The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120377 All Versions_Application_20090902North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division O? t10RTFl C9 7. I* - `I Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment and Church Street Grade Separation and Street Realignment i Durham County, NC '. STIP Project U-4716 State WBS Project No. 39080. 1.1 Administrative Action Environmental Assessment Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4332(2)(c) US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation 9z-o? David Foster, PE Rail Environmental Programs Manager North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division /J John Sullivan, III, PE 00( Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division w Ro y? y' A Wiz, 7? Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment and Church Street Grade Separation and Street Realignment Durham County, NC STIP Project U-4716 State WBS Project No. 39080. 1.1 Administrative Action Environmental Assessment Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4332(2)(c) US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Department of TransportatiR ,,,,.. Document Pre ared B ...... Z?? PBS&1 p y ??.°•?FESS/pIV9 SEAL a 21082 GINE?:Q° Date Jill G ak, PE, AICP NEPA Project Manager Document Prepared For: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Rail Division 7/z? -7 Marc Hamel Rail Environmental Planning Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division SECTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE vii 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................... .............................................................1-1 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION .................................................... .............................................................1-1 1.3 PROJECT SETTING ...................................................... .............................................................1-2 1.4 NEED FOR PROJECT ................................................... .............................................................1-7 1.4.1 Improve Rail and Road Safety ........................... ............................................................. 1-7 1.4.2 Improve Mobility for Train Traffic .................... ............................................................. 1-7 1.4.3 Improve Traffic Flow for Road Traffic .............. .............................................................1-7 1.5 SYSTEM LINKAGE ...................................................... .............................................................1-8 1.5.1 Existing Road Network ..................................... .............................................................1-8 1.5.2 Commuting Patterns ........................................... ............................................................1-8 1.6 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS ................................ ............................................................1-9 1.6.1 Railroads ........................................................... ............................................................1-9 1.6.2 Regional Rail Service ......................................... .......................................................... 1-10 1.6.3 Local Rail Service Planning ............................... .......................................................... 1-10 1.6.4 Airports ............................................................. ..........................................................1-13 1.6.5 Bus Service ........................................................ .......................................................... 1-13 1.7 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ................................. .......................................................... 1-13 1.71 State Transportation Improvement Program ........ .......................................................... 1-17 1.7.2 Local Transportation Plans ................................. .......................................................... 1-17 1.7.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans .............................. .......................................................... 1-17 1.8 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ............................ .......................................................... 1-18 1.8.1 Traffic Volumes ................................................. ..........................................................1-18 1.8.2 Level of Service ................................................. .......................................................... 1-19 1.9 SAFETY ......................................................................... ..........................................................1-25 2 ALTERNATIVES ................................................... ......................................................2-1 2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE .......................................... ............................................................2-1 2.2 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ................................ ...........................................................2-1 2.3 ALTERNATIVES ELMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ...................................2-5 2.3.1 Hopson Road Over Railroad Alternative .............. ........................................................... 2-5 2.3.2 Transportation Management Alternatives ............. ...........................................................2-5 2.3.2.1 Transportation Systems Management . ..................................... ..................... 2-5 2.3.2.2 Travel Demand Management .............. .................................. ......................... 2-9 2.3.3 Mass Transit Alternative ..................................... ...........................................................2-9 2.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ............................. ...........................................................2-9 2.4.1 Traffic Volumes .................................................. ...........................................................2-9 2.4.2 Level of Service .................................................. .........................................................2-10 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................. ......................................................3-1 3.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT .............................................. ...........................................................3-1 3.1.1 Population Characteristics ........... ........................ .................. ........................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Housing .............................................................. ...........................................................3-5 3.1.3 Economic Characteristics .................................... ......... ................................................. 3-5 3.1.4 Community Facilities and Services ...................... ...........................................................3-6 ' Hopson Road/Church Street i Rail and Roadway Improvements EA SECTION PAGE 3.1.4.1 Schools ................................ .................... ....... .............................................. 3-6 3.1.4.2 Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services . ..............................................3-6 3.1.5 Parklands ......................................................................... ..............................................3-7 3.1.6 Neighborhoods ................................................................. ..............................................3-7 3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ................... ................................ .............. 3-7 3.2.1 Land Use and Plans .......................................................... ..............................................3-7 3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use ........................................... ..............................................3-7 3.2.1.2 Zoning Characteristics ...................... ............... .............................................. 3-8 3.2.1.3 Future Land Use ............................................. ..............................................3-8 3.3 P1IYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................... ............................................3-11 3.3.1 Noise ............................................................................... ............................................3-11 3.3.1.1 Regulatory Overview ................................. ..... ............................................ 3-11 3.3.1.2 Existing Noise Environment ............................ ............................................3-12 3.3.2 Air Quality ....................................................................... ............................................3-13 3.3.2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ......... ......................................... ...3-13 3.3.2.2 Transportation Conformity ....... ........................ ........................................... 3-17 3.3.2.3 Local Ordinances ............................................. ...........................................3-18 3.3.2.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics ................................ ...........................................3-18 3.3.3 Farmland ....................................... .................... ............... ........................................... 3-19 3.3.4 Utilities ................................................... .......................... ........................................... 3-20 3.3.5 Visual Quality ................................................................... ...........................................3-20 3.3.6 Hazardous Materials ................... ....................................... ........................................... 3-20 3.3.6.1 Methodology .................................................... ...........................................3-21 3.3.6.2 Records Search Results .................................... ...........................................3-21 3.3.6.3 Site Reconnaissance Results ............................. ...........................................3-25 3.3.7 Mineral Resources ............................................................ ...........................................3-26 3.3.8 Floodplains ....................................................................... ...........................................3-26 3.4 CULT URAL RESOURCES ............................................................ ........................................... 3-26 3.5 NATU RAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................ ...........................................3-27 3.5.1 Soils, Topography, and Geology ........................................ ...........................................3-27 3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ....................................... ..........................................3-28 3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Communities .................................... ..........................................3-28 3.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities. ....................................... .......................................... 3-30 3.5.3 Water Resources ................................................................ .......................................... 3-30 3.5.3.1 Groundwater ..................................................... ..........................................3-30 3.5.3.2 Surface Waters .................................................. ..........................................3-30 3.5.3.3 Water Quality ......... .......................................... .......................................... 3-33 3.5.4 Jurisdictional Issues .............................. ............................. .......................................... 3-34 3.5.4.1 Wetlands .................................................... -..... .......................................... 3-34 3.5.4.2 Neuse River Buffer Areas ................................. ..........................................3-35 3.5.4.3 Protected Species .................. ............................ .......................................... 3-35 3.5.4.4 Federal Species of Concern ............. .................. ..................................... .... 3-36 4 ENVI RONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................ ........................................4-1 4.1 HUMA N ENVIRONMENT ............................................................. ............................................4-1 4.1.1 Communities and Neighborhoods ....................................... ............................................4-1 4.1.1.1 No-Build Alternative .......................................... ...........................................4-1 f Hopson Road/Church Street ii Rail and Roadway Improvements EA SECTION PAGE 4.1.1.2 Recommended Alternative ............. ...............................................................4-1 4.1.2 Relocations ..................................................... ...............................................................4-2 4.1.2.1 No-Build Alternative ...................... ...............................................................4-2 4.1.2.2 Recommended Alternative ............. ............... ................................................ 4-2 4.1.3 Community Facilities and Services .................. ...............................................................4-3 4.1.3.1 No-Build Alternative ...................... ...............................................................4-3 4.1.3.2 Recommended Alternative .............. ..............................................................4-3 4.1.4 Environmental Justice ...................................... ..............................................................4-3 4.1.4.1 No-Build Alternative ....................... ..............................................................4-3 4.1.4.2 Recommended Alternative .............. ..............................................................4-4 4.1.5 Economic Effects ............................................. ..............................................................4-4 4.1.5.1 No-Build Alternative ....................... ..............................................................4-4 4.1.5.2 Recommended Alternative .......... .... .............................................................. 4-4 4.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ... ..............................................................4-4 4.2.1 Land Use ......................................................... ..............................................................4-4 4.2.1.1 No-Build Alternative ....................... ..............................................................4-4 4.2.1.2 Recommended Alternative .............. ..............................................................4-4 4.2.2 Transportation Plans ......................................... ..............................................................4-5 4.2.2.1 No-Build Alternative ............. .......... .............................................................. 4-5 4.2.2.2 Recommended Alternative.. ............ .............................. .._............................ 4-5 4.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......... ........................... .. ............................................................. 4-5 4.3.1 Noise ................................................................ .............................................................4-5 4.3.1.1 No-Build Alternative ........................ .............................................................4-5 4.3.1.2 Recommended Alternative ............... .............................................................4-5 4.3.2 Air Quality ...... .................................................. ........................................................... 4-10 4.3.2.1 No-Build Alternative ........................ ...........................................................4-10 4.3.2.2 Recommended Alternative ............... ...........................................................4-10 4.3.3 Farmland ....................................... ................... ........................................................... 4-12 4.3.3.1 No-Build Alternative ........................ ...........................................................4-12 4.3.3.2 Recommended Alternative ............... ...........................................................4-12 4.3.4 Utilities ............................................................. ...........................................................4-12 4.3.4.1 No-Build Alternative ........................ ...........................................................4-12 4.3.4.2 Recommended Alternative ............... ...........................................................4-12 4.3.5 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ......................... ........................................................... 4-13 4.3.5.1 No-Build Alternative ........................ ...........................................................4-13 4.3.5.2 Recommended Alternative ............ .. ................................................. .......... 4-13 4.3.6 Hazardous Materials .......................................... ...........................................................4-13 4.3.6.1 No-Build Alternative ......................... ..........................................................4-13 4.3.6.2 Recommended Alternative ................ ...................... ................................... 4-13 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................. ..........................................................4-13 4.5 NATU RAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................... .......... ................ ................................ 4-14 4.5.1 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ....................... . ....... .................... ............................ ..4-14 4.5.1.1 No-Build Alternative ......................... ..........................................................4-14 4.5.1.2 Recommended Alternative ................ ..........................................................4-14 4.5.2 Water Resources ................................................ ..........................................................4-14 4.5.2.1 No-Build Alternative ......................... ..........................................................4-14 4.5.2.2 Recommended Alternative ................ ..........................................................4-14 4.5.3 Jurisdictional Topics .......................................... ..........................................................4-15 ' Hopson Road/Church Street iii Rail and Roadway Improvements EA SECTION PAGE 4.5.3.1 No-Build Alternative ................... ................... ....... ...................................... 4-15 4.5.3.2 Recommended Alternative ............ ...... .................. ................... ................... 4-15 4.5.4 Protected Species ................................................................... ......................................4-17 4.5.4.1 No-Build Alternative ............... ......... ..................... ... ................................... 4-17 4.5.4.2 Recommended Alternative ............ ................ ........ ...................................... 4-17 4.6 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ........................ ................ ............... ...... ...................................... 4-18 4.6.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................. ......................................4-18 4.6.2 Recommended Alternative ............... ....... ............... ..... ...... ..... ...................................... 4-18 4.6.2.1 Air Quality ....................... ........... ...... .................... ...................................... 4-18 4.6.2.2 Noise ............................... ..................... ................ ...................................... 4-18 4.6.2.3 Water Quality ...................... ......................... ........ ..... ................................. 4-19 4.6.2.4 Wildlife .............................. .................. ................. ..................................... 4-20 4.6.2.5 Construction Waste .................... ......... ................... ..................................... 4-20 4.6.2.6 Utilities .................................. .......................... ...... ..................................... 4-20 4.6.2.7 Maintenance of Traffic ............... .......... .............. .... ...................... ............... 4-20 4.7 INDIR ECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............ ........................... .. ................................... 4-20 4.7.1 Analysis Methodology ............... ............................ ........ ......... ..................................... 4-21 4.7.2 Analysis Study Areas ................. ......... ................ .................... ..................................... 4-21 4.7.3 Study Area Directional Goals ......... ....................... .................. ..................................... 4-21 4.7.4 Inventory of Notable Features ................................................. .....................................4-25 4.7.5 Impact Causing Activities ....................................................... .....................................4-25 4.7.6 Analysis of Indirect Effects ........... ...................... ..... ............... ..................................... 4-26 4.7.7 Analysis of Cumulative Effects ............................................... ............................_.......4-27 5 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................5-1 5.1 AGENCY COORDINATION ......................... ...... ............................. .......................................... 5-1 5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................ 5-1 5.3 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKS14OPS .................. .............. .............. ............................ 5-2 5.3.1 Meeting Advertisements ....................................................... . ......................................... 5-2 5.3.2 Workshop Displays and Format ........... ............. ................... . .......................................... 5-2 5.3.3 Attendance and Comment Summary ........ ......................... .... ........... ............................... 5-3 5.4 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETING ................... .................................... .......................................... 5-4 6 REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ......................................6-1 6.1 REFERENCES ................................................................................... .........................................6-1 6.1.1 Federal .................................................................................. .........................................6-1 6.1.2 State ..................................................................................... .........................................6-1 6.1.3 Local .................................................................................... .........................................6-2 6.2 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ................................................. ......................................... 6-3 LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Means of Transportation to Work-2000 Census .........................................................................1-9 1-2 Transportation Improvement Projects in Southeastern Durham County ....................................... 1-13 1-3 2035 LRTP Projects in Southeastern Durham County ................................................................. 1-17 1-4 Comparison of Existing (Year 2007) and No-Build (Year 2030) AADT Volumes ........................................................................................................................1-18 1-5 Existing (Year 2007) Level of Service and Average Delay Per Vehicle ...................................... 1-19 11"MIN'"My If ' Hopson Road/Church Street iv Rail and Roadway Improvements EA SECTION PAGE 1-6 No-Build (Year 2030) Level of Service and Average Delay Per Vehicle ....................... .............. 1-25 1-7 Crash Data ................................................................................................................... .............. 1-26 2-1 Comparison of Existing (Year 2007) and Recommended Alternative (Year 2030) AADT Volumes ....................................................................................... ..............2-10 2-2 Recommended Alternative (Year 2030) Level of Service and Average Delay Per Vehicle .......................................................................................... ..............2-13 3-1 Racial Characteristics -2000Census ............................................................................ ...............3-5 3-2 Age Characteristics - 2000 Census ................................................................................ ...............3-5 3-3 Income Characteristics - 2000 Census ........................................................................... ...............3-6 3-4 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria .................................................................................. .............3-12 3-5 NCDOT Definition of Substantial Increase in Noise Levels ........................................... .............3-12 3-6 Summary of Existing Noise Measurements ....................................................... ............ ............. 3-13 3-7 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ....... ................................................................ ............. 3-17 3-8 Utility Providers ........................................................................................................... .............3-20 3-9 Stream Characteristics ..................................................... ............................................. ............. 3-33 3-10 Wetland and Pond Characteristics ................................................................................. .............3-35 3-11 Federal Species of Concern for Durham County ............................................................ .............3-37 4-1 Year 2030 Noise Contours - Recommended Alternative ...................... ........................... .............. 4-6 4-2 Existing and Future Rail Noise .................................. ..................................................... .............. 4-7 4-3 Projected Noise Impacts ................................................................................................. ..............4-9 4-4 Impacts to Neuse River Buffers and Streams ........................................................ .......... ............ 4-15 4-5 Summary of Impacts to Federally Protected Species ....................................................... ............4-17 LIST OF EXHIBITS 3-1 Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Criteria ..................................................... ............3-11 3-2 Vehicle Miles Traveled versus Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020 ........... ............3-19 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Project Location ............. ..................................................... ...... .................... ............................... 1-3 1-2 Project Study Area ........................................................................................ ...............................1-5 1-3 Transit Within the Project Study Area ........................................................... ............................. 1-11 1-4 Transportation Projects ................................................................................. ............................. 1-15 1-5 Year 2007 Existing Traffic Conditions .......................................................... ............................. 1-21 1-6 Year 2030 No-Build Traffic Conditions ........ ........................................ ......... ............................ 1-23 2-1 Recommended Alternative - Hopson Road Under Railroad ............................ .............................. 2-3 2-2 Hopson Road Over Railroad Alternative ............. ....... ................ .................... .......................... ....2-7 2-3 Year 2030 Build Traffic Conditions ............................................................... ............................ 2-11 3-1 Demographic Study Area.. ............................................ ............. ..... . .. ... ............................ _3-3 3-2 Zoning Within the Project Study Area ........... ............ ..... ........... ..................... .............................. 3-9 3-3 Noise Receptors and Measurement Sites ................................................. ....... ............................ 3-15 3-4 Hazardous Materials ............... ........................... ............... ...... ........ ............... ............................ 3-23 3-5 Jurisdictional Systems and Neuse River Buffers .......... ................... ................ ............................ 3-31 4-1 ICE Study Area ............................................................................................. ............................4-23 "IMP" 11 I ' Hopson Road/Church Street v Rail and Roadway Improvements EA APPENDICES A Traffic Forecasts B Crash Data C Agency Coordination D Relocation Report Hopson Road/Church Street Vi Rail and Roadway Improvements EA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division is working statewide with the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR), Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), and CSX Corporation to upgrade existing rail corridors to improve safety, efficiency and capacity for freight and passenger train services. One of the first phases of the proposed track improvement program is scheduled along the NCRR, and this proposed project is part of the improvement program. The proposed project is located in southeastern Durham County, with portions of the project located within Durham city limits. The project study area is about 1.2 miles long and encompasses approximately 165 acres. Portions of the project study area are located within the Durham city limits, with the remainder located in the unincorporated area of Durham County. Other incorporated towns near the project study area include Morrisville and Cary to the south and Raleigh to the southeast, all of which are located in Wake County. Land uses within and adjacent to the project study area consist of rapidly developing residential, commercial, and industrial uses, as well as pine-dominated woodlots, pastureland, and existing residential lots. Project Purpose The NCDOT Rail Division proposes to improve rail and vehicular safety within the project study area through the following actions. • Realignment of the NCRR/NS rail line within the project limits to reduce the curve radius and thereby improve rail operations. • Construction of a grade separation at the Hopson Road (SR 1978) intersection with the NCRR/NS track for safety. s • Closure of the at-grade rail crossing of the NCRR/NS at Church Street (SR 1980) and the closure of the adjacent Church Street/Miami Boulevard (NC 54) intersection for safety. and • Extension of Church Street northward to intersect with Hopson Road. Project Need Currently, the intersection of Hopson Road and the NCRR/NS tracks is an at-grade intersection and has the potential for accidents between vehicular traffic freight and passenger trains. Providing a grade separation for this intersection would eliminate the potential for car/train collisions, which would improve safety for both road and rail traffic. The current vertical alignment for Hopson Road at the railroad crossing makes it difficult for cars to see past the railroad tracks. This poor sight distance for vehicular traffic has the potential to contribute to car accidents. During construction of the grade separation, the vertical alignment of Hopson Road would be improved, which would improve safety for road traffic. The Church Street at-grade crossing also has a very high potential for accidents. Church Street (SR 1980) has poor geometrics for both the highway and railroad at the crossing, inadequate stacking distances between the railroad and the adjacent intersection with NC 54, previous accident experience, current and future potential for accidents, and available alternate access. In addition to the substandard rail crossing, Church Street has a nearby intersection with Miami Boulevard with a number of unsafe movements, short queuing distances, and poor sight lines. ' Hopson Road/Church Street vii Rail and Roadway Improvements EA Alternatives Under the Recommended Alternative the realigned rail line would be shifted a maximum of 270 feet to the east to flatten the existing rail curve. Hopson Road would be depressed beneath a realigned NCRR/NS rail line. Hopson Road would be expanded to include two 12-foot lanes in each direction with 8-foot sidewalks. Under the Recommended Alternative, Hopson Road would shift approximately 30 feet to the south. In addition, under the Recommended Alternative the intersection of Church Street and NC 54 would be closed, as would the Church Street crossing of the NCRR/NS railroad. Church Street would be extended northward to join with the portion of Church Street that has been constructed by a private developer in the Keystone Crossing development. At the north end of this road, Church Street would be extended northward to intersect with Hopson Road. Church Street would be constructed to include one 18-foot lane in each direction with 8-foot sidewalks to either side, which would match the cross-section constructed by the private developer of Keystone Crossing. Additional alternatives considered and then withdrawn from consideration when it was determined that they would not meet the purpose and need for the project or were not feasible due to cost or community disruption. The Hopson Road Over Railroad Alternative was designed to carry Hopson Road over the rail line structure. This alternative was not well-received by Hopson Road residents due to its proximity to their properties. The inconvenience of a detour during construction was another contributing factor as well as the larger impact footprint for the alternative. TSM alternatives; measures that typically involve minor roadway improvements to the operational characteristics of a facility while minimizing capital outlay and inconvenience to motorists; were also considered for this project. These measures would not have addressed the safety concerns at the two rail crossings or would not straighten the rail curve. Travel Demand Management and Mass Transit alternatives were also considered but would not have improve safety by separating trains from vehicle traffic and straightening the rail curve. Environmental Impacts Consistent with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements this EA examined the anticipated impacts of a No-Build Alternative (status quo) and a Recommended Build Alternative. No adverse impacts are anticipated to land use, farm land, transportation planning, neighborhoods, community facilities, minority and/or low-income communities, the local economy, air quality, hazardous materials, or cultural resources. Under the Recommended Alternative there is the potential for project-related impacts to occur to existing visual and aesthetic resources, noise levels, and streams. The project proposes to realign the railroad and provide a grade separation under the railroad crossing, and minor changes in the visual landscape would occur. The visibility of the proposed improvements would depend on the location of the viewer. However, the inclusion of treatments such as coloring of structural elements, buffer areas, and landscaped screening into a project design can obscure views of transportation features. Hopson Road/Church street vile Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 46 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Noise increases along Church Street within the Keystone Crossings subdivision are anticipated due to projected traffic increases associated with the project. As discussed in Section 2.4.1 traffic levels on Church Street are expected to 7,600 vehicles per day along a stretch of road that current carries local subdivision traffic. Under a No-Build scenario this roadway would carry 3,900 vehicles per day. Two intermittent streams and one perennial stream will be crossed by the Recommended Alternative. Short-term impacts on water quality within the project study area may result from soil erosion and sedimentation from areas disturbed by construction of the project. Uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation can potentially destroy aquatic algae, eliminate benthic (bottom-dwelling) macroinvertebrate habitat, eradicate fish spawning habitat, and remove food resources for many stream species. Construction impacts to water quality may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but also may affect downstream communities. Long-term impacts on water quality also are possible due to particulates, heavy metals, organic matter, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and bacteria that are often found in highway runoff. In accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (GS Chapter 113A, Art. 4), as amended, and NC Administrative Code Title 15A, Chapter 4 (Sedimentation Control), an erosion and sedimentation control plan must be prepared for land-disturbing activities that cover one or more acres to protect against runoff from a ten-year storm. The contractor would be responsible for taking every reasonable precaution throughout construction of the project to prevent pollution of any body of water, as well soil erosion and stream siltation. If jurisdictional impacts can be limited in size, consideration will be given to the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14 (Linear Transportation Projects). The use of NWP No. 14 is limited to crossings that result in a filled area of no more than 0.5 acre of waters of the United States. Since each crossing can be considered a "single and complete" project, it is possible to have multiple • nationwide permits along the entire railway improvement project, assuming that the combined adverse effects are minimal. The USAGE may exert discretionary authority and require an Individual Permit if avoidance and minimization have not been adequately addressed, or if • appropriate mitigation is inadequate. • Section 401 of CWA requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated for activities which 1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license or 2) require discharges to "waters of the United States." The USACE cannot issue a Section 404 permit until a 401 • Certification is issued. Therefore, NCDOT must apply to NCDWQ for 401 certification as part of the • permitting process. Each "single and complete" project will require notification to NCDWQ for general certification. . The construction activities associated with the proposed grade separation may cause temporary • adverse impacts to the local environment including air quality, noise, water quality, wildlife, and utilities. These impacts, generally short-term in nature, can be controlled, minimized, or mitigated through conformance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and standard NCDOT procedures. Indirect and Cumulative Effects • Potential indirect and cumulative effects were investigated for this study. Adverse indirect water • quality impacts are possible under the Recommended Alternative due to stormwater runoff. These impacts would be minimized through implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. • Hopson Road/Church Street ix Rail and Roadway Improvements EA There is also the potential for cumulative visual and aesthetic effects and effects to unnamed streams in the vicinity of the study area. Minor changes to the visual landscape would occur under the Recommended Alternative. Although there are no prominent scenic vistas or visual resources in the project area, the widening of Hopson Road and Church Street as well as the extension of Church Street to connect with Hopson Road would introduce new elements into the built environment. These new elements combined with those of projects on Davis Drive, NC 54 and the Triangle Parkway will introduce new man-made elements to the visual environment, and continue changing the visual character of the area from rural to suburban. The Recommended Alternative, together with other growth and development in the ICE Study Area would increase the amount of soil disturbing activities, thus increasing the risk of stream sedimentation and turbidity from construction-related erosion. However, local sediment and erosion control regulations, post-construction and stormwater ordinances, and other water quality protection measures should help to minimize these effects. Construction of the Recommended Alternative would contribute to continued forest fragmentation and wildlife habitat disturbance that has occurred throughout the ICE Study Area. Cumulatively, there are several projects planned in the ICE Study Area that could add to this effect. However, the area is developing consistent with the land use plans of Durham County, which call for a mix of commercial, industrial, and medium-density residential development in the project area. ' Hopson Road/Church Street x Rail and Roadway Improvements EA A! A A. A; A A A • • • A A • A • • • • • • • • A • • PURPOSE AND NEED w rr?r?i 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division is working statewide with the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR), Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), and CSX Corporation to upgrade existing rail corridors to improve safety, efficiency and capacity for freight and passenger train services. One of the first phases of the proposed track improvement program is scheduled along the NCRR, and this proposed project is part of the improvement program. NCRR is a 317-mile, state-owned corridor linking Charlotte, Greensboro and Raleigh and extending to Morehead City. Norfolk Southern Railway operates trains along the entire corridor under a lease agreement with the NCRR. CSX Corporation shares operation of a portion of the NCRR corridor between Raleigh and Cary. Amtrak operates two passenger trains, the Carolinian and the Piedmont, along the NCRR. Since work began in 2001 on various track and signal improvements, the NCDOT Rail Division has reduced the travel time between Raleigh and Charlotte by 30 minutes. In addition to reducing travel time, the work along the NCRR will increase efficiency and reliability for both freight and passenger trains in the corridor (NCDOT Rail Division Web site: www.bvtrain.ore/tracks. In 2003, the proposed project was initially planned to include the Hopson Road grade separation, the NCRR rail curve realignment, the Church Street crossing closure, and the Church Street extension roadway upgrade all as one project. Soon after project initiation, it appeared that the Church Street crossing closure and associated Church Street extension could progress much faster to construction than the Hopson Road grade separation and track realignment. Therefore, the projects were separated into two distinct initiatives. In mid 2008, it was determined that agreements and planning for the Church Street rail crossing closure and extension were on approximately the same schedule as the Hopson Road grade separation project, and it would be logical to progress the Church Street improvements with the Hopson Road work as they have complimentary and related safety functions in the area as one project. The design of Church Street in the residential area has been planned to safely accommodate the projected vehicular traffic. The existing section of Church Street (currently named Keystone Park Drive), was constructed by the developer of the Keystone subdivision, with the understanding that this would ultimately be a through connection from Church Street to Hopson Road. This was desired by the developer to provide the needed access to his development. It was agreed that NCDOT would be the builder of the extensions on each end of the developer-built central section of Church Street Extension. In April 2007 NCDOT held a public workshop detailing the closure of Church Street and the extension of the roadway to Hopson Road. 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION The NCDOT Rail Division proposes to improve rail and vehicular safety within the project study area through the following actions. • Realignment of the NCRRINS rail line within the project limits to reduce the curve radius and thereby improve rail operations. i - Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA PURPOSE AND NEED w.rrfi • Construction of a grade separation at the Hopson Road (SR 1978) intersection with the NCRR/NS track for safety. • Closure of the at-grade rail crossing of the NCRR/NS at Church.Street (SR 1980) and the closure of the adjacent Church Street/Miami Boulevard (NC 54) intersection for safety. and • Extension of Church Street northward to intersect with Hopson Road. The proposed action is included in the NCDOT 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as project number U-4716. 1.3 PROJECT SETTING The proposed project is located in southeastern Durham County, with portions of the project located within Durham city limits. Figure 1-1 shows the general project location and Figure 1-2 shows the project study area. The project study area is about 1.2 miles long and encompasses approximately 165 acres. The general boundaries of the project study area are as follows: • Southern boundary: Just south of the Church Street railroad crossing. • Northern boundary: NC 54/Page Road. • Eastern boundary: eastern right-o£-way limits of Miami Boulevard. • Western boundary: approximately 50 feet west of the railroad near the northern and southern ends with the limits extending westward approximately 1,000 feet along Hopson Road. The project study area is located mainly on a ridge separating the Cape Fear River and Neuse River Basins. Elevations within the project study area range from a high of approximately 440 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the northern end of the project study area, near the NC 54/Page Road intersection, to a low of approximately 340 feet NGVD within the stream channel of an unnamed tributary to Stirrup Iron Creek, near the southern end of the project study area. Portions of the project study area are located within the Durham city limits, with the remainder located in the unincorporated area of Durham County. Other incorporated towns near the project study area include Morrisville and Cary to the south and Raleigh to the southeast, all of which are located in Wake County. Land uses within and adjacent to the project study Hopson Road -poor sight distance overt racks area consist of rapidly developing residential, (looking west at railroad crossing) commercial, and industrial uses, as well as pine- dominated woodlots, pastureland, and existing residential lots. Research Triangle Park (RTP) is near the project study area, west of the Hopson Road intersection with Davis Drive (Figure 1-1). RTP is a 7,000-acre public/private research park where 136 companies and organizations are located. A few of the larger employers in RTP are IBM, G1axoSmithKIme, Cisco Systems, Nortel Networks, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (The Research Triangle Park Web site: www.rtmore). ' Hopson Road/Church Street 1-2 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA I ?L 0o f s,Q a Durham ( 147 i Durham RTP Ale-rand er Dr 70 .01' Resea ch ?