Amtrak Station Area Planning and Land Use Analysis CARMEL ...€¦ · Amtrak Station Area Planning...

Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation

Amtrak Station Area Planningand Land Use Analysis

CARMEL CHURCH STATIONCAROLINE COUNTY

August 2008

Amtrak Station Area Planning and Land Use Analysis

Technical Memorandum: Carmel Church Station i

Table of Contents0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................1

0.1 Background ..........................................................................................................10.2 Land Use Plan .....................................................................................................10.3 Market and Economic Impacts .............................................................................20.4 Implementation: Funding and Financing ...............................................................30.5 Implementation: Infrastructure and Environment ..................................................3

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................52.0 DESCRIPTION OF STATION AND STATION AREA ....................................................7

2.1 Station function—proposed service and relationship to other stations ..................72.2 General overview of the study area at station location .........................................72.3 Overarching themes for station area plan .............................................................7

3.0 LAND USE....................................................................................................................93.1 Background / Existing Character ..........................................................................93.2 Planning Context ..................................................................................................93.3 Site Potential and Proposed Land Use ...............................................................103.4 Site Constraints ..................................................................................................13

4.0 MARKET CONDITIONS .............................................................................................184.1 Office .................................................................................................................184.2 Retail..................................................................................................................204.3 Residential .........................................................................................................224.4 Summary ...........................................................................................................24

5.0 Economic Impact ........................................................................................................255.1 Earnings, employment and output effects from capital expenditures ..................255.2 Capital expenditures ..........................................................................................255.3 Construction impacts ..........................................................................................26

6.0 Potential Local Funding Mechanism ...........................................................................286.1 Tax Increment Financing ....................................................................................286.2 General Assessment of the TIF Mechanism in Virginia ......................................30

7.0 SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ........................................................327.1 Roadway Network ..............................................................................................327.2 Traffic Impacts Under Build Condition ................................................................337.3 Transit Network ..................................................................................................367.4 Pedestrian Accessibility......................................................................................367.5 Bicycle Accessibility ...........................................................................................367.6 Summary of Recommended Infrastructure Improvements ..................................37


Technical Memorandum: Carmel Church Station ii

8.0 SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................388.1 Forested Areas ..................................................................................................388.2 Water Resources ...............................................................................................388.3 Historic Sites ......................................................................................................408.4 Hazardous Materials ..........................................................................................408.5 Protected Species ..............................................................................................41

List of TablesTable 4-1: Office Construction Value and Tax Revenue – Caroline County ........................19Table 4-2: Office Construction Value and Tax Revenue – Carmel Church Station Area ......20Table 4-3: Retail Construction Value and Tax Revenues – Caroline County .......................21Table 4-4: Retail Construction Value and Tax Revenues – Carmel Church Station Area .....22Table 4-5: Housing Demand, Construction Value and Tax Revenue – Caroline County ......23Table 4-6: Housing Demand, Construction Value and Tax Revenue – Carmel Church Station

Area ....................................................................................................................24Table 5-1: Projected Construction Impacts by Property Type at Carmel Church Station ......27Table 6-1: Carmel Church Station TIF Summary .................................................................29Table 6-2: Incremental Property Tax Revenues for Carmel Church Station .........................30Table 7-1: Derivation of Traffic Growth Factors ...................................................................32Table 7-2: Ridership Projections for Caroline County Station ..............................................33Table 7-3: Estimated Intersection Level of Service ..............................................................35Table 7-4: Estimated Costs of Infrastructure Improvements ................................................37Table 8-1: Caroline County Protected Species ....................................................................41

List of FiguresFigure 1-1: Project Station Locations .....................................................................................6Figure 2-1: Carmel Church Station Area ................................................................................8Figure 3-1: Carmel Church Station Proposed Land Use-Concept Plan ................................14Figure 3-2: Carmel Church Station Illustrative Plan .............................................................15Figure 3-3: Example Photographs .......................................................................................16Figure 3-4: Thoroughfare and Alley Sketches ......................................................................17Figure 7-1: Concept for Growth in Traffic Volumes ..............................................................33Figure 7-2: Proposed Street Infrastructure Improvements ...................................................34


Technical Memorandum: Carmel Church Station 1

0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY0.1 BackgroundCaroline is a small rural county with a progressive approach to planned growth. The countyis located strategically along I-95 between Fredericksburg and Richmond, yet it hasexperienced little of the sprawling development that dominates the I-95 corridor inneighboring counties. According to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Caroline recognizes thatgrowth is inevitable, but will only accept development that benefits, rather than burdens,future generations.

Carmel Church, one of several subareas within the county, has absorbed about half of thecounty’s growth since 2000. It was first identified as a primary growth center in the county’s1977 Comprehensive Plan and has retained this designation through subsequentcomprehensive planning efforts. Currently, Carmel Church is the location for a county-ledtransit oriented development (TOD) planning initiative. The proposed TOD location is 27miles south of Fredericksburg Station and 11 miles north of the Ashland Station on theexisting CSX rail line.

0.2 Land Use PlanThe proposed land use concept for the station area builds on the general land use approachestablished in the TOD Study Bubble Plan prepared by Caroline County. While it follows thegeneral concept of the Bubble Plan to the west of the CSX railroad, it expands upon andmodifies some aspects of the Bubble Plan. In the vicinity of the station on both sides of therailroad, the proposed concept recommends higher mixed-use densities in the long term, inorder to maximize the potential of the transit station. It also diverges from the Bubble Plan inthe addition of recreation uses and a potential school site to the east of the rail line, theremoval of roundabouts from mixed-use areas on the west side of the railroad to improvepedestrian circulation, and the addition of new roundabouts in the northern portion of thestudy area.

Key elements of the proposed plan include:

Creation of two medium-scale, retail mixed-use neighborhood centers on the site,surrounding by medium to low scale residential development.

Long-term high density development adjacent to I-95.

Creation of a River Walk as a central feature of the TOD.

Inclusion of a potential school site and several large recreation facilities.

Big box retail at the northern end of the site.

Minimum 100’ buffers between Route 1 and the TOD, in order to maintain the road’srural character. Similar buffers between the TOD and Rogers Clark Boulevard and I-95.

Preservation of the environmentally sensitive and historically significant land at thesouthern end of the site.

Constraints to development include significant environmental constraints in the form ofwetlands and Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas. Other development challengesinclude protection of an important Civil War battlefield site on southern portion of the site and



the need to maintain the rural character of Route 1 as it passes through the study area. Inaddition, development on both sides of the railroad will require significant investment inbridge construction to enable access to the eastern portion of the study area.

To implement this land use plan the County will need to change its zoning (the maximumdensity currently allowed is 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre). County staff have expressed aninterest in developing a Transit-Oriented Development zone that incorporates form-basedcodes. These zoning changes, like the proposed land use plans, will require public review.The County has committed funds for the next round of studies needed for planimplementation and has applied for additional funding.

0.3 Market and Economic ImpactsThe proposed land use plan would have the following estimated market impacts:

The site plan for the Carmel Church Station indicates build-out of 636,500 squarefeet of office space, which is about double the total projected for Caroline County.While this could be viewed as somewhat aggressive, it may be supported byattracting commercial tenants that rely on travel to the Washington DC and/orRichmond areas, which would be easily accommodated by the enhanced Amtrakservice.

The site plan for the Carmel Church Station indicates build-out of 636,500 squarefeet of retail space, which is about 130 percent of the total projected for CarolineCounty. According to the County Business Patterns for 2005, there were 67establishments in Caroline County engaged in retail trade, 39 of which had 1 to 4employees. This implies that 58 percent of retail consists of extremely smalloperations. This causes County shoppers to travel to Fredericksburg andRichmond for a variety of shopping needs. The retail build-out associated with theCarmel Church site plan may reflect the reality of bringing more and variedshopping opportunities to a vastly underserved market.

The site plan for the Carmel Church Station area indicates build-out of 2,935residential units totaling 3,249,500 square feet which is about 67 percent of thetotal projected for Caroline County. This appears to be a reasonable share for anarea that is a designated growth area emphasizing TOD that will greatly exceedcurrent densities in the County.

For all classes of development, construction value is estimated to generate about $78 millionin property taxes from 2013 through 2030 at the Carmel Church Station Area. This is about70 percent of the property taxes projected for Caroline County from new development overthe same time period.

An economic impact analysis was conducted as part of the station planning exercise toproject potential effects of construction expenditures at the sites around the proposed CarmelChurch Station on the regional economy in terms of increased employment and relatedeconomic effects. The analysis concluded that station area construction on the scaleproposed in the land use plan would create an average of over 500 jobs per year during the18-year assumed period of construction between 2013 and 2030.



0.4 Implementation: Funding and FinancingA critical step in the implementation of any new station or station improvements is fundingthe local share of station construction costs. Planners are evaluating two major mechanismsthat are being used in several U.S. cities to finance localized transportation improvements –Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Transportation Improvement Districts (TID). Taxincrement financing (TIF) is widely used in Virginia and across the United States as a methodfor financing current investments (including public infrastructure such as rail stations) bycapturing and dedicating expected future gains in property tax revenues in the area aroundthe investment and using those gains to pay back the investment’s initial cost. Taxassessment districts are also widely used in the United States as a way to ensure thatbusinesses and residents who will benefit from a public investment also share in its costs. Inthe context of intercity rail stations, such a district might more specifically be called atransportation improvement district (TID). The TID would involve designation of a well-defined geographic area around the station in which an additional property tax assessmentwould be levied on property owners, and the revenues from that tax would then be dedicatedto repaying the station costs.

