20121107_Environmental Assessment_20111129 (2)

�-�;�� � •�';� _ � •' -• :. -• -� �-�
'• ' � • • . ;: - • ' •' . . ,, �••
. � � - . - � . - . - � . � - -
� ;- � , � - - . .
STATE VlIBS NO. 52000.1.STR02T2
TIP NO. P-5206
Administrative Action: Environmental Assessment
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c)
� Q Zv Zv l j
Date
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration & Federal Railroad Administration
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Rail Division
�
Marc Harriel !
Rail Project Development & Environmental Evaluation
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Branch
The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Mr. Marc Hamel
Rail Environmental Programs Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
[phone]
Comments on this environmental document must be received by Mr. Marc Hamel, NCDOT Rail Project Development &
Environmental Evaluation Program Manager by . See contact information above.

.. � . � � � � � � � - � ; '� : - � � - �
'• ' � • •: � :' ' � �� 1 .��
� � �� �•�;, . . •�,� =-
i� • � � • . • � : . ,
�fl �Z� � Z�1\
Date
ST�4TE WBS fVO. 52000.1.STR021'2
TIP NO. P-520C
�►dministrative Action: Environmen#al Assessment
October 2011
Documentation Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Paul R. Koch, PE, AICP �
Project Manager
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
GARO(%°'Ba
,.a..sa,os �
;&,r_,��..�a 9
�°oO�!otla; p�/'�
� �VL R. Y+O� �itl
BroSl00S1 t e tAO��`
Documentation Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RAIL DIVISION
��a�d,�
. d�
.s����
d �
0
r
o � Q ��1
i�/Z t�/ �Q/ f :. �--- � 1 _�' � Z �
Date yan hite, PE � o° �
Rail Project Development Engineer ��� �eQ � o Q�� ��°�
Rail Division, Environmental and Planning Br� L, e,o°���°
Oft�tR��an�.

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TRACK & RAIL CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
FROM REID (SOUTH OF SALISBURY) TO NORTH KANNAPOLIS
ALONG THE NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD (NCRR)
/NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY (NS)
STATE WBS NO. 52000.1.STR02T2
TIP NO. P-5206
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
In addition to the Section 404 Permit Conditions, Nationwide Permit Conditions,
Regional Conditions, Section 401 Water Certification Conditions, and measures detailed
in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, the
following special commitments have been agreed to by the NCDOT.
The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit will:
• During the right-of-way phase, conduct detailed geo-environmental evaluation to
identify impacts and risk associated with hazardous materials sites in the project
study area.
The NCDOT Human Environment Unit will:
Coordinate the development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to address
mitigation strategies for impacts associated with the Lutheran Chapel parking lot,
in accordance with Section 4(� and Section 106 procedures. The MOA will be
included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Project Commitments Page 1 of 1
Environmental Assessment
October 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2009-2015 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) includes the construction of an additional railroad track along the
North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) line between Reid and North Kannapolis in Rowan County.
The proposed project is designated as TIP Project No. P-5206 (formerly P-3414P) and shown
on Exhibit 1.1.1.
The proposed project would include the construction of approximately 11-miles of second main
track on the former roadbed on the west side of the existing track from south of Salisbury to
north of Kannapolis. Three new roadway grade separations are also proposed as integral
components of the project at Peeler Road, Kimball Road Extension, and 24`h Street extension.
The proposed improvements begin approximately half a mile north of Peach Orchard Road (SR
2359) and extend to just south of East 18`h Street in Kannapolis.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve passenger train schedule reliability, provide
additional capacity to support the introduction of up to 12 daily (six round trip) additional
passenger trains to the NCRR Piedmont Corridor, and enhance the safety of the railroad within
the study area. The proposed improvements will improve passenger train schedule reliability by
allowing freight and passenger trains to quickly and efficiently maneuver around each other,
help accommodate future growth in passenger train traffic, and provide tracks that will be able to
support higher speed passenger service. Train/vehicle conflicts will be eliminated by closing
selected at-grade road crossings and providing grade-separated crossings (bridges). Improved
safety measures are proposed where at-grade road crossings cannot be closed.
The NCDOT Piedmont Corridor is part of the federally designated Southeast High Speed Rail
(SEHSR) corridor connecting New York/Boston south to Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, and
Miami, FL, and southwest to Atlanta, GA, ultimately connecting to the Gulf Coast High Speed
Rail Corridor extending to Louisiana.
NCDOT, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and FRA have already
completed a Tier I EIS and FRA issued a Record of Decision for the portion of the SEHSR
S-1

corridor between Charlotte and Washington, DC. This project is one of several Tier II studies
being undertaken for the portion of the SEHSR corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh.
The 3rd and 4th frequency program includes projects which must be completed in order to provide
more frequent passenger rail service along the NCRR Piedmont Corridor. These projects
comprise improvements to part of the SEHSR, and will also benefit the host railroads on the
corridor, including Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), CSX Transportation (CSXT), and NCRR.
S.2 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS REQUIRED
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (16 USC 1344), Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 and 401
permits authorize activities from the perspective of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Construction of the Build Alternative would
impact Waters of the United States; therefore, it is anticipated that a USACE Section 404
Nationwide Permit, a NCDWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and a NCDWQ Isolated
Wetlands Permit would be required for this project. Other federal, state, or local permits,
approvals, or authorizations may also be required.
S.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No-Build Alternative — The No Build Alternative was considered but eliminated from further
consideration. The No Build Alternative does not meet the primary purpose and need for the
proposed project.
Freight train volume is projected to increase beyond current year levels as the market dictates,
regardless of the addition of capacity within the project limits. If the proposed improvements are
not implemented, reliability of the existing passenger service will diminish as freight train volume
increases. Existing passenger service will experience reduced train speed due to congestion.
The passenger trains will also experience increased delay while waiting for other trains to clear
the existing single track section between control points Haydock and Junker.
The purpose of the proposed project is also to provide capacity for future passenger train
service on the NCRR Piedmont Corridor. NCDOT and the FRA are proposing to add up to 12
daily (six round trip) passenger trains along the corridor, including the introduction of four
additional daily (two round trip) NCDOT Piedmont Service trains, and eight daily (four round trip)
SEHSR corridor trains The existing infrastructure will not be able to support the additional
S-2

passenger trains and the expected increase of freight traffic without negatively impacting the
ability of NS to efficiently operate their freight trains along the corridor. The congestion will
result in increased locomotive idling and reduced fuel efficiency. Also, the existing infrastructure
does not support higher speed operations as dictated by the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
The proposed project also proposes to improve safety within the project limits by closing a
number of at-grade crossings and replacing them with grade separations. Without these
improvements, at-grade crossings within the project limits will experience additional queuing of
vehicles at railroad crossings, resulting in an increase in auto emissions. Also, the crossings
will experience an increase in accident potential due to the increase in train volume.
Preliminary Build Alternative: P/ace Additional Track on East Side of Rail Corridor —
Although the original second track that was removed in the 1960's was on the west side,
replacing the track on the east side was initially evaluated. In evaluating the potential impacts of
adding a second track and improving some curve alignments, it was determined that
substantially greater impacts to the human and natural environment are anticipated if track is
added on the east side. After the original second track was removed, both sides of the NCRR
corridor experienced encroachment from development. The presence of the remnant road bed
limited this effect on the western side but not on the eastern side. As such, placing the second
track on the eastern side of the rail corridor would affect more existing development than
replacing the track on the western side of the rail corridor. Therefore this preliminary alternative
was eliminated from further consideration.
Preliminary Build Alternative: P/ace Additional Track on West Side of Rail Corridor —
Since the 1960's, the NCRR corridor has experienced development encroachment on both
sides of the existing track. The presence of the remnant railroad bed from the original second
track has limited the amount of encroachment on the west side and therefore, this effect is more
prominent on the east side of the corridor. Additional track on the west side would utilize the
existing roadbed for the most part, which minimizes potential impacts by requiring the least
amount of earthwork and disruption to the existing terrain. In addition, the characteristics of the
remnant roadbed are not conducive to the presence of natural environmental concerns. Adding
track on the west side was projected to cause fewer impacts to the human and natural
S-3

environment while still satisfying the purpose and need. Therefore, adding track on the west
side was carried forward as the Build Alternative.
Build Alternative: P/ace Additional Track on West Side of Rail Corridor — The proposed
track would be located 14-feet (center-to-center) from the existing track on a parallel alignment.
In order for the project to accommodate high-speed train service (speeds of 90 mph), alignment
improvements and elimination of at-grade roadway crossings (where feasible) are also needed.
The Build Alternative, shown in Exhibit 2.3.1, includes the construction of three grade separated
crossings and the closing of 14 crossings. Alignment improvements are anticipated to stay
within the NCRR corridor with the exception of one location. Improvement of the existing rail
curve just southwest of Centerview Street is anticipated to require right-of-way beyond the
NCRR corridor.
Grade separation improvements are all projected to require additional right-of-way. The 24�n
Street grade separation begins at a proposed intersection with US 29/601, bridges the railroad
and ties directly into Main Street in a T-intersection configuration. The height needed to bridge
the railroad would create a steep grade from the bridge to the intersection with US 29, requiring
the elevation of US 29 be raised to reduce the grade along the new road. The addition of turn
lanes and the need to raise the elevation of US 29 would require the placement of fill material
along US 29 and would increase the roadway footprint. It would also require the closure of the
US 29 intersections with Westview Street and Blackwelder Avenue.
Due to the proposed closure of several crossings in the Landis and China Grove area, the
Kimball Road extension and grade separation is proposed to accommodate modified
vehicular travel patterns. The new extension would extend Kimball Road south from its
intersection with US 29 (Main Street), running underneath a proposed railroad bridge, and
intersecting with Chapel Street south of the railroad.
The Peeler Road relocation and grade separation would bridge the railroad and US 29, and
connect to Cedar Springs Road. Secondary roads are proposed from Cedar Springs Road to
US 29. This grade separation provides the best opportunity for direct connection to the Rowan
County Airport and is consistent with the area's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
There are also two additional crossing closure projects within the project study area that are
being studied separate from the proposed improvements. Evaluations and recommendations
S-4

for the closure of Juke Box Road and Ethel Road were originally included in the Private
Crossing Safety lnitiative (NCDOT, 2003) and have since been combined into one design study
and environmental document (NCDOT TIP Project No. P-4405). The project proposes to close
the two existing crossings and provide new access for the properties between the railroad and
I-85. Additional details on this project can be found in Sections 2.3.1 and 3.5.
S.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Summary descriptions of the anticipated impacts for the Build Alternative are provided in the
following section. Table S.1 quantifies the impacts associated with the Build Alternative.
Land Use — The project is consistent with local land use and transportation plans and would not
affect land use patterns within the primarily urban project study area.
Relocations — Anticipated relocation impacts were estimated by overlaying the Build Alternative
on aerial photography and field checking the information. The results of this evaluation indicate
that there would be a total of 28 residential relocations and 59 business relocations. Table S.1
shows the relocations associated with the project including and also itemized for the 24`h Street
Grade Separation, Kimball Road Extension, and Peeler Road Grade Separation.
A majority of the project study area is within the NCRR corridor. The 1849 Charter for the
NCRR specified a 200-foot corridor, providing the right to NCRR to use the land within the
corridor for railroad uses (NCRR: Understanding the Corridor Management and Protection
Program, 200�. Residential and business relocations within the 200-foot corridor would be
addressed by NCRR. For properties outside the NCRR corridor, it is the policy of the NCDOT to
ensure that comparable replacement housing for residents and suitable locations for displaced
businesses would be available prior to construction of projects. This topic is discussed in
Section 3.4.
Farmlands — The NCRR rail corridor between Kannapolis and Salisbury is identified as an
"urbanized area" on US Census mapping and does not require the submittal of a Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating Form, under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). Any
farmland impacts associated with the proposed project would be in compliance with the FPPA
and do not require further consideration for protection.
S-5

Community Facilities — No schools, parks, recreation areas, or emergency services facilities
will be impacted by this project. One church would be relocated by the project and parking for
two other churches would be affected by the proposed project.
lndirect and Cumulative Effects (ICEsJ — The proposed project does not have the potential to
result in substantial ICEs as defined by NEPA. This conclusion is based on evaluation of the
projecYs design concept and scope, including purpose and need, type, and facility function, in
combination with evaluation of the project study area's demographic, land use, and growth
management tools. As discussed in Section 3.1, the project study area is primarily urbanized,
with development continuing to occur regardless of the proposed realignment. The type and
extent of development expected to occur on a long-term basis is not anticipated to change as a
result of the project. See Section 3.5 for a summary of ICEs discussed in the Tier I EIS for the
SEHSR Program from Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC.
Environmental Justice — The residential relocations associated with the proposed project
would not create direct disproportionate effects to minority or low-income populations. Minority
populations on Rice Street, however, are likely to experience an increase in traffic as a result of
altered travel patterns associated with the US 29 intersection closures (part of the
Recommended Option for the 22"' Street grade separation). However, travel patterns
throughout the project study area would be affected by elimination of at-grade crossings and
construction of grade separations. Because many roads in the project study area would
experience changes in traffic volumes associated with these altered travel patterns, there would
not be a disproportionate impact on any single group or community.
Air Quality — The project is located in Rowan County, which is within the Charlotte-Gastonia-
Rock Hill nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). This area was designated moderate nonattainment for 03 under the eight-hour ozone
standard effective June 15, 2004. No substantial impacts to air quality are associated with the
proposed project.
Noise — The proposed project would have a slight change on the average number of train trips,
but it would remove a number of roadway at-grade rail crossings through road consolidations
and grade separations, providing a substantial reduction of horn noise in the project area.
There would also be a slight change in noise in areas where the alignment of the rail tracks or
S-6

the placement of the double track moves the train operations closer to residences. There are
no anticipated noise impacts associated with the proposed roadway grade separations. The
proposed combination of roadway improvements and at-grade crossing closures should have a
net reduction of impacted noise receptors in the study area.
Vibration — Perceived vibration is not expected to be measurably affected by the addition of a
second track. However, associated track alignment changes will bring the tracks closer to some
receptors and move it farther from others. Predicted vibration levels are based on the distance
from the tracks to particular land uses along the corridor. For Category 2 receptors (residences
and buildings where people normally sleep) there were 134 impacts for the No Build scenario
(existing track and alignment) and 152 for the Build scenario, an increase of 18 receptors. For
Category 3 receptors (institutional uses such as offices, businesses, schools and churches) it
was determined that 84 receptors would be impacted by the No Build scenario and 91 for the
Build scenario, an increase of 7 receptors.
Water Quality — The addition of a second track and the new grade separated crossings would
increase the total amount of impervious surface within the project study area, which would in
turn create an increase in stormwater runoff. The increase in stormwater runoff would be
limited, however, by the fact that the project study area is located in an urbanized area with a
fairly high amount of existing imperviousness.
Biotic Communities — The proposed project is within an urban area and would primarily affect
maintained/disturbed land (167.4 acres); however, the Build Alternative would also affect 39.6
acres of Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest community. These impacts would primarily involve the
clearing of vegetation and earthwork (i.e., the placement of fill material, grading, etc.) associated
with the construction of the second track and crossing improvements.
Waters of the United States — The Build Alternative is anticipated to impact 0.17-acre of
wetlands and 600 linear feet of jurisdictional streams.
Rare and Protected Species — Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along utility
corridors, roadside shoulders, woodland edges, and the margins of the railroad corridor.
Systemic surveys were performed during September 2010 for this species (optimum survey
window late August to frost) and resulted in a determination of No Effect. A review of North
S-7

Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records, updated December 1, 2008, indicates no
known Schweinitz's sunflower occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Utilities — The proposed project may require the relocation of existing underground and
overhead utilities with the possibility of short-term interruptions to service during construction;
however overall impacts to public utilities are anticipated to be low.
Archaeological and Historic Architectural Resources — The State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) and Office of Archaeology concurred on January 12, 2010 and January 7, 2010
respectively, that no further archaeological work is required for the proposed project. Should
the study corridor change prior to construction, additional consultation with the State Office of
Archaeology would be required. This correspondence is contained in Appendix A.
The Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report (Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc.,
2010) prepared for the proposed project identified four historic properties and two historic districts
as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Through coordination with the
State Historic Preservation OFfice (SHPO), it was determined that the proposed project would have
No Effect on one of these properties and No Adverse Effect on two other properties and the two
districts.
The proposed project would, however, have an Adverse Effect under Section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act, on the Lutheran Chapel, a historic property subject to Section 4(�
requirements. The curve realignment and addition of the second track would affect the church's
parking lot, which is located within the 200-foot NCRR right-of-way. A Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) for mitigation of impacts to the church's parking lot is being developed and
will be included in the subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project.
Grading work would encroach on the historic boundaries for the Chapel; however, all
construction would be within the 200-foot NCRR right-of-way and would not affect any
structures on the property. The proximity of the project would not create constructive use
impacts, as the project would not affect the historic nature or functionality of the Lutheran
Chapel. Because there are no direct or constructive use impacts, no formal Section 4(�
evaluation is required. Additional discussion of historic resources is contained in Sections 3.3.6,
3.3.9, and 3.12.
S-8

Hazardous Material Sites/Underground Storage Tanks — Database surveys indicate that the
rail corridor is flanked with numerous underground storage tanks (USTs) and leaking
underground storage tanks (LUSTs) plus one Superfund site (EDR, 2010), as shown in Exhibit
3.13.1. Based on the preliminary designs, it is anticipated that portions of the properties
corresponding to seven locations along the project will be directly impacted. The NCDOT
Geotechnical Engineering Unit will conduct additional studies and perform field reconnaissance
along the project corridor to determine the presence of any hazardous materials sites or
underground storage tanks. Any potential issues will be identified and addressed during the
right-of-way acquisition phase.
Mineral Resources — There are no mineral production operations within the project study area;
therefore, the proposed project does not pose any impacts to mining or mineral resources.
Preliminary Cost Estimate — The total estimated cost for the project is $105,800,000. This
cost includes $71,200,000 for construction of the second track, grade separations and
associated roadway improvements, and $34,600,000 for additional right-of-way acquisition.
S-9

TABLE S.1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE BUILD (RECOMMENDED) ALTERNATIVE
CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
Mainline Length — miles 11.16
Existing At-Grade Roadway Crossings' 20
Proposed At-Grade Roadway Crossing Closures' 16
Proposed Roadway Grade Separations 3
Construction Cost $71,200,000
Right of Way & Utilities Cost $34,600,000
Total Cost $105,800,000
SOCIOECONOMICFACTORSZ Inside NCRR Outside NCRR Total
Corridor Corridor
Residential relocations along railroad corridor 3 11 14
Residential relocations at 24�" Street Grade Separation 0 10 10
Residential relocations at Kimball Road Grade Separation 0 3 3
Residential relocations at Peeler Road Grade Separation 1 0 1
Total Residential Relocations 4 24 28
Business relocations along railroad corridor 7 40 47
Business relocations at 24�" Street Grade Separation 0 6 6
Business relocations at Kimball Road Grade Separation 0 1 1
Business relocations at Peeler Road Grade Separation 1 4 5
Total Business Relocations 8 51 59
Church impacts along railroad corridor 0 1 1
Church impacts at 24�" Street Grade Separation 1 1 2
Church impacts at Kimball Road Grade Separation 0 0 0
Church impacts at Peeler Road Grade Separation 0 0 0
Total Church Impacts' 1 2 3
Cemeteries Impacted 0 0 0
Schools Impacted 0 0 0
Parks Impacted 0 0 0
Residential Receptors Impacted by Noise — No Build 1,241
Residential Receptors Impacted by Noise — Build 415
Reduction in Impacted Receptors (Noise) $26
Residential / Business Receptors Impacted by Vibration — 134/84
No Build
Residential / Business Receptors Impacted by Vibration — 152/91
Build
Increase in Impacted Receptors (Vibration) 18 / 7
CULTUR.4L RESOURCE FACTORS
Archaeological Sites 0
Historic Properties Affected ° 1
S-10

TABLE S.1 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE BUILD (RECOMMENDED) ALTERNATIVE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Protected Species Impacted 0
Stream Crossings 7
Wetland/Aquatic Systems — acres 5 0.17
Jurisdictional Streams — linear feet 5 600
UPLAND COMMUNITIES — acresb
Pine Forest 0.0
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 39.6
Disturbed/Maintained 167.4
PHYSICAL FACTORS
100-year Floodplain — acres 0.0
Prime and Unique Farmland — acres NA
Hazardous Materials Sites (UST, LUST) 8
Number of Exceedances of CO NAAQS NA
NOTES:
1 This number includes two closures within the study area that are part of a separete project.
2 Relocation reports included in Appendix D for impacts outside the NCRR Corridor.
3 Parking for two churches is impacted. One church at 22ntl Street is anticipated to be relocated.
4 The Build Alternative would have an Adverse Effect on the Lutheran Chapel. Anticipated impacts and mitigation are
discussed in Section 3.3.9 and Section 3.12.
5 Impact quantities based on construction limits of the Build Alternative plus 25 feet.
6 Impact quantities based on a 100-foot corridor. Actual design footprint is anticipated to be approximately 50% of this width.
S-11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................S-1
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ........................................................................ 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 PROPOSEDACTION ..........................................................................................1-2
1.3 SUMMARYOFPROJECTNEED .......................................................................1-3
1.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT PURPOSE ................................................................ 1-6
1.5 PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................... 1-6
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE .............................................................................................. 1-7
1.6.1 Existing Rail System ................................................................................. 1-7
1.6.2 Existing Road System ............................................................................... 1-7
1.6.3 Existing Public Transportation System ...................................................... 1-8
1.6.4 Existing Air System ................................................................................... 1-8
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .......................................................... 1-8
1.7.1 Existing Development ............................................................................... 1-8
1.7.2 Future Development ................................................................................. 1-8
1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS ............................................................................... 1-9
1.8.1 NCDOT Projects ....................................................................................... 1-9
1.8.2 Long Range Transportation Plan ............................................................ 1-10
1.8.3 NCRRCorridor .......................................................................................1-10
1.8.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans ................................................................. 1-11
1.9 SAFETY .............................................................................................................1-11
1.10 SUMMARY .........................................................................................................1-12
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 NO-BUILDALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................2-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
SECTION
2.2 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES .........................................
2.2.1 Additional Track East .............................................................
2.2.2 Additional Track West ............................................................
2.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................
2.3.1 Grade Separations and Closures ...........................................
2.3.2 Traffic Analysis ......................................................................
2.4 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE (BUILD ALTERNATIVE)...........
2.5 RAILROAD DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................
2.6 ROADWAY (GRADE SEPARATION) DESIGN CRITERIA .............
2.7 COST ESTIMATES ...........................................................................
PAGE
............. 2-2
............. 2-2
............. 2-3
............. 2-3
............. 2-4
........... 2-13
........... 2-17
........... 2-17
........... 2-18
........... 2-18
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................ 3-1
3.1 LAND USE ............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Existing Land Use .....................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Development Trends ................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.3 Consistency with Land Use and Transportation Plans .............................. 3-1
3.2 FARMLANDS ....................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................3-3
3.3.1 Population Characteristics ........................................................................3-3
3.3.2 Employment and Economic Characteristics .............................................. 3-5
3.3.3 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ............................................... 3-6
3.3.4 Multimodal Travel Patterns and Accessibility ............................................ 3-7
3.3.5 Schools .....................................................................................................3-8
3.3.6 Churches and Cemeteries ........................................................................ 3-8
3.3.7 Emergency Services ................................................................................. 3-8
3.3.8 Businesses ............................................................................................... 3-9
3.3.9 Section 4(� and Section 6(� Properties .................................................... 3-9
3.3.10 Specific Social Groups ............................................................................ 3-11
3.4 RIGHT-OF-WAYAND RELOCATION IMPACTS .............................................3-11
3.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................................................... 3-14
�

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
SECTION
PAGE
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................................ 3-17
3.7 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 3-19
3.8 NOISE AND VIBRATION ANALYSES .............................................................. 3-23
3.8.1 Train Horn Noise Analysis .................................................................. 3-23
3.8.2 Traffic Noise Analysis ......................................................................... 3-25
3.8.3 Analysis Results ................................................................................. 3-28
3.8.4 Construction Noise .............................................................................3-29
3.8.5 Noise Analysis Summary ................................................................... 3-30
3.8.6 Vibration Impact Assessment ............................................................. 3-30
3.9 NATURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................3-36
3.9.1 Soils ................................................................................................... 3-36
3.9.2 Water Resources ............................................................................... 3-37
3.9.3 Biotic Resources ................................................................................ 3-39
3.9.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ..................................................................... 3-39
3.9.3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................... 3-41
3.9.3.3 Aquatic Communities ......................................................................... 3-41
3.9.3.4 Invasive Species ................................................................................ 3-42
3.9.4 Jurisdictional Issues ........................................................................... 3-42
3.9.4.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the United States ..................................... 3-42
3.9.4.2 Clean WaterAct Permits ....................................................................3-44
3.9.4.3 Construction Moratoria .......................................................................3-45
3.9.4.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ............................................................ 3-45
3.9.4.5 River and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ......................... 3-45
3.9.4.6 Wetland and Stream Mitigation .......................................................... 3-45
3.9.4.7 Endangered Species Act Protected Species ...................................... 3-46
3.9.5 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ..................................... 3-47
3.9.6 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ..................................... 3-47
3.10 HYDRAULIC IMPACTS ..................................................................................... 3-47
3.11 FLOODPLAINS ..................................................................................................3-47
3.12 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES...... 3-48
3.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES
AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS ..................................................... 3-49
3.14 MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................3-50
3.15 ENERGY ............................................................................................................3-50
3.16 VISUAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................3-50
�

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
SECTION
3.17 UTILITIES .........................................................................................
3.18 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ............................................................
3.18.1 AirQuality ..............................................................................
3.18.2 Noise and Vibration ...............................................................
3.18.3 Water Quality .........................................................................
3.18.4 Maintenance of Traffic ...........................................................
3.18.5 Construction Materials and Waste .........................................
3.19 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ................................................................
PAGE
............ 3-51
............ 3-51
............ 3-51
............ 3-52
............ 3-53
............ 3-53
............ 3-54
............ 3-54
4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................................. 4-1
4.1 SCOPING LETTER ..............................................................................................4-1
4.2 NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD (NCRR) MEETING (July 24, 2009) ................ 4-2
4.3 FIRST CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP (July 28, 2009) .................. 4-2
4.3.1 Mailing List ................................................................................................ 4-2
4.3.2 Newsletter#1 ............................................................................................4-2
4.4 SECOND CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP (November 12, 2009)...4-3
4.5 DIVISION OFAVIATION/ROWAN COUNTYAIRPORT
MEETING (December 9, 2009) .........................................................................4-4
4.6 ROWAN COUNTY/ROWAN COUNTYAIRPORT
MEETING (January26, 2010) .............................................................................4-4
4.7 MARIETTA MATERIALS MEETING (April 6, 2010) ........................................... 4-4
4.8 SMALL GROUP MEETING (March 16, 2010) .................................................... 4-4
4.9 SMALL GROUP MEETING (March 7, 2011) ...................................................... 4-4
4.10 SMALL GROUP MEETING (March 22, 2011) .................................................... 4-5
4.11 PUBLIC HEARING (Date TBD) ...........................................................................4-6
iv

APPENDICES
A. COORDINATION
A.1 Scoping Letter
A.2 Agency Comments
A.3 State Historic Preservation OFfice Concurrence
A.4 Public Involvement Materials
B. TRAFFICANALYSIS FIGURES
C.
D.
E.
F.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE JUKE BOX ROAD AND ETHEL LANE
CLOSURES (NCDOT PROJECT NO. P-4405)
RIGHT-OF-WAY RELOCATION REPORTS (OUTSIDE NCRR CORRIDOR)
MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS (MSATs) ANALYSIS
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
F.1 Figures
F.2 Scientific Names
G. ROADWAY MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
H. REFERENCES
EXHIBITS PAGE
Exhibit 1.1.1 Project Vicinity .............................................................................................1-13
Exhibit 1.8.1 Transportation Projects in Project Vicinity ...................................................1-14
Exhibit 2.3.1 a
Exhibit 2.3.1 b
Exhibit 2.3.1 c
Exhibit 2.3.1 d
Exhibit 2.3.1 e
Exhibit 2.3.1f
Exhibit 2.3.2
Exhibit 2.3.3a
Exhibit 2.3.3b
Exhibit 2.3.4
Exhibit 2.3.5a
Exhibit 2.3.5b
Exhibit 2.3.5c
Exhibit 2.5.1
Exhibit 3.1.1
Exhibit 3.1.2
BuildAlternative ...........................................................................................2-19
BuildAlternative ...........................................................................................2-20
BuildAlternative ...........................................................................................2-21
BuildAlternative ...........................................................................................2-22
BuildAlternative ...........................................................................................2-23
BuildAlternative ...........................................................................................2-24
Build Alternative Crossings ..........................................................................2-25
Roadway Grade Separation — New Connector near 22"' Street ...................2-26
Roadway Grade Separation — New Connector near 22"' Street ...................2-27
Roadway Grade Separation — Kimball Road Extension ................................2-28
Roadway Grade Separation — Peeler Road Extension .................................2-29
Roadway Grade Separation — Peeler Road Extension .................................2-30
Roadway Grade Separation — Peeler Road Extension .................................2-31
Typical Rail and Roadway Cross Sections ...................................................2-32
Rowan County Zoning Map ..........................................................................3-57
Cabarrus-Rowan MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan .............................3-58
v

Exhibit 3.3.1
Exhibit 3.8.1a
Exhibit 3.8.1 b
Exhibit 3.8.1c
Exhibit 3.8.1d
Exhibit 3.8.1e
Exhibit 3.8.1f
Exhibit 3.8.1g
Exhibit 3.8.2
Exhibit 3.8.5
Exhibit 3.11.1
Exhibit 3.13.1
TABLES
Community Facilities ................................................................................
Grade Crossing Noise Impact Zones .......................................................
Ryder Avenue Grade Crossing Noise Impact Zones ................................
Centerview Drive & Church Street Grade Crossing Noise Impact Zones..
Webb Road Grade Crossing Noise Impact ...............................................
Grade Separation — New Connector near 22"' Street Noise Impact.........
Grade Separation — Kimball Road Extension Noise Impact ......................
Grade Separation — Peeler Road Extension Noise Impact .......................
Typical Levels of Ground-Bourne Vibration ..............................................
Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves .........................................
Flood HazardAreas .................................................................................
Hazardous Materials Sites .......................................................................
..3-59
..3-60
..3-61
..3-62
..3-63
..3-64
..3-65
..3-66
..3-32
..3-34
..3-67
..3-68
PAGE
Table S.1 Summary of Impacts for the Build (Recommended) Alternative ................... S-10
Table 1.8.1 2009-2015 TIP Projects in the Project Study Area Vicinity ...........................1-10
Table 2.3.1 Build Alternative Roadway Crossings: Recommended Treatments ................2-5
Table 2.3.2 Logic and Rationale for Roadway Crossing Treatments .................................2-6
Table 2.5.1 Rail Design Criteria ......................................................................................2-17
Table 2.6.1 Roadway Design Criteria .............................................................................2-18
Table 2.7.1 Build Alternative Cost Estimates ..................................................................2-18
Table 3.3.1
Table 3.3.2
Table 3.3.3
Table 3.3.4
Table 3.3.5
Table 3.4.1
Table 3.8.1
Table 3.8.2
Table 3.8.3
Table 3.8.4
Table 3.8.5
Table 3.9.1
Table 3.9.2
Table 3.9.3
Table 3.9.4
Table 3.9.5
Table 3.9.6
Table 3.9.7
Table 3.19.1
Population Trends .........................................................................
Racial Characteristics ...................................................................
Age Characteristics .......................................................................
Occupational Data ........................................................................
Economic and Demographic Data .................................................
Relocations Associated with the Build Alternative .........................
Noise Abatement Criteria ..............................................................
Noise Level Impacts Summary ......................................................
Noise Level Increase Summary ....................................................
Ground-Borne Vibration (Gbv) And Ground-Borne Noise (Gbn)
Impact Criteria for General Assessment ........................................
Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ........................................
Soil Series in the Study Area .........................................................
Jurisdictional Streams in the StudyArea .......................................
Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area .................
Coverage of Terrestrial Communities in the Study Area ................
Jurisdictional Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area...........
Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area .........
Federally Protected Species Listed for Rowan County ..................
Summary of Impacts for the Build (Recommended) Alternative.....
vi
....3-3
....3-4
....3-4
....3-5
....3-6
..3-11
..3-27
..3-29
..3-29
..3-33
..3-35
..3-36
..3-38
..3-39
..3-41
..3-43
..3-44
..3-46
..3-55

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct an approximately 11-
mile section of second main track to be placed on the old roadbed along the North Carolina
Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern (NS) line in Rowan County. The project also proposes to
construct grade separations at Peeler Road/Cedar Springs Road, Kimball Road Extension, and
24`h Street in Kannapolis. The proposed project is designated as TIP Project No. P-5206
(formerly P-3414P). Exhibit 1.1.1 shows the project location and the study area which is
situated between control points "Reid" (south of Salisbury) and "North Kannapolis" in Rowan
County.
The proposed improvements begin approximately half a mile north of Peach Orchard Road (SR
2359) and extend to just south of 18th Street in Kannapolis. The study area associated with this
project is mostly contained within the 200-foot NCRR corridor which is roughly centered on the
existing track. The study area extends beyond the NCRR corridor in locations of proposed
grade separations and substantial curve improvements.
This document was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 as amended. It includes the disclosure of relevant environmental information regarding
the proposed project and is intended for use by both decision-makers and the public. The
contents of this statement conform with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines
regarding the implementation of NEPA, as well as the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA)
Procedures for Considering Environmental lmpacts (64 Federal Register 28545, May 26, 1999)
(FRA, 1999) and Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) technical advisory, Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(� Documents (FHWA, 1987).
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the lead Federal agency for the environmental
review for the proposed project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
NCDOT is the lead State agency. FRA and NCDOT are responsible for preparing the
Environmental Assessment (EA). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a
Cooperating Agency under NEPA, and will be participating with the FRA in preparing the EA.
1-1

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRAJ of 2009 — The proposed project meets
criteria outlined in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and is
therefore eligible for transportation infrastructure funding under the Act. Guidance from the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regarding implementation of the ARRA encourages
state and federal agencies to ensure that environmental reviews and informed decision-making
guide the implementation of the ARRA (CEQ, 2009). In accordance with NEPA and in
acknowledgement of the CEQ's ARRA implementation guidance, this environmental document
was prepared to assess potential impacts associated with the proposed project.
Piedmont lmprovement Program — The Piedmont Improvement Program is an initiative by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and
the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) to improve passenger and freight railroad operations along
the NCRR Piedmont Corridor from Raleigh to Charlotte. The NCRR Piedmont Corridor consists
of the Greensboro to Charlotte portion of the NS Mainline from Washington to Atlanta, and the
Greensboro to Raleigh portion of the NCRR H-line.
The proposed project (TIP Project P-5206) is one of three double track replacement projects
proposed on the NS Mainline between Greensboro and Charlotte. The other two double track
projects are the 4.2 mile Thomasville to Lexington project (TIP # C-4901A) and the 12.3 mile
Concord to Charlotte project (TIP # P-5208). Completion of the proposed project, along with the
other two projects, will result in a 92 mile long segment of continuous double track on the NS
Mainline between Greensboro and Charlotte. Along the connecting NCRR H-line between
Greensboro and Raleigh, NCDOT has two projects which propose to add passing sidings to
increase capacity and realign curves to increase passenger train speeds. TIP Project P-5205
proposes to realign four curves and construct a 1.9 mile long passing siding between Graham
and Haw River in Alamance County. TIP Project U-4716 proposes to realign the tracks and
construct a 3.5 mile long passing siding from Durham to Morrisville in Durham and Wake
Counties.
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action would provide an additional
railroad track along the existing NCRR/NS line
between Reid and North Kannapolis in Rowan
County. This is one of three proposed projects where
1-2
Important Points
• Project funding source is 2009 ARRA.
• The proposed action one of three
double-track projects included in the
Piedmont Improvement Program.

former double-track sections are being rebuilt to create a 92-mile section of double-track
railroad between Charlotte and Greensboro. Due to the long distances between each of these
projects, it was determined that they would be studied as three separate projects.
1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve passenger train schedule reliability, provide
additional capacity to support the introduction of up to 12 daily (six round trip) additional
passenger trains to the NCRR Piedmont Corridor, and enhance the safety of the railroad within
the study area.
Increased usage of North Carolina's highway system has led to congestion and increased
emissions. To address congestion and emissions concerns, the NCDOT Rail Division is
improving passenger rail service by upgrading the existing rail infrastructure. Ultimately, these
improvements will benefit the infrastructure for high-speed and traditional passenger rail service
in the state of North Carolina.
The proposed improvements will improve passenger train schedule reliability by allowing freight
and passenger trains to quickly and efficiently maneuver around each other, help accommodate
future growth in passenger train traffic, and provide tracks that will be able to support higher
speed passenger service. Train/vehicle conflicts will be eliminated by closing selected at-grade
road crossings and providing grade-separated crossings (bridges). Improved safety measures
are proposed where at-grade road crossings cannot be closed.
The estimated current and future 20-year service levels for intercity passenger and freight
service on the NCRR Piedmont Corridor between Charlotte, Greensboro and Raleigh are
described below.
lntercity Passenger Service — The NCRR
Piedmont Corridor between Greensboro to Charlotte
currently hosts eight daily (four round trip) intercity
passenger trains, including the four daily (two round
trip) NCDOT Piedmont Service trains, twice daily
(one round trip) Amtrak Carolinian trains, and the
twice daily (one round trip) Amtrak Crescent service.
1-3
Important Points
• NCDOT and Amtrak both expect to
incrementally increase passenger
service through this rail corridor by
2030.
• The proposed project is along the
Preferred Alterna6ve corridor identified
in the Tier 1 SEHSR EIS.

Upon completion of the proposed project, NCDOT plans to add six daily (three round trip)
NCDOT Piedmont Service trains to the NCRR Piedmont Corridor between Charlotte and
Raleigh.
The current and future intercity passenger rail trains serve the following nine stations, including
five between Charlotte and Greensboro, at Greensboro, High Point, Salisbury, Kannapolis, and
Charlotte, and three between Greensboro and Raleigh, including Raleigh, Cary, Durham, and
Burlington. Two additional stations are planned on the NCRR Piedmont Corridor, including
Lexington between Charlotte and Greensboro, and Hillsborough between Greensboro and
Raleigh.
Southeastern High-Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSRJ — The proposed project is along the
Preferred Alternative for the SEHSR corridor determined by the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) in the Record of Decision for the Tier I SEHSR Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
That document analyzed the entire SEHSR corridor from Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC,
including numerous alternative alignment combinations and modal choices. Subsequently,
NCDOT undertook a Tier II EIS for the middle segment of the SEHSR corridor between Raleigh,
NC and Richmond, VA. As of the date of this Environmental Assessment (EA), that document
is still being prepared.
For the southern portion of the SEHSR corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh, NCDOT is
preparing individual project-level NEPA documents, including this EA. FRA and NCDOT have
determined that the individual projects each have independent utility; that is, each project will
provide tangible benefits to existing freight and passenger rail service even if no additional
investments are made for high speed-service. Regardless of future high-speed rail
development, the proposed projects would provide benefits to schedule reliability, train speeds,
and overall rail capacity and safety. The respective NEPA documents provide more details on
the independent utility of each project.
For the northern portion of the SEHSR corridor between Richmond and Washington, DC, FRA
recently announced a$44.3 million grant to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation (DRPT) that will fund the completion of preliminary engineering and a Tier II EIS
(The SEHSR Tier I EIS and ROD can be found at http://www.fra.dot.qov/rpd/freiqht/1611.shtml).
1-4

The SEHSR corridor is planned to include eight daily (four round trip) high-speed trains to the
network between Charlotte and Raleigh, with service extending beyond the NCRR Piedmont
Corridor northward to Richmond, VA and Washington, DC, and southward to Atlanta, GA and
points south. This includes a Piedmont Service train that will be extended north beyond Raleigh
upon completion of the proposed Raleigh to Richmond segment of the SEHSR. Ultimately, the
NCRR Piedmont Corridor is expected to host up to 20 daily (ten round trip) passenger trains
between Charlotte and Raleigh by 2030, including the current and proposed Amtrak, NCDOT
Piedmont Service and SEHSR corridor trains. The proposed project is expected to provide the
capacity necessary to support the operation of up to 20 daily (ten round trip) passenger trains;
however, if NCDOT is unable to immediately utilize the additional capacity being created for
either for NCDOT Piedmont Service or SEHSR corridor service, the additional capacity will be
preserved for such use in the interim.
Freight Service — Prior to the economic downturn, NS was operating nearly 60 freight trains per
day along the Greensboro to Charlotte corridor, as opposed to current volumes of 34 trains per
day. Thus, the current track layout provides enough capacity to accommodate significant
growth in freight volumes. It is estimated that the future volumes will be approximately double
current volumes, 68 trains per day or greater. These volumes will not be induced by the
proposed improvements, but will rather follow economic necessity from the freight railroad's
viewpoint. The freight traffic can increase to a certain threshold with the existing infrastructure
before the efficiency of operation along the corridor is substantially reduced. This would result
in reduced train speeds, increased train waiting times for cleared signals, increased locomotive
idling and reduced fuel efficiency. Other impacts of the potential increased congestion would
include additional long-haul freight traffic on highways, additional vehicular delays at at-grade
railroad crossings, and increased emissions from locomotives and road vehicles.
Note: A network capacity analysis was conducted by
NS to ensure that the additional intercity passenger
trains with increased speeds and the proposed
capacity increases would not prevent NS from
operating freight trains at the current or projected
volumes.
1-5
Important Points
• The current single-track layout in this
study area is not sufficient to meet the
anticipated passenger and freight
demands of the corndor.
• There are 20 at-grade roadway
crossings present in the study area.

