U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway

Congestion Mitigation Project

Finding of No Significant Impact

September 2022
i | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

Table of Contents

1.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Procedural History and NEPA Compliance....................................................................................... 3

3.0 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................................ 3

Congestion ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Operational Changes........................................................................................................................ 4

Rail-served Industry ......................................................................................................................... 4

4.0 Alternatives Considered................................................................................................................... 4

5.0 Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 4

6.0 Results from the Environmental Analysis...................................................................................... 10

7.0 Public and Agency Coordination.................................................................................................... 12

8.0 Errata.............................................................................................................................................. 12

9.0 Environmental Commitments........................................................................................................ 15

10.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 17

Appendices

Appendix A – Environmental Assessment - Notice of Availability 

Appendix B – Environmental Assessment – Comments and Responses
1 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

1.0 Project Description

The Proposed Action includes the construction of new facilities at five (5) locations. The five Sites include 

three (3) storage and passing sidings, two (2) storage and switching yards, and one (1) warehouse (see 

Figure 1). The purpose of the Proposed Action is to address congestion issues on the existing railroad. All 

construction activities would take place within the railroad right-of-way (ROW) or on land owned by 

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway (ACWR). A description of the project activities and summary of 

adjacent land use is provided below.

Mint Hill, North Carolina (Mecklenburg County)

Mint Hill Siding – Proposed Action activities at this location include construction of 5,000 linear feet 

of new storage and passing siding along the existing railroad located between Albemarle Road and 

I-495. The railroad ROW in this location varies between 150 to over 200 feet wide with a general clear 

zone of 50 feet. Surrounding land use is mainly wooded with sparse, large lot residential 

development. All work would be completed within the existing railroad ROW owned by ACWR.

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Mint Hill Warehouse – Proposed Action activities at this location include 

construction of new storage track spurs and a warehouse on a 66-acre property located along Allen 

Station Road. Construction activities include grading for new roads, a parking area, loading docks, 

eight new storage track spurs totaling 18,000 linear feet, stormwater basins, and an approximately 

200,000- to 400,000-square-foot warehouse. The parcel is woodland located in a quickly developing 

area. Previous infrastructure (including utilities, road grading, and stormwater basins) remains on the 

property. Surrounding land uses include Rocky River High School and Hope Community Fellowship 

along with commercial and medium- to high-density residential developments. All work would be 

completed on land owned by ACWR. 

Midland, North Carolina (Cabarrus County)

Midland Siding – Proposed Action activities at this location include construction of 3,100 linear feet 

of new storage and passing siding approximately two (2) miles east of Midland. The surrounding land 

use is mainly wooded. The railroad ROW in this location is approximately 120 feet wide with a bumpout at a stream crossing to approximately 200 feet wide. The track is on fill through this section with 

a general clear zone of 50 feet. All work at this location would take place within the existing railroad 

ROW owned by ACWR.

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway Headquarters, Candor, North Carolina (Montgomery County)

ACWR HQ Storage Yard – Proposed Action activities at this location include construction of 12 new 

storage track spurs totaling up to 20,000 linear feet located north of the existing ACWR headquarters 

building. The area is currently cleared. Surrounding land use includes wooded and agricultural land. 

All work would be completed on land owned by ACWR.

Samarcand and Eagle Springs, North Carolina (Moore County)

Samarcand Siding – Proposed Action activities at this location include the construction of 7,000 linear 

feet of new, double-ended passing and storage siding along the existing railroad. The railroad ROW 

in this location is approximately 100 feet wide with a general clear zone of 50 feet. Surrounding land 

use is wooded and agricultural intermixed with residential development. All work would be 

completed within the existing railroad ROW owned by ACWR.

3 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

2.0 Procedural History and NEPA Compliance

ACWR is proposing to use Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and 

Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program and Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Funding (RRIF) to 

administer a congestion mitigation project. Due to the use of federal funds, the Proposed Action must 

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. To document the Proposed Action 

and its effects on the natural, cultural, and social environment, the FRA has prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA), published July 29, 2022. The EA and this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were 

prepared in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508), 23 C.F.R. Parts 771 and 774.

3.0 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to address existing congestion along ACWR’s railroad line. Reducing 

congestion would improve viability and long-term sustainability of freight rail service from Charlotte to 

Raleigh. Elements of the Proposed Action that reduce congestion and enhance viability include:

• Increased storage to reduce mainline congestion (storage and passing sidings)

• Additional switching tracks to sort and re-order railcars (switching and storage yards)

• Additional rail-served warehouse within metropolitan area (warehouse)

The project need is due to increased congestion, increased demands related to Precision Scheduled 

Railroading (PSR) operational changes, and a lack of rail-served industry in the Charlotte Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA). The needs are further detailed below.

Congestion 

Traffic Patterns – An increase in unit train traffic coming from Charlotte to Candor creates congestion on 

the existing rail line. Inadequate tracks to clear the mainline for westbound traffic results in a half-day 

delay for eastbound traffic. Currently, westbound traffic is delayed for half a day to wait for eastbound 

traffic to clear the mainline. The additional storage and passing sidings would allow for better flow of 

traffic with shipments coming from three interchanges by three different railroads. Additionally, storage 

and passing sidings would improve system and service performance on the Piedmont and Sandhills 

Divisions by reducing the congestion caused by the need to store cars on the mainline. By adding sidings 

and yards, the project would increase ACWR capacity, mitigate traffic congestion, improve equipment 

cycle time, drastically reduce mainline track blockages, and provide adequate track space for increased 

switching activities.

Storage – At any one time, the existing rail line may have up to five (5) 90-car trains on the line which 

must be staged and temporarily stored. This has caused frequent congestion, blocking of road crossings, 

service delays, and inefficiencies for traincrews. The current PSR climate has forced shippers to store 

fewer railcars on Class I railroads and more railcars on shortline railroads. The ACWR line has had over 

750 railcars stored on the mainline at estimated peak levels. Additional storage yards will provide muchneeded congestion relief along the ACWR line.

Sorting and Reordering – Increased inbound miscellaneous commodity traffic requires frequent switching 

and re-ordering for customers. Multiple switches are required per day for commodities that must be 

delivered in a sequential order as requested by the customer. The ACWR needs additional switching tracks 
4 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

to perform the sorting and re-ordering of railcars due to recent traffic pattern changes, and it struggles 

operationally to find places to perform such switching activities. This would enhance the railroad’s 

productivity by reducing operational inefficiencies, increasing equipment cycle times to avoid congestion 

issues and blockage of road crossings, which increases service delays and inefficiencies for train crews.

Operational Changes 

The ACWR is required to sequence outbound loads in order of each railcar’s end destination. Additionally, 

Class I railroad companies have begun to use interchange yards to perform their own switching instead of 

traditional hump yards. The ACWR struggles operationally to find places to perform such switching 

activities. 

Rail-served Industry 

Charlotte MSA’s growth and lack of viable rail-served buildings add to commercial traffic on the highway 

system and have increased industrial rental rates to all-time highs. There are repeated requests from 

existing and prospective railroad customers for a modern rail-served warehouse and distribution facility 

in the area. Current raw plastics customers require covered square footage to manipulate bulk products 

into various smaller packaging forms. A warehouse and distribution facility would offer direct access to 

rail, avoiding additional highway congestion while providing affordable rail-served space to facilitate 

growth of rail-based transportation. 

4.0 Alternatives Considered

The EA included the review of two alternatives, the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative. The NoBuild Alternative constitutes the “Do Nothing” Alternative where none of the proposed improvements 

would be made. The Build Alternative constitutes the Proposed Action for each project Site as described 

in Section 5.0 Preferred Alternative.

