From there it passes through the western and
3/20/01
northern sides of the Cates Farm Property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917
(White Level Road).
Like alternative 4 this corridor divides and disproportionately impacts the West
End community.
Corridor 7 (ADH) Begins at existing NC 119/1-85 interchange, and crosses US 70
approximately 1150 feet east of SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) and ties into existing NC 119
.8 mile south of SR 1917 (White Level Road).
Although this corridor avoids the watershed completely, it has an extremely high
number of residential relocations.
Corridor 8 (ABGH) is an additional alternative identified at the last team meeting.
The actual alignment is shown on the aerial photo. It begins at the existing NC 119/1-85
interchange and crosses US 70 at Craftique. From there it passes through the western and
northern sides of the Cates Farm Property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917
(White Level Road).
a a a a Za

x x x ~
w o o 0000 o w o 0000
? ?.m 0000
w ° o 0000
?n a0
o L m - ao• c• ^ "? o?
v. "? •
R. G w v,
71 v .?. X w >
a v 7y w
a
o °? c 7y :°

°
o r a0
w CD,

°
° z 0 d
m
o
v%< °

y

t"
ri y
eo
?• vox
w
w 7c' w
o ^'
° . 10
.,,
o
ti
CD a•
? (D
?' m
7
.x -? a a

0 77
o w
A

'?
a 0 N
?n
a as Y
0
?• S'
°0
0 9 o 1 a M-
0
°° n .
u0 n
°°
a
0
o n
0 p 7
0 o
& CD y
' C'1 ?n < z CC `° `? p O y '. .+ P'i ti
3 Z
a]0 ti C' a C ° " C o
C ° E
eo

?a
Ao
.moo
?? rro
zo
•P w
py. ? v, A c,n
'.
y n
• a
"
,
y

°

o

°o w

o
O
?
Z
o r
j,

bs bs cc o

A

O 00
00
?O

01

0 n
0 o
0 o
y
0
65
w bs
w ss
w bs
w
w
W a, w
0 v
N
A O
A O
J 1
N ? ? ?i
O y
O
O O
O
O O
O t"

A o
W
N anA,ACZ
A y??? ??.

W ? (' j in O? ('? '•?y O A ?n ?]
ro
° o o " [r ° o r"o r yAy
0
n
° R
B
o
o A w eo A z
9
w o ° rn yC?27
Y
^
jya
^
C, O
?

"17 A

r?
y < ? y
z
a z z
m A y
ro
m A z
n
., n taro
>
o
z ;?
z m Cn rc Carl
>
y

z

m z

rn z

>

A
y
m
N eD ¦r

N r•'
w ? v?
a y
eeDD CA relr"

fA ?
? y
O
co?
0 0 0 0 Z?
C'a

S '
z
a?
? O w
N
r'
Vai ?
rn ?
0
N
O
O m
n
sF,
?• N
0
o0
ll
O
n
O
(D
a
x x
CDn ?-w
?
O
S O o ^_? -x
00
p
B rz
CD
y l
n Q
'
i
o' y =r W O
O
A y
o 00 5 y
3
c
n
o ?
w •
o
y O co o
r
:; ?
z r
f w
<
5
;o -fl ?. < 5
o ao co B m
?
O CD
o .o a ? ? 5• ,
o o. n w fD ? ?•
'?
°- y -?
a
?y z p ??
z
`°
? ?. o y N n 7y
7 77 o N l7 ?

CA J y C
A ? W a>

N
N N
N
O
O O
O
C
O
O O
O
O
00
00
N 69

? w
N
O ?
O
O O
O
? fA
W
N ?
O
O O
Cl
O

A
W O
J
\
O A J w ? ?
O
O

O
D
O
O O
O
O

W
CD O
?
A
(D n
z z
a a
m m
z z
m m
m z
m
z z
m m
B
3

A
?
O
fD
N o
y
n
?
?
O oG
i
l
fi.

3/20/01
Study Alternatives for TIP U-3109
NC 119 Relocation
From I-85 to just north of SR 1917 (White Level Road)
Alamance County
Study Corridor Alternatives
Seven (200 ft. wide) corridors were identified for study on this project. At the
Team meeting on December 13, 2000 two alternatives were eliminated (ABEI & ACFI)
and an additional alternative (ABGH) was identified. A summary of the impacts from
each corridor is shown on the attached alternative comparison worksheet. Listed below is
a description of remaining alternative corridors (see map).
Corridor 2 (ABFI) begins at existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses US 70
at Craftique Furniture factory. It crosses White Level Road near Cooks Mill road, and
ties back into existing NC 119 approximately 0.4 mile north of SR 2005 (Landi Lane).
South of US 70 Corridor 2 is similar to corridor 1 (ABEI). North of US 70 it runs
just parallel to and further away from Graham Lake than Corridor 1. This is a 4F-
avoidance alternative for this project.
Corridor 3 (ABFH) begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at Craftique. From there it passes through the back half of the Cates Farm
property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
This corridor will avoid the Craftique Furniture factory as well as the West End
Community. While this corridor goes through the watershed, the linear distance of
impacts is .96 mile.
Corridor 4 (ACFH) begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). It passes through the northern half of the Cates
Farm property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
The Cates Farm is a historic property determined eligible for the National
Register. The owners of the property are proceeding with plans to develop the northern
half of the property. The remainder of the property with boundaries that include the
southern part only will be submitted for inclusion on the National Register.
While reducing the watershed impacts, this corridor also divides West End. West
End is a low-income minority community. This corridor creates environmental justice
problems by disproportionately impacting the West End community.
Corridor 5 (ACGH) Begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). From there it passes through the western and
3/20/01
northern sides of the Cates Farm Property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917
(White Level Road).
Like alternative 4 this corridor divides and disproportionately impacts the West
End community.
Corridor 7 (ADH) Begins at existing NC 119/1-85 interchange, and crosses US 70
approximately 1150 feet east of SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) and ties into existing NC 119
.8 mile south of SR 1917 (White Level Road).
. Although this corridor avoids the watershed completely, it has an extremely high
number of residential relocations.
Corridor 8 (ABGH) is an additional alternative identified at the last team meeting.
The actual alignment is shown on the aerial photo. It begins at the existing NC 119/1-85
interchange and crosses US 70 at Craftique. From there it passes through the western and
northern sides of the Cates Farm Property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917
(White Level Road).
r• w > A NI Z ?I
I
3 5
pp?? y p?•?• CAS_'? *s..3

Q
o
?
1 o m `? .
? ?
e
- g m
_
_
p _
96 a
e
7S n e

3
r 00
3
^
... y ? 00
r a ?
_ r
0 r
x
m .?
ni oZ S n

A
?
p
n
.
o n
A
Z R- C

Z O
?
ae?Co 0
i
.? Co ? Co
J a 3
r Co
n
lq Vl y

?v
46
Av
yJ 7
(! T.
a W ?. N d t?i1 W OD Z C
S?
A
S OpO
OO d
•
O - VV
O n C
VO
1
8
O O 8
O $
b ?
'
?w
m w
c w
00
00 o
.pp I
O T _ <I
g -9
N
W W N
l.J M
W
W
p.

a Q,
I

I ? w

?? J

a
n
--4
y 1
!
0 o t•-

A A ° > °3 > m

wI, ?an;a oa t?l v
o C
?. o F -• o - °- ?
S n
n O r"] "7
n n :/1 Z

y y rn > r?7
n n :a f1 > >

O i7

z z z z yy

> ' n
c ?

"ll 71
?
° -; n a
?>
z z _ ; -?

X
Z ? m z
> p
A ? t
c?

4 >

W W •O
n
_

n

- 77
_r >

z
n
>?
w
a?
at
lo
o-
7
A O
' E
n
N 3
410
_• N
? v
0
? A
7
n
a
0
3
n

A V I
d s a W ? o?`_ o? C ? Z
?-

2L
A 40

:z
J
N

4b p W
3 7!
-' 3 3, 3
N
N
b
O N
N
V1
O
QQ
O op
O
OC
N
?
S N
w
N
O
C
G
-

•o
tJ
?
a I
? M
w
oe
`J
t
?
G I

I

d
w O
\
o ?a
L,g vwn A
0O3 m
O 7' O ? ? C
O
^ ? R (9
_ O O A
•e
3•

O
n z
?
z z

z z

z
n z

z z
n

?! 'O
3 o
3
A
r.
?
n
I
x ? I
I
NC: A9 AAmance Co. NC
Subject: NC 119 Alamance Co. NC
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 12:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Eric,
This is TIP project No. U-3109, for improvements which NCDOT proposes
in the vicinity of the town of Mebane. EPA has reviewed the
information in the March 7, 2000 NCDOT transmittal.
EPA concurs with the purpose and need for improvements defined in this
document.
All alternatives share a common route from south of Mebane vicinity to
I-85. EPA questions why there are no alternatives considered for this
portion of the project, the majority of which is on new alignment.
The portion of the project in the vicinity of Mebane and the West End
community is the focus of this alternatives development document.
From seven original alternatives, two are proposed for further study
and consideration. The alternatives dropped were done so primarily
because of environmental justice or historic resources concerns.
Upgrades to the present route through Mebane commercial area is not
considered and options of an east side route are mentioned but not
described. The two new alignment alternatives proposed to be carried
forth traverse a water supply critical watershed area.
EPA does not concur with the scope of the alternatives to be further
considered. There should be further development of a traffic
management alternative through the business district. The east side
alternative was dropped for reasons of transportation utility before
it was presented to the Merger Team. An east side route may tie into
the I-85 interchange No. 154. EPA is uncomfortable that the only
options proposed for further consideration traverse the Graham Lake
critical water supply watershed area. It is also appropriate to
consider alternatives for the portion of the project south of Mebane.
Clearly, there is more information necessary in order to make an
informed decision on reasonable alternatives.
Call me at 404/562-9621 if you would like to discuss EPA's comments.
1 of 1 05/09/2000 4:08 PM
N1. S 9 Alamance Co. NC
Subject: NC 119 Alamance Co. NC
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 12:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Eric,
This is TIP project No. U-3109, for improvements which NCDOT proposes
in the vicinity of the town of Mebane. EPA has reviewed the
information in the March 7, 2000 NCDOT transmittal.
EPA concurs with the purpose and need for improvements defined in this
document.
All alternatives share a common route from south of Mebane vicinity to
I-85. EPA questions why there are no alternatives considered for this
portion of the project, the majority of which is on new alignment.
The portion of the project in the vicinity of Mebane and the West End
community is the focus of this alternatives development document.
From seven original alternatives, two are proposed for further study
and consideration. The alternatives dropped were done so primarily
because of environmental justice or historic resources concerns.
Upgrades to the present route through Mebane commercial area is not
considered and options of an east side route are mentioned but not
described. The two new alignment alternatives proposed to be carried
forth traverse a water supply critical watershed area.
EPA does not concur with the scope of the alternatives to be further
considered. There should be further development of a traffic
management alternative through the business district. The east side
alternative was dropped for reasons of transportation utility before
it was presented to the Merger Team. An east side route may tie into
the I-85 interchange No. 154. EPA is uncomfortable that the only
options proposed for further consideration traverse the Graham Lake
critical water supply watershed area. It is also appropriate to
consider alternatives for the portion of the project south of Mebane.
Clearly, there is more information necessary in order to make an
informed decision on reasonable alternatives.
Call me at 404/562-9621 if you would like to discuss EPA's comments.
1 of 1 05/09/2000 4:12 PM
11*"