Safety — The study area currently has 20 at-grade crossings. The potential for train/vehicle
conflicts will continue to increase with the growth of both highway and rail traffic.
1.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve passenger train schedule reliability, provide
additional capacity to support the introduction of up to 12 daily (six round trip) additional
passenger trains to the NCRR Piedmont Corridor, and enhance the safety of the railroad within
the study area.
Increased usage of North Carolina's highway system has led to congestion and increased
emissions. To address congestion and emissions concerns, the NCDOT Rail Division is
improving passenger rail service (as well as freight) by upgrading the existing rail infrastructure.
Ultimately, these improvements will benefit the infrastructure for high-speed rail in the state of
North Carolina. In the more immediate future, the proposed improvements will enhance the
efficiency of both passenger and freight train movements.
The proposed improvements will improve passenger train schedule reliability by allowing freight
and passenger trains to quickly and efficiently maneuver around each other, help accommodate
future growth in freight and passenger train traffic, and provide tracks that will be able to support
higher speed passenger service. In addition, train/vehicle conflicts will be eliminated by closing
14 existing crossings and constructing grade separations at three locations. Detailed
descriptions of the proposed closures and grade separations are provided in Section 2.
Improved safety measures are proposed where at-grade road crossings cannot be closed.
1.5 PROJECT SETTING
As shown in Exhibit 1.1.1, the study area is situated between control points "Reid" (south of
Salisbury) and "North Kannapolis" in Rowan County. The study area is characterized by
relatively dense established development that is accessed primarily by US 29. US 29 runs
parallel to the existing track and functions as "Main StreeY' for the towns of China Grove and
Landis.
Much of the development is situated within the 200-foot NCRR corridor, making impacts to
properties and access an important consideration. As mentioned, the development is well-
established and consists of commercial, residential, and public uses. The proximity of US 29 to
1-6

the track also presents geometric challenges for grade separation options. Specifically,
implementing roadway crossings over the existing and proposed track, and then bringing the
grade back down to US 29 is often constrained by relatively short spacing between the track and
the roadway.
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE
This section discusses the major elements of the transportation system traversing and
surrounding the study area.
1.6.1 Existinq Rail Svstem
Most of the traffic along this rail corridor comes from Norfolk Southern (NS) freight trains and
Amtrak passenger trains. This section of track lies on the Washington to Atlanta Mainline which
is NS' primary Atlantic Coast north-south route. This route is used to connect major
northeastern metropolitan areas via Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to the major metropolitan areas of
the Southeast and Gulf Coast via Atlanta, Georgia. This section of the NCRR Piedmont
Corridor is part of a larger NS initiative. The Crescent Corridor seeks to improve intermodal
services along the I-20, I-40, I-59, I-85, and I-81 corridors between Memphis, Tennessee and
New Orleans, Louisiana in the south and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in the northeast. This
initiative proposes to increase corridor capacity and construct or enlarge intermodal facilities
along the corridor.
Amtrak operates passenger rail service in the project corridor. Eight passenger trains pass
through the corridor per day. The Crescent, route offers service between New York and New
Orleans with stops at major cities in between, including Charlotte and Greensboro. The
Carolinian offers service between New York and Charlotte and the Piedmont offers two daily
round trips between Charlotte and Raleigh.
1.6.2 Existinq Road Svstem
The rail corridor is adjacent to US 29 throughout the
study area. US 29 is a critical north-south corridor
that parallels I-85. I-85 is a main artery through the
state and is vitally important for regional connection
to the communities and towns along US 29 in Rowan
County. Because the NCRR corridor runs parallel to
1-7
Important Points
• A substantial amount of existing
development is located within the 200-
foot NCRR corridor.
• Most of the existing rail traffic is
composed of NS freight trains and
Amtrak passenger trains.

and between I-85 and US 29, the proposed improvements were developed to maintain
accessibility and connectivity with the existing road system.
1.6.3 Existinq Public Transportation Svstem
The counties of Cabarrus and Rowan are serviced by Concord/Kannapolis Area Transit,
Salisbury Transit, Rowan Transit System, RIDER Transit System, Concord Express, and
various smaller agencies for special need populations.
1.6.4 Existinq Air System
The Rowan County Airport is a general aviation airport located at the north end of the study
area, just west of Salisbury. The airport serves primarily business commuter travel. Ground
transportation services to and from the airport link to the regional road system via l-85 which
runs parallel to the rail corridor through Rowan County.
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The following sections describe existing and projected social and economic elements of the
project setting.
1.7.1 Existinq Development
Most of the proposed improvements would be contained within the 200-foot NCRR corridor.
There is a substantial amount of established commercial, residential, and public development
encroaching within this corridor. Development is centered around the Towns of China Grove
and Landis in the middle portion of the study area. At the north and south ends of the study
area, development is associated with the cities of Salisbury and Kannapolis, respectively.
1.7.2 Future Development
Population growth in the Cabarrus-Rowan
Metropolitan Planning Area (CR MPA) is expected to
be a steady 3% annual rate over the next 25 years.
The associated average rate of employment growth
is also projected to be approximately 3% with a 2035
distribution of: industrial/manufacturing (30%),
banking (2%), service jobs (30%), retail (21 %),
education (6%), and office/government (11 %).
(CRMPO LRTP 2035, 2009). Specific to the study
1-8
Important Points
• The rail line in the study area parallels
US 29 and 1-85, which is a determining
factor when considering crossing
closures or improvements.
• A mix of development is present in the
study area and includes areas within
North Kannapolis, Landis, and China
Grove.

corridor, the level of existing development adjacent to the railroad and along US 29 is well
established and mostly built out in and around the towns. Substantial changes in the type and
amount of development in this corridor are therefore not anticipated within the 2035 design
period.
1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS
This section describes planned and programmed improvements to the transportation system in
the general vicinity of the proposed action. This includes projects planned by NCDOT and
others. Exhibit 1.8.1 shows the planned and programmed projects in the vicinity of the
proposed action.
1.8.1 NCDOT Prolects
The NCDOT 2009-2015 TIP includes schedules (planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction) for several projects in the general vicinity of the study area. The two most relevant
TIP projects are the other "double-track" projects that would complete a dual track section
between Charlotte and Greensboro. These projects are designated as P-5208 (Haydock to
Junker, 12.5 miles between Charlotte and Concord) and C-4901A (Bowers to Lake, 4.5 miles
between Lexington and Thomasville).
Two at-grade crossings within the project limits are being studied as part of a separate project,
NCDOT TIP Project No. P-4405A. Closure of the Ethel Road and Jukebox Road crossings is
being evaluated as part of the NCDOT Private Crossing Safety Initiative for the rail corridor
between Raleigh and Charlotte. Additional details on this project can be found in Sections 2.3.1
and 3.5.
Other relevant programmed roadway and infrastructure improvement projects related to the
railways in this area are listed in Table 1.8.1 and are shown in Exhibit 1.8.1.
Important Points
• Over the next 25 years, steady growth is
projected for the region.
• There are a total of three "double-track"
projects that would re-establish dual
track between Charlotte and
Greensboro.
1-9

TABLE 1.8.1
2009-2015 TIP PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA VICINITY
TIP LOCATION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
NO.
Airport Parkway Extension — New location, two-lane roadway (on
U-3821 Salisbury/Rowan four-lane right-of-way) from Jake Alexander Boulevard at Harrison
Road to Peach Orchard Road at I-85. 7.7 miles (Division 9)
NC 152 Bypass— Upgrade existing facility from the I-85/US 601
R-4062 China Grove/Rowan Interchange to Relocated US 52 (R-2903) near Rockwell.
(9.2 Miles) (Division 9)
FS- Kimball Road Extension — Construct new location connector for
0309A Landis/Rowan extension of SR 1211 (Kimball Road) from SR 2739 (Main Street) to
SR 1221 (Bostian Road). (0.7 Mile) (Division 9)
U-4702 Kannapolis/Cabarrus SR 1766 (Universal Street) —SR 1625 (Rogers Lake Road)
Construct Railroad Grade Separation (Division 10)
B-2085 Salisbury/Rowan North Ellis Street Over Southern Railway, Replace Bridge No. 393
(Division 9)
B-2086 Salisbury/Rowan East Fisher Street Over Southern Railway, Replace Bridge No. 138
(Division 9)
B-3236 Salisbury/Rowan Southern Railway, Replace Bridge No. 381, SR 2200 (E. Innes St.)
(Division 9)
P4902 Spencer/Rowan Rail Track Replacement and Construction-Transportation Museum
(Division 9)
U-3459 Salisbury/Rowan SR 2541 (Klumac Road), Construct a Grade Separation with the
NCRR (Division 9)
SR 1002 (Bringle Ferry Road) — US 29 (Main Street), Widen to Multi-
U-3460 Salisbury/Rowan Lanes, Grade Separation Over NCRR and Norfolk Southern
Railroads and an Access Road to Long Street (Division 9)
U-3822 Spencer/Rowan SR 2120 (Long Ferry Road), Grade Separation at Southern Railway
(Division 9)
U-4416 Landis/Rowan Construct Grade Separation at Rice Street over Piedmont High
Speed Rail Corridor (Division 9)
NOTE: Table inclutles unfuntletl as well as funtletl projects.
1.8.2 Lonq Ranqe Transportation Plan
The CRMPO Long Range Transportation Plan currently shows the Airport Parkway Extension
and NC 152 (described above) as major thoroughfare projects. Both of these currently
unfunded projects are anticipated to include grade separations over the NCRR railroad. In
addition to the above-mentioned major thoroughfares, the Kimball Street extension is proposed
to provide a new local connection and railroad grade separation in the Landis area.
1.8.3 NCRR Corridor
The majority of the study area for this project is within the NCRR corridor. The NCRR corridor is
200 feet wide, 317 miles long and extends from the Morehead City Port to Charlotte. Specific to
this project, the corridor is roughly centered on the existing railroad tracks parallel to I-85
1-10

through Rowan County. The 1849 Charter for the NCRR specified the 200-foot corridor,
providing the right to NCRR to use the land within the corridor for railroad uses (NCRR:
Understanding the Corridor Management and Protection Program, 200�. For this project, any
business or residential relocations within the 200-foot corridor would be addressed by NCRR.
1.8.4 Bicvcle and Pedestrian Plans
Although there are no special accommodations for bicycles (such as paved shoulders or bicycle
lanes), the Rowan County Bicycling Map (NCDOT, 2009) identifies Corriher Gravel Road and
Mount Hope Church Road as a county bicycle route. The Salisbury Comprehensive Bicycle Plan
(Wilbur Smith, 2009) designates SR 1514 (Airport Road) as a county bicycle route and
recommends the addition of a wide shoulder and sidewalk to accommodate the high number of
low-income and transportation-challenged citizens living in the area. It also recommends adding
signage for a designated bicycle route along US 29 in south Salisbury. The Kannapolis Walkable
Community Plan (HSMM, 2007) does not contain any recommendations for the portion of the
project study area under its jurisdiction. There is no bicycle or pedestrian plan for the Town of
China Grove; however, provisions for sidewalks are contained in the Town's Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) (Town of China Grove, 2010). The UDO requires developers to construct
sidewalks under certain conditions such as the presence of sidewalks on adjacent parcels or the
particular type of roadway. The Town of Landis does not have a bicycle or pedestrian plan.
1.9 SAFETY
In order to implement increased speed and reliability for
trains along this corridor, potential conflicts with
automobiles at roadway crossings need to be minimized
to the extent possible. Within the study area betv�een
Reid and North Kannapolis, there are 20 at-grade
roadway crossings. Traffic Separation Studies (TSSs)
have been previously developed by the NCDOT Rail
Division to examine potential closures and consolidation
of crossings in Salisbury (NCDOT, 1994), China Grove
(NCDOT, 1997a), Kannapolis (NCDOT, 1997b) and
Landis (NCDOT, 1997c). The TSSs recommended
closure of seven at-grade crossings and proposed two
new roadway grade separations to aid in improving safety
along the NCRR corridor.
1-11
Important Points
• There are two planned roadway projects
that would cross the rail line at a grade-
separated crossing.
• Any proposed relocations within the
NCRR corridor would be addressed by
the NCRR.
• Traffic separa6on studies (TSSs) were
conducted in 1994 and 1997 to examine
options for crossing closures,
consolidations, orotherimprovements.
• A second track would allow trains to
quickly and efficiently maneuver around
each other, improving overall corridor
capacity and train schedule reliability.

1.10 SUMMARY
The NCDOT Rail Division proposes to construct an additional railroad track along the NCRR
line between Reid and North Kannapolis in Rowan County. This additional track replaces a
second track that was previously removed in the 1960's, and generally follows the location of
the previously-removed track and railroad bed.
The need for this project is based on current and projected needs along the corridor between
Greensboro and Charlotte which has recently exhibited use by as many as 60 passenger and
freight trains per day. Since the 1960's track removal, rail traffic has greatly increased and
additional capacity and service reliability are needed.
The NCRR Greensboro to Charlotte corridor currently hosts 8 daily (4 round trip) intercity
passenger trains, including the 4 daily (2 round trip) NCDOT Piedmont Service trains, twice
daily (1 round trip) Amtrak Carolinian trains and the twice daily (1 round trip) Amtrak Crescent
service. NCDOT plans to add 4 daily (2 round trip) Piedmont Service trains between Charlotte
and Raleigh.
Amtrak and NCDOT may introduce 8 daily (4 round trip) Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR)
Corridor trains to the network extending beyond the Piedmont Corridor northward to Richmond,
VA and Washington, DC, and southward to Atlanta, GA and points south. In total, the NCRR
Corridor is expected to host up to 20 daily (10 round trip) passenger trains between Greensboro
and Charlotte by 2030
Prior to the economic downturn, NS was operating nearly 60 freight trains per day along the
Greensboro to Charlotte corridor, as opposed to current volumes of 34 trains per day. Thus, the
current track layout provides enough capacity to accommodate significant growth in freight
volumes. It is estimated that the future volumes will be approximately double current volumes,
68 trains per day or greater. These volumes will not be induced by the proposed improvements,
but will rather follow economic necessity from the freight railroad's viewpoint.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve passenger train schedule reliability, provide
additional capacity to support the introduction of up to 12 daily (six round trip) additional
passenger trains to the NCRR Piedmont Corridor, and enhance the safety of the railroad within
the study area.
1-12

2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No Build Alternative was considered but eliminated from further consideration. The No
Build Alternative does not meet the primary purpose and need for the proposed project.
Freight train volume is projected to increase beyond current year levels as the market dictates,
regardless of the addition of capacity within the project limits. If the proposed improvements are
not implemented, reliability of the existing passenger service will diminish as freight train volume
increases. Existing passenger service will experience reduced train speed due to congestion.
The passenger trains will also experience increased delay while waiting for other trains to clear
the existing single track section between control points Reid and North Kannapolis.
The purpose of the proposed project is also to provide capacity for future passenger train
service on the NCRR Piedmont Corridor. NCDOT and the FRA are proposing to add up to 12
daily (six round trip) passenger trains along the corridor, including the introduction of four
additional daily (two round trip) NCDOT Piedmont Service trains, and eight daily (four round trip)
SEHSR corridor trains The existing infrastructure will not be able to support the additional
passenger trains and the expected increase of freight traffic without negatively impacting the
ability of NS to efficiently operate their freight trains along the corridor. The congestion will
result in increased locomotive idling and reduced fuel efficiency. Also, the existing infrastructure
does not support higher speed operations as dictated by the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008 and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
The proposed project also proposes to improve safety within the project limits by closing a
number of at-grade crossings and replacing them
with grade separations. Without these
improvements, at-grade crossings within the project
limits will experience additional queuing of vehicles at
railroad crossings, resulting in an increase in auto
emissions. Also, the crossings will experience an
increase in accident potential due to the increase in
train volume.
2-1
Important Points
• The No-Build Altemative provides a
basis for comparison of the build
altematives butwouldnotmeetthe
projectpurpose.
• Track removed in the 1960's was on the
westside of the rail corridor.
• Placing the second track on the east
side of the rail corridor would create
considerably higherimpacts than
replacing the track on the west side.

2.2 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES
The Build Alternative meets the primary purpose and need for the proposed project. The
implementation of the proposed project, will improve the reliability of the existing passenger
service by providing additional capacity and constructing crossovers which will enable the faster
passenger trains to maneuver around the slower freight trains. The additional capacity will also
allow for the introduction of up to 12 daily (six round trip) future passenger trains along the
corridor without hindering NS's ability to operate the future freight train volumes required to
meet the needs of their business model. The capacity improvements proposed by the proposed
project are designed to directly relate to the increase in passenger service that is planned for
the NCRR Piedmont Corridor. Any capacity that is constructed, but not immediately utilized for
passenger service, will be preserved for future passenger train use, subject to the need for the
completion of additional operational and capacity improvements along the corridor.
The proposed improvements will also enable passenger trains to operate at higher speeds, thus
meeting the requirements of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 and
the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The passenger trains will be limited to 79 mph
through the project area under the current operating environment, but the project is designed to
accommodate speeds up to 90 mph when additional operational and capacity improvements are
installed on the corridor. By eliminating the majority of the existing at-grade crossings within the
project limits and replacing them with grade separations, rail and vehicular safety will be
significantly improved. Also, the grade separations will reduce the amount of delay experienced
by vehicles while waiting for trains to pass. This will result in less vehicular idling and ultimately,
improved air quality for the area.
Preliminary alternatives to add track either east or west of the existing track alignment were
evaluated. This section describes the preliminary alternatives.
2.2.1 Additional Track East
Adding track on the east side of the existing track was initially evaluated. The original second
track that was removed in the 1960s was on the west side. Although the track was removed,
the railroad bed and former earthwork are relatively intact. The NCRR corridor has experienced
development encroachment since the 1960s on both sides of the existing track. However, the
physical presence of the remnant roadbed has prevented the same degree of encroachment on
2-2

the west side. In addition, the presence of the remnant roadbed reduces the potential for
impacts to natural resources.
In evaluating the potential impacts of adding a second track and improving some curve
alignments, it was determined that substantially greater relocation impacts would be anticipated
if track were added on the east side. An example of this anticipated impact is that track
alignment improvements on the east side would cause relocation of a substantial segment of
Central Avenue through the Town of China Grove, severely reducing roadway connectivity
within this area. After the original second track was removed, both sides of the NCRR corridor
experienced encroachment from development. The presence of the remnant road bed limited
this effect on the western side but not on the eastern side. As such, placing the second track on
the eastern side of the rail corridor would affect more existing development than replacing the
track on the western side of the rail corridor. Therefore this preliminary alternative was
eliminated from further consideration and was not carried into a preliminary design phase,
where detailed quantification of impacts would be prepared.
2.2.2 Additional Track West
As described above, adding track to the east side was eliminated from further consideration
because it was expected to have greater impacts than adding track on the west side. There are
a few exceptions east realignments are necessary to improve curve alignments, such as in the
China Grove area. Additional track on the west side would utilize the existing roadbed for the
most part. This minimizes potential impacts as it would require less earthwork and disruption to
the existing terrain when compared to other options.
Adding track on the west side was projected to cause fewer impacts to the human and natural
environment while still satisfying the purpose and
need. Therefore, adding track on the west side was
carried forward as the Build Alternative.
2.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The Build Alternative would provide a second track on
the former roadbed on the west side of the existing
NCRR/NS track between Reid and Kannapolis.
Exhibit 2.3.1 shows the Build Alternative for the
2-3
• Replacing the track on the west side
would use the old roadbed and require
less earthwork than adding a new track to
the east side.
• The second track would be placed 14-feet
(center-to-center) from the existing track.
• Alignment and crossing improvements
are included in the Build Altemative to
maintain consistency with NCDOT plans
far the SEHSR.

proposed project within the NCRR/NS corridor.
The proposed track would be located 14-feet (center-to-center) from the existing track on a
parallel alignment. In order for the project to accommodate high-speed train service (speeds of
90 mph), alignment improvements and elimination of at-grade roadway crossings (where
feasible) are also needed. Alignment improvements are anticipated to stay within the NCRR
corridor with the exception of one location. Improvement of the existing rail curve just southwest
of Centerview Street is anticipated to require right-of-way beyond the NCRR corridor. The
proposed project also includes the construction of two sidings. A 1,500-foot siding is proposed
on the north side of the rail corridor between the existing Peeler Road at-grade crossing and the
proposed Peeler Road grade separation. A 300-foot siding is proposed on the south side of the
rail corridor near the proposed Mt. Hope Church Road crossing closure. Grade separation
improvements are all projected to require additional right-of-way. These specific elements are
discussed in the following sections.
2.3.1 Grade Separations and Closures
Crossing closure is the most effective way to eliminate safety issues at at-grade crossings.
Crossings within a quarter-mile of each other that connect to the same street network are
considered redundant and are often good candidates for crossing consolidation. Consolidation
of two or more crossings into one crossing can be accomplished by utilizing roads that parallel
the railroad or building service roads to a central crossing location.
As presented in Section 1.9, there are 20 at-grade roadway crossings within the study area.
Each of these crossings was evaluated based on automobile traffic volumes, preliminary
railroad design geometry for the Build Alternative, and previous traffic separation studies. Table
2.3.1 lists each of the at-grade roadway crossings along with its recommended treatment
associated with the Build Alternative. Exhibit 2.3.2 shows each of the crossing locations. Due
to physical constraints, many of the crossings had a single reasonable and feasible
improvement option. Crossings with more than one reasonable and feasible option are noted in
the table and described in the following paragraphs. Exhibits 2.3.3 though 2.3.5 show the
proposed grade separation locations.
2-4

TABLE 2.3.1
BUILD ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY CROSSINGS: RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS
Crossing Included in' TSS Long Term Build Alternative
Previous TSS. Recommendation Recommendation
18�" Street Kannapolis Close Close
22"a Street Kannapolis Close Close
24t6 Street (new crossing) Kannapolis Grade Separate Grade Separate
29�" Street Kannapolis Close Close
Mill Street Landis Close Close
Ryder Street Landis Retain/Improve Retain/Improve
Central Avenue Landis Close Close
Kimball Road E�ctension -- -- Grade Separate
Eudy Road China Grove Close Close
Thom Street China Grove Retain/Improve Close
Centerview Street China Grove Retain/Improve Retain/Improve
Church Street China Grove Retain/Improve Retain/Improve
US 29/US 601 (Grade Separated) China Grove Retain Retain
Juke Box Road (N, of Collins Rd.) -- -- Close
Ethel Road (S, of Reece Ridge Rd.) -- -- Close
Mt. Hope Church Road --- --- Close
Private (S. of Webb Road) --- --- Close
Webb Road --- --- Retain/Improve
Private (N. of Grace Church Rd.) --- --- Close
PeelerRoad -- -- Grade Separate
Peach Orchard Road -- -- Close
Private (S. of Airport Road) --- --- Close
Private (N. of Airport Road) --- --- Close
NOTE: Crossings with more than one reasonable and feasible option are noted in italics and described in the following paragraphs.
In addition to summarizing the rationale and likely effects associated with each proposed
crossing improvement, Table 2.3.2 includes brief descriptions of the existing conditions at each
crossing evaluated as part of this project. In many cases, vehicles queuing across the tracks is
noted as an issue. In this scenario, vehicles stopped at an intersection with a paralleling
roadway will line up across the tracks. The potential for queuing varies based on an
intersection's distance from the rail crossing and traffic volumes.
Another condition noted in the table is called a"humped" crossing. A crossing is considered
humped if the elevation of the railroad crossing is higher than that of the roadway approaches.
If severe enough, this condition can cause vehicles, especially low-suspension trucks, to
become stuck on the tracks. Maintenance of the crossing can contribute to this condition,
raising the crossing by as much as one foot over a ten year period.
2-5

TABLE 2.3.2
LOGIC AND RATIONALE FOR ROADWAY CROSSING TREATMENTS
CROSSING PROPOSED RATIONALE ASSOCIATED EFFECTS
TREATMENT
• Humped crossing . Traffic will be routed to the
• Fatal accident' new grade separation at 24�"
• Closure allows for curve Street
18�" Street Close realignment south of crossing
�
• Close proximity to proposed
grade separation'
• Below standard grades on • Traffic will be routed to the
both approaches' new grade separation at 24�"
• Potential for vehicles at US Street
29A intersection to queue
22"a Street Close across tracks'
• Three accidents with two
fatalities'
• Close proximityto�roposed
grade separation
• New grade separation needed • Due to the amount of traffic
as part of crossing expected to utilize the new
consolidation program in this crossing, the intersections with
area' US 29 and US 29A were
assumed to be signalized in
24t6 Street Grade the design year h
Separate . Existing US 29 and 24 Street
intersection would be closed to
minimize need for roadway
improvements to US 29; 24�"
Street would be accessed via
25�" Street
• Below standard grades on • Traffic will be routed to the
eastbound approach' new grade separation at 24�"
• Potential for vehicles at US Street
29�" Street Close 29A intersection to queue
across tracks'
• One "pro�perty damage only"
accident
• Potential for vehicles at US • Traffic would be routed to
29A intersection to queue Ryder Street crossing
across tracks Z
• Three accidents with one
Mill Street Close fatality Z
• Close proximity to Ryder
Street Z
• Closure allows for track curve
realignment Z
• Ryder Street is primary • Crossing consolidation would
connector between US 29A, increase traffic at Ryder Street
Ryder Street Retain/Improve Landis central business crossing, which could cause
district, and US 29 Z vehicles to queue across
• Im roved crossin would tracks at intersection with US
�

TABLE 2.3.2
LOGIC AND RATIONALE FOR ROADWAY CROSSING TREATMENTS
CROSSING PROPOSED RATIONALE ASSOCIATED EFFECTS
TREATMENT
minimize the potential for 29A
vehicles at US 29A . Intersection improvements,
intersection to queue across including additional turn lanes
tracks Z and an alternate intersection
configuration, would be
required at the US 29A and
Central Avenue intersections
• A new signal and turn lanes
would be required at the Ryder
Street and North Chapel Street
intersection
• Closure allows for track curve • Traffic would be routed to
realignment Ryder Street crossing
• Potential for additional traffic
volumes to cause vehicles at
Central Avenue Close intersection with US 29A to
queue across tracks
• Intersection improvements,
including additional turn lanes,
would be required at the US
29A intersection
• New grade separation needed • Kimball Road would be
as part of crossing extended over the railroad to a
consolidation program in this new intersection with North
area Z'' Chapel Street
Kimball Road Grade • A fourth leg would be added to
Extension Separate the existing intersection of
Kimball Road and US 29A
• Based on anticipated volumes,
Kimball Road and US 29A
intersection would likely be
si nalized in the future
• One "property damage only" • Traffic would be routed to new
Eudy Road Close accident ° grade-separated Kimball Road
extension
• Potential for vehicles at US • Traffic would be routed to new
29A intersection to queue grade-separated Kimball Road
Thom Street Close across tracks ° extension
• Closure allows for track curve
reali nment
• Serves China Grove central • Reconfigure the intersection of
business district ° Harris Street and Centerview
Centerview • Potential for vehicles at US Street to right-in/right-out
Retain/Improve 29A intersection to queue operation. This change would
Street across tracks ° likely send additional traffic to
• Fatal accident ° the intersection of Centerview
• Hum ed crossin ° Street and Bostian Street
Church Street Retain/Improve ' Humped crossing ° . The intersection of Harris
Street and Church Street
2-7

TABLE 2.3.2
LOGIC AND RATIONALE FOR ROADWAY CROSSING TREATMENTS
CROSSING PROPOSED RATIONALE ASSOCIATED EFFECTS
TREATMENT
would be reconfigured so that
no traffic would approach the
intersection of Harris Street
and Church Street from the
east
• Traffic that would be rerouted
due to the conversion of the
intersection of Harris Street
and Church Street would use
Bostian Street as its most
likel alternative
• No change to existing grade • Existing roadway will
NC 152 Retain separated crossing accommodate additional traffic
volumes from nearby crossing
closures
• Site distance obscured by� • Traffic would be rerouted to
Juke Box Road vegetation and buildings crossings at Webb Road and
(N. of Collins Close • Proximity to Ethel Road NC 152
Rd.) crossing allows for both
crossings to be serviced by a
new access road 5
• Humped crossing 5 • Traffic would be rerouted to
Ethel Road (S. • One accident with injury 5 crossings at Webb Road and
of Reece Ridge Close • Proximity to Jukebox Road NC 152
Rd.) crossing allows for both
crossings to be serviced by a
new access road 5
Mt. Hope • Proximity to Webb Road • Traffic would be rerouted to
Church Road Close allows crossing consolidation crossings at Webb Road and
NC 152
Private (S. of . Closure allows for track curve • Traffic would be rerouted to
Webb Road) Close realignment 5 crossin at Webb Road
• No changes to existing at- • Traffic from Ethel/Jukebox
Webb Road Retain/Improve grade crossing Road would be rerouted to
crossin at Webb Road
• Crossing does not serve • Future access across the rail
Private (East of s
Grace Church Close developed parcels corridor would be provided at
Road) • Crossing is poorly maintained Peeler Road or Webb Road
and not in use
• New grade separation needed • Traffic would be routed along
as part of crossing an extension of Peeler Road to
consolidation program in this a new grade-separated
area crossing that would connect to
PeelerRoad Grade . Closure allows for track curve Cedar Springs Road
Separate realignment • New intersections on Cedar
Springs Road and Long
Meadow Drive to provide
access to US 29. One
si nalized intersection is
2-8

TABLE 2.3.2
LOGIC AND RATIONALE FOR ROADWAY CROSSING TREATMENTS
CROSSING PROPOSED RATIONALE ASSOCIATED EFFECTS
TREATMENT
proposed atthe northern
intersection where Cedar
Springs Road connector
intersects with US 29
• Closure allows for track curve • Hayder Street would be
realignment extended to the new grade-
• Proximityto Peeler Road separated crossing onthe
allows crossing consolidation Peeler Road extension
Peach Orchard Close • Traffic along Hayder Street
Road would increase by 4,470
vehicles/day due to the
addition of traffic that
previously used the Peach
Orchard Road crossing
• Crossing does not serve many • Traffic would be rerouted to
Private (S. of developed parcels 5 new Peeler Road grade-
Air ort Road Close �
p ) 5 rossing is poorly maintained separated crossing
• Crossing is poorly maintained • Traffic would be rerouted to
5 new Peeler Road grade-
Private (N. of Close • Steep eastbound approach to separated crossing
Airport Road) crossing
• Poor site distance on roadway
a roaches 5
iv� i t�i��urccts vvnere nocea, imormanon was rererencea rrom me rouowing sources:
1 Kannapolis Traffc Separetion Study (NCDOT, 1997b)
2 Landis Traffc Separetion Study (NCDOT, 1997c)
3 Kimball Road Feasibility Study (NCDOT, 2008)
4 China Grove Traffc Separetion Study (1997a)
5 Private Crossing Safety Initiative: Crossing Evaluations and Recommendations (NCDOT, 2003)
24�" Street (Exhibit 2.3.3) — Four options for a new grade separation were evaluated as part of
the crossing consolidation program in the segment between 22"' Street and 26`h. The options
focused on an undeveloped area in the vicinity of 24`h Street to minimize direct impacts to
residences and businesses. Currently 24`h Street does not cross the railroad, but the majority of
these options would effectively be an extension of 24`h Street across the tracks. Therefore, the
new connector is referred to in this document as 24`h Street.
• Option 1(Grade separate 22"' Street) — The first
option was to grade separate 22"' Street over the
railroad and utilize the existing alignment of 22"a
Street as much as possible. A conceptual design
2-9
Important Points
• Due to physical constraints, most
crossings have a single feasible
option for improvements.
• Three roadway grade separations are
proposed.

was developed for this option. Anticipated impacts for this option include several residential and
business relocations as well as rerouting a substantial amount of traffic through neighborhood
streets. It is estimated that this option would result in 10 residential and four business
relocations. In addition, it would require traffic traveling between US 29 and Main Street to be
routed through neighborhood streets which was deemed to be an undesirable effect. The daily
traffic volume in the residential neighborhood would increase from approximately 200 vehicles to
over 7,000 vehicles in the 2035 design year.
• Option 2(Candy-cane aliqnment on new location) — A second option was evaluated with the
purpose of avoiding re-routing relatively high traffic volumes through the residential street
network. From a proposed intersection with US 29, this option would bridge over the
railroad and Main Street and then loop back to a proposed intersection with Main Street.
Although this configuration minimizes traffic impact to local streets, it has a large footprint
and associated relocation impacts (12 residences and one church). This option also would
impact a wetland just south of Blackwelder Avenue. The loop configuration introduces an
atypical configuration that could violate driver expectancy, specifically cresting the bridge
and immediately approaching a tight curve.
• Option 3(New location T-intersection connector, Recommended Option) — The third option
for the grade separation begins at a proposed intersection with US 29/601, bridges over the
railroad and ties directly into Main Street in a T-intersection configuration. Compared to the
other options, this configuration requires a steeper grade on the approach to Main Street but is
still within design criteria. The anticipated relocation impacts for this option are similar to
Options 1 and 2(13 residences and one church). However, this option does not route major
thoroughfare traffic through the local street network and does not affect the wetland south of
Blackwelder Avenue. Therefore, Option 3 is recommended as the grade separation
configuration for the new 24`h Street connection.
• Option 4(New connector tyinq to Summit
Avenue — The fourth option would construct a
new connector east of 22"' Street that would
intersect with US 29/601 at its eastern terminus,
bridge over the railroad and Main Street, and tie in
2-10
Important Points
• Four options were studied for the 24�^
Street grade separation.
• The recommended 24�^ Street option is
a new connector from US 29/601 to
Main Street, bridging over the railroad.

to Summit Avenue. This option was beneficial from a design constraint perspective as it allows
a greater horizontal distance for more gradually tying the vertical profile of the proposed bridge
back to the existing roadway. This option also has the fewest anticipated relocations (three
residences). However, this option requires traffic bound for US 29 to use Summit Avenue and
the existing local street network, which would create a substantial increase in traffic volumes
along these local residential streets. 2035 traffic volumes would be 7,300 vehicles per day with
Option 4 versus 260 cars per day with Option 3. A traffic increase of this magnitude would
affect the character and conte� of these neighborhoods. 2035 traffic projections are contained
in Appendix B. Option 4 also impacts the wetland south of Blackwelder Avenue.
The Recommended Option for the 24"' Street grade separation (Option 3) was developed to a
preliminary design level. The height needed to bridge the railroad would create a steep grade
from the bridge to the intersection with US 29, requiring the elevation of US 29 be raised to
reduce the grade along the new road and limiting the segment to a 40 mph design speed, which
is consistent with the in-town stop-controlled context. The addition of turn lanes and the need to
raise the elevation of US 29 would require the placement of fill material along US 29 and would
increase the roadway footprint. It would also require the closure of the US 29 intersections with
Westview Street and Blackwelder Avenue.
Kimball Road Extension (Exhibit 2.3.4) — Due to the proposed closure of several crossings in
the Landis and China Grove area, a new grade separation is needed to accommodate revised
travel patterns for vehicle traffic. The roadway and track geometry, and potential footprint
impacts, made grade separating the existing roadways (Eudy Road, Central Avenue) an
undesirable option. Therefore a new connector is proposed which would extend Kimball Road
south from its intersection with US 29 (Main Street), running underneath a proposed railroad
bridge, and intersecting with Chapel Street south of the railroad. As described in Section 1.8.2,
this extension is included in the LRTP.
Peeler Road & Peach Orchard Road (Exhibit 2.3.5)
— Peeler Road and Peach Orchard Road both have
interchanges with I-85 and provide access between I-
85 and US 29 in the vicinity of the Rowan County
Airport. As discussed in Section 1.8.2, the LRTP
2-11
Important Points
• The Kimball Road Extension is a grade
separation under the railroad.
• Three options were evaluated for the
Peeler Road / Peach Orchard Road area.

identifies the need to construct a new thoroughfare providing a direct connection from the
Rowan County Airport to I-85 (Airport Parkway Extension). Based on these long-range plans
and the need to add a grade separation along this segment of the project, options for a grade
separation at either Peeler Road or Peach Orchard Road were evaluated. Three options were
studied and are presented below:
• Option 1(Grade Separate Peeler on Existinq Aliqnment) - The first option evaluated was a
grade separation of Peeler Road in essentially its existing alignment. Because US 29 is very
close to the railroad on the north side, Peeler Road would bridge over US 29 and loop back.
This alignment would allow sufficient distance from the proposed bridge to return to grade at
US 29. As shown in Exhibit 2.3.5a, a service road is proposed to connect with Peach Orchard
Road to mitigate the closing of the Peach Orchard Road at-grade crossing. This alignment
would necessitate approximately two business relocations north of US 29 and impact a stream
where the loop alignment is proposed. This alignment does not provide for a direct connection
to the Rowan County Airport as shown in the LRTP. Therefore this option was eliminated
from further consideration.
• Option 2(Extend and qrade-separate Peeler Road with new connection to Cedar Sprinqs
Road, Recommended Option) This option (Exhibit 2.3.5b) relocates Peeler Road, bridges
over the railroad and US 29, and ties into Cedar Springs Road. Similar to Option 1, this
alignment would provide a service road connection to Peach Orchard Road. Option 2 is
anticipated to create four business relocations and would impact a stream north of US 29.
Option 2 is recommended because it provides the best opportunity for direct connection to
the Rowan County Airport and is therefore consistent with the LRTP.
• Option 3(Grade Separate Peach Orchard Road) — This option, shown in Exhibit 2.3.5c,
primarily follows the existing Peach Orchard Road
alignment south of the railroad, bridges over the
railroad and US 29, and intersects with Cedar
Springs Road. As with the other options, roadway
e�ension north of US 29 is necessary in order to tie
the elevation from the bridge back down to existing
roadways at a reasonable grade. A service road
2-12
• The Peeler Road Realignment to Cedar
Springs Road grade separa6on option is
consistent with the LRTP and Rowan
County Airport plans.
• Closures of Juke Box Road and Ethel
Lane are included in a separate project

would be provided to Peeler Road to mitigate the closing of its at-grade crossing. This option
has potentially six residential and two business relocation impacts in addition to a stream impact
north of US 29. The Division of Aviation also noted in a December 9, 2009 meeting that this
alignment and grade could present a constraint to future runway expansion at the Rowan
County Airport. Based on the impacts relative to the other options, and possible constraints to
the airport, this option was eliminated from further consideration.
Juke Box Road and Ethel Lane — Although the closure of these two crossings is being studied
as part of a different project (NCDOT TIP Project No. P-4405), the crossings are located along
the project corridor, as shown in Exhibit 2.3.1. The project proposes to close the two existing
crossings and provide new access for the properties between the railroad and I-85. The
Preferred Alternative for Project No. P-4405 includes two new service roads that connect to an
extended SR 2672 (Hope Road) which intersects SR 1505 (Mount Hope Church Road)
(NCDOT, 2010b). The Preferred Alternative for Project No. P-4405 is shown in Appendix C.
2.3.2 Traffic Analysis
A traffic capacity analysis (Gibson Engineers, 2010) was prepared to assess the effects of the
proposed closures and consolidations and to identify roadway improvements necessitated by
these changes in access. The following paragraphs summarize travel pattern changes and
required roadway improvements. Appendix B contains the traffic volume exhibits contained in
the traffic capacity report.
Pee/er Road/Peach Orchard Road Crossing Consolidations — The proposed project
proposes to consolidate the Peach Orchard Road highway-railway crossing and the Peeler
Road highway-railway crossing into a single, grade-separated crossing that would be located
between the two. The new crossings would include a new connection (Peeler Road
Extension) that would relocate Peeler Road beginning around midway between US 29 (Main
Street) and I-85, and carry the extension over the railroad track and over US 29 (Main Street).
The Peeler Road Extension would connect to Cedar
Springs Road east of US 29 (Main Street).
Traffic from the Peeler Road Extension would
access US 29 (Main Street) by way of two new
2-13
Important Points
• Traffic analysis was conducted to
predict travel pattem changes and
associated roadway capacity
deficiencies due to at-grade roadway
closures.

connections. One would serve traffic traveling on westbound Peeler Road Extension, allowing
a right turn onto the new facility to access US 29 northbound and southbound, as well as US
29 traffic wishing to travel westbound on Cedar Springs Road. The second would allow traffic
on eastbound Cedar Springs Road to access US 29 northbound and southbound, as well as
allow US 29 traffic to access Cedar Springs/Peeler Road Extension eastbound. The purpose
of this configuration was to convert all turns from Cedar Springs Road/ Peeler Road Extension
to right-only. This cost-saving measure was a result of earlier traffic analysis that showed the
need for additional bridge width to accommodate left turning traffic from the Peeler Road
Extension westbound desiring to access Long Meadow Road and US 29.
While the proposed configuration does create the need for two new signalized intersections on
US 29, those signals would be either two-phase or three-phase signals. The configuration
also reduces the number of lanes on the bridge over US 29, and likely eliminates the need for
a traffic signal at the intersection of Peeler Road Extension/Cedar Springs Road and the
access roads to US 29.
Mount Hope Road Crossing Closure — The majority of traffic currently using this crossing
was assumed to relocate to the nearby Webb Road crossing. Therefore, the Webb Road
intersection with US 29 (Main Street) was analyzed assuming an increase in traffic based on
the rerouted volumes. No additional laneage is required, however, an additional 25 feet of
storage is needed for the southbound left-turn lane at the Webb Road/US 29 intersection.
Thom Street/Eudy Road Crossing Consolidation and Kimball Road E�ctension — The Rail
Double Track project proposes to consolidate the existing Thom Street highway-railway
crossing, as well as the Eudy Road crossing into one new crossing. The new crossing
constructed by the project would be a new grade separated crossing (south of the existing Eudy
Road crossing) and extension of Kimball Road under the track to connect to Chapel Street.
This plan would revise the existing three-leg intersection of Kimball Street and US 29A (Main
Street) to a 4-leg intersection, as an approach from the south would be added. Traffic that
currently uses the Thom Street crossing or the Eudy Street crossing would likely relocate to the
new facility. Therefore, the revised Kimball Road intersection with US 29A (Main Street) was
analyzed with the revised traffic.
2-14

Additionally, the intersection of Harris Street and Church Street would be converted from a full
movement intersection to allow only right-in/right-out access for the Harris Street approaches.
Harris Street would be further modified to allow one-way travel from Church Street towards
Liberty Street for a short distance. As such, no traffic would approach the intersection of Harris
Street and Church Street from the east. Based on count data, it was assumed that the change
in traffic resulting from the Rail Double Track plan in this section would be relatively minor.
Traffic that would be rerouted due to the conversion of the intersection of Harris Street and
Church Street would use Bostian Street as its most likely alternative.
The intersection of Harris Street and Centerview Street would also be converted to right-
in/right-out operation. This change would likely send additional traffic to the intersection of
Centerview Street and Bostian Street. However, based on count data, the change in traffic
was assumed to be minimal.
The proposed project would close the existing eastbound approach of the Harris Street and
Ketchie Street intersection. This intersection was not included in this analysis due to its low
vehicular volume. The traffic that did exist will most likely use Centerview Drive and Bostian
Street to access Ketchie Street.
Mill Street Crossing Closure — Traffic currently utilizing the existing Mill Street and Central
Avenue crossings was assumed to reroute to the Ryder Avenue crossing located just north of
Mill Street. Intersections in this area were analyzed based on rerouted traffic to determine the
need for mitigation.
The US 29A (Main Street) and Ryder Street intersection is currently signalized, and operates
under the same signal controller as the Ryder Street and Central Avenue intersection.
Additional traffic is expected to utilize this intersection, as vehicles that use the Central
Avenue and Mill Street crossings would likely reroute their trip through this intersection. While
the traffic analysis showed that the existing laneage was sufficient, the need for additional turn
lane storage was identified.
The Ryder Street and North Central Avenue intersection is currently signalized, and operates
under the same signal controller as the Ryder Street and US 29A intersection. As with the
intersection of US 29A and Ryder Avenue, additional traffic is expected to utilize the
2-15

intersection of Ryder Avenue and Central Avenue due to nearby crossing closures. Traffic
simulations showed a queuing issue, with vehicles frequently backing up across the rail
crossing. Thus, a number of intersection configurations were tested at this location to
facilitate the additional traffic. To help reduce the potential of vehicles queuing across the rail
crossing, the recommendation for this intersection is to convert the northeast-bound and
southwest-bound Central Avenue approaches to right-in/right-out operation, and remove the
traffic signal.
The Ryder Street and North Chapel Street intersection is a stop-controlled intersection with
the stop condition on the Chapel Street approaches. Additional traffic will be added to this
intersection due to the closures of the rail crossings at Central Avenue and Mill Street. Due to
the high delay expected for the northeast-bound approach in the 2035 Build scenario with
stop-control, a signal was assumed to be installed at this location by the design year. Also,
based on the traffic analysis, separate left-turn lanes were recommended for the southeast-
bound and northeast-bound approaches.
The Mill Street and South Central Avenue intersection is a stop-controlled intersection with the
stop condition at the Central Avenue approaches. While the closure of the Mill Street rail
crossing would cause traffic to change its current path through this intersection, the
intersection would still operate at a high level of service and as such, no further mitigation is
recommended.
The Mill Street and Chapel Street intersection is a stop-controlled intersection with the stop
condition at the Mill Street approach. Due to the close proximity to the proposed signal at Ryder
Street and Chapel Street and the rerouted volumes, traffic volumes at this intersection were
estimated based on the counts at the adjacent intersections. Also, an estimation was made
regarding the traffic that would reroute through this intersection due to the Mill Street crossing
closure. All movements would operate at an acceptable level of service and no mitigation is
recommended for this intersection.
The US 29A and West Round Street intersection is a stop-controlled intersection with the stop
condition at the West Round Street approach. The project was not assumed to alter future
traffic volumes at this intersection. As such, no mitigation was proposed for this location.
2-16

The US 29A and East Round Street intersection is a stop-controlled intersection with a stop
condition at the East Round Street approach. The project was not assumed to alter future
traffic volumes at this intersection. As such, no mitigation was proposed for this location.
24th Street Crossing Consolidations and New Grade-Separated Crossing — The
proposed project would consolidate the existing 18th Street highway-railway crossing, the
existing 22nd Street crossing, and the existing 29th Street crossing into a single, new
crossing. A new, grade-separated crossing would be constructed by extending 24th Street
westward to tie into US 29A (Main Street). The connection on Main Street would be located
just south of the intersection of Main Street and Blackwelder Avenue. Due to the amount of
traffic expected to utilize the new crossing, the intersections with US 29 (Cannon Boulevard)
and US 29A (Main Street) were assumed to be signalized in the design year.
2.4 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE (BUILD ALTERNATIVE)
The Build Alternative, as described in the previous section and shown in Exhibits 2.3.1 through
2.3.5, was selected as the Recommended Alternative because it meets the purpose and need
of the project. Because the alignment of the new track for the most part follows the roadbed of
previously-removed track, impacts to the surrounding human and natural environments are
minimized to the extent possible.
2.5 RAILROAD DESIGN CRITERIA
The track design for the proposed improvements is based on a 90 mph design speed. Table
2.5.1 shows the general railroad design criteria used in setting the horizontal and vertical
alignment of the Build Alternative. A typical section for the proposed track is shown in Exhibit
2.5.1.
TABLE 2.5.1
RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA
DESIGN SPEED
HORIZONTAL CURVATURE (MAX.)
SUPERELEVATION (MAX., ACTUAL)
VERTICAL GRADE (MAX.)
90 mph
1 degree 20 mins*
4.0 inches
1.3 percent
;urves ot 1 degree 3U mins or 1 degree 41 mins are propos
project where constraints render 1 degree 20 mins infeasible.
2-17

2.6 ROADWAY (GRADE SEPARATION) DESIGN CRITERIA
The proposed right-of-way for the grade-separated crossings is variable based on the existing
constraints. Typically the design speed is 50 mph. Design criteria are shown in Table 2.6.1.
Exhibit 2.5.1 shows the typical section for the proposed roadway crossings.
TABLE 2.6.1
ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA
TYPE OF TERRAIN Rolling
TYPE OF FACILITY Two-lane rural local
DESIGN SPEED 50 mph
PAVEMENT WIDTHS 12 ft
SHOULDER 4ft (full depth)
HORIZONTAL CURVATURE Minimum Radius: 50 mph � 833 ft
VERTICAL CURVATURE Vertical Curvature Rate: Crest K= 84 Sag K= 96
GRADE 8.0% maximum
SUPERELEVATION 06 ft/ft maximum
To maintain consistency with the USDOT's Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Accommodation (USDOT, 2010), the new grade-separated connectors include additional width
to accommodate future bicycle/pedestrian facilities as applicable and based on input from the
NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Unit. These widths are reflected in the typical sections (Exhibit
2.5.1).
2.7 COST ESTIMATES
Table 2.7.1 shows the preliminary cost estimate for the Build Alternative. As the level of design
is refined, the cost estimate will also be revised.
TABLE 2.7.1
BUILD ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
Construction Cost $71,200,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities Cost $34,600,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $105,800,000
2-18

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This sedion of the report presents a discussion on the existing conditions and the probable
effects, both positive and negative, for the Build Alternative.
3.1 LAND USE
The following sedions describe the existing land use in the area, anticipated land use trends,
consistency of the proposed adion with local plans and policies, and the potential effeds of the
proposed adion.
3.1.1 Existina Land Use
The land use adjacent to the rail corridor is primarily urban in nature, with a mix of residential,
commercial, and industrial land uses. Most residential areas are concentrated in northem
Kannapolis, Landis, and China Grove with a majority of commercial and industrial uses
concentrated along the rail corridor from north of China Grove to the projed limit south of
Salisbury. Exhibit 3.1.1 illustrates the existing land uses within the projed study area.
3.1.2 Develooment Trends
A large portion of the rail corridor is flanked by development, with commercial and residential
properties predominant. The towns and cities along the rail corridor have experienced
considerable residential growth in recent years, particularly in areas near I-85. Salisbury's growth
in the I-85 area is within a"secondary" growth area, which is anticipated to grow when the City
eMends services further into these areas.
3.1.3 Consistencv with Land Use and Transoortation Plans
The proposed projed is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2009-2015 TIP and is consistent with the policies presented in the Salisbury Land Management
and Development DepartmenYs Salisbury Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan (SLMDD, 2001),
Kannapolis 2015 Land Use Plaq (City of Kannapolis,
2004), and the goals of the Cabarrus-Rowan �maatalrtPanls
Metropolitan Planning Organization 2035 Long-Range
Transportation Plaq (Exhibit 3.12)(CRMPO LRTP
2035, 2009), which lists NCDOT goals and objedives
forthe rail corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh.
3-1
• The reil corridor behveen nath
Kanlwpolis and Salisbury is flanked by
a varietyW resideMial and bus'mess
laml uses.
• Thepropasedprojectisconsistentwith
area laml use and transportation plans.

To maintain consistency with the Rowan County Land Use Plan for Areas West of I-85 (Rowan
County, 2009), the proposed projed was developed in cooperation with the NCDOT
Transportation Planning Branch, NCDOT Aviation Division, Rowan County government, and
Rowan County Airport representatives.
3.2 FARMLANDS
In accordance with the federal Farmland Protedion Policy Act (FPPA) and state Executive
Order 96, the impact of the proposed adion on prime, unique, and statewide important
farmlands has been assessed. As defined by the US Council on Environmental Quality (1976),
prime farmland is land having the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for
producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. These soils are those having the soil
quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high
yields of crops when properly managed. Prime farmland includes cropland, pastureland,
rangeland and forestland; but not land converted to urban, industrial, transportation or water
uses. Unique farmlands are those whose value is derived from their particular advantages for
growing specialty crops. Statewide and locally important farmlands are defined by the
appropriate state or local agency.
Development in most areas typically requires the submittal of a Farmland Conversion Impad
Rating Form (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Form AD-1006) to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS); however, there are areas that are considered exempt under the
FPPA. If a property is classified as urban by NRCS cntena, a Farmland Conversion Impad
Rating Form is not required by the NRCS. Lands that are not covered by the act include, but
are not limited to: areas shown as "urban built-up" on USDA Important Farmland Maps; lands
identifed as "urbanized area" on Census maps; and lands with a tint overprint on a United
States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical map [7 CFR 6582(a)].
The NCRR rail corridor between Kannapolis and Salisbury is identifed as an "urbanized area"
on US Census mapping and does not require the submittal of a Farmland Conversion Impad
Rating Form. Any farmland impads associated with
ImaataMPo'mts
the proposed project would be in compliance with the
• Due lo tlie urban nahue of the project
Farmland Protedion Policy Ad and do not require �y�aamltheabse�emfarmlaml
further consideration for protedion. �ses, a deaikdassessmeMmfarmlaml
impacts is notrequired for complia�e
witli tlie FxmlandProtectron PolicyAct
3-2

3.3 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
3.3.1 Pooulation Characteristics
Kannapolis experienced above state average growth between 1980 and 2000 and is projeded to
continue this trend. Landis and China Grove have had above state average growth from 1990 to
2000. Salisbury and Rowan County have experienced below state average growth since 1980,
however Rowan County is projeded to have steady growth of approximately 7% until 2020.
TABLE 3.3.1
POPULATION TRENDS
POPULATION
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Landis 2,092 2,333 2,996
ChinaGrove 2,081 2,732 3,616
Salisbury 22,677 23,626 2Q462
Kannapolis 3Q303 29,709 3Q910
RowanCoun[y 99,180 11Q605 13Q063 139,176 149,285
NorthCarolina 5,88Q095 6,632,448 8,049,813 9,502,904 1Q96Q956
GROWfH GROWTH GROWfH GROWfH
1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2020
Landis 11.5% 28.4%
ChinaGrove 31.3% 32.4%
Salisbury 4.2 % 12.0 %
Kannapolis -2.0% 242%
RowanCoun[y 11.5% 17.6% 7.0% 7.3%
NorthCarolina 12.8% 21.4% 18.1% 15.4%
SOURCE� NoRh Carolina State Data Center 2008.
As shown in Table 3.3.2, a majority of the population is either white and African-American. The
racial charaderistics of the study area are similar to the county and state statistics. China Grove
has the largest Hispanic and other races populations
of 9.4% and 5.4% respedively, almost twice the
state's population percentile.
Table 3.3.3 contains age demographic data for Landis,
China Grove, Salisbury, Kannapolis, Rowan County,
and North Carolina. The largest age group for all
demographic areas is the 3�44 range, which
represents approximately 15% of the population in
3-3
. Popula(ion gravth in the projectsWdy
area has ge�reqy been above
statewide averages.
• GrowNiisprojectedlobesteadybut
bNowsta(ewide avereges in the fulure.
• MastresideMs in the Kanlwpolis-
Salisbury xea are while andAfrican-
American.
• The lart�est age group is peopk
behveen 35 am144 yexsW age.