- ?r n Trian?le 54 r Rd 910 gh t Durham Hopson Raleigh-Durham C o u n t y International Airport Chatham `s -A Raleigh County Morrisville pc?o (? ,S on x 54. r iL a Wake County Cary RP ,Ii DIVISION Durham County Hopson Road I Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements STIP PROJECT NO. U-4716 PROJECT LOCATION C Durham County ?.,p Pnrit•d '.Ixrr ?Ong Figure 1-1 PURPOSE AND NEED w.:-i.,Tml Hopson Road/Church Street Rar( and Roadway Improvements EA qW • RAIL DIVE10N R AI - Hopson Road / Church Street ? Prpteci Study Area Rail and Roadway Improvements • ? . • STIP PROJECT NO. U-4716 Existing At-Grade RR Crossing M PROJECT STUDY AREA 11 Source. Durham C.UUnty Durham COLinty ? f mslinn Grade Se !: n:ded RR Crosqux I ' ? Map Printed February 2009 Figure 1-2 PURPOSE AND NEED Hopson Road/Church Street r ?' Rail and Roadway Improvements EA O O O O 0 O O PURPOSE AND NEED w r• 1.4 NEED FOR PROJECT The primary purpose and needs for the proposed project are described in the following sections. 1.4.1 Improve Rail and Road Safety Currently, the intersection of Hopson Road and the NCRR/NS tracks is an at-grade intersection and has the potential for accidents between vehicular traffic freight and passenger trains. Providing a grade separation for this intersection would eliminate the potential for car/train collisions, which would improve safety for both road and rail traffic. The current vertical alignment for Hopson Road at the railroad crossing makes it difficult for cars to see past the railroad tracks. This poor sight distance for vehicular traffic has the potential to contribute to car accidents. During construction of the grade separation, the vertical alignment of Hopson Road would be improved, which would improve safety for road traffic. The Church Street at-grade crossing also has a very high potential for accidents. Church Street (SR 1980) has poor geometries of both the highway and railroad at the crossing, inadequate stacking distances between the railroad and the adjacent intersection with NC 54, previous accident experience, current and future potential for accidents, and available alternate access. The current geometries of the crossing contribute to inadequate sight distance at the crossing (Church Street (SR 1980) Crossing Consolidation Plan, Gibson Engineers, April 2008). In addition to the substandard rail crossing, Church Street has a nearby intersection with Miami Boulevard with a number of unsafe movements, queuing distances, and poor sight lines. 1.4.2 IMPROVE MOBILITY FOR TRAIN TRAFFIC The existing curve of the railroad tracks at the Hopson Road railroad crossing has a radius of approximately 2,000 feet. Passenger trains must slow to maneuver through the curve safely. The passenger train speed limit through this curve is 55 miles per hour (mph), while it is 79 mph on either side of the curve. Realigning the track and straightening the curve to maintain the 79 mph speed limit through the study area would improve mobility and reduce travel time for passenger train traffic. Straightening the curve also would allow passenger trains to maintain momentum. When trains slow down, they lose momentum and must accelerate to get back to the speed limit, which takes a considerable amount of time due to the size and weight of the trains. Accelerating less would reduce emissions and fuel consumption, allowing the trains to operate more efficiently. The freight train speed limit is separate from the passenger train speed limit and is restricted by NS. NS is the freight operator of the railroad in this area and restricts the freight train speed limit to 50 mph throughout the area for safety reasons. This restriction is part of NS standard practice for the types of freight trains that pass through this area (freight trains that are long and carry a mix of materials). Therefore, the freight train speed limit would not change as a result of this project. However, the reduced degree of curve would result in less wear and maintenance costs and fuel costs for the NS Railroad. 1.4.3 IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW FOR ROAD TRAFFIC At present, traffic along Hopson Road and Church Street passing through the at-grade intersections with the railroad tracks must stop for passing trains. On average, ten trains per day cross both Hopson Road and Church Street. This contributes to delay and has a negative effect on traffic flow for cars. Grade separating the intersections with the railroad would eliminate the need for cars to • ' Hopson Road/Church Street 1 7 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA PURPOSE AND NEED w rfflfflzl stop for passing trains which would improve flow for vehicular traffic. 1.5 SYSTEM LINKAGE 1.5.1 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK I-40 is located north and east of the project study area (Figure 1-1). I-40 is North Carolina's major east-west link connecting Asheville, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Burlington, Chapel Hill, Durham, Raleigh, and Wilmington. NC 54 is an east-west route that connects Cary, Durham, Chapel Hill, and Burlington. NC 54 is the northern boundary of the project study area (Figure 1-2). NC 54 travels south through the project study area on Miami Boulevard. NC 54 (Miami Boulevard/Chapel Hill Road) forms the eastern boundary of the study area, and varies in lane configuration, from two lanes to as many as six lanes. NC 54 transitions from a two lane roadway at McCrimmon Parkway, widening to a four lane facility with turn lanes at the I-540 interchange area. It connects to the intersection of NC 54 and Hopson Road as a five lane facility. NC 54 has access to I-540 by way of two ramp intersections located just north of Lichtin Boulevard (Church Street (SR 1980) Crossing Consolidation Plan, Gibson Engineers, April 2008). Hopson Road is a two-lane, urban collector road that runs east-west through the project study area. West of the project study area, Hopson Road has a signalized intersection with Davis Drive. West of the Davis Drive intersection, Hopson Road travels west through RTP, then heads north where it turns into Alston Avenue and travels into central Durham. On the eastern side of the project study area, Hopson Road has a signalized intersection with Miami Boulevard. East of the Miami Boulevard intersection, Hopson Road turns into a five-lane roadway and becomes Page Road. Page Road intersects Slater Road and has an interchange with I-40, then travels north to tie into US 70 in southeastern Durham (Figure 1-1). Both Davis Drive and Miami Boulevard are major north-south routes in the area that provide access to destinations within Durham and have interchanges with I-40. Davis Drive is an urban minor arterial. Miami Boulevard is an urban minor arterial north of the intersection of Miami Boulevard and NC 54/Slater Road and an urban principal arterial south of Slater Road. At the intersection of NC 54/Slater Road and Miami Boulevard, NC 54 turns south and follows Miami Boulevard (Figure 1-2). Miami Boulevard becomes Chapel Hill Road after its intersection with Church Street at the southern end of the project study area. Church Street passes from its intersection with McCrimmon Parkway west of NC 54 under I-540, and connects to NC 54 forming the west leg of the NC 54 and Surles Court intersection. Church Street is a two-lane road, primarily serving residential development along its length (Church Street (SR 1980) Crossing Consolidation Plan, Gibson Engineers, April 2008). 1.5.2 COMMUTING PATTERNS The project study area contains a mix of office/industrial parks, commercial areas, and single-family and multifamily residential development. Due to the large amount of offices and businesses in the area, the general commuting pattern consists of people commuting into the study area in the morning to go to work, and out of the study area in the evening to go home. During weekdays, it is expected that traffic in the area increases during standard morning and evening commute hours (7-9 am and 4-6 pm). Tractor trailers travel through the study area to access the industrial parks located within and around the project study area. ' Hopson Road/Church Street 1-8 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA • • • • • • • • • • I• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PURPOSE AND NEED w rrw? Table 1-1 shows the commuting patterns by means of transportation for workers 16 years and older from the 2000 US Census. The project study area is within Durham County Census Tract 20.14. TABLE 1-1: Means of Transportation to Work - 2000 Census Transportation Means North Carolina (%) Durham County [%) Durham City (%) Census Tract 20.14(%) Drove Alone 79 75 73 82 Carpooled 14 16 17 14 Public Transportation 1 3 4 0 Walked 2 3 3 1 Other Means 1 0 0 0 Worked at Home 3 3 3 2 Source: Census 1000 Summary File 3 As shown in Table 1-1, Census Tract 20.14 had a slightly higher percentage of people driving alone to work when compared to the state, county, and city. The percentages of people carpooling to work, walking to work, and working from home were about the same for the state, county, city, and census tract. Workers using public transportation vary between one and four percent for the state, city, and county. However, in 2000, no one reported using public transportation within Census Tract 20.14. Commuting patterns within the project study area are primarily in the north-south direction along NC 54 during the morning and evening commute periods (7-9 am and 4-6 pm). NC 54 links Durham, Cary, and Raleigh and acts as a major north-south commute route for the region. The construction of I-540 has lessened reliance on Miami Boulevard, but it still carries a great deal of traffic. Church Street parallels NC 54 from where the road terminates at Morrisville Square to the south up to the Miami Boulevard intersection. Recent residential development has caused volumes along Church Street to increase at a high rate over the past few years. Additionally, the opening of I-540 and its interchange with NC 54 has significantly changed travel patterns on Church Street. Queuing along NC 54 through the intersection of NC 54 and Church Street/Surles Court has caused many travelers to seek alternative paths, specifically Barbee Road and McCrimmon Parkway. This has greatly reduced the number of left turn movements in and out of Church Street, causing the intersection to essentially function as right-in/right-out during the peak hours. Prior to the opening of I-540, Church Street had a 2005 AADT of 5,100 vehicles per day (vpd) (Church Street (SR 1980) Crossing Consolidation Plan, Gibson Engineers, April 2005). Hopson Road provides a commute route for travelers in the east-west direction during the morning and evening periods. Business parks along both Page Road and Hopson Road are served by the roadway. 1.6 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS 1.6.1 RAILROADS The rail corridor that passes through the project study area is owned by the state and is managed by the NCRR. NS is the leasing freight operator of the railroad and has exclusive rights to the track as freight operator. Although NS does not own the railroad tracks or the right of way, NS is responsible for maintaining the track and signal infrastructure in order to maintain a safe rail transportation system. On average, ten trains pass through the project study area during each 24-hour period. Four of the trains are passenger trains and six are freight trains. r r ' Hopson Road/Church Street 1-9 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA PURPOSE AND NEED ?@],Fmr:Ma All four passenger trains passing through the project study area daily are operated by Amtrak. Two are the "Piedmont" and two are the "Carolinian". The Piedmont conducts daily trips between Raleigh and Charlotte. The Piedmont is owned by the state, but Amtrak is the contract operator. The Carolinian is an Amtrak train that travels daily between Charlotte and New York City, with stops, for example, in Raleigh, Richmond, Washington, DC Baltimore, and Philadelphia. The freight trains consist of three types of freight trains: through trains, local trains, and unit trains. Up to four regularly scheduled through trains pass through the study area on a daily basis. Local trains serve industries located adjacent to the rail line. Industries along the rail line in the vicinity of the project include a concrete plant and a lumber company. On average, one local freight train passes through the project study area each day. Unit trains carry one material such as grain or coal. On average, one unit train passes through the project study area each day. 1.6.2 REGIONAL RAIL SERVICE The NCRR/NS rail line through the project study area is in the preferred study corridor for the Southeast High-Speed Rail Project (SEHSR). The SEHSR project would provide passenger rail service between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte at a maximum speed of 110 mph. Service eventually may extend to South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. In October 2002, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on the initial Tier I environmental studies confirming and approving the preferred SEHSR corridor. The preferred corridor runs from Richmond through Raleigh, Greensboro (with a connection to Winston-Salem) and Charlotte (Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Web site: www.sehsr.org/faa.htmI). Virginia and North Carolina are now proceeding with the next phase (Tier I1), which provides a detailed analysis of the impacts, including track location, station arrangement and detailed design. Rather than a single large document, smaller Tier II environmental studies will be conducted for specific segments of the route where track work would be needed. The Washington, DC to Charlotte portion of the SEHSR corridor could be implemented by 2013 depending on funding availability (Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Web site: www. seh sr. are/fa q. htm 1). 1.6.3 LOCAL RAIL SERVICE PLANNING Currently, there is no local rail transit service offered in the area. However, the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) adopted a Regional Transit Plan in the mid-1990's that includes regional rail service, bus service, shuttles, park-and-ride facilities and enhanced transit access for pedestrians and bicyclists. The first project as part of this plan is the Regional Rail Transit System. This service would use self-propelled, bi-directional, diesel rail cars operating on new tracks within the existing railroad rights-of-way that connect Durham; RTP, Cary, and Raleigh. This service would be expected to carry about 10,285 daily riders by 2025 (TTA Web site: www.ridetta.ore). A series of 12 stations are planned as part of the Regional Rail Transit System. There would be three stations in Durham, two in RTP, two in Cary, and five in Raleigh. One of the proposed RTP station locations would be within the project study area north of Hopson Road at a proposed Triangle Metro Center. The location of the proposed Triangle Metro Center is shown in Figure 1-3. The Triangle Metro Center is proposed as a high-density, mixed-use development that would be located next to the station just south of the rail bridge over NC 54 near South Miami Boulevard. TTA's bus facility and administrative offices would be part of the Triangle Metro Center, which would be a "downtown" for RTP. Shuttles would connect this station to RDU Airport and RTP employers (TTA Web site: www.ridetta.ore/Reeional Rail/Transit Plan Maa/conceptPlanslITP html). Hopson Road/Church Street 1-10 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ?AR DIVISI?jN N Legend A Tri l M t * Hopson Road I Church Street 1 TT Bus ang e e ro Rail and Roadway Improvements Route 301 Station proposed b A © STIP PROJECT NO. U•4716 a? DATA Routes y TT TRANSIT WITHIN THE Proposed Project S:nurr Durham County PROJECT STUDY AREA D,-:rham County Bicycle Lane Study Area a Fnriieu Fer n,arv 2(! i<+ Figure 1-3 PURPOSE AND NEED w, . ,; ate: I r 1 Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ? • c ??` RAIL DIVISION Legend * Hopson Road / Church Street l d Rai and Roa way Improvements . TIP Projects Projects in ST PRO LCT NO a-47'c, Interstate Draft 2035 LRTP E3 TRANSPORTATION • i Rural PROJECTS cnir:e. Uurtian? l;t,way, Dumarrm County Urban M.q, Pruned February 2009 Figure 1-4 PURPOSE AND NEED ,,, -ToI Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA PURPOSE AND NEED w rr lei 1.6.4 Airports The Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) is located approximately 3.5 miles east of the project. Eight major airlines and 16 regional carriers offer service from RDU. At the end of 2005, RDU offered 212 daily departures to 36 cities (RDU Web site: www.rdu.com/). 1.6.5 BUS SERVICE There are two transit services available in the vicinity of the project study area: Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) and TTA. The bus routes through the project study area are shown on Figure 1-3. There is one bus route offered by DATA near the project. DATA offers bus service on Saturdays and Sundays along NC 54 through the northern boundary of the project study area. TTA has one bus route that travels through the project study area. Bus Route 301 travels from the TTA bus transfer center at RTP (located on NC 54 west of the project study area) east along NC 54, south on Miami Boulevard, east on Emperor Boulevard, then east on I-40 to Cary and Raleigh. 1.7 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1.7.1 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The NCDOT 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes one interstate, three rural, and five urban projects in southeastern Durham County. These projects are listed in Table 1-2, and those projects that have funding are shown in Figure 1-4. TABLE 1-2: Transportation Improvement Projects in Southeastern Durham Countv TIP Project Description Status Number Interstate Projects 1-3306 I-40, Orange-Durham Counties. 1-85 in Orange County to NC 147 (Buck Dean Part complete. Part Freeway) in Durham County. Add additional lanes. unfunded. Rural Projects R-2000 1-540, Wake-Durham Counties. Northern Wake Freeway, NC 55 west of Morrisville Part complete. Part to US 64 east near Knightdale. Freeway on new location. under construction. R-2904 NC 54- SR 1973, Durham County. NC 54, SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Under construction. Boulevard) and SR 1973 (Page Road), NC 54 to 1-40. Widen to multi-lanes and replace railroad structure. R-2906 NC 55, Wake-Durham Counties. US 64 in Wake County to SR 1121 (Cornwallis Completed. Road) in Durham County. Widen to multi-lanes. Urban Projects U-2831 Durham, Durham County. Briggs Avenue Extension, Riddle Road to So-Hi Drive and Part complete. Part Northeast Creek Parkway, Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road. Two lanes on multi-lane unfunded. right of way. U-3309 Durham, Durham County. SR 2028 (T.W. Alexander Drive), SR 1121 (Cornwallis Right of way acquisition Road) to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard). Widen to a four lane divided facility. in progress. U-4011 Durham, Durham County. SR 1959 (South Miami Boulevard), south of SR 2112 Right of way acquisition (Methodist Street) to north of SR 1960 (Bethesda Avenue). Widen to five lanes to in progress. provide centerturn lane. 11 ' Hopson Road/Church Street 1-13 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA PURPOSE AND NEED w rrir?a? THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ' Hopson Road/Church Street 1-14 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA PURPOSE AND NEED TABLE 1-2: Transportation Improvement Projects in Southeastern Durham County TIP Project Description Status Number U-4716 SR 1978 (Hopson Road) and SR 1980 (Church Street). Construct a grade separation, Unfunded project. extend Church Street and close Church Street crossing of the NS/NCRR. U-4026 Research Triangle Park, Wake-Durham Counties. SR 1613-SR 1999 (Davis Drive), SR Under construction 3014 (Morrisville-Carpenter Road) in Wake County to NC 54 in Durham County. (project let with R- Widen to multi-lanes. 2904), U-476313' Triangle Expressway, median divided toll facility on new location from 1-40/NC147 Environmental analysis to 1-540 with a median divided expressway from 1-540 to McCrimmon Parkway. complete, financing is being identified. source: nwUi, tuue Initpsvtapps.aot.state,nc.us/`projects/tipsearch/Detault.aspx); IU-4716 includes the Hopson Road grade separation as part of the project. 2NC Turnpike Authority (www.ncturnpike.org/pdf/Annual%20Report%202008.pdf. 1.7.2 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS The project study area is included in the planning limits of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHCMPO). The DCHCMPO has developed a Draft 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), dated December 2008. The DCHCMPO 2035 LRTP includes projects for highways, fixed guideway and high-capacity transit, bus transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transportation demand management (TDM), and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)/Transportation System Management (TSM). The DCHCMPO 2035 LRTP lists 65 highway projects that include all the TIP projects listed in Table 1-2 (except for U-4716), and five additional projects in southeastern Durham County. These five projects are shown on Figure 1-4 and are listed in Table 1-3. Neither the Hopson Road nor Church Street projects are included in the DCHCMPO 2035 LRTP. TABLE 1-3: 2035 LRTP Projects in Southeastern Durham County Project Number Description 10 Chin Page Road Extension. 3-lane new location roadway from Page Road to Wake County line. 12 Cornwallis Road. Upgrade from 2 lanes to a 4-lane divided facility from Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway to TW Alexander Drive. 13 Cornwallis Road Extension. 2-lane new location roadway from Miami Boulevard to Chin Page Road. 69 NC 54. Upgrade from 2 lanes to a 4-lane divided facility from 1-40 to NC 55. 95 Scott King Road. 2-lane new location roadway from Grandale Drive to Hopson Road. Source: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, December 2008. 1.7.3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANS The Final Durham Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan provides a comprehensive approach toward identifying existing bicycle need and deficiencies, presents a new route network to address those deficiencies, examines optimal design and policy improvements, and identifies implementation strategies for the development of quality bicycle facilities and programs (City and County of Durham, August 2006). Under this Plan, a bicycle lane is proposed along Hopson Road (Figure 1-3). The Durham Walks! Pedestrian Plan includes an assessment of the existing pedestrian environment and makes recommendations for policy, program, and facility improvements (City of Durham, July 2006). According to this Plan, there are no improvements to existing pedestrian facilities or Hopson Road/Church Street 1-17 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA PURPOSE AND NEED w rri proposed pedestrian facilities within the project study area. 1.8 No-Build Traffic Operations Traffic operations for 2007 and 2030 without the project are discussed in the following sections 1.8.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES In January 2007, NCDOT provided traffic forecasts for Year 2006 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes for the existing roadway network. The modeled existing conditions consisted of a scenario where the Church Street/NC 54 intersection remained open and no direct connection was provided between an extended Church Street and Hopson Road. No direct connection exists between Church Street and Hopson Road; instead traffic is currently routed to Distribution Drive and then to Hopson Road. Appendix A provides diagrams of the AADT for study area roadways. AADTs for some of the primary study area roadways are provided below in Table 1-4. Results of the Existing (Year 2007) Conditions scenario are presented below while impacts anticipated under the Build and No-Build scenarios are presented in Section 2.4. TABLE 1-4: Comparison of Existing (Year 2007) and No-Build (Year 2030) AADT Volumes Roadway/Segment Existing 2007 AADT Volumes No-Build (2030) AADT Volumes Increase in AADT Volume M Hopson Road West of Distribution Drive 10,200 31,800 211 Distribution Drive to NC 54 12,900 34,700 169 East of NC 54 10,900 32,700 200 NC 54 North of Hopson Road 22,000 29,900 36 Hopson Road to Emperor Boulevard 21,500 33,300 55 Emperor Blvd to Surles Court 21,800 34,900 60 South of Surles Court 14,500 27,600 90 Church Street / Surles Court Church Street 7,200 17,500 143 Surles Court 2,500 6,800 172 Church Street North of the Existing Terminus North of Hopson Road (not a part of proposed project -to be constructed by others) N/A 6,400 N/A South of Hopson Road (part of proposed project) N/A 3,600 N/A Source: NCDOT, January 2007. Straight line interpolation between 2006 and 2030 NCDOT forecasts. NCDOT traffic forecast (dated January 2007) provided the year 2030 AADT volumes for the No- Build roadway network. The No-Build traffic forecast included the Church Street/NC 54 intersection remaining open and no direct connection provided between an extended Church Street and Hopson Road. A new intersection was assumed to be in place at the intersection of Hopson Road and what will be referred to as Church Street north of the existing terminus. Church Street north of the existing terminus is planned to connect Hopson Road to Park Knoll Road within the Keystone Develo ment but will not have a direct connection to existing Church Street for the No-Build r • ' Hopson Road/Church Street 1-18 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PURPOSE AND NEED w rr' 1 condition. Additionally, a northern leg of Church Street at this intersection was modeled for potential future development. Substantial increases in traffic volumes for study area roadways are anticipated under the No-Build Alternative scenario (Appendix A). NCDOT traffic forecasts for key study area roadway segments are presented in Table 1-4. Within the study area, traffic volumes on Hopson Road are expected to increase between 169 percent and 211 percent under the No-Build Alternative. Traffic on Church Street is expected increase by 143 percent, while traffic on Surles Court is projected to increase by 172 percent. Traffic would also increase on NC 54 under the No-Build Alternative; with the highest increase (90 percent) occurring south of Surles Court. 1.8.2 Level of Service As part of the Church Street (SR-1980) Crossing Consolidation Plan (Gibson Engineers, April 2008), an analysis of existing conditions and future No-Build operations was performed for the intersections of NC 54 and Hopson Road as well as NC 54 and Church Street / Surles Court. The Synchro computer program was used to perform an AM and PM peak hour traffic operations analysis for intersections in the project study area. Synchro is a traffic modeling software program used to optimize the timing of traffic signals. Existing intersection operations results showing the analyzed intersection Level of Service (LOS) and corresponding average delay per vehicle based on Year 2007 traffic are summarized in Table 1-5. The analyzed existing intersection peak hour turning movement volumes, lane geometry, and LOS are presented in Figure 1-5. According to the modeling presented in Table 1-5, traffic at the two intersections currently operates at LOS F conditions, with delays in excess of 250 seconds. TABLE 1-5: Existing (Year 2007) Level of Service and Average Delay Per Vehicle I t t i AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour n ersec on LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) NC 54 and Hopson Road (stop-controlled) F >250 F >250 NC 54 and Church Street / Surles Court (signalized) F >250 F >250 Source: Gibson Engineers, 2008. Note: For stop-controlled intersections, LOS and corresponding delay represents the characteristics of the worst performing stop-controlled movement. A future year 2030 No-Build analysis was performed to determine how project area intersections are projected to operate if the improvements are not made. For the future year No-Build analysis, a new signalized intersection was assumed to be in place at the intersection of Hopson Road and what will be referred to as the Church Street north of the existing terminus. Church Street north of the existing terminus would connect Hopson Road to Park Knoll Road within the Keystone Development but would not have a direct connection to existing Church Street. Additionally, a northern leg of this intersection was modeled for potential future development. The No-Build intersection operations results showing intersection LOS and corresponding delay based on year 2030 traffic are summarized in Table 1-6. No-Build peak hour turning movement volumes, lane geometry, and LOS are presented in Figure 1-6. r M. Hopson Road/Church Street 1-19 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA PURPOSE AND NEED w r? f THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Hopson Road/Church Street 1-20 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA U Z ? M M a L 25 (32) ?I F570(98) 139 (110) HOPSON ROAD HOPSON ROAD (104)137 (499)114 (78)109 o ^ vmo, m o F 30(140) hoc 0(6) X7(78) N ,? y SURLES COURT ( ® 7 k (0) 3 J v Legend U Z Signalized Intersection Stop Controlled Movement XX (XX) AM IPM) Peak Hour Volumes --? Lane Geometry LOS Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hour X (X) Level of Service p Level of Service A-C O Level of ServiceD O Level of Service E O Level of ServiceF `o U rn w 0 r? a a w RAIL DIVISION STIP PROJECT NO. U-4716 Hopson Road / Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements © YEAR 2007 EXISTING M TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Durham County I I Figure 1-5 PURPOSE AND NEED ?01,Fgjcqwz Hopson Road/Church Street 1-22 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA Z O u7 O Z U W Z X W w W I_ N S M rn o ? U v v o ° 102(156) 0168(167) 4 1,112 (1,740) X47(89) 769 (1,229) { 1 4 (365(576) 1 HOPSONRUAD HOPSON ROAD (188)193-:f h A.? (276) 441 h 11. (1,112)1,74 (769)1 229 o rn (122)100 0 g , v (254) 257 ? o z 0 00 z X w w rn x U = Z U Legend Signalized Intersection Proposed Signal Stop Controlled Movement XX(XX) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes -? Lane Geometry Note: Church Street South of Hopson Road Los Intersection AM IPM) Peak Hour is part of the proposed project. X (X) Level of Service O Level of Service A-C Church Street north of Hopson Road I? Level of Service D would be built by others. D Level of Service E D Level of Service F 0 x a `o U a m 0 0 LL? a w iii' RAIL DIVE ON STIP PROJECT NO. U-4716 Hopson Road I Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements © YEAR 2030 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Durham County Figure 1-6 PURPOSE AND NEED MEMEEKNI ? . FIX Hopson Road/Church Street 1-24 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 0 PURPOSE AND NEED TABLE 1-6: No-Build (Year 2030) Level of Service and Average Delay Per Vehicle Int ti AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ersec on LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) NC 54 and Hopson Road (signalized) F >250 F >250 Local Church Street and Hopson Road (signalized) F >250 F >250 Source: U-4716 Hopson Road Capacity Analysis Report (Gibson Engineers, March 24, 2008) The NC 54 and Church Street/Surles Court intersection was not analyzed for the future year 2030 No-Build conditions as part of the U-4716 Hopson Road Capacity Analysis Report (Gibson Engineers, March 24, 2008). However, because of the projected growth in traffic and lack of intersection improvements, it is anticipated that the intersection will operate worse than in the year 2007. 1.9 SAFETY The proposed grade separation would promote safer traffic operations by closing the existing railroad crossings and separating automobile traffic from train traffic. At any location where streets intersect railroad tracks, there is the potential for motorists to be killed or injured. Trains cannot swerve to miss a vehicle and it takes great distances to stop them. Motorists involved in railroad crossing accidents often are killed due to the difference in size between road vehicles and locomotives. However, larger motor vehicles, such as tractor trailers, can also cause damage or derailment to trains. Derailment of a passenger train can cause serious injury or death, not only for the motorist, but for train passengers. The proposed grade separation and track realignment would protect both rail passengers and motorists. The proposed project would have an additional safety benefit of preventing accidents that could cause hazardous materials spills. Freight trains and tractor-trailer trucks often pull cars carrying chemicals and other hazardous materials that can pose a health and safety hazard to the local community if released. A collision with a large motor vehicle could cause derailment of a freight train and spilling of hazardous materials. By eliminating the at-grade intersection, the potential for such accidents is eliminated. Crash data for Hopson Road and Miami Boulevard within the project study area for January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008 was provided by the NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit and is included in Appendix B. For crash rate purposes NCDOT has classified Hopson Road as a "2 Lanes Undivided, Secondary Route (SR)", while Miami Boulevard (NC 24) is classified as "4 Lanes with a Continuous Left Turn Lane, North Carolina (NC) Route". Table 1-7 shows the accident data for Hopson Road and Miami Boulevard. The accident rates for the segments of Hopson Road and Miami Boulevard within the project study area were compared to the 2005-2007 statewide crash rates. As shown in Table 1-7, with the exception of one rate, all crash rates are below the average for similar type facilities. The wet crash rate for Hopson Road is above the average statewide crash rate. However, the wet crash rate is below the critical rate. Providing grade separations at the Hopson Road and Church Street intersections with the railroad tracks is expected to reduce the potential for accidents within the project study area. Also, this reduced accident potential will become more important as this area continues developing. Hopson Road/Church Street 1-25 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA PURPOSE AND NEED o . =3 TABLE 1-7: Crash Data Type Total p of Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM Statewide Rate (per 100 MVM) Critical Rate' Hopson Road (from Miami Boulevard to Davis Drive) Total 19 319.44 370.48 508.71 Fatal 0 0.00 3.21 23.70 Non-Fatal 4 67.25 127.03 211.46 Night 2 33.62 129.75 214.99 Wet 4 67.25 55.29 113.85 Miami Boulevard/NC 54 (Hopson Road to Church Street) Total 26 175.85 258.65 330.84 Fatal 0 0.00 1.73 10.74 Non-Fatal 7 47.35 90.14 134.14 Night 4 27.05 56.67 92.26 Wet 3 20.29 39.54 69.82 wwce: n UUI IramcJatety unit, LUuers oatea February 23, LUU9 ana February 24, 2U(39. Notes: Site data is for the 3-year period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2008. ' 2005-2007 Statewide Crash Rates for applicable roadway section classification. t Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence). The Critical Crash Rate is a statistically derived value against which a calculated rate can be compared to see if the rate is above an average far enough so that something besides chance must be the cause. r r ' Hopson Road/Church Street 1-26 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA h - ^ncar? Q Q Q 2.0 ALTERNATIVES Q This section discusses alternatives considered for the proposed action. These alternatives include Q the No-Build Alternative, Transportation Management Alternatives, Mass Transit Alternatives, and Q Build Alternatives. Each alternative was assessed with respect to its ability to meet the project's purpose and need. One of the Build Alternatives is identified as the Recommended Alternative. Q Q 2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE Q The No-Build Alternative would make no improvements to the NCRRJNS railroad alignment, ® Hopson Road, or Church Street through the year 2030, with the exception of regular maintenance of Q the railroad tracks and roadway. Railroad maintenance could include safety inspections and maintenance of track ballast, railroad ties, and timber. Regular roadway maintenance could include Q patching, resurfacing, regarding shoulders, and maintaining ditches. Q The No-Build Alternative would incur neither right-of-way acquisition nor construction costs. There Q would be no short-term disruptions that would occur along existing roadway and railroad during Q construction. There would be no impacts to streams, wetlands, or other natural and cultural resources, nor would there be any residential or business relocations. However, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the project's purpose and need. As discussed previously, the existing NCRR/NS at-grade intersections at Hopson Road and Church Street are a Q safety concern due to the potential for car/train collisions. These intersections also contribute to road Q traffic delays as a result of vehicles waiting for crossing trains. In addition, the curvature of the railroad track at the crossing with Hopson Road slows train traffic through the area. The No-Build Q Alternative would not reduce the potential for car/train collisions, nor would it improve mobility for Q trains or cars. Q The analysis of No-Build Alternative is required under NEPA and serves as a benchmark against Q which the impacts of other alternatives can be compared. Q 2.2 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Q The Recommended Alternative would include the depression of Hopson Road beneath a realigned NCRRJNS rail line. Hopson Road would be expanded to include two 12-foot lanes in each direction Q with 8-foot sidewalks. Under the Recommended Alternative, Hopson Road would shift Q approximately 30 feet to the south. The realigned rail line would be shifted a maximum of 270 feet Q to the east to flatten the curve. Figure 2-1 shows the Recommended Alternative, also referred to as Hopson Road Under Railroad Alternative. Q The intersection of Church Street and NC 54 would be closed, as would the Church Street crossing of Q the NCRR/NS railroad. Church Street would be extended northward to join with the portion of Q Church Street that has been constructed by a private developer in the Keystone Crossing Q development. At the north end of this road, Church Street would be extended northward to intersect with Hopson Road. Church Street would be constructed to include one 18-foot lane in each direction Q with 8-foot sidewalks to either side, which would match the cross-section constructed by the private ® developer of Keystone Crossing. Q Q 2-1 Hopson Road/Church Street Q Rail and Roadway Improvements EA Q ALTERNATIVFC - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Hopson Road/Church Street 2-2 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA EA_C92-1_Altl HopsonUnderRR.ai AKH 3.3.09 T 3 c o, c a „ n O F ? a n 0 p C d. N n ? O m N O D ? O 7 6uNaP!M r(1 nnuosdoH aln?ni 6woaP'NPN afmd c?a'1 i. 9'COV"R T A O y O ? nl ? a 3 = 0 a= m X ? A d O 7 O rr" 3 F a °= n n n; o, s o n s d. D n D r y m n 1 O z y A a ? c a ='m O n ?a b ? ]'.0'<IIRB 6GIITi ER ya C Z A C 0 rn _ '^ D o ? y 1 1 { e m m v :2 a m D r o y a O z ? m n c d z O m e z ra-CURB ncuTi n ER ;o 1m b p C a ; 1p? ° F A m T C n C 3 m 9 d n F w T 2 'O N Q O a N p o = 0 o n aT n o F ? A O d a 3 a c a= 0 ? n0 n o F a v rv p > O n o 0 n A ? S d n ? S .? N . r NI. n s W c a n o o n ? C i0 n t t = m °- * El I r M O o m 9 CL © m m ;u ;u n 3 p o o a m o Z z N X N N A N r. mo fl O ,n ?g o r, ;D 0 T D p P a s m z m - C ° y m 0 u O ?Z= (7 0 CO `m3 c) a m m m N o n s W C E. n Q O ? m ? EA F192-2 AI1211upsunU-,RR.,, AnH A 1109 D o r , 1". g s + ?. . Q J S !Y . pii µK •t N b v c >•i 1 ? O ry Tom. ?r ?+'? • jf? 4 17 u *all x s = °' - k fD\ '': hL'?v rho i ?? c ., -ro C) 1.,u..ruRRAGUnFR (/) n\v sY\ I. .?,, c ;o Z o o S \\\ ! d ?* ;o '4t x ? __ 'G '?17f_SQS••Ct Z T-CURBA GUTTFR N'•' ? +``.?j?? b C C ??? `y - ; t Y m (D ? r m"0 a d o a o _ = O o co r a o2) M Z t-+ o a `? o o CL D *° s ? ?o ao m ?? ?_ m 0 m O D O o c Zp D (D `" r ee z r < i c N v? Q ; E Dp o ?. a 0 o ?c CD CD tp CD .4 N < D m '? ,a Ng y •••••••••••••••••••i••••••!••••••••••••i••• I? .U 0 ^ULUAVA ® 2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration 0 A range of alternatives were considered for this project, with some withdrawn from consideration when it was determined that they would not meet the purpose and need for the project or were not 0 feasible due to cost or community disruption. These alternatives are described below, along with 0 explanations regarding why they were eliminated from further consideration. 0 2.3.1 HOPSON ROAD OVER RAILROAD ALTERNATIVE 0 The Hopson Road Over Railroad Alternative was designed to carry Hopson Road over the rail line 0 structure. As with the Recommended Alternative (Hopson Road Under Railroad Alternative), the 0 Hopson Road Over Railroad Alternative would include two 12-foot lanes in each direction with 10- 0 foot sidewalks. Under the Hopson Road Over Railroad Alternative, Hopson Road would be shifted approximately 150 feet to the south near the current crossing of the NCRR/NS rail line. The 0 realigned rail line would be shifted a maximum of 270 feet to the east. Figure 2-2 shows the 0 Hopson Road Over Railroad Alternative. 0 The intersection of Church Street and NC 54 would be closed, as would the Church Street crossing of 0 the NCRR/NS railroad. Church Street would be extended northward to join with the portion of Church Street that has been constructed by a private developer in the Keystone Crossing 0 development. At the north end of this road, Church Street would be extended northward to intersect 0 with Hopson Road. Church Street would be constructed to include one 18-foot lane in each direction with 8-foot sidewalks to either side, which would match the cross-section constructed by the private 0 developer of Keystone Crossing. 0 The Hopson Road Over Railroad Alternative was eliminated from consideration during the project 0 development process. This alternative was eliminated due to impacts to surrounding properties that 0 would be subject to property takings and the expense involved with construction of a roadway bridge over the rail alignment. The Hopson Road Over Railroad Alternative received additional concerns 0 from Hopson Road residents due to its proximity to their properties. The inconvenience of a detour 0 during construction was another contributing factor as well as the larger impact footprint for the 0 alternative. 0 2.3.2 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 0 In some cases, transportation management alternatives can be used to improve the overall operation 0 of the existing roadway network. The management tools include Transportation Systems ® Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management (TDM) Alternatives. The following provides a discussion of these alternatives and their applicability for this project. 00 2.3.2.1 Transportation Systems Management 0 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) consists of adding low-cost transportation improvements to increase the capacity of an existing facility. TSM strategies typically involve minor 0 roadway improvements that improve the operational characteristics of a facility while minimizing 0 capital outlay and inconvenience to motorists. There are two main types of TSM minor roadway 0 improvements: operational and physical. Examples of these improvements are: 0 0 0 0 0 o M12.5 Hopson Road/Church Street ® Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 ALTERNATTVEC - - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ' Hopson Road/Church Street 2-6 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ALTERNATrVEC ___ _ Operational Improvements • Traffic law enforcement • Turn prohibitions • Access control • Speed restrictions • Signal coordination • Signal phasing or timing changes Ph v sica l Improvements • Addition of turn lanes • Intersection realignment • Improved warning and information signs • New signals or stop signs • Intersection geometric and signalization improvements TSM measures would not meet the project's purpose and need. TSM measures refer only to improvements that can be made to an existing roadway facility and are not applicable to trains and railroad tracks. Minor operational and physical improvements to the roadway would not separate the train traffic from vehicular traffic. TSM improvements also would not address the need to close and extend Church Street. Therefore, the safety issue associated with the at-grade railroad crossings on Hopson Road and Church Street would not be addressed and the vehicular traffic flow would not be improved. In addition, TSM improvements to the roadway would not straighten the curve of the railroad track and would not improve mobility for train traffic. 2.3.2.2 Travel Demand Management TDM strategies include staggered work hours, ridesharing, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and can be used to reduce congestion along existing roadway facilities. Like the TSM alternatives, TDM measures would not separate train traffic from vehicular traffic and would not straighten the railroad curve. Therefore, TDM measures would not address the project purpose and need to improve safety and mobility for both vehicular and train traffic. 2.3.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE The Mass Transit Alternative would include bus or rail passenger service. A major advantage of mass transit is it can provide high-capacity, energy-efficient movement in densely traveled corridors. It also serves high and medium density areas by offering a low-cost option for automobile owners who do not wish to drive, as well as service to those without access to an automobile. Providing mass transit along Hopson Road is not considered an effective solution to addressing the project purpose and need. A mass transit alternative would not separate train traffic from vehicular traffic nor would it straighten the railroad curve. Therefore, safety concerns are not addressed and mobility would not be improved. 2.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 2.4.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES The NCDOT traffic forecast (dated January 2007) provided the year 2030 AADT volumes for the Recommended Alternative roadway network. Table 2-1 lists the projected daily traffic volumes for area roadways under the Recommended Alternative. As with the No-Build Alternative, large traffic increases are expected within study area under the Recommended Alternative. Within the study area, traffic volumes on Hopson Road are expected to increase between 169 percent and 212 percent under the Recommended Alternative. ' Hopson Road/Church Street 2-9 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ALTERNATIVE¢ - Similar to the No-Build Alternative, traffic would also increase on NC 54 under the Recommended Alternative with the highest increase (97 percent) occurring south of Surles Court. TABLE 2-1: Comparison of Existing (Year 2007) and Recommended Alternative (Year 2030) AADT Volumes Roadway/Segment Existing (2007) AADT Volumes Recommended Alternative (2030) AADT Volumes Increase in AADT Volume (%) Hopson Road West of Distribution Drive 10,200 31,800 212% Distribution Drive to Church Street Extension 12,900 34,700 169% Church Street Extension to NC 54 12,900 38,300 197% East of NC 54 10,900 30,900 183% NC 54 North of Hopson Road 22,000 29,700 35% Hopson Road to Emperor Boulevard 21,500 29,100 35% Emperor Blvd to Surles Court 21,800 28,300 30% South of Surles Court 14,500 28500 97% Church Street / Surles Court Church Street 7,200 N/A N/A Surles Court 2,500 6,800 172% Church Street Extension North of Hopson Road (not a part of proposed project - to be constructed by others) N/A 6,400 N/A Hopson Road to Keystone Development (part of proposed project) N/A 11,400 N/A South of Keystone Development (existing) N/A 7,600 N/A Source: NCDOT, January 2007. 