Multi~Modal Transportation Station 

Davidson County, North Carolina 

United States Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration {FRA) 

and 

City of Lexington 

Administrative Action 

Finding of No Significant Impacts 

and 

Final Section 4{f) Evaluation 

Submitted Pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) 

and 

Section 4(f) of the DOT Act 

49 u.s.c. 303 

Prepared in accordance with FRA's Environmental Procedures 

(64 Fed. Reg. 28545 May 26, 1999) 

February 2017 
Lexington Multi-Modal Transportation Station - Finding of No Significant Impacts 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................. 1 

1.1 Project .Description .................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Project Background .................................................................................................... 2 

1.3 Procedural History and NEPA Compliance ............................................................... ~3 

2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................. 4 

2.1 Purpose of the Lexington MMTS ............................................................................... 4 

2.2 Need for the Lexington MMTS .................................................................................. 4 

3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................................................... 6 

3.1 Build Alternative (Alternative C) ................................................................................ 6 

3.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ................................................ 9 

4 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 11 

5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION ............................................................................. 20 

5.1 Circulation of the Environmental Assessment (EA) ................................................ 20 

5.2 Agency Comments Received on the EA .................................................................. 20 

5.3 Public Comments Received on the EA .................................................................... 20 

6 FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION .................................................................................... 21 

6.1 Purpose of Section 4(f) Evaluation ......................................................................... 21 

6.2 Applicability of Section 106 and of Section 4(f) to the Project.. ............................. 22 

6.3 Description of Section 4(f) Resources ..................................................................... 23 

6.4 Description of Alternatives Considered .................................................................. 27 

6.5 Description of Impacts to 4(f) Resources ............................................................... 32 

6.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 33 

6.7 Conclusion .................................................................... ~ .......................................... 33 

6.8 Department of Interior Concurrence ...................................................................... 34 

6.9 Public and Agency Coordination .............................................................. , .............. 34 

6.10 Section 4(f) Determination ..................................................................................... 37 

7 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTMENTS ................................................................................ 38 

8 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 40 

i IP age 
APPENDICES 

Appendix A - Project Maps 

Appendix B - Section 106 and Section 4(f) Correspondence 

Appendix C - Memorandum of Agreement on Historic Resources and 

Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects 

iii Page 
Lexington Multi-Modal Transportation Station - Finding of No Significant Impacts 

1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

1.1 Project Description 

The City of Lexington ("City''), in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), proposes to 

construct the Lexington Multi-modal Transportation Station ("MMTS" or "Project"). The Project will reestablish passenger rail service, along with providing multi-modal access for all Citizens, within the 

Piedmont Triad1 region of North Carolina. 

The Project is located in the City's Depot District in Davidson County, North Carolina (see Figure 1 in 

Appendix A) The Depot District is approximately 125 acres with planning areas designated by the City for 

transit-oriented development (TOD) and Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) revitalization. The 

Depot District is defined by up to 35 blocks bounded by East Center Street to the north, South Talbert 

Boulevard to the east, East sth Avenue to the south, and South Main Street to the west, as shown on Figure 

2 in Appendix A. The Depot District is within and adjacent to Uptown Lexington, and includes the 

Lexington Home Brands (LHB) Plant 1 furniture manufacturing facility (now owned by City), the Lexington 

Farmers Market, existing residential neighborhoods, and several blocks of underutilized industrial 

properties. North Carolina Railroad Company (NCRR) right of way crosses the district. 

The National Register-listed Uptown Lexington Historic District includes shops, restaurants, and art 

galleries. The City envisions the Depot District as a mixed-use extension of Uptown Lexington and 

surrounding neighborhoods that can provide a gathering place for both residents and visitors within a 

multi-modal environment. 

The Project limits for the Lexington MMTS (see Figure 3 in Appendix A) consist of the components needed 

for the construction and operation of a new intercity passenger rail and transit center, including: 

• the Lexington MMTS at 3rd Avenue and Railroad Street, 

• Complete Street2 improvements along portions of Railroad and Elk Streets, and 3rd, 2"d, and 5th 

Avenues, to allow for vehicular, transit and pedestrian access to the Lexington MMTS, 

• platforms and canopies along the NCRR/Norfolk Southern (NS) railroad corridor, and 

• track work extending approximately 5,700 feet. 

Construction of the Project is expected to encourage and complement surrounding redevelopment and 

attract substantial private investment to the area, resulting in continued leveraging of local, state and 

federal dollars. The surrounding Depot District is positioned for several privately financed development 

opportunities consistent with the community's directives for a vibrant mixture of affordable housing, 

locally-grown retail, innovative light manufacturing and new startup space, food and entertainment, and 

anchored by an amphitheater for cultural productions and live music. Adherence to the Station Area Plan 

(SAP), along with the future Depot District Master Plan, will ensure architectural standards, innovative 

1 The Piedmont Triad Region is named for the three largest cities in the region: Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and 

High-Point; Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC), http://www.ptrc.org 2 See North Carolina Department of Transportation Complete Streets policies and guidelines at 

http://completestreetsnc.org/ 

llPage 
green methods, accessibility compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, walkability, 

and bicycle friendly streetscapes are applied coherently among the related improvements that are 

planned within the district. Figure 3 in Appendix A shows the boundaries of the Depot District and the 

Project Limits. 

1.2 Project Background 

On March 28, 2006, Richard Thomas, then Mayor of the City, wrote a letter to Amtrak requesting that 

Amtrak consider adding Lexington as a permanent station stop along the Raleigh-to-Charlotte passenger 

railroad corridor. Amtrak responded on April 17, 2006, with a letter acknowledging the request and 

confirming that Amtrak had begun the process to evaluate Lexington as a potential stop. Subsequently, 

Amtrak confirmed that Lexington would support an estimated ridership of 10,300 passengers annually. 

These ridership results prompted a decision by Amtrak and North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT) Rail Division to approve re-establishing permanent passenger rail service in Lexington with a new 

passenger train stop that would fill a regional gap in service along the Raleigh-to-Charlotte corridor. In 

March 2015, Amtrak released the results of a Route & Service Evaluation for the Lexington Station, which 

increased the estimated ridership to 10,700 passengers annually and projected a positive financial impact 

of $220,150 annually. 

In 2010, the City was awarded a grant under the U.S. Department of Transporta~ion's (USDOT) 

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) II program3 to assist with funding the 

planning and design for a new Lexington MMTS. The proposed Project would include the MMTS station 

building, associated passenger platform, concourse and track infrastructure, and focus upon these goals: 

• the re-introduction of passenger rail service to Lexington in concert with activities to improve 

and expand passenger rail service between Raleigh and Charlotte, and 

• the redevelopment of the area that encompasses the former LHB Plant #1 furniture 

manufacturing facility, now owned by the City, within the Depot District. 

Accordingly, in November 2011, the City hired a Consulting Team to coordinate master planning and urban 

design for the SAP including primary access street improvements following Complete Streets policies and 

architectural design for the Lexington MMTS building, passenger platform and concourse. The consultant 

contract also included preparation of preliminary engineering plans for the passenger platform and 

associated track work and completion of planning and environmental documentation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 19694 (NEPA). 

In 2012, the NCDOT Rail Division recommended the location for the proposed passenger rail station within 

the Depot District. Based upon this recommendation, the City pursued planning and NEPA work with 

evaluation of alternatives for the proposed station. 

Subsequently, for each fiscal year since 2012, a top goal established by the City continues to be the 

"Planning, design, and redevelopment of Depot District including restoration of passenger rail service in 

new multi-modal transportation station on City owned [LHB] Plant 1 property."5 The City and its partners 

3 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/TIGER%202%20Planning%20GRANTS%20Highlights.pdf 

4 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 5 City Council Goals Fiscal Year 2012-2013. http://www.lexingtonnc.net/index.aspx?page=405 

21Page 
continue to support the re-introduction of passenger rail service including construction of t he Lexington 

MMTS. 

1.3 Procedural History and NEPA Compliance 

In 2010, USDOT awarded the City a TIGER II Planning Grant to complete the station area planning and 

NEPA documentation for the Project. 

The Project is included in the High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) adopted Strategic 

Planning Office of Transportation (SPOT) 4.0 Projects list and is currently being evaluated by NCDOT for 

inclusion in the 2018-2027 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). The Project is also included in 

the November 2010 adopted Regional Transit Development Plan prepared by the Piedmont Authority for 

Regional Transportation (PART). 

The FRA is the lead Federal agency for the Project under NEPA, and the City is the lead State agency. FRA 

and City published the Lexington Multi-Modal Transportation Station Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation on the City's website on September 23, 2016.6 The EA and this Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) were prepared in accordance with NEPA. The contents of the EA and this FONSI 

conform with the Council ori Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines7 regarding the implementation of 

NEPA, as well as FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental lmpacts8 and the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Environmental Guidebook.9 

6 http://www.lexingtonnc.net/index.aspx?page=616; https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0981 7 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-08. https://ceq.doe.gov/index.html 8 Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999). 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/elib/details/L02561 

9 https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/index.asp 

3IPage 
2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED 

2.1 Purpose of the Lexington MMTS 

The purpose of the Project is to develop a multi-modal facility to serve the community's transportation 

needs and support redevelopment within the Depot District to further revitalize the City's uptown area. 

As a multi-modal facility, the Project will serve passenger rail, local and regional transit services, taxi, 

bicycle, and pedestrian networks. As a community resource, the Project will create an anchor for 

redevelopment and economic revitalization of the Depot District by transforming a vacant and dormant 

warehouse district into a viable mixed-use activity center. 

2.2 Need for the Lexington MMTS 

The Project will address the following needs: 

Intercity Rail Service: Along the Raleigh to Charlotte portion of the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) 

corridor, there are existing passenger rail stations approximately every 20 miles, except for the 40-mile 

section between the High Point and Salisbury stations. Adding a station in Lexington will fill in this missing 

gap along the corridor. NCDOT has recommended adding a stop in Lexington as part of the recentlyadopted Comprehensive State Rail Plan10, and projections from Amtrak indicate that adding the station in 

Lexington will have a net positive impact in ridership and revenue for the Piedmont and Carolinian services 

by generating 10,700 passenger trips per year. In addition, adding an intercity passenger rail station in 

Lexington will make passenger rail service available to more than 513,000 residents living in the region. 

The transportation investment will provide alternatives for travel to Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina, 

as well as all other destinations along the Carolinian and Piedmont Amtrak passenger rail routes. 

Transportation Hub: The Davidson County/City of Lexington Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes 

the goals of adding passenger rail service as well as expanded arid connected regional transit, bicycle and 

pedestrian networks. The Project will establish a new central location for direct transfers between other 

transit and transportation services within the City and region, including Davidson County Transportation 

Services (DCTS) and PART bus routes, taxi service, and bicycle and pedestrian networks, as well as serving 

as a potential end-point for vanpool services. PART service will also provide residents in Winston-Salem 

(216,000 population, 20 miles to the north) a means to access passenger rail service in Lexington, thereby 

likely increasing Amtrak ridership. 