5.0 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative includes construction of new facilities at five (5) locations. The five (5) Sites 

include three (3) storage and passing sidings, two (2) storage and switching yards, and one (1) warehouse. 

All construction activities would take place within the railroad ROW or on land owned by ACWR. Proposed 

activities at each Site, along with location map and photo, are provided in Table 1.
5 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

Table 1: Preferred Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

Mint Hill Siding

Construction of 5,000 track feet of new 

storage and passing siding along the 

existing railroad located between 

Albemarle Road and I-485. This work 

would include minor earth work (fill) to 

establish the grading necessary to 

construct the additional track. 

Construction of this siding would be 

minor in intensity and short in 

duration, with construction anticipated 

to take approximately three (3)

months. The existing railroad would 

remain operational during 

construction. 

Mint Hill Siding, looking west at HWY 24/27 bridge.
6 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

Table 1: Preferred Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

Mint Hill Storage Yard and 

Warehouse 

Construction of new storage track 

spurs and warehouse on a 66-acre 

property located along Allen Station 

Road. Construction activities include 

grading for new roads, parking area, 

loading docks, eight (8) new storage 

track spurs totaling 18,000 track feet,

stormwater basins, and an 

approximate 200,000- to 400,000-

square-foot warehouse. This work 

would include earth work (cut and fill) 

to establish the grading necessary to 

construct the storage yard, warehouse, 

parking, and road network along with 

stormwater facilities. Construction of 

this storage yard and warehouse 

would be moderate in intensity and 

duration, with construction anticipated 

to take approximately 18 months. The 

existing railroad would remain 

operational during construction. 

Mint Hill Warehouse site, looking north.
7 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

Table 1: Preferred Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

Midland Siding

Construction of 3,100 track feet of new 

storage and passing siding 

approximately two (2) miles east of 

Midland, North Carolina. This work 

would include moderate earth work 

(fill) to establish the grading necessary 

to construct the additional track. Two 

culvert pipes would be extended to 

accommodate the additional fill slope. 

Construction of this siding would be 

minor in intensity due to minimal 

disturbance and earth work within the 

ROW and short in duration, with 

construction anticipated to take 

approximately three (3) months. The 

existing railroad would remain 

operational during construction. 

Midland site, looking east.
8 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

Table 1: Preferred Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

ACWR HQ Storage Yard

Construction of 12 new storage track 

spurs totaling 20,000 track feet located 

north of the existing ACWR 

headquarters building. This work 

would include minor earth work (cut 

and fill) to establish the grading 

necessary to construct the storage 

yard. Construction of this storage yard 

would include earthwork and 

stormwater faciliites. The work would 

be minor in intensity and duration, 

with construction anticipated to take 

approximately six (6) months. The 

existing railroad would remain 

operational during construction.

ACWR Storage Yard, looking east.
9 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

Table 1: Preferred Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

Samarcand Siding

Construction of 7,000 track feet of 

new, double-ended passing and 

storage siding along the existing 

railroad. This work would include 

minor earth work (fill) to establish the 

grading necessary to construct the 

additional track. Construction of this 

siding would be minor in intensity and 

short in duration, with construction 

anticipated to take approximately 

three (3) months. The existing railroad

would remain operational during 

construction. 

Samarcand Siding, looking east.
10 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

6.0 Results from the Environmental Analysis

The EA inventoried the environmental resources within the defined Study Area, disclosed and analyzed

impacts to those resource areas, and identified potential mitigation opportunities to minimize impacts. A 

summary of the impacts and mitigation measures is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Build Alternative

Anticipated Impacts

Build Alternative

Mitigation Measures

Air Quality, GHG, 

Climate Change

Impacts are below US EPA de minimis. No 

further analysis required.

No mitigation required; best 

management practices (BMPs) 

proposed to reduce temporary 

impacts.

Noise and Vibration No adverse noise impacts. 

No mitigation required; BMPs 

proposed to reduce temporary 

impacts.

Farmland and Forest Statewide Important Soil impacts and forest 

impacts. No mitigation.

Water Quality

No decrease in water quality is anticipated 

with adherence to state and federal 

permitting requirements. ACWR Storage 

Yard is within a designated Water Supply 

Watershed. 

ACWR Storage Yard design includes 30-

foot buffer around wetland and 

watercourses. 

Wetlands and 

Watercourses

No wetland impacts; 0.04 acre of stream 

impacts.

Mitigation will be determined through 

coordination with the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

during the Section 404 permitting 

process.

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

May affect the Northern Long-eared Bat 

(NLEB).

May affect, not likely to adversely affect the 

Smooth Coneflower, Schweinitz’s Sunflower 

and Michaux Sumac. 

No effect to other federal and state species. 

Based on the USFWS Asheville Office 

concurrence letter dated September 8, 

2022, ACWR will conduct all tree 

removal between October 15 and 

April 1 of any given year, outside the 

active bat season, to reduce impacts to 

bats. 
11 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

Table 2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Build Alternative

Anticipated Impacts

Build Alternative

Mitigation Measures

Cultural and Historic 

Resources 

No historic properties were identified within 

the Study Area. Section 106 consultation 

with the North Carolina State Historic 

Preservation Officer (NC SHPO) resulted in a 

determination of no historic properties 

affected.

No mitigation.

Section 4(f)/6(f) and 

Parks and Recreation

No Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources 

present.

No mitigation.

Hazardous Material 

and Hazardous 

Waste

No hazardous waste concerns. 

No mitigation; however, should waste 

be encountered during construction, it 

will be disposed of in accordance with 

appropriate federal, state, and local 

regulations.

Land Use Minor change in land use within designated 

growth areas. No mitigation.

Demographics and 

Environmental 

Justice

No disproportionally high and adverse effect 

on Environmental Justice (EJ) populations. No mitigation.

Public Health, Safety 

and Security

Increased public safety along at-grade 

crossings. No mitigation.

Transportation and 

Energy Use

Increase in efficiency would reduce railroad

and road congestion as well as energy 

consumption.

No mitigation; positive impact.

Construction Period 

Impacts 

Minor water quality, air, noise, and private 

crossing impacts anticipated during 

construction.

Soil erosion BMPs to reduce water 

quality issues, well-maintained 

equipment to reduce air and noise 

impacts, and coordination with 

property owners with private crossing 

prior to construction are proposed. 

Indirect and 

Cumulative Impacts Minor indirect and cumulative impacts. No mitigation.
12 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

7.0 Public and Agency Coordination 

Public and Agency coordination was undertaken as part of the NEPA process. The EA for the project was 

approved and published by FRA on July 29, 2022. An email Notice of Availability was sent to various 

federal, state, and local stakeholders announcing the EA availability. An advertisement was placed in the 

Charlotte Observer on August 3, 2022. Copies of the Notice of Availability and newspaper ad are provided 

in Appendix A. Comments on the EA were accepted via email or mail through August 31, 2022. A total 

of five (5) agency comments were received and are summarized below. No public comments were 

received. Comments and responses and original agency letters or emails are included in Appendix B. 

The USACE, Wilmington District, Ashville and Charlotte Regulatory Office provided comments regarding

permit requirements for any fill in the Waters of the United States (WoUS) at the Midland Siding Site. 

Further coordination will be necessary during final design and permitting.

The United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Raleigh Office 

provided guidance related to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) review from the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. This coordination was previously completed and included in the EA. No 

further action is required.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Asheville Ecological Services Field Office provided 

comments regarding impact determinations for the federally listed plant species and the upcoming 

uplisting of the NLEB to endangered and also provided suggested edits to the text of the EA. A follow up 

call was held with the USFWS on August 26, 2022. FRA provided a revised submittal to the USFWS on 

August 30, 2022, and the USFWS concurred with FRA’s revised impact determinations in a letter dated

September 8, 2022.