Rowan County. The median age of the Kannapolis-Salisbury area is near (within 1.5 years o� the
state median age of 36.4 years.
TABLE 3.3.2
RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS
CHINA ROWAN NORTH
RACIAL GROUP LANDIS GROVE SALISBURY KANNAPOLIS COUNN CAROLINA
White 92.0% 85.7% 57.3% 77.7% 80% 72.1%
African-American 2.5% 7.0% 37.6% 16.5% 15.8% 21.6%
Native American/ 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 1.2%
Alaskan Native
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.6% 1.0% 1.5% 0.9% 0.8% 1.4%
Other 2.5% 5.4% 1.9% 3.4% 2.0% 2.3%
Multi-�acial 1.1% 0.6% 1.5% 1.2% 1.0% 1.3%
Hispanic (of any race) $.3% 9.4% 4.3% 6.3% 4.1 % 4.7%
��urcct: u� eureau or me census �u�e�c�, �uuu.
TABLE 3.3.3
AGE CHARACTERISTICS
N
N � j p Z = Z
AGE GROUP z � y ¢ � � O
J Z Q Q � Z U
V N Y
Percent of Population
Under 5 years 6.1 % 6.7% 6.4% 7.0% 6.6% 6.7%
5-9Years 6.8% 7.1% 6.3% 6.9% 7.0% 7.0%
10-14Yea�s 7.2% 6.9% 5.9% 6.6% 7.2% 6.8%
15-19Yea�s 6.4% 7.8% 7.2% 6.0% 6.6% 6.7%
20-24 Yea�s 6.8% 7.0% 9.1 % 6.7% 6.4% 7.2%
25-34 Years 12.4% 14..3% 12.4% 15.1 % 12.8% 15.1 %
34-44Years 15.4% 15.6% 12.7% 15.4% 15.9% 16.0%
45-54Years 12.3% 12.5% 11.9% 12.0% 13.3% 13.5%
55-59Years 4.8% 4.6% 4.4% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0%
60-64 Yea�s 5.0% 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 4.1 % 4.0%
65-74Yea�s 9.0% 6.9% 8.3% 7.6% 7.2% 6.6%
75-84 Yea�s 6.2% 5.0% 8.0% 6.0% 5.1 % 4.1 %
85+Yea�s 1.6% 1.7% 3.6% 2.0% 1.7% 1.3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
SOURCE: US Bureau of the Census, 2000.
3-4

3.3.2 Emolovment and Economic Characteristics
The top employers, in all demographic areas, are manufacturing, retail, health, social services
and education. Table 3.3.4 displays the occupational distribution for Landis, China Grove,
Salisbury, Kannapolis, Rowan County, and North Carolina.
TABLE 3.3.4
OCCUPATIONALDATA
PERCENT OF WORKFORCE
y `�
J G
OCCUPATION N Q w j O �� _?
p z> m a Z��
Q = rc N z O� O rc
J �� a Q � V Z U
N Y
Agricul[ure 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% 0.6% 0.8% 1.6%
Cons[ruc[ion ��8� 9.6% 5.7% 9.1% 8.6% 82%
Manufac[uring 27.2% 24.5% 24.4% 24.7% 28.1% 19.7%
WholesaleTrade 2.8% 2.2% 2.2% 3.7% 3.1% 3.4%
Re[ailTrade 14.3% 12.9% 11.5% 12.1% 11.8% 11.5%
Transporta[ion,WarehousingandU[ili[ies 6.5% 4.9% 2.9% 4.8% 5.4% 4.6%
Informa[ion 1.4% 0.5% 1.9% 2.4% 1.2% 2.3%
Finance, Insurance and Real Es[a[e 3.1 % 5.6% 3.1 % 6.0% 3.6% 6.0 %
ProfessionalServices 6.0% 3.7% 6.6% 5.7% 5.0% 7.7%
Educa[ional,Heal[handSocialServices 17.6% 20.8% 24.8% 16.6% 17.9% 192%
Arts,En[ertainmen[,Recrea[ion,Tourism 4.8% 5.1% 7.5% 6.9% 6.3% 6.9%
PublicAdminis[ra[ion 5.8% 6.0% 5.3% 4.3% 4.8% 4.6%
O[herServices 2.0% 3.0% 3.8% 3.1% 3.3% 4.1%
SOURCE� US Bureau of the Census, 2000.
As shown in Table 3.3.5, the current unemployment rate for Rowan County is slightly higher than
the state average of 10.7%. The individual per capita income within the projed study area is lower
than the state average.
The percent of citizens with a high school education is
slightly lower than the state average. Landis has the
smallest population of adults with a college education;
however, Salisbury's percent of college educated is
slightly higherthan the state average.
3-5
ImportantPaMs
• Topempbymentcategoryintheareais
mam�facWring.
• Countyunemploymentreteis131%
which is higher than the sta(e average
of1oJ%.

TABLE 3.3.5
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
PERCENT OF WORKFORCE
w
J G
o � m a Q Z r 7
g a `-' z o' orc
Z J Z rc O Z Q
2 y Y � V
U
Curren[ UnemploymeM Ra[e - - 13.2 % 132 % 10.7 %
PerCapi[alncome�$) $1Q642 $17,040 $18,864 $17,539 $18,071 $2Q307
%AlI Persons Living in Poverty 10.1 % 12.8 % 16.0 % 10.5 % 10.6 % 12.3 %
% Atlul[s wi[h High School Etluca[ion 70.2 % 70.0 % 75.7 % 69.4 % 742 % 78.1 %
% Atlul[s wi[h College Etluca[ion 8.6 % 12.0 % 24.1 % 12.0 % 142 % 22.5 %
SOURCES�.EmploymentSecuntyCOmmissionofNORhCamlina,2009. USBUreauoftheCensus,2000.
3.3.3 Neiahborhood and Communitv Cohesion
As discussed in Sedion 2.3.1, the Build Alternative assessed the improvement or closure of 21
existing rail crossings within the projed study area. The recommended treatments for each
crossing were determined based on a range of factors, including traffic volumes, travel pattems,
accident data, safety, and current design standards. The recommendations were developed to
maintain mobility across the rail corridor and throughout the projed study area.
Construction of a second track within the established rail corridor would not create negative
neighborhood or community cohesion effeds; however, the closure of 14 existing crossings
would alter established access points across the rail corridor. As shown in Exhibit 2.3.1, three
new grade separated crossings are proposed to accommodate future traffc volumes and to
mitigate the effeds of adjacent closures. These new grade separations, along with the retention
of existing grade-separated crossings and the improvements of four at-grade crossings, will
im rove overall mobility across the rail corridor and
P
improve safety conditions for vehicular, bicycle, and
pedestrian traffic alike. Travelers may experience
temporary, negative effects as they adjust to new
travel pattems; however, no long-term, adverse
effects to neighborhoods or community cohesion are
anticipated from the proposed projed.
3-6
• EBectsoftheproposedcrossilg
clasures woukl be of/set by tlie
improvemeMW exisfmg cross'mgs aml
new gradrsepara(ed cross'mgs.
• No longterm, nega(ive ef/ects to
neighborhoods or communily cohesron
are associatedwith the proposed
project

3.3.4 Multimodal Travel Patterns and AccessibiliN
As stated in Sedion 3.3.3, travelers may experience temporary, negative effeds as they adjust to
new travel pattems; however, the proposed crossing improvements were developed to improve
overall mobility across the rail corridor and throughout the projed study area. Four of the 15
proposed closures are private roads, which limits the effeds of these closures to residents along
these roads and travelers accessing these locations. Access to US 29 from these locations will be
provided by new secondary road connedions, where necessary. Accessibility at the remaining 11
proposed closures would be provided at adjacent grade-separated crossings or improved at-grade
crossings.
As stated in Sedion 2.3.1, the Recommended Option for the 24`" Street grade separation would
include the closure of the intersedions of US 29 with Westview Street and Blackwelder Avenue
due to the improvements required to raise the elevation of US 29. Travelers in the area would
access US 29 via 24`" Street or Rice Street. Although travel pattems would be altered by the
proposed projed, vehicular accessibility throughout the projed study area would be maintained by
the crossing improvements associated with the Build Altemative.
As discussed in Sedion 1.8.4, there are several designated bicycle facilities planned for the projed
study area. The county-designated bicycle route along Corriher Gravel Road and Mount Hope
Church Road would be affeded by the closure of the at-grade crossing at the intersedion of the two
roads. The existing bicycle route should be re-designated to nearby roads to maintain east-west
connedivity. Rowan County should consider utilizing the improved at-grade crossing at Webb Road
and Roseman Road, which will include four-foot paved shoulders to better accommodate bicycles
and pedestrians.
To accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffc, the proposed grade separations and associated
roadway improvements incorporate wider paved shoulders and/or graded berms for future bicycle
facilities or sidewalks, as applicable. The proposed grade separation at Kimball Road would provide
clearance under the railroad bndge for future sidewalk. The proposed 24`" Street and Peeler Street
grade separations would provide additional width to
accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. Exhibit 2.5.1
shows the typical cross sedions for these locations.
3-7
. RoadwayimprwemeMsassociatedwitli
the B uild Alternative would aller existilg
travel pa(terns; havever, the
imprwemenCs wcre devNoped lo imprwe
werell mobilily acrass the reil corridor.

3.3.5 Schools
As shown in Exhibit 3.3.1, there are schools located on the west side of the rail corridor in Landis
and on both sides of the rail corridor in China Grove. No construdion impads to area schools are
associated with the proposed projed and accessibility across the rail corridor would be maintained
by the proposed projed. In Landis, access from the east would be provided at the improved Ryder
Street crossing and the new grade-separated crossing at 24`" Street. Access across the rail
corridor in China Grove would be provided at the new grade-separated Kimball Road eutension
and the improved Centerview Street and Church Street at-grade crossings, as well as the existing
grade-separated US 29/US 601 crossing. No negative effeds to area schools would be associated
with the proposed projed.
3.3.6 Churches and Cemeteries
The proposed project would impad three churches within the project study area. Two of these
impads are associated with the proposed 24`" Street grade separation. Impacts to Blackwelder
Park Baptist Church are limited to the church's parking lot along US 29 and would not require
relocation of the church or its other facilities on the property. The proposed 24`" Street grade
separation would require the relocation of God's Tabernacle Baptist Church on US 29.
The parking lot of the Lutheran Chapel (also a historic property) would be affected by the
proposed projed. A meeting was held with Lutheran Chapel church members on March 22, 2011
as the first step in the development of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for mitigation of
impacts to the church's parking lot. The MOA will be included in the subsequent Finding of No
Significant Impad (FONSI) for this projed. Grading work would encroach upon the histonc
boundanes for the Chapel; however, there would be no impads to the strudures on the property or
the fundion of the church. Additional information on historic resources is contained in Sedions
3.3.9 and 3.12.
3.3.7 Emerqencv Services
Rowan County Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
dispatch locations and fre stations are shown in Exhibit
3.3.1. Access across the corridor would be provided at
the improved at-grade crossings, new grade-separated
crossings, and existing grade-separated crossings. In
China Grove, emergency services are located on the
�
� ImpaYdMPanls
• The park'mg IotW tlie LiMieren Chapel
WWIfI AC diACCt4M A}� IVIC jM0(10.S4M
project NCDOT is developilg a plan lo
miligate these impacts.
• Noschodsorcemeterreswouldbe
af/ected by tlie propasedproject
• The8ui1dAlternaHvewouldnothimler
the mobilily of emerge�yservice vehick
through the proJed sludy area.

west side of the rail corridor and would access areas to the east at either the improved Centerview
Street or Church Street crossings. EMS services for the China Grove area could also be
dispatched from locations east of the rail corridor in Landis.
The proposed project would aid in the redudion of emergency response times by providing
three new grade-separated crossings that could be utilized when gates at closer at-grade
crossings are activated (either due to passing or delayed trains, maintenance vehicles, etc.).
Construdion of crossing improvements associated with the Build Altemative would be coordinated
to avoid and/or minimize delays for emergency service vehicles. In general, construdion of the
proposed projed would have minor, temporary effeds on emergency response times due to
possible delays caused by construdion at rail crossings.
3.3.8 Businesses
There are 59 business relocations associated with the proposed projed, with eight of these
occurring within the NCRR corridor. As stated in Sedion 1.8.3, a majonty of the projed study area
is within the NCRR corridor. The 1849 Charter for the NCRR specifed a 200-foot corridor, providing
the right to NCRR to use the land within the corridor for railroad uses (NCRR: Understanding the
Conidor Management and Protection Program, 2005). Business relocations within the 200.foot
corridor will be addressed by NCRR in accordance with Federal and State law, and NCDOT
policies.
3.3.9 Section 4(fl and Section 6(fl Prooerties
Section 4(� Propenies — Sedion 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) Ad of
1966 states that the Secretary of Transportation will not approve the use of land from a signifcant
publicly owned park, recreation area, orwildlife and watertowl refuge, or any significant historic site,
unless a determination is made that there is no feasible and prudent altemative to the use of such
land; and that the proposed adion includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property.
There are no city, state, or national parks within the
ImportantPaMs
projed study area. The proposed projed would not
impact any publicly owned recreation area, or wildlife • 59businessrelceationsarearsceiated
with the BuildAlternaHve.
fefUge. . The8uildAlternativewouldnotal/edany
cily, stde, a Iwtiolwl parks.
3-9

Sedion 6006 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effcient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amends Sedion 4(f) requirements to allow the US Department of
Transportation (USDOT) to find that a 4(f) use of an histonc resource is de minimis if the State
Historic Preservation Offcer concurs, in accordance with Sedion 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (Section 106), in the determination that the proposed project will have either no
effect or no adverse effect on a resource. As stated in Section 3.12, the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that the proposed projed would have No Effect on the
Mount Zion Reformed Church and No Adverse Effect on the Landis Post Offce, Landis
Southem Railway Passenger Station, China Grove Cotton Mills Historic Distnct, and China
Grove Historic District. These determinations are the basis of a de minimis finding for the
above-mentioned properties. SHPO concurrence is contained in Appendix A.3.
The proposed project would have an Adverse Effect on the Lutheran Chapel, a historic
property subject to Section 4(f) requirements. The curve realignment and addition of the second
track would affed the church's parking lot, which is located within the 200-foot NCRR right-of-
way. In order to satisfy Section 106, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for mitigation of
impads to the church's parking lot is being developed and will be included in the subsequent
Finding of No Significant Impad (FONSI)forthis projed.
Grading work would encroach on the historic boundanes for the Chapel; however, all
construction would be within the 200-foot NCRR right-of-way and would not affed any
structures on the property. There is no dired Sedion 4(f) use because the proposed project is
contained within the NCRR corridor. The proximity of
the project would not create construdive use impacts,
as the projed would not affect the historic nature or
fundionality of the Lutheran Chapel. Because there
are no direct or constructive use impads, no formal
Sedion 4(f) evaluation is required. Additional
discussion of historic resources is contained in
Sedion 3.12.
Section 6(� Propenies — These properties are open
space and recreation areas purchased with federal
funds that are governed by the Land and Water
3-10
ImpaYdMPanls
• The8ui1dAlternaHvewouldhavean
adverse ef/ecton the Lutheren Ch�N
pxlung lot.
• NCDOT is devebping aMemoremlum of
Agreement(INOA) for mitiga(ion of
impacts to the LiMieren Ch�N park'mg
lot
• ImpactstotheLiMierenCh�Npark'mg
lotare witliin the 200-footNCRR rgM-W-
way aml xe Irotconsidered use W a
Section4(nresouree. Assuch,Iro
Section 4(n evalualron is required.
• No Section 6(fJ impacts are associated
with tlie Build Altema(ive.

Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965. There are no properties within the projed study area
that were purchased with LWCF funds. Therefore, there are no Section 6(f) impads associated
with this project.
3.3.10 Soecific Social Grouos
No specifc social groups would be impaded by the proposed projed. There are no cultural centers
or singularly ethnic neighborhoods located along the rail corridor within the projed study area.
3.4 RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATION IMPACTS
Residential and businesses relocations associated with the Build Alternative are shown in Table
3.4.1. Relocation reports for impads outside the NCRR Corridor are included in Appendix D.
TABLE 3.4.1
RELOCATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE
As stated in Sedion 1.8.3, a majority of the projed study area is within the NCRR corridor. The
1849 Charter for the NCRR specified a 200-foot corridor, providing the right to NCRR to use the
land within the corridor for railroad uses (NCRR: Understanding the Corridor Management and
Protection Program, 2005). Residential and business relocations within the 200-foot corridor
would be addressed by NCRR.
Relocation Assistance— It is the policy of the NCDOT
to ensure that comparable replacement housing for
residents and suitable locations for displaced
businesses would be available prior to construdion of
projeds. The NCDOT has three programs available to
3-11
ImportantPoiMs
• AmaprityoltheprojectiswiNxnthe200-
footNCRR mrridor.
• Rebcalron assistance wiq be povided by
NCDOT aml the NCRR.

minimize the inconvenience of relocation: Relocation Assistance, Relocation Moving Payments,
and Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff would be available to
provide displaced residents and businesses with information pertaining to financing and housing
programs and the availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale and rent.
The Relocation Moving Payments Program generally provides payment of actual moving
expenses encountered during relocation.
Where displacement would force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or
to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments and Rent Supplement Program would compensate up to $22,500 to owners
who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program established for the proposed action would be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS 133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to
each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer determines the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and farm operations for advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, gender, or national origin. The NCDOT would schedule its work to allow ample time,
prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. Those who are displaced are given at least a 90-day
written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons and
businesses would be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sales prices of replacement property offered would be within the
financial means of the families and individuals displaced and would be reasonably accessible to
their places of employment. The relocation officer would assist owners of displaced residences,
businesses, nonprofit organizations and farm operations in searching for and moving to
replacement property.
3-12

All residential tenants and owner-occupants who may be displaced would receive an
explanation regarding available options, such as: (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2)
rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant
housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer would also supply information
concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and
would provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced
persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expenses Payments Program is designed to compensate for the costs of moving
personal property from homes, businesses, nonprofit organizations and farm operations
acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT would
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as
attorneys' fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs. If applicable, the NCDOT also
makes a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement housing payments,
increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses. Reimbursement to owner-
occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
expenses may not exceed a combined total of $22,500, except under the Last Resort Housing
Provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment to rent a replacement dwelling or to
make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement
dwelling. This payment would not exceed $5,250. The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is the state's policy that no person would be displaced by the NCDOT's federally-assisted
construction projects unless and until comparable or adequate replacement housing has been
offered or provided for each person displaced within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received would be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or
the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other
federallaw.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available
or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
3-13

exceeds the federal and state legal limitations. This program allows broad latitude in methods
of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be
provided. Since opportunities for replacement housing appear adequate within the study area, it
is not likely that the Last Resort Housing Program would be necessary for the proposed projed.
However, this program would still be considered as mandated by State law.
3.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, this EA was
prepared to consider the overall cumulative impacts of the proposed action and the
consequences of subsequent related actions. According to the CEQ, cumulative impacts
represent the "impad on the environment which results from the incremental impad of the
adion when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless
of what agency (Federal or Non-federal) or person undertakes such other adions. Cumulative
impads can result from individually minor but collectively significant adions taking place over a
period of time." (40 CFR 1508.8) This EA was prepared to meet the above requirements
regarding cumulative impacts. This study considered, to the eutent reasonable and pradical,
the possible impads of the proposed adion and other developments that are related in terms of
time and proximity.
Localized Impacts - The improvements proposed by TIP Project P-5206 will have immediate
positive impads within the projed area. The closures of 15 at-grade crossings (Table 2.3.1) in
conjundion with the grade separations proposed at 24`" Street, Kimball Road Eutension, and
Peeler Road will signifcantly increase safety in the area by reducing the potential for
automobileftrain collisions. The removal of the at-grade crossings within the projed limits will
also eliminate the need for trains the blow their horns as they are approaching the crossings.
The grade separations will enable vehicular traffic moving between the north and south of the
railroad tracks to remain fluid despite the increase in train volumes. The proposed projed will
not introduce any new access, thus the project is not expeded to result in changes to the
existing land use patterns within the projed vicinity.
The additional passenger and freight train volumes �mpataMPo'mts
associated with the improved operating effciencies and
• Thepropasedprojectdcesnothavethe
roadway crossing closures listed above will have some po(eMia1(oresuttinsubstantiallCEsas
negatiVe impaCis Within the pfOjeCt ViCinity. The �finedbyNEPA.
3-14

increased train volumes will result in an increase in vibration impacts as described in Section
3.8. Local travel patterns for drivers crossing the rail corridor will also be affected as drivers
adjust to closure of 15 existing at-grade crossings and use the three new grade separations.
The overall effect will be positive as grade separations will eliminate waiting at crossings for
trains to pass. In addition, the projected volumes along all of these roads are relatively low, so
altered travel patterns are not anticipated to result in congestion.
Regional lmpacts - The improvements proposed as part of TIP Project P-5206 are part of the
NCDOT Piedmont Improvement Program (PIP), which is a larger effort to increase capacity and
improve operations along the NCRR between the cities of Charlotte and Raleigh. This section
of the NCRR is also part of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR). The SEHSR is a
477-mile high-speed corridor running from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, VA, Raleigh,
Greensboro, and on to Charlotte, NC (For more information on SEHSR, see
http://www.sehsr.org/). This corridor has been designated by the Department of Transportation
as one of ten high speed rail corridors authorized under either the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 or the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 �` Century (For
more information on the authorized and designated high speed rail corridors, see
http://www.fra. dot. gov/rpd/passe nge r/618. shtml.)
The proposed project from Control Point (CP) Reid to CP North Kannapolis is one of three
proposed projects where former double-track sections are being rebuilt to create a 92-mile
section of double-track railroad between Charlotte and Greensboro. The other two double track
projects are the 4.2 mile Thomasville to Lexington (TIP # C-4901A Bowers to Lake) project and
the 12.3 mile Concord to Charlotte (TIP # P-5208 Haydock to Junker) project. Between
Greensboro and Raleigh, along the Norfolk Southern H-line (NCRR), NCDOT has two projects
which propose to add passing sidings to increase capacity and realign curves to increase
passenger train speeds. The Graham to Haw River Passing Siding and Curve Realignment
Project (TIP # P-5205) proposes to realign four curves and construct a 1.9 mile long passing
siding between Graham and Haw River in Alamance County. The Clegg to Nelson Passing
Siding Project (TIP # U-4716 Clegg to Nelson Passing Siding) proposes to realign one curve
and construct a 3.5 mile long passing siding from Durham to Morrisville in Durham and Wake
Counties.
3-15

The proposed projects along the Piedmont Corridor will result in operational efficiencies for
freight and passenger rail service between the two largest economic centers in North Carolina;
Charlotte and Raleigh. The proposed projects are being implemented to facilitate the addition of
the 3'' and 4`h Frequency of the Raleigh to Charlotte Piedmont Service in the immediate future.
The additional capacity provided by the proposed projects will also enable NCDOT and Amtrak
to add additional frequencies to the Piedmont, Carolinian and Crescent services and allow the
implementation of SEHSR passenger services prior to 2030. The efficiencies will also enable
Norfolk Southern to run additional freight service along the corridor as their business model
dictates. The additional freight service will likely result in fewer trucks traveling the I-40/I-85
corridor, as freight trains can typically move freight at a lower cost than trucks. The increased
passenger train frequencies will provide travelers with more convenient travel options. The
increase in arrival and departure frequencies and competitive travel times between cities along
the corridor should result in more travelers choosing to use passenger rail service between
Raleigh and Charlotte instead of driving. This will have a positive impact on air quality for all
counties along the Piedmont Corridor. Most of these counties are currently in a Non-Attainment
status for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) criteria pollutants.
The improved freight service may make the cities along the corridor more attractive to rail
dependent industries. This may also increase economic activity resulting from the addition of
industries relocating to cities along the corridor to benefit from the improve freight access.
Though new businesses may be attracted to the area, the availability of vacant industrial sites
along the rail corridor will negate the need for newer large scale industrial sites to be
constructed. It is not anticipated that the improvements along the entire corridor would result in
significant land use changes.
The PIP projects also propose to eliminate numerous at-grade crossings and consolidate and
replace others with grade separations. This will have immediate safety benefits, as it will
significantly lower the possibility of auto/train collisions. Communities adjacent to the new grade
separations will experience the immediate reduction in the train horn noise along the corridor.
At-grade crossings that remain open along the corridor will experience an incremental growth
in the number of trains as the increased capacity enables more trains to utilize the corridor.
The at-grade crossings remaining open upon completion of the Reid to North Kannapolis
improvements (as shown in Table 2.3.1) are: Ryder Street, Centerview Street, Church Street,
3-16

and Webb Road. Properties and communities adjacent to these crossings will experience
more noise pollution as the number of trains blowing their horns will increase. Also, these
crossings will experience incremental growth in traffic delays associated with the increased
number of times the crossings close to allow for a train to pass and possibly increased
vehicular use due to diversions from closed crossings. Structures along the corridor, close to
the tracks will experience an increase in the number of vibration incidents due to increased
train volume.
The cumulative impact of the foreseeable future actions is considered positive from a regional
standpoint. They will improve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system and
enhance the potential for economic growth in the region.
Indirect impacts are those expenditures or investments not directly resulting from the project,
but derived primarily from the increased mobility provided by the project. Induced
socioeconomic impacts are additional economic activity within the region resulting from the
proposed action. Induced or secondary economic activity is the result of additional industries
providing goods and services to supply those industries primarily related to the project. Overall,
impacts would be positive when assessed from a regional perspective.
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice to Minority and
Low-/ncome Populations and the United States Department of Transportation (USDO� Order
5610.2, Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-/ncome
Populations have been set forth to (1) avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on
minority populations and low-income populations; (2) ensure the full and fair participation by all
potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process and; (3) prevent
the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-
income populations (FHWA, 2000). In compliance with this EO, the following analysis was
conducted to ensure that no minority or low-income populations were disproportionately affected
by the proposed project.
To determine the presence of minority populations within the project study area, 2000 US
Bureau of the Census (USBOC) demographic databases were reviewed. The USBOC
3-17

database illustrates minority population variation within individual census trads, which allowed
for a more precise analysis of the projed study area. Descriptions in the following paragraphs
conform to the terminology of the USBOC data classes.
Minoriry Populations — Residences are charaderized as a minority community in the area
bounded by Airport Road to the north, West A Street to the west, US 29 (Main Street) to the
east, and West 22ntl Street to the south. According to the 2000 Census, approximately 577% of
residents in this area (732 of a total 1,268) are of a minority population. Over half of the
residents in this area (50.4% of the total) are identifed as Afncan-American. All other areas
within the projed study area have minority populations with ranges lower than the county's total
minority population average of 20%.
Relocation impacts to this minority community were avoided by the seledion of Option 3 for the
24`" Street grade separation, as descnbed in Sedion 2.3.1. However, minority populations on
Rice Street are likely to experience an increase in traffic as a result of altered travel patterns
associated with the US 29 intersedion closures (part of Option 3 for the 24th Street grade
separation). However, travel pattems throughout the project study area would be affected by
elimination of at-grade crossings and construdion of grade separations. Because other roads in
the project study area would also experience changes in traffic volumes associated with these
altered travel patterns, there would not be a disproportionate impad to the minority population
along Rice Street.
Low-income Populations — In Landis and China Grove, 2000 Census data indicates that
respedively 15.9% and 16.8% of residences east of the rail corridor have per capita incomes
below the poverty level. The poverty level for Rowan County is 8.1%. This data is based on a 1-
in-6 weighted sample, which precludes the examination of more detailed information; however,
based on this information and feld surveys, it is
concluded that no disproportionately high impads to
low-income populations are associated with the
proposed projed.
Summary of Impacts to Minority and Low-Income
Populations — The residential relocations associated
with the proposed project would not create direct
3-18
ImportantPoiMs
Clasure of the US 29 iMersections with
Weslview Street and BlaclavNder Avem�e
may i�rease traffic vdumes along Rice
Street, an areawith a high perce�Rage W
milrorityresrdents. Haveverthesexe
Irotconsidereddispropalrolw(e impacts
as similx travN pallem chalges wiq
cecur ablg othersegmentsW tlie
mrridor.

disproportionate effects to minority or low-income populations. Relocation impads to this
minority community were avoided by the seledion of Option 3 for the 24`" Street grade separation.
3.7 AIRQUALITY
The project is located in Rowan County, which is within the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the Environmental Protedion Agency (EPA).
This area was designated moderate nonattainment for O, under the eight-hour ozone
standard effedive June 15, 2004. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Ad Amendments (CAAA)
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projeds conform to the intent of the state air
quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation
control measures for Rowan County. The Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning
Organization 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (CRMPO LRTP 2035, 2009) and
the 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the intent of the SIP (or
base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate). The USDOT
made a conformity determination on the LRTP on May 3, 2010 and the TIP on May 3, 2010.
The current conformity determination is consistent with the fnal conformity rule found in 40
CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the projecYs design concept or
scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
Mobile Source AirToxics (MSATs) Analysis — Recently, concerns for air toxics impads are
more frequent on transportation projeds during the NEPA process. Transportation agencies
are increasingly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impads in their
environmental documents as the science emerges. MSATs analysis is a continuing area of
research where, while much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics,
many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing
projed-specifc health impads from MSATs are limited. These limitations impede the ability to
evaluate how mobile source health risks should factor into projed-level decision-making under
the National Environmental Policy Ad (NEPA). Also, the United State Environmental Protedion
Agency (USEPA) has not established regulatory concentration targets for the six relevant MSAT
pollutants appropriate for use in the projed
development process. The Federal Highway �mnataMPanls
Administration (FHWA) has several research projects • ihepropasedprojectisnotarticipated
to create adveae air qualily ef/ects. No
undenvay to more clearly defne potential risks from substaMialimpactsroa'aquali(yare
MSAT emissions associated with transportation �ociatedwiaimepropasedproject.
3-19

projects. While this research is ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document to qualitatively
address MSATs and their relationship to the specific highway project through a tiered approach.
The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. A qualitative
analysis of MSATs for this project appears in its entirety in Appendix E.
In sum, small-scale changes in travel patterns will occur based on elimination of at-grade
crossings and replacement with grade separations. These changes primarily affect local streets
and short trips. Due to the local network which is characterized by parallel alternatives and in
some cases a grid system, the effect on VMT is expected to be negligible. However, with the
addition of grade separations and associated access roads and other improvements, roadways
may move closer to receptors and the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build
Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative. This could be offset due to
increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT
emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them and
higher where the road shifts to new location. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and
fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in
almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
Summary — This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area. No substantial impacts to air quality are associated with the proposed project.
A discussion of temporary air quality effects associated with construction of the proposed
project is contained in Section 3.18.1.
General Conformity — The General Conformity requirements included in the Code of Federal
Regulations, 40 CFR 51 Subpart W and 40 CFR 93 Subpart B, apply to all "Federal actions"
except Federal Highway and transit actions to which the transportation conformity requirements
apply. Projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) need to follow 40 CFR 51 Subpart T. The proposed action is primarily
funded by the FRA, thus it falls under the General Conformity Rules.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first issued the General Conformity
Regulations in 1993. Since that time, several federal agencies have shared suggestions with
EPA regarding ways to improve the General Conformity Regulations. Based on these
3-20

suggestions antl input from states antl ihe public, EPA revisetl ihe Generel Conformity
Regulations in an April 5, 2010 Fetlerel Register notice.
In an area with a SIP, conformity can be tlemonsiretetl in one of four ways:
• By showing ihat ihe emission increases causetl by an action are inclutletl in ihe SIP,
• By tlemonsireting ihat ihe State agrees to inclutle ihe emission increases in ihe SIP,
• Through offsetting ihe action's emissions in ihe same or nearby area,
• Through mitigation to retluce ihe emission increase, or
. Through an air quality motleling tlemonsiretion in some circumstances.
EPA createtl tle minimis emission levels to limit ihe neetl to contluct conformity tleterminations
for actions with minimal emission increases. When ihe total tlirect antl intlirect emissions from
ihe project/actions are belowihe tle minimis levels,ihe project/action woultl not be subjecito a
conformity tletermination.
voimea�e
A�ea TYVe
Se�ious nonattainmen[
Severe nonattainmen[
Oxone (VOC o� NOZ)
Exheme nonattainmen[
O[Fe� areas ou[side an oxone hansport region
Oxone (NOZ) Ma�ginal and mode�a[e nonattainmen[ Insitle an oxone hansport region
Main[enance
Ma�ginal antl motle�a[e nonattainmen[ Insitle an oxone hansport region
Oxone(VOQ � Main[enanceWiMinanoxonehansportregion
Main[enan[e ou[side an oxone hansport region
Ca�bon monozitle� 502 antl NO2 All nonattainmen[ ftmain[enance
SPn0u5 nOndttdlnmPn[
PM-10
Motle�a[e nonattainmen[ antl main[enanre
Leatl(Pb) Allnonattainmen[ft main[enance
ro�:/rear
50
25
10
100
100
100
50
50
100
100
]0
100
25
A Recortl of Non-applicability (RONA) has been preparetl for ihis project antl is currently untler
review by ihe Norih Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). An action is regionally signifcant
if ihe total tlirect antl intlirect emissions of an intlivitlual pollutant amount to 10% or more of a
nonattainment or maintenance area's emissions ofihat pollutant. Basetl on information given
by NCDENR personnel, any project in ihe Charlotte-Gastonia-ROCk Hill area ihat is below
3-21

threshold (less than 100 tons per year) will also be less than the 10% significance level. Thus,
since the project is below threshold, it will be regionally insignificant as well. VOC, NOx, and CO
thresholds are each 100 tons per calendar year based on the location of the proposed action
and attainment status classifications of the area. The Applicability Analysis as part of the
General Conformity process shows that the proposed action is below threshold and regionally
insignificant. To demonstrate that VOC, CO, and NOx emissions are each below the 100 tons
per calendar year threshold, construction phase emissions are summarized as follows:
Summary of Construction Phase Emissions
Pollutant VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) NOx (tpy)
= tons per year
The Record of Non-applicability was prepared as documentation of a General Conformity
Applicability Analysis and concludes that further General Conformity review is not required.
Although the Record of Non-applicability (RONA) is currently under review by the North Carolina
Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) it should be noted that a Record of Non-applicability was
prepared for the nearby double-track project from control point (CP) Haydock to CP Junker in
Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties (NCDOT TIP Project No. P-5208). That project included
the construction of 12.2 miles of additional track, four new bridges carrying new roads over the
rail corridor and the construction of numerous roadway improvements and connector roads to
facilitate the new grade separations. The Applicability Analysis for Project No. P-5208 showed
the project to be below the 100 tons per calendar year threshold for VOC, CO and NOX and
regionally insignificant. As P-5208 is two miles longer and has an additional grade separation, it
is larger in scope of construction and overall impacts than this project. Therefore, it is
anticipated that the project will not have a negative impact air quality and upon concurrence
from NCDAQ, further General Conformity analysis will not be necessary.
3-22

3.8 NOISE AND VIBRATION ANALYSES
The railroad has been a mainstay in the projed study area since the mid 1800's. Much of the
development in the region was due to the proximity of the railroad. Noise from the railroad has
been a part of life to study area residents for many years. This sedion of rail previously
contained two tracks but portions of the double track were removed in the 1960's when
improvements were made in signalization. Since that time, however, rail traffic has increased
substantially, making it one of the most heavily travelled sedions of railroad in the state.
Increased train traffic brings congestion, safety issues and additional rail noise. Adding the
second track would help accommodate future growth in freight and passenger traffc and
provide a facility that will be able to support higher speed passenger service. In order to
accommodate faster speeds care must be taken to maximize safety measures throughout the
corridor. To avoid train and vehicle conflicts, each railroad crossing was evaluated and
recommended to be either improved, closed, or a grade separation developed. Noise impads to
the projed area were evaluated by first studying the effeds the grade separations and crossing
closings would have on horn noise. Secondly, the noise impads from traffc on the proposed
grade separations to the surrounding area were studied.
3.8.1 Train Horn Noise Analvsis
Train noise comes from the sound of the homs, wheel-rail interaction, diesel engines and
vehicle cooling fans. The train horn noise is the loudest of these fadors. Train horns are
installed on locomotives to warn motorists or pedestrians of an approaching train. Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) safety standards require trains to sound their homs as they
approach every railroad crossing (FRA, 2006). Often automobiles operate with the windows
rolled up and air conditioning systems on and radio in use. FRA requires freight trains to sound
their horns at 110 decibels in order to be heard within the vehicles. Other requirements include
the following:
• The horn noise level must be in the 9Cr110 decibel
range at 100 feet in front of the train and 15 feet
above the rail;
• Homs must be sounded 15-20 seconds before the
train reaches a crossing, but not beyond a quarter
of a mile away; and,
• The hom sequence must consist of two '9ong",
one "short", and one '9ong" sound before the train
reaches the crossing (FRA, 2006).
3-23
ImpaYdMPanls
• The crassing imprwemeMs arsceiated
with tlie Build Altema(ive woukl
noticeabty improve the lotal souml level
eMirolxneMW tlie proJectarea by
elimilwting hom nase at tlie �v gredr
separded crass'mgs and closeA
crossilgs.
• Elimina(ion of at-grade crossilgs aml
associated hom Iroise reduces
estimaledresideMial receptas within
impactzo�s irom 1,241 to 415.

Unfortunately, when the locomotive horn is loud enough to be heard within an approaching
vehicle it can disturb those living or working near the railroad crossing, particularly if there are a
numerous trains per day sounding the horns. A substantial lessening of the existing noise
environment would be created by the proposed project around the vicinity of at-grade crossings
that are being consolidated or separated. At these locations, locomotives would no longer use
their warning horns.
FRA's Horn Noise Model (FRA, 2006) was used to determine the noise impacts that would
occur as a result of the train horns in the future conditions. Exhibit 3.8.1a shows the
comparison between the at grade train noise impact zones for the No Build and Build scenarios.
With the proposed grade separations and at-grade crossing closings, the horn noise will be
reduced substantially. It is estimated that 1,241 residential receptors are located within the No-
Build impact zone. For the Build condition, which eliminates at-grade crossings and associated
horn noise, there are an estimated 415 residential receptors within the noise impact zone.
Therefore the project will reduce the number of potentially impacted receptors by two-thirds.
The noise from the horns is computed in terms of Ldn and is compared with prior ambient noise.
(Ldn or Day-Night Sound Level describes the cumulative noise exposure from all events over a
24 hour period, with events occurring between 10 pm and 7 am being increased by 10 dB to
account for greater nighttime sensitivity to noise. (Ldn is the descriptor most commonly
employed in environmental noise assessments) According to the US Environmental Protection
Agency, the typical ambient level in a suburban residential area is Ldn = 55 dBA. The model
assesses the impact of the change in the noise environment categorizes the impacts as No
Impact, Impact or Severe Impact. Exhibits 3.8.1 b— 3.8.1d show the impact zones surrounding
the grade crossings that will remain open. The following assumptions were used in the horn
noise analysis:
• Horns are present under existing and future conditions
• Horn Lmax (dBa) at 100 feet is 104
• Horns on locomotives are mounted in the middle
• The non-train noise environment is suburban
• The type of shielding near at grade crossings by building rows is considered light suburban
• The length of the impact area is Ya mile along the track
• Existing number of trains per day is 42 (34 freight trains and 8 passenger trains)
3-24

• Future number of trains per day is 90 (70 freight trains and 20 passenger trains)
• Existing average train speed is 57.6 mph (34 freight trains @ 50 mph + 8 passenger trains
@ 90 mph/42 - total # of trains)
• Future average train speed is 58.8 mph (70 freight trains @ 50 mph + 20 passenger trains
@ 90 mph/90 - total # of trains)
• Existing number of day trains during normal daytime hours of 7 AM to 10 PM is 26
• Existing number of night trains during normal nighttime hours of 10 PM to 7 AM is 16
• Future number of day trains during normal daytime hours of 7 AM to 10 PM is 56
• Future number of night trains during normal nighttime hours of 10 PM to 7 AM is 34
• Existing average number of cars is 90.4 (34 freight trains with 110 cars and 8 passenger
trains with 7 cars/42 — total number of trains)
• Future average number of cars is 87.1 (70 freight trains with 110 cars and 20 passenger
trains with 7/90 — total number of trains)
• Existing average number of locomotives is 2.6 (34 freight trains with 3 locomotives and 8
passenger trains with one locomotive/42 — total number of trains)
• Future average number of locomotives is 2.6 (70 freight trains with 3 locomotives and 20
passenger trains with one locomotive /90 — total number of trains)
The proposed project would increase the number of passenger train trips by 12 and the number
of freight trains by 36, but it would remove a number of roadway at-grade rail crossings through
road consolidations and grade separations, providing a substantial reduction of horn noise in the
project area. There would also be a slight change in noise in areas where the alignment of the
rail tracks or the placement of the double track moves the train operations closer to residences.
3.8.2 Traffic Noise Analvsis
An analysis was also performed to determine the effect of the proposed grade separations on
noise levels in the immediate area. The investigation includes a comparison of predicted and
ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts are expected from the proposed
project. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust,
drive train, and tire-roadway interaction. Traffic noise impacts are determined using the current
procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part
772, Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range of sound
pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressure to some common
3-25

reference level, using the decibel (dB). Sound pressure levels described in decibels are often
defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The A-weighted scale approximates the frequency response of the human ear by placing most
emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to 6,000 Hertz. Because the A-weighted scale
closely describes the response of the human ear to sound, it is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements. Sound levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed
as dBA. Throughout this discussion, references will be made to dBA, which means an A-
weighted decibel level.
Sound pressure levels are referred to as Leq (h). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the
levels of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy, as
does time-varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
• Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise results from natural and mechanical sources of human activity normally present
in a particular area. In the beginning of the analysis, ambient noise levels are determined to
quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of
noise levels for residences and other noise sensitive receivers.
For areas adjacent to existing roadways, ambient noise was estimated using the Federal
Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5 (TNM).
TNM was also used to predict future noise levels in this study. TNM uses the number and type
of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road
(curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receiver location and height, terrain, ground cover
type, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
• Noise Abatement Criteria
To determine if highway noise levels are compatible with various land uses, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set
forth in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S. Department
3-26

of Transportation, FHWA, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction
Noise.
A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table 3.8.1.
One factor for considering traffic noise mitigation is when future noise levels either approach or
exceed the criteria levels for each activity category. Title 23 CFR, Section 772.11a states, "In
determining and abating traffic noise impacts, primary consideration is to be given to exterior
areas. Abatement will usually be necessary only where frequent human use occurs and a
lowered noise level would be of benefit."
TABLE 3.8.1
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
(Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA))
Activity ActivityCriteria2 Evaluation q�ivityDescription
Category Le (h) L10(h) Location
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an important
A 57 60 Exterior public need and where the preservation of those
qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended ur ose.
B 67 70 Exterior Residential
Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums,
campgrounds, cemeteries, daycare centers,
hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic
C' 67 70 Exterior areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public
meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional
structures, radio studios, recording studios,
recreation areas, Section4(f) sites, schools,
television studios, trails, and trail crossin s
Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries,
medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting
D 52 55 Interior rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures,
radio studios, recording studios, schools, and
television studios
Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other
E' 72 75 Exterior developed lands, properties or activities not
included in A-D or F
Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency
services, industrial, logging maintenance facilities,
F - - - manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities,
shipyards, utilities (water resources, water
treatment, electrical), and warehousing
G - - - Undeveloped lands that are not permitted
Either Leq(h) or L10(h) (but not both) may be used on a project.
` I he Leq(h) or L1U(h) Hctivity C;riteria values are tor impact determination only, and are not design
standards for noise abatement measures.
' Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category
3-27

The NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines state that noise abatement must be considered
when either of the following conditions exists:
1. The predicted traffic noise levels for the Design Year approach (reach 1 dBA less than)
or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) contained in 23 CFR 772 as shown
in Table 3.8.1. or
2. The predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels as
follows:
Existin Le h Increase
50 or less dBA 15 or more dBA
51 dBA 14 or more dBA
52 dBA 13 or more dBA
53 dBA 12 or more dBA
54 dBA 11 or more dBA
55 or more dBA 10 or more dBA
NCDOT uses a 10 dBA to 15 dBA increase of future predicted noise levels above existing noise
levels to define "substantial increase" in exterior noise levels. This sliding scale allows a greater
increase at a lower existing noise level before a"substantial" increase is defined. As noise walls
generally reduce volumes by 5 dBA their use is usually not as effective in less noisy areas. A
10 dBA change in noise levels is judged by most people as a doubling or halving of the
loudness of the sounds.
Based on the guidelines above, a traffic noise impact occurs when either of the previous
conditions is satisfied. Consideration for noise abatement measures can be applied to receivers
that fall in either category.
3.8.3. Analysis Results
TNM was utilized to determine the number of Category B land use receivers that, during the
peak hour in the design year, would meet either of the conditions described above. 39 receivers
were analyzed. Noise impacts were determined based on the FHWA and NCDOT criteria
previously discussed.
3-28

Table 3.8.2 shows a summary of impacts predicted for the project study area and Table 3.8.3
summarizes the number and degree of noise level increases predicted. Exhibits 3.8.1 e-g show the
receiver locations and the sound levels for existing year (2009), No-Build (2035) and Build (2035) for
each. According to the analysis, it is anticipated that no receivers will be impacted due to the
construction of the grade separations.
Under design year 2035 traffic conditions, no Category B receivers, from a total of 39 analyzed
locations, are predicted to be impacted based on FHWA criteria and NCDOT guidelines.
TABLE 3.8.2
NOISE LEVEL IMPACTS SUMMARY
(Number of receivers considered as impacts per alternative)
Approach or Substantial Increase vs. Total Impacts
Exceed NAC Existing Noise Levels
Existing (2009) 0 N/A 0
No Build (2035) 0 0 0
Build (2035) 0 0 0
TABLE 3.8.3
NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
(Number of receivers experiencing listed noise level increases)
dBA Increase <1-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >7
No-Build 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0
Build 5 9 15 5 3 1 0 1
3.8.4 Construction Noise
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and
those individuals living and working near the project, can be expected particularly from earth
moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering construction noise is
relatively short in duration, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss provided by nearby structures and vegetation should be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
3-29

The NCDOT specifications limit noise levels to 80 dBA Leq in sensitive areas adjacent to project
construction. The NCDOT may require abatement where limits are exceeded. The NCDOT
limits work that produces objedionable noise during normal sleeping hours.
3.8.5. NoiseAnalvsisSummarv
Potential noise impacts were analyzed for the No-Build scenario and for the Build Alternative.
The analysis included 39 receivers and resulted in no anticipated impads based on 2035 traffic
projedions.
3.8.6 VibrationlmoactAssessment
Ground-bome vibration can be a concern for nearby neighbors of a railroad. In contrast to air-
borne noise, ground-bome noise is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for
vibrations to be perceptible, even in locations close to the tracks. The effeds of ground-borne
vibration include discernable movement of the building floors, rattling of the windows, shaking of
objects on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration
can cause damage to buildings. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration
exceeds the threshold of perception by only a small margin. A vibration level that causes
annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for most buildings.
Vibration caused by trains is the result of wheels rolling on steel rails. This energy is then
transmitted through the track support system into the transit strudure, through the ground, to
the foundations of nearby buildings, and finally throughout the remainder of the building
structure. The level of vibration received at the building is a function of the type of trains, their
speeds, track system, strudure, support and condition, distance from the tracks, geological
conditions and the receiving strudure.
Ground-bome vibration is almost never annoying to
people who are outdoors. Although the motion of the
ground may be perceived, without the effects
associated with the shaking of the building, the motion
does not produce the same human readion. In
addition, the rumble noise that usually accompanies
the building vibration is perceptible only inside
buildings.
3-30
ImportantPoiMs
• There are no aMicipated Iroise impacts
assceiatedwith the poposeAroadvay
grede sepxa(ions.
• Theproposedcomb'ma(ionofroadvay
imprwemenCs and at-grede crassing
dasures should have a netreAuctron of
impacled nase receptas in the sWdy
xea.

