20170938 Ver 1_CSX USACE EA Form 07.28.17_20170731

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of
Findings for the Above -Referenced Standard Individual Permit Application
This document constitutes the Environmental Assessment, 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation,
as applicable, Public Interest Review, and Statement of Findings for the subject application.
1.0 Introduction and Overview: Information about the proposal subject to one or more of
the Corps' regulatory authorities is provided in Section 1, detailed evaluation of the
activity is found in Sections 2 through 11 and findings are documented in Section 12 of
this memorandum. Further, summary information about the activity including
administrative history of actions taken during project evaluation is attached (ORM2
Summary).
1.1 Applicant: CSX Transportation, Inc. and CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc.
550 Water Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
1.2 Activity location: The Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal [CCX] and
associated reconstruction of former second mainline track (Rocky Mount to Bricks
Second Mainline Improvements [Second Mainline] is located in Edgecombe and Nash
Counties, North Carolina (Figure 1 in the attached Environmental Report [ER]). The
Project Area is approximately 829 acres. The CCX Terminal component consists of
approximately 670 acres, and is located along the western edge of Edgecombe
County, north of the City of Rocky Mount, northeast of the intersection of United
States (US) Highway 64 (US -64) and Interstate 95 (1-95) (Figure 2 in the attached
ER). The Second Mainline component is part of the CSX North End Subdivision,
which runs along the county line between Edgecombe County and Nash County,
North Carolina, and generally runs parallel to the 1-95 corridor (Figure 3). This Second
Mainline reconstruction segment runs from Milepost A117.5 (south of CCX) through
the intermodal facility north to Milepost A104.9 and encompasses approximately 159
acres. These areas extend north from the City of Rocky Mount through the Town of
Battleboro, and north of the Town of Whitakers, North Carolina.
1.3 Description of activity requiring permit: To complete the construction of the CCX
Terminal and the Second Mainline, permanent impacts to wetlands and streams
through the placement of fill in jurisdictional waters will be necessary. Tables 5-3, 5-4,
and 5-5 in the attached ER present the proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters and
riparian buffers. The Plan Views and Cross -Section drawings depicting the proposed
impacts to wetlands, streams and riparian buffers within the project site are included in
Appendix E of the attached ER.
Page 1 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
1.3.1 Proposed avoidance and minimization measures: A number of avoidance and
minimization techniques were implemented into the design of the proposed project,
including track placement to avoid wetlands/streams, reduction of roadbed width in
jurisdictional areas that could not be avoided, rehabilitating existing structures instead
of constructing new structures with additional jurisdictional impacts, and other
considerations.
1.3.2 Proposed compensatory mitigation: all required compensatory mitigation will be
obtained through off-site permittee -responsible mitigation activities designed to
preserve, restore and enhance approximately 207.5 acres of wetlands and 24,019 LF
(-4.5 miles) of unnamed headwater tributaries within approximately 593 acres of
property to be permanently protected in the Swift Creek watershed, a tributary of Tar
River defined as critical priority areas needing protection by the NCDWR, the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and the Tar River Land Conservancy (Refer to
The Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation, Appendix G of the attached ER).
1.4 Existing conditions and any applicable project history: The CCX Terminal component
primarily consists of agricultural land with few residential and commercial buildings
and woodlands dispersed throughout. College Road, a secondary road, bisects the
site near the western portion (Figure 1). Other roadways of note include Old
Battleboro Road (northeast boundary of site) and Fountain Park Drive (southern
section). The western boundary of the CCX Terminal coincides with the North End
Subdivision and Second Mainline. Beech Branch, unnamed tributaries and associated
wetlands, agricultural/recreational ponds, and agricultural ditches are also present
within the CCX Terminal. Beech Branch is conterminous with the northeast boundary
of the site. The two unnamed tributaries of Beech Branch traverse the central portion
of the site. An unnamed tributary of Compass Creek traverses the southern portion of
the CCX Terminal. Concurrently, two cemeteries and a telecommunications tower are
present on the CCX Terminal, as well as a small number of scattered, single-family
residential lots and an old abandoned home site. The project site is located within the
Tar -Pamlico River Basin and is therefore subject to the specific river basin riparian
buffer rules.
