19950740 Ver 1_Complete File_19950714

City of Burlington
NORTH CAROLINA
JQ69PH P. BARBOUR
MAYOR
Chrys Baggett.
Bill Fluornoy
William R. Dawson
Eric Galamb
Franklin McBride
7/10/95
Fti`? ?I O
Rok Qr??9
°Fs
Regarding FONSI report from Franklin Vick date 6/29/95 on State Project
9.8070179 otherwise known as O'Neal-Rockwood Connector:
I have just received what I assume is the final report that says in no uncertain
terms that the D.O.T. plans to go ahead with their project in spite of the facts
that have been presented and the questions that have been raised.
My main concern all along has been that this project, if completed, will greatly
exacerbate the flooding problem in our City Park. I have raised this issue over
and over, to no avail. On page 9 of the report it says quite simply ( or more
accurately simplistically ) "the project will not increase downstream flooding%
How on, earth can anybody who calls himself an engineer really believe that you
can pave 1.4 miles of 5-lane highway in a flood plain and not cause a flooding
problem???
In the same document they say that what they really mean is that the water level
will not increase by more than one foot....not exactly the same thing as "no
flooding problem". You know, and I know, and they know that we alre@dy have a
flooding problem several times every year in this area. I presented the D.O.T.
people two batches of photographs and asked that they be included in the record
of the public hearing. As I understand it, they were discarded.
The people of Burlington are overwhelmingly opposed to this road, and they have
raised some pertinent questions that have still not really been addressed. One
is that the road will serve no worthwhile purpose. The people at D.O.T. speak
vaguely about.a north-south connector, but it will not really "ttonnect" anything.
The road, if built, will end at a T intersection on West Front Street, which will
cause even more traffic problems.
Another important point that was raised is that if the D.O.T. REALLY wants to
build us a nice 2-lane road just for local traffic$ they do not need an 80-foot
right-of-tray. They keep skirting that issue, and in fact they state in their
report on page 3 that the road will be widened to 4 or 5 lanes "only when
traffic volumes approach or exceed the capacity of the initial phase". Who will
make that determination when the time comes ? Let me guess.
2213 Ei)en toOD AVENUE BU'RLMOTON, NG 27215 PHONE [phone]
2
I have just read an interesting article in the Winston-Salem Journal about
a similar situation in Asheville in which the people of Asheville do not want
a monstrous road that the D.O.T. wants to build, and in fact the project is
being held up by a court order and hopefully will not be built. The article
describes the D.O.T. as an agency "run amuck" because of their arrogance and
their unwillingness to listen to alternatives proposed by the people who will
be adversely affected.
The people from D.O.T. have said from the very beginning that they intend to
issud a statement that the O'Neal-Rockwood project will cause no significant
impact on the environment, and sure enough, after several public hearings and
after receiving comments and questions from your agencies, they have done just
what they said they would do.
It's discouraging to outsiders like me to find that there is really no system
of checks and balances on the D.O.T., so that they behave like the proverbial
800-pound gorilla. I have been told by several people in various state agen-
cies that the D.O.T. always gets its way.
It is especially troubling to me, as an elected officials to see the traffic
problems that we have that are not being addressed at the same time that they
are beginning to move ahead with an obsolete 1957 project that will do much
more harm than good.
If there is anything at all that can be done to stop this project I would be
grateful to any or all of you$ as would a lot of other people in Burlington
as well as future generations who will be left to clean up the mess.
If you know of anything that I can dos I would appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerel
Joe Barbour
Mayors Burlington
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor [DE H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee l-l*t`-'
Project Review Coordinator
RE: #95-0653 EA Proposed O'Neal-Rockwood Connector Alamance County
DATE: June 16, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources met with the
Department of Transportation on June 13, 1995 to discuss the concerns we raised
during the review of the referenced Environmental Assessment. In discussing the
issues, we found the Department of Transportation eager to resolve our issues and in
some cases found they had already implemented several items. The meeting
concluded that our issues were being addressed and should be documented in the
Finding of No Significant Impact.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project.
cc: David Foster
Bill Flournoy
David Cox
Eric Galamb
JUN 2 1995
ENV1RpN??NC ySC/ENC
ES
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
:y• 7
`j
;j
RECEIVED
JUN 0 81995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
RanninN
Merrill Lynch
May 31, 1995
Mr. Bill Flournoy
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health &
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 276 1 1-7687
{__YLtt CaRIA?1
Howard E. Adams
Vice President / ?rILr2N e y
Private Client Group /
300 North Greene Street, Suite 800
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401
910 333 7406
800 937 0644 Wats
Re: Draft Environmental Assessment, O'Neal-Rockwood
Connector
(SCH No. 95-0653; TIP No. U-2802
Dear Mr. Flournoy:
My wife and I live at 1204 Rockwood Avenue in Burlington. While
our home is not directly in the path of the proposed O'Neal-Rockwood Con-
nector, it is located in the project area. We and approximately 2,000 of our
fellow citizens throughout Burlington have, for the past seven years ex-
pressed to the City of Burlington and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation grave concerns and serious questions about this project and
its ultimate impact upon our community.
I recently learned that the North Carolina State Clearinghouse for-
warded to the NC DOT. copies of memos you and two other members of
the Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources prepared which
identify substantial deficiencies in the draft Environmental Assessment pre-
pared by the City of Burlington Project Design Engineer. 1 also learned that
the State Clearinghouse recommended to the NC DOT that it prepare a sup-
plemental EA addressing the concerns of DEHNR for presentation to the
Clearinghouse for review and comment by DEHNR prior to preparation of a
final environmental document. I have read your memo, and I must tell you
how reassuring it is for your Department to have voiced many of the same
concerns citizens in Burlington have been raising with the City and with the
NC DOT for a number of years now. You and your Department are to be
congratulated for your very thorough and thoughtful analysis of the defects in
the NC DOT's draft EA.

Merrill Lynch
Mr. Bill Flournoy
May 31, 1995
Page 2
Recently, I learned that the NC DOT has not made any decision to
accept the State Clearinghouse's recommendations, but instead is proposing
to meet with you and with Eric Galamb and Franklin McBride, the authors of
the other memos expressing questions and concerns about the draft EA. It is
my understanding that Frank Vick, Manager of the Planning and Environmental
Branch of the NC DOT is seeking to schedule this meeting with you for next
week at which time he has said he wants to informally find out what your
concerns are regarding this project, with the apparent goal that through infor-
mal discussions your concerns may be satisfied, thereby avoiding the need for
preparation of any supplemental EA. It is my belief that your carefully consid-
ered comments detail quite ably the substantive and procedural deficiencies in
the draft EA. I would submit that an informal discussion is not in the best in-
terest of the public, nor is it a proper mechanism for resolving the numerous
deficiencies you and your Department identified. DEHNR's conclusions and
recommendations for a supplemental EA are accurate and fair. In light of the
deficiencies identified, a supplemental EA is absolutely necessary and
warranted.
Mr. Vick has been asked whether private citizens from Burlington
would be allowed to attend and participate in NC DOT's planned discussions
with you. It is my understanding that Mr. Vick has said only that he would
consider such a request. Not knowing whether any members of the public
will even be permitted to attend any such discussions, I would like to make
you aware prior to your meeting with the NC DOT of additional significant
deficiencies in the draft EA which further support your recommendation that
a supplemental EA be developed to provide an appropriate foundation for de-
cisionmakers. For example, the draft EA mentions on page S-I that the Me-
morial Hospital of Alamance County is "included in the project area"; the
draft fails, however, to mention that this County hospital facility will be closed
during 1995 and further fails to consider the reduction in traffic in the project
area which will follow the closing of this hospital. There are no known traffic
counts for the Memorial Hospital, but, according to the Institute of Transpor-
tation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (dated january 1991), the aver-
age vehicle trips per bed per day is 11.77. Given the approximate 250 beds in
this hospital, the average total number of trips generated per day is over
2,900. This average daily vehicle loss from the project area of almost 3,000
vehicles, which will follow the closing of the County hospital, does not even
take into account the substantial additional traffic reductions that will occur
following the relocation of numerous doctors' offices from the area immedi-
ately surrounding the County hospital to the site of the new hospital facility
south of Interstate 85. A supplemental EA should consider the dramatic

1
Merrill Lynch
i
Mr. Bill Flournoy
May 31, 1995
Page 3
reduction in traffic which will result in the project area following the final
closing of the County hospital later this year.
Additionally, the draft EA recites in Table I at page 3 level of service
conclusions of the City's consulting engineer. The draft EA fails to set forth
any level of service conclusions for the initial typical section -- a two-lane, di-
vided roadway -- for 1998 or for 2018. The NC DOT's recent analysis of
two-lane LOS for this project is as follows:
PROPOSED SIGNALIZED 1998 LOS BETWEEN 2018 LOS BETWEEN
INTERSECTION INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTIONS
Webb Avenue E F
Front Street E F
Edgewood Avenue E F
Church Street E F
f
The NC DOT has said that considering the heavy traffic projections for 1998,
when this road would be expected to open, that it is recommended that a
"four-lane divided section be constructed initially as a part of this project."
Further, the NC DOT's recent analysis of level of service at year 2018, based
on construction of a four-lane divided section, is at odds with the conclusions
set forth in the draft EA. According to the NC DOT, the Edgewood Avenue
intersection at the year 2018 would be expected to operate at LOS F, assum-
ing construction of a four-lane divided facility. This is entirely inconsistent
with the draft EA conclusion that this intersection will operate at LOS D at
that time. The NC DOT has concluded that the 2018 LOS between intersec-
tions, assuming a four-lane divided facility, will operate at LOS D, not LOS C,
as the draft EA indicates. On this basis, the NC DOT has concluded that
"[i]n order to improve the level-of-service of [the Edgewood Avenue inter-
section] in the 2018 design year, additional through lane capacity (beyond a
four-lane divided facility) will be needed." The NC DOT's comments con-
cerning the level of service necessary to enhance operations and safety of the
O'Neal-Rockwood Connector should be considered as part of a supplemental
EA.

YACI-
Merrill i6ynch
Mr. Bill Flournoy
May 31, 1995
Page 4
On the issue of flooding, there are some significant discrepancies
and/or omissions in the draft EA. --At page 5 of the draft EA, the following
statement appears:
The construction of the proposed project will
require the use of several culverts. The largest
structure will be a three barrel (8'x10) box cul-
vert at Little Alamance Creek near May's Lake.

s
s
If the NC DOT plans to install a three barrel (8'x 10) box culvert (on what is
presently a portion of the Powell property), this will cause the 100-year
floodplain to raise between the culvert and the existing dam upstream at
May's Lake. The increase in the 100-year floodplain caused by the placement
of the culvert will vary, according to correspondence between Kimley-Horne
and the City of Burlington engineer, from 1.25 feet near the dam to 1.56 feet
near the culvert. This increase in the water surface elevation will, according
to Kimley-Horne, result in an. additional 20 to 25 feet of floodplain encroach-
ment. The floodplain will encroach on approximately 0.?5 acres on the north
side of Little Alamance Creek and approximately 0.80 acres on the south side
of Little Alamance Creek. According to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, such increases in the 100-year water surface elevations would violate
NFIP regulation subparagraph 60.3(d)(3). This,issue has not been addressed
candidly in the draft EA and requires full disclosure in a supplemental EA.
Further, the draft EA nowhere describes any alternatives which have been
considered by Kimley-Horne, the City of Burlington, or the NC DOT to the
three barrel (8'x10') box culvert. It is my understanding that previous analy-
ses conducted by Kimley-Horne and the City of Burlington revealed alterna-
tive three or four barrel box culverts which, if utilized, would not increase at
all the 100-year water surface elevation on this project. Those alternatives
should be fully explored and disclosed in a supplemental EA.
Further, an origin/destination traffic analysis is key to determining the
appropriate final environmental document for the O'Neal-Rockwood Con-
nector. The draft EA was prepared without the benefit of any current
origin/destination study data. The last such study in Burlington occurred,
understand, twenty-seven (27) years ago in July 1968. The Alamance County
Planning Department is presently coordinating a study of household traffic
origins and destinations. The NC DOT is presently conducting an analysis of
what are called external origins and destinations from several state highways,
including Routes 87 and 54. Computation of data obtained in these studies
performed in the field during May 1995 in Burlington and in Alamance County
YACI_
Merrill >aynch
Mr. Bill Flournoy
May 31, 1995
Page 5
is presently underway. Publication of this data in a form suitable for consid-
eration in an environmental assessment analysis is scheduled to occur in
August 1995. Any supplemental EA for this project should include
consideration of that new origin/destination analysis.
The foregoing deficiencies and the numerous deficiencies DEHNR has
identified in the draft EA compel NC DOT acceptance of. DOA's and
DEHNR's recommendation that a supplemental EA be prepared addressing
each of these points.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet or speak with you and
to provide documentation to you concerning the foregoing and other addi-
tional defects in the draft EA. Please let me know when it would be conven-
ient for you to spend 10-20 minutes to discuss these matters.
Again, on behalf of the numerous citizens of Burlington who have ex-
pressed genuine concern about the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector, I want to
thank you for your very professional and thoughtful comments.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincer ,
Howard Adams
ii
01
w
City of Burlington
NoIRTH GABOLINA
JOSEPH P. BARBOUR
MAYOR
Mr Eric Galambs
RFQs?Fp
F??Ro?MF 1 ?199s
6-9-95
just a note to thank you for your comments to the D.O.T. regarding our
controversial O'Neal-Rockwood project. As you can see from the attached
letter from Mr Vick which I received today, he still intends to plunge
ahead with the road and to hell with the consequences. This arrogance is
beyond my comprehension.
As you pointed out in your letter, there was much discussion at the public
hearing that has been apparently ignored. Also, a batch of photographs that
I took during a rainstorm in our City Park downstream, and another batch that
I took of the proposed road site, most of which is in a swamp.
I remain hopeful that somebody can rein in the people at D.O.T. before they
can wreak havoc on our community. I have walked over every bit of the pro-
posed roadway, and I know what I'm talking about, but it is extremely
frustrating to deal with people at D.O.T. who do not want to be bothered
with facts.
They have gone so far as to tell a room full of people at a public hearing
that their proposed road that would be 1.4 miles long and five lanes wide
would not increase the flooding problem that already exists downstream.
About half of the proposed read lies directly in the flood plain .... not
exactly what I would consider good planning.
Again, I do appreciate your efforts to protect our community from the
people at D.O.T. who apparently have a hidden agenda.
2213 EDGEWOOD AVENUE BUIRLINGTON, NG 27215 PHONE [phone]

JAMES B. HUNT, JR,
GOVERNOR
The Honorable Joseph P. Barbour
Mayor, City of Burlington
2213 Edgewood Avenue
Burlington, North Carolina 27215
Dear Mayor Barbour:
June 5, 1995
Subject: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed O'Neal-Rockwood
Connector, Alamance County, TIP No. U-2802
K. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
This is in response to your recent letter concerning the Department of Administration, State
Clearinghouse comments on the Environmental Assessment for the proposed O'Neal-
Rockwood Connector.
Let me assure you the comments received from the State Clearinghouse will be given a
thorough review. As part of the review process, I have requested the Department of
Environmental, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR) meet with the Planning and
Environmental Branch. The purpose of this meeting is to review the comments and discuss
any deficiencies perceived by DEHNR.
The State Environmental Policy Act permits a State Agency to adopt or reject the
Clearinghouse recommendation. Although DEHNR has questioned the adequacy of the
Environmental Assessment, the analysis as presented in the document was developed by a
private engineering firm which utilized professionals with multi-disciplinary training.
I am not aware of any major errors or omissions in the Environmental Assessment. I
anticipate we can resolve any perceived deficiencies in our meeting with DEHNR and will
proceed with completion `of a Finding of No Significant Impact.
dd AAil??
q"
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
i*i

The Honorable Joseph P. Barbour
June 5, 1995
Page 2
If I can provide you with any further information, please let me know.
Sincere ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/lh
cc: Larry R. Goode, Ph.D., P.E., State Highway Administrator
Calvin W. Leggett, P.E., Director of Planning and Programming
W. H. Webb, III, P.E., Manager, Program Development Branch
i A -w
an
P
"O S
to move f6nvardl
vent ro ad proi ect,
0 Burlington residents lose their battle to halt construction of a 6
group g
front of Burlington. City
Hall late Tuesday night
was boiling with anger.
Moments earlier, City
Council had approved a
contract with the state to
build a new road through a
west Burlington neighbor-
hood.
The nearly 2,000 signa-
tures of people opposing
• the road, the frantic calls
to Raleigh to cancel the
project, the marathon pub-
lic hearings on the matter
had all, been in vain.
controversial road.
BY DAMES 'IHORNER Powell. During and after
Staff Writer m I don't see the council meeting in
how City which the road was en
BURLINGTON - The Council could dorsed, residents talked of
that athered in lawsuits and plotted re-
fly in the face venge at the ballot box
of what I eon- next November. ^
(
)
sider irrefut- During one of the most _71
able and heated moments, after it
OQ
was clear council was
clearly iden- leaning toward approving
tifiable envi- the road, one resident
ental asked councilman David
ronM Maynard how he could
problems. m show his face in church
and answer to his maker.
Ed Powell, The snub brought the.
Burlington normally tranquil May-
property owner nard to his feet.
The city would build the O'Neil
Rockwood Connector, a 1.4-mile
thoroughfare connecting South
Church and Front streets.
You re no fudge, he
shouted back with a finger thrust
forward. "You don't judge me."
. Mayor Joe Barbour stood alone
on council in opposing the road.
The connector was one of the is-
sues that swept him into office
"I had been prayerfully hopeful," nearly two years ago.
said Ed Powell, through whose Barbour announced to the crowd
property the road will slice. "I his refusal to sign the contract with
don't see how City Council could the state, the mayor's signature be-
fly in the face of what I consider ing customary in such a case.
irrefutable and clearly identifiable "If one of them wants to sign the
environmental problems." I
Others were less genteel than Please see ROAD, Page G2

lane avenue with bicycle paths and
as city officials had
idewalks "It's progress," resident fog
Boyd said to snickers. "I refuse'-to
,
ROAD, s
promised, or a five-lane highway
congested with belching 18-wheel- believe the city council has ndtt!; _,,
done all it should have done to loWf.
Continued from page GI
ers.
damn thing they can sign it," he According to the road plans, the into this properly."

.
'
Council members David Hid,
said of his colleagues on council. street will begin as a two-laner,
ht-of-way to al-
fficient ri
ith
d man and Carolyn Ansbachern-,.
road supporters - assured toe
g
su
w
The concerns about the roa
were many: Would it blemish the low expansion to four or five lanes crowd the state Department::-o.__..
t
neighborhood and depress prop- if warranted by traffic in Alamance o
Transportation was powerless -
widen the road without the em--v
erty .!dues? Would its closeness to county.
Turrentine Middle School threaten Council members told the crowd dorsement of the localities. ?.^
-
students? Would it increase water the road was essential to reduce
t ,
One man sitting in the front row
summed up the majority opinio"f
s,
runoff, encourage flooding or oth- traffic strain on other city stree
ise harm the environment? ' and indeed a small minority of the crowd in reference to trusting `=
"
erw
But the biggest question was residents at the meeting stood up to Do we really.
Raleigh bureaucrats.
look stupid?" he asked.
whether the road would be a two- support the plan: y
r

Excerpts from "Wetlands" published by National Research Council, 1995s
"Functions of wetlands often have effects beyond the wetland boundary.
For example, wetlands store surface water, and the effect of this
function downstream is a reduction in flood peak." ( page 26 )
"Peak flow in a stream leaving a watershed is directly related to the
total amount of wetland in the watershed or to the amount of wetland
in headwater reaches. The relationship of peak flow and wetland area
may be nonlinear, however, in the sense that progressive loss of wet-
land may have an escalating influence on flood peaks." (page 33)
"When wetlands are removed, their collective functions are likely to
decrease faster than the rate of reduction in surface area." (page 35)
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Re-
search Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report
were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report
Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engi-
neering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their
use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy
has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Al-
bens is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of
Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the se-
lection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal
government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national
needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M.
White is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services
of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the
public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional
charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care,
research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences In 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of Rutheriing knowledge and advising the
federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has
become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities.
The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr.
Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Agreement No. CX-
821125-01-0 and the U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service under Agreement
No. SCD-68.3475-3-161.
The Director, Grants Administration Division, has approved a deviation from 40 CFR 30.518 of EPA's Assis-
tance Regulations. This approval permits a waiver of EPA's peer review process and submission of the draft final
report. The recipient agrees that the following disclaimer will be added to all documents published under this proj-
ect.
Fi
• ,1
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett. Secretary
May 16, 1995
Mr. Whitmel Webb
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Webb:
RE: SCH File #95-E-4220-0653; Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
O'Neal-Rockwood Connector from O'Neal Street to Rockwood Avenue;
TIP #U-2802
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed through
the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina
Environmenal Policy Act. `
Attached to this letter are, comments made by the Department off
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. (QX.M ).- is.tha"Course of this.
revieri It has been requested by DZMM that its concerns be adequately
addressed prior to their recurrence with a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) documont.
Therefore, pursuant toll NCAC 25 .0506(c)(1) this office recommends that
supplemental environrntal.assessment documentation addressing the
concerns of 01315M be submitted to the Clearinhouso for review and comment
by that department prior to the submission of the FONSI. I
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
attachment
cc: Region G
Melba McGee, DEHNR
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603.8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Couner 51-01-00 C
M Equal opporturncv 0 Aifumanve Action Empk„ec
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Bill Flournoy
LV.W
F= F=1
SUBJECT: EA, O'Neal- Rockwood Connector (SCH # 95-0653)
DATE: May 15, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has reviewed the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed O'Neal-Rockwood Connector in
Burlington. The proposed connector has been on the local Thoroughfare Plan for more
than three decades and part of the necessary right-0f-way has been accumulated by
the city of Burlington. Surrounding development over the years has limited alternate
alignments for the proposed connector. Such conditions, rrwi v l !Melee!, do noEt?du
the responsibility for environmental documentation to completely sMd 1
alternatives and their potm %," imPa &L These and the aiisciiicoe ?lai?oni
divisions of this departrc?artt address a number of dleftlencies Imt o FAvhM render it
an unsuitable foundation for a FONSI decision. r
The fact *0 a prapt?esR he* bewan em l'ttorou?fars11W ? Y"M does
not autprMicail? j<,etly 1t?ir iitli only vmdSe altam The connector is described in
the EA as being part of a proposed inner loop corridor with a functional classification of
Urban Minor Arterial. It is unlikely that this is the role proposed in the 1962
Thoroughfare Plan, but the EA did not describe how the role and character of the
proposed corridor has evolved as Burlington's growth has overtaken the rural
landscape existing at that time. The EA suggests, but never establishes that the role
of the corridor has changed and remains necessary as an intrigal part of the overall
Thoroughfare Plan. This should have been an explicit conceptual step in the EA.
Also not established by the EA is identification of the proposed facility that has taken
over the role originally proposed for the corridor in 1962.
For all practical purposes the EA offers only two alternatives: no build and build as
proposed. Postponement of the Proposed Project' is not an alternative, it is a
variation in timing. Other alternatives might include a two-lane only corridor without
sufficient dght-of-way for additional lanes, improvertme nts to other eras fv sus to
accommodate needed capacity in the surrounding area, and there wo probably ott'ws.
The two aitematives provided for review in the EA do not sutfidw* CMW- -- a IV ED
opportunities or the issues.
MAY 15 1995
P. O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Eaua opporturrty Atfrmctive Action EmpiovM 50s recvciowlo%pow-corvum ATE CLEARIMGHOIl
The.. ?ng in that it does not have a diecras discussion of the etedi ? such information can be found at at it appears to be
spread a[aaQil . chapters. This makes review of the EA diffc utt because it is
impossible to determining the basis for conclusions.
The discussion of Social impacts/Land Use is particularly deficient for a growth
inducing project, such as this uncontrolled access connector road on new condor
location. There was no indication of how much raw land would be opened for
development, how much development would be expected to occur, how much traffic the
new development might generate, or whether existing urban infrasbucture/services will
support such new growth demands. The EA needs to comprehensively address related
land use issues.
The discussion of Social Impacts/Neighborhood Impacts is disproportionately weighted
to the driver's perspsctimm. While it is true that the connector will be integrated into the
exisWV str eet system and not sever existing roads or traffic patterns, that dome rout
moon that nei?tborttoods will not be disrupted. N60001 cod aohn n is rrMWM- .1
auto mobility and a full range of cause and erred relationships have not beers eplcred.
There was no doamientation as to existing pedestrians routrrs acrou the uc>IsYadop?d J'
corridor, how muds further pedestrians might have to vak to aces the propo tfad
locations"' or how much further pedestrians vAN woik before t am
at apfxopnate
inconvenienced or discouraged from walking. Also, V i M was no d 0 actertratiorf OF'- r
the number or aged pedestrians using the undeveloped corridor or expected t use
the proposed =!A O Mr to support conclusions. LWAwise, there in no dwcussw of
the importance of the open space to the MXrQU nd ft community; or ft impacts of its
loss to road cc -lVUCdM and ua& The EA does not provide sufficient perspective or
factual infor, odo i before it closes discussion d impede.
The discussion of Social 11,pw lPublic Facilities and Services is too narrowty written.
It does not even IdarrD MeCOW-M such items as sswsrIines. waterline, 911111111111111ines, f
powerlines, and talapMu Unes that must be integrated with the proposed connector.
Likewise it does not note whether police, firs, and EMS response times are likely to be
reduced. The EA cleoriy dose not take a comprehensive look at this topic. f
The discussion of Economic Impacts offers conclusions, with no supporting evidence
for the proposed connector's effects on regional and local economies. Unmentioned
was the site specific effects on property values, with some properties gaining value and
some losing, and whether the result was a net increase. The EA has not thoroughly
investigated this issue and needs to consider both intrinsic as well as traditional
commodity values.
The discussion of Environmental ImpactsiFlood Hazard Evaluation Mftibtis as that
necessary ffoodw,r (map) rrrodifications will be coordinated with FEIN" and deferred
details to the design phase Of the Project- This approach limits the undsrstandrq of
potential impacts and appropriate mitigation. It is not Itnown wha tm the proposed
cot V -21w vAll desert flooding to other locations or increase acreages subject to
flooding. further, while the EA has lengthy discussion about Relocation of Families
and Businesses, it does not have any discussion about the process for compensating
landowners for any loss of private property value as a results of displaced or increased
flooding. Coordination with FEMA is a regulatory requirement, but it is neither
mitigation nor compensation for flood hazard impacts. The EA should recognize this
distinction and include an appropriate response.
Throughout the EA conclusions were offered in the absence of analysis which was
neither included, summarized, nor referenced. Analysis is the heart of the
environmental assessment process, and independent review of the proposed activity
cannot be accomplished without sufficient, scientifically accurate documentation. The
EA needs particular attention in this area.
Severe! topics required in all environmental documentation were not obvious in this EA.
Cumulative impacts, the relationship between local short-term uses of man's! _.
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term prodtx bvityrAvd any
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involvgd.in the f
proposed action are three such examples. These are typically the big-picture issues
that accommodate presentation of overall conclusions in the EA.
There have also been indications that other significant issues may hive base}; . '
from the EA. Svmn relocations were not addressed, even t ojo the USF?VIf3 and
NCWRC made specific scoping requests for such intiOMM lion, and the DEM of this
department spec ificall asked for documentation of mitigatabie vMetlarrd IossN This is
a sermirbve and significant topic that deserves to be introduced, anaitra111114 ant mdigated
as appropriate through tM EA process. Its omission, if it is to be part of the proposed
projscx, further weakens an already weak EA. '
The proceeding cornrrwrns and those that follow from divisions of this '--
identify considerable procedural' and substantive da?ticsenaes in the Eu4. T him i
department recommends that a Supplemental EA be developed to resolve these
weaknesses and provide an appropriate foundation for deasionmalcers. The
opportunity to review the EA is appreciated and we look forward to working with the
NCOOT as this project proposal develops.
BF:jr
Attachment -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
14
games S. i Jr., governor E H N R
.:onaman S. yowes. Secretory p A. Preston Howard, ;r., ?.c., Director
May 12, 1995
r'.J. r l
=rorrl: Eric Calamb4
Subject: EA for O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
Qiamance County
State P--leect OCT No. 9.8070179, TIP # U-2802
EHNS # 95-0653. OEM # 10888
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
.:uaiity Ce -ificetion tor activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
le subject project may impact 2.3 acres of waters including wetlands. The following
cormsnts are based on the EA review:
A! OEM =ended a pre-construction meeting with DOT in Graham, NO on May 4,
1995. During that meeting, DEM was informed that a segment of Little
Aiamance Creak will be relocated (site 3). OEM requests that DOT install
noulders in ?>^e ,tream at site 3 to force meanders in the flow. Little Alamance
Creak at site .5 :vili be straightened and placed in a culvert. Can an energy.
dissicator or other measure be installed at site 5 to reduce the water velocities
.and tnereoy protect the stream banks and reduce the extra flooding
downstream in the city park? DOT should revegetate the stream banks. The
document does not rs1lect any stream relocations. We assume that DOT plans
to uti:ize their stream relocation guidelines; this should be explicit.
?) The C'.:y park downstream of the project is experiencing flooding. The park
was i:::iit in a floodplain and is expected to flood. However DOT will be
removing upstream water storage capabilities when the wetlands are filled
which should result in more downstream flooding (especially by filling site 5).
Mays Laze is upstream of the park and site S. The loss of water storage by
Pilling watiands at site 3 (above Mays Lake) may result in hydraulic stress to the
dam. 'e-n the dam str aurally handle the additional flow? Site 5 is providing
sign!1cant flood storage and is the largest area (0.90 acres that will be
innatec_ed. Now wilt DOT replace this lost wetland function? Curb and ggutter
will probably increase the flooding downstream. OEM requests.that OOT
inctude a flood mitigation plan in the follow-up document.
P.C R."YX %JS35. rtd0i._;t. North Gaotina 276264535 teiephon* 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
on c..: ^CC^^?..-Oy AfAt e+ve ACtfCM C"Ctoyof 5C%reCYCNXV 10l. QW-CCeMUTW Pap«
,a

