19950740 Ver 1_Complete File_19950720

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A AT:.R;WA
5W
[4*9
1:3 FE P1
September 20, 1995
Alamance County
DEM Project # 95740
State Project No. 9.8070179
TIP No. U-2802
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
FILE COPY
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in 1.40 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose
of constructing a connector road between O'Neal Street and Rockwood Avenue, as you described in
your application dated 17 July 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
jsinc ,
P on Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
95740.1tr
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
??,? X15 790
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 17, 1995
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney ;
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
Subject: Alamance County, O'Neal - Rockwood Connector, State Project No. 9.8070179,
TIP No. U-2802.
NCDOT proposes to build a roadway from Rockwood Avenue at Front Street to O'Neal
Street at Church Street in the City of Burlington (see enclosed site map). This connector will be a
1.4 mile two-lane divided roadway which will impact six sites that contain wetlands and/or waters
of the US. This activity will result in 0.24 acres of open water impacts to Little Alamance Creek
and 1.16 acres of adjacent wetlands (see enclosed permit drawings). In addition, approximately
100 feet of Little Alamance Creek will be relocated at site 3 and 3@ 8' X 12' reinforced concrete
box culverts are proposed for site 5.
Pursuant to your request during the planning phase of this project, NCDOT agreed to
(page 1 1 of FONSI) place boulders in the stream to force a meandering flow at site 3. Riprap will
be placed in the stream bed at site 5 to reduce the velocity of the stream. The streambanks will be
revegetated following construction and the construction contract will require the adherence to
NCDOT stream relocation guidelines.
The impacts to wetlands and waters of the US at each site meet the conditions of, and are
authorized under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 26. The impacts are above the limit
of headwaters and are less than an acre in size. Therefore, no notification to the US Army Corps
of Engineers is required (33CFR 330.6 (C13)). However, impacts to wetlands and waters of the
US at two sites are greater than one third acre and requires notification to the Division of
Environmental Management.
0
I
2
As a result, the NCDOT requests that the above referenced project be authorized under
General Water Quality Certification 2671. Please find enclosed a copy of the permit application,
site map and drawings for the project. A copy of this information is also being sent to the US
Army Corps of Engineers for their files.
If you have any questions concerning this application please do not hesitate to call Scott P.
Gottfried at 919-733-3141 ext. 307.
Sincerel,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/sg
Enclosures
cc: District Engineer, COE-Wilmington
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh
Ms. Jean Manuele, COE Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, WRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Project Management Unit
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. John Smith, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. J. W. Watkins, Division 7 Engineer
NOTIFICATION FORM ,Y
INFORMATION SHEET
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
A. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER. (REFER TO
ITEM B. BELOW FOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RE-
QUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY NOTE NWP 26 DIFFERENCE.)
Certain nationwide permits require notification to the Corps of Engineers before work can proceed. They are as follows:
NWP 5 (only for discharges of 10 to 25 cubic yards)
NWP7
NWP 13 (only for stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard
per running foot)
NWP 14 (only for fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites)
NWP 17
NWP 18 (required when discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site and must include
a delineation of the affected special aquatic site, including wetlands)
NWP 21 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
NWP 26 (only for greater than 1 acre total impacts and must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands)
NWP 33 (must include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources)
NWP 37
NWP 38 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
For activities that may be authorized by the above listed nationwide permits that. require notification, the
applicant shall not begin work
a. Until notified that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with any special conditions imposed by
the District Engineer, or
b. If notified that an individual permit may be required, or
c. Unless 30 days (calendar) have passed from the time a complete notification is received by the District Engineer
and no notice has been received from the District Engineer, and required state approvals have been obtained.
Required state approvals include: 1) a Section 401 water quality certification if authorization is requested for a
discharge of dredged or fill material, and 2) an approved coastal zone management consistency determination if
the activity will affect the coastal area.
Use of NWP 12 also requires notification to the District Engineer, but work may not begin until written
:oncturence is received from the District Engineer. The time periods described above do not apply.
Furthermore, requirements to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as indicated below and on the
notification form, do not apply.
B. APPLICATION TO DEM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION.
Certain nationwide permits require an application to DEM in order to obtain Section 401 water quality certification.
They are NWP 6, NWP 12, NWP 15, NWP 16, NWP 17, NWP 21, NWP 33, NWP 34, NWP 38, and NWP 40.
Certain nationwide permits were issued general certifications and require no application. They are NWP 3, NWP 4,
NWP 5, NWP 7, NWP 20, NWP 22, NWP 23 (requires notification to DEM), NWP 25, NWP 27, NWP 32, NWP 36,
and NWP 37.
'The following nationwide permits were issued general certifications for only limited activities: NWP 13 (for projects
less than 500 feet in length), NWP 14 (for projects that impact waters only), NWP 18 (for projects with less than 10
cubic yards of fill in waters only), and NWP 26 (for projects with less than or equal to one-third acre fill of waters or
wetlands). Projects that do not meet these criteria require application for Section 401 water quality certifications.
C. NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION PROCEDURES.
The attached form should be used to obtain approval from the Corps of Engineers and/or the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management as specified above. The pen- ittee should make sure that all necessary information is
provided in order to avoid delays. One copy of the completed form is required by the Corps of Engineers and seven
copies are required by DEM. Plans and maps must be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper.
Endangered species requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the presence of endangered species that may
be affected by the proposed project.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 2763&3726
Telephone [phone]
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION
Pivers Island
Beaufon, NC 28516
Telephone [phone]
Historic resources requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding the presence of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone]
Information obtained from these agencies should be forwarded to the Corps.
• r.
DEM ID: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 25402-1890 P.O. Bor. 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address. P.. 0. Box 25201; Raleigh, NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): --- (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Alamance
Nearest Town or City: Burlington
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Connector road between O'Neal Street
and Rockwood Avenue
6. Name of Closest Stream/River.
Little Alamance Creek
7. River Basin: Cape Fear
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS IP YES [ ] NO [x ]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO [x ]
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
1.40 acres
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 1.16 acres of wetlands; 0.24 acre of water
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated: _
Total Impacted:
1.40 acres
r
2. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): A connector road between
O'Neal Street and Rockwood Avenue. Will include filling 6 sites that contain wetlands ,
and/or waters. Approximately 100 feet of Little Alamance Creek will also be relocated.
3. Purpose of proposed work: New roadway on new location.
4. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
aken to minimize wetland impacts.
See cover letter
.5. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
iabitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES[X] NO [ ]
ZESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
.6. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
)roperties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done. so? YES [X ] NO [ ]
ZESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
11 7. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Residential
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A
Owner's Signature Date

O

Q c) 0
w Z
O
0 U) Q
0
U) < O

Na
O
O
? t4) ?? U U
- 0 _

Fn
m o 0 0
j CT)
Q O
N

r
?

F-

C)

0

Q Q

U W

0 7z

Z _
f A
V Z Q- O
cn W
N I¢-
1' ?
W
N
W V/
V ! 3?7 000??Sb3 f M
M
H

V)
Z
O

Q
U
O
J

t
LO
w
w _
g
F-- w

\'
? LL)
Q
o
\ N

I
?f

W

? 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
? a ¢ a a a

w

? J
LL
O
O S
Q
O
Q
0
p
g w
LL
J a
(3) s a
0
a
U

? n. a a a ?
?
? h N V (Op aW1
V
M
O J J J J J J

Q
N
+
?!
O
N N
O
?
M
f'
f/)
f0 (D
V)
tt) M
tt

N (O

r-
f-"
N
?
M
V'
N
° W q
0 LL °' O w

°?ZLL
°
w zp C) z o

1
W
u
a
4.
?t

)il W
1 ` 1 ?c

z
Z)

o O
w
0
F' U
?
a Q O

z >--
?
O
? ' < U U

?-
0
z ?,

?--

O

W
W 0 ? Z
o
O J
Q
O
M
W ° C) Lu w
w
LLJ
O Z
cn
v
z cL O
w
Q
F-
CO
Q
ti
0 U
N II Q
II w 0
_ O
? ? II
Wwo
J J_
? ? LL
Z Z 2
O g Q
w cl?
U W lu--)
? o
o
F-
0 Z_
Z w
g o
a ,0
w J U)
S u-
® 0