The construction of an intermodal rail terminal and reconstruction of the Second
Mainline in eastern North Carolina are part of the system -wide improvements in the
region because this subdivision has become a critical route along the 1-95 corridor and
one of the more congested routes in CSX's southern system. Further, the CCX
Terminal and Second Mainline are components of the National Gateway, a public-
private infrastructure initiative that CSX launched in 2008 to create a highly efficient
freight transportation link between the Mid -Atlantic ports and the Midwest. When
completed, the National Gateway would provide greater capacity for product
shipments in and out of the Midwest, improve service reliability and transit times,
reduce highway congestion, and create thousands of jobs that directly or indirectly
Page 2 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
support the National Gateway. The United States Department of Transportation
(USDOT) forecasts that by 2020, overall freight tonnage hauled in the United States
will have grown by 70 percent (%) from 1998 levels. An intermodal rail terminal can
help alleviate impact on North Carolina's road infrastructure since one intermodal train
can reduce 16 million truck miles from the highway. The National Gateway
infrastructure initiative is designed to address the ever-increasing demands placed on
the nation's capacity -strained freight network. The National Gateway will enhance
three existing rail corridors that run through Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Those corridors include:
• The 1-70/1-76 Corridor between Washington, District of Columbia (DC) and
northwest Ohio via Pittsburgh
• The 1-95 Corridor between North Carolina and Baltimore, Maryland via
Washington, DC
• The Carolina Corridor between Wilmington and Charlotte, North Carolina
In March 2009, CSXT initiated National Gateway Phase 11, which is six projects in the
Washington, DC area, in conjunction with the National Gateway. These privately -
funded projects were split into multiple phases. National Gateway Phase II is located
in the Mid -Atlantic States and included the award-winning reconstruction of the 4,000 -
feet long Virginia Avenue Tunnel (VAT) project. Today, all the projects have been
completed except for the VAT. This project will be completed in 2018 to complement
the opening of the newly renovated Panama Canal widening project, which is
anticipated to result in a large increase in intermodal freight traffic along the eastern
seaboard and its ports/harbors. Another main benefit of these projects is reducing the
freight bottlenecks in and around the nation's capital which has a significant impact to
the passenger rail service within the area. Completion of the VAT will contribute higher
volume of freight train traffic flowing southward into the A -Line system. Therefore, the
CCX Terminal and Second Mainline reconstruction are necessary to accommodate
this added traffic in a safe, fluid and efficient manner.
1.5 Permit Authority: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
2.0 Scope of review for National Environmental Policy Act (i.e. scope of analysis),
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (i.e. action area), and Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (i.e. permit area)
2.1 Determination of scope of analysis for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
The scope of analysis includes the specific activity requiring a Department of the Army
permit. Other portions of the entire project are included because the Corps does have
sufficient control and responsibility to warrant federal review.
Page 3 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
Final description of scope of analysis: The scope of the analysis includes the area
required for the construction of the CCX Terminal and the Second Mainline, including
those areas with direct and indirect effects resulting from project implementation.
2.2 Determination of the "action area" for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA):
The scope of the analysis includes the area required for the construction of the CCX
Terminal and the Second Mainline, including those areas with direct and indirect
effects resulting from project implementation.
2.3 Determination of permit area for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) :
The permit area includes those areas comprising waters of the United States that will
be directly affected by the proposed work or structures, as well as activities outside of
waters of the U.S. because all three tests identified in 33 CFR 325, Appendix C(g)(1)
have been met.
Final description of the permit area: The scope of the analysis includes the area
required for the construction of the CCX Terminal and the Second Mainline, including
those areas with direct and indirect effects resulting from project implementation.
3.0 Purpose and Need
3.1 Purpose and need for the project as provided by the applicant and reviewed by the
Corps: The purpose of the construction of the CCX Terminal is to better connect
economic centers, relieve highway congestion, and address current and future
regional infrastructure and freight distribution needs through intermodal rail
transportation. In response to the growth of intermodal transportation, CSX continues
to examine opportunities to expand its network of intermodal freight terminals. The
needs of the State of North Carolina are undergoing constant change. Modern supply
chain logistics, just -in -time manufacturing and deployment, and leaner organizations
have revolutionized the way industrial transport freight business is conducted. The
changes to industrial transport freight business has caused the need for modifications
to the intermodal freight transport process to continue to be a viable form of freight
transport. Freight transport is growing and spreading into new markets and at the
same time restructured to meet the needs of its customers. As highway and rail
systems are modernized and integrated, supporting the needs of business and
industry will continue to be the primary justification for public investments in the
transportation system. Additional information on the project purpose and need is
provided in Section 2.0 of the attached ER.
3.2 Basic project purpose, as determined by the Corps: CSX submits that the basic
purpose of the Proposed Project resulting in the discharge of dredged or fill material
Page 4 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
is: To construct a new Intermodal Rail Terminal in central North Carolina to provide
intermodal service to business and industry (Proposed Action)
3.3 Water dependency determination: The activity does not require access or proximity to
or siting within a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose. Therefore, the activity
is not water dependent.
3.4 Overall project purpose, as determined by the Corps: CSX submits that the overall
purpose of the Proposed Project is: To build and operate an Intermodal Rail Terminal,
along with lead and siding tracks, along the CSX A -Line in Central North Carolina.
