19950153 Ver 2_Emails_20131118

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Burdette, Jennifer a
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 11:44 AM
To: 'Brian North'; Brown, Thomas L SAW
Cc: Gibby, Jean B SAW; Robert Turnbull (rurnbull @ESINC.CC); Nuwan Wijesuriya
Subject: RE: Proposed Benson Quarry Wetland Impact (UNCLASSIFIED)
Brian,
Thomas explained it well. To satisfy the State's requirement for mitigation at a 1 to 1
ratio, our rules require that you purchase all of the mitigation available from private
mitigation banks (more than one bank and /or provider is ok) within the same river sub -basin
(8 -digit HUC). If there isn't enough mitigation available from private mitigation banks then
you can purchase the remaining amount from NCEEP. Thomas is also correct in that utilizing
PRM would require more time during the application process, monitoring, and a guarantee of
successful restoration.
Thanks,
7ennifer
7ennifer A. Burdette
401 /Buffer Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Wetlands Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Programs
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
(919) 807 -6364 phone
(919) 807 -6494 fax
*Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or
other regulation.*
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Brian North [ mailto: brian.north @martinmarietta.com]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 3:57 PM
To: Brown, Thomas L SAW
Cc: Gibby, lean B SAW; Robert Turnbull (rturnbull @ESINC.CC); Nuwan Wijesuriya; Burdette,
7ennifer a
Subject: RE: Proposed Benson Quarry Wetland Impact (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks for the information. I am just trying to understand what options are available and how
this "banking" process works. Have a good weekend.
Brian K. North, PE
Division Environmental Manager
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
(336) 389 -6616 (Office)
(980) 721 -1212 (Mobile)
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Brown, Thomas L SAW [ mailto :Thomas.L.Brown @usace.army.mil]
1

Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 3:46 PM
To: Brian North
Cc: Gibby, lean B SAW; Robert Turnbull (rturnbull @ESINC.CC); Nuwan Wijesuriya; Burdette,
7ennifer a
Subject: RE: Proposed Benson Quarry Wetland Impact (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Brian,
While permittee responsible mitigation (PRM) is an option that any applicant can pursue, it
is lower in the hierarchy with our mitigation regulations first requiring a permittee to pay
into an existing approved mitigation bank in the 8 -digit HUC, followed by purchasing credits
from an In -lieu fee program, such as EEP. It is my understanding that according to state
law, you must go to a bank first, EEP second and permittee responsible third. It is also my
understanding that you will be required under state law to do at least 1:1 as restoration.
Following the federal mitigation regulations, you would need to buy as many credits as
possible from any established banks in the HUC, then you would have to purchase the remaining
credits from EEP, at least up to the state required 1:1 ratio (7ennifer can correct me if I
am wrong on this). Accordingly, based upon our past discussions and the direct impacts
associated with your preferred alternative, you would need a minimum of 20+ acres of
restoration, of which approximately 10 acres would be available from Restoration System's
Pancho site. You had also mentioned sites owned by EBX. These and any other banks in the 8-
digit HUC would need to be utilized, prior to even considering obtaining credits from EEP.
In the event that you are unable to acquire the 20+ acres minimum (considering that we still
have to make a decision with regard to the areas that will likely be indirectly impacted),
you can then pursue PRM. With regard to permittee responsible mitigation, any wetlands
adjacent to the proposed created channel would be considered creation. This type of
mitigation is generally not a preferred type of mitigation due to the difficulty of
establishing a wetland were it likely never existed. In addition, generally, you receive only
1 acre of restoration credit for 8 acres of creation (under the permittee responsible credit
ratio developed by EPA). If EEP is willing to provide you all the credits you would need,
you would need to adequately justify why you wish to pursue PRM and why it would be better
than payment to a Bank or EEP for the remaining credits required. Please understand that any
PRM would have to be approved with final mitigation plans and construction drawings before
the permit could be issued. Considering how you have expressed that you wish to get the
project out on public notice, having an incomplete mitigation proposal will only slow things
down even more. While you can submit a conceptual mitigation plan, providing a more robust
document that is closer to construction is preferred. For example, if you were to submit a
package without the resource agencies having reviewed the sites, comments made by us and them
may result in sites being removed from consideration and /or changes to ratios, resulting in a
need for even more PRM mitigation as the ratios changes based upon restoration, enhancement,
creation and preservation. In addition, PRM is not confined by the timelines established in
the mitigation regulations. Since the public notice requires a statement about the
applicant's proposed mitigation, we would strongly suggest that we along with the IRT see the
proposed mitigation sites before the application comes in. Should a permit be issued, any on
or off site PRM would have to be monitored for 7 years, and if it fails, you are still held
responsible for the mitigation. Please understand that I am not saying that this is out of
the question, but it would potentially slow the permitting process. In addition, when
evaluating on -site vs. off -site mitigation, on -site mitigation is preferred to off -site and
it is the applicant's responsibility to justify why one wishes to stray from the federal
guidelines, which the Corps may or may not agree with the position. At this point, PRM is
something that we have only briefly discussed and strongly suggest that if you wish to
consider pursuing this option, we need to get with the team and begin our dialogue sooner
than later.
2