I a i ...
w
?
I wo
U)
z
ml '; Y Z O
m ? `t' a J Q
+pW w0
n 3 -?
I
x'441
O
o?
ICI

I
'I
J I
j
to
c? 20
't,
? X30,
?O
?O
I- -
Z
D

z
o O
C)
w

o a
Z
Q O
O
z Q ,
Q ?-

? CU
O U
W
0
w 0
Z o /
?- z °
o 00
? cn
a' J
Q
O
?
a- C) W W
o LU
O z ?
U
Z
0
O
W
F--

a
O U
1 u a
C) L
II J Q
= J_
IL 11
Z W C)
-j w J
C7 0 LL
a
J
U) W
U W
U)
Q? o
W
U)
0 Z
z _ w
g o
nW a ,O
W J rn
® 0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, ILFWA
Health and Natural Resources &14
Division of Environmental Management
- EL
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E 1---11 ! FR
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb <-V
Subject: FONSI for O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
Alamance County
State Project DOT No. 9.8070179, TIP # U-2802
EHNR # 96-0057, DEM # 11010
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 1.2 acres of waters including wetlands. The following
comments are based on the FONSI review:
A) After providing the 12 May 1995 comments on the EA, DEM met with DOT and
discussed the project. Upon further review, we determined that all of our
concerns about this project have been satisfied either through the additional
information provided directly or the FONSI.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the
401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Raleigh COE
Monica Swihart
o'neal2.fon
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
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Lr!MA1
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ID C "PA F1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretory C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn4)
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
Alamance County
State Project DOT No. 9.8070179, TIP # U-2802
EHNR # 96-0057, DEM # 11010
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 1.2 acres of waters including wetlands. The following
comments are based on the FONSI review:
A) In our 12 May 1995 comments DEM explicitly requested that the public's
alternative be submitted to DEM prior to the follow-up document. We did not
receive this information nor is it answered in Section 10 (Comments received
on the document). All of our other concerns were addressed.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the
401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Raleigh COE
Monica Swihart
o'neal.fon
R0. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Aug 09'95 1506 No.005 P.04
9 North Carolina WiU fe Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-11158,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, R=cutive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 9, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector, from
O'Neal Street to Rockwood Avenue in Burlington, Alamanec County,
North Carolina, TIP No. U-2802, SCI-I Project No. 96-0057.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the subject FONSI and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The
purpose of this review was to assess project impacts to fish and wfldlitb resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with vermin provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S_ 113A-1 et seq., as amended; i NCAC 25).
NCDOT proposes to construct a new location connector between O'Neal Street
and Rockwood Avenue in Burlington. The roadway will initially be a two-lane, curb and
gutter, median divided facility with sufficient right-of--way to construct a four-lane
divided or five-lane cross-section. The project length is approximately 1.4 miles.
In lisht of the environmental commitments included in the document, we have no
finther modiTng comment on this FONSI. However, we request that NCDOT continue
ofro is to minimize wetland impacts. Alao, Bcst Management Practices and
environmental commitments should be strictly enforced to protect off-site resources. We
anti . cipate that nationwide permits will be applicable to the wetland and stream crossings
on this project However, if a individual "404" permit is required we request that
appropriate wetland mitigation be provided.
Thank you for the opportunity to uo muvnt un this FONSI. If we can be of further
assistance please call me at [phone].

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
t North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
1
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]
-
le /.:)-9/9-
A- x ? &_ ,
' D to H. ranklin Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
E

O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
O'Neal Street to Rockwood Avenue
Alamance County
State Project No. 9.8070179
TIP No. U-2802
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
June1995
Documentation Prepared By:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

iurence J. Me s er, P.E., AICP
nvironmental tudy Manager
,,,`??rm¦nrrrr?,
CARD ?•,
35
'? 9 .. FNGINEEP ? • ?k?:
•••......• •E\e,
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
awes A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit 11id "
Consulting Engineering Unit
46seph Westbrook oO"
Project Manager

J

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ran
1. Type of Action ............................................................... 1
2. Additional Information ......................................................... 1
3. Description of the Proposed Project ............................................... 1
4. Recommended Alternate ....................................................... 2
5. Environmental Commitments .................................................... 3
6. Environmental Impacts ......................................................... 4
7. Wetland Finding .............................................................. 4
8. Floodplain Finding ............................................................ 5
9. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment ....................................... 5
10. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ............................... 6
11. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing ........................ 12
12. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment ....................................... 17
13. Basis for a Finding of No Significant Impact ....................................... 18
APPENDIX
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Name Following Page No.
FigureI Typical Sections ........................................................ 2
Figure 2 Proposed Right-of-way .................................................. 2
Figure 3 Affected Wetlands ...................................................... 3

1

LI?
F

L

STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
1. TYPE OF ACTION
' This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Administrative Action, State Finding of
No Significant Impact (SFONSI).
The NCDOT has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the human or natural
' environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the Environmental Assessment, which has
been independently evaluated and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues
' and impacts of the proposed project. Copies of the Environmental Assessment are on file at the Planning
and Environmental Branch of the NCDOT. The Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and
' analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The NCDOT assumes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the 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]
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

1

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 ultimate widening to
four or five lanes. The length of the project is approximately 1.4 miles. The estimated construction cost of
the project in the 1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program is $2,000,000.

C?

r

4. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE
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 cross-sections were reviewed and presented to the public before selection of the initial cross-section
shown on Figure 1. This initial section is compatible with either of the two ultimate sections shown. The
impacts of the two options are virtually identical.
' This connector has defined termini at O`Neal Street and Rockwood Avenue. The alignment between those
termini, as shown in Figure 2, 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 perpendicular angles. 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.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
R/w . ( •O. R/W
! 7 6 16 6.. 24 1-6 ' 6 6 2 S 2
SIDEWALK
1` ?f t
1
---- Tk
=J
YW.
MK INITIAL SECTION
(TWO LANES)
A/W R/W 40 40 7 !' -6- S' 2'
SIDEWALK
t
l l
t
oil.
YW.
ULTIMATE SECTION - OPTION 1
YIN
(FIVE LANES)
R/W R/w
40 ' 40
22' f-6- 12. 1-6- 22. . 6.. 2. S' 2.
J SIDEWALK
t
ULTIMATE SECTION - CFnON 2
(FOUR LANES)
' ?IE
ONE ONNEC K WOOD TYPICAL SECTIONS FIQ 1
0CM
¦
Q
3
LL
O
I
0
W
U)
O
M
O
ac
a
oc
O
V
W
Z
Z
O
V
O
O
O
V
O
cc
J
a
W
Z
O
m m
?m
N
Q
3
U.
O
?c
0
w
Cl)
O
m
O
oc
a
cc
O
F-
v
w
z
z
O
C.)
Q
O
O
3
O
oc
J
Q
w
z
O

r
0 5. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following environmental commitments are made by NCDOT for the design and construction of this
project:
1. NCDOT will coordinate the relocation of all Geodetic survey markers with the N.C. Geodetic Survey
prior to construction.
2. NCDOT will submit application for permits as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If a
wetlands mitigation plan is needed, coordination with the appropriate review agencies will be made
prior to permitting. Impacts to wetlands will be avoided where practicable and minimized otherwise.
3. A pedestrian crossing will be provided at Edgewood Avenue. Additional pedestrian crossings will be
provided at appropriate locations, most likely at new street intersections.
4. Boulders will be placed in the stream at Site 3 (see Figure 3). Riprap will be placed in the stream bed
at Site .5 (see Figure 3) to reduce velocity. Stream banks will be revegetated. NCDOT stream
relocation guidelines will be adhered to.
5. The road will be widened from the initial section only when traffic volumes approach or exceed the
capacity of the initial phase.
a
a
0
0
r ? t? 1.., ? {Yp pD?gkD AVE

