20170239 Ver 1_Record of Decision_20091201

RECORD OF DECISION
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
NC 119 Relocation
I-85/40 to South of SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane)
Mebane, Alamance County
Federal Aid ProjectNo. STP-119(1)
State Proj ect No. 8.1470901
WBS Element 34900.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3109
December 2009

RECORD OF DECISION
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
NC 119 Relocation
I-85/40 to South of SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane)
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
Documentation Prepared b�
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, North Carolina
December 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
NC 119 RELOCATION
RECORD OF DECISION
PAGE
1.0 DECISION ..................................................................................................................................1
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...........................................................................................1
2.1 BASIS FOR SELECTION .................................................................................................. 2
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE .................................................. 4
2.3 COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................ 6
2.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ................................................................................................ 7
3.0 SECTION 4(F) ............................................................................................................................ 9
4.0 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA ........................................................10
5.0 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ....................................................................................10
5.1 RELOCATIONS ............................................................................................................... 11
5.2 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE ......................................................................................... 11
5.3 NOISE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................. 12
5.4 NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS ................................................................................ 13
5.4.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................................13
5.4.2 Surface Waters ...................................................................................................... 13
6.0 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................14
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ..............................................................................14
8.0 COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIS .......................................................................................14
8.1 FEDERALAGENCIES ....................................................................................................15
8.2 STATE AGENCIES .......................................................................................................... 19
9.0 REVISIONS TO THE FEIS ....................................................................................................21
9.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 21
9.1.1 Section 2.8.2 (LJpdates to the Preferred Alternative Engineering Design
Since the DEIS) Revisions .............................................................................. 21
9.2 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ..................................................... 21
9.2.1 Section 4.2.3 (Hazardous Material and Waste Sites) Revisions ..................... 21
9.3 PRIME AND IMPORTANT FARMLAND .................................................................. 22
9.3.1 Section 4.2.5.1 (Farmland Protection Policy Act) Revisions .......................... 22
NC 119 Relocation - TIP U-3109 1
ROD - December 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
9.4 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..............................
9.4.1 Section 4.45 (Local Plans and Regulations) Revisions..
9.5 AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................................
9.5.1 Section 8.1.2 (Merger Team Meetings) Revisions..........
... 22
... 22
... 23
... 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Modifications to Intersecting Roadways ............................................................................ 5
Table 2 Build Alternative Cost Estimates .......................................................................................6
Table 3 Summary of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location
Figure 2 Typical Roadway Cross-Sections
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Commitments
Appendix B Project Correspondence
Appendix C Memorandum of Agreement
Appendix D Review Comments on the FEIS
NC 119 Relocation - TIP U-3109 11
ROD - December 2009

1.0 DECISION
This Record of Decision (ROD) identifies the selected alternative for the proposed Relocation of
NC 119 near Mebane in Alamance County, North Carolina. In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirements set by the Council of Environmental
Quality (CE� (40 CFR 1505.2), this ROD identifies: 1) the selected alternative; 2) all alternatives
considered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the factors (e.g., environmental
consequences, cost, and social and economic impacts) that were considered during evaluation of the
alternatives; 3) measures adopted to avoid and minimize harm; 4) monitoring and enforcement
programs far the implementation of mitigation measures; and 5) comments on the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
The proposed action addresses the relocation of NC 119 from its I-85/I-40 interchange southwest of
Mebane to existing NC 119 near SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane) north of Mebane in Alamance County.
Improvements to a portion of SR 1997 (Corrigidor Road) also are proposed as a part of this project.
It includes realigning SR 1997 east of its existing location and connecting it to SR 1973 (Tate
Avenue) in the vicinity of MoAdams Creek, the City of Mebane Wastewater Treatment Plant, and
the City of Mebane Maintenance Yard. In addition, SR 1970 (Roosevelt Street) would be tied into
the proposed SR 1997 realignment just north of the City of Mebane Maintenance Yard (see
Figure 1).
The primary needs of the proposed action include the following:
• Capacity deficiencies
• Lack of connectivity within the local community
• Lack of efficient north-south routes through Mebane due to development patterns.
The primary purposes of the proposed action include the following:
• Reduce traffic congestion in downtown Mebane
• Improve access to the local area
• Provide Alamance County a primary north-south route.
The FEIS identified a Preferred Alternative — Alternative 9. Alternative 9 proposes to construct a
four-lane roadway with a 30-foot wide grass median primarily on new location, from the
realignment of SR 1962 (Third Street Ea�tension) north to SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane). Between
I-85/I-40 and the realignment of SR 1962, the project would widen existing NC 119 to six lanes.
The location of Alternative 9 is shown in Figure 1.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternatives considered in the Environmental Impact Statement included the No-Build Alternative,
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Alternatives, Mass Transit Alternatives, three Detailed Study Alternatives, as well as the
"Improve Existing NC 119" Alternative and an "East Side" Alternative. As discussed in the FEIS,
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 1
ROD - December 2009

the No-Build, TSM, TDM, Mass Transit Alternatives, "Improve Existing NC 119" Alternative, and
"East Side" Alternative do not meet the purpose and need for the project.
Three Detailed Study Alternatives were selected for further study from ten Preliminary Corridor
Alternatives. The Preliminary Corridor Alternatives, including the three Detailed Study
Alternatives, were discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, approved August 31,
2007, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement, approved June 11, 2009. Alternative 8 follows
the same alignment as Alternative 9, beginning at the existing NC 119/I-85/I-40 interchange and
crossing US 70 just west of the Craftique Furniture Company and west of SR 1950 (Allen Baynes
Road). This alternative continues northwest as it crosses SR 1921 (Mebane Rogers Road) and runs
parallel to Alternative 9 as it passes to the west and north of the historic property boundary of the
Cates Farm, and passes through the water supply watershed critical area of the Graham-Mebane
Reservoir. The alignment ties back into existing NC 119 near SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane).
Alternative 10 follows the same alignment as Alternatives 8 and 9 until just south of SR 1921, where
it turns further east and runs parallel to Alternatives 8 and 9 as it passes through the northwestern
corner of the historic Cates Farm property (within the NRHP boundary) and to the east (outside) of
the water supply watershed critical area. The alignment ties back into existing NC 119 near
SR 1918.
Several opportunities were provided to the public to offer input on the project alternatives. In
addition to three Citizens Informational Workshops, numerous small group meetings, and several
Steering Committee Meetings, a pre-hearing open house was held on January 15, 2008, prior to the
formal corridor public hearing held that same evening. Public comments provided at the corridor
public hearing are detailed in Chapter 8 of the FEIS.
The Section 404/NEPA Merger Team met on June 19, 2008, and selected Alternative 9 as the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) recognizing that it is the alternative
that minimizes impacts to a water supply watershed critical area, historic property, and streams.
Based on the findings of the DEIS, comments received on the DEIS, and comments from citizens at
the public meetings and corridor public hearing, the NCDOT endorsed Alternative 9 as its Preferred
Alternative.
2.1 Basis for Selection
The selection of Alternative 9 as the Preferred Alternative was based primarily on minimizing
impacts to a water supply watershed critical area, historic property, and streams. The projecYs
Section 404/NEPA Merger Team agreed that Alternative 9 is the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) based on the following:
• The three Detailed Study Alternatives have the same basic corridor location and the same
proposed access control with only slight variations in their alignments in the vicinity of the
historic Cates Farm (between SR 1921 [Mebane Rogers Road] and SR 1917 [White Level
Road]). These small variations would have no affect on the traffic assignments or
operational characteristics of any of the three alternatives.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 2
ROD - December 2009

• Approximately 1.0 mile of Alternative 8 and 0.7 miles of Alternative 9 are within the water
supply watershed critical area of the Graham-Mebane Reservoir. Alternative 10 lies outside
of the water supply watershed critical area.
• Alternatives 9 and 10 would require the acquisition of right-of-way from the historic Cates
Farm. Alternative 8 passes to the west and north (outside) of the historic property boundary
of the Cates Farm. For Alternative 9, approximately 12.6 acres of land would be acquired of
the approximately 100 acres listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Alternative 10 would acquire approximately 13.4 acres of the area listed on the NRHP. An
additional 4.6 acres of the farm would be isolated from the remaining historic property with
Alternative 9, compared to 23.4 acres with Alternative 10.
• For both Alternative 9 and Alternative 10, the proposed roadway would likely be visible and
audible from the Cates farmhouse. However, the potential visual impacts are less with
Alternative 9 than with Alternative 10, because it is located further west of the farmhouse
than Alternative 10. In addition, Alternative 9 would not require the removal of any
structures associated with the Cates Farm, while Alternative 10 would remove one structure.
However, the structure is not a contributing element of the historic property.
• Modifications to existing roadways intersecting proposed NC 119 are virivally the same for
each of the Detailed Study Alternatives, with the exception of the SR 1921 (Mebane Rogers
Road) intersection. Alternative 8 requires no realignment of SR 1921, while Alternatives 9
and 10 would realign SR 1921 to accommodate its proposed intersection with NC 119.
Alternative 10 would require a more substantial realignment of SR 1921 than Alternative 9 to
accommodate the proposed intersection.
• Although a portion of the Cates Farm property (not including the house, outbuildings, and
approximately 50 acres) is currently for sale; historic preservation regulations apply based on
the current status of the property. Therefore, until development begins, the entire property is
subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Section 4(� of
the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
• The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDW� expressed concern about Alternatives 8 and 9
impacting the water supply watershed critical area of the Graham-Mebane Reservoir and
asked about citizen comments on this issue. While several citizens at the Corridor Public
Hearing were not in favor of an alternative that impacted the watershed critical area, there
were also verbal and written comments from citizens requesting that NCDOT avoid the Cates
Farm historic property.
• The Section 404/NEPA Merger Team reviewed the impacts of the Detailed Study
Alternatives on streams in the project study area. Alternatives 9 and 10 have the fewest
stream impacts. Alternatives 9 and 10 cross 16 perennial streams, while Alternative 8
crosses 18 streams. Alternative 9 impacts approximately 3,178 linear feet of streams along
the proposed corridor, while Alternatives 8 and 10 impact approximately 3,454 and 3,328
linear feet of streams, respectively.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 3
ROD - December 2009

Based on the reasons described above, the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team, including NCDOT,
FHWA, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency (LJSEPA), NCDWQ,
US Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred that Alternative 9 is the LEDPA. The NCDOT
discussed each of the verbal and written comments received at the Public Hearing during a Post
Hearing Meeting. At this May 7, 2008, meeting, the NCDOT selected Alternative 9 as its Preferred
Alternative.
2.2 Description of the Selected Alternative
The location of Alternative 9 is shown in Figure 1. Alternative 9 begins at the existing
NC 119/I-85/I-40 interchange and continues north on existing alignment for a distance of
approximately 0.36 miles. Full control of access is proposed at the I-85/I-40 interchange. From this
point northward, the project proceeds on new alignment, passing to the west of the West End
community. Limited control of access or access only at existing secondary roads (SRs) is proposed
south of US 70. The alternative then turns northwest, crossing US 70 just west of the Craftique
Furniture Company and west of SR 1950 (Allen Baynes Road). Transitioning back to the northeast,
the alternative passes through the northwestern corner of the Cates Farm property (within the NRHP
boundary) and passes through the water supply watershed critical area of the Graham-Mebane
Reservoir. The alignment ties back into existing NC 119 near SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane). North of
US 70, limited control of access is proposed. This alternative will require a section of SR 1921
(Mebane Rogers Road) to be realigned at its intersection with NC 119.
Overpasses would be provided at SR 1963 (Holt Street), the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR), and
US 70. In addition, a connector road would provide access from proposed NC 119 to US 70.
The existing bridge at the NC 119/I-85/I-40 interchange will be replaced to include additional travel
lanes needed to accommodate projected traffic volumes. In addition to replacing the bridge, several
of the interchange ramps will be widened to include additional travel lanes. However, this widening
will not ea�tend onto I-85/I-40. The existing traffic signals will remain; however, additional right-of-
way, in the vicinity of the interchange ramps, will be required to accommodate the proposed designs.
Existing SR 1962 (Third Street Eatension) and NC 119 (Fifth Street) in the vicinity of Alternative 9
will be realigned to create a four-way intersection. In addition, another segment of SR 1962 in the
vicinity of the US Post Office will be realigned to intersect the proposed NC 119 approximately
1,400 feet north of existing SR 1962. Secondary Road 1972 (Smith Drive) will be ea�tended to tie
into the proposed NC 119 in the vicinity of the North Carolina Industrial Center (NCIC), thus
providing access for the West End community. As part of Alternative 9, the section of US 70
between the proposed NC 119 overpass and SR 1982 (St. Luke's Church Road) will be widened to a
four-lane facility. Alternative 9 restricts access between NC 119 and SR 1980 (Holmes Road) to
right-in/right-out movements only. A service road will be provided immediately north of the
northeast quadrant of the I-85/I-40 interchange to provide right-in/right-out access to several parcels.
In addition, SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) will be realigned to intersect Alternative 9 approximately
520 feet south of where existing SR 1951 will intersect the proposed roadway.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 4
ROD - December 2009

Two access points will be provided from the Alternative 9 alignment in the vicinity of the NCIC to
provide access for the NCIC to both the northern and southern portions of their property. One access
point is located across from the Fieldstone community, while the other is located on the northern
side of the NCIC, across from the SR 1972 (Smith Drive) intersection, south of the Duke Power
easement.
In addition to improvements to NC 119, Alternative 9 proposes to ea�tend SR 1997 (Corrigidor Road)
from SR 1962 (Third Street), past the Mebane Arts and Community Center, City of Mebane
Wastewater Treatment Plant, and City of Mebane Maintenance Yard, to SR 1973 (Tate Avenue) in
the West End community. Secondary Road 1970 (Roosevelt Street) will also tie into the ea�tension
of SR 1997 (Corrigidor Road), providing additional connectivity within the West End community.
Alternative 9 includes modifications to several major intersecting cross streets. Table 1 lists some of
the major features of the preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative.
Table 1
Modifications to Intersecting Roadways
Location Alternative 9
I-85Q-40 Add lanes to ram s and ove ass
SR 1980 (Holmes Road) Right-in/right-out at existing NC 119
Existin NC 119 ifth Street T-turn around at ro osed facilit
Realignment of SR 1962 (Third Sheet Signalized intersection
Extension) and Fifth Sheet (NC 119)
Existing SR 1962 (Third Street Extension) T-hun around on either side
of ro osed facilit
Realignment of SR 1962 (Third Sheet Signalized intersection
Extension) near Post Office
SR 1972 (Smith Drive) Signalized intersection
SR 1963 olt Street ; NC Railroad; US 70 NC 119 ove ass
Proposed US 70 Connector Road Signalized intersection
US 70 Widen to four-lanes between proposed
roadway and connector road
SR 1949 d ewood Church Road T-tum around near US 70
SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) T-tum around on either side
of proposed roadway
Realignment of SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) Right-in/right-out at proposed facility
SR 1921 (Mebane Rogers Road) Realign to accommodate proposed
mtersechon with NC 119
Realign to connect to proposed roadway;
Existing NC 119 (First Street) Signalized intersection; T-turn around near
northem projectterminus
SR 1917 (White Level Road) No Change
SR 1918 Mrs. White Lane No Chan e
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 5
ROD - December 2009