In weighing the decision to pursue TIF or TID funding mechanisms, jurisdictions mustevaluate not only the overall economic feasibility, but also the likelihood of successfulimplementation, and each approach has its pros and cons. TIF districts are currently in use invarious locations across Virginia and are generally much easier to implement under existinglegislation. However, the ease of creation is balanced by the significant uncertaintyassociated with the future revenue stream. The locality must consistently work withdevelopers to ensure that the projected development actually occurs, and the developmentand resulting tax revenue may take a significant amount of time to “come online.”

A TID, by contrast, can be quite difficult to set up under Virginia statute. Only Counties (notCities) with population over 500,000 currently have the authority to pursue TIDs. Cities andsmaller Counties wanting to pursue a TID will need legislative action by the GeneralAssembly in order to be granted that authority. Moreover, even with that authority and with apopular planned investment, it can be very difficult to convince a majority of the propertyowners within the proposed district to agree to the extra assessment. However, once a TID isin place, it has the significant advantage of producing a sizable stream of revenueimmediately upon its adoption.

0.5 Implementation: Infrastructure and EnvironmentOther critical implementation steps include coordination of local infrastructure improvements(particularly transit service improvements and street grid upgrades) with stationenhancements and land development/redevelopment projects. Unless the groundwork fordevelopment is clearly in place, investment in the station site will not occur at the desiredscale or pace. This “groundwork” also includes proper documentation and mitigation ofenvironmental issues associated with the site and its surroundings.

Development of the scales and densities proposed around the Caroline County station willrequire an array of different transit services to complement increased intercity train service.This transit network would be centered on the proposed high density areas near the railstation and would provide frequent service to the station area from the town of CarmelChurch and outlying portions of the planned development.

The proposed new road infrastructure will consist of approximately 110,000 linear feet of newroads and streets. Of these new roads, 21,000 linear feet are assumed to be four-lane



arterials, while the remainder would be smaller two-lane collectors. Pedestrian accessibility ispromoted through a small block size design, and all roads and streets will have bike lanesand sidewalks.

To increase accessibility within the site and to outside development, two motor vehiclebridges and one bridge exclusively for pedestrians will be constructed over the CSX rail line.An additional bridge for vehicular traffic will be constructed over I-95. To improve trafficcontrol, four new signalized intersections will be created on Jefferson Davis Highway andRoger Clark Boulevard.

Areas of potential environmental concern identified for this station area include forestedareas, water resources, historic resources, and hazardous materials.



1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEWThis memo is one in a series of in depth station planning and land use analyses conductedby the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). DRPT chose to undertake thisproject for the following reasons:

Several recent high-profile reports and articles have called attention to the connectionbetween recent land use trends and mounting economic, environmental, health, andsocial costs. In June the New York Times reported that even as home prices declinein outlying suburbs, some urban areas such as Washington D.C. have, instead seenan increase in property values. Americans are no longer able to justify autodependent lifestyles given doubling fuel prices. The connection between land useand transportation is once again becoming intuitive—beginning to shape dailydecisions—in a society where low fuel costs have been the norm for decades. Overthe long term, this new calculus for deciding the where to live and where to dobusiness will exert a stronger and stronger influence on land development patterns.

With increasing rail service along the major metropolitan corridors in Virginia, it willbecome more and more possible for families and businesses to make locationchoices that minimize financial, environmental, and social costs. The stations willserve a variety of purposes, from daily commutes to occasional recreational trips.Over time, the station areas will become nodes of residential and economic activity.

Market assessment can help predict the scale of potential development and the mixof appropriate land uses. It also helps decision makers to understand the level offocus that they will need to put toward these areas in order to channel developmentthat would normally happen in other parts of their jurisdictions.

Redevelopment of station areas over time can be planned to take advantage ofeconomies of scale and the natural convergence of activities (density) at stationareas. Urban design and planning shapes walkable town centers that are attractive tonew residents, businesses, and travelers. These new developments must be well-served by transit. In addition to the intercity and commuter rail transit that provide thefocus for development, there must be a significant investment in local and regionaltransit that support and complement the rail service.

The task of organizing new centers of development and financing major transitinvestments presents challenges for any jurisdiction. Jurisdictions that pursue thesechanges will need to develop an overarching strategy and follow aggressive timelinesas they implement portions of the strategy. For example, zoning ordinances and planreview protocols will in many cases need to be adjusted substantially to achieve thedesired land use densities and mix of uses.



Figure 1-1: Project Station Locations



2.0 DESCRIPTION OF STATION AND STATION AREA

2.1 Station function—proposed service and relationship to other stationsCaroline is a largely rural county located between Fredericksburg and Richmond. Interstate95 extends through western Caroline, yet it has experienced little of the sprawlingdevelopment that dominates the I-95 corridor in neighboring counties. This is, in part, due toforward thinking leadership and careful planning within the community. According to the2004 Comprehensive Plan, Caroline recognizes that growth is inevitable, but will only acceptdevelopment that benefits, rather than burdens, future generation. In 2000 the countypopulation was 22,121. Since that time county population has grown at approximately 3%per year.

Carmel Church, one of several subareas within the county, has absorbed about half of thecounty’s growth since 2000. It was first identified as a primary growth center in the county’s1977 Comprehensive Plan and has retained this designation through subsequentcomprehensive planning efforts. Currently, Carmel Church is the location for a county-ledTOD planning initiative. The proposed TOD location is 27 miles south of FredericksburgStation and 11 miles north of the Ashland Station on the existing CSX rail line. Figure 2-1shows the proposed Carmel Church station location.

2.2 General overview of the study area at station locationThe proposed station location is a greenfield site bound by Route 1 to the west and I-95 tothe east. The CSX rail line runs through the center of this site and has the dimensions toaccommodate a 1200 foot platform. There are sensitive environmental features, such aswetlands and creeks, at the center of the site. The initial county TOD plans, however,demonstrate that these features can be protected and incorporated into a future densedevelopment in this area. There is no existing development within a quarter mile of thestation. There is a limited amount of residential single-family development within a half mileof the station.

2.3 Overarching themes for station area planThe station area plan provides additional detail and a few modifications to the Carmel ChurchBubble Plan recently proposed for this location. It recommends establishment of twomedium-scale, mixed-use centers, and a big box retail center. The plan emphasizespedestrian scale development and clear circulation patterns throughout the site.

Key elements of the plan include:

Creation of two medium-scale, retail mixed-use neighborhood centers on the site,surrounding by medium to low scale residential development.

Long-term high density development adjacent to I-95.

Creation of a River Walk as a central feature of the TOD.

Inclusion of a potential school site and several large recreation facilities.

Big box retail at the northern end of the site.

Minimum 100’ buffers between Route 1 and the TOD, in order to maintain the road’srural character. Similar buffers between the TOD and Rogers Clark Boulevard and I-95.



Preservation of the environmentally sensitive and historically significant land at thesouthern end of the site.

Phasing recommendations for implementation of the plan.

Figure 2-1: Carmel Church Station Area



3.0 LAND USE

3.1 Background / Existing CharacterImmediate Vicinity of StationThe proposed station site is mostly undeveloped. What development exists near the siteconsists of scattered single-family residences east of Route 1 and south of Opal Lane.

Surrounding AreaMuch of the area between Route 1 and Interstate 95 is currently undeveloped. Along Route1, land uses are primarily residential, except for areas of industrial uses on Route 1 north ofOpal Lane and further south opposite the intersection with Beverly Circle.

3.2 Planning ContextZoningZoning on the site is primarily residential and industrial. Two large parcels fronting Route 1and much of the land east of the CSX railroad are zoned M-1 (Industrial). The remainingparcels along Route 1 are zoned residential. The only commercial / business (B-1) zoning islocated north of the site along Jericho Road and Rogers Clark Boulevard.

Plans and Policies1. Carmel Church Community Plan (January 2007)The Carmel Church Community Plan serves as part of the Caroline County ComprehensivePlan and provides a vision for future development in the Carmel Church community, whichincludes the study area. The plan recommends the development of a Village Core, or towncenter, in the Carmel Church community while preserving the surrounding rural landscapeand quality of life. In the Village Core, located between Route 1 and Interstate 95, the planenvisions higher density development (10-15 units per acre) with a diversity of uses and atransit station at its center and gradually decreasing densities further away from the center.As envisioned, the Village Core also includes public facilities, such as a library, recreationalareas and a usable public space at its center. Along Route 1, the plan anticipates residentialand mixed-use development interspersed with two areas of industrial uses.

2. Caroline TOD Study: Bubble PlanThis plan builds on the vision for a town center in Carmel Church that was first articulated inthe Carmel Church Community Plan. The plan provides a general concept to allow for testingand advancement of development and transportation concepts for the site. It provides “arepresentation of the scale and general arrangement of land use that is proposed for the site,including the central TOD site focused on a rail station and the surrounding parcels.”

The plan envisions the development of a town center on both the east and west sides of therailroad tracks and proposed station. On the east side, vertically integrated mixed-usedevelopment surrounds a town green adjacent to the proposed station. Multi-familyresidential uses are located to the north and south of the proposed mixed-use development,along with additional parking and a park at the northern end of the central site. On the westside, vertically-integrated mixed-use development surrounds a town green adjacent to thestation with multi-family residential located to the west of these uses and parking located tothe north adjacent to the railroad tracks.