1

 Relevant changes are noted in Section 8.0, Errata, and the associated 

correspondence is provided in Appendix B.

The USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office provided an email response that the Raleigh Field

Office concurs with FRA’s species determinations for the two sites in their office work area. No further 

action is required.

The NC SHPO provided a letter concurring that no historic resources would be affected by the project. No 

further action is required.

8.0 Errata

This section includes revisions to the ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project Environmental Assessment 

(July 2022). Changes are noted in blue italics.

Signature Page – Pursuant to paragraph – Removed reference to FRA Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts and added reference to 23 C.F.R. Parts 771 and 774. First paragraph, first 

three lines should read:

1 In its September 8 letter, after concurring with FRA’s impact determinations, the USFWS also noted, “As we have 

provided concurrence with a NLAA determination above, section 7 consultation would not need to be reinitiated if the proposed

rule to uplist the northern long-eared bat becomes final and the 4(d) rule no longer applies.”
13 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC § 4321 et seq.) and implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 

1500 et seq.), Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 303(c)), 23 C.F.R. 

Parts 771 and 774;

Page 2 - Table 1 – Threatened and Endangered Species – Build Alternative Anticipated Impacts – The 

effect determinations were changed to “may affect” for the NLEB and “may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect” for the plant species. Table 1, eighth row, second column, should read:

May affect the Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB). May affect, not likely to adversely affect the Smooth 

Coneflower, Schweinitz’s Sunflower and Michaux Sumac. No effect to other federal and state species. 

Page 2 - Table 1 – Threatened and Endangered Species – Build Alternative Mitigation Measures –

The mitigation was updated related to the NLEB. Table 1, eighth row, third column, should read:

Based on the USFWS Asheville Office concurrence letter dated September 8, 2022, ACWR will conduct 

all tree removal between October 15 and April 1 of any given year, outside the active bat season to 

reduce impacts to bats.

Page 2 - Table 1 – Hazardous Waste – Build Alternative Mitigation Measures – Added a reference to 

regulations. Table 1, eleventh row, third column, should read:

No mitigation; however, should waste be encountered during construction, it will be disposed of in 

accordance with appropriate federal, state, and local regulations.

Page 31 – Threatened and Endangered Species – Identification – Wording added to clarify the two 

separate USFWS field office regions. First indentation should read:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) 

search engine was utilized to identify critical habitat that may occur on each site. The Proposed Action 

spans two USFWS field offices. Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, and Midland 

Siding are located in the USFWS Asheville Field Office region while the ACWR HQ Storage Yard and 

Samarcand Siding are located in the USFWS Raleigh Field Office region.

Page 31 – Federal Threatened and Endangered Species – Impacts Section – Wording updated,

changing the effect determination for the plant species and the NLEB based on a follow-up phone call 

with the USFWS Asheville Office. Impacts section, first and second paragraph should read:

Based on the historic and current land use activities, the lack of documented populations, and lack of 

suitable habitat, FRA determined that there would be “no effect” on the Carolina Heelsplitter, Cape 

Fear Shiner, Atlantic Pigtoe, and the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. 

FRA conducted species surveys for the Schweinitz’s Sunflower (see Figure 8), Michaux’s Sumac, and 

the Smooth Coneflower within the optimal survey window with no species detected. However, due to 

the presence of suitable habitat for these species within the Study Area as well as the low detectability 
14 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

of these species, FRA determined that the Proposed Action “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

the Schweinitz’s Sunflower, Michaux’s Sumac, and the Smooth Coneflower.

Due to potential summer roosting habitat for the Northern Long-eared Bat, the determination of “may 

affect” is recommended and discussed in greater detail below.

Page 32 – Federal Threatened and Endangered Species – NLEB Section – Wording updated, changing

the effect determination for the plant species and the NLEB based on a follow-up phone call with the 

USFWS Asheville Office. NLEB Section, fourth paragraph, first sentence should read:

A biological conclusion of “may affect” was recommended per the 4(d) rules.

Page 32 – Federal Threatened and Endangered Species – Mitigation Section – Wording revised to 

reflect the wording in the USFWS Asheville Office concurrence letter dated September 8, 2022, related 

to conservation recommendations. Mitigation Section, first paragraph has been removed.

NLEB mitigation in the form of tree cutting timing restriction is required at three sites including Mint 

Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, and Midland Siding. Tree removal activities are 

prohibited from June 1 through July 31. ACWR will add this restriction to the construction sequence 

and restrain from tree cutting from June 1 through July 31.

The following mitigation measure has been added:

Based on the USFWS Asheville Office concurrence letter dated September 8, 2022, ACWR will conduct 

all tree removal between October 15 and April 1 of any given year, outside the active bat season to 

reduce impacts to bats.

Page 32 – Federal Threatened and Endangered Species – Mitigation Section – Wording updated,

changing the effect determination for the plant species and the NLEB based on a follow-up phone call 

with the USFWS Asheville Office. Mitigation Section, second paragraph should read:

The Build Alternative would have “no effect” on the Carolina Heelsplitter, Cape Fear Shiner, Atlantic 

Pigtoe, and the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and therefore no mitigation is required for these species. 

The Build Alternative may affect, not likely to adversely affect the Schweinitz’s Sunflower, Michaux’s 

Sumac, and the Smooth Coneflower. Through coordination with USFWS, FRA determined that no 

mitigation is required for these species because species surveys were conducted during the optimal 

survey window with negative survey results. 

Page 35 – Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material – Identification – Paragraph added, providing 

additional information related to hazardous waste regulations and responsible federal and state 

agencies. Identification section, a new first paragraph should read:

Hazardous waste can be generated from many different sources and can make an area or property 

dangerous or capable of having a harmful effect on human health or the environment. The use, 

storage, transportation, and disposal of contaminated and hazardous materials are regulated at the 

federal level by the EPA. The US Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 gives the 
15 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

EPA the authority to regulate hazardous waste from the “cradle-to-grave.” The Comprehensive 

Environmental Resource Conservation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), commonly known as 

Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal 

authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may 

endanger public health or the environment. At the state level, North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 

130A. Public Health Section 130A-310.10 governs the handling of hazardous waste and is enforced by 

NC DEQ.

Page 36 – Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material – Impacts and Mitigation – Additional citations 

related to regulations that would dictate contaminated material cleanup efforts. Impacts and 

Mitigation Section, second paragraph should read:

Should contaminated materials be encountered, all materials will be disposed of properly and in 

accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations including, for example, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 103 -

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, And Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Chapter 

82 Section 6901 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and North Carolina General Statutes 

Chapter 130A. Public Health Section 130A-310.10.

Page 47 – Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation – Threatened and Endangered Species –

Mitigation measure revised based on USFWS Asheville concurrence letter. Third bolded item,

Threatened and Endangered Species, should read:

Based on the USFWS Asheville Office concurrence letter dated September 8, 2022, ACWR will conduct 

all tree removal between October 15 and April 1 of any given year, outside the active bat season, to 

reduce impacts to bats.

Page 47 – Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation – Air Quality – Additional specification on types 

of dust suppression have been provided. Fifth bolded item, Air Quality, should read:

During construction, the contractor shall implement dust control measures including use of water or 

dust suppressing chemicals to avoid unnecessary safety or health concerns.

9.0 Environmental Commitments

During the design process, consideration was given to avoid impacts where possible while minimizing 

impacts where practicable. For those impacts that cannot be avoided, mitigation measures will be 

implemented. In some cases, mitigation is only a commitment to complete additional steps prior to or 

during construction. Mitigation commitments are the responsibility of ACWR. Below is a list of mitigation 

items required for the Proposed Action.