!!r
f North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E,
512 N. Salisbury Street. Raleigh. North Carolina 27604-1188.919-733-3391
Charier R. Fultwood, Executive Directrn
en MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
fb. office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
C. -L
FROM: Franklin T. McBri de. wager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 12.1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the O'Neal-Rockwood Connecter, from O'Neal Street to
Rockwood Avenue in Burlington, Ala=wce County, North Carotins. TIP No.
U-2802, SCH Project No. 95-0653.
Staff biologists with the N. C. WIddlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fist? and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as
amended; 1 NCAC 25).
NCDOT proposes to construct a roadway on new location from O'Neal Street to Rockwood
Avenue in Burlington. The connector will be a two-lane curb and gutter facility in multi-lane
right-of-way. The ultimate section will be a four-lane divided or five-lane curb and gutter
facility. The project length is approximately 1.4 miles. Wetland and wam impacts will occur
at five locati mIft a wW-Fmpact of 23 acres.
The EA provided adequate information regarding impacts to plant and animal communities
along the proposed project However, after rcvieWW6 ptilimbwY desWI plans it 8996M some
wearer cbamted do=um wilt be required. This was not described in the EA.. The stream
chaanal modifications will be required at the crossings of Link Alarnsnce Crock and a trib=y.
Little Alan== Crock has been highly degraded by umvgulstsd Amaze Un and polludon from
surtymdin- devcduptrcet. Downsaven of the projem the stream frequently floo& and is
experienainf conside<abie berme scouring.
vCWRC , HCP _-KE i 3i9-523-3:39 Mau .5 ?3 ` _ i= = . :
Memorandum 2 May 12, 1995
We hd this the removal of flood storage volume and increased flow velocities as a resulting
from mort lSSp meable vurfacea, channel straightening, and stream bank hardening will only
compound these problems. The EA should be revised to inclu e a discussion of the scram
charmel modifications6 the meawres that will be employed to reduce wiw velocities, maintain
flood storage volumes, and reduce the need for extensive placement of rip-rap.
In general, relocated stream segments should be similar to the originalthannel in gradient.
morphology, and substrute. Strcambanks should be stabilized with vegetation or a combination
of vegetation and structure. A vegetated buffer of no less than 50 feet should be maintained
between the highway and parallel stream sepwmts. Box cnivcrts should be designed to allow for
small game passage. Flm# sump lost ae a monk of roadway consavction should be replaced.
At this time we cannot cower with the EA fort IW3 pro* however, we coald eoti ur if the
EA were revised to include the afur®etationed ital. We 1+ttoo?m?end tint the NCDq-
hydraulics staff meet wi1(t to tesoasoe q PO" ee dhCMIIWAaoeal relocation art tdw elects
of reduced flood stomp an this stream system. 1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further
assistance please call me at [phone]. _
cc: Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Randy W ikon, NO/ES ?rop= Manager
Carolina Biological Supply Company
PHONE [phone]
2700 YORK ROAD
BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27215-3398
U N I T E D S T A T L S OF A M E R I C A
June 9, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626
Dear Mr. Galamb:
FACSIMILE 910 584-3399
REC,IV?D
ato
61VVN01V4f S 1_99c
?C?S
Re: EA for O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
Alamance County
State Project DOT No. 9.8070179, TIP # U-2802
EHNR # 95-0653. DEM # 10888
My wife and children and I are encouraged by your careful
analysis of the Environmental Assessment for this project. We
own land which is in the path of the proposed road.
Flooding is a serious problem already in this part of
Burlington. The NCDOT tells us this major thoroughfare will not
increase the flooding.
I urge that a high quality Environmental Impact Statement be
prepared for this project before it is too late.
I am told by a number of people that 401 Certification is
critically important in a project of this nature.
A FONSI for this project would be a tragic mistake.
Please keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
CAROLINA BIO AL PPLY COMPANY
Thomas E. Powell, III, M.D.
Chairman
TEPIII:vm
Serving education since 1.927
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Engineering
Planning
and
Environmental
Consultants
Memorandum
V
To: Attendees
From: Larry Meisner
Date: June 14, 1995
Response Date: n/a
Subject: O'Neal-Rockwood Connector, U-2802
Interagency Meeting June 13, 1994
N D T
Frank Vick, Planning & Envr.
Richard Davis, Planning & Envr.
Jay Bissett, Planning & Envr.
Joe Westbrook, Planning & Envr.
Jerry Dudeck, Statewide Planning
Jerry Hayes, Statewide Planning
Kimley--Horn and Associates. Inc.
Tom Goodwin, Project Manager
Larry Meisner, Environmental Mgr
J RE0Fi11?o
??`,R?"MFNr 6199s
a^ , A4SG,/??CFS
Department of Environment.
Health and Natural Resources
Bill Flournoy
Melba McGee
David Foster
John Dorney, DEM
Evan Henkin, DEM
David Cox, NCWRC
Patton. Bogga
Tom Pooley
The purpose of the meeting was to review the comments on the Environmental
Assessments received from DEHNR and other agencies. Mr. Pooley, who is
an attorney representing a citizens group, sat in on the meeting. Frank Vick
moderated the meeting.
Jerry Dudeck reviewed the history and background of the proposed project,
noting that it is needed to serve circumferential traffic, particularly north-south
traffic movements. While the project was first included in the 1957 Burlington
thoroughfare plan, it remained on the plan through at least two major updates
of the plan. While the type of road has changed somewhat over the years, the
need for a loop system has continued throughout the last 30 years. There has
ll?een continuous involvement with local government in developing plans and
¦
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Interagency Meeting, June 14, 1995, Page 2
setting priorities in Burlington. This information will be included in the next
environmental document for the project.
The consideration of various alternatives was discussed next. Larry Meisner
described the cross-section alternatives and also the consideration of widening
existing streets, including Engleman Avenue and Tarleton Streets. The
widening of these streets was rejected due to the residential nature of the
streets. The initial typical section of the roadway was discussed and it was
noted that it had been approved by the Burlington City Council after detailed
evaluation of a large number of alternatives. There had been some confusion
regarding the words "one alternate" on page 14 of the Environmental
Assessment -- it refers to the preferred alternate. Further discussion in the final
environmental document will describe the alternatives not considered
reasonable or feasible, and the issue of local versus through traffic projected to
use the connector.
Bill Flournoy requested additional discussion of zoning, land use planning, and
secondary impacts, specifically, undeveloped land that would be opened for
development. It was noted that the land in the vicinity of the connector is
zoned residential, and that it could be developed with or without the connector
in place. These items will be addressed, as will the future land use data used in
projecting future traffic volumes.
Bill Flournoy had also expressed concern with the impact of the facility on
neighborhoods and pedestrians. Larry Meisner explained why the project will
not divide neighborhoods or impact community cohesion, and pointed out that
it will include a sidewalk and provision for crossing at intersections. There is
no public walkway in the area now, and all access must cross private property.
A median is planned to minimize visual intrusion. These factors will be
discussed in the final environmental document. Tom Goodwin noted, in
response to Mr. Pooley's question, that the design of the intersection with
Edgewood Avenue had been modified to shorten pedestrian crossing distance.
There was little discussion in the Environmental Assessment of impact on
utilities. There will be some minor impact on utilities: some manholes will
require adjustment and one power pole and one fire hydrant will be relocated.
The project will improve emergency response time. These items and some
additional discussion of economic impacts will be addressed in the final
environmental document.
A major concern of the agencies was flood hazard evaluation. Tom Goodwin
described the early background of the design of this project, specifically
alignment shifts to minimize impact to floodplains. Detailed flood studies have
been performed for this project, which show an increase in elevation of 0.8 feet
from the proposed culvert to the existing dam. He noted that the existing
flooding problem at the city park is downstream of the proposed project, and is
may be caused by an undersized existing relocated stream channel. This project
will not affect the downstream flooding. The culvert for this project satisfies
Kimley-Horn
? and Associates, Inc.
Interagency Meeting, June 14, 1995, Page 3
all FEMA requirements. John Dorney noted that it would be helpful to include
some of the flood study analyses and acreages in the final environmental
document.
The other major area of controversy involved stream relocation and
channelization. The plans for Site 3 have been modified to address agency
concerns by omitting riprap in the stream bed, vegetating the banks, and
inserting boulders in the stream bed. Additional riprap will be placed in Site 5
to slow stream velocity. NCDOT stream relocation guidelines will be
followed. All wetland permits will fall under the Nationwide category.
Minknization has been accomplished through alignment shifts a-id use of steep
(2:1) slopes. Larry Meisner noted that the original document was prepared
using the 1989 wetland delineation manual; revised acreages using the current
(1987) manual will be shown in the final environmental document.
Cumulative impacts were discussed at some length. The final environmental
document will address this issue.
Larry Meisner noted that one of the letters had requested addressing the
existing dam at Mays Lake. Information regarding the dam can be obtained
from Jim Simons at the Division of Land Quality, 733-4574 or 733-3833.
It was agreed by the attendees that the questions and issues raised in the
comment letters had been satisfactorily addressed in the meeting and should be
documented in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

State of North Carolina ILFWA
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 A*?)?iM
Division of Environmental Management
00=% 000%
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 12, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
Alamance County
State Project DOT No. 9.8070179, TIP # U-2802
EHNR # 95-0653, DEM # 10888
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 2.3 acres of waters including wetlands. The following
comments are based on the EA review:
A) DEM attended a pre-construction meeting with DOT in Graham, NC on May 4,
1995. During that meeting, DEM was informed that a segment of Little
Alamance Creek will be relocated (site 3). DEM requests that DOT install
boulders in the stream at site 3 to force meanders in the flow. Little Alamance
Creek at site 5 will be straightened and placed in a culvert. Can an energy
dissipator or other measure be installed at site 5 to reduce the water velocities
and thereby protect the stream banks and reduce the extra flooding
downstream in the city park? DOT should revegetate the stream banks. The
document does not reflect any stream relocations. We assume that DOT plans
to utilize their stream relocation guidelines; this should be explicit.
B) The City park downstream of the project is experiencing flooding. The park
was built in a floodplain and is expected to flood. However DOT will be
removing upstream water storage capabilities when the wetlands are filled
which should result in more downstream flooding (especially by filling site 5).
Mays Lake is upstream of the park and site 5. The loss of water storage by
filling wetlands at site 3 (above Mays Lake) may result in hydraulic stress to the
dam. Can the dam structurally handle the additional flow? Site 5 is providing
significant flood storage and is the largest area (0.90 acres that will be
impacted. How will DOT replace this lost wetland function? Curb and gutter
will probably increase the flooding downstream. DEM requests that DOT
include a flood mitigation plan in the follow-up document.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee Memo
May 12, 1995
Page 2
C) DOT states on page 14, "One alternative was chosen for study that was
planned to tie into existing development, while avoiding and minimizing wetland
impacts and avoiding adjacent residential development." DEM could not locate
a discussion of this alternative in the EA. Stream relocation was not discussed
in the document and, therefore, the EA is deficient. In addition, the public has
presented an alternative to DOT. A discussion of these two alternatives is not
included in the document. DEM requests that a complete discussion of the
alternative alluded to on page 14 and the public's alternative be submitted to
DEM prior to a follow-up document. We assume that DOT has the information
that the public has submitted to DOT. DOT can obtain a copy of the public's
alternative from DEM, if needed. There is a high probability that DEM will
object to a FONSI because the EA at this point does not support a FONSI
since the alternatives analysis is not satisfactory.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Raleigh COE
Monica Swihart
o'neal.ea
IMPORTANT
To
Date Time
I WHILE YOU WEE OUT
M
of ?Vl
Phone _
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message S
i
x
Signed
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
v D.f..ro.l nn Flcrvrlorl Pannr
O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
O'Neal Street to Rockwood Avenue
Alamance County
State Project No. 9.8070179
TIP No. U-2802
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
L
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
,j Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation

O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
O'Neal Street to Rockwood Avenue
Alamance County
State Project No. 9.8070179
TIP No. U-2802

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
t

Documentation Prepared By:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

1
IeatILrrrrrI"

e? CA R Q ooOo
OW 14,
'7 i
s a
E/ A
• / Y435 '
'elk
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
1 ?
James A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit H r
Consulting Engineering Unit
s
oseph estbrook
Project Manager

SUMMARY
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment.
2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following person can be contacted for additional information concerning this action:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]

1

3. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are anticipated to be required under the provisions
of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. A Section 401
Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management will
be required.
4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
The project area is located in the city limits of Burlington in Alamance County. The northern
terminus is Rockwood Avenue south of Front Street (SR 1323) and the southern terminus is O'Neal
Street north of Church Street (US 70). Most of the project area is vacant and zoned residential.

The project area contains several environmental features including May's Lake and Little Alamance
Creek. Also included in the project area are the Turrentine Middle School and the Memorial
Hospital of Alamance County.
5. PROPOSED PROJECT
NCDOT proposes to build a roadway from Rockwood Avenue at Front Street to O'Neal Street at
Church Street in the City of Burlington. The proposed project is referred to as the O'Neal-Rockwood
Connector. The connector will be constructed as a two-lane divided roadway, with provision for
S-1
? 6
1
1

ultimate widening to four lanes. The length of the project is approximately 1.4 miles. The estimated
construction cost of the project in the 1995-2001 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program is
$1,500,000.
SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Construction of the proposed project will help meet traffic needs and fulfill the goals of the 1990
Alamance County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. The project will serve as part of an inner loop
encircling the City of Burlington. The completed project is expected to reduce traffic on parallel
local streets currently used to make cross-town trips.
Adverse impacts from the proposed project include the relocation of one house. No businesses will
be relocated and no neighborhoods will be divided by the roadway. The project will involve taking
10.2 acres of wooded natural habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department
of the Interior has no record of threatened or endangered animal or plant species in the project area.
Additionally, approximately 2.3 acres of wetlands and 3.5 acres of floodplain will be affected by the
project. Coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be necessary for two
floodway modifications.
Based on projected traffic volumes and the location of noise receptors away from the centerline of
the proposed project, noise abatement measures are not anticipated. Likewise, the volume of traffic
projected to use the proposed project are not sufficient to generate the emissions to exceed the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Floodway modifications will be coordinated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Consideration will be given to providing landscaping to mitigate adverse visual impacts
of the project. Wetlands will be redesignated using the 1987 manual or other guidelines in effect
at that time.
S-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ene
I SUMMARY .......................................................................S-1
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..............................................
A. General Description
..... .
B. .......................................... ....
Project Status ..... .
C. Characteristics of Existing Facility .........................................
1. Typical Section Description
:::::::::::::::::::: : :::: : :::::::::::::
2. Right-of-Way
3. Speed Limit .....................................................
4. Access Control ...............
...................................
5. Degree of Roadside Development
6. Intersection Treatment ............................................
D.
E. Traffic Volumes and Level-of-Service ............ . ................. . ...... .
Benefits to the State, Region, and Community

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................
A. General Description .....................................................
B. Summary of the Proposed Project ..........................................
1. Typical Section Description ........................................
2. Right-of-Way ...................................................
3. Bikeways/Sidewalks ..............................................
4. Proposed Design Speed ...........................................
5. Access Control ..................................................
6. Intersection Treatment ............................................
7. Drainage Structures ..............................................
8. Permits Required ................................................
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5

III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................... 6
A. No Build Alternative .................................................... 6
B. Postponement of the Proposed Project ...................................... 6
C. Other Alternatives ...................................................... 6
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...........................
A. Social Impacts .........................................................
1. Land Use .......................................................
2. Historic Sites ....................................................
3. Neighborhood Impacts ............................................
4. Relocation of Families and Businesses ...............................
5. Public Facilities and Services .......................................
B. Economic Impacts ......................................................
C. Environmental Impacts ..................................................
1. Vegetation and Wildlife ...........................................
2. Natural Systems and Threatened and Endangered Species ...............
3. Wetlands ......................................................
7
7
7
7
9
9
9
11
12

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4. Water Quality .................................................. 14
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation ......................................... 16
6. Farmlands ..................................................... 16
7. Traffic Noise Analysis ........................................... 16
8. Air Quality .................................................... 19
9. Visual Impacts ................................................. 21
10. Construction Impacts ............................................ 21
V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................ 24
VI. REFERENCE .................................................................. 25
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................. 26
ii
s
LIST OF FIGURES
Following Page
Figure 1 1990 Alamance County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan 1
Figure 2 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 2
Figure 3 Project Location 4
Figure 4 Typical Sections 4
Figure 5 Affected Wetlands 12
Figure 6 Floodplain Impact 16
Figure 7 Proposed Right-of-Way 23
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Level-of-Service (LOS) Summary 3
Table 2 Habitat Acreage Affected 11
Table 3A Wetland Impact Areas 13
Table 313 Wetland Impact Areas 15
Table 4 Noise Abatement Criteria 18
iii

1 I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
This report presents the results of a study of a proposed O'Neal Street-Rockwood Avenue Connector
(see Figure 1). The study area begins at the northern terminus of O'Neal Street and ends at the
southern terminus of Rockwood Avenue, a distance of approximately 1.4 miles. This study was
prepared for the City of Burlington, in coordination with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT).

t

1

1

1
The O'Neal-Rockwood Connector is classified as a major thoroughfare in the 1990 Alamance
County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, shown in Figure 1. The facility's functional classification
is an Urban Minor Arterial. The Connector is to be constructed initially as a two-lane divided
roadway, although the Thoroughfare Plan envisions the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector as an ultimate
four-lane facility.
The proposed project, which has been in the Thoroughfare Plan since 1962, is a part of the proposed
inner loop circumscribing the City of Burlington. The City has taken the initiative in acquiring and
preserving a portion of right-of-way for this project.
B. Project Status
The proposed project is included in the 1990 Alamance County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
Approximately one-half of the required right-of-way has been purchased by the City of Burlington.
The project is listed in the 1995-2001 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as U-
2802. The TIP lists construction beginning in late fiscal year 1996.
C. Characteristics. of Existing Facility
1. Typical Section Description
O'Neal Street north of Church Street consists of 44 feet of pavement with curb and gutter on
each side. Rockwood Avenue south of Front Street consists of 48 feet of pavement with curb
and gutter'on each side.
1

%
lfo)k
CL 14
00
IV,
It -
J U)
CD W 2 2' w "..flI'
CD W
w v, $? •f ? ' ? ?} 2 f 1 IIYHSk1Vw $`?{ 1
LL a 1... = oa 7vw ay 1... .,:j 1 i11
1 Y ! / I'
i all
® _ ;,,;• t.. a 1 ? `' • ? •.
37 ?o3 114
fir dpN'wvHVa? ? ? is x ' ?
.i Iii \"'. !: • 1 ? ? •: •.
i ?. . € 1 L O?orp A f; Zr it 1 `.> ?? +
?.? ?• 9 3AY 1NOWf1Y39 ? , ? ,?, ? , ? ? ! •
?? r $ ? t ' I °` .\ it '' i APLE A f>=
ri ? . t9?N I Ob 30pN370 ' .-: -' ?1 ?+ ` ! I t1'?• a V ? ?• 1 ? i"' ?
1 s
i ,
?_ I % ' I 1, f S'?S '-•r ..F \!
I, $ n . ? \yta. j
yy _ ?? y
?-
1
.iii -... \? _ °'?y ?' • ?r /' ? / y R
v 1
- 1
zaw,
a O„? y?
V
All, j
e1 1 ' I. w
too
40
?? o
40? prt 1 a y I o? '_
' / ---?? % ?-?? - C W 1 pt ••1- ? t is 1 ? ?8
b 1 I .• .1 ?Q.? on
el 1 1. SS 1 ° 8 4 Y . ' re Cy 77,1144
.
ELON-OSSIPEE RD
AF {gyp , . ! r p\' $ ' A " bN/iJ- 'AWN '1S.
I Al fa
1 p?? 1 ? / ? ? - ? 1= ? • 111 0Q'? i . ?? y ?i ? ?' tl1
- - - - - - - .--- •-.- ?.....- 1 «r C
- E
a
c, ii' 3` ! 1 1 m
_? ] d Cam' .? ? ?
b •If 1 Ck.
t 1 li 1 ? ?
m i

2. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width for O'Neal Street and Rockwood Avenue is 80 feet.
3. Speed Limit
'
The posted speed limit on O
Neal Street and Rockwood Avenue is 35 miles per hour.
1 4. Access Control
.. There is currently no control of access on either O'Neal Street or Rockwood Avenue.
5. Degree of Roadside Development
S Single-family residential homes line Rockwood Avenue. O`Neal Street is lined with single-
family residential development as well as commercial and office development.
6. Intersection Treatment
All intersecting roads connect with O'Neal Street and Rockwood Avenue at-grade. The
intersection of ONeal Street and South Church Street is signalized. All other intersections
within the project area have stop sign control.
D. Traffic Volumes and Level-of-Service
Figure 2 shows the 1992 and 2018 ADT volumes for the major roadways in the vicinity of the
proposed project. For the design year 2018, the projected ADT volumes for the proposed ONeal-
Rockwood Connector range from a low of 22,200 VPD near Front Street to a high of 23,600 VPD
near Church Street (see Figure 2). This number assumes completion of the inner loop and reflects
the additional traffic that the Connector would attract from other congested facilities. Truck traffic
I on the Connector is estimated to be six percent of the ADT.
' A detailed analysis was performed to determine level-of-service (LOS) for the future traffic
conditions. Levels-of-service are designated with letters from A to F. LOS A represents the best
operating conditions with free flow and virtually no delay. LOS F represents the worst operating
conditions and indicates long queues of traffic tend to form and delay at intersections exceeds 60
seconds per vehicle. The results of the analysis for the year 2018 indicate a need for the proposed
inner loop to have four lanes from Webb Avenue to Church Street. Signalization will be required
at the following intersections in the design year and the LOS of these signalized intersections will
2
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
?? ,. •.... - ' ? lift _ ? ? p?.p "- - -
• \ f r. • .•" S8
-ILI
-At
tin tol
00
000,
.. '. „• , ,
tLu
r" )
M, p
ftf.
se 6,100 '? a h`•
f 10,100 (20,600) _ _ • /w`\
(26,200) - ;
___ ? ? sat
' ? j.V? ; • , , ? 13,900
(23,200)
(21,200).. -
_ • r ® 3 ?? , 6,900
`(16,600)
' FRONT ST
4,900
' (17,200) !
fl
N (22,200) '
7,200
?O AVe - ' (21,800)
MG?N
9 500 (23,600)
'(22,000)
23,400
i (59,200) i
25,600
Ego
(64,000)
5,000
?? ` • `? (18,800)

F--,"-)I 1
1
LEGEND
X,XXX 1992 ADT
(X,XXX) 2018 ADT
O'NEAL - ROCKWOOD AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FILM
CONNECTOR (ADT) 2

u

be the controlling factor along this facility: Webb Avenue, Front Street, Edgewood Avenue, and
Church Street. Each of these intersections will operate at LOS D with year 2018 traffic, with the
exception of Church Street (US 70) which will operate at LOS F. As proposed by NCDOT and
programmed in the TIP, this project is not intended to fully address those projected traffic needs.
Table 1 summarizes the projected year 2018 LOS for this section of the inner loop, including the
Connector, for each proposed signalized intersection, as well as for each roadway segment between
these intersections. The level-of- service shown in the table is based on construction of the ultimate
four-lane or five-lane section.
TABLE 1
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY
2018 LOS
Proposed Signalized at 2018 LOS Between
Intersection Intersection Intersections
Webb Avenue D
C
Front Street D
Edgewood Avenue D
Church Street F
C
C
E. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
This project enhances the safety and general welfare of Burlington residents and businesses by
providing more travel lanes and a more direct route for the flow of goods, services, and
circumferential traffic. The project is expected to reduce traffic on parallel local streets and on
radial arterials currently used to make the circumferential or cross-town trips served by the
Connector.
3

1

t

1

H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The City of Burlington, in cooperation with the NCDOT, proposes to build a connector from O`Neal
Street to Rockwood Avenue in the city of Burlington along existing and new right-of-way (see
Figures 3 and 7). The facility will be constructed as a two-lane divided roadway, with provision for
ultimate widening to four lanes. The length of the project is approximately 1.4 miles. The proposed
project is referred to as the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector.
B. Summary of the Proposed Project
1. Tvnical Section Description
The initial typical cross-section will provide two through lanes with curb and gutter on both
sides and a 27-foot median (see Figure 4). The facility eventually may be upgraded to a four-
lane divided or five-lane facility to function as a portion of the inner loop thoroughfare.
2. Right-of-Wax
The acquisition of adequate right-of-way to contain the ultimate section is proposed.
Approximately one-half of this land has already been acquired by the City of Burlington. The
right-of-way width is to be 80 feet (40 feet on each side of the proposed centerline), with
additional right-of-way at intersections, as necessary.
3. Bikeways/Sidewalks
The initial cross-section, two lanes with median, is sufficiently wide to allow for bicycle travel
on the paved roadway. Sidewalk also will be provided on the north and east side. The City of
Burlington has agreed to participate in funding for the sidewalk per NCDOT pedestrian policy
guidelines.
4. Proposed Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed roadway will be 40 miles per hour. The anticipated speed
limit is 35 miles per hour.
4
t

al 1~t t : \ ,` i ?.?- ) FRONT ST. ,iU Q '? I
WO Q%AiV, Go.
i AvF F° 9 Q n
O
75 I \ 0 -?.._ OODt.O 6 ,I ?F ?t'•?_..}_6 '/ \\\\\. ?, `\I ( 6N'
'1 110
ROC WOOD AVE. c`r`„ti' I t „z I !- I f ilI??.; I ,' jr\\\ ,s ; 04
\?? .13 c?i .1, X67• ?. I1? A,t ,I\ { I r \\•t °i
67,
V?l
1 1'Ni ?•: ,O ,611 ' i:;:.•% - -'• - I r? I ? `?'t `T`?:
..+ i'. \r `\ ``;>? ?1.``.;"? .?h.. I?. ..•/_~ OD AVE.
EDGEWO
yy''7 I .bn__>.L';' i sfi rz 6sa' IY , ?
..f
.I' • ` I' \'i?. ??? ; ?`.` ? ?/ ? yM1 ; ?. ? ? •\ .t \t. ? ''" ' ? jI, ' 6?\ 1 7 ••E\ FS°?L
' l \ 4 ?'/. \-"l .??- it i?'?• 1\?,•`
628
q e1M? u.T'
• c v.STU°[ ? 6r 1 ..- T, ? . F23- I 1 I 4 •''1 ? i l 1 ?
.??' .-\\ ?sr nf:0MI
fJ •1:G'0' f 601
'To. A\22--L
? 651 .- 11 •. ?' ,-- '__ _?J [tcviz6P' Z
624
NN-
oc[woo 6?r:•% 6N! \? r ?.-.:.`, 632, r°
__ _ ,.C.. n[wv cios ?^ !? I I i I 1 I . 1 za` lJ'
_- r' t\\\ I Ali` - Y i 1 `c" °C? I c!c II / \ I I r; 1 L,
i \ ?? -. -.. '` o cau`l `. \, , O?'•'"i?'-"1i:. \tii'.?. ? ?. : i I I f.
_ i1 \ : tea.. , ' ? ?>?:?„: ie ': I /•
T
/? 1 ' 't ,1 t - ?? \??\ .`? ` •nsTU»c T?VV' ?? _/ \ l L/ ?'. e;;:1 / /
\ i?=? r? i 6z5 czs \\ \ \ 7 ; o. - ? C•\ P ?°?rRI
i ; t 3 i! ° • '. , 6or 4a. I \ ?•.. ?L ,6^ ?..::?:, d' C? P . 66/T?.:
ws.
( I l i 612 `L ?, \ ,!G ..:.:..: , ^ t• .,6 )iM li l
I J?j
•\ d \ -C '` ! j• MAY'S LAKE - / ?%
I's . '. •- ._ _ 'A9/. `? / \. _ III • - \ `. i `f
t vao
2, C
lJbtih /I TIC, I! S°""''°"° 'i-'? •?' / 1' 1
f \\\ !.s _. --? Vl '1•- v' [(( _ ,C°F'C
t'O 111 j 'N- o n h, f _ ' ,??- ;?~t' I ,I' •1II?1? L7 \??\???? ?^ < x<??]lj '],. --? c \? ?\ *?
IS \- V,? '?II ?6k / ,( S 619 4? ? 1 \ ? 1. ??1\ ?. ?l o.
( S V s i6MwFY ?. 6+B 6 6 ? CHURCH ST. (US 70)
400 0 400 S00 \i
SCALE FEET 6. X41 f._.' 4fr14 T4M - V ?1 ?/, /O \> ?F• P,"
O'NEAL - ROCKWOOD PROJECT LOCATION FI!#RE
CONNECTOR 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A/W

40'

40'
R /W
2 S' 2'-6" 16' -6 24' f-6" 16' 2'-6` 7 S' 2'
SIDEWALK
I I t
L
I
[ r
:
mi=T-- --aimo
mmm
omommi=9
MK INITIAL SECTION
(TWO LANES)
R/w 40' 40' R/W
2' S' -6- S9' 7-6" 7 S' 2
I SIDEWALK
l l

ONE-
s• ULTIMATE SECTION - OPTION 1
MK
(FIVE LANES)
R /w 40' E 40' R /w
T w -6- 22' r-6. 17 -6 22' '-6' 2' S' 2'
SIDEWALK
I

• ?i
5
ULTIMATE SECTION - CPT10N 2
,
(FOUR LANES)
O'NEAL - ROCKWOOD TYPICAL SECTIONS a-w-
CONNECTOR LLJ

11

1

u

5. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for this project.
6. Intersection Treatment
The intersection of the Connector and Edgewood Avenue will be at-grade and is anticipated to
be signalized. Additionally, a driveway connection will be provided to Turrentine Middle
School. No other new intersections are proposed.
7. Drainage Structures
The construction of the proposed project will require the use of several culverts. The largest
structure will be a three barrel (8' x 10') box culvert at Little Alamance Creek near May's Lake.
Additionally, the project will use three pipe culverts for tributaries of Little Alamance Creek.
One pipe culvert will be located about 400 feet south of Arbor Drive; another culvert will be
located about 250 feet south of Edgewood Avenue; and the third culvert will be located about
1,200 feet north of the present terminus of O'Neal Street (near May's Lake). Culvert sizes will
be determined during the design phase and will be adequate to accommodate appropriate
hydraulic flow.
8. Permits Required
Jurisdictional wetlands were found and delineated in the proposed ONeal-Rockwood Connector
project area (see Section IV.C.3). Therefore, a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) will be required for placement of fill in wetlands associated with
construction. The 404 permit process provides protection for waters of the United States under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) and amendments. Based on the
drainage area and amount of wetlands affected, the project will likely be authorized under a
Nationwide permit 26 with pre-discharge notification. The COE will be contacted prior to
construction for a final determination of permit requirements. In addition, Section 401 water
quality certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM)
will also be required.
s
? B.

M. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
No Build Alternative
The "no build" alternative would avoid some negative impacts of the proposed project, such as the
disruption of the natural environment by the use of additional land for roadway purposes. However,
benefits of the proposed action, such as user cost savings and completing the City of Burlington
inner circumferential route would be eliminated. The long-term benefits resulting from the
construction of the proposed project -- including increased accessibility, reduced traffic on local and
collector streets, and provision of a direct route -- would more than compensate for any unavoidable
adverse impacts.
Postponement of the Proposed Project
Postponing the proposed project would delay the effects of any negative impacts, but it would also
delay the improvements to the traffic network and the resultant user benefits.
Other Alternatives
The intent of this project is to provide a connector between Rockwood Avenue and O'Neal Street
while minimizing impacts to the surrounding environment. No existing streets would serve this
purpose. Various initial sections were reviewed and presented to the public before selection of the
initial cross-section shown on Figure 4. This initial section is compatible with either of the two
ultimate sections shown. The inpacts of the two options are virtually identical.
This connector has defined termini at the two ends of ONeal Street and Rockwood Avenue. The
alignment between those termini was developed to avoid impact on residential communities while
avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts to the extent feasible. The location between
Rockwood Avenue and Edgewood Avenue is dictated largely by the developed residential areas on
either side of the alignment. In this area, the alignment crosses streams at a perpendicular angle.
South of Edgewood Avenue, the alignment is dictated by residences, May's Lake, Little Alamance
Creek, and Turrentine Middle School.
The ultimate typical section is the minimum multi-lane section that will serve projected traffic
volumes, provide for pedestrians, and provide a landscape area. The curb and gutter enables the road
to be built on a relatively narrow 80-foot right-of-way.
6

N. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Impacts
1. Land Use
The proposed project lies within the area of the draft Burlington 2000 Comprehensive Land Use
' Plan dated September 1990. The project is also included in the 1990 Alamance County Urban
Area Thoroughfare Plan. The O'Neal-Rockwood Connector is part of an inner loop encircling
central Burlington that has been included in the Burlington Area Thoroughfare Plan since 1962.
' The existing land use within and surrounding the project area is predominantly residential.
Single-family homes line the streets to the west and north of the project. Memorial Hospital of
' Alamance County and Turrentine Middle School border the eastern edge of the project area.
Memorial Hospital of Alamance County has plans to move to a new site outside the project
' study area. The land use on the southern border of the project area (around O'Neal Street) is
predominantly commercial, with some residential use. The project area itself is zoned
' residential with the exception of Memorial Hospital of Alamance County, which is zoned
restricted office institutional, and the general business district along O'Neal Street.

2. Historic Sites
' The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) conducted a review of the proposed project area
for historic sites. The investigation concluded that there are no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance within the project area which would be affected by the
project (see Section VI).

3. Neighborhood Impacts
The proposed project will do minimum harm to the social environment. No communities or
neighborhoods will be divided by the facility, and no streets will be cut off. The proposed
' project will not interfere with accessibility to goods and services nor will it disrupt social
cohesion. The Connector will be integrated into the existing transportation network and thereby
facilitate travel between communities. It will not have controlled access and may be crossed by
pedestrians at appropriate locations.

7

U

1
u

1
4. Relocation of Families and Businesses
The proposed project will require the relocation of one house, a secondary dwelling, located on
the same lot and behind the house at 1845 Edgewood Avenue. No businesses will be relocated
by the project.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available
prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
• Relocation Assistance,
• Relocation Moving Payments, and
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist
displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses
for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation.
Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation
Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500
to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law
91-646), ant the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement
site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway
for this purpose.
It is a policy of the state that no person would be displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally-
assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered
or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
8
H
? B.

1
1

1
1
1
1
relocation payment received would be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility
of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
5. Public Facilities and Services
Walter Williams High School, Turrentine Middle School, Memorial Hospital, and some
businesses are located in the vicinity of the proposed project. Officials at Turrentine Middle
School are presently reviewing options for access to the school from the Connector. A driveway
opening will be provided for a school access road. The proposed project is anticipated to
improve accessibility to these and other public facilities.
Economic Impacts
The proposed project will have little regional economic effect. However, as part of an improved
traffic network (the City of Burlington Inner Loop), it will have a positive impact on the overall
local economy. The flow of goods and services, as well as traffic flow, will be enhanced by the
proposed project. Users will benefit from reduced travel time and reduced congestion. As
previously stated, no businesses will be relocated.
Environmental Impacts
1. Vegetation and Wildlife
An on-site survey of the natural environment was conducted to determine the variety of plant
life and quality of wetlands in the study area.
The vegetational communities of the three Piedmont swamp forest wetlands identified in the
study area are dominated by yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar
s aciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), elm (Ulmus americana), and river birch (Betula
nigra) in the upper canopy. Red maple (Acer rabrum), sweetgum, and sycamore saplings with
musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana) dominate the understory. Groundcover was mostly privet
(Lig_ustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), and smilax (Smilax sp.).
The Man Dominated community is located adjacent to existing roadways and adjacent to Mays
Lake. These areas are maintained regularly by mowing and the vegetation is in a low growing
9

C

J

I

1
condition that remains in the same successional state. Species such as bermuda grass (Cvnodon
dac lon), crabgrass (Di itaria san uinalis), wild onion (Allium canadense) and other grasses
of the family Poaceae were present.
The Upland Mixed Hardwood community is dominated by a pine hardwood mix. The canopy
includes coverage by white oak ( uercus alba), black oak ( uercus velutina), sweetgum , short-
leaf pine (Pinus echinata) and scrub pine (Pinus vir ing_ imo. Longleaf pine (Pinus Palustris)
trees are present in the section adjacent to Mays Lake, but uncommon. The understory is sparse
and ominated by scattered occurrences of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), beech (Faps
grandifolia) and musclewood. Red cedar (Juniperus vir iniana) and bull bay (Man olia
grandiflora) are sparsely distributed in the shrub layer. The herbaceous layer was mostly absent
due to seasonality of field investigations. Species observed included strawberry bush
(Ego ymus americanus) and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Ivy (Hedera helix)
was also present, but uncommon. The Upland Hardwood community is similar in composition
to the Upland Mixed Hardwood community minus the presence of short-leaf pine and scrub
pine.
A small portion of an Old Field community is proposed to be impacted in the section between
Edgewood Avenue and Rockwood Drive. An early successional stand of loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), sweetgum, yellow poplar, scrub pine and red cedar comprise the canopy which does not
exceed 10 ft. Japanese honeysuckle vine (Lonicera 'a? ponica) is common and oftern intermingled
with other vegetation. Ebony spleenwort (As lenium pla , euron), a small non-flowering plant,
is a typical ground cover species.
Animal life within bottomland forest areas typically includes eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), rough green snake (Opheodrvs aestivus), northern watersnake (Nerodia sipedon),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and many species of frogs, including gray treefrogs (Hula
chrysoscelis and H. versicolor), spring peeper (Hrla crucifer) and green frog (Rana clamitans).
Mammals and birds that may be found in this forest community include beaver (Castor
canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), southeastern shrew (Sorex
Ion irostris), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red-eyed vireos (Vireo olivaceus), wood thrushes
(Hvlocichla mustelina) and Acadian flycatchers (Empidonax virescens).
10

Animal life in the upland communities includes characteristic mammals such as Virginia
' opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), silver-haired bat
(Lasionycteris noctivagensl, and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Some common
birds include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), common flicker (Colaptes auratus),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), and cardinal.
' Examination of Alamance Count
soil ma
s (Goldstein & K
r
1960) i
di
all area
t
t
d
y
p
,
as
e
n
ca
e
sm
s
of hydric Worsham soil in the project corridor. Other portions of the corridor contain mixed
alluvial soil with hydric inclusions of Worsham soil. Uplands areas of the corridor contain
predominantly Enon, Cecil, and Helena series soils.