Outside the town center area, the plan envisions single-family residential to the east,between the town center and Route 1, and office/retail uses further north along Route 1 Tothe south of the town center, the plan includes areas of open space and a park/conservationarea as well as a cultural amenity associated with a Civil War battlefield site.

Development assumptions for the plan include estimates for low and high ranges ofdevelopment. Low-range assumptions for the TOD central site include 399,600 square feetof office space, 220,000 square feet of retail and 1,500 multi-family residential units. Low-range assumptions for the northern site include an additional 199,800 square feet of officespace and 220,00 square feet of retail. High-range assumptions for the TOD central siteinclude 549,450 square feet of office space, 320,00 square feet of retail and 3.500 multi-family residential units. High-range assumptions for the northern site include 274,725 squarefeet of office space and 320,000 square feet of retail. Moreover, the plan recommends a totalof 1,500 single-family residential along Route 1 (no low or high range assumptions providedfor these uses).

Procedures for Updating and Amending Zoning and PlansThe County will need to change its zoning, since the maximum density currently allowed is10-15 dwelling units per acre. County staff have expressed an interest in developing aTransit-Oriented Development zone that incorporates form-based coding. Furthermore, sincethe Bubble Plan has not yet been reviewed by the public, the County will need to bring thepublic into the process at some point in the future. In addition, the County is looking toconduct additional studies to assess issues such as access from I-95 and neededinfrastructure upgrades (particularly water and sewer). The County has already committed$500,000 for the next round of studies needed for plan implementation and has applied foradditional funding.

3.3 Site Potential and Proposed Land UseThe main goals of the proposed land use concept include:

Maintaining the rural character of major roadways and entrances to the county

Preserving as much of the North Anna River Civil War battlefield area as possible

In early phases, establishing medium-scale village character and some higher-densitymixed-use in those areas to the west of CSX rail line.

In the long-term, most of the higher-scale mixed use occurs in the neighborhoods tothe east of the CSX rail line

Ensuring that the proposed big-box retail area is thoroughly buffered and segregatedfrom Route 1 and Jericho Road

Establishing undisturbed, 100-foot vegetative buffers between I-95 and the mixed-usearea, along Route 1, and along Jericho Road / Rogers Clark Boulevard.

The proposed land use concept, shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, builds on the general landuse approach established in the TOD Study Bubble Plan. While it follows the generalconcept of the Bubble Plan to the west of the CSX railroad and maintains its approach toentrance locations in this area, it expands upon and modifies some aspects of the BubblePlan in some respects. In the vicinity of the station on both sides of the railroad, the proposedconcept recommends higher mixed-use densities in the long term, in order to maximize thepotential of the transit station. It also diverges from the Bubble Plan in the addition ofrecreation uses and a potential school site to the east of the rail line, the removal of



roundabouts from mixed-use areas on the west side of the railroad to improve pedestriancirculation, and the addition of new roundabouts in the northern portion of the study area. Topreserve the visual character of Route 1, the proposed concept recommends a 100-footvegetated buffer from the area north of Jericho Road to the North Anna River and alongJericho Road and Rogers Clark Boulevard at the northern edge of the study area. Examplesof the concepts in this section are exhibited in Figure 3-3.

The concept features high- and medium-scale mixed-use development in the vicinity of theproposed station, surrounded by low-scale mixed-use development and long-term, higher-density mixed-use development located near I-95. Areas of small-lot, single-family detachedand medium-density residential uses surround the mixed-use core.

Mixed-use development is organized as two mixed-use neighborhoods with retail mixed-usecores. The first of these neighborhoods, located to the west of the rail line and closest to theAmtrak station, contains mixed-use at a variety of densities, with high-density developmentclustered closest to the train station and around a town green and lower densities to thenorth and west. Densities diminish in the areas closer to Route 1, where medium-scaleresidential surrounds a town park that serves as an entrance to the town center and atransition from the rural character along Route 1. Development transitions to single-familyresidential neighborhoods further north and south of the mixed-use core.

The second mixed-use neighborhood contains higher-density, mixed-use development that isfocused on a “destination greenway” lined with themed restaurants and retail. Thisdestination area is surrounded by high-density residential uses and medium-density mixed-use development. Further north, a single-family residential neighborhood separates themixed-use core from another mixed-use center oriented around a proposed school site and alarge recreation area.

Parking in all mixed-use area is envisioned as structured parking. However, structuredparking may be phased in over time from surface parking as new development occurs.

The retail area located in the northern portion of the study area incorporates all undevelopedparcels between the town center and Rogers Clark Boulevard. This area is envisioned as apotential location for “big box” types of retail uses. The concept calls for one major through-access route in this area, an extension of Welcome Way Drive that connects to the mixed-use area to the south. Traffic circles are recommended in the retail area to helpaccommodate higher traffic flows. An undisturbed, 150-foot buffer separates the retail areafrom I-95. The concept recommends that no additional access points should be added toeither Route 1 or Rogers Clark Boulevard.

A battlefield preservation and interpretative area is recommended for the area south ofGravel Hill Road. Some “residential estate” uses (2-acre minimum) are proposed along thenorthern edge of the battlefield as a low-impact use for some of the outer battlefield areas. A“battlefield drive” is planned for those areas on both sides of the railroad, with access onlyfrom inside of the proposed development and a loop road that curves back to the main road.

Three bridges provide access to the mixed-use areas to the east of the rail station and theCSX railroad. In the long term, a fourth bridge will cross both the proposed outer ring roadand I-95. A separate pedestrian bridge also connects the station to the River Walk area andeastern portion of the town center.

The concept includes guiding assumptions for access to future development. In the initialphases of development, Route 1 is envisioned as the major access point to the development.For the later, more intense phases of mixed-use and big box retail development, anextension of the existing Welcome Way will serve as a primary access point to the



development and will help address traffic-related impacts on Route 1 and in the vicinity of thebattlefield.

By utilizing a connected street grid and four entrances off of Route 1, the overall goal is toreduce street widths and keep blocks compact. Entrances from Route 1 should feel integralto the rural road network surrounding the area proposed for development. The connectedroad network reduces bottlenecks and enables these compact entrances.To create the traditional neighborhood design called for in the Carmel Church CommunityPlan, alleys (see Figures 3-4 B and C) are essential elements. All residential-only uses areaccessed off of 24-foot-wide alleys for service and parking, while only the proposed“residential estate” development is accessed via front driveway. Moreover, all mixed-useareas with commerce at ground floor will be accessed off of 30-foot-wide alleys.

Proposed build-to lines for streets are illustrated in Figure 3-4 A. The public streetscapebetween the build-to lines is envisioned as a key part of the community open space systemand includes curbside stormwater management, except on those streets facing commerce(retail or office) ground-floor use. Public squares and greens should be appropriately sized(not too big), should appear busy and well-utilized, even in the early phases of development,and shall be contained by public streetscapes on at least two sides.The average floor area ratio for developable parcels is 3.6 (not including public spaces suchas streets, open space and railroad corridors).

Development Assumptions

Area of Estimate: Estimate includes all areas of proposed change within the 1/4-miledistance from the Amtrak Station.

Use Typeso Low-Scale Mixed Use: Ground-level commerce (office or retail) required, upper

floors residential or office use; 3-floor-maximum building height (3 floor heightused in estimates); Surface parking provided; floor area ratio of 1.2.

o Medium-Scale Mixed Use: Ground level commerce (office or retail) required;upper floors residential or office us; 5-floor-maximum building height (4 floorsaverage used for estimate); above-grade, structured parking provided in blockcenter; floor area ratio of 2.0.

o High-Scale mixed Use: Ground-level commerce (office or retail) required; upperfloors residential or office; 8-floor-maximum height (7 floors used for estimate);above-grade structured parking provided in block center; floor area ratio of 3.5.

o Medium-scale residential (Townhouse or small multifamily / condominiumbuilding): 3-floor-maximum height; parking provided in unit garage on alley; floorarea ratio of 1.5.

Average residential/ office mix for all low-scale, medium-scale and high-scale upperfloors = 20% Office, 80% Residential

Residential units are calculated at average 1000 GSF per multifamily / condominiumunit and 1,500 GSF per townhome.

Parking strategy: A parking strategy is utilized with a maximum quantity required fordedicated parking and a minimum quantity required for shared parking for each project.



If the developer wishes to allocate more dedicated parking than the maximum, thedeveloper must assist funding of district-wide shared parking facilities.

On street parking adjacent to each development can be used to meet the sharedparking requirement.

3.4 Site ConstraintsConstraints to development include significant environmental constraints in the form ofwetlands and Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas. Other development challengesinclude protection of an important Civil War battlefield site on southern portion of the site andthe need to maintain the rural character of Route 1 as it passes through the study area. Inaddition, development on both sides of the railroad will require significant investment inbridge construction to enable access to the eastern portion of the study area.

Bridge length to accommodate pedestrian and automobile traffic over CSX lines was majorconstraint in the design of the internal circulation system.



Figure 3-1: Carmel Church Station Proposed Land Use - Concept Plan



Figure 3-2: Carmel Church Station Illustrative Plan



Figure 3-3: Example Photographs

A. Example of medium-density housing inthe form of small- lot, single-familyresidential, as recommended for CarmelChurch. All of these homes have theirparking and service access off of rearalleys

B. An example of the low-scale mixed use,which includes buildings of 2 or 3 floorswith office or residential on the upperfloor(s).

