20061743 Ver 4_General Correspondence_20120328

Wainwright, David
From: Elliott, Jason C
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:33 AM
To: Brad Shaver (brad.e.shaver @usace. army. mi1); Wainwright, David; Herndon, Mason; Sollod,
Steve; Lane, Stephen; Wilson, Travis W.; Gary Jordan (gary_jordan @fws.gov); Chris
Militshcer ( militscher .chris @epamail.epa.gov); Green, Matthew L; Griffin, Randy W; Harris,
Philip S; Mathis, Stonewall D
Subject: B -0682 Sunset Beach Permit Review & Excess Mitigation
Good morning all,
First off I apologize for the lengthy email but during the 2011 monitoring report review meeting there was quite a bit of
discussion regarding the availability of excess mitigation at the B -0682 Sunset Beach Bridge project. The main point of
discussion was that the agencies did not anticipate that excess mitigation would be generated and /or that the
permanent impacts associated with the installation of erosion control devices could in fact be counted as restoration if
the area returned to jurisdictional status. I've reviewed the permit application, all project permits and the mitigation
plan and the following is what I found in our files:
ii ACOE permit SAW- 1993 -88 -010 states the following: "The permittee shall restore 2.839 acres of coastal
wetlands on -site as described in the Sunset Beach Wetland Restoration Plan at Bridge No. 198 over the
Intercoastal Waterway on SR 1172 data July 6, 2006."
ii According to DCM permit # 22 -07: "36) In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, in order to
mitigate for loss of approximately 2.4 acres of Coastal Wetland associated with the project, the permittee shall
restore approximately 2.8 acres of Coastal Wetland by the removal of 1,150 linear feet of the existing causeway.
37) Except as specified by conditions of this permit, on -site mitigation shall be carried out as described in the
document titled "Sunset Beach Wetland Restoration Plan at Bridge No. 198 over the Intercoastal Waterway on
SR 1172, Brunswick County' date 7/6/06. NOTE: This permit does not convey or imply approval of the
suitability of the excess mitigation generate by this project as compensatory wetland mitigation for any
particular future projects. The use of any portion of the excess mitigation generate by this project as
compensatory mitigation for future projects will be approved on a case -by -case basis during the CAMA permit
review and /or consistency process."
ii According to the mitigation plan data July 6t" 2006, NCDOT proposed to do the following: " NCDOT will
restore approximately 2.839 acres of coastal salt marsh wetland as onsite mitigation for B -0682. The roadway
project will impact 2.368 acres of unavoidable wetlands, leaving approximately 0.471 acres of wetland
restoration assets on -site. Impacts from erosion control devises accounts for 0.410 acres of the total impacts.
Based on inspection and approval by USACE and DCM after removal of the erosion control devices, these
impacts may be called temporary. The 0.410 acres would be added back into the wetland assets onsite." This
information is in the mitigation plan that was submitted with the permit application.
ii In reviewing the permit application it states: "Stations 12 +00 to 31 +00 Lt. and 13 +50 to 32 +00 Rt. have 1.359
acres of fill in CAMA jurisdictional coastal marsh wetland for the roadway approach fill The 1.359 acres include
the 0.410 acre for placement of erosion control devices in the 5 -foot clearing area outside the slope stake line."
The total amount of impacts listed in the application (including for EC devices) is 2.368 acres.
ii According to the permit drawings impact summary sheet: Total impacts listed for the project are 1.367 acres
for Permanent Fill in Wetlands (including impacts for EC devices) and 1.001 acres of Excavation in Wetlands.
Therefore the total impacts 1.367 + 1.001 = 2.688 acres.
To summarize this up, according the mitigation plan submitted with the permit application, if the agencies agree that
the area where the erosion control devices were installed are called temporary impacts then the total impacts will be
reduced by 0.410 acre leaving 1.958 acres of impacts at the site. This would leave a balance of: 2.839 ac (restoration) —
2.368 ac (impacts) + 0.410 (EC devices) = 0.881 ac of excess coastal marsh wetland available for future projects if
approved by the resource agencies. I admit that I didn't realize the erosion control devices was already included in the
permanent impact numbers until we reviewed all of the above information. I will make the correction to the debit

ledger and monitoring report in accordance with what is stated in the permit. This is the information that we were able
to locate in our files and I'd like to hear back from you all regarding any info you find or if anything I've stated needs to
be corrected. Thanks for your time with this project.
Jason C. Elliott
PDEA - Natural Environment Unit
Natural Environment Engineering Group
NC Department of Transportation
PDEA- Natural Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Century Center Building B
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1598
919 - 707 -6114 (office)
919 - 212 -5785 (fax)
rnauw cun- ospundenuo to and to um Ns sonder as subu ect to tho N (:`,. Flubk ttccu & R.,.aw and may ho discpuscd to t8 rd parfics.