Location Alternative 9
SR 1997 (Corrigidor Roac� Realign to connect to
SR 1973 (Tate Avenue)
SR 1970 (Roosevelt Street) Extend to connect to extension of
SR 1997 Corri idor Road
Typical sections proposed along the alternative are shown in Figure 2. The roadway typical section
proposed near the beginning of the project varies in width due to projected traffic volumes. At the
southern end of the project, a six-lane curb and gutter facility is proposed with additional turn-lanes
located at the I-85/I-40 interchange. Continuing north from the interchange, a six-lane curb and
gutter facility with a 30-foot median is proposed. The curb and gutter typical section, which ea�tends
from the beginning of the project to south of the Fieldstone community and US Post Office, will
include 5-foot wide sidewalks. Near the realignment of SR 1962 (Third Street Ea�tension), the
six-lane curb and gutter facility will transition to a six-lane shoulder section with a 30-foot median
for a short distance before transitioning again to a four-lane roadway with a 30-foot grass median in
the vicinity of the Fieldstone community and US Post Office, located north of the realignment of
SR1962. For the remainder of the project, a four-lane roadway with a 30-foot wide grass median
will be constructed on new location to the west of Mebane. All of the proposed typical sections
contain 12-foot wide travel lanes. The proposed right-of-way required for the new location section
will range from approximately 150 to 300 feet in width.
2.3 Cost Estimates
During the preparation of the FEIS, construction cost estimates were updated for each of the
Detailed Study Alternatives. These estimates are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Build Alternative Cost Estimates
Detailed Study Length Right-of-Way Construction UtiliTy Relocation Total
Alternative miles Cost * Cost * Cost $* Cost $
8 5.6 $30,942,500 $68,700,000 $2,402,000 $102,044,500
SectionA 33 23,875,000 48,OOQ000 $1,589,000 73,464,000
SectionB 23 7,067,500 2Q70Q000 $813,000 28,58Q500
9 (Preferrec� 5.6 $31,017,500 $68,500,000 $2,402,000 $101,919,500
SectionA 33 23,875,000 48,OOQ000 $1,589,000 73,464,000
SectionB 23 7,142,500 2QSOQ000 $813,000 28,455,500
10 5.6 $31,415,000 $70,100,000 $2,402,000 $103,917,000
SectionA 33 23,875,000 48,OOQ000 $1,589,000 73,464,000
SectionB 23 7,54Q000 22,1OQ000 $813,000 3Q453,000
Note: * Construction cost in 2009 dollars. Utility and Right-of-Way costs in 2007 dollars.
Right-of-way cost revised to include SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) realignment.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 6
ROD - December 2009

The NCDOT has developed a draft 5-year work program that contains the projects, programs, and
services that NCDOT will accomplish from 2010-2014 to improve safety, mobility, and the physical
condition of the State's transportation network. The 5-year work program is anticipated to be
adopted by the NCDOT Boart of Transportation in May, 2010. TIP Project U-3109 is not included
in the 5-year work program.
The relocation of NC 119 in Mebane is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in two
sections. Section A ea�tends from the existing I-85/I-40/NC 119 interchange to north of US 70.
Section B eatends from north of US 70 to existing NC 119 south of SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane).
The NCDOT 2009-2015 TIP includes $675,000 for prior years costs and $1,927,000 for mitigation
in federal fiscal year 2012. For Section A, the NCDOT 2009-2015 TIP includes $11,938,000 for
right-of-way in federal fiscal year 2011, $11,937,000 for right-of-way acquisition in federal fiscal
year 2012, $795,000 for utilities in federal fiscal year 2011, $794,000 for utilities in federal fiscal
year 2012, $13,050,000 for construction in federal fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, and future years.
Section B is currently unfunded; however the NCDOT 2009-2015 TIP includes $6,600,000 for right-
of-way for future years, $813,000 for utilities for future years, and $24,500,000 for construction for
future years.
2.4 Summary of Impacts
Evaluation criteria in the FEIS included socioeconomic impacts (land use and transportation
planning, public services and facilities, relocations (residential, business, church), community
cohesion, community access, and environmental justice), economic effects, utility impacts, cultural
resources (historic architectural and archaeological), visual impacts, air quality, traific noise impacts,
hazardous waste sites, soils and mineral resources, prime and important farmland impacts, water
resource impacts (water quality, streams, floodplains and floodways, and water supply watershed
critical area), biotic community impacts, aquatic community impacts, Section 404 jurisdictional
issues (wetlands), protected species, Section 4(� resources, construction impacts, and indirect and
cumulative effects. Each of these topics is discussed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS.
The primary reasons far the selection of Alternative 9 as the Preferred Alternative were the
minimization of land taken and separated from a property listed on the NRHP (Cates Farm) and thus
protected by Section 4(� of the Department of transportation Act of 1966, as amended (23 CFR
774), while also minimizing the crossing of the critical area of the Graham-Mebane Reservoir water
supply watershed. Minimizing stream and wetland impacts were also important considerations. A
summary of impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative is presented in Table 3.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 7
ROD - December 2009

Table 3
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Impact Category
Re erence to Seckon in FEI Alternative 9
PROJECTFACTORS
Mainline Length (miles)* 5.6
Construction Cost $ ** 68,500,000
Utility Relocation Cost ($)** 2,402,000
Right-of-Way Cost ($)** 31,017,500
TOTAL COST $ 101,919,500
SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
Residential Relocations (41.2.2) 46
West End Community (41.2.3) 4
White Level Community (4.1.2.3) 6
Woodlawn Community (eastern hal� (4.1.2.3) 10
Business Relocations (41.3.2) 5
Parks Im acted 4.1.2.1 0
Schools Im acted 41.21 0
Churches Displaced (located in West End Community) (41.2.1) 1
Cemeteries Ixnpacted (41.2.1) 0
Noise Ixnpacts
# rece tors a roachin or exceedin criteria 4.2.2.3 11
Noise Ixnpacts
(# receptors with substantial noise level increase) (4.2.2.3) 3
INFRASTRUCTURE (41.4)
Major Electric Power Transmission Line Crossings 2
Water and Sewer Facili Im acts ater Tower 1
Fiber Optic Cable Crossings 1
CULTURAL RESOURCE FACTORS (41.51)
Historic Sites with Adverse Effect 1
Impacted Section 4(� Resources 1
NATURAL RESO URCE FACTORS
Federally Listed T&E Species Impacted (4.3.5) 0
Perennial Stream Crossin s 4.2.6.3 *** 16
Im acts to Streams linear feet 4.2. 6. 3 3,178
Wetlands (acres) (4.3.3.1) 0249
Length in water supply watershed critical area (miles)**** 0.7
Length in water supply watershed protected area (miles)**** 1.7
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109
ROD - December 2009

Impact Category
Re erence to Seckon in FEI Alternative 9
Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities (4.311)
Oak-Hickory Forest (acres) 61.7
Secondary Pine Forest (acres) 3.4
Maintained / Disturbed (acres) 120.1
TOTAL COMNIUNITY IMPACTS acres 185.2
PHYSICAL FACTORS
Flood lains acres 4.2.6.4 3.15
Floodplains (linear feet of crossing) (4.2.6.4) 1,029
Floodway (linear feet of crossing) (4.2.6.4) 519
Prime and Unique Farmland (acres) (4.2.5) 153.48
Hazardous Materials Sites Within Corridor (4.2.3) 2
Ambient Air Quality CO Standards Exceedances (#) (4.21.2) 0
Notes: Estimate of impacts based on construction limits (slope stakes), unless otherwise noted.
* Mainline lengths are approximate.
** Construction cost in 2009 dollars. Utility and Right-of-Way costs in 2007 dollars.
Right-of-way cost revised to include SR 1951 (Woodlawn Road) realignment.
*** Total stream crossings do not include the bridge structure recommended at Mill Creek or
UT 15 (UT to Mill Creek), which lies within the Altemative 10 corridor and would be
spanned by the recommended bridge at Mill Creek.
**** Water supply watershed critical area and water supply watershed protected area lengths are
approximate.
3.0 SECTION 4(F)
There is one resource within the boundaries of Alternative 9, the Cates Farm, which is protected
under Section 4(� of the Department of Transportation Act. The Cates Farm is a historic property
listed on the NRHP under Criterion A(Agriculture) far the importance of its dairy operation within
the agricultural conteat of Alamance County, as developed for the property's period of significance
(1905-1947), and under Criterion B for its association with Charles F. Cates, founder of the Cates
Pickle Manufacturing Company and a leader in business, civic, and agricultural affairs. The study
area contains a few publicly-owned recreational lands, but none of these lands are within the
boundaries of Alternative 9.
Alternative 9 will require the acquisition of right-of-way from the Cates Farm (Figure 1).
Approximately 12.6 acres of land will be acquired of the approximately 100 acres listed on the
NRHP. An additional 4.6 acres of the farm will be isolated from the remaining historic property.
Alternative 9 was developed to minimize the land taken and separated from the Cates Farm while
also minimizing the crossing of the critical area of the Graham-Mebane Reservoir water supply
watershed.
For Alternative 9, the proposed roadway is anticipated to be visible and audible from the farmhouse.
However, it will not require the removal of any structures associated with the Cates Farm. The HPO
initially determined that Alternative 9 will have an "adverse effecY' on the property in their
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 9
ROD - December 2009

concurrence form dated June 6, 2002, which is included in the FEIS. A subsequent concurrence
form, dated August 21, 2007, confirms the HPO's previous finding and is also included in the FEIS.
Several alignments that avoid the Cates Farm were studied during the project planning process.
These alternatives required the acquisition of right-of-way from one or more historic properties in
the area, had significant relocations of residences or businesses, impacted the West End community,
or had additional impacts to the water supply watershed critical area of the Graham-Mebane
Reservoir. For these reasons, earlier alignments were eliminated from further study.
In accordance with 23 CFR 771.135(i), the FHWA provided the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation to
the Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Project Review, for coordination and
comment on July 9, 2009. A copy of this letter is included in Appendix B. A minimum of 45 days
was established by the Administration for receipt of comments. No comments have been received
from the Department of Interior within the comment period.
4.0 WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA
Approximately 0.7 miles of the Preferred Alternative lies within the water supply watershed critical
area (WCA) of the Graham-Mebane Reservoir. North Carolina regulations limiting development
within WCAs are intended to protect public health by reducing the ea�tent of water treatment needed
for drinking water. Highway runoff may contain higher concentrations of inetals such as lead, zinc,
iron, chromium, cadmium, nickel, and copper, which result from the ordinary wear of brakes, tires,
and other vehicle parts. In addition, de-icing can leave residues of salt on the highway surface. Best
management practices (BMPs), such as detention ponds, vegetated filter strips, and swales, can be
used to minimize the adverse effects of highway runoff; however, the effectiveness of BMPs varies
by several factors, including type of BMP, climate, soil type, and other environmental variables.
The potential impacts of the project on the WCA were evaluated by the Section 404/NEPA Merger
Team in June 2008. The NCDWQ representatives expressed an unwillingness to provide the Clean
Water Act Section 401 Certification necessary to permit Alternative 8, which would avoid the Cates
Farm historic property, but have greater impact on the WCA than Alternative 9. They reiterated the
direction under state water supply regulations, which are based on the federal Safe Drinking Water
Act, to avoid construction of new roads within the WCA "to the eatent practicable." The minutes of
the Merger Meeting are included in Appendix B.
The NCDWQ representatives expressed a preference for an alternative which would avoid the WCA
entirely. However, they indicated they would be willing to permit Alternative 9 due to its reduced
footprint within the WCA (14.9 acres compared to 21.4 acres for Alternative 8) and the fact that it
crosses two fewer streams.
SA MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
Measures to minimize harm through coordination, avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and
environmental commitments are discussed in detail in the FEIS in Chapter 4 and in the Project
Commitments ("GreensheeY� included in Appendix A of this document.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 10
ROD - December 2009

5.1 Relocations
Alternative 9 impacts 46 homes, 5 businesses, and one church (St. Luke's Christian Church). The
church is located at the intersection of US 70 and James Walker Road in the West End community.
The relocation of the church is necessary to provide a connection between Alternative 9 and US 70.
In discussions with NCDOT in 2000, 2001, and 2008, church officials stated a preference for
relocation along US 70 rather than having the proposed NC 119 located close to the church, as it
would limit future plans to expand church facilities.
The NCDOT has determined that there are suitable business sites and comparable replacement
housing within the study area for displaced homeowners, tenants, and businesses. The NCDOT will
provide relocation assistance to residences and businesses displaced during acquisition of right-of-
way in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS-133-5 through 133-18).
In addition to relocations, the Preferred Alternative will impact access to several businesses.
Additional measures that will be considered during the final design phase to further minimize these
impacts include the following:
• Property owners on S. Fifth Street requested full access onto S. Fifth Street from the back of
their property (Dogwood Properties & Dev. Corp.). However, providing access would not
provide the necessary intersection spacing of 1,200 feet required by NCDOT. In order to
help mitigate this impact, the NCDOT will consider providing a right-in/right-out access into
the Dogwood Properties & Dev. Corp. property from S. Fifth Street.
• Property owners on S. Fifth Street requested that access to their property (Cambridge Center
LLC) be shown more clearly. The NCDOT will work with Cambridge Center LLC to
determine access to the property, including the consideration of right-in/right-out onto
S. Fifth Street from the proposed roadway.
• A business owner expressed concern regarding the impacts to his property (Troutman
Dentistry) at the intersection of SR 1962 (Third Street) and SR 1979 (Foust Road) due to the
realignment of Fifth Street (NC 119). The NCDOT agreed to evaluate the design in the
vicinity of Dr. Troutman's property during the final design phase to see if it is possible to
reduce impacts to the property.
• During final design, the NCDOT will evaluate whether right-in/right-out access to the
Brookhollow Shopping Center can be provided from a design and safety perspective to
facilitate access to local businesses in the shopping center.
5.2 Historic Architecture
As mentioned previously, Alternative 9 will impact one NRHP listed historic property, Cates Farm,
which is protected under Section 4(� of the Department of Transportation Act. Alternative 9 will
require the acquisition of approximately 12.6 acres of right-of-way from the Cates Farm, isolating an
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 11
ROD - December 2009

additional 4.6 acres from the rest of the farm. The roadway will be visible and audible from, at a
minimum, the western half of the property including the cluster of buildings comprising the
farmstead.
Subsequent to the selection of Alternative 9 as the Preferred Alternative, the NCDOT has held
several meetings with representatives from FHWA, HPO, Cates Farm Executrix, and Marsha A.
Ritchie Trust to initiate development of mitigation measures for the Cates Farm. The mitigation
measures are included in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the FHWA and the HPO
for the NC 119 Relocation project and include:
• Photodocumentation of the Charles F. and Howard Cates Farm priar to the initiation of work
• Preservation and restoration of landscape features, utilizing native plants
• Refinement of design including lowering the roadbed by approximately 2 to 3 feet below the
grade shown in the preliminary design in the vicinity of Mill Creek in order to minimize
visual impacts.
The Final MOA is included in Appendix C.
5.3 Noise Impacts
The noise analysis was conducted in accordance with FHWA requirements as detailed in 23 CFR
Part 772. FHWA's Traific Noise Model (TNM) 2.1 was used in conjunction with the NCDOT's
2004 Traffic Noise Policy to estimate traific noise impacts associated with each Detailed Study
Alternative and analyze potential noise abatement measures. According to the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria (23 CFR Part 772), Alternative 9 will incur the fewest traffic noise impacts of
the Detailed Study Alternatives with impacts to 10 residences and 1 business. Eight of the eleven
receptors affected by Alternative 9 that approach or exceed noise abatement criteria for both
Categories B and C experience a noise level increase of less than 5-dBA. When real-life noises are
heard, it is difficult to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily
noticeable. Based upon the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, which is outlined in Table 4.7
(Noise Abatement Criteria — Criteria for Substantial Increase) of the FEIS, Alternative 9 has three
anticipated substantial noise level impacts.
Traific noise abatement is not recommended and no noise abatement measures (e.g., sound barriers)
are proposed as part of the project. This is because the receptors are dispersed, rather than clustered
so that noise walls would not be feasible and reasonable. The majority of the potentially impacted
receptors are located in the southern portion of the project study area near the I-85/I-40 interchange.
Although full control of access is proposed at this interchange, the impacted receptors are scattered
on either side of existing NC 119 in this area. In addition, several of these receptors are anticipated
to be relocated or are businesses, which usually prefer visibility from the highway rather than noise
abatement. Additional impacted receptors are scattered throughout the project study area in the
vicinity of US 70 and SR 1921 (Mebane Rogers Road).
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 12
ROD - December 2009