C. An example of town houses, asrecommended for the medium-scaleresidential areas indicated on the landuse plan.

D. This residential mixed-use area is similarin scale to that recommended for thehigh-scale mixed-use areas in the landuse plan.

E. Another example for high-scale mixeduse, as recommended in the plan.

F. An example precedent for the specialentertainment district, with its medium-scale mixed use structures surroundingpaved and planted open spaces. Thisarea is located in a natural depression,and water could be a featured element ofthe open spaces

G. Three vehicular and pedestrian bridgeswill be needed to cross the railroad andthe adjacent stream and buffer. This isan example of a bridge design suitable tocross both an urban neighborhood and anatural area. Brick and precast wouldfacilitate the creation of timeless ‘civicminded’ bridges

H. The southern portion of the plan, facingthe North Anna River, is the site of a civilwar battlefield. The railroad bridge atthat location was destroyed as part of thebattle, as shown in the photographabove. A visitor’s center and battlefielddrive has been recommended as part ofthe plan.

I. Rendering of General Mead’s troops building pontoon bridges across the North AnnaRiver. Battle maps indicate several of these bridges being constructed at the southernportion of the project site.



Figure 3-4: Thoroughfare and Alley Sketches

A. Illustration of the 66’ width (between building walls) thoroughfareused for most of the interior connecting streets in the various plans.

B. Illustration of the 24 foot width alley used forthe residential districts.

C. Illustration of the 30 foot width alley usedfor mixed use sites.



4.0 MARKET CONDITIONSThe proposed station at Carmel Church will be sited in one of Caroline County’s threedesignated ‘growth areas.” Current build-out is occurring in the Ladysmith growth area, thethird designated area is the county seat, Bowling Green. The Carmel Church site has beendesignated for TOD and has the support of the Caroline County Board and the propertyowner. Obstacles to development are minimal as the majority of the land is controlled by oneowner and the Board is extremely supportive of “new urbanism” approach to development.The Amtrak service and a station sited at Carmel Church are a necessary component fordevelopment to move forward. Current land uses are forest land and scattered low valueresidential.

The major real estate firms that track trends and provide projections for various classes ofproperty do not cover Caroline County. The market assessment was developed based onemployment and population data. Employment is the primary driver for commercial spaceand population is the primary driver fueling demand for residential and retail.

The area around the proposed station in Carmel Church has outstanding potential from amarket perspective.

The land is controlled by one owner, who is encouraging development

The current land use is forest land and low value residential providing a land usefootprint for any type of desired development

Carmel Church is within commuting distance to both the Washington DC andRichmond areas

The rural setting is attractive to various demographics for residential product atdifferent pricing points

Current full service retail for Caroline County is located in Fredericksburg and north ofRichmond making the Carmel Church area an attractive alternative

The site will have access to I-95

4.1 OfficeDemand for office space in Caroline County was developed based on employmentprojections to 2030. Since the projections include all industries the employment figures werescaled down to reflect those industries that typically require office space, e.g., FIRE,government, professional and technical services. These data we accessed from the VirginiaEmployment Commission and were current as of September 2007. An assumption of 200square feet per employee was used to estimate the space requirements on a yearly basisfrom County employment growth. Cost per square foot was taken from RS Means “SquareFoot Costs” for office structures of five to ten stories. Costs were escalated at 3.3 percent peryear from the “Construction Cost Index” reported by Engineering News Record.

The projections from 2013 through 2030 are shown in Table 4-1. Over the 18 year period,employment increases will require about 292,000 square feet of office space, with aconstruction value of over $58 million. This will generate property taxes of $2.7 million overthe same time period, assuming the tax rate for 2008 at $0.530 per $100 or assessed value.



Table 4-1: Office Construction Value and Tax Revenue – Caroline County

YEARCONSTRUCTION

VALUE(Cumulative)

PROPERTYTAX (Annual)

2013 $ 2,433,804 $ 12,8992014 $ 4,947,924 $ 26,2242015 $ 7,545,009 $ 39,9892016 $ 10,227,799 $ 54,2072017 $ 12,999,120 $ 68,8952018 $ 15,861,896 $ 84,0682019 $ 18,819,142 $ 99,7412020 $ 21,873,978 $ 115,9322021 $ 25,029,624 $ 132,6572022 $ 28,289,405 $ 149,9342023 $ 31,656,760 $ 167,7812024 $ 35,135,237 $ 186,2172025 $ 38,728,504 $ 205,2612026 $ 42,440,349 $ 224,9342027 $ 46,274,684 $ 245,2562028 $ 50,235,553 $ 266,2482029 $ 54,327,131 $ 287,9342030 $ 58,553,730 $ 310,335

Total $ 2,678,512

The site plan for the Carmel Church Station indicates build-out of 636,500 square feet ofoffice space, which is about double the total projected for Caroline County. While this couldbe viewed as somewhat aggressive, it may be supported by attracting commercial tenantsthat rely on travel to the Washington DC and/or Richmond areas, which would be easilyaccommodated by the enhanced Amtrak service. Additionally, Carmel Church probably is themost attractive location to focus commercial development in Caroline County given thecombination of access to I-95 and frequent rail service. Development sites in CarolineCounty are constrained by the presence of Fort A.P. Hill, which currently occupiesapproximately one-half of the land area of the county. Table 4-2 shows the constructionvalue and property tax for 2013 though 2030 for the Carmel Church Station area.



Table 4-2: Office Construction Value and Tax Revenue – Carmel Church Station Area

YEARCONSTRUCTION

VALUE(Cumulative)


2013 $ 4,802,182 $ 25,4522014 $ 9,762,837 $ 51,7432015 $ 14,887,193 $ 78,9022016 $ 20,180,652 $ 106,9572017 $ 25,648,796 $ 135,9392018 $ 31,297,389 $ 165,8762019 $ 37,132,385 $ 196,8022020 $ 43,159,936 $ 228,7482021 $ 49,386,396 $ 261,7482022 $ 55,818,330 $ 295,8372023 $ 62,462,517 $ 331,0512024 $ 69,325,962 $ 367,4282025 $ 76,415,901 $ 405,0042026 $ 83,739,808 $ 443,8212027 $ 91,305,405 $ 483,9192028 $ 99,120,665 $ 525,3402029 $ 107,193,830 $ 568,1272030 $ 115,533,408 $ 612,327

Total $ 5,285,020

4.2 RetailDemand for retail space was developed based on population projections to 2030. The U.S.Census-Quick Facts reported retail sales per capita for Caroline County at $11,359.Increases in population were applied to the retail sales per capita to derive total sales. Toestimate the square feet needed as additions to retail stock a value of $300 per square footper year was used. This is an average that takes into consideration varying categories ofretail from General Merchandise at $154 per square foot per year to Jewelry at $748 persquare foot per year. Cost per square foot was taken for RS Means “Square Foot Costs.”Costs were escalated at 3.3 percent per year from the “Construction Cost Index” reported byEngineering News Record.

The projections from 2013 through 2030 are shown in Table 4-3. Over the 18 year period,retail space is projected to increase by about 489,000 square feet, with a construction valueof over $67 million. This will generate property taxes of $3.1 million over the same timeperiod, assuming the tax rate for 2008 at $0.530 per $100 or assessed value.



Table 4-3: Retail Construction Value and Tax Revenues – Caroline County

YEAR POPULATION TOTALCONSTRUCTION

VALUE(Cumulative)

PROPERTYTAX

(Annual)2013 31,455 $ 357,302,267 $ 2,819,512 $ 14,9432014 32,173 $ 365,458,408 $ 5,732,069 $ 30,3802015 32,892 $ 373,614,549 $ 8,740,739 $ 46,3262016 33,610 $ 381,770,689 $ 11,848,696 $ 62,7982017 34,328 $ 389,926,830 $ 15,059,215 $ 79,8142018 35,046 $ 398,082,970 $ 18,375,681 $ 97,3912019 35,764 $ 406,239,111 $ 21,801,591 $ 115,5482020 36,482 $ 414,395,252 $ 25,340,556 $ 134,3052021 37,200 $ 422,551,392 $ 28,996,307 $ 153,6802022 37,918 $ 430,707,533 $ 32,772,697 $ 173,6952023 38,636 $ 438,863,674 $ 36,673,708 $ 194,3712024 39,354 $ 447,019,814 $ 40,703,453 $ 215,7282025 40,072 $ 455,175,955 $ 44,866,179 $ 237,7912026 40,790 $ 463,332,095 $ 49,166,276 $ 260,5812027 41,508 $ 471,488,236 $ 53,608,275 $ 284,1242028 42,226 $ 479,644,377 $ 58,196,860 $ 308,4432029 42,944 $ 487,800,517 $ 62,936,869 $ 333,5652030 43,662 $ 495,956,658 $ 67,833,298 $ 359,516

Total $ 3,103,002

The site plan for the Carmel Church Station indicates build-out of 636,500 square feet ofretail space, which is about 130 percent of the total projected for Caroline County. From astrict comparison of development totals it appears unreasonable that the station area plancould exceed County totals. The County totals are based on growth projections of population.This does not take into consideration the retail opportunities in the County. According to theCounty Business Patterns for 2005, there were 67 establishments in Caroline Countyengaged in retail trade, 39 of which had 1 to 4 employees. This implies that 58 percent ofretail consists of extremely small operations (mom and pop stores). This causes Countyshoppers to travel to Fredericksburg and Richmond for a variety of shopping needs. Theretail build-out associated with the Carmel Church site plan may reflect the reality of bringingmore and varied shopping opportunities to a vastly underserved market. Additionally, the siteplan has 2,935 residential units, which will provide substantial demand for retail. Table 4-4shows the construction value and property tax for 2013 though 2013 for the Carmel ChurchStation area.