2.4.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE A future year 2030 Build alternative analysis was performed for the Recommended Alternative as part of the U-4716 Hopson Road Capacity Analysis Report (March 24, 2008) to determine how project area intersections are projected to operate with the recommended improvements. For this report, it was assumed Hopson Road would be improved to a four-lane section between NC 54 and approximately 1,000 feet east of Davis Drive. Additionally, Church Street will be completed on the northern and southern ends within the project study area to extend from existing Church Street to Hopson Road. The Church Street Extension will eliminate the existing Church Street leg of the NC 54/Church Street/Surles Court intersection. For the Recommended Alternative, intersection analysis results showing the analyzed intersection LOS and corresponding delay based on year 2030 traffic are summarized in Table 2-2. The analyzed Build intersection peak hour turning movement volumes, lane geometry, and LOS are presented in Figure 2-3. The proposed project would improve LOS compared to the No-Build Alternative. The NC 54 and Surles Court intersection was not analyzed for the future vear 2nnn Build conditions as part of the U-4716 Hopson Road Capacity Analysis Report (March 24, 2008). However, because of the removal of the Church Street leg from this intersection, it is anticipated that the intersection would operate more efficiently than the intersection would for the future year 2030 No-Build conditions. r ' Hopson Road/Church Street 2-10 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ? LOS o v D(Q Q?^ `"O`er C90(144) C aO ^ - 2179(181) 1 075 (1 707) ^ f 737 (1,189) , , 349 (474) ? N l? 309 (503) (193)1921 (468) 749 (1,075) 1707 , (737)1,189 (137) 159 7) (342) 338 ?a 0 a Y a c U m 0 NI N 11 a w Note: Church Street south of Hopson Road is part of the proposed project. Church Street north of Hopson Road would be built by others. Legend rj'r Signalized Intersection Ipli Proposed Signal 0 Stop Controlled Movement XX(XX) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes -? Lane Geometry LOS Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hour X(X) Level of Service r----l Level of Service A-C D Level of Service D O Level of Service E Level of Service F PAII, DIV ON STIP PROJECT NO. U-4716 Hopson Road / Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements © YEAR 2030 BUILD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Durham County I I Figure 2-3 ALTERNATIVES ' Hopson Road/Church Street 2-12 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ALTERNATIVES NOMMEM"Im TABLE 2-2: Recommended Alternative (Year 2030) Level of Service and Average Delav Per Vehicle AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay LOS (sec) LOS Delay (sec) NC 54 and Hopson Road (signalized) E 58.9 E 64.9 Church Street Extension and Hopson Road (signalized) D 52.6 C 34.0 wurce: u-wrio nop5on noaa ?apaary HnarySiS neporr (unison engineers, Marcn 14, 2U08) The intersection improvements proposed as part of the project, listed below, would result in the improved level of service. • Hopson Road currently consists of one through lane in each direction at this intersection. Proposed improvements to the eastbound Hopson Road approach consists of dual left turn lanes, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane. These improvements would improve the operation of this intersection. • A new signalized intersection is proposed at the Hopson Road/Church Street intersection. Both Hopson Road and the Church Street Extension south of Hopson Road would consist of two lanes in each direction. A signal at this location would help to regulate the traffic flow on both roadways. • The Church Street leg of the NC 54/Church Street/Surles Court intersection would be eliminated. The elimination of Church Street from the intersection would improve safety and delays. • The elimination of two at-grade crossings would improve safety and traffic flow for both roadway vehicles and trains. r r ' Hopson Road/Church Street 2-13 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ALTERNATIVES THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ' Hopson Road/Church Street 2-14 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA o ?yl S=lr•1 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ® The existing conditions within the project study area are described in this chapter of the EA. The 0 inventory and evaluation of the existing affected environment provides the necessary baseline from which to determine the potential impacts of the project, which are discussed under Environmental ® Consequences, Chapter 4. 0 3.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ® US Census data was used to characterize the existing social conditions in the project study area. ® The project study area includes sections of several Census Tract Block Groups. To ensure that the entire population within the project study area was included in the analysis of social conditions, year ® 2000 Census Tract Block Groups were superimposed on the project study area map (Figure 3-1). All ® Census Block Groups lying completely or partially inside the project study area boundary were ® included in the analysis. This area is referred to as the Demographic Study Area. The Demographic Study Area consists of two Census Tract (CT) Block Groups (BG) located in Durham County; CT 0 20.14 BG2 and CT 20.14 BG3. 3.1.1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ® Population Growth. The population of Durham County grew at 22.8 percent between 1990 and 2000 (from 181,835 people to 223,314 people), which is slightly higher than the statewide increase of ® 21.3 percent. ® From 2000 to 2030, Durham County is projected to grow about 60.8 percent from 219,833 people to ® 353,630 people (State Data Center - State Demographics Web site: www.demoe.state. nc use. ® According to the 1990 US Census, the population of the Demographic Study Area was 1,202. The population for the same area in 2000 was 1,808. This represents a 50 percent increase in population 0 since 1990. 0 Since 2000, several residential subdivisions have been constructed in or near the project study area 0 that will have increased the population of the Demographic Study Area and surrounding areas ® substantially. New developments within the Demographic Study Area include: 0 • Southern Oaks at Davis Park Apartments is located off Hopson Road just east of the project ® (Figure 2-1) and includes 287 rental apartments. ® • The Keystone Crossing single-family subdivision and the Townes at Keystone Crossing are 0 located on Keystone Park Drive in the project study area and include 189 two-story homes and 189 two-story townhomes (Figure 2-1). A Using the average household size of 2.38 persons per household for Durham County (2005-2007 ® American Community Survey, Table 1101 - Households and Families, American Factfinder Web ® site: www.factfinder.census.eov), the additional 665 households present in the Demographic Study 0 Area would have added about 1,580 people to the area, which represents a 187 percent increase since 2000. ® Other recently constructed developments nearby include: A The Chessington subdivision is located on Davis Drive just past McCrimmon Parkway and includes 53 single-family homes. 0 ' • . - f ? ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-1 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PTIMMiT. ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-2 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA m 0 x z 2 m 0 LL W RAIL, DIVISION Legend V Study Area .•••Church SlExtension * Hopson Road / Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements STIP PROJECT NO. U-4716 Durham County O Block Group - Roads L=? County Line =Census Tract © Source: Durham County Map Printea March 2009 DEMOGRAPHIC SUDY AREA Figure 3-1 AEEECTED fAVTRONMENT Hopson Road/Church Street 3-4 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AFFECTED Eh'VIROh'h:EA7T - • The Church Street Townes subdivision is located on Checkerberry Drive off Church Street and includes 81 townhomes. The Kitts Creek subdivision is located on Kitts Creek Road off Church Street, just south of the study area and includes 130 single-family detached homes. • Just south of Kitts Creek off Church Street is the Providence Place subdivision on Grace Point Road. It includes 381 single-family detached homes as well as 110 townhomes. Racial Comnosition and Age Distribution. As shown in Table 3-1, the diversity of the Demographic Study Area in 2000 was comparable to that of the state with the white population being the largest racial group. The Demographic Study Area is less diverse than Durham County with lower percentages of African Americans and Hispanics. TABLE 3-1: Racial Characteristics - 2000 Census North Durham CT 20.14 CT 20.14 Race/Ethnicity Carolina County BG2 BG3 1%) 1%) 1%) 1%) White 5,647,155 107,371 303 874 (71) (49) (51) (72) Black or African 1,723,301 87,516 159 233 American (22) (40) (27) (19) 378,963 17,039 29 40 Hispanic or Latino (5) '(8) (5) (3) American Indian and 95,333 531 1 11 Alaska Native (1) (<1) (<1) (1) Asian 112,416 7,311 105 53 (1) (3) (18) (4) Native Hawaiian/ 3,165 65 0 0 Pacific (<1) (<1) (0) (0) TOTAL 7,960,333 219,833 597 1,211 Source: US Census Bureau (2000). As reflected in Table 3-2, the Census Tract Block Groups within the project study area have a lower percentage of children (under 18) and a higher percentage of persons in the 25 to 64 age range. The study area also has a lower percentage of persons over the age of 65. 3.1.2 HOUSING Based on a review of 2000 US Census, rental properties were prevalent in 2000. Homeownership for the Demographic Study TABLE 3-2: Age Characteristics - 2000 Census Percent of Population by Age Group F Area < 18 18 to 24 25 to 64 > 6S North Carolina 24 10 54 12 Durham County 23 13 55 10 CT 20.14 BG2 13 9 69 9 CT 20.14 BG3 16 12 67 6 Source: US Census Bureau (2000). Summary File 1, Table P12 Area was much lower (22 percent for Census Tract 20.14 Block Group 3 and 0 percent for Census Tract 20.14 Block Group 2) than Durham County and State. Approximately 54 percent of the County's residents were homeowners while the percentage of homeowners for the State was 69 percent. The percentage of homeowners in the Demographic Study Area is expected to be higher or the same now, with the construction of the subdivisions listed in Section 3.1.1. 3.1.3 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS The North Carolina Department of Commerce annually ranks the State's 100 counties based on economic well-being and assigns each a Tier designation. The 40 most distressed counties are no, Hopson Road/Church Street 3-5 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AEEEGTEO ENVIRONMENT designated as Tier 1, the next 40 as Tier 2 and the 20 least distressed as Tier 3. Both Durham and Wake Counties are ranked as Tier 3 counties (NC Department of Commerce Web site: www, nccommerce.com). According to the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (Web site: www.ncesc.comn, as of the second quarter of 2008 the Government sector (50 percent of employees) was the largest employment sector in Durham County. Manufacturing (9 percent) and Health Care (9 percent) were the next largest employment sectors with Education (5 percent) and Professional Technical Services (5 percent) to follow. As of December 2008 the unemployment rate for Durham County (6.2 percent) was lower than that of the state as a whole (8.5 percent) and all but three other counties. Wake County had third lowest unemployment rate (6.1 percent). Data on income is presented in Table 3-3. Median family income and median household incomes were compared to Durham County and the State. The median family income for CT 20.14, BG2 was very similar to the figure for the county as a whole while CT 20.14, BG3 is much higher than that of county. The median household income for both block TABLE 3-3: Income Characteristics-2000 Census Area Median Family Median Household Below Poverty (%) North Carolina $46,335 $39,184 3.8 Durham County $53,223 $43,337 3.2 CT 20.14 BG2 $52,750 $43,077 0.0 CT 20.14 BG3 $67,955 $55,625 1.2 Source: US Census Bureau (2000). Summary File 3, Tables P53, P77, P88 groups were higher that of the State. As shown in Table 3-3 the percentage of persons below poverty in the Demographic Study Area was lower than both the State and county. Recent development in the project study area described in Section 3.1.1 is targeted at middle to upper-middle income residents. Advertised asking prices for the previously mentioned subdivisions fall within the following ranges: Chessington ($579,900 - $659,900), Kitts Creek ($254,000 - $418,500); and Church Street Townes ($177,300 - $237,000). These home prices provide evidence that the area is becoming more affluent and that the percentage of the population in poverty in the Demographic Study Area is not expected to have increased since the 2000 Census. 3.1.4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 3.1.4.1 Schools There are no public schools located within the project study area. However, a private daycare/preschool facility is on Hopson Road within the project study area. Creekstone Creative School is a privately run child care center located at 4823 Hopson Road, between Miami Boulevard and the railroad crossing at Hopson Road. For public schools, the project study area is served by Bethesda Elementary School located at 2009 South Miami Boulevard, Lowes Grove Middle School located at 4418 South Alston Avenue, and Hillside High School located at 3727 Fayetteville Road. 3.1.4.2 Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services No police, fire, or emergency service facilities are located in the project study area. The project study area is located within the Durham Uniform Patrol District 4. The District 4 substation is located at 3022-B Fayetteville Street. Fire and emergency medical services are provided to the project study area by Fire Station #13 located at 2901 South Miami Boulevard. Hopson Road/Church Street 3-6 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 o AFFECTED ENVi/?QNMFNT 0 3.1.5 PARKLANDS 0 No parks or public recreational facilities are located within the project study area. Review of the 0 Durham Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2002-2013 revealed that the project study area is not 0 targeted for a future park site. 0 3.1.6 NEIGHBORHOODS 0 One neighborhood is completely within the project study area, Keystone Crossing, and a second is bisected by the study area boundary, the Hopson Road neighborhood. Additional neighborhoods 0 surrounding the project study area are listed in Section 3.1.1 above. Initial construction within the 0 Keystone Crossing neighborhood took place following the start of planning activities for the Hopson 0 Road/Church Street project. ® As previously mentioned, the Keystone Crossing neighborhood consists of single-family and town homes. The first homes in the Keystone Crossing neighborhood were sold and occupied in 2006. As 0 of 2009, the neighborhood is not fully built-out. The neighborhood will ultimately contain 388 units 0 on 49 acres. The Keystone Crossing neighborhood contains sidewalks, a swimming pool, and some open space between homes, but there are no formal parks, stores, or other public facilities within the subdivision. Sidewalks within the subdivision provide opportunities for interior circulation. 0 Pedestrian access outside of the subdivision is not convenient however, due to the absence of 0 sidewalks along Church Street and Hopson Road, thus discouraging pedestrian activities. 0 Because of the recent and ongoing construction, the character of the neighborhood is still developing. 0 However, Keystone Crossing residents who participated in the October 2008 public meeting and corresponded with project team members have said the neighborhood has a great deal of community 0 cohesiveness. 0 The Hopson Road neighborhood consists of older residences on both sides of Hopson Road between 0 the NCRRINS rail line and Davis Road. Twelve single-family homes, one apartment complex 0 (Southern Oaks Apartments) and the Keystone Park commercial/industrial development line the roadway in this section. Residents on the south side of Hopson Road participated in the October 0 2008 public meeting and stated one family owns the cluster of six homes between the NCRR/NS rail 0 line and Distribution Drive. The Southern Oaks Apartments at the Corner of Hopson Road and Davis Drive have recently been completed and consist of 287 garden apartments and condominiums. 0 There are no parks, sidewalks, stores or public facilities in this neighborhood and traffic on Hopson 0 Road prevents convenient interaction among residents on opposite sides of the road particularly 0 during morning and evening rush period. 0 3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 0 0 3.2.1 LAND USE AND PLANS 0 3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use 0 The proposed project is located north of the Town of Morrisville in the southern portion of Durham 0 County. Raleigh Durham International Airport is located 3 miles east, downtown Durham is 7.4 0 miles northwest of the project area, and downtown Raleigh is located 13.5 miles to the southeast. 0 The project study area falls within the planning jurisdictions of the City of Durham and Durham County. Land use in this area is guided by the Durham Comprehensive Plan (Durham City-County 0 Hopson Road/Church Street 3-7 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - Planning Department, Amended September 5, 2006). The vision of the Durham Comprehensive Plan is to: • Promote the creation and enhancement of a livable, safe and beautiful community. • Promote a range of choices in transportation, education, housing and economic opportunities. • Promote the identity of distinct neighborhoods by encouraging design elements and public facilities appropriate to the character of each area. • Protect historic heritage, open spaces and natural resources. • Provide opportunities for high quality growth and development. Land use surrounding the project study area consists of a mix of residential, office/commercial, and retail/commercial development. Northeast of the project study area is agricultural land that is not actively farmed. East of the study area is NC 55. To the south lies residential development and to the west are office commercial and storage buildings (Durham County Web site: http:Hgisweb durhamnc aov/aomaps/man/index cfm). 3.2.1.2 Zoning Characteristics The Durham Comprehensive Plan indicates a desired development at various levels of intensity. The Durham City-County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), last amended January 13, 2009, is the implementing mechanism for the Comprehensive Plan. As such, zoning for the project study area is regulated by the UDO, and is shown in Figure 3-2. According to Durham County: "It is the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Durham City and County (City of Durham Web site: www.ei.durham.nc.us/udo/). Zoning designations within the project study area are listed below. The largest portions of the project study area are zoned CC, RR, IL(D), RR, and OI(D). • SRP - Science Research Park • Of - Office and Institutional • OI(D) - Office and Institutional District • RC(D) - Residential Compact District • RU-M(D) - Residential Urban-Multifamily District • CC - Commercial Center • RR - Rural Residential • CN - Commercial Neighborhood • RS-20 - Residential Suburban, 20 units per acre • PDR 8.00 - Planned Development Residential, 8 units per acre • IL - Industrial, Light • IL(D) - Industrial, Light District • CG(D) - Commercial General District. 3.2.1.3 Future Land Use Durham County's online GIS system, Spatial Data Explorer/GoMaps provides geographic information on future land use within the county (Durham County Web site: htto://gisweb.durhamnc.gQv/GoMaosl. Within the project study area future land use will consist of. • Medium Density Residential within the Keystone Crossing subdivision, • Commercial development between the NCRR/NS rail line and Miami Boulevard, • Commercial development at the southeast corner of the Hopson Road/Davis Drive intersection, T Hopson Road/Church Street 3-8 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 111111111111111110 Industrial development for the Keystone Park development extending northward to Hopson Road, • Medium Density Residential development north of Hopson Road between the NCRR/NS rail line and Davis Drive, • Office space for the area south of Hopson Road from the NCRR/NS rail line to just west of NC 54, and • Commercial development north of Hopson Road between the NCRR/NS rail line and NC 54. 3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 3.3.1 NOISE This section summarizes a technical report, Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad /Norfolk Southern Track Realignment and Church Street Rail Crossing and Street Extension Durham County, NC, (PBS&J, July 2008). This report is incorporated by reference. Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and can come from man-made sources or natural sources. Noise can interrupt human activities and can result in annoyance, especially in residential areas. Changes in noise levels occur in the context of the existing noise environment. This means that what may be noisy in a relatively quiet environment, may go unnoticed in a louder environment. 3.3.1.1 Regulatory Overview Because this project has both a rail and roadway component, a variety of abatement criteria were used. Noise impacts for this project are based on the guidelines described in the US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA Report FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006). Per the guidance, if sufficient evidence shows that highway noise dominates, the methods of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), including the latest version of the Traffic Noise Model', (TNM®) should be used. Otherwise both FHWA and FTA prediction and impact assessment procedures should be used to determine EXHIBIT 3-1: Federal Transit Administration Noise whether neither, one, or both modes Impact Criteria cause impact, and where mitigation is best applied. Noise impact 20 analysis performed for this study n Srwere impart, i Note: m t ., Noise exposure is in terms indicates roadway traffic is the m 0 15 of La (h) for Category dominant noise source along Hopson - f t faro uses, y„ for . Road and Church Street while Naderate Category 2laid uses Impact trains are the dominant noise source to for homes in portions of the w - ] Keystone Crossing subdivision. ,• 5 - i Therefore, predicted noise levels for i No impaot Hopson Road and Church Street - were compared to FHWA criteria 0 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 while noise levels at homes closer to Existing Noise Exposure the rail line were compared to FTA/FRA noise impact criteria. Results of noise impact analysis are presented in Section 4.3.1. Railway Noise. The FTA noise impact criteria shown in Exhibit 3-1 are for projects that involve changes to a transit system (rather than a new system where one previously did not exist). r r ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-11 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - Examples of changes include a new type of vehicle, modifications of track alignments within existing corridors, or changes in facilities that dominate existing noise levels (FTA, 2006). Roadway Noise - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) are based on traffic noise computations for the project's design year, using the traffic for the hour with the worst impact on a regular basis. Two assessments of noise impacts are included: one related to land-use categories and the other to existing noise level. The first impact criterion is based on when traffic noise levels approach or exceed the applicable NAC, as shown in Table 3-4. The second impact criterion is based on a substantial increase in existing noise levels, where the definition of "substantial" is left to the state highway agency to define. NCDOT's definition of "substantial" is shown in Table 3-5. TABLE 3-4: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly 0 Activity C Sound L 713 Descript ion of Activity Category ategory 4 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and A 60 serve an important public need and where the preservation of those Exterior Exterior qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. 67 70 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks B Exterior Exterior , residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. 72 75 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B C Exterior Exterior above. D -- -- undeveloped lands. E 52 55 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, Interior Interior libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: Noise Abatement Criteria (FHWA, 23 CFR 772, October 16, 1997). The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (September 2004) provides the procedure for noise impact determination and abatement. According to these guidelines, traffic noise impacts occur and traffic noise abatement for NCDOT projects must be considered when traffic noise impacts are created by either of these two conditions: • The predicted noise levels approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria for the applicable Activity Category (Table 3-5). The NCDOT defines "approach" to be within TABLE 3-5: NCDOT Definition of Substantial increase in Noise Levels Existing Average Noise Level dBA Leq(hour) Increase (in decibels) from Existing Noise Levels to Future Noise Levels <_50 >15 51 >_14 52 >13 53 >_12 54 >_11 >55 >_10 Source: Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (NCDOT, September 2004) 1 dBA of the Leq (h) value for the activity categories • The predicted design year traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels (23 CFR 772). 3.3.1.2 Existing Noise Environment Noise-sensitive land uses in the study area, consisting of residences and a day care facility, were identified based on preliminary alignment drawings, CIS mapping, and a site visit. Existing noise levels were then determined through short-term measurements at selected sites along Hopson Road on December 13, 2007. Because the Keystone Crossings subdivision was under r r 3-12 Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA A A 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 AFFECTED EMVIRnNMFNT construction during this study, noise measurements do not reflect the ultimate built-out ambient environment which likely would have higher noise levels due to more activity. Therefore, noise measurements were not performed along Church Street. Instead noise measurements performed in the Hopson Road area were used to characterize the existing environment within the subdivision. The measurements consisted of three 20-minute measurements of the A-weighted sound level at representative noise-sensitive locations. All of the measurement sites were selected to represent a range of existing noise conditions along the corridor. Figure 3-3 shows the general location of the monitoring sites (ST-1 through ST-3). For the short-term measurements, two locations (ST2 and ST3) were adjacent to roadways, and one measurement (STI) was performed in an area where roadway traffic noise was not a major contributor. During measurements at ST2 and ST3, traffic volumes and traffic mixes (numbers of cars, medium-sized trucks, and large trucks) also were recorded. The noise measurement results are presented in Table 3-6. As shown in the table, noise levels near Hopson Road were 61.7-63.4 dBA Leq, while noise levels away from roadway traffic were measured at 56.2 dBA Leq. TABLE 3-6: Summary of Existing Noise Measurements Start of Meas. Noise Receptor Measurement Location Description Measurement Time Exposure Date Time (Min.) (dBA) Leg ST1 Undeveloped parcel 300-feet northwest of Hopson Road at-grade crossing. 12-11-07 8:35 20:03 56.2 ST2 Single-Family Residence, 4827 Hopson Road - 50 ft from the road 12-11-07 7:47 20:06 63.4 ST3 Single-Family Residence, 4618 Hopson Road -50ft from the road 12-11-07 9:07 20:03 61.7 Saurce: PBS&1, 2008 3.3.2 AIR QUALITY This section summarizes results of contained in Draft Air Quality Technical Memorandum - Hopson Road Railroad Crossing (STIPProject No. U-4716) (PBS&J, January 2009). 3.3.2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards The federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (42 USC 750(c)), was enacted for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (03), particulate matter, and lead. The project is located in Guilford County, where the pollutants of concern are ozone and fine particulate matter. Table 3-7 lists National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The primary standards are set at a limit intended to "protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety," and the secondary standards are set at a limit intended to "protect the public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects (effects to aesthetics, crops, architecture, etc.)" (Federal Clean Air Act 1990: Section 109). t Hopson Road/Church Street 3-13 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED ENWRONMENT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Hopson Road/Church Street 3-14 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA m® W W 0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT TABLE 3-7: National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Primary Standards Secondary Standards Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time Carbon 9 ppm Monoxide (10 mg/m3) 8-hour 35 ppm None (40 mg/m3) 1-hour Lead 1.5 jig/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary Nitrogen 0.053 ppm - Annual Dioxide (100µg/m3) (Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary Particulate Matter(PMtn) 150 µg/m3 24-hour Same as Primary Particulate Annual Matter (PM2.5) 15.0 µg/m3 (Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary 35 µg/M3 24-hou Same as Primary 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hou Same as Primary Ozone 0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hour's' Same as Primary 1-hou 0.12 ppm (Applies only in limited areas) Same as Primary Annual 0.5 ppm Sulfur Di id 0.03 pp m (Arithmetic Mean) (1300µg/m3) 3-hour ox e 0.14 ppm 24-hour Source: EPA Web site: www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html Notes: (1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year. (2) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. (3) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community- oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 ug/m3. (4) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98? percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 ug/m3 (effective December 17, 2006). (5) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective may 27, 2008). (6) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. (b) As of June 15, 2005 EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 8-hour ozone nonattamment Early Action Compact Areas. Durham County is part of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill ozone region, which is a maintenance area for the 8-hour ozone standard. Durham County also is part of the Raleigh-Durham carbon monoxide region, which is a maintenance area for this pollutant (USEPA Web site: www.ei)a.izov/oar/oagps/greenbk). Durham County is in attainment for nitrogen dioxide, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Additional detailed information regarding these criteria air pollutants can be found in the Draft Air Quality Technical Memorandum - Hopson Road Railroad Crossing (STIP Project No. U-4716), January 2009. 3.3.2.2 Transportation Conformity Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). Conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects funded or approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in areas that do not meet, or r r ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-17 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT previously have not met, NAAQS for ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, or nitrogen dioxide (FHWA Web site: www.fhwa.dot.yov/safetealu/factsheets/conformity.htm). In North Carolina, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality (DAQ) develops the State Implementation Plan SIP, which is the document that describes how North Carolina will maintain or achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Both the Clean Air Act and SAFETEA-LU (Section 6011) require conformity between a proposed transportation system and the SIP. The transportation conformity regulations are intended to ensure that a state does not undertake federally funded or approved transportation projects, programs, or plans that are inconsistent with the state's obligation to meet and maintain the NAAQS. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must show that expected emissions from their transportation system are within the mobile source emission budgets in the applicable SIP. Transportation projects must come from conforming transportation plans/programs, and conforming transportation plans/programs must come from conforming SIPS. A conformity determination demonstrates that the total emissions projected for a plan, program or project are within the emissions limits (budgets) established by the SIP, and that transportation control measures (TCMs), if any, are implemented in a timely fashion. MPO policy boards make initial conformity determinations in metropolitan areas, while State Departments of Transportation (DOTS) usually do so in areas outside of MPOs. Conformity determinations must also be made at the Federal level by US Department of Transportation (USDOT) (FHWA Web site: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/con broc htm). In carbon monoxide and particulate matter non-attainment and maintenance areas, additional localized, or microscale, analysis may be necessary to determine project-level transportation conformity for federally funded or approved highway and transit projects. These projects must come from a currently conforming transportation plan/program. This type of analysis is sometimes referred to as "hot-spot analysis" (FHWA Web site: www.thwa.dot.yov/environment/conformity/con broc htm). 3.3.2.3 Local Ordinances Durham County does not have any pollution control ordinances that regulate air quality for this type of transportation project. 3.3.2.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics The Clean Air Act identified 188 hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list of toxics and identified a group of 21 as mobile source air toxics (MSAT), which are set forth in an EPA file rule Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (66 FR 17235). The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The EPA has also extracted a subset of this of 21 that it now labels as the six priority MSATs. These are benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, diesel particulate matter/organic gases, acrolein and 1,3-butadiene. The FHWA's Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (FHWA, February 2006) advises when and how to analyze MSAT for highway projects. The EPA has issued a number of regulations that will dramatically decrease MSATs through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis, even if Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) increases 64 percent, reductions of 57 percent to 87 percent in MSATs are projected from 2000 to 3-18 Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 AFFECTED Eh'VZRQNMFNT ORMIM 2020, as shown in Exhibit 3-2. As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 2020) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21 and the primary six MSATs. Air toxics analysis is an area of continuing research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health rise of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project specific health impacts from MSAT's are limited. These limitations impede FHWA's ability to evaluate how MSAT health risks should factor into project level impacts. In addition, USEPA has not established regulatory concentration targets for the six relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate for use in the project development NEPA process. EXHIBIT 3-2: Vehicle Miles Traveled vs Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020 VMT Emissions (trillions/year) (tons/year) Benzene DPM+DEOG VMT Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde 1,3-Butadiene Acrolein 600,000 100,000 Source: FHWA Web site: www.fhwa.gov/environment/aiftoxic/vmtmsat202O.htm Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM+ DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and 504 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns. 1 short ton = 907,200,000 mg. 3.3.3 FARMLAND The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) requires all federal agencies to consider the impact of their activities on prime, unique, statewide and locally important farmland soils, as defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (Public Law 97-98, Subtitle 1, Section 1540). The NRCS, in cooperation with State and local agencies, developed a listing of Prime and Statewide Important Farmland of North Carolina. 1 Hopson Road/Church Street 3-19 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 AFFECTED Eh'llIRDA7F9Eh'T Prime Farmland is defined as soils best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops. These soils are favorable for all major crops common to the county, have a favorable growing season, and receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields on an average of eight out of every ten years. Land already in or committed to urban development or water storage is not included. Unique Farmland is defined for production and specific high-value food or fiber crops. It has the special combinations of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and managed. State and Locally Important Farmland is defined by the appropriate State or local government agency as soils important in the agriculture of an individual county. These definitions are based on measures of the soil's capacity to support productive farm activity, not of current cultivation. As discussed in Section 3.8.1, the project site contains the following soil series: Creedmoor sandy loam, Wehadkee silt loam, White stone sandy loam. The Creedmoor sandy loam covers approximately 77.3 acres of the project study area and is listed as Prime Farmland. The Wehadkee silt loam covers approximately 12.5 acres of the project study area and is not included in the Prime and Statewide Important Farmland of North Carolina. The White stone sandy loam covers approximately 73.3 acres of the project study area and is listed as Farmland of Statewide Importance. Although there are two soil types within the project study area that are listed as either Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, the area does not support any existing agricultural operations. 3.3.4 UTILITIES Utilities within the project study area are listed in Table 3-8. Utilities include, gas, electric, cable, and water/sewer providers. 3.3.5 VISUAL QUALITY The project study area is located mainly on a ridge separating the Cape Fear and Neuse TABLE 3-8: Utility Providers Utility Provider Electricity Duke Energy Corporation Water / Sewer City of Durham Water Management/Water and Sewer Natural Gas PSNC Energy Tele hone Time Warner Cable p Verizon Wireless Fiber Optics and Cable Time Warner Cable Source: Durham Chamber of Commerce Web site: www durhamchamber ora/I've/live durham/telephone util't es html River Basins. Elevations within the project study area range from approximately 440 NGVD at the northern end of the project study area, near the NC-54/Page Road intersection, to a low of about 340 feet NGVD near the southern end of the project study area. The viewshed in the project study area consists of a variety of manmade and natural landscape features that include commercial and industrial development, scattered residential lots, pine-dominated woodlots, and pastureland. The landscape immediately surrounding the proposed grade separation and railroad realignment area is rural in nature and generally consists of low density residential development and open fields. No prominent scenic vistas or visually sensitive resources have been identified in the study area. 3.3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous materials sites are regulated under federal laws by the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability r r ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-20 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED ENVIRnNMFNT Act of 1980 (CERCLA). CERCLA, also known as Superfund, was created to provide the authority and a source of funding for cleaning up hazardous substances released into the environment. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is a procedure used to identify and analyze potential environmental risks and liabilities. It has two basic components: a historical records search and public agency file review, and a site inspection. In April 2006, a limited Phase I ESA was prepared for the project and is summarized in the following sections. The ESA is incorporated by reference to this EA. 3.3.6.1 Methodology The purpose of the limited Phase I ESA was to identify existing or potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) affecting the project site that 1) constitute or result in a material violation or potential material violation of any applicable environmental law; 2) impose any material constraints on the operation of the project site or require a material change in the use thereof; 3) require clean-up, remedial action, or other response with respect to hazardous substances or petroleum products; 4) may affect the value of the project site; and 5) may require specific actions to be performed with regard to such conditions and circumstances. 3.3.6.2 Records Search Results Per government records search requirements a search of reasonably ascertainable environmental records was conducted. Database searches and a report of the results were provided by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR). The project site was not listed in any of the following regulatory databases: • National Priority List • Delisted National Priority List • Records of Decisions • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensations, and Liability Information System • No Further Remedial Action Planned • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System - Corrective Action • Emergency Response Notification System • State Hazardous Waste Sites • Voluntary Cleanup Program • Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Sites • Brownfields Projects Inventory The project site was listed in the following regulatory databases. The total number of sites listed in the search radius is included in parentheses. The sites are shown on Figure 3-4. • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System - Generator/Handler (1) • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (2) • Petroleum Storage Tanks (4) Carpenter Body Shop was identified by the EDR database search as a RCRA small quantity generator located one-quarter mile south of the project area on Miami Boulevard in Durham. However, the EDR record indicated the address for the facility as Route I Highway 55 in Morrisville. The actual address of the Carpenter Body Shop is 7204 Carpenter Fire Station Road in Cary, which is approximately seven miles southwest of the project study area. Hopson Road/Church Street 3-21 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-22 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A s m Ll C w °%Q do Ce rr P 'i ? a?Park °O ? D r 0? O y S v D/dp age Rol ?` a a9eR ` Q\ap ? 3 2 / c, o e e?s T ' 1 `% e S = o , 0 ere lRa e Rd 0 ' a 1 pag ' Hopson Ftd 1 1 0; N ' ' C 1 05 U • ' Q L _ Park Knoll Or 1 Emperor Blvd e4 D ,PLSf t c ° ? eA = ? ' ` hS?'•. Surles Ct 1. UST - Central Park West 5001 S Miami Blvd 2. UST - Quality Mart 5203 S Miami Blvd O 3. UST - Triangle BP Rd ? 5202 S Miami Blvd K??Greeµ Z 4. UST - N Telecom Plaza Pa ?? 4600 Emperor Blvd o sza toss c o? 5. LUST- Petula Assoc. Feet N 5927 S Miami Blvd 8 M a w xi v a w RAII DIVMON Legend Hopson Road / Church Street , ® Leaking Under round Stora e Tank Rail Rail and Roadway Improvements STIP PROJECT NO. U-4716 g g Underground Storage Tank -Roads V Study Area © HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES Durham Count Y • •• Church St Extonsion Sa Durham County Map p Printed March 2009 Figure $-4 AFFECTED FNVIRONMENT - Hopson Road/Church Street 3-24 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 1IJ UIEEM1 0 Four Petroleum Storage Tank sites were identified within the search radius from the project area. 0 Two of these sites were also listed in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. ® The Central Park West Property is located approximately one-quarter mile north of the project area ® at 5001 South Miami Boulevard. The facility is reported as having one UST that was removed from ® the site in September 1996. According to the record, the UST has a capacity of approximately 280 gallons and contained diesel fuel. 0 Quality Mart is located approximately one-eighth of a mile north of the project area at 5203 South 0 Miami Boulevard in Durham. The property is reported to have three fiberglass reinforced plastic 0 gasoline USTs in operation (two 8,000 gallon, one 12,000 gallon). There are no reported violations 0 for this property. ® Triangle BP 430 is located on the northeast edge of the project area at 5202 South Miami Boulevard in Durham. There are three 4,000-gallon gasoline USTs reported in current use at the property. ® The site is also listed as having four gasoline USTs that were removed from the ground in 1993 and 0 two USTs that were removed in 1988. The Triangle BP 430 is also listed in the LUST Trust ® database. The LUST Trust database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses incurred while remediating leaking USTs. The LUST Trust 0 database did not indicate the nature of the release or details of any remediation that may have 0 occurred. However, inclusion of the Triangle BP in this database does indicate that some form of 0 remediation occurred. 0 Northern Telecom Plaza is located downgradient of the project site, less than one-half mile east of the project area, at 460 Emperor Boulevard in Morrisville. The facility removed three diesel USTs, 0 one gasoline UST and one trichloroethane UST in 2003. All five UST removals are reported as 0 permanently closed. The facility is also listed in the LUST database and the Incident Management ® Database, which revealed that the leaks from USTs were identified during closure of the tank systems in March 1993. Petroleum contaminated soils were identified at this site. However, the soil 0 was cleaned to residential levels. No closure date for the case file was reported, although a request 0 for closure was made in June 1998. The database record indicated that a Notice of Regulatory Requirements (NORR) was issued by the State in August 2002. No details of the NORR were 0 included in the record. In July 1998, the facility reported to the State an unreported amount of 0 trichloroethane and acetone were released at the site. Groundwater samples were collected and ® identified as contaminated. No case closure date for the incident was reported. In December 2003, the facility reported that a release of approximately 15 gallons of diesel fuel occurred from an 0 emergency generator tank. The incident was reported as a surface spill. No details of cleanup or 0 remediation or closure date for the case file were reported. 