5.4 Natural Resource Impacts
Avoidance and minimization measures associated with wetland and stream impacts were discussed
and agreed upon by the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team (Concurrence Point 4a). The Merger
Team agreed that in areas of wetland impacts, the side slopes of the proposed roadway would be
reduced to 2:1 and that stormwater Best Management Practices and hazardous spill basins would be
evaluated at Concurrence Point 4b. The Concurrence Point 4a meeting is discussed in Section 8.1.2
Merger Team Meetings ofthe FEIS.
5.4.1 Wetlands
Efforts were made during development of the preliminary designs to preserve and protect wetlands
in accordance with Executive Order 11990. The alignment for Alternative 9 crosses a wetland
located adjacent to MoAdams Creek where the direct impacts would be the least, staying as much on
the eastern edge of the wetland as possible while not encroaching upon a parallel section of
MoAdams Creek to the west. The alignment skirts between two wetlands located just north of
US 70 while avoiding impacts to Craftique Furniture Company. In addition, the alignment
associated with the ea�tension of SR 1997 (Corrigidor Road) impacts the western edge of two
wetlands, located adjacent to an unnamed tributary to MoAdams Creek, to avoid impacting the City
of Mebane WWTP operations. Additional jurisdictional impacts will be further minimized by a
reduction in side slopes to 2:1 in the areas of wetland impacts. Once final surveys of the project area
are available, the preliminary design can be revised to further minimize impacts to the human and
natural environments.
5.4.2 Surface Waters
Alternative 9 will impact 3,178 feet of streams, the least of the three Detailed Study Alternatives.
Impacts to streams were minimized by adjusting the preliminary design, where possible, and
incorporating a bridge over Mill Creek.
As discussed previously, the Preferred Alternative passes through the water supply watershed critical
area of the Graham-Mebane Reservoir. The NCDOT must use the BMPs outlined in Best
Management Pracrices for Protecrion of Surface Waters. Because Alternative 9 crosses waters
classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), NCDOT also must adhere to sediment and erosion
control BMPs as described for HQW in Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B
.0124) throughout design and construction of the project. This will also apply for any area that
drains to streams having Water Supply Critical Area (WS CA) classification.
The NCDOT will implement the appropriate sediment and erosion control measures as detailed in
the most recent version of the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual and the most recent version of Permit No. NCS000250. During the final design phase of
Alternative 9, the NCDOT will investigate and implement appropriate stormwater treatment
measures as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual, which may include grassed swale treatment, preformed scour holes, pipe end-treatments,
and level spreaders to the eatent practicable. In addition, the NCDOT will develop a stormwater
management plan and obtain a State Stormwater Permit prior to construction.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 13
ROD - December 2009

The NCDOT has committed to the implementation of hazardous spill protection measures at stream
crossings on highways functionally classified as rural or urban arterials and within one-half mile of
the water supply watershed critical area during final design of Alternative 9. The NCDOT's
Guidelines for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic Design (1999) specifies the criteria regarding the
location and design of hazardous spill basins.
A mitigation plan for jurisdictional impacts to wetlands and streams will be developed during the
Section 404/401 permitting process. The NCDOT began evaluating the project corridor for suitable
on-site mitigation locations in August 2008. If on-site mitigation locations are infeasible or
insufficient to mitigate all project impacts, mitigation will be provided by the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) through their Memorandum of Agreement with the
NCDOT and the USACE. The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with NCDWQ, USACE, and
USEPA regarding mitigation through the Section 404/NEPA Merger process.
6A MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Coordination will be maintained with all environmental regulatory and resource agencies during
final design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition, and construction to ensure that avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures are implemented. The NCDOT and FHWA
will enforce all pertinent specifications and contract provisions in accordance with the intent of the
FEIS and the welfare of the public.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Environmental commitments are shown in Appendix A, Project Commitments ("GreensheeY').
8.0 COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIS
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) far the project was approved on June 11, 2009,
and circulated to environmental regulatory and resources agencies for comments. Chapter 7 of the
FEIS, incorporated by reference, includes a full list of agencies and organizations that received
copies of the document. Comments on the FEIS were received from the following federal and state
resource agencies:
Federal Agencies
United States Environmental Protection Agency (LJSEPA) — August 14, 2009
State Agencies
North Carolina Department of Administration — August 18, 2009
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — August 18, 2009
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources — State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
— July 17, 2009
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water
Quality (NCDW� — August 4, 2009
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) — August 7, 2009
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 14
ROD - December 2009

North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety — Emergency Management
Division (Intergovernmental Review Form) — July 14, 2009
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services — July 13, 2009
Copies of these letters are included in Appendix D. Excerpts of the substantive comments from
these agencies and responses to those comments from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation are included below.
8.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 4
Letter Date: August 14, 2009
Comment: "EPA concurred with other Merger team agencies on the selection of the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) on June 19, 2008.
Alternative 9 was selected as the `Preferred Alternative' and LEDPA. EPA is not listed as
one of the Merger team agencies concurring on the LEDPA (Page S-6 of the FEIS)."
Response: The NCDOT acknowledges that USEPA is a participant on the Merger Team
and that they concurred on the selection of Alternative 9 as the LEDPA on June 19, 2008.
The NCDOT apologizes far the omission in the FEIS and has included USEPA in all detailed
references to the Merger Team in the ROD.
Stream and Wetland Impacts
Comment: "DSA 9 has the least impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands.
However, EPA has environmental concerns regarding commitments to further avoid and
minimize these impacts as well as compensatory mitigation." "EPA notes in the FEIS that
NCDOT began evaluating the project corridor for suitable on-site mitigation locations in
August of 2008."
Response: Avoidance and minimization measures associated with wetland and stream
impacts were discussed and agreed upon by the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team
(Concurrence Point 4a) in June 2008. The Merger Team agreed that in areas of wetland
impacts, the side slopes of the proposed roadway would be reduced to 2:1 and that
stormwater Best Management Practices and hazardous spill basins would be evaluated at
Concurrence Point 4b. Available information regarding the NCDOT's evaluation for suitable
on-site mitigation locations will be presented and discussed at upcoming Section 404/NEPA
Merger Team meetings. Additionally, the NCDOT will continue to coordinate with USEPA
during preparation/review of the mitigation plan.
Environmental Justice
Comment: "The FEIS describes the demographic characteristics of each of these
communities (pages 4-15 and 4-1� and provides demographic information relative to the
State of North Carolina, Alamance County, and the project study area. In EPA's
December 3, 2007, DEIS comment letter, we requested that the summary table be revised to
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 15
ROD - December 2009

include the anticipated number of low-income and minority displacements compared to the
total number of relocations. This information was not included in the EJ section of the
document. We note that Table S.2, the Summary of Environmental Impacts includes
residential relocations for the West End Community (4), White Level Community (6) and
Woodlawn Community (10). The table does not include the relocations far the Fieldstone
Community or Fieldstone apartments."
Response: As discussed in Identification of Environmental Justice Populations under
Section 4.1.2.4 Environmental Justice of the FEIS, the proportions of minority and ethnic
populations, as well as low-income populations, residing in the demographic study area are
similar to the proportions in Alamance County and the State of North Carolina. However,
the proportion of minority residents, as well as low-income residents, varies greatly among
the communities within the demographic study area While the Census data point
particularly to the White Level community and portions of downtown Mebane, the West End
community and the eastern half of the Woodlawn community also have minority populations
that may be affected by the proposed action.
Based on the above discussion and in response to USEPA's DEIS comment letter, the
summary table (Table S.2) was revised to include the displacement effects to low-income and
minority populations at the community level, focusing on West End and White Level
community displacements, as well as the eastern half of the Woodlawn community. The
Fieldstone Community/Fieldstone Apartments was not included in the table because there are
no relocations in the Fieldstone Community or Fieldstone Apartments. The number of
relocations in the communities having minority populations also can be found in
Displacements and Relocations under Section 4.1.2.4 Environmental Justice of the FEIS.
Noise Receptor Impacts
Comment: "EPA notes the comments on Noise Abatement and Mitigation Measures in
Section 4.2.2.4 of the FEIS. EPA believes that NCDOT and FHWA have not provided a
reasonable justification for not fully considering `other mitigation measures considered',
including the use of vegetative barriers and earthen berms. NCDOT and FHWA are making
the continued argument that the purchase of additional right-of-way is necessary to make
vegetative barriers `effective' to achieve the 5-dBA reductions in predicted noise level
increases. EPA concurs with NCDOT and FHWA that these measures are not nearly as
effective as providing noise walls. However, any potential traffic noise reduction (as little as
1 dBA) near residential communities utilizing vegetative screening and earthen berms is
beneficial and should be considered as a form of environmental stewardship."
Response: The noise analysis was conducted in accordance with FHWA requirements as
detailed in 23 CFR Part 772, as well as NCDOT guidelines on highway noise, NCDOT
Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (September 2004). The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement
Policy states that "it generally is not considered reasonable to provide abatement if the
difference between existing and design year noise levels is 3 dBA or less, as this is
considered a barely perceptible change." The policy goes on to say that "Studies have shown
that a 200 feet depth of dense vegetation can reduce noise levels by 10 dBA. It is often
impractical to plant this quantity of vegetation to achieve such reductions." Purchasing
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 16
ROD - December 2009

additional right-of-way to provide an earth berm or vegetative buffer that would reduce the
noise by as little as 1 dBA, would exceed the cost per benefitted receptor. The cost of
purchasing the additional right-of-way would not be considered a cost effective or reasonable
expenditure of funds. The Section 404/NEPA Merger Team met on June 19, 2008, to select
a Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) (Concurrence Point 3)
and to discuss avoidance and minimization (Concurrence Point 4a) for the proposed project.
The NCDOT will continue to work with the USEPA throughout the Section 404/NEPA
Merger process.
Prime and Important Farmlands
Comment: "EPA notes the comments on Pages S-22, 3-32 and 3-33, and 4-46 and 4-47 of
the FEIS concerning prime and important farmlands. EPA notes that the farmlands indicated
as being `prime and unique' farmland did not score above 160 points on the Form AD-1006
by NRCS. NCDOT should verify the criteria for prime and unique farmland at Title 7
Part 658." "The FEIS does not provide an analysis concerning the 153.5 acres of impacts to
agricultural lands from Alternative 9 and that may be part of a Voluntary Agricultural
District (VAD)." "The FEIS also states that Alamance County has 240,623 `farmable' acres
of which 179,301 acres are active farmland." "The figures presented in the FEIS do not
appear to be accurate according to the Alamance County Farmland Protection Plan that in
2002 lists Alamance County with 97,793 acres of active farmland with 831 active farms.
The FEIS does not identify how many active farms Alternative 9 will impact. The Alamance
County Farmland Protection Plan is also not cited in the list of local plans and regulations in
Section 4.4.5 of the FEIS."
Response: The USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006, which is
used to determine impacts to prime and unique farmland, per 7 CFR Part 658 was completed
according to the instructions provided on the USDA — Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) website and submitted to the District Conservationist at NRCS for
completion of various sections. Additionally, a final form was provided to the District
Conservationist at NRCS and is on file with their office. No comments from the District
Conservationist were received on the final form.
The Alamance County, North Carolina - Farmland Protection Plan is divided into two
separate sections, one of which is the Alamance County Agricultural Land Use Plan (2007).
This document includes a discussion of the voluntary agricultural districts (VAD). An
agricultural district is initiated when interested landowners submit a proposal to the
Alamance County Agricultural Advisory Board. The district shall contain a minimum of 5
acres for horticultural use, 10 acres of agricultural use, and 20 acres for forestry use.
According to the Farmland Preservation Districts map dated February 20, 2008, included in
the Plan, and as stated in Section 4.4.11.2 Regional and Local Planning of the FEIS, the farm
preservation districts are located within the northern portion of the North sub-area.
Therefore, there was no farm preservation districts included within or near the Relocation of
NC 119 project study area as of early 2008. However, based on the revised Farmland
Preservation Districts map dated October 2008, a farm preservation district has since been
established that includes a portion of the Cates Farm. This VAD is located immediately east
of Alternative 9. Alternative 9 does not directly impact any part of the VAD.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 17
ROD - December 2009

The farmable acres included in the FEIS are correct; however, the active farmland included
in the FEIS is incorrect, but was corrected in Chapter 8.0 of this document. According to the
Alamance County Agricultural Development Plan (2007) which is included in the Alamance
County, North Carolina — Farmland Protection Plan, Alamance County consists of 831 active
farms with 97,793 acres of active farmland. Regarding the accuracy of figures in the FEIS,
Figure 3.7 in the FEIS includes soil types within the project study area, including soils
considered to be Prime or of Statewide Importance. This figure does not include all of the
soils in Alamance County nor does it reference the active farmlands within the County or
project study area
Requesting the identification of active farms along a project corridor requires a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request. The USDA withholds this information, pursuant to
5 U. S.C. § 552 (b) (3) 37 of the FOIA and Section 1619 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
The Food, Conservarion, and Energy Act of 2008, Title I— Commodity Programs,
Subritle F—Administrarive, Secrion 1619.
This statute prohibits the release of information provided by an agricultural producer
or owner of agricultural land concerning the agricultural operation, farming or
conservation practices, ar the land itself, in order to participate in programs of the
Department.
Therefore, the number of active farms impacted by Alternative 9 is not included in this
document.
A discussion of the Alamance County, Farmland Protection Plan was inadvertently omitted
from Section 4.4.5 Local Plans and Regulations of the FEIS. A discussion of this plan will
be included in Chapter 9.0 of this document.
Critical Water Supply
Comment: "Alternative 9 will increase impervious surfaces by approximately 5.1 acres
within the water supply watershed critical area of the Graham-Mebane Reservoir. NCDOT
has not proposed any alternative minimization strategies such as pervious concrete or porous
pavement, concrete/asphalt within the water supply watershed critical area to help offset (i.e.
mitigate) far the 5.1 acres of impact." "NCDOT should investigate alternative pervious
materials priar to issuance of the ROD."
Response: Comment noted. The NCDOT Pavement Management Unit has indicated that
porous pavement materials have been utilized for a few parking lots in North Carolina.
However, this type of pavement is not suitable for roadways with heavy truck traifia The
porous pavement cannot withstand the weight of the trucks.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 18
ROD - December 2009

8.2 STATE AGENCIES
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of
Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit (NCDWQ)
Letter Date: August 4, 2009
Comment: "As the project is located within the Critical Area of a Water Supply, NCDOT
will be required to design, construct, and maintain hazardous spill catch basins. Applicable
locations include stream crossings on highways functionally classified as rural or urban
arterials and within '/z mile of the critical area of the water supply, and in other areas on a
site-by-site basis. The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the design
of the crossings, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the
stream, and in consultation with NCDWQ."
Response: The NCDOT has committed to the implementation of hazardous spill
protection measures at stream crossings on highways functionally classified as rural or urban
arterials and within '/z mile of the water supply watershed critical area during final design of
Alternative 9. The NCDOT's Guidelines for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic Design (1999)
specifies criteria regarding the location and design of hazardous spill basins. The NCDOT
will coordinate with NCDWQ throughout the design process and continue to work with
NCDWQ and USACE for Concurrence Points 4b (review development of drainage design
with 30 percent hydraulic design) and 4c (review completed drainage design and permit
drawings with 100 percent hydraulic design).
Comment: "In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), the DWQ may require
compensatory mitigation at a 1:1 ratio for losses of intermittent streams in WS-II waters
including Back Creek and Mill Creek and their unnamed tributaries for impacts equal to or
exceeding 150 linear feet."
Response: According to Item II of the NCDWQ Public Notice dated August 14, 2009,
the NCDOT understands that mitigation may be required for impacts with a cumulative total
of greater than 150 linear feet of intermittent and/or perennial streams.
Comment: "The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), it is preferable to present a
conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation.
Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification."
Response: Comment noted. The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with NCDWQ,
USACE, and USEPA regarding mitigation through the Section 404/NEPA Merger process.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 19
ROD - December 2009

