20151218 Ver 1_More Info Received_20151207 (2)

Wanucha, Dave
From: Scott Davis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 10:19 AM
To: Bailey, David E SAW ([e-mail]); Wanucha, Dave
Cc: Hamel, Marc L; Bridges, James F; Sandy Smith; havener, daniel; Reep, Mark
([e-mail]); Waller, Dave ([e-mail]); Snider, Alex
Subject: FW: Request for Additiona) Information: P-4405 I, J, K, Hillsborough, Orange Co., NC;
SAW-2015-00539/SAW-2015-01292 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: 1 P-4405UK_NWP_Cover_USACE 151207.pdf; P-4405UK_PCNvl_4_fillable_151201.pdf;
P4405J_hyd_prm_wetland impact summary.pdf; PCN_Sect3_addendum_151207.pdf
Good morning Dav�,
I hop� that you ar� doing vv�ll this morning. W� hav� b��n looking into your qu�stions r�garding th� P-44051JK proj�ct
in Orang� County, NC and hav� ansvv�rs and r�vis�d products as r�qu�st�d.
1) Stream impact lengths (culvert and bank stabilization) appear to be calculated based on
pipe/rip rap pad length instead of stream length. If there is any skew or sinuosity in
the stream channel within the footprint of the proposed impact, the stream length would
be longer than the pipe length. Please re-evaluate and resubmit plans and PCN as
necessary;
Upon r�qu�st, HDR r�visit�d th� calculation of str�am impacts and v�rifi�d that "impacts w�r�
m�asur�d along th� str�am c�nt�rlin�. Th�r� is littl� to no sinuosity within th� impact ar�a.°° Axiom has
v�rifi�d that th� str�am r�ach�s in qu�stion app�ar to hav� b��n s�l�ct�d to minimiz� impacts du� to
th�ir lack of sinuosity. Four (4) lin�ar f��t of additional bank stabilization w�r� not�d as part of P-4405J,
but as not�d in #3 b�lovv, this do�s not aff�ct USACE r�quir�m�nts.
2) In section C of the PCN, please itemize the stream impacts per project into those due
to the culvert footprint, those due to bank stabilization, and those due to temporary
impacts.
This has b��n compl�t�d. Spac� in th� pdf limits impacts list�d to only p�rman�nt impacts; hovv�v�r,
th� attach�d tabl� d�tails th� additional t�mporary impacts as vv�ll. Pl�as� find th� attach�d and
r�vis�d PCN and tabl�s
3) Please confirm whether the bank stabilization proposed includes rip rap within the
channel itself, or only on the banks. If the latter, the Corps Raleigh Field Office
does not typically require compensatory mitigation for those impacts;
You ar� corr�ct- rip-rap is int�nd�d for bank stabilization only. It is not to b� plac�d within th�
chann�l. Thank you for noting this. This ar�a has b��n r�mov�d from our total of comp�nsatory
mitigation from th� USACE (w� ar� r�qu�sting 1e1 mitigation for this ar�a in ord�r to satisfy NCDWR
r�quir�m�nts).
4) The compensatory mitigation proposal may require revision based on the above, but also
the following:
The P-4405K proposal includes compensatory mitigation at 1:1 for the additional
footprint of stream impacts. Note that compensatory mitigation requirements for
permanent impacts to perennial streams are typically at a 2:1 ratio, unless otherwise
justified from a resource functional quality perspective. Further, the typical 150
linear foot impact threshold (Regional Condition 3.2) for compensatory mitigation does
not apply given DOT's expansive transportation program and cumulative impacts. As
such, please revise the compensatory mitigation proposal for 2:1 for permanent impacts
related to P-4405K, considering also items 1 and 2 above. If you feel a 1:1 ratio is
1