Water Quality – Due to ACWR HQ Storage Yard location within a Water Supply Watershed, land 

development will require a 30-foot buffer around any watercourse (low density), more stringent 

erosion and sediment controls, and implementation of BMPs. The ACWR HQ Storage Yard design also 

includes a 30-foot buffer around the wetlands on the site. In accordance with the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), ACWR will comply by incorporating temporary erosion and 
16 | P a g e

Finding of No Significant Impact

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

September 2022

sedimentation controls during construction to minimize the release of sediment into nearby water 

sources. Post-construction, permanent stormwater management systems will be in place at Mint Hill 

Storage Yard and ACWR HQ Storage Yard to comply with NPDES regulations for disturbance over ten 

(10) acres. 

Watercourses – Avoidance and minimization efforts have been incorporated into the current design,

including a 30-foot buffer around all regulated resources. Impacts have been minimized to the extent 

practicable. 

The regional conditions for the USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP 39, NWP 14) stipulate that mitigation 

and pre-construction notification may be required for any activity resulting in the loss of more than 

0.02 acre of stream bed. In final design, ACWR will conduct a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination 

(PJD) with the USACE as well as determine minimization efforts; final impacts; mitigation 

requirements; and, if necessary, mitigation banking options. ACWR will be responsible for obtaining 

the necessary permits prior to construction. Permitting for the Proposed Action would include USACE 

Section 404 approval (NWP 14 linear feature, NWP 39 for storage yard, warehouse) and NC DEQ 401 

Water Quality Certification approval. Permitting would take place during final design.

Threatened and Endangered Species – Based on the USFWS Asheville Office concurrence letter dated 

September 8, 2022, ACWR will conduct all tree removal between October 15 and April 1 of any given 

year, outside the active bat season, to reduce impacts to bats.

Noise – Best practices to minimize construction equipment noise require for regular and thorough 

maintenance procedures for all construction equipment. Replacement of failing or ineffective 

muffling and exhaust systems, periodic lubrication of moving parts, and properly tuned engines are 

necessary in order to keep construction equipment noise emissions to a minimum. Proper scheduling 

and implementation of duration limits for the noisiest construction events can reduce the severity of 

noise impacts during the construction phase.

Air Quality – During construction, the contractor shall implement dust-control measures, including 

the use of water or dust-suppressing chemicals, to avoid unnecessary safety or health concerns. 

Hazardous Waste – Should contaminated materials be encountered, all materials will be disposed of 

properly and in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations, including, for example, 

42 U.S.C. Chapter 103 - CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 82, Section 6901 RCRA, and North Carolina General 

Statutes Chapter 130A, Public Health Section 130A-310.10.

Public Safety – Construction documents will include requirements to coordinate with property 

owners prior to work taking place at the three private crossings within the Study Area.
10.0 Conclusion 

FRA finds that the Preferred Alternative, as presented and assessed in the EA and this FONSI, satisfies the 

requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) and CEQ regulations (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508), 23 C.F.R. 

Parts 771 and 774, and that the Proposed Action will not have a foreseeable significant impact on the 

quality of human.or natural environment following the implementation of mitigation measures. The EA 

provides sufficient evidence and analysis for FRA to determine that an Environmental Impact Statement 

is not required for the Preferred Alternative as presented. 

Marlys Osterhues 

Acting Director, Office of Environmental Program Management 

Office of Railroad Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Aberdeen Ca rol ina & Western Railway - Congestion Mitigation Project 

September 2022 

RPD-220921-001 

171 Page 
Appendices
Appendix A

Environmental Assessment

Notice of Availability
Environmental Assessment 

Public Review of 

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project 

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway (ACWR) 

is proposing to use Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) Consolidated Rail 

Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) 

Program and Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Funding (RRIF) to administer a 

congestion mitigation project (the Proposed 

Action). Due to the use of federal funds, the 

Proposed Action must comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969. To document the Proposed Action and its 

effects on the natural, cultural, and social 

environment, FRA has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA). The Proposed 

Action includes the construction of new 

facilities at five (5) locations. The five sites 

include three (3) storage and passing sidings, 

two (2) storage and switching yards, and one 

(1) warehouse. All construction activities

would take place within existing ACWR railroad

right-of-way or on land owned by ACWR.

The EA was prepared in accordance with the 

requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act and other federal laws including 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(f) of 

the Department of Transportation Action, and 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The EA is now available for 

review and comment at 

https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/enviro

nmental-reviews/aberdeen-carolina-andwestern-railway-congestion-mitigation. 

Comments should be submitted by August 31, 

2022 to Kevin Wright, FRA Environmental 

Specialist, at kevin.wright@dot.gov.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

Account # Order Number Identification Order PO Amount Cols Depth

16797 298226 Print Legal Ad - IPL0083819 $568.14 1 50 L

Attention: Jan Dickey

ABERDEEN CAROLINA & WESTERN RAILWAY

967 NC HWY 211 E

CANDOR, NC 27229

North Carolina } ss

Mecklenburg County }

Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said

County and State, duly authorized to administer

oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,

being duly sworn or affirmed according to law,

doth depose and say that he/she is a

representative of The Charlotte Observer

Publishing Company, a corporation organized and

doing business under the laws of the State of

Delaware, and publishing a newspaper known as

The Charlotte Observer in the city of Charlotte,

County of Mecklenburg, and State of North

Carolina and that as such he/she is familiar with

the books, records, files, and business of said

Corporation and by reference to the files of said

publication, the attached advertisement was

inserted. The following is correctly copied from

the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation

and Publication.

No. of Insertions: 1

Beginning Issue of: 08/03/2022

Ending Issue of: 08/03/2022

In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my hand

and affixed my seal on the 3rd day of August,2022

Notary Public in and for the state of Texas, residing in

Dallas County

Extra charge for lost or duplicate affidavits.

Legal document please do not destroy!

h~JvicCLATCHY 

Environmental Assessment 

Public Review of 

ACWR Congestion Mitigation 

Project 

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway 

(ACWR) is proposing to use Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety 

Improvements (CRISI) Program and 

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Funding (RRIF) to administer 

a congestion mitigation project (the 

Proposed Action). Due to the use of 

federal funds, the Proposed Action 

must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. 

To document the Proposed Action and 

its effects on the natural, cultural, and 

social environment, FRA has prepared 

an Environmental Assessment (EA). 

The Proposed Action includes the 

construction of new facilities at five (5) 

locations. The five sites include three 

(3) storage and passing sidings, two 

(2) storage and switching yards, and 

one (1) warehouse. All construction 

activities would take place within existing ACWR railroad right-of-way or 

on land owned by ACWR. 

The EA was prepared in accordance 

with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and other 

federal laws including Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act, Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, Section 4(1) 

of the Department of Transportation 

Action, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The 

EA is now available for review and 

comment at https://railroads.dot.gov/ 

environmenVenvironmental-reviews/ 

aberdeen-carolina-and-western-rai lway-congestion-mitigation. Comments should be submitted by August 

31 , 2022 to Kevin Wright, FRA Environmental Specialist, at kevin.wright@ 

dot.gov. 