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy :
December 5, 2000
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: 404/NEPA Process Team Meeting on TIP Project U-3109 in Mebane, Alamance
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-119(1), State Project No. 8.1470901
Please review the enclosed information in preparation for the 404/NEPA Process Team
Concurrence meeting scheduled for December 13, 2000 at 10:00 am. The meeting will be held
in the Board of Transportation Meeting Room on the I" floor of the Highway Building. The
purpose of this meeting will be to reach agreement on concurrence point 2 (study alternatives).
The enclosed information contains the Purpose and Need for the project and information on
alternatives DOT has already studied up to this point. The Purpose and Need has previously
been agreed upon and should be signed at this meeting.
Thank you for your assistance and participation. For questions or comments, please
contact me at [phone], extension 222.
Sincerely,
1(am F. Bridges, P. E.
Project Development Engineer
JFB/plr
Enclosure
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA f
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DAVID MCCOY
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

Purpose and Need for TIP U-3109
NC 119 Relocation
From I-85 to just north of SR 1917 (White Level Road)
Alamance County
General Description of the Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to relocate NC 119 in
Mebane from I-85 to existing NC 119 near SR 1917 (White Level Road). From 1-85 to
approximately .3 km (.2 mile) northward, existing NC 119 will be widened to a five-lane
section. For the remainder of the project a four-lane roadway with a 14 in (46-foot) wide
median will be constructed on new location on approximately 61 in (200 feet) of right of
way. The proposed facility will be approximately 7.0 km (4.3 miles) long. The proposed
roadway will have partial access control along its entire length, except at the interchanges
at I-85 and US 70, where the proposed roadway will have full access control. The
project's general location is shown on the attached vicinity map.
Purpose of the Proposed Project
The purpose of this project is to relieve traffic congestion in the downtown area
provide access to the local area and provide Alamance County with a primary north/south
route.
. * w
Study Alternatives for TIP U-3109
NC 119 Relocation
From I-85 to just north of SR 1917 (White Level Road)
Alamance County
Studv Corridor Alternatives
Seven (200 ft. wide) corridors were identified for study on this project (see map).
A summary of the impacts from each corridor is shown on the attached alternative
comparison worksheet. Listed below is a description of each corridor (see map 4).
Corridor 1 (ABEI) begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange, crosses US 70
at Craftique Furniture factory. From there it roughly follows SR 1920 (Cooks Mill
Road), and ties back into existing NC 119 approximately 0.4 mile north of SR 2005
(Landi Lane).
Corridor 1 crosses US 70 just to the west of Craftique Furniture factory. This
factory which employs about 100 people will not be relocated. This is one of two
corridors that avoid all four historic properties on the project. Section 4F of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 requires that we evaluate an avoidance
alternative.
Corridor 2 (ABFI) begins at existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses US 70
at Craftique Furniture factory. It crosses White Level Road near Cooks Mill road, and
ties back into existing NC 119 approximately 0.4 mile north of SR 2005 (Landi Lane).
South of US 70 Corridor 2 is similar to corridor 1 (ABEI). North of US 70 it runs
just parallel to and further away from Graham Lake than Corridor 1. This is a 417-
avoidance alternative for this project.
Corridor 3 (ABFH) begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at Craftique. From there it passes through the back half of the Cates Farm
property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
This corridor will avoid the Craftique Furniture factory as well as the West End
Community. While this corridor goes through the watershed, the linear distance of
impacts is .96 mile.
Corridor 4 (ACFH) begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). It passes through the northern half of the Cates
Farm property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
The Cates Farm is a historic property determined eligible for the National
Register. The owners of the property are proceeding with plans to develop the northern
Y
half of the property. The remainder of the property with boundaries that include the
southern part only will be submitted for inclusion on the National Register.
While reducing the watershed impacts, this corridor also divides West End. West
End is a low-income minority community. This corridor creates environmental justice
problems by disproportionately impacting the West End community.
Corridor 5 (ACGH) Begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). From there it passes through the western and
northern sides of the Cates Farm Property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917
(White Level Road).
Like alternative 4 this corridor divides and disproportionately impacts the West
End community.
Corridor 6 (ACFI) Begins at existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses US 70
at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). From there it crosses White Level Road near Cooks
Mill Road and ties back into existing NC 119 approximately 0.4 mile north of SR 2005
(Landi Lane).
Like alternative 4 this corridor divides and disproportionately impacts the West
End community.
Corridor 7 (ADH) Begins at existing NC 119/1-85 interchange, and crosses US 70
approximately 1150 feet east of SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) and ties into existing NC 119
.8 mile south of SR 1917 (White Level Road).
Although this corridor avoids the watershed completely, the number of
relocations as well as the cost of the project was unreasonable.
Eastside Alternative-As a result of public input received from the community an
alternative on the eastside of Mebane was also examined. However, based on the traffic
model and forecasts this option did not significantly relieve traffic from the downtown
area. Because this corridor did not meet the purpose and need of the project it was
eliminated from further study.
w w w tN ? y

o w p °v° C

a " •o Y o(D p °?° C

"a
Z a °?' ?GJ
co
n a
v? a m cn .aa
N w v?
n ».ao
?'' CA
5;. C. ? n ?•M
X n ? ao
p ?
v O
a
N N N
, d n
O N O„ n v d
?yaOR,
rn ? tl0?
?
?
O O ? ?. ? rn ? 00 G; A (7 ? n
n N
? ?
? ?
' a
,
?
W Z
o
o m S w ti z
`~
0°
" co O
O y N z
n
w O
_ ro a ?
O N iC G N z
C7 "7
~~
y
n c
o
y (
T x• co
CD .., m C
W 14D
a
O O O O

A CD
A
A
A
A v
? 00
A ?1
00 00 r 'b

Z
?
P7, ? ,
. x
y
I.s
ON CA
A
1
N

0
n
n
0 0 0 oz
oCD
0 °o
0 00
0
0
o
v_a cs3
o
oo ?o
10
O eo

J

~ ?.
O ?O
N T
in N
W
N C•1
J
Cn to
O
O O
O O
O
O Q
o
W W W W
O O
j N
rn O
w
0 n o

a
Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 C
"
z
z

ID N N
y H tz

to O? (? O A v? J
C D1 ;o d
0 0 0• ? o -e ` o

»
?•? ° CD
CD

5'
0
o
?
F?
`rS7
no„
O to
' N
N n n
l
O
N (D t
f
z

a
n
a
y
zo
tv

m
y ?n
; e
z
m 3 y a o CA

z
Y
z v a o? ??~o

m
a m m
y`9 N ?
?D??b
r
n n

m m ?
?
y y'
c
t7
m a a x ? K
z m N
m m A

N N
;..
7

'?
- •
In
O d "C ?"'?
y a ?
N W
W p 5 n
W
W ? n
N ? ? xi
* t

C1
N
N
N v
?
nc4D

?a
0 0 0 -- z ?
c?

z
a?
fD
C
I
ad
x
Q-
G.
a
7
(D
a
a
w
O
N
O
O
M
w
r
O
O
O
N
A
Ge
t.3
J
O
O
n
O
O
O
a
? a
Via, >
z?N
?
MP1 00? r? -•w :n7?? OOrz
R r- -nom 7o ?W r
ET
°9•
°o c
!!ss N ? ? xw a a
a?a°O
6 ?? a ?5°°•
.+ y ?
O a

O y' y^ x'
n
zi-

O M b y N f? ?D c?i 'N•'
v
i
O (1 'C7 ?D n
p
??
o O W M (D 7 X
(< x• n N O 7
X a VJ a, w O O X
r .
-
0 CD 0.
w o ? R. ? ? ? 000
`' o ? ? O y c ? ? tl0'a
fD ? C "' ?` ? ti tlOo
°
?
a
z to° z
r ? CD to
z
`D
F n a N () X
c n
00
'
00 7c
y W N V] fD b0 ?'

w a
?O W A J
00
0 A CD
.p O
0 w
N
N N
J
w N
VP
cn
O
O A
O
O
O C O
O
O
69 6e be
w
w
00
?

A
N
v a\
O A
O
O O
O O
O
O
69
w 69
w 69
w
00 01 W
00
N
v
Q\
Q\ W
A
A
O
O
Cl Cl
O

O
O

O
W J
A A
0 0 o n w p n
??'o_o
m v
' 7 ti
`D
D o ° o ? c °. o

60
?
rn
n
rn
n
a a
r
n
m
z
m > a
n
r
M rzn
z

N
O
O O
d
O N
?
v'
? O O
.......
4
AN
17_ 54
1250
N
i
I
?: 1912 R% I 1914:
1910 '
1 c26 -- ?? 1 Miles??? `" - 34181
1.`
IQD Longs
Chap
I 4 1918 %'j.i ?/ 13d+? 13
1916 ;W 1912 O 1987 Q.
1915 134,
' ; i•, _
END PROJECT
wLjaltorr Cralek
` 1
1405
-- 1414 -
1346 i 134 / 1416
-
I -- 415
? 11

i
I -•
act - 1344
`-treek
tarp 1342
;• 1345 1343 Lebanon
Ch 1341
.
130b
1
I ^ 410 r

1
70 3 ?-- - 1110 312 ?_;