2. Natural Systems and Threatened and Endangered Species

Construction of the proposed project will involve the taking of approximately 10.2 acres of
' habitat. This land is zoned residential, but is currently vacant and undeveloped. Table 2 shows
the breakdown of habitat by type.

TABLE 2
HABITAT ACREAGE AFFECTED
Community Type Acreage of Impact
Man Dominated 2.6
Bottomland Hardwood 2.2
Upland Mixed Hardwood 0.4
' Upland Hardwood 4.6
Old Field 0.4
Total 10.2
1 Figures are based on an 80 ft. right-of-way limit
Because of the urban setting and the small area affected, there will be no effect on timber
1 production.

11

Based on the records of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the
Interior, there are no Federally-listed or proposed endangered or threatened plant or animal
species listed for Alamance County according to Janice Nicholls of the Fish and Wildlife
Service (personal Communication 1/17/95). One Candidate species, sweet pinesap
(Monotropsis odorata), is currently listed for Alamance County. Although the study area
supports suitable habitat for sweet pinesap, no surveys were conducted. A recent check (1-25-
95) with the Natural Heritage Program files indicated that no state protected, rare or unusual
species are located in the study area or project vicinity.
3. Wetlands
Wetlands are a special class of waters of the United States. Besides their value as habitat for
plant and animal species, wetlands also control floodwaters, replenish groundwater, filter
contaminants and excess nutrients from runoff, and protect municipal water supplies. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) enforces water and wetland protection as legislated under
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Executive Order 11990 requires that
new construction in wetlands be avoided to the extent possible, and that all practical measures
be taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands.
Field reconnaissance confirmed three areas of wetlands located in floodplains of creeks
impacted by the Connector and two open water impacts located in tributaries will be impacted
by the propsed Connector. Figure 5 shows the wetland and open water locations and Table 3A
lists the impacted wetland acreage. The acres shown are those that would be included within
the proposed construction limits. Open water impacts are anticipated at Site 4 and an
intermittent stream is located at Site 2. The three jurisdictional wetlands are located at Site 1,
3, and 5 (Figure 5). All three wetland sites impact bottomland hardwood forests that are
relatively undisturbed. Wetland site descriptions are as follows:
Site 1 is dominated by the following hardwoods: yellow poplar, sweetgum, red maple, willow
oak ( uercus nigra), sycamore, and river birch (Goldstein & Associates, 1991). Tree saplings
of the canopy species comprise the shrub layer. The surface waters of a Little Alamance Creek
tributary and adjacent floodplain will be impacted at this site. During a recent field
investigation, wetland hydrology was evidenced by presence of plant debris and sediment
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a? ?`:3 t J)^'? \ ; \ i ?. / l ? D ? FRO NT ? S'fl 1?? '» U L a..? q
f
W pODL
fd *' AND AVE. - 4 Q O O 69.
\ 0 / ODDL• 6 >I 1 ..h \\ \
\' \ i ?? 11 ??' '6)6 I' ?/ , ?' Iii I li ?,] l_- a `?i l`.??I.I ?Ib .('?,`??}?- .sy'..,...O.J?'^'•?f? 1 .
?"?? ./. 'I',i.l ;'? •,M1D011 1 ?zyi;'%/6' I ?+.. X65 (- IiY) 1f5 , esz .?j?_-, IT. C]I \\, ?}.; ?„\ .':\ W f \
-_ - 1 I ?IIr-k/ I T ,ROCKWOOD
\ AVE., 1 6 h ?t I ^)' cs J„' I 1 ' Y Z
P14?5
\\\ -_- Il\I?I I S•i+" kL / /._ i, -t'I? •___-_= ? .I lJ ? IO. ? I, ? :
63 -
tt \\ I,
is .\ \ 60, i67h 2 .. '' ?.- '< .-_- 1 .• ?_?
}} 'may. ? / ? 6.2. ??'KJ eL I ` ? <??• )
1 T I`? \ S. {` J •L
i? \,f E`? .\ 1`\,J _ .•;. >i ? of ri(?__ --__.P
EDGEWOOD AV D ?t
•'? 1i-_ _ \:e? ??`, h / -JJ E.
Ii:J -`\ {F 11 ,• .fn?;Y=--`->_ i ,C''- cwbvs )
{ _. \` ` `:,\ ?4] ; ° '?•/? 6ti ??, ?,..? ( ;. } -(~ ill'i'I, ?1 '. II I •` ,\\r, ESOP T?
.LT
?= 9F. •SiVOC ,6 -/ ?) yf`\. •/ ?1 °_._. BI, ;i ' j I 'f .; ,
I 5] 1 \ /J r'I{. _.:_ a' • ___.J `J ( ,1? eLCV e26 •' I?
6.? t LCT
occw e
i `? \\ cr"?)i ? _ -( 6O 7 ? I ??J Y Q ? b)b ? I 1 ' ?\ I ? ?11 1 ?' LY
\ \\ 1' , •` '\^ 1 1 0.:: '?;C,S:;zcr.."'y'.-$;:w.::..' 1.,,.. I 1 7, I I .kzt
\ .• (.)3 5 629 \ ' ° / C.' 1 I'I
'8
\ 00- ::$ /' 80 'COP 6 61
/r ? ?•, ' `big - bog, 60 ?. ? b
Il[`/av ° ? I 1
MAY'S LAKE / f 60°?PO. / ?' 6,z1 I
bog
58]' lti`
Ic-
6 R1J 615 6`h ' ' 600/ \r \-I \?` V ?? l11
11 T 6yo
•" ? ? nsru• / `\ \ ? ,,J. `I•.19 .,?. \\ ( ` `6')^ •1,,Oi ?-?" "?\\N .?9
CUT j
?6m ?(=, i'sw...fw _ - 11\ \\ ? o _ 1. '?I, ?• \\\r ` I ?` ? -' (\\o
\ \\ 7
o ? ;?.? I f(- 0 1 n _ . \ ? _ ;?? ?.'I I •I r L' \\\ ^ `tom
ll 1 ,? ?l t 1 I ??
- I II ,Q \ -1 ?? ? 6•>G? 1.r'• 69 ??? \ `1 -, ?:\.. I. ?i 1\ ?1 j? ?
° 6 ? ° \,? `6a ?•,_. .6.0• ,\ ice- -'? __. ?y. 6-. \I J .???, i \? V 9T `• `?_.-' ,{ S O\ -.... J ' --• - ,6fa ? ? 4yp J I J? •. .,'`; \II f' _= ..
CHURCH ST. (US 70)
10 62'
400 0 400 800
h SCALE FEET 6. 9?j, I. O'N RROC CONN CT OOD AFFECTED WETLANDS ??

Ll

1

deposits. Hydric soils are found at this location.
Site 3 is dominated by a canopy of sycamore, yellow poplar, sweetgum, American elm (Ulmus
americans) and red maple. The shrub layer contains saplings of the canopy species plus
musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana). This site supports an expansive floodplain of Little
Alamance Creek. Hydric soils are located at the surface. Wetland hydrological characteristics
present include rack lines and scouring.
Site 5 is dominated by a canopy of hardwoods similar to Sites 1 and 3 with the inclusion of
beach (Fagus grandifolia). This site supports a narrow floodplain observed from the rack line
and scouring formed during a recent flood event. Hydric soils are present.
Wetlands were delineated using the methods of the Federal Interagency for Wetland Delineation
(1989), which was in effect at the time the surveys were performed. Use of the currently
accepted 1987 manual would not result in an increase in the acreage reported here and may show
a decrease. As stated in the Clean Water Act, a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is required for placing fill in these wetlands. Approximately 2.1 acres of wetlands
and 0.2 acres of open waters will be affected by the construction of the proposed project (Table
3A).
TABLE 3A
WETLAND AND OPEN WATER IMPACTS
Acres Impacted
Wetland Site Number'
Wetland/Open Water Type ?of Open Water Wetland
Location
1 Tributary to Little Alamance Creek 0.02 0.39
2 Tributary to Little Alamance Creek 0.04 -
3 Little Alamance Creek 0.03 0.88
4 Tributary to Little Alamance Creek 0.05 -
5 Little Alamance Creek 0.04 0.83
Totals 0.18 2.10
13

1

J

1

Several factors combine to influence functionality of these wetlands; first of all, the amount and kind
of disturbance nearby. All sites are relatively undisturbed, with the exception of nearby sewer lines
and adjacent residential development. Because of these minor disturbances, the wetlands impacted
still function to serve as corridors, foraging habitat and nesting areas for certain wildlife species.
Also, in undisturbed areas the soils are able to function as they would in a wetland. The hydrology
in the project vicinity has been altered somewhat. Mays Lake, a manmade water resources is located
between 3 and 4. Drainage from the lake may be different from normal and may alter flow rates
downstream. Secondly, the water quality influences the functionality. The water quality ratings (see
Water Quality description in Section 4), such as Best Usage and BMAN are fair to good. In
addition, only 1 NPDES permitter is located upstream of the project vicinity. These indicators seem
to show fair to good water quality in the project area. Taking into account the above mentioned
factors, the functionality of these wetlands appears to be good. The quality rating of the wetlands
is also good based on the fair to good water quality, the low number of NPDES permitters and the
functionality rating.
Following the guidelines of Section 404 and Executive Order 11990, avoidance and minimization
measures were implemented in choosing the project alignment. One alternate was chosen for study
that was planned to tie into existing development, while avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts
and avoiding adjacent residential development. Wetland impacts were proposed at the narrowest
point possible given adjacent development constraints.
Minimization measures utilized include reducing the project cross-section width and construction
of steep 2.1 slopes along the project corridor. Design standards that minimize losses will also be
utilized where possible during project construction.
4. Water uali1y
The project crosses Little Alamance Creek twice and three of its tributaries (Table 3A). Little
Alamance Creek carries a best usage classification of C NSW (Dept. of EHNR, 1993). the best
usage classification of C waters is defined as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) is a
supplemental classification that identifies waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
14
d66,

1 Little Alamance Creek is located in the Cape Fear River basin and drains into Big Alamance
Creek. Big Alamance Creek drains into the Haw River. No High Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Water Supply segments classified as WS-1 or WS-II
occur downstream within 1 mile of the project.

The topography in the vicinity of the project is gently to moderately rolling. Stream banks in
1 the project vicinity gradually recede from the top of the bank to the water channel. Stream
information is presented below (Table 3B). Refer to Figure 5 for location.

'
TABLE M
WETLAND AND OPEN WATER E14PACTS
Site 1 Site 2 Site °3 Site 4 Site 5

Bank-to-bank width 8-10 ft N/A 10-15 /ft 5 ft 15-20 ft
Water Depth 1-1.5 ft Dry 6-8 in 1-3 in 1-2 ft
Substrate si, sa N/A sa, si sa, co, gr, bo sa, gr, co
Clarity cloudy N/A cloudy clear cloudy
Flow rate slow intermittent slow slow-moderate moderate
Bank Characteristic gentle, 3 ft. N/A gentle, 1 ft gentle, 2 ft moderate 1-5 ft
height height height height
Disturbance sewer line, undisturbed undisturbed undisturbed undisturbed
subdivision
si = silt, sa = sand, co = cobbles, gr = gravel, bo = boulders

The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part of an ongoing ambient water
' quality monitoring program that addresses long term trends in water quality by measuring the
taxa richness and the presence of organisms intolerable to water quality changes.
Macroinvertebrates are very sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. BMAN data for the
Cape Fear River basin are currently available in draft form. BMAN data is not available for
Little Alamance Creek, but is available for Big Alamance Creek (located less than 5 miles
downstream of the project). The BMAN rating of Big Alamance Creek is Good-Fair.

15

1

171

11

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are obtained for dischargers
statewide. There is one NPDES permitter listed for Little Alamance Creek (Jason Doll, Dept.
EHNR personal communication, 1/25/95). The permitter is located approximately 2 miles
upstream of the project vicinity. No NPDES permitters are located on Little Alamance Creek
downstream of the project.
Design measures to protect water quality are similar to measures taken to protect wetlands.
Protection of water quality includes avoiding public water supplies and high quality aquatic
habitats, minimizing the number of stream crossings, and maximizing the distance between the
stream and the road. These design measures have been used in developing the proposed lw ?
alignment of the Connector. Streams should be crossed at right angles wherever possible.
jc
Construction practices should also include sedimentation control measures such as silt fences s?
OC u_.
and seeding. Best management practices should be used during all phases of construction to ,
avoid adversely impacting the water quality in or near the study area.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The City of Burlington is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
proposed roadway impacts approximately 3.5 acres of floodplains. Moreover, the proposed
project impacts two areas of floodways (see Figure 6). The necessary floodway modifications,
to be developed during the design of the project, will be coordinated with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
6. Farmlands
The acquisition of farmland will not be required for the proposed project. The project area,
which is located in the urbanized area of Burlington, does not meet the definition of farmland
as defined in 7 CFR 658. Therefore, the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act of
1984 do not apply to this project.
7. Traffic Noise Analysis
Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound. Traffic noise is composed of noises from the
vehicle's engine, exhaust, and drive train, and from the tire-roadway interaction.
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
sA .`^Y+ 11^.': \ l y i - • , .. I r.I 1 c'- I I 06.IYt, Q V/" [
FRONT ST. , » U ,. b *f o
o
WOO011L.gN r ..., ..1 .,., a + p
634
13 1 I ` - DDDIa p 6 I 1 ` 1 ` !-r''- 4 ? ^ \ ` \'. 9
\ ! 1 I `I •63B C? V C 1° CI '•< 66?• a '``•?`,J?'•'•'? 4,
??'•J` J ;/. I`_ ??.il k i -63, , YJ • !? r y.r r= = _- _ cjl \ <?: i. L`s
ROCKWOOD AVE
\` __ -. 1 - .x.:.:::.,r % :• ??? - / 1 ` _ 11 ? ? ?. ' c`
c r
111 ./63
O 605 615 # I/' ice' Ir. '- 11?
i ? ?J i4 I 1\ y 1 ? '\\? i,? c?.? t ?• r I ' r$ .t ' ? } /S ?I
. {. 63B : _ __ I _ i tr r •663
EDGEWOOD AVE. q
i V+ ?}• ,1? t i 1 1 ,' .t• \+ , ll._E5= ?"'3"_--'?_,' z- i"'.. ner"vois ?'• I• ' i ° ,
tt I •y\-- \ 1;•. ,b`0..7`? `°M1?: C,1 ,? ._ ' ?+ I iw'" it + , t t ` \ eso LI
' \k, '1:?. I6" a/,„ i., h?^is\i1. ?• .,`_? ' ' 3 1 1 1 t i?{'
ucr
R ? 37, ? r W o '? ? C-
1
1
L. C ,6 +µ / ?? i•j ... - 6 3 I I .• i ..? •I .1 . ,I •,'? ` C
J'A
.3 •j?-I I
P EC'
1: UC 6? 1• ? •" 6N\... \ \' ? . .? •' 632, I I ?" I I••t:l 10 / 1 I `\`_\'? I
_ D4Cl ,,,H. M -3x L C O ? / ? `? I I \ t ?! '
.?-_ -'1; ,Cl? 6309 \ ? / ?' / !• \ I ? /y/ YI1I ?$6•,'j7??
?• t\\'4',137 \ '' '?•,'"\•? :?ry::. 1,?' 636 i
\\ ..\ _ 625 `t ^?. ?: ?,: ??,,,`!? ? i'' ?• ?,/• It.?
\ ?... ) .. Ft O NR iy ` L.\ ` 1 6YY^'s••' a' ::.. .,., ?T`?.: _ P"o` ( I " °'."'..i _ ..'/ I
\ \\ S\` N O :?". . • \ ( _3a >>-`m`:::::?;i:.::'??...`.rle^Skny:.t?.,:. 1 `? ' /` l
\ ?i i. 1633 15 629 \ \\? .' 1... `.... /. ?/ C•. ..1
I • 1 6 .S \ C6 ` i 602 \ O I ?`-,.µ D°'•Z, / •8' \,??.• •616'•I
6.2
\ ! °-\ ! •`:... .? MAYS 1. AK£
1. T I t..? 6 I I I ;? 1
615 5 ; , : 1 se . ?,? a',\ l:; }•? C(?\'I,
// g?--16.z ? .' % ? ? ,?\? ?', _ _ ?? • ?I 1 j " ? 6 1 slDiiE- ? \ ?; ?6s ' ?
59
cD'} 1 J ? Asr°. /. \,: 1 \ ? 7 .• \x .11/ `? \\\ t (,J ? ? .l" \`?• r.
F'tM1° / /=yr. { { swa _ ,,' ,/ ' ?` ?% _' \ ?!(f I ,1: • 1\' 4 V1 '\??5' '? - ? . f•C
?,.:'? ; of ,6Nwsv.-._..-\• 6.2.. ?[ 6a6•t.r CHURCH ST. cus 70> L E G E N D
10
aoo o rt°' aoo [.1 Soo L3 6M16 Floodway Modification
\/ 117 r= Flood plain
SCALE FEET s°"? -°"- ? '- ?•= i',•
074 CONNECTOR K?D FLOODPLAIN IMPACT s

n

1

C'

The actual magnitude of sound is caused by short-duration fluctuations in atmospheric pressure.
These fluctuations are called sound pressures. Since the range of sound pressures varies greatly,
a logarithmic relationship is used to reference sound pressures to a common pressure. This
relationship is defined as the sound pressure level and is measured in decibels (dB). The decibel
is often modified by frequency-weighting curves (A, B, C, or D). These curves were designed
to approximate the loudness level sensitivity of the human ear while listening to pure tones.
Vehicle noise levels are commonly modified by the A-weighting curve. This curve correlates
very well with human response to noise, particularly in describing annoyance caused by traffic
and aircraft noise. Sound levels using the A-weighting curve are expressed in dB(A).
Sound pressure levels in this report are expressed as the hourly Leq, or equivalent sound level,
which is the level in dB(A) of constant sound that would contain the same acoustic energy in
an hour as the actual sound, which varies considerably over time. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same
energy content.
To determine if highway noise levels are compatible with various land uses, the FHWA has
developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are in accordance with Title 23 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction
Noise. A summary of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land uses is
presented in Table 4.
17

TABLE 4
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted'Sound :Level .-Decibels '(dBA)
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue
to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Pi
i
i
l
d
i
cn
c areas, recreat
on areas, p
aygroun
s, act
ve sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
' Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
' E 52(Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source:23 CFR 772 Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.

i
One factor for considering traffic noise mitigation is when future noise levels either approach
' or exceed the criteria levels for each activity category. Title 23 CFR, Section 772.11(a) states,
"In determining and abating traffic noise impacts, primary consideration is to be given to
exterior areas. Abatement will usually be necessary only where frequent human use occurs and
a lowered noise level would be of benefit." For this project, all of the identified receptors are
' residential or commercial (categories B and Q. No category A receptors were identified.
' The second factor for considering traffic noise abatement is when future noise levels constitute
a substantial increase over existing noise levels. If the existing noise level is relatively quiet,
' less than or equal to 50 dBA, a substantial increase is defined as a 15 dBA or greater increase.
If, however, the existing noise level is greater than 50 dBA, a 10 dBA or greater increase is
18

L

ij

considered substantial. Noise abatement measures are considered when there is either a
substantial increase in noise or the noise level approaches or exceeds the NAC.
The extent of the 67 dBA noise level contour is used to assess the exposure impacts of land uses
since receptors located within the 67 dBA noise level contour could be expected to experience
traffic noise levels above the FHWA NAC. Furthermore, this information is provided to assist
local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent
to the roadway and to prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses.
On this project, based on projected traffic volumes, the 67 dBA noise contour line is located 63
feet from the proposed roadway centerline. Because the noise contour line is only 23 feet
beyond the right-of-way line (40 feet from centerline), there are no receptors approaching or
exceeding FHWA NAC.
Based on the project setting and existing land use, the existing noise level at receptors near the
project is estimated to be approximately 50 dBA. Because the 67 dBA contour line extends only
23 feet beyond the proposed right-of-way, few receptors will have a substantial increase in noise
levels. The receptors likely to experience a substantial increase in noise would be the residence
located just north of Edgewood Avenue and the four residences (two on either side of the
project) located at the northern terminus along Rockwood Avenue.
Noise abatement measures are not anticipated for the project because none of the receptors are
projected to exceed the FHWA NAC, few of the receptors experience a substantial noise
increase, and the project is not full-control of access. Placing a noise barrier, for instance, along
Rockwood Avenue would lower the noise level at the residences but it would also block required
driveway access.
8. Air Quality
The "ambient air" is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "that
portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access." The
EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants:
particulate matter (PM-10), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), sulfur dioxide (SOA nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb). Primary standards were established allowing an adequate margin
19
P

I?
L

II
U

L_..'
1-1

of safety for protection of public health. Ambient air quality is determined by measuring
ambient pollutant concentrations and comparing the concentrations to the corresponding
standard.
The most prevalent pollutant emitted from motor vehicles is CO. Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For these reasons, most of the discussion
presented is concerned with expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project.
Monitoring of the pollutants, except Pb, is performed statewide by the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (NCDEM). When standards are exceeded, an area is labeled as
non-attainment for that pollutant. Alamance County is classified as attainment for all six
pollutants. The ambient one-hour background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm) by the NCDEM Air Quality Section. The NAAQS
for CO is 35.0 parts per million.
Automobiles are also sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form
ozone and nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of concern and not the
precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO
are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of
pollution control devices on new cars, thus helping to lower ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide
levels.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter
emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
cars are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality
standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, which is added
by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. New cars sold after 1975 are equipped
20
L

1

F
F1

n
1

with catalytic converters to burn unleaded gasoline, eliminating lead emissions. Also, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead
content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams
per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.01 gram per gallon. In the future,
lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content
of leaded gasoline is reduced. Accordingly, traffic on the proposed project is not expected to
cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
The projected traffic volumes for the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector are well below volumes that
would generate the level of CO necessary to exceed the NAAQS. The maximum one-hour CO
concentration at the right-of-way line will not exceed the NAAQS for one hour (35 ppm) nor
for eight hours (9 ppm). Since the results of the "worst-case" one-hour CO analysis do not
exceed the eight-hour standard, it can be concluded that the eight-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard.
9. Visual Impacts
The project area is predominantly wooded and undeveloped with gently rolling hills and small
creeks. The area is surrounded by single-family residential communities. Portions of the study
area will be visually impacted by the construction of the proposed project. The typical section
for this project was selected to allow for landscaping and screening to mitigate adverse visual
impacts.
10. Construction Impacts
Short-term construction impacts may occur in the areas of water quality, air quality, natural
resources, and noise. The potential impacts can be minimized by careful adherence to
established construction methods. These methods are described below:
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-of-way and provided
by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or unless
disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of waste or debris
in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by
the engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer,
21
L

L

it will result in excessive siltation or pollution. In addition, a large amount of waste
would decrease the anticipated life of a municipal or county landfill.
b. During construction of the proposed project, all material resulting from clearing,
grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, and disposed
of by the contractor. Any merchantable timber may be salvaged by the contractor. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Additionally, trees outside of the construction limits
should be protected from construction activities to prevent skinning tree trunks from
heavy equipment, exposing roots, smothering trees from fill dirt around the base, or
accidentally spilling petroleum.
c. Borrow pits and ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding areas
for mosquitoes.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. There will be strict adherence to the erosion control plan by the contractor, including
limiting areas and duration of exposed earth and stabilizing exposed areas as quickly as
possible. Careful attention to erosion control will be concentrated at the Little Alamance
Creek crossings.
f. Measures will be taken to alleviate the dust generated by construction when the control
of dust is necessary for the protection, safety, and comfort of motorists and nearby
residents.
g. Although the high equipment noise levels are expected to be the main contributor to
the construction activity noise emissions, noise impacts during project construction are
of short duration. Peak noise levels from highway construction equipment as measured
at a distance of 50 feet may vary from 70 dBA to 100 dBA. It is anticipated that the major
sources of construction noise will be from earth removal, hauling, grading, pile driving,
and paving. General construction noise impacts that can be expected are temporary
22
1
speech interference for passersby and those individuals working near the project. Such
noise will be limited to daylight hours as much as possible.
Coordination with the Division of Land Resources of the Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicate that no geodetic survey markers will be impacted in the project area.

F
V

1

h
i
L

23

r'
w

C7

a
f,-y
O
O
O
N
T
U.
O
c?
cc
0
w
U)
O
a
O
cc
a
cc
O
U
w
z
o"
U
O
Y
U
O
oc
i
J
Q
W
z
O

r LWU

?lGir ° v
o
N
I
i
s
V 1
Q
U-
O
I
V
cc
0
?W
C /
O
a
O
cc
Q
cc
O
U
w
z
z
O
U
O
O
O
U
O
cc
i
J
Q
W
z
b

I V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A public meeting was held on March 12, 1991, at the Burlington Municipal Building to educate and
inform the public on the scope and schedule of the proposed project, and to elicit comments from
the public. Twelve different typical cross-sections were presented at the meeting and citizens were
given the opportunity to review and comment. Fifteen people signed the attendance sheet and four
comment sheets were returned. Two of the four comment sheets were opposed to the proposed
project. The other comments were related to providing a bike path and prohibiting heavy trucks
from using the Connector. Other oral comments made during the meeting included suggestions for
constructing peripheral facilities in lieu of the proposed ONeal-Rockwood Connector.
r
A final public meeting will be conducted after approval of the Environmental Assessment by the
NCDOT and further development of the construction plans. The purpose of the meeting will be to
inform the public of the outcome of the environmental assessment and to provide details on the
construction of the ONeal-Rockwood Connector.

24

I REFERENCE
11
Goldstein, Robert I & Associates, 1991, Jurisdictional Wetlands O'Neal Rockwood Connector, Burlington,
North Carolina. Report to Kimley-Horn, Raleigh, North Carolina
Dept. of EHNR. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear
River Basin. Division of Environmental Management. Raleigh, North Carolina.

1
r

1

25
1

I VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Written comments on the proposed project were received from the following agencies. These comments are
incorporated into the environmental assessment contained in this report. A copy of the comments is included
following this page.
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Soil Conservation Service - Salisbury
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Transportation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission

26

1
1
I7
I
u

11
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199102072
May 23, 1991
Mr. Laurence J. Meisner, P.E., AICP
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
Dear Mr. iieisner:
,.4y 2 1991
F11`
Reference your letter of March 25, 1991, requesting comments on
construction of the proposed connector from O'Neal Street to Rockwood Avenue
in Burlington, Alamance County, North Carolina.
Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill
material within waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with construction of the
connector. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the project,
extent of fill work within streams and wetland areas (dimensions, fill
amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other factors.
In your letter you stated that bridges, culverts, and channelization will
impact a number of streams located within the construction corridor. You
listed the major stream as Little Alamance Creek. This connector will also
cross other unnamed tributaries to the aforementioned stream and their
adjacent wetlands, all of which are subject to Department of the Army
permitting authority.
In regards to minimizing impacts within waters and wetlands, we request
that you pursue the corridor option that will involve the least amount of
filling within these areas. In addition, we request that the roadway be
designed to take advantage of all available high ground, and when crossing a
stream or wetland is unavoidable, bridging be utilized to the maximum extent
practicable. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should be first
avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation or mitigation for
unavoidable impacts.
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of
development within waters and wetlands, you should contact Mr. John Thomas at
the Raleigh Field Office, telephone [phone], for a final determination
of the Federal permit requirements.
Sincerely,
!eWr t
ief, gulatory Branch

United States Department of the Interior
?ENT O, T
1 ¦
?
y
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
o Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
h 3'Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 30, 1991

Mr. Laurence J. Meisner, P.E., AICP
Senior Associate
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
Subject: Scoping Comments for Proposed O'Neal-Rockwood Connector in
' Burlington, Alamance County
Dear Mr. Meisner:
This responds to your letter of March 25, 1991, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts of the proposed project upon stream ecosystems and
associated wetlands within the study corridor. At least 4 stream and/or
wetland crossings are present along Little Alamance Creek or its
tributaries. Special care should be exercised in the design and
implementation of all stream crossing structures. Preference should be
given to alternative alignments, stream-crossing structures and construction
techniques that avoid or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources.
Based on our records, there are no Federally-listed or proposed endangered
or threatened plant or animal species in the project impact area.
Therefore, the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
which was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.

1

t
1
1

4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely yours, (IL `
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor

1 1 1991
B F»j'L':Y-H
UNITED STATES SOIL 530 WEST INNES STREE'P?F??E
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
AGRICULTURE SERVICE 28144
iJ J
April 11, 1991
Mr Laurence J. Meisner, P.E., AICP
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Re: State Environmental Assessment of the proposed O'Neal-
Rockwood Connector in Burlington, Alamance County
t Dear Mr. Meisner:
I looked at the proposed area on the Alamance County Soul
Survey that was published in 1960. There are some Important
Farmlands shown on the soils map. However most of the area
appears to be surrounded by urbanized areas or becoming
urbanized and within the city limits of Burlington. Please
keep in mind that I was looking at 1960 maps. The area may
not qualify for protection by the Farmland Protection Policy
Act due to urbanization and/or zoning. You will need to
check on this.

If parts of the area do meet the Farmland Preservation
Policy Act and federal money is used to fund the project, it
would require the completion of the Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating Form AD--1006.
If there are any questions, please contact Betty McQuaid at
[phone].
Sincerely,
?p .-r.- Z
W. E. Woody
Soil Resource Specialist
cc: Tom Wetmore, Jr. w/o attachment
Horace Smith w/o attachment

North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]
April 125 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Cap ivision of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section 7*11
t Subject: Intergovernmental Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
' Re: State # N.C. 91-E-0000-0717
N.C. DOT - Proposed Oneal-Rockwood Connector in
t Burlington
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 245 19903 Governor Martin signed Executive Order
123, a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.

1
k

An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer

1

I
1

r.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
April 15, 1991
Laurence J. Meisner, P.E., AICP
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
901 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27606
Re: O'Neal-Rockwood Connector, Burlington,
Alamance County, ER 91-7992, CH 91-E-0000-0717
Dear Mr. Meisner:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
\3141576
4p9 sF ,'1FC?^ 9?
Thank you for your letter of March 25, 1991, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties
of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would
be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
project as currently proposed.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,

David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc:kState Clearinghouse
B, Church

1 109 EastJones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

1

J
iL 1

.+RATjo
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary

TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee e
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 91-0717 - O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
in Burlington, Alamance County
DATE: May 2, 1991
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(EHNR) has reviewed the proposed project. The information that
was circulated for review was not sufficient to evaluate
potential environmental impacts of this project. However, our
review efforts did raise some general concerns that will need to
be adequately addressed by the applicant. More specific comments
will be provided by EHNR during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional- information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
' MM:bb
Attachments 5
c i?FtGE
oo1
?`ke
P.O. Boa 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
' so?TWln?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
r James G. Martin. Govemor May 2, 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
WII[lam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Dkector
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
FROM: Alan Clarkf Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project.No. 91-0717; State EA Scoping Request for
Proposed O'Neal-Rockwood connector in Burlington,
Alamance County -
' The subject EA will be examing possible environmental
impacts from a proposed one-mile long, multi-lane, SO--foot wide
highway section. The scoping document indicates that freshwater
wetlands may be impacted by the project. It is not noted whether
the road section will utilize curb and gutter or roadside swales.
The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality Section
' is concerned with potential impacts on water quality and
wetlands.
The prime concern from a water quality standpoint is
sedimentation from highway construction. Implementation and
conscientious maintenance of sediment control BMPs should help
minimize these impacts. However, onsite sediment control
measures are generally not better than trapping about 70 percent
of the sediment eroded at a site. The EA should discuss
sediment trapping capability of control measures and assess what
impacts, if any, will result from sediment that escapes the site.
The other area of concern is wetlands. NCDOT is. urged to
minimize wetlands impacts. DEM requests that the following
information be contained within the EA. This information will be
useful in reviewing the project from the standpoint of issuance
of a 901 water quality certification.
1. A wetlands delineation of the project area certified by
the Corps of Engineers;
2. A description of each wetland type including vegetation
(species list) and wildlife habitat value for each type;
3. A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetlands losses.
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
' be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
91-0717.mem/SEPA3
Ponudon Pmendon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina Z7611-7687 Telephone [phone]
d i,.i SfA7E o-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
April 11, 1991 \0??1? 1314?,y I??j
9A 9?D
CL_
MEMORANDUM r, 1 A p ? `d
TO: Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins bL Lc,
Staff Forester
SUBJECT: State EA Scoping for the Proposed O'Neal - Rockwood Road Connector
in Burlington in Alamance County
' PROJECT 4691-0717
DUE DATE 4-26-91
It appears that woodland will be impacted as a result of the above proposed
' road project. To better determine this impact, the consulting firm of
Kimley-Horn in preparing the Environmental Assessment, should include the
following information concerning the proposed alternative routes:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
and/or timber types such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber,
and fully stocked stands of very productive timber within the new
right-of-way purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so .as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

1 Melba McGee
PROJECT X691-0717
Page 2

5. The impact both present and future to any greenways within the area
of the proposed project.
6. With woodland involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
' 7. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits. Trees outside of construction limits need
to be protected from construction activities such as--
a. Skinning of tree trunks from heavy equipment operations.
b. Exposure and injury to feeder roots from heavy equipment
operations.
C. Placing of fill dirt around the base of trees which would have
a smothering affect which could eventually cause tree mortality.

d. Accidentally spilling of petroleum products near the base of
trees which could cause mortality.

