20041053 Ver 2_More Info Received_20120214

Strickland, Bev
From: Mcmillan, Ian
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 2:33 PM
To: Dennison, Laurie; Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: DWQ No. 04 -1053, Ver. 2 CATS LYNX Blue Line Mecklenburg County
Attachments: CATS BLE on hold letter 021312.docx
fyi
Ian J. McMillan, PWS, GISP
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality - Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Office: (919) 807 -6364
Fag: (919) 807 -6494
Email: ian.mcmillan.denr(a mmail.com SENT TO MY PHONE
Email: ian.mcmillan(a�,ncdenr.gov
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Lespinasse, Polly
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:53 AM
To: Mcmillan, Ian
Cc: Johnson, Alan
Subject: FW: DWQ No. 04 -1053, Ver. 2 CATS LYNX Blue Line Mecklenburg County
Ian,
This project is going on hold and in the mail today. It is on Rob's desk for signature.
See attached "unsigned copy'. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:05 AM
To: Lespinasse, Polly
Subject: FW: DWQ No. 04 -1053, Ver. 2 CATS LYNX Blue Line Mecklenburg County
Any comments
From: Mcmillan, Ian
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:05 AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Subject: DWQ No. 04 -1053, Ver. 2 CATS LYNX Blue Line Mecklenburg County
Alan, the comment period for Public Notice on this project ends February 23. Since a ROD was issued for the EIS I do not
have any comments and am recommending issuance. Do you concur? Thanks, Ian
Ian J. McMillan, PWS, GISP
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality - Wetlands and Stormwater Branch

1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Office: (919) 807 -6364
Fag: (919) 807 -6494
Email: ian.mcmillan.denr(a l!mail.com SENT TO MY PHONE
Email: ian.mcmillan(a�,ncdenr.gov
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

A�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P. E. Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
February 14, 2012
CERTIFIED MAIL 7009 2250 0004 3265 6681
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Danny Rogers
City of Charlotte, Charlotte Area Transit System
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
SUBJECT: Proposed LYNX Blue Line Extension Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project from the
Terminal Station at the 7t" Street Station to the Northeast to the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte (UNC Charlotte) Campus, WBS #6.24, Mecklenburg County, DWQ
No. 04 -1053, v.2
Dear Mr. Rogers:
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. A review of your request revealed it is lacking the necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
1. Provide stream flow direction arrows for all jurisdictional streams within the project limits.
2. Clearly depict the proposed multi use path on all plan view drawings.
3. Stream impacts of 396 linear feet (If) are proposed for Jurisdictional Stream D. Figure 14 does not
depict where the flow from stream will be directed. If the stream is being relocated to a "stabilized"
channel, details for the channel must be provided to include a clear depiction on the plan view, a detail
for the construction and the slope of the proposed channel (or profile drawing depicting the slope).
Additionally, Figure 14 depicts rock check dams throughout the stream channel. DWQ does not
authorize the installation of erosion control measures in active streams.
4. Page 15 of the application indicates that the relocation of Jurisdictional Stream D will incorporate
"natural stream channel design elements ". These elements were not provided in the drawings. Provide
all appropriate stream relocation details.
5. Figures 14 and 14a depict what appears to be a riprap pad at the end of a 72" RCP. Figure 14a refers to
this impact as a "rip rap stilling basin" constructed of Class I riprap. Please be advised that DWQ does
not authorize the construction of stilling basins in jurisdictional streams. If the impact is associated with
a dissipator pad, it must be labeled as such. If a dissipator pad is proposed, all riprap must be
embedded such that low flow of water and aquatic passage are unobstructed (i.e., embedded below the
streambed elevation). Additionally, provide justification, as part of the required avoidance and
minimization of impacts to jurisdictional resources, for the riprap pad as the proposed slope of the 72"
RCP is 0.60% (very flat).
6. Stream impacts of 80 If are proposed for Jurisdictional Stream C. One 7x7 concrete box culvert will be
extended and two (2) 72" steel pipes will be installed to handle stormwater.
Mooresville Regional Office
Location: 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone] \ Fax: [phone] \ Customer Service: 1- 877 - 623 -6748
Internet: http://portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
naturally