•
70

BEGIN PROJECT A;,-
y
1 'b9
0
1 5
.
1 ?.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
.`? ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 119 RELOCATION
1-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1917
MEBANE, ALAMANCE COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. U-3109
0 0.5 1 2
' FIGURE 1
MILES
r'; ?q5 •U 15 L N T I-,ONS," z
l 1\
\ TIeY / PI
i?}IY. , ? , ' / • r .. ? r er' „'a / z" zoos }? l 1'1
r ua , d-tin \ { In
(^ ?.J ?\- ?' Fir ??D .\. n. .r•w r f` 4 ? ,.•t?lr l?
I \? 4 :??:: ? ^ .? -- ? • -`? , guar'
r + ( ,q`• ` :.1. _LV V• ? ?,rllx ' ?, _ IN :y. -
,a1 r +? t?..• \ .Y? ?> ` iW !? Itilltl ? / ?. 1%r.'11N1 , J
? ? 4plx r / V" is 1
/
j f? 4. ? t r w y ? ? nN. T-
-14
?iy?l (l mur +tyt+' r•iuxr (I
LLJ
yJ •,\ "?7 `ITT14 YJ\ (\t 1 ? 4? . ? Q'-' ? r ` -. 1. ? '
/// ... •` U i 4? .I?1n Y. A
N?"P„°' rl?uw ?• -•- W .l ,?•_l.'x.z11 Y,:r .-.? ._._.._ ?`?. _
.wr....r 1... I_ sn ,w r ..r .. ?•.
y ?.
Cl)
4-P0,„, ' a \ r--- ? MEBANE ?-? ?? •?
' 1 r • nmlxrYl, tl ' ?` ?`
? c-
J/ • I Ilirr ? \-/
L.? ?- - nelnr
1-40/1-85
J.. :t
. ', i/ •• _ TG4/1 x110000
/ 1 5
?:
Purpose and Need for TIP U-3109
NC 119 Relocation
From I-85 to just north of SR 1917 (White Level Road)
Alamance County
General Description of the Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to relocate NC 119 in
Mebane from I-85 to existing NC 119 near SR 1917 (White Level Road). From I-85 to
approximately .3 km (.2 mile) northward, existing NC 119 will be widened to a five-lane
section. For the remainder of the project a four-lane roadway with a 14 m (46-foot) wide
median will be constructed on new location on approximately 61 m (200 feet) of right of
way. The proposed facility will be approximately 7.0 km (4.3 miles) long. The proposed
roadway will have partial access control along its entire length, except at the interchanges
at I-85 and US 70, where the proposed roadway will have full access control. The
project's general location is shown on the attached vicinity map.
Purpose of the Proposed Project
The purpose of this project is to relieve traffic congestion in the downtown area
provide access to the local area and provide Alamance County with a primary north/south
route.
Study Alternatives for TIP U-3109
NC 119 Relocation
From I-85 to just north of SR 1917 (White Level Road)
Alamance County
Study Corridor Alternatives
Seven (200 ft. wide) corridors were identified for study on this project (see map).
A summary of the impacts from each corridor is shown on the attached alternative
comparison worksheet. Listed below is a description of each corridor (see map 4).
Corridor 1 (ABED begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange, crosses US 70
at Craftique Furniture factory. From there it roughly follows SR 1920 (Cooks Mill
Road), and ties back into existing NC 119 approximately 0.4 mile north of SR 2005
(Landi Lane).
Corridor 1 crosses US 70 just to the west of Craftique Furniture factory. This
factory which employs about 100 people will not be relocated. This is one of two
corridors that avoid all four historic properties on the project. Section 4F of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 requires that we evaluate an avoidance
alternative.
Corridor 2 (ABFI) begins at existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and crosses US 70
at Craftique Furniture factory. It crosses White Level Road near Cooks Mill road, and
ties back into existing NC 119 approximately 0.4 mile north of SR 2005 (Landi Lane).
South of US 70 Corridor 2 is similar to corridor 1 (ABEI). North of US 70 it runs
just parallel to and further away from Graham Lake than Corridor 1. This is a 417-
avoidance alternative for this project.
Corridor 3 (ABFH) begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at Craftique. From there it passes through the back half of the Cates Farm
property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
This corridor will avoid the Craftique Furniture factory as well as the West End
Community. While this corridor goes through the watershed, the linear distance of
impacts is .96 mile.
Corridor 4 (ACFH) begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). It passes through the northern half of the Cates
Farm property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
The Cates Farm is a historic property determined eligible for the National
Register. The owners of the property are proceeding with plans to develop the northern
half of the property. The remainder of the property with boundaries that include the
southern part only will be submitted for inclusion on the National Register.
While reducing the watershed impacts, this corridor also divides West End. West
End is a low-income minority community. This corridor creates environmental justice
problems by disproportionately impacting the West End community.
Corridor 5 (ACGH) Begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses
US 70 at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). From there it passes through the western and
northern sides of the Cates Farm Property and ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917
(White Level Road).
Like alternative 4 this corridor divides and disproportionately impacts the West
End community.
Corridor 6 (ACFI) Begins at existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and crosses US 70
at SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). From there it crosses White Level Road near Cooks
Mill Road and ties back into existing NC 119 approximately 0.4 mile north of SR 2005
(Landi Lane).
Like alternative 4 this corridor divides and disproportionately impacts the West
End community.
Corridor 7 (ADH) Begins at existing NC 119/1-85 interchange, and crosses US 70
approximately 1150 feet east of SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) and ties into existing NC 119
.8 mile south of SR 1917 (White Level Road).
Although this corridor avoids the watershed completely, the number of
relocations as well as the cost of the project was unreasonable.
Eastside Alternative-As a result of public input received from the community an
alternative on the eastside of Mebane was also examined. However, based on the traffic
model and forecasts this option did not significantly relieve traffic from the downtown
area. Because this corridor did not meet the purpose and need of the project it was
eliminated from further study.

P;
L = 'W w N -
rp v cn G (^, -
. m cn o y y !? • ne = ? • , . G (': , m
N• V r N• _
G M i3
?• n N P- 2.
R m d a R• .•=q v 7- N N= N
N
?' C
V O -O n ° 3 = J O ?? :9 7 =
RL.
- U (=
G :9 _ 7 '??t i 7 .?f
O O n r% •f 'Jl "'?
?y.n ?,r, n ?'
' 2
79
e'r'a n ?' ? ?nd°i. u~oi nom' 7.73•c wm n?' ,?-?Z
?
= y
z
^m nm ? -. U N 300
crm n N z o a n r y n
r3 0? z N n n 5 0
gn _<. z >
O?
.

o o o o•

Ao p? 6. z
c
3. 3 3. 3 3. 3 9. 3 A
? -?
c4
N
O\ (A
N
A s+
N
J 4A
N
J

n V

p
O
0
00
O
wp
w
O
O
C G O
O O ?j
7 O O O

df

00
O
10
?
bl?
J
y'
-
i
O O
N 0\
U N
W !
?
v o 0 0 0 0
0 o
w
O?
V w
W
N w
J
..'1 w
V
u

O O O

-
A W N r
3 > •O .? "j

- 3 ^ i = 3 ° 3
0 0 n m ° O
F - O
o O
s _n
C r ,
- - - N
n n .., O
3
? z

o. a a a > ? [i7
n n n > >
a a ? a -? z o
,

> > z ? y y
m
c ? ?
> > .. -1 ? [7n O
71
>
w
T
m
u >>
-
n m m
F n

n > >

N -

O
CT N
_ ;..

3 ?
t

y

? 3 >
3 3 -.
cn O
N O ?
N .? J J1

ry
v. n
y n
'Jl a y
f9
v
n?

- c% >

z
>?
F1 ?"
f9
O O• ?
3
- 3
c
3
N
F
3
r3s
G
>
N
N
rr
A
6

O
tp'
Ci
'e
n
O
n
41
IJ
?y
n
O
7
'e
n
0
3
0

;3, w *0
% m
Z, O - 7 ?n
n v ..n

77 '0 Al , 0
-

r' y 7. 3 G° n
7
'"'t a?
a n O n n
!7 y
X d.
y?
p• S O n n
'?1 "
? 7 it
!p
00
H N ?
? . r
..i
c '? vwi n
p•
U t? O vii in t1 O

.
?O 7 re n
R
t
O
. oo
.? m. 3 y Z < ??° ao
[" o y Z A
3 o
n n m p y z
F-? _ r a^'-rte y r
1 ?A.n?e y f1
.O F N• ? C G 3, U'9 p R N C •O (p'

J 3 mo
-
n 6
' fla
-
o 0 o
w a A V A V
M 00
3' 33 33
Vf
N
N a.+
N
V tr
tJ
A
V1
O W
O A_
O
QO C
O C
O
O
(A

w V%
C
a df

?-
N
V
C a

O +.

O

O O O
Hf
w
0o
0o Hf
u
a

C\ Vf
w
w
w
A
N
V
C a
G A
O
O
V
? N
oo
A
V
A

9v -3s
O
[CD O 7 ?• D O
O G O

?
n O y 3
O
O
n ?

n a

2rl)
is
z z >

m m
z
z > >

z n z

z
z > z
m m m

3 N
O u,
O -
N
G
n V
U
?
N C
f:
N
x
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
MEBANE, ALAMANCE
0 0.5 1 2
MILES
?•(?? ?,-. ,' •• ids •?, 'i??;q::? ,?c?Aft?.ortc; .1.
i•Y}i;r:-r.r ?:.S'F•••r:i•:-.--r. »i...w :% r.-:.i.._.. • +.?' -'?•?•il^^ F! •' ??, .,T'..I R..._._...? _ ?_-?_ _
Y .?.?:1•?ti': '•: v:?':?'- ??. VJryl .1. ?'V: •~• is
. INUIT. ?•,...• - ._.
_? - S ?. y - _
LLJ
NIEBANE
jl?
YIN,
f-j
K?,y
I-40/1-85 - - - _ ?
/