more appropriate based on functional quality, please submit NCSAM forms per our
4/21/2015 Public Notice
(http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re�ulatoryPermitPro�ram/PublicNotices/tabid/100
57/Article/585625/implementation-of-nc-sam-and-nc-wam.aspx).
Mitigation ratios hav� b��n r�vis�d to 2e1 for all str�ams and w�tlands for all proj�ct s�ctions and th�
150 lin�ar foot mitigation thr�shold has b��n �liminat�d.
�as�d upon your comm�nts abov� and our r�calculation of impacts, total mitigation r�quir�m�nts hav� d�cr�as�d for th�
proj�ct. P�rman�nt surfac� wat�r impacts r�quiring USACE mitigation at 2e1 total 186 lin�arf��tfor P-4405J and 88 lin�ar
f��t for P-4405K. Ar�as of bank stabilization hav� b��n r�mov�d from USACE 2e1 mitigation r�quir�m�nts, but ar� still
includ�d in ov�rall proj�ct mitigation r�quir�m�nts at a 1e1 ratio to satisfy NCDWR r�quir�m�nts. Th� total chang� in
USACE mitigation r�quir�m�nts can b� summariz�d by th� addition of 32 lin�ar f��t of st�am chann�l (P-4405K) and th�
r�moval of 134 lin�ar f��t of bank stabilization. Th� follovving tvvo tabl�s summariz� USACE and total mitigation
r�quir�m�nts for this proj�ct and ar� includ�d within th� attach�d I�tt�r.
USACE Project Mitigation Requirements
Permanent Riparian
Surface Permanent Wetland
Water Proposed Warm-Water Wetland Proposed Mitigation
Impact Impacts Mitigation Stream Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Credits
Site (linear feet) Ratio Credits Required (linear feet) Ratio Required
P-4405J 116 2:1 232 0.15 2:1 0.30
P-4405K 32 2:1 64 -- -- --
Tota I: 148 -- 296 -- -- 0.30
USACE and NCDWR Combined Project Mitigation Requirements
Permanent
Surface Permanent Riparian
Water Wetland Wetland
Impacts Proposed Warm-Water Impacts Proposed Mitigation
Impact (linear Mitigation Stream Mitigation (linear Mitigation Credits
Site and Type feet) Ratio Credits Required feet) Ratio Required
P-4405J (culvert 116 2:1 232
installation)
P-4405J (bank 0.15 2:1 0.30
stabilization) �4 1:1 74
P-4405 K
(culvert 32 2:1 64
installation) -- -- --
P-4405K (bank
stabilization) 56 1:1 56
Total: 274 -- 426 -- -- 0.30
. .
, •� , � �, • ,a � , , , , �

our original acc�ptanc� I�tt�r authoriz�s mitigation in �xc�ss of that which w� ar� now r�qu�sting. I int�nd to call you
shortly to discuss any qu�stions that you may hav�. Pl�as� I�t us knovv if you hav� any additional qu�stions or comm�nts
r�garding this p�rmit application. Also, if you n��d hard copi�s of th� attach�d docum�nts, I vvill b� happy to run a s�t up
to you.
�
Scott G. Davis
Senior Scientist/Project Manager
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 919�696�3045
From: Bridges, James F [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:52 AM
To: Scott Davis
Cc: Reep, Mark ([e-mail]); Sandy Smith; Hamel, Marc L; Kerr, Will ([e-mail]); havener,
daniel
Subject: FW: Request for Additional Information: P-4405 I, J, K, Hillsborough, Orange Co., NC; SAW-2015-00539/SAW-
2015-01292 (UNCLASSIFIED)
�
���
James F. Bridges Jr., PE, CPM
Rail Environmental Planning Engineer
Rail Division
North Carolina Department of Transportation
919 707 4716 office
Ifbridqes(a�ncdot.qov
1 South Wilmington Street
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
From: Bailey, David E SAW [mailto:David.E.Bailey2Ca�usace.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 2:21 PM
To: Hamel, Marc L
Subject: Request for Additional Information: P-4405 I, J, K, Hillsborough, Orange Co., NC; SAW-2015-00539/SAW-2015-
01292 (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: LTNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Mr. Hamel,
Thank you for your PCN and attached plans, dated 11/6/2015, received 11/23/2015, for the
above referenced project. I have reviewed the information and require additional information
prior to verifying the use of Nationwide Permit 14
(http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/re�ulatory/re�docs/NWP2012/NWP14 3-
23.pdf). Please see the comments and questions below and submit the requested information
within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use
of the Nationwide Permit or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:
1) Stream impact lengths (culvert and bank stabilization) appear to be calculated based on
pipe/rip rap pad length instead of stream length. If there is any skew or sinuosity in
the stream channel within the footprint of the proposed impact, the stream length would
be longer than the pipe length. Please re-evaluate and resubmit plans and PCN as
necessary;
2) In section C of the PCN, please itemize the stream impacts per project into those due
to the culvert footprint, those due to bank stabilization, and those due to temporary
impacts.
3) Please confirm whether the bank stabilization proposed includes rip rap within the
channel itself, or only on the banks. If the latter, the Corps Raleigh Field Office
does not typically require compensatory mitigation for those impacts;
4) The compensatory mitigation proposal may require revision based on the above, but also
the following:
The P-4405K proposal includes compensatory mitigation at 1:1 for the additional
footprint of stream impacts. Note that compensatory mitigation requirements for
permanent impacts to perennial streams are typically at a 2:1 ratio, unless otherwise
justified from a resource functional quality perspective. Further, the typical 150
linear foot impact threshold (Regional Condition 3.2) for compensatory mitigation does
not apply given DOT's expansive transportation program and cumulative impacts. As
such, please revise the compensatory mitigation proposal for 2:1 for permanent impacts
related to P-4405K, considering also items 1 and 2 above. If you feel a 1:1 ratio is
more appropriate based on functional quality, please submit NCSAM forms per our
4/21/2015 Public Notice
(http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re�ulatoryPermitPro�ram/PublicNotices/tabid/100
57/Article/585625/implementation-of-nc-sam-and-nc-wam.aspx).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
4