Comment: "NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could
result from this project. The NCDOT shall address these concerns by describing the
potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that
would reduce the impacts."
Response: Impacts to aquatic communities as a result of the proposed project are
discussed in Section 4.3.2 in the FEIS. In addition, Section 4.2.6.1 in the FEIS includes
measures to optimize sediment and erosion control during construction to protect water
quality for aquatic organisms. Hazardous spill catch basins will be provided at stream
crossings within '/z mile of the water supply watershed critical area. As a participant in the
Section 404/NEPA Merger process, NCDWQ will have several more opportunities to review
and comment on drainage designs and permit drawings.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Agricultural Services
Letter Date: July 13, 2009
Comment: "The footprint of the proposed relocation of NC 119 from the I-85/40
interchange southwest of Mebane to existing NC 119 near SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane north
of Mebane in Alamance County has potential of irreversible damage and increases the loss of
prime farm and forest land thereby negatively impacting agricultural environmental balance
in the immediate area" "Farm and forest lands are natural resources with no mitigation
process. These agribusiness resources cannot be replaced nor relocated once converted to
other uses. The proposed Mebane bypass placement will go through several farms near
existing Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VAD) designed to recognize and protect key
agricultural production centers for future generations and economy security." "Careful
consideration of farm and forest land condemnation is warranted given the potential for loss
of local tax revenue." `Based on the secondary, cumulative, and direct impacts, this project
will have an adverse impact on the agricultural, environmental, and economic resources in
the proposed area"
Response: Alternative 9 was developed to minimize the land taken and separated from
the Cates Farm while also minimizing the crossing of the critical area of the Graham-Mebane
Reservoir water supply watershed. North of US 70, limited control of access or access only
at existing secondary roads is proposed. Therefore, in the vicinity of the Cates Farm, access
to the new roadway is proposed at SR 1921 (Mebane Rogers Road) and north of Cates Farm
where the new roadway ties back into existing NC 119. This access control is expected to
limit the amount of secondary impacts due to development.
Plans for the development of a portion of the Cates Farm were discussed during early
meetings with the Cates Farm Executrix, as well as in meetings with Remax Realty and lst
American. Initially, the owner's development concept involved developing the back
(northern) part of the property while maintaining the buildings and front of the property. The
Cates Farm Executrix stated that the property would be developed regardless of the NC 119
Relocation project. During the meetings with Remax Realty and lst American, the NCDOT
learned that in addition to developing the northern part of the Cates Farm, there are also plans
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 20
ROD - December 2009

to develop the western and southern part of the property, while still maintaining the buildings
and a small northeast portion of the property. A"For Sale" sign has been located in the front
portion of the Cates Farm property for more than a year. Additionally, according to the
Marsha A. Ritchie Trust representative, the house, outbuildings, and approximately 50 acres
included in the Trust will remain in agricultural use.
Several measures to minimize harm to the Cates Farm were discussed throughout the project
planning process and will be implemented during final design based on coordination with the
FHWA, HPO, and representatives of the Cates Farm. These include minimizing the
cross-section — reducing the proposed roadway median through the Cates Farm as long as a
design exception is not required. Other potential minimization measures for the project,
including those that will minimize impacts to continuing agricultural practices, will be
determined during the final design stage based on coordination with the FHWA, HPO, and
representatives of the Cates Farm.
The NCDOT acknowledges that there is a growing conversion of agricultural land to
residential in the Mebane area. However, the NC 119 Relocation project is not anticipated to
encourage this conversion of land. According to Section 4.4.10.1 Potential for Land Use
Changes of the FEIS, the majority of the area north of US 70 is located in the water supply
Watershed Critical Area or Balance of Watershed overlay districts and development would
be restricted by the State, and local regulations that limit densities and types of land uses in
the area. Therefore, substantial changes in land use patterns are not anticipated for the
northern portion of the study area (north of US 70) with or without the proposed project.
This area is expected to remain as low-density residential, agricultural, and open space uses.
9.0 REVISIONS TO THE FEIS
The following are revisions to the FEIS far the NC 119 Relocation, approved June 2009.
9.1 Preferred Alternative
9.1.1 Section 2.8.2 (Updates to the Preferred Alternative Engineering Design Since the DEIS)
Revisions
Additional minor design revisions to address access concerns and minimize impacts to property
owners will be considered during the final design phase.
9.2 Impacts to the Physical Environment
9.2.1 Section 4.2.3 (Hazardous Material and Waste Sites) Revisions
A re-evaluation of the two facilities containing potential hazardous materials/waste sites located
along Alternative 9 will be completed once right-of-way plans are complete.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 21
ROD - December 2009

9.3 Prime and Important Farmland
9.3.1 Section 4.2.51 (Farmland Protection Policy Act) Revisions
The amount of active farmland in Alamance County should be revised to reflect the correct value.
The last paragraph under this section should be modified as shown below, with revisions noted in
bold italics.
In general, the Detailed Study Alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would have
some impact on the agricultural activities in the project study area, however, the total acreage
of farmland that would be acquired for the project (150 acres [Alternative 10] to 153 acres
[Alternatives 8 and 9]) is not considered to be substantial as compared to the overall
agricultural activity in Alamance County (240,623 farmable acres, of which 97, 793 acres are
active farmland as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981).
9.4 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
9.4.1 Section 4.4.5 (Local Plans and Regulations) Revisions
The following teat should have been included under Section 4.45 (Local Plans and Regulations) as
Section 4.4.5.7 (Alamance County, North Carolina— Farmland Protection Plan) in the FEIS.
The purpose of the Alamance County, North Carolina - Farmland Protection Plan is to
analyze and understand the foundations of Alamance County's agricultural economy and to
create a Farmland Protection Plan that will address a suite of issues facing today's farmers in
the County today as well as setting the stage for agricultural growth in the future (Alamance
County, North Carolina— Farmland Protection Plan, 200'�.
The project output is intended to encourage long-term policy formation in support of
agriculture while providing a specific short-term framewark to guide local programs
regarding specific agricultural economic development and land use initiatives. Because the
Farmland Protection Plan addresses divergent issues ranging from land planning to industrial
development, the plan is divided into two separate sections: The Alamance County
Agricultural Land Use Plan (2007) and The Alamance County Agricultural Development
Plan (2007).
Each component of the Plan is intended to support agriculture as a continuing and
economically productive land use. The result of the process is a series of findings relative to
agricultural business and land use conditions. The plan includes 11 recommendations for
action to improve these conditions in advancement of both the agricultural industry and local
communities.
The "Agricultural Development Plan" uses a study of empirical data, case studies, in-depth
interviews with key industry players, and an analysis of industry trends to establish a 10-year
strategic vision for Alamance County agriculture including a series of short-term action
items.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 22
ROD - December 2009

The "Agricultural Land Use Plan" analyzes land use trends in Alamance County and their
implications for the County's agricultural industry. For comparative purposes, housing and
population trends for counties within a 40-mile radius are provided as well as comparative
agricultural and farmland statistics for adjacent counties. This Plan also includes a
discussion and definition of voluntary agricultural districts (VAD). An agricultural district is
initiated when interested landowners submit a proposal to the Alamance County Agricultural
Advisory Board. The district shall contain a minimum of 5 acres for horticultural use, 10
acres of agricultural use, and 20 acres for forestry use. The Plan also includes a Farmland
Preservation Districts map dated February 20, 2008.
9.5 Agency Coordination
9.5.1 Section 8.1.2 (Merger Team Meetings) Revisions
A review by the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team of the drainage design and permit drawings
(Concurrence Points 4b and 4c) will occur after approval of the ROD.
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 23
ROD - December 2009

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 24
ROD - December 2009

1
'P � N
ohn F. Sullivan III, P.E., Division Administrator
� Federal Highway Administration
� �
D ate
NC 119 Relocation - U-3109 25
ROD - December 2009

FIGURES

PROPOSED NC 119 NPICAL SECfION
WITH GRASS MEDIAN
6 LANE WITH CURB 8 GUTfER
NOT TO SCALE
:�=�
SHIDR
PROPOSED NC 119 T'PICAL SECTION
WITH GRASS MEDIAN
b LANE SNOULDER
�
��
�
PROPOSED NC 119 NPIGL SECTION
WITH GRA55 MEDIAN
4 LANE SHOULDER
North Carolina DeparTmenT of TranspoAafion
Project DevalopmenT 8 ErniromenTal Malysis Bmnch
Proposed Relocation of NC 119 from I-BY40 ro South of SR 1918
Mebane, Alamance Counq
TIP Projecl No. U�109
SHLD0.
FIGURE 2
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROS�SECTIONS

APPEN DIX A
PROJECT COMMITMENTS

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 119 RELOCATION
From I-85/40 to South of SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane)
Mebane, Alamance County
WBS Element 34900.1.1
Federal Aid Project No. STP-119(1)
State Project No. 8.1470901
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3109
In addition to the standard Section 404 Individual Permit Conditions, any Section 404
Special Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, General
Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special
commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch / Right of Way Branch
• The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with St. Luke's Christian Church
throughout the project and work with the church to develop a detailed plan on the
timing and means of the relocation prior to right-of-way acquisition.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch / Highway Division 7 Office
• This project involves an environmentally sensitive area, identified on the
preliminary design plans. No earthwork, staging, or storage of any kind should
occur within this environmentally sensitive area
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch - Human Environment Unit
• The NCDOT, in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer (HPO), the Eloise W. Cates Estate, and the Marsha A. Ritchie Trust, will
develop and implement a landscape plan for the portion of the historic Cates Farm
directly impacted by the project.
Hydraulics Unit / Roadway Design Unit
• Investigate a spanning (three-sided) bottomless culvert at major stream crossing
Site 2(Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek [CTT14]).
Hydraulics Unit
• Hazardous spill protection measures will be provided at stream crossings within
'/z mile of the water supply watershed critical area of the Graham-Mebane
Reservoir during final design of Alternative 9.
• Coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated state
agency for administering the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
National Flood Insurance Program, to determine status of project with regard to
NC 119 Relocation — TIP Proj ect No. U-3109
Environmental Commihnents for the Record of Decision (ROD)
December 2009

applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of Agreement with FMP (dated 6/5/08),
or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent
final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Hiahwav Division 7 Office
• This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA regulated
streams. Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to
the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the
drainage structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year
floodplain were built as shown on the construction plans, both horizontally and
vertically.
NC 119 Relocation — TIP Proj ect No. U-3109
Environmental Commihnents for the Record of Decision (ROD)
December 2009

APPEN DIX B
PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE

d'"�' SCA7� 4
� µ�r �o. �y� I� ,
"C.l.
�. �� .
_ �` ,. s
�• - -
.�� - .�
. �� �+��� �. ,�
rc Q�,�,� �oo-
STATE OF N�RTH C.A.ROLINA
. DEPAR 1�'T OF SPORTATI
ON
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
�GOVCRNOR SECRETARY
July 9, 2409
�ffice af Environmental Palicy &.Com liance
�
United States Department of the Interior 5-2462-MIB �
1849 C Street
�asllington, D. C., NW 20240 � � �
Dear Sir: �
SUB,TECT: � Federal Fina1 Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(F) Evaluation for
NC 1 I9 Relocation, I-85/40 to South of SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane), Mebane,
Alanlance County, Federal Aid Proj ect No. STP-119(1), State Proj ect No. 8.1470901,
WB�S Element 349�0.1.1, TIP Proj ect No. U-3109
- Attached for your infc��matian are 12 copies of the approved Final Environme�tal Im act
p
Staternen� and Fina1 Section 4(F} Evaluation for the su�bj ect Iughway improvement proj ect. The
distri�utlon of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(F)-Evaluation is bein
g
made on behalf of the Federal Highway Adnunistra�ion in accordal�ce with 23 CFR 771.
, .,,� = .
S inc er , �� � . �
_ � � ��� ���-� .
,. � ` �•�, r
r � $ j
. ��' . �"f' �rcY � �~. .r
r
GJT/plr �
A�tachr�ents (12)
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYS�S
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RA�E��H NC 27699-1548
Gregory J.'�'horp h.D ., M�.nager ,
Proj ect Development and Environmental .Analysis Branch ,
�
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: 919;733-9794
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
lOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

November 19, 2008
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
SUBJECT: NEPAJ404 Merger Team Meeting Minutes (Concurrence Point 3) for the Relocation of
NC 119 from the I-85/40 Interchange to South of SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane) in
Mebane, Alamance County, Federal Aid No. STP-119(1), State Proj ect No. 8.1470901,
WB S Element 34900.1.1, TIl' Proj ect No. U-3109 �
PREPARED BY: Aileen S. Mayhew, P.E.
B aker Engineering
A NEPA/404 Merger Team meeting for the subj ect proj ect was held on June 19, 2008, 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)
A.ndrew Williams US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice
Brian Wrenn NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Amy Euliss NCDENR Division of Water Quality
David Wainwright NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Renee Gledhill-Earley Department of Cultural Resources - HPO
Patty Eason NCDOT - Division 7
Tony Houser NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
David Anderson NCDOT - Structure Design Unit
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics Unit
Aketa Emptage �NCDOT - Office of Civil Rights - Title VI
Mike Stanley NCDOT - TIP Development Unit
Derrick Beard NCDOT - Traffic Control Unit
Atefe Northcutt NCDOT - TPB
`�-, , Eric Midkiff NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Derrick Weaver NCDOT - Proj ect Development and Environmental Analysis
Jennifer Fuller NCDOT - Proj ect Development and Environmental Analysis
Ed Lewis NCDOT - Proj ect Development and Environmental Analysis - PIC S�
Mary Pope Furr NCDOT - Proj ect Development and Environmental Analysis - Historic Architecture
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT - Proj ect Development and Environmental Analysis - NEU
Greg Price NCDOT - Proj ect Development and Environmental Analysis - NEU
Glenda Gibson Gibson Engineers - �
Jim Buck � Baker Engineering
Suzanne Young B aker Engineering
Aileen Mayhew B aker Engineering
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and select a Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) and to discuss avoidance and minimization. Andy Williams began the meeting with a
brief overview of the proposed proj ect followed by introductions and brief comments from Jennifer Fuller. At
this time, Aileen Mayhew continued with a slide presentation that followed the Concurrence Point 3 handout
previously mailed to team members. The presentation included a general description of the proj ect and