Table 4-4: Retail Construction Value and Tax Revenues – Carmel Church Station Area

YEAR TOTALCONSTRUCTION

VALUE(Cumulative)


2013 $ 357,302,267 $ 3,667,216 $ 19,4362014 $ 365,458,408 $ 7,455,449 $ 39,5142015 $ 373,614,549 $ 11,368,694 $ 60,2542016 $ 381,770,689 $ 15,411,077 $ 81,6792017 $ 389,926,830 $ 19,586,858 $ 103,8102018 $ 398,082,970 $ 23,900,440 $ 126,6722019 $ 406,239,111 $ 28,356,370 $ 150,2892020 $ 414,395,252 $ 32,959,345 $ 174,6852021 $ 422,551,392 $ 37,714,219 $ 199,8852022 $ 430,707,533 $ 42,626,004 $ 225,9182023 $ 438,863,674 $ 47,699,878 $ 252,8092024 $ 447,019,814 $ 52,941,189 $ 280,5882025 $ 455,175,955 $ 58,355,464 $ 309,2842026 $ 463,332,095 $ 63,948,410 $ 338,9272027 $ 471,488,236 $ 69,725,923 $ 369,5472028 $ 479,644,377 $ 75,694,094 $ 401,1792029 $ 487,800,517 $ 81,859,214 $ 433,8542030 $ 495,956,658 $ 88,227,784 $ 467,607

Total $ 4,035,937

4.3 ResidentialThe market for residential housing is largely determined by population and household size.Projections for Caroline County show population increasing from the 2000 Census figure of22,121 to 43,662 in year 2030. Average household size as reported in the 2000 Census was2.69 persons per household. Based on these data the demand for residential product can beestimated on a yearly basis.

Yearly increases in population averaging 718 per year will require an addition of267 residential units

Assuming 1,000 square feet per unit equates to build-out of 267,000 square feetper year of residential product

Total construction value exceeds $1 billion for 2013 through 2030

Total tax revenue over the 18 year period from 2013 through 2030 is $100 million

Table 4-5 shows the increase in property taxes on a yearly basis from 2013 to 2030 as the4,800,000 square feet of residential product enters the market.



Table 4-5: Housing Demand, Construction Value and Tax Revenue – Caroline County

YEAR CONSTRUCTIONVALUE (Annual)

CONSTRUCTIONVALUE

(Cumulative)PROPERTY

TAX (Annual)

2013 $ 44,076,360 $ 44,076,360 $ 233,6052014 $ 45,530,880 $ 89,607,240 $ 985,6802015 $ 47,033,399 $ 136,640,639 $ 1,503,0472016 $ 48,585,501 $ 185,226,140 $ 2,037,4882017 $ 50,188,823 $ 235,414,963 $ 2,589,5652018 $ 51,845,054 $ 287,260,017 $ 3,159,8602019 $ 53,555,941 $ 340,815,958 $ 3,748,9762020 $ 55,323,287 $ 396,139,244 $ 4,357,5322021 $ 57,148,955 $ 453,288,199 $ 4,986,1702022 $ 59,034,871 $ 512,323,070 $ 5,635,5542023 $ 60,983,021 $ 573,306,092 $ 6,306,3672024 $ 62,995,461 $ 636,301,553 $ 6,999,3172025 $ 65,074,311 $ 701,375,864 $ 7,715,1352026 $ 67,221,764 $ 768,597,628 $ 8,454,5742027 $ 69,440,082 $ 838,037,709 $ 9,218,4152028 $ 71,731,605 $ 909,769,314 $ 10,007,4622029 $ 74,098,747 $ 983,868,061 $ 10,822,5492030 $ 76,544,006 $ 1,060,412,067 $ 11,664,533

Total $100,425,826

The site plan for the Carmel Church Station area indicates build-out of 2,935 residential unitstotaling 3,249,500 square feet which is about 67 percent of the total projected for CarolineCounty. This appears to be a reasonable share for an area that is a designated growth areaemphasizing TOD that will greatly exceed current densities in the County. Table 4-6 showsthe construction value and property tax for 2013 though 2030 for the Carmel Church Stationarea.



Table 4-6: Housing Demand, Construction Value and Tax Revenue – Carmel ChurchStation Area

YEAR CONSTRUCTIONVALUE (Annual)

CONSTRUCTIONVALUE

(Cumulative)PROPERTY

TAX (Annual)

2013 $ 32,308,400 $ 32,308,400 $ 171,2352014 $ 33,374,577 $ 65,682,976 $ 722,5132015 $ 34,475,938 $ 100,158,914 $ 1,101,7482016 $ 35,613,644 $ 135,772,558 $ 1,493,4982017 $ 36,788,894 $ 172,561,452 $ 1,898,1762018 $ 38,002,928 $ 210,564,380 $ 2,316,2082019 $ 39,257,024 $ 249,821,404 $ 2,748,0352020 $ 40,552,506 $ 290,373,910 $ 3,194,1132021 $ 41,890,739 $ 332,264,648 $ 3,654,9112022 $ 43,273,133 $ 375,537,781 $ 4,130,9162023 $ 44,701,146 $ 420,238,928 $ 4,622,6282024 $ 46,176,284 $ 466,415,212 $ 5,130,5672025 $ 47,700,102 $ 514,115,313 $ 5,655,2682026 $ 49,274,205 $ 563,389,518 $ 6,197,2852027 $ 50,900,254 $ 614,289,772 $ 6,757,1872028 $ 52,579,962 $ 666,869,734 $ 7,335,5672029 $ 54,315,101 $ 721,184,835 $ 7,933,0332030 $ 56,107,499 $ 777,292,334 $ 8,550,216

Total $ 73,613,105

4.4 SummaryFor all classes of development, construction value is estimated to generate about $78 millionin property taxes from 2013 through 2030 at the Carmel Church Station Area. This is about70 percent of the property taxes projected for Caroline County from new development overthe same time period. This appears to be reasonable since the existing land use encouragesa bold vision for TOD and approvals by the County would act to focus growth around thestation area. Additionally, Carmel Church is one of only three designated growth areas andwill most likely build-out with greater density because of the Amtrak service, access to I-95,and an existing land area and ownership that encourage the desired planned development.



5.0 Economic ImpactThis analysis assesses the economic effects of the projected real estate development in theCarmel Church Station Area. Commercial, retail and residential impacts are assessed. Theanalysis projects the economic effects that construction expenditures to develop the sitesaround Carmel Church would have on the State of Virginia economy in terms of increasedemployment and related economic effects1. The construction activity represents the mostimmediate impact of the station-area real estate investments. Construction firms hire workersand purchase materials and support services in the local economy in order to complete theproject. This is the direct effect on the economy. The construction workers’ earnings translateinto a proportional increase in consumer demand as these workers purchase goods andservices in the region across a variety of industrial sectors. The jobs and incomes supportedthrough the circulation of these earnings in the state economy represent the station areadevelopment’s indirect impact.

The economic impacts associated with construction expenditures in the station areas aremeasured using regional multipliers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) within theU.S. Department of Commerce. Derived from the Regional Input-Output Modeling System,the so-called RIMS II multipliers measure the total change (direct + indirect effects) in output,employment, and earnings that results from an incremental change to a particular industry.The multipliers were constructed by BEA to reflect the Virginia economy. The multipliers arebased on the 2005 Annual Input-Output Table for the nation and 2005 regional accountsdata; they represent the most updated version available at the time this analysis wasprepared.

The economic impact analysis builds on the findings of the Carmel Church Market Analysis,using the projections of commercial, retail, and residential construction to provide aconsistent estimate of economic impacts. Projections of development and the attendantconstruction costs refer to the station area plans.

5.1 Earnings, employment and output effects from capital expendituresConstruction of the station area development projects represents significant capitalinvestment in the local economy. This spending will increase the employment, earnings andoutput for the duration of the construction process, projected to occur between 2013 and2030 in the Market Analysis. Capital cost estimates/construction values for this analysis arepresented in year of expenditure dollars to be consistent with the analysis developed in theMarket Analysis. The following section describes the project expenditures and anticipatedeconomic impacts.

5.2 Capital expendituresThe capital expenditures for construction of the station area developments range widelyacross property type. At the low end of the cost range are the projections for commercial andretail investment at $115 million and $88 million, respectively. The projections for residentialinvestment in the station area are much higher at $777 million. Although every buildingmaterial required for the project may not be produced in Virginia, the RIMS II multipliersreflect the supplier linkages for the industry, and thus account for this leakage from the stateeconomy.

1 The investment to construct and improve the stations themselves would have a similar impact on theeconomy; project costs are not yet available at the time of this analysis to permit an economicassessment.



Construction costs are assumed to include materials and labor and are funded 100% by theprivate sector. There is no land costs included in the construction costs.

5.3 Construction impactsThe net construction cost derived in Table 5-1 is translated into an economic impact throughthe application of the multipliers, as shown in the middle rows of the exhibit, labeledConstruction Multipliers. Because the multipliers summarize information about Virginia’seconomy, they are the same across all the property types.

The interpretation of the multipliers for the construction industry shown in Table 5-1 is asfollows.