Connections to Employment and Services: The transportation need for the area comes from a 

disconnected transportation network, which affects citizens' ability to reach much needed jobs and 

education opportunities within the region and may deter prospective new residents from relocating to 

Lexington. Currently, a cycle of high unemployment compounded by the lack of connected transportation 

services has contributed to economic decline within the City and continual population loss. Only 50 

percent of Lexington residents both live and work within the City. The City must find ways to enable 

residents to commute to jobs and return home to Lexington via safe, affordable, and readily accessible 

services. Over 5,400 jobs in Lexington have been lost since 2000 (NC Bureau of Labor Statistics) and the 

10 NCDOT Rail Division. North Carolina Comprehensive State Rail Plan (2015). 

http:Uwww.ncbytrain.org/projects/rail-plan.html 

41Page 
City's population decreased from 19,953 to 18,931 over the last ten years (US Census). With a poverty 

rate of 26.4 percent and 13.3 percent of citizens not having access to cars (US Census, American 

Community Survey 2005-2009 Average), connecting people to jobs, education, and goods and services 

through public transportation choice is a critical need. A centralized transit and rail hub that serves 

regional transit, as well as that connects to a growing pedestrian and bicycle network will help with this 

access. Additionally, recent transit planning efforts by City have identified that homeless veterans in the 

region are unable to access the Veteran's Administration Medical Facility in Salisbury, 19 miles southwest 

of Lexington. Improved rail and transit services to Salisbury would help with this problem. 

Job Creation and Economic Competitiveness: The Federal government has designated the Lexington area 

as an Economically Distressed Area and by the State as an Urban Progress Zone. According to ridership 

estimates from Amtrak and NCDOT, the Project is expected to result in 27 hours of travel time savings for 

existing Lexington-area Amtrak customers in the first year, since those riders will no longer need to drive . 

to High Point, Salisbury or elsewhere to ride Amtrak. Despite the annual Lexington Barbeque Festival and 

two National-Register historic districts in Lexington, Davidson County ranks last in tourism spending in the 

Raleigh-to-Charlotte corridor. The Project will also support the local tourism industry by creating a 

transportation hub within walking distance of Uptown Lexington and could help attract riders to the 

annual Lexington Barbecue Festival. The Project is expected to eventually create three full-time positions 

at the station plus 317 jobs for design and construction. Moreover, the Project is expected to create 

secondary growth in tourism employment from the additional visitors. The Project is a major component 

of the redevelopment of the Depot District, which consists of several vacant buildings adjacent to Uptown 

Lexington. 

5IPage 
3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The City considered a reasonable range of alternatives for the Project. The alternatives included the NoBuild Alternative and various Build Alternatives for station locations within the Depot District, and for size 

and configuration of platforms, passenger platform access, station layout, and station building 

programming. The City assessed each alternative with respect to its ability to meet the Project's purpose 

and need, as well as the Project's potential impacts on both the human and natural environment. 

3.1 Build Alternative (Alternative C) 

The City, Consultant Team and other partners evaluated various components of the proposed Lexington 

MMTS, which culminated in the development of a Build Alternative (Alternative C) consisting of: 

• Construction of the new Lexington MMTS building 

• Lexington MMTS Plaza 

• Surface parking 

• Two tracks (relocation of the existing tracks), with provisions to allow for the future installation 

of two additional tracks under a separate project 

• Dual low-level side passenger platforms with canopies 

• .Below grade passenger concourse connecting the Lexington MMTS building and the platforms 

with ramps and elevators 

• Baggage tunnel and baggage ramps to the platforms 

• New public access pedestrian tunnel connecting the MMTS and Elk Street 

• Complete street improvements to primary access streets around the proposed Lexington MMTS 

building 

All SAP key components for the Build Alternative are organized within three core Project Sections that 

together comprise the Project, as shown in Figure 4 (Appendix A): 

• Section A- SAP Site and Lexington MMTS building 

• Section B - Concourse, Platform and Track 

• Section C - Primary Access Streets 

Modification to Alternative Station Site Design 

During planning of the Lexington MMTS building layout and site plan, the City received a letter from the 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), dated November 4, 2013, explaining that SHPO 

considered several structures, existing streetscapes, and the tunnel within the Dixie Furniture Company 

site as contributing resources to the SH PO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District (see SHPO letter 

in Appendix B). As a result, the City and Consultant Team developed modifications to the Build Alternative 

in part to avoid impacts to some of the contributing resources by eliminating surface parking at the 

proposed lower level transit plaza. Additional parking is available in other locations to the east and north 

of the proposed station building. 

GI Page 
The following pages describe the primary components and function of the Build Alternative. The City is 

committed to ensure that each of these primary components shall be incorporated within the Project. 

3.1.1 SECTION A: SAP SITE AND LEXINGTON MMTS BUILDING 

SAP Site Boundary and Project Limits: The SAP Site Area is approximately 25.5 acres defined by the 

combined total land area required to implement the proposed key components comprising each SAP 

Project Section. The Project Limits for the Lexington MMTS is approximately 18.5 acres located within the 

greater SAP Site Boundary and overlaps most of the SAP including the area of track work and portions of 

primary access streets necessary to serve the Lexington MMTS. 

Lexington MMTS Building Site: Site preparation for the Lexington MMTS building will include the selective 

demolition and shoring of existing buildings currently occupying the required limits of construction. The 

Lexington MMTS Site will be designed to take advantage of the unique existing topography characterized 

by a 12 to 14-foot grade change along South Railroad Street between East 3rd Avenue and the existing 

Tunnel Street. East 3rd Avenue will include surface parking, transit and taxi connections, and the station 

entrance. The lower level will access the below-grade passenger concourse connecting the station and 

the platforms. The City expects that this proposed site configuration will facilitate the ordered site 

integration, construction, and functional operation of the multilevel Lexington MMTS building. 

Lexington MMTS Building: The new Lexington MMTS building will be the primary facility for train 

passengers, enabling connections to other transit modes including pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, 

taxicab, and bus with local and regional service. The Lexington MMTS building is a multi-level facility with 

an interior gross floor area of 15,292 SF and outdoor covered gross floor area of 5,135 SF for a total gross 

floor area of 20,427 SF. 

The Lexington MMTS building will consist of three levels: 

• Level 100: Provides a secondary, lower level entrance to the building with direct access to the 

station office space, primary passenger waiting area and restroom facilities, and connection to 

the passenger concourse leading to the platform. 

• Level 200: Provides the building primary entrance with an at-grade connection from the Station 

Plaza and future Depot Square to the grand hall-galleria consisting of the upper lobby, passenger 

waiting area (rail and bus), and potential incidental and station-related commercial space. 

• Level 300: Provides a small observation gallery on the north end of the building, along with 

flanking outd.oor balconies, with views down into the grand hall and out to Depot Square, and 

will be open to the public and available for special events. This area is designed to accommodate 

the potential connection to future redevelopment buildings via pedestrian bridge structure(s). 

Station Plazas: The Station Plazas (Upper and Lower) will be the public spaces serving as the transition or 

gateway thresholds between the Lexington MMTS building and the City. Given the proposed Lexington 

MMTS building integration with the existing sloped topography of the site, an Upper (Level 200) and Lower 

(Level 100) Station Plaza will be constructed. 

Station Amenity Area: As permitted by NCRR, the Station Amenity Area will be located adjacent to the 

Lexington MMTS building along the east side fronting the railroad corridor and constructed as a simple 

lawn defined by a perimeter hardscape pathway. The Station Amenity Area will function as the front lawn 

for the Lexington MMTS, providing an outdoor waiting area for passengers and visitors as well as 

opportunities for staging special public and private outdoor events .. 

71Page 
Depot Square: Depot Square will be a monumental public open space, for use by citizens and visitors alike, 

functioning as both a gateway to the City and a central gathering space within the Depot District. 

Station Parking: Initially, only surface and on-street parking types are necessary to provide adequate 

capacity within the SAP Site area; however, the City anticipates that structured parking types will be 

necessary for subsequent future phases to meet the capacity increases determined by the correlating 

demand of passenger ridership and redevelopment of the Depot District. Surface parking will be 

accommodated primarily within six locations: Depot Square, around the Freight Depot, the City-owned 

gravel parking lot along Railroad Street, the realigned Elk Street, and the proposed construction staging 

area south of Elk Street (subject to agreement with the existing property owner). 

3.1.2 SECTION B: CONCOURSE, PLATFORM, AND TRACK 

Passenger Concourse: The Passenger Concourse will be designed and constructed to facilitate continuous 

underground, passenger and baggage access and connection between the Lexington MMTS building 

(passenger waiting area and station office/baggage room) and the boarding platform. Although baggage 

service will not be provided with initial Lexington MMTS operations, the baggage concourse will be 

· designed and constructed to meet the functional requirements for expected future service and demand. 

Existing Tunnel Structure: The existing vehicular Tunnel Street and structure will be abandoned for use 

as a vehicular access below the NCRR ROW. Upon review and subsequent letter by SHPO on November 4, 

2013, the existing tunnel structure is a "contributing resource" to the SH PO-proposed National Registereligible historic district located within the property. Accordingly, the current plan for the existing tunnel 

structure is to avoid and/or minimize impacts by incorporating the structure into the SAP site and building 

design. The impacts would include abandonment of the current use of the existing tunnel structure as a 

vehicular only access below the NCRR railroad ROW along with the removal (total or partial) and/or filling 

in place in order to build the Project components including new track alignment, dual low-level side 

platforms, passenger concourse, and pedestrian underpass tunnel for public access below the NCRR 

corridor. 

Pedestrian Underpass: A new, open (non-gated) pedestrian tunnel structure (underpass) connection 

crossing below the NCRR ROW, providing safe public access for pedestrians and cyclists only, will be 

designed and constructed to replace current use of the existing vehicular Tunnel Street and structure. 

Dual Side Passenger Platforms: Two low-level side passenger platforms will be constructed in a dual side 

load configuration 700 feet long to provide adequate frontage for expected passenger train lengths and 

16 feet wide to provide safe circulation area for passenger queuing, boarding, and alighting while also 

accommodating baggage handling equipment. The platforms will be constructed at a height of eight 

inches above the top of rail as defined by current ADA regulations. The dual side platform configuration 

will enhance operational efficiency and safety within this location on the corridor by facilitating the ability 

to dispatch trains to either track as needed. The platforms will be accessed in three locations (passenger 

elevator, passenger stair, and baggage ramp) to accommodate access from the concourse below. 