We would hope that a route could be chosen, that would have the least
impact to fo rest and related resources in that area.
'
DHR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
John H. Allen - Alamance County Ranger
File

1

1
1
1
1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
w1111am W. Cobey. Jr.. Secretary
MEMORANDUM
°? Ana
Date: April 16, 1991
To: Melba McGee ?01,
From: Gary Thompson
ll?,?r bi uZ?2?
Subject: 91-0717, Alamance County, O'Nea - ock
Connector
Charles H. Gardner
Director
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 0 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
GWT/ajs
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 23,1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Larry T. Sink/?
SUBJECT: Proposed O'Neal-Rockwood Connector in Burlington,
Alamance County. Project No. 91-0717.
David W. Sides
Director
The consulting firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. should do
an evaluation to determine the wetland areas along the proposed
route. All means available should be taken to have the least
impact on wetlands as possible. There would be no significant
impact on prime, unique or statewide important farmlands.
LTS/tl
.. t .o
D?
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, iP Jorth Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

1
1?
'C
'C
,C
C
L?
C
1 ?
C
1
C
1 F
I E

Reviewing Office: .
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
?1-L7't1 Z?
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process
? 1me
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
it to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of days
3
00
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual :
:
days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of 'plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.

Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)
Well Construction Permit N/A 7 days
(15 days)
'Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
redge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling-
may require Easement to Fill.from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. .
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources NIA (90 days)
open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
a os material must be in compliance with 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification•and removal N/A
prior to demolition.
(90 da
s)
y
Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.)'at least 30 days before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres $ 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

90- days
20
Oil Refinin Facilities
9 N/A (NI N1A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (N/A)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
PS-105
Continued on reverse

F
E

i

Normal Proc
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (N/A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15-20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (N/A)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (60 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100. .
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
- - y -?? - f

reviewer signature agency date
? Asheville Regional Office
' 59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
REGIONAL OFFICES
CI Moorseville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
1 Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
' Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]

L_ J

1

1

1
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commis
"s?'f'?' z
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: April 11, 1991
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 91-0717: Request
for information regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for the proposed O'Neal-Rockwood
Connector in Burlington, Alamance County, North
Carolina
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr.
Laurence Meisner of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from construction of the proposed O'Neal-Rockwood
Connector in Burlington. The Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC) is concerned over direct and indirect adverse impacts
on wildlife, fisheries, and wetland resources within and
adjacent to the construction corridor.
Due to limited information in Mr. Meisner's letter of
March 25, 1991, we can express our concerns and requests for
information only in general terms. Our ability to evaluate
project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
reviewing project environmental documents will be enhanced
by inclusion of the following information:
1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the
study corridors. Potential borrow areas to be
used for project construction should be included
in the inventories.
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including
State and Federal species of special concern,
within, adjacent to, or utilizing study corridors.

1

Memo
Page 2
April 11, 1991
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all projected related areas that -ay undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
5. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
6. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with
fragmentation.
4. The need for channelizing or relocating portions
of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
' 7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.

?l

11
1

8. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
Be advised that the Wildlife Resources commission is
not likely to provide a favorable review for any alternative
which does not clearly avoid, minimize, and mitigate
destruction or degradation of wildlife and fisheries
habitat. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in
the early planning stages for this project. If we can
further assist your office, please call on us.
cc: Mr. Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist

f ZO ?
., z
m
r'
b
Lrik
8
0 0
w
a

H
' U
o ul
° -3
/ °
U ateIL
0
Z
w
U
3
cc
0r
Z
0
m
LU
Q
? Q
H
Z
:• 1 ? U
r
z
D
8
o
a w
0 0
0

0- z
a
O
Q =a ? O
U
"
0
O
w
z z o CC Z
cr ; ° i1
Z
O
o
a W U
°
CU w
O
z w
LIJ

a
r-
.a
w xc\j?
U Y

-mp

z

Z D
0
U

O
F
a
W
0 D

O
t
- z
o O
QQ ?
U)
a
I
=a
? O
f -
LL
°
o0)
O
W
Z Z LL Z °°

N, W
F- 00
U) o
Z
o
?r r d °' N

w ° ?
U
w
H' 0 - 60 U o Z w
Cn z ? I. ?

w
Q

CD N
N
W
?
vr
J 3v! NOV.S03 ?'A
M
W
F_-

Z
O
Q
U
O
J

W w ?,
U)

w
J O

Q
U O
?
N V)
I '
Co-
a

Q Q Q Q Q Q
W

x
Q
Q

o ? o
° 0 0 0 0
Q
W U
? U U U U
?
E.
.,
U C4 R: a C4
N It ? ,. X

M
o
O
H .--, ?p M N ?
N
(Sa
?' ^- N M ct v1
U
U
C)
z

z
0?
H?
t?
uH
wLL)
U) U
,
Q CO
U Q b
Q c0 +
?W
d J
cr LL.
N
O
O
2
?U
In
?z
1xzo
oar
i
r
a,
?O
w
D,

-- 1
?J
b°
o°
C;
c +
r
z
zo C 0
w
W z
a
0
aQ O
U
= U
0 O 0
° u.t
o LAC
w oo Z?
LL-
S2 z 0
0M
Lli
o Z w
w
z 0- cn
w
Q
7 U)
C d
I Q
° U
o u N
C,4 p N
J II O
O
O LL II
O 0 0
z W
d' J 0? .JJ
I 0 p u.
? z
?
Cf)
Z 0
T
W
\ Q O
W -
F-

C) Z
Z J

a 0
o
<
?- V)
W J
EL
SsFs
s
0

r
I-
z
0 0
O U
O
R

Uj
oc 0
'? ? d

0 2
o-
(n
d d
d =QUO
0
?
U

0
L Ov
?
z ;; 0
LU
z z ?- co
w o
b ti
- J
z 0
? Z rn
0
a
?
w U
°
o z w
U X „ _

1
-4
CX z n- O
4 w
i-
d
t-

r
. 4f S T

11 11 I t l I I II 1

s

x
W
?
_
A 1 4 1 1
_
L B
1 :: X r i a . O
4 t: : 3: 30 C ) 0
M
/

T
LL,
Q C
4 C) W -

U)

? ?
t w

I ? ?

I i I

i :?
I' a o :aa - w :d
:
a rs Ivy P. w
I I w ;:I
:Vu
:A1 M r--4 ;
w,
V,
onoo
d 1
A
C9 i . C
.
2 R.

?;

`"u???"
i I

I H -H -H
• Cl to
9,11) d)
A A A -H
0 O¢
jd4
A H n-t
4) :4j
a p
c? ? C>

s... ,
•«y
tyr r k lrvr ? 1
I

N .i9

LD-

<:>
`mow 1 ?
`w vY IJI :?
x -
a

T

' f?ri j y
I
?:
L I c
i
?-41-
c+?Y, II: II II II ;II I1 II It: 11

-41

1 .. 3?ki
-r$?vl ., 1
1 I
r
z
z
o o 0
a w 0
~

0 (
j
Z
Q
o
0
cai, Qd j ?
a =a 0
cy-
C. IL 0 U
°
Z O
Z0
cc W
Z
Om Z 0
° o ?
LLJ

° c)
w
W
U
o Z w
Z d O cn
w

U)
LLI
LL
0
cC
CL
M
W
F -
V5 yL U_1

Q
-
-? -i
U b
L U)
W

4'V
y.-5;
:fY
O
.. I ` `. O
t Z:
Y ? 0
co 0
?" t Q I i co Q Q W
:r
G' 4 ?N?jI < zQ O
w' , LL. U 0 V
°N?! ° °?
W
U) I-- LL
ZiJ o p z 00
L
LL-
0 Of 0)
LIJ
• .?''. O c?
o o w V
t-
Lr- M.
/: ? :? , 4 w
1-
io.`
?a
t1
Q
U
U)
O

I ?
I
i I I
i I
Imo:.

I -
I ?-
F-
z
z
O C Q
0 O

0-1 z
Q d O'
cc
Q 1 O
L
9
O
0 M
of- ' 0 0

u
j
w o0 F .
Z LL
? z' o
a °v O co
LLJ
0 o
Z
LIJ
U
w

z
n
O w
v,
w
a
U)

i Q
.
J
_

. N

W o

Q
o
? _
U)
(+J
z

.. .. .. -i--- Z - w
. Q Q J O
i O ?. J cn
? - I - - W _l
tf)
ppp

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 6, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
MAR > 4 1995
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment for O'Neal-Rockwood Connector,
O'Neal Street to Rockwood Avenue, Alamance County, State Project
No. 9.8070179, TIP No. U-2802
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the
Jurisdictional Wetlands Report for the subject proposed highway improvement.
It is anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No
Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental.
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by April 15, 1995. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
1;
Vick, P. E., Manager
HFV/plr Planning and Environmental Branch

JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
O'NEAL-ROCKWOOD CONNECTOR
BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
REPORT TO KIMLEY-HORN
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 27,1991
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates
Environmental Consultants
Durant Office Park
8480 Garvey Drive, Suite A
Raleigh, NC 27604-3175
[phone]
FAX [phone]
1.0. Introduction ....................................... 3
2.0. Methods .......................................... 3
3.0. Results .......................................... 4
4.0. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................ 5
4.1. Streams ...................................... 5
4.2. Wetlands ............................ . .... .... 5
5.0. Literature Cited ..................................... 6
Table 1. Distances and directions to jurisdictional wetland flags ......... 7
Figure 1. Location of O'Neal-Rockwood Connector ................. 8
Figure 2. Location of wetlands in the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector ....... 9
1.0. Introduction.
On March 5, 1991, ecologists of Robert J. Goldstein & Associates (RJG&A)
delineated jurisdictional wetlands on a proposed road connecting Rockwood Drive to
O'Neal Drive in Burlington, Alamance County, N.C. The one mile corridor is east
and north of Mays Lake (Figure 1). N.C. Topography of the area was provided by
Kimley-Horn.
2.0. Methods.
RJG&A ecologists examined a topographic plat map, and the Alamance
County soil map to determine potential areas of wetlands for field investigation.
Subsequently, ecologists visited the site and delineated jurisdictional wetlands using
the methods of Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (1989), Reed
(1988), and U.S. Department to Agriculture (1989).
Wetland margins were marked with numbered white or orange wire flags, and
orange flagging tape was tied near each flag to aid in flag location. Soil cores were
taken with a soil auger, and soil color (hue, value, and chroma) determined in the
field using Munsell soil color charts. Predominant tree, shrub, woody vine, and
ground cover vegetation were identified, recorded, and evaluated for frequency of
association with wetlands. Hydrologic indicators were recorded where present.
RJG&A ecologists prepared station data sheets and summary sheets
consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch requirements
for wetland evaluations in North Carolina after March 20, 1989.
3
3.0. Results.
The locations of numbered flags along jurisdictional wetland boundaries are
illustrated in Figure 2. The flag numbers correspond to station locations on field
data sheets and the wetland determination summary sheet. Wetlands adjacent to
the corridor but outside the project area are indicated. Table 1 presents distances
and directions to jurisdictional wetland flags. A copy of the summary sheet and field
data sheets are included in this report.
Examination of Alamance County soil maps (Goldston & Kaster, 1960)
indicated small areas of hydric Worsham soil in the project corridor. Other portions
of the corridor contain mixed alluvial soil with hydric inclusions of Worsham soil.
Upland areas of the corridor contain predominantly Enon, Cecil and Helena series
soils.
The field reconnaissance confirmed three areas of wetlands, all in floodplains
of creeks subject to impact by the road project, and two bank-to-bank wetlands in
tributaries located in the project area. The wetland bound by flags 1-4 is just north
of the north end of O'Neal Avenue. The wetland bound by flags 11-14 is southeast
of Edgewood Avenue, and the wetland bound by flags 15-18 is just south of Arbor
Drive. The attached wetland determination form covers all three wetlands. The
bank-to-bank wetland flagged 5-6 is southwest of Portsmouth Court. It meanders
through the project area. The bank-to-bank wetland flagged 7-8 is south of Arbor
Drive. One 404 permit will cover all wetlands. Natural plant communities of the
wetlands in the project corridor correspond to Piedmont swamp forest in the
classification system of Schafele and Weakley (1990).
The vegetational communities of the three Piedmont swamp forest wetlands
are dominated by yellow poplar (Liriodendron tuiipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), sycamore (Piatanus occidentaiis), red maple (Acer rubrum), elm (Uimus
americana), and river birch (Betuia nigra) in the upper canopy. Red maple,
sweetgum, and sycamore saplings, with musclewood (Carpinus caroiiniana),
dominate the understory. Groundcover was mostly privet (Ligustrum sinense),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and smilax (Smilax sp.).
Non-wetland (upland) communities were dominated by Virginia pine (Pious
virginiana), with sweetgum or yellow poplar in the understory and Japanese
honeysuckle and blackberry (Rubus sp.) as groundcover.
4
4.0. Conclusions and Recommendations.
Jurisdictional wetlands were found and delineated in the proposed O'Neal-
Rockwood Connector Road in Burlington, N.C. Therefore, a Section 404 permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required for placement of fill in wetlands
associated with construction. The 404 permit process provides protection to waters
of the United States under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
and amendments.
4.1. Streams.
Design measures to protect water quality include avoiding public water
supplies and high quality aquatic habitats; minimizing the number of stream
crossings; and maximizing the distance between stream and road, generally fifty feet
or more, to allow for stormwater infiltration and deposition of pollutants associated
with road runoff. Stream crossings should be sited at low quality segments (sandy
or silty bottoms vs. vegetated and riffle bottoms) to the extent practicable. Streams
should be crossed at right angles wherever possible.
Construction practices should include protection of stream bottom habitat from
siltation by sedimentation control measures such as silt fences and seeding, and
retention of riparian vegetation.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may include stream reconstruction by
creation of a new channel; placement of velocity reducing structures such as rip-rap
on the slopes and bottom of streams and use of ribbed culverts; habitat
enhancement using chained felled trees for benthic invertebrate colonization;
placement of boulders; the establishment, replacement or maintenance of riparian
buffers; and.other management and construction practices.
4.2. Wetlands.
Wetlands are a special class of waters of the United States. Wetlands should
be avoided to the extent practicable. Road corridors should be moved to avoid
wetlands where possible. Where bank-to-bank wetlands are crossed, culverts are
acceptable. If wetlands are in floodplains wider than bank-to-bank wetlands, arched
culverts or bridging are recommended to avoid impacts on wetlands, consistent with
404(b)(1) guidelines.
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines require a sequential approach to mitigating
impacts of dredge and fill activities. Only after avoidance has been satisfactorily
addressed may compensatory forms of mitigation be considered. Compensation may
take the form of restoration of degraded wetlands; enhancement of extant wetlands;
or creation of replacement wetlands (last resort) near the adversely affected project
site.
?i
5.0. Literature Cited.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal
manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Cooperative technical publication. Washington,
D.C. 107 pp and appendices.
Goldston, E.F. and D.L. Kaster. 1960. Soil survey of Alamance County,
North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service and the North Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station. Series 1956, No. 9. 87 p. + appendices.
Reed, P.B. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: North
Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 40 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina-Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC DEHNR, Raleigh, N.C., 325 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Hydric soils of North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service, Raleigh. 19 pp.
6
Table 1. Distances and directions to jurisdictional wetland flags on the O'Neal-
Rockwood Connector project site.
Wetland Perimeter Flags
1 = 450 ft. @ 360 deg. from center of North end of O'Neal Dr.
2 = 110 ft. @ 360 deg. from 1
3 = 195 ft. @ 80 deg. from 2
4 = 220 ft. @ 170 deg. from 3
5 = 750 ft. @ 350 deg. from 2
6 = 10 ft. @ 350 deg. from 6
7 = 175 ft. @ 320 deg. from Log cabin*
8 = 10 ft. @ 320 deg. from 7
9 = **
10 = **
11 = 75 ft. @ 10 deg. from Manhole *
12 = 110 ft. @ 30 deg. from 11
12a = 50 ft. @ 345 deg. from 12a
14 = 400 ft. @ 305 deg. from 12
13 = 150 ft. @ 275 deg. from 14
15 = 110 ft. @ 170 deg. from 17
16 = 110 ft. @ 170 deg. from 18
17 = 150 ft. @ 250 deg. from 18
18 = 100 ft. @ 320 deg. from Manhole*
See Figure 2 Map
* * No points with flag
7

LLJ
.v
A 1719
41 Cf. 79.
sa !L ' u J.ilZ .7 J I..?co• •;' e
13!L Z _
G/. '• ZRGANTpWN •t o 1
.9 ? IUNINC.I
{OUS COr H p dal. G
GLEN RAVEN
[10N COLLEGE
LL .: t. 'o y
.L-o 9
502 o ly
::.mot •::. ., ::.
000 ' Iles
... v: .:::"?... i`':... F•Ir :>;:; .J My
?::::: EAU ? .Q0 . •:''` ^ ` •-.> 70
Project ? BURLINGTON
Site ? ? 70 ? ? .-`•:`:".
cam::: ?i ?:,:.. k•
_ `I e?::'' EAU .r° ".•.^.,,. - ;7.. :.K.!?. ? IUw UVOt
Lo EAU a tr % ?e
ch. • nW
100 O y.?
3 'Vi Y.>? Sa l9 '
3' y110D t 'F ?4 as
,•:I • ..,. 7 t •?
1141 62
.f
Ila9 ? 'V N
f
la• I J
s Alamo Awport ,? V
' ;) AIAMNaCE ,F? ?
LL4 ` Ci. '°? hll?•grI " V 14 , 119
?? gt
114S
fr 1 '' Sw• `? foiwi•w
Um Cf. Q•rk 4
1134 .t Qua.fer
1t ? 5 Ip ` 134L ? di
7 AIAtAMEC? C I lj ry^ J .? ''
AnY-
Figure 1. Robert J. Goldstein & Associates
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 8480 Garvey Drive
Location of O'Neal-Rockwood Connector Telephone [phone] Raleigh, NC 27604

u
u

YYI. 1 !VtY 1 \1? ?I'III It /Ir?1?
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM DATE: 3 / 191 COUNTY:
NEAItES'C TOWN: _ y(,' :_0K _ WATERWAY:_
QUAD:_ r ,A "-` ------ LOCATION: "(?^f?i?
Cf6r (NAIIE/ADDRESS) FIELD PART
_ti ? n,.1a4 Q rn $1??ss afar . Ale ±hC
- -P. 0 '
PIION•r : ----
OTHER LNDIVIDUALS PRLS1,N'r:
GNvinoNMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Oltico Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Ralcigh, North Carolina 27604-3175
A/61
pp , ji 1
(NAMES) f>4 ?., -
.. rc v
S 4.
%t t

IS PROPERTY UNIFORM----.- OR SEPA RATE' DISCRETE VECETATIVE UNITS (upiahd/wkland)

VECI:fATION: (1N ORDLIt OF
DOMINAN
CE., DRAW LINF ABOVE NON-I)O h(INANT' ?v
SPECIES rAI
THES: S1)ECLES---% CUVLR-•-LNDLCA TOR GROUND COVLR: SPLCIIiS-%' COVER-INDICA'?OR
1. ?odehdroK l uliPf7erQl 3D 7o FQG 1. Lon ?cerA aPoxiLq 10 ji::Qe - = ?_
2. I uit?avl+bci/ s?- ?ati ?juu /_?7 Fact 2.
64,te x
s _
P

3

Fad
3. a 4AU5 ocel ea is a
t
i?Iluw. SP' :
? FaG
4. Acer rubrum 10 ---?°7o

5. 6e
t
j
i
'
? Fae-
4
U n K n o??h t^aSSe t
i9
5
03 .

ICJ x
:: ?
f.
-
j
& rt
?
t?
gg
SAPLINGS/S11RITIiS: J
Io ?
.
L 1 usfrUtn s Jxexce
6

1: Acev7 ?,cLbdu???

- .

?a L- 7 .
2• G tq darAba?4 sfypat; f
Jd 3 0 Flo
Fat f 8•
s.
3• L;?iodeKdpoK 'f'ulr'prf2°PQ L0 g'e Fa` WOODY VINES:
4?axrls pcCt ?n a

` o I.
ret c,
5
.(-,qpQ SAA5 GR?^O?Itat
en4
a °o
G 2. LoA'rela-d4poArGq
2S
FGtG.
OF DUh1INANT S PECtES . (OB L. - PAC ,
. )?pQ OTHER INDICATORS :

HYDROPHYTIC VEGETA`T'ION Y(:S--_NO _- REFERENCE
TYPICAL: ? (COMPLETE, 1311--LOW) A'T'YPICAL: O(C%IPLETEBACK)
SOIL: t u5 IONS
SERIES: votApyyt -? (? m ?ytCl iJN HYDRIC • SOILS LIST: YLS ?NO
MOTTLED: MATRIX CWfR: YS?? HYDRIC SOLLS: YES ? NO
REFERENCE ---
HYDROLOGY: /
INUNDATED: YES ?/ NUDEPTH UP WATER: -3.-5-
SATURATED SOLLS: YES NO _ U1,PTI1 TO SATURATION /WATER TABLE
OTHER INDICATORS:
WETLAND HYDROLOGY:
YE'5 NU - 13ASIS : ?5?
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO _ NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES NO _
WETLAND DETERMINATION: 14ETLAND:_ NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO_,,L_ AU`1'110f:ITY: lU-ADJACENT 404j 10/404 NONE
JURISDICTION: ABOVE .}IE'AUWATERS ISOLATE;D_ ,/ NWP #
DETERMINED BY:

J,
A'CYP[cAl, si'Cl1AT[UNS
VRt;I;TATIUN: ( i x
TYPIi OF AL'fI:ILA'1'[o N:-- f?eNtD ??1_?'/`ee -?m er?F?`'inP ?Qr'i'`rrurdt?

GFFI;C'C ON VI?GI,'L'A"l'Ir)N: Mo ? gas e
- -?-- - ?F_? 4 8??i?1L?_ tQd?_
PRLV [UUS VEGETATION: --?---
-- ? ?
?
J
???-
??
?Q?tkn1
_Land_._.?t+??D ?

11YDKOPHYT [C VM"TAT [UN : YIDS--,/_ NU_---
SOILS: ___-.__

WOK
L?
'rym OF ALTERATION: )??z
EFFECT ON SOILS: _S1rLtH?'rl? .
-
-
"
cj
PREVIOUS SUILS:
_
_
HYU
S-7_
KIC SOILS: Y
NU
----
tZ
"
"
HYDROLOGY:
f
F
}," „
Ma
TYPE OF AL TI-:ItA'T [r)N : }
EFFECT ON 1•IYURcjI.c)GY: ------------- --- ---- --
PItEVIOUS IIYDiWl,OGY: ---------
Wi;TLAND HYDROLOGY: YF.S NO ------------ ---'
AUTHORITY: SLC'f[ON 10 404
?
/10/404 NUNS
_
_
_
JURISDICTION: ABOVL" 11rAD4A'fl:;i(S IS(lLA'L'13D
ADJACENT 1/
_ __
NATIONWIDE ? YES NO ? IF YES, # PHOTOS TAKEN ? YFS NO
ATTACH DRAWING W/PlIC 0 ANGi.I:S AND DIMENSIONS
16 ?6,
pl,

1

.v • f,
. PROJECT DATE f? /f !r C
REW
LOCATION
r
/
FLAG
-1---? a
= L' feet, aL f?
c- . ? . degrees
from
,
''tiY? ..

1
70
CONDITIONS: dry normal '
wz DIMENSIONS: ?
HYDROLOGY: ).• t: ! .: 14
• ? 7 tt
ti SOILS: UPLAND
WETLAND
?tfi?r??? L<

:
i
VEGETATION: 17 r
r? \

species percent cover
species
percent'c
e

{

w
-
-----
wetland
non-wo-
t ov
r
wetland
=
?.
nonWe
TREES: > S" DBH and > l0
- -- 'tal: WOODY VINES: climbi'riq and.
>
,-N
N
z
-

-? , 77,

`
?? .',

SAPLINGS & SHRUBS:

:.

> 3' -and < GROUND COVER:

S" DBH or < 20'
`
-woody
n
n
plants;
?'`i

`
also woody <
pla
ants ts.<
.
31.
avJl,?S

L tr.n NP r
L g,. A ----
----

4 y . !4

re( ,
• .:;sea ,r?r ^,y'?S?;? -

`
//(?
PROJECT
DA'I'
",'•. :"? . t
S ? CREW
/
? ":.
1 ? to ?d; ./,,N t
'

-(,ir,_, ??-•{"
; LOCATION
? ;.
F
py
C .,
Q?? ,'l.(•. ?' r ?,.
")
'? .... •. Lea P, *
+ .
FLAG - feet,
at 5 S degrees
from
,

r-
CONDITIONS: dry normal wet DIMENSIONS:
HYDROLOGY: "
4
SOILS: UPLAND WETLAND

VEGETATION:
7 -7 -77

species percent cover species percent
.Cover

wetland non-wrt .
• ,
wetland
non-we
TREES: > S" DBH and ? 201tal ; WOODY VINES: climbin
d`.
> 3
g an
----------------

------------

-----,.
------------------
?-

c.r•. ;X.
-------------------
aa
-----------------
u

----------------
--?- .??

SAPLINGS & SHRUBS: ----------------

'

> 3' and < 5" DBH or < 20' GROUND COVER: non-woody pla
nts' '
also woody plants < 31.
Cray

'
PROJECT DA'T'E CREW49
s
yi V
LOCATION rK. F4 •
FLAG _ 13 = feet, at 7?') ? degrees, . from *
all
fi • ?} ;
-50
ISO
i t?..
4 .
h 5
?r
s. CONDITIONS: dry normal (ne t DIMENSIONS:
:. HYDROLOGY: C s??
,. SOILS: UPLAND WETLAND I D Y.
i2 f
i
VEGETATION:
species percent cover species pezcent:eoyer` 'Yf
wetland -non-w?? 21=W6
------ --------------- -- t wetland Q0 f
TREES: > 5" DBH and > 20'tal; WOODY VINES: -climbing and;> 3?
---------------
-----------------
??- A-
??
SAPLINGS & SHRUB;: GROUND COVER: wl?
- > 3' and < 5" DBH or < 20' non-woody plants,
also woody plants < 3'
?. ?+6-:
t°.
x _a .,gyp a ;,
+` p} Phi
i L
PROJECT DA'I'S CREW
LOCATION ?oU';' r, , '_ ,/ aG ?•`tu
FLAG /S = U feet, at degrees, .from 1x'
A ,
r,y
CONDITIONS: dry normal wet DIMENSIONS:
HYDROLOGY:
C
SOILS: UPLAND .r
WETLAND
u VEGETATION:
i , rS
a.`. species percent cover
wetland non-wot
TREES: > S" DBH and > 201tala

Y' •
l_
.i?.?
t
SAPLINGS & SHRUBS:
n>??rr3' "and < S" DBH or < 20'
A r .-,f,
" Llw?-l.

species
percent 'cover::
wet'l`ant tlol
-we
'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
WOODY VINES.
;,.
C11 mbl- h- g an

vyc

--------- --------

-------- --------- --
---------- ------

`
GROUND COVER: non-woody ` F
plants; ??;
also wood

Y

plants 31.
k
SC
t"/'; 4
---

-------------
.
yf.
vr C? V1
SL

3 INCWRC: , HCF , FALLS LAKE
k
N

5:46 No.001 F.02
rResourc
4?, "
LZ.1. R'L.11
M Artt tilt 1, ; .iri?k,C}A7 ,- '? ] )i
MFMC RANVDUM
To. Meib-3 ?ydcCiee
Office of ?qgn_ aal;
•
:-l A]]'1P i-:.L I? R S .3? S l L•??.\I? ( ;. . ,
{
1) f°r.JJ,", : 8, 1995

r
?,?1,)5..,
4 y T. '-Orb
S

l V rr'..Ii ,. .k,

.J` ° ...,. i!...t C_e...•..1

y •5,, HH
?q?\ e r1,?YA;
?^ ..v
ppTT
? 11? NO,

.. .-.. t
.7 i"; L7}'.:'ii 2L 9 i.4? I. L]'. `.'. a
S"
r 7
i?. ?? u?.?)ld ?.:r., c1.?'115;i.:Y `JC`t,?'_ }..»?.}: rry4 l•.e lt:$: . .....
„"y[r. i i. ?. •..
.:.? 1 .. C?. .?i ?k. 5? ).l ?%'? ?x ?a?.5 ???)
yy..?? - ? •4 i:. ?/ .
.! :A 1, lr ru8nctr
.
I ?
i ? y
f4
?
?,
r
'
CC
as
?
.
t4. l ......
kA U ,
3 _.
..
..W
\.
7.
A
.t'.
.

'ti4.. * -b iii r11 ... 4:( .. ,.{. .?.. •i ,-.. t .1.. bR l . tCo, fro'-, L.I :. a•? c1 ;o {`r.Q kwoo
Yd
1 1 la?'. iIi- jape
..i: ltd tT dl'
{.€
14`?ia?? ? 5 +
:6ii
:
? t
° ?
: ?;. ]C? Z .
k
s, i6 :
F . L:? 7
'i•'
'S
? ?? :
it
?
l i ?
'
te' lY [f? h:pS V occur
,.
. >
?
.
,
>
S
. - x,. y
.
.
.
..
, a
,

1i=_r _. iL'` ;rr. ???-1,,. '?. i?rij?t'?'•. ?. '?, t. Y??z'..??? .•.
SU1TU6lC . _ _7C! x` 1i`_?t :?, _J
e7{pPri?tli ink? ?4,?? ,:trn?; k..u ,. ;.'.
r
t;;JT,,{tJ c'?- ?Innurdties
gri i, ipears some
"It. ., Ti-., stream
.' :Aha .ante-- Cn. .ek and a tributary.
} u r ..a.te tc?r:t? at.e r and pollution frc??n
c J e strcan, frequently floods and is
mau 09 '95
NCWRC, HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL : 919-52':,-9839
Memorandum
? s
r

2
8:47 No. 001 P.03
may 09,95
May 9, 1995
,ii :.4C la«Lt ?rii rr t:,. , lP • 3--,; a resulting
hG v=
Oily
and
? .t G?J J ie J1 ~?? -iec
w x I') .TV` fOT
z Iii t' to
F: . , .. likely
L

9
-/ - 'e
?Z? -4 WU
/57
00,
a?&t
(Le (Iva& 41V k5<
ly,
'70,4/,AN1f- ?VAI 4A15 1-7/1.?>
fig.--
c
i?
v
w 21 R
'
- - oN,t?N S
:". gyp" T A`'SC?FN?FS
STAi E Of NORTH CAROLINA
DFPAKI-MENT OF TZANst,ou,krION
AM Es B. HUNT'. JP\. R. SANAUEI - H?' ;N-r I II
Go\,FE:1!0r. PO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27,611 X201 April- 19, 1.9` 7
MEMORANDUM TO: J. W. Watkins, PE Henry Moon, I I
Mike Cowan, PE Richard S. Johnson
John Smith, Jr., PE Archie Hankins, PE
Jimmy Lynch, PE Bill Johnson
FROM: W. D. McFarlinr?. PE c /?? Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Project 9.8070179 - (U-2':'1U2"A i
O'Neal St.. North of US 70 (Church St.,
to Edgewood Avenue
Alamance County - 1>>.vi.s on i
Combined Field Inspection
The preliminary piaris on this proiec:t have been completed by
the consultant, Kimley-Horn, and Associates, Inc. Our office would
like to review them in the field with all personnel involved.
In accordance with Mike Cowan, PE, Division Construction
Engineer, the combined field inspection will be held Thursday,
May 4, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. at the Resident Engineer's office on NC 87
in Graham.
Under separate cover, we are forwarding two sets of Roadway
plans to the Division Engineer.
I request the Division Engineer contact the proper city
officials and furnish them a set of plans for their use at the field
inspection.
WDM/CKH
cc: Whit Webb, III, PE Bob Brown, PE
Danny Burwell, Jr., PE Chris Stafford
Pill Moore, III John Ledbetter, Jr., PE
John Williamson., Jr. Sandy Nance
Kelly Barger., PE ilenn Griag, Jr., PE
Terry Hopkins, PE N. R. Bivens, PE
Eric Glamb (DEHNR)
David Cox (Wildlife Resources Comm.)
`I'ons Goodwin, PE ( Kimley-Horn )
,Jim Lauritsen, PE (City of Burlington)
0

aw?
z c? ?G
a ?
fl 2? k" O
s
Sol
N
a
April 18, 1995
TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
FROM: Mrs. Diane Vaught
2112 Somers Ave.
Burlington, NC 27215
[phone]
RE: O'Neal Rockwood Connector, U-2802
Project 9.8070179
We urge you to recommend a complete Environmental Impact Study be taken for this O'Neal
Rockwood Connector, not just a FONSI. This open area of concern is probably the most critical
area in Burlington, as far as rain absorption for all the land along it's path and downstream. The
protection this area affords for all the schools, neighborhoods, and recreation activity has been
underestimated. The amount of wildlife that inhabits this area is phenomenal - especially since it
is in the center of a city. The number of intact housing areas close to our downtown is not just by
accident. There is presently no "River of Traffic" segmenting off our downtown from these
-housing areas. Can our governmental bodies approve wiping out all of these important positive
attributes in one swoop just to bring forward a 38 year old plan?
Enclosed are some copies of materials sent to Mr. H. Franklin Vick and Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr.
concerning the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector. For political reasons, this road has been pushed up
to begin this summer, even though there is tremendous opposition against the road within the
community. Enclosed are copies of two petitions which demonstrate a portion of the number of
persons who oppose this road. (The first signed by 1089 persons, the second signed by now
over 600 persons). The second petition asked the DOT and our City to consider a Natural
Science Center to be the alternative in place of the portion from Church Street to Edgewood
Avenue. This portion which wraps around Turrentine Middle School is the segment which
everyone opposes, as it will segment off the City Park, Turrentine School, Burlington Day School,
and Hillcrest Elementary School from their "Service Areas Neighborhoods". Currently hundreds of
children and adults use that area to walk, ride bicycles, stroll children, etc. and functions as a
much used Greenway-type pedestrian pathway for the entire West Burlington neighborhoods.
The estimate of 23,600 cars/day going through this area will wipe it out. Why the five-lane
CENTER MEDIAN design in a completely residential neighborhood? Isn't that for commercial
needs?
We are NOT opposed to good thoroughfare planning. In fact, we feel that is exactly the problem -
there has never been alternatives written down or even considered for this road and for other
roads which impact neighborhood areas. The planner and engineer have not looked at the
overall picture and come up with alternative ways to stop the funneling of traffic onto the Church
Street intersection. They point to the traffic congestion and offer widening streets to solve all the
problems. If cars are given only one option on which to travel, they have no alternative but to
travel on that option. And does the automobiles "shortest distance between two points" always
take precedent over important features of our city which will be lost with this current plan?
It is beyond my belief that anyone can keep a job and waste the amount of money that we have
seen wasted on our Thoroughfare Plan Project. Timely decisions have just not been made. In 6
months, the entire Plan could have been resolved, alternatives obtained and written down, and
our entire metropolitan area would have benefited. Included are suggestions and a map which the
citizens have composed. We just could not get the planner interested in doing it himself.
This O'Neal-Rockwood area IS significant for the adsorption of rain all along the Thoroughfare
corridor. I live on one of the tributaries north of the area. Our land has seen an increase in
flooding since a development was created north of us. We have physically dug out our creek
several times & hired back hoes to dig out our creek in order to prevent the flooding problems
with our neighbor. Land owners along the O'Neal-Rockwood area deal with flooding everytime it
rains. Enclosed are copies of photos taken of the City Park after a Thunderstorm. It is a
disaster whenever it rains. This can not be denied.
We do know that members of the TAC from Elon College have been involved in pushing O'Neal-
Rockwood. It has been said that Elon College is pushing to have Williamson Avenue closed and
North-South connectors need to be in place in order for that to happen. What is happening is
that Neighborhoods are currently being pitted against other Neighborhoods. One is being told if
their road goes in, then you will not have the traffic on your street. Everyone has MISSED the
entire point. NO INTACT NEIGHBORHOOD, RECREATION, AND SCHOOL AREA NEED BE
COMPROMISED. There are all kinds of alternatives for getting traffic out of our city. We are
being held hostage by the engineering plans of 1957 and 1975. Everyone thinks in 1990 the
Thoroughfare Plan was updated and passed with everyone praising it. The opposite is the truth..
The TAC and TCC rubber stamped a plan that had not been well thought out because the data
used was from 1968. THE UPDATED ORIGIN-DESTINATION DATA WILL NOT EVEN BE OUT
UNTIL DECEMBER OF 1995. HOW CAN ROADS WITHIN A PLAN BE PUSHED UP WHEN IN
1990 OUR PLAN COULD NOT BE THOROUGHLY UPDATED BECAUSE THE DOT SAID WE
WERE NOT "SCHEDULED" FOR A COMPLETE UPDATING? SHOULD EVERYONE NOT
WAIT TO SEE THE CURRENT DATA?
Thank you for reading this material carefully. Other cities would capitalize on this important area.
Our planner, engineer, and several members of Council have been very swayed by Mr. Nick
Nichols, DOT Engineer who was in charge in 1987-1990. 1 m afraid he influenced our council
much before citizen input was even addressed. All of us feel victims of the politics of the current
City Council. How can that always win over the long-term good of the whole?
It is with much sorrow that I am wasting my energy in continuing to address this issue. The
solutions seems so clear to all of us and they are win-win solutions. The industrial , commercial,
and auto traffic could be moved swiftly and effectively, the neighborhoods, schools, and
recreation areas would not be compromised, and the entire city and surrounding areas could have
their concerns addressed. No one has taken time to just down and look at the options. Simple as
that one statement! We are dealing with a flawed process. We truly want to work with the DOT
and all of you in a professional and educated manner.