Mr. Danny Rogers
Page Two
The existing 7x7 concrete box culvert is perched approximately 3 -4 feet above the existing surface
water elevation and a very large scourhole exists at the end of the culvert. Neither the application nor
Figure 14 or 14c depict any effort to provide stream connectivity as part of the culvert extension and
new pipe installation. The plans do depict a riprap "stilling basin" with Class II riprap. Figure 14c
depicts the outfall end of the "stilling basin" approximately 4 feet above the existing surface water level.
As stated above, DWQ does not authorize the installation of erosion control measures in jurisdictional
streams. If a dissipator pad is proposed, all riprap must be embedded such that low flow of water and
aquatic passage are unobstructed (i.e., embedded below the streambed elevation). Additionally, the
applicant must investigate ways to restore stream connectivity. These can include, but may not be
limited to, the construction of floodplain benches (and the subsequent restoration of the normal stream
dimension) at the outlet of the 2 -72" steel pipes, the installation of a junction box at the end of the 7x7
concrete box culvert to lower the stream elevation and reduce stream and storm flow velocities inside
the structure rather than using the streambed and banks as dissipation devices, and /or the construction
of a rock ladder.
7. Stream impacts of 32 If are also proposed for Jurisdictional Stream C as part of the wastewater utility
line relocation. DWQ is requesting that the applicant investigate opportunities to install an aerial
crossing or install the utility line subsurface so as to avoid direct impacts to the stream.
8. A bridge crossing is proposed for Jurisdictional Stream F. Provide a profile drawing depicting the bridge
support structures in relation to the stream and water surface elevation. Typically, bridge support
structures located on or near streambanks require scour protection. If scour protection is required,
details on the type of scour protection must be provided and any impacts associated with the scour
protection must be accounted for as a jurisdictional impact.
9. Figure 15 depicts a "high hazard temp. silt fence" along the top of the streambanks. Please provide a
definition for "high hazard temp. silt fence ". It appears the fence is below the top of the streambank in
some locations. Erosion control measures must be located outside jurisdictional areas.
10. Figure 15 depicts what appears to be a riprap pad at the end of a 24" RCP. The corner of the pad
appears to be on the top of the streambank. Provide the slope of the 24" RCP and all details associated
with the riprap pad. Provide information on how erosion will be prevented from stormwater discharging
from the pad as it appears to be discharging at the edge of the stream.
11. Jurisdictional Stream J is proposed to be relocated to an 11x6 PBC. Please define the acronym "PBC ".
12. Figures 16 and 16a depict the installation of a "rip rap stilling basin" constructed of Class II riprap.
Please be advised that DWQ does not authorize the construction of stilling basins in jurisdictional
streams. If the impact is associated with a dissipator pad, it must be labeled as such. If a dissipator
pad is proposed, all riprap must be embedded such that low flow of water and aquatic passage are
unobstructed (i.e., embedded below the streambed elevation). Additionally, provide justification, as part
of the required avoidance and minimization of impacts to jurisdictional resources, for the riprap pad as
the proposed slope of the 11x6 PBC is 0.60% (very flat).
13. Provide information as to whether the width of the proposed culvert on Jurisdictional Stream J is 11 feet
or 6 feet. The average, normal channel width of the stream in the proposed impact area is
approximately 5 feet. If the proposed culvert width is 11 feet, provide information on how you propose
to maintain the normal stream dimension (approximately 5 feet) at the inlet and outlet ends of the
culvert.
14. Figure 16 depicts a 15" RCP discharging to the 11x6 PBC, which will be conveying Jurisdictional Stream
J. Is the 15" RCP conveying stormwater directly to the stream? DWQ discourages the direct discharge
of stormwater to jurisdictional streams. Provide information that the stormwater will be treated prior to
discharge (i.e., grassed swales) or why treatment is not feasible in this location.
15. Provide the proposed pipe size (and flow direction) on Figure 17. This pipe will be conveying
Jurisdictional Stream N and water from Wetland Y.
16. Figure 17 depicts a "pipe" north of Wetland Y that flows into the pipe which conveys Jurisdictional
Stream N. Is this pipe existing or proposed? Is the pipe conveying stormwater directly to the pipe that
conveys Stream N?