Platform Canopies: Canopies will be constructed over both platforms to provide weather protection and 

circulation clearance for passengers, passenger accessibility equipment, and future baggage equipment. 

The dimensions and height of the canopies will be defined during preliminary design and will comply with 

NS and Amtrak design criteria. 

Track Configuration - Mainline Track Realignment: Common railroad practice for construction of 

passenger stations prefers placement of station platforms on tangent track for the full length of the trains 

SI Page 
serving the station. The existing track configuration at the site of the Lexington MMTS includes a curve, 

which does not provide a tangent sufficient to accommodate the full length of the Carolinian or Piedmont 

trains that will serve the station. To remediate the curve and provide a corridor width sufficient to support 

a future four-track railroad with two side platforms, the tracks must be repositioned through the Project 

area. The existing two mainline tracks will be reconstructed on a new tangent alignment parallel to each 

passenger platform. The realigned mainline tracks will extend beyond the platform and tie into existing 

track alignment approximately one-half mile to the north and one-quarter mile to the south. 

Center Street Bridge Improvements: Improvements adjacent to the existing Center Street Bridge crossing 

the NCRR ROW will be implemented as required to facilitate reconstruction of the two mainline tracks 

and will include site re-grading and/or construction of retaining and/or crash walls as determined in future 

design phases. 

NCRR ROW: In recognition of growing freight traffic on the NCRR corridor, the Project will allow for the 

installation of two additional tracks for a future four-track configuration passing through the station. 

Railroad Corridor Improvements: As permitted by NCRR, improvements within and along the railroad 

corridor within the SAP near the Lexington MMTS will be implemented to enhance beauty and safety. 

Fencing and low landscaping will be provided near the outer edge of both sides of the ROW fronting the · 

dual side platforms and additional inter-track fencing will be provided between the two mainline tracks 

fronting the platform to help prevent unauthorized and unsafe pedestrian access and crossing of the NCRR 

corridor. 

3.1.3 SECTION C: PRIMARY ACCESS STREETS 

Transit Plazas: Two Transit Plazas (Upper and Lower) are proposed to provide passengers with direct, 

safe, and accessible pathways between the loading areas and the Lexington MMTS building entrances on 

Level 200 and 100 respectively. In addition to providing multimodal access to the Lexington MMTS 

building, both Transit Plazas will facilitate efficient access by emergency and service vehicles. 

South Railroad Street Realignment: South Railroad Street will be realigned with a new street plan and 

safer, accessible intersections between East 2nd Avenue and East 3rd Avenue. The realignment will be 

designed in accordance with Complete Streets principles. 

Elk Street ROW Acquisition and Realignment: Elk Street will be realigned between East 1st Avenue 

Extension and East 5th Avenue Extension to accommodate the new passenger platform and associated 

track alignment and the associated NCRR ROW expansion as required for additional tracks. The proposed 

realignment of Elk Street will be constructed to complete a continuous street connection between East 

1st Avenue Extension and East 5th Avenue Extension. The new alignment of Elk Street will be designed in 

accordance with Complete Streets principles. 

Primary Access Street Improvements: Portions of designated primary access streets (including street and 

sidewalk areas) will be enhanced with improvements in accordance with Complete Streets principles. 

These enhancements are proposed along South Railroad Street, East 2"d Avenue, East 3rd Avenue, East 1st 

Avenue Extension, East 3rd Avenue Extension, and East 5th Avenue Extension. 

3.2 Alternatives Eliminated.from Further Consideration 

The City evaluated additional alternatives for the proposed Lexington MMTS, including one additional 

station location alternative (Station Location Alternative A) and six platform and track alternatives (A-V.1, 

9IPage 
A-V.2, B-V.l , B-V.2, B-V.3, and B-V.4}. All of these Lexington MMTS building/passenger platform and track 

alternatives were within the Depot District and adjacent to or within the NCRR ROW. The City eliminated 

these alternatives for the following reasons: 

• Station Location Alternative A (Southern Platform Location) was eliminated because it does not 

provide the greatest overall benefit to the local and regional community, and does not maximize 

the potential for redevelopment of the Depot District as it is further from Uptown Lexington and 

the available parcels that the City and LRC have identified for redevelopment. Additionally, this 

location would result in greater impacts to eligible historic resources. Station Location Alternative 

A does not meet the goals for a multimodal SAP and Lexington MMTS facility as it is further 

removed from existing and proposed transit and pedestrian connections, along with existing 

utility infrastructure, in the Depot District. In addition, Station Location Alternative A does not 

support the need for th.e Lexington MMTS as a transportation hub with a central location for direct 

transfers between other transit and transportation services within the City and region, including 

DCTS and PART bus routes, taxi service, and bicycle and pedestrian networks located in the Depot 

District. Furthermore, Station Location Alternative A would complicate construction (coordination 

and expense) for the separate, proposed future Lexington highway-rail underpass project at East 

5th Avenue as a portion of the platform would be located above the proposed tunnel. 

• Alternatives A-V.1 and A-V.2 (Southern Platform Location) were eliminated with Station Location 

Alternative A. 

• Alternative B-V.1 (Northern Platform Location, Low-level Island Platform, Full-size Lexington 

MMTS building at East 3rd Avenue) was eliminated because the required platform width and 

requirement to allow for four total tracks would require reconstruction of the Center Street bridge 

· that passes over the NCRR. 

• Alternative B-V.2 (Northern Platform Location, Narrow Low-Level Island Platform, Reduced Sized 

Lexington MMTS building at East 3rd Avenue) was eliminated from consideration because the 

width of the platform restricted vertical circulation elements to either end of the platform, 

requiring more and longer pedestrian and baggage connections from the MMTS. Furthermore, 

the narrow platform width was below the required minimum width for passenger platforms 

established by NCDOT. 

• Alternative B-V.3 (Northern Platform Location, Tapered Low-Level Island Platform, Reduced Sized 

Lexington MMTS building at East 3rd Avenue) was also eliminated from consideration later in the 

Project analysis when NS notified the NCDOT Rail Division of their preference for side platforms. 

· • Alternative B-V.4 (Northern Platform Location, . High-Level Island Platform, Reduced Sized 

Lexington MMTS building at East 3rd Avenue) was eliminated because the high-level platform 

would require construction of additional freight tracks to bypass the high-level platform with 

additional right of way and construction impacts. 

10 IP age 
Lexington Multi-Modal Transportation Station - Finding of No Significant Impacts 

4 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts provide a list of potential environmental 

impact areas that must be considered in the environmental process. All areas have been addressed in the 

EA in Chapters 1through4. Table 1 summarizes the resulting impacts for the Build Alternative, along with 

a list of sections in the EA where the impacts are described in more detail and proposed mitigation, if 

applicable. 

Table 1: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for Build Alternative 

Section of EA 

3.1 Air Quality 

3.2 Water Quality 

11 I Page 

Summary of Impacts Proposed Mitigation 

No Impact. The Build Alternative is not a 

Project of air quality concern. The Not applicable. 

estimated 29 rail trips per day (58 trips 

per day) are currently being taken by 

automobiles or buses. The additional bus 

trips into downtown Lexington would be 

completed elsewhere in the region. The 

Build Alternative will not increase the 

number of trains traveling within the rail 

corridor. 

Minor Impact. The water quality Study The City will minimize impacts 

Area is already disturbed from years of through implementation of a 

development and human use. Impacts to stringent erosion control 

water resources could include schedule and use of best 

stormwater runoff, disruption of the management practices (BMPs). 

substrate, increased sedimentation and Measures to control non-point 

siltation, and temporary decreases of source water quality impacts as 

dissolved oxygen during construction. described in NCDOT's Best 

Most impacts would be temporary in Management Practices for 

nature, occurring only during Project Protection of Surface Waters 

construction. Impacts would be limited (1997) will be incorporated. The 

to the immediate area of construction. plan will be prepared in 

Stormwa.ter runoff rates would increase accordance with the 

slightly due to the increase in impervious requirements of the North 

surface area. Sedimentation may also Carolina Sedimentation 

cause an impact to water systems Pollution Control Act (lSA NCAC 

crossed. Sedimentation of the stream 48.0101-0130). 

channel causes changes in flow rate and 

stream course, which may lead to 

increased stream bank scour and 

erosion. Sedimentation also leads to 

increased turbidity of the water column. 

Removal of the riparian vegetation could 

result in decreases in dissolved oxygen 

and temperature instability of the 

stream. 
Section of EA 

3.3 Noise and 

Vibration 

3.4 Solid Waste 

Disposal 

Summary of Impacts Proposed Mitigation 

No Noise Impact. Freight traffic is the Mitigation measures that are 

dominant source of noise in the Study typically incorporated into rail 

Area. The additional train frequencies projects to reduce excessive 

between the existing condition and the vibration include changes to the 

No Build condition is projected to track support system. Floating 

increase noise levels up to four decibels slabs, resiliently supported ties, 

over existing noise. Both freight and high resilience fasteners, and 

passenger traffic frequencies are ballast mats have all been used 

expected to remain constant in the No in subways to reduce groundBuild and Build conditions. As a result, borne vibration. Applications on 

noise levels increase and decrease up to at-grade track are less common. 

four decibels to account for the shift in Due the low-level of 

track alignments closer to or farther from 

receptors. As a three decibel increase is 

barely audible, the Build alternative 

would not have a significant impact on 

noise. 

Major Vibration Impact. Vibration levels 

from the shift in track would increase 2 

to 3 VdB over the No-Build alternative 

during freight train passbys. The shift in 

track alignment will increase passenger 

train speed by 15 mph from 65 to 80 mph 

and will increase vibration levels by 4 to 

7 VdB over the No Build alternative. Both 

the shift in rail tracks and the increased 

speed exceed the FTA impact criteria and 

therefore, have the potential to result in 

a significant impact to as many as 14 

residences, with 8 of those experiencing 

no greater than a 4 VdB increase. 

Minor Impact. Several existing buildings 

within the Project area will be 

demolished entirely or in part. 

Recoverable materials will be identified 

prior to building demolition as part of a 

comprehensive resource reclamation 

program. Material sorting for recycling 

will be implemented before demolition. 

Solid waste will be properly disposed of 

in accordance with state and federal 

statutes. 

geotechnical and track design 

information used in the analysis, 

the City will prepare a detailed 

vibration analysis during final 

design. If the detailed analysis 

continues to show significant 

impacts, the City will 

incorporate specific mitigation 

measures into the Project. Even 

absent a determination of 

specific mitigation measures at 

this time, however, given the 

low number of residences that 

could experience impacts and 

the mitigation measures 

available, FRA and the City have 

determined that the limited 

number of potential vibration 

impacts associated with the 

Project do not rise to the level of 

significance and do not prevent 

FRA from issuing this FONSI. 