Included in this packet are the following articles and maps:
1. A map created from much research and input from the communities showing the extraterritorial zones for
the County (some have been expanded) with the original having a mylar overlay showing a Thoroughfare
Plan which addresses the traffic needs, preserves the areas around schools, neighborhoods, and recreation
areas (used by thousands of citizens), and specifically addresses routes for Industrial and commercial traffic.
No one in our city has even written down one alternative, put together a comprehensive study, nor written
down priorities and special areas worth saving in our community. We have.
2. Thoroughfare proposes which go with the map. Please read these. All the citizens agree, you can not
just remove roads - one must have a total traffic solution in mind. We have done that and feel secure they
are sound, feasible proposals. I have discussed my proposals with Dr. David Hartgen, UNC Charlotte,
Transportation Planning Department, and Dr. Harris, UNCG, Urban Geographer, and was told our ideas and
plans had merit. Our Thoroughfare proposals include thinking "bigger" when planning for traffic in the future.
Constructing roads that allow for zero expansion and are presently in the center of neighborhoods is
extremely poor planning and should not be allowed. Since many of us worked with the City Planner through
this entire fiasco, we know from personal experience exactly what was NOT DONE. How can people who
do not perform their jobs get applause and people who work very hard in and for the community get
downgraded for daring to speak up when told to do so? The entire up-dating of our Thoroughfare Plan was
mishandled from the outset. One city employee stated that "This (O'Neal Rockwood ) was his baby, and he
would anything to see that it was put through. This was in December of 1987. After that remark, no citizen
input was treated with respect. In fact, not until May of 1988 did Mr. Nichols, the DOT representative for
Alamance County, even visit Elon to see the growth - but he did give a talk on the O'Neal/Rockwood at a
City Council planning retreat in Jan. 88. Result of that meeting? 5-0 for the Road. Open Hearing wasn't until
June 30, but the Councilmen said, they did not need the Open Hearing. They had ALREADY MADE UP
THEIR MIND. Sounds-much like this Environmental Assessment.
3. Science-Center Proposal and the IS TEA Bill. This Science Center idea originated from discussions with
teachers while carpooling students on field trips. Because of liability, schools no longer transport children for
science classes. The phenomenal positive features of this area is the close proximity this area is to seven
area schools. It actually borders 4 of these schools and within walking distance of the others. The
environment of this open space is ideal and could provide the DOT end the citizens with one of the most
creative re-uses of Thoroughfare right-of-way in the State. It has every environment necessary to create a
"Living Natural Science Center". The property owners have offered property not only for the Science Center,
but also for a "bus" entrance to Turrentine School. With a link between four schools, with an opportunity to
link Elon College, Elon Elementary, and Williams, the opportunity for this project should be considered at all
costs. We want to meet with DOT officials to discuss how this can become a "TEAM PROJECT".
4. Critique of the State Environmental Assessment.
5. News article stating that the City Council dropped the O'Neal Rockwood Bypass. (Late 1950's)
6. Copy of O'Neal Rockwood Open Hearing, June 30, 1988, with cover-letter for the petitions.
7. Copy of Refreshing ISTEA. Seems pretty clear cut that the NC DOT has not incorporated the ISTEA
mandates and message with Alamance County. Perhaps someone thinks we do not have important enough
areas in our County worth saving.
8. Copies of both petitions. For permanent record for any Open Hearings, Forums for the Alamance County
Thoroughfare Plan and its Thoroughfares.
9. Letter
CRITIQUE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. Page 2-A and 7 - No neighborhoods will be divided by the roadway.
We would like to have in writing, the names of persons writing the assessment and the author
of that statement.
We would also like to set up a meeting with these people the week after Easter. It is to our
utter dismay that this statement appeared in the book.
The road will completely cut off safe pedestrian access to our Burlington City Park, will cut through all the
neighborhoods along Rockwood Ave. , Edgewood, Woodland, and Front Streets, where our children currently
are free to visit friends without their safety being compromised. It will segment Turrentine School, Burlington
Day, and Hillcrest Elementary from their service areas which include ALL the neighborhoods in the entire
area. Many of our children currently walk/ride bikes for afterschool pick-up games, or practices and
HUNDREDS of people use Edgewood Ave. like a Greenway for walking, riding bikes, strolling their children,
etc. Someone from behind a desk in Raleigh must have written that completely false statement.
2. "FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" ANTICIPATED BEFORE THE PUBLIC FORUM
HEARING EVEN TOOK PLACE.
This is discouraging. You guys make up your minds before you even hear input. I'm on a City
Commission. Guess we try to decrease that HABIT by meeting with citizens two weeks before
hand and working out any problems. That way everyone feels they are not shafted.
3. NOT THINKING THE WILDLIFE PRESENT ON THIS LAND IS SIGNIFICANCE FOR IT TO BE
OF IMPORTANCE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
There happens to be wild turkey and deer and even red-cockaded woodpeckers were seen by
two separate persons. Owl, beavers, green herons also inhabit the woods and wetland areas.
The wildlife is so plentiful, it's truly the last area in our city that remains so pristine. Children
in this area find it extremely educational to see animals normally never found around inner
areas of cities. Most cities would fight to have an area such as this.
4. NO INCREASED FLOODING IN THE AREAS SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED
THOROUGHFARE?
No one living in this city can deny the fact about the flooding in our City Park immediately
after a rain. It doesn't even have to be a huge, long rain. The rain water has washed out
bridges, almost touched the Carousel building, floods the baseball diamonds with a cost to
have them repaired, and ruins the TOT LOT every time it floods. The DOT said the road would
not have increased flooding for areas surrounding this road. How can that statement be
made by someone not living in our city. Citizens can testify to the fact that it occurs all the
time now, because we live on the tributaries - and they flood all the time.
Without a doubt, this Inner-Loop right-of-way area probably plays THE most major role with
absorption of rain water for all lands bordering it's entire path. Of anything in this city, I feel
this area is the last, but most important section, we have left in Burlington. K-Marts, Wal-
Marts, and housing developers are taking all the rest. That Is definitely NOT what the
citizens want - to have our city wiped clean of any open areal

Environmental Assessment page 2
5. CRIME, VANDALISM, DRUGS, AND JUNK COMING OFF THE 1-85/ 1-40 CORRIDOR WAS NOT
EVEN ADDRESSED. IT WILL ABSOLUTELY END UP TO BE ONE OF OUR BIGGEST
PROBLEMS. I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE PTA AT SMITH
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
I have received two State Volunteer of the Year Awards from Governor Hunt for work I have done in
the community. This year's award was for my years of being Chairman of the Family and
Neighborhood Task Force for ACADA (the Alamance Coalition Against Drug Abuse). As ACADA is a
coalition, we meet weekly and monthly with persons from law enforcement, the schools, community
agencies, housing projects. Currently we are setting up "rap" sessions with gang members to get
their input about what to do with drugs, alcohol, and crime in our community. 1 recently attended the
Leadership Forum in Washington, DC, with Joseph Califano and with the head of the Crime Bill.
The topic of conversation at our Neighborhoods meeting was the role maior Thoroughfares play in
bringing crime, drugs loitering, cut-through traffic into our intact neighborhood areas. I.was
told this was being discussed on the TOP level in Transportation and was of major concern
to persons in this Clinton Administration. 1 was asked if I would send letters with my
comments.
What has discouraged us, is after all the hard work we do as volunteers to help keep our
neighborhoods and families intact, along comes the DOT and without even a consideration for the
priorities of our communities, is obsessed with building roads that will blow wide-open our hard
work. You should talk to the Social Workers. They are in complete disbelief that the DOT would
even consider 5-lane roads through these neighborhoods. Just look around at other cities and see
their problems. Let Burlington learn from others. This is one mistake that's we volunteers will not be
able to repair.
6. NO NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION? Page 20
My husband and I recently attended an Allergy Meeting in Arizona. We spent 5 days learning the
problems associated with air and chemical pollutants and their cross reaction with food allergies.
Both appear together when the immune system is overloaded. Automobiles and their exhaust
fumes are not the innocent vehicles one would think. Mass them with 23,000 cars/day, and you
have impacted families living all along the Thoroughfare Corridor. The diagnosis is difficult, but
physicians are having to deal with more and more patients who have suppressed immune systems
because of exposure to fumes, toxic chemicals, etc. Heavy automobile traffic by buildings where
person sit in stationary positions a large part of the day (the example given was children in schools)
was actually a topic of conversation. THERE IS WITHOUT A DOUBT A CONSIDERABLE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AIR AND NOISE CURRENTLY IN THAT ENTIRE CORRIDOR AND
WHAT IT WOULD BE WITH 15,000 EVEN 20,000 CARS/DAY. ONE CAN HEAR THE CARS ON
CHURCH STREET MANY BLOCKS AWAY.

April 12, 1995
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr.
P.E. , Public Hearing Officer
N C Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: O'Neal-Rockwood Connector, U-2802
Project 9.8070179
Second of two letters
Dear Mr. Goode,
Again, thank you for your time in reading this information included. We want all the material included in this
packet to be included in any permanent records for not only this O'Neal Rockwood Open Hearing, but also
for:
Any Open Hearings or Information-gathering sessions held in the past or future on the Cook Road Project,
on the Southern Bypass extending from Anthony Road to a Rest-Area Interchange, on the Gibsonville and
Eastern Bypass, and for any updating of the entire Alamance County Thoroughfare Plan. We want all
records to show that at both Open Hearings (1988 & 1995) & at ALL open forums for O'Neal Rockwood, that
much discussion occurred which showed the DOT that the citizens had, as their TOP PRIORITY, to stop the
funneling of traffic through our city with our present Thoroughfare Plan and work on a Bypass System
whereas the five-lane Thoroughfares with commercial, Industrial, and through traffic would go out and around
the seven cities in our area which function, with traffic and shopping, as one Metropolitan area.
The ideas included in this package were proposed in 1988, but were treated with absolute disrespect
by the DOT Engineers. This influenced our cities governing bodies a great deal. It has truly been a
game. With planned deception, the above information given time and time again by citizens at every
Open Hearing, sent through the mail, given to TCC and TAC members, was not written down nor
addressed in any documents, therefore making it appear that citizen input and outrage with the
current plan was non-existent or limited. (See public involvement page 24 of State environmental
assessment. Where are all the letters sent to the DOT from the citizens in the past. Is it that if you do not
see the advertisement for one meeting, and miss it, that all past input is not counted? Bob tried his best to
get us to OK one of three plans, one of which had the bicycle path in the median. Then this new plan with
180'-wide apron suddenly appeared out of the Engineering Department. Good for the neighborhood?
The Alamance Plan in 1990 was NOT up-dated to address the growth in Alamance County from 1975-
1990, let alone growth for our future. Now citizens on all N-S roads are terrified for their
neighborhood's survival, thus pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. All statements at any
Open Hearing, Open Forum, or written to the DOT and TAC's, TCC's need to be a permanent part of
every document which outlines citizen input. For example, letters were sent to Bill Austin with really
good, positive input for Thoroughfare Planning. His one-sentence summary (the letters were never sent to
the TAC members) stated that the person was "against" O'Neal Rockwood. It was in fact, exactly the
opposite. Oh, the frustration of dealing with persons who have no one critiquing their judgment.
We are truly victims of whoever designed the initial Thoroughfare Plans. If the Engineers were not
visionary and designed a plan too "close-in", and our County grew faster than predicted, then we are
left with a screwed-up mess for the rest of the century!
page 2
I'm asking (somewhat begging you to consider!) the following:
A. Through the mandates of the ISTEA Bill, use the O'Neal Rockwood Area as a TEST EXAMPLE of how
the DOT and citizens can work effectively together toward a very positive environmental project of the
Natural Science Center. Let us help you advertise the heck out of it State Wide and give you guys great
publicity. We would do it. All of this energy and contacts we have could be used for your benefit. We WANT
to work with you! As publicity chairman for every volunteer organization I've been associated with, it could be
GREAT! If SAFETY AND CRIME IN NEIGHBORHOODS, SCHOOLS, AND RECREATION AREAS is of
prime importance to Cities, States, and our Federal Government, why doesn't the DOT have those same
priorities when they look at placement of roads? PLEASE GIVE THIS ALTERNATIVE A CHANCE!
Did you know the Parks & Recreation Commission had a Natural Science Center in the O'Neal Rockwood
right-of-way as one of it's goals in it's long-range plan? An outside evaluator had the Natural Science Center
as one of his recommendations. With the citizens and the Parks & Recreation Commission backing this .
project, it could truly become something great. (I have it already organized, with docents obtained from the
Senior Advantage Program at the Alamance Regional Medical Center.)
B. Once a neighborhood is destroyed, the opportunity to repair the damage is gone. I've have been in
charge of "repairing" the damage to too many projects in Burlington. Bad decisions were made, because the
person in charge was not a "Bottoms Up" person. Easy money destroys and only after the mistakes are
made, does one look into the consequences of the decisions and how to repair the damage. I am a
"bottoms Up" person. Look into things very carefully BEFORE a project is started. Saves TIME, MUCH
MONEY, and a lot of headaches.
C. In my medical profession I dealt with patients with cancer and Leukemias. My test results decided their
diagnosis and their dosage of medcines. I taught Resident Physicians to perform and to read bone marrow
exams, which required hours of careful study and research. NEVER would I jump to a conclusion and make
a diagnosis of cancer or leukemia without doing thorough research. One has to be persistent and willing to
CHANGE ONE'S MIND. I'll never forget, one young person was diagnosed with Lymphoma, which is
malignant. One Dr. just did not give up. Time after time, a test for Cat Scratch Fever was performed, with all
being negative. Finally the test was positive, so the boy ended up with a completely different diagnosis.
Completely different treatment and outlook for longevity. That boy was so grateful to that Dr. who, even
when someone else had made the diagnosis of lymphoma, went out of his way to make sure it was the
correct diagnosis. I am asking of you. Please be willing to say "I have changed my mind". The diagnosis
you have made for our city is just as malignant as a cancer.
D. Cities that lie along the paths of major Thoroughfares (1-85/1-40) have to take a proactive and strong
stand in outlining their positive features and developing a philosophy of preserving those positive features for
our future. If we do not have a City Council, City Planner, engineer or DOT engineer who has that
philosophy, then the citizens lose. Our city is currently being "engulfed" by commercialism having full reign
because of the lack of leadership in our City Hall. When a City Employee can not delegate authority, can
not make decisions because of a lack of organizational skills, and rambles on, making up things as he goes
without ever looking anything up in order to make sure information is correct , the community is in real
trouble.

Please consider the following ideas, for it will take stress off the DOT and help
our communities:
The DOT could save time, money, and friction with citizens if Urban Planners or Urban
Geographers were hired by the DOT to be the initial contact persons with cities. Urban
Planners or Geographers are educated to have a "big picture" idea of the growth of towns, what
needs to be preserved, and what the needs of communities are as far a transportation planning.
This group would make the initial assessment of the towns, working with citizens and their
communities in developing a vision for their future transportation needs and ultimately their
Thoroughfare Plan. Hosting Design Review Sessions for gathering input and using that input to put
together a long-range Transportation Plan would be the first steps. It sure has worked with my
current job of being project coordinator for constructing a Medical Office Building. I had never done
anything like that before, and it has been a very positive experience. (Building is even coming in
UNDER budget). Perhaps the DOT would want to experiment with this concept here in Burlington.
We would help. All Open Hearings would be less combative if citizens feel their input was being
used as an integral part of the developed Plan.
And where citizens feel there is a true respect for their input!
Finding of No Significant Impact? Of anything that I've seen in my years of living in Burlington,
California, Chicago, Detroit, Okinawa, it is the exact opposite. It will have SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE
IMPACT - probably more than any of our City Councilmen realize. Just look around. It's there off
Maple avenue, off Harden Street, off many streets in Greensboro.
We would like a registered lette't mailed back to us specifically addressing how we can help with the
first step in analyzing the development of a Natural Science Center in the Thoroughfare right-of-way
wrapping around Turrentine School from Church to Edgewood. The terrain is ideal - no "filling in" -
no 23,600 cars/day, and probably one of the most positive decisions the DOT could make in our
state. It's worthy of being a very viable alternative. Fits right in with the IS-TEA Bill. Perhaps we
could invite Mr. Pena down to view the creative re-use of out-dated Thoroughfares. With all the
negative publicity the DOT is getting from other cities, looks like the DOT could use some positive
publicity. We certainly would do every in our power to give it to you.
Thank you for your time in reading this lengthy letter and all the enclosed materials. As you can see,
we are not thinking only of O'Neal Rockwood, but we are big picture people. We have educated
ourselves and 1 am sure you would not want us to sit back and let the politics of this particular era
ruin what impacts negatively large numbers of our population. (Almost every child going to school in
our city.)
Sincerely an with respe9t
Diane Vaught
2112 Somers Avenue
Burlington, NC 27215
[phone]
cc: Governor James Hunt
Secretary of Transportation, Sam Hunt
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E. Manager Planning & Environmental Branch
Mr. Wayne Wright, District Corps of Engineers
Secretary of Human Resources, Mr. Robin Britt
Others to numerous to list
M
1. We ask the DOT to immediately stop all money going into the design and construction of
O'Neal Rockwood because the current origin-destination DATA has not been complied. One
doesn't go to a surgeon that is still using data from results of your blood work when you were
born. The Thoroughfare has been on the books for 38 years. Suddenly because of a political
move resulting from ill feelings because the former Mayor was ousted, a member of our
Council has asked the DOT to move up the road.
Why should a community be stuck with a Thoroughfare Plan that is so out-of-date -. but our
City Council says we HAVE to put the roads in the exact place because that is where they
have always been. The 1990 Up-date of our Thoroughfare Plan consisted of our TCC
approving roads just because they were ON THE 1975 PLAN. It had nothing to do with a
serious look at the growth of our County. In fact, many of the people on the TAC commented -
and I quote I am new to this board and I do not really know what I am voting for, but I'll vote
for it anyway. In complete disbelief, that is how our Thoroughfare Plan was passed. No one
really had LOOKED into thing, mostly because they saw chances for roads to be built by the
people that had purchased land. "FREE ROADS" - THAT ALL OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND
DOT CARES ABOUT. DOESN'T MATTER IF THE ROADS ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF NEW
NEIGHBORHOODS, OR 0.3 MILE FROM THE EIGHT-LANE 1-40-1-85. COULD THE PROCESS
BY WHICH THE DOT APPROACHES CITIES BE IN NEED OF A CHANGE?
When a road does come up for, review, all citizens sending you letters about that road should be
notified of forums, reviews, etc. Our Thoroughfare Plan should have been super-imposed on top of
our land-use plan and changes made to those now 20-38 year-old roads to address the growth of our
County. With our computer age, every business I know is not using DATA from 1968 to build
something in 1995 or for the year 2015. Shouldn't the DOT encourage cities to have those same
goals?
I1. Why are citizens treated as "the enemy" by the DOT if they try to give input that perhaps is
contradictory to the DOT's initial position? We are not so bad!
Ill. For a decision as major as cutting a "5-lane road that will ultimately hold 23,600 cars/day,
going past 4 schools, segmenting neighborhoods, cutting the City Park off from the
neighborhoods" - to be made at a meeting where there was just one notice two weeks before
the meeting, is absolutely ludicrous. No official notice announcing the 7PM extension was
seen either. Having been President of 6-7 organizations, Chairmen of 8 large community fund-
raisers, and publicity Chairman of the same, one soon learns techniques on how to get
people to meetings. You advertise, advertise, advertise - in newspapers, on radio, on TV
Community Services Announcements, on Cablevision, in the Alamance Scene.
But then perhaps that was not the plan.
4esidents in Protest Ofd MR/j1, IAIZ_1:: " /N Cam * Dps P
Ci Co unci1 r® i°
BY ass
A•..recommendation .to `Yoriet pears ,ha,lto ve, ended the city's to their homes. Some said they council agreed to forget.the by
this by pass" unanimously• was?partieipat?on; in the plea for the had plans to build, but would not pass,, a move which was met byI
approved by the City Council last by -pass. if the road came that way. a round of applause*
pplause from t h ei
night: after a group of some 60 Key spokesmen for the group J. D. Mackintosh Jr., c i t y audience. I
residents of the area west of the last nighCwere Marsh McLelland, manager, explained the routes It was noted by some in the
city.; appeared.-in-protest to 'pro- T...: D:.Cooper Sr.. and Louis C. proposed for the roads, emphasiz- audience that subdividers in the ?
posedy locaUaw'.. for the road. Allen Jr. ing that all the plans were tenta- area would : be • stymied, and , as
Five pr routes for .a by, They -,pointed out. that • people tive and preliminary. He said the to the relative cost. of? running a
pass connecting Highway.62 south- in the earea were much concerned city.-was to located buildings and road through -the area. it ;w a s
west of Burlington with Highways about the,%matter and, stated the other construction on the routes.
87• apd 100 north-.of Glen, Raven routes were . proposed through It-was pointed out that it was pointed out that some property
I
' ' recently werel.submitted by the some 'of the count/s most ,. ex- not felt that the city would ''agree was selling for as much as $8,500
State( Highwap, Department- pensive •pNperties. to the road,.7going through the ex- per ,acre..
The routes would have crossed . It was' suggested that kbc road pensive, property. iYo further mention was made
i H1O'w` y..*= A -'Edgewood Ave- might be located further" west,' ' Maps showing the routes were of the road in the meeting. follow-
nue 'Oxtensioa and Front Street and it was : claimedthat, there preliminary, to preliminary Stu- .
$ Zong:oa to tl hnk,wrth High would lIe?F devastating darrtage" dies at was sated,;:with':no funds 1° unscheduled public hear-
3" way ?. , and'higltcosts to the; taxpayers available, and founds. 'doirbt!`ul for rng.t .'
r TIaClgl mastrequested to lo-. if the roridway went through: the a survey." :iLust nights action apparently
CaW40uild6gv,:utilities and any area. =After , residents had'..empha ends!the matter.of.the by .'pass ,
i _ others ccnslniction on the pro- - The `discussion' continued f o r sized the damage that would be as,far`'as the city'is concerned. ,It
posed-routes and return this in- more than an hour, with'residents done to the residential : area and seems that :any further action on
i fortnatioa to the stater pointing out that. they would not expressed the feeling that the road the '.'road must originate' with
! However, last >3ight s action ag want to have the road pass,next should go further to the west, the sources :other, tha•? the city.
i -
_{? `?.
ell,

A4-
It:oe- ? ? - &.Zco?
SUBJECT: GREENWAY AND NATURAL SCIENCE MULTI-USE CENTER:
PURPOSE: TO build a NATURAL SCIENCE CENTER AND GREENWAY which would
link the schools of HILLCREST ELEMENTARY, BURLINGTON DAY, TURRENTINE
MIDDLE, WILLIAMS HIGH, GROVE PARK ELEMENTARY, ELON COLLEGE, with the
BURLINGTON CITY PARK, and ALAMANCE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. To take
advantage of the close proximity of these schools to ALAMANCE MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL in creating a setting conducive to the development of INTER-
GENERATIONAL PROGRAMS. (If the re-use of ALAMANCE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
would be for the retired/elderly) To create this GREENWAY/NATURAL
SCIENCE setting as a MODEL for the CITY,, COUNTY, AND STATE.
SCHOOLS: With funds no longer available for field trips for. students,
the need for a science center in close proximity to the schools would
be of great educational benefit. With the above mentioned schools
connected naturally by Little Alamance Creek, the opportunity for this
area to be used for this project is exciting. The desire for creating
this Natural Center/Greenway has been voiced by the teaching staff at
Turrentine for many years. By using local experts linking with the
many facets of our community who would offer financial/volunteer
support for a project such as this, the creation of this facility could
be an exciting addition to our county and state. In fact, it could be
a "one-of a kind" in. the nation. Land of this type is rarely available
for this use, and particularly not linking so many schools together.
School uses:
To provide safe pedestrian and bicycle entrances and exists. to all
schools for students. With 840 of all mothers in Alamance County
working, a need for alternative transportation for children going to
and from school and to after-school practices is great.
To decrease the amount of vehicular traffic around the schools, by
giving the children, particularly in the middle and high schools, a
safe alternative method of travel. This also gives students a
degree of independence and builds their self-esteem, when they are
allowed to "achieve" under safe circumstances.
To capitalize on the tremendous potential of the natural environment
which now links all the schools to the Burlington City Park. In
planning the creation of this Natural Science Multi-Use Center, the
land is currently not in use, thus allowing for the ultimate freedom
of creativity for this project.
To work with Alamance Regional Medical Center in creating a re-use
for Memorial Hospital, which would be visionary and progressive. To
intricately tie programs with our increasing older population in
Alamance County to our school-aged children is visionary and
progressive. The close proximity of Memorial Hospital with all of
the schools is unique. This is an exciting and unique opportunity
which should be thoroughly investigated.
s To work with Alamance Regional Medical Center in creating a unique
Wellness Program for the elderly, utilizing this greenway/ Natural
Science concept. With the aging population in Alamance County
increasing, this program could be utilized by all elderly living
adjacent to the area.
i
2
To use the volunteer services of the elderly in creating a docent
program for the school science classes. Having these classes
conducted on foot and on bicycles could be creative alternatives.
There are many retired teachers in Alamance County who could become
involved.
To create a series of natural wild-life areas and ponds, taking
advantage of the wildlife (deer, beaver, turkey,.and birds)
currently residing in the area.
To create another entrance to Turrentine Middle School.
t--71u i r:^/1' ,fi NPJLq
?LANlAXJ6e -Mora uiki'are
Pran p ?
Dear
U IV?l77v/?l.C/?????J V/L.iv 4W7(l?.v?/a.]
TCC a -rP? O FP6ug
?v e rte {'((o Gt, Z L l? C_
p Lo IUG, w(7t4 P?-n ro" dOP,
OPC-N'?M??J c7ClN 3dJ I4g8
(Sulu ? ?
July 23, 1988
The Alamance Urban Thoroughfare Plan is currently undergoing a
13 year revision. There is strong citizen concern over much of
this plan. Many of us have driven and walked-over almost every
proposed street on the Thoroughfare Plan. Parts of the basic plan
were initially proposed thirty years ago and were revised in 1963.
In 1975 the Thoroughfare Plan was updated to what we are familiar
with today. Many changes have taken place over these past 30 years
that need to be considered. Community and safety goals that are
positive for neighborhoods, schools, and recreational areas - as
well as traffic goals - need to be woven into this overall plan
while the opportunities still exist - for these aspects touch the
lives of ALL citizens.
.On June 30, an Open Hearing concerning the Alamance Urban
Thoroughfare Plan was held in Burlington at Williams High School
Auditorium. Attendance was very good particularly since the
meeting was held daring a time when many citizens planned summer
vacations that coordinated with the July 4th holiday weekend.
Enclosed is a summary-from some of the talks given at the
Hearing along with a sample page from the petitions given to
Burlington Mayor Gerow. Sixty one petitions were circulated with
1,089 persons signing these petitions. The petition read as
follows:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION THE BURLINGTON CITY
COUNCIL, THE CITY OF BURLINGTON PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENTS, THE T.C.C., THE T.A.C. AND THE STATE D.O.T.
TO BEGIN THE STUDY OF A PERIPHERAL BYPASS SYSTEM TO SERVE
THE ELON, GLEN RAVEN, BURLINGTON, AND GRAHAM TRAFFIC AND
TO WITHDRAW THE PROPOSED OINEAL-ROCKWOOD SECTION, FROM
CHURCH STREET TO WEBB AVENUE, FROM THE PROPOSED ALAMANCE
URBAN THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
Nine of the petitions had the added phrase: AND TO NOT INCREASE*
TRAFFIC ON SHADOWBROOK-BRIARCLIFF WITH PROPOSED LINK TO N.C. 87N..
(The name of Gibsonville should be added to the list of towns the
bypass could serve.)
We urge all of the cities of the Alamance.Urban Area to act as
one political unit and to begin planning a local bypass to move
traffic out and around all of our cities. The municipalities could
get input from citizens, business and industry by holding
professional design review sessions where all ideas presented are
treated equally. This could result in a coordination of ideas and
objectives between the cities and result in a better informed