Email: David.E.Bailey2�usace.army.mil
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the
public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction
Survey located at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0.
Classification: LTNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
I rr�7all �:urrc,�l�ui�dci��;e, �C�u ai�d ��rurr�7 �U•ii� �e,i�dcr i� �ul�j��;� �u �C�h•ie, I"J � I�'�"ul�li�; I ta�:ur�:;� I..aw ai�d ir�7ay I�c rli��;lu�e,rl �u �C�h•ih�rl I�artie,�,
I rr�7all �:urrc,�l�ui�dci��;e, �C�u ai�d ��rurr�7 �U•ii� �e,i�dcr i� �ul�j��;� �u �C�h•ie, I"J � I�'�"ul�li�; I ta�:ur�:;� I..aw ai�d ir�7ay I�c rli��;lu�e,rl �u �C�h•ih�rl I�artie,�,
5

7'ransportation
December 7, 2015
Mr. David Bailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
I�AT ivI c C RC� �.'s'
Governar
N[CHrJLAS J. T�NNYS+DN
Secretary
RE: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 and Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications for Proposed Private Crossing Closures with the North Carolina Railroad
Norfolk Southern Railway at Gordon Thomas Drive (TIP No. P-4405I, WBS No.
6200.7.STR16T1A), Greenbriar Drive (TIP No. P-4405J, WBS No. 6200.7.STR21T1A),
and Byrdsville Road (TIP No. P-4405K, WBS No. 6200.7.STR26T1A), Orange County,
NC, Federal Aid Project No. FR-FRA-HSR-0006-10-01-00.
Dear David,
The NCDOT Rail Division and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) propose to close
three private at-grade railroad crossings with the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR)/Norfolk
Southern Railway (NS) in Orange County at Gordon Thomas Drive, Greenbriar Drive, and
Byrdsville Road (Figure 1). Information within this package has been prepared to support the
application for authorization of impacts by Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 (Linear Transportation
Projects), along with the associated N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Water Quality
General Certifica�ion 3886 and a Riparian Buffer Autharization.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) document for this project was finalized in November 2014
and was submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for review. A Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) was approved on October 14, 2015 and is included on the digital
data CD.
Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Project is to remove existing at-grade private railroad crossings. The
NCDOT Rail Division Private Crossing Safety Initiative (PCSI) PCSI Program is a
subcomponent of the Piedmont Improvement Program (PIP) that seeks to reduce the number of
privately owned railroad crossings along the NCRR and the NS from Raleigh to Charlotte. The
—"�"Nathing +�ampares'=1—�-
State ofNorth Carolina � Depamnent of Transportation I Rail Division
I Soufh Wilmington StreeY � 1553 Mail Service Center � Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1553
919-707-4700 T