Building demolition and clearing 

of lots will be conducted 

according to a solid waste 

resource reclamation and 

recycling program developed by 

the City prior to construction 

activities. 

12 IP age 
Section of EA 

3.5 Ecological Systems 

3.6 Impacts to 

Wetland Areas 

3.7 Impacts on 

Endangered Species or 

Wildlife 

3.8 Flood Hazard and 

Floodplain 

Management 

3.9 Coastal 

Management 

3.10 Energy Use 

3.11 Natural 

Resources: Use of 

Summary of Impacts 

Minor Impact. Construction of the Build 

Alternative would impact terrestrial 

resources associated with improving 

access roads and construction within the 

railroad ROW. These impacts would be 

minor given the previously disturbed 

character of the Study Area. 

Minor Impact. There are no wetlands 

mapped in the Study Area. A portion of 

the Study Area is mapped with hydric 

soil, which is somewhat poorly drained 

and has a seasonal high water table. One 

jurisdictional stream was observed 

within the Study Area. Construction of 

the Build Alternative could require 

extending existing c::ulverts. 

No impact. The Build Alternative will not 

impact listed threatened or endangered 

species. 

Minor Impact. The Study Area has one 

area mapped with both a 100-year and 

500-year floodplain. Construction of the 

Build Alternative could potentially have 

direct impacts to floodplain resources in 

the Study Area. Railroad improvements 

may require widening existing 

embankments, and extending existing 

culverts. 

No Impact. The Study Area is not located 

within a coastal county. 

Minor Impact. The Build Alternative 

would increase short-term energy use 

during construction and long-term 

energy use during facility operation. The 

Build Alternative would reduce regional 

energy use by providing a transportation 

mode alternative (passenger rail) that 

does not existing in Lexington. 

No Impact. There will be no extraction of 

water, minerals, or timber as a result of 

the proposed alternatives. 

13 

Proposed Mitigation 

A landscape plan will be 

implemented to provide 

vegetation along street 

improvements. Vegetation 

along the railroad will be 

allowed to regenerate naturally. 

At the federal level under the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) and US 

Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) 

regulations, as a condition of 

permit approval, the USACE is 

obligated to require mitigation 

for any unavoidable impacts to 

wetlands and streams. The City 

will conduct a formal 

jurisdictional determination of 

the entire Study Area, and the 

City will be responsible for 

obtaining required federal and 

state water protection permits. 

Not applicable. 

Prior to any construction 

activities, the City will 

coordinate with the Federal 

Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) to ensure 

compliance with FEMA 

regulations, or ensure that 

others undertaking 

construction do so. 

Not applicable. 

Construction-related impacts 

will be short-term and cease 

once construction is finished. 

Design of the facility will employ 

BMPs for the efficient use of 

energy for operation and 

equipment. 

Not applicable. 
Section of EA 

Water, Mineral or 

Timber 

3.12 Aesthetic and 

Design Quality 

3.13 Transportation 

3.14 Barriers to the 

Elderly and 

Handicapped 

Summary of Impacts Proposed Mitigation 

Positive Impact. The Build Alternative will Not applicable. 

create a positive impact for public art by 

providing new opportunities for public 

art features via the City community art 

program, as overseen by Lexington's 

Appearance Commission. Design of the 

Lexington MMTS will mirror the historic 

qualities of the Depot District. 

The Build Alternative will also create 

minor visual impacts, particularly along 

the NS railroad corridor by realigning 

trackage, constructing retaining walls 

and platforms, and realigning Elk Street. 

Positive Impact. The passenger rail Not applicable. 

service in the Build Alternative will 

produce approximately 58 automobile 

trips per day, and will direct some 

additional bus route service to 

downtown Lexington. The existing street 

network and street improvements under 

the Build Alternative will have the 

capacity to handle the additional 

vehicular traffic. The Project will improve 

transit performance by centralizing a 

new multimodal hub that will provide 

better connections. The Project will have 

no impacts on freight traffic, either 

trucking or rail. 

Positive Impact. The Lexington MMTS Not applicable. 

will be built in compliance with 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 

including the station, platforms, platform 

access, and street improvements. Due to 

railroad operating conditions, the station 

platform will not include a high-level 

platform; however, access to the train 

will be provided from the low-level 

platform by mobile lift when required. 

The Lexington MMTS will also provide 

more transit and rail access to all 

residents of Lexington, including the 

elderly and disabled. 

14 IP age 
Section of EA 

3.15 Land Use, Existing 

and Planned 

3.16 Socioeconomic 

Environment 

3.17 Environmental 

Justice 

3.18 Public Health 

3.19 Public Safety 

(Hazardous Materials) 

Summary of Impacts 

Positive Impact. The City intends to 

redevelop the former LHB property into a 

new mixed use, transit oriented 

development anchored by the new 

Lexington MMTS. The Project is consistent 

with current land use planning and 

activities within the Depot District. The City 

expects that the Lexington MMTSwill bean 

asset and provide transportation access to 

nearby amenities including community and 

government services, employment and 

educational resources, historic sites, and 

other tourist attractions. 

Positive Impact. The Build Alternative will 

create a positive impact for economic 

resources in the Study Area by spurring 

redevelopment of the Depot District. The 

Project will create new employment 

opportunities through construction of 

the Build Alternative. 

Proposed Mitigation 

Not applicable. 

Not applicable. 

Positive Impact. The Build Alternative is Not applicable. 

expected to have a net positive impact on 

all populations, including minority and 

low-income populations, by increasing 

mobility. No disproportionally negative 

environmental impacts are identified for 

low-income or minority populations 

within the Study Area. 

Positive Impact. The Build Alternative will Not applicable. 

result in positive impacts on public health 

and safety. Construction of the Lexington 

MMTS, including the new pedestrian 

tunnel access and Complete Street 

improvements, will improve public safety 

by upgrading out-of-date facilities and 

reducing the potential for 

pedestrian/train and 

pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. 

Minor Impact. Based upon a database Once final design plans are 

review of potential hazardous waste sites developed, a plan will be 

near the Project site, the Lexington formulated and developed to 

MMTS does not appear to have be.en manage potentially contaminated 

significantly environmentally impacted soils and groundwater. Prior to 

by previous operations on the subject construction activities, additional 

property. Based upon a survey of one contamination investigations will 

building in the Study Area, there is some be conducted. The City has 

15 
Section of EA 

3.20 Recreational 

Opportunities 

3.21 Historic, 

Archaeologica I 

Architectural or 

Cultural Significance 

Summary of Impacts 

presence of asbestos-containing material 

(ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) on site. 

No Impact. There are no existing parks or 

recreation areas in the Project area. The 

Build Alternative will not adversely 

impact parks or recreation areas. 

Adverse Effect. The Build Alternative will 

not result in an adverse effect to any 

individually eligible or listed resource. 

The Build Alternative will adversely affect 

two resources identified by the State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as 

contributing resources within the SHPOproposed Lexington Industrial Historic 

District: the existing tunnel structure 

connecting Railroad Street and Elk Street 

under the NCRR ROW, and the existing 

Streetscapes within the proposed 

historic district. 

There are no identified archaeological 

resources within the Study Area. 

Proposed Mitigation 

recently completed Phase I and 

Phase II investigations of the LHB 

Plant. Moreover, the City, as part 

of its Brownfields Agreement, is 

committed to develop a Living 

Environmental Management Plan 

with physical redevelopment of 

the property. Prior to demolition 

or rehabilitation of buildings, 

the City will undertake a predemolition/ pre-renovation 

survey of the building and 

undertake the necessary 

abatement or removal of ACM 

and LBP. 

Not applicable. 

The City will enter into a 

Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) with FRA, the NCDOT Rail 

Division and SHPO documenting 

that the Project will result in 

adverse impacts to the 

contributing resources and 

documenting mitigating 

strategies to these resources 

(described below). 

Tunnel structure: The City will 

preserve the north/west 

portion of the tunnel structure, 

including the headwall arch 

opening and adjacent length of 

the tunnel space. The remaining 

south/east portion of the tunnel 

structure will be closed to public 

access and/or filled in place as 

required to implement the 

Project. The City will 

incorporate the preserved 

portion of the tunnel structure 

into an area of the Project as 

community space and 

implement a public interpretive 

Installation. The Project will also 

16 IP age 
Section of EA 

Section 4(f) Resources 

(Chapter 5) 

3.22 Acquisition and 

Displacements 

Summary of Impacts 

Uses. The Build Alternative will use 

portions of two Section 4(f) resources 

within the SHPO-proposed Lexington 

Industrial Historic District, as described in 

3.21 Cultural Resources, above. 

Minor Impact. The Build Alternative will 

require partial acquisition of four 

privately-owned parcels. The Build 

Alternative may require construction 

easements or minor takings to two 

additional privately-owned parcels. The 

remaining portions of the Project will be 

constructed on property owned by the 

City, Davidson County, or within the 

NCRR ROW. 

17 

Proposed Mitigation 

incorporate a new, open 

pedestrian tunnel below the 

NCRR ROW, providing safe 

public access for pedestrians 

and cyclists only. 

Streetscapes: Under the terms 

of the MOA, the City will record 

the existing conditions of · 

segments of the adjacent 

streetscapes within the 

Lexington Industrial Historic 

District. 

FRA has determined that there 

is no feasible and prudent 

alternative to the use of these 

two historic resources. FRA sent 

to the U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI} FRA's 

determination along with a 

request for concurrrence. FRA 

allowed DOI 45 days to review 

the 4(f) information, but DOI did 

not respond, so FRA assuming 

DOI had no objections. The City, 

FRA, the NCDOT Rail Division 

and SHPO have all signed an 

MOA documenting that the 

Project will result in adverse 

effectss to the Section 4(f) 

resources, as described in 3.21 

Cultural Resources, above. 

The City will continue to 

evaluate the property impacts 

as the Project moves into more 

detailed design. Should the 

Project require property 

acquisitions, the City and others 

will follow Federal and North 

Carolina requirements, 

including the Uniform Act 

Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act 

of 1970 (Uniform Act). Article 9 

of Chapter 136 of the General 

Statutes of North Carolina also 

governs property acquisitions 
Section of EA 

3.23 Construction 

Period Impacts 

3.24 Secondary and 

Cumulative Impacts 

Summary of Impacts 

Minor Impact. The Build Alternative will 

result in temporary construction 

impacts, which may include temporary 

impacts to transportation (traffic) routes, 

solid waste accumulation, use of energy 

resources, and noise and vibration. 

Minor Secondary Impacts. The Build 

Alternative will encourage 

redevelopment of underutilized 

properties in the Depot District, which 

should have a positive impact on the 

local economy through increased 

property tax and sales tax revenues. The 

Project will also increase employment 

opportunities, increase mobility, and 

improve access to community facilities. 