public. Followup meetings could be a means of establishing unified
thoroughfare goals for this urban area.
Currently an Elon College-Gibsonville bypass presented to the state for a feasibilit stud is being
address the needs of the entire county by making this thedfirstlof
several stages of a much needed local urban bypass.
Let's capitalize on our assets and potential by looking into
some creative land use. Let's protect out present green areas and
coordinate them with the untapped potential along the Haw River and
with the new Lake MacIntosh. We do have much worth preserving in
this area - it's special, it's unique, and it attracts people and
industry. Let's look into keeping that which is important for
quality living - thoroughfares that complement the quality of life
- not infringe on it.
Thank you for understanding our concerns.
Sincerely,
-ec C>
aster 16 &0?G6
CPS G???:?ZF ? Zs?
d -?1'c erZ?c ?u?c? L I?kf
Citizens for Traffic Planning
Changes for the Alamance.Area
ti
r
- 1
SUMMARY OF THE OPEN HEARING HELD ON JUNE 30, 1988
About twenty six people spoke at this hearing but only two
spoke in favor of the Thoroughfare Plan. Opposition was
specifically directed against the O'Neal-Rockwood portion , the
connection of Briarcliff to Route 87N and the Sharpe Road section.
People speaking in opposition ranged from a school principal, a
former City Councilman and truck drivers., to residents of the
neighborhoods potentially affected. The following are excerpts
from some of presentations given at the hearing:
A. NEED FOR A LAND USE PLAN
A vast majority of the speakers expressed a real concern about
the safety factor in the proposed Thoroughfare Plan which directs
traffic around schools, through family-oriented neighborhoods and
near recreational areas. An overall land use plan, which reflects
these concerns, should be implemented. The committee formulating
this plan should drive throughout the area to visualize the land
that will be affected, and they should not rely solely on data
generated from a computer.
B. NEED FOR NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BYPASSES
Most speakers expressed the need for northern and southern
bypasses to get traffic out and around cities. This loop would
allow truck traffic access to the interstate highway without.
intruding in residential, intact neighborhoods. A northern local
bypass would start at a new Elon College entrance on I-85, continue
north around Gibsonville, connecting with the Elon College bypass,
continue on or above Webb Avenue around Graham and back to I-85.
The southern bypass could connect Graham with Elon College and the
northern bypass.
The Thoroughfare Plan should include another more northern two
to four lane bypass above Elon College and Graham connecting with
I-85. This true bypass would allow for future traffic when the
local connector becomes consumed by growth.
C. CONCERN OVER O'NEAL-ROCKWOOD THOROUGHFARE
The real concern at the June 30th hearing was the placement of
the Burlington-Graham Inner Loop. Designed 30 years ago when the
area was relatively undeveloped, this proposed road would now pass
through family-oriented neighborhoods and around schools and
recreational areas. The O'Neal-Rockwood portion of the Inner Loop
should be removed from the plan because of its impact on these
residential, school and recreational areas. The entire Inner Loop
is too small, no longer serves present traffic needs and is,
therefore, not cost effective. This loop will cause congestion on
the small connecting arterial streets (for example, Front Street).
If these smaller streets have to ultimately be widened because of
an ill-placed thoroughfare, more money is spent and the social
impact on these affected neighborhoods would be devastating.
2
The O'Neal-Rockwood portion of the Inner Loop connects Highway
87N with Chapel Hill Road and I-85. This road is destined for
heavy truck and commercial use. Other connecting streets such as
Gurney, Tarleton and Engleman do not have the direct connection
with two major highways. A similar problem has been created in
Graham with Graham-Hopedale Road connecting with Main Street to I-
85. This road cuts through a nice residential- neighborhood in
Graham and is presently faced with much congestion.
The public safety problems should stop all consideration of
the O'Neal-Rockwood segment of the plan. The highway will edge
near the rear of Turrentine School property; then make a sharp turn
to meet O'Neal Street - increasing the probability of accidents.
If an accident involved a truck containing hazardous materials, the
schools, nursing home, and hospital would be endangered.
Pedestrian/vehicular and bicycle/vehicular conflicts are
predictable around the school and recreational areas near this
Inner Loop and are completely avoidable.
A school board member, who voted to give land behind
Turrentine to the. city for the thoroughfare, reported that he had
understood that O'Neal-Rockwood would be a two-lane connector
street. Had he been told about the four lane Inner Loop, he would
not have voted to give the property to the city. Another former
school official concurred that he too thought the road was to be a
two-lane connector.
A member of the City Council that first adopted the O'Neal-
Rockwood plan stated: "No one ever dreamed this road would someday
be in the middle of a residential and school area. Times have
changed and this road needs to be taken off the Thoroughfare Plan."
The noise factor will diminish the quality of education.
Concentration is reduced by outside noise, even if the school is
eventually air-conditioned. The athletic field must be fenced to
protect children. This green area that is now used as a
neighborhood park will be lost.
D. TRUCKERS' CONCERNS
The truckers at the hearing admitted that they DO like to take
short cuts and do not stay on the numbered routes. They adamantly
try to avoid any school, residential, or recreational area because
of pedestrian and school bus traffic. The O'Neal-Rockwood and
Huffman Mill-Briarcliff connectors would save time and fuel, but
would be disastrous for truck drivers. They were against
connecting these roads to a Route 87N access. Even if these roads
were limited to local traffic by the present City Council, there is
no guarantee that a future Council would not change that. A bypass
is urgently needed for industrial traffic.
E. WEBB AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
Webb Avenue needs to be widened to get commercial, industrial,
and mill traffic out of Glen Raven. Webb Avenue should have a
direct entrance to I-85. Vacant land near Tucker Street could be
utilized to connect a North-South industrial route from Webb Ave.
3
to Mebane St. to Tucker St. to I-85. The entrance to I-85 could be
via a service road if no other entrance can be created.
F. BURLINGTON'S TRAFFIC PATTERNS
Traffic in Burlington flows east-west because of the home-
work-shopping destinations make that pattern. West. Burlington is
almost entirely residential with little growth potential. There
are no significant traffic problems north to south on Gurney,
Engleman or Tarleton except at peak school and local business
traffic times. The volume of traffic on Tarleton Ave. will
continue because of the proximity of Williams High and Turrentine
Middle schools. An Inner Loop will.have little effect.
Planners claim that 12,400 to 17,500 vehicles would travel the.
O'Neal Rockwood connector daily by 1995 and also state that 90% of
this traffic would be locally generated. Ninety percent of 15,000
is 13,500 - absolutely no other residential street has anything
close to that volume of traffic. Obviously, Rockwood would be
serving as a connector for outside traffic to reach the interstate
serving as a connector to the interstate for traffic from outside
our residential areas.
G. GREENWAY PROPOSAL
An alternative to this Inner Loop could be the start of a
greenway system connecting our parks, schools, and neighborhoods.
Car traffic could-,Pe reduced in the neighborhoods because foot and
bicycle greenways,.could become an integral part of the Thoroughfare
Plan for the entire Alamance urban area.
Mr. Charles Flink, from Greenways, Inc., of Raleigh and a
former city planner, gave a slide presentation at the hearing on.
greenways and their use in Raleigh, High Point, Winston-Salem,
Durham, and many other cities. Many cities utilize former road
sites for their greenways and have worked them into their long
range growth plans. The greenway concept also seems to be
attracting the attention of foreign industries in.our area. We
need to capitalize on it.
H. PROBLEMS CAUSED BY HEAVY CITY TRAFFIC
Fortunately Alamance County at the present time has escaped
the problems facing so many urban areas with heavy inner city
traffic. These problems include:
Lowered tax values on residential property,
Commercial infill into once intact neighborhoods,
Schools surrounded by heavy traffic,
Families moving out to suburbs or to other cities, and
Pedestrian movement becoming dangerous and, for children,
virtually impossible.
4
I. 1975 THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The results of a survey taken during the 1975 updating
indicated that all respondents felt that it was "extremely
desirable" to:
Channel major thoroughfares around neighborhoods, not through
them and
Divert through trips out of neighborhoods, downtowns and
unified areas.
J. SCHOOLS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AFFECTED.
Turrentine, Burlington Day School, and a new proposed
Hillcrest Elementary School border the proposed O'Neal-Rockwood
portion of the Inner Loop. Much of the traffic going to Williams
High School would also cross this road with a lot of this traffic
being TEENAGE DRIVERS. The Eastern part of the Inner Loop goes
through the neighborhoods servicing the Newlin School Area.
The Inner Loop virtually cuts off the West Burlington
pedestrian movement to the Burlington City Park and YMCA, the East
Burlington pedestrian movement to Fairchild and the BMX track, and
the North Burlington pedestrian movement to North Park. Our cities
should be vigorously striving for ways to PROTECT these areas. A
Greenway concept could IMPROVE pedestrian movement, thus
eliminating some'of the car-pooling traffic that brings congestion.
CONCLUSION
Differences df,opinion have pinpointed the need for a Bypass,
connecting our cities, for through and locally generated traffic.
With the population growth predicted for the Piedmont Area, there
must be an accommodation between traffic and houses. Vehicles can
no longer expect an unobstructed straight shot to everywhere. A
slight inconvenience to vehicle routing is a small price to pay for
secure homes, schools, and recreational areas not constantly under
the threat of changes in city traffic.
We citizens care about our cities. We LIVE here, we work here,
and we raise our families here. Industrial and through traffic must
be diverted out and around our cities instead of into or across.
PROPOSAL UPDATE
The City of Burlington and the State D.O.T. have asked the citizens
to submit to them Thoroughfare alternative proposals, many of which
were covered at the Open Hearing. Other ideas for Industrial routes
are: l.Connect WEBB AVE. to I-85 by just the lower end of the
Burlington-Graham Inner Loop. This would make a N-S Industrial
connector and could help traffic congestion for Graham and Maple
Ave (49) and 54. A service road could be utilized for a connection
to I-85 perhaps at the 49 interchange. 2.Connect WEBB AVE.to
ANTHONY ST. to MAPLE AVE. Divert Mall traffic onto service road to
?Tucker to I-85. While the I-85 interchanges are being redesigned,
an Industrial route (utilizing Webb Ave.) and the Elon College exit
should be implemented into that design. Other Urban TIP projects
could be downgraded or eliminated with implementation of the
Bypasses and Industrial routes. The result could be COST EFFECTIVE
and efficient, with all of our areas working together for
compatible traffic flow.
We, the undersigned, petition the Burlington City Council,
Planning and Engineering-Departments, the T.C.C., the T.A.
D.O.T. to begin the study-of a Peripheral Bypass System to
Glen Raven, Burlington, and Graham traffic, and to WITHDRAW
Rockwood Section, from Church Street to Webb Avenue, from
Alamance Urban Thoroughfare Plan.
Name Address
the UlLy of Duriingwii
C., and the State
serve the Elon,
the proposed O'Neal
the proposed
Phone
April 12, 1995
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr.
P.E. , Public Hearing Officer
N C Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: O'Neal-Rockwood Connector, U-2802
Project 9.8070179
First of two letters
Dear Mr. Goode,
Thank you for moderating the Open Hearing on the O-Neal Rockwood Connector on Thursday April 6 from
7PM until its ending. The data at last fell in line with what the DOT had presented at a meeting which I
attended in December of 1987. Thank you for being honest with us. We know exactly who is not "above
board" with the citizens. Some of the "citizens" present have been Chairmen of Regional Planning and
Zoning Boards in other cities and they are truck drivers for the local Mills whose bosses are pushing this road.
They are very much AGAINST having Cook Road and O'Neal-Rockwood Roads going through
neighborhoods and school areas. There is a great deal of knowledge and experience with the citizens here
in Burlington. We are visionary thinkers and we see the "Big Picture" with transportation planning. I can
guarantee you, most of the updates to the 1975 Thoroughfare Plan were specifically from the Citizens Map
of Alternatives. They were NOT creations from our City or County Planning Depts. We citizens have been
underestimated in our abilities!
Enclosed are recent petitions with na total of 597 names. (178 petitions will follow on Monday to complete
this total). Also enclosed is a 21 Td.:petition with 1089 names, which was signed during what the citizens
thought was the "real" Open Hearing in 1988. These petitions were given to our Mayor and shoved in a
drawer. Much to his dismay, he was not re-elected during the last election. He still has no idea how
important these open areas near our schools and through our neighborhoods are to the citizens of Burlington
and Alamance County.
We request these petitions and letters become a permanent part of the DOT record of persons being against
the O'Neal Rockwood Connector's present design, the completed Burlington Inner Loop concept, and the
Briarcliff extension. This is official notification that we are IN STRONG SUPPORT OF the immediate
funding of the Gibsonville & Eastern Bypasses and extending Anthony Road for the Southern Bypass of an
Outer Loop System. Opening up Tucker Street is the key to stop the funneling of traffic onto Church Street.
We also ask to initiate immediate meetings with your group & us - to look at the real problems with the
environmental, social, & safety aspects of the O'Neal Rockwood Thoroughfare. Gosh, this is OUR money
which is being spent. This money needs to be used prudently and frugally because it certainly is not FREE!
The Burlington Inner Loop in its present location is in one of the most environmentally important areas of our
cities. These open areas play a HUGE role with controlling flooding all along this Inner Loop Corridor.
This Inner Loop needs to be broken, with the segment specifically from Church to Edgewood reused as a
Natural Science Center for our schools and the segment from Edgewood to Rockwood downgraded to a 40'
residential connector and placed in a position as to not harm the residences along its path. I do not live
along the O'Neal Corridor, but a tributary runs through our property. We have been financially impacted for
years in trying to control flooding because of development above us. My neighbors have lived with the
results of flooding problems whenever it rains hard. Recently he ended up with a $4600 doctors bill when
trying to dig the creek out himself ( he just moved here from Greece and had no insurance). Living with
flooding problems sure does open ones eyes as to the impacts of development.

O'Neal Rockwood Connector, page 2
The 1 st petition reads as follows.-
We. the undersigned citizens of Burlington & Alamance Ctv., do hereby petition the City of Burlington,
the Burlington City Council the Parks & Rec. Commission, & the DOT, under the mandate of the IS
TEA Bill to work with citizens/schools in preservina the fragile preen areas of the O'Neal/Rockwood
Thoroughfare Right-Of-Way from O'Neal St. To Edaewood Ave., discarding the Thorouahfare Concept
with the re-use of the Right-Of-Way as a Natural Science Center Complex with Greenwavs connecting
the Burlington City Park and to work with the owners of property from Edaewood Ave. To Rock wood
Ave To decrease the size of the road & huae apron now designed & to build a two-lane residential
connector (like Gumey Street) in a location as to least harm the existing homes, adding appropriate
Greenwavs in the flood plain & fringe which would serve to link Hillcrest Ele., .Burlington Day, &
Turrentine Schools The Science Center would be a public/private partnership created by a Science
Center Committee comprised of Dr. Ed Powell the present right-of-way private property owners, the
Parks & Rec. Commission members of the school systems involved, school administration, &
interested citizens A "bus" entrance for Turrentine would be created in the overall project scope.
The 2nd petition reads as follows:
We the undersigned, petition the Buriinaton City Council, the Cfir of Burlinaton Planning and
Bypass System to serve the Elon Glen Raven, Burlington and Graham traffic and to WITHDRAW the
proposed O'NEAL-ROCKWOOD Section from Church Street to Webb Avenues, from the proposed
Peripheral Bypass System.
These petitions represent much more than just sheets of paper. Many of the persons involved in the
controversies with Cook Road and O'Neal Rockwood have been medically compromised because of the
stress felt during the years with the negative verbal treatment by our City and County elected and salaried
Officials and the NC DOT. The citizens really care about their community. No one is out for just their "OWN
SELF BENEFIT" - except several persons that are "for" the road. They have openly stated it will link their
businesses. One citizen has suffered a heart attack, many have had to move away from their homes and
investments, and many, many no longer enjoy a carefree life. In other words, to all of you behind a desk,
moving a line on a map is easy, but to the persons affected by those little lines, none of you will ever be able
to comprehend the impact of years of verbal abuse our elected officials have given to the citizens who
initially asked - WOULD YOU LOOK INTO OTHER ALTERNATIVES INSTEAD OF THESE ROADS
DESTROYING THE AMBIANCE AND SAFETY OF OUR INTACT NEIGHBORHOODS, RECREATION, AND
SCHOOL AREAS? Interestingly enough, ALL of the persons signing the petition could care less if it takes
them 5 minutes longer to get to work or shopping. Only the City Planner and DOT engineers who do not live
in our area are concerned about that. Raising children while living in a safe, protected environment IS of
importance to these citizens.
I look forward to hearing from you as to convenient dates a meeting with us could be scheduled. Please read
the second letter for specific details on Thoroughfare Planning needs in Alamance County.
Sincerely
Diane Vaught et al,
2112 Somers Ave.
Burlington, NC 27215, [phone]
Citizens for Better Thoroughfare Planning for Alamance County,
Burlington Citizens for Safe Neighborhoods & Schools & In-depth Road Planning
j -----_.-------- -. _.. --- ---..._ .----- -. _ --- -?-fem.
PETITION FOR SCIENCE CENTER IN
OAREA.
i We, the undersigned citizens of Burlington & Alamance Cty., do hereby petition the City of Burlington, the
Burlington City Council, the Parks & Rec. Commission, & the DOT under the mandate of the IS TEA Bill to
work with citizens/schools in preserving the fragile green areas of the O'Neal/Rockwood Thoroughfare Right-
Of-Way from O'Neal St. to Edgewood Ave. , discarding the Thoroughfare Concept with the re-use of the Right-
Of-Way as a Natural Science Center Complex with Greenways connecting the Burlington City Park, and to
i work with the owners of property from Edgewood Ave. To Rockwood Ave. to decrease the size of the road &
huge apron now designed & to build a two-lane residential connector (like Gurney Street) in a location as to
least harm the existing homes, adding appropriate Greenways in the flood plain & fringe which would serve to
link Hillcrest Ele. , Burlington Dav , & Turrentine Schools. The Science Center would be a public/private
partnership created by a Science Center Committee comprised of Dr. Ed Powell, the present right-of-way
private property owners, the Parks & Rec. Commission, members of the school systems involved, school
administration, & interested citizens. A "bus" entrance for Turrentine would be created in the overall project
scope.
NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS
I '
i
J _4
i
I
i

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i

1 I
I
Harlington Citizens for Sate Neighborhoods & Schools & In-depth Road
Planning
i

We, the undersigned, petition the Burlington City Council, the City of Burlington
Planning and Engineering Departments, the T.C.C., the T.A.C., and State N.C. DOT
to begin the study of a Periperal Bypass System to serve the Elon, Glen Raven,
Burlington, and Graham traffic and to WITHDRAW the proposed O'NEAL-ROCKWOOD Section
from Church Street to Webb Avenues, from the proposed Alamance Urban Thoroughfare Plan.
,4A)P ro Noy 111jC2_-AS& 7 ?Lrc 6? ? 4-? voK_??21.4?2CL?.c? L?JrT'N
NAME ADDRESS ?fF? PiQOI?lSF? LINK 7v N,G; 'g7 PHONE NUMBER
?G S/dam
1375
a.. g 6e
4- Z o C..? 584-7 (1-
7 7- 1 ??L
??/ -- 7x7-
/?, o
&ILALA
r.? . spy- ?' e?
..9SL. "1 3 ! 5 ? ? 58? - ?t 3 5 ?
I (le
i
I J
I

THOROUGHFARE PROPOSALS
TO: Mr_. Bill Austin, Members of the TCC and TAC

Thank you for sharing this letter with all members of the TAC and TCC. Could multiple announcements of the
TCC and TAC meetings, along with all deadlines for citizen input about the Thoroughfare Plans, be put in the
Alamance Scene and Community Announcements Section of all area newspapers, including the Greensboro
Times-News? Could this matter be addressed at the next meetings of both groups? Thank you.
With the completion of the eight-lane 1-85/1-40 and the resultant increased growth and traffic, our Thoroughfare
Plan seems to be in need of a careful, visionary review. Alamance County has some very special but very fragile
positive features which draws people/industry to relocate into this area. These special features need to be
addressed, written down, and become a high priority to preserve for our future. They need to be given a top
priority when thoroughfare right-of-ways are revisited. With all the interest from citizens with this review, could the
following be considered: .
1. Form a Citizen/Municipality Task Force(or Committee) to gather
ideas from the public.
2. Divide Alamance County into sections. Within each section,
this Task Force would have area meetings for gathering of
ideas.
3. All special features of each section would be identified,
written down, and categorized. Any future needs of each
section would also be identified.
4, In each section, the Thoroughfare Plan would be assessed as to
its appropriate placement and its impact on these special
features.
5. The Task Force would formulate any changes they see necessary
to the Thoroughfare Plan, using a map to visually show the
resultant ideas.
6. The results of this Task Force would. be heard by the TCC and
the TAC. Each municipdtity would also hear a formal
presentation on this project.
7. Questions this might solve:
a. Does the current plan have a long-range vision for incorporating and identifying important
aspects of our municipalities, such as our open space, green areas, entrances to our cities, etc.? The community
certainly feels there needs to be a greater vision and direction on which our entire Thoroughfare Plan should focus.
This is a great opportunity to make some changes before these areas are lost!
b. Does the current Thoroughfare Placement negatively impact any of our neighborhoods, schools,
and recreational areas? Since these areas play such a critical role in people/industry moving to our area, any new
plan should allow for preservation of these crucial areas. With creative vision, movement of cars can be achieved
AND these areas protected.
c. Does our Thoroughfare Plan address the future of our area as one metropolitan unit? Across-
town movement of traffic with our area being so E-W elongated seems to be an issue. None of our cities want to
be used as cut-throughs for traffic not only from the outside, but also from bordering cities getting across town.
THOROUGHFARE PROPOSALS, PAGE 2
Below are some proposals for positive changes to the current Thoroughfare Plan that would preserve critical areas
of our County. Listed are reasons for the needed changes, ideas for new road alignments, and positive results that
could be achieved:
1-85/40 INTERCHANGE AT REST AREA TO A GIBSONVILLE BYPASS - CONNECTING WITH ELON-
OSSIPPEE ROAD TO 87N:
1. Helps to alleviate current problems at rest area
2. Combined entrance to Elon College and Gibsonville
3. Allows for planned Industrial and residential growth for Gibsonville, Elon College and Whitsett.
4. Direct route through open land to 87N. Preserves and protects Davidson Park Recreation and
I' St. Marks Church areas from future rest-area/Huffman Mill Road-type problems. Preserves the
historic Whitsett area and takes the pressure off Williamson Ave.
5. Helps address the problems with accidents at Western Middle and Western High School.
6. Would open up creative alternative transportation opportunities (pedestrian/bicycle) linking all
the residential areas East, West, South, & North around Westbrook Ave., Olde Forest Racquet
Club, Twin Lakes, the shopping centers, the new Methodist Church, Davidson Park
and Lake Macintosh. This could be developed and made into an Adam's Farm-type area with a
planned vision. The plans have already been created by some of the citizens and I have
included these with this write-up. Would be a big draw for business and industry looking at
Alamance County.
LINK 1-85/40 INTERCHANGE AT REST AREA TO ANTHONY ROAD ON THE SOUTH:
1. Anthony Road is an existing road lying south of the airport. Gives. direct link to airport from
entire Alamance County area. Allows for future airport expansion.
2. This thoroughfare position is convenient for the Alamance Regional Medical Center yet allows
for future predicted medical growth surrounding the new Facility.
3. Alleviates through-traffic mixing with ill-patient traffic. With physicians offices and a huge
oncology unit moving to this Medical Center, the problems existing now for these patients are
predictable to occur around this new facility.
4. Combined with the thoroughfare planned south of Graham and connecting to the Eastern
Bypass, this thoroughfare location would allow for planned origin-destination traffic flow around
our Alamance County area.
5. Allows direct access to Industrial Parks on Anthony Road.
6. Allows through-traffic future direct link from 87N to 87S without impacting neighborhoods,
schools, and recreation areas.
REMOVE BOTH THE O'NEAL-ROCKWOOD AND THE COOK ROAD CONNECTORS FROM THE
THOROUGHFARE PLAN. Utilize parts of these plans as residential connectors. See page 2 of attached
write-up for more details.
• The O'Neal Rockwood area terrain is perfect for a Natural Science-type facility connecting Hillcrest
Elementary, Burlington Day, Turrentine Middle, Grove Park Elementary, Williams High, The City Park, Elon
College Elementary, and Elon College. The land, being low, containing a stream, and with large trees, is a
natural for this type of use. Connecting all of the schools by a greenway-type facility is a tremendous
opportunity our community should not dismiss. The community and schools would greatly support having this
concept become a reality, as this idea came initially as a need from the teachers themselves.
• Utilize the area from the lower edge of Rockwood Ave. to Edgewood Ave. as a two-lane residential street.
Keep that entire area free from cut-through traffic from Elon to the Outlet Malls and 1-85 by only connecting
these streets. That entire area should be preserved as a safe area for pedestrian movement of children to and
from schools and for walkers, joggers, etc. Our downtown has not been segmented off from our intact
neighborhoods. Let us not ruin our opportunity to keep intact neighborhoods close to our downtown.
• Remove Sharpe Road as being 54ane and part of the Inner Loop.
• North Park Recreation Area is on the North side of Sharpe Rd. and functions as a facility for after-school
programs, summer programs, and recreation for children from the housing areas boarding Sharpe Road. Most
children walk across Sharpe Road to this facility, many times with an adult having to watch traffic. Pate
Homes, on the North side of Sharpe Rd. also has 50 children for tutoring after school. Cutting off easy
movement to these facilities by making Sharpe Road 5-lanes would be a huge mistake. PLEASE contact Joe
Edwards, Burlington Housing Authority, for additional input and information.
• Address the problem of how and where drugs come into our community, especially where there is easy access
to large thoroughfares and to recreational facilities where our children go alone.
Sfce -Et?e ?u.n?ei ??g ?f A a% c +c, ?Aarcv Sfi 1K*emccVok: b4 op ti?? 1up. `C?ccl?ee- n
??? -Fcr QYt? c tlCUnq e? ?U? tl? ?1C ?JY11 V1lP d`Ci°d l Ott i)N? o pEllFvi7i Cc Y ulE-i S, mrS UJG(f ?CX
??lvE' S?duS'EY iccl ?'rct?t?C Y~?bletm as i.E.ie.ll QIb take- res5i ce, off bAAAet
Mebox\e,, E?iLtvrJv , Ao-,
WvLoss -160:41c rvl?lQ?ns ( het-o -Br\2q Occ Ur - t0tcA-n °I11 roads &Cos
i
?j
122

from the Fisher-Hoke Streets to the Town Limits of
Elon College. Estimated costs are:
Construction $2,5381000
Right of way 1,457,000
$3,995,000
Second Priorit
1. Proposed Burlington Loop - This project consists
o cons ructing a o ur=lane curb and gutter road-
way from Church Street to Webb Avenue by way of
w Rockwood Avenue. This facility will be the western
portion of the Burlington Loop. Estimated costs
are:
Construction $ 825,000
Right of way 108,000
933',000
2. Proposed Graham Loo - This project consists of
constructing a our-lane curb and gutter roadway
from NC 87 south of Graham to Beaumont Avenue.
This facility will function as the western portion
of the Graham loop and the eastern portion of the
Burlington Loop. Estimated costs are:
Construction $2,156,000
Right of way 362,000
$2,51 00
3. Mebane Street - This project consists of upgrading
Mebane Street to a four-lane curb and gutter ron::
way from Huffman Mill Road to Chapel Hill Road.
Estimated costs are:
ti
Construction $1,164,000
Right of way 89,000 =.
?1,53,E
4. Rauhut-Holt Streets - This project consists of
improving Rau hut- oft Streets to a four-lane curd ""
utrANTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS CO>
HIGHWAY BUILDING PREPARED BY DATE STATION
P. O. BOX 28201
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27611 CHECKED BY DATE STR NO SHEET OR_
7
6 ?O
-
71,
I.
. I T I
:
i ;
i
i
v
f
[
T

C ,
45
O-
1 77
D
17
I ,
so-o l
I. I
APPENDIX B
Priorities and Construction Cost Estimates
top-

In order to maintain an effective, efficient transportation system which re-
flects increasing population, employment and traffic demands over time, the following
schedule of projects is proposed. If our growth projections change at some future
time, then this schedule of projects would be adjusted to reflect our changing trans-
portation needs. It should be re-emphasized that the need for many of these projects
could be postponed or even eliminated if a concerted local effort is made to increase
carpooling and other forms of ridesharing.
Second Priority Projects (1980 - 1985)
I. Burlington Loop -- This project consists of constructing a four-lane curb
and gutter ro from Church Street to Webb Avenue by way of
Rockwood Avenue. This facility will be the western portion of the
Burlington Loop. Estimated costs are:
Construction $ 825,000
Right-of-way 108,000
$ 933,000
2. Graham Loop -- This project consists of constructing a four-lane curb
and gutter roadway from NC87, south of Graham, to Beaumont Ave-
nue. This facility will function as the western portion of the Graham
loop and the eastern portion of the Burlington Loop. Estimated costs
are:
Construction $2,156,000
Right-of-way 362,000
$2,518,000 r
3. Mebane Street -- This project consists of upgrading Mebane Street to a
four-lane curb and gutter roadway from Huffman Mill Road to Chapel
Hill Road. Estimated costs are:

Construction
Right-of-way
$1,164,000
89,000
$1,253,000
39

w • .tea- .,?:.
114
There are many factors which influence the traffic capa-
city of a street (capacity being the number of vehicles that
a street can accommodate). Some typical capacities for
various street cross sections are related here-for general
guidance. Table 14 indicates typical capacities for various
facilities in terms of vehicles per hour for a 24-hour period.
These capacities are based on average traffic characteristics
including 20 percent turning movements at principal-inter
sections, 10 percent truck volumes, and approximately 50
percent green time at signalized intersections. The 24-hour
volumes assume that the peak hour comprises 10 percent o-f
the daily total with 60-70 percent of the peak hour traffic
in one direction.
TABLE 14
Typical Capacity,Design Standards
Practical Capacity
Vehicles Per Hour
Facility Per.Lane Vehicles Per Day

Two Lanes Plus Parking
Two-way 400-500 5,700-10,000
One-way 450-600 10,000-13,000
Four Lanes, No Parking
E Two-way 450-550 13,000-22,000
Two-way with special
measures 600-800 17,000-26,000
Four Lanes With Parking
Two-way 350-450 10,000-15,006
Two-way with special
measures
Vii, vt tIA 5 D)tTA Cry 500-750 14,000-25,000
Six Lanes, No Parking
Two-way with special
measures 500-700 21,000-34,000
Four Lane Urban Expresswa 800-1,000 23,000-33,000
Four Lane Urban Freeway 1,200-1,500 35,000-50,000
Six Lane Urban Freeway 1,200-1,500 50,000-75,000
:.DOT's rep
s or a no ;
traffitsia
rake quest
' x?.miffs n?a er ro tem
If Roxboro City Gounciljhas its si7bilityoinstalIali
ghton a"state-
way, more Madison Boulevardjin mamtained highway
terst "
ectxons will e
.-. }? , guardedbyy cer noted further, at the
I ? ti
§ etoplghts. # rhad a at the city
`?'?ng°wt wiIl be l .. , ftforstate
-PM e g on.,T S: - Wl a
councilsdec?ded te'su w? any coun-
L3 h.
elm
N. `C Depq"ent of3vT ransgorta m to?ihake amotion .that
tion placement-. of a .s. the irsuestate DOTfunding
there-=one to replace.the present ofthe,stoplight', "And`then let's see
blinking.lightr what ve'"can do to move up he
State Rep. Mike 1110ns -had priority fist;" he said '
apparently startgd: the matter yCouncilman'_ Mike: ,Cannon
mobuig forward vv4a recentrlet- R obliged with a motion. In ;doing so,
t -tertto the state l?,OT Re asked t1jj he noted. ghat the state DOT had
bthe'DOT I - ety ofthe- the present flaslie Oji t installed
dAdisou:-Barden intersection,' t.thatsa i ktsseciaon. Cannon
i?his&equentlyused?yPersons dtliat: twas co placed
County Ambulance bervice emer and "is useless." =
7gencyvehicles., Cannon also added to his mo-
Replying in a letter to Raxboro tion that the city.ask the DOT for
City. Manager Tom Hogg, the IOT further :examination of other in-
saiditdoesnotseeenoughneedfor , tersections along Madison Boule-
a stoplight at that intersect io.n for. vard; with an eye toward safe traf-
the' DOT to pay for the signal., ficmovementandthepossibleneed
iI . ,thelettervi?entontosay for'other, stoplights: The motion
'Uat, if the city, deems the light ; p
l gnecessary the. DOT will allow;
rcity to place a light there; but
city expense.
The response apparently
Councilman Sam Spencer's ft
E Serving in his capacitry as Ma
Pro Tem Tuesdaynight.in the
Fence ofViayor Don NValdo Sp
Y f?+l
e
.Spencersaid, sticaito
tlt?siit pe of resporiseMin- order

TO.
mayor Brow and r•."T
?.., r
x, ?.
'I 'M'embers...
i Co'unci
V_ rrv
1 cam,:
c9 a a„ l-. During the past. two years, the Alamance County Thoroughfare Plan GL r
6 a has been under review. This plan, first conceived in 1957 and offs-
h^E
.t Q s + cially adopted in 1975, proposed a loop system to carry traffic around
+ lw? } the downtown business sector. The city has changed significantly E?Lt
/ since then, yet the plan does not seem to reflect that change. It
still calls for a major thoroughfare to connect O'Neal to Rockwood.
a Q. 33ff As proposed, this road would course through the middle of a quiet ?<t ?'sc
aw..S.P-ya..,u residential area, and pass adjacent to Turrentine Middle School, Bur-
lington Day School, and the property set aside to build a new elemen
g'" a`? '` yY $? tart' school. As you know, we already have major thoroughfares near
30:?
city schools and have to contend with increased risks to the safety
a }Ti
of our school children. Wouldn't we be compounding this by extending •?a ?
O'Neal?
J' Are there potentially more advantageous uses for this land? Why .?OGVaw?
surround Turrentine with a road to its south and west, when this land
could be used to expand the school as our city's middle school needs
grow? What about a residential park or "greenway", an arboretum for ?i! .rsSLTr
v-6C (d., ?. Uii? science classes, jogging or bike paths, or a library annex adjacent
't?}4• to Turrentine? Any of these would fill an existing need and enhance
g»yJ the community while "maintaining the integrity and character of exlst-
-?,
ing neighborhoods"r`a stated goal of the City/County Planning Commission.
Our concerns have been taken to the City Planning Department
3 yYN3 ?^'?`'?1` h many times in the past two years. A petition against this road was l`
??,cy (3,?•r E.,,,,,.•,' `? ' signed by over 1,000 concerned citizens last year. The Planning Depart-
ment tells us repeatedly that the road needs to be built for the people,.
J ' ; of West Burlington. But, what purpose would this road serve if the f?'tYseQ.
k? N' Nom) '' 3 residents surrounding it do not want it, and feel it is unnecessary.
D Would it not really help those nonresidents commuting through this
9N?- once quiet neighborhood, at the expense of local residents? C?pQnw(J,
In the and, as elected officials of this city, you will be making
the final decision. We want you to know we oppose this road and current 'S/
thoroughfare plan. We ask you to study the impact this thoroughfare h w.X?,y4
would have on the environment, neighborhoods, schools, and the city Q „ n
of Burlington. We urge you to review your position, and please let
mow, ?n b. ?• ?. '
us know where you stand. 7JA?/!&73,ye[
c¢ Y C2..-,£J.
r Sincerely,
elk
Y
. ? . ?t rtn. (`.?. ..? ?^ik4. ?,' . ,?Zu+.....t.? ?r??iL1.G'f<?.i O"'?.ior...,. .:'.•c.??+W(?C
43 ?? {??•"!?.wG .>MwtAµ`,S•?'?/?S. lI_a ?/J /??? .S/s?.1.?7!/a
?? ?p' c.l.Q-.¢?+ ;';, r$ ?•?p t 'Sr ??79'?,?.LC , ?°?""' P ?/? ?°s ? .? ??a?-'
L7
,. a, r' ,9.?r ¢o,, .c ® rte. aS' Mn
fefwa<u2 C:".
'11 -
-G?w? ? f !S;;?ti./•,., _, _ _e •.: ? a ??/.?? ?.. .''v?1f,S ''?St:ktR`?i otA.cY., ,_-:.,?L?µOL J..;
"i at
WMi/1L
,4- e
arv.-a..".vw sNn4.?.F.+ :?i• ?w?L, ?'?? ?v,_ `Y» r'Kn"?•? A? `? C??[.i? `1 v' ' Y?qj 1,. ? ?, ? -?? IC?K S?MILL ? W?i' /IC{.l `' '- ??•
Ch UXI C:LIPti i)V"'• Y/l.?
°'"?`). era ?? r i? rs - {p, . , .7 Q ®??7'A.w?- t?6d? CAc•.K:?, • ?sd?(1,,,.,
i? i? ;° j,F;??'K-ui 1p??,?'L!C(?.J.V'.Lt."' ?uJ? ca2J"+a:,w ?'•mec.4,milM ?,?,b,, ?
RA 4.
r
34
teZ.
CA
it nS??+ v.- T111 `f1 r t ?'? ?H f 1 n?`coiYSA??( "??°'r'? d
1??em?? 17, IRg?
1 0' ,
dl .
P" UL -
• ?r 1
17
l i n 14. y j. -r_. / C 1 OQ
-` I
/
' A
1 i
i