FRONT ST.
I

ROCKWOOD AVE..
\\ I CI ? ra Y / / y y •? '?\ I• j n
r? ? y `

S l
61
"St
I T-
EDGEWOOD AVE. i .Q..?? Q ;
?' \\ ,?;_ r ?. Rio , ,, _? ? \? .•?_•_ _.? tf` ? ... ;,?"?' ?? ., I, ,
I ,) ?•.+, ?'a, ??^? ?er ?_. y ;,1 f. 1:' , ?: .ser1
• Y ANC' ,i ? ?• Al 1
4? .d utr ti' 4 ?5.°? - ?w \• •c?? i s + _ It
1 ? fa. a.Si?
ECT?r'. _4 a.o- 1 a.
?•" 1 •"" r4 1 .a1 Y?7"
O.t woO -1.? . t li Q / I '
tl ?rl I ; ?? I f?l? ?' \? •' ??v
' o
MAY'S LAKE (` !I .? t ?l tT?• \ " aa. `?` I II
aof J / ' • , ?I a v•i ll
• i ;\?\ + apt ? t,+ I a? ? ?? ? l ? ? \ L it
It O.I s' ?•? ?I ry O I D ?` i ? (/^1 ?f -?, i [; \\\ nc_ ? ?J_<.a^c"?_- 1??' ?f o? ,
? + SD -- - a.'y? ,-? •_ j:..-' ?_T J - 111a\ ?? ?. ` •??•.. .111 S?j
9 ?'•<_ ;;:?,.•.;
f-'` ,' a•: _ (I a.a• ? CHURCH ST. (US 70)
400 40 800 _ ?t?? .n „^ -
SCALE FEET 0