The motion due to ground-borne vibration is described in vibration velocity levels, measured in
decibels referenced to 1 micro-inch per second. To avoid confusion with the decibel used to
describe sound levels, the abbreviation VdB is used. Exhibit 3.8.2 illustrates common vibration
sources and the human and strudural response to ground-borne vibration.
The FTA has published the most recent guidance model for the assessment of noise and
vibration impads in transportation projeds, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,
May 2006. The FTA impad assessment procedure does not require the measurement of
baseline vibration levels to determine if vibrations from line operations will result in an impact to
the adjoining communities. Potential vibration impads from the operation movements are
determined based on vibration threshold levels which must be exceeded. The FTA's
experience with community response to ground-borne vibrations indicate that when there are
only a few train events per day, it would take higher vibration levels to evoke the same
community response that would be expeded from more frequent events. This is taken into
account in the FTA criteria by distinguishing between projects with frequent, occasional and
infrequent events. Frequent events are described as more than 70 vibration events per day;
occasional events are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events per day; and infrequent
events are described as fewer than 30 vibration events per day. The vibration criteria levels
shown in Table 3.8.4 are defined in terms of human annoyance for different land use categories
such as high sensitivity (Category 1), residential (Category 2) and institutional (Category 3). In
general, the vibration threshold of human perceptibility is roughly 65 VdB.
ImpaYdMPanls
• Vibretron IevNs 'm reside�es would
increase by 18 more tlian tlie No-Buikl
scenario.
• VibretronlevNs'mbusi�sseswoukl
increase by7 more than the No-Build
scenario.
3-31

EXHIBIT 3.8.2
TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION
Human/ShucWralResponse
T�msM1Oldmin0 mettcaemege �
���egoe ounei.�es
olnruTywl�n2skssucnas �
re amg x m screen
aezae�na�ao�oya��e,�m,aq��e
eventc(e.g,commmerralp �
Paaitlen6ale�myanco�IreGuen� �
erents�eg-rapitl�rznsit)
LI�nI11piNL�T.Inn �Si411NC �
Wuipnenl. NpOI�IA.Illiee11o101IX
M1w�dO W�WpINnVIN6�d11V0
Velocity Tyv���Saurces
LeveP (W It tram murce)
� 81asOng�mmconslmcLOnpml��5
-- ewioo:aaa�eomernea.yva�r.�e
� mrsvunioneqwpment
� Commulerrail.upperran9e
W � Fep104anNtuppenange
� commwe<<a�lyn�=ai
� Busonmckovei�ump
]0 r FOpiCIl�09itly(i021
� 0ucorbuak,��ploal
W
� TyVIwl�ckgiountldb�Llbn
� mue v,e�no� ueio�iyeerei m vae ��ri� ro ro-s inrnesr��e
3-32

TABLE 3.8.4
GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION (GB� AND GROUND-BORNE NOISE (GBN) IMPACT CRITERIA
FOR GENERAL ASSESSMENT
GBV Impact Levels GBN Impact Levels
Land Use CategOry (VdB re 1 micro-inch / sec) (dB re 20 micro Pascals)
Frequent Occasional Infrequent Frequent Occasional Infrequent
Events' Events2 Events' Events' Events2 Events'
Category 1
Buildings where vibration would 65 VdB° 65 VdB° 65 VdB° N/A° N/A° N/A°
interfere with interior o erations
Category 2
Residences and buildings 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA
where people normally sleep
Category 3
Institutional land uses with 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA
rimaril da ime use
NOTES:
1. "Frequent Events" is tlefnetl as more than 70 vibretion events of the same source per tlay. Most rapitl transit projects fall into this
category.
2 "Occasional Events" is defned as between 30 and 70 vibretions of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lines have this
many operetions.
3. '9nfrequent Events" is defned as fewer than 30 vibretion events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter
rail branch lines.
4. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes.
Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to defne the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring
lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. Vibration-sensitive
equipment is generally not sensitive to ground-borne noise.
The major existing source of vibration in the project corridor is from existing trains and traffic on
local roads. As described previously, existing vibration measurements were not used to
determine the potential impact of the project. As this project will have approximately 90 vibration
events per day in the design year, this assessment uses the criteria for frequent events. The
project related vibration was estimated using the generalized ground surface vibration curves
from the FTA Guidance Manual (Exhibit 3.8.5). The curve was then adjusted to account for
project specific factors. It was assumed that the entire corridor would use continuous welded
rail, with an average train speed of 60 mph (58.8 average speed rounded up).
The vibration analysis would not be measurably affected by the addition of a second track. The
predicted vibration levels are based on changes in vibration levels at particular land uses at
various distances from the track. The analysis takes into account freight and passenger service
train vibrations, whether they occur in succession (i.e. a single track, where one train follows
another), or if the trains are operating on separate tracks (i.e. where the trains may be operating
simultaneously along the line on dual tracks). In both scenarios, the same number of freight and
passenger trains would pass a given point, albeit at different times, but within the same rail
3-33

corritlor antl at similar tlistances from nearby uses. While ihere may be some atltletl cumulative
vibretion at a particular momeM when one irein passes another, ihis is not expectetl to occur
very often antl for a very short tluretion antl is not expectetl to atltl measurebly to ihe pretlictetl
vibretion levels.
The FTA impact ihresholtl applicable to resitlences is 72 tlecibels (VtlB), since ihere woultl be
more ihan 70 irein eveMS per tlay. For institutional antl commercial lantl use ihe ihresholtl is 75
VtlB. Basetl upon ihese assumptions, ihe impact tlistance for resitlences woultl be 160 feet
from ihe center of ihe irecks antl ihe impact tlistance for institutional antl commercial builtlings
woultl be 120 feet from ihe centerline of ihe irecks.
100
95
w
c 90
� 85
v 80
m
a
> 75
w
� 70
D
0 65
w
>
� 60
K
I55
50
10
EXHIBIT 3.8.5
GENERALIZED GROUND SURFACE VIBRA710N CURVES
20 30 40 50 60 80 100 150 200 300
Distance from irack centerline, k
(USe diagonal tlistance for untlergmuntl systems)
�1

In addition to ground-borne vibration criteria for humans in residential, institutional and special
buildings and vibration-sensitive equipment, there are ground-borne vibration criteria for
potential damage to structures. The limits of vibration that buildings can withstand are
substantially higher than those for humans and sensitive equipment. It is extremely rare for
vibration from train operations to cause any sort of building damage, including minor cosmetic
damage. Table 3.8.5 presents criteria for assessing the potential for vibration damage to
structures based on the type of building construction. It is not anticipated that any buildings
within the project vicinity would experience vibration levels capable of producing damage.
TABLE 3.8.5
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA
Assessment Results
Using aerial photography and preliminary design files, impacts were calculated for both the No
Build and Build scenarios. For Category 2 receptors (residences and buildings where people
normally sleep) there were 134 impacts for the No Build scenario and 152 for the Build scenario,
an increase of 18 receptors. For Category 3 receptors (institutional uses such as offices,
businesses, schools and churches) it was determined that 84 receptors would be impacted by
the No Build scenario and 91 for the Build scenario, an increase of 7 receptors.
Church members from the historic Lutheran Chapel expressed concern about vibration from
trains causing damage to their 150 year old main chapel, which is constructed with handmade
bricks. Detailed projections of ground-borne vibration require professionals with experience in
performing and interpreting vibration propagation tests and are usually performed during the
final design phase of a project when there is sufficient reason to suspect adverse vibration
impact from the project. The NCDOT is working with the Lutheran Chapel and the State Historic
Preservation OFfice on a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that will address mitigation of
effects to the Lutheran Chapel property. Any vibration mitigation measures recommended
during the development of the MOA to satisfy Section 106 and, if applicable, will be included in
3-35

the commitments and FONSI for this project. It is not anticipated that mitigation measures will
be evaluated on a site-specific basis for any other location along this project.
3.9 NATURAL RESOURCES
The following paragraphs summarize sections from the Natural Resources Technical Report
prepared for the proposed project (NCDOT, 2010). A natural resources study was conducted for
the project study area from May 2009 through September 2010. Streams and wetlands within
the project study area are shown in Appendix F.
The project study area lies within the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion of the Piedmont
physiographic region of North Carolina. Topographically, the project vicinity is generally
comprised of low, rounded hills and ridges, and low to moderate gradient streams with mostly
cobble, gravel, and sandy substrates. Topography within the study area is generally level and
aligned along the ridge which gradually increases in elevation from north to south. Elevations
within the study area range from 762 -872 feet above sea level.
3.9.1 Soils
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
mapping identifies 19 soil types within the project study area.
Table 3.9.1 details the soils found in the project study area.
TABLE 3.9.1
SOIL SERIES WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA
Soil Series Mapping Drainage Class Hydric Status
Unit
Appling sandy loam Ap Well-Drained Non-hydric
Armenia loam Ar Poorly-Drained Hydric
Cecil sandy loam Cc Well-Drained Non-hydric
Cecil sandy clay loam Ce Well-Drained Non-hydric
Cecil-Urban land complex Cf -- Non-hydric
Enon fine sady loam En Well-Drained Non-hydric
Enon-Urban land complex Eu -- Non-hydric
Helena sandy loam He Moderately Well-Drained *Hydric
Hiwassee clay loam Hw Well-Drained Non-hydric
Mecklenburg loam Mb Well-Drained Non-hydric
Pacolet sandy clay loam Pa Well-Drained Non-hydric
Packolet-Udorthents complex Pc Well-Drained Non-hydric
3-36

NOTE� *Hydnc=SOilswhicharepnmanlynonhydnqbutmaycontainhydncindusions.
3.9.2 Water Resources
The study area is located within the Yadkin River basin (United States Geological Survey
[USGS] Hydrologic Units [HU's] 03040103 and 03040105). Twenty streams were identified
within the projed study area, listed in Table 3.9.2. Locations of these water resources are
shown in Appendix F. Physical characteristic of streams within the study area are listed in Table
3.9.3.
The reach of GranYs Creek that receives waters from the study area is rated C and is located
approximately 1 to 2 miles downstream from the study area. The reach of Town Creek that
receives waters from the study area is rated C and is located approximately 0.1 to 0.5 mile
downstream from the study area. The reach of Cold Water Creek that receives waters from the
study area is rated WS-IV and is located approximately 3 to 5 miles downstream from the study
area. Additionally, the reach of Cold Water Creek that receives waters from streams SQ, SR,
and ST has been assigned the supplemental classification of CA, indicating drainage into a
water-supply reservoir within one-half mile; in this case, Lake Fisher.
No designated anadromous fish waters or Primary Nursery Areas are present in the study area.
No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or water
supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) are located within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area.
ImportantPoiMs
• Thereilcorridorislocatedalongarrdge
on Irolrlrydric, wNldrei�dsoils.
• StreamsintheprojectsWdyxeaare
wiNiin awater suppy wateahed.
3-37

TABLE 3.9.2
JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Stream Name Map ID Figure NCDWQ Stream Best Usage
Nos. Index Number Classification
UT to Town Creek SA 4A 12-115-3 C
UT to Town Creek SB 4A 12-115-3 C
UT to Town Creek SC 4A 12-115-3 C
UT to GranYs Creek SD 4C 12-110 C
UT to GranYs Creek SE 4D 12-110 C
UT to Town Creek SF 4E 12-115-3 C
UT to Town Creek SG 4E 12-115-3 C
UT to Town Creek SH 4E 12-115-3 C
UT to Town Creek SI 4E 12-115-3 C
UT to GranYs Creek SJ 4F 12-110 C
UT to GranYs Creek SK 4F 12-110 C
UT to Town Creek SL 41 12-115-3 C
UT to Town Creek SM 4G 12-115-3 C
UT to Cold Water Creek SN 4J 13-17-9-4-(0.5) WS-IV
UT to Cold Water Creek SO 4K 13-17-9-4-(0.5) WS-IV
UT to Cold Water Creek SP 4K 13-17-9-4-(0.5) WS-IV
UT to Cold Water Creek SQ 4L 13-17-9-4-(1) WS-IV; CA
UT to Cold Water Creek SR 4L 13-17-9-4-(1) WS-IV; CA
UT to Irish Buffalo Creek SS 4M 13-17-9-(2) C
UT to Cold Water Creek ST 4N 13-17-9-4-(1) WS-IV; CA
SOURCE: NRTR, NCDOT, November 2010
According to the North Carolina 2008 Final 303(d) List, all North Carolina Waters are
considered to be listed due to statewide Fish Consumption Advice for Mercury. In addition,
each named stream that receives waters from the study area is listed individually on the North
Carolina 2008 Final 303(d) List. Town Creek is listed due to "Fair" fish and benthos
bioclassification ratings. The reach of GranYs Creek beginning approximately 6 to 8 miles
downstream from the study area is listed due to turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria. The reach
of Cold Water Creek located immediately downstream of Lake Fisher and beginning
approximately 5 to 7 miles downstream of the study area is listed due to turbidity and a"Fair"
Benthos bioclassification rating. The reach of Irish Buffalo Creek that receives waters from the
study area is listed due to high levels of copper and a"Fair" Benthos bioclassification rating.
No benthic or fish sampling stations are located within 1.0 mile of the study area.
3-38

TABLE 3.9.3
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Bank Bankful Water Channel
Map ID Height width Depth Substrate Velocity Clarity
feet feet inches
UT to Town Creek SA 1-2 3 0.5-1 Silt, sand Slow C
UT to Town Creek SB 1-4 2-3 1-3 Silt, sand, gravel, Moderate ST
cobble
UT to Town Creek SC 1 2 0-2 Silt, sand, gravel Moderate C
UT to GranYs Creek SD 3 3 2_g Sand, gravel, Moderate C
cobble
UT to GranYs Creek SE 3 4 2_g Sand, gravel, Moderate T
cobble
UT to Town Creek SF 1-2 2-3 2-6 Silt, sand, gravel Slow C
UT to Town Creek SG 0.5-1 5 4-6 Silt, sand Slow ST
UT to Town Creek SH 0.5 3 *1 Silt None N/A
UT to Town Creek SI 0.5 3 1-2 Silt Moderate C
UT to GranYs Creek SJ 2 1-2 0-4 Silt, sand, gravel, Moderate ST
cobble
UT to GranYs Creek SK 0.5-1 2-3 1-2 Silt, sand Slow ST
UT to Town Creek SL 0.5-1 2-3 2 Silt, sand Moderate C
UT to Town Creek SM 0.5-2 3 2 Silt, gravel Slow C
UT to Cold Water Creek SN 1-2 2-4 1-3 Silt, sand, gravel Moderate C
UT to Cold Water Creek SO 3 3 1-3 Silt, sand, gravel, Slow ST
cobble
UT to Cold Water Creek SP 3 3 �� Silt, sand, gravel, None N/A
cobble
UT to Cold Water Creek SQ 6 10 4 Sand, gravel, Moderate C
cobble
UT to Cold Water Creek SR 4 3 1 Gravel, cobble Moderate C
UT to Irish Buffalo Creek SS 0.5-2 3-5 2-3 Sand, gravel Moderate C
UT to Cold Water Creek ST 2 2-5 3-6 Sand, gravel, Moderate ST
cobble
��urcct: ivrc i rc, ivcu� i, ivovemoer �viu
NOTE: *Clarity: C=Clear, ST=Slightly Turbid, T=Turbid
3.9.3 Biotic Resources
3.9.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The project study area includes three distinct terrestrial communities: maintained/disturbed land,
mixed pine/hardwood forest, and pine forest. Brief descriptions of each community are
presented below. Table 3.9.4 shows the coverage, and anticipated project-related impacts, for
these communities.
3-39

Maintained/Disturbed Land
This community occurs throughout the study area in the form of railroad and roadside
shoulders, agricultural fields, residential development including maintained lawns, and several
power line corridors. Frequently, narrow hedgerows generally consisting of saplings and shrubs
such as Chinese privet, eastem red cedar, sweet gum, northem read oak, and lobolly pine with
woody vines such as poison ivy and grape separate the rail corridor from abutting properties.
Maintained laws and roadside shoulders generally consist of low-growing grasses and weedy
forbs such as fescue, crab grasses, white clover, dandelion, and wild onion with occasional
omamental saplings such as black gum, Bradford pear, and crepe myrtle. Vegetation is sparse
along railroad shoulders, generally growing along the margins with some encroachment towards
the rail, and consists of weedy forbs such as fescue, geranium, dandelion, and wild onion.
Wthin residential logs and along the margins of agricultural fends, vegetation generally consists
of low, weedy forbs including fescue, dandelion, fox-tail grass, vasey-grass, beggar's ticks, and
broomsedge. Along forest edges and power line corridors similar grass and forbs species tend
to be present, but vegetation is dominated by saplings and shrubs of sweetgum, red maple,
lobolly pine, eastem red cedar, black cherry, winged elm, blackberries, box elder, redbud,
Chinese privet, smooth sumac, slippery elm, silky dogwood, and by vines such as poison ivy,
grape, and Japanese honeysuckle.
Mixed PineMardwood Forest
Small fragmented areas of this community occur generally along the margins of the rail line and
include forested communities of varying ages. Canopy trees include sweetgum, tulip poplar, red
maple, southem read oak, white oak, sounvood, and loblolly pine, with the inclusion of sycamore,
American elm, willow oak, and cottonwood in mesic areas near streams and wetlands. Saplings
present include canopy species as well as sassafras, flowenng dogwood, and eastem red cedar,
with some paw-paw and box elder in mesic areas.
Shrub layers are thickest along woodland edges and in
mesic areas and include spicebush, multiflora rose,
Chinese privet, and American elder. Vines present
include poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, crossing,
trumpet creeper, and greenbrier, while herbs include
Christmas fern and violets.
Pine Forest
Several small stands of this community occur within
3-40
• TheseimpactswouldprimarityiMOlve
the clex'mg of vegetdion mM
grdding�f'dlilg.
• The'maeaseinstormwaterrulroBwould
be limiled by tlie factthatthe poject
sludy xea is Iceated'm an urbanizeA
areawith a fairty hgh amouMW
existing imperviousness.

the study area and appear to be managed and currently support a relatively open stand of
loblolly pine with no competing sub-canopy. Shrubs and herbs in this community are generally
sparse and include Chinese privet, eastern red cedar, red maple, poison ivy, and grape.
TABLE 3.9.4
COVERAGE AND IMPACTS OF TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Community Total Coverage (acres) Projected Impacts (acres)
Maintained/disturbed land 744.2 167.4
Mixed pine/hardwood forest 198.8 39.6
Pine forest 16.3 --
Total 959.2 207.0
3.9.3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised primarily of disturbed habitats that may
support a limited diversity of wildlife species due to the urban nature of the study area (an
asterisk indicates if a species or sign of a species was actually observed). Mammals that
commonly exploit habitats found within the study area include gray squirrel', eastern cottontail',
raccoon', white-tailed deer, coyote, groundhog, and Virginia opossum. Birds that commonly use
forest and forest edge habitats include American crow', blue jay', Carolina wren', northern
mockingbird', cedar waxwing', Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse', common yellow-throat',
indigo bunting', eastern towhee', northern cardinal', red-eyed vireo', red-headed woodpecker',
sharp-shinned hawk, and white eyed vireo. Birds that may use the open habitat within the study
area include house finch', goldfinch', barn swallow', European starling', mourning dove', blue-
gray gnatcatcher', chimney swift', common grackle', song sparrow', killdeer', American robin,
eastern bluebird, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk', and turkey vulture'. Reptile and amphibian
species that may use terrestrial communities locate in the study area include marbled skink',
black racer, rate snake, corn snake, eastern ribbon snake, eastern garter snake, copperhead,
and timber rattlesnake.
3.9.3.3 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities in the study area are supported by one small open water pond, one
perennial warm-water stream, and several small intermittent warm-water streams. The pond
and perennial stream may include gizzard shad, redfin pickerel, common carp, golden shiner,
rosyside dace, eastern silvery minnow, bluehead chub, creek chub, redbreast sunfish, crayfish,
and various benthic macroinvertebrets. Intermittent streams in the study area are relatively
small in size and may support aquatic communities of spring peeper, crayfish, and various
3-41

benthic macroinvertebrets. Aquatic-dependent wildlife expected to utilize this community include
great blue heron and northern water snake.
No sampling was undertaken in jurisdictional streams of the study area to determine fishery
potential as no designated anadromous fish waters or Primary Nursery Areas are present in the
study area. No benthic or fish sampling stations are located within 1.0 mile of the study area.
3.9.3.41nvasive Species
Four species from the NCDOT's Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina were found to occur
within the study area: Chinese privet and multiflora rose (Threat level 1), Japanese honeysuckle
(Threat level 2), and Bradford pear (Threat level 3). The NCDOT will follow the DepartmenYs
BMP's for the management of invasive plant species.
Summary of lmpacts to Biotic Resources — The proposed project is within an urban area and
would primarily affect maintained/disturbed land (109.2 acres); however, the Build Alternative
would affect 0.2 acres of the Pine Forest community and 26.0 acres of Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Forest community. These impacts would primarily involve the clearing of vegetation and
earthwork (i.e., the placement of fill material, grading, etc.) associated with the construction of
the second track and crossing improvements.
The addition of a second track and the new grade separated crossings would increase the total
amount of impervious surface within the project study area, which would in turn create an
increase in stormwater runoff. The increase in stormwater runoff would be limited, however, by
the fact that the project study area is located in an urbanized area with a fairly high amount of
existing imperviousness. Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands are discussed in the
following section.
3.9.4 Jurisdictionallssues
3.9.4.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
The study area is located within the Yadkin River Basin in USGS Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03040103 and 03040105. A total of four jurisdictional streams were identified within the study
area. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of each jurisdictional stream
are detailed in Section 3.9.2. Table 3.9.5 summarizes jurisdictional characteristics of each
stream within the study area, as well as anticipated impacts associated with the Build
3-42

Alternative. All jurisdictional streams in the study area have been designated as warm water
streams for the purposes of stream mitigation. All jurisdictional streams in the study are located
in HU 03040105.
TABLE 3.9.5
JURISDICTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Ma Length USGS Compensatory NC �Prr°�a�sd
ID (linear Classification Hydrologic Mitigation Riparia (I near
feet) Unit Required n Buffer feet)
SA 195 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No --
SB 951 Perennial 03040103 Yes No --
SC 79 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No --
SD 44 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No 14
SE 498 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No --
SF 829 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No 173
SG 78 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No --
SH 289 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No 121
SI 217 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No 73
SJ 743/30 Intermittent/Perennial 03040103 Undetermined/Y No --
SK 356 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No --
SL 292 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No --
SM 90 Intermittent 03040103 Undetermined No --
SN 250 Intermittent 03040105 Undetermined No --
SO 438 Intermittent 03040105 Undetermined No 131
SP 11 Intermittent 03040105 Undetermined No --
SQ 77 Perennial 03040105 Yes No 53
SR 42 Intermittent 03040105 Undetermined No 35
SS 323 Intermittent 03040105 Undetermined No --
ST 404 Intermittent 03040105 Undetermined No --
Total Project Impacts 600
A total of 24 wetlands and two small open water ponds were identified within the study area
(NRTR Exhibits Figures 3 and Figures 4A through 4N, Appendix F). Five of these wetland
areas (Wetlands WM through WQ) are isolated and not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction;
however, the NCDWQ may assert jurisdiction over these resources. Open Water OWA is a
small farm pond located in the northern portion of the study area that drains to Wetland WB and
Stream SA. Open Water OWB is located entirely within Wetland WO and is therefore isolated.
Wetland classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 3.9.6. All wetlands within
the study area are located within USGS HUs 03040103 and 03040105.
3-43

Descriptions of project study area wetland sites are presented in Section 3.9.3.1. Wetland data
and anticipated impacts associated with the Build Alternative are presented in Table 3.9.6.
TABLE 3.9.6
JURISDICTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Cowardin DEM Wetland Area Impacted by
Map ID Figure Classification Rating' Area (acres) Build Alternative
(acres)
WA 4A PF01A 41 2.67 --
WB 4A PSS1A 38 0.05 --
WC 4B PF01A 42 0.67 --
WD 4B PF01A 42 0.26 --
WE 4B PF01A 84 0.05 --
WF 4D PF01C 40 0.47 --
WG 4D PF01C 40 0.24 --
WH 4E PF01A 67 0.86 --
WI 4E PF01E 57 0.16 --
WJ 4E PF01 E 57 0.09 0.09
WK 4F PF01E 39 0.19 --
WL 4F PF01A 35 0.01 --
WM 4G PF01B 48 0.05 --
WN* 4H PF01A 33 0.10 --
WO* 4H PF01A 20 0.44 --
WP* 41 PF01C 40 0.22 0.05
WQ* 41 PSS1A 15 0.04 --
WR* 41 PSS1A 15 0.02 --
WS 41 PF01C 45 0.07 0.02
WT 41 PF01 C 45 0.08 <0.01
WU 41 PF01C 45 0.09 --
WV 41 PF01A 30 <0.01 --
WW 4K PF01A 40 0.15 --
WX 4M PF01 E 63 0.50 --
iv� i t: �i H SCOfZ Oi U-33 = IOW qU211[Y WZ[I2f105, 33-bb = f11Z01Ufll qU211[Y WZ[I2f105, > bb = f11Jf1 qU211[Y WZ[I2f105.
3.9.4.2 Clean Water Act Permits
It is anticipated that impacts to Section 404 jurisdictional areas will likely be authorized and the
following permits will apply: NWP No. 3 for maintenance of currently serviceable structures,
NWP No. 14 for linear transportation projects, NWP No. 18 for minor discharges, and NWP No.
33 for temporary construction activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or temporary
causeways that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation. The USACE holds
final discretion as to what permits will be required to authorize project construction.
In addition, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications including GC 3687 for maintenance, GC
3704 for linear transportation projects, GC 3705 for minor discharges, and GC 3688 for
3-44

temporary construdion access and dewatering; and a NCDWQ Isolated Wetlands Permit may
be required.
Isolated wetlands may require an NCDWQ General Permit for impacts to isolated and other
non-404 jurisdidional wetlands and waters QWGP100000) when the USACE determines that a
wetland to be potentially impaded is not subjed to Section 404jurisdiction.
3.9.4.3 Construction Moratoria
No anadromous fish spawning areas or other areas of special consideration have been
identifed within the study area. Therefore, no construction moratoria are anticipated for the
proposed projed.
3.9.4.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
No streams within the study area are subject to any North Carolina river basin buffer rules.
3.9.4.5 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No waters in the study area have been designated by the USACE as a Navigable Water under
Sedion 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Ad.
3.9.4.6 Wetland and Stream Mitigation
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The NCDOT will avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent
practicable in choosing a Preferred Alternative and during projed design. Current wetland
impads are limited to 0.17-acre, with additional opportunities to minimize impacts by adjusting
slopes during fnal design.
Compensatorv Mitipation of Impacts
The NCDOT, USACE, and NCDWQ will finalize stream and wetland mitigation opportunities
once a final decision has been rendered on the
location of the Build Alternative. Mitigation
opportunities may be provided by North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). In
accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement
Among the North Carolina Department of
3-45
ImpaYdMPanls
• FeAerel ami stde permils woukl be
required for the proposed proJed.
• Compensataymitiga(ionwouklbe
providedinsuBicientquaMity and
quality lo of/setproject impacts in
accordance with the Clean WalerAct
0/1970, as amended.

Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington DistricY' (MOA), July 22,
2003, and amended June 2004 and March 2007, the EEP will be requested to provide off-site
mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for this
project.
3.9.4.7 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of May 19, 2009 and again September 28, 2010, the USFWS lists one federally protected
species for Rowan County, Schweinitz's sunflower (Table 3.9.7). A brief description of this
species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on
survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for this species are based on the current
best available information as per referenced literature and USFWS correspondence.
TABLE 3.9.7
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES LISTED FOR ROWAN COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status** Present Conclusion
Helianthus schweiitcii Schweinitz's sunflower E Yes No Effect
* Federal Status: E=Endangered
The Schweinitz's sunflower
This plant species is endemic to the Piedmont of North and South Carolina. The few sites where
this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in relatively natural vegetation are found in Xeric
Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along railroad corridors, roadside right-of-ways,
maintained power lines and other utility right-of-ways, edges of thickets and old pastures,
clearings and edges of upland oak-pike hickory woods and Piedmont long leaf pine forests, and
other sunny or semi-sunny habitats where disturbances help create open or partially open areas
for sunlight penetration to the ground.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along the margins of roadways and the rail
lines, along woodland edges, and within utility line corridors. However, no individuals of this
species were identified by systematic surveys performed in all areas of suitable habitat on
September 29 and 30, 2009 and September 29, 2010. Individuals of this species were
observed at the North Carolina Herbarium in Chapel Hill, NC immediately prior to all surveys in
order to confirm that this species remained identifiable through form and flower throughout the
�

survey window. In addition, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
records, updated December 1, 2008, indicates no known Schweinitz's sunflower occurrences
within 1.0 mile of the study area.
3.9.5 Bald Eaqle and Golden Eaqle Protection Act
As of May 15, 2009, and again September 28, 2010, the USFWS lists one species protected by
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for Rowan County, bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus). Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to
large bodies of open water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites,
typically within 1.0 mile of open water. The study area contains no suitable nesting or foraging
habitat for bald eagle due to the absence of large open water bodies. No bald eagles or bald
eagle nests were observed during field investigations. Based on field observations and NCNHP
documentation, this project will have no effect on bald eagle.
3.9.6 Endanqered Species Act Candidate Species
As of May 15, 2009 and again September 28, 2010, the USFWS lists one Candidate species for
Rowan County, the Georgia aster (Symphyotricum georgianum). Suitable habitat is present
within the study area along utility corridors, roadside shoulders, woodland edges, and the
margins of the railroad corridor. However, reviews of NCNHP records indicate no known
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area.
3.10 HYDRAULIC IMPACTS
The four streams identified in Section 3.9 (WS-IV classified streams, identified as SA, SC, and SD
in Tables 3.9.2, 3.9.3, and 3.9.5) are all currently crossed by the existing track. At the preliminary
design phase, it is assumed that each of the existing culverts would be extended or replaced at
their existing location. The existing pipe sizes are all 48-inches or less, so none of these pipes is
considered a major drainage structure. Sizing will be verified during hydraulic design to ensure
adequacy for existing and proposed development conditions and to ensure that upstream water
levels are not increased during flood events. No hydraulic impacts, in the form of upstream
flooding, are anticipated.
3.11 FLOODPLAINS
Regulatory floodplains were identified in accordance with Executive Order 11988: Floodplain
Management. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) determined the regulatoryfloodways,
3-47

floodplains, and other flood hazard areas for Rowan County. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) regulates adivities associated within these designated areas.
Exhibit 3.11.1 details the flood hazard areas in the vicinity of the projed study area. There are no
flood hazard areas within the projed study area. As shown in Exhibit 3.11.1, the flood hazard area
associated with Beaver Creek is close to the eastem side of the rail corridor, but ends outside the
projed study area. In addition, construdion of the Build Altemative would occur on the western
side of the existing rail corridor and would not affed this flood hazard area.
3.12 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES
Sedion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Ad (16 USC 470 et. seq.) requires federal
agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to allow the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the proposed
adion. Historic properties proteded under Section 106 include prehistoric [archeological] or
historic distrids, sites, buildings, strudures, or objeds included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Ad requires consideration of histonc sites
that are eligible for listing or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Sedion 4(f)
regulations and anticipated effeds are discussed in Sedion 3.3.9.
A Histonc Architedural Resources Survey Report (Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc., 2010)
was prepared for the proposed projed. This report identifed four historic properties and two
historic distrids as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. At a meeting on
December 22, 2009, the Histonc Preservation Offcer (HPO) concurred that the Landis Post Office,
the Landis Southern Railway Passenger Station, Mount Zion Reformed Church, the Lutheran
Chapel, and the China Grove Cotton Mills Histonc Distrid are eligible for listing in the National
Register, but stated that additional information was needed to make an eligibility determination for
the proposed China Grove Cotton Mills Historic Distrid. A supplemental Historic Architedural
Resources Survey Report (Fearnbach History Services,
Inc., 2010) was submitted to the HPO for concurrence.
Based on this additional information, it was confrmed
that the China Grove Cotton Mills Historic Distrid is
eligible for listing on the National Register and the
3-48
ImpaYdMPanls
• No mapr dre'mage modifica(rons are
associatedwitli tliepropasedproject.
. No ibodpla'm impacts are assceiated
with the propasedproject

boundaries for the historic distrid were finalized. The location of eligible historic architedural
properties and historic distrids are shown in Exhibits 2.3.1a-f.
Through coordination with the State Historic Preservation Offce (SHPO), it was determined that
the proposed projed would have No Effect on the Mount Zion Reformed Church and No Adverse
Effect on the Landis Post Offce, Landis Southem Railway Passenger Station, China Grove Cotton
Mills Historic Distrid, and China Grove Historic Distnd.
The proposed projed would have an Adverse Effect on the Lutheran Chapel. The curve
realignment and addition of the second track would affed the church's parking lot. A meeting was
held with Lutheran Chapel church members on March 22, 2011 as the frst step in the development
of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for mitigation of impads to the church's parking lot.
Mitigation strategies discussed include the construdion of new parking areas and the potential
closure/abandonment of Eudy Road to create additional space for parking. The final MOA will be
included in the Finding of No Signifcant Impad (FONSI). Grading work would encroach upon the
historic boundanes for the Chapel; however, there would be no impads to the strudures on the
property or the fundion of the church. The proposed projed would not affed the historic nature or
fundionality of the Lutheran Chapel. SHPO concurrence is contained in Appendix A.3.
The SHPO and Offce of Archaeology concurred on January 12, 2010 and January 7, 2010
respedively, that no further archaeological work is required for the proposed projed. Should the
study corridor change prior to construction, additional consultation with the State Offce of
Archaeology would be required. This correspondence is contained in Appendix A.
3.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Land use in the project study area adjacent to the railroad track includes areas of light industrial
and commercial development. Database surveys indicate that the rail corridor is flanked with
numerous underground storage tanks (USTs) and
leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) plus one
Supertund site (EDR, 2010), as shown in Exhibit
3.13.1. The Superfund site is west of US 29 outside
the rail corridor and would not be affeded by the
proposed project.
3-49
• The 8uikl Allema(ive would have an
adveae ef/ed on tlie Lutheren Chapel
parkilg lot
• NCDOTisdevNopilgaMemorandumW
AgreemeM(MOA) formiligatronW
impacCs lo tlie Lutlieren Chapel pxlulg
lar.

Based on the preliminary designs, it is anticipated that portions of the properties corresponding
to seven locations along the project will be diredly impaded. These locations (numbers
correspond to Exhibit 3.13.1) are:
1) LUST Site: NCDOT 4700 S. Main Street, Salisbury
2) LUST Site: Walk-on Produds , Inc. 200 Peeler Street, Salisbury
3) LUST Site: Fred's One-Stoq 1117 S. Main Street, China Grove
4) UST Site: Concord Telephone Co., 1525 S. Main Street, Landis
5) UST Site: National Teutiles, 308 E. Thom Street, China Grove
6) UST Site: Taylor Clay Produds, 185 Peeler Road, Salisbury
7) UST Site: Corriher Plant, 501 S. Main Street, Landis
8) LUST Site: Dominion Yam Employee Center, 2607 N. Main Street, North Kannapolis
The NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit will condud additional studies and pertorm feld
reconnaissance along the project corridor to evaluate these and other locations and to
determine the presence of any hazardous materials sites or underground storage tanks. Any
potential issues will be identified and addressed during the right-of-way acquisition phase.
3.14 MINERAL RESOURCES
There are no mineral produdion operations within the projed study area. The proposed projed
does not pose any impacts to mining or mineral resources.
3.15 ENERGY
Construdion of the Build Altemative is expeded to result in less total energy utilization than the
No-Build Altemative. The proposed adion would improve capacity along the rail corridor and
subsequently facilitate passenger use along the larger SEHSR corridor while still maintaining the
more energy effcient freight transport of goods in lieu of truck transport. Replacement of at-grade
crossings with grade separations will reduce the frequency of stopped automobiles waiting to
cross the railroad. This will in tum reduce the energy use required to accelerate stopped vehicles
to travel speed.
3.16 VISUALIMPACTS ImaortantPoiMs
Given the presence of the existing rail corridor, no
• Additrolwlgeoenvirolxnentalsludieswill
visual impacts are anticipated from the proposed becomluc(edamlalryissuesaddressed
projed. Visual impacts of the Build Alternative would duringrigM-mivayacquisition.
3-50

primarily be limited to the temporary loss of vegetation due to the minimum clear-cutting
required to construct the projed.
3.17 UTILITIES
Due to the urban setting of the projed study area, a number of utilities are present within the
area. Overhead power lines as well as underground telephone, cable, and fiber optics lines are
also present within the NCRR corridor. Water lines and sewer lines are likely along US 29 and
other roads in the projed study area.
The proposed project may require the relocation of existing underground and overhead utilities with
the possibility of short-term interruptions to service during construdion; however overall impads to
public utilities are anticipated to be low.
3.18 CONSTRUCTIONIMPACTS
The construdion activities associated with building a new railroad track would create
environmental impads. These impacts, generally short-term in nature, can be controlled,
minimized, or mitigated through conformance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
standard NCDOT procedures.
3.18.1 Air QualiN
Construction adivities could have a short-term impad on air quality, primarily during site
preparation. Particulate matter (dust) is the pollutant of primary concern during the construction
period. Dust would be generated during earth moving activities, handling of cement, asphalt, or
aggregate, and equipment travel over unpaved haul roads. Wind erosion of exposed areas and
material stockpiles would also generate particulate matter.
The amount of dust generated would vary, depending on the construction activity and local
weather conditions. Where excess dust is anticipated to be a problem, effedive dust control
measures would be implemented in accordance with ImaortantPoiMs
standard NCDOT procedures. Dust control would be , Noperma�Mimpactsroutili(iesare
the responsibility of the contrador and may include assceiatedwiththeeuimaltenwtive.
thefollowing: • BestManagementPractices(BMPs)
would be utilized lo milAmize temporary
impacCs associatedwitli tlieproject's
• Minimizing exposed earth surface CO1S�`�O°�
3-51

• Temporary and permanent seeding and mulching
• Watering work 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. Specifically, a Burning Permit from the NC Division of Forest
Resources would be obtained for burning within woodlands or within 500 feet of woodlands
under the protection of the Division of Forest Resources.
3.18.2 Noise and Vibration
Construction of the Build Alternative would result in temporary increases in noise levels within
the vicinity of the project. Noise would be generated primarily from heavy equipment used to
transport materials and to construct the railroad spur. Sensitive receptors located close to the
construction activities may temporarily experience increased noise levels.
Regulating the hours of construction and equipping machinery with noise reduction devices can
control construction noise. Certain construction activities could also be limited during the evening,
weekends, and holidays. Storage and staging areas would be located as far from noise sensitive
areas as practicable.
The NCDOT specifications limit noise levels to 80 dBA Leq in sensitive areas adjacent to project
construction. The NCDOT may require abatement where limits are exceeded. The NCDOT
limits work that produces objectionable noise during normal sleeping hours.
Construction of the project could result in short-term increases in vibration levels at the
properties in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. Common vibration-producing
equipment includes jackhammers, pavement breakers, hoe rams, auger drills, bulldozers and
backhoes. Typical vibration source levels for construction equipment range from 58 -104 VdB.
Pavement breaking and soil compaction would probably produce the highest levels of
construction-related vibration. Generally, annoyance effects may be expected during
construction near sensitive sites within approximately 200 feet of the construction activity.
3-52

Actual distances at which the effects would occur would depend on the type of construction
equipment used and the soil characteristics of the area.
3.18.3 WaterQuality
Erosion and sedimentation caused by construction activities would affect drainage patterns and
water quality. In accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
(15A NCAC 4B .0001 through .002�, an erosion control plan would be developed and
implemented prior to construction. The plan would incorporate measures to control non-point
source impacts as recommended in the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997b). These Best Management Practices include, but are not limited
to the use of berms, dikes, silt barriers, catch basins, seeding and mulching, and conforming with
proper clean-up practices.
3.18.4 Maintenance Of Traffic
During construction of the proposed project, all local and through traffic would be adequately and
safely accommodated. All construction operations would be scheduled to keep traffic delay
minimized, and the contractor should conform to the standards of the Manual of Uniform Tra�c
Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Appendix G contains a summary of temporary,
offsite detour needs.
Construction would be performed to comply with all federal, state, and local laws governing
safety, health, and sanitation. Procedures would apply all safeguards, safety devices, protective
equipment, and any other action reasonably necessary to protect the life and health of
employees on the job, the safety of the public, and the property in connection with the
performance of the work. The following items would be utilized, where necessary, to maintain
public safety and the flow of traffic:
• Constructing and maintaining temporary detours, temporary structures, temporary
approaches, crossings, and intersections with streets and roads, as well as using aggregates
for the maintenance of traffic and water for use as a dust palliative.
• Furnishing flaggers, pilot trucks, and drivers.
• Furnishing, erecting, and maintaining warning devices such as signs, auxiliary barriers,
channelizing devices, hazard warning lights, barricades, flares, and reflective markers. If a street
must be closed to traffic, traffic control devices would be illuminated during hours of darkness.
3-53

It is anticipated that proposed grade separations will be completed and opened to vehicle traffic
prior to implementation of nearby at-grade closures. This staging will ensure that local traffic
patterns and flow are maintained to the extent possible.
3.18.5 Construction Materials And 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. NCDOT would require contractors to conduct historic, archaeological, wetland
and threatened and endangered species surveys prior to approval and use of construction waste
disposal and/or borrow sites identified for the proposed grade separation.
3.19 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Table 3.19.1 lists the engineering factors and anticipated environmental impacts associated with
the Build Alternative. These factors and impacts are based on the preliminary railroad design
and crossing improvements.
3-54

TABLE 3.19.1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE BUILD (RECOMMENDED) ALTERNATIVE
CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
Mainline Length — miles 11.16
Existing At-Grade Roadway Crossings' 20
Proposed At-Grade Roadway Crossing Closures' 16
Proposed Roadway Grade Separations 3
Construction Cost $71,200,000
Right of Way & Utilities Cost $34,600,000
Total Cost $105,800,000
SOCIOECONOMICFACTORSZ Inside NCRR Outside NCRR Total
Corridor Corridor
Residential relocations along railroad corridor 3 11 14
Residential relocations at 24�" Street Grade Separation 0 10 10
Residential relocations at Kimball Road Grade Separation 0 3 3
Residential relocations at Peeler Road Grade Separation 1 0 1
Total Residential Relocations 4 24 28
Business relocations along railroad corridor 7 40 47
Business relocations at 24�" Street Grade Separation 0 6 6
Business relocations at Kimball Road Grade Separation 0 1 1
Business relocations at Peeler Road Grade Separation 1 4 5
Total Business Relocations 8 51 59
Church impacts along railroad corridor 0 1 1
Church impacts at 24�" Street Grade Separation 1 1 2
Church impacts at Kimball Road Grade Separation 0 0 0
Church impacts at Peeler Road Grade Separation 0 0 0
Total Church Impacts' 1 2 3
Cemeteries Impacted 0 0 0
Schools Impacted 0 0 0
Parks Impacted 0 0 0
Residential Receptors Impacted by Noise — No Build 1,241
Residential Receptors Impacted by Noise — Build 415
Reduction in Impacted Receptors (Noise) 826
Residential / Business Receptors Impacted by Vibration — 134 / 84
No Build
Residential / Business Receptors Impacted by Vibration — 152 / 91
Build
Increase in Impacted Receptors (Vibration) 18 / 7
CULTUR.4L RESOURCE FACTORS
Archaeological Sites 0
Historic Properties Affected ° 1
3-55

TABLE 3.19.1 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE BUILD (RECOMMENDED) ALTERNATIVE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Protected Species Impacted 0
Stream Crossings 7
Wetland/Aquatic Systems — acres 5 0.17
Jurisdictional Streams — linear feet 5 600
UPLAND COMMUNITIES — acres 6
Pine Forest 0.0
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 39.6
Disturbed/Maintained 167.4
PHYSICAL FACTORS
100-year Floodplain — acres 0.0
Prime and Unique Farmland — acres NA
Hazardous Materials Sites (UST, LUST) 8
Number of Exceedances of CO NAAQS NA
NOTES:
1 This number inclutles two closures within the stutly area that are part of a separete project.
2 Relocation reports included in Appendix D for impacts outside the NCRR Corridor.
3 Parking for two churches is impacted. One church at 22ntl Street is anticipated to be relocated.
4 The Build Alternative would have an Adverse Effect on the Lutheran Chapel. Anticipated impacts and mitigation are
discussed in Section 3.3.9 and Section 3.12.
5 Impact quantities based on construction limits of the Build Alternative plus 25 feet.
6 Impact quantities based on a 100-foot corridor. Actual design footprint is anticipated to be approximately 50% of this width.
3-56

4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
The major coordination milestones for this projed are described in chronological order in the
following sedions.
4.1 SCOPING LETTER (July 20, 2009)
A scoping letter was mailed out on July 2Q 2009 to local, state, and federal agencies, as well as
the North Carolina State Clearinghouse, to solicit comments on the scope of this environmental
document. The following agencies were solicited for comment:
• City of Kannapolis
• City of Salisbury
• Town of Landis
• Town of China Grove
• Rowan County
• Cabarrus County
• Centralina Council of Governments
• North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division
• North Carolina Department of Transportation Highway Division 9
• North Carolina Department of Transportation Engineering and Safety Branch
• North Carolina State Clearinghouse
• North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
• North Carolina Division of Water Quality
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Fish and Wldlife Services
• Federal Highway Administration
The scoping letter described the proposed environmental document as a Categorical Exclusion.
The responses to this scoping letter are included in Appendix A.2. Subsequent to distribution of
the scoping letter, it was decided to address the projed in
an Environmental Assessment to provide a more imaortantPoiMs
comprehensive evaluation, particularly for the locations , qscopilg,orsrmt-m-study,ktterwas
affected by new roadway grade separations. maaedroage�resandsakehoklersin
Juty o/2009.
4-1

4.2 NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD (NCRR) MEETING (July ?A, 2009)
The majority of the proposed improvements are anticipated to be within the NCRR corridor.
Therefore, a meeting was held at the outset of the study to confrm understanding of how property
impacts would be addressed. It was verifed at this meeting that any impads to dwellings or
businesses located within the NCRR corridor and diredly associated with railroad purposes would
be addressed by NCRR. Any impads outside the NCRR corridor would be addressed by NCDOT
right-of-way procedures. Maps and materials for the frst public workshop were also reviewed at
this meeting.
4.3 FIRST CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP (July 28, 2009)
The first Citizens Informational Workshop was preceded by advertisement via a newsletter
direct mailed to addresses within the projed study area. The mailing list and newsletter are
described below.
4.3.1 Mailing List—The NCDOT Rail Division developed a mailing list forthe projed that included
area residences, businesses, and other interested parties. This list was used to distnbute the
projed's newsletter and notifcation of the Citizens Informational Workshop. The original list
contained over 1,650 addresses obtained from the Rowan and Cabarrus County property tau
databases. The list was updated throughout the study as individual citizens requested addition to
the list.
4.3.2 Newsletters — Projed newsletters were mailed to over 1,650 addresses in July and
Odober of 2009. A copy of the newsletters, which contained information regarding the study
process, alternatives and provided contad information for additional questions or requests, are
included in Appendix A.4. The newsletters advertised the July 28`" and November 12`" Citizens
Informational Workshops.
The meeting was held on July 28, 2009 at the China Grove Community Building. The sign-in
sheet included 62 citizens and 13 local offcials. A total of 11 written comments were received
during the workshop or mailed/emailed following the workshop. The purpose of this workshop
was to initiate the projed's public involvement �maatalrtPanls
program, to provide information concerning the
environmental study process, to receive comments ' ihefirstcitizen'simormatro�wl
workshop was held inJutyW 2009 and
from the public concerning the project and to ���bY62ci(izens.
4-2

introduce the members of the study team. Maps showing the preliminary build alternative
(construdion of a second track on the existing NCRR/NS track between Reid and Kannapolis)
were available.
Citizens in attendance expressed concern regarding potential building impads and the
importance of minimizing the impad of rail traffic on the roadway users and pedestrian safety.
Of the 11 written comments received, only one comment stated opposition to the projed, all
others stated recommendations for minimizing impacts, status of rail crossing, and a request to
relocate the switch spurs to a non-urban location further north.
4.4 SECOND CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP (November 12, 2009)
A second Citizens Informational Meeting was held on November 12, 2009 at the China Grove
Community Building. This workshop was advertised by a second newsletter and mailed to the
address list that had been updated to add citizens requesting inclusion following the frst
workshop. The sign-in sheet included 53 citizens and 12 local officials. A total of eight written
comments were received during the workshop or mailed/emailed following the workshop. The
purpose of the second workshop was to provide information concerning the potential locations
for grade separations (bridges) to provide safe opportunities for roadway crossings. Maps
showing potential grade separations to be evaluated were available.
Citizens in attendance expressed concern regarding increased disruption to vehicle traffic,
pedestrian safety, property values, and emergency service response time. Of the eight written
comments, two recommend dedication of a new emergency response facility located on the US
29/I-85 side of the tracks to beneft China Grove, Landis, and Rowan County. Two responses
also stated concem regarding the closure of Thom Street and requested that Elm and Thom
remain open until construdion is complete and that improvements be made to adjacent
roadways. [Responses: The proposed crossing improvements were developed in consideration
of local traffc patterns and would provide additional right-of-way to accommodate future bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. As noted in Section 3.3.7, the proposed projed would aid in the
redudion of emergency response times by providing three new grade-separated crossings that
could be utilized when gates at closer at-grade
crossings are adivated (either due to passing or �mrartantPaMs
delayedtrains,maintenancevehicles,etc.).] • ihesecomlcitizen'sinformatiawl
workshop was held in Nwem6erW
2009 aml aHemled by 53 citizens.
4-3

4.5 DIVISION OF AVIATION/ROWAN COUNTY AIRPORT MEETING (December 9, 2009)
The projed team met with representatives of the North Carolina Division of Aviation and the Rowan
County Airport to discuss proposed grade separation options in the Peach Orchard Road vicinity.
The meeting was conduded to ensure that the proposed improvements were consistent with the
airport's future expansion plans which include roadway eMensions.
4.6 ROWAN COUNTY/ROWAN COUNTY AIRPORT MEETING (January 26, 2010)
Following the meeting with the Division of Aviation, coordination was also conduded with Rowan
County management. This purpose of this meeting was to confrm that the proposed
improvements were not only consistent with the airport's future plans, but also with the long-range
transportation plan for Rowan County.
4.7 MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS MEETING (April 6, 2010)
Due to at-grade crossing closures and the proposed grade separation at Peeler Road, a service
road is proposed across the Martin Marietta Materials property adjacent to the NCRR corridor in
this vicinity. A coordination meeting was held between representatives of the projed team and
Martin Marietta Materials to discuss alignment options forthe service road in order to integrate with
future plans for the property to the eutent possible. Input from this meeting was taken into account
in the development of the service road alignment associated with the recommended altemative.
4.8 SMALL GROUP MEETING (March 16, 2010)
In addition to the public meetings described above, the NCDOT Rail Division was also
requested to present information on the projed and the development of alternatives at a
meeting arranged by the Town of Landis and held in the Landis Town Hall. Using the maps that
had been presented at the second Citizen's Informational Workshop, projed team members
d� d th d� t d � d
iscusse e propose improvemen s an receive
input on proposed grade separations and local
roadway connections.
4.9 SMALL GROUP MEETING (March 7, 2011)
A small group meeting was held Monday, March 7,
2011 at the Blackwelder Park Baptist Church. The
meeting was held to provide information to potentially
affected citizens in the vicinity of the 24th Street
4-4
• Coordilwtion meefmgs wcre hNdwith
Ravan CouMyAirport, Ravan County
Management, and the TavnW Lamlis.
. The propased grede sepxa(ion in the
Peeler R oad� Peach Orchxd R oad vic'mity
was coordinatedwith the NC Divisron of
Avialion.
• PoteMial Service Road impacts to the'a
property were discussed witli Matin
MxieltaMaterials.