1.k/ WT
\ ,<•7 yr: ,I ! \ -...? -. % ?1
c _
\ ?`...1
r }
1 ?C
I
i R

.P -?
THOROUGHFARE PROPOSALS
NOVEMBER 30, 1993
• I. TAKE TO THE STATE TIP FOR IMbdEDIATE FUNDING, THE 87N/
GIBSONYILLE/SOUTHERN BURLINGTON/GRAHAM BYPASS (WITH CONNECTION TO THE
W ELON COLLEGE "BYPASS") AS STAGE NO. 1 IN THE FUNDING OF THE ENTIRE
~ ALAMANCE OUTER LOOP "BYPASS" PROJECT. THE EASTERN CONNECTOR COULD BE
Z '?
STAGE 2 SENT TO THE STATE TIP NEXT YEAR. Connect 87N to Elon-Ossippee
Road at a point above.Elon Middle School around(or South of) Broken
Arrow Lane. Continue on Elon-Ossippee Road to an area between Amick
and Pitt Roads where an intersection could take traffic to the East and
the Eastern Loop "Bypass" or to the West and the Gibsonville "Bypass".
Continuing on Southwest to the Gibsonville Bypass the road could
connect to Piedmont Way where it could make a connection with the
Gibsonville/Elon College Bypasses. At the intersection between Amick
and Pitt Roads, the road could continue Northeast to connect with
Phibbs Road and on across 87N and Old Ossippee Road to the Eastern
Bypass.
****CONNECTION TO I-85 INTERCHANGE AND SOUTHERN BURLINGTON/GRAHAM
"BYPASS". The Gibsonville Bypass could continue around Gibsonville to
an intersection crossing 100/61, where the lower portion of this Bypass
could connect to a new I-85/40 interchange at the present Rest Stop
Area.
The Outer Loop "Bypass" could continue South of I-85 to an area a
distance South of the new Regional Medical Center property, running in
a diagonal directio.n,to connect with Anthony Road and on to Graham and
up to the EASTERN BYPASS. The present Bypass runs on the South of the
Regional Medical Center property, with a major intersection at the
corner of this property. Moving the intersection South of its present
location will greatly help ease future,traffic congestion directly
around this new facility and help with the safe movement of patient
traffic. If Medical traffic misses the left turn into the new complex,
moving the intersection would allow traffic to again turn left into the
new Medical Complex without getting caught in the Bypass Intersection.
With many doctors offices/oncology unit moving to this area, ill
patients will be a large part of this traffic. This differs from
hospital visitor "well" traffic. The Regional Medical Center will
benefit from an internal connector to Kirkpatrick Road, allowing
ambulance, patient, and visitor traffic to exit another route without
the problems associated with the Bypass/Huffman Mill Road traffic.
The present location of the Southern Bypass also goes through a new
residential housing area and past the end of the extended runway at the
airport. Moving this Southern Route below the Medical Complex
connecting with Anthony Road, will be positive for the following
reasons:
1. Burlington's extra-territorial boundaries on the South extend
much further South and any Bypass built needs to reflect the present
and future growth. The Bypass if built in its current position will be
obsolete and will not function as intended.
2. The airport needs to be included inside the Bypass. The
airport should be given room for future expansion.
page2
3. The Bypass/Huffman Mill Road Intersection should not be on the
Medical Center property, as it mixes through-traffic with hospital
staff, visitors, elderly and ill patients. The Bypass should be South
of it's present location. Patient traffic is of prime concern when
building physician's offices. For example: Kernodle Clinic's parking
lot is all most aged patients can handle. The elderly currently avoid
the Huffman Mill Road Area because of the cars darting in and out of
the middle lane, etc. They will soon have no choice. Preparing for
this problem in advance is good planning.
4. Having tractor-trailer traffic going through a residential
area, with driveways.backing into the Bypass, should be avoided. Much
has been written about Bypasses built in too close and the problems
they create. Mixing Bypass traffic with school buses and having
sirens/ambulances continually going through the Grand Oaks neighborhood
are two other problems which are preventible.
THIS WESTERN/SOUTHERN/EASTERN OUTER "LOOP" BYPASS CONNECTING 87N, 62N,
etc. IS CRITICAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
. A. There is a need for moving traffic from 87N to I-85 to the East and
West without going-through neighborhoods, past schools and recreational
areas. The area near Western Middle and Western High needs to be
protected. Giving 87N through-traffic an alternative avenue for travel
will greatly improve the safety around that entire school/neighborhood
area, especially for the teenage drivers.
• B. Moving traffic to the Regional Medical. Center, without causing
dangerous future traffic congestion right at the Medical Center seems
to be a critical transportation planning step and needs to be
addressed. Medical Centers need to have access to Thoroughfares
without the Thoroughfare and their intersections impacting the patient
flow into the hospital/physician office area. Having the Thoroughfare
South of the Medical Center, connecting in a diagonal to Anthony Road
(which should be the basis of the Southern "Bypass" or Loop) addresses
and accomplishes many of Alamance County's future needs for moving
traffic. Connecting the Gibsonville Bypass, Elon College Bypass, the
Eastern Bypass, and the Southern Bypass creates a continuous path for
excellent traffic flow to the Alamance Regional Hospital area. And few
intact neighborhoods, NO recreation or school areas are disturbed.
• C. REASONS FOR INTERCHANGE NOT TO BE AT ST. MARKS CHURCH ROAD:
Davidson Park is a newly established park with all of the soccer
facilities for youth and adults. Hundreds of youth/adults
practice/play there on evenings and weekends (over 1500 players - not
counting parents). Many teenagers and teenage drivers utilize this
facility who are not in organized sports. This park area needs to be
vigorously protected from future heavy traffic and from the predictable
commercial growth for the safety of anyone utilizing this facility (ex.
Huffman Mill Road, Maple Ave., etc.) Crime and loitering at the
present Rest Area will just have a new place to go. It has already
started at Davidson Park. An Interchange moved further to the West
will be much superior. A two-lane residential connector to 70 from
this new "Bypass" should be considered. Rural Retreat Road would be a
connector to St. Marks Church Road. Moving the interchange to connect
with a Gibsonville Bypass also protects the residential/church/park
f5age3
areas from future commercial growth and problems associated with
through traffic. This should be of prime consideration.
• D. PRESERVE THE HISTORIC WHITSETT COMMUNITY, WHICH IS A VERY SPECIAL
FEATURE OF OUR AREA. Widen State Highway 100 to 70 West. Have 100 be
an option to the West from the Gibsonville Bypass. This will preserve
and take all the pressure off of 61 and the Historic Area of Whitsett.
• E. This Bypass system of roads would take much cut-through traffic off
Williamson Ave. and off Webb Ave. It will also take the need for major
Thoroughfares to be placed on Cook Road and O'Neal Rockwood. This
would be a major step in helping with our entire County being strong in
their support of preserving the "Building Blocks" of our cities, which
are our neighborhoods, schools, and recreation areas.
• II. REMOVE BOTH THE O'NEAL-ROCKWOOD AND THE COOK ROAD CONNECTORS FROM
THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. Utilize parts of these corridors as residential
connectors. Turn both of these areas into pedestrian/bicycle greenways,
interconnecting between the different features of each area. This would
alleviate vehicular traffic from these areas.
A. Preservation of the positive features and intact areas around our
schools, neighborhood, and recreation areas is critical for our cities
and should be a top priority in any long-range planning efforts for
Alamance County. The IS TEA bill, passed a year ago, has changed
dramatically the way DOT is now looking at transportation issues in
cities. Intermodal transportation is now an important part of the
DOT's long-range goals. Pedestrian/bicycle movement within cities has
become an important issue.
In the Cook Road area citizens have gathered ideas for up-grading
Westbrook Avenue and have looked at placement of needed two-lane
residential connectors out of some of the subdivisions. The area by
the Olde Forest Racquet Club is a very positive feature for Elon
College and Gibsonville. Working together on expanding a series of
Greenway/bicycle paths, to the Racquet Club and Davidson Park would be
extremely beneficial for the intact growth in that entire area. Twin
Lakes Retirement Community/The Oaks chould be included in the planning
for these Greenways.
B. A re-use of the O'Neal-Rockwood connector would be for the land to
be given back to Turrentine School, with part of the right-of-way
utilized for another entrance to the school off Edgewood Ave. and for
expanded sports fields. Much of the creek and natural area could be
turned into a "Living Natural Science Cent er/Greenway" for not only
Turrentine, but for Burlington Day, Hillcrest Elementary, Williams
High, and Grove Park. The utilization of this Science Center/Greenway
by the next occupant of Memorial Hospital would also be positive. A
citizen/school/city committee could be created to write grants and to
gather local financial support for a Science Center/Greenway/School
Project. Having Neighborhood Schools is one of the most positive
features a city could have for enticing businesses/industry to locate
in their area. Inter-generational programs and ease of transportation
for tutoring would be a positive feature comming out of this re-use.
' -'age4
This concept could work on decreasing the use of automobiles in this
area.
Have this Greenway/Science Center Area as
leaders and citizens can work together in
and preserve our families, neighborhoods,
areas in our community. This could be an
working with the schools and community, a
"SMART START" grant proposal for 1994-95.
an example of how city
their commitment to up-grade
schools, and recreational
example of Alamance County
ad could be a part of the
III. HAVE IMPROVEMENTS TO WEBB AVENUE PUT ON STATE TIP. This
thoroughfare functions as a diagonal N-S Industrial connector and will
greatly help with Industrial Traffic.
• IV. START A SERIES OF DESIGN-REVIEW SESSIONS WITH CITIZENS, SPECIFICALLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF GATHERING INPUT ABOUT THE SPECIAL FEATURES OF OUR
MANY CITIES IN OUR COUNTY.
The special features of our cities need to be identified now and written
down before any more open space and other special features are lost!
This seems to be a critical first step.
Small group design-review sessions could be the vehicle by which these
features are identified. These sessions could be facilitated by members
of Robin Britt's department and/or Urban Geographers/Urban Planners from
the Institute of Government/COG.
Develop a vision for preservation of these special features of our
cities. These features could be a top priority for consideration in
deciding any long-range planning for all of our cities and for Alamance
County.
A lot of research has gone into these citizens alternatives for the
Alamance County Thoroughfare Plan. Many-people in the transportation
field have been contacted and have given information about the critical
need for preservation of open space, etc. They have all supported this
concept of preservation of the neighborhoods, schools, and recreation
areas.
J_r ©Nj &P TU&-M 51*I T TO awTm5Tm7i? - wrm ma &m*0scjAL
XN?q LL ON CO&AS S. &M V 0 `M 56a" EVAM S 9 11#0 7Z / WM.,oL.
!P c61ffmW4fi1- &XN s "r- X pRr#,

DO1's:: response to
traffic sigrah -reqasst
.
miffs -mayorpro tem
If Roxboro. City Council has its sibilitytoinstallalightona"state
way, more Madison Boulevard in- maintained highway.'
tersections , will..be,, guarded, b.y.. ; Spencer noted further that the
stoplights. .DOTletterhad added.thatthe city
The; starting point :will; be the could'still make,a requestfor staff
intersection at,{NFadison,and xfundingofthestophght;butthat ii
Barden:treet , :' r _ r woube a low-prnonty item `for

Meeting " on Tuesday night, receivuig state ands ,
council decided to pursue with the `Spencer then'invite"d any coun-
N. C. Department of;Transporta- cil member to make a motion that
tion placement. of a stoplight the citypursue state DOTfunding
there-=one to replace the.present ofthe stoplight: "And then let's see
blinking light. what we can do to move up the
. State Rep. Mike. Wilkins had priority list," he said.
apparently started the matter, Councilman Mike Cannon
moving forward with a recent let- obliged with a motion. In doing so,
tertothestate DOT. .Heaskedthat. he noted that the state DOT had
the DOT examine thesaf'ety of the the present.flasher jight installed
-Madison-Barden intersection, . atthatsameintersection. Cannon
whichisfrequentlyusedby Person said that it was incorrectly placed
County Ambulance'Service emer-: and "is useless."
gency vehicles. Cannon also added to his mo-
Replying in a letter to Roxboro • tion that the city ask the DOT for
City Manager Tom Hogg, the DOT further examination of other in-
saiditdoesnotseeenoughneedfor tersections along Madison Boule-
a stoplight at that intersection for vard, with an eye toward safe traf-
the DOT to pay for the signal.. fic movementand the possible need
However, the letter went on to say for other stoplights. The motion,
that, 'if the city deems the li ght , passe
necessary, the DOT will allow the
city to place a light there, but a Following passage of the mo-

city expense. tion; Spencer apparently summed

The response apparently 1• up the sentiments of council about
Madison Boulevard
"It was de-
Councilman Sam Spencer's fu
Serving in his capacity as Mayo .
signed as a by-pass, but it is no
"

Pro Tem Tuesday night in the ab- longer,
he said.
sence of Mayor Don Waldo, Spen- In another matter, the city
cer characterized the:DOT,as "re- moved farther along. toward pro-
active :rather'thin pro-active " . cure>?entn£a $300;000F"scattered .11
Spencer said, "It's typical `toget - :bloek grant" that is'a Community
this type of response in order to 31ock Development Grant. Coun-
deter you from what you're -re- cil approved signing of all the re-
questing." quired documents and approved
'' • Spencer
- noted that the DOT the Kerr-Tar Regional Council of
...
.
fioirr'?iophg`Iit:atlVla`?son`?ind ?e city will us?'the`money to
Barden at $25;000 and added that
hedoesn?tfeelit'sthecity'srespon " See CITYback`page
I W 4 1
n M STATE O
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor May 2, 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
. 11
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and.Assessment
FROM: Alan Clark, Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No.. 91-0717; State EA Scoping Request for
Proposed O'Neal-Rockwood connector in Burlington,
Alamance County
The subject EA will be examing possible environmental
impacts from a proposed one-mile long, multi-lane, 80-foot wide
highway section. The scoping document indicates that freshwater
wetlands may be impacted by the project. It is not noted whether
the road section will utilize curb and gutter or roadside swales.
The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality Section
is concerned with potential impacts on water quality and
wetlands.
The prime concern from a water quality standpoint is
sedimentation from highway construction. Implementation and
conscientious maintenance of sediment control BMPs should help
minimize these impacts. However, onsite sediment control
measures are generally not better than trapping-about 70 percent
of the sediment eroded at a site. The EA-should discuss
sediment trapping capability of control measures and assess what
impacts, if any, will result from sediment that escapes the site.
The other area of concern is wetlands. NCDOT is urged to
minimize wetlands impacts. DEM requests that the following
information be contained within the EA. This information will be
useful in reviewing the project from the standpoint-of issuance
of a-401 water quality certification.
1. A wetlands delineation of the project area certified by
the Corps of Engineers;
2. A description of each wetland type including vegetation
(species list) and wildlife habitat value for each type;
3. A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetlands losses.
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
91-0717.mem/SEPA3
Poludon Pmwndon Pays
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
Project Number: County:
Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
t.LLO & 15-A S "e C- i46,L Q)?tzr<.c- a l?.+voeo Co.r.?Cc."Rr J ?.?tC?.f 111
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
;s
? Asheville All R/O Areas
19 oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
Fa
etteville lanning
ir coastal Management El Water P
anning
y
?Mooresville ater 13 Water Resources Environmental Health
roundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh and Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources David Foster

? Wilmin
ton ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ther (specify)
g Environmental Management
Winston-Salem _ . T..

Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House ReviewerlAg ncy
6L _1(

Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? No objectidn to project as proposed ? Not recommended for-further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? No Comment ?Applicant has been contacted
? Insufficient information to complete review ? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve ? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) ? Consistency Statement not needed
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for ? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive ,--, NEPA?and SEPA
LJ Other (specify and attach comments)
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee

, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
PS-104
Mr. John Dorney
Wetlands & Technical-Review Group
Water Quality Planning Division of Environme
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626"
Dear Mr. Dorney,
Thank you for talking with me on the phone last week. As
per our conversation, I am stating our request in this
letter to you and enclosing a map of the areas of concern.
A group of citizens in Burlington, N.C. would like to
request that you, as a member of the Wetlands & Technical
Review Group, visit the open, wooded, marshy, and creek
areas on which a proposed 4-5 lane Burlington/Graham Inner
Loop Major Thoroughfare is slated to be built. We would
like to have the areas studied to see if any wetlands are
involved in these areas. The creeks and marshy areas are
mainly on the East and West sides of this planned
Burlington/Graham Inner Loop. Of particular concern to us,
only because we are more familiar with this area, is the
creek and marshy area around Turrentine Middle School and up
Rockwood Ave., which will be the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
part of the Inner Loop. Most of this is flood plain and
flood fringe and seems to play an important part in
absorbing water that prevents flooding in our residential,
school, and City Park areas. Our City Park now floods every
time there is a large rain.
Another concern is the Western Part of the Southern Bypass
which also goes through a marshy area and a new subdivision.
The following is a little background on the
Burlington/Graham Inner Loop, information about our
involvement, and some thoughts of the citizens:
The Burlington/Graham Inner Loop Thoroughfare was originally
proposed in 1957 to encircle our Downtown Central Business
District because at that time all of the retail shopping and
businesses were located in that centralized area. Citizen's
shopping habits are now fragmented and origin-destination
connectors for the entire County need to be considered and
explored. The O'Neal-Rockwood section was originally the
outer boundary of Burlington and was designed as a State
Highway 87/54 Western Bypass. This O'Neal section was taken
off the Thoroughfare Plan early on because of citizen
concerns but somehow was put back in the plan. The areas
where this proposed Inner Loop is slated to go have changed
significantly since 1957 and include secure neighborhoods
with five schools and three recreational areas in close
proximity. Some of the neighborhoods are black, while
3
a-
others include the finest homes and most beautiful settings
in North Carolina.
Many citizens feel Burlington has been strengthened by this
Inner Loop Thoroughfare NOT being built in the past. We
have large trees and open space near our schools,
neighborhoods, and parks that many cities do not have. The
O'Neal area is filled with people of all ages walking day
and night. Parents actually feel safe letting their
children walk to Turrentine Middle, Williams High School,
Burlington Day School, and the City Park Area. Many of our
new teenage drivers can drive to Williams without having to
contend with major traffic and intersections.
The O'Neal-Rockwood Open Space Area would make a terrific
arboretum and natural science center for all the schools in
Alamance County. When I was PTA President at Turrentine,
the teachers longed for an area in the County where they
could take their science classes. Our City has the
opportunity right in their back yard and people willing to
look into the possibilities while the opportunity exists.
Many citizens feel each segment of the Inner Loop is
different and special and needs to be analyzed separately.
They also feel Burlington as a whole will be the loser if it
trades the positive environmental opportunities this area
could provide for 20,000 cars per day.
In the Fall of 1987. I became aware of the magnitude of this
proposed Thoroughfare after putting a downpayment on a
parcel of land through which part of the Inner Loop
segments. I was originally told the road shown would be a
two-lane connecter, similar to an ordinary residential
street. Having been a member of the Historic Resources
Commission for nine years and previously spearheading, as a
volunteer, the restoration of the Carousel in our City Park,
this Thoroughfare controversy has really impressed upon me
how someone can work so closely with the City and yet not be
aware of something as major as the Thoroughfare Plan. Just
think of how much the ordinary citizen, who isn't up on the
politics of the city, does not know!
The O'Neal-Rockwood Section of the Thoroughfare has been
moved 6-7 times in the past 5 years. It was originally in
the flood plain but we hear it has been moved to much higher
ground. My husband and I will make substantial financial
gain if a 1700 foot road is put through our property, as it
will open up a long, slender parcel of land for creative
development. We have turned down a nursing home, etc.
because we don't think the land should be rezoned and opened
up for the possibility of commercial development. (We
already know business people have offered to pay for part of
the road so it would connect their businesses). It would
seem that if anyone should be pushing for the road to be
built, it should be US!
_Z5 -
I am presently co-chairman of the Family & Neighborhoods
Task Force for the Alamance Coalition Against Drug Abuse.
We have educated ourselves about the needs of successful
neighborhoods and have analyzed Burlington's positive
aspects and needs. Alamance County ranks 3rd in the nation
for having both parents in the house-hold working.
Therefore, having pedestrian movement from our neighborhoods
to the schools and recreational areas is critical when there
is no one at home to car pool the children.
During the past 5 years, we citizens have seen and been told
things that we did not think could exist in a democracy. We
have also seen a tremendous waste of tax payers money. The
citizens and cities have been presented costly Thoroughfare
Plans, complete with maps, for evaluation before the authors
of the plans even viewed the changes having taken place in
those cities. Citizen input was then on a rebuttal level
instead of a "creative ideas - what best for our town"
level. People living and having a good "feel" for an area
many times can come up with ideas never considered by a
person at a desk 60 miles away. The unfortunate part was
that many of the ideas were functional, timely, feasible,
and exciting and they should have been treated with dignity!
Environmental and positive aspects of neighborhoods,
schools, recreational areas, and cities should play an
important starting point with revision of any plan and
community input should be on the first level of the
decision-making pyramid. The entire process should be a
plan of consensus-building with the affected community.
Thoroughfares are important and a necessary part of a
community but their placement is critical. The placement
should be carefully analyzed, taking into account the social
and environmental impacts the Thoroughfares will have on the
segmented areas. The process by which the DOT communicates
with cities and citizens and decides on the placement of
some of these roads is in need of considerable change!
I hope that you will respect my wish for my name to remain
confidential. Mr. Nichols, recently retired from the DOT,
took all his anger out on me personally. Our City Engineer
also informed me that the whole thing was all political.
And to think it all started with the 13 year revision of the
entire plan when they asked for citizen input. I naively
asked if representatives from the schools, community, and
city could sit down in a design-review type session, look at
the positive and negative aspects of the Thoroughfare Plan
and write down alternatives so that the positive aspects of
Burlington could be preserved. That evidently was not what
the DOT wanted to hear!
-7-
We have been told there was discussion at a recent State
Transportation Meeting that O'Neal-Rockwood would be the NIS
link between a "Durham Freeway" and I-85. Do you have
information about this Durham Freeway? Is it in the old I-
40 corridor?
Thank you for taking your time to come to Burlington and
evaluating whether any wetlands are located in these areas
of question. I am sure this letter gives you much more
background information than you need to know'for an inquiry
about Wetlands and I thank you for reading it. We citizens
love our cities and live with and in our community! We feel
some areas of our cities are important enough for the future
that efforts should be made for their preservation!
I look forward to hearing from you.
Si rely. GIX4
i
Diane Vaught
2112 Somers Ave.
Burlington. N.C. 27215
[phone]
P.S. I contacted Dr. Wright who put me in touch with Mr.
John Camerson of the Corp. of Engineers. He has just
recently taken over Alamance County and is not too familiar
with our area. You can contact him if you wish. I am
sending a copy of this letter to him for the files.
R
ILA
.IV
? .Pkq°;? awQ .?

124 WEST ELM STREET
GRAHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27253
- TEL. [phone]
AREA CODE 919
North Carolina Board of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
SUBJECT: Transportation Improvement Program
Dear Sirs:
Thank you for this opportunity for the Alamance County Urban Area
to present our transportation needs to the N.C. Board of Transportation.
Alamance County and the municipalities of Burlington, Elon College,.
Graham, Haw River, Gibsonville and Mebane support and encourage partici-
pation in scheduled public meetings concerning the update of the-State
Transportation Improvement Program.
The Transportation Advisory Committee for the Alamance County Urban
Area confirms its support for the following programmed projects in
the 1991-1997. 'State Transportation Improvement Program and urges that
these projects be implemented as planned and scheduled. Please note
our "Resolution" enclosed as Attachment A providing special support
for State Transportation.Improvement Program Project No. R-2538.
- I-40/85 Logo Signing (I-1021)
- I-40/85 Widening. (I-303, 1-304).
- Haw River Bypass (R-611)
Maple Street Overpass (U-2305)
Widening NC 54, I-40/85 to Chapel Hill (R-2538)
Widening US 70, Church Street, Burlington from existing
five lanes to SR 1309 (U-2424)
Widening NC 54, from.Webb Ave. to Maple Ave. (U.-2500)
Graham Inner Loop, Beaumont Ave. to NC 87 (U-2401)
Elon College Bypass (U-2406),.
- Maple Street Extension, Graham to NC 81,(U-2411)
Widening Graham-Hopedale Rd. from Providence. Rd. to
US 70 (U-2410).
Widening US 70 from Haw River Bypass to Mebane City
limits (U-2546)
- Establishment. of Bicycle Route, 150 miles, signing
and mapping
- NC 87 Northeast Bypass, NC 87 to NC 87 North at SR 1301
(U-2502)
- NC 49/62, From US 70 to US 158 Upgrade Existing two
lane roadway and widen some sections to multi-lanes
(R-2543)
- Widen NC 119 from I-40/I-85 to SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks
Rd.) (R-2722)
- Southern Railway Crossing 735-4720 in Mebane at NC
119. Revise Automatic Warning Device.
- Southern Railway Crossing 722-812A at SR 1349 (Lakeview
Drive. Install Automatic Warning Devices.
North Carolina Board of Transportation
Page Two
- Southern Railway Crossing 735-448C in Graham at SR
1716 (Washington Street.) Install Automatic Gates
- Southern Railway Crossing 722-994N in Elon College
at S. Holt Avenue. Install Automatic Warning Devices.
Attached is a list of unprogrammed projects which are located in the
Alamance County Urban Area. We would like these projects to be con-
sidered for any form of available funding during the update process.
These projects are listed in order of priority as adopted by the
Transportation Advisory Committee.
The Alamance County Urban Area realizes the value and opportunities
the Transportation Improvement Program offers and believes it is an
effective tool when evaluating all types of transportation improvements
throughout the State of North Carolina.
Sincerely,
ALAMANCE COUNTY
Troy W. Godard
Chairman
Transportation Advisory Committee
TWW:AWC:la
attachments
a

f y

t
S
I. SYSTEM EXPANSION AND EXTENSION
PRIORITY LIST
PRIORITY
PROJECT
ESTIMATED
COST
*$1,836,000
*$3,494,000
$1,196,000
$1,000,000
$3,965,000
$2,031,000
$4,620,000
$3,920,000
$4,900,000
FACILITY
STATUS
Over Capacity
Over Capacity
New Facility
New Structure
Over Capacity
Over Capacity
New Facility
Over Capacity
In Town
New Facility
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Graham-Hopedale Rd. Widening
NC 54 Widening
O'Neal Street Extension
Mattress Factory Rd. Interchange
Mebane Street Widening
Alamance Road Widening
Relocation of NC 119
US 70 Widening (Mebane)
9 Gibsonville N.W. Bypass
10 NC 87 Widening, I-40/85 to
Swepsonville Rd.
11 NC 87 - Webb Ave. Widening
$1,158,000 Improve Safety
$5,762,000 Over Capacity
*A portion of the project is presently scheduled in the 1991-1997 State
Transportation Improvement Program. The estimated cost listed represents
the funds necessary to complete the project as proposed by the Urban Area.
r
.y
4
:r
PROPOSED PROJECTS
?A N M
PRIORITY TITLE: NC 54 Widening
CATEGORY: System Expansion and Extension.

PRIORITY: 2
e
LENGTH: 4 miles
ESTIMATED COST: $3,494,000 (NOTE: Widening of 1.1 miles of the
' proposed four mile project has been scheduled
in the 1991-1997 State TIP and at present is almost
complete. The additional amount estimated to
complete the project from Maple Ave. to U.S. 70
is $3,494,000.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed project calls for widening NC 54 to 5
lanes through the urban area. The Urban Area's

j request is that the State maintain support for
that portion of the project presently scheduled
in the 1991-1997 State TIP and that the State
set aside funds and schedule activities to complete
the proposed project from Maple Ave. to US 70.

PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Existing facility is presently operating above
its practical capacity and does not meet current
needs of the commercial area. See projected 1992
ADT counts on accompanying map. Continual
commercialization of the area will further increase
traffic congestion.
R
0
5
PRIORITY 2
NC 54 WIDENING
Iv
um
i?
6
i
PROPOSED PROJECTS
PROJECT TITLE: O'Neal Street WdiYl ??? \C?i
1 CATEGORY: System Expansion and Extension
PRIORITY: 3
LENGTH: 5,100 feet
ESTIMATED COST: $1,196,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project consists of constructing a 2 land curb
and gutter roadway from existing O'Neal Street
to existing Rockwood Avenue.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This facility would be part of the western portion
of the Burlington Inner-Loop.
i?
*NOTE: ROW for proposed project has been secured
from O'Neal to Edgewood Ave. Design
work. for the facility has been commissioned
by the City of Burlington to include
a Greenway/Bikeway

t
Y
7
PRIORITY 3
O'NEAL-ROCKWOOD CONNECTOR

? tLV?
v cewa
CL\s?'..O
?r_II•
N

MEM,
3
DTE: TO: SUBJECT:
I? `D
K, f
s 2- a-z
-00
r ML--
sa?S ? 'Zx?sA
? t to ve,
From: - ??
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
?? Printed on Recycled Paper
??r a.M vrt?'

11

E 1 l
?F
r
c F ,J ti ? , ?