4.0 Coordination
4.1 The results of coordinating the proposal on Public Notice (PN) are identified below,
including a summary of issues raised, any applicant response and the Corps'
evaluation of concerns.
Were comments received in response to the PN? Select Yes or No
Were comments forwarded to the applicant for response? Select Yes, No or N/A
Was a public meeting and/or hearing requested and, if so, was one conducted? Select
appropriate response Provide additional description/rationale here as needed.
Comments received in response to public notice:
Comment 1:
Agency/Person providing comment Summarize comment here.
Applicant's Response: Select N/A or provide applicant's response as appropriate.
Corps Evaluation: Summarize Corps evaluation here.
Comment 2: gency/Person providing comment Summarize comment here.
Applicant's Response: Select N/A or provide applicant's response as appropriate.
Corps Evaluation: Summarize Corps evaluation here
Additional discussion of submitted comments, applicant response and/or Corps'
evaluation: Select N/A or provide discussion as appropriate.
Page 5 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
4.2 Were additional issues raised by the Corps including any as a result of coordination
with other Corps offices? Select Yes or No
If yes, provide discussion including coordination of concerns with the applicant,
applicant's response and Corps' evaluation of the response: Select N/A or provide
discussion as appropriate.
4.3 Were comments raised that do not require further discussion because they address
activities and/or effects outside of the Corps' purview? Select Yes or No
If yes, provide discussion: Select N/A or provide discussion as appropriate.
5.0 Alternatives Analysis (33 CFR Part 325 Appendix B(7), 40 CFR 230.5(c) and 40
CFR 1502.14). An evaluation of alternatives is required under NEPA and under the
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for projects that include the discharge of dredged or fill
material. NEPA requires discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives, including
the no action alternative, and the effects of those alternatives; under the Guidelines,
practicability of alternatives is taken into consideration and no alternative may be
permitted if there is a less environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
5.1 Site selection/screening criteria: In order to be practicable, an alternative must be
available, achieve the project purpose (as defined by the Corps), and be feasible
when considering cost, logistics and existing technology.
Corps -determined criteria for evaluating alternatives:
CSX recognizes that certain criteria are necessary to specify the minimum needs and
conditions that would meet the operational requirements for construction of the
terminal. It is important to acknowledge at the outset that the principal concern of CSX
in serving as the applicant for this Proposed Project is to serve the best interests of its
clients and make sure that the LEDPA adheres to the purpose and needs of the
Proposed Project, as set forth above. Ultimately, the LEDPA must be able to
accommodate the operational and budgetary needs of the end clients for the
Proposed Project to be a success.
A set of functional criteria were established by CSX for the purpose of initially
screening sites for the development of a new intermodal rail terminal in central North
Carolina. The functional criteria are requirements for meeting the Project Purpose and
Need and serve as the principal component of the initial screening process to identify
potentially suitable sites for development. Sites that meet these initial criteria, i.e., first
level screening, are further evaluated as the project proceeds through the NEPA
process. The five functional criteria are presented as follows, in no particular order:
Page 6 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
1. A site with a minimum of 425 contiguous acres of usable land for development
2. A site with proximity and accessibility to a major highway
3. A site with appropriate shape and configuration
4. A site located adjacent to the CSXT main -line (and specifically for this proposed
Intermodal Rail Terminal, additionally located on the CSXT A-line)
5. A site within a 60 -mile radius of the City of Raleigh, North Carolina (specific to
this proposed Intermodal Rail Terminal siting)
5.2 Description of alternatives
5.2.1 No action alternative: Under the No Build Alternative (No Action Alternative),
the proposed action is not implemented; i.e., no CCX Intermodal Rail Terminal is
constructed.
5.2.2 Off-site alternatives
Off-site alternative 1: A total of twelve sites were included in the initial screening action
(See Appendix A Figure 1). The twelve sites were provided by CSX, with Sites 9
(Wilson County), 10 (Johnston County) and 11 (Cumberland County) suggested by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The results of the initial
site screening action are presented in Table 4-1 in the attached ER.
5.2.3 On-site alternatives
On-site alternative 1 (applicant's preferred alternative): Three on-site design
alternatives were developed to determine which site layout would minimize impacts to
the greatest practicable extent. Design Alternative 1 and 2 are on-site design
alternatives which were rejected due to increased impacts. A significantly minimized
site layout has not been presented as part of the Level 3 analysis, as a smaller
footprint would not meet the purpose and need of the intermodal facility, and would
therefore not be economically feasible to construct and operate. A narrative of each
design alternative is presented in Section 4.8 of the ER as related to proposed
impacts to jurisdictional waters (wetlands and streams) and riparian buffers.