PCSI Program recommended closing the Gordon Thomas Drive and Greenbriar Drive crossings
because of poor geometric conditions and the availability of nearby alternative access routes. The
Program recommended closing the Byrdsville Road crossing because of prior accidents and the
potential for more collisions due to higher traffic volumes. This project is intended to improve
safety for rail passengers, train crews, and vehicles by eliminating the at-grade crossings and
providing alternative access to nearby public roads with safer railroad crossing conditions and
will also support future increased passenger rail service for the NCRR Piedmont Corridor.
Project Description
The proposed project involves the closure of three public at-grade crossings of the NCRR, along
with the addition of alternate means of access to properties affected by these closings. The three
crossings are located along a 4.6-mile segment of the NCRR/NS corridor between Milepost (MP)
43.89 and MP 48.49 in Orange County, NC.
• Gordon Thomas Drive (TIP No. P-4405I): This sub-project includes the closure of the
private at-grade railroad crossing of Gordon Thomas Drive at MP 48.49. The closure of
Gordon Thomas Drive will eliminate the eastern access for five residences to Old NC 10;
however, alternate access will be provided using the existing Paschall Drive west of
Gordon Thomas Drive. From there, drivers will have access to Old NC 10 (SR 1710) via
Dove Creek Road (SR 1715) or Murphey School Road (SR 1714). P-4405I is not
anticipated to impact any jurisdictional surface waters, wetlands or riparian buffers.
• Greenbriar Drive (TIP No. P-4405J): This sub-project includes the closure of the private
at-grade railroad crossing of Greenbriar Drive (also known as Greenbriar Drive
Extension), which provides the only access for seven residences to Old NC 10. This sub-
project will provide alternate access by constructing a new road parallel to the NCRR/NS
rail line connecting Greenbriar Drive to Spruce Pine Trail in the Whispering Pines
subdivision. P-4405J is anticipated to impact two jurisdictional wetland areas for a total
of 0.15 acre, two streams for a total of 186 linear feet of permanent jurisdictional surface
water impacts, and 12,370.1 square feet of protected riparian buffers.
• Byrdsville Road (TIP No. P-4405K): This sub-project includes the closure of the private
at-grade railroad crossing of Byrdsville Road, which provides the only access for 67
residences in and near the Byrdsville Mobile Home Park to Old NC 10. The sub-project
will provide alternate access by extending Byrdsville Road westward to connect to
Walter Clark Drive. From Walter Clark Drive, the primary access to the Byrdsville
Mobile Home Park wi11 be rerouted to NC 86, which connects with Old NC 10. Several
driveways near the eXisting railroad crossing will be realigned to maintain access to
Byrdsville Road. P-4405K is anticipated to impact one jurisdictional surface water for a
total of 88 linear feet along with 8489.8 square feet of protected riparian buffers.

Water resources in the project area are located within U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030201 (NCDWR sub-basin 03-04-01 of the Neuse River basin).
Jurisdictional surface waters, wetlands, and riparian buffers are anticipated to be impacted by
project activities. Surface waters are anticipated to be impacted by the P-4405 J and K sub-
projects. Surface waters impacted by the P-4405 J sub-project and drainage from the P-4405I
sub-project drain to an unnamed tributary to Rhodes Creek, and surface waters impacted by the
P-4405K sub-project drain to Stony Creek. Rhodes Creek is listed by the NCDWR as Watershed
(WS) IV Waters with the supplemental Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) classification, and has
been assigned a Stream Index Number [SIN] of 27-2-14. Stony Creek is listed by the NCDWR
as Class C Waters with the supplemental Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) classification, and
has been assigned a Stream Index Number [SIN] of 27-2-13-(1). Neither Rhodes Creek nor
Stony Creek are listed an�vhere on the North Carolina 2014 Final 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters. Stormwater Management Plans are included in this package.
The project site was visited and the jurisdictional area delineation was approved by Andy
Williams on March 19, 2013; however, no written concurrence has been issued. Also on March
19, 2013, the NCDWR was solicited for a verification of Neuse River Riparian Buffer
applicability to site streams. Amy Euliss of the NCDWR did not visit the site, but discussed the
project with the USACE and issued a letter denoting the applicability of Neuse River Riparian
Buffers. The Rail Division is requesting an approved Jurisdictional Determination for
streams and wetlands within the project area in conjunction with this permit application.
Attached to this letter are the following items.
• Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
• Figure l. P-4405I,J,K Project Vicinity Map
• P-4405J Wetland and Surface Water Impacts Permit Drawings
• P-4405J Wetland Permit Impacts Summary sheet
• P-4405K Wetland and Surface Water Impacts Permit Drawings
• P-4405K Wetland Permit Impacts Summary sheet
• P-4405I, J, K Preliminary Design Plans
• P-4405I, J, K Stormwater Management Plan dated January 15, 2014
• NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Mitigation Acceptance Letter dated
November 3, 2015
• A CD with digital files (in .pdf format) of all information listed above, and
o P-4405I, J, K Finding of No Significant Impact dated October 14, 2015
o NCDWR Stream Call letter, dated Apri13, 2013