, �
����
,
NEPA,/404 Merger Meeting Minutes
Noveinber 19, 2008
Page 2
discussed the public hearing, water supply watershed critical area, concurrence team history, and the NCDOT
recommended alternative. An agenda was also distributed (attached).
Chris Militscher inquired whether responses to the agency comments on the DEIS, specifically those from
USEPA, were going to be presented at the meeting. He explained that USEPA's primary concern is Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSATs) and noted that a proj ect specific analysis was not performed to determine the
effect of MSATs on specific receptors, similar to how noise analyses are conducted. He commented that no
sensitive receptors along Alternatives 8, 9, or 10 were identified in the DEIS and asked for verification that
there are no sensitive receptors along the proj ect. He then stated that USEPA is aware of the guidance from
FHWA that requires proj ect specific analyses for MSATs only for proj ects with traffic volumes above a
threshold; however, they would have preferred an analysis for this proj ect regardless of the traffic volumes. In
response, the NCDOT and Baker Engineering explained that the three detailed study alternatives basically
follow one alignment from the beginning of the proj ect to the vicinity of Cates Farm and then run parallel to
each other for the remainder of the proj ect. While there are some receptors scattered along the proj ect that
experience an increase in noise, they were not aware of any sensitive air quality receptors (daycares, nursing
facilities, etc.) located in the area where the alternatives vary. Information regarding sensitive receptors along
the project will be verified and included in the FEIS. If there are no sensitive receptors, a statement to that
effect will be included in the FEIS, which will conclude the analysis.
The NCDOT briefly explained that they selected Alternative 8 as their preferred alternative because it was the
only alternative that avoided impacting the Cates Farm, which is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. Amy Euliss noted that a portion of the Cates Farm property is currently for sale and that the home and
associated structures would not be impacted by Alternatives 9 or 10, although the viewshed would be
impacted. Renee Gledhill-Earley explained that the HPO has to follow the historic preservation regulations
according to how the property is right now and until development begins, the entire property is protected. The
NCDWQ explained their concerns about Alternatives 8 and 9 impacting the watershed critical area and asked
about citizen comments received thus far. A comment was made that while several citizens at the Public
Hearing were not in favor of an alternative that impacted the watershed critical area; there were also verbal and
written comments from citizens requesting that NCDOT avoid the historic property. The NCDWQ indicated
that they could not agree with NCDOT's preferred alternative. There was discussion regarding State
regulations requiring the watershed critical area be avoided unless there is no "practicable" alternative, versus
Federal regulations requiring the historic property be avoided unless it is not "prudent and feasible." A
comment was made that the State regulation supporting the watershed critical area is based on the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act. The NC,DWQ stated that Alternative 8 would be difficult for them to permit. Brian
Wrenn added that the stormwater controls required for watershed critical areas would apply to this proj ect
regardless of whether the selected alternative crosses the critical area. The NCDWQ preferred Alternative 10,
but the HPO said they couldn't agree with that alternative. The NCDWQ also had concerns about secondary
and cumulative impacts of the proposed road. Jim Buck stated that the portion of the proj ect in the vicinity of
the Cates Farm is proposed to have full control of access, which would limit opportunities for induced
development. The NCDOT reiterated that no secondary or cumulative impacts directly off this road are
anticipated.
At this time, Chris Militscher asked if NCDWQ and HPO could agree with Alternative 9 as a compromise.
Alternative 9 avoids and minimizes impacts to both the watershed critical area and the Cates Farm. Renee
Gledhill-Earley stated that Alternative 9 has an adverse effect on the Cates Farm and that FHWA would have
to support this decision since the Cates Farm is a Section 4(� resource. Felix Davila indicated that he would
support Alternative 9 as the LEDPA, but that he would need to verify with FHWA's lawyers that a Section 4(�
document could be prepared stating there is no practicable and feasible alternative to impacting the Cates
Farm.

��� *
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2008
Page 3
Some of the reasons why Alternative 9 was selected as the LEDPA included:
• Compromise - minimizes impacts to both resources (watershed critical area and Cates Farm)
• Fewer stream crossings than Alternatives 8 or 10
• Less linear feet of stream impacts than Alternatives 8 or 10
The Concurrence Point 3 form was circulated and signed by the Merger Team. The signature sheet states that
the Proj ect Team concurs with the selection of "Alternative 9" as the LEDPA. A copy of the signed
concurrence sheet is attached.
At this time, the Merger Team began discussing avoidance and minimization for the proposed proj ect. Aileen
Mayhew gave a brief slide presentation that presented minimization efforts to date. There was a comment that
2:1 side slopes in the wetland areas should be included in the minimization efforts. There was also discussion
among the team members regarding incorporating additional minimization / mitigation efforts for the Cates
,
Farm into the project. It was agreed that these efforts would be investigated during Concurrence Point 4B.
The Concurrence Point 4A form was circulated and signed by the Merger Team. The signature sheet states
that in areas of wetland impacts, the side slopes be reduced to 2:1 and that storm water Best Management
Practices and hazardous spill basins will be evaluated at Concurrence Point 4B. It also states that the Cates
Farm on-site stream restoration project will also be discussed and evaluated at Concurrence Point 4B. A copy
of the signed concurrence sheet is attached. There being no further business, the meeting was adj ourned.
If any meeting participants have any comments, questions, or edits to this memorandum, please contact Aileen
Mayhew at [phone] or by email at amavhew(a�mbakercor�.com.
cc: Doug Galyon, NCDOT '
Mike Mills, NCDOT - Division 7
Ted Bisterfeld, EPA
Earlene Thomas, NCDOT, TPB

APPEN DIX C
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

MEMORANDUM OFAGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND THE
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
NC 119 RELOCATION
I-85/40 TO SOUTH OF SR 1918 (MRS. WHITE LANE)
MEBANE, ALAMANCE COUNTV, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3109
FEDERAL AID PROIECT NO. STP-119(1)
WMEREAS, .he Fede21 Hlghway Atlministation (FHWA) has tletermineOlhat
ttie relocatlon of NC 119 from the 685/40 in[crchange soothwes[ of Mebane to
ezlstlng NC 1t9 near Sft t918 (Mrs. Whltc Lane) north of Mebaoe In Alaman2
County,'m�lud�ng improvements to a portion of SR 199] (COrrlgldor Roarl) antl
SR 19]0 (RCOSevelt 5[ree[) (Me Undertaking) wlll hava an adverse e(tect upon
the Chatles R antl HowaN Cat25 Farm, a pmperty Ils[etl on Ihe NaClonal Keglster
of His[otic Pla�es (NRHP); and
WHEREAS, the Undertaking will al[er the historic setting of [he Chades F. antl
Howard Ca[es Farm by t) requlriog the acqWSitiao of iL6 acres of ngM1t-of-way;
2) Isola[Ing an atlditional 9.6 acres fmm the res[ of [he faem; and 3) cmating a
matlway vlslble from, at leasq the westem half of [he properry and the dus[er of
bulldings compnsinq [he fartnstuQ intlutling the o¢upled maln house; antl
WHEREAS, the FHWA has mosWtetl wlth [hc North Camllna5�te Histodc
Preseruatlon Officer (SHPO) pursuant ro 36 CFR Part 800, 2gulations
Implementlng Sectlon 106 of the Natlonal His[odc PreServa[ipn Act (16 US.C.
4�O�;aod
WHEREAS, the North Ca�ollna Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the
Eloise W. Ca�es Esea[e, antl [he Marsha A. Ritchle Trus[ ([he latter Nuo shanng
the ownershlp of Che parcels mntdlned wnthio [hc NaHonal Register boundary of
[he Charles F. an0 Howard Cates Farm) have partidpated In [he consWtatlon antl
been invite0 by FHWA and the North Carollna SHPO ro mncur in this
Memorandum ofAgreemen[(MOA);antl
u�log a naoa� ca��ry 000r,e�� �z, mov
MP/!/OieO01✓IlO/Ag2Pn�enL

GageSOfg
WHEREAS, tne FHWA has notifietl the Advlsory Council on Histonc Preservation
(COUn<ll) of the adverse effe�t antl [he CocnGl has tledined to comment or
partcipate in Ne mnsulbGOn;
NOW, THE2EFORE, FHWA dnd the North Carallna SHPO dgree [hdt [he
Undertaking snall be impiemen[ed ln a¢oNance with [he following stlpulations
tn order to take into accourt t�e effecLS of [he Undertaking on the hlstoric
pm0erty.
STIPULATIONS
The FHWq shall ensure that the following measpres are carried out
I. Vhototloc�mentation of [he Charles F. and Howartl Cates Farm
Pnor [o [he iNtlatlon of mnsWrkion, NCDOTShall recortl [he
Chatles F. and Howard Cates Farm antllts surmundings In
acmrtlance wl[h [he a[[ached "Histonc Structures antl Landscape
RecorGa[ion Vlan" (Appendlx A). NCDOT shall deposl[ mples of the
documon;aCion wi[h the SHPO, NCDOT Histon[ArcM[ectvre Gmup,
[ha Elolse W. Gates Btdte and the Mareha A, Ritchie TruSC within
threc (3) years oi [he execu[ion of [his MOA.
❑. Preservation antl Res[oration of Landscape Features
NCDOT, Im m�sul[a[lon with !he North Camllna SHVO, the Eloise
W. [ates Estafe, antl [he Maeshz A. Rit�hie Trust, shall tlevelap antl
implement a landscape plan for that part of the Chatles F. and
HowaN Ca[es Fa,-m tllrectly tmpactetl by Ne undertaking
(speclFlCally, the lop oP [he madway slope). The plan will uMize
materlals from na�ve plant mmmunibes zntl replace �isHng
fen�ing as necessaryto reestablish a naturalappearance and
�ompos:Cion, as well as help s�reen [he Farm from tiie pmpasetl
roadwaV� NC�OT Roadside Eavimnmental UnR sha0 Invzntory [he
exisCing features and coortllnate wl[h [he propeRy owners. NCDOI'
Hlstoric Nrchitecture Gmup and [he North �amlina SHPO shall
review and mmmen[ on [he resWtant plan.
]IL RefinementofDesign
NNOT Roadway Deslgn Unit shall lower [he p�oposed madbetl
approxlmately two to [hree feet below Ihe roatlway design gratle In
[he vicinlry of Unnametl Tribu2ry (UT) [o Mill CreeK N retluce Me
vislblllty of veMtles on Che pmposed roadway fmm tlie farm.
Ud109, A/amar[e Coun[y ORober 12 2009
Memoran�mrroJA9rcemen(

Gr9e3o/9
IV. Treatment of IsalateA Acreage
FuNre use of [he 4.6 a<25 isolated fmm [he rest of the Chades F.
and HowarcJ Cates Farm by thc undertaking Is unknown at [hls
Cime. NCDOT may purchase [he aaeaqe as an unemnomi�al
remnant or pmvitle i[ wl[h a service mad. If por�haseQ NCDOi
shallinsure [F:atlnmmpafible ac[ivi6es,su�h os blllboard
placemen[, tlo not ottur on the land.
V. Unan[icipated Oiscovery
Ln ocwrdance wiM 36 CPR 800.11(a), If NCDOT itlenfifics any
atldltlonal altural resource(s) during mnsCruction antl determines
It ([hem) ro be e0gible for the NRHP, all work wlll be haltetl wlthlo
the IimiG of [he NRHP�ellgible resourte(s) and the FH WA and SHPO
mn2c[ed. If aRer consulqHon wiYn the SignaNry znd Concurring
PartyQa) atldltlonal mi[Igation is tletermtned neces�ary, the
NCDOT, Im m�sulb0on wiCh Che Signatory and Concurtiog
Party(ies), will develop and Impl�en[app:opriate
pm[ecHan/mlGgatlon measums for tt�e resource(s). Inadv°rtent or
accitlen[al tlisrovery of human 2mains will be hantlletl In
acwNance wltli Nor[h Camllna Generzl Statutes 65 and I0.
V1. Oispute Resolution
ShaWd any of the Slgnarory or Cnnmrrmg ParryQes) ob)eR withln
thlriy (30) days [o anV Plans or poc�mentation pmvltletl for review
pursuan[ ro[hls MOq tha FH WA shall mnwl[ vd[h [he objecting
party(iesJ to resole the objectioa If [he FHWF or objerting
partyQes) de�erm;nes [hat lhe obiection canno[ be resolved, the
FHWA wlll forwar0 all tlocumenbtion rclevani [o [he tlispute to thc
Councl. WI[hlnthirty(30)Uaysafterre�elp[ofallpertnent
tlocumenbPioq the Council will eBhec
1) Pmvlde tha FHWA wi[h remmmentlatlons wMCh [he
FHWA wlll Lake ln[o acwunt in reaching a final
tledslon regartlfng the d1s0u[e, or
2) NoFfy [he FHWA thaH[ wlll mmment pursuant [0 36
ffR Sectlon NOOJ(c) antl proceed to mmmenG Any
Council wmmen[ pmvidetl In msponse N such a
request will be �ken intu account by the FHWA, in
acmrtlan�e with 35 CFR Se�tion BOOJ(c)(9) with
reference to the subjec[ of the tlispute.
U-3109, Alama�re flrrurry O;(olu� 12 200H
n�emoian�omo/A4�emen[

4nge<of9
Any recommenda6ons or mmment providetl by tne Council wlll bc
untlerstootl to pertain onty ro[he subjec[ of �Ihe dis0ute; FHW�'s
responslblliry [o �rry oot ail of the actions undcr Ihls agreement
tha[ are not the subjec[ oP the dispute wt0 remain unchanged
VIL Amentlments
]f any Signarory In Nls MOA belleves [hat 16 terms cznno[ be
cartled ou[ or Iha[ an amendmeot to Me terms mu4 be matle, IhaL
(those) parry(les) shall Immediately consWt with the other
partyQes) tq deelop amendments In acmrtlance wlth 3E CFR
BOOb(c)Q). I( an amendmen[ �nnot be agmetl upan, Ne tlispute
resoWtlon processset forth In Sfipuldhon VI will be followed.
VIII. Termina[ion
Nny Signatory to :hls MOA may termina[e [he agreement by
provlding m6ce to the ofher partles, provide0 Chat the SgnaNries
antl Con<urring partyQes) wlll mnsult during the penod prior ro
termination to seek agreament on amenamentr or other acttons
thatwould avoltl terminahoa Termina[lon of[hls MOA wlll requlre
mmpliance wlth 36 CFR 800. TMs MOA may be terminated by the
exeWtion of a subsequent MOA Chat expllcitly terminates or
supersedes Its tertns.
IX. Duration
Unless �rmina�etl puauant to Stipulation VIII above, thls MOA will
be in effea untll FHWA, im m�sulta[ion wI[h the o[her Slgnatory
antl Conmrnng PaiTyQes), tleLrmines [ha[ all of iLS terms have
satlsFd�[orIIV heen fWfilled or If NCDOT is unable or tlecides noC to
mns[ruct [he Undarfaking,
U3S09, a/amanceGOnnry O;tobe�z2, 2009
Memoianpum ofAg2emenf

Emcutioo of thls Memo2ndum o! Agreement by FHWA and the North C2rolina
SHPO, I[ssubsequent fling wlth Me Council, aod implemen�tlon of i[s terms
evideoce that FHWA has affortletl [he Coundl an opportumty to mmment on the
Undertaking and thzt FHWA has taken mto acrount [he effecYS of the
Untlertakinq on [he nistoric property.
AGREE:
Federal Highway AtlmlmsKa[ion
�or ���y I�J�L-- /0�28/oy
]ohn F. Sullivan Ip, P.E.
Dlvision AdminlShaNr �ate
SWte Historic Preservation Officer
�#U.nl I.. ""� ���'d0%/
]effrey].Cm�
North Carolina 5[a[e '[odc Preservation Offi<er Date
F1LED:
By:
Advisory Council on Hlstonc PreservaHOn Date
Ud109 Alaman� Co�mty Orlobe� t2� 1009
rvremo�oeom o�ng.��e

ngebv/9
MEMORANDUM OFAGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAV ADMINISTRATION
AND THE
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
NC 119 RELOCATION
I-85/40 TO SOUTH OF SR 1918 (MRS. WHITE LANE)
MEBANE,ALAMANCECOUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NO. U3309
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-119(1)
Execution of thi= Memorantlum of Agreement hy FHWA antl [he North Carollna
SHPO, tts suL�sequent Flling with Phe Coun�il, and tmplemenbtlon of iGS terms
evidence that PHWA has affordetl the Cowcil an opportunity to comment on the
Undertaking antl that FHWFl has [aken into acmunt the e,ffe� oF Me
Undertaking on the historic property.
CONCUR:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
�� ��.^- i°/z/�
RobertAntlrew er,P.E.
Human Envimnment Unit Heatl Da[e
pdID9 Alamance �nunry OROber t2, �009
/Oemoaitlu/I/NA9/PRlIILI!