0
O'iVEAL - ROCiCWOOD
CONNECTOR AFFECTED WETLANDS 3

0 6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project will help inect 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 1.2 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. A 100 foot stream relocation will be required.
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 emissions from the
volume of traffic projected to use the proposed project do not exceed the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
7. WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990 establishes a national policy to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on
wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a
practical alternative. Three small pockets of bottom-land forested wetlands will be affected by proposed
construction. The recommended alternative takes the minimum practicable amount of wetland.
Alignment alternatives that would completely avoid the forested wetlands would involve substantially
greater impacts to existing residential communities. Minimization has been employed in the planning
analyses and the recommended alternative impacts wetlands at the narrowest points possible given
adjacent development constraints. Therefore, there is no practical alternative to avoid the 1.2 acres of
wetland.
0
o
0
0 8. FLOODPLAIN FINDING
The objectives of Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management," and DOT Order 5650.2,
"Floodplain Management and Protection," are to avoid adverse impacts due to occupancy and alteration
of the 100-year floodplain unless that location is the only practical alternative. In such circumstances, it
is required that every effort must be made to minimize the potential risks to human safety and property,
and to minimize negative effects on natural and beneficial floodplain value. The preferred alternative
will be developed to comply with these orders and with North Carolina Executive Order 123, "Uniform
Floodplain Management Policy."
The proposed alignment will involve approximately 3.5 acres of floodplain, based on Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps. A floodway revision has been completed in one
location in coordination with FEMA. The project has been designed such that the floodway will carry
the 100-year flood without increasing the water elevation more than one foot at any given point. The
dimensions of the drainage structures and the roadway grades have been designed to avoid increasing the
flood hazard in the project area. The project has been and will continue to be coordinated with
appropriate state and local officials and FEMA to assure compliance with FEMA, State, and local
floodway regulations. Therefore, in accordance with the Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650,
Subpart A, the proposed project will not cause a significant floodplain encroachment.
Methods to minimize harm and preserve the floodplains include minimizing fill and grading
requirements, preserving the free natural drainage whenever possible, maintaining vegetation buffers,
controlling urban runoff, and minimizing erosion and sedimentation during construction.
9. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the Division of Highways (NCDOT) on February 17,
1995. The approved Environmental Assessment was distributed to the following Federal, State, and
Local agencies. An asterisk (*) denotes that a response was received. Copies of correspondence are
included in the Appendix of this document.
U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
o
0
0 U.S. Bureau of Mines
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
* N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation (Natural Heritage Program)
* Division of Environmental Management
Division of Environmental Health
Division of Land Resources
* Wildlife Resources Commission
Alamance County Metropolitan Planning Organization
City of Burlington
Alamance County
10. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from five agencies. The
following is a summary of these comments with responses where appropriate.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Letter dated: May 8, 1995
Comment: We suggest that you coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
regarding the need for a no-rise certification and with the city for compliance with their flood plain
ordinance and any modifications to their flood insurance map and report.
Response: This coordination has been performed. A detailed f ood study was prepared and a
conditional letter of map revision has been obtained from FEMA.
Comment: The wetland impacts associated with the project were determined utilizing the 1989
manual and may be slightly higher than what would be present when delineated in accordance with
the 1987 "Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
0
o `
0
Response: The wetlands have b ,?en redelineated in consultation with the Corps of Engineers. The
acreages shown in this document reflect the new delineation.
North Carolina Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
Letter sent: May 16, 1995
Comment: "...[T]his office recommends that supplemental environmental assessment documentation
addressing the concerns of DEHNR be submitted to the Clearinghouse for review and comment by
that department prior to submission of the FONSI.'
Response: The agency comments are adequately addressed in the responses to specific comments
and in other portions of this document to juste a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A
meeting with DEHNR agency representatives was held on June 13, 1995. A review of the agencies
comments and a discussion of the issue raised was conducted. The agencies concurred that a
supplemental Environmental Assessment was not needed if NCDOT included additional information
and explanation of the environmental analysis performed in the FONSI.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Letter sent: May 15, 1995
Comment: The fact that a proposal has been on the Thoroughfare Plan for thirty-three years does not
automatically justify it as the only viable alternative... 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
a has changed and remains necessary as an integral 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.
Response: The project has been part of Burlington's Thoroughfare Plan since 1957. Graham was
added to the urban area in the 1962 plan update. The Thoroughfare has had two subsequent major
up dates resulting in the 1977 and 1990 Thoroughfare Plans. All of these plans confirmed the need
for this project to serve circumferential traffic and north-south traffic not oriented toward the CBD.
Development of these plans has involved continuous coordination with local government, which has
continued to endorse this project. As the urban area has expanded the role of and need for this
project has continued.
Comment: For all practical purposes the EA offers only two alternatives: no-build and build as
proposed... The two alternatives provided for review in the EA do not sufficiently characterize the
opportunities or the issues.
Response: The evaluation of alternatives included consideration of alternative cross-sections as
well as alternative alignments. Traffic projections dictated that the ultimate section needs lobe
either four-lane divided or five-lane (four travel lanes, plus a two-way left-turn lane). The interim
cross-section, a two-lane divided road, was selected by the City of Burlington and approved by
NCDOT as a means to provide interim improvements with reduced visual impact to adjacent
properties. Alternative alignments were also investigated, but rejected as not feasible. Two parallel
0
0
u
existing streets, Engleman Avenue and Tarleton Avenue, provide connectivity between Front Street
and Church Street, but are residential streets. Homes along these streets would be severely impacted
by widening to the required cross section. The corridor selected was refined early in the design
process to minimize floodplain and wetland impacts.
Comment: The discussion of Social Impacts/Land Use is particularly deficient for a growth inducing
project, such as this uncontrolled access connector road on new corridor 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
Q urban infrastructure/services will support such new growth demands. The EA needs to
comprehensively address related land use issues.
Response: Because of the urban nature of much of the area in the vicinity of the connector, the short
length of the project (1.4 miles), and the existing access of undeveloped land to other streets, this
road is not expected to open land for development - -the surrounding property could be developed
with or without the connector. The largely undeveloped properties adjacent to the project are the
Vaught tract (17 acres) and the Powell tracts (47 acres). These properties are zoned R-15
residential, and could be developed at a density of 2.9 units per acre. It is extremely unlikely that the
Powell tracts would be fully developed at that density, due to Mays Lake, Little Alamance Creek and
its tributaries, and the existing Powell residences. The Vaught and Powell tracts, if fully developed
at that density, would generate approximately 1,900 trips per day. Traffic projections in the
Alamance County Urban area model are based on 100 additional residences in the project vicinity.
Sonic changes in zoning could occur with the project in place. Such zoning decisions would be at the
discretion of the City of Burlington, and would consider the ability of the existing infrastructure to
support such growth.
Comment: The discussion of Social Impacts/Neighborhood Impacts is disportionately weighted to
M the driver's perspective... Neighborhood cohesion is more than auto mobility and a full range of
cause and effect relationships have not been explored. There was no documentation as to existing
pedestrians routes across the undeveloped corridor, how much further pedestrians might have to walk
to cross the proposed facility at "appropriate locations" or how much further pedestrians will walk
before they are inconvenienced or discouraged from walking. Also, there was no characterization of
the number or age of pedestrians using the undeveloped corridor or expected to use the proposed
connector to support conclusions. Likewise, there is no discussion of the importance of this open
space to the surrounding community, or the impacts of its loss to road construction and use. The EA
does not provide sufficient perspective or factual information before it closes discussion of impacts.
Response: Because it is built primarily through undeveloped property, the connector will not divide
any established neighborhoods. There are no public sidewalks or walkways through the project
corridor, so other than the few residents who walk across their property to the school or other
destinations, any existing pedestrians would be crossing private property. Many would also have to
cross Little Alamance Creek to get to Turrentine Middle School. As stated in the EA, a sidewalk will
be provided on the east side of the connector. A pedestrian crossing will be provided at the
Edgewood Avenue intersection, which is proposed to be signalized. Additional pedestrian crossings
could be provided at other appropriate locations along the road, most likely at new street
intersections. The existing undeveloped property, does provide green open space. These properties
are privately owned and could be developed as single family residential subdivisions with or without
the road. The area within the floodplain of Little Alamance Creek is expected to remain undeveloped
and to continue to serve open space functions.
0
0
0
Comment: The discussion of Social Impacts/Public Facilities and Services is too narrowly written.
It does not even acknowledge such items as sewerlines, waterlines, gaslines, powerlines, and
telephone lines that must be integrated with the proposed connector. Likewise it does not note
whether police, fire, and EMS response time are likely to be reduced.
Response: The project will have minor impacts on utilities. Several existing power poles on O'Neal
Street and Edgewood Avenue will be relocated. An existing fire hydrant along Edgewood Avenue
will also be relocated. Other impacts will be with the existing sanitary sewer line. Several manholes
will need to be adjusted due to the change in the ground elevation. No other utility conflicts are
anticipated. By providing an additional connection between major arterials, emergency response
time will be improved.
Comment: The discussion of Economic Impacts offers conclusions, with no supporting evidence for
the proposed connectors 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.
Response: It is difficult to assess the impact of a new roadway on nearby property values. Property
values of undeveloped properties tend to increase due to increased access and exposure. Developed
properties may also increase in value due to access improvement and potential for redevelopment,
but this may be offset to some extent by such negative impacts as traffic and noise. Because of the
large amount of undeveloped property in the vicinity of the connector, the net result is expected to be
positive.
Comment: The discussion of Environmental Impacts/Flood Hazard Evaluation established that
necessary floodway (map) modifications will be coordinated with FEMA and deferred details to the
design phase of the project. This approach limits the understanding of potential impacts and
appropriate mitigation. It is not known whether the proposed connector will divert 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 result of displaced or increased
mitigation nor compensation for flood hazard impacts. The EA should recognize this distinction and
include an appropriate response.
Response: The project will not increase downstream flooding. A hydraulic computer model of Little
Alamance Creek was acquired from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The proposed project
and the resulting conditions were inserted into the model and rerun. The results of the computer
update showed that the only increase in the 100 year water surface elevation will be between the
entrance to the box culvert and the base of the dam. The entrance will increase 0.80 feel and the
base of the dam will increase 0.58 feet. Downstream of the proposed box culvert the 100 year water
surface elevation decreases for a distance of approximately 300 feet. Beyond 300 feet downstream
the 100 year water surface elevation remained the same. The revised results of the flood study were
reviewed and approved by FEM. The changes in the 100 year water surface elevation falls within
an established flood zone meaning that a flood plain has been established. The flood plain was
established at an elevation one foot above the 100 year water surface elevation. Therefore, since the
increase in the 100 year water surface elevation is less than one foot, the additional area impact still
falls within the established flood plain. Because the increase in flooding falls within the flood plain
the effected property owner is not eligible for additional compensation.
0
a
Comment: Throughout the EA conclusions were offered in the absence of analysis which was
neither included, summarized, nor referenced.
Response: Those items which could be quantified have been, either in the EA, in supporting
documentation, or in this document. Other items, such as economic impacts, either cannot be
quantified with any reliability or would require an effort well beyond the level of impact of this
project.
Comment: Several 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 productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action are three such examples.
These are typically the big-picture issues that accommodate presentation of overall conclusions in
the EA.
Response: Cumulative impacts are those that result from the impact of a project under study when
added to impacts of other actions. The major cumulative impacts considered in this project are the
likely continued urbanization of this portion of Burlington and of the Little Alamance Creek
watershed, and the direct loss of 1.2 acres of wetland and 10.2 acres of natural habitat. These
impacts are small when compared with the total watershed. North Carolina Environmental Policy
Act requires an EA to discuss environmental effects, including cumulative, direct, and indirect
impacts. Discussions of the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and of any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action are specifically required
for an Environmental Impact Statement.
Comment: Stream relocations were not addressed, even though the USF&WS and NCWRC made
specific scoping requests for such information, and the DEM of this department specifically asked
for documentation of mitigatable wetland losses. This is a sensitive and significant topic that
deserves to be introduced, analyzed, and mitigated as appropriate through the EA process.
Response: The section of stream relocation is only 100 feet, a length not typically included in
discussion of stream relocations, as this is less than the length of many culverts. Keeping the stream
channel open is certainly environmentally preferable to putting it in a culvert. the stream relocation
will be constructed with boulders placed in the stream at site 3. These boulders will force
meandering in the flow. With the redelineation of wetlands it has been determined that Site S
contains only 0.40 acres of wetlands that will be impacted. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed and
none is required.
Comment: This department recommends that a Supplemental EA be developed to resolve these
weaknesses and provide an appropriate foundation for decision makers.
Response: A meeting with DEHNR agency representatives was held on June 13, 1995. A review of
the agencies comments and a discussion of the issue raised was conducted. The agencies concurred
that a supplemental Environmental Assessment was not needed if NCDOT included additional
information and explanation of the Environmental Analysis performed in the FONSI.
0
10
0
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Letter dated: May 12, 1995
Comment: 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
Response: The stream relocation will be constructed with boulders placed in the stream at site 3.
These boulders will force meandering in the flow. Riprap will be placed in the stream bed at site 5 to
reduce velocity. The stream banks will also be revegetated. The construction contract will require
adherence to NCDOT stream relocation guidelines.
Comment: 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 the DOT
include a flood mitigation plan in the follow-up document.
Response: The project will not increase downstream flooding. A hydraulic computer model of Little
Alamance Creek was acquired from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The proposed project and the
resulting conditions were inserted into the model and rerun. The results of the computer update
showed that the only increase in the 100 year water surface elevation will be between the entrance
to the box culvert and the base of the dam. The entrance will increase 0.80 feet and the base of the
dam will increase 0.58 feet. Downstream of the proposed box culvert the 100 year water surface
elevation decreases for a distance of approximately 300 feet. Beyond 300 feet downstream the 100
year water surface elevation remained the same. The revised results of the flood study were
reviewed and approved by FEM. The changes in the 100 year water surface elevation falls within
an established flood zone meaning that a flood plain has been established. The flood plain was
established at an elevation one foot above the 100 year water surface elevation. Therefore, since the
increase in the 100 year water surface elevation is less than one foot, the additional area impact still
falls within the established flood plain. The dam is regularly inspected by the DEHNR Division of
Land Quality and has been determined to have structural deficiencies. Coordination with DEHNR
staff has indicated that the road would have no effect on the dam's structure. lVith the redelineation
of wetlands it has been determined that Site S contains only 0.40 acres of wetlands that will be
impacted. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed and none is required.
Comment: 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.
Response: The alternative referenced on page 14 is the selected alternative, which is discussed at
0 11