IPL0083819 

Aug 3 2022 

Beaufort Gazette 

Belleville Nev1S-Democrat 

Bellingham Herald 

Bradenton Herald 

Centre Daily Time-s 

Charlotte Observer 

Columbus Ledger-Enquirer 

Fresno Bee 

The Herald - Rock Hill 

Herald Sun - Durham 

Idaho Statesman 

Island Packet 

Kansas City Star 

Lexington Herald-Leader 

Merced Sun-Star 

Miami Herald 

el Nuevo Herald - Miami 

Modesto Bee 

Raleigh Ne-.vs & Observer 

The Olympian 

Sacramento Beae 

Fort Worth Star-Telegram 

The State - Columbia 

Sun Herald - Biloxi 

Sun N;;,,vs - Myrtle Beach 

The News Tribune Tacoma 

The Telegraph - Macon 

San Luis Obispo Tribune 

Tri-City Herald 

Wichita Eagle 

'7) .I 

\C((1CLt~ 

SJEfNf scorr11BRD 

~tfdllylDII fr8f7UH1 

~OddlilN'23.2012 
1

Bair, Laura C

From: Bair, Laura C

Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 6:39 PM

To: Bair, Laura C

Subject: Notice of Availability - ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project - Environmental 

Assessment

On behalf of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the following Notice of Availability for the ACWR Congestion 

Mitigation Project Environmental Assessment is below. All comments should be directed to Kevin Wright FRA 

Environmental Specialist, at kevin.wright@dot.gov. Thank you. 

Environmental Assessment 

Public Review of 

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project 

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway (ACWR) is proposing to use Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Consolidated 

Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program and Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Funding 

(RRIF) to administer a congestion mitigation project (the Proposed Action). Due to the use of federal funds, the 

Proposed Action must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. To document the Proposed 

Action and its effects on the natural, cultural, and social environment, FRA has prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA). The Proposed Action includes the construction of new facilities at five (5) locations. The five sites include three (3) 

storage and passing sidings, two (2) storage and switching yards, and one (1) warehouse. All construction activities 

would take place within existing ACWR railroad right-of-way or on land owned by ACWR. 

The EA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal 

laws including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Action, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The EA is now available 

for review and comment at https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/environmental-reviews/aberdeen-carolina-andwestern-railway-congestion-mitigation. Comments should be submitted by August 31, 2022 to Kevin Wright, FRA 

Environmental Specialist, at kevin.wright@dot.gov. 

Laura Bair 

Senior Project Manager I NEPA 

Skelly and Loy, Inc., A Terracon Company

449 Eisenhower Boulevard, Suite 300 I Harrisburg, PA 17111 

D (717) 510 7711 I C (717) 514 9471

lbair@skellyloy.com I skellyloy.com I terracon.com

A erracon Company 
EA Public Notice of Availability – email distribution list 

Federal, State, and Local agencies that received the email notice sent July 29, 2022. 

Agency Federal 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV 

National Park Service (NPS) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Catawba Tribe 

Cherokee Tribe State 

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NC DNCR) 

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Local 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission 

Mecklenburg County 

Cabarrus County 

Montgomery County 

Moore County Planning and Transportation Director 
Appendix B

Environmental Assessment

Comments and Responses
1 | P a g e

Agency Comments and Reponses 

Comments were received from four (4) agencies (two separate USFWS field offices). Responses to the 

comments are provided below. Original copies of agency letters or emails are provided following the 

comments and responses.

Scott Jones, Chief

Asheville and Charlotte Regulatory Field Offices

USACE – Wilmington District

Comment

You requested an evaluation of environmental considerations to jurisdictional waters of the United States 

(WoUS) that could involve Department of Army (DA) permitting for the above-mentioned project. Under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), DA authority regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into 

WoUS. This evaluation is not a jurisdictional determination of WoUS located in the project area(s). 

The Corps’ evaluation is based upon review of the documents submitted by the Federal Railroad 

Administration, available aerial photos, USGS topographic maps, and the Corps’ project database. Far 

Branch, unnamed tributaries, and abutting wetlands are known to be located in the proposed project 

area. These features are potential WoUS and could be DA jurisdictional features under section 404 of the 

CWA. No request for a jurisdictional determination of WoUS at the site has been submitted to the Corps. 

Therefore, the limits and extent of jurisdictional WoUS at the site has not been defined. If activities at the 

site will involve placement of fill material into WoUS, then DA authorization will be required prior to 

starting the proposed activities. 

Please note, the information submitted did not provide detailed data or other information necessary to 

verify the size and type of impacts to jurisdictional waters present within the project corridors/areas. The 

type of DA authorization required (i.e., general or individual permit) will be determined by the location, 

type, and extent of jurisdictional areas impacted by the work, and by the project design and construction 

limits.

Response

Thank you for your comments. As the project moves into final design and permitting, coordination 

with the USACE will continue, including a request for a jurisdictional determination should WoUS 

be impacted by the project design and construction limits.

Laurie F. Muzzy

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service

Comment

If this email is a request for a Farmland Protection Policy Act review from the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, please see the attached document for FPPA procedures. And let me know if you or 

your colleagues have any questions. Thank you!

Response

FRA has completed FPPA coordination for this project as noted in EA Section 4.2.3 Farmland 

Resources and Appendix B – USDA NRCS Coordination. Thank you for your comment.
2 | P a g e

Lauren Wilson

USFWS, Asheville Field Office

Comment

Mint Hill Siding & Mint Hill Warehouse (Mecklenburg County)

If suitable habitat is present on site and surveys, conducted within the optimal survey window, do not 

detect the species, we recommend an effect determination of NLAA for species with low detectability. 

For this project, this would apply to Schweinitz's sunflower, Michaux's sumac, and smooth coneflower.

You used the 4d rule for NLEB. On March 23, 2022, the Service published a proposal to reclassify the 

northern long-eared bat as endangered under the Act. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

has ordered the Service to complete a new final listing determination for the northern long-eared bat by 

November 2022 (Case 1:15-cv-00477, March 1, 2021). The bat, currently listed as threatened, faces 

extinction due to the range-wide impacts of white-nose syndrome, a deadly fungal disease affecting cavedwelling bats across the continent. The proposed reclassification, if finalized, would remove the current 

4(d) rule for the northern long-eared bat, as these rules may be applied only to threatened 

species. Depending on the type of effects a project has on northern long-eared bats, the change in the 

species’ status may trigger the need to re-initiate consultation for any actions that are not completed and 

for which the Federal action agency retains discretion once the new listing determination becomes 

effective (anticipated to occur by December 30, 2022). If your project may result in incidental take of 

northern long-eared bat after the new listing goes into effect this will first need to be addressed in an 

updated consultation that includes an incidental take statement. If your project may require re-initiation 

of consultation, please contact our office for additional guidance.

Midland Siding (Cabarras County)

If suitable habitat is present on site and surveys, conducted within the optimal survey window, do not 

detect the species, we recommend an effect determination of NLAA for species with low detectability. 

For this project, this would apply to Schweinitz's sunflower.

You used the 4d rule for NLEB. See notes under Mint Hill sites.

Comments on the EA

Page 31: 

"Based on the historic and current land use activities, the lack of documented populations, and the lack 

of suitable habitat observed during the field investigations, FRA determined that there would be “no 

effect” on the Schweinitz’s Sunflower (see Figure 8), Carolina Heelsplitter, Michaux’s Sumac, Smooth 

Coneflower, Cape Fear Shiner, Atlantic Pigtoe, and the Red-cockaded Woodpecker." 

This sentence is misleading. Suitable habitat is present for the 3 plants but not the mussels. I would break 

this into at least 2 sentences.
3 | P a g e

Pg 31/32 NLEB Discussion: 

"A biological conclusion of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect”, was recommended per the 4(d) 

rules." The 4d PBO does not distinguish between NLAA and LAA determinations so this appears to be 

inaccurate. Presumably FRA made the recommendation, not the 4d rule. 