Based upon Preliminary Design Plans, the closure of private railroad crossings and construction
of access roadways is anticipated to impact a total of 0.15 acre of jurisdictional wetlands, 393
linear feet of jurisdictional surface waters, and 20,859.9 square feet of protected riparian buffers.
Tables 1 and 2 below and the attached Wetland Permit Impact Summary Sheets detail the total
impacts to jurisdictional areas. Impact sites are described below and depicted on the attached
permit drawings. Table 3 lists the geographic coordinates of the project impact sites.
Table 1. Total Stream and Wetland Impacts
Permanent Temporary Total Permanent Temporary Total
Stream Stream Stream Wetland Wetland Wetland
Impact Impacted Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts
Site Waterbod (feet) (feet) (feet) (acres) (acres) (acres)
UT1 to 105 44 149 0.09 -- 0.09
P-4405J Rhodes Creek
UT2 to g5 70 155 0.06 -- 0.06
Rhodes Creek
P-4405K Stony Creek 88 3l 119 -- -- --
Total 278 145 423 0.15 -- 0.15
Table 2. Neuse River Riparian Buffer Impacts
Allowable Impacts Allowable Impacts Total Allowable
Impact Site Associated Waterbod Zone 1(feet�) Zone 2(feet�) Im acts (feet�)
P-4405J UT1 to Rhodes Creek 7,8503 4,519.8 12,370.1
P-4405K Stony Creek 5,888.9 2,600.9 8,489.8
Total 13,739.2 7120.7 20,859.9
Table 3. Project Impact Locations
NC State Plane, feet (NAD 83) WGS 84, decimal degrees
Im act Site Eastin Northin Latitude Lon itude
P-44057 1,996,934.659 830,705.407 36.032434 -79.010367
UT1 crossing
P-4405J 1,997,034126 830,674.516 36.032350 -79.010031
UT2 crossing
P-4405K 1,979,309.194 835,793.057 36.046391 -79.069989

P-4405J Impact Site
The P-4405J Impact Site involves two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2) to Rhodes Creek.
UT1 is proposed to be placed under the roadway within three 49-foot long, 10-foot by 8-foot
reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBCs). An additional 56 linear feet of impacts to UT1 are
anticipated in association with bank stabilization adjacent to the inlet and outlet of the proposed
culverts. Temporary impacts due to stream dewatering during construction (if water is present)
total 44 linear feet. UT1 is a Relatively Permanent Water (RPW) with perennial flow.
Mitigation is proposed at a 2:1 ratio for permanent impacts associated with culvert installation
(49 linear feet) to satisfy USACE requirements. Mitigation is proposed at a 1:1 ratio for
permanent impacts associated with the additional bank stabilization (56 linear feet) to satisfy
NCDWR requirements.
UT2 is proposed to be placed under the proposed roadway within a 67-foot long, 72-inch
Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP). An additional 18 linear feet of impacts to UT2 are anticipated
in association with bank stabilization adjacent to the inlet and outlet of the proposed culverts.
Temporary impacts due to stream dewatering during construction (if water is present) total 70
linear feet. UT2 is a RPW with seasonal (intermittent) flow. Mitigation is proposed at a 2:1
ratio for permanent impacts associated with culvert installation (67 linear feet) to satisfy USACE
requirements. Mitigation is proposed at a 1:1 ratio for permanent impacts associated with the
additional bank stabilization (14 linear feet) to satisfy NCDWR requirements.
The proposed roadway fill slope will permanently impact two small, adjacent jurisdictional
wetland areas for a total of 0.12 acre. An additional 0.03 acre of these wetland areas will be
mechanically cleared prior to construction activities.
UT1 is depicted on the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle [Hillsborough, NC (1997)] and the Soil
Survey of Orange County (1977), and is therefore subject to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Rules. The Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Protection and
Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 02B .0233) Table of Uses indicates that
road crossings impacting between 40 and 150 linear feet of riparian buffer and less than one-
third of an acre as an Allowable activity. Anticipated roadway impacts to riparian buffers
include 7850.3 square feet in Zone 1 and 4519.8 square feet in Zone 2.
UT2 is not depicted on either the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle [Hillsborough, NC (1997)] or the
Soil Survey of Orange County (1977), and is therefore not subject to the Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Rules.
To minimize water quality impacts, roadway drainage from the south is dissipated well outside
of the protected riparian buffer zone, one to two-foot sills will be placed within the RCBCs at the

