20110106 Ver 1_More Info Received_20110606

mmmlb?
mwwwmwlo?
mmmmmmdo?
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA, PA
June 2, 2011
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 [phone] [phone] Fax
Mr. Todd Tugwell
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
And:
Mr. Alan Johnson
Surface Water Protection Specialist
NC DENR
Division of Water Quality
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
Subject: Buffalo Flats Wetland Restoration Site
DWQ#11-0106, ACOE Action ID No. 2010-01570
KCI Job # - 20100798
Dear Mr. Tugwell and Mr. Johnson,
?`?L9 V n
U
SUN 6 2011
i
DENR - WATE DUAL
_We#gnd0 & slon uwnfe a-
This letter is a joint response to letters received from your respective offices dated February 7, 2011
(DWQ) and March 14, 2011 (Corps). These letters are included for your reference in Attachment A. KCI
has carefully evaluated the information contained in these letters as well as considered feedback from the
Interagency Review Team (IRT) meeting held on April 7`h, 2011 in developing our responses. We have
also coordinated with NC EEP regarding these responses as they are the sponsoring agency and our Client
for the purposes of this project. The following issues/comments were made in the above referenced
letters. Responses appear in bold type:
Issue #1 - Hydrology Period (Corps and DWQ comment)
Response - KCI has modified the hydrology performance standard to consider the concerns
expressed in the IRT meeting on April 7`n. The revised Mitigation Plan language is included in
Attachment B.
Issue 92 - Monitoring Period (Corps and DWQ comment)
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee-Owned Since 1988
Response - The vegetation performance standard has been modified to include a seven year
monitoring period (Attachment B). The monitoring firm will be at the discretion of the EEP.
Issue #3 - Stem Density (Corps Comment)
Response - The targeted stem density has been revised to reflect the 210 "seven year old" stems per
acre (Attachment B).
Issue #4 - Mitigation Type - Creation vs. Restoration for Ponds (Corps Comment)
Response - The three ponds that will be filled on site total approximately 0.3 acres in size.
Although this is larger than the threshold acreage described in the Corps letter (0.1 ac), KCI would
request that the Corps and DWQ consider restoration for these areas. We are requesting
restoration because the man-made ponds were created recently and all the spoil that was displaced
to build the ponds exists in direct proximity to the ponds. We know the areas surrounding the pond
(with the exception of the pond spoil) contain hydric soils and believe it is reasonable to assume that
the pond contained hydric soils prior to disturbance. Notes taken during an agency site meeting on
August 30, 2010 indicate that the Corps was in agreement with calling the areas in question
restoration as opposed to creation, which is the reason that restoration was proposed in the
Mitigation Plan. A copy of these meeting notes is included as Attachment C.
Issue #4 - Riparian vs. Non-Riparian (DWQ Comment - John Dorney, not in letter)
Response - At the request of DWQ (John Dorney), KCI has developed five annotated cross sections
that may help to elucidate the riparian vs. non riparian boundary across the site. Cross sections are
included as Attachment D.
We hope you find these responses appropriate in order to move forward with your permitting review. If
you have further questions or comments, feel free to contact myself (919-278-2511) or Joe Pfeiffer (919-
278-2500.
Sincerely,

Timothy J. Morris
Senior Environmental Scientist
cc: John Dorney, DWQ (email)
Joe Pfeiffer, KCI (email)
Tim Baumgartner, EEP (email)
Guy Pearce, EEP (email)
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www,kci.com
Employee-Owned Since 1988
Attachment A
DWQ and Corps Letters
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A. www.kci.com
Employee-Owned Since 1988
s' X I
?
A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
Dee Freeman
Secretary
February 7, 2011
Mr. Timothy J. Morris
KCI Technologies, Inc.
4601 Six Forks Rd., Ste. 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr. Morris:
Subject: Buffalo Flats Restoration Site
DWQ #11-0106
Cabarrus County, NC
On January 31, 2011, your 401 Water Quality Certification application was received by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). Your application has been reviewed along with your responses to the EEP regarding the hydrology and
monitoring period. There is still concern by DWQ and the Army Corp of Engineers that the proposed hydro period of 5%
is not sufficient, nor the proposed 5 year monitoring period for the wetland. Until this can be resolved, this project will be
placed on hold. Be advised that a site visit is scheduled on February 16"'. Following that visit more information may be
requested.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(h), please be advised that this project will be placed on hold until all the
necessary information is provided. Failure to submit the requested information may result in the application being
withdrawn from consideration. You may reapply, but a new fee and application will be required. In addition, this office is
requesting that the Army Corps of Engineers place a hold on processing the application.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
f
Alan D. ohns
Surface WerProtection
Sr. Env. Specialist
CC: Steve Chapin, Asheville, COE
Todd Tugweli,
Ian McMillan, Wetlands Unit
Mooresville Regional Office
Location: 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone]Fax: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.newaterguality.org
One
NorthCarolina
Natit1"ally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
March 14, 2011
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 2010-01570
Mr. Tim Morris
KCI Technologies, Inc.