0 The Petula Associates site is located on the southern edge of the project area at 5967 South Miami ® Boulevard in Durham. The site was identified as a LUST facility. According to the database record, a 550-gallon orphan UST and petroleum-contaminated soils were discovered on the property in 0 October 1998 during site construction grading. Approximately 50 tons of contaminated soil was 0 excavated and removed from the site. The State granted case closure to the incident in July 1999. 0 3.3.6.3 Site Reconnaissance Results 0 A formal field reconnaissance of the project site was performed on February 1, 2006. The field 0 reconnaissance consisted of visual and/or physical observation of the project site and improvements, adjoining sites, and surrounding area based on visual observations made during the site visit to and 0 from the project site. Unimproved and inaccessible portions of the project site were observed along 0 the perimeter and in a general grid pattern in safely accessible areas. ' Hopson Road/Church Street 0 3-25 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 AFFECTED Eh'VTRDh'MFh'T There was no visible evidence of hazardous substance uses or storage and petroleum products at the project site. Active or abandoned storage tanks and unidentified substance containers were not observed on the project site. The project site did not contain active waste disposal, waste pits, ponds, lagoons, sumps, active septic systems, or active water wells. Drains associated with the residential and commercial building located within the study area were observed. Storm water on the project site currently flows overland to the central portions of the site towards an intermittent stream that drains into an unnamed pond located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project area. A small electrical substation is located east of the rail line and south of Hopson Road. This substation has transformers that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Power is supplied to the transformers and the project site by Duke Power Corporation. Any maintenance and cleanup of leaks or spills from the transformers would be the responsibility of Duke Power Corporation. 3.3.7 MINERAL RESOURCES North Carolina can be divided into three physiographic provinces: the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont, and the Blue Ridge. Each province is characterized by particular types of landforms. As previously noted, the project study area is located within the Piedmont physiographic province, which consists of generally rolling, well-rounded hills and ridges with a few hundred feet of elevation difference between the hills and valleys. The project study area does not contain mineral resources. 3.3.8 FLOODPLAINS A floodplain is a lowland area adjacent to lakes, streams, and rivers that is covered by water during a flood. The rapid rise in the water level inundates the flat, low-lying areas near the water body for extended periods of time. Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. DOT Order 5650.2 contains DOT's policies and procedures for implementing the Executive Order. Agencies are required to make a finding that there is no practicable alternative before taking action that would encroach on a "Base" floodplain of a 100-year flood (USDOT. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineates 100-year (Zone A) and 500-year (Zone B) floodplains on Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBMs) and on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). NFIP maps were consulted to determine potential encroachments of the 100-year floodplain. The 100-year or 500-year floodplain refers to the area along or adjacent to a stream or body of water that is capable of storing or conveying floodwaters during a 100-year or 500-year frequency storm respectively. There are no 100-year floodplains within the project study area, so there is no potential for impacts to any "Base" floodplains. 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Although archaeological and architectural resources are considered in a NEPA analysis, additional procedures for their identification, evaluation, and treatment are contained in a series of federal and State laws and regulations and agency guidelines. Archaeological and architectural resources are 0 ' ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-26 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA r1 ® - -- - UIHAMA ® protected by a variety of laws and their implementing regulations: the most important of these are ® the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended in 2001; the Archaeological and 0 Historic Preservation Act of 1974; and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. Treatment of archaeological and architectural resources for federal projects is also guided by ® Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR ® 800). ® A Section 106 review has been carried out along with the environmental assessment process to ® ensure full consideration of all possible impacts associated with the project. Identification of ® archaeological and architectural resources was conducted according to the requirements of 36 CFR 800 and Section 106 of the NHPA. The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State 0 Historic Preservation office (SHPO) was notified of the desire to initiate coordination with that office. 0 Results of an investigation conducted by the SHPO confirm there were no historic resources that 0 would be affected by the project. Written verification was received from the SHPO by letter dated 0 March 9, 2006, included Appendix C. Subsequent correspondence with the SHPO confirmed there were no known archaeological resources that would be affected by the project (Telephone interview, ® SHPO representative, January 25, 2008). ® The project study area is split between two USGS topographic maps: Southeast Durham and Cary. 0 Site files searches and a review of the USGS topographic maps on file at the HPO were reviewed to determine if any known historic architectural sites are located within the project study area. No 0 known historic resources were found on the maps within the project study area. The closest sites are 0 three sites located on the Cary topographic map. These sites are approximately one-half mile from 0 the southern edge of the project study area. The three sites had been surveyed and are not listed on, nor determined eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. ® 3.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ® The following sections describe the existing conditions of the natural environment within the project 0 area. Described are the physical resources including physiography and soils and water resources, 0 biotic resources including terrestrial and aquatic communities, and jurisdictional topics including 0 waters of the United States and protected species. The following information was summarized from the Natural Resources Technical Report, prepared for the project by EcoScience: A Division of ® PBS&J dated May 2006 and supplemented with a letter dated January 27, 2009. These documents ® are incorporated by reference. 0 3.5.1 SOILS, TOPOGRAPHY, AND GEOLOGY ® The project study area is located within the Triassic Basins ecoregion within the Piedmont ® physiographic province of North Carolina. This ecoregion is characterized by unusual geology of ® unmetamorphosed shales, sandstones, mudstones, siltstones, and conglomerates. Local relief and elevations are relatively low and stream valleys tend to widen. The erodible rocks produce clayey soils with high shrink-swell potential and low permeability, resulting in streams with low base flows. ® The project study area is located mainly on a ridge separating the Cape Fear and Neuse River ® Basins. Elevations within the project study area range from a high of approximately 440 feet A National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the northern end of the project study area, near the NC 54-Page Road intersection, to a low of approximately 340 feet NGVD within the stream channel of an unnamed tributary to Stirrup Iron Creek, near the southern end of the project study area. F M.". TIMM "I"n Hopson Road/Church Street 3-27 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA O AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The project study area is underlain by three soil series: Creedmoor sandy loam, Wehadkee silt loam, and White Store sandy loam. The Wehadkee series is considered hydric in Durham County by the NRCS. The Creedmoor and White Store series are considered non-hydric soils in Durham County. The Creedmoor series with two to ten percent slopes consists of very deep, moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained, very slowly permeable soils that have formed in residuum weathered from Triassic material of the Piedmont uplands. Runoff is moderate, and the shrink-swell potential is low to high in the deeper horizons. Creedmoor soils occupy approximately 77.3 acres on ridge tops and side slopes throughout the project study area. The Wehadkee series consists of very deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils on floodplains along streams that drain from the mountains and Piedmont. They are formed in loamy sediments. Slopes range from zero to two percent. Runoff is very slow and internal drainage is very slow. Permeability is moderate. Most areas are frequently flooded. The shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water is within one foot of the soil surface. Wehadkee soils occur on approximately 12.5 acres along the banks and channels of unnamed tributaries to Stirrup Iron Creek in the southern and eastern portions of the project study area. The White Store series consists of deep, moderately well drained soils on Piedmont uplands. They formed in residuum weathered from Triassic materials. Slopes range from two to 25 percent. Permeability is very slow. Runoff is rapid, and internal water movement is very slow. Shrink-swell potential ranges from low on the surface to very high at a depth of six inches and below. This soil has a perched water table at a depth of one to one and a half feet during the winter and spring. White Store soils occur on approximately 73.3 acres throughout the project study area, on side slopes and ridge tops. 3.5.2 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE 3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Communities Two distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area: pine forest and disturbed/maintained land. These communities, and wildlife expected or observed, are described below. Pine Forest. Approximately 56 acres (34 percent) of the project study area is pine forest. Pine forests occur on uplands, floodplains, and floodplain slopes in the project study area. This community consists of immature and mature, secondary growth forest dominated by loblolly pine (Pines taeda). Some areas of this community appear to be planted pine and have little to no understory composition. The more mature areas of this community are characterized by a closed canopy of loblolly pine with a relatively open understory. A variety of animal species are expected to be found in this community due to its proximity to pastureland, disturbed/maintained land, and small streams and wetlands. Typical species are adapted to a fragmented landscape that consists of both small wooded areas and developed (residential and commercial) spaces. The birds observed within or adjacent to the project study area consist of species in the woodpecker family including the northern flicker (Coloptes auratus) and red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus). Two birds in the Family Paridae (chickadees and titmice) were also observed in the project study area. They are the Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis) and the tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor). Other birds observed in the study area include the eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), the eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and the ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula). Two very common birds of North Carolina found in the project study area are the "' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-28 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ® AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ® American robin (Turdus migratorius) and the blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). A great blue heron ® (Ardea herodias) was observed flying over the project study area. ® Other avian species expected to occur in this community are insectivorous birds such as the yellow- 0 romped warbler (Dendroica coronata), pine warbler (D. pinus), yellow-throated warbler (D. ® dominica), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludouicianus), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) and omnivorous species such as the American crow (Coruus brachyrhynchos), common grackle (Quiscalus ® quiscula), and barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). A predatory bird species expected to occur within the 0 project study area is the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). ® One terrestrial mammal was observed during the site visit, the eastern cottontail (Sylvilogus floridanus). Tracks of other common mammals that were found in the pine community include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus uirginianus) and raccoon (Procyon to tor). Another nocturnal mammal 0 expected to inhabit this community is the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). The gray 0 squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) is expected to occur within the forested portion of the project study area. Another mammal expected to occur within the project study area is the red bat (Lasiurus 0 borealis). 0 Since the pine forest community is surrounded by man-induced disturbance, only a few secretive 0 species of terrestrial reptiles or amphibians are expected to occur within it. None of these species ® were observed during the site visit. Some of the terrestrial reptiles which may occur within this community include turtles such as the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) and skinks and snakes such as the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), southern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortix). Terrestrial amphibians expected to inhabit this community include frogs and salamanders such as the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus). Disturbed/Maintained Land. Approximately 108 acres (66 percent) of the project study area is disturbed/maintained land. This community includes roadside shoulders, powerline rights of way, and residential and commercial lots. Within disturbed/maintained areas, grasses and herbs dominate the vegetation. Representative herbaceous and grass species include fescue (Festuca sp.), 0 dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), clover (7Wfolium sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), multi-flora ® rose, blackberry, common plantain (Plantago major), and dandelion (Taraxicum officionale). A few widely spaced, mature loblolly pines and oaks were observed in the residential areas and along 4 portions of the roadsides. Animal species that occur in disturbed/maintained land are usually those adapted to living in close proximity to humans. Birds observed within disturbed/maintained land include the American robin and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Other bird species expected to be found within the disturbed/maintained portion of the project study area include singers and mimics such as the 0 northern mockingbird (Mimes polyglottos) and brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum). The American 0 goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) and the red-tailed hawk may also occur within this community. Mammal species which may occur within the open portion of the project study area are expected to be small and able to hide easily in grass and shrubby vegetation. These species include rodents such as the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and meadow vole (Microtus pennsyluanicus). Moles and shrews expected within this community are the least shrew (Cryptotis parva) and eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus). The eastern cottontail is also expected to inhabit this area. No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians which may occur within maintained/disturbed land include eastern box turtle, six- O . Hopson Road/Church Street 3-29 Rai/ and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED ENIVIRONFIENT lined racerunner (Cnemidomorphorus sexlineatus), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor), and five-lined skink. 3.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians expected to occur within the streams and pond includes the yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta) and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Visual surveys of the Unnamed Tributaries (UT) revealed no presence of fish. Since most of the streams within the project study area are intermittent, very few fish species are expected to be living in these waters. Fish species that may occur in the streams are the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) and eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has developed a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database to enhance planning and impact analysis in areas proposed by NCWRC as being critical due to the presence of Endangered or Threatened aquatic species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat occurs within or near the project study area. No anadromous fish species are known to occur within or near streams in the project vicinity, nor does Essential Fish Habitat occur in the area. 3.5.3 WATER RESOURCES 3.5.3.1 Groundwater There are no wells within the project study area. The project study area is served by public water resources. Accordingly, groundwater resources within the project study area are not a regulatory or management issue for the proposed action. 3.5.3.2 Surface Waters Streams - The project study area is located primarily within sub-basin 03-04-02 of the Neuse River Basin. The area generally north of Hopson Road and west of the existing NCRR/NS rail line is located in sub-basin 03-06-05 of the Cape Fear River Basin. This area is part of USGS Hydrologic 03020201 (Neuse Basin) and Unit 03030002 (Cape Fear Basin) of the Mid-Atlantic/Gulf Region. The streams within the project study area are all located within the Neuse River Basin. There are seven unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Stirrup Iron Creek, as shown in Figure 3-5. These streams drain the eastern and southern portions of the project study area, flowing south and east and converging flow under NC 54 before exiting the project study area. A sediment basin impounds the headwaters of one of these streams upstream of the railroad. The characteristics of project study area streams are summarized in Table 3-9. The streams are intermittent, with the exception of UT 2 to Stirrup Iron Creek, which has a perennial segment through the project study area. ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-30 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ?Q AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT TABLE 3-9: Stream Characteristics Description Classification Average width (feet) Water Depth (inches) Substrate Observed flow UT 1 to Stirrup Iron Creek (1) R4SB3/4 1-2 3-10 silt/sand/gravel low UT 2 to Stirrup Iron Creek (I,P) R4SB3/4, R3UB1/2 2-5 3-12 sand/ gravel/cobble low UT 3 to Stirrup Iron Creek (1) R4SB4 1-2 2-6 silt/sand low UT 4 to Stirrup Iron Creek (1) R4SB3/4 2-3 3-6 silt/sand low UT 5 to Stirrup Iron Creek (I) R4S84 1-2 3-6 sand low UT 6 to Stirrup Iron Creek (1) R4SB4 1-2 3-6 sand low UT 7 to Stirrup Iron Creek (1) R4SB3/4 2-4 3-10 sand/gravel/cobble low Source: EcoScience, 2006 Notes: P = Perennial stream; I = Intermittent stream; UT= Unnamed Tributary Ponds - One pond lies within the Cape Fear River Basin portion of the project study area. This pond occurs in the far northwestern section of the project study area and is drained by a UT to Burdens Creek that lies outside of the project study area (Figure 3-5). Three other ponds also occur in this area; however they are farm ponds with no outfall into the Cape Fear River Basin. 3.5.3.3 Water Quality The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has assembled a list of impaired water bodies according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired water bodies. An impaired water body is one that does not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. No water bodies occurring within the project study area are listed on the Final 2006 303(d) list (NCDWQ Web site: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdUdocuments/303d Report ndl). Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated Best Usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best Usage Classification of C-Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) has been assigned to all waters within the project study area. Class C waters are freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, other uses not involving human body contact with water, and activities involving human body contact with water where such activities take place on an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental basis. The designation NSW refers to waters needing additional management due to their excessive growth of vegetation resulting from nutrient enrichment. No Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters, Water Supply I, or Water Supply Il waters occur within one mile of the project study area. The NCDWQ has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the State. Water quality for the proposed project study area is summarized in the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan and the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. No data exists to determine whether the tributaries to Stirrup Iron Creek support their designated uses. However, Stirrup Iron Creek is not listed on the Final 2006 Section 303(d) list. With respect to temperature regimes, all water bodies within the project study area are designated as a Warmwater stream. Cape Fear River sub-basin 03-06-05 supports 11 point-source dischargers with a total permitted flow of 32.4 million gallons per day (MGD). Neuse River sub-basin 03-04-02 supports 52 point-source - w r - r t ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-33 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AEEEGTEO ENVIRONMENT dischargers with a total permitted flow of 87 MGD. There are no point-source discharges directly associated with, or upstream of, stream reaches within the project study area. Major non-point sources of pollution for both the Cape Fear and Neuse drainages within the project study area are runoff from roads, the railroad, pastureland, residential yards, and commercial and industrial yards. Polluted runoff has resulted in impaired biological communities, bacteria loading, turbidity, and low dissolved oxygen in streams within the project vicinity. 3.5.4 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES 3.5.4.1 Wetlands Background Information. Section 404 of the CWA prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States", except in accordance with a permit. The term Waters of the United States has broad meaning and incorporates both wetlands and surface waters. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for issuing permits and enforcing permitting requirements under Section 404 of the CWA. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issues the regulations, known as Section 404(6)(1) Guidelines, that the USACE must follow when issuing Section 404 permits. USEPA also participates in the permitting process. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 321-330. In addition, Executive Order 11990 requires that new construction in wetlands be avoided to the extent possible, and that all practical measure be taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands. Water bodies such as rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 Program. By regulation, wetlands also are considered Waters of the United States. Wetlands are described as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (33 CFR 328.3(b)). The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology) in support of jurisdictional determinations. Surveys. Jurisdictional areas within the project study area were delineated and located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology during the period of December 20-21, 2005. Verification of the delineation was completed by USACE representative on January 10, 2006 and NCDWQ representative on January 30, 2006. The wetlands determined to be jurisdictional by the USACE and NCDWQ representatives are listed in the following sections and depicted in Figure 3-5. Streams and ponds are discussed in Section 3.5.3.2. Wetlands in the Proiect Study Area. There are four wetlands determined to be jurisdictional in the project study area. These are adjacent to the UTs to Stirrup Iron Creek, as shown in Figure 3-5. The project study area wetlands exhibit characteristics of palustrine forested and scrub/shrub systems with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation that are seasonally flooded. Wetland vegetation species include loblolly pine, willow oak, red maple, silverling, multi-flora rose, blackberry, soft rush (Juncus effusus), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and sedges (Carex spp.). Evidence of wetland hydrology includes saturated soils, standing water, drainage patterns, and oxidized rhizospheres. All project study area wetlands are headwater systems for the UTs to Stirrup Iron Creek. Wetlands 1 and 2 (Figure 3-5) are small systems that support a mature, secondary growth forest. A small ?' ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-34 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT sediment basin is located at the head of Wetland 2 and was deemed non-jurisdictional. Wetlands 3 and 4 (Figure 3-5) occur in proximity to the power line easement and are scrub/shrub systems dominated by blackberry and multiflora rose. Pond 1 is located in the northwestern portion of the project study area and is the only jurisdictional water within the Cape Fear River Basin. The TABLE 3-10: Wetland and Pond Characteristics majority of the pond and the UT to Burdens Creek (the pond outfall) lie outside of the project study area. Field investigations indicate Pond 1 is a diked/impounded, palustrine system with an unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded. Table 3-10 lists the wetlands and ponds in the project study area. Streams, which are also Waters of the US, are listed in Table 3-9. Wetland Wetland Area (acres) NCDWQ Rating Wetland 1 0.09 46 Wetland 2 0.05 28 Wetland 3 0.04 39 Wetland 4 0.14 41 Wetland Total 0.32 N/A Pond l - Total 0.14 acre N/A Source: EcoScience,2006. Wetland ratings according to NCDWQ worksheets are also presented in Table 3-10. 3.5.4.2 Neuse River Buffer Areas The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers for the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259) provides a designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured parallel to the stream) directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. On January 30, 2006, the NCDWQ representative verified the applicability of the Neuse River Basin Rule to the streams within the project study area. It was determined that UT 3 to Stirrup Iron Creek was the only stream within the project study area where the Neuse River Basin Rule is not applicable. The remaining streams (UT 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to Stirrup Iron Creek) are required to adhere to the Neuse River Basin Rule of a 50-foot wide riparian buffer. Figure 3-5 depicts Zone 1 (0-30 feet) and Zone 2 (30-50 feet) of the buffer as it applies to each of the streams. 3.5.4.3 Protected Species Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance, or officially proposed for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended- The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened", but "closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species." There are three federally protected species listed for Durham County as December 1, 2005. These are bald eagle, Michaux's sumac, and smooth coneflower, and they are described below. Bald eagle. The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than six feet. Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also take birds and small mammals. In Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle) Threatened, Proposed for Delisting Family: Accipitridae Date Listed: March 11, 1967 r r ' Hopson Road/Church Street 3-35 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED ENVIRnNMFNT Inegrim the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May. Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water. Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching. Michaux's sumac. Michaux's sumac is a densely Ehus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub, usually less than two feet high. Small male and female flowers are produced Family: Anacardiaceae during June on separate plants; female flowers are Date Listed: September 28, 1989 produced on terminal, erect clusters followed by small, hairy, red fruits in August and September. Michaux's sumac tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from granite; in the Sandhills, it prefers loamy swales. Michaux's sumac ranges from south Virginia through Georgia in the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont. Habitat for Michaux's sumac exists within the project study area. Both power line right-of-ways and roadside right-of-ways occur within the project study area. These disturbed areas are considered suitable habitat for this plant. However, NCNHP records have no documentation of this species within one mile of the project study area. A directed survey within the project study area for Michaux's sumac was conducted on May 22, 2006. The survey concluded there were no individuals of this species within the project study area Smooth coneflower. Smooth coneflower is a stiffly erect, rarely branched perennial that grows Echinocea laeuigata (Smooth coneflower) up to five feet tall. The coneflower blooms from late Endangered May to July, producing solitary, heads of small Family: Asteraceae purplish disk flowers with long drooping pink to Date Listed: October 8, 1992 purplish ray flowers. This species occurs on calcareous, basic, or circumneutral soils on roadsides, clear cuts, and power line right-of-ways where there is abundant light and little herbaceous competition. Fire-maintained woodlands also appear to provide potential habitat for the coneflower. Habitat for the smooth coneflower is not present in the project study area. The disturbed areas in the project study area contain Creedmoor soils, which are acidic and would not be suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower. NCNHP records have no documentation of this species within one mile of the project study area. 3.5.4.4 Federal Species of Concern The December 1, 2005 USFWS list includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. NCNHP files have no documentation of FSC listed species within the project study area or within one mile of the project study area. FSC species listed for Durham County, along with an assessment of potential habitat for these species within the project study area, are listed in Table 3-11. Hopson Road/Church Street 3-36 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT TABLE 3-11: Federal Species of Concern for Durham Countv Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat State Status Atlantic pigtoe Fusconoia mosoni No E Septima's clubtail Gomphus septimo No SR Yellow lampmussel Lompsilis corioso Yes E Green floater Lasmigono subviridis Yes E Panhandle pebblesnail Somotogyrus virginicus No SR Roanoke bass Ambloplites cavifrons Yes SR Carolina darter-Eastern Piedmont Population Etheostomo collis pop. 2 Yes SC Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus Yes --- Carolina madtom Noturus furiosus No SC (PT) Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum Yes E-SC Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odoroto Yes SR-T Butternut luglons cinerea Yes --- wmce: ccwaence, <uuo. Notes: 'Historic record -thee lement is either extirpated from the county, or there have not been any recent surveys to verify its continued existence. 'Obscure record-the date the element was last observed in the county or quad is uncertain. C = Candidate; E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SR = Significantly Rare; SC = Special Concern; -T = throughout I? 3-37 Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AFFECTED EIVL?TROIVhiENT _ _ - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Hopson Road/Church Street 3-38 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ® ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEa/IFN C - - 1S J ® 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ® 4.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ® 4.1.1 COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS Effects on communities and neighborhoods can include the physical taking of land, homes, and ® businesses that serve community resources; the construction of physical or psychological barriers ® that would result from new transportation facilities that divide or isolate a section of the community; changes in access or travel patterns within a community; or physical intrusions such ® as noise, dust, or visual impacts that can negatively affect a community. As discussed in ® Chapter 2, many alternatives were eliminated from consideration in part due to unacceptable ® community impacts that were identified by citizens during public workshops. 4.1.1.1 No-Build Alternative ® Community and neighborhood impacts would occur under the No-Build Alternative. As the ® surrounding area continues its pace of residential and commercial development Hopson Road, ® NC/54 and Church Street will experience increasing traffic congestion. Increased congestion will cause delays and exacerbate existing unsafe conditions at the two at-grade rail crossings and at the ® NC 54/Church Street intersection. The potential for accidents would continue to rise for the rail ® crossings and the dangerous roadway intersection at NC 54/Church Street would be used by higher ® numbers of vehicles. Increased congestion would also result increased risk for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along Hopson Road. ® 4.1.1.2 Recommended Alternative ® Two neighborhoods are the primary focus of analysis for potential project-related impacts. The Keystone Crossing neighborhood is completely within the project study area, while the Hopson ® Road neighborhood is bisected by the study area boundary. The Recommended Alternative is not ® expected to divide or isolate either neighborhood. ® Keystone Crossing Neighborhood ® As stated previously, the design of Church Street in the residential area of Keystone Crossing has ® been planned to safely accommodate the projected vehicular traffic. The existing section of Church 0 Street (currently named Keystone Park Drive), was constructed by the developer of the Keystone subdivision, with the understanding that this would ultimately be a through connection from ® Church Street to Hopson Road, with NCDOT initially being the indicated builder of the extensions ® on each end. ® The Keystone Crossing subdivision would experience increased traffic with the connection and A extension of Church Street north to Hopson Road. Residents who participated in public workshops have commented on the strengths of community interaction within the subdivision, particularly for 0 children who have the opportunity to cross internal streets easily due to low traffic volumes. A The existing section of roadway through Keystone Crossing includes sidewalks, the proposed ® extension also would include sidewalks, and there are striped pedestrian crossing locations in the ® neighborhood. Also, the extension and connection of Church Street would maintain the existing lower speed limits through the neighborhood, and would be consistent with area transportation and ® land use plans. The need for additional pedestrian crossings will be examined further during final 0 design. A Hopson Road/Church Street ® 4-1 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQL/ENCES Hopson Road Neighborhood The Hopson Road neighborhood will not experience adverse impacts due to the proposed project. This neighborhood is already subject to high traffic volumes and as stated previously, pedestrian access does not facilitate a high degree of resident interaction. The Hopson Road neighborhood is instead expected to experience positive project-related effects due to the improvements to the NC 54/Hopson Road intersection, the elimination of the Hopson Road at-grade rail crossing, and the widening of Hopson Road. This neighborhood would experience benefits from improvements to existing traffic congestion on Hopson Road as well as improved operations at the NC 54/Hopson Road intersection. This would benefit residents making local trips and would provide improved access for deliveries and emergency vehicles. The elimination of the at-grade crossing would improve safety for local motorists and will eliminate backups at the rail crossing. The construction of sidewalks along Hopson Road would provide safe pedestrian walkways and the elimination of train horns associated with the removal of the existing at-grade rail crossings would improve the quality of life by eliminating this noise source. 4.1.2 RELOCATIONS Public Law 91-646, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, commonly called the Uniform Relocation Act, is the primary law for acquisition and relocation activities on federal or federally assisted projects such as the Hopson Road/Church Street project. The rules provide uniform policy and procedures for the acquisition of real property by all agencies that receive financial assistance for any program or project of the United States Government. If federal funds are used in any phase of the program or project, the rules of the Uniform Relocation Act apply. The NCDOT Right of Way Branch is responsible for the acquisition of land and right of way used for construction and improvements of all roads and highways which are part of the State Highway System. 4.1.2.1 No-Build Alternative Since there would be no construction activities under the No-Build Alternative there would be no relocation or displacement impacts. 4.1.2.2 Recommended Alternative There would be no relocations or displacements required under the Recommended Alternative. NCDOT prepared a Relocation Report dated February 2, 2009, included in Appendix B. The report did not identify any displacements or relocations. However, the report did note the potential impact to Creekstone Creative School if land is taken from the front of the school for right of way. Creekstone Creative School is a privately run child care center located at 4823 Hopson Road adjacent to the railroad crossing at Hopson Road. Outdoor play space is provided in the front of the building facing Hopson Road. Outdoor play space for daycare facilities is regulated by Chapter 110 of the NC General Statutes: Child Care Facilities (5/2005) and NC Administrative Code Title 10A, Health and Human Services Chapter 9 - Child Care Rules (July 1, 2008). Under these regulations, daycare facilities are required to provide a minimum of 75 square feet per child of outdoor play space. Mr' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-2 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ® ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQIIFN vc -_u .,.fit ® Based on the current designs, it appears land from the front of the daycare would be required for o right of way, but not the fenced-in play area, so it is not expected that the daycare would be relocated. Encroachment on the daycare property for right of way would be minimized to the ® extent possible during final design. ® 4.1.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 0 4.1.3.1 No-Build Alternative No direct social or community impacts are expected to occur to the community within the study ® area under the No-Build Alternative. Q 4.1.3.2 Recommended Alternative ® The only community resource in the project study area is the privately-owned Creekstone Creative 0 School daycare located at 4823 Hopson Road. Implementation of the Recommended Alternative 0 could encroach upon this facility, as described in Section 4.1.2.2. During final design efforts will be made to shift the project alignment in order to avoid encroachment onto the Creekstone Creative ® School. 0 There are no publicly-owned parks, Section 4(f), or Section 6(f) resources within the project study area. 0 4.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 0 In February 1994, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 which requires federal programs or programs receiving federal funding to address issues of environmental justice. 0 "Environmental Justice" refers to a range of issues related to human health and the environment 0 relevant to minority and low-income populations. 0 In April 1997, the USDOT issued the USDOT Order on Environmental Justice to Address ® Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (USDOT Order 5610.2) to summarize and expand upon the requirements of Executive Order 12898 on 0 environmental justice (FHWA Web site: www.fhwa.dot.eov/environment/eiustice/dot ord htm). ® According to DOT Order 5680. 1, a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low- income population is an adverse effect that "(1) is predominantly borne by a minority and/or a low- 0 income population, or (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population 0 and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered 0 by the non-minority population and/or low-income population-" 0 Minority and low-income groups are often located in areas already experiencing the effects of multiple development projects resulting in social and/or environmental degradation. These areas 0 are likely to be adversely affected by existing industrial, commercial or transportation facilities. 0 Populations in these areas are often not politically organized sufficiently to prevent further adverse ® development. Typically project impacts could affect areas that are vulnerable due to these factors. Impacts that occur in these areas are likely to be considered more severe than the same impacts 0 that would occur in areas not already subject to these conditions. 0 4.1.4.1 No-Build Alternative 0 No construction activities would occur under the No-Build Alternative. Therefore there would be no Environmental Justice impacts. ® P. , M. Hopson Road/Church Street 0 4-3 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 ENWRONWNTAL CONCEOL/EN .EC 4.1.4.2 Recommended Alternative Based upon a review of the Census data and a project site visit, there is not a high percentage of minority or low-income populations in the project study area. As such, the project would not disproportionately impact any special populations identified in the Environmental Justice requirements. 4.1.5 ECONOMIC EFFECTS 4.1.5.1 No-Build Alternative No construction activities would occur under the No-Build Alternative; therefore there would be no adverse economic effects. 4.1.5.2 Recommended Alternative The project would not result in any major economic gains or losses in the area. Implementation of the Recommended Alternative would decrease the average delay time per vehicle at the intersections within the project study area compared to the No-Build Alternative (Section 1.8). This decrease could benefit local businesses by enabling customers better access to their facilities. However, the closure of the Church Street intersection with Miami Boulevard will lengthen travel distances between the subdivisions along Church Street and destinations on or requiring access to Miami Boulevard, offsetting travel time savings for these trips. However, should encroachment onto the Creekstone Creative School be necessary, short-term economic impacts may occur. Customers accessing the daycare may experience an increase in travel time during construction. NCDOT will plan construction to minimize impacts to the daycare. 4.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 4.2.1 LAND USE 4.2.1.1 No-Build Alternative There would be no impact to land use or zoning under the No-Build Alternative. Existing land use would not change, and current patterns of development that are consistent with zoning regulations would continue under this alternative. 4.2.1.2 Recommended Alternative Implementation of the Recommended Alternative would consist of the realignment of a rail line, extension of a roadway, and closure of two rail crossings. These activities do not conflict with the planning guidelines outlined in the Durham Comprehensive Plan and are consistent with zoning designations for the project study area. Direct land use impacts anticipated under the Recommended Alternative would consist of the conversion of land that is privately owned to transportation use due to acquisitions of right of way needed for the construction of the alternative. Property subject to acquisition currently consists of the following land uses: residential, commercial, office and institutional, and light industrial. 'o ' ' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-4 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ® ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES a 0 4.2.2 TRANSPORTATION PLANS ® 4.2.2.1 No-Build Alternative ® The No-Build Alternative would not be consistent with the NCDOT 2009-2013 STIP. ® 4.2.2.2 Recommended Alternative ® The proposed project is included in the NCDOT 2009-2013 STIP as an unfunded project. ® 4.