20240407 Ver 1_More Info Received_20240506

Chandler, Rebecca D
From: Johnson, Ron <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 8:37 AM
To: Lawrence, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Chandler, Rebecca D
Cc: Owens, Jackson; [e-mail]
Subject: [External] RE: SAW-2024-00546 - Request for Additional Information
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Jennifer and Rebecca
It is our understanding that Norfolk Southern will perform this project with a track outage. They will close the track and
replace the existing 5 culverts with the three lines of box culverts. They are planning to remove a few pipe culverts,
divert the water to the remaining pipe culverts, and install one line of the box culverts. they will redivert the water into
the new box culvert and remove the remaining pipe culverts and install the 2 other lines of box culverts.
The water will be diverted using sandbags or something similar. They are anticipating that there will be about 50 sq ft of
temporary impacts from the diversion.
Ron Johnson
Senior Biologist
M [phone]
ron.iohnson(oaecom.com
AECOM
5438 Wade Park Boulevard
Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, USA
T [phone]
aecom.com
Delivering a Better World
Linkedln Twitter Facebook Instagram
From: Lawrence, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 9:06 AM
To: Johnson, Ron <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2024-00546 - Request for Additional Information
Ron,
Can you add in dewatering impacts? I think the state will need that to qualify for their 401.
Jennifer Lawrence, PWS (she/her)
Regulatory Specialist, Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, NC 28262

Email: [e-mail]
Cell: [phone]
From: Johnson, Ron <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:34 AM
To: Lawrence, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D <[e-mail]>; Owens, Jackson <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2024-00546 - Request for Additional Information
Jennifer,
Yes — I believe that is the correct impact calculations.
Ron Johnson
Senior Biologist
M [phone]
ron [e-mail]
AECOM
5438 Wade Park Boulevard
Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, USA
T [phone]
aecom.com
Delivering a Better World
Linkedln Twitter Facebook Instagram
From: Lawrence, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 3:02 PM
To: Johnson, Ron <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D <[e-mail]>; Owens, Jackson <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: SAW-2024-00546 - Request for Additional Information
Apologies, I have a typo that I fixed in red below.
From: Lawrence, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 2:55 PM
To: Johnson, Ron <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D <[e-mail]>; Owens, Jackson <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: SAW-2024-00546 - Request for Additional Information
With the new size details and stream width updates we discussed, I want to make sure that I understand the impacts to
the wetted channel before I issue the provisional NWP14. Please verify the impacts below. Please also add in temporary
impacts for dewatering.
Culvert installation- permanent loss impacts of 0.018 Ac (13 x 601-F)

Rip rap bank stabilization- permanent non loss impacts of 0.015 Ac (13 x 50LF)
Jennifer Lawrence, PWS (she/her)
Regulatory Specialist, Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, NC 28262
Email: [e-mail]
Cell: [phone]
From: Johnson, Ron <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 2:29 PM
To: Lawrence, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D <[e-mail]>; Owens, Jackson <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2024-00546 - Request for Additional Information
Jennifer,
Thanks for the email. I wanted to make you aware that when the temporary pipes were installed that Norfolk Southern
was also concerned with erosion of the bank on the outfall side of the pipes. The streambank that you note below was
protected with a layer of rip rap from the top of the bank to the bottom of the bank for a distance of around 50 feet. The
attached photo shows the rip -rap that has been placed.
Ron Johnson
Senior Biologist
M [phone]
[e-mail]
AECOM
5438 Wade Park Boulevard
Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, USA
T [phone]
aecom.com
Delivering a Better World
Linkedln Twitter Facebook Instagram
From: Lawrence, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:55 PM
To: Johnson, Ron <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D <[e-mail]>; Owens, Jackson <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: SAW-2024-00546 - Request for Additional Information
Thanks for sending the updated plans, Ron. It looks like the baseflow culvert is more appropriately sized for the wetted
channel. This brings your permanent loss impacts to 0.018 acres, which is under the mitigation threshold. With regards
to item 3, if your engineers have calculations showing natural sediment will stay, that is fine.