0
p road to be a tivo-lane subdivision street with a greenway and a science center. This alternative is
addressed as a response to comments presented at the public hearing. The alternative of
constructing a lesser typical section was addressed in the traffic analysis, when it was determined
that a four-lane road is needed to serve projected traffic volumes. Asa response to early public
input, the project is being phased with an initial tivo-lane roadway later to be widened to four or five
lanes. The initial typical section was recommended by the City of Burlington following evaluation of
many possible sections and extensive public input.
Comment: Stream relocation was not discussed in the document and, therefore, the EA is deficient.
Response: The section of stream relocation is only 100 feet, a length not typically included in
discussion of stream relocations, as this is less than the length of many culverts. Keeping the stream
channel open is certainly environmentally preferable that putting it in a culvert.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Letter dated: May 12, 1995
Comment: We feel that the removal of flood storage volume and increased flow velocities as a
resulting from more impermeable surfaces, channel straightening, and stream bank hardening will
only compound these [flooding] problems. The EA should be revised to include a discussion of the
stream channel modifications, the measures that will be employed to reduce water velocities,
maintain flood storage volumes, and reduce the need for extensive placement of rip-rap.
Response: The stream relocation will be constructed with boulders placed in the stream at site 3.
These boulders ivill force meandering in the flow. Riprap will be placed in the stream bed at site S to
reduce velocity. The stream banks will also be revegetated. The construction contract will require
adherence to NCDOT stream relocation guidelines.
Comment: We recommend that the NCDOT hydraulics staff meet with the resource agencies to
discuss the channel relocations and the effects of reduced flood storage on the stream system.
Response: An interagency meeting was held on June 13, 1995 to discuss agency comments,
including those regarding channel relocations and flood impacts.
11. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing on the project was held on April 6, 1995 from 7:00 until 9:30 PM at Burlington
City Hall. The meeting was preceded by an open forum workshop between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM.
Approximately 100 persons attended the workshop and 60 attended for public hearing. Following is
a summary of comments received during and following the public hearing.
Comment: "The project is out-of-date and no longer needed since it was first proposed in the
1950's."
Response: The need for this project was foreseen many years ago when it was put into the City's
transportation plan. That need still exists, as is indicated by the traffic projections for this facility.
12
O
0
Development of the Alamance County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan is a continuous process
involving coordination with local governmental agencies. As the urban area has expanded the
purpose and need for this project has continued to be endorsed by the City of Burlington.
Comment: "The Burlington City Park downstream of this proposed road experiences severe flooding
problems. This project will increase flooding at the park and in other locations."
Response: The project would not affect flooding in the City Park, as it will provide sufficient
drainage to avoid raising the flood elevation significantly. While the roadway would add some
impervious surface to the watershed, it is a very minor amount compared with the Little Alamance
Creek watershed adjacent to and upstream of the road location and upstream of the City park. There
will be some effect due to the impervious surface; however, the surface has a much greater effect on
the velocity of the runoff than it does on the quantity. Even if this area remained totally natural,
much of the rain during a heavy rainfall would still runoff The great majority of this project drains
into May's Lake, where it would raise the lake level by one inch in the event of a hundred-year storm.
The portion of the stream between the dam and the proposed road culvert would be raised by 0.8 feet
and would remain within the stream banks and the floodplain. Flooding in the portion of the creek
downstream of the culvert would not be affected by the road. Design of this project has been
coordinated with Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations which require detailed
consideration of flooding in the design of the road.
Comment: "The road will expose children at Turrentine Middle School to increased traffic and will
keep them from walking to school."
Q Response: This road is planned to cross behind the middle school. A future entrance is currently
planned from the road, where the school proposes to extend its driveway. A sidewalk will be
provided to allow children to walk to the school in a safe manner. This project has been coordinated
with the Burlington City Schools since its early planning stages; in fact, the School Board donated a
portion of the right-of-way for the road. Almost all of the outdoor play area will be separated from
the road by a wooded area.
Comment: Other projects are more badly needed than this one and state funds should be used on
those projects.
Response: Burlington's Thoroughfare Plan and the State Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) address many transportation needs in the Burlington Urban Area. This project will meet a
portion of those needs. Other projects currently funded in the Burlington Urban Area include the St.
Marks Church Road extension and new interchange, widening of Alamance Road (1VC 62), widening
of Maple Avenue (NC 54), constructing an Elan College Bypass, and extending Maple Street in
Graham. Projects scheduled for feasibility studies include the widening of Mebane Street and
construction of a new road between Grand Oaks Boulevard and Kirkpatrick Road. The total
funding allocated for Burlington projects in the 1995-2001 TIP, not including widening of I-85II--40,
is over $38 million.
Comment: This project should be a two-lane road. A multi-lane road is not needed.
Response: The initial phase of this project calls for a two-lane road with a grass median. This
initial design was selected and approved by the Burlington City Council after reviewing many
alternative road cross-sections. The multi-lane section is based on traffic projections prepared by
13
0
NCDOT which show the need for more than two lanes to serve traffic projected to use this road.
While the environmental documents reflect the impact of the ultimate planned improvements, funding
has only been allocated for the initial stage of the road. The road would be widened only when
traffic volumes approach or exceed the capacity of the initial phase.
Comment: "The project will introduce vehicular noise interference into an otherwise pristine and
quiet surrounding."
Response: As discussed in the EA, there would be an increase in highway noise in the vicinity of the
project. The noise level 23 feet from the right-of-way limit (63 feet from the centerline) is projected
to be 67 dBA. The EA noted that five homes would experience a substantial increase in noise (a 10
dBA to 15 dBA increase, depending on the level of ambient noise, as defined by NCDOT criteria).
However, noise barriers are not recommended for this project because, according to NCDOT noise
abatement guidelines, it is not considered reasonable to provide noise abatement on non-controlled
or partial control access facilities. In addition, barriers are not feasible on this project because they
would cut off access to the receptors that they were designed to benefit.
Comment: "This project will have a significant effect on wetlands: Little effort was made to avoid
the two acres of wetlands affected by the project."
Response: Following the guidelines of Section 404 and Executive Order 11990, avoidance and
minimization measures were implemented in choosing the project alignment. The selected alternate
was planned to tie into existing development, while avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts and
avoiding adjacent residential development. Weiland 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. Representatives of the Department of Transportation have met with the Corps of
Engineers to discuss the wetlands impacts of this project and to begin coordination for the
permitting process. Applications for Nationwide wetland permits are currently being prepared. The
design of the road has been modified during that process to reduce wetland impact. Further, the
wetlands impacts shown in the report were based on the wetland delineation procedures that were in
effect at the time the studies were performed. The wetland areas have been redelineated based on
current procedures, and have been revised from 2.1 acres to 1.2 acres.
Comment: "The impacts of this project are significant. An environmental impact statement should
be prepared."
Response: The term FONSI indicates that the impacts of such a project are not significant enough
to require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), not that the impacts are minor or unimportant.
If the Department had determined the environmental impacts of this project were significant, an EIS
would have been be required.
Comment: "Burlington needs an outer bypass, not this project."
a Response: NCDOT studies have shown that there is a substantial need for this road and others to
serve traffic within Burlington. An outer bypass also is needed; however, such a bypass would cost
much more than the currently proposed project and may be many years away. An NC 87 Bypass is
shown in the state TIP as an identified future need, with an estimated cost of $44,500,000.
14
O
0
Comment: "This project will divide neighborhoods and will keep people from crossing it."
Response: This project is proposed to be an arterial street, which will have access at driveways and
intersections, as opposed to a freeivay such as 1-40, which has access only at widely spaced
interchanges. A freeway can truly divide a community or city by preventing access across it. This
proposed road does not take houses, does not cut off streets, and does not prohibit access across it.
Therefore, it would not divide communities in the sense that motorists or pedestrians could not cross
it.
Comment: "Who are the people who prepared the Environmental Assessment?"
Response: The report was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Raleigh, under contract
to the City of Burlington. Mr. Toni Goodwin is the project manager, while the environmental
assessment was performed under the direction of Mr. Larry Afeisner. The Kimley-Horn study was
directed by Mr. Jim Lauritsen of the City of Burlington. NCDOT's project manager for this project
in the Planning and Environmental Section is Mr. Joe [Westbrook.
Comment: "The finding of no significant impact was anticipated before the public hearing took
place, indicating that the Department had made up its mind before hearing citizen input."
Response: It was anticipated early in the study process that the result of this project would likely be
a finding of no significant impact, based on experience with similar projects. The decision that a
finding of no significant impact would apply ivas not made until after the public hearing and
response period and evaluation of comments received on the Environmental Assessment.
Comment: "The wildlife on this land is of importance to the residents of the surrounding
neighborhoods."
Response: The plant species and wildlife in the corridor ?vere described in detail in the EA. The
effect of this project on those species was considered in the decision to proceed ?vith the project.
Over 40 acres of undeveloped, natural area will remain in the vicinity of Little Alamannce Creek and
other areas near this project.
Comment: "Crime, vandalism, and drugs using this thoroughfare were not considered."
Response: The Department of Transportation is ?not a?vare of studies linking major thoroughfares
and crime.
Comment: "The project will create air pollution in a residential area."
Response: The Environmental Assessment determined that EPA and state air quality standards will
not be exceeded.
Comment: "This project should be postponed until the new travel demand surveys have been
completed."
Response: Cities are constantly in the process of updating travel demand data, as part of the
continuing planning process. All project planning cannot be stopped to await the newest data, since
data are always being revised. The section of Burlington that would be served by this road is largely
15
0
developed and has been for several years; therefore, we can expect that the data used in the 1988
studies are still valid. Newer data will certainly be used to update travel demand data when it is
available. Because the project will be phased from a two-lane to a four-lane road, the first phase
would act as a residential collector street, similar to that proposed by citizens. It could remain
unchanged until traffic volumes begin to warrant a wider road.
Comment: "The public hearing was not adequately advertised."
0
Response: The public hearing was advertised in the same manner as other NCDOT public hearings,
with paid advertisements in local newspapers. The public interest in the project, petitions, and
discussions with elected officials added additional publicity to the hearing, which was very well
attended for a project of this size.
Comment: Most citizens oppose this project. NCDOT should listen to them.
Response: NCDOT is aware that some citizens oppose this project. Their views have been
thoroughly considered in the Department's decision regarding this road. Many road projects affect
nearby residents yet still provide important benefits to other motorists. Both of these factors have to
be weighed in making such an important decision.
16

