20161268_USEPA Comments_20120523

Wainwright, David
From: Chris Militscher [Militscher .Chris @epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:24 AM
To: McInnis, Jay
Cc: Gillespie, Allyn K; Ikovasckitz @mulkeyinc.com; Shaver, Brad E SAW; Wainwright, David;
Sollod, Steve; Gary_Jordan @fws.gov; Wilson, Travis W.
Subject: Re: Conceptual Mitigation Plan Verbiage
Jay: No the language does not address our request ....this is just more specific language from the DEIS discussion. This
is not a 'plan' but your generalized SOP with respect to the EEP.
A conceptual mitigation plan should identify what quantified mitigation resources are currently available to address the
preferred alternative impacts; what debits may be applied from other projects in the HUC within the near future to these
"credit sites "; what mitigation banks might have available credits (Brad mentioned that there might be some in the area);
what types of ratios NCDOT and the Lead Federal Agency will be seeking for the different types of mitigation; what & how
you plan to address impacts to existing mitigation sites (e.g., EPA will be recommending /seeking at least 10:1
replacement ratios for jurisdictional impacts from the preferred alternative to existing mitigation sites);
Also, a mitigation commitment should include the statement that all mitigation will be functionally equivalent to impacted
streams and wetlands; will be located in the same HUC as the project; and that "preservation sites" will be only
considered in conjunction with appropriate restoration /enhancement opportunities. Preservation of sites that are not under
the threat of 'immediate' development are not preferred by EPA for preservation /mitigation credit.
A conceptual mitigation plan does not need to identify any specific on -site mitigation sites /opportunities. Nonetheless,
EEP should be consulted to see what opportunities may exist and any that they are aware in the watershed. A conceptual
mitigation plan should also identify other aquatic resource needs in the watershed and USFWS, NCWRC and the
NCDENR Natural Heritage Program should be consulted regarding any conservation plans /identified needs they might
have in the watershed.
If not previously stated by me, this NEPA/Section 404 Merger project is very problematic for EPA. The USACE is not just
a cooperating agency under NEPA, but the Lead Federal Agency under NEPA for an 'impact causing' transportation
project and they are also the responsible agency for the permitting and for the ultimate acceptability of the proposed
mitigation.
Before you request any additional feedback from me on this conceptual mitigation plan issue, please provide me with a cc
to Brad or Scott that you have included them in all future discussions and coordination.
Thanks.
"McInnis, Jay" - -- 05/23/2012 03°10:29 AM - -- Chris, Does the verbiage below respond to your concern regarding a
conceptual mitigation plan? We c
F'iroirn: "McInnis, Jay" <jmcinnis( ncdot.gov>
tce: Chris Militscher /R4 /USEPA /US @EPA
Cc: "Gillespie, Allyn K" <klgillespie( ncdot.gov >, " Ikovasckitz( mulkeyinc.com" <Ikovasckitz( mulkeyinc.com>
[Dade: 05/23/2012 08:10 AM
CulbjecL Conceptual Mitigation Plan Verbiage
Chris,
Does the verbiage below respond to your concern regarding a conceptual mitigation plan? We can tweak this, if necessary. We will
provide any information we have at the time on how the search for on -site mitigation opportunities is going in the FEIS.

Thanks,
Jay
The NCDOT will investigate potential on -site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities once the preferred alternative has been
selected. Where on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be requested from the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). As part of its standard process, EEP requests for proposals include a
limit on the amount of stream preservation offered in order to target restoration and enhancement opportunities.
Impact projections for this project have been provided to EEP for inclusion in their Operational Strategic Planning (OSP). The OSP will
evaluate the mitigation need in an area based on the impact projections, current mitigation assets, and planned projects. In
accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District ", July 22, 2003, the EEP will provide offsite mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.
rnauw cun- ospundencc Pu and fauna Ns sonder as subu ect Pu PBsc N (:`,. Flubk Rccu & R.,.aw and may ho discpuscd Pu P8 rd parfics.