The Final Demand Earnings Multiplier represents the total dollar change in earnings ofhouseholds employed by all industries for each additional dollar of output delivered to finaldemand by the construction industry. The Final Demand Employment Multiplier represents the total change in number of jobsthat occurs in all industries for each $1 million of output delivered to final demand by theconstruction industry.The Final Demand Output Multiplier represents the total dollar change in output thatoccurs in all industries for each additional dollar of output delivered to final demand by theconstruction industry.

Applying the Final Demand Multipliers for the construction industry to the amount of newresources that will be used for capital expenditures provides estimates of the net earnings,employment, and output impacts generated by each development scenario. The results aresummarized in the bottom rows of Table 5-1, labeled Construction Impact. Note that theseare one-time impacts that last for the duration of the project’s construction. One job is definedas a job for one person of one year’s duration. As an example, a job for one person that hadduration of three years would be defined as three jobs.

There are no long-term effects associated with the economic impacts generated by capitalexpenditures. Construction-related impacts last for the duration of the buildout around thestation. Just as the expected investment varies across property type, the economic impactsvary as well. Job impacts range from a low of 845 jobs over the 18-year period or about 47jobs per year attributable to the retail development investment to a high of 7,444 over thesame 18-year period for an average of 413 jobs per year for the residential development.



Table 5-1: Projected Construction Impacts by Property Type at Carmel Church Station

CARMEL CHURCH STATION STATION AREA DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOCommercial Retail Residential

COST (YOE$)Total Construction Cost(materials and labor) $115,533,408 $88,227,784 $777,292,334

CONSTRUCTIONMULTIPLIERSEarnings 0.662 0.662 0.662Employments 17.6265 17.6265 17.6265Output 2.1826 2.1826 2.1826

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTEarnings $76,483,116 $48,406,793 $514,567,525Employment 1,106 845 7,444Output $252,163,216 $192,565,961 $1,696,518,248

Notes:As the Final Demand Employment multiplier is based on 2005 data, the capital expenditure isdeflated to 2005 dollars for this calculation.



6.0 Potential Local Funding MechanismA critical step in the implementation of the Caroline County Station is the ability to fund thelocal share of the station’s construction costs. In addition to the station building itself, thesecosts may include additional investment in utilities, parking, and other civil improvementssuch as drainage. No formal estimates of station capital costs have been prepared for theproposed Station, but DRPT generally expects that local jurisdictions will be asked to fund asignificant portion of the cost of station improvements to support expanded intercity railservice. In order to explore potential local funding options, this section assumes that localfunding of $5 million will be necessary for the Caroline County Station. This amount isintended simply as a “placeholder” and is noted as such throughout this section. Any futureestimates of costs and funding needs will require both a detailed engineering cost analysisand a policy decision by DRPT about the share of costs that localities will have to provide.

This section provides an analysis of a potential mechanism that Caroline County could use togenerate its share of the required funds for station improvements. – Tax Increment Financing(TIF). The analysis is a theoretical example designed to illustrate the general economicviability of this mechanism and does not speak to any specific technical issues that wouldneed to be addressed in order to achieve successful implementation. However, a briefdiscussion of feasibility, given the broad economic and legal constraints in theCommonwealth and in Caroline, is provided at the end of this section.

6.1 Tax Increment FinancingTax increment financing (TIF) is widely used in Virginia and across the United States as amethod for financing current investments (including public infrastructure such as rail stations)by capturing and dedicating expected future gains in property tax revenues in the areaaround the investment and using those gains to pay back the investment’s initial cost. Toassess the economic viability of a TIF for the Caroline County Station, the “placeholder” localfunding assumption of $5 million is compared to the net present value (NPV) of the stream ofincremental property tax revenues resulting from future development around the station forthe period from 2013 to 2030. These dates were selected as the estimate for when stationconstruction would likely be undertaken and as a reasonable period for the incrementalproperty tax revenues to be dedicated. The assumptions, methodology, and results for thisanalysis are outlined below.

AssumptionsIn addition to projections of the station cost and future development around the station, theTIF analysis relies on assumptions about inflation rates and discount rates. These rates arepreliminary estimates, and more detailed projections of these rates would be used in anyfuture analyses.

Construction cost inflation: An annual rate of 3.3% is used to inflate the station costestimates from 2008 to 2013 dollars. As a comparison, the Florida DOT is currentlyusing 3.3% as its long-run cost inflation figure.

Discount rate: A discount rate of 5.5% is used in the calculation of NPV.



MethodologyThe methodology used in the TIF analysis is summarized below:

1. A “placeholder” local funding amount of $5 million for the Caroline County Station wasassumed.

2. Preliminary real estate development estimates for each station were received andanalyzed. (These are the same development estimates described in previous sections ofthis report.) These estimates provide annual projected incremental property tax revenuefor three major development categories (office/commercial, retail, and residential) aroundthe Caroline County Station for the period from 2013 to 2030.

3. The net present value of the stream of incremental property tax revenue from Step 2 wascalculated and compared to the “placeholder” local funding amount Step 1. This allowsfor the determination of the required portion of the incremental property revenue thatmust be dedicated to the Caroline County Station through a TIF in order to equalize theassumed local funding and the NPV of the dedicated future revenues. A discount rate of5.5% was used in the calculation of NPV.

The results are summarized in Table 6-1, which presents the “placeholder” local fundingassumption, the NPV of the incremental tax revenue, and the required portion of theincremental tax revenue that would need to be dedicated as a TIF.

Table 6-1: Caroline County Station TIF Summary Example

"Placeholder" Local Funding Assumption (2013) $5.0 million

NPV of Incremental Tax Revenue from Development $43.2 million

Required Portion of Increment Dedicated to Station 12%

Table 6-2 presents the detailed annual calculations of incremental property tax revenue forCaroline County Station.



Table 6-2: Incremental Property Tax Revenues for Caroline County Station

YEAR COMMERCIAL/OFFICE RETAIL RESIDENTIAL TOTAL DEDICATED

SHARE OF TOTAL2013 $25,452 $19,436 $171,235 $216,122 $25,0112014 $51,743 $39,514 $722,513 $813,770 $94,1742015 $78,902 $60,254 $1,101,748 $1,240,904 $143,6042016 $106,957 $81,679 $1,493,498 $1,682,134 $194,6662017 $135,939 $103,810 $1,898,176 $2,137,925 $247,4122018 $165,876 $126,672 $2,316,208 $2,608,757 $301,8992019 $196,802 $150,289 $2,748,035 $3,095,126 $358,1852020 $228,748 $174,685 $3,194,113 $3,597,545 $416,3272021 $261,748 $199,885 $3,654,911 $4,116,544 $476,3892022 $295,837 $225,918 $4,130,916 $4,652,671 $538,4322023 $331,051 $252,809 $4,622,628 $5,206,489 $602,5232024 $367,428 $280,588 $5,130,567 $5,778,583 $668,7292025 $405,004 $309,284 $5,655,268 $6,369,557 $737,1202026 $443,821 $338,927 $6,197,285 $6,980,032 $807,7672027 $483,919 $369,547 $6,757,187 $7,610,654 $880,7462028 $525,340 $401,179 $7,335,567 $8,262,085 $956,1332029 $568,127 $433,854 $7,933,033 $8,935,014 $1,034,0082030 $612,327 $467,607 $8,550,216 $9,630,150 $1,114,453Total $5,285,020 $4,035,937 $73,613,105 $82,934,062 $9,597,579

Net PresentValue (at 5.5%) $43,205,721 $5,000,000

ResultsAs Table 6-1 above shows, Caroline County would need to dedicate approximately 12% ofthe incremental property tax revenue generated by the projected new development aroundthe proposed Station from 2013 to 2030 in order to support the “placeholder” $5 million localfunding assumption.

6.2 General Assessment of the TIF Mechanism in VirginiaIn weighing the decision to pursue TIF funding, a local jurisdiction must evaluate not only theoverall economic feasibility, but also the likelihood of successful implementation, and theapproach has its pros and cons. TIF districts are currently in use in various locations acrossVirginia and are generally much easier to implement under existing legislation. However, theease of creation is balanced by the significant uncertainty associated with the future revenuestream. The locality must consistently work with developers to ensure that the projecteddevelopment actually occurs, and the development and resulting tax revenue may take asignificant amount of time to “come online.” The risk associated with this uncertainty andpotential for delay may make it prohibitively expensive to attempt to finance the station costswith a pure TIF-backed revenue bond. Thus, many localities have used different versions ofa “shadow TIF” approach:

Shadow TIF (Weak): In this approach, the City or County does not actually set up theTIF district, and any bonds issued to pay for upfront investment costs are generalobligation (GO) debt, as is normally the case for infrastructure investment in a locality.However, the results of the TIF analysis—demonstrating the expected future



development and tax revenues—are used to convince the public of the worth of theinvestment and its ability to “pay for itself” over time.

Shadow TIF (Strong): In this approach, the City or County does actually designateand create a TIF district and segregates the incremental property tax revenues in thatdistrict into a separate account which is dedicated to paying back the investmentcosts. However, the bonds are still GO bonds (thus avoiding the high costsassociated with a pure TIF-backed revenue bond), and City or County general fundsare likely to be used to pay debt service in the early years, while TIF revenues are stillbuilding. In later years, once the majority of the development has occurred, the TIFfund would then be able to take over the debt service and also pay back the generalfund for its earlier expenditures.



7.0 SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

7.1 Roadway NetworkUnderstanding existing and future traffic conditions around the future station site helps definethe potential of the existing roadway network to accommodate new demand for accessibilityto the station site. The analysis is based on existing traffic conditions near the station. Futureconditions are estimated based on projected growth patterns, and future “build” conditionsare estimated assuming the proposed land use plans and improved rail transportationaccess.