0 12. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The consideration of various alternatives is described more fully here to supplement the analysis
described in the EA, which focussed on various cross-section alternatives. Alignment alternatives
were also considered, including various alignments on new location as well as widening existing
streets. The original design concept for new location was modified to reduce impacts to floodplains
and wetlands. The widening of Engleman Avenue and Tarleton Streets were both considered as
alternatives to the new facility, but were rejected due to the residential nature of the streets and the
impact of widening on adjacent residents.
Based on a redelineation of wetlands in accordance with currently accepted procedures, the wetland
impact of the project is now estimated to be 1.16 acres. Table 3A from the Environmental
Assessment has been revised as shown below.
TABLE 3A
WETLAND AND OPEN WATER IMPACTS
Acres Impacted
Wetland/Opcn Water Type of
Wetland Site Number Location Open Water Wetland
1 Tributary to Little Alamance Creek 0.02
2 Tributary to Little Alamance Creek 0.01
2A Tributary to Little Alamance Creek - 0.09
3 Little Alamance Creek 0.04 0.67
4 Tributary to Little Alamance Creek 0.02 -
5 Little Alamance Creek 0.15 0.40
Totals 0.24 1.16
O
0
17
0
0 13. BASIS FOR A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project as documented in the Environmental Assessment, and
upon comments received from Federal, State, and local agencies, it is the finding of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation that the project will not have a significant impact upon the
human or natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
0
18
0

0
Appendix
0
t
' REPLY O
ATTL-NTION OF
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA28402-1890
May 8, 1995
Acp 0.
CE
O
.111AY A 2 MS
DIVISION OF
^1?11GHWAYS
This is in response to your letter of March 6, 1995, requesting our
comments on the "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" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199102072).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources,
which include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects.
The proposed roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood
control or navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
William R. Da n, P.E.
Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
0
Printed on Recycied Paper
0
0
May 8, 1995
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WIL14INGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"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" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199102072)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The study area for the proposed project.is located in Burlington, which
participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panel
5 of the April 1981 City of Burlington Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood
Boundary and Floodway Maps, the proposed roadway appears to cross Little
Alamance Creek, a detail study stream with 100-year flood elevations
determined and a floodway defined. Based on Figure 6 in the Environmental
Assessment (EA), there appear to be two or three crossings of the creek and a
segment which parallels the creek that may also impact the floodway. We
suggest that you coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
regarding the need for a no-rise certification and with the city for
compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any modifications to their
flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mrs. Jean B. H anuele, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone], Extension 24
Q Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed the EA and has provided the following
comments. A review of the information provided and various maps indicate that
there will be three =crossings of unnamed tributaries to Little Alamance Creek
a and two crossings'of Little Alamance Creek. These crossings may be eligible
for authorization by various Nationwide Permits (Numbers 14, 18, and/or 26),
depending upon the amount of jurisdictional waters of the United States and
their associated wetlands to be impacted and the type of construction
techniques to be employed.
The wetland impacts associated with the project were determined
utilizing the 1989 manual and may be slightly higher than what would be
present when delineated in accordance with the 1987 "Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual." Accordingly, a site inspection has been
scheduled for May 11, 1995, to examine the redelineation and to discuss permit
options. Should you have any questions concerning this project, please do not
hesitate to contact Mrs. Manuele.
0
,.
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt. Jr., Govemor
May 16, 1995
Mr. Whitmel Webb
PJ.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Webb:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
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 of
Environment,. Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) in the course of this
review. it has been requested by DEHNR that its concerns be adequately
addressed prior to their concurrence with a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) document.
Therefore, pursuant to 1 NCAC 25 .0506(c)(1) this office recommends that
supplemental environmental assessment documentation addressing the
concerns of DEHNR be submitted to the Clearinhouse for review and comment
by that department prior to the submission of the FONSI.
Thank you for your cooperation.
i
I
attachment
Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
cc: Region G
Melba McGee, DEHNR
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Laurier 51.01.00
G'
An Equai Opportunity I Affirmative Acrian Emplova
0
0
0
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathon B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
SUBJECT: EA, O'Neal- Rockwood Connector (SCH # 95-0653)
FROM: Bill Flournoy iV
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-of-way has been accumulated by
the city of Burlington. Surrounding development over the years has limited alternate
alignments for the proposed connector. Such conditions, nevertheless, do !not reduce
the responsibility for environmental documentation to completely and accurately review
alternatives and their potential impacts. These and the attached comments from
divisions of this department address a number of deficiencies in the EA which render it
an unsuitable foundation for a FONSI decision.
The fact that a proposal has been on the Thoroughfare Plan for thirty-three years does
not automatically justify it as the only viable alternative. 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 altematives: 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 right-of-way for additional lanes, improvements to other existing streets to
accommodate needed capacity in the surrounding area, and there are probably others.
The two alternatives provided for review in the EA do not sufficiently character ? ?? / t?
opportunities or the issues. Y D
MAY 15 1995
P. O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action employer 50%recycled/10%post-consumcNoZpBrTATE CLEARINGHOUSE:
F-L utri HLITI A ?a," ,Z+1'J-f'1 t, lay -
1f '_IJ 1:1 F.04-09
0
The EA is particularly perplexing in that it does not have a discrete discussion of the
affected environment. Where such information can be found at all, it appears to be
spread among several chapters. This makes review of the EA difficult 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 corridor
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 infrastructure/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, perspective. While it is true that the connector will be integrated into the
existing street system and not sever existing roads or traffic patterns, that does not
mean that neighborhoods will not be disrupted. Neighborhood cohesion is more than
auto mobility and a full range of cause and effect relationships have not been explored.
There was no documentation as to existing pedestrians routes across the undeveloped
corridor, how much further pedestrians might have to walk to cross the proposed facility
at "appropriate locations'" or how much further pedestrians will walk before they are
inconvenienced or discouraged from walking. Also, there was no characterization of
the number or age of pedestrians using the undeveloped corridor or expected to use
the proposed connector to support conclusions. Likewise, there in no discussion of
the importance of this open space to the surrounding community, or the impacts of its
loss to road construction and use. The EA does not provide sufficient perspective or
factual information before it closes discussion of impacts.
The discussion of Social Impacts/Public Facilities and Services is too narrowly written.
It does not even acknowledge such items as sewerlines, waterlines, gaslines,
powerlines, and telephone lines that must be integrated with the proposed connector.
Likewise it does not note whether police, fire, and EMS response times are likely to be
reduced. The EA clearly does not take a comprehensive look at this topic.
U 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 Impacts/Flood Hazard Evaluation establishes that
necessary floodway (map) modifications will be coordinated with FEMA and deferred
details to the design phase of the project. This approach limits the understanding of
potential impacts and appropriate mitigation. It is not known whether the proposed
0