Minor Cumulative Impacts. The Build 

Alternative will encourage greater use of 

local and regional trarisit by constructing 

a facility that will be a central connecting 

point to PART and DCTS buses. The 

Project will also be a community anchor 

that can be a focal point for public 

events. The Project will also augment the 

NCDOT's Piedmont Improvement 

Program (PIP), which is composed of 

several construction Projects and service 

enhancements that will enable 

additional passenger train frequencies 

and will make train travel safer, more 

efficient and more reliable. 

Proposed Mitigation 

by municipal and state 

governments. 

Impacts from construction of 

the Build Alternative will be 

temporary. The City will ensure 

that the construction contract 

specifications require that the 

contractor adhere to 

appropriate federal, state, and 

local noise abatement and 

control requirements. 

Additionally, the City will ensure 

the contract mandates the use 

of BMPs for sediment and 

erosion to minimize water 

quality impacts during 

construction. Proper traffic 

control will be used for rail, 

vehicular and pedestrian traffic 

to minimize impacts on 

businesses and residences. 

Not applicable. 

18 I Page 
19 
5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

5.1 Circulation of the Environmental Assessment (EA) 

The EA for the Project was approved by FRA and signed by City and FRA on September 1, 2016. FRA and 

City published the EA and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation on the City's website on September 23, 2016.11 

City made the EA available for public review at various government offices, and distributed copies to state 

and federal environmental resource and regulatory agencies, and local governments. Comments on the 

EA were accepted by City through October 22, 2016. 

5.2 Agency Comments Received on the EA 

No federal, state, and local agencies provided comments during the comment period. 

5.3 Public Comments Received on the EA 

The City .received only one comment during the comment period. On behalf of Uptown Lexington, Inc., 

the Uptown Lexington Executive Board requested to be included as a Project Partner given that the Depot 

District boundary includes part of both the established Lexington Uptown District and Uptown Lexington 

Historic District. In response, the City agreed to include Uptown Lexington, Inc. as a Project Partner. 

No other public comments were submitted to the City during the comment period. 

11 http://www.lexingtonnc.gov/index.aspx?page=16&recordid=641 

20 IP age 
6 FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

6.1 Purpose of Section 4(f) Evaluation 

The City prepared this Section 4(f)12 evaluation in conjunction with ·the planning and environmental 

analysis for the Lexington MMTS. The City proposes to construct a train station and transit center and 

make adjacent track, platform and tunnel and vertical circulation improvements (see Figure 4 in Appendix 

A for a visual depiction of the station area and nearby track and platform configuration). 

This chapter discusses the use of the historic resources identified in the 2013 historic resources survey 

completed by URS for this Project13 and through consultation with the North Carolina SHPO. In the. URS 

survey, 23 properties or historic districts located within the Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) assessed 

during the investigation are either listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or were 

determined eligible for listing. The survey also recommended expanding the existing Uptown Lexington 

Historic District to include five additional resources. In a letter dated November 4, 2013, the SHPO 

concurred with a portion of the findings of the 2013 historic resources survey but also noted other areas 

of non-concurrence with the recommendations. On September 5, 2014, the City, SHPO and FRA met to 

review the effects of the Build Alternative on all of the historic resources. At that meeting, SHPO 

determined that the Build Alternative (at that time) would have an adverse effect on some eligible and 

proposed resources. The City revised the Build Alternative to avoid impacts to two of the resources, but 

was unable to avoid impacts t9 a one-lane tunnel structure that connects Railroad Street and Elk Street, 

which SHPO determined is a contributing resource to one of the proposed historic districts. The Project 

will also impact the existing streetscapes within and adjacent to several contributing resources. To 

mitigate the adverse effects, the City, FRA and SHPO developed and signed an MOA on December 9, 2016 

(see Appendix C). More detail on the historic resources survey and agency coordination is described in 

Chapter 3 of the EA. 

City prepared the EA in accordance NEPA and FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 

the North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act,14 and related statutes, including the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended.15 Because the Project falls under the jurisdiction of the US 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966, this section has also been prepared per legislation 

(commonly referred to as "Section 4(f)") that governs USDOT projects and their impacts on publicly owned 

parks, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, recreation areas, or public or private historic sites. The Section 4(f) 

requirements are now codified at 23 U.S.C. § 138 and 49 U.S.C. § 303. 

12 23 CFR Part 774. https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/section4f/overview.aspx 

13 URS. Intensive-Level Historic Architectural Analysis for tne Lexington MMTS. April 2013. 

14 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A, Article 1 

15 16 u.s.c. § 470 

21 
6.2 Applicability of Section 106 and of Section 4(f) to the Project 

6.2.1 Section 106 Applicability 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an adverse 

effect on a property listed in, or potentially eligible for listing in, the NRHP, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP), SHPO, and other consulting parties must be given reasonable opportunity to 

comment on such undertakings.16 To assist in this review, the City has undertaken an evaluation of effects 

on the historic resources identified in the earlier investigative survey. The evaluations of effects presented 

in the EA are based on the regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA.17 Federal undertakings are 

considered to have adverse effects if they will damage, destroy, or encroach upon land from a historic 

property or otherwise alter the qualities that make the resource eligible for the N RHP. Specifically, adverse 

effects may be caused by the following conditions: 

• physical destruction/damage 

• alteration of a property 

• removal of a property from its historic location 

• change of the character of a property's use or of physical features within a property's setting that 

contribute to its historical significance 

• introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of a property's 

significant historic features 

• neglect of a property that causes its deterioration 

Adverse effects may result from the direct actions of the project, as in the case of property acquisitions, 

or they may be the consequence of indirect and cumulative impacts. Changes in zoning, increased needs 

for parking and market demands for new development are all examples of the types of indirect effects 

that may result from federal undertakings. Both direct and indirect impacts have been assessed. 

For this Project, 13 of the 23 properties surveyed within the APE were determined eligible for, or are listed 

in, the NRHP, either individually or as part of eligible historic districts. Of those properties, the Project will 

have an "adverse effect" on the one-lane road tunnel connecting Railroad Street and the Dixie Furniture 

Company site with Elk Street (referred to as the tunnel structure), as well as the streetscapes adjacent to 

the Project. These resources are not individually eligible for the NRHP, but SHPO determined that the 

tunnel and the streetscapes are contributing resources of the SH PO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic 

District. 

6.2.2 Section 4(f) Applicability 

The City prepared this evaluation to meet the requirements set forth in Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 

1966. A Section 4(f) evaluation is required when a federally-funded transportation action uses or has the 

16 See https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/4f/4fpollcy.asp. FRA notified the ACHP of the adverse effects and 

invited the ACHP to participate in the development of and to sign the MOA, but the ACHP declined. 

17 36 CFR Part 800. 

22 IP age 
potential to use a public or private historic resource, or a publicly-owned park, recreational area, or 

wildlife or waterfowl refuge. 18 A historic resource is defined as a property that is listed in, or eligible for 

listing in, the NRHP. Section 4(f) mandates that publicly-owned parks, recreation lands, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuge areas, or historic resources of national, state, or local significance may not be used for 

USDOT-funded projects unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and 

that such projects include all possible planning to mitigate harm to these lands. A "use" occurs when: (1) 

land is permanently incorporated into the transportation facility through property acquisition or a 

permanent easement; (2) there is a temporary occupancy, in whole or in part, of land that is adverse to 

the preservation purpose of Section 4(f); or (3) there is a constructive use, which involves no actual 

physical use of the Section 4(f) property but proximity impacts that result in substantial impairment to the 

Section 4(f) property's activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under 

Section 4(f). 

This evaluation provides the necessary information for the FRA to make a Section 4(f) determination. The 

FRA must determine whether there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of Section 4(f) 

resources by the proposed federal action. If there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, then the 

project must include all possible planning and mitigation measures to minimize harm resulting from such 

use. 

6.3 Description of Section 4(f) Resources 

6.3.1 Description of Resources 

Based on a search of records, surveys, and GIS data, the City has determined that there are no publiclyowned parks, recreation lands, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas affected by the Project. Therefore, 

only the 13 properties identified during the historic resources surveys and subsequent SHPO coordination 

within the APE were evaluated under Section 4(f). Table 2 is a list of the Section 4(f) resources identified 

in the survey of the Project Study Area and by SHPO's review of the survey (letter dated November 4, 

2013). Descriptions of each resource can be found in Section 3.21 of the EA. 

18 Parks and recreational areas are discussed in EA Section 3.20. There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuge areas in 

or near the Study Area. The only Section 4(f) resources within the Study Area are cultural and historic resources. 

Likewise, there are no properties in the Study Area acquired using grants under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 USC § 460); therefore, the project has no Section 6(f) impacts. 

23 
Table 2: Section 4(f) Resources 

Resource Findings by SHPO 

1. Grace Episcopal Church NH RP-listed, remains eligible 

2. Wennonah South Side Mill Village NHRP eligible, and recommended by SHPO to be 

3. Wennonah Cotton Mills 

combined into a proposed Wennonah Cotton Mill and 

Mill Village Historic District 

4. Mountcastle Knitting Company/ Dixie Furniture 

Company Showroom-Offices 

5. North Carolina Candy Company 

6. Lexington Southern Railway Freight Depot 

NHRP eligible, and recommended for SH PO-proposed 

Lexington Industrial Historic District as contributing 

7. Lexington City Light and Water Office resources 

8. Siceloff Manufacturing Company 

9. Eureka Trouser Company 

10. Lexington Shirt Corporation Contributing resource to SHPO's proposed Lexington 

Industrial Historic District 

11. Dixie Furniture Company19 Main contributing resource to SHPO's proposed 

Lexington Industrial Historic District 

Concur for adding W.T. Grant Department 

12. Expansion of Uptown Lexington Historic District .Store/Kimbrell's Furniture Building; Redwine's Grocery, 

Clodfelter's Market; and Hedrick Block 

13. Hedrick Block/Building (URS survey #18A) NHRP eligible 

For resources 4 through 11 in Error! Reference source not found., SHPO proposed that these be 

incorporated into a single Lexington Industrial Historic District. The Lexington Industrial Historic District 

includes the following properties as contributing resources: the Dixie Furniture Company (URS Survey 

#7), the Mountcastle Knitting Company/Dixie Furniture Company Showroom (URS Survey #7A), the 

North Carolina Candy Company (URS Survey #7B), the Lexington Southern Railway Freight Depot (URS 

Survey #8), the Lexington City Light and Water Office (URS Survey #9), the Siceloff Manufacturing 

Company (URS Survey #10), the Eureka Trouser Company (URS Survey #11), and the Lexington Shirt 

Company (URS Survey #12). This district also includes the one-lane tunnel under the railroad connecting 

Railroad Street and Elk Street and the enclosed, elevated passage over Railroad Street between 

Buildings 16 and 23 as contributing resources. Finally, the existing streetscapes are also contributing 

resources within the NRHP-eligible district. 