5.3 Evaluate alternatives that are not practicable or reasonable: Refer to Section 4 of the
ER for a discussion of the alternatives that were determined to be not practicable or
reasonable.
5.4 Least environmentally damaging alternative under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (if
applicable) and environmentally preferred alternative under NEPA:
Page 7 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
In support of the identified alternatives, CSX is providing documentation that
demonstrates that the proposed site is necessary with the least environmentally
damaging design and will take place in the least environmentally damaging location.
CSX believes that it has captured each reasonable alternative and component
necessary for the USACE to reach its decision on the LEDPA as well as satisfy its
obligations under NEPA.
6.0 Evaluation for Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The following
sequence of evaluation is consistent with 40 CFR 230.5
6.1 Practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge consistent with 40 CFR 230.5(c)
are evaluated in Section 5. The statements below summarize the analysis of
alternatives.
In summary, based on the analysis in Section 5.0 above, the no -action alternative,
which would not involve discharge into waters, is not practicable.
For those projects that would discharge into a special aquatic site and are not water
dependent, the applicant has demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives that
do not involve special aquatic sites.
It has been determined that there are no alternatives to the proposed discharge that
would be less environmentally damaging. (Subpart B, 40 CFR 230.10(a)). The
proposed discharge in this evaluation is the practicable alternative with the least
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, and it does not have other significant
environmental consequences.
6.2 Candidate disposal site delineation (Subpart B, 40 CFR 230.11(f)). Each disposal site
shall be specified through the application of these Guidelines:
Not Applicable. The project does not involve a disposal site.
6.3 Potential impacts on physical and chemical characteristics of the non -living
environment (Subpart C). See Table 1:
Table 1 — Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics
Minor
Minor
Physical and Chemical
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
N/A
Characteristics
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Substrate
X
Suspended particulates/
X
turbidity
Water
X
Page 8 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
Table 1 — Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics
Minor
Minor
Physical and Chemical
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
Special Aquatic Sites
N/A
Characteristics
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Current patterns and water
X
X
X
circulation
Normal water fluctuations
X
Salinity gradients
X
X
Discussion: Refer to the attached ER for additional information.
6.4 Potential impacts on the living communities or human uses (Subparts D, E and F):
6.4.1 Potential impacts on the biological characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem (Subpart
D). See Table 2:
Table 2 — Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics
Minor
Minor
Biological
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
Special Aquatic Sites
N/A
characteristics
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Threatened and
X
X
endangered species
Fish, crustaceans,
mollusk, and other
X
aquatic organisms
Other wildlife
X
Discussion: Refer to Section 7.6 of the attached ER.
6.4.2 Potential impacts on special aquatic sites (Subpart E). See Table 3:
Table 3 — Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Minor
Minor
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
Special Aquatic Sites
N/A
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Sanctuaries and
X
refuges
Page 9 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
Table 3 — Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Special Aquatic Sites
N/A
No
Effect
Negligible
Effect
Minor
Effect
(Short
Term)
Minor
Effect
(Long
Term)
Major
Effect
Wetlands
No
Negligible
Effect
X
Major
Mud flats
X
Vegetated shallows
X
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Coral reefs
X
Term)
Term)
Riffle pool complexes
X
Discuss: Refer to Section 7.6 of the attached ER.
6.4.3 Potential impacts on human use characteristics (Subpart F). See Table 4:
Table 4 — Potential Impacts on Human Use Characteristics
Minor
Minor
Human Use
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
N/A
Characteristics
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Municipal and private
X
water supplies
Recreational and
X
commercial fisheries
Water -related recreation
X
Aesthetics
X
Parks, national and
historical monuments,
national seashores,
X
wilderness areas,
research sites, and
similar preserves
Discussion: Refer to Section 7.1 of the attached ER.
6.5 Pre -testing evaluation (Subpart G, 40 CFR 230.60):
The following has been considered in evaluating the biological availability of possible
contaminants in dredged or fill material. See Table 5:
Page 10 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
Table 5 — Possible Contaminants in Dredged/Fill Material
Physical characteristics
Hydrography in relation to known or anticipated sources of contaminants
Results from previous testing of the material or similar material in the vicinity
of the project
Known, significant sources of persistent pesticides from land runoff or
percolation
Spill records for petroleum products or designated (Section 331 of CWA)
hazardous substances
Other public records or significant introduction of contaminants from
industries, municipalities, or other sources
Known existence of substantial material deposits of substances which
could be released in harmful quantities to the aquatic environment by man -
induced discharge activities
Discussion: N/A Any proposed material is not likely to be a carrier of contaminants
because it would be comprised of sand, gravel or other naturally occurring inert
material and would have substantially similar materials to those currently on-site. The
likelihood of contamination is acceptably low.
It has been determined that testing is not required because the likelihood of
contamination by contaminants is acceptably low and the material may be excluded
from evaluation procedures.