Existing ConditionsThe Caroline County station site is located in a rural area along the CSX Main Line nearCarmel Church and approximately ½ mile west of I-95 and ¼ mile east of Jefferson DavisHighway (US 1). The road network in the vicinity of this site is very sparse and there arecurrently no connections to the road network from the proposed station. PennsylvaniaAvenue, a southeast/northwest running road from Jefferson Davis Highway, comes to adead-end about 1,000 feet northwest to the site. This is the closest road to the site. Theclosest significant road is nearly two miles to the north where Jefferson Davis Highwaycrosses the east/west running Jericho Road/Rogers Clark Boulevard (Rt. 207).

At the Caroline location, sample 15 minute counts were conducted for Jefferson DavisHighway and Jericho Road/Rogers Clark Boulevard at their intersection during the AM andPM peak hours. This count was converted into a peak 1 hour count. Signal cycle lengthswere also measured in the field. This data was used to develop a Synchro traffic model atthis key intersection which will help planners understand existing traffic behavior. The modelserves as the basis for forecasts of future conditions as it is expanded to include severalproposed intersections.

No Build 2030 ConditionsBased on data provided by the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization,traffic growth factors were developed around the station. These growth factors were appliedto the key intersection in the vicinity of the station site. A growth rate reflecting proposedemployment and population growth within a quarter mile of the station was used to estimatethe change between current and 2030 No Build traffic volumes, as shown in Table 7-1below.

Table 7-1: Derivation of Traffic Growth Factors

Study AreaPercent ofPopulation

Change2000-2030

Percent ofEmployment

Change2000-2030

TrafficFactorGrowth

2000-2030CarolineStation

Quarter Mile 110.00% 150.00% 130.00%Half Mile 97.30% 100.00% 98.65%

CAROLINE COUNTY 97.38% 106.91%

The key traffic signal was optimized for the No Build 2030 volumes using Synchro. Noplanned land development projects in the vicinity of the station could be identified, thereforethe future year signal cycle length and lane configuration is assumed to be the same asexisting conditions.



Build ConditionsBased on the Intercity Ridership Forecasting model, Regional Travel Demand model, andeconomic and land use assumptions, the increase in travel activity around the station areawas estimated for peak travel periods. Figure 7-1 demonstrates this process through a flowchart.

Based on recent surveys conducted by Amtrak, the mode split, or portion of model trips foreach station access mode was estimated. This ridership component also reflects future tripsbased on proposed changes in land use and density that might attract additional trips. Basedon the preferred combination of land use/ density and ridership at the station, the Synchromodel was updated with the Build 2030 traffic volumes.

Figure 7-1: Concept for Growth in Traffic Volumes

Build Condition2030 trafficVolumes

=No Build

2030 trafficvolumes

+Trips based on

change inridership (A)

+

Trips due toproposed

development at thestation (B)

Two major components are expected to affect Build traffic conditions:

A. Trips based on Amtrak ridership growth. Ridership projections for No Build and Buildoptions as well as assumed mode of access are shown in Table 7-2.

B. Trips based on proposed development at the station. These trips were projectedusing the land use densities proposed as part of the land use plan and assuming tripgeneration rates according to Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standardpractice.

Table 7-2: Ridership Projections for Caroline County Station2030 - Total Annual Ons & Offs by Option

No Build- Low

No Build- High

Option 1- Low

Option 1- High

Caroline County 0 0 46,975 51,494Notes:1. No Build represents current Amtrak service in 20302. Option 1 represents new service at Caroline County, improved frequency and traveltimes in Newport News - Richmond - DC corridor3. Traffic analysis assumes 2030 mode of station access is 5% by transit and 20% bywalking.

Regarding signal timings and lane configurations, all signals were optimized for Build 2030volumes; no cycle lengths were changed. The future year lane configurations are based on areport by Michael Baker Inc. dated June 6, 2008.

7.2 Traffic Impacts Under Build ConditionThis station site contains significant potential for development. Proposed traffic impacts couldovertax the existing arterial road network. The proposed grid of streets is designed tomitigate these potential traffic impacts. First, the dense grid provides multiple paths for tripswithin the development, facilitating improved mobility around the station for automobiles andpedestrians. Second, major north-south and east-west routes are set up to provide traffic



routes parallel to Route 1 and I-95, giving travelers opportunities to bypass incidents orcongestion.

Future demand for automobile trips on existing streets will require the addition of three newsignalized intersections along Route 1. These intersections will be located at key accesspoints and will control vehicle access into and out of the proposed development. Noadditional improvements to the existing road network are assumed. Figure 7-2 shows thenew streets proposed as part of the station area plan, and Table 7-3 provides detailedresults of the traffic analysis.

Figure 7-2: Proposed Street Infrastructure Improvements



Table 7-3: Estimated intersection Level of ServiceA

Node# D Intersection

AM PM

Existing2030 No

Build Build Existing2030 No

Build BuildDelay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

1 Route 1 & Jericho Rd & Rogers Clark Blvd B 14.3 B 17.4 B 20.4 B 13.5 B 13.8 B 20.9 B2 Route 1 & Driveway 1 C - - - - 8.0 A - - - - 14.2 B3 Route 1 & Driveway 2 - - - - 0.2 A - - - - 0.2 A4 Route 1 & Driveway 3 C - - - - 8.1 A - - - - 10.7 B5 Route 1 & Driveway 4 - - - - 0.2 A - - - - 0.2 A6 Route 1 & Driveway 5 C - - - - 8.1 A - - - - 10.6 B7 Route 1 & Driveway 6 - - - - 0.1 A - - - - 0.1 A

Note:A- All the results shown above are based on HCM 2000 methodologyB- Existing signalized intersectionC- Future signalized intersectionD- Node # corresponds to synchro intersection IDE- The analysis assumes a 30% reduction in trips due to mixed use TOD.



7.3 Transit NetworkThere is currently no transit service near the proposed station site.

The proposed plan would require a strong network of localized transit services to support thenew development and provide access to neighboring activity centers. This transit networkwould be centered on the proposed high density areas near the rail station and wouldprovide frequent service to the station area from the town of Carmel Church and outlyingportions of the planned development. As the development matures, activity nodes willestablish themselves in areas somewhat removed from the central core and transit servicewould be designed to strengthen connections between these other activity centers andbetween housing and activity centers. Regional transit service should also be put in place toserve trips between the new development and the towns of Bowling Green, Ruther Glen,Doswell, Hewlett. Planners should also consider express bus service to Richmond viaAshland and Lakeside, and to Fredericksburg.

Development of the scales and densities proposed around the Caroline County station willrequire an array of different transit services to complement increased intercity train service.

7.4 Pedestrian AccessibilityPedestrian accessibility is poor due to the very sparse road network and substantial distancebetween the station site and populated areas.

To promote a pedestrian friendly environment, the scale and organization of design in mixeduse development should be centered around the pedestrian. Design elements should includewide sidewalks along streets, walkable block lengths, and pedestrian-oriented uses on streetlevel such as restaurants and other types of retail.

The proposed plan is a grid of small blocks with pedestrian friendly features. Amplesidewalks will facilitate pedestrian access to the station and accessibility through the rest ofthe planned development. The pedestrian environment will be enhanced through street treesand other landscaping, on-street parking that provides buffered sidewalk space, specialpaving treatments along sidewalks, and crosswalks that enhance the feeling of safety forwalkers.

7.5 Bicycle AccessibilityBicycle accessibility is poor due to the very sparse road network and substantial distancefrom the site.

As the street grid is developed around the station, considerations for bicycle activity will allowfor bicycle circulation and increase the potential for people to come to and circulate aroundthe station area by bicycle. Bicycle lanes will be added where street width constraints allow,making the local environment more comfortable and safe for bicycle activity.

Given the proposed park network, existing stream valleys and other natural features in thestation area plan, bike and walking paths have the potential to be key organizing features ofthe entire site plan. The resulting park and trail system will contribute significantly to theattractiveness of the development for prospective residents and businesses.



7.6 Summary of Recommended Infrastructure ImprovementsThe Caroline County proposed station site will be developed on undeveloped forest land. Alltransportation infrastructure will be new construction, with capital costs estimated around$300 million. The proposed road infrastructure will consist of approximately 110,000 linearfeet of new roads and streets. Of these new roads, 21,000 linear feet are assumed to befour-lane arterials, while the remainder would be smaller two-lane collectors. Pedestrianaccessibility is promoted through a small block size design, and all roads and streets willhave bike lanes and sidewalks.

To increase accessibility within the site and to outside development, two motor vehiclebridges and one bridge exclusively for pedestrians will be constructed over the CSX rail line.An additional bridge for vehicular traffic will be constructed over I-95. To improve trafficcontrol, four new signalized intersections will be created on Jefferson Davis Highway andRoger Clark Boulevard. Table 7-4 shows an estimate of generalized costs for the proposedinfrastructure improvements.