Figure 5 in Appendix A shows the historic resources within and adjacent to the Project construction 

limits. Figure 6 in Appendix A shows the resources within the SHPO-proposed Lexington Industrial 

Historic District. 

19The Dixie Furniture Company buildings are also collectively known as the Lexington Home Brands (LHB) complex. 

24 I Page 
the project would result in no alteration to the characteristics of the historic property. An adverse effect 

occurs when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic 

property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. With adverse effects, the 

alterations brought by the federal action diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying 

characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the 

original evaluation of the property's eligibility for the National Register, as defined in 36 CFR 800.5. A 

finding of no adverse effect means that the project would impact or alter the historic property, but the 

alteration would not have an adverse effect as defined in 36 CFR 800. 

The Project is comprised of the Lexington MMTS, plus a plaza, station platforms, canopies, relocated 

mainline tracks, pedestrian and baggage tunnel and vertical circulation, parking, and associated street 

improvements. The City evaluated whether each of these components would adversely affect the 

identified historic resources. Based on the evaluation, FRA determined and ~he SHPO concurred that the 

Project would have either no effect or no adverse effect on the 13 individual historic resources surveyed 

(resources with an asterisk are eligible individually and as portion of the SHPO-proposed Lexington 

Industrial Historic District): 

1. Grace Episcopal Church (no effect): The Project is outside of the NRHP boundaries for this 

resource. 

2. Wennonah South Side Mill Village: (no effect): The Project is outside of the proposed NRHP 

boundaries for this resource. 

3. Wennonah Cotton Mills (no adverse effect): The Project limits for the track improvements are 

near this resource; however, these track improvements are within the railroad ROW and will not 

affect this resource. 

4. Mountcastle Knitting Company/Dixie Furniture Company Showroom-Offices* (no effect): The 

Project is outside of the proposed boundaries for this resource. 

5. North Carolina Candy Company* (no adverse effect): The Project will construct the station 

opposite this resource and make necessary street improvements to ensure safe and accessibility 

compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, these improvements will not 

make changes to the proposed NRHP boundaries for this resource and will not impact the 

resource. 

6. Lexington Southern Railway Freight Depot* (no adverse effect): The Project proposes street 

improvements, including ADA-compliant sidewalks and crosswalks, and on-street parking that are 

adjacent to the resource. 

7. Lexington City Light and Water Office* (no effect): The Project is outside of the proposed National 

Register boundaries for this resource. 

8. Siceloff Manufacturing Company* (no adverse effect): The Project proposes street improvements, 

including ADA-compliant sidewalks and crosswalks, and on-street parking that are adjacent to the 

resource. 

9. Eureka Trouser Company* (no adverse effect): The Project proposes street improvements, 

including ADA-compliant sidewalks and crosswalks, and on-street parking that are adjacent to the 

resource. 

25 
10. Lexington Shirt Corporation (no adverse effect): The Project proposes street improvements, 

including ADA-compliant sidewalks and crosswalks, and on-street parking that are adjacent to the 

resource. 

11. Dixie Furniture Company (no adverse effect): The Project proposes street improvements, 

including ADA-compliant sidewalks and crosswalks, and on-street parking that are adjacent to the 

resource. 

12. Expansion of Uptown Lexington Historic District to include: W.T. Grant Department 

Store/Kimbrell's Furniture Building; Redwine's Grocery and Clodfelter's Market; Hedrick Block (no 

effect): The Project is outside of the proposed NRHP boundaries for this resource. 

13. Hedrick Block/Building (no effect): The Project is outside of the proposed NRHP boundaries for 

this resource. 

*Resource eligible individually and as portion of the SH PO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District. 

The City and FRA also evaluated the above historic resources under Section 4(f) and determined that the 

Project will not use, nor have the potential to use, these resources. No land from these resources will be 

permanently incorporated into the transportation facility; there will be no temporary occupancy that is 

adverse to the preservation purpose of Section 4(f); nor will there be a constructive use of any of the 

properties. Therefore, FRA removed these resources from further evaluation under Section 4(f). 

The SHPO advised that the Project would have an adverse effect on the SHPO-proposed Lexington 

Industrial Historic District. Specifically, the Project will have an adverse effect on the tunnel structure and 

selected streetscapes within the SH PO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District along South Railroad 

Street, East 2"d Avenue, East 3rd Avenue and Tunnel Street (the Streetscapes). Photos 1 and 2 show the 

existing condition of the Tunnel, and Photos 3 through 6 illustrate the existing streetscapes within the 

resource area. The concurrence form for the assessment of effect signed by FRA, SHPO and City is included 

in Appendix C. 

Photos 1 and 2: Existing Tunnel Structure and Street 

26 IP age 
Photos 3 through 6: Existing Streetscapes 

The Project will result in a 4(f} use of the proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District through the closure 

and abandonment of the tunnel structure connecting Railroad Street and Elk Street and in the alteration 

of the existing streetscapes, which are contributing resources to the historic district. In an email to the 

City, and during a meeting on June 22, 2012, with the City and the Consultant Team, the NCDOT Rail 

Division determined that the existing tunnel structure would not support the proposed relocated tracks 

and proposed passenger platforms. Alterations to the existing streetscapes are necessary to ensure the 

streets meet ADA requirements, have proper sight lines, and for other safety improvements. As required 

by Section 4(f}, the City undertook an additional evaluation of other potential Project alternatives, all of 

which focused on avoiding impacts to the tunnel and streetscapes. These alternatives are described in 

Section Description of Alternatives Considered. A description of the Project use of the 4(f} resource, as 

well as measures to minimize or mitigate harm, is included in Section Description of Impacts to 4(f) 

Resources. 

6.4 Description of Alternatives Considered 

The City considered various alternatives during the planning and design ofthis Project and evaluated these 

alternatives further, pursuant to Section 4(f} requirements, as "avoidance alternatives." 

27 
NCDOT evaluated these potential avoidance alternatives to determine if they would be feasible and 

prudent. FHWA guidelines on implementing Section 4(f) note that an alternative is considered feasible 

and prudent if the alternative "avoids using Section 4(f) property and does not cause other severe 

problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) 

property."20 The FHWA guidelines also note that a potential avoidance alternative is not feasible if it 

cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment, or prudent if: 

1. It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed in light of the project's 

stated purpose and need; 

2. It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems; 

3. After reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; 

severe disruption to established communities; severe or disproportionate impacts to minority or 

low-income populations; or severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other 

Federal statutes; 

4. It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of extraordinary 

magnitude; 

5. It causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or 

6. It involves multiple factors as outlined above that, while individually minor, cumulatively cause 

unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. 

6.4.1 No Build Alternative 

Description of Alternative: Under the No Build Alternative, a new MMTS for Lexington would not be built. 

The major actions associated with the construction of a new transportation facility-Lexington MMTS 

building, passenger platforms, parking, other site improvements, track improvements-would also not be 

undertaken. 

Evaluation: Under the No Build Alternative, a new train station would not be built, resulting in no 

construction or changes to existing conditions. The No Build Alternative would not improve connections 

for intercity rail, local and regional transit, and pedestrian and bicycle networks. Moreover, the No Build 

Alternative would not support City goals for redevelopment and economic redevelopment of the Depot 

District. 

Finding: The No Build Alternative is feasible because it does not require any construction. This alternative 

would not meet the Project purpose and need as described in Chapter 2, specifically to create a Lexington 

MMTS that provides the Lexington region with passenger rail service, improved multi-modal connections, 

and supports redevelopment of the Depot District. With these limitations, City determined that the No 

Build Alternative was feasible but not prudent, and this option was eliminated from further consideration. 

6.4.2 Alternative Station Location 

Description of Alternative: For the purposes of the 4(f) Evaluation, City re-evaluated Lexington MMTS 

Preliminary Alternatives A-V.l and A-V.2 along Station Location Alternative "A". The approximate 

locations of the two Station Location Alternatives "A" and "B" options are shown in Map A, which is taken 

2

° FHWA Section 4{f) Policy Paper, July 20, 2012 

28 I Page 
from the 2012 SAP evaluation. Chapter 3 of the EA describes how the City evaluated two station location 

alternatives and seven platform and track alternatives for the proposed Lexington MMTS. All of these 

Lexington MMTS building/passenger platform and track alternatives were within the Depot District and 

adjacent to or within the NCRR ROW. Two of the platform and track alternatives (Preliminary Alternatives 

A-V.1 and A-V.2) were proposed south of the preferred Lexington MMTS building site along the 

approximate Station Location Alternative "A" shown in Map A. Five additional platform and track 

alternatives (Preliminary Alternatives B-V.l, B-V.2, B-V.3, B-V.4 and Alternative C) would be along the 

Station Location Alternative "B" in Map A and would all have the same impacts to 4(f) resources as the 

Build Alternative. 

Map A: Station and Platform Site Location Alternatives 

Evaluation: For Station Location Alternative A, both platform and track Preliminary Alternatives A-V.l and 

A-V.2 would not provide the same level of pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections to Uptown 

Lexington as Station Location Alternative B, and thus would not help with the redevelopment of Uptown 

Lexington. Both platform and track Preliminary Alternatives A-V.1 and A-V.2, or any platform and track 

alternative within the Station Location Alternative A site, could also result in the use of other 4(f) 

resources, such as the Dixie Furniture Company buildings, and still result in the uses of the tunnel structure 

and Streetscapes within the SHPO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District. Although Station 

Location Alternative A is located south of the existing tunnel structure and both passenger platform 

Preliminary Alternatives A-V.1 and A-V.2 would not be located above, the tunnel structure would still be 

impacted by the track work above. In addition, both platform and track Preliminary Alternatives A-V.l and 

A-V.2 would complicate construction (coordination and expense) for the separate, proposed future 

Lexington highway-rail underpass project at East 5th Avenue as a portion ofthe platform would be located 

above the proposed tunnel. Accordingly, the Lexington Redevelopment Commission (LRC) passed a 

resolution that strongly endorsed Station Location Alternative B, due its connectivity and development 

potential. 

Finding: A platform and track site along Station Location Alternative A may be feasible but would not 

sufficiently meet the Project purpose and need, specifically to create a station that provides the Lexington 

29 
region with improved multi-modal connections and supports redevelopment of the Depot District. 

Furthermore, moving the station and platforms south to a Station Location Alternative A site would likely 

use other 4(f) resources such as the Dixie Furniture Company buildings while still requiring use of the 

tunnel structure and streetscapes within the SHPO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District. With 

these limitations, FRA and City determined that such an alternative location was not prudent, and 

eliminated this option from further consideration. 

