20011274 Ver 1_Certified Return Receipt_20100601

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Gnvernnr nirartnr Secretary
June 1, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL 7008 1140 0002 2716 7222
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Environmental Management Director
NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
SUBJECT: Proposed Widening of NC 49 from East of NC 73 to East of SR 2630 (Cline Road) in
Cabarrus County, TIP No. R-2533CC, DWQ #01-1274, V.5
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application, in association with site visits on April 29, May 18 and May
19, 2010, revealed it is lacking the necessary,, information required for making an informed permit decision.
The'permit application was deficient in the following areas:
Permit Site 1 (Inlet): There is a small stream on the left side of the main channel. The stream is depicted
on the plans as being "straightened" and lined with Class I riprap (identified as a "base ditch"). The
"Wetland Permit Impact Summary" included with the PCN does not appear to account for these impacts. In
addition, it was discussed that a floodplain bench should be constructed on the left barrel (if looking
downstream) based on the current stream alignment. The plans depict a sill on the right barrel. During the
site visit on May 18, 2010, DOT staff discussed concerns with creating a floodplain bench in this area due
to the existing streambank, however, since this area will be excavated during the culvert
extension/installation, reconstructing a bench in this location should be possible. We also discussed
relocating the stream (mentioned above) so that it ties in with the larger tributary which flows into Adams
Creek just west of this tributary. If riprap is placed in this relocated stream, it must be placed on the banks
only (or embedded below the streambed elevation to allow for low flow/aquatic passage) and all impacts
(relocation/stabilization) properly accounted for.
Permit Site 1 (Outlet): As discussed above, DWQ is recommending that the sill be placed on the left barrel.
If the sill is placed on the right barrel, the low/normal flow stream will have to be "created" out of existing
streambank. Placing the sill on the left barrel allows the current stream channel to function as the
low/normal flow channel: The plans also indicate that a floodplain bench will be constructed on one side of
the stream and 108 linear feet of riprap will be placed on the opposite bank, beyond the culvert extension
:(there is no riprap.currently.on either;bank.downstream of the existing culvert). DWQ recommends that the
bench be constructed on the left bank.and.be properly stabilized:
Mooresville Regional Office
Location: 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NO 28115 One
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 NOtt}1 Cc'tT'Ol llla.
Internet: ht1pa8portal.ncdenr.orc/weti/w
An Equal Opporunity 1 Affirmative Action Erployer- 50%Recyclee; l0% Post Cocsuner. paper ;Vaturtrlly

Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Page Two
DWQ would also request that the use of 108 linear feet of riprap be re-evaluated (reduce the length of
riprap proposed). Currently, the banks are fairly stable due to the amount of trees/vegetation on either side
of the stream and bedrock is visible throughout the reach. DWQ is not an advocate of removing existing,
established vegetation to replace it with riprap. In addition, the construction of floodplain benches on the
inlet and outlet will provide some energy dissipation: +
• Permit Site 2: A ditch is tying into the stream on the left bank (looking downstream) on the inlet side of the
new culvert. It appears that there will be 20 linear feet of stream impact associated with the stabilization of
the ditchline at the streambank. In addition, the ditchline ties into the stream at a right angle. A detail
should be provided for this tie in and the riprap should be of appropriate size to prevent migration
downstream during storm events. DWQ would also request that the ditchline be tied into the stream at an
angle which discharges stormwater into the flow line of the stream (to prevent streambank destabilization).
Permit Site 4: This stream is being placed into a "ditch" to provide better stream alignment between two
culverts. A detail (profile) must be provided for this section of new stream alignment to include details
regarding channel dimensions and the type stabilization to be provided. There is a ditchline located at the
inlet of the first culvert (Permit Drawing Sheet 21 of 40) on the right bank (if looking downstream). The
plans do not depict this ditchline tying into the stream. Please verify that there are no impacts associated
with this ditchline. If there are impacts, a detail must be provided and impacts accounted for. A detail for
bank stabilization at the outlet of the second culvert (furthest downstream) must be provided.
Permit Site 5: This permit site indicates that there will be 26 linear feet of bank stabilization associated with
the outfall of a stormwater pipe (1050 RCP). Based on the site visit on May 18, 2010, there are
discrepancies with this site. DOT staff indicated that DWQ had provided a "stream call" on this system and
that the limits of the stream were accurately depicted. Further review of the jurisdictional package provided
by Kimley Horn and approved by, DWQ on September 8, 2008, indicates that this stream was not identified
by the consultants during the jurisdictional review and therefore not evaluated by DWQ. There is some
documentation that this stream is identified as "SG", however, Stream 'SG" appears to be located on the
left bank of Stream "SF" and isn't actually included on the maps provided to DWQ (but appears to be
included as part of Permit Site 7 on the plans). There is a stream form for Stream "SG" (intermittent),
which was evaluated by DWQ and the form indicates it "runs parallel to NC 49 and connects to SF". The
stream, identified as Permit Site 5 in the PCN, runs parallel to NC 73 (not parallel to NC 49) for an
approximate distance of 300 feet up NC 73. During the site visit on May 18, 2010, DWQ staff and DOT
staff concurred that this stream is a perennial stream (DOT staff observed fish in the channel). Therefore,
since this stream was not previously identified, all impacts must be properly accounted for. The plans must
be revised since they do not depict the entire extent of this feature (currently under road fill).
Permit Site 6 (Permit Drawing Sheet 25 of 40): A detail (profile) must be provided for the section of stream
being daylighted, to include details regarding channel dimensions and the type stabilization to be provided
(plans show rock at the wingwalls only). There are two ditchlines located at the inlet of the new culverts.
The plans do not depict these ditchlines tying into the stream. Please verify that there are no impacts
associated with these ditchlines.
If there are impacts, a detail must be provided and impacts accounted for.
Permit Site 7: DWQ is concerned that stream impacts associated with this site may not be accurate. The
PCN indicates 902 linear feet of impact associated with a 1650 mm RCP and 118 linear feet of impact
associated with an 1800 mm RCP. Due to the nature of the drawings (i.e., many details on small drawings,
no matchlines for larger detail sheets) it is difficult to determine the extent of these RCPs and their
associated impacts. Additionally, "Stream SG" (see comments regarding Permit Site 5 above) does not
appear to be hydrologically connected to the rest of Permit Site 7 and should be identified as a separate
permit site.

Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Page Three
An additional site visit on May 19, 2010, to this stream indicates that the culvert outlet under the ramp may
be the origin of this stream. The other culverts that tie into this stream appear to convey stormwater only.
• Permit Site & The plans depict Class B riprap at the outlet of the culvert. The "Wetland Permit Impact
Summary" indicates 20 feet of impact associated with the culvert installation and no impacts for' '
stabilization. DWQ recommends that larger riprap be provided. in and around jurisdictional features:(if
required) and all impacts must be properly accounted for. A detail (profile) for this stabilization impact
must be provided. In addition, the stream feature should be clearly depicted on the plans.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold until we
are supplied with the necessary information. You have 21 days to respond in writing with the requested
information or notification to this office that the information is forthcoming. If, at the end of the 21 days, this
office has not received this information in writing, we will assume you are withdrawing your application and it
will be returned.
Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC Division of Water Quality, we request, by copy of this
letter, that the US Army Corps of Engineers place the permit application on hold.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone].
Sincerely, 7
forColeen H. Sullins
Director
cc: Liz Hair, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Larry Thompson, DEC, NCDOT Division 10
Jason Dilday, NCDOT PDEA
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sonia Carrillo, NCDWQ Central Office
File Copy