inlet and outlet and will be backfilled with native material, and sediment control measures will
include stream bank stabilization and toe protection.
P-4405K Impact Site
The P-4405K Impact Site involves the replacement of an approximately 30-foot long, 48-inch
RCP under the existing Byrdsville Road with a pair of approximately 62-foot long, 10-foot by 6-
foot RCBCs. Therefore, 32 linear feet of Stony Creek will be placed within the proposed
culverts. An additional 56 linear feet of impacts to Stony Creek are anticipated in association
with bank stabilization adjacent to the inlet and outlet of the proposed culverts. Stony Creek is a
RPW with perennial flow. Temporary impacts due to stream dewatering during construction (if
water is present) total 31 linear feet. Mitigation is proposed at a 2:1 ratio for permanent impacts
associated with culvert installation (32 linear feet) to satisfy USACE requirements. Mitigation is
proposed at a 1:1 ratio for permanent impacts associated with the additional bank stabilization
(561inear feet) to satisfy NCDWR requirements.
Stony Creek is depicted on the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle [Hillsborough, NC (1997)] and the
Soil Survey of Orange County (1977), and is therefore subject to the Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Rules. The Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy:
Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 02B .0233) Table of Uses
indicates that road crossings impacting between 40 and 150 linear feet of riparian buffer and less
than one-third of an acre as an Allowable activity. Anticipated roadway impacts to riparian
buffers include 5888.9 square feet in Zone 1 and 2600.9 square feet in Zone 2.
To minimize water quality impacts, roadway drainage from the south is dissipated well outside
of the protected riparian buffer zone, one to two-foot sills will be placed within the RCBCs at the
inlet and outlet and will be backfilled with native material, and sediment control measures will
include stream bank stabilization and toe protection with Permanent Soil Reinforcement matting
(PSRM).
Mitigation will be required to compensate for impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and
wetlands in association with the P-4405J and P-4405K permit sites. Mitigation is proposed at a
2:1 ratio for permanent impacts to wetlands and to surface waters associated with culvert
installation at these locations. A mitigation ratio of 1:1 is proposed for additiona] impacts
associated with bank stabilization activities under NCDWR jurisdiction. The following tables
detail proposed mitigation requirements for this project.

Table 4. USACE Project Mitigation Requirements
Riparian
Permanent Warm-Water Permanent Wetland
Surface Water Proposed Stream Wetland Proposed Mitigation
Impact Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Impacts Mitigatio Credits
Site (linear feet) Ratio Credits Re uired (linear feet) n Ratio Re uired
P-4405J 116 2:1 232 0.15 2:1 0.30
P-4405K 32 2:1 64 -- -- --
Total: 148 -- 296 -- -- 0.30
Table 5. USACE and NCDWR Combined Project Mitigation Requirements
Permanent Warm-Water Riparian
Surface Stream Permanent Wetland
Water Proposed Mitigation Wetland Proposed Mitigation
Impact Site Impacts Mitigation Credits Impacts Mitigation Credits
and T e (linear feet) Ratio Re uired (linear feet) Ratio Re uired
P-4405J
(culvert 116 2:1 232
installation)
P-4405J 0.15 2:1 0.30
(bank 74 1:1 74
stabilization
P-4405K
(culvert 32 2:1 64
installation
P-4405K
(bank 5 6 1:1 5 6
stabilization)
Total: 278 -- 426 -- -- 0.30
A total of 426 warm-water stream mitigation credits and 0.30 acre of riparian wetland credits
will be purchased through the DMS in-lieu fee program to offset project impacts. A Mitigation
Acceptance Letter from the DMS providing an excess of the proposed mitigation credits is
attached.