Bridge. A local offcials meeting was held at the church prior to the meeting. Thirteen local
officials attended the meeting. Following the local officials meeting, the small group meeting was
held in the church's Family Life Center from 5:00 to 7:00 pm. Maps of the 24`" Street Bndge
were displayed and projed team members were available to answer questions. Approximately
72 citizens attended the meeting. Eighteen written comments were received at the workshop.
Five comments asked that Blackwelder Baptist Church maintain right and left hand tums onto
Main Street from the church parking lot. Six comments asked that God's Tabernacle Church not
be relocated. Two comments asked why a crossing at 22ntl Street was not preferable, two
comments were concemed with being relocated by the projed, one comment asked for
continued east-west connectors for improving both sides of Kannapolis, one asked that there be
no more closing of crossings until the bridge is built, and one comment was complementary of
the project saying that it would provide an excellent improvement to the area.
[Responses: Specific details about access for the Blackwelder Baptist Church parking lots will
be evaluated during the fnal design based on safe sight distances and appropriate spacing from
existing driveways and side-streets. God's Tabernacle Church is located in approximately the
center of the segment of Main Street where the grade will be substantially raised. Under this
proposed option, it is not possible to avoid relocation of this property due to the direct impacts of
the earthwork fill and the elimination of access to the property. A crossing at 22ntl Street was
evaluated but required adding approximately 7,000 vehicles per day (traveling between US 29
and Main Street) to low-volume neighborhood streets. The neighborhood impad, anticipated
from this travel pattern change, was the primary reason the 22nd Street option was not
seleded. Additional east-west roadway connectors could be considered in long-range
transportation plans for the area, but are beyond the scope of this railroad project. Project team
members at the meeting noted that the proposed construction phasing is to construct the grade
separations prior to closing any at-grade crossings.]
4.10 SMALL GROUP MEETING (March 22, 2011)
A meeting was held at Lutheran Chapel in China Grove
to discuss impads related to the adjacent track
relocation and second track construction. This meeting
was the first effort toward development of a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) addressing
mitigation strategies in accordance with Section 106 of
4-5
ImpaYdMPanls
• A smaq group meetilg was hekl for
citizens in the vicinily of the 2m^ Street
Grade Sepxa(ion lo discuss potenlial
impacts in thatarea
. Theprojedleammetolrsiteatthe
Lutlieren Chapel to discuss possibk
milAmiza(ron and mitiga(ion options for
impacts to Nxs historicalty eligibk
WoP�Y

the NHPA. Sedions 3.3.9 and 3.12 contain additional information on Sedion 4(f) and Sedion
106 regulations, anticipated impacts, and proposed mitigation.
NCDOT representatives presented likely impads associated with the proposed projed and
potential strategies to mitigate these impacts. Strategies discussed include the construdion of
new parking areas and the potential closure/abandonment of Eudy Road to create additional
space for parking. It was noted that the options were developed to prompt discussion and could
be adjusted or new options developed as part of the process.
It was concluded that church members will review the concept maps and discuss them with
other congregation members and that NCDOT representatives will arrange a follow-up meeting
to further discuss mitigation strategies for the MOA.
4.11 PUBLIC HEARING (Date TBD)
A Public Hearing will be held following approval of this document. The Build Alternative will be
presented as the Recommended Alternative at the hearing. Input received at the hearing will be
described in the anticipated subsequent Finding of No Signifcant Impad (FONSI) document.
ImpaYdMPanls
. A public hex'mg will be conducted
foqowilg approval aml distribulron of
the EA.
4-6

APPENDIX A
COORDINATION

APPENDIX A.1
��K•»i��H��i�a:�

e
,nsrag �
���
�a,..,,m'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
I�EPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVESPERDUE
Gov�vvox
M�MORANDLT1Vi TO:
7une �9, 2009
<dVame»
« Organization»
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
�ROM: Mazc Hamel
Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
NCDOT Rail Division, Environmertal and Planning Branch
S�JBJECT: Start of Study for the Proposed Double Track from Reid (south of
Salisbury) to North Kannapolis along the North Cazolina Railroad
Company (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), in Rowan
County. TIP Project No. P-3414, State WBS No. °,
The North Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division has retained the fixxn
of Stantec Consulting Services Inc. to prepaze a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for a proposed
additional railroad track along the NCRIL/NS line between Reid and North Kannapolis. The
project is identified as Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project No. P-3414.
The purpose of this letter is to provide notification of the start of study and to solicit
comments regarding potential concerns or data within the project study area. Please
submit written comments to Mr. Marc Hamel at the address below by July � 2009. if you
have any questions, please contact Mr. Hamel at 733-7245, extension 270.
The following paragraphs provide a description of the project, the purpose and need for the
proj ect, plus the general chazacteristics and natural resources of the proj ect study area.
Proj ect Description
The proposed project would provide an additional railroad track adjacent to the eacisting railroad
track along the NCRR/NS line between Reid (south of Salisbury) and North Kannapolis. The
proposed unprovements begin approximately half a mile north of Peach Orchazd Road (SR 2359)
and extend to just south of East 22nd Street (SR 1254) in Kannapolis. The project would include
a 10-mile section of second main track replaced on the old roadbed on the west side of the
existing track. The project location is shown in the attached exhibit.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTASION
PROIECT DEVELOPM6NT AND ENVIliONMENTAL ANwLYSIS BRwNCH
1548 MALL SERVICE CENiER
Ra.etctt NC 27699-1>48
TELePHONE: 919-733$14]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE.' WW4V.NCDOZGOV
LOCATION:
�IRANSPORTATIO� BUILDW G
1 $OURi WRNRJGfON $T2EET
RAI.EIGH NC

Double Track from Reid to North Kannapolis along the NCRR/NS Line, Rowan County
TII' Proj ect No. P-3414
Start of Study Letter
Page 2 of 3
Purpose and Need
The proposed project is along the 100-mile rail corridor between Greensboro and Charlotte. This
corridor is one of the most heavily traveled railroads in the state, hosting as many as 40 passenger
and freight trains per day. The comdor is also part of the federally-designated Southeast High
Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor. This section of rail previously contained two tracks, but portions
of the double track were removed in the 1960's as part of a signal system unprovement project.
Since that time, rail traffic has greatly increased and additional capacity is needed.
NCDOT's track improvements within the comdor focus on improving train travel and
minimizing congestion. The proposed project would increase the overall corridor capacity and
improve passenger train schedule reliability by allowing freight and passenger trains to quickly
and efficiently maneuver around each other.
General Characteristics of the Project Study Area
The project study azea is located along 10 miles of the existing NCRR right-of-way between Reid
and North Kannapolis in Rowan County.
Land Use — Land use adjacent to the NCRR corridor is relatively rural in nature, with residential
areas in the small towns of Landis and China Grove.
Natural Resources — The praject lies within the Yadlan-Pee Dee River Basin in'the Lower
Yadldn River Watershed (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040103) (DWQ Subbasin 03-07-04) and
Rocky River Watershed (USGS Hydrologic Unit 0304105) (DWQ Subbasin 03-07-12).
A preliminary review of the USGS topographic quadrangles for the project study area did not
reveal any waterbodies; however, a formal natural resource investigation will be completed
duxing the course of the study.
A review of the National Wetland inventory (NWn mapping inventory did not reveal any
wetlands within the project study area. Foxxnal wetland delineations will be conducted during the
course of the study.
In accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the proj ect study azea will
be evaluated for protected species habitat. The threatened and endangered species listed for
Rowan County include the Bald eagle (Flaliaeetus leucocephalus) which is protected under the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA), the Schweinitz's sunflower classified as
Endangered [E], and the Geora a aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum} classified as a Candidate
species [C]. Federal Species of Concem [FSC] for Rowan County include the Carolina darter
(Etheostaoma collis collis), Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) and the Prairie birdsfoot-
trefoil (Lotus unifoliolatus var helleri).

Double Track from Reid to North Kannapolis along the NCRR/NS Line, Rowan County
TIP Project No. P-3414
Start of Study Letter
Page 3 of 3
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac, Schweinitz's sunflower and Georgia aster may exist along
the railroad corridor and in clear-cut areas. Surveys will be conducted during the plants'
flowering and/or fruiting seasons to identify any species in the project azea.
Archeological and Historic Architectural Properties — A historic azchitecture field survey will
be conducted during the course of the study.
A formal azchaeological investigation is not anticipated; however, NCDOT awaits comments
froiri the Sta�e Z'ii ice of Firc'riaeoiogy regarding tne levei oi invesugation required ior tnis
project.
MH/acs
Attachments
cc: File

APPENDIX A.2
re�� a ��y'LK�]��il��il � �� ��

��A�ar/��
y� ��Y 20. ITj$ ' 1�
� �
� ./
..
�
�r O
� � �
� ~ ^ �
9PR►L l2.1?'16
�� Quna► w�``�
North Carolina De artment of Cultural Resources
p
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
February 4, 2011
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Pope Furr
O ffice o f Human Environment
N CD OT Division o f Highways
#
FROM: Claudia Brown
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Construction of Additional Track from Reid (South of Salisbury) to North
Kannapolis, P-5206, Rowan County, ER 10-1472
We are in receipt of your letter of December 10, 2010, transmitting the December 2010 survey with additional
information from Fearnbach History Services (FHS), for the above proj ect. We appreciate your time and effort
to answer the questions we had about the proposed China Grove Historic District.
We apologize for the delay in our response. Justin Kockritz and Ann Swallow of our office had a meeting
scheduled in Kannapolis for early January, and planned to drive through China Grove to see the proposed
il1StOY1C Cl1StY1Ct 111 erson. Unfortunatel the meetin was ost oned due to winter weather until anua 25th.
p Y� g p p J rY
For the purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
China Grove Historic District is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A
for commerce and industry and Criterion C for architecture. The boundaries for the district proposed by
FHS as opposed to the boundaries proposed by Mattson, Alexander and Associates appear appropriate,
exce�t for the following location:
♦ Four parcels on the east side of Main Street, south of Centerview Street, that are not related to the
historic district and that do not possess a distinctive architectural style. Thus we find that these four
parcels should be excluded from the proposed historic district.
PIN 102 150: concrete masonry unit motel
PIN 102 149: metal automobile repair building
PIN 102 148: metal automobile repair building
PIN 102 147: brick restaurant
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.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Marc Hamel, mhamel ,ncdotgov
Heather Fearnbach, heatherfearnbach(c�bellsouth.net

�
��Y���
North Carolina
Departinent of Administraiion
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Govexnor
August?7,200)
Mr. Marc Hamc!
NCDO'I'
Rail Division
1553 Mail Service Cc�ter
F2aleigh, NC 27699-I �53
B�itt Cobb, Sccretary
Re: SCH File # 10-E-4220-OU27; SCOPING; Proposed additional double track from Reid
(south of 5alisbury) tu North Kannapolis along the north Carolina Raitroad Company.
TIP No. P-3414P, 5tate WBS No. 42647
Dear Mx. Hamel:
'fhe above refecenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Emiromnental Policy Aet. Accoxding to G.S. 113A-10, when a
s[ate agency is required to prepare an environmental document under ehe provisions of federal Iaw, ehe
environmental docume�t meets the provisions of the State Enviro�uneutal Policy Act. Attuched �o tt�is
letter for yo� consideration are the commenLS made by agencies i� the course of this review.
If a�y further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovermnental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesifatc to cell.
Sincerely,
�''�u,�[��c.c "{�7ii.�,'aik.11G�t �,7b1
Valerie W. McMilLan, Director
State Enviionmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region P
Mul(hi� AAAress: Trlr{�hon¢r (919)80I-1V25 LocaOOnAAdm,u-
1301 MailSCrvi¢Cen�er Fa�(9191933�9?91 I16 WaUOncsSUn:�
RalolEh� NC 29699-13J1 $um Cnuricr k51-0I-00 Helelgh, Nonli Carollna
emuilvo/erte�vmonil[an�oa. e
dn Fq�m( OyPa*�wliy'A�nno(me daion En�Vlo1rr

�'��
�
NCDENR
Nor�h Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Bevedy Eaves Petdue
Governor
MEMOAANDiIM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Valerie McMillan
State Cleaiinghouse
Melba McGee �
Environmental Review Cooidinator
Uee Fceeman
Secretary
, ���Y �
^� �
i
�
�� '009 �
�'`....� A C.J�
"f
y
:'(.
10-0027 Scoping, Proposed Nor£olk Southern Railway Tnack fsom,
keid to North Kannapolis in Rowan County
August 26, 2009
I'he Depantment oE Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed pcoject. The attached corzvnents are Eor the applicant's
consideration. Moxe specific comments will be pcovided during the
environmental review process.
Thank you £oc the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation
of the enviconmental tlocument, additional in£oxmation is needed, the
applicant is encoucagetl to noti£y oun respective divisions.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 �nC
Phone: [phone] \ FAX:9�9-7153060 Intemet www.enrstate nc.us NO1rtI1C3YO11IIa
An Equal OppoBUnity lAffirmefive Acllon Employe�-5�°o Recyded \ 1 �Yo Post Consume� Pepe� ������`/�

� l�
� � , ��.
� + ;a ; � �';.� ,�-\
a,
� � i
x.
i
��� - < � .� f • ��. _
°� �� �r � ��. �� �p � ��
-.:��`�`�:.�� � �
.. .. . a°4.,. ,y�. �. .M:,.. .' ._
� North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission �
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Depaztment of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Marla Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator �ja'�d- C�a'"'�'"'
Habitat Conservation Prograzq NCWRC
DATE: August 18, 2009
SUBJECT� Scoping review of NCDOT's proposed double track from Reid (south of
Salisbury) to North Kannapolis along the North Carolina Railroad Company
(NCRR)/Norfolk Southem Railway (NS), Rowan Courty. TiP Project No. P-
3414,P. DENR Project N'o. 10-0027, due 8/19/2009.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting comments from the North
Cazolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish a�d wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biobgists }tave reviewed the information
provided and have the following preliminazy comments. These comments are provided in
aecordance with the provisions oFthe Nafional Environmental Policy Aa (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))
and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Srat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes to build au additional railroad track along a 10-mile section of the
existiog NCRR/NS line between railroad control points "Reid° (south of Salisbury) and "Nort6
Kacmapolis'. The additional track would be built on the former roadbed where a seeond track
was previously located, on the west side of the exisUng track The conidor appeazs to be situated
on a ridge between the Town Creek and Cold Water Creek watersheds to the east and the Grants
Creek and Irish Buffalo Creek watersheds to the west. Town Creek is ou the 303(d) list of
impaired waters. Cold Water and Idsh Buffalo Creeks aze water supply watersheds in the
vicinity of the southem portiou of the project and both bewme 303(d) listed dowustream of
Kannapolis. We recommend enhanced sediment and erosio� control measures to minimize
further degradation of the waterways. In additioq to help facilitate document prepazation and
the review process, our general information needs are outlined below:
Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, includi�g a listing of
federally or state designated threafened, endangered, or special concem species. Potential
borrow azeas to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories. A
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service CeMer • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Te�epnone: (9is)�o�-0220 • Fax: (si9) �o�-oozs

P3414P, NCRR/NS double track
Reid [o N. KannapoGs, Rowan Co. - Z- August IR, 2009
listing of designated plant species can be developed through consultation with the
following programs: _ . � � �.
d , y��1
The Natural Heritage Progam � " �,1�
�r,p
http-//www.ncnhp.org " 7GB -
�: :,
1601 Mail Service Center � ° '.'�
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-7601 � _. - � ' �'-J
and, . -.. :_i.✓.
i
NCDA Plant Conseroation Program
P. O. Box 27647 � ��" "�
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. If applicable, include the
linea� feef of stream that will be channelized or relocated.
i. Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project. Wetland acreage
should i�clude all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result oF
ditching other drainage, or filling for project constmction. Wetland identification may
be accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Atmy Corps of Engi�eers
(USACE). If the USACE is not consulted, the persou delineating wetlands should be
identi6ed and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acrcagc of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed
project. Potential bo=row sites and was[e areas should be included.
5. Show the e�ctent to which the project will result in loss, degradatioq or fragmentation of
wildlife habitat (weYlands or uplands).
6. Include the mitigation plan for avoiding minimizing or compensating for direct wd
indirect degradation in habitat quality as wetl as quantitative losses.
7. Address the overall environmertal effec[s of the project constcuction and quantify the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
8. Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources, which will result from
secondary developmenY, facilitated by the improved road access.
9_ If constmction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, muuicipal, or private
development projects, a descriptioo of these projects shoa7d be included in the
environmental document, and al] project sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for thc opportunity to provide input in the early plannin�; stan�es of this project- lf you
have any questions regardi�g these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Amy Euliss, NCDWQ

���
�CDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division ot Wa�er Quali�y
Beverty Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Govemor �Iredor ,
,�
''� �Dee Freernan
'� � ,�Secretary
��'s :.^79 '_
August 6, 2009 _ �
*oi
Xe• � �
MEMORANDUM
To: Marc EIamel, NCDOT Ru7 Division ,,
Through: Melba McGee, P,nvironmental Coordinafor, Office of I,egislative and Intergovemmental
Affairs
From: Amy L'uliss, NC Division of WaCer Qualiry, Office
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to the railroad track from Reid (south of
Salisbury) W North Kannapolfs along t6e Norfh Cazolma Railroad Company (NCRRpNOrforlk
Southem Railway (NS) fn Rowan Counry, StzteProjectNo. WBS No.42647, TIP No. P3414P.
Reference your cortespondence dated July 20, 2009 in wbich you requested comments for the referenced
projeot. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potenfial for multiple impacts to pere�nial strexms
and jirzisdicdonal wefland6 in the projeof area. More speci5cally, impacts to:
Further inves[igarions at a higher resolulion should be undertaken tio verSfy the presence of oTher streams
and/or jurisdicfional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdicfional azeu ue identified, the
DivSSion of Water Quality requests thaf NCDOT consider it�e following environmental issues for The
proposed projeet:
Projeet Specif5c Comments:
Town Creek and its unnamed tlibutaries aze class C; 303(d) waters of the State. Town Creek is
on tt�e 303(d) Gst for impaired use for aquaoc life due to urban runoff and storm sewecs.
NCDWQ is very wncemed wifh sediment and erosSon impacis that could result 4om [his
project VCDWQ mcommends thaY Che most pmfec4ve sediment and erosion control BMPs be
implemented in accordance witt� Derlgn Standards in Settsitive Wotersheds to reduce Tk�e nsk of
nutrient mnoff to Town CYcek. NCDWQ requesis [hatroad desibm plans provSde heatment of the
storm vra.ter mnoff through bes[ managemenTpractices as de7ailed in fhe most recent version of
NCDWQ's .Stormwruer Best Man¢gement Pracrices.
Trdnsportation PermiNng Unit DiiZ
1650 Mal Service Gen[er, Ralelgh, Nonh Camline 2]6894650 NOIt110ERO�lIld
Location'. 2321 Grebiree 91vtl., Ralelqh, NoM Carollne 2)60d �Ypf�p�Y//
Phone 913]339861 FAX'.9�9-9336893 KZIZLi2{{�
In@met:http//h2oenostate.nc.uslndvetlands/
An Equal OpPOtlumlyl A��ma(rve Aqion Employer

General Project Comments:
2. The environmental document shall provide a detailed and itemized prese�tafion of the proposed
impacts to weilands and sfreams with eonesponding mapping. If mingation fs necessary as
rryuired by 15A VCAC 21d.0506(h), ft is preferable to presen[ a conceptual (if nof finalfzed)
mitigation plan wfth tUe en��ronmental documenCation. 3ppropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 WaTer QualCty Certification.
3. Environmental aseessmenl altcmatives shall oonsider desi�m crileria diuT redvice the impaots Co
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These altemat�ves shall include road designs that
allow for heatment of Yhe storm water mnoff through best menagement pracrices as detailed in
Ihe most reeent version of NCUWQ Stm�mwater- BestManagemen( Praetices, suc6 as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformcd scour holu, retention basins, etc.
4. After the seleclion of the preferred altema[ive and pnor lo an issuence of the 401 W ater Qualiry
Certification, NCDO'P is res�ectfully reminded that they will need ro demonstrate the avoidanoe
and minfmization of impacts To wetlands (and slreams) m the maximum extent practieal. In
accordancc with the Cnvironmental Managcment Commission's Rules {15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitlgation will berequfred Lor impaets o�Fbrzeater lhzn 1 acre to wetlands. In the
evenf that mStigaCion is requfred, the mi5ge4on plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost
Punce�ons and values. The N C Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland miPigation.
5. In accordanoe wfYh the Lnvironmental Mana�*ement Commissiods Rules {15A NCAC
2H.0506(f�)}, mitigation wll be required for fmpacts of greater than 1501inear feet W any single
perennial strcam. In the event that mili�allon is requSred, fhe mCtigation plan shall be desi�,med lo
replace appropriatc lost functio�s and valucs. The NC Ecosystem Lnhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mi4gation.
6. NCDWQ is very concemed with sediment and crosion impacts that could result ftom this
project NCDOT shall address tk�esc conccens by describing the potential impacfs that may occur
to the aquatic environments and any mftigating facfors ihal would reduce theimpacts.
7. if a bridgc is being mplaced with a hydraulic convcyance oTher than xnofher bridge, NCD W Q
believes the use of a b'afionwidc Pemrit meybe �equired. Please contact the US Army Corp oF
En�ineers m defirmine the required permit(s).
8. If Ihe old bridge Ss removed, no discharge of bridge materiel into surface waCers is allowed
unless oYherwise authorS�zd by the US ACOl. Strict adhercnce fo the Corps of �ngineers
guidelines for bridge demoliNon wil7 be a condirion o£the A01 Water QualiTy CefificaYion.
9. Whenever possible, NCDWQ p�efers spanning sh-ucmres. Spanning strucNres usually do not
requiro work witlrin the sveam or giubb5ng of tk�e streambanks and do not require sfream channel
realfbmmenL 1 he horiwntal and verpcal clea�ances provided by bridges shall allow Tbr human
and w�dlife passage bcnea[h the shucture. Pish passage and navieation by canoeists and boaters
shall notbe blocked. Bddge supports (benb) shall not be placed in the stream whcn possible.
10. Bridge deck drains shall not diseh�ge dGecTly foto lhe sneam_ Sformwarer shall be directed
across fhe bridge and pre-trea[ed Ilvough site-appropriate means (grasscd swales, pre-formed
scour holes, vegeta[ed buffers, etc.) before entenng 4�e slream. I'lease refer to the most cusent
version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Pr¢ctices.

1 L I{concreTe is used dunng construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct
contact between cunog concrete arid stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
conerete shall not be diseharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic 1Sfe and fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours aze constructed, ttic sCte shall be graded to fLs
preconstruofion contows and elevatio�s. Dfsturbed areas shall be seeded or mulehed to sfabitiae
the soil and appropriate nauve woody species should be planted. When using temporary
sh-uctures [he area shall be cleued but not grubbed. Clearing the azea with chain saws, mowers,
bush-hogs, or oikier mechanized equipme�t and leaving fhe sNmps and root mai infaci allows ihe
area fo re-vegefate namrally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placemeot of cu7verts and other structures in waters; streams; and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the sireambed by one foot for all culverts wfth a dfameter greater than 48 S�ches, and�
30 percent oP the eulvert diame[er foi culveRS having a diameter less Than 48 inches, to allow
low f.ow passage oPwat��r and aquatic life. Desi�n and placement of culvens and other
structwes incl�ding temporary erosion eontro] measures sLall noY be conducted in a manner that
may result in dis-equilibrium of wedands or streambeds or banks, adjaoent to or upstream and
down stream oF the above structuru. The applican[ is required to provide evidence that the
equilibrium is being maSntafned if requested in wnting by NCDWQ. Lf this' co�dition [s unable
W be met due to bedrock or other limiling featises encountercd during construcrion, Please
contact NCDWQ for gufdarice on how to proceed and W determine whether or not a pettnit
modification will berequired.
14. If muldple pipes or barrels are required, fhey shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation, floodplain
benches, and/or sills may be required where appropdate. W fdening the streem channel shall be
avoided. Stream channel wfdenfng at theinlet or outlet end of snuctures typically decreases
water velocity causing sedSment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupis
aquat�c life pas'sage.
1 i. If foundallon test bori�gs aze necessazy; it should be noCed in the documcnt. Geotechnical work
is appmved under General 401 CerUfication Number 3624�aGomvideP�rmit No. 6 for Survey
Ac6vfties.
16. Sedime�t a�d erosion wntrol mensures sufficient to protecT waier resouroes musY be
implemented and mainEamed in accordance with tt�e most recenP version of Norih Carolina
Sediment and Erosfon Conh�ol Plannina and Design Manual and Yhe mostrewnl version of
NCS0002�0.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be oonduc[ed in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NCDWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most currenP vcrsion of NCDOT
Conslruction and Maintenance Acfivities manual such as sandbegs, rockberms, cofferdams and
other drversion shvctures should be used To prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. SedimenT and ecosion confrol measures shall not be placed in weilands and streams.
19. Boirow/waste areas shall avoid weUands to the maximum exte�t pracficaL Impacis to wetlands
in boirow/waste areas oould precipii-ate compensawry mitlgation.

20. While ihe usc of National WeBand Inve�tory (NWI) maps, NC Coas[al Rey*ion Fvaluation of
Wctland SignSficance (NGCRPWS) maps and soil survey m&ps are useful tools, their inherent
fnaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations pxior to peimSt
approval.
21. fieavy equipment shall be operated from Lhc bank ra$�er than in stream channels i� order to
minimiu sedimen[ation and reduce the lfkelShood of fntroducin° other pollutants i�to sireams.
ThSs equipment shall be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contaminadon of surface
waters from leahing fucls, lubiicants, hydraulic Iluids, or otlier koxic maSerials.
22. In most eases, NCD W Q prefers the replaceme�t of the extsting strucmre a[ the same location
with:oad clos�ac. If road closure fs noe feasible, a temporary detoar should be desSgned and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearino end to avofd desTabilSzSng
sfream banks. If the structwe will be on a oew alibmment, the old structure shall be removed and
the approach fills removed from the 100 year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed and
resfored to the naNral o ound elevation. The area shall be stabilized with grass and planted wfth
native free species. Tall tescue shall noY be used in rfparian areas.
23. Riprap shall not be placed 'm the active fhalweg channel or placed in the streambed Sn a manner
that pmcludes aquatic ]ife passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sizcd and installed.
Thank you for requcsting our input at this tima NCDOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Czrfification requires [haf approprfate measures be instituted ro ensure tt�a[ water qualiry
s[andards are me[ and designated uses are not degraded or lost If you have any questiuns or require
additional informaTion, please contact Amy Eul[ss at [phone].
ec: Jobn Thomas, US Army Corps of Bngineers, Ralefgh Field Of'fice
� Kathy Matthews/Chris MiliTSChec, tinvironmenfal Pmfeerion Agency (elechonic copy only)
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commis'sion (elec[ronic copy only)
Wetlands/401 Transportatfon Group
Fle Copy

Depar[mentofEnvironme�[andNaturalResources �e,,;e�.,;,,bpR,tt, [ �FYI,°'f'�"��/
'� C
INrERGOVF.RNMENTALREVIEW—PROJECTCOMNIFNTS r�o)�N�moa���`�/' C��o�:�Am: /S �
P.ficrreviewoCchisp juu�hesbs:ntle¢m.inetl�ha�theB.�'R?a:mir(a)acd/orap�evalSlntlicaetlmsyneedabeobmimGlno�dufa�hisprojenfocomptywithNOrth
CnrolinalswQues� . dingiheseve�eni¢sM1OUldbee3dmssed:omaRegiunalOflm=_indlca�e�on�hereverseofrtieCOrm.AGapphmtioni.lnfunnauonand�uitltl3oes
relavive:o Nesz pl��s end pennits arc aveilable (mm Rie sune Regionel OtTe.
PEftMITS
Pel miltcocormrvn&opeamwancwarertma[ment
❑ � faciilnes, sewe: sysrcm=emrsimu &.cewcr syrtems
I m� tlizcharg�ng [n:o sn¢,urfecs wmes
NPDFS -permi� �o tllschar3e4nm sm(ace wnter eaNO�
❑ pennitmopermnnticonsttuccw:u�e.warev(acillnes
tllscM1eegi�g'moosuresu�2ccwamrs_ .
-,� waie�UsePcrmio
❑ WcIlComauctionPermit
� Drtlgexnd�
Penni� m wnswn3 opuaR Air Potiutlov Abetrmmt
�I �ECi1l�iesenNmEmisSionSou�¢sazperlSAr'GC
i(2Q OI00 dvu 2Q OJOOj
Permi� m meswu R upevate Tmnspormuon Facdiej a
G oerISAFCAC(2D-O80q2Q060t)
� Anv open bumingasiocia�ed wicM1 su6jecoF�oposal
mirh-S .am,lienr.vithtSANCAC2D1900
DunaL[ioo ooreoo �io�u o.`s:maures canuinin,q
azSesms marennl mus!be in mmpllance wih 15 A
� NCACID.]I10(e)(I)wM1�L�mqr.irunovfrntionantl
ovel rnaorm de�nolltion. Cmma Flsbesros Convoi
roup 91R"I WS950.
SPLCIAL AVPLICASION PROCFAURES or REQURtEM6�TS
in 90 tlays bcfore begin ronsw<tion or awa�d of cons�mciion
pn-xia !�svz������ ���apoliceiion cechnical conle�ence usual.
. oni80L'<ysbefoabegioacti�iry.Omsi2lnspuuon.Preappilra:ion
ual. n.atliHOnal ly, ovmio p:r.nit m mnsvva uzsawaou
nt Gcil Iry-grenwA aCmr NPDES. Re.�ly ume, 30 Ley.c afmr mceipt oF
o� Issue ofNPDES peemit-uA;icAevw Is law.r.
P¢�apo:lcauon mcM1nital conteance usualll neressery
Comple¢ eppllcvtioo m�s�be iecxivetl eed permii ismetl prior m the
nnallaiion oi a well.
Applicacion wpY must be served o� ea<h aLjacen[ npanon pmperty owmo.
Onula �nspecuon Poo-eppllcation con[erenm umal. Filling mny a�otre
F sennnt m iiL tom NA. Department o(Adminls�re[ion and Federnl
�retlge aad Fill Ycrmi[
Appllranon m�.�si be z�bmmeA a�d pzrmi�aceiveG poior m
mvnction nnd operavoo oi�h<vou¢e. I`a puni! �� reqnlred In an
ara withwt local zonieg, thm [here ea xddltionel mquiremen¢ and
AppLCevion must be submit¢d at least 90 deys prior to convwaion or
modifcazion o(ihe saurce
�/A
�� �Complev $o�nu Pcrmic ¢oolred vntler IS A NCA�
3QOBG0
The SeEimenntion PolWVOn Conirul An o`19D mua be propeAy addres�c� Por sny tantl tlim�Nm6 acu��ry. Ao emsia� &
� saeimentz�loacJnvalplznwipbereµolrcalfooeo�mo¢amsbheduw�bM.Ple�(iletlwiG;propuRegiovelO�Tice(I.indQualiry
Semon)A�.IeasUOdeysbvJOmheginnmgxmv�ry-Akeoi$��im�M1Cfirnecveora�ypartofanave. Anexprvssa�iewop�onls
veilebte wP!: addiuonal ies.
Sedim:n�etionantlerosionconvolmustbea�deusetlmaav�tlancew2M1NCDOS'seq�mvedOmgram. Partiwlera¢mtionfioidtlSCgivenm
dui3n ana ns�ellueon of aopropna¢ perune'sr seeimm� rtepping dev!¢s m' well u steble smrmwn�ev covveyencrs sna outle6
� Oo-s¢e inspe<tioo usual. Sur¢ry bo�d Gled witM1 [NR Aond amwn[ woies
❑ MlningPe�mu ��o���a�.-amusbembaofa�cr�so�aR.umtl�a"�.dmustbemcePoetl�
permu¢ ° pP�eGnavuon
betove �he Oertnl[ cvi be issual.
❑ INOnbCamlina6umingpc�mii
��w�u�c�w¢,CI eH �4� It.22
ni s�� b1�.C.w1.a ncs I!s
❑ poRerm�,Fe,�a.�
Noma� Pmms; Time
(Fmtmory nme limrt)
ao aars
(90 dais)
90�IR0 tlays
IN/A)
]0 days
(N/d)
t iays
QS Da)'s)
55 days
(90 drys)
90 days
9G Oays
60 tlays
(90 days)
zo a3r,
(30 Gays)
� (�oanys�
30�ays
(60 dnys)
Omsiieinspection by N C. Divisim Fores�Resourcea li penni� uceedtd days � 1 Gvy
(NIA)
_ � p i byNCD � .aRS q � "'dmoaWan � ,�ry
�p tl cle e" c lo I d 1 p 1 155YOO�d b¢ (wq�
estetl ntleas� wn days Sefore awa. b�m I5 planned
N/h
YO-I20deys
(N/4)
� �I.p t 4'opl �y' febg V[o Appl nt �
u M1 ➢C.9 I(.v t�p. ePl V.� [ .
ertv t[ .. a FAR� o Cpl .M I q e
DamSac �ermi: 4� � ���' 4� QOa0. tC C rp C 30dxys
❑ n' Gn� +� cmin f sservw H aG� S[ �on 4 (6oea;s7
m mlceofffiOOOOmusteaomceaytneeppLmion.AnzCdLOnz.
�o., _ bnsWp� � _tzgeor�he�WlpraleccoptwJlbCmeci�e0

Normal Pmucxs Tlme
-- (s�s:urory tine Iim�Q
P[R�GTS SCE^_lAL APPIIC/+IIOF PROCEDURFS or I'uQUIRLMLNSS
FilesurtryboMofS5,000wiAENRmnr.NgmSTat.ofNQondioonal�M1a[ �penys
❑ PemiivmtlrillecoloaNryoiloreeswcll Ilope�dbydnllopernwothnll,uponabanaonmantbeplc�gc� N�q
� ' S� fTRml d g I�mti. �
[]GepM1Y��taIE;Plo�onPCOmlt �PP � CldwlvhElvHtl �IOda P .a��'sueofperm:t � IOdxYs
� 4ppl b ISCO 4[ C' tl pplic � f m NIA
AppL:.anonfeasbxsedo�strvcwres IscPareeL.MUStindutledeclpdons �530tley5
❑ S�ateLekesCOVZttuctionPermi[ �ffidvewingsofvmcwa&000fo(ownershlpo[nparien wq
��p— � beday,
❑ 401 Wa[uQualityCercilz[ion �� NIA (IiOdavs7
li CAMAPermi�forMNORtlevelopmrnc 52500�(zmustawmnoenyaopf;ceiion SSdeyz
(i50 tlays)
❑ UMAPennitPorM.IN02davclopmcn[ 55000fxmustaccqmpanyappliatiuv �days
tss aay��
'�SCVeralgudeeicmonumu¢xmlorevGlnornear[M1epmjeci e�i(anymo m.ntneeds�obemovedordavweQpleazemuly:
(� N.C�Geod,^tic Survey, Box ➢bN9 Releigty NC 1�611
❑ AbEnEOmmcn[o[anywe115,1(aquireLmu9[bunecmrdancevnNTetleI5A.5obchapttr2C0100.
❑ No�ificauo�ofvhepmpera&�onaloF¢elsrequesrelif'b�DM1an"wdergmwdsa�agetenks(OSTS)arediseovaatldun�ganyexcawuonoD+���on.
45 Cavs
❑ Complianwwid�tSANCAC2H1000(COesulSmmwa¢rRulu)ixmquiad �N���
❑ l'arPemlicoorNeuseRipeoianBnReoR�lesaquimd" ' �
OtLev cummenrs (nwch eLainonal peges 3s nmusary, bzingcercein io cia commenv eutM1Oriry)
,�3� - C�;-k k �-,.ti.,� ��, 6��,„,y �� 1�.� �a ,,� � �,.� . �f �,re.� �1��/�v
DL�"sl — n)u C.�� S.(.� �;51 5 y �
�� c�.+�:s-x.! {�a1�:Tian �n.<�t�t+�'�s ��..
flPi _ s��.f,1ei+ elv�k.�J.-1��� w�r d�.,.� �'• :4ifif' S
e�,�- P.-��r��� c�w�.e.0 n,��-e:,F �.rxt
� �r
�
�` tio� ,
,k�a� *�€:'w�'
REGIONAL OFFICES � '-`� _
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to 2he Re�ional Office mW kad'�eTow.
❑ AshevilleRe�ional Of6ce �'MooresvilleRegional Office � Wilmington Regional O[fice
2090 US }iighway 70 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 727 Cardinal Drive Extensio�
Swannanoa, NC 28778 Mooresville, NC 28ll 5 Wi7mington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone] � [phone]
f] Fayetievillo Regional OKc¢ ❑ Raleig6 Regional O(fice �� Winstnn-Salem Repional O[fice
225 NorCh Grcen Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett D;ive, Suite ]01 S8i Waughtown Street
FayetteviLle,NC28301-SOA3 Raleigh,NC27609 Winsro�-Salem,NC27107
[phone] [phone] (33� 77]-�000
❑ R'ashin�ton Regional Office
943 Washington SquareMall
Washl�gtoq NC27889
[phone]

COUNTY: RON.AN
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOU
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
FO5: RT.i'.RCAI:6
MS SHIRLF,Y P01'E
CLEP1t1NGH0U5£ CWhDiNF?".'OR
DLPT OF TAAN5?Od9_9'I-.ON
STA.EWSD�; PLANNING - M3C "i559
R,^.�I;IGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIHUPION
CCSPS - DIV OF ENhR6GNCY 1'�bACFM�NT
ce�,vT�4�l�� coe
DGNR .,EGI3Y�A7'1VE PS?'AIRS
DEPT (.F ,GRTCOI.1[,RF
D°PT Jb COLTORAL RES003C�:5
DEPT 0 TRANSPOk77T'_ON
PROJECT INFOAMATION
APPL_CHNT: NCDOS
yy;=�;: Vatio�al Envi;onmer�.ta,l 2ol�i.ry Act
Scopina
STATE NIIM6ER: 10-G-E720-0O27
DATE RECEIVED: 0�/22/2009
AGENCY RESPONSE: 06/19/2Q09
REVIEW CLOSED: 08/29/2009
� ���
1 ` �FiC� �
��� Og rr
oi
�:i
S� l i ,,� 4� ��`�
DBSC: Pr000sed atlditio�ial doub]e tl'ack from Reid (souLh of Salisb�aryl �o North
Ka�naoolis alony the North Caiolina Rallroad Company. T-P Vo. P-39i9P, SCato W35
No. 926C�7 - includes improvements to begi.n appsox. half a mii.e norLh o#. Peach
Orchazd Road (SH 2359) and extend to sonYh of Last 22nd Street (SR ]2547 in
KannapVlis
'1'he �Lk��hetl peoje;[ has beea subtvittetl f,o the N. C. State G easinyho[se ior
inLergwernmer.tal review. Please raview a�d submit your responsc by the �bove
indi.caCec Uate to 7.301 Mai1 Serv3ce Center, Ra'_eigh NC 27699-1301.
i_` addieiona] revi^.w :ir�e i.s
�5 A 2F5�L9` OP Tlll
STGN:D BY:
¢sse cor_tacc this o£_°3ce at [phone].
I3 3U3M1"."iP�C: � NO COMM6'.NT �
1 /N () ��l'L
�,1...�.'nCHF.�
7—;3c�— ��
/ "'-\
,(��1
�I� � � '.�,w� ". . . �.
V , �
i�: . �.e_,:':;`. 1
�,� ��:i
y�
�ti�
, �Lti

���'��
STA"Cli OF NOR'IT3 CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATTON
BfVYRLY EAVESPEftDUL'
(iOVF.M`OR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
J�ly 3Q 2009
Ms. Chrys Bagget�t, llirecCOr
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administratio�
Linda Dosse, P.E.
Planning Enginee�
Traosportation Pl�nning Branch
Clearinghousel0-H-4220-0027
Euceivr A Conm, Ja.
SGfRETMY
. .........
�;� ���� '_�a
�., � °ps
�v' K ��
_ \t,
i>. ✓
� ., �ti ,
�,„
The subject NCRIUNS raiL Ilne runs through [he Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitao Planning Acea
There are sevecal recommended improve�nents on the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO long-rangc
transportation plan within the project azea.
Among them are:
RS-0309A Grade separation and Extension of Kimball Road to Bostian Rd i� China Grove and
Landis to I-85
U-4416 Orade Separation at Kice St in Landis
SF-4909A Coushvct right mm lane at US 29 a�d Peach Orchazd Road in Salisbury
NC 7 52 Bypass nocth of Chinu Grove across US 29, tbe railroad tracks, a�d i-85
Aiiport Pkwy Extcnsion to I'each Orcha�d Rd in Salisbury
22vd St Grade Separation in Kan�apoLis
These recommendations should bc considered in any improvements to the rxi] coiridor.
MAILING AD�RESS: LOCATION:
NcoeaaA.meN:orTnnrvsvoA*n.orv ��.,�„�,�.;yi.�-��'�� Tr+nrvsPOa.�ro�BUn.owe
TPNNSPOFTnTiONPLqrvNINGBPPNGH _�-�� � �. � „ �SOV�HWILIAINO(ONSYPEEf
15i4MaiL6cvioeCemlCa ������"-.�.����_��.��.����.� Rntec,rv.NC9801
Rn�eici�NC 9699-t556 hlf0/�nc�otorg/OOh/preconstmctttpN phone:9�9-]33-6]a5
.-v.:9�41332Ai]