Table 7-4: Estimated Costs of Infrastructure Improvements

STREET CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY UNITCOST COST

2-lane North/ South Streets 43,399 64 88,881,1522-lane East/West Streets 45,718 64 93,630,4644-lane North/ South Streets 11,894 64 54,807,5524-lane East/West Streets 9,009 64 41,513,472BridgeAuto 3 Over CSX & 1 Over I-95 4 5,500,000 22,000,000Pedestrian Over CSX 1 180,000 180,000New Signalized Intersection 0Minor 0 200,000 0Major 4 250,000 1,000,000Total $302,012,640

Sources: Virginia Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan 2006-2008Maryland State Highway Administration 2007 Highway Construction Cost Estimating Manual



8.0 SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONSAreas of potential concern for the proposed Carmel Church site were identified through fieldreviews, literature review, and review of readily available information. Areas of potentialconcern identified for the Caroline County Station include forested areas, water resources,historic resources, hazardous materials. The following summarizes the areas of potentialconcerns identified.

8.1 Forested AreasExisting ConditionsThe proposed Caramel Church site is located on an undeveloped parcel of land that iscurrently wooded and heavily vegetated. Clearing of the site would be required for thestation, associated facilities, such as parking, and for access to the site. Virginia Code 15.2-961 provides for localities to require replacement of trees removed during development.Upon initial review of the Caroline County Zoning Ordinance, it does not appear that CarolineCounty has adopted such an ordinance.

Potential Effects and MitigationClearing of forested areas could require replacement trees. Additionally, forested areas canprovide habitat for various species and may affect regulations pertaining to designatedresource protection/management areas. Coordination with Caroline County is recommendedto determine if tree removal associated with development would require replacement trees orif it would infringe on the quality of designated resource protection/management areas.

8.2 Water ResourcesWater resources include surface waters, wetlands, floodplains, resource protection/management areas and the Virginia coastal zone.

Existing ConditionsThree tributaries to the North Anna River have been identified within the study area. Itshould be noted that according to the Caroline County Comprehensive Plan that a portion ofthe North Anna River (Route 601 to Route 1), just southwest of the ½ mile study area hasbeen identified by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation as qualifying forscenic river status. Associated with each of these tributaries are wetlands, resourceprotection areas (RPA), and resource management areas (RMA).

Data pulled from the National Wetlands Inventory indicates that wetlands in the area areassociated with the tributaries located within the study area. Wetlands types includePalustrine Scrub Shrub, Freshwater Emergent, Palustrine Forested and freshwater ponds.

Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)Community Panel 510249 0150 B, Effective Date August 15, 1989, there are no 100-yearfloodplains associated with the tributaries crossed by the existing railroad tracks. One of thetributaries between Interstate 95 and the railroad, just south of the ½ mile study area doeshave a 100-year floodplain associated with it.

The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is designed to protect water quality of the Bay and itstributaries through the establishment and practice of land use management techniques. Inaccordance with the Act, Caroline County has established Chesapeake Bay PreservationAreas that include both resource protection areas (RPAs) and resource management areas



(RMAs). RPAs and RMAs are located within the ½ mile study area and are associated withidentified tributaries and wetlands.

Based on the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Caroline County is withinthe Commonwealth’s designated coastal zone.

Potential Effects and MitigationPotential effects of the proposed station and potential development may include temporaryand long term impacts to water quality, dredge or fill of wetlands, impacts to RPAs/RMAs,and therefore effect the designated coastal zone. More detailed analysis of potential effectsto these resources is recommended.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as well as the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program,requires authorization for activities which include placement of dredge and fill material and/ormechanized land clearing, ditching, draining, channelization or other excavation activities intothe waters of the United States, including wetlands adjacent to those waters. In Virginia,both the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) have jurisdiction over wetland impacts.

Impacts to floodplains were evaluated pursuant to Executive Order 11988, FloodplainsManagement, which prohibits floodplain encroachments that are uneconomic, hazardous, orresult in incompatible uses of the floodplain; as well as any action which would cause acritical interruption of an emergency transportation facility, a substantial flood risk, or adverseimpact to the floodplain’s natural resource values.

According to the Caroline County Comprehensive Plan, designated RPAs require a buffer of“not less than 100 feet”. Land uses are limited within RPAs as stated by the comprehensiveplan. Land development that constitutes redevelopment is allowable provided that itconforms to applicable storm water management and erosion and sediment control criteria.In RMAs, all uses permitted in the underlying zoning district are allowable, however allerosion and sediment control measures, as specified in the Chesapeake Bay PreservationOverlay District must be met.

Coastal zones are protected and managed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of1972, as reauthorized in 1990 (CZMA). The CZMA provides legislation to “preserve, protect,develop, and where possible, restore and enhance the resources of the Nation’s coastalzone for this and succeeding generations.” The act also encourages and assists states toprotect the natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunesbarriers, fish and wildlife and their habitats, within the coastal zone. In 1986, the VirginiaCoastal Resources Management Area was established to protect and manage Virginia’sCoastal Zone.

Federally approved Coastal Programs authorizes a state to require federal actions, whichwould include the use of federal funds, within a coastal zone to be consistent with the state’sCoastal Program’s laws and enforceable policies. Because Virginia has a federally approvedCoastal Program, federal activities within the Coastal Zone require a Federal ConsistencyDetermination. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) is responsible forthe Federal Consistency Determination review and approval.



8.3 Historic SitesExisting ConditionsBased on a review on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) website, there are noknown NRHP sites within the ½ mile study area. The closest resource is the Jericho Schoollocated on Jericho Road northwest of the study area. However, several buildings within thestudy area appeared to be 50 years or older and may warrant further investigation todetermine potential age and historic significance. Archaeological potential is unknown at thistime, but should be considered as planning for the project progresses.Potential Effects and MitigationBased on the preliminary analysis, the potential for historic resources exists within the studyarea. More detailed analysis is recommended to determine the absence/presenceresources.

Federal agencies are required to take into account the effects of their undertakings onhistoric properties by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 47 (f),as amended in addition to NEPA requirements (Section 101(b)(4)). Under Section 106,federal agencies are also required to provide an opportunity for the Advisory Council onHistoric Preservation, the SHPO, and other interested parties to comment on federalundertakings.

In addition, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act serves to protect publiclyowned land, to include parks recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historicsites. Section 4(f) mandates that transportation projects requiring the use of such publiclyowned lands or historic sites can only move forward if there is no prudent and feasiblealternative to using that land and if all possible planning to minimize harm has beenevaluated.

Because detailed impacts to specific cultural resources have not been determined, nomitigation measures are proposed at this time. As the project progresses and impacts aredetermined, appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the VDHR. For anyuses of historic properties Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act willrequire a more detailed evaluation and determination of specific impacts and proposedmitigation strategies. Mitigation measures would be outlined in a Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the involved partiesand might include requiring context sensitive design or rehabilitation of historic structures orsites.

8.4 Hazardous MaterialsExisting ConditionsData from the EPA’s EnviroMapper software indicates that there are no hazardous materialsites within the proposed development area. However, air and water emission sites as wellas hazardous waste sites are located within a mile of the proposed site.Potential Effects and MitigationWhile the preliminary database review did not indicate any known hazardous orcontaminated sites within the ½ study area, unknown hazards may occur. Furtherinvestigations are recommended to ascertain the potential for encountering contaminatedmaterials.

Encountering any contaminated materials would require mitigation, remediation, and/orremoval, as well as protection from those contaminants during the construction of the project.



A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) prior to the design and construction of the proposedimprovements should be conducted. This PSI would include a more thorough review of thepotential areas of concern and could include sampling of the soils and groundwater along theproposed alignment and station stops. Sampling protocol would be biased towards theimprovements emphasizing deeper (more prominent) excavations (e.g. footers, storm waterretention areas, utilities, etc), and towards known areas of concern and or specificproperties. This data would confirm the presence/absence of any contaminated materials.

Additional remedial investigations or actions would depend on the types, frequencies, andamounts of contamination encountered (if any). Impacted media or materials that could beencountered include; the site soils, groundwater, underground or above ground storage tanksystems, and asbestos containing materials (should any buildings or structures requiredemolition).

8.5 Protected SpeciesExisting ConditionsSix threatened or endangered species are known to occur within Caroline County. Table 8-1lists theses protected species.

Table 8-1: Caroline County Protected Species

Scientific Name Common Name GlobalRank State Rank Federal

StatusStateStatus

Last YearObserved

BIRDSAimophilaaestivalis Bachman's Sparrow G3 S1B LT 1993

Haliaeetusleucocephalus Bald Eagle G5 S2S3B,S3N LT 2002

Sigara depressa Virginia PiedmontWater Boatman G1G2 S1S2 SOC LE 1947

VASCULAR PLANTSHelonias bullata Swamp-pink G3 S2S3 LT LE 2007Isotriamedeoloides

Small WhorledPogonia G2 S2 LT LE 2005

Juncuscaesariensis New Jersey Rush G2 S2 SOC LT 2005

Source: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.G1-Global Critically Imperiled, G2-Global Imperiled, G3-Global Vulnerable, S1-State Critically Imperiled,S2-State Imperiled, S3- Vulnerable, B-Breeding status, N-Non-breeding status, SOC- Species of ConcernLE –Listed Endangered, LT-Listed Threatened

Potential Effects and MitigationGiven that detailed analysis has not been conducted to determine if appropriate habitatexists within the study area to support any protected species, potential effects are unknown.Further investigations and coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), Virginia Department of Gameand Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), and Virginia Department of Agricultural and ConsumerServices (VDACS) is recommended. If habitat that could support protected species listed isfound within the study area, then more detailed analysis would be required. Mitigation forpotential impacts would be coordinated with the aforementioned agencies.

Date post:	26-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Amtrak Station Area Planning and Land Use Analysis CARMEL ...€¦ · Amtrak Station Area Planning...

Documents