One final issue to address is the right bank directly below the culvert. Based on the angle of the flow coming out of the
culvert, it may be best to stabilize the downstream bank to protect the bank, preserve downstream integrity, and
prevent encroachment into NCDOT property. This could be permitted under a NWP13 for bank stabilization if needed.
Can you see what your engineers are able to design here?
, n
�i _ s•-o• it �i ��
---T� 4--
�
y y� E%[ST]T .'
I I E STP.T .
REAq'lE0 f
END HOIX CIILYERfi - BCY
NSR AN
C TRACK
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to set up a call to discuss this further.
Thank you,
Jennifer Lawrence, PWS (she/her)
Regulatory Specialist, Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, NC 28262
Email: [e-mail]
Cell: [phone]
From: Johnson, Ron <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 10:33 AM
To: Lawrence, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D <[e-mail]>; Owens, Jackson <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2024-00546 - Request for Additional Information
4

Jennifer,
The average stream width downstream of the culvert is about 15 feet. Up stream the stream is about 20 to 25 feet wide
but it has been heavily disturbed by the road construction as well as by the rail accident. We have discussed the design
with the hydraulic engineers and they have determined that it is possible to raise the two outside culverts by a foot to
form a low flow channel in the middle culvert and two floodplain culverts on the outside. I hope that responds to your
concerns for items 1 and 2 below. The attached design plans show that proposed change in the design. They could not
raise the two outside culverts any more than the one foot because we need to maintain a certain distance between the
top of the culvert and the railroad.
With regard to item 3. The central culvert will be buried 1 foot and the slope is such that the hydraulic engineers do not
believe that it will be a problem keeping sediment in the bottom of the culvert. If necessary they thought that they could
place a layer of large rip rap at the downstream end of the culvert that would help hold sediment in the culvert.
Let me know if this does not address your concerns and if you have any other questions.
Ron Johnson
Senior Biologist
M [phone]
ron. iohnsonCcDaecom.com
AECOM
5438 Wade Park Boulevard
Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, USA
T [phone]
aecom.com
Delivering a Better World
Linkedln Twitter Facebook Instagram
From: Lawrence, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 12:25 PM
To: Johnson, Ron <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2024-00546 - Request for Additional Information
Good Afternoon Ron,
I have some questions for you after reviewing this submittal. The temporary emergency bridge was authorized under a
non -notifying NWP 3, but seeing as how this is a new permanent structure, this will be reviewed as a NWP 14.
What is the average stream width upstream and downstream of the crossing? This looks like an incredibly
disturbed reach of the stream, so this portion of the stream may not reflect the true width of the stream. The
proposed design looks like it is planning for a 36' wide channel. Aerial imagery shows that this channel is at the
most, 20' wide. I would question if this design is meeting regional condition 9c regarding conveying natural
channel width throughout the culvert. Culvert designs that are wider than baseflow, need to incorporate either
a raised box culvert to bankfull level or a baffle/blockage installed to bankfull level, so that there is a baseflow
culvert and the rest of the culvert is at high flow level. See the diagram below.

Approach Fill
Roadway
CWvertb
belowstri
it .p
e J■ ■
Baffief Stream
Blockage Bottom
cried
,ambed
rime
,if required).
2. If the proposed design is correctly reflecting stream width, then mitigation is required. The regional conditions
outline that mitigation is needed for stream losses over 0.02 acres. The current design proposes 0.028 acres of
stream loss. The impacts will have to be brought down to 0.02 acres/less or you will need to get a mitigation
bank credit availability letter from a local mitigation bank or NCDMS to move forward with paying for 120
mitigation stream credits.
3. Is there anything that will hold the grade of the embedded fill inside the baseflow culvert i.e. a sill/baffle at the
end of the downstream portion?
I've Cc-ed Rebecca with the State; she may have design questions as well that would be good to address at the same
time if a redesign is decided on.
Please let me know if you have any questions. We can set up another call to discuss this further.
Thank you,
Jennifer Lawrence, PWS (she/her)
Regulatory Specialist, Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, NC 28262
Email: [e-mail]
Cell: [phone]
6