MEMORAN�UM OFAGREEMENT
BETWEENTHE
FEDERAI HIGHWAV ADMINIST2ATION
AND THE
NORTH CAROLiNA
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
NC 119 RELOCATION
I-85/40 TO SOUTH OF SR 1918 (MRS. WHIT[ LANE)
MEBANE,ALAMANCECOUNTV,NORTHCAROLINA
TIP PftOJECT NO. U3109
PEDERAL AID PRW ECT NO. STP-119(1)
�ecuoon or m�s rviemoranoumo nGx�_men�. oy FHwq ann mr. rvortn tarohnz
SMVO. �¢ subseyuenr Riinp wlm rrn. Caur.cii, s9<I ,mplem�nbn�n af I¢ [erms
evitlenc21M12: FHVlA M1as affor4eC C�c Councll an op0ortunity ro mmmmn� on Nie
lJntlertaking and Ihat FNWq h'os [ake� intc acmun[ Ne ePeCS ot Jte
llnvertaking Jn V�e M1isLLNC frCy^_rty.
CONNft:
Eloise W. Cares Estare
�� � ���A-t�O�
CLe!ry�
&ecuhix Dat�
'J3Lp2d/am.�n[cTOLnfj qYnLV�I$ SOOo
��unoidmluin . .n�1

MEMORANDUM OFAGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND THE
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
NC 119 RELOCATION
I-85/40 TO SOUTH OF SR 1918 (MRS. WHITE LANE)
MEBANE,ALAMANCECOUNTV,NORTHCAROLINA
TIP PR07ECT NO. U-3109
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-119(1)
Ezecutian of tMS Memorandum of Agrezment by FHWA antl Ihe North Carolina
SHPO, I[s subsequent filtng wtth the Council, and implemen�tloo oF16 Yrtns
evitlenm Na[ FHWA has a(forded the Coun�il an opportunity W mmment on the
Undertaking and [ha[ FHWA has taken Into acwunt the affects of [he
Untlertaking on the historic property.
CONCUR:
Marsha A. Ritchie Trust
Marsha RI[chle AlCmeyer
Ud109 AfimanceCOUnry O;t ber12 2p09
M1)emo�entlLnio/Agrtnmenf

vasrsors
APPENDIX A
Historic Struchres and Landscape Remrdation Plan
NC 119 Relocation
I-85/40 to South of SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane)
Mebane, Alamance County, North Carolina
TIP Project No. U-3109
Federal Aid Project No. STP-119(1)
Photoqraphic Requirements
Ove211 views of the Chades F, and Howartl Cates Farm and its Immedlate
surmundings;
Overall vlews of the farmstead antl related feltls and woodland;
Eleva6ons antl oblique vlews of all mmponen[ buildings, stm�tures, antl
landscape elements and tletails of representative s[mctural antl
ornamental feawrzs.
Photographic Format
All imagcs will be cappu2G, labeled, antl storetl acmrding to the North
Carolina S�te HisMric Preservatlon Office's "POG�y and 6uidellnes for
Digi�l Pho[ography for Historic Pmperty Surveys, NaGOnal Register
Nominatlons ao0 NRAC PowerPOinf Presen[atlons, Revlsed November
zooa
Copies antl Curation
One (1) seC of all photographlc documentatlon will be tleposii9 with Che
North Carollna �ivision of ArchlYOS and HlsCOry/State Hisroric Prererva6on
Offlre, to be made a permanen[ part o( the sfaCewlde survey antl
Imnag2phlc colle¢ion;
One (1) set of all phomgrapMC documenb6on will be tleposlCed in the
files of Fhe Nis[oric Archlte<ture Group of NCDOT;
One (1) se[ of all photog2phic documen�tlon wlll be provided Por
representaCives of the Elase W. Cates Esb[e and the Marsha A. Rltchle
TrusG
6i109, Alameiire Counry Oclobei 12 2009
M2T0/d011m➢OI/�Jittmcn.

APPEN DIX D
REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE FEIS

J����o srqTFs
�� y2
� W
o �
�
0
��yTq< PfiO'(EG� ?
IJ�I��D �TAi�� �N�IRO�M�P�i�L �R�`���`�t�N A��N�Y
REGION 4
AiLANTA FEDERALCENTER
61 F�RSYiN STREET
AT�ANT,4, G�ORGIA 30303-�960
Date: August 14, 2009
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Serviee Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501 �
•,
'" L , .. ..... s_.V�
z' ;��3
�u� � � �oos
f �
p �re.e. t - _
. ., _ _ —�.;.�._
SUBJECT: Federal Final Environmental Impact Statement for the NC 119 Relocafion,
I-85JI-40 to South of SR 1918, Mebane, Alamance County, North
Carolina; TIP Project No.: U-3109; FHW-E40818-NC; CEQ No.:
20090240
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regiolz 4(EPA) has reviewed the
subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and Seetion 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The North
Carolina Depariment of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) are proposing to construct an approximate 5.6-mile, multi-lane,
median-divided iacility from I-85II-40 south of SR 1918 (Mrs. White Street) in Mebane,
Alamance County.
EPA's comment letter of December 3, 2007, on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) is included in Appendix I to the FEIS. The proposed project has also
been in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Ol process. EPA concurred with otlier Merger
team agencies on the selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) on 7une 19, 2008. Alternative 9 was selected as the `Prefened
Alternative' and LEDPA. EPA is not listed as one of the Merger team agencies
concurring on the LEDPA (Page S-6 of the FEIS).
EPA has attached detailed technieal review comments on the FEIS (See
Attachment A). EPA continues to have enviromnental concems regarding avoidance and
minimization measures to jurisdictional wetlands and streams, impacted noise receptars
and water supply watershed critical areas.
EPA st�ff, including Mr. Christopher Militscher and Ms. Kathy Matthews of
EPAs' Wetlands Section wi11 continue to work with you and FHWA and other ageneies
on the continued environmental coordination and Merger Ol process aetivities far this
In4emet Address (URL) 0 ht4p:llwww.�pa.gov
Fiecycled/Recyciabie a Prinied with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on RecyG�d Paper (Minimum 30 % Postcoosumer)

project. EPA also requests a copy of the Record of Decision (ROD} when it becomes
available. Please feel free to contact Mr. Militscher of my staff at {919) 856-4206 or Ms.
Matthews at {919) 541-3062 should you have specific questions concerning EPA's
comments.
Sincerely,
i� � �
� �
� �,�.�,_ � ,..-�.. �
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Cc: J. Sullivan, FHWA
K. Joily, USACE
B. Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ

Attachment A
FEIS Detailed Review Comments
NC 1 I9 Relocation
Mebane, Alamance County
U-3109
Overall Project Impacts
Table S.2 of the FEIS includes the summary of environmental impacts for the
Preferred Alternative (i.e., DSA 9) as well as the other two detailed study alternatives
(i,e., DSA 8 and 10). DSA 9 includes 46 residential relocations, 5 business relocations, 1
church relocation, 14 noise receptors impacts (3 receptars with substantial noise level
increases}, 1 historie site with an `Adverse Effect', 1 impacted Section 4(� resource,
3,178 linear feet of stream impacts, 0.25 acres of wetland impacts, 0.7 miles of new
roadway located in a designated cri�ical water supply watershed, 1.7 miles of new
roadway in a protected area water supply watershed, 65.1 acres of impact to terrestrial
forests, 2 hazardous material sites impacted, and 153.5 acres of prime and unique
farmlands impacted.
Stream and Wetland Im�acts
DSA 9 has the least impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands. However,
EPA has euvironmental eoncerns regarding commitments to furth�r avoid and minimize
these impacts as well as compensatory mitigation. EPA anticipates that some of the
issues concezning avoidance and minimization can be further addressed through the
Merger O1 process at Concurrence Point 4A. EPA notes in the FEIS that NCDOT began
evaluating the project corridor for suitable on-site mitigation location in August of 2008.
These preliminary investigations should also be addressed and further evaluated at the
Concurrerice Point �A meeting and also coordinated with Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPA's
Wetlands Section.
Environinental Justice
EPA notes that the West End Revitalization Association (WERA) filed a
complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice i�l 1999 under Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act and Executive Ord�r 12898 on Environmental7ustice claiming that the City
of Mebane, area transportation groups and NCDOT had discriminated against tlle West
End Commuiuty with respect to the NC 119 Relocation Project and other isslies. In
addition, EPA also received and responded to environmental justice (EJ) complaints from
WERA. Through our competitive grants process, EPA provided West End with several
grants including an �J Collabarative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement grant to
help address some of the environmental concerns they were facing in their co�nmunity.
The EJ g�ant provided fi�nds to install water and sewer services in 40 homes in the West
End.

Follawing the concerns that were raised by the West End Community and others
during the public involvement process, EPA notes the outreach efforts that were made to
improve the public involvement process with respect to integrating potential EJ
communities into the decision-making process. NCDOT held several public meetings
and citizen workshops. They prepared a Community Impact Assessznent and held a series
of one-on-one meetings with citizens. NCDOT also conducted a community facilitation
program designed to inerease citizen involvement and to identify project-related issues.
In addition, a NC 119 Relocation Steering Committee was also formed with a diverse
group of citizens to help improve the information exchange between the communities and
NCDOT representatives, distribute project related information (via newsletters or �
websites), etc. EPA recommends that NCDOT continue to work with the communitias to
ensure that they are informed ofproject-related changes and major project milestones.
The FEIS discusses potential impacts to communities and businesses within the
project area. Table 4.2 provides an estimate of the relocations by each study alternative.
The Prefen-ed Alternative ("LEDPA") will result in approximately 46 residential, 5
business and 1 ehurch relocation. Eaeh of the proposed build altenlatives have similar
relocations impacts and the level of project impacts has not changed fiom the DEIS to
FEIS. I-�owever, EPA recognizes the early planning efforts to eliminate some preliminary
alternatives that had significantly higher impacts to miilority and low-income
populations.
There are six (6) neighborhoods or areas (Fieldstone, West End, Downtown
Mebane, Woodlawn, Mills Creek and White Level) within the iinmediate project vicinity.
The FEIS describes the rype and number of residential relocations that are proposed in
each of these areas. For examples, the FEIS indicates that 16 residential displacements
are requireci south of Fieldstone colnmunity or Fieldstone apartments, 4 residential
displacements are projected within the West End Community, no reloeations are project
in Downtown Mebane, 10 residential displacements are proposed within the Woodlawn
community, no relocations would be experienced by the Mills Creelc neighborhood, and 6
displacements are proposed in the White level community.
The FEIS describes the demographic characteristics of each oFthese communities
(Page 4-15 and 4-16) and provides demographic infar-mation relative to the State of North
Carolilla, Alamance County and tlie project study area. In EPA's December 3, 2007,
DEIS comment letter, we requested that the summary table be revised to include the
anticipated number of low-income and minority displaeements compared to the total
number of relocations. This information was not included in the EJ section of the
document. VVe note that Table 5.2, the Summary of Environmental Impacts includes
residential relocations for the West End Community (4), White Level Community (6) and
Woodlawn Com�nunity (10). The table does not include the relocations for the Fieldstone
community or Fieldstone apartments.
Other impacts including visual, noise, community cohesion, critical water supply
and potential cumulative effects from other proposed transportation improvement
projects within the vicinity are discussed in various levels of detail. In addition, the FEIS

also includes discussions that compare project-related impacts between EJ and non-EJ
populations. Overall, EPA believes that good efforts were made to disclose project-
related impacts in the FEIS and to improve the public involvement process to help
addl-ess potential EJ concerns. Every effort also should be made during final design to
further minimize residential relocations and visual and noise impacts to the extent
practicai. Any project-related commitments in this regard should be ineorporated into the
ROD.
Noise Receptor Impacts
EPA notes the comments on Noise Abatement and Mitigation Measures in
Section 4.2.2.4 of the FEIS. EPA believes that NCDOT and FHWA have not provided a
reasonable justification far not fully considering `oiher mitigation measures considered',
including the use of vegetative barriers and earthen berms. NCDOT and FHWA are
making the continued argument that the purchase of the additional right-of-way is
necessary to make vegetative bai-riers `effective' to achieve the 5-dBA reductions in
predicted noise levels inereases. EPA concurs with NCDOT and FHWA that these
measures are not nearly as effective as providing noise walls. However, any potential
traffic noise reduetion (as little as 1 dBA) near residential communities utilizing
vegetative screening and earthen berms is beneficiai and shouid be considered as a form
of environmental stewardship.
EPA is very interested i�i discussing this matter in greater detail at the Met•ger Ol
CP 4A, Avoidance and Mini�nization meeting. Efforts to `adjust' tlie horizontal and
vertical alignments within the project corridor to minimize impacts should also consider
any potential noise reductions for impacted recep�ors.
Prime and Im�ortant Farmlands
EPA notes the comments on Pages 5-22, 3-32 and 3-33, and 4-46 and �4-47 of the
FEIS concerning prime and important farmlands. EPA notes that the farmlands indicated
as being `prime and unique' farmland did not score above 160 points on the Form AD-
106 by NRCS. NCDOT should verify the criteria for prime and unique farmland at Title
7 Part 658. Section 4.2.5.2 of the FEIS addresses local farmland policies and that
Alamance County has a Voluntary Preservation Farmland Program. The FEIS does not
provide an ailalysis concerning the 153.5 acres of impacts to agricultural lands fiom
Alternative 9 and that may be pai-� of a Voluntary Agrieultural Distriet (VAD). Fai-mland
impacts to VADs should be avoided and/or minimized to the extent practicable (G.S.
106-735; The Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Enabling Act). The
FEIS also states that Alamance County has 240,623 `farmable' acres of which 179,301
acres are active farmland. The presence of `prime farmland soils' in an area does not
necessarily translate into `farmable acres' or active farmlands. The figures presented in
the FEIS do not appear to be accurate according to the Alamanee Cowlty Farmland
Protection Plan tliat in 20021ists Alamance County with 97,793 acres of active farmland
with 831 active fanns. The FEIS does no� identify how many active fat-ms Alternative 9

wi11 impact. The Alamance County Farmland Protection Plan is also not cited in the list
of local plans and regulations in Section 4.4.5 of the FEIS.
Critical Water Su�plies
Alternative 9 will increase impervious si�rfaces by approximately 5.1 acres within
the water supply watershed critical area of the Graham-Mebane Reservoir. NCDOT has
not proposed any alternative minilnization strategies such as pervious concrete or porous
pavement, concrete/asphalt within the water supply watershed critical area ta help offset
(i.e., Mitigate) for the 5.1 acres of impact. These alternative paving structure lnaterials
have additional environmental benefits than just groundwater recharge, including reduced
stormwater runofi and pallution. (Jther States have used such materials for roadways
with substantial suecess. NCDOT should investigate alternative pervious materials prior
to the issuanee of the ROD.
Mobile Sotiree Air Toxics (MSATs�
EPA notes in the FEIS that there are no identified near-roadway sensitive
receptors, such as day care facilities, schools and hospitals.

