20011231 Ver 1_RE impact to existing mitigation site_20160119

Baker, Virginia
From: Hood Donna
Sent: Tuesday, January l0'ZUl68:UZAK4
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: RE: impact to existing mitigation site
Thank you Ginny. | haven't received any response from the A[OEwhen | copied Crystal on afew emai|s. Would you
mind if I forward this email chain to her —or I could paraphrase and send it on if you prefer.
Happy Tuesday!
Donna
Donna Hood Donna. Hood@ncdenr.8ov
North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality
Division ofWater Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
61OE.Center Ave.
Mooresville, N[2811S
Ph:704.663.1699 Fax:[phone]
Emai| correspondenceto and fi'onn this address is subiecttothe Non` 1 Public Recordw
and may be disdosed tothird pa�|es un|essthe content isexempt bystatute or other re�u|at|on
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Friday, January 15,Z0163:41PM
To: Hood, Donna <[e-mail]
Subject: FW: impact to existing mitigation site
Hey Donna,
Here is a couple opinions on impacting an active mitigation site from David Wainwright and Sue Homewood. Ultimately
the ACOE will decide on what is appropriate and we give an opinion to them. There is nothing in our rules that require
anything >11:1ratio for impacts toany wetland OR stream. Ginny
From: Wainwright, David
Sent: Thursday, January 14,Z016O:44AM
To: Homewood, Sue <sue. homewood@ ncdenr.gov>; Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: impact to existing mitigation site
Ginny,
I have known this to happen on rare occasion; however, it is usually DOTwanted to impact their own site and they are
more than willing to make up the credits (since they want the project). This case, however, is different in that it is not
1

DOT. Personally, if I was DOT I think I'd tell the land owner he'd have to cover the credits. Anyway, even though the site
is not closed out, the site was predicated on a certain number of credits being available once the site has closed out. I
agree with Sue, you will need to work with the USACE to come to an agreement. I would push for 2:1 since this is a
protected site and we will have the same issues we are normally would be concerned with — the site not performing as
expected. If you go with 1:1 and you have issues with that site, then that much more mitigation is lost. This may not
help, but is one of those strange situations that arise.
David
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:21 AM
To: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>; Wainwright, David <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: impact to existing mitigation site
I've only had this come up once or twice over the years and in each case the USACE project manager made the decision
on whether the impacts could be allowed/were justified and what the replacement mitigation ratio would be. DWR just
followed suit (I may have provided my opinions to them during their review but nothing formal)
Thanks,
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
Sue. Homewooda,ncdenr.gov
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
Email core l'.) Y de ce f t d ii`C
North Carolina Public Records L
lay be c
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:14 PM
To: Wainwright, David <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: impact to existing mitigation site
Hey Sue and David,
I was just trying to get a little institutional history from those with much longer memory banks then myself.
There is a DOT on -site mitigation site that may end up having impacts. The site is still active due to various instability
issues causing closeout delays (it is in year 7 of 5) plus there were former delays in getting the site into monitoring to
begin with. The site was permitted in 2001. The land owner wants to put a driveway in which DOT is very much against
and we would also be against. The land -owner DOT dispute will have to get worked out and ultimately the credits will
need to be replaced elsewhere by DOT if this driveway is actually allowed. From what I understand with IRT sites it has
been case by case according to Todd and Eric as to whether a 2:1 OR 1:1 replacement of the lost stream footage is
2

required. Anthony told me he dealt with impacts to one mitigation site that was not closed out yet so the site just lost
the credits it would have generated. This site I am dealing with has already been credited by DOT.
Any recollection of similar circumstances?
Gihhy Bil<ei-
Ti-wspott,)tioh Permitting (hilt
NCPEQ-Pivisioh oFWVter Resources
1650 Mil Service Cehter
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phohe-[phone], FTx-[phone]
3