Purpose and Need for TIP U-3109
NC 119 Relocation
From I-85 to just north of SR 1917 (White Level Road)
Alamance County
General Description of the Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to relocate NC 119 in
Mebane from I-85 to existing NC 119 near SR 1917 (White Level Road). From I-85 to
approximately .3 km (.2 mile) northward, existing NC 119 will be widened to a five-lane
section. For the remainder of the project a four-lane roadway with a 14 m (46-foot) wide
median will be constructed on new location on approximately 61 m (200 feet) of right of
way. The proposed facility will be approximately 7.0 km (4.3 miles) long. The project's
general location is shown on the attached vicinity map.
Purpose of the Proposed Project
The nuroose of this project is to relieve traffic congestion in the downtown area as
well a provide Alamance County ith a primary nortb/south route. The proposed
project wi meet both loca an regional needs.
Relieve Traffic Congestion. The first purpose is to relieve traffic congestion in
the downtown area. The Town of Mebane is-experiencing large amounts of growth and
is anticipated to continue growing. The new facility is needed to accommodate the
anticipated increases in traffic volumes that will result as the town continues to grow.
According to the travel demand model for the Burlington-Graham Urban Area,
existing NC 119, which is routed through the town of Mebane on Fifth Street, US 70 and
First Street, will not serve the anticipated future traffic for 2025. The projections for the
"no build" alternative show that the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Fifth St. will reach
intolerable levels. Fifth Street is a residential area and the projected ADTs from
Roosevelt St. to Washington St. range between 16,000 and 18,000. This section of NC
119 will operate at level of service "F". Along this section the following problems will
result: excessive noise, time delays, air quality problems and increased accident potential.
Residents along Fifth St. and Third St. have informed NCDOT that these conditions
already exist and are getting worse. The same problems are also predicted for 2025 on
US 70/NC 119 between Fifth and First St. as a byproduct of the "no build" alternative.
US 70/NC 119 is part of the central business district of Mebane with the railroad to the
south and many shops and businesses to the north. The 2025 ADTs for US 70/NCI19
range between 22,000 and 24,000. The conditions of travel on this segment of highway
will be very poor.
Provide a North/South Route. The second purpose of the proposed facility is to
provide a north/south route between I-85/1-40 and northern Alamance and Caswell
Counties. Currently, within the Alamance County Urban Area, few primary north/south
routes exist. The bypass will provide a north/south corridor that will address the problem
of a lack of north/south roads in Alamance County and accommodate through-trips in
need of a north/south connector. These through trips could originate in the north on NC
119 in Caswell County or from NC 49, which carries traffic from both Person and Orange
Counties. The bypass would be the easiest way to travel north/south in Alamance
County. The bypass would tie in with the existing NC 119 near I-85/1-40 and from this
point the through trip could be continued in the east/west direction. If the final
destination was to the south, then the through trip could continue towards the south on
NC 119 and pick up NC 54 into Orange County. Also, after intersecting with NC 54, NC
119 ends at Swepsonville Rd. Because Swepsonville Rd. accesses the proposed
Alamance Parkway (TIP U-3304, U-3407), the motorist could continue a through trip in
the southerly direction from the Alamance Parkway by way of NC 87 to Chatham
County, NC 49 to Randolph County or NC 62 to Guilford County.
Other Benefits
Safety- The railroad line that runs through the town of Mebane is part of the High
Speed Rail Corridor. Currently, NC 119 crosses the railroad at 51' Street and US 70. By
relocating NC 119 away from the downtown area and adding a grade separation, a safer
route is provided for traffic. Local traffic in the vicinity of the new facility could cross
US 70 via the grade separation instead of the existing at grade crossings. This would also
improve safety on the existing route by removing traffic (car and truck) from the facility
and the central business district.
Commuter Trips-The existing land use north of the town of Mebane and east of
NC 119 is zoned residential and includes Mill Creek Golf Course. Because of its close
proximity to the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) and the Triad (High Point,
Greensboro, Winston Salem), Mebane has become a bedroom/commuter community for
people working outside of Alamance County. Subsequently, the household projections
for 2025 show a high density of dwelling units north of the town of Mebane. The
relocation of NC 119 will help commuters reach I-85/1-40 and take commuter traffic
away from Mebane's Central Business District.
...........
u
+
cTQ` c{
ALAMA
1754 ,
1250
Longs
?•.?= m? 1G1z ?y
?s9o •`•ci'o '91a ?.? g??
^?6 Miles
Chap
last G F
191&
X
wuaKQr creek
'Res'
i ;
I -.
I
I
I
I
I 70
I
I
I
`U
BEGIN PROJECT
I,.
:I
I
.? I
I
' Iv
I?
1 'l?9
I
I? I
N
A'4
3 4 8

1987 :
':341
END PROJECT
- 141.;
I
I 1;;4s

1 .
I i

?•
41s
I
Creek .344
1'=`

I
1'_4 Lebanon
5 1343
\ Ch. 13e-

i ? ?1'?? 1^vb
1410

I 13-10- -
':312
d
\
I ' 70
Miles
r ..f z1
t1.1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 119 RELOCATION
1-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1917
MEBANE, ALAMANCE COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. U-3109
0 0.5 1 2
' FIGURE 1
MILES
w. TO RE 51w00, = I
s' 2017
1921 1921 1996 l °N ° LARA-E DN.
1951 _
p0w. STAGE 00"`11 1921 2018 2016 1376
_ CO- - _1996 _ _ _
1
° 130E
FOREST ( I
LAKE t
' MEBANE I
w
a ? ? ? IKEAL o
?/ r4 BER Op_ 1
1950 s>
I ??" / N4CLE ASwL ANO J
v 1952 CH.. 119
o r o=
GOaESt 4T'O9 I U 4 r0 VIN, DILLARD MEBANE
2 1 3 E ST GOSPEL
1
195 v C114P1L*0
.' 1 r E OvEEN 51
I V °RgN,FOgO ? 5T EN E JOYCE 1
g <? I 1957 BRUwn ST I o
l I S? I m /
? E. m. ?W ? S?
n MEBANE I YOOER h F 1952A? w N' E. opnNUe In
ELE CHM rt N O f t IIq N ST I{
ACKAGING I S
° .2 1950 HOL CH 1951 j h 1 gVv`W y 4 Gq 22)524 Vpd /T1 BR°YN
OF E,HRI$i
Y V 1 z N ' dNA ?' fESLE- YAN CH ST. I 1306
6 WOR,
2 tr ?C4T ? S> 1 I
YERN ' z i _? \ ?l EASTSIOE S4
1964 R4/1 WAY I NOR1ry ?,? Sr 130
23,199 ?d JOKE = I 4
196 r-, a .?...? a':HAPGL I w.. N. Q J?i FURN S E ~
ICE611 i n M•Ey CH. I ° l AEI, `?r?/ I GRAnAN
375 Y4RNSM - Cfl.
1972 `--' 1963 I ulc.
MT Qe HEr ' • ,,, 24, 457 vp 305 I s
:m? 1974 CA VnRY IPL sr I Nocr ??? o
p{ HOLY „ 1970 1963 cL I ?
1973- 192 1969 A,
MADISON sT. w
CH 3 b Sr -7
0P N I. JACK90N ST. E. •? f \ q 1968 ST
1306
4 / 1972 1965 s7. C.H. OP s> sis0h ? X58 w,
I CO0 MEBANE ; : ?\ 1 r ` I
1304
/ 967 I O METH , • 19 ?6 vp 43 - G`4 V4NF.E PRIMITIVE CE 1. CN "= - •- 24)64 d
Sr.
I IBAP T. CH, E 1ST BAPT,,-. t: E. P -
?i ° cH. ° °' 11 Y7 y ¦
2021 202 c
I_ I +SON ar,' I
GLEN Nr. K,
1902 GROVE LH. NLE+ ' r. I y F sr• r, 1303
q 17835 v E+ '
° 1971 /I\ !1 a p ?: F pd ARK 1r
i a00SEVELr Sr. gVSTIq MO KI PRL. //°// 1959\ ,Tt G Asr. I?
1970 ?? ,sr, I•LCcT .cll. _ I?
16,011 vpd
1 W' q0)? C : Z °('MINCEV- s' li
Sf- VE - ?I I K
I CT ?4 WalnER
Da' ? 1
F I o ` 0 11381
i °L E s? ?a " 16,679 vpd ST. _I 1390 N w
WASTE
SOUTH i L _ _ _ _ O
PLANT MENi ME BnN F. CITY LIMIT r--'______-i---'
F.LEM sua. / : Ig6I / CITY I LIMIT
/ ?
119
9 y '
? ? ? ? 2199
C / W CEDAR LANE f
1997 1962 / ??? 1961 A.0.s1IrH2201 I
o /. / ? .. ?PNE s` o -
1992 2200
a/ : A° sMlof
~/ ^ ? G? ELECTRIC MOIOR I
.
2000 V/ A ? / + PLANT
AvAL11N DR.
Z '03L.
200/
/ ,
DN
2244 ao EolNeoao oa:
AS,LE E 1300
aE,rG 2219 t 1301
° - NORTH CAROLINA DEPART NOWT OF
z
1984 2222 TRANSPORTATION
EK
o ` DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
\\?, 1007 PROJECT 1)F.vr,r•.[A)P LOPMErrr AND
S IKEO' f` ENVIRONNI iN'rALANALYSIS BRANCII
0 o1992
379 ° 2220 `2221 ` NC 119
2025 ADT without Proposed Relocation
? '?f
? OALr a0
19ea wIN0L0R ;2' 1977 '# Alamance County
n0 THE GOSPEL J TIP Project No. U-3109
tt t?+t???? BART. CH. \
1979 ?+t????,u+???tit?? 1978
t
Ttt NtttU,t+,t?t 119 ul

z y a zy
5 ??? tv N to t"

O
'
` o N
' n rn
Yp
,. rf a: n xr?
Z.+R s rn r
,tl,. b v, W C (7 W
? p' •
`.
rl?
m r m?
r ?"
? tr ?C i
?
v'
?
<
v
k,'?
?
w '
?
?? r?.L P14A •do ti
N
p N
CD C) o ?O v
i ?
i
O? ?,
W ?
I
0
C
'
?C .
v,p a( x
^
pb ( ncoo
v?H
r
R ?y t y1+` f .r r ry ?+
C? t ^z N N n ?j Xo p o If
ny 1?T1
F
?.
1?
y (' v a ,. + J y
0\ J y A 1-rl F.?•+. O N ?' ry
Fy Ly
?,
=? r F; O ! r,? ; r U r
,qj
n p z

ON p' N z

y p>
', C_'fi ?•(7 pU 'r Fn t.rN17 rv?7 ???? C"' 0 w (A n O lD ??. „r N A
Ul, N
n ?1 ?: y ?'-? .. o C r o o C?7
a
a
o
T ? ; t4 c o o
- -
t li ? 1? a

r
pp pC
W pp
z

t { '?- N r l
x t ?r t J >,
rl?,,a ?? N N
nC)
?
0
)
µ Y
^
, ,
1
u
rx 7a2 a
,' 0
S '..
?.
6 0

O 0

O 00 y Vi

y
I

,? "
if A U
#wv a ; I'D
c P

r P Cl o o .o O

r
a? 1 J
j { c
?.k ? y
O
_ J I?
? p1 W H
?
- v J 1 t/r
O O
O H
c O

.4,? r v?r?

L?j oms 03
ro

', , i r ??'? ??, .? ?3 c tC • 3 7?
O
p c
?

--I cn ° cn
a J r, fi
?, _' ? t- w
• ? '
r
?
• ? , rn
o o r
ro CD
ro
o a
O
y ((D m
cn

y w
Y a
' N `D z O

S.
..? 3iClSr'' Y A
x
y y
H
a •.
7 z y
hi ? o ,
CO
y
11 ?eo r)
a t?
- »,
n ro

r ? a g ?ao Co

n Z,
s
lz e
- ` i
, > y N
.