6.6 Evaluation and testing (Subpart G, 40 CFR 230-61):
Discussion: N/A
6.7 Actions to minimize adverse impacts (Subpart H). The following actions, as
appropriate, have been taken through application of 40 CFR 230.70-230.77 to ensure
minimal adverse effects of the proposed discharge. See Table 6:
Table 6 — Actions to Ensure Adverse Effects are Minimized
Actions concerning the location of the discharge
Actions concerning the material to be discharged
Actions controlling the material after discharge
Actions affecting the method of dispersion
Actions affecting plant and animal populations
Actions affecting human use
Discussion: N/A
Page 11 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
6.8 Factual Determinations (Subpart B, 40 CFR 230-11). The following determinations are
made based on the applicable information above, including actions to minimize effects
and consideration for contaminants. See Table 7:
Table 7 — Factual Determinations of Potential Impacts
Subject
Yes
No
1. Is there a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that
Minor
Minor
would be less damaging to the environment (any alternative with
Site
N/A
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major
consequences?)
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
applicable water quality standards?
Term)
Term)
Physical substrate
X
Water circulation, fluctuation
X
and salinity
Suspended
particulates/turbidity
X
Contaminants
X
Aquatic ecosystem and
X
organisms
Proposed disposal site
X
Cumulative effects on the
X
aquatic ecosystem
Secondary effects on the
X
aquatic ecosystem
Discussion: Refer to the attached ER Section 8.0 for considerations of these criteria.
6.9 Findings of compliance or non-compliance with the restrictions on discharges (40 CFR
230.10(a -d) and 230.12). Based on the information above, including the factual
determinations, the proposed discharge has been evaluated to determine whether any
of the restrictions on discharge would occur. See Table 8:
Table 8 — Compliance with Restrictions on Discharge
Subject
Yes
No
1. Is there a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that
X
would be less damaging to the environment (any alternative with
less aquatic resource effects, or an alternative with more aquatic
resource effects that avoids other significant adverse environmental
consequences?)
2. Will the discharge cause or contribute to violations of any
X
applicable water quality standards?
Page 12 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
Table 8 — Compliance with Restrictions on Discharge
Subject
Yes
No
3. Will the discharge violate any toxic effluent standards (under
(�
i
X
Section 307 of the Act)?
aD
4. Will the discharge jeopardize the continued existence of
X
endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat?
`�
�
O U
Z Q
5. Will the discharge violate standards set by the Department of
X
Commerce to protect marine sanctuaries?
Z
m
6. Will the discharge cause or contribute to significant degradation of
X
waters of the U.S.?
�--
7. Have all appropriate and practicable steps (Subpart H, 40 CFR
1. Conservation:
230.70) been taken to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the
X
discharge on the aquatic ecosystem?
Discussion: N/A
7.0 General Public Interest Review (33 CFR 320.4 and RGL 84-09)
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on
the public interest as stated at 33 CFR 320.4(a). To the extent appropriate, the public
interest review below also includes consideration of additional policies as described in
33 CFR 320.4(b) through (r). The benefits which reasonably may be expected to
accrue from the proposal are balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments.
7.1 All public interest factors have been reviewed and those that are relevant to the
proposal are considered and discussed in additional detail. See Table 9 and any
discussion that follows.
Table 9: Public Interest Factors
Effects
N
N
(�
i
(D
U_
aD
Z=
0
N
_�
`�
�
O U
Z Q
O
_
Z E
Z
m
Q
D
�--
1. Conservation:
X
2. Economics:
X
3. Aesthetics:
X
4. General Environmental Concerns:
X
5. Wetlands:
X
Page 13 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
Table 9: Public Interest Factors
Effects
N
N
(�
i
(D
-0U_
aD
M
_�
z0
=
M
a) Z_
`�
�
O U
zQ
O
z E
Z
m
Q
6. Historic Properties:
X
7. Fish and Wildlife Values:
X
8. Flood Hazards:
X
9. Floodplain Values:
X
10. Land Use:
X
11. Navigation:
X
12. Shoreline Erosion and Accretion:
X
13. Recreation:
X
14. Water Supply and Conservation
X
15. Water Quality:
X
16. Energy Needs:
X
17. Safety:
X
18. Food and Fiber Production:
X
19. Mineral Needs:
X
20. Consideration of Property Ownership:
X
21. Needs and Welfare of the People:
X
Additional discussion of effects on factors above: Refer to Section 7.0 and of the
attached ER.
7.2 The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work:
Refer to the project need statement in Section 3.0 of this document.
7.3 If there are unresolved conflicts as to resource use, explain how the practicability of
using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the
proposed structure or work was considered.
Page 14 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
Discussion: There were no unresolved conflicts identified as to resource use.