Again, the Rail Division is requesting authorization for Section 404 jurisdictional area impacts
associated with access roadway construction under NWP 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) due
to the closing of these private railroad/roadway crossings. In addition, the Rail Division is
requesting an approved jurisdictional determination for streams and wetlands within the project
area in conjunction with this permit application. Thank you for your time and consideration of
this important project. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact project
manager James Bridges, PE at 919-707-47] 6 ar at jfbrid es e,ncdot. o�v.
Sincerely,
Marc L. Hamel
Manager of Environmental Programs
NCDOT Rail Division
Cc. Dave Wanucha, N.C. Division of Water Resources
James F. Bridges, PE, NCDOT Rail Division

a��� w �n r����
CJ g
� r
�
o -c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14, 33 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑X Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? 401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑X No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank ❑X Yes � No
or in-lieu fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h � Yes ❑X No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes X❑ No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Three Proposed Private Railroad/Roadway Crossing Closures
2b. County: Orange
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Hillsborough and Durham, NC
2d. Subdivision name: --
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: P-4405 I,J,K
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Railroad
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Existing NCRR right of way
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address: 2809 Highwoods Boulevard, Suite 100
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27604-1000
3f. Telephone no.: 919-954-7601
3g. Fax no.: 919-954-7099
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent �X Other, specify: NCDOTRaiI Division via NCRR
4b. Name: Marc Hamel
4c. Business name North Carolina Department of Transportation, Rail Division
(if applicable):
4d. Street address: 1 South Wilmington St., Room 555 (delivery) or 1553 Mail Service Center (mail)
4e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1553
4f. Telephone no.: 919-707-4705
4g. Fax no.: 919-715-6580
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.813261 Longitude: -78.826496
1 c. Property size: acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project: Stony Creek, Rhodes Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C; NSW
2c. River basin: Neuse
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
General land use in the vicinity of the project consists of urbanized land centered around city streets, commercial centers, residential areas, and
railroads. Gas and electrical power utility lines are maintained adjacent to the railroad corridor. Intensively maintained lawns also occur within the
project area.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 2
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 2,284
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Please see attached letter.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Please see attached letter for a project description. Equipment wi�l include the use of graders and track hoes.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
pro'ect includin all prior phases in the past? COmments: Catena Group conducted the delineations.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type 0 Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: catena �roup
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A field review occurred on March 19, 2013 and the USACE provided verbal JD approval for the delineation. The NCDWR provided a letter
documenting stream flow regime and riparian buffer applicability on April 3, 2013.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for � Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes QX No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
QX Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑X Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of impact Type of wetland Forested Type of jurisdiction Area of
number Corps (404,10) or impact
Permanent (P) or DWQ (401, other) (acres)
Tem orar T
W1 P Fill / Mechanical Clearing Bottomland Hardwood Forest Yes Corps 0.09
�/2 P Fill / Mechanical Clearing Headwater Wetland No Corps 0.06
N/3 - Choose one Choose one Yes/No -
�/4 - Choose one Choose one Yes/No -
W5 - Choose one Choose one Yes/No -
W6 - Choose one Choose one Yes/No -
2g. Total Wetland Impacts: 0.15
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial (PER) or Type of Average Impact
number intermittent (INT)? jurisdiction stream length
Permanent (P) or width (linear
Temporary (T) (feet) feet)
S1 P Culvert UT1 to Rhodes Creek PER Corps 4 49
S2 P Stabilization UT1 to Rhodes Creek PER DWQ 4 56
S3 P Culvert UT2 to Rhodes Creek INT Corps 5 67
S4 P Stabilization UT2 to Rhodes Creek INT DWQ 5 18
S5 P Culvert Stony Creek PER Corps 4 32
S6 P Stabilization Stony Creek PER DWQ 4 56
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 27$
3i. Comments:
In addition to permanent impacts listed above, temporary impacts associated with de-watering for construction activities total 145 linear feet [(44 linear
feet of UT1 to Rhodes Creek (S1/S2), 70 linear feet of UT2 to Rhodes Creek (S3/S4), and 31 linear feet of Stony Creek (S5/S6). Permanent and
temporary impacts total 489 linear feet. Please see the attached addendum for a compiete itemization of permanent and temporary impacts.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individuall list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or type
Temporar T
01 - Choose one Choose
02 - Choose one Choose
03 - Choose one Choose
04 - Choose one Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. COmments: ° open wa er impac s are an icipa e.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Pond ID number Proposed use or Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
purpose of pond (acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
P1 Choose one
P2 Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. CommentS: No pond construction is anticipated.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ❑ Yes �X No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin? X❑ Neuse � Tar-Pamlico � Catawba � Randleman ❑ Other:
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer Impact Reason for impact Stream name Buffer Zone 1 Zone 2
number — mitigation impact impact
Permanent (P) or required? (square (square
Tem orar T feet feet
g� P Longer Culvert Installation UT1 to Rhodes Creek No 7,850.3 4,519.8
g2 P Road/Culvert Installation Stony Creek No 5,888.9 2,600.9
B3 - New culvert installation Yes/No
B4 - New culvert installation Yes/No
B5 - New culvert installation Yes/No
gg - New culvert installation Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts: 13,739.2 7,120.7
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Fill slopes have been minimized and road alignments and new culverts have been placed to minimize stream and wetland impacts.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
During construction, contractors will employ Best Management Practices to minimize impacts to streams and wetlands as outlined by NCDOT's, "Best
Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities." These BMPs will include provisions for erosion control, managing the stream
watercourse, managing work areas, ground stabilization, and site cleanup.
2. Compensatory Miti ation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWQ ❑X Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this ❑X Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
Type: Choose one Quantity:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose one Quantity:
Type: Choose one Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Makin a Pa ment to In-lieu Fee Pro ram
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ❑X Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 274 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): 0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0.15 acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: � acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires � Yes �X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3(2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
All roadway crossings impact less than 150 linear feet and one-third of an acre of protected riparian buffers, and are listed in the Neuse River Basin
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 02B .0233) Table of Uses as
Allowable Impacts.
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified �X Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
All roadway drainage is discharged as diffuse flow outside of the riparian buffers.
❑X Yes � No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? o�o
2b. Does this ro'ect re uire a Stormwater Mana ement Plan? ❑x Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
Stormwater Management Plans for each sub-project (P-4405 I, J, and K) are attached to this package.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
See attached Stormwater Management Plan.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local overnment's 'urisdiction is this ro'ect? orange county Nc
❑x Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs � NSW
apply (check all that apply): � USMP
0 Water Supply Watershed
� Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑X Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Pro ram Review
�Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply �ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been �X Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? � Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? � Yes � No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the � Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State QX Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
lette►'.) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was approved by the Federal Highway ❑O Yes ❑ No
COmments: Administration on October 14, 2015 and is included in the attached CD.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ❑Yes ❑X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
n/a
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in �Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed closings of private roadway crossings with the NCRR Railroad are not anticipated to encourage extensive future development. Future
development is expected to occur, but the proposed project will not facilitate intense development, and is not anticipated to contribute to the further
degradation of infrastructure or natural environment.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No sewage will be generated by the proposed project during construction or acfive use.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or � Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act � Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. -
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS NC County Listings & NCNHP Virtual Workroom Data (available online). Surveys conducted on July 21, 2012 by Catena Group. No
individuals of protected species were identified. Please see attached Finding of No Significant Impact.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0 (online at http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html) and Anadromous Fish Spawning
Areas Maps (online at portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/afsa-maps)
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation � Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Consultation with the SHPO - see attached EA/FONSI.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? �X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit coordination with FEMA.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Data obtained from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (FIRM-panel mapping, 2007 Light Distance and Ranging (LiDAR) elevation data).
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/AgenYs Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.
Page 10 of 10