N .-• ?• C

' t " .> 'r q W ?p y b H?
l ??i

a'
n
'?"
+ n oy
rD
V
rD
x
.

? + ti n. Z
4?
?
• q
?.. (D

N d

ro

t
c?, w to _ D

w f O

,A Y
A
•P C?7
H

yea sI.

H
n
O
ion
°z
O
?-3
0
O
r.
a'

?Q
Is
i
I,

ISIS
^I
W
0
s

Jn
T
7o
CD
0
Q
CD
a
CD
a
CD
CD
N
O
0
?3.
O
p
r
0
5
00
R
A
N
0
0
7
0
00
q
0
0
a
d? C)o, C x
x
-•o??? w 00 ra 7y?Jw 00th rz?z] ;uw oom
CD 0
oo° '? ?"CQ,
rD w a.aa ate"
(D >C p.
K ?D fn O b rD p ., rD P .• rD v,
?
°
° ? ?
as
0
nr
?u
(D 0(M CD
?x•? °
• C7 w i. rD
o
a
cn
• n rP r-.
T, ?

N z r may = z
?

n
CD
?w
. ??? ? y ??
CD
J m oo
co z a. CD
iD (IQ
o C7 0 o

?O w o0 00 .A w

N N N
N J •A
V?
O w
O .P
O
O O O
O
O O
Cl O
O
O Cl O
69 69 69
00
00
?O
w

N ON

01
A
A
J O In
O O O
O
O O O
EA
w 69
w 69
w
00 O? W
00
N
O? w
.A
J D\ A
O
O O
O In
O
O O O
O N
V 00 J
? A A

? C
O
\O 7
r
rD CD l)
o 5 .
v7
r o r*

0 10
oy 0

o w o ? o
? rn C
0 CD
b
w
n
w
W
o
N
CD
CD A
y
rD

z
m ?

z z ?

z
Z
C
N
O N
?
O v
O IJ
n ? W
rn
cD
v,
N •A J?
( .F. A
;OR. S D 4'
F". : .9 A:T..hO.i
-' , f.EI / r 14,/1 (HI• `,11?/ :,>
WMI
', >' l}, r(.. rQ??.a.a?. •. '. S11 2005 C] Jt.an.• xi', >•.' •f'11411. 1 -) , ti > ,•/`? Atli
C,?Fldli(1,•>•<•, , ?• t ` }\ 1, IYI ti n xl a J.
> t :., i,i .;>. y > •> > , t. I-.I fjlq .>> i rw: `f.. ./wwu• urbi,ri.•' 1 i6 ::::? i'.
r?c` >?<< ??Tf.;'•i ,,{.., <- `ii(h,. 1 ,.1)HIII
it <- <<.' ??f??•1F3jIt..? ?.,:?• +„'
CCS P11
_ !
d.
z
- ve
A.
.1
< a.v <N ! <. s 1917•Mh s? ..
\ n '%• >. T t, . > > '-`'?'-111 `<,,. >'
!';nr?a•• ; > > r•s ? > 'r ? ? 1 '? fir.. -, 1 ?h _.
! ^`I>{,U111 Cf1lli IIh > ' , ;.; ` e` • > '.•` [ {: ` ' Dp ` y / / ti ,
I f r f11A?. I ?c`? }? r??\!:.v;?'(C ?i ? t?.?/ ? ?:a` ? • ?l•` "rO, ?/' ,:}!• ,;? , ?
;r b)+-.•.yr,>? .? ? > c •, < < ..? ti , <>.. ?rr:•zl?l . ,`?;•bPF'! 11 . , ` ;1 ?? ? V , ,: > ?
> ,i>- • > , ?\ . a > ! 1 1 7(1 41, V ,rY r C wadi C " L m
.;?:. is )-.(>?.?i?i . \>. '<: ` >-< '.i `: '•i Yi '(r ,;?>.:'+•.
•??:. ?>iY•:•?YIY;r.:d;t'>.;r, c'/?+"?'i:; ? . ?:'. a; .'. /;:•:'•"<.t. F'I I-Ih
r \
i•< +.'< ''< ; .<,•:, .`,,,... ,: ?,. ,:<,. ?>:}yy .; ;; 1,,., ..: •, ? >:.: `>:.'? A • ?__:,..:. ?:. ?atZ?'? jam,';; •> ••' W
Y
' i :<'. JOI <:'ai' .I< <?:•i:b ::!`. '>MI trltl :Ilri,}l.<:>• •> 1-117 •r V +3>.
. ' .''..> :?>; C^. ?'` n:i` J:E,f (3 ?(fc',:;.,,ai-11•? >x? ;; ; ?r;.<: ^ L •' ' >•''•" ,i< ;' U '-
W'
PCIFIh
.• f?lih
- '', .,. ?' :)'/:??.F•.•',Hji[; i'r,.pu..h.l Imar.,?,u x7.. f~-I ?, °?• ? ^' D
N4 1, It
Rd-

PBHII j

s pC• i
O
Vdµe
qg
" C F?/iI II
r.ryn,ted (III w•nlwxuk A
111 - .. ... .. •

> S W o --•--•-_.':' __ __ -S 1967 Holt St.
.'. N I'1 .Ma,nrd Ih .pip ? J I-' _. ..._ • -. -..-
,.r?'
,/1 4 P 1
n
--
N /
.. FjABFJ1614 t1
<I
_ P?Ih
9
e
V Hit
•' + ^ Roosevelt St ,
KM IC ,
C.I `
tilt
111111 l ? ? C - _'
N -Lt ..
A
?Pl }III 1?`.?' ?
SP •' \ \
l
? I?Hru,

1

1 \
1'1

f HIIII
P01)1,
?_l
PlAh
1% l- ' . /*
i ? ? Pirrll,
SR 1962 S. Third ~ i/---_
'Mil
F o
I s tic 119 /
a 1EGEND?
?' r' ALTERNAT111ES*1Na SoMS10ERE0 IN THE PLANNIND PROCESS
I'I?IIh I 11,1 III, ALT. 2-I/PAs"vilimue" POINT$-f?tle. AND E
I) /^`_` /I II Ih //
Vi it 111 P Ilh ALf• AND H
,ALT?_?-7 t•AfSEi INRDL$C" 00111111% A. C. F. AND N
µ N A
I i - S C. D. AND H
-' Il]VEPX^+••li.]I:P.•tir;.-_ ?... / I,I us
P?tOPQSED,a?lltIRt tQ -
I 0 GRAM UA?AAA Is" AT HOLI St.
?, l I { ??? ? .... -••• C I tT ARIESi Or Ot HISTORIC
PbHh
RTIES
.:' C..F•P?n?14111? .. 0 ITICAL AREA or GRAN d!NE LA1tEx'Ejl'Ih
?^1 ? N
0
. .• / .• .. SCALE( 1120000
II
AV
tl P 0 8 2004
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural ResourcelvV. . OF OF WATER OFFICE QUALITY
DIRECTOR'S
QUALI
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Memorandum
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
To: Members of the Joint Select Committee on Small Business Econo} Development
bYle I ANDS / 4,0 ry'.t is
From: Bill Ross 040-
MAR 1 1 2004
Date: March 4, 2004 f? g
.\. WATER ???'1'i.L ea F.. F.t i ?U3 i?
Re: Status of N.C Highway 119 near Mebane and the Clayfon Bypass (U.S. Hwy. 70)
In response to inquiries about these projects during your meeting yesterday, I am
providing the following information:
'
4
v
• N.C. Hwy. 119 - Environmental justice, water quality and historic property issues
Y have been raised in relation to this project. Therefore, the Department of
Transportation (DOT), in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), has made the tentative determination that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) should be prepared for this project in order to adequately assess the
impacts that this project may or will have. Our Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
the State Historic Preservation Office in the Department of Cultural Resources and
ye other resource agencies are working with DOT to prepare an environmental
document that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
current project status provided by DOT is attached.
• Cla on Bypass - This project remains scheduled for letting for construction in May
2005, which I believe is consistent with the timeline to which Senator Smith referred
yesterday. The most critical issue in achieving the let date is completing Section 7
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for federal threatened
and endangered species.
The Dwarf Wedgemussel, a federal threatened and endangered species, is found in
Swift Creek in the project area. The USFWS has required a secondary and
cumulative impact study. DOT will begin discussions with local officials in Wake
and Johnston Counties to address conservation efforts that will help to satisfy the
USFWS concerns about the continued viability of the mussels in this stream. Our
staff in DWQ is working with DOT on design issues to ensure that water quality
issues are adequately addressed. The project status provided by DOT is attached.
The DOT staff and our DENR staff worked together to provide the information for
these responses the same day that I received your inquiry. They have worked and will
continue to work diligently together to move these projects forward in a manner that
satisfies both state and federal environmental regulations.
Cc: Roger Sheats
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
Status of TIP Project U-3109
Relocation of NC 119 in Mebane
March 3, 2004
Current Project Schedule:
Winter 2004 Selection of Private Engineering Firm
Spring 2004 Receive updated surveys
Fall 2004 Hold Concurrence Point 2A meeting - tridging decisions
Spring 2005 Complete draft Environmental document (current due date 3/05 for EA)
Summer 2005 Hold design public hearing
Fall 2005 Select preferred alternative (Concurrence Point 3)
Winter 2005 Complete Final Environmental Document (current due date 12/05)
FFY 2007 Begin right of way acquisition for Part A (current R/W acquisition, date 7/07)
FFY 2009 Start-ton struction on Part A (current let date 5/09)
After 2010 right of way-and construction for Part B (post year)
Present:
Selection of Private Engineering Firm (PEF):
Buck Engineering has been selected on February 16, 2004 to complete the project development,
environmental, and design related services related to the preparation of the environmental documents as well as
the functional and preliminary designs of the project. NCDOT is in the process of negotiating the contract with
the PEF (pending the approval of funds from the BOT at the board meeting In April 2004).
Updated Surveys:
Updated surveys have been requested for the project and should be completed in May 2004. The PEF can
start working on the preliminary designs for each of the 3 alternatives once the updated surveys are available.
Field Investigations/Reports:
NCDOT's environmental specia lists have completed their field investigations and reports based on a 300-foot
corridor width for each of the 3 alternative alignments identified by the merger team in 3une 2002.
Outstanding reports that still need to be completed before the 1" environmental document can be complete
include the traffic technical memo, relocation assistance report, indirect and cumulative impact report, and right
of way and construction. cost estimate reports.
What's Next:
Public Involvement:
The most pressing need for this project right now is the public involvement component. NCDOT has retained
the services of the Wills Duncan Group to provide professional facilitation services, specifically community and
stakeholder involvement, in the Mebane community. Their primary objective is to gather information, through
one-on-one interviews and group meetings, to help the Department better understand the needs and concerns
of the citizens of Mebane.
Agency Coordination:
The next step in the Merger 01 process is to hold a Concurrence Point 2A Meeting and to gain concurrence on
the type of structures to be constructed over wetlands and streams. Concurrence Point 3A -Selection of
LEDPA (Least Environmental Damaging Practicable Alternative)/Preferred Alternative, and Concurrence Point
4A - avoidance and minimization, will need to be obtained before the final environmental document can be
completed.
Completion of the Environmental Documents:
The 1 It environmental document can be completed once all the reports are completed, cost estimates have been
developed, additional public involvement has been done, and concurrence has been obtained on Concurrence
Point 2A. Up until this time, NCDOT has been working towards completing an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for this project. The EA is currently due March 31, 2005. However, based on the controversy
(community dissent) associated with this project, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) may need to

be prepared followed by a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD).
Additional review time may be'necessary if a DEIS is prepared instead of an EA.