7.4 The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects that the
proposed work is likely to have on the public and private use to which the area is
suited:
Detrimental effects are expected to be minimal and permanent.
Beneficial effects are expected to be minimal and permanent.
Refer to the attached ER for a discussion of project impacts.
8.0 Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
(40 CFR 230.11(g) and 40 CFR 1508.7, RGL 84-9) Cumulative impacts result from
the incremental environmental impact of an action when added to all other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. They can result from individually
minor direct and indirect but collectively significant actions taking place over a period
of time. A cumulative effects assessment should consider both direct and indirect, or
secondary, impacts. Indirect impacts result from actions that occur later in time or are
farther removed in distance from the original action, but still reasonably foreseeable.
8.1 Identify/describe the direct and indirect effects of the proposed activity:
Cumulative effects from the proposed project are described in Section 8 of the
attached ER.
8.2 The geographic scope for the cumulative effects assessment is:
The proposed project is the construction of an intermodal terminal and reconstruction
of a second main line in the vicinity of the intermodal terminal. The project is a
regional intermodal hub which will allow for efficient intermodal transfer of freight from
Mid -Atlantic ports and the greater Raleigh area onto CSX's rail system. However,
regional growth would not act cumulatively with the proposed project to impact those
resources described in this document. Other projects and development within
Edgecombe, Nash, and possibly Halifax counties could act cumulatively with the
proposed project.
Therefore, for the purpose of this cumulative impacts assessment, the Proposed
Project could act cumulatively with projects in Edgecombe, Nash, and Halifax
Counties.
8.3 The temporal scope of this assessment covers: The Proposed Project will be located
within an area that has historically been used for rural residential and commercial
agricultural uses. Development along the existing rail corridor has been on-going with
properties to the west and north of the project site already being developed for
Page 15 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
commercial uses. In addition, the second mainline reconstruction will be completed
along an existing rail -line. These historic land uses have previously resulted in habitat
conversion and fragmentation and ditching of wildlife habitats and water resources.
At this time, no additional large land development or transportation projects have been
publicly announced within the spatial scope. Therefore, the temporal scope for
potential cumulative impacts can reasonably be expected to include the build -out of
the proposed project, and include potential unforeseen future development that the
project could spur. For these reasons, the timeframe for this cumulative impacts
assessment will begin with the development of the proposed project and extend 20
years into the future.
8.4 Describe the affected environment: The 2007 Edgecombe County Land Development
Plan and the 2006 Nash County Land Development Plan were reviewed to determine
if any known future projects could have the potential to, when combined with the
project, result in an additional cumulative impact. The Edgecombe County Land
Development Plan indicated a desire for the county to promote growth throughout the
county, in an attempt to counteract recent demographic changes that have resulted in
a reduction of the county population over time. The project is located within the
existing Rocky Mount municipal extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), which indicates that
the county/city has designated this area as a future growth area and is compatible with
and suitable for future annexation.
Additional land development is not proposed for Nash County. The second mainline
reconstruction will take place on the border of Nash and Edgecombe counties and will
generally be completed within an existing railroad bed. The majority of the area within
Nash County that could be impacted by the second mainline reconstruction is located
within a zone outside of the Nash County zoning jurisdiction and is designated as
within Rocky Mount municipal planning jurisdiction.
These designations indicate that the counties/municipalities in the vicinity of the
project site are actively looking to develop the areas surrounding the project site. This
desire for directed growth could include additional development that could act
cumulatively with the proposed project to impact the resources described in this
document. Therefore, this cumulative impacts assessment will focus broadly on air
quality, noise & vibration, water resources, biotic communities, socioeconomic
impacts, and traffic & transportation. The existing condition for each of these
resources has been described above.
8.5 Determine the environmental consequences: Cumulative effects to the human and
natural environments are described in Section 8.2 of the attached ER.
Page 16 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
8.6 Discuss any mitigation to avoid, minimize or compensate for cumulative effects: In the
absence of suitable existing private wetland, stream, and riparian buffer mitigation
bank credits and in -lieu of purchasing credits from the North Carolina Department of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS), all required compensatory mitigation will be obtained
through off-site permittee -responsible mitigation activities utilizing the watershed
approach (see Appendix G Mitigation Plan [Appendix L for mitigation banker
correspondence]). The Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan (PRMP)
was designed to achieve a landscape scale conservation outcome based on the
priorities of both local and regional environmental advocacy groups and the Federal
and State regulatory and resource agencies.
8.7 Conclusions regarding cumulative impacts:
When considering the overall impacts that will result from this project, in relation to the
overall impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the
cumulative impacts are not considered to be significantly adverse. Compensatory
mitigation will be required to help offset the impacts.