6.4.3 Alternative Station Site Design 

· Description of Alternative: During planning of the Lexington MMTS building layout and site plan, .the City 

received a letter from SHPO (dated November 4, 2013) explaining that SHPO considered several 

structures, existing streetscapes and the tunnel within the Dixie Furniture Company site, as contributing 

resources to the SH PO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District. (See SHPO letter in Appendix B). A 

portion of the map developed by SHPO showing the contributing and non-contributing resources to this 

proposed historic district is included in Map B. As a result, the City and Consultant Team developed 

modifications to the Build Alternative in part to avoid impacts to some of the contributing resources by 

eliminating surface parking at the proposed lower level transit plaza; ac;tditional parking is available in 

other locations to the east and north of the proposed station building. 

Source: SHPO 

Map B: Select Contributing and Non-Contributing Resources as 

part of SHPO-Proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District 

Contributing Resources: 

25-15 Woodworking, Gluing, and 

Cutting Bldg 

25-16 Packing, Cutting, Gluing Bldg 

25-21 Finishing Bldg 

25-23. Finishing (Shoaf-Sink Hosiery 

Mill Knitting Room) 

25-25 Finishing 

25-26 Finishing 

25-27A/B/C Finishing (NC Candy 

Co.) 

25-P2 (Elevated Passageway (Bldg 

16to 23) 

Tunnel 

Existing streetscapes 

Non-Contributing Resources: 

25-20A Finishing and Spraying Room 

25-Pl Elevated Passageway (Bldg 16 

to20A) 

25-P3 Elevated Passageway (Bldg 16 

to2BA) 

25-P4 Elevated Passageway (Bldg 16 

to 2BB) 

25-28A/B Packing, Rubbing and Trim 

30 IP age · 
Evaluation: Under an early rendering of the Build Alternative, the Lexington MMTS would require 

demolition of non-contributing resources 25-28A, 25-28B, 25-P3, 25-P4 and contributing resources 25-16 

and 25-P2 (see Map B). The City modified the Build Alternative by eliminating the surface parking from 

the lower-level transit plaza, thus avoiding demolition of contributing resources 25-16 and 25-P2. This 

modified Build Alternative will still include Complete Street improvements that will affect the existing 

streetscapes, as well as track and platform improvements that will impact the tunnel structure. 

On July 6, 2016, the City requested guidance from SHPO relative to the removal of the contributing 

resource 25-P2 (elevated passageway spanning South Railroad Street) as it had deteriorated severely to 

become a risk to public safety (see Photos 7-9). On July 6, 2016, SHPO advised that if the City did not use 

state or federal funds to remove the structure, SHPO would have no role in the process as the action is 

neither a Section 106 nor NC General Statue 121-12(a) undertaking. Accordingly, the City subsequently 

used city funds to remove the structure and used the existing metal to cover the openings on the 

remaining contributing resources 25-16 and 25-23. 

Finding: The modified Build Alternative requires fewer Section 4(f) resources while still meeting the 

Project purpose and need. Therefore, the City carried this modified Build Alternative forward as the 

Project Build Alternative evaluated in the EA. 

31 
6.4.4 Build Alternative 

Description of Alternative: The Build Alternative (Alternative C) is the Lexington MMTS and associated 

area improvements, and includes the following components: 

• Construction of the new Lexington MMTS building 

• Lexington MMTS Plaza 

• Surface parking 

• Two tracks (relocation of the existing tracks), with provisions to allow for the future installation 

of two additional tracks under a separate project 

• Dual low-level side passenger platforms with canopies 

• Below grade passenger concourse connecting the Lexington MMTS building and the platforms 

with ramps and elevators 

• Baggage tunnel and baggage ramps to the platforms 

• New public access pedestrian tunnel connecting the MMTS and Elk Street 

• Complete street improvements to primary access streets around the proposed Lexington MMTS 

building 

6.5 Description of Impacts to 4(f) Resources 

6.5.1 Tunnel Structure and Associated Streetscape 

· The SHPO has determined that the tunnel structure and streetscapes are contributing resources to the 

SHPO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District. 

6.5.2 Probable Use of Section 4(f) Property 

The potential impacts would include closure and abandonment of the current use of the existing tunnel 

structure as a vehicular only access below the NCRR ROW, along with the closing (total or partial) of the 

tunnel to build the Project components including new track alignment, dual side passenger platforms, and 

passenger concourse. As noted above, the existing tunnel structure would not support the proposed 

relocated tracks and proposed passenger platforms. The Project will incorporate a new, open (non-gated) 

pedestrian tunnel structure (underpass) connection crossing below the NCRR ROW, providing safe public 

access for pedestrians and cyclists only, and will be designed and constructed to replace current use of 

the existing vehicular Tunnel Street and structure. The pedestrian underpass length will be minimized (per 

required head wall locations determined by clearances for realignment of two mainline tracks and future 

track expansion above) and the width will be maximized to increase daylight and provide an inviting 

pedestrian experience. In addition, within and around the pedestrian underpass entrances, adequate 

lighting and emergency call boxes will be installed to maximize security. 

Currently, most of the streets within the SHPO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District have no 

sidewalks, crosswalks, poor lighting, and poor signage. The Project will impact sections of adjacent primary 

access street streetscapes (including sections of South Railroad Street, East 2nd Avenue, East 3rd Avenue, 

and Tunnel Street) through the installation of sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting and signage to meet safety, 

sight-line and ADA requirements; and, a section of South Railroad Street (Section 'B') will be realigned 

between East 2nd Avenue and East 3rd Avenue to provide safer, accessible intersections. Additional impacts 

32 I Page 
will include the integration of on-street parking along with the relocation, upgrade, and extension of 

existing utilities and/or installation of new utilities as required to provide adequate service to the Project. 

Specific impact areas along each street section are as follows (note, section naming does not correspond 

to the Alternative naming): 

South Railroad Street: Section 'A' 

South Railroad Street: Section 'B' 

South Railroad Street: Section 'C' 

East 2nd Avenue 

East 3rc1 Avenue 

Tunnel Street 

6.6 Mitigation Measures 

Streetscape Length: Approximately 400 linear feet 

Street ROW Width: Approximately 25 feet 

Streetscape Length: Approximately 270 linear feet 

Street ROW Width: Approximately 35 feet 

Streetscape Length: Approximately 590 linear feet 

Street ROW Width: Approximately 31 feet 

Streetscape Length: Approximately 300 linear feet 

Street ROW Width: Approximately 31 feet 

Streetscape Length: Approximately 300 linear feet 

Street ROW Width: Approximately 37 feet 

Streetscape Length: Approximately 275 linear feet 

Street ROW Wi,dth: Approximately 19 feet 

On December 9, 2016, FRA, SHPO, the City, and NCDOT (as a concurring party) signed an MOA (Appendix 

C) defining the measures mitigating the adverse effects that the Project will have on the tunnel and 

streetscapes. As mitigation, the City will undertake a recordation plan to document the tunnel structure 

and existing streetscapes around the proposed Lexington MMTS within the SHPO-proposed Lexington 

Industrial Historic District. This recordation was submitted to and accepted by SHPO. 

The City will also ensure that the north/west portion of the tunnel structure, including the headwall arch 

opening and adjacent length of tunnel space, is preserved to the extent possible as determined by a 

certified structural inspection and integrity report. The City will incorporate the preserved portion of the 

tunnel structure into an area of the Project (defined by the SAP as a community plaza space), and 

implement a public interpretive installation at the tunnel opening. 

The walls of the new pedestrian underpass will also offer an opportunity for the integration of a unique 

linear "public interpretive installation", with public access to an exhibit that documents, memorializes, 

and reflects the character of other historic buildings within the Project area. 

6.7 Conclusion 

Based upon the Section 4(f) evaluation of the Project, the City has identified uses of historic resources and 

measures to minimize harm, as outlined below. 

Tunnel Structure and Adjacent Streetscapes 

33 
Uses: The construction of dual side passenger platforms and the associated track 

improvements/relocation will require closing and filling in of most of the existing tunnel structure 

connecting Railroad Street and Elk Street. Street improvements, including ADA-compliant sidewalks and 

crosswalks, and on-street parking will alter the existing relationship of the streets to the buildings. 

Measures to minimize harm: As detailed in the MCA, with the closing and filling in of the existing tunnel, 

City will undertake mitigation documentation of the tunnel structure, including a historic essay, measured 

drawings, and photographic documentation of the structure, as well as construction of a public 

interpretive installation near the preserved tunnel entrance that will be incorporated as part of the 

Lexington MMTS plaza. The City will also investigate the possibility of including a second public 

interpretive installation in the new pedestrian tunnel connecting the station, platforms and Elk Street, 

which would document, memorialize, and reflect the character of other historic buildings within the 

Project area. For the impacts to the existing streetscapes, City will incorporate context-sensitive design 

elements and coordinate with SHPO to allow SHPO to review and comment through each phase of design. 

6.8 Department of Interior Concurrence 

On December 16, 2016, in accordance with Section 4(f), FRA sent to the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) 

notification of the 4(f) uses described above. FRA gave DOI 45 days to review the 4(f) information, but 

DOI never responded. FRA is assuming that DOI had no objections to FRA's 4(f) determination and is 

proceeding accordingly. 

6.9 Public and Agency Coordination 

The following is a timeline of the coordination between the City and Consultant Team and the North 

Carolina SHPO. 

March 30, 2012 

April 25, 2012 

May 3, 2012 

May2012 

June 19, 2012 

Members of the Consultant Team met with SHPO staff to have an initial/early 

coordination review of the Project and next steps for evaluating the resources 

within the Project area of potential effects (APE). 

The City and members of the Consultant Team met with the local Lexington 

Historic Preservation Commission to discuss initial considerations for the Project 

in the context of the Depot District area. 

On behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), the City requested a 

technical assistance visit from SHPO in order to guide and inform the Commission 

in providing feedback to the Lexington Redevelopment Commission relative to 

the historic significance certain buildings within Lexington's Depot planning 

district may or may not have. 

The City initiated agency coordination for the Project with a letter and a map 

noting the Project Study Area/area of potential effect. 

At the request of the City of Lexington HPC, the SHPO was invited to join in a 

walking tour of the current property and structures owned by the City of 

Lexington [the former Lexington Home Brands (LHB) property]. After the tour, all 

attendees reconvened for a discussion of general observations and 

considerations relative to development of the SAP Project within the overall 

redevelopment master planning area. 

34 IP age 
October 25, 2012 In consultation with SHPO, URS Corporation established the APE and 

subsequently presented the results of a reconnaissance-level survey of the APE 

to SHPO. Upon review, SHPO requested an intensive-level inventory to determine 

the National Register eligibility of 20 of the 56 resources and include the findings 

of that effort in a report. 