1
n.
I

.....
1 ?I
F
F ii
\`qi F ?

f
I

i
i
j ?j
i
T
,? k 11 1\
?c
! r

F
I
FI `

.Irv
i0A47TEN =Auu*JVi 1110
SOME ALTERNATIVE IDEAS -= ALAMANCE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN
&oeS W `-rti MOP
Roads and alternatives of the plan are divided into sections and
numbered. These numbers appear on the map and correspond with the
write-ups. Yellow dotted lines are alternative ideas which connect
roads currently on the Thoroughfare Plan. Black dotted lines update
this large map with Thoroughfare map E, voted on by the TAC. Black
X's are roads that have been deleated by the State. Red x's are roads
that could be replaced by other alternatives. Recent changes are not
shown.
The sections include:
SECTION I. The Burlington-Graham Inner Loop concept should be replaced
with a larger origin-destination connector concept.
SECTION II.The Northeastern Bypass concept should be encouraged
and extended to the Northwest around Gibsonville, connecting
with I-85 at a new Elon College exchange.
SECTION III. The Northern Bypass could connect to a Southern
Bypass to the West at an Elon College exit and to the East
around Graham. Anthony Road could be widened and used as the
basis for the Southern Bypass.
SECTION IV. Tucker Street should be thoroughly scrutinized as an
access to I-85 and the Southern Bypass. This could be the
important key route for getting traffic (both industrial and
vehicular) off Chapel Hill Road, Outlet Mall Area, Mebane St.,
etc.
SECTION V. Connect 87N to Urban Area through low-residential areas.
SECTION VI. Investigate continuing Elon Bypass as an expanded origin-
destination connector linking to the East.
DETAILS ABOUT EACH SECTION:
SECTION I: Replace the Burlington-Graham Inner Loop Concept with a
larger origin-destination connector:
A.O'Neal-Rockwood Thoroughfare:
1.Concern is with the amount of traffic historically
generated on roads connecting directly to State highways and
being diagonal throughways for cross-town traffic. The amount
of traffic proposed for this thoroughfare is 17,500 cars/day.
Our City Council voted to have the road remain a two-lane
connector, yet Mr. Nichols stated many times at a recent TAC
meeting that roads with greater than 8,000 cars/day be built
with 4-5 lanes. He gave examples of present two-lane roads
needing to be 4 lanes. School buses utilizing this road would
need turn lanes along most of the length. Four-lane Edgewood
Ave. currently has approx. 9,300 cars/day, Harden Ave.
proposed to be widened to 5-lanes has approx. 13,000. The
idea of this connector being a permanent two-lane connector is
unrealistic because of its projected counts and its location
within the Inner Loop - being the link between State Hwy 54,
Front St. (a State Hwy), and Webb. Ave. (State Hwy 100), with
access to State Hwy 87N.
page 2
2.It has been suggested the traffic jam at Church St./O'Neal
St. intersection will be relieved when the road is built.
a.Studies show enlarging roads has a tendency to do the
opposite of what was intended - congestion is usually
increased.
b.The increase in traffic at that intersection can be attributed
to many reasons. Most are the result of increased growth
within this entire Urban Area over the past 13 years with
little change in cross-town routes. When the Urban Plan was
up for revision, no creative ways of routing traffic around
our cities had been planned. The Outlet Mall traffic is
funneled directly to that intersection and the large number of
apartments recently built along Chapel Hill Road/Mebane St.
further compound the problem. Over 800 housing units are
being constructed in the Elon College/Gibsonville area with
this traffic using Church St. as their cross-town route.
3.We are told the road is needed to move traffic to and from the
West Burlington area.
a.Protecting our schools, residential neighborhoods, and
recreational areas from large amounts of traffic far exceeds
the need for everyone to have a "straight shot" to everywhere.
Most people in that West Burlington area choose to live there
because of the protection from fast, busy traffic.
b.This West Burlington area has very little land left for large
developments. Increase in traffic can not be attributed to a
great increase in vehicles from that area, but to an increase
in traffic cutting through that area.
4.We are told school children and neighborhoods play NO
significant role in where thoroughfares are planned. The PTA;
teachers, & principal at Turrentine ARE concerned, as the use
of the land around Turrentine has great potential as a non-
vehicular arboretem and natural area for science classes at
Turrentine, Burlington Day School and the future Hillcrest
School. Several years ago, the PTA at Smith School was asked
by the former City School Superintendent (Dr. Surratt) to help
with the traffic problem around that school. Safety was a
grave problem then as it still remains. School buses were
forced to bus ALL children - even within the one-mile walking
zone. Those involved with the Smith School safety problems
are very concerned with the schools along the proposed O'Neal-
Rockwood.
5.The future of the present Memorial Hospital might include a
use other than as a hospital - perhaps one in which pedestrian
traffic could be increased and deserve protection.
B.Chapel Hill Road connecting with ONeal Rockwood.
1.Chapel Hill Road is scheduled to become 5 lanes and will
connect directly with O'Neal-Rockwood (proposed to be two-
lane) with the likelihood of a bottleneck created much like
Estes Drive in Chapel Hill. Estes Drive, presently a two-lane
road that becomes a five-lane, runs through intact residential
property and past two schools. Its congestion makes it
hazardous for pedestrian traffic. We looked at homes recently
in that area and quickly learned all the difficulties from
page 3
C.SHARPE Road Section
1.Sharpe Road is a winding road going through intact black
residential developments. This road also goes in front of
North Park, the city recreational park used by that
residential community.
2.The use of this road as part of an Inner Loop connecting
directly with I-85/40 and carrying tractor-trailer traffic is
out-of-date. Vacant land exists for a road going West and
North of this area, connecting with the proposed Eastern
Bypass. This area should NOT be downgraded by adding through
traffic. It should be vigorously protected and upgraded.
3.The Alamance County Drug Abuse Task Force has statistical
evidence linking increased drug use in cities bordering major
thoroughfares. Cities must decide their priorities and
vigorously protect their fragile neigborhood, school, and
recreational areas, especially from through-traffic
situations. Mr. Bob Martin, assistant district attorney, has
these statistics and will be glad to share them with you.
D.ALTERNATIVES:
1.Method of solving traffic problems is to look into what is
creating these problems. Pushing traffic further into
neighborhoods and schools does not seem to be the answer as it
creates a whole new set of problems.
2.An exit or service road onto I-85 at Tucker St. would solve
many problems with industrial, apt. and Outlet Mall traffic.
Consider a road from Tucker St. near the powerline easement to
Mebane St..
3.Replace this tight, Inner Loop concept with a larger origin-
destination connector concept. This concept would address the
cross-town traffic problem which puts a strain on all of our
urban cities.
IaA6 -o 3?
_Improve, [Oebb fott as 05 do J ft J eonnec4t?rr-
SECTION II: The Northeastern bypass concept should be encouraged and
extended to the Northwest around Gibsonville, connecting with I-
85 at a new Elon College exit.
A.Could enhance growth in the northern part of the Urban Area. A
Western Bypass around Gibsonville would allow for protected
residential growth, while allowing industrial traffic to
circumvent Elon College, Elon Elementary and prime residential
areas. Piedmont Ave. Ext. could be used as part of this Bypass.
B.Through traffic from the South could have a smooth route to 87N,
62N, and areas north without using residential areas of
Burlington as their routes.
page 4

C.One area missed by the planning committees was the large amount
of vacant land by Elon Home. A two-lane boulevard would have
been successful in this area to take traffic directly off the
Front St./Elon College area. Few homes would have been
disturbed.
SECTION III: Northern Bypass could connect to a southern bypass on
the West and East. Anthony Road could be widened and used as
the basis for this Southern Bypass with the present bypass not
needed.
A.Much has changed South of I-85 in past 13 years. Prime
residential areas are being built that need protection from
cut-through traffic. With I-84/40 being 8 lanes, the present
connector could be moved further South onto the
already existing Anthony Road. With the expansion of the
Municipal Airport and rapid industrial growth, an expanded
Southern Bypass could be invaluable. The residential areas
could plan access roads to coordinate with this Bypass.
B.This Eastern bypass concept could be alternate 87--connecting
87N with 87S.
C.Access to the bypass could be creatively developed from all of
the residential areas bordering the bypass and from Hwy 70.
SECTION IV. Tucker Street should be thoroughly scrutinized as an
access to I-85 and the Southern Bypass.
A.This street could be key to allievating industrial and
automobile traffic on Chapel Hill Road, Mebane St. and Outlet
Mall.
B.Connection could be made from Tucker St. near powerlines across
vacant land to Mebane St.. Industrial traffic would be funneled
out from our city without disturbing intact neighborhoods.
SECTION V. Roads from 87N connecting to this Urban Area should bypass
intact residential and school areas. Many uses for land North
of Alamance County may dictate the future transportation of
hazardous materials. Any road built needs to successfully meet
this need.
A.Hwy 87N could connect with the Western Bypass in the
manner shown on the map. Hwy 87N could continue as Durham St.
extention until it crosses Eastern Bypass. Alternate 87 could
follow Eastern Bypass around Graham to 87S. Through traffic
would be routed. around and not through the Urban area.
SECTION VI: Merge roads to form a continuous expanded internal
connector.
A.Elon Bypass presently extends to Webb Ave and doesn't give much
room for growth. Investigate Powerline Road as the Elon Bypass
and 50' on one side of the powerline easement as road access
through Glen Raven and on to the Eastern bypass above Sharp
Road. This would protect the black residential neighborhoods
page 4

C.One area missed by the planning committees was the large amount
of vacant land by Elon Home. A two-lane boulevard would have
been successful in this area to take traffic directly off the
Front St./Elon College area. Few homes would have been
disturbed.
SECTION III: Northern Bypass could connect to a southern bypass on
the West and East. Anthony Road could be widened and used as
the basis for this Southern Bypass with the present bypass not
needed.
A.Much has changed South of I-85 in past 13 years. Prime
residential areas are being built that need protection from
cut-through traffic. With I-84/40 being 8 lanes, the present
connector could be moved further South onto the
already existing Anthony Road. With the expansion of the
Municipal Airport and rapid industrial growth, an expanded
Southern Bypass could be invaluable. The residential areas
could plan access roads to coordinate with this Bypass.
B.This Eastern bypass concept could be alternate 87--connecting
87N with 87S.
C.Access to the bypass could be creatively developed from all of
the residential areas bordering the bypass and from Hwy 70.
SECTION IV. Tucker Street should be thoroughly scrutinized as an
access to I-85 and the Southern Bypass.
A.This street could be key to allievating industrial and
automobile traffic on Chapel Hill Road, Mebane St. and Outlet
Mall.
B.Connection could be made from Tucker St. near powerlines across
vacant land to Mebane St.. Industrial traffic would be funneled
out from our city without disturbing intact neighborhoods.
SECTION V. Roads from 87N connecting to this Urban Area should bypass
intact residential and school areas. Many uses for land North
of Alamance County may dictate the future transportation of
hazardous materials. Any road built needs to successfully meet
this need.
A.Hwy 87N could connect with the Western Bypass in the
manner shown on the map. Hwy 87N could continue as Durham St.
extention until it crosses Eastern Bypass. Alternate 87 could
follow Eastern Bypass around Graham to 87S. Through traffic
would be routed around and not through the Urban area.
SECTION VI: Merge roads to forma continuous expanded internal
connector.
A.Elon Bypass presently extends to Webb Ave and doesn't give much
room for growth. Investigate Powerline Road as the Elon Bypass
and 50' on one side of the powerline easement as road access
through Glen Raven and on to the Eastern bypass above Sharp
Road. This would protect the black residential neighborhoods
page 3
C.SHARPE Road Section
1.Sharpe Road is a winding road going through intact black
residential developments. This road also goes in front of
North Park, the city recreational park used by that
residential community.
2.The use of this road as part of an Inner Loop connecting
directly with I-85/40 and carrying tractor-trailer traffic is
out-of-date. Vacant land exists for a road going West and
North of this area, connecting with the proposed Eastern
Bypass. This area should NOT be downgraded by adding through
traffic. It should be vigorously protected and upgraded.
3.The Alamance County Drug Abuse Task Force has statistical
evidence linking increased drug use in cities bordering major
thoroughfares. Cities must decide their priorities and
vigorously protect their fragile neigborhood, school, and
recreational areas, especially from through-traffic
situations. Mr. Bob Martin, assistant district attorney, has
these statistics and will be glad to share them with you.
D.ALTERNATIVES:
1.Method of solving traffic problems is to look into what is
creating these problems. Pushing traffic further into
neighborhoods and schools does not seem to be the answer as it
creates a whole new set of problems.
2.An exit or service road onto I-85 at Tucker St. would solve
many problems with industrial, apt. and Outlet Mall traffic.
Consider a road from Tucker St. near the powerline easement to
Mebane St..
3.Replace this tight, Inner Loop concept with a larger origin-
destination connector concept. This concept would address the
cross-town traffic problem which puts a strain on all of our
urban cities.
tlM'
Sk"e, Webb &e4 as 0 ck*-j ia,t eennec+vrr
SECTION II: The Northeastern bypass concept should be encouraged and
extended to the Northwest around Gibsonville, connecting with I-
85 at a new Elon College exit.
A.Could enhance growth in the northern part of the Urban Area. A
Western Bypass around Gibsonville would allow for protected
residential growth, while allowing industrial traffic to
circumvent Elon College, Elon Elementary and prime residential
areas. Piedmont Ave. Ext. could be used as part of this Bypass.
B.Through traffic from the South could have a smooth route to 87N,
62N, and areas north without using residential areas of
Burlington as their routes.

page 4
C.One area missed by the planning committees was the large amount
of vacant land by Elon Home. A two-lane boulevard would have
been successful in this area to take traffic directly off the
Front St./Elon College area. Few homes would have been
disturbed.
SECTION III: Northern Bypass could connect to a southern bypass on
the West and East. Anthony Road could be widened and used as
the basis for this Southern Bypass with the present bypass not
needed.
A.Much has changed South of I-85 in past 13 years. Prime
residential areas are being built that need protection from
cut-through traffic. With I-84/40 being 8 lanes, the present
connector could be moved further South onto the
already existing Anthony Road. With the expansion of the
Municipal Airport and rapid industrial growth, an expanded
Southern Bypass could be invaluable. The residential areas
could plan access roads to coordinate with this Bypass.
B.This Eastern bypass concept could be alternate 87--connecting
87N with 87S.
C.Access to the bypass could be creatively developed from all of
the residential areas bordering the bypass and from Hwy 70.
SECTION IV. Tucker Street should be thoroughly scrutinized as an
access to I-85 and the Southern Bypass.
A.This street could be key to allievating industrial and
automobile traffic on Chapel Hill Road, Mebane St. and Outlet
Mall.
B.Connection could be made from Tucker St. near powerlines across
vacant land to Mebane St.. Industrial traffic would be funneled
out from our city without disturbing intact neighborhoods.
SECTION V. Roads from 87N connecting to this Urban Area should bypass
intact residential and school areas. Many uses for land North
of Alamance County may dictate the future transportation of
hazardous materials. Any road built needs to successfully meet
this need.
A.Hwy 87N could connect with the Western Bypass in the
manner shown on the map. Hwy 87N could continue as Durham St.
extention until it crosses Eastern Bypass. Alternate 87 could
follow Eastern Bypass around Graham to 87S. Through traffic
would be routed around and not through the Urban area.
SECTION VI: Merge roads to form a continuous expanded internal
connector.
A.Elon Bypass presently extends to Webb Ave and doesn't give much
room for growth. Investigate Powerline Road as the Elon Bypass
and 50' on one side of the powerline easement as road access
through Glen Raven and on to the Eastern bypass above Sharp
Road. This would protect the black residential neighborhoods
ter,..., ?.?......._ti.. ?M..??, ..
page 3
C.SHARPE Road Section
1.Sharpe Road is a winding road going through intact black
residential developments. This road also goes in front of
North Park, the city recreational park used by that
residential community.
2.The use of this road as part of an Inner Loop connecting
directly with I-85/40 and carrying tractor-trailer traffic is
out-of-date. Vacant land exists for a road going West and
North of this area, connecting with the proposed Eastern
Bypass. This area should NOT be downgraded by adding through
traffic. It should be vigorously protected and upgraded.
3.The Alamance County Drug Abuse Task Force has statistical
evidence linking increased drug use in cities bordering major
thoroughfares. Cities must decide their priorities and
vigorously protect their fragile neigborhood, school, and
recreational areas, especially from through-traffic
situations. Mr. Bob Martin, assistant district attorney, has
these statistics and will be glad to share them with you.
D.ALTERNATIVES:
1.Method of solving traffic problems is to look into what is
creating these problems. Pushing traffic further into
neighborhoods and schools does not seem to be the answer as it
creates a whole new set of problems.
2.An exit or service road onto I-85 at Tucker St. would solve
many problems with industrial, apt. and Outlet Mall traffic.
Consider a road from Tucker St. near the powerline easement to
Mebane St..
3.Replace this tight, Inner Loop concept with a larger origin-
destination connector concept. This concept would address the
cross-town traffic problem which puts a strain on all of our
urban cities.
[A d6 J V41 eonnec?r-
??
qs Xkproue, 45ebb &1e4 as Ns al
SECTION II: The Northeastern bypass concept should be encouraged and
extended to the Northwest around Gibsonville, connecting with I-
85 at a new Elon College exit.
A.Could enhance growth in the northern part of the Urban Area. A
Western Bypass around Gibsonville would allow for protected
residential growth, while allowing industrial traffic to
circumvent Elon College, Elon Elementary and prime residential
areas. Piedmont Ave. Ext. could be used as part of this Bypass.
B.Through traffic from the South could have a smooth route to 87N,
62N, and areas north without using residential areas of
Burlington as their routes.

page 4
C.One area missed by the planning committees was the large amount
of vacant land by Elon Home. A two-lane boulevard would have
been successful in this area to take traffic directly off the
Front St./Elon College area. Few homes would have been
disturbed.
SECTION III: Northern Bypass could connect to a southern bypass on
the West and East. Anthony Road could be widened and used as
the basis for this Southern Bypass with the present bypass not
needed.
A.Much has changed South of I-85 in past 13 years. Prime
residential areas are being built that need protection from
cut-through traffic. With I-84/40 being 8 lanes, the present
connector could be moved further South onto the
already existing Anthony Road. With the expansion of the
Municipal Airport and rapid industrial growth, an expanded
Southern Bypass could be invaluable. The residential areas
could plan access roads to coordinate with this Bypass.
B.This Eastern bypass concept could be alternate 87--connecting
87N with 87S.
C.Access to the bypass could be creatively developed from all of
the residential areas bordering the bypass and from Hwy 70.
SECTION IV. Tucker Street should be thoroughly scrutinized as an
access to I-85 and the Southern Bypass.
A.This street could be key to allievating industrial and
automobile traffic on Chapel Hill Road, Mebane St. and Outlet
Mall.
B.Connection could be made from Tucker St. near powerlines across
vacant land to Mebane St.. Industrial traffic would be funneled
out from our city without disturbing intact neighborhoods.
SECTION V. Roads from 87N connecting to this Urban Area should bypass
intact residential and school areas. Many uses for land North
of Alamance County may dictate the future transportation of
hazardous materials. Any road built needs to successfully meet
this need.
A.Hwy 87N could connect with the Western Bypass in the
manner shown on the map. Hwy 87N could continue as Durham St.
extention until it crosses Eastern Bypass. Alternate 87 could
follow Eastern Bypass around Graham to 87S. Through traffic
would be routed around and not through the Urban area.
SECTION VI: Merge roads to form a continuous expanded internal
connector.
A.Elon Bypass presently extends to Webb Ave and doesn't give much
room for growth. Investigate Powerline Road as the Elon Bypass
and 50' on one side of the powerline easement as road access
through Glen Raven and on to the Eastern bypass above Sharp
Road. This would protect the black residential neighborhoods
page 3
C.SHARPE Road Section
1.Sharpe Road is a winding road going through intact black
residential developments. This road also goes in front of
North Park, the city recreational park used by that
residential community.
2.The use of this road as part of an Inner Loop connecting
directly with I-85/40 and carrying tractor-trailer traffic is
out-of-date. Vacant land exists for a road going West and
North of this area, connecting with the proposed Eastern
Bypass. This area should NOT be downgraded by adding through
traffic. It should be vigorously protected and upgraded.
3.The Alamance County Drug Abuse Task Force has statistical
evidence linking increased drug use in cities bordering major
thoroughfares. Cities must decide their priorities and
vigorously protect their fragile neigborhood, school, and
recreational areas, especially from through-traffic
situations. Mr. Bob Martin, assistant district attorney, has
these statistics and will be glad to share them with you.
D.ALTERNATIVES:
l.Method of solving traffic problems is to look into what is
creating these problems. Pushing traffic further into
neighborhoods and schools does not seem to be the answer as it
creates a whole new set of problems.
2.An exit or service road onto I-85 at Tucker St. would solve
many problems with industrial, apt. and Outlet Mall traffic.
Consider a road from Tucker St. near the powerline easement to
Mebane St..
3.Replace this tight, Inner Loop concept with a larger origin-
destination connector concept. This concept would address the
cross-town traffic problem which puts a strain on all of our
urban cities. 1* 3
_Imi rove, Oebb &v.4 as CJs AD J Kd.l 0.61%nec4t?r-r-
SECTION II: The Northeastern bypass concept should be encouraged and
extended to the Northwest around Gibsonville, connecting with I-
85 at a new Elon College exit.
A.Could enhance growth in the northern part of the Urban Area. A
Western Bypass around Gibsonville would allow for protected
residential growth, while allowing industrial traffic to
circumvent Elon College, Elon Elementary and prime residential
areas. Piedmont Ave. Ext. could be used as part of this Bypass.
B.Through traffic from the South could have a smooth route to 87N,
62N, and areas north without using residential areas of
Burlington as their routes.
page 2
2.It has been suggested the traffic jam at Church St./O'Neal
St. intersection will be relieved when the road is built.
a.Studies show enlarging roads has a tendency to do the
opposite of what was intended - congestion is usually
increased.
b.The increase in traffic at that intersection can be attributed
to many reasons. Most are the result of increased growth
within this entire Urban Area over the past 13 years with
little change in cross-town routes. When the Urban Plan was
up for revision, no creative ways of routing traffic around
our cities had been planned. The Outlet Mall traffic is
funneled directly to that intersection and the large number of
apartments recently built along Chapel Hill Road/Mebane St.
further compound the problem. Over 800 housing units are
being constructed in the Elon College/Gibsonville area with
this traffic using Church St. as their cross-town route.
3.We are told the road is needed to move traffic to and from the
West Burlington area.
a.Protecting our schools, residential neighborhoods, and
recreational areas from large amounts of traffic far exceeds
the need for everyone to have a "straight shot" to everywhere.
Most people in that West Burlington area choose to live there
because of the protection from fast, busy traffic.
b.This West Burlington area has very little land left for large
developments. Increase in traffic can not be attributed to a
great increase in vehicles from that area, but to an increase
in traffic cutting through that area.
4.We are told school children and neighborhoods play NO
significant role in where thoroughfares are planned. The PTA,
teachers, & principal at Turrentine ARE concerned, as the use
of the land around Turrentine has great potential as a non-
vehicular arboretem and natural area for science classes at
Turrentine, Burlington Day School and the future Hillcrest
School. Several years ago, the PTA at Smith School was asked
by the former City School Superintendent (Dr. Surratt) to help
with the traffic problem around that school. Safety was a
grave problem then as it still remains. School buses were
forced to bus ALL children - even within the one-mile walking
zone. Those involved with the Smith School safety problems
are very concerned with the schools along the proposed O'Neal-
Rockwood.
S.The future of the present Memorial Hospital might include a
use other than as a hospital - perhaps one in which pedestrian
traffic could be increased and deserve protection.
B.Chapel Hill Road connecting with ONeal Rockwood.
1.Chapel Hill Road is scheduled to become 5 lanes and will
connect directly with O'Neal-Rockwood (proposed to be two-
lane) with the likelihood of a bottleneck created much like
Estes Drive in-Chapel Hill. Estes Drive, presently a two-lane
road that becomes a five-lane, runs through intact residential
property and past two schools. Its congestion makes it
hazardous for pedestrian traffic. We looked at homes recently
in that area and quickly learned all the difficulties from
W&IT #J :3-9uuftSf MO
SOME ALTERNATIVE IDEAS -- ALAMANCE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN O
Goes W6ril n6p
Roads and alternatives of the plan are divided into sections and
numbered. These numbers appear on the map and correspond with the
write-ups. Yellow dotted lines are alternative ideas which connect
roads currently on the Thoroughfare Plan. Black dotted lines update
this large map with Thoroughfare map E, voted on by the TAC. Black
X's are roads that have been deleated by the State. Red x's are roads
that could be replaced by other alternatives. Recent changes are not
shown.
The sections include:
SECTION I. The Burlington-Graham Inner Loop concept should be replaced
with a larger origin-destination connector concept.
SECTION II.The Northeastern Bypass concept should be encouraged
and extended to the Northwest around Gibsonville, connecting
with I-85 at a new Elon College exchange.
SECTION III. The Northern Bypass could connect to a Southern
Bypass to the West at an Elon College exit and to the East
around Graham. Anthony Road could be widened and used as the
basis for the Southern Bypass.
SECTION IV. Tucker Street should be thoroughly scrutinized as an
access to I-85 and the Southern Bypass. This could be the
important key route for getting traffic (both industrial and
vehicular) off Chapel Hill Road, Outlet Mall Area, Mebane St.,
etc.
SECTION V. Connect 87N to Urban Area through low-residential areas.
SECTION VI. Investigate continuing Elon Bypass as an expanded origin-
destination connector linking to the East.
DETAILS ABOUT EACH SECTION:
SECTION I: Replace the Burlington-Graham Inner Loop Concept with a
larger origin-destination connector:
A.O'Neal-Rockwood Thoroughfare:
l.Concern is with the amount of traffic historically
generated on roads connecting directly to State highways and
being diagonal throughways for cross-town traffic. The amount
of traffic proposed for this thoroughfare is 17,500 cars/day.
Our City Council voted to have the road remain a two-lane
connector, yet Mr. Nichols stated many times at a recent TAC
meeting that roads with greater than 8,000 cars/day be built
with 4-5 lanes. He gave examples of present two-lane roads
needing to be 4 lanes. School buses utilizing this road would
need turn lanes along most of the length. Four-lane Edgewood
Ave. currently has approx. 9,300 cars/day, Harden Ave.
proposed to be widened to 5-lanes has approx. 13,000. The
idea of this connector being a permanent two-lane connector is
unrealistic because of its projected counts and its location
within the Inner Loop - being the link between State Hwy 54,
Front St. (a State Hwy), and Webb. Ave. (State Hwy 100), with
access to State Hwy 87N.
page 2
2.It has been suggested the traffic jam at Church St./O'Neal
St. intersection will be relieved when the road is built.
a.Studies show enlarging roads has a tendency to do the
opposite of what was intended - congestion is usually
increased.
b.The increase in traffic at that intersection can be attributed
to many reasons. Most are the result of increased growth
within this entire Urban Area over the past 13 years with
little change in cross-town routes. When the Urban Plan was
up for revision, no creative ways of routing traffic around
our cities had been planned. The Outlet Mall traffic is
funneled directly to that intersection and the large number of
apartments recently built along Chapel Hill Road/Mebane St.
further compound the problem. Over 800 housing units are
being constructed in the Elon College/Gibsonville area with
this traffic using Church St. as their cross-town route.
3.We are told the road is needed to move traffic to and from the
West Burlington area.
a.Protecting our schools, residential neighborhoods, and
recreational areas from large amounts of traffic far exceeds
the need for everyone to have a "straight shot" to everywhere.
Most people in that West Burlington area choose to live there
because of the protection from fast, busy traffic.
b.This West Burlington area has very little land left for large
developments. Increase in traffic can not be attributed to a
great increase in vehicles from that area, but to an increase
in traffic cutting through that area.
4.We are told school children and neighborhoods play NO
significant role in where thoroughfares are planned. The PTA,
teachers, & principal at Turrentine ARE concerned, as the use
of the land around Turrentine has great potential as a non-
vehicular arboretem and natural area for science classes at
Turrentine, Burlington Day School and the future Hillcrest
School. Several years ago, the PTA at Smith School was asked
by the former City School Superintendent (Dr. Surratt) to help
with the traffic problem around that school. Safety was a
grave problem then as it still remains. School buses were
forced to bus ALL children - even within the one-mile walking
zone. Those involved with the Smith School safety problems
are very concerned with the schools along the proposed O'Neal-
Rockwood.
5.The future of the present Memorial Hospital might include a
use other than as a hospital - perhaps one in which pedestrian
traffic could be increased and deserve protection.
B.Chapel Hill Road connecting with ONeal Rockwood.
1.Chapel Hill Road is scheduled to become 5 lanes and will
connect directly with O'Neal-Rockwood (proposed to be two-
lane) with the likelihood of a bottleneck created much like
Estes Drive in Chapel Hill. Estes Drive, presently a two-lane
road that becomes a five-lane, runs through intact residential
property and past two schools. Its congestion makes it
hazardous for pedestrian traffic. We looked at homes recently
in that area and quickly learned all the difficulties from
id&17T1C-#J =Ava .V Mo
SOME ALTERNATIVE IDEAS -- ALAMANCE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN
&des wt-rtl mlip
Roads and alternatives of the plan are divided into sections and
numbered. These numbers appear on the map and correspond with the
write-ups. Yellow dotted lines are alternative ideas which connect
roads currently on the Thoroughfare Plan. Black dotted lines update
this large map with Thoroughfare map E, voted on by the TAC. Black
X's are roads that have been deleated by the State. Red x's are roads
that could be replaced by other alternatives. Recent changes are not
shown.
The sections include:
SECTION I. The Burlington-Graham Inner Loop concept should be replaced
with a larger origin-destination connector concept.
SECTION II.The Northeastern Bypass concept should be encouraged
and extended to the Northwest around Gibsonville, connecting
with I-85 at a new Elon College exchange.
SECTION III. The Northern Bypass could connect to a Southern
Bypass to the West at an Elon College exit and to the,East
around Graham. Anthony Road could be widened and used as the
basis for the Southern Bypass.
SECTION IV. Tucker Street should be thoroughly scrutinized as an
access to I-85 and the Southern Bypass. This could be the
important key route for getting traffic (both industrial and
vehicular) off Chapel Hill Road, Outlet Mall Area, Mebane St.,
etc.
SECTION V. Connect 87N to Urban Area through low-residential areas.
SECTION VI. Investigate continuing Elon Bypass as an expanded origin-
destination connector linking to the East.
DETAILS ABOUT EACH SECTION:
SECTION I: Replace the Burlington-Graham Inner Loop Concept with a
larger origin-destination connector:
A.O'Neal-Rockwood Thoroughfare:
1.Concern is with the amount of traffic historically
generated on roads connecting directly to State highways and
being diagonal throughways for cross-town traffic. The amount
of traffic proposed for this thoroughfare is 17,500 cars/day.
Our City Council voted to have the road remain a two-lane
connector, yet Mr. Nichols stated many times at a recent TAC
meeting that roads with greater than 8,000 cars/day be built
with 4-5 lanes. He gave examples of present two-lane roads
needing to be 4 lanes. School buses utilizing this road would
need turn lanes along most of the length. Four-lane Edgewood
Ave. currently has approx. 9,300 cars/day, Harden Ave.
proposed to be widened to 5-lanes has approx. 13,000. The
idea of this connector being a permanent two-lane connector is
unrealistic because of its projected counts and its location
within the Inner Loop - being the link between State Hwy 54,
Front St. (a State Hwy), and Webb. Ave. (State Hwy 100), with
access to State Hwy 87N.
page 2
2.It has been suggested the traffic jam at Church St./O'Neal
St. intersection will be relieved when the road is built.
a.Studies show enlarging roads has a tendency to do the
opposite of what was intended - congestion is usually
increased.
b.The increase in traffic at that intersection can be attributed
to many reasons. Most are the result of increased growth
within this entire Urban Area over the past 13 years with
little change in cross-town routes. When the Urban Plan was
up for revision, no creative ways of routing traffic around
our cities had been planned. The Outlet Mall traffic is
funneled directly to that intersection and the large number of
apartments recently built along Chapel Hill Road/Mebane St.
further compound the problem. Over 800 housing units are
being constructed in the Elon College/Gibsonville area with
this traffic using Church St. as their cross-town route.
3.We are told the road is needed to move traffic to and from the
West Burlington area.
a.Protecting our schools, residential neighborhoods, and
recreational areas from large amounts of traffic far exceeds
the need for everyone to have a "straight shot" to everywhere.
Most people in that West Burlington area choose to live there
because of the protection from fast, busy traffic.
b.This West Burlington area has very little land left for large
developments. Increase in traffic can not be attributed to a
great increase in vehicles from that area, but to an increase
in traffic cutting through that area.
4.We are told school children and neighborhoods play NO
significant role in where thoroughfares are planned. The PTA,
teachers, & principal at Turrentine ARE concerned, as the use
of the land around Turrentine has great potential as a non-
vehicular arboretem and natural area for science classes at
Turrentine, Burlington Day School and the future Hillcrest
School. Several years ago, the PTA at Smith School was asked
by the former City School Superintendent (Dr. Surratt) to help
with the traffic problem around that school. Safety was a
grave problem then as it still remains. School buses were
forced to bus ALL children - even within the one-mile walking
zone. Those involved with the Smith School safety problems
are very concerned with the schools along the proposed O'Neal-
Rockwood.
5.The future of the present Memorial Hospital might include a
use other than as a hospital - perhaps one in which pedestrian
traffic could be increased and deserve protection.
B.Chapel Hill Road connecting with ONeal Rockwood.
1.Chapel Hill Road is scheduled to become 5 lanes'and will
connect directly with O'Neal-Rockwood (proposed to be two-
lane) with the likelihood of a bottleneck created much like
Estes Drive in Chapel Hill. Estes Drive, presently a two-lane
road that becomes a five-lane, runs through intact residential
property and past two schools. Its congestion makes it
hazardous for pedestrian traffic. We looked at homes recently
in that area and quickly learned all the difficulties from
1dk17TC- J =A vaftV Mo
SOME ALTERNATIVE IDEAS -- ALAMANCE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN O
&ae5 WI-rd n 6 p
Roads and alternatives of the plan are divided into sections and
numbered. These numbers appear on the map and correspond with the
write-ups. Yellow dotted lines are alternative ideas which connect
roads currently on the Thoroughfare Plan. Black dotted lines update
this large map with Thoroughfare map E, voted on by the TAC. Black
X's are roads that have been deleated by the State. Red x's are roads
that could be replaced by other alternatives. Recent changes are not
shown.
The sections include:
SECTION I. The Burlington-Graham Inner Loop concept should be replaced
with a larger origin-destination connector concept.
SECTION II.The Northeastern Bypass concept should be encouraged
and extended to the Northwest around Gibsonville, connecting
with I-85 at a new Elon College exchange.
SECTION III. The Northern Bypass could connect to a Southern
Bypass to the West at an Elon College exit and to the East
around Graham. Anthony Road could be widened and used as the
basis for the Southern Bypass.
SECTION IV. Tucker Street should be thoroughly scrutinized as an
access to I-85 and the Southern Bypass. This could be the
important key route for getting traffic (both industrial and
vehicular) off Chapel Hill Road, Outlet Mall Area, Mebane St.,
etc.
SECTION V. Connect 87N to Urban Area through low-residential areas.
SECTION VI. Investigate continuing Elon Bypass as an expanded origin-
destination connector linking to the East.
DETAILS ABOUT EACH SECTION:
SECTION I: Replace the Burlington-Graham Inner Loop Concept with a
larger origin-destination connector:
A.O'Neal-Rockwood Thoroughfare:
1.Concern is with the amount of traffic historically
generated on roads connecting directly to State highways and
being diagonal throughways for cross-town traffic. The amount
of traffic proposed for this thoroughfare is 17,500 cars/day.
Our City Council voted to have the road remain a two-lane
connector, yet Mr. Nichols stated many times at a recent TAC
meeting that roads with greater than 8,000 cars/day be built
with 4-5 lanes. He gave examples of present two-lane roads
needing to be 4 lanes. School buses utilizing this road would
need turn lanes along most of the length. Four-lane Edgewood
Ave. currently has approx. 9,300 cars/day, Harden Ave.
proposed to be widened to 5-lanes has approx. 13,000. The
idea of this connector being a permanent two-lane connector is
unrealistic because of its projected counts and its location
within the Inner Loop - being the link between State Hwy 54,
Front St. (a State Hwy), and Webb. Ave. (State Hwy 100), with
access to State Hwy 87N.
0
o 0
0 0 0
O n N
o _ o
m
ca - ID
m w
w w
1 1 1 ? 1"?
vL_I 636 i
X
I r « 1 I
JJ s.. .:•I
.
µ
Z .a
=1
? 31
a'1 ARBOR DRIVE
PL
1 f C ?' J
PA WE 25 ?. 'SryS.
} M ` S `?' I 7 ? ' / 1 r?
71
063
•?, •' /
643
£ASEM ?
ENT - ---_-`_.
s /
r d \
642
?'? \\ 1 tip! ?•.. ,•ti .?
+? r ?1
IV TED
\
638
?\ ? X
GCS \w'? ''? -?\ ^ \
v, -
2 625
,e \?c```N $ti. \ \H.-' a \ ? 631
\ s? \
\L.: 4N\ y \ \.
NIN
\ ,a
CD
I
??: ?, ate. ? ?i a 6}
1
I!
/
/ ?,? \ B
O. 628
x
611
x 62h
PA$LlY6£, \ 1
5.01
\ ?O 6n
-- eACx oP '
p,:m j R'. x
'C ? ? `?\ OQIJE
\ Ul M.Y..
631 \ ? \
1 r