9.0 Mitigation(33 CFR 320.4(r), 33 CFR Part 332, 40 CFR 230.70-77, 40 CFR 1508.20
and 40 CFR 1502.14)
9.1 Avoidance and Minimization: When evaluating a proposal including regulated
activities in waters of the United States, consideration must be given to avoiding and
minimizing effects to those waters. Avoidance and minimization measures are
described above in Sections 1 and 3.
Were any other mitigative actions including project modifications discussed with the
applicant that were implemented to minimize adverse project impacts? (see 33 CFR
320.4(r)(1)(i)) No
Describe here.
9.2 Is compensatory mitigation required to offset environmental losses resulting from
proposed unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States? Yes
If no, rationale:
9.3 off-site permittee -responsible mitigation: Located within the same watershed as the
CCX Terminal and Second Mainline Project is Swift Creek (see Figure 1 in Appendix
A). The Swift Creek Subbasin in particular has been identified as possibly the most
significant lotic creek ecosystem remaining along the Atlantic Seaboard (Alderman, et
al., 1993). Swift Creek is a major tributary of the Tar River, flowing southeast from
Henderson in Vance County, then through Warren, Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe
Page 17 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
counties to its confluence with the Tar River above Tarboro in Edgecombe County.
The overall goal of the mitigation site selection process was to enhance and improve
the protection of this critical resource.
9.3.1 Is the impact in the service area of an approved mitigation bank? No
If yes, does the mitigation bank have appropriate number and resource type of credits
available? N/A
9.3.2 Is the impact in the service area of an approved in -lieu fee program? No
If yes, does the in -lieu fee program have the appropriate number and resource type of
credits available? N/A
9.3.3 Selected compensatory mitigation type/location(s). See Table 10:
Table 10 — Mitigation Type and Location
Mitigation bank credits
In -lieu fee program credits
Permittee -responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
Permittee -responsible mitigation, on-site and in-kind
Permittee -responsible mitigation, off-site and/or out of kind
X
9.3.4 Does the selected compensatory mitigation option deviate from the order of the
options presented in §332.3(b)(2)-(6)? No
If yes, provide rationale for the deviation, including the likelihood for ecological
success and sustainability, location of the compensation site relative to the impact site
and their significance within the watershed, and/or the costs of the compensatory
mitigation project (see 33 CFR §332.3(a)(1)): N/A
9.4 Amount of compensatory mitigation: 207.5 acres of wetlands and 24,019 linear feet
(4.5 miles) of headwater tributaries.
Rationale for required compensatory mitigation amount: It is the amount calculated by
USACE to mitigate the acreage impacted at the CCX terminal site.
9.5 For permittee responsible mitigation identified in 9.3.3 above, the final mitigation plan
must include the items described in 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) through (c)(14) at a level of
detail commensurate with the scale and scope of the impacts. As an alternative, the
district engineer may determine that it would be more appropriate to address any of
the items described in (c)(2) through (c)(14) as permit conditions, instead of
components of a compensatory mitigation plan. Presence of sufficient information
related to each of these requirements in the applicant's mitigation plan is indicated by
Page 18 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
"Yes" in Table 11. "No" indicates absence or insufficient information in the plan, in
which case, additional rationale must be provided below on how these requirements
will be addressed through special conditions or why a special condition is not required:
Table 11 — Permittee -Responsible Mitigation Plan Requirements
Requirement
Yes
No
Objectives
X
Site selection
X
Site protection instrument
X
Baseline information
X
Determination of credits
X
Mitigation work plan
X
Maintenance plan
X
Performance standards
X
Monitoring requirements
X
Long-term management plan
X
Adaptive management plan
X
Financial assurances
X
Other
For any "No", provide rationale on how the subject component(s) of the compentatory
mitigation plan will be addressed as special conditions or why no special conditions
are required: provide discussion here
10.0 Compliance with Other Laws, Policies, and Requirements
10.1 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Refer to Section 2.2 for
description of action area for Section 7.
10.1.1 Has another federal agency taken steps to document compliance with Section 7 of the
ESA and completed consultation(s) as required? No
10.1.2 Known species/critical habitat present: No. The Corps has determined that it has
fulfilled its responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
Effect determination(s), including no effect, for all known species/habitat, and basis for
determination (s)- Refer to Section 7.0 of the attached ER for additional information
and effects determinations.
10.1.3 Consultation with either the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service was initiated and completed as required, for any determinations
other than "no effect" (see the attached "Summary" sheet for begin date, end date and
closure method of the consultation). provide additional discussion here as needed to
describe consultations) with the Service(s) or delete if not needed. Based on a
Page 19 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
review of the above information, the Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its
responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
10.2 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -
Stevens Act), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). N/A, there is no essential fish habitat in
this district's area of responsibility.