. R-2552 Clayton Bypass
Concurrence Points 2A and 4A were signed last month. This indicates that impacts to
streams and wetlands have been minimized. Issues left to be resolved include addressing
impacts to threatened and endangered species; adequately addressing stormwater runoff
management; and adequately addressing indirect and cumulative impacts within the
project study area. Resolving these issues requires additional coordination with federal
agencies, as well as local government representatives. NCDOT is currently initiating the
coordination efforts with the affected parties.
Schedule _
Received Conc. Pts. 2A & 4A 2/17/04
Conc. Pt. 4B meeting 4/04
Conc. Pt. 4C meeting 6/04
Biological Assessment Completed 6/04
Submit Permits 8/04
Receive Environmental Permits 3/05
LET 5/05
3/3/04
TIP Project U-3109 - NC 119 Relocation
Mebane, Alamance County
-- - - - - - - - - -- R A - ---1_ A A "I nnrl
LEGEND:
Proposed Alignment
for All Alternatives
- Alternative 8
Alternative 9 (New)
Alternative 10 (New)
Note: Alternative 9 and 10 as shown on
this figure are conceptual aiianments - more
definitive alignments will be presented at
.
the merger team meeting
FIGURE 3
1 0 2 Miles
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATr_, 1510
TO:??- REF. NO. OR ROOM BLDG.
J 6vm +k?nruu w
FROM: _ ,?, /w, I
- "W ,a REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
! E
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?. NOTE AND RETURN TO ME- ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ?FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ) FOR YOUR INFORMATION
?PLEASE ANSWER -? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COM
MENTS:
U "q
3 (A
(A
In%
JUL J., 8 2002
WETLAC S GROUP
WATER &ITY SECTION .

?Yd„a S7AIF o,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
July 11, 2002
Meeting Attendees
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Karen B. Taylor, PE, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis.. Branch
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting Minutes (Concurrence
Point 2) for the Relocation of Existing NC 119 in Mebane,
Alamance County, Federal Aid No. STP-119(1),
State Project No. 8.1470901, TIP Project No. U-3109
A NEPA/404 merger team meeting for the subject project was held on June 13, 2002, at
10:30 a.m. in the Board Room of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. The following
people were in attendance:
Felix Davila
Rob Ayers
Eric Alsmeyer
Howard Hall
John Hennessy
David Cox
Bob Harkrader
Brock LaForty
Mike Mills
Brad Wall
Kathy Lassiter
Bruce Payne
Mary Pope Furr
Lubin Prevatt
Eric Midkiff
Karen Boshoff Taylor
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
FHWA
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Burlington-Graham MPO
Burlington-Graham MPO
NCDOT - Division 7
Division 7
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Ted Bisterfeld with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined the meeting via
conference call out of Atlanta. Renee Gledhill-Early with the NC State Historic
Preservation Office was not able to attend the meeting; however, representatives from
NCDOT met with Renee prior to the merger team meeting.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWWDOH.DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting Minutes #
TIP Project No. U-3109 E
July 11, 2002
Page 2
The purpose of the meeting was to submit information to the merger team to obtain
concurrence on Point 2, Alternatives to be Studied in Detail. Karen Taylor gave an
overview of the proposed project. Following two previous merger team meetings, four
(4) alternatives remained under consideration to be studied in detail; Alternative 4,
Alternative 5, Alternative 7, and Alternative 8 (see Figure 1). The following comments
were made at the meeting:
NCDOT proposed that the merger team eliminate Alternatives 4, 5 and 7. Alternatives
4 and 5 impact the West End Community and pass through the critical watershed
area. Alternative 7 avoids both the critical watershed area and the Cates Farm, but
impacts the West End Community and has a high number of residential and business
relocations (107 residences and 11 businesses).
2. Two new alternatives were introduced for consideration, Alternatives 9 and 10. The
two new alternatives are variations of Alternative 8. Alternative 9 reduces impacts to
the critical watershed area, but impacts a small section of the Cates Farm (northwest
corner). Alternative 10 is located just outside of the critical watershed area, but
impacts the Cates Farm more severely than Alternative 9 (see Figure 2).
I John Hennessy commended NCDOT for generating a new avoidance alternative to
the critical watershed area (Alternative 10) as he had requested at the previous merger
team meeting. He also agreed that Alternative 7 should be eliminated due to the high
number of relocations associated with this alternative. He stated that due to water
quality concerns and potential impacts to the West End Community, Alternative 4 and
5 should be eliminated as well. John emphasized that stormwater design will be a big
issue on this project.
4. David Cox was concerned with having only one crossing over the railroad and US 70
for further study. Alternatives 8, 9 and 10 share the same alignment corridor from the
beginning of the project at the existing NC 119 interchange with I-40/I-85 to just
north of the proposed grade separated crossing over US 70 and the railroad (see
Figure 2). However, the critical watershed is located to the west and the West End
Community is located to the east of the currently proposed crossing of US 70 and the
Railroad. Any other crossing will either have a more severe impact on the critical
watershed area or the West End Community.
5. Mary Pope Furr (NCDOT Historic Architecture) commented that the SHPO does not
prefer Alternatives 9 and 10.
6. The merger team agreed to eliminate Alternatives 4, 5, and 7 and to add Alternatives
9 and 10 for further study. Three alternatives, Alternatives 8, 9, and 10 will be
studied in detail.
7. The meeting attendees agreed that a four-lane median divided section with shoulders
should be studied for each alternative for the entire length of the project
L
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting Minutes
TIP Project No. U-3109
July 11, 2002
Page 3
8. Discussions were held regarding the type of access control to be studied. Meeting
attendees agreed that partial control of access will be studied south of US 70. Two
variations of partial control of access will be studied north of US 70 for each
alternative; access only at existing secondary roads, and access at existing secondary
roads with limited access to adjacent properties.
9. The corridor width for each alignment was discussed. A width of 300 feet will be
studied for each alternative. It was agreed that in the vicinity of the Cates Farm, the
corridor for Alternative 8 will be bounded to the east by the historic property
boundary of the Cates Farm. The corridor for Alternative 10 will be bounded to the
west by the critical watershed area boundary.
Eric Alsmeyer suggested that an on-site meeting with the merger team members need to
be held prior to the next merger team meeting.
If you have any questions or. comments, please contact me at (919) 733- 7844 ext. 223 or
via e-mail at kbtaylor cr,dot.state.nc.us .
Attachments
KBT/
cc: Roger Sheats, NCDOT
Fred Lamar, NCDOT
Everett Ward, NCDOT
Carl Goode, NCDOT
Renee Gledhill-Earley, SHPO
Ted Bisterfeld, EPA
46
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2: Alternatives to be Studied in Detail
Project Name/Description: NC 119 Relocation West of Mebane, Alamance County
TIP Project No.: U-3109
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-119(1)
State Project No.: 8.1470901
The alternatives to be studied in detail for the proposed project are:
Proposed Study Alignments
Alternative 8 (ABGH) begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and continues
north on new alignment, then passes to the west of the West End Community, and crosses
US 70 just west of Craftique Furniture Company. From there it passes west and north of
the historic property boundary of the Cates Farm and passes through the critical
watershed area. The alignment ties into existing NC 119 at SR 1917 (White Level Road).
Alternative 9 (ABGH2) begins at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange and continues
north on new alignment, the passes to the west of the West End Community, and crosses
US 70 just west Craftique Furniture Company. From there it passes through the
northwestern corner of the Cates Farm property (within the NR listed boundary) and
passes through the critical watershed area. The alignment ties into existing NC 119 at
SR 1917 (White Level Road). A portion of the proposed alignment is located within the
critical watershed area.
Alternative 10 (ABGH3) begins at the existing NC 119/1-85 interchange and continues
north on new alignment, then passes to the west of the West End Community, and crosses
US 70 just west of Craftique Furniture Company. From there it passes through the
northwestern corner of the Cates Farm property (within the NR listed boundary) to the
east (outside) of the critical watershed area. The alignment ties into existing NC 119 at
SR 1917 (White Level Road).
Proposed Typical Section:
A four-lane median divided section with shoulders is proposed for the entire length of the
project.
Control of Access:
Partial control of access will be studied south of US 70. North of US 70, partial control
of access and access only at existing secondary roads (SR's) will be studied for each
alternative.
Merger Team Agreement - March 13, 2002
TIP Project U-3109
Pagel of 2
[phone]
Jul-09-02 09:57am From-EPA R4 ORC
[phone] T-623 P 001/001 F-479
The Project Team has concurred on this date of June 13, 2002, on the above mentioned
alternatives to be studied in detail for TIP Project U-3109.
USACE C NCDOT, Ur'
/444
FHWA USFWS
7
L NCWR.C - -
NC17 WQ
NCDCR RLOAJL?a EPA
0
MPO
OPTIONAL FORM 991,7-90)
FAX TRANSMITTAL r. of pages ?
Dept./AaenCY phone It tE7 1)
/ 33 " ; ? 41; Fay # ?J
NSN 40-01-317-7 68 5099-101 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Merger Team Agreement -- March 13, 2002
TIP Project U-3109
Page 2 of 2
Mebane, Alarnance County
TIP PROJECT No. U-3109
Scale: 1" = 1500' FIGURE 1
Mebane, Alamance County
TIP PROJECT No. U-3109
Scale: V'= 1500' FIGURE ]21
From 1-40/85 to SR 1917 (White Level Rd.)
X
BUCK,
E NGIN EEJZ.ING
June 28, 2005
it 0 R
C?ANpSW47?p,
??Jy
Cry
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting Minutes (Concurrence Point 2a) for the
Relocation of NC 119 from the I-85 Interchange to South of SR 1917 (White Level
Road) in Mebane, Alamance County, Federal Aid No. STP-119(1), State Project
No. 8.1470901, WBS Element 34900.1.1, TIP Project N
PREPARED BY: Aileen S. Mayhew, P.E. 65%-?
Buck Engineering
A NEPA/404 merger team meeting for the subject project was held on June 16, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. in the
Board Room of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. The following people were in attendance:
Felix Davila Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
John Thomas US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sue Homewood NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Christina Breen NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sarah McBride Department of Cultural Resources - SHPO
Phil Conrad Burlington-Graham MPO
David Hundley NCDOT - Division 7
Dewayne Sykes NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Tony Houser NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Bruce Payne NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
David Anderson NCDOT - Structure Design Unit
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics Unit
Earlene Thomas NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Mary Pope Furr NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis - OHE
Richard Silverman NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis - OHE
Tim Gardiner NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis - OHE
Brian Yamamoto NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Glenda Gibson Gibson Engineers
Craig Young Buck Engineering
Greg Price Buck Engineering
Aileen Mayhew Buck Engineering
The purpose of the meeting was to identify and reach concurrence on the bridge locations and lengths to
obtain concurrence on Point 2a, Bridge Locations and Lengths. Brian Yamamoto gave an overview of the
proposed project. He mentioned that since the Concurrence Point 2 (June 13, 2002) meeting, the
document has changed to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a consultant firm has been
retained to perform the planning and design studies associated with the project.
Aileen Mayhew began the meeting with introductions and reiterated that bridging versus culvert decisions
at the five sites included in the revised Major Stream Crossings table provided by Buck Engineering would
be discussed. In addition, a field meeting was held on May 18, 2005 for the resource agencies to review
the stream crossings in the field prior to today's meeting. Ms. Mayhew reviewed the Major Stream
Crossings table, site by site. The following summarizes the comments made at the meeting:
w ww.buckcnr,i nec:rin s com
Y
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting Minutes
TIP Project No. U-3109
June 28, 2005
Page 2
Site 1: Site 1 is at Moadams Creek and is crossed by all three detailed study alternatives. The
recommendation made by the Merger Team is to construct a 3@10'x7' RCBC, contingent upon
re-verification of the existing wetland in the vicinity of Site 1 by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). The wetland is associated with a beaver pond; however, recent field surveys have
determined that the dam has been breached. Biologists from Buck Engineering will re-delineate
the wetland and will schedule a field verification meeting with USACE Representative, John
Thomas. Mr. Thomas stated in the meeting that he is willing to concur with the recommended
box culvert if the wetland has been substantially compromised. All other representatives of the
Merger Team agreed to a box culvert in this location.
Site 2: Site 2 is a tributary to Mill Creek (UT 14) and is crossed by all three detailed study alternatives.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requested a bridge for this site due to the nature of the
resource (HQW, WS-II) and its proximity to the Water Supply Watershed Critical Area. NCDOT
will develop a cost estimate for a bottomless arch culvert, re-visit the bridge lengths and
associated costs, and explore the idea of purchasing a conservation easement in order to provide
fencing around UT 14 as a means of disallowing cattle to enter the creek at this location. The
DWQ also requested an additional box on the culvert structure, one to accommodate base flow
and the other for storm flow. This information will be discussed with the team again no later than
the LEDPA meeting. There was also mention of the potential for on-site mitigation at this
location.
Site 3: Site 3 is at Mill Creek and is crossed by all three detailed study alternatives. A recommendation
to bridge Site 3 was concurred upon based on the high quality of the resource and its proximity to
the Water Supply Watershed Critical Area. In addition, NCDOT will re-visit the bridge lengths
and associated costs for this site; however, Jerry Snead estimated revised bridge lengths and
associated costs for discussion purposes during the meeting. The cost to bridge versus the cost to
provide a triple barrel box culvert was similar for Alternatives 9 and 10. Alternative 8 costs were
not as comparable; however, bridging was still recommended at this site for Alternative 8. All
team members concurred with this recommendation.
Site 4: Site 4 is at Moadams Creek and associated with the extension of Corrigidor Road. The proposal
was to replace the existing wooden bridge with a 2@10'x6' RCBC. All team members concurred
with this recommendation.
Site 5: Site 5 is a tributary to Mill Creek (UT 14) and is only crossed under Alternative 10, as part of the
proposed improvements to Mebane Rogers Road. The recommendation was to retain and extend
the existing 72-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP). All team members concurred with this
recommendation.
As discussed at the meeting, the Concurrence Point 2a form will be circulated for signature after Site 1 has
been re-verified by the USACE. The form will indicate that concurrence was reached for Sites 1, 3, 4, and
5. The form will also indicate that Site 2 will be re-visited either as part of Concurrence Point 3 or prior to
that meeting.
If any meeting participants find this memorandum in error, please contact Aileen Mayhew at (919)
459-9021 or by email at amayhew(abucken ing eering com.
cc: Doug Galyon, NCDOT
Mike Mills, NCDOT - Division 7
Ted Bisterfeld, EPA
Brian Wrenn, DWQ
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE -7113104+
TO: y6,?,n REF. OR ROO BLDG.
FROM
I?? _
?aylX- -
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FO EA
ACTION
?. NOTE AND FILE _ ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?-...NOTE AND RETURN TO ME x PER YOUR REQUEST
-?' RETURN- WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
?'NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
?'. PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS.-.
?.- PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE. APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
Cbhn -- usv wane ed sertc?
,
a4 I ester Z
?r?lr 'Ira ?r • Ma?ed?