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks again,
Thomas Brown
Regulatory Specialist
USACE
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
919 - 554 -4884 x22
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public.
To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey
located at our website at http: // pert .nwp.usace.army.mil /survey.html to complete the survey
online (Paper copies available upon request).
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Brian North [ mailto: brian.north @martinmarietta.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:51 PM
To: Brown, Thomas L SAW
Cc: Gibby, lean B SAW; Robert Turnbull (rturnbull @ESINC.CC); Nuwan Wijesuriya
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Proposed Benson Quarry Wetland Impact
Thomas,
Based on our discussions yesterday, is the PRM process an acceptable method for addressing
mitigation requirements? Both Restoration Systems and EBX have offered this concept. Also, I
have contacted R -S to question the available mitigation credits and the payment process to
achieve these credits. Thanks for your insight and input on this matter.
Brian K. North, PE
Division Environmental Manager
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
(336) 389 -6616 (Office)
(980) 721 -1212 (Mobile)
From: Matt Fisher [mailto:mattfisher @ebxusa.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:38 PM
To: Brian North
Cc: Nuwan Wijesuriya; Robert Turnbull (rturnbull @ESINC.CC)
Subject: RE: Proposed Benson Quarry Wetland Impact
ME
3

Let me review with our operations staff to discuss the most efficient and cost effective path
to move forward to meet your timelines. As mentioned, our Umbrella Banking Instrument allows
us to add projects as needed, However, the quickest route to achieve mitigation requirement
most likely will be a Turn Key Proposal /PRM in which EBX has the ability to contractually
assume liability for mitigation. As mentioned, we have proven this process to work in WV
working with the coal industry and in another states for mining operations.
I'll review and respond by Monday 11/18/2013 with a summary we discussed.
Thanks
Description: cid :image005.png @01CDF40B.A52Cl680
Matt Fisher
Envioronmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Description: Adobe Systems
Cell: 239 - 872 -1678 Direct: 919 - 829 -9909 Ext 26
Mattfisher @ebxusa.com <mailto:Mattfisher @ebxusa.com> www.ebxusa.com
<http: / /www.ebxusa.com />
Please consider the environment prior to printing this email.
4

From: Brian North [ mailto: brian.north @martinmarietta.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:09 PM
To: Matt Fisher
Cc: Nuwan Wijesuriya; Robert Turnbull (rturnbull @ESINC.CC)
Subject: Proposed Benson Quarry Wetland Impact
Matt,
Based on our conversation this afternoon, I am sending you a copy of the USGS Quad and
proposed drainage relocation at Martin Marietta's Benson Quarry. Over the last few months,
we have had various meetings wither Corp of Engineers and the NC DWR to obtain their input in
the preparation of the application for this project.
At this time ,e ar looking to possibly impact between 20 to 30 acres, depending on the final
decisions that we make in- house. In that, it may be that some of the mitigation will be
required at a 2:1 and some at a 1:1 ratio. Therefore, if you could provide costs information
of impacts between 40 and 50 acres that would be great. As you mentioned, if a Permittee-
Responsible Mitigation option is available, please describe this process.
Also, the attached documentation indicates that this project will not impact any streams so
no costs associated with stream mitigation will be required. Thanks for considering and
assistance on this project. Please feel free to contact me if you have nay questions.
Brian K. North, PE
Division Environmental Manager
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
(336) 389 -6616 (Office)
(980) 721 -1212 (Mobile)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
5