10.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106): Refer to
Section 2.3 for permit area determination.
10.3.1 Has another federal agency taken steps to comply with Section 106 and completed
consultation(s) as required?
No
10.3.2 Known cultural resource sites present and/or survey or other additional information
needed? Yes. As designed, it appears that the proposed CCX will have no effect on
significant archaeological resources. No further archaeological investigation is
recommended. The proposed CCX Terminal will likely have an adverse effect on the
NRHP-eligible Odom-Cooper-Flye Farm property. It does not appear that the
proposed undertaking will affect any other NRHP-listed or eligible properties.
Basis for effect determination(s) for all known site(s) and/or site(s) identified by a
survey: Refer to above statement of effect
10.3.3 Consultation was initiated and completed as required with the appropriate agencies,
tribes and/or other parties for any determinations other than "no potential to cause
effects" (see the attached "Summary" sheet for consultation type, begin date, end date
and closure method of the consultation). It is recommended that appropriate
minimization and mitigation measures be developed for the Odom-Cooper-Flye Farm
property and stipulated in a project Memorandum of Agreement. Based on a review of
the information above, the Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its responsibilities
under Section 106 of the NHPA.
10.4 Tribal Trust Responsibilities
10.4.1 Was government -to -government consultation conducted with Federally -
recognized Tribe(s)? No
Provide a description of any consultation(s) conducted including results and how
concerns about significant effects to protected tribal resources, tribal rights and/or
Indian lands were addressed. Provide additional discussion here as needed ordelete
if not needed The Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its tribal trust
responsibilities.
10.5 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act —Water Quality Certification (WQC)
Page 20 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
10.5.1 Is a Section 401 WQC required, and if so, has the certification been issued or waived?
Seiecr appropriare oprior,
10.6 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
10.6.1 Is a CZMA consistency concurrence required, and if so, has the concurrence been
issued, waived or presumed? N/A, a CZMA consistency concurrence is not required.
10.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
10.7.1 Is the project located in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or
in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in
the system? No
10.8 Effects on Federal Projects (33 USC 408)
10.8.1 Does the applicant also require permission under Section 14 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act (33 USC 408) because the activity, in whole or in part, would alter,
occupy or use a Corps Civil Works project? No, there are no federal projects in or
near the vicinity of the proposal.
10.9 Corps Wetland Policy (33 CFR 320.4(b))
10.9.1 Does the project propose to impact wetlands? Yes
10.9.2 Based on the public interest review herein, the beneficial effects of the project
outweigh the detrimental impacts of the project.
10.10 Other (as needed): Provide discussion here as needed.
11.0 Special Conditions
11.1 Are special conditions required to protect the public interest, ensure effects are not
significant and/or ensure compliance of the activity with any of the laws above? Select
Yes or No
If no, provide rationale: Describe rationale
11.2 Required special condition(s)
Special condition(s): Enter specific condition(s)
Rationale: Enter rationale here
Page 21 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
12.0 Findings and Determinations
12.1 Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review: The proposed
permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to regulations
implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been determined that the
activities proposed under this permit will not exceed deminimis levels of direct or
indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR
Part 93.153. Any later indirect emissions are generally not within the Corps'
continuing program responsibility and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the
Corps. For these reasons a conformity determination is not required for this permit
action.
12.2 Presidential Executive Orders (EO):
12.2.1 EO 13175, Consultation with Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians:
This action has no substantial effect on one or more Indian tribes, Alaska or Hawaiian
natives.
12.2.2 EO 11988, Floodplain Management: Alternatives to location within the floodplain,
minimization and compensatory mitigation of the effects were considered above.
12.2.3 EO 12898, Environmental Justice: The Corps has determined that the proposed
project would not use methods or practices that discriminate on the basis of race,
color or national origin nor would it have a disproportionate effect on minority or low-
income communities.
12.2.4 EO 13112, Invasive Species: The evaluation provided above included invasive
species concerns in the analysis of impacts at the project site and associated
compensatory mitigation projects.
12.2.5 EO 13212 and EO 13302, Energy Supply and Availability: The proposal is not one
that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy, or
strengthen pipeline safety.
12.3 Findings of No Significant Impact: Having reviewed the information provided by the
applicant and all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental impacts,
find that this permit action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the
human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be
required.
12.4 Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines: Having completed the evaluation
above, I have determined that Choose one of the following
12.5 Public interest determination: Having reviewed and considered the information above,
I find that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest.
Page 22 of 23

CE Select District -District abbreviation (e.g. RD, O -R) (File Number, Select District ORM File
Number)
PREPARED BY:
Date:
Project Manager
REVIEWED BY:
Date:
Enter name of appropriate level reviewer
APPROVED BY:
Date:
Enter name of appropriate level approver
Page 23 of 23