The materials in Appendix D do not support the NLAA conclusion these paragraphs use. If you did conclude 

NLAA, you wouldn't have needed the 4d rule and you would have needed to send your package to the 

Raleigh ES FO per their self-certification letter, which does not appear to have been done. Plus, 3 of the 

sites are not in the Raleigh ES FO work area so that process wouldn't apply. If you are clearing trees during 

the bat active season and IPAC identifies NLEB as within your consultation area, you need to show the 

species isn't present to conclude NLAA. The materials in the EA do not show this.

You can just change the two paragraphs to a "may affect" conclusion only and keep using the 4d PBO. If 

you do this, I recommend adding a portion of the language above about the uplisting decision for NLEB 

and the potential need to re-initiate. If you stick with this approach, you may need to re-initiate so look 

for guidance from the Service in the Fall and check IPAC for NLEB range updates.

Response

A conference call was held with the USFWS Asheville Office on August 26, 2022 to discuss these

comments. The following items were discussed, agreed upon, and submitted to the USFWS 

Asheville Office for concurrence on August 30, 2022.

Plants

As discussed, the effect determinations for the plants (Smooth Coneflower, Michaux’s Sumac, 

Schweinitz's Sunflower) have been updated from “no effect” to “may affect, not likely to adversely 

affect”. Based on USFWS Asheville concurrence letter dated September 8, 2022, this change will 

not require mitigation due to the optimal survey window negative survey results. 

NLEB

As discussed, the effect determination was changed from “may affect, not likely to adversely 

affect” to “may affect” relaying on the 4d rule. According to the USFWS Asheville concurrence 

letter dated September 8, 2022:

“There is suitable habitat in the three action areas for the northern long-eared bat. Based on 

the following, we believe the effects of the project on northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis) would be discountable and would concur with a determination that the project 

may affect but is NLAA the northern long-eared bat: 1) there are no known records of northern 

long-eared bat in Mecklenburg or Cabarrus Counties and the nearest known occurrence is 60 

miles from the nearest action area, 2) the action area is outside the current range of the species, 

3) northern long-eared bats have never been detected in the western portion of the Piedmont 

ecoregion in North Carolina, and 4) Mecklenburg and Cabarrus County do not adjoin a county 

with a known occurrence record for the species. Your concurrence request and the 

Environmental Assessment prepared for this project use the final 4(d) rule for the northern longeared bat and make a conclusion of “may affect” per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) 

2016 Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule. As we have provided concurrence 

with a NLAA determination above, section 7 consultation would not need to be reinitiated if the 

proposed rule to uplist the northern long-eared bat becomes final and the 4(d) rule no longer 

applies.”
4 | P a g e

The USFWS Asheville Office concurrence letter is provided in this appendix. 

A field evaluation was conducted on September 29 and October 4, 2021 by Terracon biologists JC Weaver, 

Conner Miller, and Chaz Ganey to identify potentially suitable habitat for federally threatened and 

endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The following findings have been 

made or revised for the three sites in the Asheville Field Office region – Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage 

Yard and Warehouse and Midland Siding.

Species Conclusion Determination Documentation 

Northern Long 

Eared Bat

Suitable summer 

habitat May affect

Relying upon the findings of the 1/5/2016 

Programmatic Biological Opinion for Final 4(d) Rule 

on the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities 

Excepted from Take Prohibitions to fulfill projectspecific section 7 responsibilities.

Carolina 

Heelsplitter

No suitable habitat 

present

No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon biologists found 

no suitable habitat.

Atlantic Pigtoe No suitable habitat 

present

No effect Habitat assessment by Terracon biologists found 

no suitable habitat.

Smooth 

Coneflower

Suitable habitat 

present

May affect, not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Species-specific survey (within species survey 

window) by Terracon biologists did not observe the 

species or evidence of the species.

Michaux’s Sumac Suitable habitat 

present

May affect, not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Species-specific survey (within species survey 

window) by Terracon biologists did not observe the 

species or evidence of the species.

Schweinitz's 

Sunflower

Suitable habitat 

present

May affect, not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Species-specific survey (within species survey 

window) by Terracon biologists did not observe the 

species or evidence of the species.

Kathryn Matthews

USFWS, Raleigh Field Office

Comment

The Raleigh Field Office concurs with your species determinations for the two sites in our office work 

area. Thank you for using our online project review and self-certification process. If the NLEB is 

reclassified as endangered, no further action will be needed for the sites in Montgomery or Moore 

Counties, since neither county is within the known range of the species.

Response

Thank you for your concurrence. 
5 | P a g e

Renee Bartos

State Historic Preservation Officer

Comment

Thank you for your notice of July 29, 2022, concerning the above-referenced undertaking. We have 

reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments. 

We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be 

affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. 

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 

CFR Part 800. 

 

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, 

contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or 

environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the 

above referenced tracking number.

Response

Thank you for your concurrence.
 August 2, 2022

SUBJECT: Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway Congestion Mitigation Project – 

Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore Counties, North Carolina 

(SAW-2022-01665)

Mr. Kevin Wright

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wright, 

Reference is made to your email and attachments of July 29, 2022, for conductance 

of an environmental review pursuant to use Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program and 

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Funding (RRIF) to administer a congestion 

mitigation project known as the Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway (ACWR) 

Congestion Mitigation Project. The project location consists of five separate sites along 

an existing 140-mile railroad right-of-way owned by AWCR in Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, 

Montgomery, and Moore Counties, North Carolina. 

You requested an evaluation of environmental considerations to jurisdictional waters 

of the United States (WoUS) that could involve Department of Army (DA) permitting for 

the above-mentioned project. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), DA 

authority regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into WoUS. This evaluation is not 

a jurisdictional determination of WoUS located in the project area(s). 

The Corps’ evaluation is based upon review of the documents submitted by the 

Federal Railroad Administration, available aerial photos, USGS topographic maps, and 

the Corps’ project database. Far Branch, unnamed tributaries, and abutting wetlands 

are known to be located in the proposed project area. These features are potential 

WoUS and could be DA jurisdictional features under section 404 of the CWA. No 

request for a jurisdictional determination of WoUS at the site has been submitted to the 

Corps. Therefore, the limits and extent of jurisdictional WoUS at the site has not been 

defined. If activities at the site will involve placement of fill material into WoUS, then DA 

authorization will be required prior to starting the proposed activities. 

-2- 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

151 PATTON AVENUE

ROOM 208

ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
Please note, the information submitted did not provide detailed data or other 

information necessary to verify the size and type of impacts to jurisdictional waters 

present within the project corridors/areas. The type of DA authorization required (i.e., 

general or individual permit) will be determined by the location, type, and extent of 

jurisdictional areas impacted by the work, and by the project design and construction 

limits. 

Should you have any further questions related to this matter, please contact me at 

828-271-7980, extension 4222.

Sincerely,

 

 

 M. Scott Jones, PWS

Chief, Asheville Regulatory Field Office

cc: 

Laura Bair

Senior Project Manager

Skelly and Loy, Incorporated

A Terracon Company

449 Eisenhower Boulevard, Suite 300

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111

lbair@skellyloy.com

 
1

Bair, Laura C

From: Muzzy, Laura - FPAC-NRCS, RALEIGH, NC <Laura.Muzzy@usda.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 7:26 AM

To: Bair, Laura C

Subject: RE: [External Email]Notice of Availability - ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project - 

Environmental Assessment

Attachments: FPPA Procedure for Applicants NRCS-NC.pdf

Hello, Laura, 

If this email is a request for a Farmland Protection Policy Act review from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

please see the attached document for FPPA procedures. And let me know if you or your colleagues have any questions. 