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF AI)MINISTRATION
� INTERGOVF.RNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: ROWAID FO5:RAILftOADS BTATE NUMH£A: 10-E-4220-0029
i � DATE RECEIVED: 67/27/2009
, °�' AOENCY RESPONSE: ON/]9/2009
ji�` REVIEW CLOSED: OB/?_9/2009
.., n... �::.Ak
MS dk.�NE:E Gi�'DFIII.L-i'd1RLFY � � -- �� .
CL�.IF'N;HO[15E �_WRi>IIVnT�:i °�s7�'t;����}r�;`/Fn.,;;�tn.1^,�..
DGP'P OF CCLTORAL iiF.S00RCCS � '
,°FTi. HISTORIC DaF ?R�v'L10N �JFE7CE . .
i?SC 46P - A3CHi �ES dOILD:0..., �"� � a���3
aALtic� �c , ' �,.n ;•"� 5
REVIEW DISTRIHUTION �' P'
FF-- ?� � \3°� �
C':n--S - DIV OF ELE2;BVCY llANAGF.M6NT �i�V y��g
CENTRALINA W6 .
DFlNR LEGTSLA'PIVE 9FFA1R5 � - .
Di,:PT OP 9GRICULTORF .. 5_� YJO? '�'O'�� �¢�
i
DSPT JF' CJ]!CORF1, RE300RCGS ��� � ($1...
DLF'L OF 'PRANS30RTATION - 4;
PROJECT INFORMATION � -� aj.�- (i'N.rPP U''�`
112PLIGAN7' NC!JOT �t SII'�IdS ���`'���
Typg: Nztiona7. 8nvixonm�nCal Po'_icy Act '1
Sco i.n p��) N G..low v�si
F 9
a.� T3t�si
D'cSQ rroposed addiLionel oi�ie `_���-4, f.*om R il 'vou�,:� �f .�1!sbi ��o tier:.Y�. �z�pp
Kannaooli a'_ong tYF C-�YCh Ca_ol'.ia Railc�aa Comp�ry. I'ZP Co b419P a4� WI35 ��
No. 92657 inClude� improvemerts to begi�i ap�rcx a]" a T le n_h o Pc _Y�.
O_chard Road (S3 23h9) and exte�d to soutn of East 22nd St_eet (SR 1259) i.e
Kao�apolis
'1'he atlached oroject Yids beer� submitted to the �. C. BLaTe Clear'_nghouse for
--nter9overm�entai review. Pl.oase review and submi.t ycu° rosponse 6y the anove
inaicated date to �.301 Mail Service enLer, Ra vigh NC 2,6.9-].301.
Ir addiLOnal review time is n�eded, p'ease contact tY�.is o£F3ce at !a19;D07-2�925. �
I��TT
Z�S A RESUST OP T_�115 Rk:V1EW T}�g pOI.LOWIN6 `5 SOBMITTED: � NO COMMEN'P � COMMF�1'CS —'_._.^'.'�J
,��v.� �Y: (�,.,, 1�- �„�:� �•�3•ag
�.�co� �.e��cCa i� /IPE. /�_c�n�...��cd a�uE�:/�f�c��tr� .
�:nz��,r��-,���Eu
Ju� 2 7 zaas

FlGH�IV�,L!
�� AUG 0 4 ��D�
���
NCDOT RAIL DIVISIpN
North Carolina Department of Enviranment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUB3ECT:
7uly 31, 2009
Marc Hamel, NC L�OT Rail Division, Environmental and Pianning Branch
Harry LeGrand,�Natural Heritage Program
Start of Study — Proposed Double Track from Reid (south of Salisbury) to North
Kannapolis); Rowan County
REFERENCE: TIP ProjectNo. P-3414P, State WBS No. 42647
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within 0.5-mile of the proj ect area.
Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not
necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use af Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
proj ect area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priozity natural
areas.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us Np'��Z C���-�Ir.ina
An Equal Opportunily 1 Aifirmafive Aclion Employer— 50°k Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper �/T'�! /7�/Y/ /Jf
GL YlL �LLbs�

APPENDIX A.3
��re���:i��t•�:��y�:���a:�ve���•���•»��yxK•����a:�:�a��ya

>
Federal Aid #:
TIP#: P-5206
Count��: Rowan
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFRECTS
Project Descf•iption: Construetion of additional track froin Reid to North Kannapolis
On March 8, 2011 and April 5, 2011, representatives of the
r.t'�t� North (�'arn1i712 Tlp,��,�t�,�a»f �'r«,,....�_ • .r...,-.,,,-...
r••� tiz. �,x � rc«e��viiuiivtl (ivt,liv t)
� Federal RaiI Administration (FRA}
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
❑ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed on the effects findings listed wi[hin the table on the
reverse of this signature page.
Sigi�ed:
� � . �- . � - -.r
Representative, HPO
_n �...-v Y u iQ�.X.i,�l_ 1lY "
State Historic Preservation Offieer
Date
Date
C

�
�
c
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
N
�
d,
�
Q
a
�
�
�
. � �
� �� ��
_ �� �
� � @�
� �a
� � �- ,
•.,
L.
� � �
�
•,� �/ —
� (Y LS � , �
�
N ��
C Q �
� �� �
d
�
M- � M-p�
L �
.,.. �.�.
t/1 '... �.. � .� �
� �
� Iw �
v�
V � �
o > `� � �
L. o ;
� � ��/� 1
-- • � � � � v' � �
>
�
c�
c
�
�
=
d
rn
c
�
v
�
W
.
!
�
ti -
� �
�
�
�.
� Q
�a `'
c °;
R �
� C �
o" a° ¢
a '" ' �
� �
� U
�
.�
y
.�
�, �
�� o
z �
� .o
� �
� �
�
o �
� ��
� v
b �
� ��
�aQ'
CJ
��� -�
-. �
s -�
.� � '� -
'��'� 3 ��..
�
� �
c5 � ,��o Z�
� i � � � � �
7 j .
, . �
� � � � -
�� �.,
�� � `
� � �.
� ��
� ��
� � C� a
30�.� d,�
� � N +6
� � �
�� �
� � 'Q � �
.S1 �
� J` v u
�.� Q- �
�n -.. ..
� 3 0 . � �► �
� � � � �/ �i..
0� '
�
�o
��
�
.�
u
w
Q
a�
A.
�
�
U
�
�.
�
.�
�U
�
Q
2
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
c -1
� v
� �
C
ti �,
�v
c w
� Q
�
�
Q
2
� �
�� .�
�
��
w
° l�
U ��
> `�
o �j
v �
� ��
U x Q
c� O
��
•� �
7
O
�
g�
V�
�
O �
... �
�
�.�
��
� �
9�
' � .
�
�
I.�
�
Q
o �
� �
x d
� �
� '�
�, v
:.� W
U �
0
a
x
�
w
�
b
a
u
z
-ci
�
.�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
:�
�
�
a
a
.�
v
�
�
c�,
on
3
w
�
�
w
tr,
�
:�
.�
�
r
�
G
.�
�
cC
.�
y
�
�
�
��
w
W
�
�
�
�
>
�
¢
w
0
ro
U
��
�
� ��
��� �
��
�

0
:�`edernl �4'iil:#' T�P �# P-3�#a;4P : Gv:i�.r�zy: R�tiv�i,.
�'t'r��ecE>i'3escri�tio�s:: .�ro:�.4s�ii:�o�skt't�e.tion af.Adcli�i.a��l�:�'�xct�, k:eirl (�aiitlY of�aXisbury� Eo'Ntirtii I�a�tn�a:j�olis.
. ...... .. .
Ott22.p�ece:nFitie:r �Oi�9ix�pxesei��ati�es:il:ftiZ�
':.. �. .
1�Ti�rth: �ar�lma bep:arti�,e�it of Tx.a�spaz.fatiQn: (�FGl7QT):
� � Fed�a'aI `Hi�Iiixay.�dmzni�rration �Fi3�.P;`j.
�� I�icirtt� �arci[ir�a �2at�H'istori�;I.'z�es:ervafion�Offce::��Ii?C�).
:;
., : :: . �
O#h�.r,:s Mattsou, Alexander;. a�d Assocr�:t�s.
�te:view�d:tti� suY�je�L:pisaject �C histajtiC. ai'clluteGtiara�;reso.u;ices.:,photogta��i rey���r• se,ssi:o�ifcozii�u;lfat�on: and'.
t�_t� �iaities pre'seiit' a�r�:e.ct
[� Ttrer.�:are:no::pco��rti�s:over:fi:fty�eaxsoidvaiiiiiixtlie;prajecf's.Area.of�.otentiialfi:f%�ts;�A2?L}:
. . . . , , . .
FheFe��:are:no: .rc� erhes.'kess:tkralz f . .. . ,
,
P A Y�ax's oid; w�teh a#'e: et��sxd'.eied to rzt�£t`Gr•tfez`�a' Gb.nside�'aficin�f'J tivittun zhe:
pxo}e�Ys.t1PE'.
:� 'T'�ere;ate.prapert��s oy.er�iifty years:4lr� wit:kl�zk #�e �r.o,j.e��':&t1PE but : c,�cI;Q� tJi�.�istqx.i��[.irifox�i'a[iori �vai7a�ile
a�d tha photo�rapk� �f Eac� prp:A��Ys.:t� prap�rtzes a.deti�i�ei� a5i'�� �'�`��j �i'� :EOrtsiii�Y�d n�.f �ligii�I"e. fi�r
tti� N��o.�a� �egistez �z�ci �o �ii�fb,er �vA:luatiQn.o€.Ch�tn ;i's: neces�a, <,, Fho.tograghs. of th�se. �rogerti'.es ar� a#:ta�hed.
.. .� ,: : : �7� �:': ra� �1�.�: .r��- ��.
.. �
:� :..
. ;.:.. .
� Ther��a�e:ns�'I�T:atipria:l.Kegcsfer.-�isieii:or.�'fudyl:is€e:clprapeartEeS�w:kttxin;[�e:pcax:ect'�.�E:
�
�.�
�ig��d;
;f1;I.1 p;zqpercie�: g'r:eater>tT��n..:�{3 .�ear�:�F:a�ge lo.eate:cl:i�: the•�':E haue. �aeeil cc3:�skii.e�e.d at;this c:c�nst�itati'on; xnii�ias.e.�.
..
..�+ti the �b4v� nc ....... .... : . , , . . .. . . .
. ... • ... . ... ,.
. , .
.
�a...: ;; .: ::.::::.::::: ��?;.: 'u�°eztce;, �.: Gcxm�i x�nce, f�r lat"s;t<nxG azckutec�srey�i:th Sectiiat� 1t��.oftlxe:I�aiiz�rtal. �isi�rie:
�'r�serizatio� �.�z:a�� G� � � i � � (a� ��s ���eFl �ez:igLe*�� .��x tl�s, pxo� .;t. ' •.
.. ;
. ,. �--�--�-
, . .. .. ... .:
..
:
lY�ore.:t'i3f�rinatii�n 'i.s:Fequ:este� :o:[i.pxopertic� '. . : :.� . : . . ,. ..: . .: �'�"' �':'� " ,�>�y`� -� j (.:Q
. . 1..
--
�HV��.tart3s�'Di�isicin:.Aiiiraiiiistt�aCt#r, ��-aCtier:Fedei'a1 Age##�' Q�:te:
I��pr�sei�Cative., HI?(� Datc .
:..
: , �
���
, . . ;.
. '�
j � .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .�:;-s . � .^'i. . •.+!�.qt
•:PxeseiEValipn :Z?�'�ce�
If8 surv.ey repoct is gr�paeed; a G'r�al copx of�ttii� fosm xntl ttiG:ati(aeheel:l��t vril( b@ iit;cludcd:;

�/�
RECEIVED
JAN 2 7 2010
NCI)Q�I' {�LI. DiVSSION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
���
e��•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
December 7, 2009
-::_ i i
Gc' � �`y-'
� o � ��.:
HIS'fC,��.., �_`:�;;�;�I.,,,:t.�'ri��
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECItETARY
b7r. Peter Sandbeck, Admniistmtor �(J9 - 1`}�{3
State Historic Preservation Office
Depar[ment of Cultural Resources �,2G,�'
4617 Mail Service Center �' Y
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 �l1l�p
Mr. Sandbeck,
�� �I�II�
SUBJECT: C-4901, Rail Division Double Track Project, Bowers to Lake (DTP-B2L), Davidson County,
Division 9, WBS#42647 �' � .3005
✓P-3A14P, Rail Division Double Track Project, Reid to North Kannapolis (DTP-R2NK), F+iz� � S
Rowan Cou�ty, Division 9, WBS#42647 �Z Og -� ��9
P-3414N, Rail Division Double Track Project, Haydock to Junker (DTP-H27), Cabarrus and
Mecklenburg Counties, Division 10, �VBS#42647, ER 0�2240- �JO�
Thank you for cotrespondence of September 23, 2009 regarding one of the above-mentioned projects (i.e.
P-34I4N). Based on the addition of, but not limited to, newly proposed grade separatio��s, these three (3)
projects are no longer CE-level projects that would have been reviewed per NCDOT's Programm�tic
Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Since these three (3) projects are now
to be handled as EA's, any formal recommendation for culhiral resource investigations shall be made by
the SHPO as deemed appropriate. Therefore, a meeting was l�eld on Priday, December 4, 2009, behvecu
Paul J. Mohler (NCDOT Arcl�aeologis[) and Joh�� Mintz (Office of State Archaeology [OSA]) to revie�v
and discuss lhe prelimuiary study corridor and aerials for specific ]ocations along each of tF�e above-
mentioned projec[s. Based on the mappi�g provided at this mee[ing the following �vas determined:
From an archaeological perspective, "No rurther Nork" is required for the Bowers to
Lake Double Track Project. If the study corridor changes prior to construction, then
additional consultation with the Office of State Archaeology will be required.
From an archaeological perspective, "No Further Worlc" is required for the Reid to
North Kannapolis Double Track Project If the study corridor changes prior to
co��shvction, then additional consultation with the Office of State Archaeology will be
required.
From an archaeological perspective, "Further Woric" is required for the Haydock to
Junker pouble Track Project. T'he properties m be affected by the intersection
realigiunent at NC 49 and Pharr Mill Road �vill require addi[ional investigations. The
properties to be affected by the closing of the crossing at Hickory Ridge Road will also
requ¢e additional investigations. New driveway access to all of the properties south of
University City Boulevard will also require additional investigations. If the sh�dy
corridor changes prior to construction, then additional consultation with che Office of
State Archaeology will be required.
Should you conwr with these findings, please fonvard a signed copy of this correspondence to our office
so that we may move fonvard in the Section 106 process. If you have any questions conceming the
accompanying information, please contact me at [phone] or Mr. Paul J. Mohler, NCDOT
Archaeologist, at [phone].
MAILINGADORE55: TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION:
NCDEPART�dENTOFTRANSPORTNTION FAX". 915-431-2001 PROJECTDEVELOP;AENT&
HUTAAN ENVIRONIAENT UNIT ENVIRONLSENTHL ANALYSIS BFANCH -
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER ENVIFONM1tEHTAL RESOURCE CENTER
Rn�ecnNC,Z7699-1598 Wees�ie: wJnvNCOOr.oec q701-116AiurvlicAVer�ue
RnLEiGn NQ 27604 %� 5gag q (�
��k�i b o7i G�07�.

MTW/pjm
Sincerely,
� �.
Matt Wilkerson
Archaeology Supervisor
Human Environment Unit
Enclosures (Study Cor�dor Plans and Aerials)
�HPOConcunence: I� 1���-�( -�(�L�,�
puty State Historic Preservation Officer
��OSA Reviewer: �� j��'� z,
cc: John J. Mintz, OSA
Colista Freeman, Rail
Paul 7. Mohler; Archaeology
C-4901, P-34I4P, & P-3414�
Davidsoq Rmvan, Cabarrus, &
Mecklen6urg Coun[ies
Date: �� /c� � dJ0/D
Date: � '1 /�o

APPENDIX A.4
ila:3��yi�►�c•»��a��iia�r���i►e��a:�►e���

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TRACK (TIP P-3414P)
Mr. Marc Hamel
�� North Carolina Department of Transportation
Rail Division, Environmental Planning Branch
1553 Mail Service Center
� Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2009
5:00 PM TO 7:00 PM
CHINA GROVE COMMUNITV BUILDING
412 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE
A Citizens Informational Workshop for the proposed
additional track along the NCRR line from Reid (south of
Salisbury) to North Kannapolis is being held on Tuesday
July 28, 2009 beginning at 5:00 pm and ending at 7:00 pm
at the China Grove Community Building, located at 412
South Myrtle Avenue in China Grove.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop
to comply with the American Disabilities Act. To receive
special services, please contact Mr. Marc Hamel as early
as possible so that arrangements can be made.
k
� �c
� as �h �
��(t y ��a
a � �-t
Ci��B� ,� ; F �s�
� ° 4 •pk� i
Aza�aa�r� � a _
�c �`F.
��' �i . �' ra`r
�5 S
.' �� ChinaGrove � -
h � 9�� �
�, 29A µnr�,:
st. r� c
t.
s� n�. �,c'�� �;£ � �� � � -
y �F q 2
% w
GET INVOLVED!
In atltlition to participating in the workshop, you are invitetl to:
Arrange small group meetings. The stutly team is available throughout the stutly process to meet antl tliscuss the project
through informal question antl answer sessions with neighborhootl groups antl civic organizations.
Call the stutly's tolbfree hotline at: 1-8003433721 (HOUrs of Operation: Bam -Spm, Montlaythrough Fritlay)
Atltl your name to the mailing list. If you woultl like to receive future newsletters or meeting notices, you may atltl your name to
the mailing list at the workshop or by contacting the stutly team.
Call or write the stutly team. Comments antl suggestions will be tlocumentetl antl consitleretl tluring the entire stutly process.
Vou may contact the stutly team or the NCDOT at the Pollowing atltlresses:
Mr. MarcHamel
N C Departmen[ of Trznsporta[ion
Rail Division, Environmen[al Planning Branch
1553 Mail Service Cen[er
Raleigh, NC 2]699-1553
(919)]33]245,ext 2]0
mhamel@n�otgov
Mr. PaW Koch, PE
S[an[ec ConsW[ing
801 Jones Franklin Road, Sui[e 300
Raleigh, NC 2]606
(919) 88S]394
Toll Free (800) 34&3]21
paW koch@sLn[ecmm
If you have transportation questions on other projects,
call our customer service offce at 1-877-DOT-4VOU or visit our websites: www.nctlot.org antl www.by[rain.org.
Volume No. 1 July 2009
� NorthCaroiina�!epartmentotTransportation
�� �� ! � � ��
I�1�
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL TRACK
FROM REID (SOUTH OF SALISBURY) TO NORTH KANNAPOLIS
ALONG THE NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD (NCRR)/NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY (NS)
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NO. P3414P
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING STUDIED?
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Rail Division proposes to constmct an additional railroad
track adjacent to the existing railroad track along the North
Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern Railway (NS)
between control points'Reid" (south of Salisbury) and "North
Kannapolis" in Rowan County The proposed improvements
begin approximately half a mile north of Peach Orchard Road
(SR 2359) and extend to just south of East 22ntl Street (SR
1254) in Kannapolis. This project would indude a 10-mile
section of second main track replaced on the fortner roadbed
on the west side of the existing track. The enclosed vicinity
map shows the project location.
WHYAREIMPROVEMENTS NEEDED?
The proposed project is along the rail corridor between
Greensboro and Charlotte. This corridor is one of the most
heavily traveled railroads in the state, hosting as many as 60
passenger and freight trains per day. The corridor is also part
of the federally-designated Southeast High Speed Rail
(SEHSR) corridor. This section of rail previously contained
two tracks, but portions of the double track were removed as
redundant in the 1960's as part of a signal system
improvement project Since that time, rail traffc has greatly
increased and additional track and its wpacity is needed.
NCDOTs track improvements along this rail corridor focus on
improving traffc flow and minimizing congestion. The
proposed project would increase the overall corridor capacity
and improve passenger train schedule reliability by allowing
freight and passenger trains to quickly and effciently
maneuver around each other.
WHAT IS THE STUDY PROCESS?
The proposed project is being studied in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to
detertnine the potential impacts of the improvements on the
human and natural environments. There are several basic
steps, as described in the following paragraphs.
The initial step in the study is to clearly define the purpose of
and need for the proposed project. Preliminary alternatives
are then developed that would fulfill the purpose and need.
The option of not constructing the project (the No-Build
Alternative) is also studied for comparison. The preliminary
alternatives are compared to determine which altematives
would have the least potential to impact the environmenL The
alternatives with the most potential to impact the environment
are eliminated from further study. The results of the detailed
studies are summarized in an environmental document.
The environmental document for the proposed project is known
as a Categoncal Exdusion (CE). The CE describes the potential
impacts of each detailed study alternative, ranging from
residential relocations to wetland and stream impacts.
Local offcials meetings, citizens infortnational workshops,
and small group meetings are held throughout dunng the
planning and design process to provide inPortnation on the
proposed project, answer project-related questions, and
gather feedback from the public on the proposed project.
The NCDOT will identify a preferred altemative based on
engineering considerations, costs, impacts on the human and
natural environments and comments received from the
public. A Public Hearing will be held at the end of the project
planning process to provide citizens an opportunity to
comment on the project forthe public record.
WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE BEING STUDIED?
One build altemative (constmction of a second track on the
Portner roadbed on the west side of the existing NCRR/NS
track between Reid and Kannapolis) will be studied. A no-
build alternative (option of not constructing the project) will
also be studied for companson.
WHYSHOULD 1 ATTEND THE PUBLIC MEETING?
The study team is asking for your input regarding the
proposed project. The workshop is a drop-in open house from
5:00 pm to 7:00 pm with no fortnal presentation. Project
Please plan to attend the
ClTIZENS
INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP
Tuesday, Ju/y28, 2009
5:00 pm to 7:00 pm
China Grove Community Building
412 South Myrtle Avenue, China Grove
(Additional details on back page)

North CBrolin8 �epartrnentoi Transport86on
�� �rvr���
Proposed Double Track from Reid (South of Salisbury) to North Kannapolis along the North
Carolina Railroad (NCRRuNorfolk Southern Railway (NS)
INFORMATION SHEET
Citizens Informational Workshop for TIP No. P-3414P
July 28, 2009
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING STUDIED?
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Rail Division proposes to construct an
additional railroad track adjacent to the existing railroad
track along the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk
Southern Railway (NS) between control points "Reid"
(south of Salisbury) and "North Kannapolis" in Rowan
County. The proposed improvements begin approximately
half a mile north of Peach Orchard Road (SR 2359) and
extend to just south of East 22"tl Street (SR 1254) in
Kannapolis. This project would include a 10-mile section
of second main track replaced on the former roadbed on
the west side of the existing track. The enclosed vicinity
map shows the project location.
WHY ARE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED?
The proposed project is along the rail corridor between
Greensboro and Charlotte. This corridor is one of the
most heavily traveled railroads in the state, hosting as
many as 60 passenger and freight trains per day. The
corridor is also part of the federally-designated Southeast
GETINVOLVED!
in addition to participating in the workshop, you are invited to:
High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor. This section of rail
previously contained two tracks, but portions of the double
track were removed as redundant in the 1960's as part of
a signal system improvement project. Since that time, rail
traffic has greatly increased and additional track and its
capacity is needed.
NCDOT's track improvements along this rail corridor
focus on improving traffic flow and minimizing
congestion. The proposed project would increase the
overall corridor capacity and improve passenger train
schedule reliability by allowing freight and passenger
trains to quickly and efficiently maneuver around each
other.
WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE BEING STUDIED?
One build alternative (construction of a second track on
the former roadbed on the west side of the existing
NCRR/NS track between Reid and Kannapolis) will be
studied. A no-build alternative (option of not constructing
the project) will also be studied for comparison.
Arrange small group meetings. The study team is available throughout the study process to meet and discuss the
project through informal question and answer sessions with neighborhood groups and civic organizations.
Call the study's toll-free hotline at: 1-800-349-3721 (Hours of Operation: 8am — 5pm, Monday through Friday)
Add your name to the mailing list. If you would like to receive future newsletters or meeting notices, you may add your
name to the mailing list at the workshop or by contacting the study team.
Call or write the study team. Comments and suggestions will be documented and considered during the entire study
process. You may contact the study team or the NCDOT at the following addresses:
Mr. Marc Hamel
NC Department of Transportation
Rail Division, Environmental Planning Branch
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
[phone],ext.270
[e-mail]
Mr. Paul Koch, PE
Stantec Consulting
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone]
Toll Free [phone]
paul. [e-mail] m
If you have transportation questions on other projects,
call our customer service office at 1-877-dot-4you or visit our websites: www.ncdot.org and www.bytrain.org.

I vowmei ��ivzooa

�:%71��'3 � �7_1 �] �] � � [�7 ► I_1 � �:7_��3:I_1► I �'.
RAIL CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS (TIP P-3414P)
Mr. Marc Hamel
North Carolina Department of Transportation
��' Rail Division, Environmental Planning Branch
�� 1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2009
S:OO PM TO 7:00 PM
CHINA GROVE COMMUNITY BUILDING
412 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE
A second Citizens Informational Workshop is being held for
the additional track and rail crossing improvements along the
NCRR line from Reid (south of Salisbury) to North
Kannapolis. This second workshop is being he/d to
gather input from the public on the project's recent
expansion to inc/ude potential rail crossing
improvements within the project limits.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled
persons who wish to participate in this workshop to comply
with the American Disabilities Act. To receive special
services, please contact Mr. Marc Hamel as early as possible
so that arrangements can be made.
�.t
�� h5
�Fr �V
�t�,� ��.
�f{�� .�' ,�
��� �� ��r�
s�
'�xal�.� �r ��
��f
f�'r
.��f3$ ��
r
�� ��
� �''�� �s
� �.�
�
c;,
���
� � z
��
�, `�'t
�
�
S`� ��
� �
� `k� �-
3� s,
� � ��.
�hina Grave ��,na```�'� �
Y
�� � ��
s���� L� ��� � � ��
� r �, �{�. ��
�.
GET INVOLVED�
��a ���„�
:;,
�, �,
`� �
�
�`�� �
� w
In addition to participating in the workshop, you are invited to:
Arrange small group meetings. The study team is available throughout the study process to meet and discuss the project
through informal question and answer sessions with neighborhood groups and civic organizations.
Call the study's toll-free hotline at: 1-800-349-3721 (Hours of Operation: 8am — 5pm, Monday through Friday)
Add your name to the mailing list. If you would like to receive future newsletters or meeting notices, you may add your name to
the mailing list at the workshop or by contacting the study team.
Call or write the study team. Comments and suggestions will be documented and considered during the entire study process.
You may contact the study team or the NCDOT at the following addresses:
Mr. Marc Hamel
NC Department of Transportation
Rail Division, Environmental Planning Branch
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
[phone], ext. 270
[e-mail]
Mr. Paul Koch, PE
Stantec Consulting
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone]
Toll Free [phone]
paul. [e-mail]
If you have transportation questions on other projects,
call our customer service office at 1-877-DOT-4YOU or visit our websites: www.ncdot.org and www.bytrain.org.
Volume No. 2 October 2009
� Narth Garolina Oe�artment af Transportation
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL TRACK & RAIL CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
FROM REID (SOUTH OF SALISBURY) TO NORTH KANNAPOLIS
ALONG THE NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD (NCRR)/NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY (NS)
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NO. P-3414P
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING STUDIED?
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Rail Division proposes to construct an
additional railroad track adjacent to the existing
railroad track along the North Carolina Railroad
(NCRR)/Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and examine
potential rail crossing improvements between control
points "Reid" (south of Salisbury) and "North
Kannapolis" in Rowan County. The project limits
begin approximately half a mile north of Peach
Orchard Road (SR 2359) and extend to just south of
East 22�d Street (SR 1254) in Kannapolis.
After the first Citizens Informational Workshop
(July 28, 2009), this study was modified to
include rail crossing improvements within the
established project limits. It was determined that a
comprehensive analysis of the rail corridor would be
the most efficient and thorough way to conduct
environmental analyses and would result in the best
overall design for the corridor.
In addition to studying a 10-mile section of second
main track, planning and design studies will examine
the following at-grade rail crossings: 18th Street,
22nd Street, 29th Street, East Mill Street, Ryder
Street, Central Avenue, Eudy Road, Thom Street,
Centerview Street, Church Street, Mount Hope
Church Road, Webb Road, Peeler Road, Peach
Orchard Road, and the Reid Farm private crossing.
These crossing improvement projects will be
evaluated for potential grade separations
(bridges), closures, or other improvements.
(These locations were identified on maps displayed
at the first CIW, but it was noted at the time that they
were not part of the study.) The enclosed vicinity
map shows the project location and rail crossings
being studied.
WHY ARE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED?
The installation of additional track and other
proposed improvements or closures is to provide
safer train and vehicle travel and minimize
congestion on the existing rail line between
Greensboro and Charlotte.
WHAT IS THE STUDY PROCESS?
The proposed project is being studied in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in
order to determine the potential impacts of the
improvements on the human and natural
environments. The results of the environmental
studies are summarized in an environmental
document. The environmental document for the
proposed project is known as an Environmental
Assessment (EA). The EA describes the potential
impacts of each detailed study alternative, ranging from
residential relocations to wetland and stream impacts.
The NCDOT will identify a preferred alternative
based on engineering considerations, costs, impacts
on the human and natural environments and
comments received from the public. A Public
Hearing will be held at the end of the project planning
process to provide citizens an opportunity to
comment on the project for the public record.
WHY SHOULD 1 ATTEND THE PUBLIC MEETING?
The study team is asking for your input regarding the
proposed project. The workshop is a drop-in open
house from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm with no formal
presentation. Project team members will be
available throughout the workshop to answer
questions and provide any additional information you
may need.
Please plan to attend the next
CI TIZENS
INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP
Thursday, November 12, 2009
5:00 pm to 7:00 pm
China Grove Community Building
412 South Myrtle Avenue, China Grove
(Additional details on back page)

Volume 2 October 2009

North C�roiin� Oeparhment0# Trdnspork�tion
� �������
Proposed Construction Of Additional Track & Rail Crossing Improvements
From Reid (South Of Salisbury) To North Kannapolis
Along The North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk Southern Railway (NS)
INFORMATION SHEET
Citizens Informational Workshop for TIP No. P-3414P
November 12, 2009
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING STUDIED?
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Rail Division proposes to construct an
additional railroad track adjacent to the existing railroad
track along the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk
Southern Railway (NS) between control points "Reid"
(south of Salisbury) and "North Kannapolis" in Rowan
County. The proposed improvements begin approximately
half a mile north of Peach Orchard Road (SR 2359) and
extend to just south of East 22"tl Street (SR 1254) in
Kannapolis. The project would include a 10-mile section
of second main track replaced on the former roadbed on
the west side of the existing track.
WHYARE WE HOLDING A 2"'° WORKSHOP?
Based on the need to provide safe opportunities for
roadway crossings, the design team has identified several
possible locations for grade separations (bridges). These
locations may require additional right-of-way beyond the
200-foot NCRR corridor. The enclosed vicinity map shows
the locations where grade separations are to be
evaluated. More detail is on the corresponding large
maps presented at this workshop.
GETINVOLVED!
In addition to participating in the workshop, you are invited to:
WHYARE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED?
The proposed project is along the rail corridor between
Greensboro and Charlotte. This corridor is one of the
most heavily traveled railroads in the state, hosting as
many as 60 passenger and freight trains per day. The
corridor is also part of the federally-designated Southeast
High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor. This section of rail
previously contained two tracks, but portions of the double
track were removed as redundant in the 1960's as part of
a signal system improvement project. Since that time, rail
traffic has greatly increased and the additional track and
its capacity is needed.
NCDOT's track improvements along this rail corridor
focus on improving traffic flow and minimizing
congestion. The proposed project would increase the
overall corridor capacity and improve passenger train
schedule reliability by allowing freight and passenger
trains to quickly and efficiently maneuver around each
other.
Arrange small group meetings. The study team is available throughout the study process to meet and discuss the
project through informal question and answer sessions with neighborhood groups and civic organizations.
Call the study's toll-free hotline at: 1-800-349-3721 (Hours of Operation: 8am — 5pm, Monday through Friday)
Add your name to the mailing list. If you would like to receive future newsletters or meeting notices, you may add your
name to the mailing list at the workshop or by contacting the study team.
Call or write the study team. Comments and suggestions will be documented and considered during the entire study
process. You may contact the study team or the NCDOT at the following addresses:
Mr. Marc Hamel
NC Department of Transportation
Rail Division, Environmental Planning Branch
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
[phone], ext. 270
[e-mail]
Mr. Paul Koch, PE
Stantec Consulting
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone]
Toll Free [phone]
pau I. koch @sta ntec. com
For questions on other projects: customer service office: 1-877-dot-4you � web: www.ncdot.org and www.bytrain.org

Note:
There are six workshop maps on display.
Please use this index to locate your area of concern.
The staff will be happy to help you find the map you need.

February 2011
� North Carolina Department of Transportatan
ti�� ��v«�d �
SMALL GROUP MEETING FoR:
PROPOSED DOUBLE TRACK FROM REID (SOUTH OF SALISBURY) TO NORTH KANNAPOLIS
PROPOSED 24t" STREET BRIDGE
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NO. P-5206 Iformerlv P-341
DOUBLE TR.4CK (Reid to N. Kannapolis)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Rail Division proposes an additional railroad
track alongside an existing 10-mile section of North
Carolina Railroad track from south of Salisbury to north of
Kannapolis. The second main track would be replaced on
the old roadbed on the west side of the existing track. The
project also includes track alignment and roadway crossing
changes to improve safety and increase train speed and
reliability through the corridor.
Please plan to attend the
24rh STREET AREA
SMALL GROUP MEETING
Monday, March 7, 2011
5:00 to 7:00 pm
Blackwelder Park Baptist Church
(Additional details on back page)
One of the most important factors in improving safety along
the rail corridor is reducing the chances of train and
vehicle collisions. Therefore, several roadway crossings
are proposed for closure and replacement with bridged
crossings. Roadway bridges and underpasses are
proposed at key locations along the 10-mile corridor to
accommodate the re-routed vehicle traffic.
��Proposed
i Closure of
�. 29fh Stree
� j ��
J �
� �'� .�°Mc:l�1 _tA�
�-n�- ( 4 _ �r
'�s'�`.l - . ' .
_._. ; ^°rm ��,�
Y'
— I �� - I� �I,r
I � I �f
I � I � -J i�'r
24tb STREET BRIDGE
The proposed 24�" Street bridge is intended to carry
automobile traffic re-routed from the proposed closure of
nearby crossings at 18�n 22"a and 29�" Streets. This bridge
is proposed as a new roadway connection over the existing
and proposed railroad tracks.
Access to existing 24�" Street will be removed east of
N. Cannon Boulevard (US 29). A new connection over the
railroad tracks will be constructed from where Cannon
Boulevard and 24�" Street currently meet and it will end at
N. Main Street just north of Westview Street. The figure
below shows the proposed 24�" Street bridge.
Because of the elevation difference between N. Main
Street and the proposed bridge over the railroad, a
segment of N. Main Street from approximately 22ntl Street
to 29�" Street will have to be raised gradually. Raising the
elevation of N. Main Street will impact several properties
and will also affect side-street access.
The purpose of the upcoming meeting is to provide
potentially affected citizens an early opportunity to view the
draft preliminary design for this particular area of the
overall project (larger versions of the figure shown below),
ask questions of the project team members, and provide
comments. A public hearing for the entire double-track
project will be scheduled later this year.
� ��
�as � �
s
F1 S
. � � t 5� _,, --- _
-.Y° ` N�n�_ . > �i�yy
�-- -� _;=,- _
-��- _ �'`�
�. ' , -T --
Proposed I I
Closure of � �
_ ' 22nd Street � �
]�–F 5 _
y— T I
�—N i � � � �r � ' -. �1�i i� �=
—�, , I � � �-� +-_.. � _ � � _ �
i ��ii Y I , i- IL
,�� �I L I��+ E F �� —�L��L
T i --� I I
Proposed 24th Street Bridge-f�����,
:� , 4

PROPOSED DOUBLE TRACK
ALONG THE NCRR LINE (TIP P-5206)
Mr. Marc Hamel
������ t, North Carolina Department of Transportation
j Rail Division, Environmental Planning Branch
' "� 1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
24t" STREET AREA SMALL GROUP MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2011
5:OOPM TO 7:OOPM
This small group meeting is being held to provide potentially affected citizens in the vicinity of the proposed
24th Street Bridge an early opportunity to obtain information and provide input. This proposed crossing is a
part of the proposed Double Track along the NCRR line from Reid (south of Salisbury) to North Kannapolis.
A public hearing for the entire project will be scheduled later this year.
The meeting is being held on Monday March 7, 2011 between 5:00 pm and 7:00 pm at the Blackwelder Park
Baptist Church, located at 2299 N. Main Street in Kannapolis.
The meeting will be an informal drop-in format with no formal presentation. Maps showing the draft
preliminary design of the 24th Street area will be on display at the meeting. Members of the study team will
be available to discuss the project and answer questions.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to participate in this
workshop to complywith the American Disabilities Act. To receive special services, please contact Mr. Marc
Hamel at [phone] ext. 270 as early as possible so that arrangements can be made.
PROJECT CONTACTS
Mr. Marc Hamel
NC Department of Transportation
Rail Division, Environmental Planning Branch
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
[phone] ext. 270
mhamel�ncdot.gov
Mr.PaW Koch,PE
Stantec Consulting
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone]
Toll Free [phone]
p a u I. k oc h� st a n t e c. c om
If you have transportation questions on other projects,
call our customer service office at 1-877-DOT-4YOU or visit our websites: wvw�.ncdot.org and wvw�.bytrain.org.

APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FIGURES

L ��
T
C
C
W
N
fo
�
N
N
W
d
�
�
N
W
f1
O
�
% ��
y Om
� � N
m
V7 N
m pN
� -.pI
01 w <
- � N
N �
a ��
m
- w�
� �
m �
N
N
n
O
�
�
�
W
�
L
- Match to Exhibit 3 -
_]
Exhibit 2 Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track ��j�BS��
No Build Laneage With Proposed Signals ENGINEERS,PC

L ��
T m
c x
C N
N �
� �
tC y
� �
m �
N �
� N
a �
— n
�
m �
N �
� N
n �
= n
O �T
� O
�
F� y
�o
< �
m�
��
�-
m�
O�
—� m
N �
O1 �
J
c+ 3
m�
w �
fo
N
r
m
i - Match to Exhibit 2-
na
Exhibit 3 Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track ��j�BS��
No Build Laneage With Proposed Signals ENGINEERS,PC

x x C
L _�: � % % r � " n
% % N u m A
T �
R1 .�7 2 Z� N w
� � 1
X � o N o `omfac.
c m � W � N ��
3 � a n
fD � -� oo ;� 1 i i
y � 3 a �. 3 'a
m m � m � v �� �
y� n o m'o � J 1
_ � m c
N 01 —� p1 `D �� 1 i i
m — � fO 3
a N � m � Fuu� 8
_ a y � J
� o w w ��� �
m � � y
y � � � Mee�tivroxlitl
� N C� � � � j f
O � G N us[J i 11
� m � FIILL1 C
� O �a
� a
fD o�""� g i 11 1 1
•;
Exhibit 4
Hoeemen Ha
Ca1rIM!
Gmel Rtl
�
e
�
�
a ~
�b,� ,.•
��
Ek XOpe CM1 Ntl
w isxor x
.� � j
y� � `
S `
d� �ffi
wcn�Rn st
m° � 1 P y
� �
�
W Cer�rvav SY�
�
d
wmom a �
{
�
r
� �
i�
3
E ILMy 9
F 11 �� E�,��n
m" EKeVAISSY
1 Z
� i wy
' ' i Y
� � �
��
m. � ECanbrvMw
1 Q
$
��
C
t dl� �
- Match to F�chibit 5 -
Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track
2035 Build Laneage
Ci I BSOI�[
ENGINEERS, PC

"_E� � % I N
T X � �o � o �
.�.
c v; o o W � �'
�'p = � <c
� 3 fDa a
� m
O U7 � N (n �
N 0 0' �p m
_ � N —
N Of =' fn N
O "�
Q N J � m
N W n
� d $
O � `
N W
� � O1
w m W <
fp y C (D
n
O � a 3
> N m
� O (p
� m
N
�
N
WROUne
A
- Match to Exhibit 4 -
�
E 24M SY
tl�
Exhibit 5 Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track � GIBSOI�[
2035 Build Laneage ENGINEERS,PC

)C r
xx�
�
x '
�
N
O
0
m
D
3
�
�
�
�
m
�
i
0
�
�
0
C
3
N
omra
CetlerSpnngc
ome.�.�
Nmeman fia
comno.c�..oi aa
Exhibit B
wcnu�cn st
wmom a
� N
��
?� �
ba
9.9��(•
� j ��1(1l
+pl� �aeP
tlt)�, 1 f
9(1)�1 n m gg
Vf9
� g
�3—�1�
9��L'�1�1)
,�n��
100(111)1 ^� � 9
^ q'.l � HRp0)
s9�9191
J j {� r et @]I
Btl)J1 1 r
��'VY�
� g �
y .� � � w (c�)
�m(�
� 1 ���(�
]JR91J� j ('
m I» �
w 1es11 � � �
� y
a a � solsA
�s��G1117
� 1 � � Sa(Sm
Y0R0� � 1 1 i
011��� y
:e�i� � � � 5
s
3 w
� y
s �
�j��jm
�SJ�1@l�
� �m(sos)
� j � ♦� ♦w ♦(sm
30.9(1@J 1 1 1
91B (30.� � m u
xrsn�$��
��� g�" � s� (ae)
y�B(1�
J 1 ���ro»
ac�r� tl E
i��=g5
_ �
��N`��
.§�u�
J j l�semn
���n�1 1 �
��,��s��
€
N
Peeon arMeN Ntl
Peek�litl
wate na
Anxorecnaa �,
� m
fi g
�V �srn
��c�N �.���°In
�teae) J' � �ia�
N(1�r yp(tAJ ELIMM1ySt
,o�,� � � ��,»? � !'
�' afmllg`_9
99 y �
t�1(1) ^�� �]�% �i&° ����
�]5]1�5) 1'3L9�IIll9m) $�g'�R(6�
� 1��zlm � 1 S�izl� � ���ia�si�
E CliuiM S[
.aecaum�1 i f aap�i��1 1 f�ssn,j�l 1 i
�(��H3� xan��.�—y°r ea(iml��mj�s
y�
y �aci)
�y���c��
J 1 4 �' cm
� e wmir s
�����1 � fz
�w,�a�=� ; y
9 �
�sc+� m' �arm� � $
� B�(15m 9 � � �B9(1�)
� 1��acn J 1 4�vc+s1
E GnbMm
a,n��11f cso��lyy%
am�s�y zsc������
= ��c��� is � � �'°un
3:s�sensm �����enn
J 1 l�sna J � l�'m
E lliam St
� ,�`��� t r °�R�,� t r
w9(tA19�e�atlszl���?
_ � p '
g
- Match to Exhibit 7 -
Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track
2009 Peak Hour Volume
G[BSO�I
ENGINEERS, PC

)C r
Xx�
�
X �
a
N
O
O
m
D
�
�
$
�
m
m
x
x
0
c
G
0
C
3
m
- Match to Exhibit 6 -
Exhibit 7 I Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track
2009 Peak Hour Volume
aa
G[BSO�
ENGINEERS, PC

X �m
XI�,
fD
X �
.� �
N
O
fa1
�
D
�
�
�
�
m
m
x
2
0
�
C
O
C
3
m
oollie
aaa.san�e.
wny
om�.r
Raeaman Ra
ComM1erGrerel Rtl
w isxor x
Exhibit 8
wcn�Rn st
wmom a
�
�
�� :
� Y �+sa(�en �
� 1 ��zm
S�y�J n(�g1) fn
301�7 1 1
s (� � � � ;
g��, �m
5���za1
J j l�zrn
%�,�� i t r
:m��3N
,mc,em� — s
N��
m�
s;
m can r 1 1
13rym�1 S P
. �'`�
19��, i r
a��r., � S
:m� 9 _
d ' � `� (�)
� .� s' ��wc+�
Jjl�ro�
%(��1 1 r
1Tl (13'p � � q �
WU1�1�a.`aJ
��� v5](&)
��15(1�
i j �r91RQ
99(]�J, 1 �r
�a(�� N g &
nru�� S
��_
��
� a � � nt (ttq
.9 � � � am�s�m
J1��♦���
emR�)J�i 1 i�
�a(se�)� � � :
mle%1 3 a �
PaBG1 OrtI�BN Hd
Peek�NE
Haee no
Mt Hope CM1 Rtl
�
�
�B(1�
�rznn ��s'�ena
�a(+� J � � �a'H°�
,aa�� ��� � t � ELIMM1YSt
,�m� � & 3m� � # o
�� ,o1sA� � ; y
�—al� � �a(t9 '6 � 8 ��(sxl
�H��.so(�,1 �93�xo(�,) �9 a�,oa�„m
� 1 l �snm J I 4 �zo�m J �� �zs�m
9C11J b�� i�lY]1J ECIiuiMS[
�aecm»�11 i ni�eon�1 � i s�c+za)�l 11'
iz�a9e s�(+sl���� io�lier7�#��
_ 5
C ���
��9���
J 1 4�'�'�
����ir
�m��.y�:
'm����'� �' �,
_a� B � ex(fe1) �eul a Y v ��o(m3 � S
.� 3.$ � is s H 9�ie�Rei) .� � y�isemo
J 1��+wc+mi �� l�sm J 1 4�s�vm
a�,��� t r ��, ,�,�,�
e�� � issciw��1 1 i m(�e�)�1 � i%
zn����� °m�,��-9s nre������
� 9
�gg�se(wl w a'sa a'�zf+s13 ffi@�a��n(+sl
9.7.7���� 9:3N�erRSt) .�59�n1s�1
J j l�esc+sm � J 1��cnsr � ���rzc+a
til]3�J, 1 r ]C(2� � iQ(129�� ♦
SO�Bf�.Y.�i 5P1(151)�7' p� 25fl31�7 q1 �
LBCMII `J�`�o� ? SU�1J`��& �(�1� a9
— � �
- Match to Exhibit 9 -
Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track
2035 No Build Peak Hour Volumes
e wmir s
G[BSO�I
ENGINEERS, PC

k r
xx �
W
x '
�
N
O
W
N
D
3
�
�
�
m
d
�
x
0
C
C
O
C
3
m
Eutly Rtl
Exhibit 9
;p N9
d D
�
����nn
j ��xpl
aJ rg/OC
g'11 r
� � � � x
� 9
�� �
J1
� t�ecsn
J j l � cen
u����tr
4B1(1B�y $ � �
]4�5�1 ^d ,� ^d
� 9 V 9
�at15(9�
1 � r ]B(10�
tr
��
wao��a si
i
� 8
!� t ea(u�)
: � ss Ral
tr
ve
� �s
3 K `7
p M (G)
b 98��]Rl
p� i j ��6I(t3A
3R1J' jry �
x�~�Y�i
a��
t� ��
—a
�5 �atvr .He
J 4 �mmn � 1
wnms zm� �c��� 1 i
,mna,» �aa,� s�
s�
�� _
g L nz aoel
99 � �)lyl
onvwvey � � � �°5�
30J J t �
��� d S
zm� �a�
�
� �
� �
- Match to Exhibit 8 -
' #�i(sl
�tl��HB(�
ElnSt � 1 <<?r���
�`��1 1 P
m
160811 � R �
���
�
�
w
��% V
'�'i
s� � �z�,�
a 51� ue �sa
J j V r3(1�
am� 1 1 f
]N(91%� u ^ � i
ean� �y�
n
'o � 91101
�.L' � 3 �10�B1)
J j � r3R1
,����1 i f
a(�fl�P.�H
�
a'
� i I6)
m H ? � tm(tca�
i � � r9f4
���J 11 �
1��1� � � �
91�A1 �9'�
�
5
"�,m
� 313�338)
r s� pal
-E RytlerA�
�tr
95�
���
Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track
2035 No Build Peak Hour Volumes
'n �
�@ E
fi �
m
�
$
�
° t �r (sol
5 � y � 3B(3�
i j �r%R61 E]2MSl
05 (1M) J � 1 �r
1B(��� 1
@(1fi1���
��
�
C�
s'�5
il� ♦
� l�) � � 1
xttpet) 1
e
��
e�
n
S w
� e
� $
CiIBS01�[I
ENGINEERS, PC