•Q paw ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Prof. David H. Moreau
CB# 3140 New East Building
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3140
SUBJECT: Proposed Relocation of NC 119 from I-40/85 to south of White Level Road
near Mebane, Alamance County, Transportation Improvement Project (TIP)
No. U-3109
Dr. Moreau,
Per request from Mr. John Hennessy with the Division of Water Quality, please find
enclosed an aerial map showing the corridors of the detailed study alternatives for the
proposed project. Also enclosed is information about the project as well as a project
newsletter that was sent out last summer. Please note that the project schedule listed in
the newsletter is not current.
The proposed project is currently in the project development phase. NCDOT has selected
a private engineering firm, Buck Engineering, to perform the project development,
environmental, and engineering studies to complete the environmental documents.
The study corridor for each alternative is 300 feet wide. The proposed typical section for
the project is a four-lane median divided facility with shoulders. The proposed median
width is approximately 30 feet. The project design speed is 50 mph. Proposed access
points shown on the aerial are preliminary and subject to change pending more input from
the public, local officials and resource/permitting agencies.
If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact me at (919)
733-7844, extension 223, or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
4?oalaqlcr
July 13, 2004
LYNDo TIPPET-
SECRETARY
WETLANpS 140 GROUP
JUL 14 2004
CATEROUALIV SECT10N
Karen B. Taylor, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. W WW! DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
,ow
el*
Important Project Information
NC 119 Relocation Project
TIP Project No. U-3109
What is the NC 119 Relocation project?
The NC 119 Relocation Project, also locally referred to as the "Mebane Bypass", is the potential
relocation of existing NC 119, from I-85 southwest of Mebane to existing NC 119 just south of White
Level Road (5R 1917) north of Mebane in Alamance County. The route being considered is
approximately 4.3 miles long. The project is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP Project No. U-3109.
The relocation of NC 119 was first presented in the Alamance County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan in
1990 (now referred to as the Burlington-Graham Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan). In subsequent
updates to the plan, the NC 119 relocation has remained among the highest priority projects for the
Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG-MPO), which provides guidance on
transportation goals and objectives for Alamance County, its cities, towns, and villages.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation initiated planning and environmental studies for
this project in 1994 and the first citizens' informational workshop was held in January 1995. Since
then, two more citizens informational workshops have been held (June 1996 and July 2003) as well as
several small group meetings in various communities. Planning studies in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is ongoing.
What type of roadway is being considered.
The cross section being considered for the new roadway is a four-lane median divided facility (two
lanes in each direction of travel with a grass median). The proposed facility is NOT an interstate, but
will be similar to a parkway. Partial control of access is proposed; therefore, access to the facility will
be provided at intersecting roads and possibly to adjacent properties along the road. Landscaping in
the median may also be provided. Approximately 200 feet of right of way would be required to build
the proposed road on new location. A bridge over the railroad next to US 70 is being considered. To
limit impacts to properties along US 70, an access road to connect US 70 with the new facility,
instead of an interchange with ramps, is being studied.
What is the Transportation Improvement Program and how does o
project get included?
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
7-year plan for the improvement of state-owned and maintained transportation facilities. It includes
roads, ferries, public transportation, aviation, and passenger rail projects, and is updated every two
years.
The process for adding projects to the TIP begins at the local level. Local roadway needs are
identified in a Thoroughfare Plan prepared by the region's Metropolitan or Rural Planning Organization
(MPO or RPO) in consultation with NCDOT. Mebane, as well as all of Alamance County, is part of the
Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO). The MPO prioritizes projects in the
Thoroughfare Plan, with input from citizens and local officials. Based on the projected availability of
funds, the North Carolina Board of Transportation, in coordination with the MPO and RPO's, decides
which projects will be included in the TIP.
Updated 5/10/04
Page 1 of 6