mrz,�
� e� 73. �
5
�
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Bevedy Eaves Pecdue, Govemor
August 18, 2009
Mr. Gregory Thorpc
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & F,ndl Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Brit[ Cobb, Secrctary
Re: SCH File # 10-E-4220-0009; FEIS; Proposal relucation of NC ll9 from the I-85/40
intcrchange southwest of Mebane to existing NC 119 near SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane)
north of Meba�c in Alamance County. TIP #li-3109
Dear Mr. "Cho�pe:
The above referenced environmental impact info�mation has been submitted to the Stace Clearinghouse
under ihe provisions of tt�e National Eirviromnen�at Policy Act. Accoxding to G.S. 113A-I0, when a
statc agency is requi�ecl to prepare an environmen[al documcnt under thc provisions of kedexal law, the
envixonmental document meets the provfsfons of ehe State I?nvironmental Policy Aet Attached w tlus
lette� for your eonsideration are the comments made by age�cies in thc course of ehis review.
If any further e�vironmental review documents aze prepa�ed for this project, they should be fo�wazded to
this ofGce for intergovermnental review.
Should you havc any qucstio�s, pleasc do noe hesitate to caLL.
Sinccrely,
�� ���
Valerie W. McMillan. Director
Statc F.nvironmental Roview Cleariiighouse
Attachments
cc: Region G
Region K
Mail[ng AAdresr: Trl F��onc- ('J]Y)80)-Ia35
130i Mnil Scrvice Cwmr I'ax (919)]7i-9?91
Raleigh, NC 29699-1301 �iixte Couvicr e_ I-01-00
e n�ailvnlerie�xrncmlllan(udooncx�v
Arc FH��uI (JVO�nwuY/�Urmaeive Ac�rou Lmpl �r
Locarlon AAArem�:
I IG we,ttloncs 9irem
Rxliigh. Nonh Camlina

e��
NCDENR
Norch Carolina Department of Environmenc and Narural Resources
Beveily Haves Peidue
Govcmor
u u�:-�� 1W
TO: Valerie McMillan
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee':�/
Environmental Review
�
SUBJECT:
Dcc E�rccman
Sccrecary
10-0009 FEIS for the proposed NC 119 Relocation
Mebane in Alamance County
AllgllSt 18, 2009
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The applicant is
encouraged to continue to work with our agencies as this
project moves forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
160� Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Camlina 27699-�601 �Re
Phone: [phone] \ FAX� 9� 9-715-3060 Infemet www.enr state.nc.us NOIrtY1Cc1CO11R1
An Equal Oppotluolry \ ARUma6ve Ac4on Employeo- 50 % Reqcletl 1 �0% Posl Consumer Paper �aturallr�

NORTH CAROLINA S'LATE CLE���NGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMI].:ISiRATION
INTERGOVERN[�NTAL +�VIEW
COONTY: ALANANCG F02:pIGtIWAYS AND ROP_DS
M3 RISPJ_'.E CLED_iIL�-GARLG�Y
ci,eARrn�cxoose cooe�zNr+�ro;� '�tUi 13 2GOY
IJE'PP Oi CCLTO[tA9 Re1SCJRCF:S
5'1'A'1'8 H[STORi:; PRCISI:RV9'I'1:CN OFFICG
�vIFiC 9E1' ;^il2::;-:I":iIGS CiOiLCTNf;
ka�,c�zcti �c
REVIEW DISTRIHUTION
STATE NUMBER: 10-h: 922J-0009
DATE RECEIVED: 0��/1G/2009
AGENCY RESPONSE: 08/05/?009
gp;yTF.q CLOSED: Jg/]�/ZOO9
te 4�-S151
� ! :,.� ,' y.,: r,.. /
CC&F' - DIV OC If1AFGFNCY fi?I 'FNFN� �� ���
DtiN2 LFGISLA7'1VC' P.rFRTR5
D P7 OF rGR1CUL]JdG
L�;P'P OF (UL1'[iR?� RFl500RCES �(� �(��
FPT ('k RI�NSP�RT PION '�J��Y� •""'
r r:;oiu v i rarn.o � �-����q�
PROJECT INFORMATION �v �
ALYI,TCANI': N.0 Jept. of Pr r,prrLaLion
g�vpp Nationa] n is�oatie t c71cv P.ct �
Lind] F.rai onnen�al lrp c.:- Statert�.ent ����09
DPS( 4r�po=a1 reloraCion of NC 719 from tY�e I-8S/�0 irt x�aa�ge scitliwc3t nf Mcoa�e Lo
�x>>l!nc N(. 11.7 r�ar SR 19113 Mi�. WYu.[.e -�ane� ncrl'� oC >1ok�-.ue in A].amance
CGUr.ty. TT3 HJ-5104
CR055-RGP�RGNCF Nt1M6F,R: 9�-A-9220-0908 OB-6'-4??0-0115
^CC- ��t�ciied pso�+ct has aeen submiLLqtl to t�e N. C. State Clearir.ghou5e for
-r.Lergoverrunenta]. :eview. Plcase review er�d sub��it your respo�se by Lhe ak�ove
indicaled date Co 1301 P9ail Sesv'�ce Cenler, Raleiqh �:; 1-1F�99-1301.
II add�t!.oca] r.view lin�.� �c ��eeded, pl.easp ec�t .T tY-^ �i£ice r.l (919)AC-/-%4JS.
AS H 2};Ul/C C_ !S REVlFr TIL; h'OLLOWING _S 5013P911'E-;: � 6�; CCib?P1Y.DIT � C(>fM1,N'P^ A•"'I:4CIIGD
.`i1.GNF.D kst: F� �„JI�� De.'1'i;: T'r �•�
p.\�. � .
a Kv
f=�
JUL _ppg
_ �__ __
� �,�
.. �r<�.
JUC 14 2009

n<..o:y- E�,.�r: r�a�e, co.���mo�
Livda A. Car6sIS Senevrn
Jeffmy J. Cmw, Uryury S�eevy
J�y i�, aoo9
�.���
� � �-� �
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Stam Historic Picsewation Office
Ycre.� B. S¢nAheck. Admlu3sanm�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gxegory Thocpe, Ph.D., Duector
Pioject Dcmelopment and Environmental Analysis Bxaneh
NCDOT Dims3on of Highways
FROM: Perex Sandbeck �+L.-/.{X �� """'r'--
v
Of6m ofA¢hivc' and Hismry
D;v�sion of?3ismdr.al Raouvrne
llavid Rmok, Uimcrav
�\..
�' «�`x
� °�U�
'`�' �P � �s
_ `�,..vn."^/�6
r.,,
, ; ;:;�.a" `�� 4s
SUBJE.CT: FEIS fox pxoposed xelocadon of NC 119 from I-85-401ntexchange to NC ll 9 neaz SR 1918,
I-3109, Alamance Couory, ER 948152
We hnve xeviewed the above xefetenced Final Environtnental Impa<t Statement (FHIS) a�d believe it accucately
reflects the fmdings of effecc and consultafion xegaeding rhe ]ustonc pxopexries in the Asea of Potential Effects.
I'he above wmments aze made pursuant to Section 106 of the National fiis'tonc Preseroation Act and the
Advisory Council on Fiisioric Pxeseroadon's Regularions fox Compliance with Secfion 106 codified at 36 CFR
Pazt 800.
Thank you for yoiu cooperadon and co�sidexadon. IEyou have quesdons wncerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, envixonmcntal xeview cooxdina[or, at 979-807-6579. In tll futuxe
communication concexning [kus Pxoject, please cite the above xefexe�ced trackin�, numbex. .
ca Mary Pope Fuu, NCDOT
SCI I
Locatlou�.l09BueiJo�sSVeet�ugFNC2]ROl MuilivgA�d�eae461'MNISc.daC:ma,RaleighNCZ1699<[V Telep6oue/PU(91�RtqfiS)0/NO>L599

Beverly Eaves PerJ� �
Govemor
Mr:MORANDUII
Po:
From:
SubjecC
..y�
�[r
��DENit
No?h Carolina Cepartcient of Environment antl Natural Rssources
DiNsion ot WaterQuality
Col?en H. Sullins
Direnor
August 4, 2009
o>;: p,��,.�.an
Secretary
�9e!ha'vlcGee. F,nviromnentnl Coordinalor, �ce ofLegislative and Infergovernmenfal
Affairs
A�ny Iiialiss, Division of Water Quality, Winston Salem Regional Orficc
Comments on Che Finallinvironme�ta7 Impact Statemenl relxtcd to proposed NC 1 L9
Relocation from existing ]-85/40 to Lxistinr South of SR 1918 (Mrs. Whitc La�e),
Alamance County, kedernl Aid ProjeccNo. S'iP-119(]), StaYe ProjectNo. 8.1470907,
T1P U-3109.
This office has reviewed thc refe�cnced documen[ datetl May, 2009. The NC Uivision oC Water Quality
(NCUWQ) is responsiblc for ihe issuanca ofihe Section 401 Water Quality Cert�cation for aetivities thaf
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our w�dersta�diag ihat Che project as prccented will
result in impacts to jurisdicUOnal wetlxnds, sfreams, and ofher surPace walers. NCD W Q oCfers the
following comments based on review of the aPoremcntioned documeiiC:
L 7'his project is being plam�ed �s paR ofthe 404/NliPA Merger 1'roccss. As a partieipating tce�n
mcmber, NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
!doAdams Creek and its unnamed tributaries, are dass C; NS W waters of thc State. Back Creek and
its unnamed tribi�ffiries arc class WSII; HQ W, NS W waters of the statq with fhe exce��tion of U1'23
which is C,1JSW. b1ill Cmck and its unnamed Lributaries are WS-lI; HQW,IVS W, CA waters of the
stare,withthecxceptionofUT28toMillCreekwhichisW5-111[QW,NSW. HawCrockandits
unnamed fribuuries are WS-V, h5 W waCers of the stafe. NCDWQ is very concemed with sediment
and emsion impacts that could result from this projeet. NCD WQ recommends that highly protective
sediment 2nd erosion wnTrol 13MP5 bc implemenfcd [o reduce the risk of nu7ieot runoff to
MoAdams, Back, Mill, Haw Creek, and their unnamed tributaries. NCDWQ requests that road
design plans providc treatment of the storni wafer nmoCC through best management practices as
detailed in the most recent version oCNCDWQ's Stori�iwater Bw't Management Practices.
3. Reviow ofthc projea reveals the presencc of surface waters classified as Watec Supply Critical Area
in the project study arca. Given the pofential for impacts to these resources dnring the project
implemen[ation, NCDWQ requests ttiatNCUOT sfrictly adhereYO North Carolina regulations
c�titled "Design Sta��dards i�� Sensitive Watersheds" (ISA NCAC 04I3 .0124) t6rouahout design and
construcfion of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS
CA(Water Supp(y Critical Area) elassifications.
4. As ihe project is located wlth[n the CriTicat Area oF a Water Supply, NCllOT will be required to
design, conshucf, and maintain hazardous spill catch basins. Applicable locations include stream
cros5ings on highways functionally classified as riaal or urban arte�ials and within %z mile o1 the
rznsportauoa P=�n°irq Lnit
1650 MaIlSarvlve Genter. Rzlaign, N^Cti Carolina 7165946fi0
LocaGOO�. 2721 Crhtro� R4d, Rzleign. NcM Carolina 2]6W
PM1One�. H19�133�1]86 APAX: 914]33-6853
In�emeC Fiq:'IP1n.enr slete.nc.us/newatbntlsl
M Eaual Oppotlonily AA'�„rGaaFtlion tmplcyor
Onc
NorthCaroli na
��irlkrallt,/

critical uea oCthe watcr supply, a�d in oiher azeas on a sile-bq��siYe basis. The uumbcr of catcl�
basins installed should be determined by the desinn of Che crossings, so that runoff woiild entor said
basin(s) rather tt�an flowing direcCly inW the sheain, and in co�sultation wiYh NCDWQ.
5. Review of the p�ojcet reveals t[�e presence of surface water; classified as WS I[; High QualiTy
Waters of t}�e Stato in the projec[ sWdy area. T6is is one of ihe highest classifications for water
quality. Pursuanuo 15A NCAC 2H .1006 and 15A NCAC 2I3 .0224, NCDOT will be required tn
obtain a State Stormwater Permi[ prior fo construction exwpt in North Casolina's twenty coastal
counties.
6. I� accordaneo with 15A NCAC 2H .0�06(h), the DWQ may require compensafory mitigation at a 1:7
ratio foi losses of inteimittent streams in WS-II waters includingBack Creek a�id Mitl Geek and
iBeir umiamed tributaries for impacts eq�al to or exceeding 150 ti�ear feei.
7. The environmental document should provide a detafled and itemized presentatio� of the proposed
impacfs to wotlands aad sfrcams with eorresponding mapping. ]f mitigation is necessary as
requimd by 15A NCAC 2}�I.0506(h), St is preferable to present a co�ceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with Che enviro�menTal docmnentaSion. AppropriaTe mitigation p7ans will be
roquired prior to issuance of a 401 WaLer Quality Certification.
8. Environmentxl impact statement altematives sha11 consider desigiE criteria thaf reduce the fmpacts Co
streams and wetlands Gom storm wafer runoff. 7'hese altematives shall ii�clude road desi�is that
allow {or freatmenf of fhe storm water mnoff'through bes[ managament praciices as dePailed in fhe
mos[ receni version of NCUWQ's Stormwnter Best Managemenr Praetices Manunl, Suly 2007, such
as o assed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
9. Afrer the selec[ion of the proferrod alternafive and prior to an issuance of ffie 401 Water QualiTy
Certificafioq t6c NCDOT is respectfully reininded ihatthcy will need fo demonstrate ihe avoidance
and minimizxtion of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to tho moximum extent pructical. In
acwrda�ce wiYh the Environmental Management Commissiods Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)},
mi�aation will be required for impacG of greatcr ilian ] acm to wetlands. In thc evmit that
mitigaTion is requiretl, the mitigation plan shall be desig��ed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values. The NC P.cosystcm F.nliancement Program may be available for use as weflend mitigation.
] Q[n accordance with tlie EnvironmenTal Maoagement Commissiod s Rules { 75A NCAC
2HD506(Ii)}, mitigarion wil] be required for impacLS of greatcr Than 150 linear fect to any single
perennial strcam- In tiie avenY that miffgation is required, the mitigation plan shal] be desi�ed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Eeosystem E�haneement Pro��am may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
11. Future documenlafion, i�cludino the 401 Watec QualiTy Certificafion Applica[ion, shall con6nue Lo
include an itemized lis[i�g of the proposed wetland and �stream impacts with correspondin�
mapping
72. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts thut could result fro�n this projecl
NCDO"1� shall address these concorns by describing Che pofential impacts thac may occur to ihe
aqua[ic emfronmenis and any miti�afing factors thatwould reduce the impaels.
13. NCDOT is re>pecTfully reminded that all impacts, including butriot Limifed [q bridging, f I7,
excavation and cicaring and rip rap fo jurisdictio�al wetlands, streams. and riparia� buffers need to
be fncluded in the final impac[ calculations. 'Chese impacYS, i� addition to a�ry construction impacts,

