_External_ RE_ CSX curve realignment

Carpenter, Kristi
From: Huggett, Douglas <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 10:13 AM
To: Ward, Garcy
Cc: Steffens, Thomas A SAW; Ben Elias; Jonathan Allen; Smythe, Brad; Laad, Anamika;
Greene(LJB, Inc.), Christa A; Hamel, Marc; Huggett, Douglas
Subject: [External] RE: CSX curve realignment
Attachments: UPDATE PER NCDEQ_r1_23882028-SHT-CU03.pdf, UPDATE PER NCDEQ_r2_
23882028-SHT-CU02.pdf, 23882028-SHT-CU01.pdf
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.
Ga rcy
I have been able to compile answers to your three questions below.
• Please provide cross section profiles for the two proposed 36" x 42" RCP culverts near Sta -5+00. These
should be buried below the elevation of the streambed by 20% of the diameter of the culvert in accordance
with Condition 11 of Water Quality General Certification No. 4135. The cross sections should show the
burial of the culverts relative to the elevation of the streambed.
Response- Please see attached sheets CU-02 and CU-03. As detailed below, both designs indicate
a burial below stream elevation of 20%:
CU-02
36" RCP with culvert invert buried 0.6' (7.2") below streambed = 20% burial
CU-03
42" RCP with culvert invert buried 0.7' (8.4") below streambed = 20% burial
The proposed 42" RCP near Sta +5+40 is not indicated as being on a jurisdictional stream in the narrative or
the PCN. However, on the culvert plan sheet the feature is labeled as an `existing stream' with 116 if of
stream impact. Please clarify.
Response- The culvert plan sheet (CU-01) originally submitted with the permit application
erroneously depicted this stream as being jurisdictional (the original sheet was
prepared before additional definitions took place in this area). The attached corrected
culvert plan sheet CU-01 has eliminated this error and now accurately depicts this
culvert as not being in a jurisdictional stream.
• Based on the plan sheets it looks as though wetland impacts could be reduced or avoided if the signal
house was shifted slightly to the east. Please explain if this is feasible.
Response- In coordination with the design team for this project, it was determined that a reduction
of wetland impacts is not feasible since the impacts at this location are directly
related to the location of the existing rail switch. The placement of the existing switch
is dictated by track geometry, and therefore it must remain at this location. The
existing switch will be replaced with a power -operated switch to improve the
efficiency of rail operations. Since the new switch will be power -operated, it will

require a permanent access route and work pad in its immediate vicinity to allow
space for maintenance vehicles and equipment. Therefore, even if the signal house
was shifted to east, the wetland impact would remain due to the necessity of the
permanent access road/pad.
I hope this provides you with adequate information to resume your review, but if you need any additional
information or clarifications, please let me know.
Thanks in advance for your efforts on this project.
Doug
Environmental Permit Specialist/Project Manager
Moffatt & Nichol
305 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Main 919.781.4626 ext.12149
Direct 919.645.0649
Cell 919.534.6834
Creative People, Practical Solutions. °
From: Ward, Garcy <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 1:10 PM
To: Huggett, Douglas <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steffens, Thomas A SAW <[e-mail]>
Subject: CSX curve realignment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Doug,
I've reviewed your application for the CSXT curve realignment project (DWR project # 20240254) and will need the
following information before I can finish processing your request.
• Please provide cross section profiles for the two proposed 36" x 42" RCP culverts near Sta -5+00. These
should be buried below the elevation of the streambed by 20% of the diameter of the culvert in accordance
with Condition 11 of Water Quality General Certification No. 4135. The cross sections should show the
burial of the culverts relative to the elevation of the streambed.
The proposed 42" RCP near Sta +5+40 is not indicated as being on a jurisdictional stream in the narrative or
the PCN. However, on the culvert plan sheet the feature is labeled as an `existing stream' with 116 if of
stream impact. Please clarify.
Based on the plan sheets it looks as though wetland impacts could be reduced or avoided if the signal
house was shifted slightly to the east. Please explain if this is feasible.

The project will be placed on hold if the requested information cannot not provided within 7 days. Please feel free
to reach out with any questions.
Thanks,
Garcy Ward
Environmental Specialist, Transportation Permitting Branch
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
e:�—
NORTH CAROUN D EQ
��
Dapar[mnntnt Environmental Duali�
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.