April 2013 URS Corporation completed the Intensive-Level Historic Architectural Analysis for 

MMTS, City of Lexington, Davidsol'l County, North Carolina (referred here as the 

April 2013 report). 

July 30, 2013 SHPO sent a letter that concurred with a portion of the findings and 

recommendations in the April 2013 report. However, SHPO did not concur with 

the report's finding regarding the Dixie Furniture Company and determined the 

property (together with several other nearby properties) is best evaluated as a 

historic district - proposed as the "Lexington Industrial Historic District", rather 

than as an individual site. 

September 12, 2013 The City, the Consultant Team, SHPO, and NCDOT Rail Division held a meeting to 

review the April 2013 report and SHPO's July 30, 2013 letter. In addition, the 

Consultant Team introduced the Project and presented preliminary planning and 

alternatives considered. 

November 4, 2013 SHPO submitted a letter, which replaced SHPO'sJuly 30, 2013 letter in its entirety. 

In the November 4, 2013 letter, SHPO again concurred with some of the findings 

in the April 2013 report. However, SHPO also determined that some resources 

recommended as eligible for inclusion in the expanded Uptown Lexington Historic 

District were non-eligible. SHPO also reinforced their recommendation for the 

creation of two new historic districts in Lexington (the combined Wennonah 

Cotton Mill and Mill Village Historic District, and the Lexington Industrial Historic 

District) and provided map exhibits depicting proposed district boundaries and 

identifying contributing and non-contributing resources within each district. 

SHPO also recommended that the one-lane tunnel under the railroad connecting 

Railroad Street and Elk Street, the railroad ROW, and one of the enclosed 

elevated passage over Railroad Street connecting the buildings also were 

contributing resources. SHPO concurred with the recommendations that the 

remaining properties listed in the April 2013 report are not eligible for listing in 

the National Register. Tables 3-19 and 3-20 in chapter 3 document the differences 

in the findings between the URS April 2013 report and the November 4, 2013 

letter from SHPO. 

September 2, 2014 The City developed a draft MOA for review by SHPO that outlined the impacts to 

the historic resources and mitigations. The City's draft MOA outlines impacts to 

the following contributing resources: 

• SHPO Identification: 25-16 (Portion of LHB Building Complex) 

• SHPO Identification: 25-P2 (Overhead Enclosed Bridge Structure) 

• SHPO Identification: Tunnel (Existing tunnel structure) 

35 
September 5, 2014 The City, the Consultant Team, FRA, NCDOT Rail Division and SHPO met to review 

the current Project design progress along with potential impacts and possible 

mitigation. 

October 31, 2014 SHPO prepared a draft MOA in response to the City draft MOA that outlined 

several alternate stipulations for mitigation based upon the potential impacts and 

adverse effects to contributing resources as outlined in the City's draft MOA and 

in accordance with the current SAP site plan. 

November 21, 2014 The City, the Consultant Team, FRA, and SHPO met to review the Project and 

discuss a new Alternative C per new design criteria for the passenger platform 

and associated track realignment. Alternative C also includes revisions to the SAP 

site plan to avoid use of portions of the LHB building/Dixie Furniture Company 

complex determined to be a contributing resources as well as determine possible 

effects on other eligible and listed resources. 

The Alternative C avoidance alternative proposes dual side load passenger 

platforms and associated track realignment together with a revised SAP site plan 

that eliminates the surface parking area from the Lower Transit Plaza and avoids 

impacts to the contributing resources (25-16, Packing, Cutting, Gluing building 

and 25-P2, elevated passageway connection buildings 16 and 23). However, it 

was determined that the Project would still have an adverse effect on the tunnel 

structure connecting Railroad Street and Elk Street. In addition, SHPO determined 

the Project would impact the Streetscapes that front the Project boundary and 

adjacent contributing resources. 

November 17, 2015 The City and SHPO reached an agreement on a revised draft MOA for the 

Alternative C avoidance alternative. The City's revised draft MOA outlines impacts 

to the following contributing resources: 

• SHPO Identification: Tunnel (Existing tunnel structure) 

• SHPO Identification: Streetscapes (segments of Existing Streetscapes 

around the proposed MMTS) 

July 6, 2016 The City requested guidance from SHPO relative to the removal of the 

contributing resource 25-P2 as it had deteriorated severely to become a risk to 

public safety. SHPO advised that if the City did not use state or federal funds to 

remove the structure, SHPO would have no role in the process as the action is 

neither a Section 106 nor NC General Statue 121-12(a) undertaking. Accordingly, 

the City subsequently used city funds to remove the structure and used the 

existing metal to cover the openings on the remaining contributing resources 25-

16 and 25-23. 

September 1, 2016 The EA and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation were signed by FRA. 

September 19, 2016 The EA and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation were signed by the City. 

September 23, 2016 The City made the EA and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation documents available to 

the public and agencies for review and comment through October 22, 2016. 

36 IP age 
October 4, 2016 

October 17, 2016 

December 9, 2016 

December 16, 2016 

The City, SHPO and FRA completed the signed t he Concurrence Form for 

Assessment of Effects, which is also included in Appendix C. 

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation sent a letter to the FRA stating that 

their participation in the consultation to resolve the adverse effects was not 

needed, and the final MOA signed by the City, SHPO and FRA should be filed with 

the Advisory Council. 

The City, SHPO, FRA, and NCDOT (as a concurring party) executed the MOA 

describing the required mitigation for the Project's adverse effects to the tunnel 

and streetscapes, which is included in Appendix C. 

The FRA submitted the EA and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation to the US DOI with a 

request that DOI concur with FRA's determination that there is no feasible and 

prudent alternative to the use of the contributing elements to the Lexington 

Industrial Historic District. DOI never responded. 

Copies of the above referenced correspondence are included in Appendix B of this FONSI and Section 4(f) 

Evaluation. Copies of the MOA and Concurrence Form on the Assessment of Effects are included in 

Appendix C. 

6.10 Section 4(f) Determination 

The FRA has determined that the Project will use the tunnel structure and associated streetscapes within 

the proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District. Based upon the Section 4(f) evaluation, coordination 

and correspondence, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of these properties, and 

the Project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to these resources resulting from the Project. 

Furthermore, FRA, City and SHPO have entered into an MOA (see Appendix C) stipulating mitigation 

measures. On December 15, 2016, FRA submitted the MOA to· the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. 

37 
7 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTMENTS 

During the NEPA process, commitments are made to avoid, minimize, or mitigate project impacts. 

Commitments result from public comment or through the requirements of, or agreements with, 

environmental resource and regulatory agencies. The following special Project Commitments have been 

agreed to by the City. 

Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design 

The City of Lexington (City) will take a proactive approach to implement sediment and erosion control 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) through project development and design. Sediment and erosion 

control BMPs will be implemented in accordance with the North Carolina Department ofTransportation's 

(NCDOT) Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (1997). The plan will be prepared 

in accordance with the requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (15A 

NCAC 48.0101-0130). 

The City will conduct a detailed vibration analysis during final Project design. If the detailed analysis 

continues to show significant vibration impacts, specific mitigation measures will be designed into the 

Project. 

The City will develop a solid waste resource reclamation and recycling program prior to construction 

activities. 

The City will implement a landscape plan to provide vegetation along street improvements. Vegetation 

along the railroad will be allowed to regenerate naturally. 

The City will conduct a formal jurisdictional determination of the Project Study Area,21 and the City will 

obtain the required federal and state water protection permits. 

The City will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ensure compliance 

with floodplain regulations. 

The City will design the facility to employ BMPs for the efficient use of energy for operation and 

equipment. 

Once final design plans are developed, the City will formulate and develop a plan to manage potentially 

contaminated soils and groundwater. Prior to construction activities, additional contamination investigations 

will be conducted. 

The City, as part of its Brownfields Agreement, is committed to develop a Living Environmental 

Management Plan with physical redevelopment of the Lexington Home Brands property. 

Prior to Project construction, the City will undertake a pre-demolition/pre-renovation survey of buildings 

and undertake the necessary abatement or removal of asbestos-containing material (ACM) and leadbased paint (LBP) on site. 

21 The Project Study Area consists of the Project Limits and Station Area Plan shown in Figure 1-2, unless otherwise 

indicated. 

38 IP age 
For the eligible historic resources in the Project area, the City will enter into a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) with the Federal Railroad Administration, the NCDOT Rail Division and the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO} documenting that the Project will result in adverse impacts to the existing 

streetscapes and existing tunnel structure within the SHPO-proposed Lexington Industrial Historic District. 

· The City will undertake a recordation plan to document the tunnel structure and streetscapes, as outlined 

in the MOA. The City will preserve the north/west portion of the tunnel structure, including the headwall 

arch opening, and incorporate the preserved portion of the tunnel structure into an area of community 

space and implement a public interpretive installation. 

The City will continue to evaluate the Project property impacts as the Project moves into design. Should 

the Project require property acquisitions, the City will follow Federal and North Carolina requirements, 

including the Uniform Act Relocation assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

(Uniform Act). Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes of North Carolina also governs property 

acquisitions by municipal and state governments. 

During Project construction, the City will ensure the construction contract specifications require the 

contractors to adhere to appropriate Federal, state, and local noise abatement and control requirements. 

39 
8 CONCLUSION 

FRA finds that the impacts of the Build Alternative, as assessed in the Lexington Multi-modal 

Transportation Station Environmental Assessment (September 1, 2016) and this Finding of No Significant 

Impact satisfy the requirements of FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, and that the 

Project will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment following 

the implementation of mitigation measures. 

Jam Director, ~ Office of Program Delivery 

Federal Railroad Administration 

2. L-O ] Date 

40IPage 
FRA Contact Person 

John Winkle 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, RM W38-3111 

Washington, DC 20590 

202.493.6067 

List of Persons and Organizations Preparing the FONSI 

Tammy V. Absher, AICP 

Director, Business & Community Development 

City of Lexington 

31 W. 1st Street 

Lexington, NC 27292 

336.248.3900 

Larry Zinser II 

Principal 

Shook Kelly, Inc. 

2151 Hawkins Street, Suite 400 

Charlotte, NC 28203 

704.944.2399 

Jeff Weisner 

Director of Planning and Project Development 

AECOM 

701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475 

Raleigh, NC 27607 

919.854.6236 

41 
Lexington Multi-Modal Transportation Station - Finding of No Significant Impacts 

APPENDIX A 

Project Maps 
Lexington Multi-Modal Transportation Station - Finding of No Significant Impacts 

APPENDIX B 

Section 106 and Section 4(f) Correspondence 
Appendix C 

Memorandum of Agreement on Historic Resources and Concurrence 

Form for Assessment of Effects