temporary or otherwise, a':so need to be ineluded as part ofthe 401 Wacer Quality Certificetion
Application.
7 4. Where sfrcams must be crossed, NCDW Q prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic consideraYions oftcu require the use of culverts. Please be advised Yhat
culverts should be cou�tersunk m allow unimpeded passage by fis6 and other aquatic organisms.
Moroover, in areas where high qiaality we8ands or streams' ue impacted, a bnd�c may prove
prefernble. When applicable, NCD07� s-hould not install lhe bridge benr in ihe creek, to flre
maximum cxtent practicable.
15. Whenever possible, NCllWQ piefers spnnning sfructures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the siream or grubbing of the streamba�lcs end do not cequire atreem channcl
reulignment. 'Phe hor¢onTal and verticnl clearnnces provided by bridges� shnll allow for human and
wildlffc passage beneath ihe seructure. Pish passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shall
not be blocked. Sridge supporLS (bcntx) s6ould not be placed in ihe stream wlien possible.
7 6. Bridge deck drains shall oot discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall bc direc[ed aaoss
the bridoe and pre-ireafed tivough sils-appropriate mea�s (grassed swales, pre-fo�ned scour holes,
v�getated buffers, etc.) beforc enteri�g the stream. Please refer To the most currenY version of
NCDWQ's Storuiwater 6�st Management Practices.
7 7. Sediment and erosion control measures s6ould not be placed in wetlands or sfrcams.
18. Borrow/waste areas shonld avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacis to wetlands in
borrow/wasfc areas will need to be prese�tcd in The 407 Wafer Quality Certification a�id a�uld
precipitaEe componsatory miti�ation.
19. 'Che 401 WaTCr QoaliTy Cert�ification application will need to specifieally addiess T6e proposod
methods for stonxnvater management. More specifically, stoimwater shall not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
20. Based on the information presented in the document, the magi�itude of impacts to wctlands' and
streems maq require aii lndividual Perrr�it (IP) application fo rhe Corps of Engineeia and
corresponding 401 Wamr Quality Certification_ Vlease be advised ihaY a 40I Waler Quality
Certification requires sakisfactory protection of water q�aaliry to ensure ihat water yuality standa�ds
are met and no wetland or strcem uses are lost. Pinat pe�nik authoriaation will require llie submival
of a fonnal application by the 1�CD0'T and written concurrence fi�om NCDWQ. Please be awarc
that any approval will be contin_enl on xppropria[e avoidancc and minimization of wetland and
strcam impxcts to ihe max6num extent p�actical, the development of an aeeeptabLe srormwater
managemenf plaq and rhe inclusioa of appropriate mitioation ptans wneic appropriate.
2L If conerete is used during construetion, a dry wock area shall be maintained to prevent dirut cont�act
behveen curing concrete and strcam water. Wats;r that inadvertently contaets uncured concrete shall
not be disc6arged to surCace watecs duc to the pote�ciaL Por elevated pfI and possfble aqueue Iife and
fish kills.
22. If cemporary access roads or detours are constructed, Yhc site shnll be graded to its preconstruction
co�tours aitd elevavons. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appmpriaTe nafive woody species shall be planted. When using temporary sfrucfures t6e area shall
be cicazed but not gmbbed. Clearing Che acea with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other

mechanized equipment and leaving the stwnps and root mat intacf allows ihe area to re-vcgetate
naturallv and minimizes soil disturbance.
23. Placemeiit of culverts end oiher sVucwres in waters, streams, and weLlands shall be placcd below
the olevalion of fhe streambed by one foot for al7 culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inchcs,
and 20 percent ofthe culvert diameter for culverts tiaving a diameter less than 4$ inches, W allow
low tlow passage of water and ayoatic life- Desi�n aud placement of culvciis aiid other stmetures
including temporary erosion co�frol measu�es shall not be conducCed in a manner ffiaf may result in
dis-equilibrium of weilands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down sVeam of fhe
above strnetures.l'he appticant is required to provide cvidencc Chal the equilibrium is being
mainPained if requested in writing by NCDWQ. If this condiiion is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting feamres encountered during construction, please confac[ NC.DWQ for puidance on
how fo proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modificabon will be required.
24. If multiple pipes or barrels aro required, They sha71 be designed to �nimic natural sll-�am cross
sectio� as closety as possible including pipes or barzels at flood plai� clevatfon, floodplain benches,
and/or siils m&y be rcqnired where appmpriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided.
Stream channel wldenieg at the inLet or outlet end of structures rypically decreases watex vebciry
causing sedimc�it deposinon ihat requices increased maintena��ce and dis�tipis aquatic ]ife passage.
25. If foundation test borings arc �ecessary; it shall be noted in the documcnt. Geotechnical work is
appcoved under Ce�eral 401 Cenificatlon Number 3687/Nationwide Pe�mifNo_ 6 for Survey
AcTivities.
26. Sediment and erosioo co�Trol measures sufficient to protect waTer resourees inust be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most mcent versio� of North Carolina Sediment and Paosion
Confrol Plan�ing and Design Manual and the mos[ recenT vcrsio� of NCS000250. .
27. All work in or adjacent to sveam waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approvul BMP
measures from The �nosr currmit vecsion of NCDOT Consiruction and Maiotc�arice Aaivities
manual s�ch as sandbas, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion sOVCllires shall be used to
prevent excavalion in Ilowing water.
28. While [he use of haYional Wetland Inven[ory (NWI) maps, NC Coaslal Region F.valuation of
\Vetland Sionificance (NC-CRGWS) maps az�d soil survcy maps are useful tools, their i�herent
inaccuracies requice [hat qualified pe�sonnel perfonn onsite wetland deli�eations prior lo pennit
appmval.
29. Heary cquipme��t shouLd bc operated fmm tl�e bank rather than in stream channels in order to
ininimize sedimentation and reducethe likelihood of introducing oCher pollntants into shcams. This
equipment shall be inspected daily and mai��tained �o prevei�t contami�ation of surface waters from
leaking f�cls, IubricanG, hydraulic fluids, or o[her [ox�c maurials.
30. Riprap slial I not be placed in thc active thalweg channel or placed in Lhe sfreambed In a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineerino boulders or stmemres slioutd be properly desfgned,
sized and instxlled-
31. Riparian veoeCaYion (native hees and slsubs) shall be preserved to the maximmn estent possible.
Riperixn vegetation inust be rcestablished within Yhe construction limits of [kie project by the end of
the gjowina season folLowing completion of conshuction.

NCDWQ appreciates the opportuniTy to provide commenis on your projece. Should you have any quesCions
or require any additional inibrmation, please contact A�ny Gutiss at (336) 777 -4959.
cc: Andy Williams, US Army Corps of Engi�cers, Raleigh Field OCfice
Fcdcral Htghway Administration
Kalhy Matthews, Emiromnental Prolection Age�cy (eleetronie wpy only)
Chris Militshcer, Girviromnental Profection Agency (clectronic co�y only)
"I'ravis Wilson,NC WildliCe Resources Commission
I3rian Wrcnn, NCllWQ Wetlands/ 401
Pile Copy

�' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comamission l�
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
ME'�IORANDUM
T0: Melha McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovemmental Affairs, DHiVR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project CoordinaYar `.����__,.��i%; /��--'"
Habitat Consen�ation Program h/
DAI'E: August 7; 2009
SIJBJECT: North Cazolina Dep;utmym of Transportation (.�7CDpT) Final Hnvironmental
lmpact Statement (FE15) for ihe proposed NC 119 relocation from I-85/40 to
south of SR 1918, Me6ane, Alamance Counry, Arorth Cazoli�u, TIl' No. U-3 ] 09
SCH Project No. 10-0009.
Staffbiologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed [k�e subject
FEIS and are familiar with liabieat values in [he project area. The pu�pase of Ihis review was to
assess proj<ct impacts lo fish and wildlife resom�ces. O�r comments aza pravided in acwrdance
with ceRain provlsions ofthe Nation;il Environm�otal PoGcy Aa (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination AcC (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-669d).
We ha��e reciewed the datz pro�dded in t4e FET5. The FE1S reflects ri*C WftC comments
from prior meetings and coonlination. This project�will continue to go through the Section
404/NE.PA Merger pmcess. Additional agency coordina5on wiIl occur through concurrence
points 46 and 4c in the Section 4041NEPA Merger process. Thank ydu for the opportunity to
comment. If we can be of any further assistance please call me at [phone]
cc: GaryJordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Secviee, Ralei�h
Sua 1-Iomewood, DWQ
7ohn Thomas, USACE
Chris Militscher, EAq
1Vlailing Address; Division of Inland Fisheiies • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-172]
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
E0 39tld 6E86BZS6i6 BZ�ZT 690ZiL0/89

NORTH CAROLINA STAT� CLE�RINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATEON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY Lyf!PNrE F02: H=G4� Y i N7 � �ADS
MR. BODC3Ilh 'd. DURP.IIM
CL°ARiN HGJSZ C�OKDiN9TOR
CC&PS - DN 0" ^9ERGENCY M v CFi4F.V^,
FiAO�°7.1'-Ih NIP-NAGL1Mk:N1' PROGRAM
MSC A 9 ]l�
H+LEIGC VC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC6b` UT� CF ➢b R(ENCY nyt(pMF�N?
DI,NR CC ��ATI�h AL.'F.CIiS
)EIPT OY ,IiICUL1URE
JEPT ( F ('liL'1'U?Nf 6 30J3C1:5
DkIYT ;.�F Tfti�Nii`JF?A3TOV
P1EDNlN7 "R17dD COC
pRO.TECT INFORMATION
P_YY].ICF1N'[': N.C. De�t. cf Px�d�sporl_�Cion
1'YPF: National Fnvironmental Poli.cy Act
Final 6'nvixonme�ital hnpacL Sta�eme�t
'�, �
.f' JU� _�09
{. � C=l�J
�bbr�. .;�k'fi
.y �
�� ..'i1i'�`�,.
STATE NOMBER: -�7-L'-5�2' (U09
DATE RECEIVED: 0//10/2005
A6ENCY RESPONSE: OA/OS/2009
REVIEW CLOSED: OE'/10/2009
�F
...... ... . :JS
� ", , .. . ':P,i'�
DESL'. 'roposal x'elor_ation �� �1C 119 L-om tihe �-BS/90 in �chance utiiwes�. �L Mebanc Lo
er:;.sLing NC 119 �ifar SR 1N18 (MrS. Wt<iLe Znne) norTt of Neb i. in P1am.ance
County. 7'1P if0-i109
CRO55-RS9H'.RFNCG �UMSRR: 99-G-97?0-0908 OE3-[;-9'G20-0115
1'he �i.T.ached prr-ject has bec-n SubmiCted �o the N. C. Sta e l�..earinoh.��ve for
i�cerrqovernmental review. Pi.ease rcview and submit yous response by the above
!ndicxLed date to 1301 Mai'- Service Center, Raleigii NC 2%699-1301.
lf edcitiona] review time `s needed, Nlrase cc;itacL this o£ESce aU (9S9)80�-2425.
AS A RFlSOLI OF TI-7'S HliV1Ein� T}�� P'OLLOPING � SUGMITTF.D: �NO CO^�MENT � COMMF,NTS ZdTTACHED
crc��.r; sr: ��z.� ��(���-C;/i< �..� l� �l ,
Der�SG �7 Lqd'.T ,v�,��, �/cFnP iOG7 /�tq ��� cc�r7/t-%�E�`l�i
U 0 `
ox � ��-�°�.,.�.�� �

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CiEARINGHOU
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRITION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY J,tMANC�
MS :IOI.i.Y G�LROY
CLGARINGI{00$G COORDINA'1'OR
!>8P9 �C � RI.)JimJRF.
1001 �] ( AG[I�JLTORFI BLU6
aAr,Frcx N�
REVIEW DISTRI9UTION
F02: =LL li � DAN;. i': "DS STATE NUMHER. .;-F� 4.9� �iG09
DATE RECEIVED: 09/'.f,/7005
AGENCY RESPON3E: 09/OS/2009
REVIEW CLOSED: Of7/10/?009
���1 ' � �
\� � �/�
�U� [!I�9 �O
� "t�hf•�,� ..�i
CC&2S - D1V Ok �' I�RGliVCY MANAGCMGNT � �td �"�-.,;
n �r
D�NR �E6ISLP.^.IV� ?�7E4SH5 � ����� "'�
y
9EPT OP P_GRICOI.`JVRF
- .*
�PIV9 01 CVIlI�R < ,�JLI�yCp9 '�
V'
JEPT OP. ,iRAN3POR'1'A7110N . �
P7'?iDMGV7' 7'R1P.D W6
PROJECT INFORMATION
APYL=CPNP: N.C. CepL. of 'Pransportation
TYPF_: Na[ior:al G:�visonrient3l Policy Act
Pin.�] F.nvironmenta_ -rtiF�aCL SLatemeat
�LSC: P�cposa r�loca^.lor of NC li9 fsorr. the 1-85/90 i�_eecF.ar�qe sor[hwest �f Mebane Lo
exisCir_g NC -19 �iear 53 191E3 (11rs. Wh.ite Lanel �orti oi Meba�e iii FlamanCe
Co¢rLy. 'P1? AO-31A9
C�OSS-REkGR�:NCE NUMBER: 99-F.-4220-0908 OB-E-9220-0115
The �ttached project has bee� submitiM :o the N. C. State Cl.e2ringhouse fVr
inte.�y�ver�me�i1 r.--icw Plcase ev'_ew a�d �uhmit you ��,ponse by rhe abo�r:
i:�tl' a ed datc r� i301 N •rvic�• L�rt.er, Rj F yh ti;' o�J-1301.
Tf additiona'_ r v'_ew tim. i�, needed, p.Lease � mT .t th4 .>Lfice at Ol9)HC� %Ai'S_
?15 A RB:SULT 0!' -hIIS RF:VI:EW TIIl�; N'OLL04�IN3 'S SUBMI'1LI?l:: � �O COMMF,NT �CMILh1S /1?I :CflY.fl
`TGVCC PY: =:-'-'E: � �i�-��

�„_ �
£s` �p�i
��
\'��r �,
Steven w. Troxler NOTt}1 C3iO11R3 Dep'd.ItTTlelli nf F��TI'1CU�tUYC Dewltt Haraee
Commissioner d11C1 COTISUTYIOC .S011'1CeS Environmcnwl Pro�m, am
Manegcr
Agricultural Services
Ms. Valerie McMillan
State Clearinghouse
N.C. DepartmentofAdministration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1301
State #: 10-E-4220-0009
RE: Mebane Bypass
Dear Ms McMillan:
July 13, 2009 � �,� �
��' 200g
�� � °:,
\�
The footprint of the proposed relocation of NC 119 from the I-85/40 interchange
southwest of Mebane to existing NC 119 near SR 1918 (Mrs. White Lane) north of Mebane in
Alamance County has potential of irreversible damage and increases the loss of prime farm and
forest land thereby negatively impacting agricultural environmenial balance in the immediate
area. The US DOT and the NCDOT should give additional consideration of alternative routing
and / or implemented designs that reduce to loss of farm and forest land activities due to
negative environmental and economic impacts the placement of the road's footprint. Limiting
public access onto bypasses, providing friendly and accessible agricultural crossover points for
agricultural equipment and livestock in conjunction with the use of agricultural easements at
access points and along the proposed right ways would lessen the negative impacts on the
adjacent farms and forest land.
Farm and forest lands are natural resources with no mitigation process. These
agribusiness resources cannot be replaced nor relocated once converted to other uses. The
proposed Mebane bypass placement will go through several farms near existing Voluntary
Agricultural Districts (VAD) designed to recognize and protect key agricultural production
centers for future generations and economy security. Transportation planning priorities should
considered highway placement and its potential negative impact on VAD and land resources.
These plans should also negate the formation of incompatible and inaccessible land units that
degrades agriculturai production.capabilities.
Agricultural production incomes from locally grown products have a considerable
multiplier influence. It is estimated that for every 40 acres converted from agricultural
production, one agribusiness job and its associated economic activily is lost indefinitely.
Additional acreage loss is most likely to occur beyond the Mebane bypass footprint due to the
subdivision and reduced agricultural production capacity from development pressures.
Furthermore the cost of services needed for these types of land uses are minimal and thus a net
Email' marvmilian.merrill@ncmail net
1001 Mail Serviw Center, Raleigh, NortC Wrolina. 2]699-0001 (919) ]33-]125 � Fax (919)'!i6-0105
TTV:'I-8�0-]35-2962 Voice: i-8�]-135-8200
An Equal Opportvnity Affirtna[ive Action Employer

contributor to county budgets. Alamance County has instituted a countywide farmland protection
plan which further delineates this issue. Careful consideration of farm and forest land
condemnation is warranted given potential for loss of local tax revenue. Both current and future
cost for the conversion land from production agriculture is needed for an accurate evaluation
which is not accurately recognized by the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating using Form AD
1006.
Based on the secondary, cumulative, and direct impacts, this project will have
adversely impact the agricultural environmental and economic resources in the proposed
area. The total negative impact on the environmental and agribusiness economy will be
proportionately related to the total acres of farm and forest land taken out of production.
Increased division of land units and its reduced accessibility for agricultural production will also
increase the negative impact on agriculture.
�spectfullGy, i
� �� «<%
Dewitt Hardee
Environmental Program Manager