For more information on the roles and responsibilities of the Burlington-Graham MPO, please visit
their web site at www.moo.burlington.nc.us .
Why is the project needed?
The proposed relocation of NC 119 would provide Mebane and eastern Alamance County with a primary
north/south route to meet both local and regional needs. Additionally, the proposed project would
provide safety benefits to local and regional commuters and could potentially encourage economic
development.
Relieve Congestion - the relocation of existing NC 119 is needed to relieve current and future traffic
congestion in downtown Mebane. NC 119 currently serves dual functions of providing the primary
regional north-south route through Mebane and the primary north-south access to downtown Mebane
(Main Street). Since the early 1990's, the Mebane area has experienced considerable growth due to
its proximity to both the Triad and Triangle areas. Predicted growth is expected to overload existing
NC 119, a mostly two-lane facility that travels through neighborhoods as well as the Central Business
District (CBD) of Mebane. NC 119 runs concurrent with US 70 in the heart of downtown Mebane, with
the railroad to the south and many shops and businesses to the north. Widening the existing facility
to adequately accommodate future traffic will impact a substantial number of homes, businesses and
historic properties in downtown Mebane. The new facility would provide another option for commuters
to reach western Mebane or to avoid the CBD, thereby reducing congestion through downtown.
Provide Access - the new road will provide access to the local area, including the North Carolina
Industrial Center located between I-85 and US 70. The project will also provide eastern Alamance
County with a primary north-south route that avoids the CBD.
Additional Benefits - The railroad next to US 70 through Mebane is part of the future southeast
High Speed Rail Corridor between Washington, DC and Charlotte, NC. The new facility would provide a
bridge over the railroad next to US 70. Currently, all road crossings of the railroad in Mebane are at-
grade, causing considerable back ups when a train occupies the tracks. The new road would provide a
safer crossing over the railroad.
What is the Southeast high Speed Rail Corridor?
The'Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (5EHSR) is one of five originally proposed high speed
passenger rail corridors designated by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) in 1992. The
corridor was designated as running from Washington, DC through Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC to
Charlotte, NC with maximum speeds of 110 mph. It is part of an overall plan to extend service from
the existing high speed rail on the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington) to points in the
Southeast.
The selected corridor for the 5EHSR utilizes the existing rail line through downtown Mebane. For
more information on the Southeast High Speed Rail, please visit their web site at www.sehsr.orq or
call the toll free project hotline at 1-877-749-7245.
Why not construct a "Bypass" East of Mebane?
The Burlington-Graham Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan currently identifies highway needs to the west
and east of Mebane. The strategic location of Mebane between two metropolitan areas, the triad to
the west and the triangle to the east, shows a strong attraction for traffic to the west and east.
Therefore, both western and eastern needs are identified in the Thoroughfare Plan. However, based
on traffic forecasts completed for potential western and eastern routes, the western route would be
more effective in reducing traffic congestion along existing NC 119. Furthermore, the area northwest
Updated 5/10/04
Page 2 of 6
P?
of Mebane is currently more developed than the area northeast of Mebane (in Orange County). Based
on projected land use plans, the development trend to the north and west of Mebane is likely to
continue. The potential western route will also provide better access to the North Carolina Industrial
Center (NCIC). For those reasons, the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization has
placed a higher priority on addressing the transportation needs in central and western Mebane.
What is the Current Status of the NC 119 Relocation Project?
The NC 119 Relocation Project is a federally funded project in NCDOT's 2004-2010 TIP and is
referenced as TIP Project No. U-3109. NCDOT representatives are currently conducting engineering,
environmental, and community studies to determine the impacts of the various alternatives on the
human, physical, and natural environments. A federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
will be prepared for the proposed project and is currently scheduled for completion in the summer of
2005.
What is an Environmental Impact Statement?
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a detailed report that describes the impacts of a
proposed project on the human and natural environments. Several alternatives are typically evaluated.
A team of engineers, planners, scientists, and biologists performs the analyses of the project
alternatives.
An EIS is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for major projects, programs,
or actions that involve federal funding, permitting, or other involvement by a Federal agency. All
EIS's prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation include the some five primary chapters: 1) purpose and need for project, 2)
alternatives considered, 3) existing conditions in the human and natural environments, 4) adverse and
beneficial environmental consequences of the alternatives, and 5) public and agency coordination.
There are three (3) main documents produced in the EI5 process. The first document is the Draft
EIS (DEIS). The Draft EIS evaluates the impacts of several alternatives in detail. Following a review
and comment period for the Draft EIS and a Public Hearing, a preferred alternative is selected. The
Final EIS (FEIS) discusses the reasons for the selection of the Preferred Alternative, and responds
to the comments on the Draft EI5. Finally, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issues a
Record of Decision (ROD) that documents the selection of the Preferred Alternative.
What are the Project Alternatives?
Since planning studies were initiated for the project in 1994, a total of ten (10) preliminary study
alternatives have been developed. Based on coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, as
well as the public, seven (7) alternatives have been eliminated from further study due to community
and environmental impacts. Currently, three corridors are being studied in detail (see vicinity map).
The three Detailed Study Alternatives, along with the No-Build Alternative, which is used as a basis
to compare the other options, will be evaluated in the Draft EIS. All alternatives considered,
including those eliminated early in the study process, will be addressed in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS.
All three Detailed Study Alternatives begin at the existing NC 119/I-85 interchange (Exit No. 153),
then continue north to cross US 70 just west of Craftique Furniture Company. Alternative 8 passes
through the critical watershed for the Graham-Mebane Reservoir, Alternative 9 passes through the
critical watershed area and crosses the historic boundary of the Cates Farm, and Alternative 10
crosses the historic boundary of the Cates Farm but is outside of the critical watershed area. All
three Detailed Study Alternatives tie into existing NC 119 just south of White Level Road (SR 1917).
Updated 5/10/04
Page 3 of 6

What are some examples of potential impacts to the Natural,
Physical, and Human Environments that will be evaluated in the
DEIS?
Streams and Wetlands - Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NC
Department of Environmental Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ) will be required
for stream and wetland impacts. As a condition of the permits, the NCDOT may be required to
compensate for stream and wetland impacts. These measures could include restoring or enhancing
degraded streams and wetlands in the project area watershed.
Floodplains and Floodways -100-year floodplains are land areas adjacent to streams that are subject
to flooding from a storm of such intensity that it has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. The
floodway is the stream channel and adjacent area where the water is likely to be deepest and fastest.
This area needs to be free of obstructions to allow floodwaters to move downstream. Bridges and/or
culverts needed for the proposed project will be designed so that no increases to the extent and level
of flood hazard risk would result from the project.
Rare and Protected Species - 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate laws. 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. Currently, the USFWS do not have any species listed for Alamance
County.
Noise - Computer models are used to predict design year traffic noise levels along the proposed
project and additional studies will be done to evaluate areas where noise barriers would be reasonable
and cost effective. The final decision whether or not to construct noise barriers will be made
following the selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Air Quality - Computer models based on projected peak hour traffic are used to evaluate any negative
effect on air quality in the area as a result of the proposed project. The project is located in
Alamance County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of
this`attainment area.
Relocation of Homes / Businesses - Relocation studies will be conducted by the NCDOT Right of Way
Branch to estimate the number of residential and business relocations that would be necessary to
implement each alternative. Final impacts will not be determined until after the selection of the
Preferred Alternative during the final design stages of the project. Displacement impacts would be
mitigated through implementation of the NCDOT relocation assistance programs. It is the policy of
the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing for residents and suitable locations for
displaced businesses would be available prior to construction of projects.
Community Impacts - Community impact assessment is a process that evaluates the effects of a
proposed transportation action on a community or communities. The assessment process is an integral
part of project planning and development. The assessment of community impacts, along with other
relevant environmental impact studies, helps shape project decisions and outcomes. Information
gained from this process is used continuously throughout the project to mold the project and to
provide documentation of the current and anticipated social environment of the project area with and
without the proposed transportation action. Potential mitigation is investigated for unavoidable
impacts to communities as part of this process.
Updated 5/10/04
Page 4 of 6
f
Potential effects on neighborhoods and the various communities in the project area are identified
during the community impact assessment process and will be evaluated in the Draft EIS. Impacts can
be both positive and negative, and are often subjective and difficult to quantify. Community cohesion
impacts could include the effects of neighborhood division, social isolation, changes in the community
character, increased/decreased neighborhood or community access, and shortened travel times.
Input provided by the affected communities play a key roll in identifying these impacts.
Minority and low-income populations - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes,
requires there be no discrimination in federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national
origin, age, sex, or disability. In addition, a 1994 Presidential Executive Order requires federal
agencies to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects
of all programs, policies, and activities on "minority populations and low-income populations". There are
three (3) fundamental environmental justice principles: 1) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and
economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations, 2) to ensure full and fair
participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process, 3)
to prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in receipt of benefits by minority and low-
income populations.
Historic Resources - This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106. Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted
project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be given an opportunity to comment. Potential
historic architectural and archaeological resources within the proposed project corridor will be
assessed and evaluated in the DEIS.
In addition to the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the US Department of
Transportation Act (1966) also affords protection to significant historic properties that may be
affected by federally-funded transportation projects.
Who decides if the project should proceed,
There are multiple points at which the decision whether to proceed with a particular project or not
can be made. The initial point at which this decision is considered is at the local level during formation
and,approval of the local area TIP. Regarding the NC 119 Relocation project, the Burlington-Graham
MPO has continued to include the project in the local TIP as a high priority since its inclusion in 1992.
The project will be further considered by the North Carolina Secretary of Transportation, the
Division Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration as the Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statements are completed. At these times, impacts of the project alternatives can be
evaluated against the benefits to determine whether or not to proceed with the project.
Who selects the alternative that will be built?
The NC 119 Relocation project is a federally-funded project. Therefore, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) is the lead agency in charge of the project. FHWA, in consultation with the
NCDOT, will select the Preferred Alternative. The FHWA and NCDOT will consider the following
when making the decision:
• The information contained in the Draft EIS
• Input received from the public before and during the Draft EIS review period
• Input received from local, state, and federal agencies before and during the Draft EIS review
period, including the following:
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Updated 5/10/04
Page 5 of 6
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Burlington-Graham Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO)
Why do the Project Development studies take so long?
Any agency that proposes a project with federal involvement, such as funding, must comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the NEPA, an agency must study the adverse and
beneficial impacts of reasonable alternatives that meet the project's purpose and need. This process
requires numerous engineering, community, and environmental studies. Also, NEPA requires extensive
public and agency involvement. The NCDOT strives to maintain a reasonable schedule for all its
projects while ensuring full compliance with NEPA.
How does this project affect me as a property owner?
You will know better if there is a chance that your home or property could be impacted after a
Preferred Alternative is identified. Following the completion of the Draft EIS, a Public Hearing Map
will be presented at Citizens Informational Workshops prior to the Public Hearing and at the Public
Hearing. The maps will show the preliminary engineering roadway designs within each of the three
Detailed Study Corridors. Property boundaries will also be shown on the Public Hearing Map. The
exact locations and amounts of property required for rights of way will not be determined until after
the Record of Decision.
What is the process for Property Acquisition and Relocation?
Private property in the path of the selected alternative for the NC 119 Relocation project will be
purchased by the NCDOT as right of way. The NCDOT pays fair market value for all property
purchased. Licensed real estate appraisers determine a fair market value at the time of purchase.
This is the same type of appraisal that is required when selling, buying, or refinancing a property.
For renters and home owners who must relocate because of the project, the NCDOT has several
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: relocation assistance, relocation moving
payments, and relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplements. The relocation program
will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act. A relocation
officer will be assigned to the project. The relocation officer will assist homeowners, renters, and
owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
Updated 5/10/04
Page 6 of 6