1 +
XX m
r. m
k X �'
NX
ON
w0
NW
D�
�D
�
�
3�
��
W�
m
�d
�
_ _
O �
�C
O�
C �
3�
W �
N
."t1 D
mn
aQ
c
nT
o°
�
�w
N
�re
��
_y
:
y $� �
Y �.,xa,en N
omrac. � 1 l�-�t-a �svcaw�
� �''+('� r aeee�orcnemaa
�� ����� t r � � r
�� , � �
�' �
�wRa � — �
'a �
o�na � J i w
J � j
os° 1 � i� 1
4
�� V � ` �
y+ �.teiptu� ti e�
� � �s(�1 1
�� i j` .�sN� Peekrlia �/� �4
J 1 1 r
aca�� ;
� �
"°""°" a� '� i t r "w'° �
���� g
CaMls + 1 �
G2vellitl J
1p(� �
1
wcnu�cn st
c
w
1
� �
���«
� � �s,�n
w,�� � 1 ����-,�,
����^7 1 r
�
MtXOpeCM1Rtl �
a m
� �
fi g
_ `
� „ `� ELIMM1ySt
��� ��tr
1
A 4 4 � � �
.xJ .�3.�3 � �.i(-1%
� 1 l�a�'� J 1 4� J ��� ecn�tinse
"���tr ��ir ��tr
1L& 1 1
� `
J 1 4� ewmirs
��ir
� _
� �ey
��
L b � � g S
N.7� �6(-� � �
J l l � a an ,1 1 4 �
♦ E GnbMm
9(JIy1 1 � �7 � �m
�N= � g
��
_ �
w � � � �
� � —��-� � — „��,
�1�� ����
Q (� E lliam St
,��-„�„ m � ;� t r
# a(-zsl� i � v
- Match to Exhibit 11 -
Exhibit 10 I Reid to North Kannap olis Double Track
2035 Build Rerouted Peak Hour Volumes
G[BSO�
ENGINEERS, PC

+
Xk �
�� m
K X �'
., x
NN
O �
W W
��
aD
��
�
��
��
m�
�d
�
i=
�o
,�
°o
�—
3�
�3
m
�D
mn
°'a
c _,
n=
Oj
� y
N
aa �
:w S
��i' >
5
W FouM i I
�
� 1 1
1
�
1 `� EROintl3
tr
Exhibit 11
� �
� 4
� � �.,�-,�
� 1 4��,��
� •a� (-n
ec31' i 1 i
��
� ��
�, t
§ �
IOnballfitl , a ` r
""��tr
W NouM SY
- Match to Exhibit 10 -
�
9�
EImSY � 1 � t
_itr
` a u ` �
s' � s' v� �''c-10�
1 l� .1 � 1.r�F�m J I � ERYCx�
ca
�'' � '�? � �-zs��,�i t r
� � �yV �
s
V =
'S t.t5(-aN � �-mis,� �
1 � �-m I-toil i� � r i j
1 r 8!(d� J J' �
-'R (-'10+� � 1 1 � 1
� -0(-1�11 6y
� n
r �
i s�
E HaoM �
° �t�I-061)
1 4 � � caa�
tr
�
s
�
�
1 ��
a�
q
�@ e
S $
Rd
�
w
�
8
4
�
,J, � �E21M31
1
� � t � � ����
�� ` �,� �
��al-al a �-imFi� s" �-ie�-isl
� 1 4�}a�c-i� � 1� r J l �-ze�-is�
J 1 1 � -}JI-�11� „' E22MS[ J, f' E]YMSt
�('�� � -0(� � '
-�u1Z1�1 � � Po'
� � al-t�l� rzl-ttn�r.
� � �
v
W]]ntl St , � ~ J ,
J J 11
� 1
�
� �.113(-3fL9)
o,;.,.�,, � 1 � �:s -0�,
� 1 � E,��
3c�� g
� �
;p N9 �
d D �
Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track
2035 Build Rerouted Peak Hour Volumes
�
b
il�
'�' J 1 I
�,� � �
�
a�
� �
� g
G[BSO�I
ENGINEERS, PC

X �
m
X Z ��
N O L omfe
m
N � a
O W _
a' �. 3
� n�
D fO
� � <
m
� 3
� �
" �
� f%J CetlarSynrpc R�
N
� laiq MaetlowR<
�
i
0
c
�
G
0
c
3
�
�� 15(SfJ
D(q �
�OJ 1
N�9
RuwnenRtl �� j
1]8(1H)
YlI101)1
���
CC�IIIG J 1 �
G2vellitl q3�55�J
0(%�
0](]511
n
P
N
- Match to Exhibit 13 -
m
�
�
�B(1�
�0I41
rmIMI
� � � ELIMM1ySt
r]9(�
E CliuiM S[
titr
g��
e wmir s
Exhibit 12 Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track ��j�BS��I
2035 Build Peak Hour Volumes ENGINEERS,PC

" x I r
3� x �
m
�°m_ X Z � �
�m x � y a
3' n� a
m� 0 �
a=
m� W
8 S �' a -3p
3� D f°
a � m o
ag� m
`��� � �
�$ � �
� w
N
N
�
2
0
c
�
G
O
C
3
m
Eutly Rtl
� :y ¢
s��� >
wrso�b � 1
s�
t9ryaJ � 1
um� �
�a
� a'
� e L 9(6)
1 � ` ENwM
tr
Exhibit 13
; C
5 v
� �
����o�
J 1 l�ory�
�R1 rolm
rz �1 � � �+ r
e�3
N88
' �— ss(a�
��°��onm
J 1 l � �sz�xa
6+���1 i f
�ac�m�'i �'a
inren�.,....
• � �ss(�zs1
�� Y�maw�
J 1.��a3om�
y�^�� � t r
se, ryen �
�a(sol—� $ f; �
� ���
is�a�,
� �o�
tr
��
wao��a si
�H �
�
� ���o�
- Match to F�chibit 12 -
? � ����
H�S��el+�
o�st J 1 l ���iem
a�
,,,,�i t i
is (im � ; : C
���
d s e ��c+m
9'v](�9 ����3111�
J �aanc��� � � �3BCSm
,���� r ��,�� ERYtlerA�
�c„a� a �.+a��1 t r
� tmRn� � S 9
''a�wnze�=�=���
�§��aro� ���
�1��=m �1
oim � 1 1 f'iwusei� 1 1
otm�e_„ .utsm���
ONI� �343" � �
9
1 �r0(% E191M1S1
a � _R1� �
� s��� g
N'eMIBrRw , � 9
fa(1q J �'
ta(ty� o
�q Sy s' �
�y �N9(99%
1 4 �,��,i n.,,
tunmunm
ti
�N
r3��
�9g
M a `�
3 89 �8' �OM
5 on� � 1 J 1 l �sm
���'J 1 ! ��J 1 1 � EP2M3
1�311 m 0(%�
i� 3= o m � � a�
55 �el� �� „
J l �ncz,q J 1
wxzmst ♦
Y(3JJ ,B(109� �I 1
120(1817� wle�1 �n �
� s'�
'_o �oM
ss"s �uty
o,;�„�, J 1 l �to �m
a(al J 1 �` Et811iS1
8
o1W � �.
�fel� 9�9
; w �
`B � i
Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track
2035 Build Peak Hour Volumes
m N
fi �
�
�
�
�
� e aan s�
2l](]1]�J � 1
aW(3�511 � �
qg L��
959�](�l
1 �
� � � EP3�tl51
�aom�11 f
10(1%� A g 9
8
a��
�j4
10(1�� + }
10(1� 1 1 1
�+m
� ��
N
i�
� �
G[BSO�I
ENGINEERS, PC

�� f C=v � �` % I r
N
T T X � W�Z N 0�
M K
C C m o OW �� a
� � = � � c a
� N _' 0�
.:1 q7 m �� O. Q 3
� fo �n � mm� v
� m r° °_ O o m o
n _ ' �wm �
N rj d -. T�
C d � N � � W
— a � �
.� = O N � y
� � N
'y (p W <
�p y C fD
n
O � n �
> N N
� O (p
� �
N
�
N
z
0
�
0
N
n
m
N
� 1 ♦ E39NSY
� � 1
e�aanw •a' a d
� i4
•
�' rrvu � �
s�mnn.. (ti wo.,nom �llle umsi
, r �,«� 111P
nma.�er d 1i' eazmse g�
i9
3 Y� �'M
a �� ��
•JL a d
WxxMSt
i i11
•�
Exhibit A1 I Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track
Studied Alternatives
D
r
�
m
.T1
Z
D
1
C
m
m
D
r
1
m
z
Z
D
�
G
m
m
N
D
r
�
m
�
z
D
1
<
m
m
w
G[BSO�
ENGINEERS, PC

C ? � �` �` I r
�
T m � z m
c x n � N O L
C W p W F N
N ? 3 C W O'
(� fC 3 2 �. �
f0 !n � Cn m 'O
� fC O. � fD O
d � d <
N N = M N
(p — � � �
n N J � �
_ d � 0 �
J p y y
� � �
N � � �
�p C p
'w
�. � n N
O .� y
� � O
� �
N
�
m
Dollie Cir
i�iBClBf
Springs Rd � ��y'
�SZZ �l 1
I�
I Long � .�'�
Meadow Rd `
i \'�s
� C
m N
� N
� �
���
0
J11
,SLZ 1 ���
' N
O
�
O
a
Driveway � �
� �
0
0
Z
0
1
O
y
c�
d
m
Z
n
�1
�
Z
N
�
2
G.
m
N
�
� �
��a
���
Q
Peach Orchard Rd
i
i
r
�
a
�
�
a.
. Peeler Rd �
Exhibit A2 Reid to North Kannapolis Double Track �`j[BS�]�[I
Studied Alternatroes ENGINEERS,PC

APPENDIX C
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE JUKE BOX
ROAD AND ETHEL LANE CLOSURES
(NCDOT TIP NO. P-4405)

��a
Y � �
�
�
':�=
m � � � '�`! �'�
_ a. �.
� -� � _ � f f,j Z = _3-r
� _ � _ .. � €�E __ _- I ]��3 L`�_�,`_
? E _ - I { !I'�= '
x � — � - e ° _ - ; — - '�
— � _ - � ! s � � e
— — .. ,. I _ --`� '--- �3��� � s
_ T'- �.c] I_1
� �
I.r- - � ' � \ ' � ` - - — _
x f Z Q
I � -- ��-����' ���--�" - %� '� �-'�
` _, � �. _` � � _ .
�`E -�� -. °- ..- r `�: i- -
k= , �: � � � _� -=43 ��,. - �.���� :
` ' F �� �
�- �-- � �� . -� ,
���.�. � -.� _� �
� �-,•-�� - �- - �. `- �
� _ �� �� ��'_ � �-��� • `°-. � �
�, � _ �, ;,; �- =, -. �� _ � �
�� .. - � �:' : �� � �..
�� �' ��£ �� � \ �
` ��- ���- y . �$� �--R} $- - �
-i �_� '�'._°--; -: � �- �.�.-� ��` �.: �' _ __
.;- '- �.� � � - ;
\� -
`°4� _ �� _- � � =s � � , \.
-� z � �� '�..; ' � �, . � .t v
,_�'�"� �:� � �.- � �< - _ ' _ �' �
_ - � - ,� '- •; s.� . -� g��-.r-r� �.y^� _
_ \ � �_ � '� 3Y _'\'�i .ti3q �Y:_.�'i� � i5� � G4-s
� �E„ s. . .��.i :"� -�-3� ��i :'9 �' =8' � �
� `f" �� y. a�.s� _..- _:" ��.= �s
�
I .� ` -°,t.` �ie�a�� �- �� '`�c4� i ' �` � � � .M1-� _
M, c_ .a .� - < _ ' "
� �
��'` "a��s-'-.£� � �� � � �°� �-` �_�� : 4-_��
r � .�`
� , � �-� .�- � �'_ � `��g� -� �'�'-- � ��`
i, / " p.�, �v-y'�' 'i`
'�'� � �Ia� � �._ L .x4 —� � � _ .
�-� � . __ . ,� -� -_..,.�z-_��-�" � � Jr - - ���'»�= I

APPENDIX D
RIGHT-OF-WAY RELOCATION REPORT
(OUTSIDE NCRR CORRIDOR)

E1S RELOCATION REPORT
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 coUrvrY Rowan
I.o. No.: P-5206 F.A. PROJECT NA
DESCRIP710N OF PROJECT: PiO�OSBd COIIStfUCflOn
` To CP North Kanna oli
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES �
North Carolina Department of Transportation
REIOCATION AS815TANCE PftOGRAM
Section A of 5 Sections
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
>nal Track along the NCRR from CP Reid
INCOME LEVEL
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businessos ... 3. 4 7 1 VALUEOFDWEILING .. DSSDWELLINGAVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-zoM p So•�so p o-20� So-aeo
� ANSWERALLQUESTIONS 20-40tn � 150-250 � 20-40m 950-250
Yos No Explaln all "YES" answors. � ao-7orn � 250-a00 � 4o-70ns p zso-400 �
x t. Will special relocation services be necessaryl 70•10ou � 400-600 O 7o•loorn p 40o-Boo �
x 1_. W ill schools or churches be affected by 10o ua p eoo ua � 10o ua Q soo uP b
displacement? TOTA� 0 0 0 0
X 3. Will business services still be avallable REMARKS (Respond by Number)
atter project7 #3. Business services will still be available after the project
x 4. will any business be displaced? If so, t#4. See aitached sheet for business detail
indicato size, type, estimated number of #8. As m8ndated by law
employees, minorities, etc. #5. Thefe afe no houses involved
x 5. Will relocation cause a housiny shortage? #�14, Local Realtors and newspapers
-��� 6. Souroe for available housing (list).
x 7. WiII additional housing programs be
needed?
x 8. Should Las[ Resort Housing 6e
coosidored?
x 9. Are there large, disabied, elderly, etc.
� . families7
x 10. Will pubiic housing be noodod for project?
x 11. Is public housing availablQl It should be noted that there is one buslness that was vacant
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing at the tlme of the study that is nof included in the count
���� housing available during relocalion period?
x 13. W III there be a problem of housing within
� financial means?
X 14. Are suitable businoss sites available (Ifst
� � source).
� � 15. Number monlhs estimated to complete
Re�ocnTioH? 18 months „
Kris Barr
ot Wav i
✓// �B� �
2 Copy Division Reloca6on File

EIS SECTION A WBS ELEMENT: 42647.1.i
BUS/NESS 10 NO.: P•5206
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS COUNTY: ROWAN
Business Size Fu�l Time Part Ttme
1 Johnn s Automotive Repalr
Owner Servlco Gara e 3000 sf 3 full tlme 2 art time
2 Alort Alarm
Owner Relall - 2600 sf 2 full time 2 part time
3 H . 29 Indoor Flea Market
Tenant Re�all 4800 sf
4 Bee Bo s
Tenant Resfaurant 2260 sf 4 full time 2 aN lime
5 D's Auio Care
Tenant Retall 400 sf 2 full time 1 art llme
6 Latino bod sho 2 Re afr
Tonant Service Gara e 2250 sf 2 full lime 1 ari time
7 Martin Su I
Owner Warehouse 18,000 sf 3 tull time i art lime

EIS RELOCA710N REPORT
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOft ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 COUNTY Rowan
I.D. NO.: P-5206 F.A. PROJECT NA
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: PI'OpOS2d COI1Sl1'UCtlO
'' To CP North Kannapc
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants
Residential 0 0
Businesses 0 0
Farms 0 0
Non-Profit 0 0
ANSWER All QUESTION
Yes No Explaln al! "YES" answers.
Total Minorities
0 0
,0. ,.<. 0
0 �-0
0 0
X i. rvm sp�wd� ieiuce�wn se�vwes ue necessary•
X 2. Wiil schools or churches be affocted by
� displacement?
x 3. Wfll business services still be available
. . . after proJect?
x 4. Wiil any business 6e disptaced? If so,
indicate size, type, ostimated number of
employees, m(norilies, alc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
� 6. Source for available housing (list}.
x 7. Will addit+onal housing programs be
needed?
x 8. Should last Resort Flousing bQ
considered?
X 9. Are there large, disablad, eiderly, etc.
familias?
X 10. Will public hous(ng be needed for proJect?
x t 1. Is public housing available?
X 1?_. Is it felt there will tre adequale DSS housing
� housing available during relocation period?
x t3. Will there be a problem of housiny within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitabfe business sites availablo (tist
source).
15. Number months esUmatad to complete
� RELOCATION? 18 months ..,.
..,v._
Kris Barr
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
� Section A of 5 Sectic
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Of Additional Track along the NCRR from CP Reid
INCOME LEVEL
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0 0 0 0
VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
0-20M 0. $ 0-150 Q 0-20M Q E 0•150
20-40M Q 150-250 Q 20-40M p 150-250 �
40-70m � 250�4U0 p 40-70M Q 250-400 �i
70-100nf � A00�600 � 70-100M � 400-60D
'100 UP p 600 UP p 100 UP 0 600 UH
TOTAL O` O O - O
rteMartKS (Respond by Numher)
#3. Business servicos will still be availab�e after iho project
��;JC
�� �
�Q� D
����; �/'�,���/ 3 /y/ii
Date Relocation Coordinator Date
Otlginal & 1 Copy: Relocation Coordinator
2 Copy Division Relocation File

�
EIS RELOCATION REPORT �
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION AS5ISTANCE PROGRAM
� EJ.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 couN7Y Rowan Section B of 5 Secti
I.o. No.: P-5206 F.A. PROJECT NA CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
oesctziPTiotv oF PRO�ecr: Proposed Construction Of Additional Track alang the NCRR from CP Rei<
�,�' ��wr��� °�x��,� �
�- � '� ,� �;� To CP North Kannapolis
ESTIMA7ED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Non-Proflt
Owners Tenants Total Mtnorities 0-15M 15-25M
0 0 0 0 —o 0
2 � 2 - - 4 1 -'`_a!l�LUEOfDWELLING. �
0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants
0 0 0 0 0-20M � $ 0-150
. ANSWERALLQUESTIONS � � � - 20-40M 150-250
Kplaln atl "YES" answers. 40-70M 250•400 �
X L WIII SpeGal relocalion sBrVlceS be tteCessaryi
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
x 3. WIII business services still be available
� c after project?
X � 4. WIII any bus(ness be displaced? If so,
indicate size, lype, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
c 6. Source for available housing (list�.
. x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
x 9. Are there larga, disabled, elderly, etc.
,
families?
x 10. Will pubiic housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is iF felt there wikl be adequate 6SS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
soarce).
�r 15. Number months estimated to complele
. . RELOCATION� 18 months �;�
3 �--- 3-14-11
Kris Barr C
70•i0067 t..)
100 ur
TOTAL O
25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0
DSS DWELLING AVAILABI,E
For Sale For Rent
0-20M $ 0•750 �
20•40M Q 150-250
40�70m �'> 250-400 �^�
600 UP I ii I 10� UP
;1] �17
600Uv
aem,v�KS (Respond by Number)
#3. Business services wiil stilE be availabie after the project
#4. 1. Rowan Bolt & Supply, lnc. ; Owner
Retail; 9600 sf; 3 fulll 2 part time employees
2. Trane/Trout; Owner
Heating & Air Supply; 5500 sf; 2 fuli / 7 part time employees
3. Higgins Automotives; Tenant
Car Dealsr; 450 sf; 2 full! 1 part time employees
4. American Legion; Tenant
5000 sf; 2 full! 1 part time employees
#14. Local Realtors and newspapers
�
2 Copy Division Relocatlon File

EIS RELOCATIbN REPORT
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 CouNTV Rc
I.D. NO.: P-5206 F.A. PROJECT NF
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: PfOpOS2d COIIS�I'i
°- �.� To CP North Kan
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of
DispEacees Owners
Residential 1
Businesses 1
Farms 0
Total Minorities
0 1 0
0 1 D.
0 0 0
is
North Carolina Department of Transporfaiion
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Section B of 5
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
mal Track along the NCRR from C
WCOME LEVEL
0-15M � 15-25M � 25-35M � 35-50M � 50 UP
0 0 0 0 1
D3S DWELIING AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit � � � 0 040M $ 0•150 (J 0•20M 8 $ 0450
0
ANSWER AlL QUESTIONS 20-40M (' 150•250 p 20-40M g5 'I50•250 q
Yes No Explaln all "YES" answers. 40•7�M 250�400 AO•70M � 37 250•400 � g
X 1. Wil! special rebcation services be necessary? 70•100rn 400-600 � 70-10orn 20g 400-600 30
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 10o ua q sao ua ,� 10o uP � 87 s0o uv 3y
displacement? TOTAL 1 0 606 89
x � 3. Will business services sti0 be available REMARKS (R63pO11CI by �NUIribQI'� �
after project? #3. Some business services wiil still be available
x 4. Will any business be displaced? ff so, #4. Morgan'S Ca�pet-
indicate size, type, estlmated number of Retail Carpet Supply; 5400 sf; 3 fuli/ 2 part time employees
empEoyees, mi�orities, etc. #11. Public housing is availabie in the surrounding counties
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? #12. DSS housing is available or can be built if necessary
';; 6. Source for available housing (list). #14. Local F2ealtors and newspapers
x 7. Wfll additionai housing programs be #8. As mandated by law
needetl?
x 8. Should last Resort Housing be
wnsidered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, eiderly, etc.
fami�ies?
x 10. Will pablic housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
hous(ng avaiiable during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financiai means?
x 14. Are suitable business sltes available (list
source).
? 15. Number montbs es6mated to complete
�� r�e�ocnr�oH? 18 months �=��rt�
—�i o..—
1
Date
;�Bc�l � �
Date
1 Copy: Relocation Coordinator
2 Copy Division Relocation File

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCA710N ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 couNrv Rowan Section C of 5 Sections
I.D. No.: P-5206 F.A. PROJECT NA CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
oESCRi�rior� oF PRO�ECr: Proposed Construction Of Additional Track along the NCRR from CP Reid
; To CP North Kanna olis
ESTIMATED pISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Displaceos Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M
Residential 4 4 8 0 0 0
BUSI�BSS85 9 9 1£3 2 ,.,.:YR[:UE OF DWEILING
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 a•zoM
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2Q-40M
Yes No Explain alf "YES" answers. 40-70en
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary7 70-100M
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by t0o uv
. displacement7 TOTAL
��
—
��
-�
—
■�
�■
-�
—
_�
�-
�-
—
��
—
ia�
3. WIII business services still be available
aflar project?
4. WIII any business be displace<i? If so,
indlcate size, type, estimated num6er o(
employees, minoritios, etc.
5. Will relocatlon cause a hous(ng shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will addi[tonal housing progrems be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing ba
considered?
9. Aro lhere large, disabled, elderiy, etc.
famllies?
10. W ill pubtic housing be needed for project7
11. is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period7
13. W ill there be a probfem of housing within
financtal means7
14. Are suitahlo business sites available (list
source).
15. Number month�s estimated to complete
RELOCA710Ni I �I�y mOi1�I7S ...<..
:�,.,..
BSiCSiI
O $ 0-150
� 150•250
p 250-400
� aoo-soo
3 600uP
4
25-35M 35-50M
0 2
DSS DWELLING F
For Sale
50 UP
0 0•20M g $ 0•150
p 2o�4orn 65 �50-zso
p ao-�oM 137 250-400
p �o•�oorn 209 400�soo
q 10our �g7 6aouP
4 606
#3. Business services will be available after project
ti4. See attached business breakdown
#8. As mandated by law
#11. Public housing is available in 1he surrounding counties
#12. DSS housing is available or can be built if necessary
#14. Local Realtors and newspapers
It should be noted that there are 5 businesses that were
vacant at the time of the study and not counted
//
2 Copy DiNslon Relocation File
37

E!S SECT(ON C WBS ELEMENT: 42647.1.1
BUSINESS 1D NO.: P-5208
CONSTROCTIONLIMITS COUNTY.• ROWRN
Buslness Slze Full Time Part Time
1 Johnson's Restaurant
Tenant Restaurant 1800 sf 2 3
2
Tenant Kelth Booker Attorne 450 sf 2 1
3
Tenant Precfous Pots Groomin Selon 650 sf 1 1
4
Tenant Jimm 's Halr Salon 650 sf 2 1
5
Tonant Panaderfa Oda 's 450 sf 2
8 SS Graham Arche
Ovmer Retail 3200 sf 3 1
7 8are Fumiture -
Owner Showroom 5000 sf 8 3
W arehousa 6000 sf
8 Tuscarora Yarns, Inc.
Owner Induslrial 37,000 sf 35
9 Goodman Farm Su 1
Owner Retall 4000 sf 3 2
10 Farm 8ureau
Tenant Insurance 4300sf 2 1
11 Ro Lasslster Dentist
Owner Office 1500 sf 2 1
12 Kirk's Lube & �rake Clinic
Owner Gara e 4000 sf 3 1
13 Manus Edvcaiio�al Machlne
4wner Tralnin Facillt 1000 sf 2 1
14 Manus En ravin
Ownor Retai! 1000 sf 1
15 Howard Electric Co.( Kitchen & Bath
Owner Warehouse 4000sf 2 7
16 Southend Tavern
Tenant Restaurant 7150 sf 2 1
17 X�rane Golt
Tenant Retail ]450 sf 2 1
18 KLM Troasure S eclalit 650 sf 2 � 1
Tenant Retail
r
�::
?,

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 COUNTY Rowan Section C of 5 Sections
i_o. No.: P-5206 F.A. PRO�ECT NA PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
�esct�iPTtoN oF Pao�ECr: Proposed Construction Of Additional Track along the NCRR from CP Reid
To CP North Kannapolis
ES7IMATED �ISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL �
Displacees Owners Tenants Tota� Minorities
Residential 0 3 3 0
Businesses t.� 0 1 0
Farms 0 0 0 0
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0
� ANSWERAILQUESTIONS �
Yes No Explaln all "YES" answers.
X 1. Will special relocalion services be necessary?
x 2. W ill schools or cburches be aKected by
. displacement?
x 3. Will business services slill be available
after project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, esfimated number of
employees, minoritles, otc.
x 5. Will rolocation cause a housing shortage?
�� 6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will addiUonal housing programs be
needed? �
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
x `�. Are lhere large, disabied, eldedy, etc.
- - � - families?
X 10. Will public housing be neecied for proJect?
X 11. Is publlc housing available?
x 12 is it fel[ there will be adequate DSS housing
� housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problom of housing within
- � �. � Mancial means?
X 14. Are suitable buslnoss sites availablo (list
source).
� � 15. Numbor month�s estimated to complete
REI.00ATIONi �j $ �ppntj�S �
`�.,,_.
of
0-15M 15-25M
0 0
VALUE OF DWELLWG
Owners Tenan
0-20M Q $ 0-150
20-40M Q 150-250
40-JOnt p 250-400
7Q-100M p 400-800
'100 UP p 600 UN
TOTAL O
REMARKS
25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP
2 1 0
.,. aSSDWEILINGAVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
p 0•20n+ g $ 0-150 Q
0 20-40M s�j 150-250 4
p aoaom 937 2ao-400 �g
3 �o-�aaM 209 Qoo-soo 30
p �oo uv 187 ao0 uP 37
3 606 89
#4. 1. Concord Phone Company! Owner
Retail; 1350 sf; 2 full / 1 part time employees
#8. As mandated by law
#11. Public housing is available in the surrounding counties
#12. DSS housing is available or can bo built i( necessary
#14. Local Roaltors and newspapors
It should be noted that there is ona business that was
vacant at the time of the study and not Included in the count
3-14-11 _
IRelocalion
3�iy��
Dale
Onginal & 1 Copy: Relocalion Coordinator
2 Copy Uivision RalocaUon Fllo

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSIS7ANCE PROGRAM
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 courvrv Rowan Section D of 5 Sections
i.o. No.: P-5206 F.A. PROJECT NA CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
�rscR;!� r!on or PRO�ECr: Proposed Construction Of Additionai Track along the NCRR from CP Reid
To CP North Kannapolis
ESTIMATED pISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total
Residential 0 0 0
Businessas 6 7 1.3
Farms 0 0 0
Non-Protit 0 0 0
AMSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Yes No Expfafn all "YES" answors.
X
_
��
��
_�
x
x
x
�
x
x
Z
Z
Revfsed
�s 0-15M 15-25M
0 0 0
2 VALUE OF DWELLING
0 Ownors
Q 0-20M
20-40M
40-70M
Z 7O-IOOM
2. Will schools or churches be aifected by 10o ur
displacoment? TOTAL
3. Will business services stitl be availablo
aker project?
4. Will any business be dispEaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation ca�so a housing shortage?
6. Source (or availabia housing (list}.
7. Will additiona� housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there lerge, disablod, eldetly, etc.
familios?
90. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is pubiic housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adoquate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will lhore be a probiem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suftable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18 months ,.,,-
� J-IY'll
(ris 8arr Date
$ 0-150
150•250
250-400
400-600
600 UP
0
REMARKS
25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0 0
DSS DWEI.LI
For Sale
� 0-20M
20�40M Q
40-70M
70-100M D
�oouP p
0 0
�spond bv Numbei
For Rent
0-150 !�
250 400 Q
400-600 �
soour p
#3. Business services wiil be available after lhe project
#4. See attached sheet far business detail
#5. No houses involved in this section
#14. Local Realtors and newspapers
0
It should be noted that thore is 7 busfnesses that wore
vacant at the fime of the study and not included in the count
�� 3 >Y �� �
RelocaUon Coordinator pate
Original R t Copy: Relocation Coordinalor
2 Copy Divlsion Relocation File

EIS SECTION D WBS ELEMENT: 42647.1.1
BUSINESS !D NO.: P-5206
CONSTRUCTIONLIMtTS COUNi'Y.� ROWAN
Buslness Size Full Tlme Part Time
1 James Shaver O themolo izt 3500 sf 4 2
Owner
2 Landis Roal Estate
Tenant Realtor 384 sf 2 1
3 Salvadon Center Church
Tenant Church 1280 sf
4 Bear Pen Hunl Club
Tenant Club 570 sf '
5 JD's Giass Remodelln
Owner Retail 1AQOsf 3 1
6 Tatooz
Tenani Salon 734 s( 2
T Kanno olls Photo ra h
Tenant Phot ra her 734 sf 1
8 Kannopolis Com uter
Tenant Computer Re air 734 sf 1
9 Poteats Transmisslo�s Parts
Owner Retail Warehouse 24,000 sf 5 2
10 Qualit Motors & Tires
Owner 2 Gara es 2633 sf/1344 sf 4 2
11 Pro Clean
Tenant Auto Delall 1250 sf 2 2
12 Brothers Tire Sales, Inc.
Owner Retail 12,OOOs1 4 2
13 Ral h Pavero Automotiva
Owner RetailWarehouse 24,OOOsf 5 2
F
1i
i�e
t.
t�
(i:

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 couNrv Rowan
I.o. No.: P-5206 F.A. PROJECT NA
�escRiPrieN oF PRO�ecT: Proposed Construction (
To CP North Kannapolis
ES7IMATED DISPLACEES
Type of
Dispfacees Owners Tenanis Total Minorities
Residential 0 4 4 0
Businesses 0 1, . 1 0
Farms 0 0 0 0
E`
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
along
7
.�T�yr/_�7
INCOME LEVEL
0-15M 15-25M 2535M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0 0 2 2
VALUEOFDWELIING DSSDWE4LINC�AVAILABLE
vners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-zoM p So•iso p o•soM g bo-iso p
x
X
X
ANSWERALLQUESTIONS 20�40M � 150•250 p 20�40M g5 150-250 q
No Explain all "YES"answers. 40-70M p 250�400 p 40-70m �37 250-400 �g
x 1. WIII special relocation services be necessary? 7o-1ooM p 400-60o q 70-1oo�n -� ypg 400-soo 30
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by aoo ur p 600 ua p �oo ua � g7 aoo uP 37
displacement? TOTn� 0. 4 � 606 89
3. Will businass services stlll be available ReMnaKS (Respond by Number)
after project? #3. Business services will be available after the project
4. Wili any business ba dispiaced? If so, #4, 1. Broadway Associales; Tenant
indicate size, type, estimated number of Post Office; 3500 sf; 4 full ! 2 parE time empioyees
� � employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. W ill relocation cause a housing shortage? #&. As manda�ed by faw
6. Source for available housing (list). #11. Public housing is available in the the surrounding counties
X 7. WiII additional housing programs be #12. DSS housing is available or can be built if necessary
needed?
II. ShoWd Last Resod Hous(ng be #14. Local Realtors and newspapers
considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, eldedy, etc.
� . families?
x 10. WIII public housing 6e needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing avallable?
x 12. Is Il tolt thare will be adequate DSS hous(nc� It should be noted that there is one business that was
.. �. � housing available during relocation period? vacant at the time of the study and not included in the count
x 13. Will Ihere be a problem of housing within
. . . financial means?
x
14. Are suitable business sites avaliable (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
ae�ocnnQN? 18 months ���7
.__,
laht of W;
3�1yl��
2 Copy Division Relocalion File

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 couNTV Rowan
I.o. No.: P-5206 F.A. PROJECT NA
oescRiP�ioN oF PROdecr: Proposed Construction Of
�-; To CP North Kannapolis
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Displacees Owners Tenants
Residential 0 0
Businesses 2 2
Farms 0 0
Non-Profit 0 0
AN3WER ALL QUESTION
Yes No Exptain alI "YES" answers.
�
C
n
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessa
x 2. W ill schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
x � 3. Will business services sti�i be availabte
aker project?
x 4. Will any businoss be displaced? if so,
indicate sfze, type, estimated numberof
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Wiil reloca�ion cause a housing shortage?
'��. 6. Source foravailable housing (list).
x 7. W ill additional housing programs 6e
needed?
x 8. Shouid Last Resort Housing be
consitlered?
x 9. Ara there large, disabled, eidedy, etc.
families?
x 10. Wiii public housing be needed for projed?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there wili be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will ihere he a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites avaitable (list
source}.
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18 monfh3 ..,,..
3-
Ktis Barr
North Carolina Qepartment of Transporlation
REI.00ATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
E of 5 Sections
TRUCTION LIMITS
along the NCRR irom CP Reid
INCOME LEVEL
s 0-15M T5-25M
0 0 0
,O VALUEOFOWELLING
0 Owners Tenar
Q 0•20M $ D•150
2Q•40M 150•250
4Q•70hf 250-400
ry? 70-100M 400•600
1 OO UP fJ 600 UP
25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0
DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE_,
For Sale For Rent
0-20M p $ 0-150 �
20-40m � 150•250 (�
40-70h� J 250�400 �
70•�OOM �J 400�6�0
t00UP 600UP O
0 0
#2. One church is impacted
#3. Business services will be availabke after the project
#4. 1. Players Sports Bar and Grif!-
Restaurant; 2000 sf; 3 fulU 1 part time employees
2. Lambert Alignment Service
Garage; 1200 sf; 3 full / 2 part lime empfoyees
3. Kannapolis Nouse of Prayer
Church; 1885 sf
4. United Veterans
Bingo; 4000 sf; 3 full / 1/ part time employees
#5. No houses involved in this section
#14. Local Realtors and newspapers
It should be noted that there is one business that was vacant
at the time of the study and was nof counted
3 1�(�c�
Date
I Copy: Relocatlon Coordinator
2 Copy Diviston RelocaUOn File

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
� E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 42647 couNrY Rowan
I.D. No.: P-5206 F.A. PROJECT NA
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: PI'OpOSOd COt1Sfi'UCt10
To CP North Kannapc
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCA7ION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
� Section E of 5 Sections
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Additional Track along the iVCRR from CP Reid
INCOME LEVEL
Displacees Owners Tenanis Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M
Residential 6 4 10 1 0 0
BUSIl1BSSBS 1:. 1 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 Q-zoM p So-�eo
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M Q 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M � 250-aoo
X 1. Will special relocalion services be neceSSary? 70-900ht 3 400-600
x 2. W ill schools or churehes be affectod by too uv 2 soo ur
- displacementl TO7AL 6 �
x 3. Will businoss seroices still be available - � � REMARKS F
2535M 35-50M 50 UP
1 4 5
.,. ..D&S DWELLING AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
p o-2oM g S o-�so p
p 2o-aon� gg 150-250 q
p 4o-�oM 137 2so�aoo 18
p �o•�oorn ypg aoo-soo 30
2 �oaur �g7 600uv 3�
4 606 89
aflor project? #3. Business services will be available after the project
x 4. Will any business 6e displaced? If so, y4. 1. Amocco; Owrler
indicate size, type, estimated number of Conveniencel Gas! Carwash; 21,OOOsf; 211 employees
employees, minoritles, etc. 2. Appliance Surplus; Tenant
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Recycling/ 1II00 sf; 2 full/1 part time employees
� � 6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs bo
needed?
x S. Should Last Resort Housing be (t8. As mandated by law
considered?
x 9. Are thare large, disabled, elderly, etc. �11. Public housing is available in the surrounding counlies
famllies? #12. DSS housing is available or can bo built if necessary
x 10. Will public housing be noeded for project? #14. Local Realtors and newspape�s
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it fell thcrc will bo adoquate DSS housing
� housing available dunng relocation period?
x 13. Will Ihere bo a problem of housing within
financial means? It should be noted that there is one business that was vacant
x 1M1. Rre suitable business sites avallable (iist at the time of the study that was not included in the count
source).
- .�. � 15. Number months estimated to complete
. � RELOCATION% 18 months .. .-;
`� e. _
of
3-14-11
3
2 Copy Division Relocalion File
r�

APPENDIX E
MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS (MSATs)
ANALYSIS

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)
Background
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the
passage oP the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) oP 1990, whereby
Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The
EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the
Control oP Hazardous Air Pollutants Prom Mobile Sources (Federal
Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identiPied
a group oP 93 compounds emitted Prom mobile sources that are listed in
their Integrated Risk InPormation System (IRIS)
(http://wwca.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). In addition, EPA identiPied
seven compounds with signi£icant contributions £rom mobile sources that
are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers Prom
their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
(http://wwca.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natal999/). These are acrolein, benzene,
1,3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic
gases (diesel PM), Pormaldehyde, naphthalene and polycyclic organic
matter. While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air
toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in
consideration oP Puture EPA rules.
Air toxics analysis is a continuing area oP research. While much work
has been done to assess the overall health risk oP air toxics, many
questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques
Por assessing project-speciPic health outcomes as a result oP liPetime
MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to
evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should
be Pactored into project-level decision-making within the context oP
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Nonetheless, air toxics concerns continue to be raised on highway
projects during the NEPA process. Even as the science emerges, we are
duly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts
in our environmental documents. The FHWA, EPA, the Health EPPects
Institute, and others have Punded and conducted research studies to try
to more clearly dePine potential risks Prom MSAT emissions associated
with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the
developing research in this emerging Pield.
The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will
dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner Puels and cleaner
engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA's MOBILE6.2 model,
even iP vehicle activity (vehicle-miles travelled, VMT) increases by
145o as assumed, a combined reduction o£ 72o in the total annual
emission rate Por the priority MSAT is projected Prom 1999 to 2050, as
shown in Figure 1.

NEPA Contest
The N cequlces� the £ullest e C poss161e� thet the po11c1es�
�eg�la[SO�s� a�d 1 ws o£ Che Fede�al ^ be e�p�e[ed a�d
erlmlNSteceL c ocLeoce ith i mectel pcotectloc goels.
The alsol �eq�ci�es Fede�al age�clesVl e�dlsclpll�a�y
app� ac h i� pla��l�g a�d declslo�-makl�g £o� a�y a C[ha[ adve�sely
Smpects the e i The cequlces ecL P teL
the e acL�e olLecce o£ �potectlel impects� the�� cel acL
h�ma�%em i whe� c slde�l�g app�wal o£ pmposed C� �spo�[a[SO�
pm]ects.� �eLLltloc � velueticg the potectlel �te1
e££ects� w elso teke i the ceeL £oc se£e ecL�e££SC1ect
cspoctetloc�� echlcg ��Leclsloc thet the best cell
p�bllc i TheeF A pollcles a�d p�oced��es £o� impleme�Cl�geNPPA
s pcesccl6eL�bp ceguletloc Sc 23 CPR 4 991.
30W 2010 2030 2030 3WC �050
CalendarY¢a�
�GM-�IeseI4M �����������-FORM-FO�maltlehtle �������������NALH-NapM1lM1alene
BENZ-nenEene - BGTA 1,3 mlatllene - ACRO-A[�oieln
----- VMT-VebldtMllesT2veletl
Figuie 1: NATIONAL MSAT EIIISSION TRENOS 1999 - 2050 FOR VEHICLES
OPERATING ON ROA�i]AYS OSING EPA's MOBII.E6.2 MOOEL
�1�� uel e o£ polpepclle ocgeNC m e pco]ecteL to be
561 t es/pc £oc��1999� Lecceesleg to 393 t es/pc�£oc 2050.
�2� eeLS £oc specl£SC locetloes mep be LS££eceet� LepeoLleg
locally de�lved 1�£o�ma[SO� �ep�ese�[S�g vehlcle-mlles C�avelled^

vehicle speeds, vehicle mix, Puels, emission control programs,
meteorology, and other factors
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MOBILE6.2 Model run 20
August 2009.
Analysis of MSAT in NEPA Doc.-�ents
The FHWA developed a tiered approach Por analyzing MSAT in NEPA
documents, depending on speciPic project circumstances. The FHWA has
identiPied three levels oP analysis:
1. No analysis £or projects with no potential £or meaning£ul MSAT
e££ects;
2. Qualitative analysis Por projects with low potential MSAT ePPects;
or
3. Quantitative analysis to diPPerentiate alternatives Por projects
with higher potential MSAT ePPects.
For projects warranting MSAT analysis, the seven priority MSAT should
be analyzed. This project is considered level 2 as described above.
Qualitative MSAT Analysis
For both Build and No Build alternative, the amount oP MSAT emitted
would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming
that other variables such as Pleet mix are the same Por each
alternative. For traPPic on roadways, small-scale changes in travel
patterns will occur based on elimination oP at-grade crossings and
replacement with grade separations. These changes primarily aPPect
local streets and short trips. Due to the local network which is
characterized by parallel alternatives and in some cases a grid system,
the ePPect on VMT is expected to be negligible. Regardless, emissions
will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result
oP EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual
MSAT emissions by 72 percent £rom 1999 to 2050. Local conditions may
diPPer Prom these national projections in terms oP Pleet mix and
turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the
magnitude oP the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even aPter
accounting Por VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are
likely to be lower in the Puture in virtually all locations.
Consequently higher levels oP MSAT are not expected Prom the Build
Alternative.
The grade separations, access roads and other associated roadway
improvements contemplated as part oP the project alternative will have
the ePPect oP moving some traPPic closer to nearby homes, schools, and
businesses; therePore, under the alternative there may be localized
areas where ambient concentrations oP MSAT could be higher under the
Build Alternative than the No Build Alternative. The localized
increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along
the areas where roadway is planned on new location, particularly at the
Peeler Road/Peach Orchard crossing. However, the magnitude and the
duration oP these potential increases compared to the No-Build
alternative cannot be reliably quantiPied due to incomplete or

unavailable inPormation in Porecasting project-speciPic MSAT health
impacts. In sum, when a highway is widened, the localized level o£ MSAT
emissions Por the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No
Build Alternative, but this could be oPPset due to increases in speeds
and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT
emissions). Also, MSAT will be lower in other locations when traPPic
shiPts away Prom them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and
Puel regulations, coupled with Pleet turnover, will over time cause
substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-
wide MSAT levels to be signiPicantly lower than today.
Incoaxplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific MSAT
Health Impacts Analysis
In FHWA's view, inPormation is incomplete or unavailable to credibly
predict the project-speciPic health impacts due to changes in MSAT
emissions associated with a proposed set oP highway alternatives. The
outcome oP such an assessment, adverse or not, would be inPluenced more
by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and
speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health
impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a
proposed action.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible Por
protecting the public health and welPare Prom any known or anticipated
ePPect oP an air pollutant. They are the lead authority Por
administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have speciPic
statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and
MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process o£ assessing human health
ePPects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain
the Integrated Risk In£ormation System (IRIS), which is "a compilation
oP electronic reports on speciPic substances Pound in the environment
and their potential to cause human health ePPects" (EPA,
wc�?ca.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). Each report contains assessments oP
non-cancerous and cancerous e££ects £or individual compounds and
quantitative estimates oP risk levels Prom liPetime oral and inhalation
exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order oP magnitude.
Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses oP the
human health e££ects o£ MSAT, including the Health E££ects Institute
(HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in Appendix D oP FHWA's Interim
Guidance Update on Mobile source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.
Among the adverse health ePPects linked to MSAT compounds at high
exposures are cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in
animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the
exacerbation oP asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health
ePPects oP MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI,
http://pubs.healthePPects.org/view.php?id=282) or in the Puture as
vehicle emissions substantially decrease (HEI,
http://pubs.healthePPects.org/view.php?id=306).
The methodologies Por Porecasting health impacts include emissions
modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then Pinal
determination oP health impacts - each step in the process building on
the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered
by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more

complete diPPerentiation oP the MSAT health impacts among a set oP
project alternatives. These diPPiculties are magniPied Por liPetime
(i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable
assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns
and vehicle technology (which aPPects emissions rates) over that time
Prame, since such inPormation is unavailable. The results produced by
the EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, the Cali£ornia EPA's Em£ac2007 model, and
the EPA's DraPtMOVES2009 model in Porecasting MSAT emissions are highly
inconsistent. Indications Prom the development oP the MOVES model are
that MOBILE6.2 signiPicantly underestimates diesel particulate matter
(PM) emissions and signiPicantly overestimates benzene emissions.
Regarding air dispersion modeling, an extensive evaluation oP EPA's
guideline CAL3QHC model was conducted in an NCHRP study
(wwca.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion alt.htm#hyroad), which documents poor
model perPormance at ten sites across the country - three where
intensive monitoring was conducted plus an additional seven with less
intensive monitoring. The study indicates a bias oP the CAL3QHC model
to overestimate concentrations near highly congested intersections and
underestimate concentrations near uncongested intersections. The
consequence oP this is a tendency to overstate the air quality benePits
oP mitigating congestion at intersections. Such poor model perPormance
is less di££icult to manage £or demonstrating compliance with National
Ambient Air Quality Standards Por relatively short time Prames than it
is Por Porecasting individual exposure over an entire liPetime,
especially given that some inPormation needed Por estimating 70-year
liPetime exposure is unavailable. It is particularly diPPicult to
reliably Porecast MSAT exposure near roadways, and to determine the
portion oP time that people are actually exposed at a speciPic
location.
There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing
estimates o£ toxicity o£ the various MSAT, because o£ £actors such as
low-dose extrapolation and translation o£ occupational exposure data to
the general population, a concern expressed by HEI
(http://pubs.healthePPects.org/view.php?id=282 ). As a result, there is
no national consensus on air dose-response values assumed to protect
the public health and welPare Por MSAT compounds, and in particular Por
diesel PM. The EPA (http://wwca.epa.gov/risk/basicinPormation.htm#g )
and the HEI (http://pubs.healthePPects.org/getPile.php?u=395) have not
established a basis Por quantitative risk assessment oP diesel PM in
ambient settings.
There is also the lack oP a national consensus on an acceptable level
oP risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided
by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls are
required in order to provide an ample margin oP saPety to protect
public health or to prevent an adverse environmental ePPect Por
industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology
standards, such as benzene emissions Prom rePineries. The decision
Pramework is a two-step process. The Pirst step requires EPA to
determine a"saPe" or "acceptable" level oP risk due to emissions Prom
a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a
million. Additional Pactors are considered in the second step, the goal
oP which is to maximize the number oP people with risks less than 1 in
a million due to emissions Prom a source. The results oP this statutory
two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks Prom exposure to

air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual
risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that
are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision,
the U.S. Court oP Appeals Por the District oP Columbia Circuit upheld
EPA's approach to addressing risk in its two step decision Pramework.
InPormation is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the
largest oP highway projects would result in levels oP risk greater than
saPe or acceptable. Because oP the limitations in the methodologies Por
Porecasting health impacts described, any predicted diPPerence in
health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than
the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently,
the results oP such assessments would not be usePul to decision makers,
who would need to weigh this inPormation against project benePits, such
as reducing traPPic congestion, accident rates, and Patalities plus
improved access Por emergency response, that are better suited Por
quantitative analysis.
MSAT Conclusion
What we know about mobile source air toxics is still evolving. As the
science progresses FHWA will continue to revise and update this
guidance. To that end we expect that a number oP signiPicant
improvements in model Porecasting and air pollution analysis guidance
are Porthcoming in the EPA's release oP the Pinal MOVES model and the
issuance o£ the PM 2.5 Hot Spot Modeling Guidance.