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ® 4.3.1 NOISE ® 4.3.1.1 No-Build Alternative ® There would be no change to the noise environment resulting from the No-Build Alternative, and ® this alternative would not create noise impacts. ® 4.3.1.2 Recommended Alternative ® Procedure for Predicting Noise Levels. Because this project includes both a roadway and a rail component, noise level analysis has been performed in accordance with Transit Noise and ® Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, May 2006); Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, (FHWA, 1995), and Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (NCDOT, September 2004). ® The steps used for predicting future noise levels at sensitive receptors consisted of the following: 1) obtained mapping and aerial photography at a sufficient scale to show the project location and alternatives; 2) identified sensitive receptors through the review of maps and field visits; 3) ® estimated existing noise levels through noise measurements and noise modeling, 4) estimated ® future noise levels; 5) compared estimated future noise levels to FHWA, NCDOT and FTA noise ® impact criteria to assess whether a noise impact is anticipated; and 6) assessed the relative contribution to overall noise levels by automobiles and trains separately. This analysis considers the impact of noise from three sources in the estimation of future noise ® impacts: automobiles, trains, and train horns. Three separate noise models were used to ® characterize the existing and future noise environment: ® For automobile traffic, FHWA's Traffic Noise Model® (TNM®), Version 2.5, released in 2004, ® was used to generally assess the extent of automobile traffic noise contours in the study area. ® • For passenger and freight rail traffic, in addition to automobile traffic, FTA's CREATE Freight Noise and Vibration Model was used. Although the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ® has jurisdiction over freight train-related noise levels, the FRA relies on FTA's noise impact ® procedures for rail noise modeling. ® Finally, FRA's Horn Noise Model to calculate the distance from the rail line to existing 65 ® Ldn horn-noise contours. Any receptors falling within the 65 Ldn contour would be 0 classified as impacted by train horn noise. ® Roadway Noise Contours. FHWA's highway noise prediction computer model, TNM®, was used to perform noise computations O O Fly ?M 0 ' Hopson Road/Church Street O 4-5 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ,® • - • • Chavter 4 Based on the types of land uses present along Hopson Road and Church Street, FHWA NAC Categories B and C are appropriate for the assessment of potential noise impacts. For these two land use categories, NAC standards are 67 dBA and 72 dBA respectively. As stated previously, contours for the "approaching" impact levels have been defined by NCDOT as within 1 dBA of the 67 and 72 dBA levels. Table 4-1 identifies the sensitive receptors that are within the respective 66 dBA and 71 dBA contours. As shown in Table 4-1, receptors ST2, ST3, Rl, R2, R5, and R6 are within the 71 dBA contour. Receptors R4, R7, and R8 are within the 66 dBA contour. Receptors R9, R10, Rl 1, R12 and R13 do not fall within either impact contour. TABLE 4-1: Year 2030 Noise Contours - Recommended Alternative Roadway/Se ment g Distance to 71 dBA Contour* Receptors within 71 dBA Contour Distance to 66 dBA Contour Receptors within 66 dBA Contour Hopson Road Miami Blvd. to Church St. 86 ft ST2, R1, R2 157 ft None Church St. to Distribution Dr. 8o ft ST3, R4, R6 152 ft R5 West of Distribution Dr. Within 14 it None 152 ft R7, R8 Keystone Crossing Church Street (midway north) Within 14ft None SOft R10 Church Street (midway south) Within loft None Within loft None Source: PBS&1,2008. Notes: `TNM could not calculate noise levels within 14 feet of the roadway's centerline. Train Noise. FRA has made available on its web site (www.fra.dot.eov/us/content/167) a supplemental freight rail analysis spreadsheet that was used for this project. Developed by Harris, Miller, Miller Hanson (HMMH) for the Chicago Rail Efficiency and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) program using FTA procedures, the CREATE© model allows for input from up to eight different noise sources and noise-sensitive receptor data to calculate Leq and Ldn noise levels. The basic steps for using the CREATE© model are as follows (CREATE© Railroad User Guide, 2006): • Input Noise-Sensitive Receptor Data -Receptor name, FTA land use category, distance to sources, intervening building rows or barriers. • Input Noise Sources - Automobiles on nearby roadways, trains on nearby rail lines. • Input Noise Source Activity - Vehicles per hour, cars/locomotives per train, duration of trains and speeds. • Input Noise Source Details - Percentage of wheel flats, jointed track, embedded track, and aerial structures. • Output Noise Levels - Hourly-equivalent noise level (Leq) and day-night noise level (Ldn). The first scenario examined in this study consisted of the analysis of future noise levels for trains only. This modeling was performed to determine the overall contribution of trains to noise levels in the study area. This analysis was performed under the assumption that the relatively low number of the trains traveling through the project study area (6 freight trains and 4 commuter trains per 24-hour period) would not constitute a major contribution to the noise environment. -' r r' Hopson Road/Church Street 11 4-6 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 EI YX=MEIVTAL CONSFQUF 'CES NEWIMM, Table 4-2 presents the results of the CREATED model below excluding automobile traffic. As anticipated, noise levels are highest for those receptors nearest the rail alignment: Rl, ST2, and ST3. It is apparent that many of the noise levels, particularly in the Keystone Crossings subdivision, are not much higher than the background ambient environment. Because the rail line carries only 4 passenger trains and 6 freight trains per day through the corridor, and train traffic is not projected to increase substantially, rail noise would be a lesser contributor to the existing and future noise environments. Train Horn Noise. Train horns produce an average of about 104 dB at 100 feet. Because the at- grade crossings in the project study area would be removed, trains will not need to use horns and existing horn noise would not occur in the future. This would be a noise benefit to the environment. TABLE 4-2: Existing and Future Rail Noise eceptor - Location Land Use Type/ Category # of Building Rows Between Rail and Receptor Distance to Proposed Rail Line (feet) Predicted Ldn Predicted Daytime leq ST2 - 4827 Hopson Rd Residence/2 0 840 53 48 ST3 - 4618 Hopson Rd Residence/2 0 960 52 47 RI -4823 Hopson Rd Pre-school/3 0 690 54 49 R3-4618 Hopson Rd Residence/2 0 1275 50 42 R4-4603 Hopson Rd Residence/2 0 1515 49 44 R5 -4528 Hopson Rd Residence/2 0 1690 49 43 R6-4517 Hopson Rd Residence/2 0 1715 49 43 R7-4511 Hopson Rd Residence/2 0 2010 47 42 R8-4503 Hopson Rd Residence/2 0 2170 47 41 R9 - Keystone Crossings Residence/2 3 895 45 40 R10- Keystone Crossings Residence/2 4 665 45 35 R11- Keystone Crossings Residence/2 0 175 63 58 R12 - Keystone Crossings Residence/2 0 175 63 58 R13-Keystone Crossings Residence/2 0 540 56 51 Source: PBS&1,2008. Vehicular and Train Noise Impacts. According to guidance provided by FTA, under specific circumstances noise impact from a mass transit or rail project should be determined using FHWA's assessment procedures and noise abatement criteria instead of PTA procedures and guidelines. This applies to projects located in an area where roadway noise predominates throughout the day and night. In some cases, both FHWA and FTA methods should be used, such as when both highway and transit/rail cause significant noise, but at different times of day. (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006). Vehicular traffic noise is the dominant noise source along Hopson Road and Church Street, while rail noise is the dominant noise source for homes in the Keystone Crossings subdivision closest to the rail line (represented by receptors Rl I and R12). Therefore, predicted noise levels for receptors RI l and R12 were compared to the FTA/FRA noise impact criteria (presented in Ldn) and predicted noise levels for the remaining receptors were compared to the FHWA noise abatement criteria. As shown in Table 4-3 under the Recommended Alternative, vehicular traffic noise levels are predicted to be between 70 and 73 dBA Leq for receptors ST2, ST3, RI, R4, R5 and R6. These receptors are located on Hopson Road between Miami Boulevard and Distribution Boulevard. West rr' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-7 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE- of Distribution Boulevard along Hopson Road, noise levels are expected to be 70 dBA Leq at R7 and 71 dBA Leq at R8. All receptors along Hopson Road, with the exception of R3 (the receptor farthest from Hopson Road), would experience noise levels that exceed the NAC criteria for impacts. These eight receptors represent seven residences and one day-care facility. Most of these impacted receptors, except for R7, already experience existing traffic noise that exceeds the FHWA NAC. There are five representative receptors in the Keystone Crossings subdivision; three adjacent to Church Street (119, R10, and R13) and two adjacent to the railroad tracks (RI I and R12) (Table 4-3). Noise increases along Church Street within the Keystone Crossings subdivision are anticipated due to projected traffic increases associated with the project. As discussed in Section 2.4.1 traffic volumes on Church Street are expected to be 7,600 vehicles per day along a stretch of road that currently carries local subdivision traffic. Under a No-Build scenario where the NC 54/Church Street intersection is still open, local traffic would be limited to 3,900 vehicles within the subdivision. Residences represented by R10 (approximately 41 residences) and receptor R13 (approximately representing 33 housing units) would be impacted by future traffic noise. These receptors are directly adjacent to the existing portion of Church Street. The predicted noise level is 66 dBA Leq fore both receptors which is a 10 dBA increase over modeled existing noise levels. These increases would result in violations of FHWA noise abatement criteria. Receptors Rll and R12 would not be impacted by vehicular noise, nor would there be an impact from rail noise based on FTA criteria. Noise Abatement Measures. Several receptors in the project area are projected to be impacted by vehicular traffic noise. None are predicted to be impacted by rail noise. Since there are no impacts anticipated from the rail improvements, mitigation for rail noise does not need to be considered. Therefore, the noise abatement discussion below focuses on mitigation measures for vehicular traffic noise. Because the closure of the Church Street crossing and intersection, and the underpass of the NCRR rail line by Hopson Road are site-specific, there are limited opportunities for adjusting the roadway alignments. Traffic system management alternatives which limit vehicle type, speed, volume, and time of operations are often effective noise abatement measures. However, these types of measures are not considered appropriate for this project due to their effect on the capacity and level of service of the Recommended Alternative. The construction of roadway noise barriers would not be feasible for the Recommended Alternative. Noise barriers require uninterrupted structures for the entire length of the affected area for an insertion loss to be realized. Because roadway noise impacts in the project area would occur in residential areas where roadway access is required for each individual home, the construction of long uninterrupted sound walls would not be possible. T Hopson Road/Church Street 4-8 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA I c R o a (O l0 N (0 10 (0 f0 (O lO - c c F _E E Z a N \ Q n. a3O'" S O W v a m ° v v v v v o v ? ? v LL V ?+ Y } } Z Y > > } > Z Y C C > G C Z V E rv .+ m N v v vi vi vi n ? ? ? w V C d d ? J y d N .y N .y O rl m 0 .y m t0 l0 l0 t0 a? r n n ? n n r n n ?o ? m m ? ` 5 a M LL d •O Z LI y v T !E w d m ~ o o r n n ry m n ?0 m n m in N ° .n N « 6 1 7 V d C d ? d y `-' y O O O1 01 l0 n w vl \D lD \D t0 tD l0 ? • e t N n r ?o vi ?c ?c ? ? ? in ? in m m x W > O 2 y m m V Y V y+ C O O N ? lD w ti .'1 w 0 ? N ? ? N N ? ... V1 Vt Vl r-I w r t0 O1 r Ol vl N m ul ? W C N A d C O' O' O' Q Q U O' O' Q U Q C C Q d ? Z C E J ' J J J LL ` w r m ?n a m m rv .v o ?n m m .+ ? ?_ o v v v a a v v o a a m ?o ?c .n ? w CI ` ? ? pp d d o ? y jp N C1 w ? [L w w (D m m w m V U m v v o v d d v v a v v v d v ?\ m d a u u V u y y y y u u y u V y J 6 tt d C C t C C C C C C C C C C C > ? d - - d y d d d - d d d W d d d d r a o ,n v a v o a v - o -o a a v w w ? v v w a w v v v v a v z c a rc ? c z ¢ z o: z c o: ¢ C ? - O ? - m ? s z v a a a ? a a y C C z C c C o: C o: C ¢ C z C z C O J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0- o. n n n n n c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v c o 0 0 0 rv , -+ m w m w n . -+ m > i. > > m m o o m w a n a ? a o o e e o v Y ' ? Y c Y ' c ? _ y V N f Y1 ' O O N N m d r F . y m a ? ? n w L .- + . -+ ? . -? 2 ti2 G v1 V t 5 C C K 5 C - - K U ¢ V K U X U N A a cu O 2 m d d .O a m C W m H L W a i N w ( 1 c y L E ? C ? 0 u E > j a = r `n 13 m o ' - c 3 oa ? m m = K E a m O T m Y Y L O a a m _ v 9 v o a C O O C 6 O d ? a O q ? t z ? o 3 ? a i a ? N v O E _v W d y O C q C C W E E v ? n o v o ? t o i 3 ? y o c v - a - o v E a v '^ v N A N ? $ E a 3 C ? N O m - c q O L y O W N 2 > ? W > v N v c 0 N y C o E u C p 7 m ? 5 c y n a A v m ? z° ? „ ENVIRONMENTAL .ON QIIEN 4.3.2 AIR QUALITY 4.3.2.1 No-Build Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative traffic conditions at the worst-case intersection within the project study area (Hopson Road/NC 54) would continue to operate at LOS F. Therefore future No-Build air quality impacts will be very similar to those under the Recommended Alternative. 4.3.2.2 Recommended Alternative Criteria Pollutants and Transportation Conformity. The project is located in Durham County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the Raleigh-Durham maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as moderate nonattainment area for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was redesignated as maintenance for CO on September 18. 1995. The area was designated nonattainment for 03 under the eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was redesignated as maintenance for 03 under the eight-hour standard on December 26, 2007. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Durham County. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2009- 2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity determination on the LRTP and TIP on 6/15/09. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses. The project is included in the TIP, but not in the LRTP due to an administrative oversight. An administrative change is being processed by the MPO so that the project will be included in the LRTP. Once the administrative change is made in November 2009, the project will be in regional conformity. As mentioned previously, in carbon monoxide and particulate matter nonattainment and maintenance areas, additional localized analysis may be necessary to determine project-level transportation conformity for federally funded or approved highway and transit projects. The carbon monoxide hot-spot analysis for this project is discussed in the section below. Localized Carbon Monoxide Hot-Soot Analysis. In accordance with 40 CFR 93.116, a project must not cause or contribute to any new localized CO violations, or increase the frequency or severity of any existing CO violations in CO non-attainment and maintenance areas. A quantitative hot-spot analysis is required in the following cases (40 CFR 93.123): (i) For projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified in the applicable implementation plan as sites of violation or possible violation; (ii) For projects affecting intersections that are at Level of Service D, E, or F, or those that will change to Level of Service D, E, or F because of increased traffic volumes Hopson Road/Church Street 4-10 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 ENVIRONMENTA ON Q11EIV F 0 0 related to the project; 0 (iii) For any project affecting one or more of the top three intersections in the non- 0 attainment or maintenance area with highest traffic volumes, as identified in the ® applicable implementation plan; and ® (iv) For any project affecting one or more of the top three intersections in the non- attainment or maintenance area with the worst level of service, as identified in the 0 applicable implementation plan. 0 The NC 54/Hopson Road intersection was modeled to assess the possibility of local CO emission 0 impacts because the project qualifies for modeling under category (ii). Based on the 2030 traffic ® projections for the project, under the Build scenario the NC 54/Hopson Road intersection is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) F during both the AM and PM peak periods (U-4716 0 Hopson Road Capacity Analysis Report: Durham County, NC, 2008). 0 The hot-spot analysis was conducted in accordance with the User's Guide to CAL3QHC Version 2.0: 0 A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections (EPA, 0 September 1995). Standard methodology and model meteorological inputs were taken from Air ® Quality Guidelines for Environmental Documents (FHWA North Carolina Division, August 2007) and Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities (North Carolina 0 Department of Environment and Natural Resources, September 2007). 0 Model inputs also were derived from the NCOT Transportation Planning Branch's web site on 0 emissions calculations (www.ncdot.ory/doh/iireconstruct/tpb/services/air html). Durham County is 0 listed as an urban area in these calculations. Emission factors and speeds for an urban principal 0 arterial were used in the model since this most closely matches the NC 54's classification. 0 Traffic analysis was performed by Gibson Engineers using the latest designs for lane ® configurations and traffic operations in 2030 at the Hopson Road/Miami Boulevard intersection. ® The 2030 traffic volumes were combined with the 2005 emission factors in order to produce the highest possible values for CO emissions. In reality, it is unlikely these CO levels will be reached 0 because emission factors are projected to improve between 2005 and 2030, due to EPA regulations 0 for vehicle engines and fuels. The highest modeled value of CO at any of the receptors was 11.5 0 ppm for the 1-hour standard and 8.1 ppm for the 8-hour standard, at a receptor in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. Both these values are below the 35 ppm 1-hour and 9 ppm 8-hour 0 NAAQS. The proposed project would not cause or contribute to any new localized CO violations or 0 increase the frequency or severity of any existing CO violations. 0 Qualitative Impact Assessment for Mobile Source Air Toxics The FHWA has developed a 0 tiered approach for analyzing MSATs in NEPA documents. According to criteria included in FHWA MSAT guidance, this project falls into the category of "Projects with Low Potential MSAT Effects" 0 (FHWA, 2006, Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents). 0 The purpose of Hopson Road-Church Street project is to improve safety conditions by removing two 0 at-grade rail crossings. It will also improve traffic by routing traffic from Church Street to Hopson ® Road in order to use the railroad grade separation and widening Hopson Road. This project will improve operations for the highways and railroads without adding substantial new capacity or 0 likely to meaningfully increase emissions. 0 The project will not have any effect on traffic volumes or vehicle mix. The project will route more 0 traffic through one railroad grade separation and intersection, traffic that now uses two at-grade ® railroad crossings and intersections. The MSAT emissions are not expected to have any ' Hopson Road/Church Street 0 4-11 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 ? ? • ? ? ? - • ? • ? Chapter 4 meaningful change with construction of this project because there will not be an increase in speeds, vehicle mix or VMT. Also, the elimination of two at-grade railroad crossings will reduce the amount of vehicles idling while trains pass, which is likely to reduce the amount of MSAT emissions where the Church Street grade crossing is closed. There are no vulnerable populations such as schools, nursing homes or hospitals located near the project. Moreover, EPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSATs to decline significantly over the next 20 years. Even after accounting for a 64 percent increase in VMT, FHWA predicts MSATs will decline in the range of 57 percent to 87 percent, from 2000 to 2020, based on regulations now in effect, even with a projected 64 percent increase in VMT. This will both reduce the background level of MSATs as well as the possibility of even minor MSAT emissions from this project (FHWA, 2006, Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents). Construction Air Ouality Impacts. Provided applicable standards and ordinances for open burning and dust are followed, as described below, air quality impacts due to construction of the proposed project are expected to minor and short-term. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project site, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be accomplished in accordance with applicable laws, local ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15A NCAC 02D.1903. For construction in Durham County, open burning, if allowed, will require a permit in accordance with the Durham County Code of Ordinances Section 16-13. During construction, measures will be taken to reduce dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists and area residents. These dust suppression measures may include watering unpaved work areas and covering stockpiled materials. 4.3.3 FARMLAND 4.3.3.1 No-Build Alternative There would be no impacts to farmland under the No-Build Alternative. 4.3.3.2 Recommended Alternative There is no cultivated farmland present in the project study area, so there are no potential impacts to farmland as a result of the project. 4.3.4 UTILITIES 4.3.4.1 No-Build Alternative There would be no impact to existing utilities under the No-Build Alternative. 4.3.4.2 Recommended Alternative As noted in Section 3.3, the project area is served by Duke Energy, the City of Durham Water Management, PSNC Energy, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon Wireless. The Recommended Alternative would connect to these utility systems consistent with utility provider requirements. Utility modifications would need to be evaluated in more detail during final design. ' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-12 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 EN'VIRQNMEN'TA ONC QJ1=C-- 0 0 Utilities would be avoided, relocated, and/or reinforced as necessary during construction activities ® to prevent damage to utility systems and to minimize disruption and degradation of utility service to local customers. 0 0 4.3.5 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 0 4.3.5.1 No-Build Alternative 0 There would be no change, and therefore no impact to, the visual or aesthetic environments under 0 the No-Build Alternative. 0 4.3.5.2 Recommended Alternative 0 The project proposes to realign the railroad and provide a grade separation under the railroad 0 crossing, and minor changes in the visual landscape would occur. The visibility of the proposed 0 improvements would depend on the location of the viewer. However, the inclusion of treatments ® such as coloring of structural elements, buffer areas, and landscaped screening into a project design can obscure views of transportation features. 0 Although there are no prominent scenic vistas or visual resources that would be affected by the 0 project, and no substantial adverse visual effects are anticipated to result from the project, it is the 0 policy of the NCDOT to include aesthetic features in its roadway designs. 0 4.3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 0 0 4.3.6.1 No-Build Alternative 0 There would be no construction activities under the No-Build Alternative therefore hazardous material impacts would not occur. ® 4.3.6.2 Recommended Alternative ® Although several sites with a potential to emit hazardous waste are located within the ® vicinity of the project study area, no significant recognized environmental conditions were identified that would present a likely negative environmental impact. However, the ® Triangle BP facility, located at the northeastern edge of the project area, was identified in the ® leaking underground storage tank (LUST) TRUST database. This listing indicates that the ® Triangle BP site was reimbursed by the State to cleanup petroleum contamination resulting from leaking tanks. Although no details of the nature of the release or remediation activities that ® followed were provided in the database record, inclusion of the facility in this database does ® indicate that some form of remediation occurred. Based on the Triangle BP's distance to the ® project site, it is not likely to have a significant impact to the project. Should the project require acquisition of the LUST Trust site or land disturbance within the immediate vicinity of it, further ® investigation would be necessary. ® 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ® There would be no construction activities under the No-Build Alternative therefore there would be 0 no impacts to archaeological or historic resources under this alternative. ® There are no archaeological or historic architectural resources within the project study area. 0 SHPO conducted a review of the project and in a letter dated March 9, 2006, confirmed this finding and provided clearance for the project (Appendix Q. As such, impacts to these resources ® ". 1M' Hopson Road/Church Street ® 4-13 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ENVIRONMENTAL CO&=UEN F- - , :I77if would not occur with implementation of the Recommended Alternative. 4.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 4.5.1 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE 4.5.1.1 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not impact terrestrial or aquatic natural communities or wildlife. 4.5.1.2 Recommended Alternative Project activities are expected to result in permanent impacts to natural communities. Development of the Recommended Alternative would result in the loss of approximately 3.5 acres of Pine Forest and 16.1 acres of Disturbed/Maintained Land. As previously noted, no Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat occurs within or near the project study area. No anadromous fish species are known to occur within or near streams in the project vicinity, nor does Essential Fish Habitat occur in the area. As such, there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters required for this project. 4.5.2 WATER RESOURCES 4.5.2.1 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not impact water resources. 4.5.2.2 Recommended Alternative As discussed in Section 3.5.4, there is one pond within the Cape Fear River Basin portion of the project study area. The project study area also contains seven unnamed streams. Stormwater runoff from roadways and rail lines carries quantities of silt, heavy metals, petroleum products, nitrogen, and phosphorous, which can potentially degrade water quality and aquatic habitat integrity. The effects on water quality depend on the size of the waterways crossed, the number of such crossings, amount of impervious surface, and the season of construction. Streams with low flow are more severely affected since they have less volume to dilute the runoff. However, construction during periods of low precipitation can result in reduced impacts since stormwater does not carry the pollutants downstream. The Recommended Alternative crosses three unnamed streams. Short-term impacts on water quality within the project study area may result from soil erosion and sedimentation from areas disturbed by construction of the project. Uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation can potentially destroy aquatic algae, eliminate benthic (bottom-dwelling) macroinvertebrate habitat, eradicate fish spawning habitat, and remove food resources for many stream species. Construction impacts to water quality may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but also may affect downstream communities. Long-term impacts on water quality also are possible due to particulates, heavy metals, organic matter, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and bacteria that are often found in highway runoff. In accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (GS Chapter 113A, Art. 4), as amended, and NC Administrative Code Title 15A, Chapter 4 (Sedimentation Control), an erosion and sedimentation control plan must be prepared for land-disturbing activities ' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-14 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES M that cover one or more acres to protect against runoff from a ten-year storm. Prior to construction, an erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative in accordance with the NCDENR Division of Land Resources publication Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design (June 2006) INC Division of Land Resources Web site: www.dlr.enr.state.ne.us/i)ages/i)ublications.html ) and the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. The NCDOT also has Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures (January 2002) (NCDOT Web site: www ncdot.orf/doh/i)reconstruct/i)s/specifications/dual) that require proper handling and use of construction materials. The contractor would be responsible for taking every reasonable precaution throughout construction of the project to prevent pollution of any body of water. The contractor also shall be responsible for preventing soil erosion and stream siltation. 4.5.3 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS 4.5.3.1 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not impact jurisdictional resources. 4.5.3.2 Recommended Alternative Wetlands. Streams, and Ponds. The project study area contains jurisdictional streams, ponds, and wetlands. There would be no impact to project study area wetlands or ponds under the Recommended Alternative. Stream impacts are listed in Table 4-4. Two of the project study area streams impacted are intermittent (UT4 and UT6) and one of the streams (UT2) has intermittent flow for approximately 800 feet before becoming perennial for its remaining length within the project study area. The Recommended Alternative would cross this stream where it is perennial. The total length of project-related stream impacts would be 545 linear feet (304 if intermittent and 241 if perennial). TABLE 4-4: Impacts to Neuse River Buffers and Streams Jurisdictional Area Zone 1 Impact Zone 2 Impact Stream Impact (acres) (acres) (if)- UT 4 to Stirrup Iron Creek(I) 0.25 0.10 160 UT 2 to Stirrup Iron Creek(P) 0.67 0.09 241 UT 6 to Stirrup Iron Creek (I) 0.27 0.09 144 * Impacts were calculated using the functional engineering designs' construction limits, with an additional 40-foot buffer, in accordance with NCDCT procedures. P=Perennial stream; l=Intermittent stream; UT= Unamed Tributary If jurisdictional impacts can be limited in size, consideration will be given to the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14 (Linear Transportation Projects). The use of NWP No. 14 is limited to crossings that result in a filled area of no more than 0.5 acre of waters of the United States. Since each crossing can be considered a "single and complete" project, it is possible to have multiple nationwide permits along the entire railway improvement project, assuming that the combined adverse effects are minimal. The USACE may exert discretionary authority and require an Individual Permit if avoidance and minimization have not been adequately addressed, or if a ro riate miti ation is inadequate. • r Hopson Road/Church Street 4-15 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ENVIRONMENTAL DN O / N e 740 Section 401 of CWA requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated for activities which 1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license or 2) require discharges to "waters of the United States." The USACE cannot issue a Section 404 permit until a 401 Certification is issued. Therefore, NCDOT must apply to NCDWQ for 401 certification as part of the permit process. Each "single and complete" project will require notification to NCDWQ for general certification. Mitigation and Permits. The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially. Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface waters. Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for projects with greater than or equal to 1.0 acre of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial stream impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been achieved. Compensatory actions often include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. An off-site mitigation program based on in-lieu fee payments made to the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) was established by the Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (January 22, 2003). Coordination with the USACE and NCDWQ will determine if payment of an in-lieu fee would be an available option for off-site mitigation. ' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-16 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEQ"FN FC .1L 0 Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers for the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0233) provides a designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse Basin. The Neuse Basin Rule applies to riparian buffers (measured parallel to the stream) directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. The protected riparian buffer has two zones (Zones 1 and 2). Zone 1 is the 30 feet nearest the water and Zone 2 is 20 feet landward of Zone 1. Grading and clearing of vegetation in Zone 1 is not allowed except for certain uses. The outer 20-foot zone (Zone 2) can be cleared and graded but must be revegetated to maintain diffuse flow to Zone 1. Certain activities (including road crossings) may be allowable with mitigation, but must first be reviewed and given written approval by NCDWQ. Calculations of impacts to Neuse River buffer areas are presented in Table 4-4. Total impacts are 1.2 acres in buffer Zone 1 and 0.28 acres in buffer Zone 2. 4.5.4 PROTECTED SPECIES 4.5.4.1 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would not impact protected species. 4.5.4.2 Recommended Alternative Table 4-5 summarizes the Recommended Alternative's potential effects on protected species. TABLE 4-5: Summarv of Impacts to Federally Protected Soecies Common Name Scientific Name Biological Conclusion Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus No Effect Michaux's sumac Rhos michauxii No Effect Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata No Effect Bald Eagle. The project study area does not contain a large area of open water, and it is surrounded by commercial and residential development; therefore, the project study area does not support suitable habitat for the bald eagle. NCNHP records have no documentation of this species within one mile of the project study area. Project construction would have no effect on the bald eagle. Michaux's Sumac. NCNHP records have no documentation of this species within one mile of the project study area. However, habitat for Michaux's sumac exists within the project study area. Both power line right-of-ways and roadside right-o£-ways occur within the project study area. These disturbed areas are considered suitable habitat for this plant. A directed survey within the project study area for Michaux's sumac was conducted on May 22, 2006. The survey concluded there were no individuals of this species within the project study area. Smooth Coneflower. NCNHP records have no documentation of this species within one mile of the project study area. Although the project study area does contain disturbed areas including power line right-of-ways and roadsides, which generally support the smooth coneflower, these areas contain Creedmoor soils. Creedmoor soils are strongly acid to extremely acid throughout and would not be suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower. Therefore, the project would have no effect on the smooth coneflower. Hopson Road/Church Street 4-17 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ENVIRONMENTAL COIV_=IJE V _F'C •. : 4.6 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 4.6.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE No construction activities or impacts would occur under the No-Build Alternative. 4.6.2 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE The construction activities associated with the proposed grade separation may cause temporary adverse impacts to the local environment. These impacts, generally short-term in nature, can be controlled, minimized, or mitigated through conformance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and standard NCDOT procedures. The No-Build Alternative would not generate any construction impacts. Short-term impacts to adjacent land uses during construction would occur due to the movement of workers and material through the area and construction activities. Construction noise and dust, as well as temporary disruption of traffic flow on local roads, may also affect residences and businesses in the vicinity of the project. Coordination between NCDOT and area landowners and local businesses regarding construction scheduling and access to the construction site would minimize any such disruptions. Potential construction-related impacts are briefly summarized below. 4.6.2.1 Air Quality Temporary degradation of air quality in the project area would result from the construction of the project. Initial clearing and grubbing would produce dust and exhaust emissions. The contractor would be responsible for controlling dust at the project site and at areas affected by the construction, including haul access roads, disposal site, borrowed material sources, and production sites. Dust control measures may include the following activities: • Minimizing exposed earth surface • Temporary and permanent seeding and mulching • Watering working and haul areas during dry periods • Covering, shielding, or stabilizing material stockpiles • Using covered haul trucks Emissions from construction equipment are regulated by federal standards. Any burning of cleared materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable State and local laws, regulations and ordinances and the regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality, in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care would be taken to ensure burning occurs under constant supervision, at the greatest practical distance from homes, and not when weather conditions could create hazards. 4.6.2.2 Noise The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. Overall, construction noise impacts are expected to be minimal, since the construction noise is relatively short in duration and is generally restricted to daytime hours. Furthermore, the transmission loss characteristics of surrounding wooded areas and other natural and man-made features are considered sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise. o 0 'Mlll Hopson Road/Church Street 4-18 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ENVIRONMENTA ONC Q/rFN F- - -- . Heavy construction equipment would generate noise and vibration. Neighboring communities and businesses would be temporarily impacted. The duration and level of noise differs with each phase of construction. Typically, the fast two phases, ground clearing and excavation, generate the highest noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators can reach noise levels of 67 dBA to 95 dBA (Lmax) at a distance of 50 feet. (US DOT, 2009; http://www.fhwa.dot.aov/environment/noise/handbook/09.htm) The NCDOT specifications require the contractor to limit noise levels to 80 dBA Leq in noise sensitive areas adjacent to the project. NCDOT may also monitor construction noise and require abatement where limits are exceeded. NCDOT also can limit work that produces objectionable noise during normal sleeping hours. 4.6.2.3 Water Quality Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on stream banks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above. • Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the railroad bed and increased erosion in the project study area. • Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater drainage patterns. • Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation removal. • Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal. • Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from construction. • Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas. • Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff. • Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction equipment and other vehicles. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of BMPs. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation. With implementation of required BMPs, long-term impacts to adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. ' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-19 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA • _ • . • . Chapter 4 4.6.2.4 Wildlife Construction, staging, and stockpiling operations may result in the temporary disruption of the resident wildlife population. The clearing of habitats, human activity, and noise from construction operations may result in the displacement of mobile wildlife. Non-mobile species would be lost as habitat is converted to construction areas. Impacts to biotic communities would be minimized as much as possible by restricting land clearing and construction operations within the project's right-of-way. NCDOT would encourage the contractor to locate off-site staging and stockpiling to disrupt the least amount of natural habitat area. These areas would be revegetated once construction activities are complete, thus replacing habitat for some species. 4.6.2.5 Construction Waste All construction waste material generated during clearing, grubbing, and other construction phases would be removed from the project site and burned or disposed of by the contractor in accordance with State and local regulations. Litter and other general trash would be collected and disposed of at local landfill locations. 4.6.2.6 Utilities The project may require some adjustments, relocations, or modifications to existing utilities. Any disruption to utility service during construction would be minimized by phased adjustment to the utility line. All modifications, adjustments, or relocations would be coordinated with the affected utility company. 4.6.2.7 Maintenance of Traffic Maintenance of traffic and sequencing of construction would be planned and scheduled so as to minimize traffic delays within the project area. Maintenance and protection of traffic in conjunction with construction activities associated with the project would be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and roadway standards of NCDOT. Signs would be used as appropriate to provide notice of road closures and other pertinent information to the traveling public. Advance notice through the local news media would be made to alert the public of traffic restrictions and construction related activities. Truck traffic in the project area would increase during construction. If access to construction staging areas and the construction site requires temporary access roadways, a traffic plan would be developed during the final engineering design phase that defines designated truck routes and parking areas for construction vehicles. 4.7 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA divide environmental impacts into three categories: direct impacts, indirect (or secondary) impacts, and cumulative effects. CEQ regulations require all three types of impacts be addressed in NEPA documents. Indirect and cumulative effects of the Recommended Alternative have been considered along with the direct effects as required under the Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.25). Indirect effects are effects that are caused by the proposed action but are later in time or farther removed by distance. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing changes in the pattern of land ?0' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-20 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA I, ENVIRONMENTAL rnNgEDI%ENrFC .._:,,.?¦ ® use population density or growth rate, and related effects on air, water, natural systems, or the human environment. ® Cumulative effects are the incremental effects of the action when added to other past, present, and ® reasonably foreseeable future actions. Assessment of potential effects consisted of a review of other actions that have affected, or that could affect, the same environmental resources that may be affected by the project. For example, wetlands can often experience multiple individual impacts from many projects over time, that when summed, result in cumulative effects. 4.7.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ® The general approach to evaluating indirect and cumulative effects is defined by the NCDOT's ICI 0 Guidance (November 2001), the CEQ (Considering Cumulative Effects Under NEPA, 1997), 0 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Reports 403 and 466 (2001 and 2002, ® respectively), state/federal regulations, and past case law. ® This qualitative analysis was undertaken in five steps based on the NCDOT ICI Guidance, including: ® Definition of Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Study Areas (Step 1) ® • Identification of the ICE Study Area's Direction and Goals (Step 2) ® • Inventory of Notable Features (Step 3) 0 Identification of Impact-Causing Activities (Step 4) • Identification and Analysis of Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects (Step 5) 0 4.7.2 ANALYSIS STUDY AREAS 0 Both a geographic study area and a timeframe for study were identified. The geographic boundary 0 for the ICE analysis was determined by a series of overlay maps. Overlays of the traffic area of influence, developed land, and US Census Block Groups were determined to be the primary factors ® in delineating a relevant geographic boundary for the ICE analysis. The ICE Study Area is ® presented in Figure 4-1. The ICE Study Area is bounded by Davis Drive to the west, I-540 to the ® south and west, and I-40 to the north. The ICE Study Area includes the land and developments on either side of Hopson Road from Davis Drive on the west to NC 54/Miami Boulevard on the east, ® and the developments along Church Street south of Hopson Road to around Kitts Creek Road. ® A timeframe for the ICE analysis was established spanning from 1959 to 2030. Development for 0 the region surrounding the project study area has been primarily influenced by the development of 0 the Research Triangle Park (RTP). Therefore, the temporal boundary for cumulative impact analysis is defined by the timeframe of development for RTP in the past (beginning in 1959), and 0 extending to the planning horizon of the long-range transportation plan, the year 2030. ® 4.7.3 STUDY AREA DIRECTION AND GOALS ® As discussed in Section 3.2.1, land use in this area is guided by the Durham Comprehensive Plan (Durham City-County Planning Department, Amended September 5, 2006). The vision of the ® Durham Comprehensive Plan is to promote safe, beautiful communities, a range of choices in ® transportation and housing, protection of historic heritage and natural resources, and ® opportunities for high quality development. ® Within the project study area, future land use will consist of commercial, office, and industrial developments, and medium density residential housing (Durham County Web site: ® htto:Haisweb.durhamnc.gov/GoMaos). ® .M' Hopson Road/Church Street ® 4-21 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ENWRONMENTAL CQNSFMIEN' NCO-no THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-22 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA T 40 EIVVZRONMENTAL .OIVC Q11EIVCEC = - Z• /1 „ 4.7.4 INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES 0 Not all impacts "accumulate". That is, similar impacts from multiple projects do not always combine to create greater impacts. Some resources experience minimal change from independent 0 impacts but when impacts are summed cumulatively from multiple projects, the resources may 0 experience impacts over time. For example, visual impacts within the geographic boundary could potentially accumulate due to several individual actions that reduce viewsheds or impact the 40 aesthetic environment 0 An example of resources that do not accumulate impacts would be hazardous materials or 0 displacements; these resources would experience only one direct impact. If the proposed project 0 would not result in a direct or indirect impact to a certain resource, then it would not contribute to cumulative effects to that resource. O Notable features were identified using environmental information prepared for the various sections of this Environmental Assessment, as well as scoping comments received for the project. Notable 0 features include farmland, natural communities, wetland and stream resources, visual resources, 0 and the transportation system. 0 Existing farmland in the project study area is discussed in Section 3.3.3. Natural communities 0 are discussed in Section 3.5. In the past, the ICE Study Area was rural and contained much more of these types of land uses. As RTP and the region have grown, these land uses have been replaced 0 with higher densities of development. 