connector will divert 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
ELI
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.
Several 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 productivity, and any
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the
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 have been omitted
from the EA. Stream relocations were not addressed, even though the USF&WS and
NCWRC made specific scoping requests for such information, and the DEM of this
department specifically asked for documentation of mitigatable wetland losses. This is
a sensitive and significant topic that deserves to be introduced, analyzed, and mitigated
as appropriate through the EA process. Its omission, if it is to be part of the proposed
project, further weakens an already weak EA.
The proceeding comments and those that follow from divisions of this department
identify considerable procedural and substantive deficiencies in the EA. This
department recommends that a Supplemental EA be developed to resolve these
weaknesses and provide an appropriate foundation for decisionmakers. The
opportunity to review the EA is appreciated and we look forward to working with the
NCDOT as this project proposal develops.
BF:jr
Attachment '

I I
LIG7I rIL1111l=11 r d;.,-Vi?-f
- 5'tate of North Carolina
n0portment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Divislon of Environmental Management
?°s 9.::?t-t, ir., Governor
a .!ono?',: r P,. Hawes, SecreTOry,
A. Preston Howam-1, -.,r., z.E., Director
May 12, 1995

I'b:.U 1 _? - i-+.._.4 r.I-Ic"IJ_i
` °
tL.J+ tl !'J
U _,UL
Till
:r;•._:1Gh: Je.^:r, Dorn
Eric O'a!amb
L uG ect: cA for O'Neal Rockwood Connector
Alarnance County
State FT.jec.-t DOT No. 9.8070179, TIP U-2802
EHNF # 95-065 D E M n 10888
a The s::bjec! document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
EPvironmertai NMana:amert is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
:'2. itV Ce i?iieut:on for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
ne subjec'i Uro:ect may impact 2.3 acres of waters including wetlands. The following
^C!Mt nril-s a,-e traced on the EA review:
H.;^.1=!=."+ attended a pre-construction meeting with DOT in Graham, NO on May 4,
995. During that meeting, DEM was informed that a segment of Little
K18- •r. wncl3 Creek wiii be relocated (site 3). DEM requests that DOT install
.e+llders in 'h6 zt.?eam at site 3 to force meanders in the flow. Lirie Alamance
;..6resk 3t ste ::iii be straightened and placsd in a culvert. Can an energy
dissipater or caner measure be installed at site 5 to reduce the water velocities
.^-i tnereov lroteci the stream banks and reduce the extra flooding
G ,v
do:Yr,streanm in the city park? DOT should revegetate the stream banks. The
docurriert dcos not r6zVect any stream relocations. We assume that DOT plans
to uti,;izE their trearn relocation guidelines; this should be explicit.
The C;ty pank downstream of the project is experiencing flooding. The park
was in a -:11oodplain and is expected to flood. However DOT will be
rernoving upstre?rn water storage capabilities when the wetlands are filled
which sho:.,Id result in more downstream flooding (especially by filling site 5).
Mays Laxe is upstream of the park and site 5. The loss of water storage by
filling ::etiands at site 3 (above Mays Lake) may result in hydraulic stress to the
Lary. Can, the dam structurally handle the additional flow? Site 5 is providing
sign'rica:nt flood storage and is the largest area (0.90 acres) that will be
impar;:ed. P nv vAl DOT replace this lost wetland function? Curti and gutter
wi;i prom my increase the flooding downstream. DEM requests that DOT
MC;;ude a flood rnitigation plan in the follow-up document.
0
=D.7 '!'-( ,`.'SZS. rialr_iyh, NorthCororna27626-G5635 TiNephcne 919-'33-7015 F.AX 919-733-2496
- -,p rr-:;;rity A=•r.a .e Action : rployer 5C`?. rNCycla?! 1(:q prt-c lv:mer ooper
0
D
L

II&LI 1r - 1 11_ F. 0 "0
Melba McGee Memo
May 12, 1 99-
,ge c
DOT states on oage 14, "One alternative was chosen for study that was
p!=need to tie into existing development, while avoiding and minimizing wetland
impr:c*z 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
a;ternative ailt:Ced to on page 14 and the public's alternative be submitted to
DENT prior to a follow-up document. We assume that DOT has the information
teat t"s public has submitted to DOT. DOT can obtain a copy of the public's
DEM, if needed. There is a high prcbability that DEh1 will
ob; .ct to a FONSI because the EA at this point does not support a FONSI
since ne. 41:ar ,a?ives analysis is not satisfactory.
D T is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
roncerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Ga;amb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
Gam: Ra',elh COE
S! o
0
1`11: HFT AUHIid Fax :[phone] ''laU 1 ? 1 1 - FC1, J +
NCWR_Cf HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL : 91'-1-528-9839 v Maq 1F ' 95 114 NO C104 P 02
µ (ai]]
041
_ Ez North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E
512 N. Sllisbury Strect, Rakigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Exec=ve Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Ofiic 4i oft gislative and intcrgoves:..-rental e ffai:s
FROM: Franklin T. McBride,?fanager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 12, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector, from O'Neal Street to
'Rockwood Avenue in Burlington, Alamanee County, North Carolina. TIP No.
U-2802, SCH Project No. 95-0653,
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and arc familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 11 3A-1 el seq., as
amended, l NCAC 25).
NCDOT proposes to construct a roadway on new location from O'Neal Strcct to Rockwood
Avenue in Burlington. The connector will be a two-lane curb and butter 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 wiles. Wetland and waters impacts will occur
at five locations with a total impact of 2.3 acres.
Me EA provided adequate information regarding impacts to plant and animal communities
O along the proposed project. However, ufter reviewing preliminary design plans it appua rs some
stream channel relocation will be required. This was not described in the LA. The stream
channel modifications will be required at the crossings of Little Alamance Creek and a tributary.
Little Alamancc Creek has been hlghly degraded by unregulated stormwater and pollution from
surrounding development. Downstream of the project, the stream frequently -floods and is
experiencing, considerable bank scouring.
0
(A_ Utz i HLI[Ilfq NaL{ i U';-/U'_i
NCWPC, RCP , FRLLS LRKE TEL ! 919-523=9839 v Mau 15 ' y5. 1; : 1 No , >>^,C;= . 0?
Memorandum 2 May 12, 1995
We feel that the removal of flood storage volume and increased flow velocities as a resulting
from more impermeable surfaces, channel straightening, and stream bank hardening will only
compound these problems.. The EA should bo roviscd to includo a discussion of the stream
channel modifications, the measures that will be employed to reduce water velocities, maintain
O flood storage volumes, and reduce the need for extensive placement of rip-rap,
In general, relocated stream segments should be similar to the original channel in gradient,
morphology, and substrate. Strcambanks should be stabilized with vegetation or a combination
of vegetation and structure. A vegetated buffer of no less Chun 50 feet should be maintained
between tho highway and parallel stream segments. Box culverts should be designed to allow for
small game passage. Flood ;stortige lost as a result of roadway construction should be replaced.
At this time we cannot concur with the EA for this project. However, we could concur if the
EA were_revised to include the, aforementioned items. We recommend that the NCDOT
hydraulics staff meet with the resource agencies to discuss the channel relocations and the effects
of reduced flood storage on this stream system.
i
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further
assistance pl=c call me at [phone],
cc: Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
- Leary Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Randy Wilson, NU/ES Program Manager
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
O'l?iJeol' QOcku?Q C0„neiv
/VC
:,42r r"u.??uts-
lolvkq,
_i.od? Il

ezro5s sic CA,7K
64--?Iol vLe )
dalflool-K - ?U
/wr4
6 ?5 -
41
ge-I'l
,a

wC?? na.C,Pa?°?3
Nof
ov?
vv? V-( A? icra,
+s C9VTJAwi 40v-+
-0 rp -"-'
QjI o jM ?i Bch
w
Cn4
o-v -- !?, ---v ckvl
Y"Z-? V/ W Z- 10
L(D );;'?i 5Vi 1
?nl n?
i
r/
-- "Il