APPENDIX F
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
DATA

APPENDIX F.1
�����,:���

- "- qq�9E qssq a
= a i i i &� %� a, s°A° �
�; - =s=s°=�a�= "_°
A �� � � �
�� �o �g �a£ �6z zs��a a
� �1i a �I _ � f � _ � z �&aA�a�gaLZ�EV �`
�, = a �gaa �Y9a�H44v$ �
a a . �RaaYB„Ao_�na2 �
1 --' � �"Ai- \` 4 TC���t`; `
I � � �`•�� r--O� y �(4
� � 1 � � � � `� � �
i� 1 � _
�1 � E
'� � `��� �� 3 x
� 1 �' ��_ .
� � � � �
y� � � R y��.:. '. v ;z:vr
1 1 '1 t� � �` �: 3 �x�� �
1� 1 x �.,-
� Y�
r
� �,7
� � � ��,`dA'4_ -.. ' g: ° � ` �b,;''t
i � � � � �
1
1 1
� i
. � � � .
; � � _,,:� nF i�i
, � � - '�
i„ , � c:_
i � i � ;"� .�.`n
Q' � ' � '`'a� ' '
, i � �
t!�. , � � ` .�,'s�.��..��
�i' i � i
�� i � � i '::�F°�lio...
i � i
ir i � � �
� � i �
i � i �
� �
'�: 1� � � �
i � � �
� � � � �
1 �� �
I � 1 �
�� `� 1
/ 1� 1
/ 1� 1
� �� �
, ,, ,
P� �� �
�� ,, �
,, � � � �
,, ,,,
�r1 ,� � ', :
� �
�,i , � �
II 1 1� �
� ,� � �
� � �
j i
k I � �'I 11 ' i
� �� i 1 �
I � � � �
"�I' a � �
'_; � � ' '
9 � ��
. - �LO � ;�� � �� I '
H1 , �
� �i � � � �
� I �
1�` �. I �. 1 �
1 �
I �� �� I :\
� 1. . `
- 1 {",� � ��. I ..
t � i �
�' � � � A
i �
�' 1� ' ' `� ���
i
I
1(`II � 11� 11 I' 1,� �.�
_� � � �
=1 � ' ' �
'fu ; ; ', �
� �II 1, ' 1 '
i ' '
I � ��:, �
i � � � �
�.:» ~ ~ Y. ;� �
� �' � � ` y'�
� 1 e
� � � �� ' !
�... h`' " i - � � �
;�, � tt;�:..�.�'t':it�.ti��.Y.a
w
��
�
LL
... 6 . ..
�G � �S '.
K ,. Hi �7"f �.��v� .
� ����v �\t� 4'Myt:
+. s ������ P� K�4JE�Kx �..
�` P: '
xi:!S.p � �b#iFi{�.{` �.
��� � ����� �
r r�� `�����5
� ; .
.,�, ,4�.� 1
` = h
9 vs E
7 -
- E a � e E �
e � � � � � s U
m m m v q j
� E e G G G E= K
' . Q ° _ _ . E b
9 t�n $ z i� n n
�0 ID''I�0;0
r~� 3 t�'� � ( � {�' �'�
.r� ; .� x �t
��� ,,: a�`�^,;� �� �.
b,�°,=`' � r ,� ,� �
,{ 7ti .. Y,� f#�,
��'�t _c< s ;j� �} ,9
� �:Z� bf�'C �k � ��' Y.
i � 1 g 'na
G" .. ", i:� a�'� e i.';�
. {` � .� ,�� �t.�
17�y \,h
�.. �1v �43'�3,i�i1� �!
a, .s7
�
�. �
� �� �,
} �fL,�! i : �2
! i^ �. Z 1!
q a,K1 k, !f '�
(#: i�
�
+�� • W�' y�,
h .E
�x ^ �' a
� �; _
�a,':: ..
kc�'=' .
�
8
8

_ p = z = a$�„°aE arv5s paa �%/ o Rw� $
�, _ =s=s�-�a�= ;�R � w
a= �f � ��� � �� �� � m
°-� rco `� �aa �.=- gs a� a (7C0
� �� � �� �€ � � rc � . ��'�—���� � es� � � � .. � LL
rc f °g � a2 � '
� i �HB � % �v� � m a
' �Raa�Ba �i
1 ..
ry � ' e� ��`� ,rj�j! ( .^.t Al�i[ `� ��^�i��r
� � °, //,� �3I(r
o E `� Y�} r� � y' 3 N� r.;� �.
� E a a �fi � �; ' � Y�+� .
3 7F: � .If . � v✓ kt �y S' .w � '
n ° 5 q � � �` 9 ,e �. `¢ iFn U '' !� h'f'.
'� E e . E / V?1R�:' :v�...y+i ✓ '/' � 3 °1x"'S�w
>'e o 3, e E� _'"� hf,M � R �'.., , 1��..
� �$�,
_��_ �a� , �,�� , ° f.: ` �
,�
� 0 I 0 Q � 0 .�: . , ,, �,,, .�,� ,=
° ��, ! � �v,,�"��'� 'f� �
:,� b ' s' j .� „�
o ° � " `'i
2 � � �� ..- ""Yr+»y �y,�
;� . !�
.. , �,
,� �, ;
,
�n M} -,�'�" ::: � � � � ' u ��
, , ,#' , ,,
��� � �' z�� �� f �»�t»" � , � ��� � �:
„ �"�,x,�,t> s. � ;; ��"'` �b �1,�w� .: • ► �,, ��7� _ ,
� .�e.��,� a, �, , � �
'�'�'y�V ^� i :�''�t,.< , ��i�' �1 .. � � i""ya` : �-.
�F )+ X'
� '�r�� � a.} � t'!� izs � .�R[' j �� �` , N ai� �'_
�' n'� � i •�� �` ' % � ?'F �� � 4
'�r� —
� �iµ'� "^ L„ .. r.� � _ rr�,`�P�� � � �
[ i . L � � tt�i sa i �c ..:. _ � �1. C
JdLM
,,F, �`v
� . ��. � .•- � ,� � p � ��
�
���i�gy�� �' '` � * ��,r �L ��' L �} `; r ;� ;�
i .
. x '-�g d�� ..
�' { � f f�'� � � { � '�i' �_ �
� . �� a �3 e �a... � . � r� � c �.�, :
�'r Y�. �' , , /H �6-e- .w�.� t � �� �. [
' �/ L� � K �t��7g � 1 �r
f �
� .• �' i ' y: :� s„� �+' � - � �.. . L 'r''�` ' ��
� ti� s S
9. .�, r' � �I �
� {.._ ��7'2+4�' � a%����//yy'.r�:,
9 . J{L�� i � � I �ry /
'� 3, ti h ._ V� t c 4}
nS � � ,
L . � f.f .
a
W .
. P 3 � ,•
f ,r � � �' n« � s v ✓> i � �
� `/` r y X A/"ft��. , �y,y, �� lk .
I
', �i '�ar1�� 3 t'���( 6` ' . ' •� � �� ti, � �'� �4 �
�+ i '� / '� .�,�{c�'vdt:r �iI b ♦ e � ��A'a.�. �
f �7 � �:t • f1 �r �'-� i�uus w'� � / --��#�' �1
���, � � t � . . � ,r � �r :. y . , ,- .-.
�
�`,, � /. a � ° � L..i
t�,a11 �''i;%' , t �" � s � ''. � ��i ��;� �`� i
�'�� �� �e 4{f �f 'ror�° � �.I.�it� ��;�y�.'� , , � '4 ; �y
,b' }� � d t Pp &1�.�Jr b� A�� (L�'r �',� �
` „ - � �7�.4� "(;,��1C� �1 �' 4� �N � �y �.+IF
C y � '/ � 7•' � "`
Fi� ?`�` -_ ` r �������� �'� � ��'.�� ��.. �.�a�a,e��
( i 4 <.
J 1 .�� -_ � i ,�� ��g�� �\�y�w
����'�'3 � ' g� _ _ � _ _ � ar( �`l.Tn �o° J
y i i Y /
3 .e Ye .! �.4�. , �f i4�..2�.=•���� � '� �: i 'T � . � 2 L•s v`�

_ �q�
= a =�_ =so
i; - a= �f = ��� � _
` °�
� , o � �o � Na£ aga
Ii $ �I _ � f � � �"
� i - 5�Ra
I � � � � V
�� `� 1 1 1 � 2� b
, � , , :� �
„
� : . �� �. �,� �
� �_ � � �� � � � :�" '�
�
�
_ I . � i � � in ^R.:: �',�e
i ,.. -. � i ^.�� � i .. .
' � ' e � o�
� I' � ��-°� �_ ,.
� � � 1 � �-, a.oa`�w o Q h �i
mll� � � � � � ° ' E
� � i � o E .� a��'v:
i i, � � r� � E° � .n
f��, i i � � e � d �' � M,i1
� � + �
—4` J�i �� � �,. �� 1�� �1I". Y '� E e. o E q�
�' " ' °�� °�
, e eE
j � 9�I., '� � �i � ..-�� '� � c, 8 ' 8 a � � .7
Fk �� � �0 In�O�� ��
� � � � ' � �� � �
� , � , � ;�,
� , � � ��
� ' � ', � .�
PIP � 1 ' I I } \ ` -r �
I 1 �. \ \
I .. 1 1 Aill \ �,^
��. 1 I �4 � `�
ii� 1 � � �-y �` ` a�,y
��Q 1 � .'10 � �
i � (`.}' ♦ �� .�..
Qr �I� ' ' � r ` w
i � � �
t� ��k�+" � . `
. , i
� ��� , � k � , y ��� ,
, �
�(y�.�� � � � � b� �
?` �� �. �� � M14� l � e.
� � +i „$ ', � 4`� '� a,
M1 � �
�F � �
`_-- Y-� � E 1 �'C JY , �"
�"7�' 9 i � r z:. ,y.-.
C ,�r`�. � � �� � ;.
+�i' . � i �.":: �
�:.' '
i, .Y� �� �(�.,y
� � � � � °'�?.") � 4 'S
W+7� v . � a ��':�C '
�� �� � � +� iCK �r �,jl
T 1 � f S I �� 3
I �"� � � i �
� .. � 1� ~ r.? S, d � �- �f
J �� � �S,{ i{"'.-� fi.
+r i x � i
'�R� I -� � r'. � 1•-�- s P,
�.. �. i _ i i � + y:'y
�^,yl ,� � i �.� F �"' :'�. .."�
; , , , � ,.�� , �,�. „
� , � �� ,�.
�a� ' 0. � ♦ '
� . l ii11 �� 1 �', .� "" i ��.
.. dF... ' u . . i � 4 _ _`*� T �.
1 + I 1 V
� .�. ' II • 1 � � �2'"
II i I
II � 1 '
I', � I ' t �#� i
1 � � ,
1 ' � I �' �
1 ' y u �
t II I ' �Y
I.. � 1
'' ' ' °�. t
i� � �
�' � i
� �
� �
�a�° , �' � i
� �R: „ � �. ..
� 1 '
f
�
�o
w�
�
�U
LL �
� ��u
� .- '�� �
�.
� . .:�1
*� ��`�°�` �` � "�
, ,.
Pi " _ t''u 2� x �.'�
� �� �
�
t��'�' { ;�
�
� � ��
�� � , t
>��
l � .Q�
\ Ja � ,
�e� C ���� . .
�
`` � �, �� _
� �� � �' y_
�
t C� �Z!(
\
� <� \ .
�R�. � _,
�� �
N 3�f,.� ,�
� � �.:'_
r�'
3
r�
1rt-i . ., a y� '
a��'�� _y ...
♦ y �.
t - � '.
y���� 3 �i, M�
��K
� ` �''�
V - `.����
�.Y' �_�1
�
� � . .. � � y�.
� � k ... �\\ - � .
4i1$.i5-.z y,�. s -�'�1`'•
t��� ila5:i .
{ L��; �U '� ` !. �
.`
�� ��� ���� � .
.gy�,� �� '
"' ��•i��-i �.i", � y �_ �, �
� I` ` � :..�
`'°y:^w''i. i
�
7u i Lc /
u
� PPOb ag �
���� _ � � Po� ` .

- " �A�aE qss�° pv � � � R° R
_ ° � ° � x�o�_ a, s _� � a
�; _ _ _ � =s=s�-�a�= ��R =� �, �
a �f ��� � ` �� �� � � c�
°� �o � Naa � gs �� v �
s � ; ° � � � _ �a�� � � � �? ui
� � �� � � $ � ..� e�� �aq° .e � � ..- LLCO
% _ �R?m �Y9 �, a� �' N.
� .� . � � . • l (�.)'i. � �. � �
k� . �
� �� L M � �' r .�,. � ' � C.
1� � .J F�� � � J..
� ��i� � , li � % .� � � L I .. ���
^Y E I
� � > y.' ° 6 y , __
�y��. E
�7'�"� �4a:oW a Y q �9 Y. � -
y��y��, f r e � U
�,✓�'- -� } iA< 1 � '�� °� B ` °� q �
d N E �� E �
4 i �� �' . b� _
� ✓'" eO��eE�
r�` a+�;P �' j?�.� �i�s. u jr�j 8 ' 8 a�
'� r ��,�� as.�^ �1J n�� i� ���:
.� ,�P` �.{M;ekE � ��.�.;.,�.�
F �,hr 4 �� '= ..,. ' - `, � '^Y
.!P^ `J ,__ __
.. s. E .. �" ' _
:�� � �ritv ^'gF . �.% .. '�'_ '
r f,- r� ".�'�Et �/,�. 'w.5� '-,
,+ �"�;. �' '�i , t�j�`,r"r k3�` �' �Y , y . .
i ,v
l�. �'i� d-'_+���jq;v�r��r _ ,s�,wy
L
Y ) -
�{ ,� ��' r' � � ���{� � `
i :� , M �;'�' �r� �'3 Si �{ Y: ,..: ��, ..
A' � . .
� t: � 4 ra. y � yA7-t, �> r
� -a�.;. . uy3�'��� " 3[ ,C 713p� �., .
'� u; �.' !; �U„ ' r�.� � #i9 ,'� ..*+� � '
v
i . ' 3 � �;�3 a� t�
���' ;� �� �� b� ' � �/ , / �' �
/ j�% � t . � . !J 1
��� � /� 9'� ';'Ey�`� �� � �i� �� 1�'/ 1F'�
, 3 !a,`a.i.� +- Fhc � �1. �,.,: #'i'�,r'
�t }'R �' , 1� . �;ie'.4'r�q�/� �:_}' s.'' .. .
� r;: �. j;. ei Y' �
� � , � ,�� v�� . t p� �h! .
� *(, � � ` t y � � �` `�d��'..
� A
/ d . 3 " . . � � . �
/ r. . h ��g J� I�� E
i � W�Tt� i
i �� s Ud. '� 1N� �`'' �6 �e
� r
/r! i 3. �+� � � °Y a F
// Y � � ,�
I//ry F �.E �� .y.0 f ��s l
�' W .�
� � /I,/�%jEy� � ��' + �' �� .!`F Fw
/ � ' ;� � r n ., p� �
� / _. � „a' `t� �, _� �r 2
I /L � �y, 9 1�
��1�',.i!{ 'M�'< �, 1' •,'F �^,�.
�/Yk
/'j��/r. � . � '�`iRc�ll �l .�f
/ / y ' / �i� �� ��Y� `�. �
•♦ �r�7 (j
.y�- T. �[
% �. �e1��M F i{1 'r J"�.
* n� t.�"' . � �rS � ��!
�1 . ��,y..� r
j � � � � �
� �� fi(. . � a y
' �� �.° � u'� �d .� x�� J
�
� �� � `/�•
,�, : <

6 U
i; = a= �f = �
' " °� ai 8 �a�
�....�....1i E �I ¢ rco �£ � F �Qi
!
���' .,. ..�.
n� � k!`
y 1w\
�
5 avo
P�g=„
p �
H44E$ �
3d
` 5 9
o E
° y °
_ E 9 o E �
_ � � � � %
a ` = a q �
�Ee��E
>eSsseE➢
° �r'� 8= 8a �
�" II��Q;O
w
��
� �
LL
6
�w:
� � ��
3
§� 3 .
/. � °�r -� �V ` �M � �i
�� � k .. . . ..
� � " ��}�.iY
a
:'! y �' - � .\ .,' �� ..
i��{ AV - � � �"�
!4 'N" � ' - � n...; .:
* � . �,
... �-�. i� :� �-�
� . � ` �j� � �- i�
,��t
1 r�
F �li.: . "�`
�i %� - �'��
r�y� ��j/� , � ;�`
�r � � �
fi�, �� �� ��'t ,:� �°'
��� ;��� :4 �' �
�' :�, `��'.,� ° ��'��
� . �� *k �+
:w a�
�
� . � �. a. .
, � L � . ?
� � . , �
. �� ,�3e '� �yM1' _ .
•� ' r ; � r (
S-•
_ , 1 _ .
...h .,' �ay �: - i�: �1 � .� �;1�'
�y+ y.� � `T � 1�. =1 YC
'6� f L • 1 � ��.,., �
:.CO t li'� ` T\'�R::.�`» S �:'` � � `
�• , f'v . � � � . ; � �, n.� �+yn i �
11 t n t (� '.,
`� � ��y'�7*i-, i. i a j, v A �� `�.
�" � F �� c t
' ' +�. j�. e�1a� �� `�(, �
�'4 . 'ri��� '-n a ��' , _ � �� ,
;' i
_ �r`.: �' "'°'� � �
�� ` : •
zo
, , r�:
� �" - ±C. • .�a�<i
. ... a.+ `-t�', _Y E.�..
-. fi

_ "- sqE9E a�sA �"4
- a = z = a x �`'
�$� g9 � o_ao
�: - Qi �E � � &gi�"g a� a-�'g�
..�i o� �o g F��a . z azza�� 3 R#�
�t $ y �� i � rc � . #°�,����ss� s� `
a a � � � � ��aa�&.�mozan�?� �
� � i ' ' F�f . � x � .
� N� \
�7; II i i i �� LL � � � � � :b:
-e �I � i i ��'i' '��L_, � ' � �'
��
. u � � � j� �..`�' �,+x' "
i i ..
_ � i rd,
�. _. � i ��t . ,.
��� p_
�� „�
i i tv�
' , i i e3'"'��j
i i �.
i i � . �''Rz
i i
, i i < ,
i i >ihr .
i i � t" k
� � F
i i �
� y
o E
h
v E ° E
` � a q i a
e i°=i�;�
� �o;q�
�ee.. i E
e°ssggeE�
��8 °8a�
�ni��u�o
=� �`' � � iRt � ;� .. .
% i i a ,* �W n. �-�w
�� a i i �,-'iy K � �
ti � � r �iK3 k�,� .� ,
r 1 I P
p� Y
' � 11 i[l" �. �` .cT
� 1 I r �9 t . �,�
� � II
� � I I � 1.
1� 1 i �
I � f �+�.�.
I 1 r
,� �- � I 1 � p r� II � _
� I I I
� � i i ! /
� i i
�l � �
ii �' -
�� .r� .`�
. � � �: . �
� �� � � '_�. �, .�%5`'a1
,� � � r
tj'; ' '
�� ,.� mrt��.
� � 4 v
� � � � � � � �� � v�
I 1 �j ��Y, F�
I I
I I y
� I I y!. � 3 - � T o
� � � - �!` ,�,
� � ,,
, � � � � �� �
.���.
II
^ I I � � r�
I I f�
��
�r � � � �3
� � -�
„• � � � �� �c
i i o� �,
�i s
� i � � � f '
i i �`�-" I � r,
• i i y,�:,.
���IP����n�.
11.
I 1 .Y' M oPe'enWCn0.oaa. . ..
I I
r� I 1 R
I I . .
n� I I
' � I I /
i i
v i i
� I I
1 I
�.:�� � � r
f`
� �1
__
�.
��' �
� �4 �
�
� 9
l (
l
'� ,. '. �3�..
Y III
� ' I
� ,I
� r�
�.
� i �;�
�
� �
3�
I�
?
�' �
��'� ; I ..��
r '. ly
�
�:
p��a�aa°a°'d �
�[.y {I
rj`
�
(��� �
T .. 1 �� � -�
N �
w
�
�_
LL �
� � .. �,� -
i i �a��
� � � 3L
� � � ' ;
i i •� _
i i �;
' i i wa
I I 'y'
i i �R ' ^
- i i .
— � � �.� �:,��
i i
i i �
i i �
i i ` � te.
i i '
i i
i i �•���
� I I eA
I I •
I I 9 �
I I
I I 9 �
I I 3�'
I I
I I �� ��
I I 3
I I
I 1
S • y'1
1 I 3
:' i i � � �► •..
� � ¢ "�
iii
� i �'
, �� ��
, , � .,, . .Kr
� � �g ` ���,�
��
��
��
ii;(.
� i i 4.3 I Y� �`��.
I I �tl
I I � � ��
I I
�.�_ T
�, � �{��:
,� �
�,��_
4_ I I � ?5 ta
i.II � .
I I I �3 ��3 � �"
���r9
i i f34 � MI
i i i �Y
� � . � .,,,. `
�� .
� � � ^� �
ii
Jji i :
d,l � � �;. k}
W " a
i i �
I I y
I I w
� � � �� :.�1 �
� I I 14'
I::�I `.���'� (1
i r 3 7
i i �i i
I I �
�� �
,.
f
� � , �,;.

a z U z
i= = a= �f = �
oi aw ��SG
� �� �¢ S �af
..1' $ �I € $ - rc
� = f
, sda� ` ,, ,` , , ,
�n�� , =."� �� 4.,�
`� `�� ,. ,,�
�� . �:�
� ' ' �. _ �
M.. +1
�
���Y� �
>
�`� ��
it� .-�C}$.
.ro
H ,
✓L ' .. �./� '.Vi . � iY�
� ' s i tu
� , t�".r9A :i
' r �
� a ,.�
i' � �
sAEaE "�sq -
zSo`gb 4a>� -
Fao�.-da� 9�a7°n
��zg e
8z�8��a �
��� ����s� a�� �
m$,�oz�$��_:,a4oa �
� y
o s E
9
v E E
@ � 3 � U
> P o� y P E g
9 t�n $ z $ n n
J � I I ' � � I
r�,_y � �. L i;,
��p 4:.��—.^ti
E.
Ral9�siyola�..
/� ra y
� �K fSF " �.
� ��,�, a E . �-F�±��.�':.!?z
t � '�€
�``���},M9 � in�� �R�F�M
F �� ! �
` � �:�: ����
� � �>` �.
` �q.
� � � {�� _
`� `s'�, O �4+� �`y / ^ A ,
`� ,�'1 � y �� � vr� ' *''' y�i
y ` �
'. � fi• dK � � �
� � 3� �:'
� �
.
, ,�
� ��rjp ��i
� �
'� � r�
��'� •� k��� � � .R �� �� .
� �
�` , ��` � ,�; ,d�; ' �;,
�4� �� \
� � �
� • �� .� "� `- �
�
. �\ _� � �� : � a� . �-��,�
� ` \ �
�
1/�e. �a �. `,' ��`�',
��
� l ` �`
.
� � '
d' � `` ` ;
. ,
�, , �, , :
,,. < t �- �, ,
` �vY- , ,
�. � � ` . !s.
a�
1 �'
� ��;,
1'18
�-
� NY
��
� o � '
� �
� � LL �
0
�:�� r
LL
.`
!
x , ��
� •e .
� � �f '�9��-� V'a
% �;H"'" "'r'F $
. a.
���'ti" , ,.� ' , � f i'
♦ �'rf������ 13��• �
� F. � 1
\ J
\ •♦ )
�� r.�"� `- ��9r'0 '� .
� � �r . Y ,
� F .
`� • . � �' ,'B� r,a. C ;s+� n
� � �'��/ � / ..S
�
F `` �` �`� / i .
F� `
� � �/
.��� r� ` ��,.
� % :k r�..
� . t
� /\. �` �� .'�u °
` s�
j � �4.�� �stlJ 'L'.
� L� �:
��/\ � 6�ff�1y dp. F.
� �k � �� iEr� .. �
� � L
f M �y� �� ����,, yl , � ,,�
�7� � � Y � �� � 1�'�:�.
�e/ .G �A r
� � � ,...
y����4y; E'...� ` ` /4���. . );;.
�"� �F� � � � \ y� sk "
s �b�Y � �� �` .,-t �� %
�, y „
�.3 ~ �� �.:,`�` � a3=�y�'�p
r�J �L�, � � �� �,�5
� �. � � >. *t' � I3
�u/- ' r> .1 �� `�'{'4� F'>��1
°��,.'Y1 '�'k: `� \
il� , � .4 � `� � �
,
� �' � � �✓ .•, ` -
jR•v sy°< `
.� \
,o"� �+ � � �
iY i � �
�✓ � tir . � � .
r�`�.,,�Q�. �, �� �,
/�t � *���, . :,�-, ,;
�;�,��
� ` , �:k;', ',
,
� � a ���, ',

- ° _ ° _
� �s - a= �f � ��G
� � $ �I ¢ rc€ �� � F �Qi
� = g
0[
�:
` ` �
\ �
�
\
�m
� � G
. �,, �`,` �u
� �
� � �
f � �
� ��
�
� �i/ ���
$tl� � \ t'
�� ��
0
�� til Y .
0
s rv
1
���,a
�"gz `
n443� �
� � � �}, 4* t. ,� aY.°a,;. �'''� +e
1 \ ( � 6
, � f�,° � `x +� t aa
°y, , , , ��; ��,'�,'�' �
� 7
9 E
h
E E �
� � - �
q @ q q �
�Ee.sE a
>egseE
° �r'� 8= 8a �
�p I �Q;O
w
� J
� �
LL
�
. Y� � \ •� I d f 1
��� F � ��� ��� �,r�� h� � z � � w �
..Y � � , � �. � �}tl ( . .- �
�.� � � , � T�';a1
. � � ���y
Y�'� ` ``` ' �.. � ' f
� � r �
� Y. � \ .YAI � '
� ` \ �a�
� ` \ ' }, � ` :'` � .
� �� � � � � ` >
` �\ . �
�;�� ; ... \` �` � . . t i. '.
� , d .y � � �. k
4 ♦ �
6 �� �� j�� b � r
� \.
3 t �r. e�' � � . .
�
° '' � i y�'�''-r � ` ".i . ,
��Ey� . _' ` � ,. , ( �\��
y f `�� � �
'1A \��F.-a�..��' .�` �� , � i, .
S �, R'1� � � �\ �� � �� .
. ' � . t � `. ` ����������r:
� .�
b .�� \ . .
�vF �,y+ � ` �i >�.��
��� ' � •` • ,, �
��� M �. .�, �'.\
� A. � \ \ Y
� � �: y. ,w � � .� v ���' � ���
.
_' $ . , - i`e6 • �. � . � \ �.
y �. �l S�'-F\��� �� { *� . �` ♦ 'l.r •���;
` • � �.� � .�\�e�,�' .. ♦ n i � .
�. �� �c` � t ' A,. �w, �� :. .,. ��.0 -.d
K?'���� 3.�'' ��a' .i�� s '; � �ty��'�'��°y!� •� �;; _ �
�"� ..� ,.+�. �,� '�,}�_� '��a.� ,..�•,,1h•; ` '� •
� `
t'. r _.� . \��` . �
.
� e j'�. K � R.� � '.:. ` ��� � +°< �
� � 'n ' � � � � r�}; �y � z. � � S L�,
��"�1 �� " . c�$ '� : .. � � $, .. �`` �` � ., 4N\
Y � �`
� C �p� /
� �� p �r._ Ct � ,�''�t. ♦ ♦
� `�C. . # ` ^� .�E / S •MJp! ♦ ♦ ���)l
� �l' l � .,,4T�� �� .
4 .`�� � 1. T� �
j ,.�i v � �, , � �.� � ��4i�r�! `� ` ...
a '� � '�`4$ Z� �,�� �� ���`.
y � q'- , : ,s � . � � '& ��. . �
�4 � sr �� ,; �, n� ,� ` . �� �' k"�, - y �
� �r ' � ,
� .. � °�ryK� � :�.;� �; ; ` � �.
r,�sL .- . 'so��-c2c� �� �.� �f' ��
�( `/ �
�.
''� ;� � `\�.34`.�+�� . \... _ � �C j�� { .!� �..._.,� .,.d �

a z U z
i; = a= �f � ���
� x �� �¢ S �af
..1i & �I - rc g $ rc
� � � -
M_�� C ���
�!f( � � �
m A }f �
e r'
.�4 ' r .. J �c:�
sAEaE "�sq -
zSo`gb 4a>� -
Fao�.-da� 9�a7°n
2 °
5
�6z 8zF8� a�a'
o�b � �ss� aa� ..
� �e � , ? _
m�aaz�:9aaa4a� �
Il �p� � .i � .? .. 'I
; "' -!= o h
� 0 97E
r:l �, v E E V
a `, e���v
;°� ��e z�
���- .j � a E ti ti E
>e� e?�
._�� � � � - a �
��' �' � �O$II�'�0 �0
�
�,.
,
, ;
,j _ � ,
z.' `
� �
" ___
„ ��
� � wans�iew " �' ��������� �'
II . . i � ��- I � �� ( � b�l 8
s� JIII� , � ���( Fx I .
' E. � �
.. r ,� ��t
���� � ______��-� � � ��.�� �� . ����''jj77�d��pp
�y% ``ao..`•, � ?/T''„F �i ��� ..
� ��i� —
A 1
rt �� �
�- _-___- "T_:.:`___-__ , ...
_ _ � _ _.:__p.e � B ___ �___
� ` � � ' � _ _
•� t
� / �� .. `'—�_.__ /4;.�,'�'
�
i
� � '�� ; �� � � /
�"' ' ' �
�
� ' � �' i < <�'�t
� ���'o
I F ��
/ / • ll/`
1
/ 1 � �$
i �,
� s:'� n
; F �,�` • . -2 , r'
� . 1�xI L .i, bepu�. . ..,
�y" ��� ��, , � .
� � �• r
' � i
,
� L —
1 / .
' ----- ---- - -- --
- __. _ �, - waasw.ew — -- — — _
% �� `��
w
�
� � � o N � LL �
1I _ �ce� �
1'. .:: �� z�� �
II, �
` J
�
�A I � LL
� ��� , �
�/ �.,-�' k�
r;
� �� �y�� ��; ,
� I �r. �
�,� , � ..; � ��`'� �
�`
�" '� (:� ��
`�¢ ��� �� '��
A � �
,<:.
�a ,� ��;1
� � 1��'�.,-�'' ' „-��
` .1r ,� 't�` � "' �m'?��
�I �., a/r.V o .
�
♦ '
'I 7i ' �'�' � r �.d
II � �11.- I.F K%- `�
x }
'��=%��g �y�1sa..< �.i
Ey " ���ri/ �_
3 �
��I � �� �.'S�. ��
���I' �.1.. �T v, '. 4'
.,t- L �II i;
� �c:,�.° �
� y�. H�,
V d`Y
' L ��`I ��,+
�, L
�� � �;._ ii. �kil.•

APPENDIX F.2
��yia�r�i��y�reu�ii��

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP P-3414P, Rowan
Appendix B
Scientific Names of Species Identified in the Report
Plants
Common Name
American elder
American elm
Beggar's-ticks
Blackberries
Black cherry
Black gum
Box elder
Bradford pear
Broomsedges
Chinese privet
Christmas fern
Cottonwood
Crab grasses
Crepe myrtle
Crossvine
Dandelion
Eastern red cedar
Fescue
Flowering dogwood
Fox-tail grass
Geranium
Georgia aster
Grapes
Greenbrier
Japanese honeysuckle
Loblolly pine
Multiflora rose
Northern red oak
Paw-paw
Poison ivy
Redbud
Red maple
Sassafras
Schweinitz's sunflower
Silky dogwood
Slippery elm
Smooth sumac
Sourwood
Southern red oak
Spicebush
Scientific Name
Sambucus canadensis
Ulmus americana
Bidens spp.
Rubus spp.
Prunus serotina
Nyssa sylvarica
Acer negundo
Pyrus calleryana
Andropogon spp.
Ligustrum sinense
Polysrichum acrosrichoides
Populus deltoides
Digitaria spp.
Lagerstromia indica
Bignonia capreolata
Taraxacum officinale
Juniperus virginiana
Festuca sp.
Cornus florida
Setaria geniculata
Geranium carolinianum
Symphyotricum georgianum
Vitis spp.
Smilax rotundifolia
Lonicera japonica
Pinus taeda
Rosa mulriflora
Quercus rubra
Asimina triloba
Toxicodendron radicans
Cercis canadensis
Acer rubrum
Sassafras albidum
Helianthus schweinitzii
Cornus amomum
Ulmus rubra
Rhus glabra
O�ydendron arboreum
Quercus falcata
Lindera benzoin
NC
NCDOT Rail Division B-1 November 2010

Natural Resources Technical Renort TIP P-3414P, Rowan Countu, NC
Sweetgum
Sycamore
Trumpet creeper
Tulip poplar
Vasey-grass
Violets
White clover
White oak
Wild onion
Willow oak
Winged elm
Animals
Common Name
American crow
American kestrel
American robin
American toad
Bald eagle
Barn swallow
Black racer
Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Bluehead chub
Bluejay
Carolina chickadee
Carolina wren
Cedar waxwing
Chimney swift
Common carp
Common grackle
Common yellow-throat
Copperhead
Corn snake
Coyote
Crayfish
Creek chub
Eastern bluebird
Eastern box turtle
Eastern cottontail
Eastern fence lizard
Eastern garter snake
Eastern ribbon snake
Eastern towhee
Liquidambar styraciflua
Platanus occidentalis
Campsis radicans
Liriodendron tulipifera
Paspalum urvillei
Viola spp.
Trifolium repens
Quercus alba
Allium sp.
Quercus phellos
Ulmus alata
Scientific Name
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Falco sparverius
Turdus migratorius
Bufo americana
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Hirundo rustica
Coluber constrictor
Polioprila caerulea
Nocomis leptocehpalus
Cyanocitta cristata
Poecile carolinensis
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Bombycilla cedrorum
Chaetura pelagica
Cyprinus carpio
Quiscalus quiscula
Geothlypsis trichas
Agl�strodon contortrix
Elaphe guttata
Ca�rus latrans
Cambarus sp.
Semorilus atromaculatus
Sialia sialis
Terrapene carolina
Sylvilagus floridanus
Sceloporus undulatus
Thamnophis sirtalis
Thamnophis sauritus
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
NCDOT Rail Division B-2 November 2010

Natural Resources Technical Renort TIP P-3414P, Rowan Countu, NC
Eastern silvery minnow
European starling
Five-lined skink
Gizzard shad
Golden shiner
Goldfinch
Gray squirrel
Gray treefrog
Great blue heron
Groundhog
House finch
Indigo bunting
Killdeer
Marbled salamander
Mourning dove
Northern cardinal
Northern mockingbird
Northern water snake
Raccoon
Rat snake
Redbreast sunfish
Redfin pickerel
Red-eyed vireo
Red-headed woodpecker
Red-tailed hawk
Rosyside dace
Sharp-shinned hawk
Song sparrow
Spring peeper
Timberrattlesnake
Tufted titmouse
Turkey vulture
Virginia opossum
White-eyed vireo
White-tailed deer
Hybognathus regius
Sturnus vulgaris
Eumeces fasciata
Dorosoma cepedianum
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Carduelis trisris
Sciurus carolinensis
Hyla sp.
Ardeaherodias
Marmota monax
Carpodacus mexicanus
Passerina cyanea
Charadrius vociferus
Ambystoma opacum
Zenaida macroura
Cardinalis cardinalis
Mimus polyglottus
Nerodia sipedon
Procyon lotor
Elaphe obsoleta
Lepomis auritus
Esox americanus
Vireo olivaceus
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Buteo jamaicensis
Clinostomus funduloides
Accipiter striatus
Melospiza melodia
Pseudacris crucifer
Crotalus horridus
Baeolophus bicolor
Cathartes aura
Didelphis virginiana
Vireo griseus
Odocoileus virginianus
NCDOT Rail Division B-3 November 2010

APPENDIX G
ROADWAY MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC

P-3414P: DTP: R2NK Roadway Maintenance of haffic
Stvting North and moving Soufh.
-Y20- {newlocationroadwmaintvnaccessmNo6leAcresandRddFvm}
11ils road is new location except at the tie with ihe eeisting road rys4m and tlils shoWd be able
m be bwlt without an offsite demw.
-Y21- {HadevSt}
11ils road shodd be able m be bwlt without ar� offsite demw. 'lhe grades are close m e�isting.
-Y2- {Peelerto Cedar Springs grade separation}
The East side shodd be able m be bwlt without ar� offsite demw as the east side is mostly new
locatioa TheWestsidewillneedanoffsitedewwduringco�tructionofthebridgeand
fhe ties m fhe bridge. A Demw Rouk m be presented m fhe Division for approval is
listedbdow:
�
f
VILINITYAMPMIO�ETOIIRFOIIIEFON-Y3�PEELERR�. � �

-vaa- {ceaarspd��rtrsasco�e�ro�}
11ils comecmr road uses parts of ihe eeisting roads SoutMurk ID ar�d Long Meadow Dr. 11ils
mecmr shoWd be able m be built wlille traffic is using these roads or by use ofthe
offate route listed for PeeledCedar Springs abwe.
-Y4- { Webb St}
Webb St will remain an at grade crosang with the rvlroad. The proposed work is m imprwe the
grades approaclilng the intersection and add the concrete mediarJislands at the aossing.
11ils work codd be bwlt by utiliang liRs of uphalt for the road co�truction and ar�
offate demw wlille the crossing is closed for the rvl co�truction. A Demw Rouk m be
presented m the Diviaon for approval is listed bdow:
J
�
�
/ j Q . . . . \ � � �+'/ ��'
� � �
l �
B�Wiwry � I `
6 !�
VICINT'MAPANDDETOURROUIEFORV-0- WEBBROAD � �
-Y10- {Kimball}
11ils is a new location road.

-Y12- {RydevAve}
Ryder Ave will remain an at grade crossing with the rvlroad. The proposed work is m imprwe
the grades approaclilng the intersection and addthe concrete mediarJislands atthe
sing. lfiis work codd be bwlt by utiliang liRs of asphalt for the road construction
and an of(�ite demw�sivg Mill St (befove iPs crossivg is close� wlille ihe crossivg is
closedforthervlconstruction.
YM"
Mvn
\ �
/
�,
VICININ MAPAND DETOUR ROU7E FOR-YM- US 29A
an offsite demw. A
��
�

APPENDIX H
REFERENCES

REFERENCES
Cabarrus-Rowan Municipal Planning Organization (CRMPO). 2009. Long-Range Transportation
Plan 2035. http://www.crmpo.org/Forms/MPO_Long_Range_Transportation_Plan.pdf
City of Kannapolis. 2004. Kannapolis 2015 Land Use Plan.
http://www.ci. kannapolis.nc.us/dept_pz_land_use.asp
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1986. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's
National Environmental PolicyAct, as amended. 51 Federal Register 15618, April 25,
1986. http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p1.htm
Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR). 2010. EDR DataMapT"" Corridor Studyfor the
NCRR Railroad from Reid to north Kannapolis. Milford, CT.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(� Documents. US Department of Transportation. FHWA
Technical Advisory No. T 6640.8A http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/environment
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), USDOT. Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. An Overview of Transportation and
Environmental Justice. Publication No. FHWA-EP-00-013.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway
Projects. Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-054.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Section 4(� Policy Paper. Office of Planning,
Environment, and Realty. Project Development and Environmental Review.
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/4fpolicy.htm# 19
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 1980. Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of
Salisbury. Community Panel Number 370215 0005 B. US Department of Housing and
Urban Development. Federal Insurance Administration.
Federal Railroad Administration. 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts.
Federal Register, May 26, 1999 (45 FR 40854). http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/252.shtml
Federal Railroad Administration. 2006. Horn Noise Assessment Analytical Model and Noise
Impact Criteria. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/168.shtml
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2009. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for
High-Speed Passenger Rail. Office of Railroad Safety. Office of Railroad Development.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/HwyRailXingG uidelines110609.pdf
Fearnbach History Services, Inc., 2010. Architectural Resources Survey Report Additional
Information: China Grove Historic District. Prepared for the NCDOT Human Environment
Unit. Fearnbach History Services, Winston-Salem, NC.

Gibson Engineers. 2010. Traffic Capacity Analysis. Prepared for the NCDOT Rail Division.
Gibson Engineers. Fuquay-Varina, NC.
HSMM, 2007. Walkable Community Plan for Kannapolis, North Carolina. Prepared for the City
of Kannapolis and the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation.
www.ci.kannapolis.nc.us/dept_pr_greenway/Kannapolis_Walkable_Community_Plan.pdf
Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. 2010. Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report.
Prepared for the NCDOT Human Environment Unit. Mattson, Alexander, and
Associates, Inc., Charlotte, NC. July 28, 2010.
North Carolina Department of Commerce (NCDC). March 2004. Economic Development
Information System. Raleigh, NC. http://cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1978. Design Manual. Division of
Highways, Highway Design Branch, Roadway Design Unit, compiled by H.C. Eason, Jr.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1978. Roadway Standard Drawings.
Division of Highways, Highway Design Branch, Roadway Design Unit.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1994. Traffic Separation Study for
Salisbury, North Carolina. Prepared by Hobbs, Upchurch, and Associates, PA. Winston-
Salem, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1997a. Traffic Separation Study for
China Grove, North Carolina. Prepared by Gannett Fleming Corddry, Inc. Charlotte, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1997b. Traffic Separation Study for
Kannapolis, North Carolina. Prepared by Gannett Fleming Engineers and Planners.
Charlotte, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1997c. Traffic Separation Study for
Landis, North Carolina. Prepared by Gannett Fleming Engineers and Planners.
Charlotte, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2001. (Revised January 14, 2004.)
Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in
North Carolina. Prepared bythe Louis Berger Group, Inc. Cary, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2003. Private Crossing Safety Initiative:
Crossing Evaluations and Recommendations for the Federal Rail road Administration's
Next Generation High Speed Rail Program. North Carolina Railroad/Norfolk Southern
from Charlotte to Raleigh. State Project No. WBS 32198. Prepared by Gannett Fleming
forthe NCDOT Rail Division. http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/private.html
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT, 2008). Feasibility Study for the
Extension of SR 1121 (Kimball Road) from SR 2739 (Main Street) to US 29/601 (Cannon
Boulevard) at SR 1221 (Bostonian Road) in Rowan County, NC. Prepared by the
NCDOT Program Development Branch. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2009. Bicycling Rowan County.
Prepared bythe NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. January
2009. http://www.ncdot.org/travel/mappubs/bikemaps/default.html

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2010. Natural Resources Technical
Report for the Proposed Additional Track & Rail Crossing Improvements from Reid
(south of Salisbury) to north Kannapolis along the NCRR/NS Railway. Prepared by
Axiom Environmental Inc. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2010a. Track Improvements
Greensboro-Charlotte. NCDOT Rail Division. http://www.bytrain.org/track/groclt.html
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2010b. Categorical Exclusion for the
Ethel Lane and Juke Box Road Crossings with North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk
Southern (NS), China Grove, Rowan County. Crossing Closures and Roadway
Improvements. Federal Aid Project No. STP-OOOs(513). WBS No. 42412.1.1. TIP
Project No. P-4405A.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004. Cumulative Impacts and the 401
Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetland Permit Programs, Version 2.1. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Railroad (NCRR). 2005. Understanding the Corridor Management and
Protection Program. Raleigh, NC. www.ncrr.com/NCRR-Corridor-Brochure.pdf
Salisbury Land Management and Development Department (SLMDD). 2001. Salisbury Vision
2020 Comprehensive Plan. Salisbury Land Management and Development Department
Salisbury, North Carolina.
Town of China Grove. 2010. Town of China Grove Development Ordinance.
http://www.chinagrovenc.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DI D=32
United States Bureau of the Census (USBOC). Census 2000 Gateway. Accessed March 2004.
http: //www. ce n s u s. g ov/m a i n/www/ce n 2000. ht m I
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1977. Soil Survey of Rowan County, North
Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. Important Farmlands of North Carolina.
http://www.nc.nres.usda.gov/programs/soilsurvey/primefarmland.html
United States Department of Transportation. 2001. Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Southeast High Speed Rail from Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC. Submitted by
the USDOT Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration.
Prepared bythe NC Department of Transportation and Virginia Department of Rail and
Public Transportation. http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html
United States Department of Transportation. 2002a. Tier I Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Southeast High Speed Rail from Washington, DC to Charlotte, NC.
Submitted by the USDOT Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad
Administration. Prepared by the NC Department of Transportation and Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation. http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html

United States Department of Transportation. 2002b. Record of Decision for the Tier I Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Southeast High Speed Rail from Washington,
DC to Charlotte, NC. Submitted bythe USDOT Federal HighwayAdministration and
Federal Railroad Administration. Prepared by the NC Department of Transportation and
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2010. Policy Statement on Bicycle and
Pedestrian Accommodation: Regulations and Recommendations.
http://www.dot.gov/affa i rs/2010/bicyc le-ped. htm I
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). November 1992. User's Guide to
CAL3QHC, Version 2.0: A modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections.
Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). May 1994. User's Guide to
MOBILE5A, Mobile Source Emission Factor Model.
Wilbur Smith. 2007. Salisbury Comprehensive Bicycle Plan. Prepared for the City of Salisbury
Department of Land Management and Development & NCDOT Division of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation. http://www.salisburync.gov/bikeplan.html