0 Wetlands and streams in the project study area are discussed in Section 3.5.4. In the broader ICE 0 Study Area, there are no major named streams, although there are unnamed perennial and intermittent tributaries throughout the ICE Study Area, as there are in the project study. area. 0 Wetlands would be expected to be scattered throughout the ICE Study Area as they are in the 0 project study area since the ICE Study Area has topography similar to the smaller project study 0 area. 0 Likewise, the visual landscape has changed substantially since the early 1960s. The rural, forested U viewshed has given way to a mostly built-up landscape through the numerous developments that currently exist or are under construction in the project study area. U 0 4.7.5 IMPACT CAUSING ACTIVITIES 0 In addition to past development, a number of transportation and land development projects have recently developed or are planned or under construction in the project study area. Current 0 development activities appear to be consistent with the future land use designations envisioned by " Durham County. n Those transportation projects nearest the study area with the greatest potential for overlapping 0 effects are listed below and shown in Figure 1-2: 0 STIP Proiect U-4026. Widen Davis Drive/Morrisville-Carpenter Road to multi-lanes. „ STIP Proiect U-4763/R-2000/R-2635. Triangle Parkway to be constructed as a toll facility on a' new location from I-540 with a median divided expressway from I-540 to McCrimmon Parkway. STIP Proiect R-2904. NC 54 - From SR 1999 (Davis Drive) to SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard) and SR 1973 (Page Road), NC 54 to 1-40. Widen to multi-lanes and replace railroad structure (Let with project U-4026). „ PT.Ta "M e Hopson Road/Church Street 11 4-25 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA U - • ' - • • Chapter 4 The project study area is planned to be fully developed with industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Development projects in the project study area include numerous commercial uses along NC 54/Miami Boulevard. Recent project examples include an Office Depot on the southwest corner of Hopson Road and NC 54/Miami Boulevard and a new Wal-Mart on the east side of NC 54/Miami Boulevard at Surles Court, across from the Church Street intersection with NC 54/Miami Boulevard. On Hopson Road, there is a new apartment complex, Southern Oaks, at the corner of Hopson Road and Davis Drive. The Keystone business park is located on the south side of Hopson Road east of Davis Drive. Residential subdivisions under construction along Church Street include Keystone Crossing, the Townes at Keystone Crossing, and Kitts Creek (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.6 for additional details). As previously noted, past development and transportation improvements in the region surrounding the project study area have been greatly influenced by the development of the Research Triangle Park (RTP). RTP is known worldwide as a center for high-tech research and development. RTP was founded in January 1959 by a committee of government, university, and business leaders as a model for research, innovation, and economic development. By establishing a place where educators, researchers, and businesses come together as collaborative partners, the founders of RTP hoped to change the economic composition of the region and state, thereby increasing opportunities for citizens of North Carolina (Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina Web site: www.rti).org/main/index.l)hp?l)id=151&sec=l). Due in part to the existence and extension of road, water, and sewer infrastructure in Durham County, the early growth of RTP was in its northern section. In addition, major highway improvements, including the building of NC 147 to connect Duke University and downtown Durham to the Park (1973), the construction of Interstate 40 from RTP to Chapel Hill (1985), and improvements to the region's Raleigh-Durham International Airport helped to improve the RTP's competitive position (Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina Web site: www rtn org/files/Fact%20Sheets/rtp history odf). Beyond the boundaries of RTP, a core area of similar industries and office parks has developed. In many cases, these businesses partner with RTP tenants to provide services or manufacturing facilities. Within a 4-mile radius of RTP, there are 13 million square feet of built space and 15,000 acres under development for office, commercial, retail, and industrial uses. In the same area, there are more than 40,550 housing units, offering executive housing, single-family homes, townhouses, and apartment units. The developments around RTP have contributed to a unique urban landmass that has a tremendous impact on the economic vitality and dynamism of the region and state. (Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina Web site: www rto org/files/Fact%20Sheets/rtp historv odf). 4.7.6 ANALYSIS OF INDIRECT EFFECTS The proposed project is primarily designed to improve safety at the Hopson Road rail crossing, the Church Street rail crossing, and the Church Street/NC 54 intersection. The project would also improve rail mobility and safety by realigning the NCRR line through the corridor. The proposed improvements would not cause indirect impacts to the following resources within the study area: land use, farmland, housing, community resources, parklands, archaeological or historic resources, air quality, noise, visual and aesthetic resources, or hazardous materials. Indirect effects to community facilities, economics, and natural resources are discussed below. Hopson Road/Church Street 4-26 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 ENVLaQAMEIVTA QN L1FNCE- . -:al'Ti:1 0 0 Land Use. The proposed project is in a rapidly developing area of Durham County. The proposed 0 project generally would not accelerate or change the type or amount of development that would occur in the ICE Study Area. This development is already occurring, and can continue to occur 0 with or without the project. The one exception may be the extension of Church Street from Hopson 0 Road southward to the portion of Church Street already constructed by Keystone Crossing. ® Providing this extension as part of the proposed project (rather than as a separate project constructed by the developer) may allow for a different timing of development on the adjacent 0 vacant land. However, the type of development would not be different based on the entity 0 constructing the extension. 0 Community Facilities. There is the potential for positive secondary impacts to buses, 0 police, fire and emergency medical services under the Recommended Alternative. 0 Vehicles traveling on Hopson Road could experience improved response times as Hopson Road is expanded to two lanes in each direction and improvements are made to both the NC 54/Church 0 Street and NC 54/Hopson Road intersections. Likewise, the elimination of the two rail crossings 0 would eliminate delays that occur when trains are passing through the corridor. 0 Economics. The Recommended Alternative has the potential to have positive secondary 0 impacts locally and for the region. Locally, the improvement of Hopson Road and the 0 extension of Church Street would improve the capacity and safety for Hopson Road and Church 0 Street and improve access to the business parks along Hopson Road. ® Regionally, improvements to the rail alignment through the corridor will allow trains to increase speeds, reduce travel times and therefore provide and overall benefit to the regional economy 0 through improved efficiency. 0 Water Quality. Indirect effects to water quality that may occur from the project due to 0 stormwater runoff would be minimized through implementation of NCDOT's Best Management 0 Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, as discussed in Section 4.6.2.3. ® 4.7.7 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ® Cumulative effects occur when there is an additive relationship between the various projects in 0 relation to the resources being analyzed. In this section, the major actions that have been ® identified as being located within the ICE Study Area are discussed in relation to the Recommended Alternative. 0 Traffic and Transportation Cumulative Effects. The Recommended Alternative, when combined with other area past and planned transportation projects, would have ® beneficial impacts on the area's transportation system. Large increases in traffic volumes ® on are anticipated on Hopson Road and NC 54 under both the No-Build Alternative and the 0 Recommended Alternative. Hopson Road has a direct connection with Davis Drive. Widening proposed for both roadways would serve to have beneficial cumulative impact on both roadways by ® increasing capacity. Other planned roadways in the area, such as Triangle Parkway, also would ® contribute to overall increased capacity, accessibility, and mobility in the ICE Study Area. ® In addition, as stated in Section 1. 1, since 2001 when the NCDOT Rail Division began work on ® various track and signal improvements, travel time between Raleigh and Charlotte has been reduced by 30 minutes. These improvements have resulted in a beneficial cumulative ® transportation effect. ® TWIN, #" Hopson Road/Church Street ® 4-27 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA ' A „ - ' ' 114,71 Chapter 4 Visual and Aesthetic Cumulative Effects. Minor changes to the visual landscape would occur under the Recommended Alternative. Although there are no prominent scenic vistas or visual resources in the project area, the widening of Hopson Road and Church Street as well as the extension of Church Street to connect with Hopson Road would introduce new elements into the built environment. Likewise, the widening of Davis Drive and NC 54, the construction of the Triangle Parkway, and the construction of residential and commercial developments, will introduce new man-made elements to the visual environment, and continue changing the visual character of the area from rural to suburban. Natural Resources Cumulative Effects. The ICE Study Area, and the project study area, contain numerous small perennial and intermittent unnamed streams and scattered wetlands. The Recommended Alternative, together with other growth and development in the ICE Study Area would increase the amount of soil disturbing activities, thus increasing the risk of stream sedimentation and turbidity from construction-related erosion. However, local sediment and erosion control regulations, post-construction and stormwater ordinances, and other water quality protection measures should help to minimize these effects. Construction of the Recommended Alternative would contribute to continued forest fragmentation and wildlife habitat disturbance that has occurred throughout the ICE Study Area. Cumulatively, there are several projects planned in the ICE Study Area that could add to this effect. However, the area is developing consistent with the land use plans of Durham County, which call for a mix of commercial, industrial, and medium-density residential development in the project area. ?. 11 11I ' Hopson Road/Church Street 4-28 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AGENCY COORDINATION NVIMM AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 5.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement and input has been encouraged throughout the development of the project. Government agencies and officials and interested citizens were informed of the progress of the project through two public workshops and a local officials meeting. 5.1 AGENCY COORDINATION In the process of preparing this Environmental Assessment, federal, state, and local agencies were contacted to inform provide information about the proposed project, to identify issues of concern, and obtain information about environmental resources within the project study area. Coordination with the following agencies was initiated in December 2006. Each agency received a scoping letter introducing the project, listing the specific project elements proposed to be included in the extension, and requesting that they identify any concerns. A map of the study area was enclosed with each letter. Agency correspondence is included in Appendix C. Agencies and organizations listed will also be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment. FEDERAL AGENCIES US Army Corps of Engineers US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Division US Environmental Protection Agency STATE AGENCIES NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse NC Department of Environmental Resources Division of Air Quality NC Department of Environmental Resources Natural Heritage Program REGIONAL AGENCIES NC Department of Environmental Resources Division Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan of Forest Resources Planning Association NC Department of Environmental Resources Land Quality Section NC Department of Environmental Resources Division of Water Quality NC Wildlife Resources Commission NC Historic Preservation Office LOCAL AGENCIES OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES Durham County Government, Soil & Water Keystone Corporation Conservation District Research Triangle Foundation Town of Morrisville, Planning Department North Carolina Rail Road Company Durham City/County Government, Planning Norfolk Southern Corporation Department Durham County, County Manager Town of Morrisville, Town Manager 5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) summarizing the NCDOT public involvement program for the Hopson Road grade separation project was prepared (Final Public Involvement Plan, PBS&J, February 2008). The Final Public Involvement Plan (PIP) is incorporated by reference to this EA. ' Hopson Road/Church Street 0-1 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The objective of creating and implementing the PIP was to generate the best possible solution for the project with early and often public involvement throughout the decision-making process. The PIP was developed to meet the needs of all stakeholders within the project study area. Specific objectives of the PIP are to 1) solicit input on the study from the public and local and state officials; 2) consider that input in the alternatives analysis; and 3) inform the public and the media of the: • Purpose and need for the project, • Alternatives for the construction of the grade separation, • Impacts of the various alternatives; and • Study schedule and the overall project schedule. 5.3 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS Two Citizens Informational Workshops (CIW) took place. The first CIW was held on January 29, 2008 at the Solution Center in Durham. At this CIW, NCDOT presented the purpose and need for the project and two preliminary design alternatives. The second CIW was held on October 30, 2008 in the Tarheel Room of the Comfort Suites Hotel in Durham. In addition to the two preliminary design alternatives for the Hopson Road railroad grade separation presented at the January 2008 CIW, the closure of the Church Street railroad crossing and extension of Church Street were presented as part of the proposed project. 5.3.1 MEETING ADVERTISEMENTS January 29. 2008 CIW. A public notice of the workshop was mailed on January 8, 2008 to 120 citizens. In addition to mailing the public notice, approximately 75 notices were hand delivered to local businesses within and adjacent to the project study area. An announcement about the workshop was published in two local newspapers: The Durham Herald Sun and the Independent. The announcement appeared in the Durham Herald Sun on January 2, January 9, January 16, and January 23, 2008. The announcement appeared in the Independent on December 26, 2007; January 2, January 9, and January 16. 2008. October 30. 2008 CIW. A public notice of the workshop was mailed on October 13, 2008 to 194 citizens. In addition to mailing the public notice, approximately 75 notices were hand delivered to local businesses and residences within and adjacent to the project study area. An announcement about the workshop was published in three local newspapers: The Durham Herald Sun, the Chronicle, and the Independent. The announcement appeared in each of these newspapers on the following dates: October 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th. 5.3.2 WORKSHOP DISPLAYS AND FORMAT January 29. 2008 CIW. The following displays were placed on easels (3 sets) and on tables (1 set) in the Asheville Room of the Solution Center. The poster-sized displays were: Preliminary corridor for Design Alternative 1 (Hopson Road crossing under railroad) on aerial photography. I ' Hopson Road/Church Street 5-2 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA L "I IA ® AGENCY CODRDTNATION ® AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ® Preliminary corridor for Design Alternative 2 (Hopson Road crossing over railroad) on ® aerial photography. ® The CIW was also an open-house style meeting. Attendees were encouraged to read the handout, ® view the project display, and to discuss the project one-on-one with NCDOT representatives. Several representatives from NCDOT and PBS&J were present to assist with citizens' questions. ® As people entered the room, they were asked to sign in and take a workshop handout and a ® comment form. Mr. Marc Hamel, NCDOT Rail Division Project Manager, gave a presentation ® describing the project purpose and proposed alternatives and encouraged attendees to review the ® design alternatives and ask questions of the project team. ® October 30. 2008 CIW. The same format and set up was used for the October 30, 2008 CIW, with the addition of the combined Hopson Road Grade Separation and Rail Realignment/Church Street ® Extension alternative. ® 5.3.3 ATTENDANCE AND COMMENT SUMMARY ® January 29. 2008 CIW. Sixteen people signed in at the January CIW, and three comment forms ® were received. Additional comments were recorded by project representatives on What I Heard" ® forms. These forms were used to write down various comments made by citizens, local officials, and other stakeholders that the project representatives heard during the meeting. Comments and discussion revealed that Alternative 1, with Hopson Road crossing under the railroad, was favored ® of the two alternatives. Residents along Hopson Road expressed concerns regarding the realignment of Hopson Road near their properties, particularly associated with Alternative 2 (road ® crossing over railroad). Following the January CIW, three requests for additional project ® information and copies of meeting materials were received by one citizen and two business owners ® who attended the meeting. ® October 30. 2008 CIW. At the October CIW, 37 people signed in and eight comment forms were received. In general business owners, developers, area office workers, and residents outside of the ® Keystone Crossing subdivision expressed favorable opinions about the elimination of both the ® Hopson Road and Church Street at-grade rail crossings, and also believed the Church Street ® intersection with Miami Boulevard is unsafe and should be closed. ® Many residents of Keystone Crossing said they were strongly against the extension of Church Street along its planned route through the subdivision. They believe it would create unsafe ® conditions for pedestrians wishing to cross Church Street. Some residents said that they did not ® previously know about the planned extension of Church Street. ® A number of email messages were received following the October 2008 meeting. A total of 15 ® requests were made for additional information and meeting materials; two emails were received in support of the project; and one email suggested a rail crossing be constructed at a new location ® (Emperor Boulevard). ® Eleven citizens or stakeholders emailed in opposition to the proposed projects. Most citizens that ® opposed the project were residents of the Keystone Crossing development. Reasons residents cited in opposition to the project were as follows: ® Creation of unsafe conditions for pedestrians (particularly children) within the Keystone Crossing subdivision due to the Church Street extension. ® Increased traffic congestion in Keystone Crossing due to the Church Street extension. ® Reduction in home values in Keystone Crossing due to elevated traffic levels. ® Hopson Road/Church Street ® 5-3 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA AGENCY CDDRD_iNATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT • Slowing of development with the subdivision due to the reduction in home values. Through correspondence with residents of Keystone Crossing have suggested the following roadway improvements they would like to see as part of the Church Street extension portion of the project: • Speed limits of 25 mph; • Speed humps; • Restrictions against commercial trucks; • Allowances for on-street parking; and • Implementing a 3-way stop on Keystone Park Drive (either at Kitts Creek Road comes in or at the alley entrance next to 743 Keystone Park Drive). 5.4 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETING Local Officials Meetings were held immediately prior to each of the CIWs (on January 29, 2008 and October 30, 2008). These meetings were held in an open-house format featuring the same displays and set up as the CIWs. Attendees were encouraged to read the provided handout, view project displays, and to discuss the project one-on-one with NCDOT representatives. Local officials present at the meeting included representatives from the Town of Morrisville, City of Durham, Durham County Planning Department, Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, and Triangle Transit Authority. Several stakeholders attended the Local Officials Meeting including Beacon-Street, John R. McAdams Company, Inc., Grub Properties, TMC Associates, Keystone Corporation, ExperienceOne Homes LLC, and Craig Daws Properties. Hopson Road/Church Street 5-4 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 6.0 REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 6.1 REFERENCES 6.1.1 FEDERAL Federal Highway Administration, North Carolina Division Air Quality Guidelines for Environmental Documents, August 2007 Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, 1995 Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, 2006 www.ffiwa.dot.aov/safetealu/factsheets/conformity.htm www.fhwa.dot.¢ov/environment/conformity/com broc htm www.ffiwa.dot.Lov/environmenUairtoxie/vmtmsat202O.htm www.fhwa.dot.yov/environment/eiustice/dot ord htm Federal Railroad Administration www.fra.dot.izov/us/content/167 Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 President of the United States Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 11, 2004 US Census www. factfinder.census. eov US Department of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice to Address Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (USDOT Order 5610.2) US Environmental Protection Agency User's Guide to CAL3QHC Version 2.0: A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections (September 1995) 6.1.2 STATE North Carolina State Data Center www. demo f. state. nc. us/ North Carolina Department of Commerce www.nccommerce.com/ www.nccommerce.com/en/AboutNorthCarolina/l,ocation/ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities, September 2007 North Carolina Department of Transportation 1 . Hopson Road/Church Street 6-1 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA REFERENCES AND CL/PPORTTN9-. _ DOCUMENTATION 2009 - 2015 State Transportation Improvement Program Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, September 2004 httns //apps dot state nc us/nroiects/tipsearch/Default asnx North Carolina Department of Transportation, Rail Division www.bytrain.ora/track/ North Carolina Department of Transportation, Relocation Assistance Program EIS Relocation Report, January 6, 2009 North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Branch Memorandum: Traffic Forecast for TIP Project # U-4716, February 12, 2007 www.ncdot.org/doh/l)reconstruct/tl)b/service/air.html North Carolina Division of Water Quality http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ North Carolina Employment Security Commission www.ncesc.com/ North Carolina Floodplain Mapping www. n c fl oo d m a p s. c o m/ North Carolina Turnpike Authority www neturnl)ike ore/udf/Annual°/20Renort°/202008 ndf 6.1.3 LOCAL Chicago Rail Efficiency and Transportation Efficiency Railroad User Guide, 2006 City of Durham www.ci.durham.ne.us/udo/ CSX Corporation www.csx.com/ Durham Chamber of Commerce www.durhamchamber.ory/live/live durham/telephone utilities html Durham City-County Planning Department Durham Comprehensive Plan, Amended September 2006 Durham Walks Pedestrian Plan, Updated August 24, 2006 Final Durham Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2006 Hopson Road/Church Street 6-2 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Durham County htti3://gisweb.durhamne.gov/izomai)s/map/index.cfm Norfolk Southern Railroad www.nscorp.com/nseportal/nscoro/ North Carolina Railroad Company www.ncrr.com/ Piedmont Authority of Regional Transportation www.oartnc org Piedmont Triad International Airport www.flvfromoti.com/ Raleigh-Durham International Airport www.rdu.com/ Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina www.rtp.ory/main/index.i)hp9i3id+151&sec+l www.rtp.org/files/Fact%20Sheets/rti) history odf The Research Triangle Park www.rtn.org Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor www.sehsr.ore/ www.sehsr.org/fag.html Triangle Transit Authority www.ridetta ore www.ridetta.org/Regional Rail/Transit Plan Map/concei)tPlansRTO.html 6.2 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Air Quality Technical Memorandum, PBS&J, January 2009 Church Street (SR-1980) Crossing Consolidation Plan, Gibson Engineers, April 2008. Citizens Informational Workshop Summary; PBS&J; January 2008, October 30, 2008 Crash Analysis Letters, NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit, February 23, 2009, February 24, 2009. Draft 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan; Durham-Chapel Hill-Carborro Metropolitan Planning Organization, December 2008 EIS Relocation Report, NCDOT, February 2009 Environmental Investigation for Hopson Road and Church Street, EcoScience, January 27, 2009 ' Hopson Road/Church Street 6-3 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA REFERENCES AND C ppORTIN . _ DOCUMENTATION Final Public Involvement Plan; PBS&J; February 2008 Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad /Norfolk Southern Track Realignment and Church Street Rail Crossing Closure and Street Extension Noise Impact Assessment Report, PBS&J, July 2008. Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Proposed Hopson Road Grade Separation Crossing of the NCRR/NS Railroad Track, PBS&J, April 2006 Natural Resources Technical Report for the Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad Realignment, EcoScience, May 2006 Traffic Forecasts for Year 2006 Average Annual Daily Traffic, NCDOT, January 2007 U-4716 Hopson Road Capacity Analysis Report, Gibson Engineers, March 24, 2008 MI O Hopson Road/Church Street 6-4 Rail and Roadway Improvements EA APPENDIX A TRAFFIC FORECASTS Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR February 12, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Marc Hamel Rail Project Development Engineer Rail Division, Environmental &. Planning Branch FROM: Karen Roberson J? /f Eastern Traffic Forecasting Group Supervisor Transportation Planning Branch SUBJECT: Traffic Forecast for TIP Project 4 U-4716 Church Street (SR 1637) Grade Separation at NC 54 Extension of Church Street to Hopson Road (SR 1978) Durham and Wake Counties Please find attached the estimated 2006/2030 AADT for the aforementioned project. Included are the trek, DHV and directional percentages for the project. Build and no build scenarios are provided for each year. Traffic volumes for the 2006 no build alignment were determined by analyzing historical AADT, trip generation, recent traffic counts and information from local officials. The traffic volumes for the base year include all Transportation Improvement Projects open to traffic as of June 2006. The 2030 traffic forecasts include all projects in the TIP and the Long-Range Transportation Plan. Traffic forecasts for TIP projects R-2000, R-2904, U-3344A and U-4026 along with the Triangle Regional Model version 2005 Air Quality Model were consulted in the development of this forecast. Some adjustments were made to reconcile the differences in the forecasts and model data. LYNDo TmPErr SECRETARY Church Street extends from NC 54 in Durham County to Morrisville in Wake County. Church Street is a two-lane facility with numerous residential developments planned and under construction. It is anticipated to remain a two-lane facility with improvements made by the developers as a part of construction. It is assumed that numerous driveways on this two-lane facility would be a deterrent to large traffic volumes on the Church Street Extension. Two parallel facilities, NC 54 to the east and Davis Drive to the west, are reasons to assume a relatively low traffic volume on Church Street. MAILING ADDRESS: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 1554 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH INC 27699-1554 TELEPHONE. 919-733A705 FAX: 919-733-2417 WEBSITE. W WDOi.S7A7E.NC.US LOCATION: TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 715-5482, extension 371, or email me at kroberson@dot.state.nc.us. KR CC with attachments: Deborah Hutchings, PE Scott Walston, PE Jay Bemiett, PE Ben Jetta L. Johnson , PE Eric Midkiff, PE Hardee Cox FILE: U-4716, Durham County sQ i Saf i F? e! / Q, SR#1978 Rd ! 54 vl 3 SR#2103 _ ? 99 \ Town of ` \ ??19 \ Durham \ j Durham Cou \ Surles Court j I \ _ ---------- --- -- ---------- Wakentp __ - --- - - s?d ?e t` I X54 Town of orrisvih atkins COD U-4716 P roject Description: Hopson Road Grade Separation (at SR 1978) and NC Railroad ! Norfolk Southern Track realighment. Extension of Church Street to Hopson Road 288 54 64 - South Miami Blvd _ Y 3 } 323 6 } ?32 SR7978 318 347 1 ? ? Hopson Road h ?e-10 ? ?ze°?=e 23 i 13 47% 85 35 8 "_ 333 a + a ?2 Distribution Drive 36 Keystone Development 43 349 3 327 SR1978 Hopson Road 80 Emperor Blvd o. i 68 Surles Court 125 a' ? 35 5???c n 276 Durham County s ® .m 32 . o m ®I . m Wake County e . SR3096 54 Kitt Creek Road w 22 1-540 165 32 66 23 Mason Farm Road 156 2 y Shiloh Grove ? 5 + 154 Hamlet Park 16 Subdivision i 152 1426 45 i j 168 4 ?i w 296 tl: 62 t 8 ° Lichtin Blvd 270 29 70 12 SR1706 23 ? < °.n Watkins Road c. : 287 s 327 3V 1%27 300 I %59 SR1635 231 McCrimmon p~1° ? ae y 73 ~'° 120 85 McCrimmon Parkway u.n 54 Parkway f l 149 - 340 = SR1637 Chapel Hill s Church Street a Road LEGEND 2030 ESTIMATED AADT LOCATION: Hopson Road Grade Separation dA :x- tPD---Y OF VEHICLES PER DAY I] INS ?NCH LESS'URANan VTD No Build Alternative Extension of Church Street to Hopson Road MOVEMENT PROHIBITED ONE-RAP frOtLxPT PROJECTS: Hopson Road Grade Separation Das'-?? D Closure of Church Street at NC 54 and extension to DHV IXUoGS HOUILL\' t'OLU\IE KaO K30-30'TH HIGHEST HOURLP I OLU3IE Hopson Road 1,31 Pat PEAK PERIOD ?'\ Counties: Wake &Durham 0 DIRECT OVAL SPLITPNo DIRECT ? DIRECTION OF D REVERSE FLO t' F E K R ? DIV.: 5 DATE: January, 2007 (au \ A31 P A O DUAIS.TY STIS Izl Prepared Dy Karen Roberson TIP N U-4716 & Y-4117B WBS N 40360.1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR1978 318 Hopson Road - 12 v ? W C ? to N ?UU 76 N t W U 0 } ? SR3095 54 Kitt Creek Road s a. n r•. u Emperor Blvd Sudes Court 1 283 fi t; 68 309 SR1978 Hopson Road 80 2115 Durham County Wake County o 110 it Mason Farm Road Shiloh Grove Hamlet Part/ 297 54 64 .. ,?„ South °?= Miami Blvd 39 23 112 ?32 347 383 ? 02 30% V n2 nF .° 66% ? 72 £ 35 291 is 1'= 114 . 6q Distribution Drive 4 Keystone Development 36 5554a ss _ 143 .1 1% 2 141 16 1:1)"1 %6 1426 1146 ? q? ? 766 ??co 339 --4 62 Lichtin Blvd 18 € 313 s 29 /23 ,°F,: SR1706 ? < Watkins Road 330 Subdivision I,. [ 139 1 327 - 5 } 399 164 t 1 ,57 SR1635 231 McCrimmon wF10 P k 39 i ?'95 ~10 14 6 wtM1 ?° McCrimmon i 8 86 way 0.n ar 1 54 Parkway 149 34 SR1637 rr Chapel Hill s Church Street s Road LEGEND ' 2030 ESTIMATED AA DT LOCATION: Hopson Road Grade Separation - NRCH O£YEHICL DAY 6100 5 )ICCHLE NATI) Build Alternative Eversion of Church Street In Halt... Read 1 ' NIOITNIENT PROHIBITED ' ' ' b10\ ONE-Vs AI ESIENT l PROJECTS: Hopson Road Grade Separation 010 ° -i Closure of Church Street at NC 54 and eversion to DH\' DESIGN HOURLY YOL£ME(°bY KYD Hopson Road IRO =30-TH HIGHFSI' IW URIA \ OLUNE P>I PN FLAK PERIOD Counties: Wake &Durham LYDICATFSDIRECIION0FD DIV.: 5 DATE: Januan', 2007 RE\ER.SE FLOP' FOR AM PEAK (on DGALS.Tr-STS(%) e9 Preparetl by Karen Roberson I TIP # U-4716 & Y-4117B RBS # 40460.1.1 SR1978 318 Hopson Road 64 2s9 54 South Miami Blvd 3 347 346 8 f ?32 _ I un = ' 294 35 ? a I Distribution Drive 75 az ?s Keystone D l i 4e eve opment m s _. " 310 ?, ? H I s v?i5K I w tz4 39 r ? I 88 I ? 3s / 43 ? 1 x24 3 % j 32 29 i 44 39 y 72 ® . ® . m. . ® . ® . ® . ®37 175 SR1980 Church Street LEGEND \PD-e OT ITHICLES PER DAN p 100-S JmcH LESS THAN xa NPD >IOIT:HEST PROHIBITED ONE W'.41\IOY E?IEV r Oa,(M D DHN DESIGN HOLTON%OLIDIE(%)-110 130-30'TH HIGHEST HODRI.INOLUSIE P>I PM PEAK PERIOD D DMECEIOSAL SPLIT(%) DMICATFS DIRECTION OF D RE\T; RSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK (d.0 IDTAL&TTJTS(%) 327 SR1978 Hopson Road 80 Emperor Blvd sI a68 Sudes Court Durham County ounty Wake( 2030 ESTIMATED AADT Extension to Hopson Road 6iw Prepares oy Karen Ronerson 276 LOCATION: Hopson Road Grade Separation Extension of Church Street to Hopson Road PROJECTS: Hopson Road Grade Separation Closure of Church Street I NC 54 and exreosion to Hopson Road Counties: Wake & Durham DIV.: 5 DATE: Januarv 2007 1P N U-4716 & Y-4117B WBS N 30460.1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I® SR1978 93 Hopson Road - 120 f 28 f 1 219 s Distribution Drive 217 54 South Miami Blvd 3i ?4 99 21 24 SR1978 Hopson Road 210 50 Emperor Blvd t" 4 26 w a n 212 ?y 23 Surles Court 64 i e 0 0 ?o eti 3 ?9 le _£ I O? 1? 139 Durham County 5 3 r . Wake County SR3095 ? Kitt Creek Road 2% - - 67 - - - _ - Future 1-540 ----- "-.. 139 21 2 f' 9 Lleh[in Blvd Weaver Rd - i 67 132 2 } t / I 3 } * 4 18 SR1706 om Barbee Road ,., ,ems, - somas 1 t „ ti 2 4 SRI 706 w , Watkins Road 66 12 Hamlet Park 143 Subdivision n 4% £?C 62 100 s2 } ti 82 SR1635 McCrimmon r /? 14 % , Parkway • 74 209 54 £ r, 44 SR1637 Chapel Hill ' Represents multiple drive ways s Church Street Road LEGEND ' 2006 ESTIMATED AADT LOCATION: Hopson Road Grade Separation #. VPD--5 OF VEHICLES PER DAY N 100 5 FIUCH Less THAN #0 VPD No Build Alternative Extension o(Church Street to Hopson Road MOVEMENT PROHIBITED ONE-N'AYMOYEMENT PROJECTS: Hopson Road Grade Separation auv (E ` o Closure of Church Streetat NC 54 and extension to DRY DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME MO KID=RE IH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME iw Hopson Road P.M PMPEAKPERIOD Counties: Wake &DHrba. D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT % ( ) INDICATES DIRECTION OF D ' DIV.; 5 DATE: January, 2007 REVERSE FLOR FOR Ab! P£AK 1d.17 Duu.,rr-srs(rI Preparetl by Karen Roberson TIP # U-4716 & Y-4117B WBS # 40460.1.1 SR1978 93 Hopson Road h 120 1 i 48 Eorio 3 4 29 Distribution Drive 217 54 se South -?= Miami Blvd s ss a t44 ?. ss 27 21 ? 4 18 186 d an m c 0 ? Tn N L ? (? U N ? W U g I 30 s j 23 182 50 cow"=i? u, 23 N?=?o SR1978 pson Road Emperor Blvd Surles Court 171 Durham County 5 s. Wake County m SR3095 ? Kitt Creek Road ,o .2L , u n . 33 --- --- --- ---- Future 1-540 --- --- 171 } ?4 21 2 Lichtin Blvd Weaver Rd 35 F? ? 164 2 ? 18 SR1706 I Barbee Road 11 n's 4?*1- SR1706 Watkins Road T Hamlet Park 12 174 Subdivision w 1 100 ? 1 } 123 a4 } ? SR1635 MCCrimmon a1 ?o 1 P 6 ?e aof-?o % 1 .11 arkway - 79 209 54 44 = ? i SR1637 1= Chapel Hill s Church Street Road a LEGEND 2006 ESTIMATED AADT pkk \PD-- a OF VEHICLES PER DAY LF IOPS B il LOCATION: Hopson Road Grade Separation naY- MUCH LESS TRAIN #N CPL u d Alternative Extension ofChurch Streetto Hopson Road %? MONTMENTPROHIBIT£D ONE-WAYMOVEMENT n PROJECTS: Hopsov Road Grade Separation nav Ia ? n Closure of Church street at NC 54 and extension to DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLLIIE I%)-MO Hopson Road ME =30711 HIGHEST HOURLY A OLUNE P31 P31PEAKPEMOD DIRECTIONAL SPLIT(%) Counties: Wake &Durham C'm ITS DIRECTION OF n REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK i DIV.: 5 DATE: January, 2007 (d,q DEALS. rf- rS I%) Preparetl by Karen Roberson TIP # U-4716 & Y-4117B WBS # 40460.1.1 at 61 0 01 01 ?l 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR1978 93 120 Hopson Road y ?28 3% 4/?16 I 29 s I Distribution Drive z = `? 19 I ol ? N ra L y N ? W U I t- ? 49 11 . m . v . ® .. . ® . ® . ?. I ®. a? 68 SR1980 Church Street 217 54 South Miami Blvd 3 47 } ?"?4 18 14 +7 99 SR1978 Hopson Road 191, t:4 j 26 50 Emperor Blvd nor. 193 91 35 t 23 Surles Court ro a a. i Durham County ® ® Wake County 7 139 a Lr.L. cl?u 2006 ESTIMATED AADT LOCATION H aaa \lU--nOF \'EHICLFS YEN DAI'N 1005 : opson Road Grade Separation DO. xmcH LESS TFLxS aAO'\TD ; Extension to Hopson Road Extension of Church Street to Hopson Road .C ? ,NOVEpIE\T PROUIDDIED 01EVAS3IO\T\IENT e PROJECTS: Hopson Road Grade Separation ons 1 1 ? o Closure of Church Street at NC 54 and extension to DFN DESIGN HOURLY' TOLUMEits) -100 iw Hopson Road IJO-3n'TH HIGHESt' HOURLY \'OL11NIE PNI PM 0 K EH It1D P COHDf12S: Wake & Durham D D _ L ION SPLITI%1 DIXY.CTCT ? UsDIC TF SDIRECHONOFD AF VE A . RSE FLOW FOR M PE K DIV.: 5 DATE: January, 2007 (a.0 A A DUSLS,TF-SI^St%r Preparetl by Karen Roberson TIP # U-4716 R Y-4117B WBS # 40460.1.1 ? APPENDIX B CRASH DATA Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR. GOVERNOR SECRETARY February 23, 2009 TO: William B. Kerr, Jr., AICP PBS&J FROM: Christopher J. Oliver, PE Traffic Safety Unit SUBJECT: Secondary Route 1978 (Hopson Road) from NC 54-Miami Boulevard to Secondary Route 1999 (Davis Drive) in Durham County (Project No. Y-4117B) The 2007 annual average daily traffic (AADT) for this section was estimated at 8,100 vehicles per day, which equates to a total vehicle exposure rate of 5.95 million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT). The crash analysis consisted of a maximum Y-line of 0 feet from the section, and there were 19 crashes reported along this location between January 1, 2006 and December 3l, 2008. For crash rate purposes, this section can be classified as a 2 Lanes Undivided, Secondary Route (SR). The following table shows the comparison of the crash rates for the analyzed section of SR 1978 versus the 2005-2007 statewide crash rates and the calculated critical rates with a 95% level of confidence for a comparable route type and configuration. While the wet crash rate is above the average statewide crash rate for similar type facilities, the wet crash rate is below the critical rate for similar type facilities. Rate Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM Statewide Rate I Critical Rate z Total 19 319.44 370.48 508.71 Fatal 0 0.00 3.21 23.70 Non-Fatal 4 67.25 127.03 211.46 Night 2 33.62 129.75 214.99 Wet 4 67.25 55.29 113.85 ' 2005-2007 Statewide Crash rate for 2 Lanes Undivided, Secondary Route (SR) 2 Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence). The critical crash rate is a statistically derived value against which a calculated rate can be compared to see if the rate is above an average far enough so that something besides chance must be the cause. If you have any questions concerning the attached analysis, please contact me at coliver@ncdot.gov or call me at (919) 773-2895. CJO:co cc: M. L. Hamel K. L. Becker, PE S. J. Johnson, PE D. Y.Ishak Attachment MAILING ADDRESS: TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY AND SAFETY DIVISION 1561 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1561 TELEPHONE: (919) 733-2800 FAX: (919) 771-2745 WEBSITE.' WWW DON.DOT.STATE.NC. US LOCATION: 700 GREENFIELD PARKWAY SUITE 750 GARNER, NORTH CAROLINA 27529 • Nort h Carolina Department of Transportation • Traffi c Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Study Criteria Summa ry Coun ty: DURHAM City: All and Rural Date: 01/01/2006 to 12/31/2008 Study: GMM200902092 • Location: Seco ndary Route 1978 (Hopson Road) from NC 54-Miami Bou levard to Seconda ry Route 1999 (Davi s Drive) • • Report Details 1 101872024 0.000 12/20/2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME $ 1400 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 15:42 DIRECTION • Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs : 0 Speed: 5 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 7 Obj Strk: • Unit --- 2 1 ----- Alchl/Drgs ----- : 0 ----- Speed: 5 MPH Dir: E -------------- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: -------- 4 Obi Strk: • 2 102062626 0.000 09/1412007 ANGLE $ 5500 - 0 0 0 0 --- 1 1 ----- 2 1 0 ---- 3 1 11:43 • Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs : 0 Speed: 15 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: • Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs : 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: ___ _____ _____ _____ ______________ _________ ____ _____ ___ • 3 102404421 0.000 09/25/2008 LEFT TURN, $ 500 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 1 0 3 • 22:02 DIFFERENT ROADWAYS Unit 1 2 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 40 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: • ___ _____ _____ _____ ______________ _________ ____ _____ ___ • 4 101943734 0.170 0 1/23/2007 REAR END, SLOW OR $ 5000 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 16:48 STOP • Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: • Unit ___ 2 2 _____ Alchl/Drgs: ______ 0 ____ Speed: 20 MPH Dir: E ______________ Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: _________ 4 ____ Obj Strk: _____ • 5 101920427 0.200 1 2120/2006 REAR END, SLOW OR $ 3800 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 8 2 • 17:36 STOP • Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 5 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: • ___ _____ ______ ____ _______________ ________ ____ _____ ___ • 6 101865586 0.330 1 2/12/2006 REAR END, SLOW OR $ 1700 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 09:45 STOP • Unit 1 2 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: • Unit 2 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obi Strk: • Unit 3 2 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Din E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: --- ----- ------ ---- --------------- -------- ---- ----- --- • 7 101991223 0.470 06/08/2007 REAR END, SLOW OR $ 5000 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 • 17:21 STOP • Unit 1 5 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obi Strk: Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 25 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 11 Obj Strk: • Unit 3 2 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: • --- ----- ------ ---- --------------- -------- ---- ----- --- • 02/23/2009 t_ . Acc Total Injuries Condition Road Trfc Ctl No Crash ID Milepost Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I. North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strio Analvsis Reoort Acc I Total Injuries Condition Road Trfc Ctl No Crash ID Milepost Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op 8 102222126 0.481 03/21/2008 REAR END, SLOW OR $ 2500 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 12:10 STOP Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir : E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: Unit 2 2 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: 9 101933309 0.486 03/16/2007 REAR END, SLOW OR ----- $ 2100 0 0 0 0 ---- 2 1 ----- 3 3 0 ---- 1 1 14:45 STOP Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: 35 MPH Dir: ---------- W ---- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 11 Obi Strk: 10 102206933 0.488 12/0312007 REAR END, SLOW OR -------- $ 3000 0 0 0 0 ---- 2 1 ----- 1 7 0 ---- 13 1 07:55 STOP Unit 1 2 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 40 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: 0 MPH Dir: ---------- W ---- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: - 1 Obj Strk: 11 101722618 0.490 04/27/2006 REAR END, SLOW OR $ 2500 ------- 0 0 0 0 ---- 2 1 ------ 2 5 0 --- 13 1 14:35 STOP Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 4 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: 0 MPH Dir: ---------- W -- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: 12 101994176 0.493 03/27/2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME -- $ 250 --------- 0 0 1 0 --- 1 1 ------ 2 7 0 --- 13 1 12:35 DIRECTION Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 25 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 6 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 23 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: 0 MPH Dir: --------- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: Obj Strk: 13 102437197 0.613 11/06/2008 - ANIMAL ---- $ 950 --------- 0 0 0 0 --- 1 5 ------ 1 1 0 --- 0 18:30 Unit --- 1 : 4 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: 25 MPH Dir: ----- E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: 17 14 101759378 0.670 06102/2006 ----- LEFT TURN, SAME ---- $ 4000 --------- 0 0 0 0 --- 1 1 ------ 2 1 0 --- 3 1 15:09 ROADWAY Unit 1 1 Alchi/Drgs: 0 Speed: 25 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 8 Obj Strk: Unit - - - 2 1 - - - - - Alchl/Drgs: 0 - - - - - - - - - - Speed: 45 MPH Dir: - - - - - - - - - - W - - - - Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: - - - 4 Obj Strk: 15 101783299 0.670 07/13/2006 LEFT TURN, SAME $ 11000 - - - - - - 0 0 0 2 - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 0 - - - 3 1 17:29 ROADWAY Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 8 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ----- Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: 16 102003431 ----- 0.670 04/05/2007 ----------- LEFT TURN, ---- $ 2000 -------- 0 0 0 0 --- 1 1 ------ 1 1 0 --- 3 1 15:45 DIFFERENT ROADWAYS Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 40 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 ------ Alchl/Drgs: 0 ----- Speed: 10 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 8 Obj Strk: 17 102093804 ---- 0.670 07/19/2007 ----------- ANGLE ---- $ 20000 -------- 0 0 1 1 ---- 1 1 ----- 1 7 0 --- 3 1 12:06 Unit 1 : 2 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 40 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: 02/2312009 .2_ North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Acc Total Injuries Condition Road Trfc Ctl No Crash ID Milepost Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op Unit 2 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 ObJ Strk: Unit 3 - - - - - - 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 50 MPH Dir. S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh MnvrlPed Actn: 4 ObJ Strk: 18 102052757 0.670 08/31/2007 ANGLE $ 13500 - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 5 - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 0 3 1 12:30 Unit 1 2 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit 2 ______ 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: NW ___________________________ Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 5 Obj Strk: 19 102157643 0.670 01/16/2008 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER $ 7000 ________ 0 0 0 0 ___ 1 1 _________ 1 1 0 3 1 12:09 Unit 1 : ______ 12 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 15 MPH Dir: W ___________________________ Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: ________ 7 ___ Obj Strk: _________ Legend for Acc No -Accident Number Report Injuries: F - Fatal, A - Class A, B - Class B, C - Class C Details: Condition: R - Road Surface, L - Ambient Light, W - Weather Rd Ch - Road Character Rd Ci - Roadway Contributing Circumstances Trfc Ctl - Traffic Control: Dv - Device, Op - Operating Alchl/Drgs - Alcohol Drugs Suspected Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn - Vehicle Maneuver/Pedestrian Action Obj Strk - Object Struck 02/23/2009 _3. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Summary Statistics High Level Crash Summary Number of Percent Crash Type Crashes of Total Total Crashes 19 100.00 Fatal Crashes 0 0.00 Non-Fatal Injury Crashes 4 21.05 Total Injury Crashes 4 21.05 Property Damage Only Crashes 15 78.95 Night Crashes 2 10.53 Wet Crashes 4 21.05 Alcohol/Drugs Involvement Crashes 0 0.00 Crash Severit y Summary Number of Percent Crash Type Crashes of Total Total Crashes 19 100.00 Fatal Crashes 0 0.00 Class A Crashes 0 0.00 Class B Crashes 2 10.53 Class C Crashes 2 10.53 Proper ty Damage Only Crashes 15 78.95 Vehicle Exposure Statistics Annual ADT = 8100 Total Length = 0.67 (Miles) Total Vehicle Exposure = 5.95 (MVMT) 1.078 (Kilometers) 9.57 (MVKMT) Crashes Per 100 Million Crashes Per 100 Million Crash Rate Vehicle Miles Vehicle Kilometers Total Crash Rate 319 .44 198 .49 Fatal Crash Rate 0 .00 0. 00 Non Fatal Crash Rate 67 .25 41. 79 Night Crash Rate 33. 62 20. 89 Wet Crash Rate 67. 25 41. 79 EPDO Rate 817 .08 507. 71 02/23/2009 .4. • North Carolina Department of Transportation • Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System • Strip Analysis Report • Miscellan eous Statistics Severity Index = 2.56 • EPDO Crash Index = 98.60 • Estimated Property Damage Total = $ 91700.00 • • Accident Ty pe Summary • Number of Percent • Accident Type Crashes of Total • ANGLE 3 15.79 ANIMAL 1 5.26 • LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADW AYS 2 10.53 • LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 2 10.53 • OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 1 5.26 • REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 8 92.11 • SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 2 10.53 • • Injury Su mmary • Number of Percent Injury Type Injuries of Total • Fatal Injuries 0 0.00 •I' Class A Injuries 0 0.00 • Class B Injuries 2 20.00 Class C Injuries 8 80.00 • Total Non-Fatal Injuries 10 100.00 • Total Injuries 10 100.00 •? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 02/23/2009 5- • • • 0 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report 0 Monthly Summary 0 Number of Percent 0 Month Crashes of Total 0 Jan 2 10.53 ® Feb 0 0.00 Mar 3 15.79 0 Apr 2 10.53 0 May 0 0.00 0 Jun 2 10.53 ® Jul 2 10.53 Aug 1 5.26 0 Sep 2 10.53 0 Oct 0 0.00 0 Nov 1 5.26 Dec 4 21.05 0 Daily Summa ry 0 Number of Percent 0 Day Crashes of Total J? Mon 1 5.26 0 Tue 3 15.79 0 Wed 3 15.79 Thu 6 31.58 0 Fri 6 31.58 0 Sat 0 0.00 0 Sun 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 02/23/20 09 iO • North Carolina Department of Transportation • Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report H ourly Summary Number of Percent Hour Crashes of Total • I? 0000-0059 0 0.00 • 0100-0159 0 0.00 • 0200-0259 0 0.00 • 0300-0359 0 0.00 0400-0459 0 0.00 • 0500-0559 0 0.00 • 0600-0659 0 0.00 •I, 0700-0759 1 5.26 • 0800-0859 0 0.00 • 0900-0959 1 5.26 1000-1059 0 0.00 • 1100-1159 1 5.26 • 1200-1259 5 26.32 • 1300-1359 0 0.00 • 1400-1459 2 10.53 • 1500-1559 3 15.79 i 1600-1659 1 5.26 •' 1700-1759 3 15.79 • 1 1800-1859 1 5.26 • 1900-1959 0 0.00 ?. 2000-2059 0 0.00 • 2100-2159 0 0.00 2200-2259 1 5.26 • 2300-2359 0 0.00 . I • • • • • • • • • • • • 02/23/2009 .7_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Llght and Road Co nditions Sum mary Condition Dry Wet Other Total Day 12 3 0 15 Dark 1 1 0 2 Other 2 0 0 2 Total 15 4 0 19 Object Struck Summary Times Percent Object Type Struck of Total ANIMAL 1 100.00 Vehicle Type Summary Number Percent Vehicle Type Involved of Total PASSENGER CAR 21 53.85 PEDALCYCLE 1 2.56 PICKUP 9 23.08 SPORT UTILITY 6 15.38 TRUCK/TRAILER 1 2.56 VAN 1 2.56 02/23/2009 -S- North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Yearly Totals Summary Accident Totals Total Fatal Injury Property Damage Year Accidents Accidents Accidents Only Accidents 2006 6 0 1 5 2007 9 0 3 6 2008 4 0 0 4 Total 19 0 4 15 Iniurv Totals Class A, B. Year Fatal Injuries or C Injuries 2006 0 2 2007 0 8 2006 0 0 Total 0 10 Miscellaneous Totals Year Property Damage EPDO Index 2006 $ 24400 13.40 2007 $ 56350 31.20 2008 $ 10950 4.00 Total $ 91700 48.60 Tvoe of Accident Totals Run Off Road & Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End Fixed Object Angle Side Swipe Other 2006 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 2007 1 0 4 0 3 1 0 2008 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Total 4 0 8 0 3 2 2 02/2312009 .9. A O A A O A O A 0 A O 0 0 O 0 O O North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Strip Diagram Features Milepost Crash IDs NC 54 Railroad Crossing:734746Y 0.000 101872024 102062626 102404421 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.160 0.170 0.180 0.190 0.200 0.210 0.220 0.230 0.240 0.250 0.260 0.270 0.280 0.290 0.300 0.310 0.320 0.330 0.340 0.350 0.360 0.370 0.380 0.390 0.400 0.410 0.420 0.430 101943734 101920427 101865586 02/23/2009 -10- • North Carolina Department of Transportation • Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report • Features Milepost Crash IDs • 0.440 • 0.450 • 0.460 0.470 101991223 • 0.480 102222126 • DISTRIBUTION 0.490 101933309 102206933 101722618 101994176 • 0.500 • 0.510 • 0.520 0.530 • 0.540 • 0.550 • 0.560 0.570 • 0.580 • 0.590 • 0.600 0.610 102437197 • 0.620 • 0.630 • 0.640 0.650 •, 0.660 • SR 1999 DAVIS 0.670 101759378 101783299 102003431 102093804 • 102052757 102157643 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 02/23/2009 • -11- • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Study Criteria Study Name Log No. PH No. TIP No. K/A Cf. B/C Cf. ADT ADT Route GMM200902092 200902092 _ Y4117B 76.8 8.4 8100 40001978 Request Date Courier Service Phone Fax No. 02/18/2009 (919)733-7844 oun Municipality Name Code Div. Name Code Y-Line Ft. Begin Date End Date Years DURHAM 31 5 All and Rural 0 01/01/2006 12/31/2008 3.00 Location Text Requestor Secondary Route 1978 (Hopson Road) from NC Mark Hamel 54-Miami Boulevard to Secondary Route 1999 (Davis North Carolina Department of Transportation Drive) Included Accidents Old MP New MP Type 102206933 0 0.488 R 102052757 0.67 I 101994176 0.487 0.493 R 101920427 0.67 0.2 R 101865586 0 0.33 R Excluded Accidents 101747381 102479429 Fiche Roads Name Code SR 1978 40001978 HOPSON 50014415 Strip Road Name Code Begin MP End MP Miles Kilometers SR 1978 40001978 0.000 0.670 0.670 1.078 02/23/2009 -12- North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index T - Type of Accident Codes 0 = UNKNOWN 1 = RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 2 = RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 3 = RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 4 = JACKKNIFE 5 = OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 13 = OTHER NON-COLLISION 14 = PEDESTRIAN 15 = PEDALCYCLIST 16 = RR TRAIN, ENGINE 17 = ANIMAL 18 = MOVABLE OBJECT 19 = FIXED OBJECT 20 = PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 21 = REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 22 = REAR END, TURN 23 = LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 24 = LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 25 = RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 26 = RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 27 = HEAD ON 28 = SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 29 = SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 30 = ANGLE 31 = BACKING UP 32 = OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE R - Road Condition Codes 1 = DRY 2=WET 3 = WATER (STANDING, MOVING) 4 = ICE 5 = SNOW 6 = SLUSH 7 = SAND, MUD, DIRT, GRAVEL 8 = FUEL, OIL 9 = OTHER 10 = UNKNOWN S - Accident Severity Codes K = FATAL A= A-LEVEL INJURY B = B-LEVEL INJURY C = C-LEVEL INJURY O = PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY F - Road Feature Codes 0 = NO SPECIAL FEATURE 1 = BRIDGE 2 = BRIDGE APPROACH 3 = UNDERPASS 4 = DRIVEWAY, PUBLIC 5 = DRIVEWAY, PRIVATE 6 = ALLEY INTERSECTION 7 = FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION 8 = T-INTERSECTION 9 = Y-INTERSECTION 10 = TRAFFIC CIRCLE/ROUNDABOUT 11 = FIVE-POINT, OR MORE 12 = RELATED TO INTERSECTION 13 = NON-INTERSECTION MEDIAN CROSSING 14 = END OR BEGINNING - DIVIDED HIGHWAY 15 = OFF RAMP ENTRY 16 = OFF RAMP PROPER 17 = OFF RAMP TERMINAL ON CROSSROAD 18 = MERGE LANE BETWEEN ON AND OFF RAMP 19 = ON RAMP ENTRY 20 = ON RAMP PROPER 21 = ON RAMP TERMINAL ON CROSSROAD 22 = RAILROAD CROSSING 23 = TUNNEL 24 = SHARED-USE PATHS OR TRAILS 25 = OTHER L - Light Condition Codes 1 = DAYLIGHT 2 = DUSK 3 = DAWN 4 = DARK - LIGHTED ROADWAY 5 = DARK - ROADWAY NOT LIGHTED 6 = DARK - UNKNOWN LIGHTING 7 = OTHER 8 = UNKNOWN Ch - Road Character 1 = STRAIGHT, LEVEL 2 = STRAIGHT, HILLCREST 3 = STRAIGHT, GRADE 4 = STRAIGHT, BOTTOM (SAG) 5 = CURVE, LEVEL 6 = CURVE, HILLCREST 7 = CURVE, GRADE 8 = CURVE, BOTTOM (SAG) 9 = OTHER W - Weather Condition Codes 1 = CLEAR 2 = CLOUDY 3 = RAIN 4=SNOW 5=FOG, SMOG, SMOKE 6 = SLEET, HAIL, FREEZING RAIN/DRIZZLE 7 = SEVERE CROSSWINDS 8 = BLOWING SAND, DIRT, SNOW 9 = OTHER Op - Traffic Control Ooeratina 1 =YES 2=NO 3 = UNKNOWN 10/19/2005 Page 1 of 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index Veh Mnvr - Vehicle Maneuver Codes Dv - Traffic Control Device 1 = STOPPED IN TRAVEL LANE 0 = NO CONTROL PRESENT 2 = PARKED OUT OF TRAVEL LANES 1 =STOP SIGN 3 = PARKED IN TRAVEL LANES 2 = YIELD SIGN , 4 = GOING STRAIGHT AHEAD 3 = STOP AND GO SIGNAL 5 = CHANGING LANES OR MERGING 4 = FLASHING SIGNAL WITH STOP SIGN 6 = PASSING 5 = FLASHING SIGNAL WITHOUT STOP SIGN 7 = MAKING RIGHT TURN 6 = RR GATE AND FLASHER 8 = MAKING LEFT TURN 7 = RR FLASHER 9 = MAKING U-TURN 8 = RR CROSSBUCKS ONLY 10 = BACKING 9 = HUMAN CONTROL 11 =SLOWING OR STOPPING 10 = WARNING SIGN 12 = STARTING IN ROADWAY 11 = SCHOOL ZONE SIGNS 13 = PARKING 12 = FLASHING STOP AND GO SIGNAL 14 = LEAVING PARKED POSITION 13 = DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, NO PASSING ZONE 15 = AVOIDING OBJECT IN ROAD 14 = OTHER Alchl/Drgs - Driver Alcohol/Drugs Suspected Status Codes 0=NO 1 = YES - ALCOHOL, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED 2 = YES - ALCOHOL, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED 3 = YES - OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED 4 = YES - OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED 5 = YES - ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED 6 = YES -ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED 7=UNKNOWN Ped Actn - Pedestrian Action Codes 1 = ENTERING OR CROSSING SPECIFIED LOCATION 2 = WALKING, RIDING, RUNNING/JOGGING WITH TRAFFIC 3 = WALKING, RIDING, RUNNING/JOGGING AGAINST TRAFFIC 4 = WORKING 5 = PUSHING VEHICLE 6 = APPROACHING OR LEAVING VEHICLE 7 = PLAYING 8 = STANDING 9 = OTHER Ci - Roadway Contributing Circumstances 0 = NONE (NO UNUSUAL CONDITIONS) 1 = ROAD SURFACE CONDITION 2 = DEBRIS 3 = RUT, HOLES, BUMPS 4 = WORK ZONE (CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, UTILITY) 5 = WORN TRAVEL-POLISHED SURFACE 6 = OBSTRUCTION IN ROADWAY 7 = TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE INOPERATIVE, NOT VISIBLE OR MISSING 8 = SHOULDERS LOW, SOFT OR HIGH 9 = NO SHOULDERS 10 = NON-HIGHWAY WORK 11 = OTHER 12 = UNKNOWN 10/19/2005 Page 2 of 3 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index ObiStrk - Object Struck Codes Unit # - Vehicle Style Codes 14 = PEDESTRIAN 1 = PASSENGER CAR 15 = PEDALCYCLIST 2 = PICKUP 17 = ANIMAL 3 = LIGHT TRUCK (MINI-VAN, PANEL) 18 = MOVABLE OBJECT 4 = SPORT UTILITY 20 = PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 5 = VAN 33 = TREE 6 = COMMERCIAL BUS 34 = UTILITY POLE 7 = SCHOOL BUS 35 = LUMINAIRE POLE NON-BREAKAWAY 8 = ACTIVITY BUS 36 = LUMINAIRE POLE BREAKAWAY 9 = OTHER BUS 37 = OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN NON-BREAKAWAY 10 = SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (2-AXLE, 6-TIRE) 38 = OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN BREAKAWAY 11 = SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (3 OR MORE AXLES) 39 = OVERHEAD SIGN SUPPORT 12 = TRUCK/TRAILER 40 = COMMERCIAL SIGN 13 = TRUCK/TRACTOR 41 = GUARDRAIL END ON SHOULDER 14 = TRACTOR/SEMI-TRAILER 42 = GUARDRAIL FACE ON SHOULDER 15 = TRACTOR/DOULBES 43 = GUARDRAIL END IN MEDIAN 16 = UNKNOWN HEAVY TRUCK 44 = GUARDRAIL FACE IN MEDIAN 17 = TAXICAB 45 = SHOULDER BARRIER END 18 = FARM EQUIPMENT 46 = SHOULDER BARRIER FACE 19 = FARM TRACTOR 47 = MEDIAN BARRIER END 20 = MOTORCYCLE 48 = MEDIAN BARRIER FACE 21 = MOPED 49 = BRIDGE RAIL END 22 = MOTOR SCOOTER OR MOTOR BIKE 50 = BRIDGE RAIL FACE 23 = PEDALCYCLE 51 = OVERHEAD PART UNDERPASS 24 = PEDESTRIAN 52 = PIER ON SHOULDER OF UNDERPASS 25 = MOTOR HOME/RECREATIONAL VEHICLE 53 = PIER IN MEDIAN OF UNDERPASS 26 = OTHER 54 = ABUTMENT OF UNDERPASS 27 = ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV) 55 = TRAFFIC ISLAND CURB OR MEDIAN 28 = FIRETRUCK 56 = CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON SHOULDER 29 = EMS VEHICLE, AMBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD 57 = CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON MEDIAN 30 = MILITARY 58 = DITCH 31 = POLICE 59 = EMBANKMENT 32 = UNKNOWN 60 = MAILBOX 61 = FENCE OR FENCE POST 62 = CONTRUCTION BARRIER 63 = CRASH CUSHION 64 = OTHER FIXED OBJECT 10/19/2005 Page 3 of 3 a STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR. GOVERNOR SECRETARY February 24, 2009 TO: William B. Kerr, Jr., AICP PBS&J FROM: Christopher J. Oliver, PE Traffic Safety Unit SUBJECT: NC 54-Miami Boulevard from Secondary Route 1978 (Hopson Road) to Secondary Route 1980 (Church Street) in Durham County (Project No. Y-4117B) The 2007 annual average daily traffic (AADT) for this section was estimated at 19,000 vehicles per day, which equates to a total vehicle exposure rate of 14.79 million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT). The crash analysis consisted of a maximum Y-line of 0 feet from the section, and there were 26 crashes reported along this location between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008. For crash rate purposes, this section can be classified as a 4 Lanes with a Continuous Left Turn Lane, North Carolina (NC) Route. The following table shows the comparison of the crash rates for the analyzed section of NC 54 versus the 2005-2007 statewide crash rates and the calculated critical rates with a 95% level of confidence for a comparable route type and configuration. All of the crash rates are below the average for similar type facilities. Rate Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM Statewide Rate I Critical Rate z Total 26 175.85 258.65 330.84 Fatal 0 0.00 1.73 10.74 Non-Fatal 7 47.35 90.14 134.14 Night 4 27.05 56.67 92.26 Wet 3 20.29 39.54 69.82 MtT)-ZUU7 statewide Crash rate for 4 Lanes with a Continuous Left Tom Lane, North Carolina (NC) Route 2 Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence). The critical crash rate is a statistically derived value against which a calculated rate can be compared to see if the rate is above an average far enough so that something besides chance must be the cause. If you have any questions concerning the attached analysis, please contact me at coliver@ncdot.gov or call me at (919) 773-2895. CJO:co cc: M. L. Hamel K. L. Becker, PE S. J. Johnson, PE D. Y.Ishak Attachment MAILING ADDRESS: TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY AND SAFETY DIVISION 1561 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1561 TELEPHONE: (919) 733-2800 FAx: (919) 771-2745 WEBSITE. WWW.DON.DOTSTATE.NC.OS LOCATION: 700 GREENFIELD PARKWAY SUITE 750 GARNER, NORTH CAROLINA 27529 • North Carolina Department of Trans portation • Traffi c Engineering Accident Analys is System • Strip Analysis Report • Study Criteria S ummar y • County: DUR HAM City: All an d Rural Date: 01/ 01/2006 to 12/31/2008 Study: GMM200902095 • Loca tion: NC 54-Miami Boul evard from Secondary Route 1978 (Hopson Road) to Seconda ry Route 1980 (Chur ch • Str eet) • Report Details • • • 1 08:14 DIRECTION • Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 12 Obj Strk: • Unit ___ 2 2 ____ Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: • 2 101872024 ___________ 10.410 12/20/2006 __________ SIDESWIPE, SAME ____ $ 1400 _________ 0 0 0 0 ___ 1 1 ______ 1 1 0 ___ 3 1 • 15:42 DIRECTION • Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 5 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 7 Obj Strk: • Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 5 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: ___ ____ _______ ____ __________ ____ _________ ___ ______ ___ • 3 102062626 10.410 09/14/2007 ANGLE $ 5500 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 • 11:43 Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 15 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: • Unit 2 1 Alchi/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: 5 Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: • ___ ____ _______ ____ ___________ ___ _________ ____ ___ _ _ ___ • 4 102370091 10.410 08/12/2008 REAR END, SLOW OR $ 2000 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 I 17:34 STOP • Unit 1 3 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 5 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 11 Obj Strk: • Unit ___ 2 1 _____ Alchl/Drgs: ______ 0 ____ Speed: 10 MPH Dir: ___________ N ____ Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: ________ 4 ____ Obj Strio _____ ___ • 5 102429602 10.410 10/27/2008 REAR END, SLOW OR $ 7000 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 • 15:43 STOP • Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strike it U 2 1 • n Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strike ___ _____ ______ ____ ___________ ____ ________ ____ _____ ___ • 6 101946237 10.415 04/03/2007 OTHER COLLISION $ 40 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 • 15:24 WITH VEHICLE Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: • Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 2 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 12 Obj Strk: • --- ----- ------ ---- ----------- ---- -------- ---- ----- --- 7 101674044 10.448 02110/2006 LEFT TURN, $ 1500 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 0 17:46 DIFFERENT ROADWAYS • Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 5 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: • Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 5 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 8 Obj Strk: --- ----- ------ ---- ----------- ---- -------- ---- ----- --- • 8 102125714 10.505 11 /19/2007 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT $ 10000 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 2 • 11:15 • Unit 1 : 2 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: 34 ___ _____ ______ ____ ___________ ____ ________ ____ _____ ___ • • Acc Total Inj ries u Condition Road Trfc C tl No Crash ID Milepost Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv O p 1 101799727 10.410 09/07/2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME $ 700 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 3 02/24/2009 _? _ • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strin Analvsis Rpnnrt Acc I Total Injuries Condition Road Trfc Ctl No Crash ID Milepost Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R IL W Ch Ci Dv Op 9 102458579 10.550 11/11/2008 LEFT TURN, $ 4000 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 1 0 1 1 18:55 DIFFERENT ROADWAYS Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 30 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 8 Obj Strk: Unit 2 5 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: 10 102128493 10.690 12/09/2007 ANIMAL $ ------ 3000 0 0 0 0 ---- 1 5 ----- 1 1 0 ---- 0 20:10 Unit --- 1 : 3 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 -------- Speed: 35 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: 17 11 101788377 -- 10.790 07/20/2006 ---------- ANGLE -- $ ---------- 8500 0 0 0 0 ---- 1 1 ------ 1 1 0 --- 3 1 13:04 Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 2 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: 15 MPH Dir: ---------- S -- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: ----------- 8 --- Obj Strk: 12 101831392 10.818 10/24/2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME $ 3000 0 0 0 0 1 1 ------ 1 1 0 --- 0 08:02 DIRECTION Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 20 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---- Speed: 20 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 5 Obj Strk: 13 101751089 ------ 10.840 06126/2006 ---------- SIDESWIPE, SAME -- $ ----------- 500 0 0 0 0 --- 2 1 ------ 3 1 0 --- 0 10:14 DIRECTION Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 12 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 7 ------ Speed: 35 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 5 Obj Strk: 14 101958495 ---- 10.885 04/20/2007 ---------- SIDESWIPE, SAME --- $ ---------- 500 0 0 0 0 --- 1 1 ------ 1 1 0 --- 0 16:48 DIRECTION Unit 1 14 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 7 ---------- Speed: 45 MPH Dir: ---------- E --- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: - 5 Obj Strk: 15 102456837 10.885 12/01/2008 REAR END, SLOW OR --------- $ 5000 0 0 0 0 --- 1 1 ------ 1 1 0 --- 0 07:38 STOP Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 3 1 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: 45 MPH Dir: ----------- S -- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: --- 4 Obj Strk: 16 101910774 10.890 02/1512007 REAR END, SLOW OR ------- $ 9000 0 0 0 0 ---- 1 1 ----- 1 1 0 --- 0 1545 STOP Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 11 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 5 ------ Alchl/Drgs: 0 --------- Speed: 45 MPH Dir: ----------- S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 11 Obj Strk: 17 102327745 11.102 06/1912008 OTHER NON-COLLISION -- $ 1 ---------- 700 0 0 0 0 ---- 1 1 ----- 1 5 0 --- 1 1 17:08 Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 ------ AlchllDrgs: 0 --------- Speed: 3 MPH Dir: ----------- E -- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: ---------- 8 ---- Obj Strk: ----- --- 02/24/2009 .2. North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analvsis Report Acc Total Injuries Condition Road Trfc Ctl No Crash ID Milepost Date Accident Type Damage F A 13C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op 18 101718999 11.120 05123/2006 REAR END, SLOW OR $ 2000 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 7 0 1 1 09:14 STOP Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 - Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: 19 ---- 101976037 ---------- 11.120 05/16/2007 ---------- REAR END, SLOW OR -- $ -- 2900 --------- 0 0 0 0 --- 1 1 ------ 1 7 0 --- 1 1 09:41 STOP Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 1 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 4 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: ---- 5 -- MPH -- Dir: -- E -- -- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: --------- 8 --- Obj Strk: ------ --- 20 102118023 11.120 08/21/2007 ANGLE $ 10000 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 06:37 Unit 1 1 AIchIlDrgs: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 8 Obj Strk: Unit - 2 2 AIchIlDrgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: E Veh MnvrlPed Actn: 4 Obj Strk: -- 21 ----- 102146109 ---------- 11.120 09/22/2007 ---- FIXED O ---- BJECT -- -- $ -- 9400 --------- 0 0 0 0 --- 1 5 ------ 1 5 0 --- 0 22:00 Unit --- 1 : 2 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 1 ---------- Speed: 70 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: 37 22 102252460 11.120 04115/2008 ---- ANGLE -- -- -- -- $ -- 10400 --------- 0 0 0 2 --- 1 1 ------ 1 1 0 --- 1 1 21:32 Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 40 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 25 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: --- 23 ----- 102257928 ---------- 11.120 04/20/2008 ---- LEFT TU -- RN, -- -- -- $ --- 20000 -------- 0 0 0 0 --- 2 2 ------ 3 1 0 --- 1 1 17:52 DIFFERENT ROADWAYS Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: ---- 15 -- MPH -- Dir: --- E - --- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: -------- 8 - - Obj Strk: 24 102316291 11.120 05/01/2008 OTHER NON-COLLISION $ 1000 0 0 0 0 - 1 1 ------ 1 1 0 --- 1 06:59 Unit 1 : 20 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 30 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: 4 Obj Strk: --- 25 ----- 102338311 ---------- 11.120 06/0212008 ---- ANGLE -- --- -- - $ --- 10500 -------- 0 0 0 1 --- 1 1 ------ 1 1 0 --- 2 13:00 Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: W Veh MnvrlPed Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 1 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: ---- 10 -- MPH --- Dir: -- N - --- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: -------- 4 --- Obj Strk: ------ --- 26 102423156 11.120 10/16/2008 ANGLE $ 2750 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 13:53 Unit 1 20 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 30 MPH Dir: S Veh MnvrlPed Actn: 4 Obj Strk: Unit --- 2 4 ----- Alchl/Drgs: 0 ---------- Speed: ---- 10 -- MPH --- Din -- E - --- Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn: -------- 8 --- Obj Strk: ------ --- 02/24/2009 - 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strin Analvsis Rnnnrt Acc Total Injuries Condition Road Trfc Ctl No Crash ID Milepost Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op Legend for Acc No -Accident Number Report Injuries: F - Fatal, A - Class A, B - Class B, C - Class C Details: Condition: R - Road Surface, L - Ambient Light, W - Weather Rd Ch - Road Character Rd Ci - Roadway Contributing Circumstances Trfc Ctl - Traffic Control: Dv - Device, Op - Operating Alchl/Drgs - Alcohol Drugs Suspected Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn - Vehicle Maneuver/Pedestrian Action Obi Strk - Object Struck 02/24/2009 -4_ • North Carolina Department of Transportation • Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System • Strip Analysis Report • Summary Statistics • • Hiah Level Cra sh Summary • Number of Percent • Crash Type Crashes of Total • Total Crashes 26 100.00 Fatal Crashes 0 0.00 • Non-Fatal Injury Crashes 7 26.92 • Total Injury Crashes 7 26.92 • Property Damage Only Crashes 19 73.08 • Night Crashes 4 15.38 • Wet Crashes 3 11.54 Alcohol/Drugs Involvement Crashes 1 3.85 • • • Crash Severit y Summary • Number of Percent Crash Type Crashes of Total • Total Crashes 26 100.00 • Fatal Crashes 0 0.00 • Class A Crashes 0 0.00 • Class 3 Crashes 2 7.69 Class C Crashes 5 19.23 • Property Damage Only Crashes 19 73.08 • • • Vehicle Exposure Statistics • Annual ADT = 19000 • Total Length = 0.71 (Miles) 1.143 (Kilometers) • Total Vehicle Exposure = 14.79 (MVMT) 23.79 (MVKMT) • Crashes Per 100 Million Crashes P er 10 0 Million • Crash Rate Vehicle Miles Vehicle Kilometers Total Crash Rate 175.85 109 .27 • Fatal Crash Rate 0.00 0. 00 • Non Fatal Crash Rate 47.35 29. 42 • Night Crash Rate 27.05 16. 81 • Wet Crash Rate 20.29 12. 61 • EPDO Rate 526.21 326. 97 • • • • 02/2412009 _5- • • • 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Miscellaneous Statistics Severity Index = 2.99 EPDO Crash Index = 77.80 Estimated Property Damage Total - $ 132290.00 Accident Type Sum mary Number of Percent Accident Type Crashes of Total ANGLE 6 23.08 ANIMAL 1 3.85 FIXED OBJECT 1 3.85 LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 3 11.54 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 1 3.85 OTHER NON-COLLISION 2 7.69 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 1 3.85 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 6 23.08 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 5 19.23 Injury Summary Number of Percent Injury Type Injuries of Total Fatal Injuries 0 0.00 Class A Injuries 0 0.00 Class B Injuries 2 20.00 Class C Injuries 8 80.00 Total Non-Fatal Injuries 10 100.00 Total Injuries 10 100.00 02/24/2009 -6- North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Monthly Summary Number of Percent Month Crashes of Total Jan 0 0.00 4) Feb 2 7.69 Mar 0 0.00 4D Apr 4 15.38 May 3 11.54 Jun 3 11.54 4D Jul 1 3.85 Aug 2 7.69 Sep 3 11.54 Oct 3 11.54 !r Nov 2 7.69 Dec 3 11.54 4D e Daily Summa ry Number of Percent Day Crashes of Total e Mon 5 19.23 4) Tue 7 26.92 4) Wed 2 7.69 Thu 6 23.08 Fri 3 11.54 e Sat 1 3.85 Sun 2 7.69 e e e e e e e e e 4D 4) 02/2412 009 .7. e 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System 0 Strip Analysis Report 0 Hou rly Summary 0 Number of Percent 0 Hour Crashes of Total 0 0000-0059 0 0.00 0 0100-0159 0 0.00 0200-0259 0 0.00 0 0300-0359 0 0.00 0400-0459 0 0.00 0 0500-0559 0 0.00 0 0600-0659 2 7.69 0 0700-0759 1 3.65 0 0800-0859 2 7.69 0900-0959 2 7.69 1000-1059 1 3.85 0 1100-1159 2 7.69 0 1200-1259 0 0.00 1300-1359 3 11.54 1400-1459 0 0.00 1500-1559 4 15.38 1600-1659 1 3.85 1700-1759 4 15.38 1800-1859 1 3.85 1900-1959 0 0.00 2000-2059 1 3.85 2100-2159 1 3.85 2200-2259 1 3.85 0 2300-2359 0 0.00 0 02/24/2009 _$_ 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report • • • Liaht and Road Conditions Sum mary Condition Dry Wet Other Total • Day 19 2 0 21 • Dark 4 0 0 4 Other 0 1 0 1 • Total 23 3 0 26 • • • Object Struck Summary Times Percent • Object Type Struck of Total • ANIMAL 1 33.33 • OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN NON-BREAKAWAY 1 33.33 • UTILITY POLE 1 33.33 • • Vehicle Type Summary • Number Percent Vehicle Type Involved of Total • LIGHT TRUCK (MINI -VAN, PANEL) 2 4.08 • MOTORCYCLE 2 4.08 • PASSENGER CAR 27 55.10 • PICKUP 5 10.20 • SPORT UTILITY 9 18.37 TRACTOR/SEMI-TRAI LER 1 2.04 • TRUCK/TRAILER 1 2.04 • VAN 2 4.08 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 02/24/2009 g_ • r. N 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Yearly Totals Summary Accident Totals Total Fatal Injury Property Damage Year Accidents Accidents Accidents Only Accidents 2006 7 0 0 7 2007 9 0 2 7 2008 10 0 5 5 Total 26 0 7 19 Injury Totals Class A, B, Year Fatal Injuries or C Injuries 2006 0 0 2007 0 4 2008 0 6 Total 0 10 Miscellaneous Totals Year Property Damage EPDO Index 2006 $ 17600 7.00 2007 $ 50340 23.80 2008 $ 64350 47.00 Total $ 132290 77.80 Type of Accident Totals Run Off Road 8 Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End Fixed Object Angle Side Swipe Other 2006 1 0 1 0 1 4 0 2007 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 2008 2 0 3 0 3 0 2 Total 3 0 6 2 6 5 4 02/24/2009 -10- • North Carolina Department of Transportation • Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System • Strip Analysis Report Strip Diagram Features Milepost Crash IDs • SR 1978 HOPSON PAGE 10.410 101799727 101872024 102062626 102370091 • 102429602 101946237 • 10.420 • 10.430 10.440 • 10.450 101674044 • 10.460 • 10.470 10.480 • 10.490 • 10.500 • 10.510 102125714 • 10.520 10.530 • 10.540 • 10.550 102458579 • 10.560 10.570 • 10.580 • 10.590 • 10.600 10.610 • 10.620 • 10.630 • 10.640 10.650 • 10.660 • 10.670 • 10.680 10.690 102128493 • 10.700 • 10.710 • 10.720 • 10.730 10.740 • 10.750 • 10.760 • 10.770 10.780 • EMPEROR 10.790 101768377 • 10.600 • 10.810 10.820 101831392 • • 02/24/2009 11- • • • 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report Features Milepost Crash IDs SR 1980 I CHURCH CLEGG 10.830 10.840 101751089 10.850 10.860 10.870 10.880 10.890 10.900 10.910 10.920 10.930 10.940 10.950 10.960 10.970 10.980 10.990 11.000 11.010 11.020 11.030 11.040 11.050 11.060 11.070 11.080 11.090 11.100 11.110 11.120 101958495 102456837 101910774 102327745 101718999 101976037 102118023 1102146109 102252460 1102257928 1102316291 102338311 102423156 02/24/2009 -12- • North Carolina Department of Transportation • Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System • Strip Analysis Report Study Criteria Study Name Log No. PH No. TIP No. K/A Cf. B/C Cf. ADT ADT Route • GMM200902095 200902095 Y4117B 76 .8 6.4 19000 30000054 • Request Date Courier Service Phone No. Ext. Fax No. • 02/18/2009 (919)733-7844 • County Municipality • Name Code Div. Name Code Y-Line Ft. Begin Date End Date Years • DURHAM 31 5 All and Rural 0 01/01/2006 12/31/2008 3.00 • Location Text Requestor • NC 54-Miami Boulevard from Secondary Route 1978 Mark Hamel • (Hopson Road) to Secondary Route 1980 (Church North Carolina Department of Transportation Street) Room 426 • Included Accidents Old MP New MP Type • • 101799727 10.41 I 102370091 10.41 I • 102429602 10.41 I • • Excluded Accidents • 102479429 • 102404421 • 101747381 • 101865586 102206933 • 102320432 • 102464191 • • Fiche Roads • Name Code • NC 54 30000054 • MIAMI 50019939 • CHAPEL HILL 50005632 OLD RALEIGH 50022570 • • Strip Road • Name Code Begin MP End MP Miles Kilometers • NC 54 30000054 10.410 11.120 0.710 1.143 • • • • 02124/2009 -13. • • • North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index T - Tyne of Accident Codes F - Road Feature Codes 0 = UNKNOWN 0 = NO SPECIAL FEATURE 1 = RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 1 =BRIDGE 2 = RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 2 = BRIDGE APPROACH 3 = RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 3 = UNDERPASS 4 = JACKKNIFE 4 = DRIVEWAY, PUBLIC 5 = OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 5 = DRIVEWAY, PRIVATE 13 = OTHER NON-COLLISION 6 = ALLEY INTERSECTION 14 = PEDESTRIAN 7 = FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION 15 = PEDALCYCLIST 8 = T-INTERSECTION 16 = RR TRAIN, ENGINE 9 = Y-INTERSECTION 17 = ANIMAL 10 = TRAFFIC CIRCLE/ROUNDABOUT 18 = MOVABLE OBJECT 11 = FIVE-POINT, OR MORE 19 = FIXED OBJECT 12 = RELATED TO INTERSECTION 20 = PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 13 = NON-INTERSECTION MEDIAN CROSSING 21 = REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 14 = END OR BEGINNING - DIVIDED HIGHWAY 22 = REAR END, TURN 15 = OFF RAMP ENTRY 23 = LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 16 = OFF RAMP PROPER 24 = LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 17 = OFF RAMP TERMINAL ON CROSSROAD 25 = RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 18 = MERGE LANE BETWEEN ON AND OFF RAMP 26 = RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 19 = ON RAMP ENTRY 27 = HEAD ON 20 = ON RAMP PROPER 28 = SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 21 = ON RAMP TERMINAL ON CROSSROAD 29 = SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 22 = RAILROAD CROSSING 30 = ANGLE 23 = TUNNEL 31 = BACKING UP 24 = SHARED-USE PATHS OR TRAILS 32 = OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 25 = OTHER R - Road Condition Codes 1 = DRY 2 = WET 3 = WATER (STANDING, MOVING) 4 = ICE 5=SNOW 6 = SLUSH 7 = SAND, MUD, DIRT, GRAVEL 8 = FUEL, OIL 9 = OTHER 10 = UNKNOWN L - Light Condition Codes 1 = DAYLIGHT 2 = DUSK 3=DAWN 4 = DARK - LIGHTED ROADWAY 5 = DARK - ROADWAY NOT LIGHTED 6 = DARK - UNKNOWN LIGHTING 7 = OTHER 8 = UNKNOWN W - Weather Condition Codes 1 = CLEAR 2 = CLOUDY 3 = RAIN 4 = SNOW 5 = FOG, SMOG, SMOKE 6 = SLEET, HAIL, FREEZING RAIN/DRIZZLE 7 = SEVERE CROSSWINDS 8 = BLOWING SAND, DIRT, SNOW 9 = OTHER S - Accident Severity Codes K = FATAL A = A-LEVEL INJURY B = B-LEVEL INJURY C = C-LEVEL INJURY 0 = PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY Ch - Road Character 1 = STRAIGHT, LEVEL 2 = STRAIGHT, HILLCREST 3 = STRAIGHT, GRADE 4 = STRAIGHT, BOTTOM (SAG) 5 = CURVE, LEVEL 6 = CURVE, HILLCREST 7 = CURVE, GRADE 8 = CURVE, BOTTOM (SAG) 9 = OTHER Oo - Traffic Control Operating 1 =YES 2=NO 3 = UNKNOWN 10/19/2005 Page 1 of 3 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index Veh Mnvr - Vehicle Maneuver Codes Dv - Traffic Control Device 1 = STOPPED IN TRAVEL LANE 0 = NO CONTROL PRESENT 2 = PARKED OUT OF TRAVEL LANES 1 =STOP SIGN 3 = PARKED IN TRAVEL LANES 2 = YIELD SIGN 4 = GOING STRAIGHT AHEAD 3 = STOP AND GO SIGNAL 5 = CHANGING LANES OR MERGING 4 = FLASHING SIGNAL WITH STOP SIGN 6 = PASSING 5 = FLASHING SIGNAL WITHOUT STOP SIGN 7 = MAKING RIGHT TURN 6 = RR GATE AND FLASHER 8 = MAKING LEFT TURN 7 = RR FLASHER 9 = MAKING U-TURN 8 = RR CROSSBUCKS ONLY 10 = BACKING 9 = HUMAN CONTROL 11 =SLOWING OR STOPPING 10 = WARNING SIGN 12 = STARTING IN ROADWAY 11 =SCHOOL ZONE SIGNS 13 = PARKING 12 = FLASHING STOP AND GO SIGNAL 14 = LEAVING PARKED POSITION 13 = DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, NO PASSING ZONE 15 = AVOIDING OBJECT IN ROAD 14 = OTHER Alchl/Dras - Driver Alcohol/Drugs Suspected Status Codes 0=NO 1 = YES -ALCOHOL, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED 2 = YES - ALCOHOL, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED 3 = YES - OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED 4 = YES - OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED 5 = YES - ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED 6 = YES - ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED 7 = UNKNOWN Ped Actn - Pedestrian Action Codes 1 = ENTERING OR CROSSING SPECIFIED LOCATION 2 = WALKING, RIDING, RUNNING/JOGGING WITH TRAFFIC 3 = WALKING, RIDING, RUNNING/JOGGING AGAINST TRAFFIC 4 = WORKING 5 = PUSHING VEHICLE 6 = APPROACHING OR LEAVING VEHICLE 7 = PLAYING 8 = STANDING 9 = OTHER Ci - Roadway Contributina Circumstances 0 = NONE (NO UNUSUAL CONDITIONS) 1 = ROAD SURFACE CONDITION 2 = DEBRIS 3 = RUT, HOLES, BUMPS 4 = WORK ZONE (CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, UTILITY) 5 = WORN TRAVEL-POLISHED SURFACE 6 = OBSTRUCTION IN ROADWAY 7 = TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE INOPERATIVE, NOT VISIBLE OR MISSING 8 = SHOULDERS LOW, SOFT OR HIGH 9 = NO SHOULDERS 10 = NON-HIGHWAY WORK 11 = OTHER 12 = UNKNOWN 10/19/2005 Page 2 of 3 0 0 0 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index 0 Obi Strk - Object Struck Codes Unit # - Vehicle Style Codes 0 14 = PEDESTRIAN 1 = PASSENGER CAR 15 = PEDALCYCLIST 2 = PICKUP 0 17 = ANIMAL 3 = LIGHT TRUCK (MINI-VAN, PANEL) 0 18 = MOVABLE OBJECT 4 = SPORT UTILITY 20 = PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 5 =VAN 0 33 = TREE 6 = COMMERCIAL BUS ® 34 = UTILITY POLE 7 = SCHOOL BUS 0 35 = LUMINAIRE POLE NON-BREAKAWAY 8 = ACTIVITY BUS 36 = LUMINAIRE POLE BREAKAWAY 9 = OTHER BUS 0 37 = OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN NON-BREAKAWAY 10 = SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (2-AXLE, 6-TIRE) 0 38 = OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN BREAKAWAY 11 = SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (3 OR MORE AXLES) 39 = OVERHEAD SIGN SUPPORT 12 = TRUCK/TRAILER 0 40 = COMMERCIAL SIGN 13 = TRUCK/TRACTOR 0 41 = GUARDRAIL END ON SHOULDER 14 = TRACTOR/SEM[-TRAILER 0 42 = GUARDRAIL FACE ON SHOULDER 15 = TRACTOR/DOULBES 43 = GUARDRAIL END IN MEDIAN 16 = UNKNOWN HEAVY TRUCK 0 44 = GUARDRAIL FACE IN MEDIAN 17 = TAXICAB 0 45 = SHOULDER BARRIER END 18 = FARM EQUIPMENT 0 46 = SHOULDER BARRIER FACE 19 = FARM TRACTOR 47 = MEDIAN BARRIER END 20 = MOTORCYCLE 0 48 = MEDIAN BARRIER FACE 21 = MOPED 0 49 = BRIDGE RAIL END 22 = MOTOR SCOOTER OR MOTOR BIKE 50 = BRIDGE RAIL FACE 23 = PEDALCYCLE 0 51 = OVERHEAD PART UNDERPASS 24 = PEDESTRIAN 0 52 = PIER ON SHOULDER OF UNDERPASS 25 = MOTOR HOME/RECREATIONAL VEHICLE 0 53 = PIER IN MEDIAN OF UNDERPASS 26 = OTHER 54 = ABUTMENT OF UNDERPASS 27 = ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV) 55 = TRAFFIC ISLAND CURB OR MEDIAN 28 = FIRETRUCK 56 = CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON SHOULDER 29 = EMS VEHICLE, AMBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD 57 = CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON MEDIAN 30 = MILITARY ® 58 = DITCH 31 = POLICE 59 = EMBANKMENT 32 = UNKNOWN 0 60 = MAILBOX 61 = FENCE OR FENCE POST 0 62 = CONTRUCTION BARRIER ® 63 = CRASH CUSHION 64 = OTHER FIXED OBJECT ® 0 0 0 0 10 10/19/2005 Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX C AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE • Letter regarding stakeholder meeting and request for comments from NCDOT Rail Division to various stakeholders 12.22.06 • Letter regarding schedule change for scoping meeting 02.06.06 • Letter requesting comments from various stakeholders 02.02.06 • Comments from Triangle Transit Authority 01.26.07 • Comments from NCDENR Division of Air Quality 01.18.07 • Comments from NCDOT Division 5 01.17.07 • Record of Telephone Conversation: Morrisville Planning Dept. 01.05.07 • Comments from US Fish & Wildlife Service 01.04.07 • Comments from Norfolk Southern Corporation 01.04.07 • Comments from NCDENR Natural Heritage Program 12.28.06 • US ACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determination 06.26.06 • Comments from NC Dept. of Administration 03.22.06 • Comments from NC Dept. of Cultural Resources 03.09.06 • Comments from NCDENR Division of Air Quality 02.23.06 • Comments from NCDENR Dept. of Natural Resources 02.20.06 • Comments from US Fish & Wildlife Service 02.14.06 • Comments from NCDENR Division of Water Quality 01.04.06 • Permits Required from NCDENR Dept. of Natural Resources ' Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR December 22, 2006 Mr. Kenneth Spaulding Division 5 Board Member NCDOT 1501 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1501 SUBJECT: Stakeholder Meeting/Request for Comments LYNDO TIPPETT SECRETARY Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment, TIP Project Number U-4716, State WBS Project No.40460.1.1 Dear Mr. Spaulding, The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has retained the consulting engineering firm of PBS&J to prepare the Environmental Assessment (EA) for subject TIP Project U-4716. NCDOT proposes to improve motorist and rail safety, and improve track conditions for the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern Railroad and its current at- grade crossing with Hopson Road (SR 1978) in Durham County. The Rail Division has begun studying a grade separation and associated track realignment for this project. The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program as an unfunded project with construction to occur post year (after 2012). The project study area and the proposed railroad track realignment are shown on the attached map. The purpose of this letter and the meeting is to solicit input concerning the potential impacts of this proposed project on social, economic, demographic, land use, and environmental conditions near the project. Alternatives that will be considered include the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternatives The Build Alternatives will include both a realignment of the railroad track and a grade separation of Hopson Road. Both the railroad track realignment and the grade separation of Hopson Road will improve safety in the area. MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE 919-733-7245 LOCATION: Ne DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RAIL DIVISION FAX: 919-715-6580 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING BRANCH 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET 1553 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.BYTRAIN.ORG RALEIGH NC RALEIGH NC 27699-1553 December 22, 2006 TIP Project U-4716 Page 2 A seeping meeting for this project was originally scheduled for March 1, 2006; however it was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances. This letter serves as an invitation to a stakeholder meeting for this project. This meeting will be held on February 7, 2007 at 10:30 am in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470) at the Transportation Building (1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, NC). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us. To allow us to fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, please respond in writing by January 26, 2007, concerning any sensitive resources in the project study area and/or beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed projects relating to the interest of your agency, or attend the stakeholder meeting with your comments. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be required by your agency. If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact me at (919) 733-7245, extension 270 or Ms. Lauren Wolfe, P.E. of PBS&J at (919) 876-6888. Sincerely, Marc Hamel Rail Environmental Planning Engineer NCDOT Rail Division - Environmental and Planning Branch Enclosures cc: Lauren Wolfe - PBS&J MAILING ADDRESS: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RAIL DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING BRANCH 1553 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699-1553 TELEPHONE: 919-733-7245 FAX: 919-715-6580 WEBSITE: WWW.BYTRAWORG LOCATION: TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR February 6, 2006 Mr. Marc Hamel Rail Project Development Engineer NCDOT Rail Division Environmental and Planning Branch 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 LYNDO TIPPETr SECRETARY RECEIVED FEB 10 2006 PVC Dot Flail Div SUBJECT: Request for Comments for Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment, TIP Project Number Y-4117B, State WBS Project No.40460.1.1 Dear Mr. Hamel, Due to scheduling conflicts, the date of the scoping meeting for the subject project has been changed. The scoping meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 1", 2006 at 10:30am in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470) at the Transportation Building (1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, NC). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us. I apologize for any inconvenience. If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact me at (919) 733-7245, extension 270 or Ms. Lauren Wolfe, P.E. of PBS&J at (919) 876- 6888. Sincerely, Marc Hamel Rail Environmental Planning Engineer NCDOT Rail Division - Environmental and Planning Branch Enclosures cc: Lauren Wolfe - PBS&J MAILING ADDRESS: TEL PHONE 919-733-7245 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT CF TRANSPORTATION RAIL Dmrs'04 FAX' 919-715-6580 TRANSRORPAPON BUILDING ENY RONMENTAL AND PLANNNG BRANCH 1553 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC 27699-1553 WEeS?E: WWW.BYTRAIN.ORG RALEIGH NC STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR February 2, 2006 Mr. Marc Hamel LYNDO TIPPETT SECRETARY RECEIVED Rail Project Development Engineer FEB 10 2006 NCDOT Rail Division Environmental and Planning Branch 1553 Mail Service Center NC Dot Rail Div Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 SUBJECT: Request for Comments for Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment, TIP Project Number Y-4117B, State WBS Project No.40460.1.1 Dear Mr. Hamel, The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has retained PBS&J to prepare the Environmental Assessment (EA) for TIP Project U-4716. The NCDOT proposes to improve safety for the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern track and its crossing with Hopson Road (SR 1978) in Durham County. The Rail Division has begun studying a track realignment and grade separation for this project. The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program as an unfunded project with construction to occur post year (after 2012). The project study area and the proposed railroad track realignment are shown on the attached map. The purpose of this letter is to solicit input concerning the potential impacts of this proposed project on social, economic, demographic, land use, and environmental conditions near the project. Alternatives that will be considered include the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternatives. The Build Alternatives will include both a realignment of the railroad track and a grade separation of Hopson Road. Both the railroad track realignment and the grade separation of Hopson Road will improve safety in the area. A scoping meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 10:30am in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470) at the MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 919-7337245 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RAIL DIVISION FAX: 919-715-6560 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLWMNR BRANCH 1 SOUi'.I WILMINGTON STREET 1553 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWWSYTRAW,ORG RALEIGH NC RALEIGH NC 276994553 February 2. 2006 TIP Project Y-4117B Page 2 Transportation Building (1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, NC). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us. To allow us to fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, please respond in writing by February 24, 2006, concerning any sensitive resources in the project study area and/or beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed projects relating to the interest of your agency, or attend the scoping meeting with your comments. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be required by your agency. If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Mr. Marc Hamel of the Rail Division Environmental and Planning Branch at (919) 733-7245, extension 270 or Ms. Lauren Wolfe, P.E. of PBS&J at (919) 876-6888. Sincerely, Marc Hamel Rail Environmental Planning Engineer NCDOT Rail Division - Environmental and Planning Branch Enclosures cc: Lauren Wolfe - PBS&J MAILING ADDRESS: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR T AT:ON RAIL DMI:S p ENVIRONMENT. AL AND PLANNING BRANCH 1553 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEGH NC 27699-1553 TE,E'WNE: 919 733-7245 FAX: 919-715-6560 WESSITE. WWW.BYTRAWORG LOCATION: TRANSPORTATION BUILDING i SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC Durham Study Area 0 M x x E 0 0 O a` 0 n 0 rr 0 0 Fa¢ a ^ y 'Gt North Carolina Department of 0 ?h Transportation Hopson Road © Grade Separation Project N ?? I Figure c? rro/ecr vlclnrry Juanita Shearer-Swink, FASLA ara?®® Project Manager, Architecture M Triangle Transit Authority P.O. Box 13787 ? Research Triangle Park ? North Carolina 27709 Phone: (919) 485-7412 A Fax: (919) 485-7541 www.rideTTA.org A email: jshearerswink®rideTTA.org CO January 26, 2007 Mr. Marc Hamel Rail Environmental Planning Engineer NCDOT Rail Division - Environmental Planning Branch 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 CIN: 070040 Re: Stakeholder Comments from the Triangle Transit Authority Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad / Norfolk Southern Track Realignment TIP Project Number U-4716 State WSB Project no. 40460.1.1 Dear Mr. Hamel: In response to your letter dated December 22, 2006, the Triangle Transit Authority (1TA) has prepared the attached comments regarding the Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad (NCRR)/ Norfolk Southern (NSR) Track Realignment Project. The proposed Regional Rail Project is designed to operate within the NCRR corridor, on the (compass) east side of the existing NSR tracks. Based on the information provided in your letter and previous discussions with NCDOT Rail Division staff, introduction of a grade separation at Hopson Road and realignment of the NSR tracks will impact the Regional Rail Project. Final design plans depicting the applicable segment of the Regional Rail Project have been included for your reference. The development of these plans included review and coordination at the 30%, 60% and 100% phases, with NCDOT Rail Division, NSR, NCRR, state and local governments and other organizations. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Regional Rail Project was published in November 2002 and FTA issued the Record of Decision in January 2003. A subsequent Environmental Assessment which included changes to the EIS was issued in September 2004. These documents are also included for your use. TTA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments at this point in the Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad / Norfolk Southern Track Realignment Project. We look forward to further collaboration with NCDOT and other key stakeholders throughout the design and implementation of this project. 68 TW Alexander Drive, Suite 1000 A PO Box 13787 A Research Triangle Park A North Carolina 27709 Main: (919) 549-9999 A Internet: www.rideTTA.org A Fax: (919) 485-7441 VC; Triangle Transit Authority Mr. Marc Hamel January 26, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Please contact TTA Project Manager Juanita Shearer-Swink, FASLA, at (919) 485-7412 if you have any questions. Greg No cuff, Director Capital D velopment Department Copies: Juanita Shearer-Swink, FASLA Bill Murchison, PE Document Control Attachments: Comments from TTA Drawing Nos. 25-AP004 to 25-AP012 CD of the Regional Rail System Final EIS CD of the September 2004 Regional Rail System EA Comments from the Triangle Transit Authority Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment TIP Project Number U04716; State WBS Project No. 40460.1.1 The Regional Rail Project, which is included in the adopted Transportation Plans for DCHC MPO and CAMPO, is designed to operate as a double track system, within a 38-ft. wide corridor in the NC Railroad (NCRR) right-of-way. The regional rail tracks maintain a 26-ft. offset from the center line of the nearest railroad track. The location, vertical and horizontal alignment, grading, drainage and other improvements for the Regional Rail Project have been coordinated with NCDOT Rail Division, Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSR), NCRR and adjacent development on the (compass) west side of NCRR. In light of the Regional Rail Project, the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment Project should include consideration of the issues which follow. As more information related to the Grade Separation and Track Realignment Project emerges, additional issues that may impact the Regional Rail Project are likely to be revealed. TTA would therefore appreciate the opportunity to participate, along with the other parties involved, in the EA, design and implementation of this grade separation and realignment project. 1. The location, horizontal and vertical alignment and related improvements for the entire Regional Rail Project (specifically, the regional rail trackwork and Triangle Metro Center (TMC) Station) reflect the results of a review and comment process with NCDOT Rail Division, NSR and NCRR at the 30%, 60% and 100% submittal stages of the work. The length and location of the tangent tracks south of the TMC Station platform and "Z" gates must be maintained on both ends of the platform to facilitate rail operations and meet ADA requirements. Relocation and/or realignment of the TMC station platform and adjacent tracks should therefore not be considered as a viable option. 2. In realigning the NSR tracks south of the TMC station platform, a corridor at least 38-ft. wide and provisions for the 26-ft. offset would need to be maintained east of the NSR track realignment, for the entire length of the realignment project. This corridor should be clear of all structures, property restrictions and usable for the proposed Regional Rail System, operating at a speed comparable to that of the adjacent mainline track(s). 3. Selection of the location and design of the grade separation and track realignment should be undertaken in a manner that will allow the construction and operation of the double track Regional Rail Project to proceed without negatively impacting community, natural, cultural and historic resources; noise sensitive receptors, parks and recreation facilities, etc. 4. The property acquired for Hopson Road, the Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment should also provide for the 38-ft. wide regional rail corridor and the need for the regional rail tracks to maintain a 26-ft. offset from the centerline of the nearest future freight track. Triangle Transit Authority January26, 2007 Page 1 of 2 L:\P&E\Grede Gr%sings & SePmdOns\Hopson Road\TTA comments on Hopson Road G2de Realignment.doc 5. The grade separation, and new track profile and alignment should accommodate construction and operation of the Regional Rail Project without extensive earthwork, retaining walls and related improvements. 6. The grading and drainage for the grade separation and NSR track realignment should accommodate the double track Regional Rail Project in the 38-ft. corridor, without additional construction. Drainage and related structures would therefore need to extend the entire width of the newly graded corridor. 7. Utility adjustments and relocations should accommodate the double track Regional Rail Project in the 38-ft. corridor, without additional construction. 8. The scope of the EA should include the property needed to construct, operate and maintain the grade separation, track realignment and the Regional Rail Project. 9. The right of way and design of Hopson Road should provide for sidewalks on both sides of the road and wider outer lanes to accommodate bicycles. 10. Structures associated with the grade separation should accommodate sidewalks, wider outer lanes and pedestrian lighting. Triangle Transit Authority January 26, 2007 Page 2 of 2 L\P&E\Grade CmO gs & Separations\Hopson Road\RA comments on Hopson Road Grade Re hgnmentdoc 3 w N N ?sist 1 -t 0 a V1 r: ?ZSLy ?? 0 i 9 1 L r ?_c?t d ` • ?j II `' 40! jefog 1 " 1? 1 ? I ? { 6 S Y r i t (? {. d It I l ! F F ! 61- V txxm o 1 : F { L 1 .?. :, !•1 t h h It r? am I .2. t t { t 6 p i ' t 17 tol ggggg 1F C ? 4 1 © t 1 t o r ? ` 1 ? I t yl i O`J 7a 1 ? e1 It `ice ! r ? i It d it 1 s{ t f , t i l , 1 . 1 t l t j ' ) ? 1 S e I l 1 1 ; t? r rf? p i 400MM uBpEppECtloggpvnsuuBicap,5 uquesLe?topaic? LJ J LL a 8 os. .1Y Oy,, to®Q O` \ 9M J8 my wl n. _ 9DOW t uBF'9Wdddeg&M uSimp5 uonDeseMgoWNj ® ° 1 ® a © °1 I I ® ° I ® © I I z ® ° I w ° 1 m F 1 = ® Q dr p• ??SSL y 1 F t 4F f 4 ? E c? E Y? 6? 5 t 1 j4F W J LL O K a nda ? o? Iq ?I I 01 •e SODMIU uBp goDdddeSZDwaulu5imp4-uop mmmopou?u ? wJ ' • ?. v J' ?{ e ? e Q in 600 VS .p336 N 1My ,?:?: mM W Y I ? ?- - - ? N ZWp o I JEL Q a i' gm n. ? 448 3 q1_____ o as .. a, I I GF?o gm 01Q H mm \ a o h m ?a ?p o N s I SJdly e,? 6- v e z fegq 44 P?a g- B __{ 08 s;l e I Si1 j I I 13f ? C ! (? i a I. ± a LL z a t 9W7M UBP WOdd4e5ZosvsuryBfwpkS .o4 a gMopoW, 0 0 0 S89L _J g§? g I !g! lit OM W J LL O a g I e 90DUM .5p L00dddeSZOSMSUryBisap6-u0eg s5 4 ppHu JS OT ?s a? k RR??..11 ? ;?? ppy S 10 r ?' cQ ?J & i QY Q $6$L f?N i? ? 1L'•'?Q?Q FS a? 4t Q I , Q ? 2 2 ?? O tf € d° 0© Y ?? 6 I, a : o I? © i p q 6 i1 0 8 a ;az ?a< U P6SL \` ??• . `41 )J o t N 4 O 2 H 7 R 4Z F w J 9 Zzo F' p 2 ?L 0'a a - m n Y SOOEMM u6P'SOOdddeSiosmvAurs..MS uopoaskepuop j 01 0 OT a? Zo Z. 1? ° a8 >m i 0191 w ?a 3j jau W J LL a 9091 E• 900a11ro AP'600tltltle9Tpsxsvry&raNS uoc?egeAlloPOH? sown ro e6P'OtOddde5Z0,?u6rsag5 uapaoge?ryopau?? I O 1 If II \ I\ I \ _A I I w I ? I I \ I I \\\ i a ant I I I I I I I i O I I O I 01 ? I u I ? • I I I I i I I I + a I \ c oo l i ; ?SCBL I ? ? ??;0 1 I °?J I I I I I I I I p I I I I o0 O 0 I ?k I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W L I ? I I 1 I I I s I o le I I ?-C 13 `? I ! 5 y?j t 3? I _- S I I 6 3 1 ? e I I ? ? I f I ! I w xl- ? for '? _,' o o, I ' I I I I i r `. I , I I I , ? I c 3I I ? q I -------------- ?I I ?I I ytl I I I I I ? I 1 Ie \,_ ,r Il I a c? ? i / ? r 7 0 S m 1 J n SaaT/t2t p6p't Laddd.gzo.s 0jsppd wpesle .p , NC®ENR • North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality • • Michael F. Easley, Governor January 18, 2007 Marc Hamel Rail Environmental Planning Engineer NCDOT Rail Division Environmental and Planning Branch 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 William G. Ross, Jr., Secretar» B. Keith Overcash, P.E., Director • • • • • • SUBJECT: Division of Air Quality Comments Concerning the • Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track •' Realignment, TIP Project Number U-4716, • State WBS Project No. 40460. 1.1 Raleigh, NC, Wake County • Dear Marc Hamel: • • This letter is written in response to your December 22, 2006 notifying this office of a stakeholder • meeting and request for comments concerning the Subject DOT project. It does not appear that any of the • activities discussed in your letter will require an air permit; however, any land clearing which is to be disposed • through open burning must follow Rule 15A NCAC 2D .1900. At this time the DAQ has no further comments. • If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 919-791-4276. i Sincerely, • harles M M m, III, P.E. • Environmental Engineer II • c: RCO files RRO files Raleigh Regional Office 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Phone: 919-791-42001 FAX: 919-571-4718 \ Internet: www.ncair.org An Equal opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled l 10 % Post Consumer Paper RECEIVE' • • JAN 2 4 2007 • NC Cot Rail Div • • • • • • i North Carolina Natura!!? • • RECEIVEr- a.,.srnrFo a?? JAN 1 9 2007 CIO Dot Mali Div STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-1501 GOVERNOR January 17, 2007 Mr. Marc Hamel Rail Environmental Planning Engineer NCDOT - Rail Division 1 South Wilmington Street, 1533 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 LYNDO TIPPETT SECRETARY SUBJECT: Stakeholder Meeting Comments Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment, TIP U-4716, WES 40460. 1.1 Dear Mr. Hamel, I have reviewed the above referenced project and provide the following comments in lieu of my attendance to the scoping meeting on February 7, 2007. • There is significant current and proposed development on the surrounding parcels that will impact road use. A Division Maintenance representative will be attending the scoping meeting and will advise of current and/or proposed development concerns and considerations. • The land use is continuing to change in the project area. The Division did not identify any adverse social or economic impacts due to project construction in this area. • Major utility conflicts were identified within project limits. • Division concurs with the project schedule (Construction = PY). During this time, Triangle Parkway, Davis Drive widening, and I-540 through RTP should be completed. These new facilities should significantly reduce traffic volumes on Hopson Road and will serve as alternate routes for Hopson Road traffic. Should additional information be required, please contact me at (919) 560-6851. Sincerely, racy Division Construction Engineer TNP/mak Division Five - 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704 Telephone: 919-560-6851 Fax: 919-560-3371 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION HOPSON ROAD RAIL EA TIP Project U-4716 Date: January 5, 2007 Time: 3:00 pm Talked With: Ms. Michele Hane, Planner 11 Town of Morrisville Planning Department 919-463-6165 mhane(a),ci.morrisville.nc.us Minutes: I spoke with Michele Hane, who had received the stakeholder letter, regarding her comments on U-4716. She said she would be attending the stakeholder meeting, but wanted to go ahead and provide her comments. She stated that the Town of Morrisville assumes as part of their transportation planning that Church Street will be extended to Hopson Road. Although this area is outside of Morrisville's planning jurisdiction, this extension is important to Morrisville. The railroad runs through Morrisville and there are very few locations to cross the railroad to provide continuity. The current railroad crossing at Church Street is proposed to be closed by the NCDOT. Therefore, it is important to Morrisville that Church Street be extended to Hopson Road in order to maintain a place to cross the railroad. Ms. Hane also noted that the McCrimmon Connector portion of the Triangle Parkway (a NC Turnpike Authority project) has been dropped. This connector would have improved mobility in the Morrisville area. I told Ms. Hane that the extension of Church Street and the closure of the current Church Street railroad crossing are included in the NCDOT TIP as another project. I also noted that the EA for this project will discuss the extension of Church Street, and the traffic forecast for this project assumes that Church Street is extended to Hopson Road. I told Ms. Hane that the traffic would be discussed at the meeting, and she would have an opportunity at the meeting to voice her comments to all attendees. Ms. Hane asked if she should submit her comments in writing. I told her that although I would type up a record of our telephone conversation, it is always a good idea to submit comments in writing. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 United States Department of the Interior ?3ECEWEC: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726 January 4, 2007 Marc Hamel NC Department of Transportation Rail Division Environmental and Planning Branch 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1553 Dear Mr. Hamel: JAN 2 2 2007 JAPE( `"i07 IIYC o ;:: «ll Div This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed Hopson Road grade separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track realignment in Durham County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-4716). These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). Due to the previously disturbed nature of the pmiecf area, impacts to fish and wildlife resources will likely be minimal. The Service does, not have any specific concerns or recommendations for this project. Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected species know,, to occur in Nonii Caruiina and information on their life histories and habitats can be found on our web page at http://nc-es.fws.aov/es/countvfr.html . Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any known occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. The NCNHP database only indicates the presence of Icno xm occurrences of listed species and does not necessarily mean that such species are c; present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs :within the project vicinity for any listed species, surveys should be conducted to determine presence or. absence of the species. If you deterrrune that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence. The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-4520, ext. 32. Sincerely, Pete Benjamin C Field Supervisor cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC 0 0 ® Norfolk Southern Corporation Larry L. Etherton. P. E. 7200 Peachtree Street, N.E. Director-Engineering 0 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 404/529-1231 0 0 0 Subject: Hopson Road Grade Separation and North Carolina Railroad Company/Norfolk ® Southern Railway Company Track Realignment, TIP Project Number U-4716, State WBS Project No. 40460. 1.1 0 0 0 January 4, 2007 0 File: OP:RA:NCR 0 0 0 Mr. Marc Hamel RECEIVED 0 Rail Environmental Planning Engineer ® NCDOT Rail Division - Environmental and Planning Branch JAN 0 9 2007 1553 Mail Service center 0 Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 PVC Cot Hall Div 0 0 Dear Mr. Hamel: 0 This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 22, 2006, to me concerning 0 the proposed Hopson Road grade separation and the North Carolina Railroad Company ® ("NCRR")/Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("NS") track realignment. NS representatives will not attend the February 7, 2007, scoping meeting. Please accept this 0 letter as our preliminary comments on the proposed project. 0 0 The proposed project will need to be covered by a tri-party agreement between NCDOT, NCRR and NS covering the scope and division of work, permitting, surveying, 0 engineering design including preparation of plans and specifications, right of way 0 procurement, construction, etc. Also, NS shall be reimbursed for all costs incurred by NS 0 and/or its contractor in conjunction with the project. 0 We look forward to working with you on this project. 0 0 Very truly yours, 0 0 Larry L. therton, P.E. 0 Hopson Road Grade Separation 010407 \ 0 0 cc: Mr. S. M. Saylor - NCRR 0 0 Operating Subsidiary: Norfolk Southern Railway Company 0 A I GNC®ENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael F. Easley, Govemor December 28, 2006 tflliam G. Ross Jr., Sec.-c!ary MEMORANDUM TO: Marc Hamel, DOT Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch FROM: Harry LeGrand, Natural Heritage Program SUBJECT: Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment; Durham County REFERENCE: State WBS Project No. 40460.1.1, TIP Project No. U-4716 The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or significant natural heritage areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area, other than the location of the State Significantly Rare American bluehearts (Buchnera americuna) along the RR tracks, as portrayed on the map in the request for comments. A review of this record shows that the species was collected on July 13, 1949, with no data on number of individuals. The location on the herbarium label is `'railroad savanna, just east of Durham-Wake county line, north of Morrisville, along U.S. 70A". These directions make very little sense, in 2006, as there is no "U.S. 70A" in the area. and "east of Durham Wake county line" might actually mean that the locale was farther to the east. However, in any case, the record is from 1949 and is considered historical, and the species also is considered of historical occurrence in the state, as our Program is aware of no recent records. Though we have no idea if the species has been searched for in recent years along me railroad track in the project area, we do not feel that a survey for this plant is warranted at the site (as the record is now 57 years old and might be ntis- mapped.) Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information. RECEIVED JAN 02-2007 NC Dot Rail Div 1601 W l Ser&e Center, Paieiah, North Carolina 27659-1601 One Phone: 91x733-1964 • FAX: 919-71&3060 • Internet rnrnv.encstete.nc us NorthCarohna an Fri.Anen„mntr.•ar-.,sn- em,.i,,,,e._ en v P,.-,dm- in a Fe n.,,...__-„---- /17/7ft/N/7/h/ Qh 0 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action ID. 200620636 County: Durham U.S.G.S. Quad: Southeast Durham & Cary NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Property Owner: NCDOT - Rail Division Attn: Marc Hamel, Environment & Planning Branch Mailing Address: 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 Telephone No.: (919) 733-7245, ext. 270 Authorized Agent: EcoScience Corporation Attn: Layna Thrush Mailing Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone No.: (919) 828-3433 Property description Size (acres) -133 Nearest Town Durham Nearest Waterway unnamed tributaries to Stirrup Iron and Burdens Creeks River Basin Neuse and Cape Fenr USGS HUC 03020201 & 03030002 Coordinates N 35.873° W78.852' Location description Study area for the Hopson Road Grade Separation. and Norfolk Southern Track Realignment (TIP Y-4117B), as shown on the drawings submitted on 2/21/2006. Indicate Which of the Following Applv: A. Preliminary Determination Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331). B. Approved Determination There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. We strongly suggest you have the waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps. X The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years. AID 200620636 The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. There are no waters of the U.S, to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Eric Alsmever at (919) 876-8441, ext. 23. C. Basis For Determination The studv area contains stream channels of unnamed tributaries to Stirrup Iron and Burdens Creeks tributaries of the Neuse and Cape Fear Rivers, respectively, with indicators of ordinarv hieh water marks and wetlands adjacent to the tributaries. D. Remarks Per site inpection on 1/10/2006, wetlands and streams are accurately depicted on maps submitted on 2/21/2006 There are isolated wetlands and ponds within the studv area that are not subject to Section 404 because of no connection to jurisdictional waters and no nexus to interstate commerce. E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B. above) This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the South Atlantic Division, Division Office at the Following address: Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer CESAD-ET-CO-R U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9MI5 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 8/28/2006. **It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.** Corps Regulatory Official: Date 6/26/2006 Expiration Date 6/26/2011 Copy famished : EcoScience 0 0 0 IO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NOTIFICATION OF ADIVIINISTRA, APPEAL'OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND r r z_ , 3 3r RE UEST_FOR APREAL s, n x_M_, <:- Applicant: NCDOT - Rail Division/ File Number 200620636 Dater 6/26/2006 TIP Y-4117B Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B PERMIT DENIAL C APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at htip://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/rte or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for our reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received b the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received b the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. u APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. • • SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact: Eric Alsmeyer Mr. Michael Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer Raleigh Regulatory Field Office CESAD-ET-CO-R US Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M 15 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any • government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You • will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations. • Date: Telephone number: • Signature of appellant or agent. • DIVISION ENGINEER: Commander U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490 a QQ?? pp'?v {f ?r°° Mr. ;? ,? 4 2060- North Carolina #YC Department of Administration Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary March 22, 2006 Mr. Marc Hamel N.C. Department of Transportation 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27601 Dear Mr. Hamel: Re: SCH File # 06-E-4220-0240; Scoping; Study of Norfolk Southern Track realignment and Hopson Road Grade separation. TIP #Y-4117B The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review. If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to this office for intergovernmental review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, C/1 / 00 Ms. Chry"s Baggett Environmental Policy Act Coordinator Attachments cc: Region J Mailing Address: Telephone: (919)807-2425 Location Address: 1301 Mail Service Center Fax (919)733-9571 116 west Jones Street Raleigh. NC 27699-1301 State Courier ii51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina e-mail Chrys.Baggett@ncmail.ner An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer • • .?STATFa • North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources • State Historic Preservation Office • Vucr R. Sar¢I1xcA, :?hmnist2wr • \liehnrl F. I;:a>luv, Governor UEfiu aL:\rshiecx and I fistorq I.isbeth C. Brans, Seereta, Division of I listorieal Rc mrees • Jcitrcp J. Crmv, Dcpon- Svcrcwn David Brcg6 Director March 9, 2006 • Lauren Wolfe •? 13BSJ •. 1616 East Millbrook Road Suite 310 • Raleigh, NC 27609-4968 • Re: Hopson Road Grade Separation and Railroad Track Realignment, U-4716, Durham County, • ER 06-0312 • [)car N1s. Wolfe: • • Thank you for your letter of January 23, 2006, concerning the above project. • We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by • the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. • The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part.800. • 't'hank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above continent, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number. • Sincerely, • La ?J ? • • ,. etcr Sandbeck • • • • • Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax • ADMINISTRATION N) "d. Bk,. tc t RJ,e gh NC 4617 mail. c ie _ (,t n , Fal Sn NC 276994617 (919)73V4763/733 865'1 RESTORATION Ix N. fthm ur Nxkijfi lL' 4617vfailk ct a ,Kale 6n N( 6?461 (91 ))ii3l54tIS4N? • SURVEY&PIANNING 15 N.Ilk,=Snuo,Ralcigh,NC 4617yfail4n'tttrntcgRel9ghhf.-:6994,17 91Ai33-6545/,I54W • NC®ENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality Michael F. Easley, Govemor February 23, 2006 Marc Hamel Rail Environmental Planning Engineer NC DOT Rail Division Environmental and Planning Branch 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1553 William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary B. Keith Overcash, P.E., Director SUBJECT: Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfork Southern Track Realignment TIP Project Number Y-4117B State WBS Project No. 40460.1.1 Wake County Dear Marc Hamel: This letter is written in response to your February 2, 2006 letter requesting comments on the Subject project. This office's comments are as follows: At this time we are not aware of any aspects of this project which require an air permit. Any open burning must comply with 15A NCAC 2D. 1900. If a portable crusher is used to crush any materials it will be exempt from air permitting requirements if no more than 300,000 tons of material is crushed and no more than 17,000 gallons of diesel fuel is combusted per twelve months, and if the crusher does not stay on site more than twelve months, and if the crusher emissions are controlled by water sprays [ref. 15A NCAC 2Q .0902]. Please be aware that exemption from air permitting does not exempt this project from compliance with any otherwise applicable Air Quality Regulations. Also, there may be other state, federal or local regulations applicable to this project. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 919-791-4276. Sincerely, Charles M. IvlcEachem, III, P.E. Environmental Engineer II c: RRO Files RCO Files Raleigh Regional Office 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Phone: 919-791-42001 FAX: 919-571-47181 Internet: www.ncair.org An Equal Opponunity i Al irmaove Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 1 10 "Post Consumer Paper NorthCarolina Natumlly NC®ENR RECEIVED FEB 2 3 2006 NC Dot Rail Div North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael F. Easley, Governor February 20, 2006 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Marc Hamel NC DOT Rail Division - Environmental Planning Branch 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1553 Re: Request for Comments for Hopson Road Grade Separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track Realignment, TIP Project Number Y-4117B, State WBS Project No. 40460.1.1 Dear Mr. Hamel: The Natural Heritage Program has two records of rare plant species within 2 kilometers of your project area, as shown on the map included with your letter of 2 February 2006. Buchnera americana, American Bluehearts, a NC Significantly Rare plant species has historically been found along a "railroad savanna" north of Morrisville near the Durham/Wake County Line. Liatris squarrulosa, Earle's Blazing Star, a NC Significantly Rare plant species has recently been found at the Jenkins Road Diabase area, in the roadway ditches and in the cleared powerline easement east of Jenkins Road. Although our maps do not show records of natural heritage elements within the project area, we have no evidence that rare species are not present. The area simply may not have been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas. If you do find rare species during field surveys, we encourage you to report them to the Natural Heritage Program using the enclosed Rare Plant and Animal Field Survey Forms. You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8700 if you have questions or need further information Sincerely, '? 11 Misty Franklin, Botanist NC Natural Heritage Program 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One Phone: 919-715-87001 FAX: 919-715-30851 Internet www.ncnhp.org NorthCarolina ;Vaturally An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer- 50 %, Recycled 110 °/ Post consumer paper ® ®F? North Carolina Natural Heritage Program -Endangered And Rare Plant Field Survey Form [i ® NCDENR Return form to: N.C. Natural Heritage Program, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601. Visit www.nenhp.org. ® Species: Common name: Survey date: ® EO Number (if updating existing EO): County: 7.5' Quad Map: ® Coordinates (if known): Elevation: ® If coordinates given, indicate coordinate system and datum (State Plane 1927 or 1983, UTM, etc): ® Site Name (if this is within previously identified site): ® Site location and directions: (attach copy of map with site marked or use back of form to draw a sketch of the site): ® Number of individuals: Define individual (stem, clump, etc.): ® Size of area in which population occurs: ® Estimate whether the entire population was surveyed, or only a portion: ® Estimated Population Viability (circle one): Excellent Good Fair Poor Unknown Failed to find ® Population Viability Comments: ® Phenology (include % or # in each stage): vegetative bud flower ® Evidence of reproduction: fruit seedlings clonal/vegetative ® Reproduction Comments: ® Habitat (NC NHP natural community name and description, if known; include quality, soils, geology, etc.): O Associated species: ® Invasive species noted & degree of threat from invasive species: Area of apparently suitable habitat (suitable for, but not necessarily occupied by the species): 0 If the population is within a Right-of-Way, does suitable habitat exist outside Right-of-Way? Topographic position (examples: crest, mid slope, alluvial, etc): Moisture regime (examples: inundated, dry, seasonally wet, etc): Light (examples: open, woodland, closed canopy, etc): Other information: Protection / management needs and opportunities: Landowner(s), if known: Person making this report, Address, & Phone: Other observers: Specimens collected? Collection #: Repository: (permits are required for federal or state listed species) Draw sketch below or attach map. NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ®?! SPECIAL ANIMAL SURVEY FORM NC®ENR Scientific Name : Common Name: Observer(s): Date(s) of Observation: County: 7.5' Quad Map: Exact Location (be specific! - attach copy of map with site marked): Number of Animals (include age and sex, if known): Type of Observation (sight record, vocal record, specimen, photograph, etc.): Behavior of Animals (singing, foraging, at nest, etc.): Habitat (use NC NHP natural community name if known; describe dominant vegetation, maturity of vegetation, slope, aspect, etc.): Owner(s) of Land, if known: Other Comments (significance of record, disturbance to habitat, etc.): Person making this report: Address: Date: Phone: Return form to: N.C. Natural Heritage Program; Office of Conservation and Community Affairs MSC 1601; Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Study Area 0 m a EE 0 -I 0 a 3 R O a N Durham County i,•,Y? 1.5?Q-..e. Durham 1.000 500 0 1,000 Feet Hopson Road a` North Carolina Grade Separation e Department of Transportation Project Figure 1 19 ?WMMIE§EgEzl? Project vicinity 0 0 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Ralei_h. North Carolina 27636-3726 February 14, 2006 Marc Hamel NC Department of Transportation Rail Division Environment and Planning Branch 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1553 Dear Mr. Hamel: R CEI` EC FEB 2 2 2006 NC Dot Fall Div This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed Hopson Road grade separation and NC Railroad/Norfolk Southern Track realignment in Durham County, North Carolina (TIP No. Y-411713). These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). Due to the previously disturbed nature of the project area, impacts to fish and wildlife resources will likely be minimal. The Service does not have any specific concerns or recommendations for this project. Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can be found on our web page at littp://nc-es.tws.eov/es/countyfr.Iitnil . Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any known occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. The NCNI P database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for any listed species, surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species. If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence. The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-4520, ext. 32. EcologiM Services Supervisor cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC W ATFR ?°a, }OG Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1 - i Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director =i Division of Water Quality January 4, 2006 MEMORANDUM To: Marc Hamel, NCDOT Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch From: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit // Through: John Hennessy, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Uni?? / Subject: Scoping comments on proposed Hopson Road grade separation and NC Railroad realignment in Durham County, State Project No. 40460.1.1, TIP No. U-4716. Reference your correspondence dated December 22, 2006 in which you requested comments for the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for impacts to streams and possible jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, possible impacts to: Stream Name River Basin Stream Classifications Stream Index Number (UT) Stirru Iron Creek NEU 02 C NSW 27-33-4-2 (UT) Burdens Creek CPF 05 C NSW 16 41-1-17-1-(0.3) (UT) Kit Creek CPF 05 C NSW 16-41-1-17-2-(0.3) Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project: Project Specific Comments: 1. Stirrup Iron Creek, Burdens Creek, and Kit Creek are class C; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these waters. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices. 2. Part of this project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233. Transportation Permitting Unit 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 276991650 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone: 919-733-1786 / FAX 919-733-6893 / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state. nc.us/ncwetlands An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper Noy Narolin ?l?turallg General Project Comments: 1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 211.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. 2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc. 3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 11 5A NCAC 2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than I acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation. 4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. 5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts. 6. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in a stream when possible. 7. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters. 8. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices. 9. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills. 10. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re- vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance. 11. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required. 12. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage. 13. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities. 14. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. 15. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. 16. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams. 17. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation. 18. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval. 19. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. 20. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. 21. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed, sized and installed. Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Rob Ridings at (919) 733-9817. cc: Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission File Copy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "- "qD NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael F. Easley, Governor MEMORANDUM TO: Chrys Baggett State Clearinghouse, FROM: Melba McGee I /"- Environmental eview Coordinator William G. Ross Jr., Secretary The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has completed its review. Our regional office within the geographic area of the proposed projects has identified permits that may be required prior to project construction. For more information, time project applicant should notify the respective regional office marked on the back of tile attached permit form. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Attaclmrcnts 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 Phone: 919-733-49841 FAX: 919-715-30601 Internet: www.enr.state,nc.us/ENR/ An Equal Opponuniy / Affirmative Action Employer- 50 %Recycled 110 %Post Consumer Paper North Carolina Natima!ly State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Reviewing Office: • RVTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: D L J DQ,4112bue Date: • After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to • comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. All 1'cations information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office. • app t Notmal Process Time (suanorytimelimit) • PERMrrS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIRE1, ENTS • Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days • facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection Post-application technical conference usual. not discharging into state surface waters. (90 days) • O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection Pre-application 90-120 days • permit to operate and eonstmcl wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater discharging into state surface waters. treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N/A) • plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later. • O Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days (N/A) • O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days • I in vollation of a well. (15 days) • O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require • Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days) and Fill Permit. • O Permit to construct & operale.4ir Pollution Abatement N/A • facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC 60 days (2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600) • Any open burning associated with subject proposal • must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900 d • Demolition or renovations of structures containing ays 60 asbenas material must be in compliance with 15 A • NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A 90 d • Group 919-733-0820. ays) ( ' O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC 2D.0800 • O The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & 0 d • sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional ice (land Quality ays 2 Sect-) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and $2000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days) • accompany the plan. d • O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. ays) (30 • O Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR. Bond amount varies 0 d • with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater ays 3 than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days) • before the permit can be issued. d • D North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days ay I (N/A) • O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "ifmore than 1 day N/A • counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be C ) requested at least ten days before actual bum is plaruxd." • O Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days (N/A) • • O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer lo: prepare plans, inspect cortstmctioq • certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of • Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A (60 days) minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application An additional • processing fee based on a pcrcenlage or the total project con will be required upon completion. • • • APPENDIX D RELOCATION REPORT Hopson Road/Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements EA 0 EIS RELOCATION REPORT ® E.I.S. F CORRIDOR F DESIGN North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WBS ELEMENT: COUNTY I Durham Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate T.I.P. No. U-4716 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Hopson Road / Church Street Improvements Project ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP Residential Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent Non-Profit 0-20M $0-150 0-20M $ 0-150 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 150-250 2040M 150-250 yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250400 40-70M 250-400 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400.600 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 600 up 100 up 600 up displacement? TOTAL 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number) after project? 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. "NEGATIVE REPORT" 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6. Source for available housing (list). 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? "Please Note: One (1) Business, Creekstone Creative School, may end up being a Relocatee because of the encroachment into their playground area, and their lack of area to replace the playground space. As a daycare / school they may have certain regulations as to the amount of playground space that must be available to school attendees. 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families? 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing housing available during relocation period? 13. Will there be a problem of housing within financial means? 14. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimated to complete RELOCATION? 216109 2-6-09 Robert A. Woodard Date Right of Way Agent Relocation Coordinator Date r KNl l0-t SRP CG(D) of `s OI OI °'(°) ,3 - -- ?I 0 21 C ? N i IL(D) M IL i Ol cc Malor rran x?nhx??SPOrt Q roo Corridor .... ?0 Pae Ul RR d Hopson Rd ? RR IL(D)`% CN 9 , RS-20 ; IL CN PDR ` ; . 8.3010 ilk SUBURBAN IP CG R loyona Hopson Road / Church Street ?? DIViRQN 'te', 1 r it .......... Rail and Roadw ay Improvements ST P PROJFCT NO a 4116 n.Ins-e.rr mrr, BASE ZONING OISTRICTS v?ausmal Pine © ZONING WITHIN N,,.u, „I,. N•,,. I^°°°°.I - PROJECT STUDY AREA a. Source Durham ZwmwAI IL,, M ;,p Dllrhan'I Col ?,,??? Dec 3, 200H Figure '-2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .,,M Hopson Road/Church Street ?? Rail and Roadway Improvements EA J a •d °0' ,, e . d i w Tn' ? 1 r M f ap u••, d p .. ? ? ' pp tlu.ro•fr . G°r ? ?? M I? p•T 7 U d ? ? ; tl'f ' a . +wl+.etl o- ? Wrn. ae 66 i y a ? 0' i r•'64 ? •a `-. 'S c d y ` d Ow 9 ; 9 S•9 , , ? s s lutlen M • In ? }, M' a ? '? 7116 r a y,0 bn a s d 4v i C ? 5N eP JA 'ti, Oa , AW4 f etl•^ no on«f„ q wf d two ^ ` s s )ka ^ a j C 0-. D, otlr. D. e i b c+. "3 fn "th., Rd i Me Wow.rl `Nt41 'i P^ G.nw.f M;r r Or '•ohk W ' Jd' Ep ro, q .. lays Ry s'. 0 ,o o 51 P v v > „ r ° % J r ? NO ? o ey ?' ` RESEARCH a • `•°^ TRIANGL a 3 PARK e Wn y- ? s ?4k?' '" N?'""'• ap • i i P Myd 0 7.01 .rrq 7yf .y tr •?rs •i • p b ? a" r o ? a ? teww, c? P x, g Sa v?? ? ?? °+p mot' y? m •. R Vad or, p p e ,, ,•,.. 'r w r.M„b. ' frrr...rr o-.n to ,^° ') V F o- •! P ,- b 'v .,, rw.Vrr x,,.? J• r N.r ? 5 r Legend Hopson Road / Church Street RALDIVISN Rail and Roadway Improvements STIP PROJECT NO. U-4716 - Project Study Area Geographic Boundary for _ ICE STUDY AREA Cumulative Effects Analysis Durham County Source 2008 ESRi Figure 4-1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES _1 . THIS PAGE INTI NTI0NALLY LEFT BL?\NK Hopson Road/Church Street I I Rail and Roadway Improvements EA a? o a> o r7 co U c a? y J W fn '^ Q x ?l? M y m .. N N o U L W to E v/ I z D W _ c c c E ccv m `m E o n '-' O U > 1 W LL Z 7 E R m o dO rc c n ? c a> m > w U m 16- b Cl) - ?o m m ?? ? m o --? a Z c n -C U E U CO D Z LL c .. cn o C'1 a? a? cm v o - n >, W c c • a ca o m U c E M C'1 m e ? c m = cc m C1 'a CL o 3 m m m m '6 3 o o (n m C o ? d o c o o? W W H d c) m w a z a -i c? z° z © o } -C C 7 ? L Q V MU C Z m cc x w !!y??? M ?1 1 r J- «r ? .N ". ti . ALI .Xl a 1. i j' 60 9F F HW ie jjnBasneN9Jeuogaipsunr 5-£61:-VI Z 0 0 - N U c ?' y z W M a y J L o V 0 C O W _ o c c ° U cJ r ?? L/) 07) U ?> "_' a O n uj W CD ?' 12 c o o z a L E c U ii cc N _j E E ?_ ?--? v _ W t! 0) O d >+ CL U! co 2 v = c U w rn w o 3 ` z u o? w o ? d t% C a C/5 © C Q Z Z F- U) j _= Q cc N_ L R) V r ? N L Q V p? V C r x w v r y= s 1 CiS?. 1 ? f c ° o c a 0 0 2 ?v c •? w f lJ?? I lKW64W 60 E E HkV e eawgsjojdaoaaaswN E-E6id V3 STIP Project No. U-4716 Hopson Road /Church Street Rail and Roadway Improvements Environmental Assessment fl 5 2009 September 2009