Thank you! 

best, 

Laurie F. Muzzy 

Resource Soil Scientist | USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(919) 873-2158 

4407 Bland Road, suite #117 

Raleigh, NC 27609 

From: Bair, Laura C <lbair@skellyloy.com> 

Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 6:39 PM 

To: Bair, Laura C <lbair@skellyloy.com> 

Subject: [External Email]Notice of Availability - ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project - Environmental Assessment 

[External Email] 

If this message comes from an unexpected sender or references a vague/unexpected topic; 

Use caution before clicking links or opening attachments. 

Please send any concerns or suspicious messages to: Spam.Abuse@usda.gov 

On behalf of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the following Notice of Availability for the ACWR Congestion 

Mitigation Project Environmental Assessment is below. All comments should be directed to Kevin Wright FRA 

Environmental Specialist, at kevin.wright@dot.gov. Thank you. 

Environmental Assessment 

Public Review of 

ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project 

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway (ACWR) is proposing to use Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Consolidated 

Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program and Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Funding 

(RRIF) to administer a congestion mitigation project (the Proposed Action). Due to the use of federal funds, the 

Proposed Action must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. To document the Proposed 

Action and its effects on the natural, cultural, and social environment, FRA has prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA). The Proposed Action includes the construction of new facilities at five (5) locations. The five sites include three (3) 

storage and passing sidings, two (2) storage and switching yards, and one (1) warehouse. All construction activities 

would take place within existing ACWR railroad right-of-way or on land owned by ACWR. 
2

The EA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal 

laws including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Action, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The EA is now available 

for review and comment at https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/environmental-reviews/aberdeen-carolina-andwestern-railway-congestion-mitigation. Comments should be submitted by August 31, 2022 to Kevin Wright, FRA 

Environmental Specialist, at kevin.wright@dot.gov. 

Laura Bair 

Senior Project Manager I NEPA 

Skelly and Loy, Inc., A Terracon Company

449 Eisenhower Boulevard, Suite 300 I Harrisburg, PA 17111 

D (717) 510 7711 I C (717) 514 9471

lbair@skellyloy.com I skellyloy.com I terracon.com

Terracon provides environmental, facilities, geotechnical, and materials consulting engineering services delivered with 

responsiveness, resourcefulness, and reliability. 

Private and confidential as detailed here (www.terracon.com/disclaimer). If you cannot access the hyperlink, please e-mail 

sender. 

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any 

unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and 

subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the 

sender and delete the email immediately. 

A erracon1 Company 
1

Bair, Laura C

From: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 11:39 AM

To: Bair, Laura C

Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Notice of Availability - ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project - 

Environmental Assessment

Attachments: _22-204_Scoping_FRA_Aberdeen, Carolina & Western RailRoad Development EA.pdf

Kevin A. Wright 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

202-868-2628 

From: Wilson, Lauren B <lauren_wilson@fws.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 8:39:55 AM 

To: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov> 

Cc: Matthews, Kathryn H <kathryn_matthews@fws.gov> 

Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Notice of Availability - ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project - Environmental Assessment 

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links 

or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Kevin - I reviewed the EA and Appendix D as requested in Laura Blair's email below. Myself and Kathryn Matthews, 

cc'd, in the Raleigh Office, reviewed this project in December 2021 when we sent a scoping letter to Andrea Martin 

(attached for convenience). 

The five sites in the EA overlap both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville (3 sites) and Raleigh (2 sites) Ecological 

Services Fields Offices. When this happens, FRA is free to complete coordination and section 7 consultation typically with 

just one office and then we, in turn, coordinate with each other on a response. In this case, based on how you completed 

the section 7 consultation, that coordination between Raleigh and Asheville did not occur. I did forward your original 

request to Kathy Matthews in Raleigh. You'll hear from her separately. 

Appendix D shows that FRA followed consultation processes only applicable to the Raleigh ES FO. That being said, if FRA 

concludes No Effect, no further section 7 coordination is required. Below are some notes for each of the three sites in my 

work area. 

I do recommend that all future FRA projects that may affect the NLEB use the National FHWA/FRA/FTA PBO. Information 

on that consultation pathway can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species/bat-consultationconservation-strategy. 

Feel free to call to discuss. I know some of this is confusing. lbw 

Mint Hill Siding & Mint Hill Warehouse (Mecklenburg County) - 

 If suitable habitat is present on site and surveys, conducted within the optimal survey window, do not detect the 

species, we recommend an effect determination of NLAA for species with low detectability. For this 

project, this would apply to Schweinitz's sunflower, Michaux's sumac, and smooth coneflower. 
2

 You used the 4d rule for NLEB. On March 23, 2022, the Service published a proposal to reclassify the northern 

long-eared bat as endangered under the Act. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ordered the 

Service to complete a new final listing determination for the northern long-eared bat by November 2022 (Case 

1:15-cv-00477, March 1, 2021). The bat, currently listed as threatened, faces extinction due to the range-wide 

impacts of white-nose syndrome, a deadly fungal disease affecting cave-dwelling bats across the continent. The 

proposed reclassification, if finalized, would remove the current 4(d) rule for the northern long-eared bat, as 

these rules may be applied only to threatened species. Depending on the type of effects a project has on 

northern long-eared bats, the change in the species’ status may trigger the need to re-initiate consultation for any 

actions that are not completed and for which the Federal action agency retains discretion once the new listing 

determination becomes effective (anticipated to occur by December 30, 2022). If your project may result in 

incidental take of northern long-eared bat after the new listing goes into effect this will first need to be addressed 

in an updated consultation that includes an incidental take statement. If your project may require re-initiation of 

consultation, please contact our office for additional guidance. 

 Midland Siding (Cabarrus County) - 

 If suitable habitat is present on site and surveys, conducted within the optimal survey window, do not detect the 

species, we recommend an effect determination of NLAA for species with low detectability. For this project, this 

would apply to Schweinitz's sunflower. 

 You used the 4d rule for NLEB. See notes under Mint Hill sites. 

Comments on the EA - 

1. Page 31: "Based on the historic and current land use activities, the lack of documented populations, and the lack of 

suitable habitat observed during the field investigations, FRA determined that there would be “no effect” on the 

Schweinitz’s Sunflower (see Figure 8), Carolina Heelsplitter, Michaux’s Sumac, Smooth Coneflower, Cape Fear 

Shiner, Atlantic Pigtoe, and the Red-cockaded Woodpecker."

a. This sentence is misleading. Suitable habitat is present for the 3 plants but not the mussels. I would break 

this into at least 2 sentences. 

2. Pg 31/32 NLEB Discussion: 

a. "A biological conclusion of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect”, was recommended per the 4(d) 

rules." The 4d PBO does not distinguish between NLAA and LAA determinations so this appears to be 

inaccurate. Presumably FRA made the recommendation, not the 4d rule. 

b. The materials in Appendix D do not support the NLAA conclusion these paragraphs use. If you did 

conclude NLAA, you wouldn't have needed the 4d rule and you would have needed to send your package 

to the Raleigh ES FO per their self-certification letter, which does not appear to have been done. Plus, 3 of 

the sites are not in the Raleigh ES FO work area so that process wouldn't apply. If you are clearing trees 

during the bat active season and IPAC identifies NLEB as within your consultation area, you need to show 

the species isn't present to conclude NLAA. The materials in the EA do not show this. 

c. You can just change the two paragraphs to a "may affect" conclusion only and keep using the 4d PBO. If 

you do this, I recommend adding a portion of the language above about the uplisting decision for NLEB 

and the potential need to re-initiate. If you stick with this approach, you may need to re-initiate so look 

for guidance from the Service in the Fall and check IPAC for NLEB range updates. 