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Hand Existing Existing
Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural
Site Station Structure Fillln Fillln in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream
No. (From/To) Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 -L- 12+18 TO 13+06 3@ 10' X 8' RCBC 0.08 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 49 44
BANK STABILIZATION 0.01 56
1 -L- 13+68 TO 14+74 72" RCP-IV 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 67 66
BANK STABILIZATION < 0.01 18
TOTALS*: 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.02 190 110 0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2013 10 24

P-4405UK PCN Section 3. continued - Total Stream Impacts
3a. Stream impact number 3d. Perennial (PER) or 3e. Type of 3f. Average stream 3g. Impact length
Permanent (P) or Temporary (T) 3b. Type of impact 3c. Stream name intermittent (INT) jurisdiction width (feet) (linear feet)
51. P Culvert UT1 to Rhodes Creek PER Corps 4 49
S2. P Bank Stabilization UT1 to Rhodes Creek PER DWQ 4 56
S3. T Dewatering UTl to Rhodes Creek PER Corps 4 44
54. P Culvert UT2 to Rhodes Creek INT Corps 5 67
55. P Bank Stabilization UT2 to Rhodes Creek INT DWQ 5 18
56. T Dewatering UT2 to Rhodes Creek INT Corps 5 70
S7. P Culvert Stony Creek PER Corps 4 32
58. P Bank Stabilization Stony Creek PER DWQ 4 56
59. T Dewatering Stony Creek PER Corps 4 31
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 278