Ve\40

alp
N°i"?rr
cq- (-Lo
-V opi

Q??fl?? ?s??s
Aa,
rvlaj?? Z,
ef- , ? r I ?, ?1I? ?„? ?.?- wee
wmvA - 5co? 1??14
2-6
1989 JNowak'
tJ?. ? 5

r CVVkV,-e-A - M 0,?
MRiIva-, ?5.
-?1?5 u -
a7?sN
Carolina Biological Suppiv company
2700 YORK ROAD
B u R L 1 N G T O N , N O R T H C A R O L I N A 272 1 5- 3 3 9 8
PHONE [phone] UNI'T'ED STATES OF AM RRI CA
August 21, 1995
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Reference: O'Neal Connector
State Finding of No Significant Impact
Dear Mr. Vick:
FACSIMILE 910 584-3399
In reviewing your proposed FONSI, I continue to be concerned
that the issues raised regarding wetlands mitigation and
potential flooding are not being adequately addressed. It
appears to me that the issues raised in Mr. Eric Galamb's
memorandum of May 12, 1995, have not been resolved in any detail
but have been summarily dismissed without resolution.
I have enclosed a copy of my request of Mr. Galamb that the
401 Certification be denied until the details of how these water
quality concerns are satisfied have been made public.
Sincerely,
CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL SUPPLY COMPANY

Thomas E. Powell, III, M.D.
Chairman
TEPIII:vm
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Eric Galamb (by Facsimile Transmission)
Serving education since 1927
AUG-21-95 MON 15:49 CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL. FAX NO, 9105380080 P.01
10
C2kaoLETi BIOLO ICAJ- SUPPL,y Co.MPA_NY
BURI.?CTON, NOR_LH C.4 ROLLNiA 272I5
2700 `larfc Ad Cable acri?; SQUrD
Hurtinyun. N.C. 97TS FAX 919 Sda-=S Phcne 9T9 •T 381
LC 57 S7-5&
FAX: [phone]
D?T= a 95 P OF tic--S: 3
{ItiC2,GD-VG C0v-3?Sc=;T)
FAX b"r55AC TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
ATT=Ni'10N
FAX IvUDESER: 919 733-2496 0
FIR=e- = Thomas E. Powell, III
F" Fs
?=. SL
a
X ITOTIZ---r as -Z-mm-
OR
- IF YOU DO NOT P-rC?SV THZ C0,RR CT NL'-v•=2„l OF PAGIV`S.
-.910 584-0381 EXT. 3277
AUG-21-95 MON 15;49 CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL FAX NO. 9105380080 P,02
Ir carouna Biological Supply company
1
2700 X`'OROAD
BURLINGTON NeRTWj'ri'e(,R0 1.INA 27215-3398
PHONE [phone] U N I T E D S T A n )- A m p , R I C n
FAl:SU1ir k 910 584-339
August 21, 1995
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Mr. Eric Galamb
NCDEHNR, Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch
Post Office Box 29536
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Reference: O'Neal Connector
Alamance County, Burlington, Nc
EHNR # 95-0653, DEM # 10888
Dear Mr. Galamb:
As a property owner affected by this NCDOT Project, I have
been concerned about the adequacy of the Environmental Assessment
and the proposed FONSI issued by the NCDOT.
It doesn't appear to me that the issues raised in your
memorandum of May 12, 1995, to Melba McGee have been suitably
responded to in such detail that the public can understand what
in fact is to be done that mitigates those issues raised.
I therefore request that the 401 Certification be denied
until the details of how these water quality concerns are
satisfied have been made public
Sincerely,
CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL SUPPLY COMPANY
T4ves-,? C-. 0&ae
Thomas E. Powell, 2II, M.D.
Chairman
TEPIII:vm
CC. Mr. H. Franklin Vick (by Facsimile Transmission)
Se.1wing echuation since 1927
AUG-21-95 MON 15:50 CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL FAX NO. 9105380080
P. 03
Carolina Bioiogleal supply company
2700 Y,OxK ROAD
B U R L I N G T O N, NORTH,'. C K R O L I N A 72 1 S-33 98
PHONE [phone] U N I T E D S TAT F g : 0 A A M E R I C A FACSIMIIX 910 584-3399
August '21, 1995
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Reference: O'Neal Connector
State Finding of No significant Impact
Dear Mr. Vick:
In reviewing your proposed FONSI, I continue to be concerned
that the issues raised regarding wetlands mitigation and
potential flooding are not being adequately addressed. It
appears to me that the issues raised in Mr. Eric Galamb's
memorandum of May 12, 1995, have not been resolved in any detail
but have been summarily dismissed without resolution.
I have enclosed a copy of my request of Mr. Galamb that the
401 Certification be denied until the details of how these water
quality concerns are satisfied have been made public.
Sincerely,
CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL SUPPLY COMPANY
C. Q&,e
Thomas E. Powell, III, M.D.
Chairman
TEPI I I : vtn
Enclosure
Cc: Mr. Eric Galamb (by Facsimile Transmission)

Serving education since 1927
caroiina miogicai Suppiv company
2700 YORK ROAD
B11 R L I N G ' I ON, N o k 'r i i C A R O L I N A 272 1 5 - 3 3 9 8
PHONE [phone] N i r e n 5 'r A 'r r s o r A %I F R i c A FACSIMILE 910 584-3399
August 21, 1995 R4CFIt1ED
SEP 0 Ip?
FNV I R?NME 6 -It
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Mr. Eric Galamb
NCDEHNR, Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch
Post Office Box 29536
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Reference: O'Neal Connector
Alamance County, Burlington, NC
EHNR # 95-0653, DEM # 10888
Dear Mr. Galamb:
As a property owner affected by this NCDOT project, I have
been concerned about the adequacy of the Environmental Assessment
and the proposed FONSI issued by the NCDOT.
It doesn't appear to me that the issues raised in your
memorandum of May 12, 1995, to Melba McGee have been suitably
responded to in such detail that the public can understand what
in fact is to be done that mitigates those issues raised.
I therefore request that the 401 Certification be denied
until the details of how these water quality concerns are
satisfied have been made public
Sincerely,
CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL SUPPLY COMPANY
T" C. 0&.*d ,
Thomas E. Powell, III, M.D.
Chairman
TEPIII:vm
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick (by Facsimile Transmission)
Serving educatim since 1927
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 26, 1995
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: 401 Water Quality Certification
O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
Alamance County
DEM # 95740
FILE PoOpy
On July 17, 1995 you wrote to the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) requesting
a 401 Water Quality Certification for your project to fill wetlands for the O'Neal-Rockwood Connector
at Burlington, N.C. in Alamance County. We believe that this project is currently under review by the
State Clearinghouse. DEM cannot issue the 401 Certification until the project has received a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) from the State Clearinghouse in
accordance with NCAC 15A: 01C .0402. Therefore, I must hereby place this project on indefinite
hold until the State Clearinghouse has issued the FONSI or ROD. However we will continue to
review the project and make you aware of any concerns. We recommend that you notify us that the
NEPA/SEPA process is complete so we can reactivate the project. In addition, by copy of this letter, I
am also notifying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that this project should be placed on hold.
If you believe that this decision is in error, please call me at 919-733-1786 to discuss the
matter.
Sincerely,
John R. rney
a er Quality Certification Program
95740.nct
cc: Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Office
Central Files
T AAA,
[D F= F1
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