Mr. Danny Rogers
Page Three
DWQ discourages the direct discharge of stormwater to jurisdictional streams. Provide information that
the stormwater will be treated prior to discharge (i.e., grassed swales) or why treatment is not feasible in
this location.
17. Figure 18 depicts a riprap pad at the outlet of the proposed culvert on Jurisdictional Stream A
(perennial). No detail has been provided for the riprap pad. The riprap pad is not depicted on profile
drawings Figure 18a and Figure 18b. Additionally, provide justification, as part of the required
avoidance and minimization of impacts to jurisdictional resources, for the riprap pad as the proposed
slope of the 11x6 PBC is 0.69% (very flat).
18. Figure 18 depicts a riprap pad at the outlet of the proposed culvert on Jurisdictional Stream A
(intermittent). No detail has been provided for the riprap pad on the plan view drawing, nor has a profile
drawing with the slope been provided for the "8' -6' PBC" which appears to discharge to the riprap pad.
Additionally, provide justification, as part of the required avoidance and minimization of impacts to
jurisdictional resources, for the riprap pad (as well as the proposed slope).
19. Figure 18 does not clearly depict the impacts to Jurisdictional Stream A (intermittent). It appears that
the flow from Jurisdictional Stream A (intermittent) and Jurisdictional Wetland A is being split in a "8' -6'
PBC ", with some flow being directed to Jurisdictional Stream A (perennial) and some flow being directed
to drop inlet and some other unlabeled pipe. Provide information why the flow is being split and where
the portion of flow that is directed to the drop inlet is ultimately being conveyed.
20. Figure 18b depicts one of the two (2) — 72" steel pipes being installed at an elevation approximately
three (3) feet higher than the main /low flow pipe. DWQ requests that the applicant investigate an
alternative method for discharging stormwater from the pipe rather than a three (3) foot drop down onto
riprap (if that is what is being proposed).
21. Stream impacts of 1,666 If are proposed for Jurisdictional Stream P. Figure 19 does not depict where
the flow from stream will be directed. If the stream is being relocated to a "stabilized" channel, details
for the channel must be provided to include a clear depiction on the plan view, a detail for the
construction and the slope of the proposed channel (or profile drawing depicting the slope).
22. Figure 19a depicts what appear to be two (2) - 30" RCPs at the outlet of a 72" steel pipe. Are these
pipes conveying stormwater directly to a stream? DWQ discourages the direct discharge of stormwater
to jurisdictional streams. Provide information that the stormwater will be treated prior to discharge (i.e.,
grassed swales) or why treatment is not feasible in this location.
23. Stream impacts of 44 If are proposed for Jurisdictional Stream Z. Figure 20 depicts this impact as what
appears to be an energy dissipator pad (unlabeled) and an unidentified, shaded area of impact (no
explanation provided). Verify what the jurisdictional impact is and why it is necessary.
24. Figure 20a refers to the riprap impact as a "rip rap stilling basin" constructed of Class II riprap. Please
be advised that DWQ does not authorize the construction of stilling basins in jurisdictional streams. If
the impact is associated with a dissipator pad, it must be labeled as such. If a dissipator pad is
proposed, all riprap must be embedded such that low flow of water and aquatic passage are
unobstructed (i.e., embedded below the streambed elevation). Additionally, provide justification, as
part of the required avoidance and minimization of impacts to jurisdictional resources, for the riprap pad
as the proposed slope of the 54" steel pipe (conveying an intermittent stream is 1.64 %.
25. Figure 20 depicts a culvert (unknown size) being plugged with flowable fill and abandoned. Is this
culvert currently conveying Jurisdictional Stream Z? If so, it appears that some channel realignment
may be required to convey the stream at the outlet end of the new 54" steel pipe to the existing stream
channel. If channel realignment is required, a detail must be provided depicting the realignment.
26. Figure 20 depicts what appears to be rock check dam in the jurisdictional stream. DWQ does not
authorize the installation of erosion control measures in active streams.
27. Figure 20 depicts an arrow with a label ( "A21 -8 -D ") in Jurisdictional Stream Z. No information is
provided for this label. Additionally, it appears some sort of "easement" is proposed for the stream as a
box with the label "SDE" is located around a portion of the stream. Provide information related to any
easements on the stream.

Mr. Danny Rogers
Page Four
28. Figure 21 depicts two (2) pipes with what appear to be dissipator pads at their outlets. The pipes are a
30" RCP and a 60" RCP. According to the scale provided, the dissipator pad from the 60" RCP is
located approximately 20 feet from Jurisdictional Stream E. Discharges from stormwater outfalls can
lead to stream and streambank destabilization. Therefore, provide details for both dissipator pads, a
map depicting the topography of the area where the dissipator pads will be constructed (should be close
to flat) and the proposed slopes of the 30" and 60" RCPs.
29. A bridge crossing is proposed for Jurisdictional Stream U. Provide a profile drawing depicting the bridge
support structures in relation to the stream and water surface elevation. Typically, bridge support
structures located on or near streambanks require scour protection. If scour protection is required,
details on the type of scour protection must be provided and any impacts associated with the scour
protection must be accounted for as a jurisdictional impact.
30. Provide a copy of the stormwater management plans for all proposed park and ride facilities.
31. Page 18 of the application states that mitigation for stream impacts will be provided by the Charlotte
Umbrella Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank (Umbrella Bank). It also states that the acceptance letter
is included in Attachment E. The letter provided in Attachment E states that "The Umbrella Bank does
not currently have enough credits to cover this request, however, pending credit releases will
adequately cover the request." DWQ will not issue a 401 Water Quality Certification authorizing stream
impacts without a letter from the Umbrella Bank and /or the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
indicating that the required mitigation can be provided.
32. Page 28 of the application indicates that "heavy equipment will be prohibited from operating in the
stream channels, without appropriate measures." Please be advised that DWQ prohibits the use of
heavy equipment in stream channels without prior authorization.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit modification request 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 modification request on hold. If you
have any questions or require additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse at (704) 663 -1699.
Sincerely,
for Charles Wakild, P.E.
Director
cc: Amanda Jones, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Michael lagnocco, STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates
Brandon Phillips, STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates
Karen Higgins, NCDWQ Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater Compliance /Permitting Unit
Sonia Carrillo, NCDWQ Transportation Permitting Unit
File Copy