Lauren B. Wilson

Section 7 Biologist, NCDOT Liaison, ARM, CWB®

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Ecological Services Field Office

160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 

lauren_wilson@fws.gov 

828.275.8525

(she/her) (Why pronouns matter)
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Asheville Field Office 

160 Zillicoa Street Suite B 

Asheville, North Carolina 28801 

September 08, 2022 

Kevin A. Wright 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Informal Consultation for Aberdeen, Carolina & Western Railroad Development in Mecklenburg 

and Cabarrus Counties (FWS Log No. 22-204) 

Dear Kevin A. Wright: 

On August 30, 2022, we received (via e-mail) your request for informal consultation and section 7 

concurrence on effects the subject project may have on federally listed species within the Asheville 

Ecological Services Field Office (ESFO) work area. We have reviewed the information you submitted 

along with a scoping letter we sent on December 13, 2021, and notes from a phone call with you on 

August 26, 2022, and the following is provided in accordance with the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 - 1543) (Act). 

Project Description 

According to the information provided, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is providing financial 

assistance to Aberdeen, Carolina & Western Railway (ACWR) to construct passing and storage sidings, 

storage yards, and a new warehouse to address congestion issues on the existing railroad in Mecklenburg, 

Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore Counties. The project includes construction in five locations between 

Mint Hill and Samarcand, North Carolina. Only three locations (below) are within the Asheville ESFO 

work area and are the subject of this concurrence letter. The Raleigh ESFO concurred with FRA’s 

species determinations for the other two sites separately in an e-mail dated August 26, 2022. 

Mint Hill Siding – Work will be completed along the existing rail line within the 200-foot rightof-way which has a cleared zone of approximately 50 feet. Tree clearing and ground disturbance 

will be necessary on forested lands. 

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse – Construction will include new storage track spurs, a 

warehouse, and impervious surfaces within a 66-acre property. Tree clearing and ground 

disturbance will be necessary. The project location includes undeveloped, forested land with 

known wetlands. 

Midland Siding – Work will be completed along the existing rail line within the existing right-ofway that extends up to about 200 feet. Tree clearing and ground disturbance will be necessary. 

Work includes the extension of an existing culvert for Far Branch and 2:1 slope construction. 

 

~E.NT OF 1i 

,;~ "''('. 

"! . :::, :u 

. . 
2 

Federally Listed Species

Your concurrence request provides a recent and complete list of species that may occur within the three 

action areas per our Information for Planning and Consultation website and an effect determination for 

each species. 

The information provided states that suitable habitat for Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), 

smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) is present in the action 

area; however, Terracon biologists did not observe the species during surveys within the optimal survey 

windows. Based on negative results of visual surveys, we concur with the FRA that the project may 

affect but is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) Schweinitz’s sunflower, smooth coneflower, or 

Michaux’s sumac. Based on negative survey results, we do not recommend mitigation for these species. 

There is suitable habitat in the three action areas for the northern long-eared bat. Based on the following, 

we believe the effects of the project on northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) would be 

discountable and would concur with a determination that the project may affect but is NLAA the northern 

long-eared bat: 1) there are no known records of northern long-eared bat in Mecklenburg or Cabarrus 

Counties and the nearest known occurrence is 60 miles from the nearest action area, 2) the action area is 

outside the current range of the species, 3) northern long-eared bats have never been detected in the 

western portion of the Piedmont ecoregion in North Carolina, and 4) Mecklenburg and Cabarrus County 

do not adjoin a county with a known occurrence record for the species. Your concurrence request and the 

Environmental Assessment prepared for this project use the final 4(d) rule for the northern long-eared bat 

and make a conclusion of “may affect” per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) 2016 

Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule. As we have provided concurrence with a 

NLAA determination above, section 7 consultation would not need to be reinitiated if the proposed rule to 

uplist the northern long-eared bat becomes final and the 4(d) rule no longer applies. 

Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) are at-risk species and 

monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a candidate species. These species may occur in Mecklenburg 

and/or Cabarrus County. At-risk and candidate species are not legally protected under the Act and are not 

subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened. The Service is expected to make a listing determination on these species in the 

near future. While lead federal agencies are not prohibited from jeopardizing the continued existence of 

an at-risk, candidate, or proposed species unless the species becomes listed, the prohibition against 

jeopardy and taking a listed species under section 9 of the Act applies as soon as a listing becomes 

effective, regardless of the stage of completion of the proposed action. We include this notification to 

make you aware of these species‘ current status and potential occurrence within the action area. 

Conservation Recommendations 

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the 

Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. 

Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of 

a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop 

information. 

• Remove trees between October 15 and April 1 of any given year, outside the bat active season to 

reduce impacts to bats. If this is not possible, we encourage avoidance of the maternity season 

(May 15 – August 15), and/or spring migration period (April 1 to May 15), and/or fall migration 

period (August 15 – October 15). 
3 

For the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed 

species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation 

recommendations. 

Reinitiation Notice 

We believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled for the federally listed species 

discussed above. However, obligations under section 7 must be reconsidered if: (1) new information 

reveals impacts of this proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not 

previously considered, (2) this proposed action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not 

considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed, or critical habitat is determined that may be 

affected by the proposed action. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Ms. Lauren B. Wilson of our 

staff at lauren_wilson@fws.gov if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning this 

project, please reference our Log Number 22-204. 

Sincerely, 

 

 - - original signed - - 

 

Janet Mizzi 

Field Supervisor 
1

Bair, Laura C

From: Matthews, Kathryn H <kathryn_matthews@fws.gov>

Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 1:09 PM

To: Wright, Kevin (FRA); Wilson, Lauren B

Cc: Bair, Laura C

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Notice of Availability - ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project - 

Environmental Assessment

Hi Kevin, 

The Raleigh Field Office concurs with your species determinations for the two sites in our office work 

area. Thank you for using our online project review and self-certification process. If the NLEB is reclassified 

as endangered, no further action will be needed for the sites in Montgomery or Moore Counties, since neither 

county is within the known range of the species. 

Have a good weekend, 

Please note that I am teleworking Wednesday through Friday, every week. Email is the best way to reach 

me. Thanks,

Kathy Matthews 

NC Renewable Energy Coordinator & 

Fish and Wildlife Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

551-F Pylon Drive 

Raleigh, NC 27606 

919-856-4520, x. 27 

From: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov> 

Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 10:23 AM 

To: Wilson, Lauren B <lauren_wilson@fws.gov> 

Cc: Matthews, Kathryn H <kathryn_matthews@fws.gov>; Bair, Laura C <lbair@skellyloy.com> 

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Notice of Availability - ACWR Congestion Mitigation Project - Environmental Assessment 

 

Hi Kathryn, 

 

Just wanted to follow up on Lauren’s email below and see if you had a chance to take a look at the EA? Happy to set up a 

meeting if there is anything you’d like to discuss. 

 

Thanks, 

 

Kevin

 

Kevin A. Wright 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

202-868-2628 

 
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources

State Historic Preservation Office

Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator

Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History 

Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 814-6570/814-6898

August 29, 2022 

Kevin Wright kevin.wright@dot.gov 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Re: New siding and storage yard construction along the Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway, 

multiple locations identified using coordinates, Multiple Counties, ER 20-1193 

Dear Mr. Wright: 

Thank you for your notice of July 29, 2022, concerning the above-referenced undertaking. We have 

reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments. 

We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected 

by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. 

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 

CFR Part 800. 

 

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, 

contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 

or environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the 

above referenced tracking number. 

Sincerely, 

 

Ramona Bartos, Deputy 

State Historic Preservation Officer