4601 Six Forks Road
Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr. Morris:
Reference is made to the preconstruction notification application received on February 18,
2011 for Department of the Army (DA) Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 authorization for the proposed
construction of the Buffalo Flats Wetland Restoration Project. The site, which is being developed on
behalf of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), is located at 4939 Gold
Hill Road, north of Concord, in Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
Your permit application listed temporary impacts to wetlands totaling 0.547 acres. The
application was submitted along with the restoration plan (mitigation plan), which provides the
details of the proposed mitigation project. Following a review of the mitigation plan, I have
identified several concerns that must be addressed prior to verifying that the proposed work is
authorized be NWP 27. These concerns are listed below:
1. Wetland Hydrology Period - Section 8 of the mitigation plan discusses the performance
standards proposed for the site. This section states "wetland hydrology criteria will be
considered established if well data from the site indicate that the upper 12 inches of the soil
profile is continuously saturated or inundated for a minimum of 5% of the growing season
during normal weather conditions". The stated minimum of 5% is too low a target for
saturation during the growing season, particularly since the plan lists the targeted wetland
community as Bottomland Hardwood Forest. One potential concern with such a low
hydroperiod is that the site may meet this target during the first five years of hydrology
1
monitoring while the plants are small, but as the site matures, increased evapotranspiration
may substantially reduce the hydroperiod, causing the hydrology of the site to be reduced
below the threshold necessary to maintain wetlands. More importantly, the typical
hydroperiod for high-functioning Bottomland Hardwood Forest communities are much
higher than 5%.
Additionally, the mitigation plan states "KCI reserves the right to adjust the duration of the
NRCS growing season if the soil temperature data collected during the course of monitoring
indicates that the growing season is less than or greater than the 233-day period". Adjusting
the length of the growing season could substantially affect the site's ability to meet the stated
performance standards. This adjustment is one that must be approved by the permitting
agencies (US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality) in consultation
with the NC Interagency Review Team. The mitigation plan must be revised to recognize
this requirement.
In order to provide a timely resolution to the question of appropriate hydroperiod for this site,
this topic has been put on the agenda for the April 7, 2011 meeting of the Interagency
Review Team. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if this meeting time will not
work for you.
2. Vegetation Monitoring - Section 8 of the mitigation plan states that the vegetation
monitoring is proposed to continue for 5 years. Please note that the current Wilmington
District standard for monitoring of forested wetlands is 7 years, so the mitigation plan should
be updated to reflect this. Additionally, the targeted stem density for year 7 should be 210
seven year-old stems per acre.
3. Mitigation Type - The mitigation plan indicates that there are two small ponds within the
site that are proposed to be turned into wetlands. It is unclear whether these ponds are
located within the wetland restoration or creation area. Typically, the soil profile is greatly
disturbed during the construction of ponds, and during the lifespan of impoundments,
sediment deposition results in further disturbance. Also, the soil manipulation necessary to
bring these areas back to the appropriate grade will result in a disturbed soil profile. As a
result, these areas should be identified in the plan as wetland creation and not restoration, and
the associated mitigation ratio should be adjusted. If these areas so small that they constitute
only a small area (i.e., less than 1/10 acre), they can remain as part of the wetland restoration
component of the site. Please modify the mitigation plan accordingly.
Please keep in mind that Section 332.80)(2) of the Mitigation Rule states "if a DA permit is required
for an in-lieu fee project, the permit should not be issued until all relevant provisions of the
mitigation plan have been substantively determined, to ensure that the DA permit accurately reflects
all relevant provisions of the approved mitigation plan". Accordingly, the concerns which have been
identified in this correspondence must be addressed prior to our verification that impacts associated
with your mitigation project are authorized by NWP 27.
Thank you for working with us to address these issues. Please contact me if you have any
questions about this letter, or if there is any additional information you need. I can be contacted at
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwe I
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District Regulatory Division
Electronic Copies Furnished:
Mr. Guy Pearce, NCEEP
Mr. Tim Baumgartner, NCEEP
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Ms. Tammy Hill, NCDWQ
CESAW-RG-A/Chapin
CESAW-RG/McLendon
3
Attachment B
Performance Standard Modifications to the Mitigation Plan
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee-Owned Since 1988
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The BFRS will be monitored to determine if the development of the wetland indicators on site meet the
standards for mitigation credit production as presented in Section 5.0. The credits will be validated
upon confirmation that the success criteria described below are met. The site will be monitored for
performance standards for seven-years after completion of construction.
Hydrologic Performance
The site will present continuous saturated or inundated hydrologic conditions for at least 10% of the
growing season for riparian mitigation areas (11.6 acres) and 5% for non-riparian mitigation areas (3.4
acres) (50% probability of reoccurrence) during normal weather conditions. A "normal" year is based on
NRCS climatological data for Cabarrus County, and using the 30th to 70th percentile thresholds as the
range of normal, as documented in the USACE Technical Report "Accessing and Using Meteorological
Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology, April 2000." According to the Cabarrus County Soil Survey, the
growing season is considered to extend from March 23rd to November 11th, comprising 233 days.
Due to the inherent variability in the sites features and its geomorphic position, it is unlikely that the
project will homogeneously exhibit common hydrologic conditions across the site, making a single
hydrologic performance criterion unrepresentative of the sites performance. As such, the gauge data
will be evaluated as a spatial average with each gauge representing the area half the distance to
adjacent gauges or wetland type boundaries. The spatial average by wetland type will be the calculated
value for comparison with the performance standard for credit validation. Gauges representing areas
not achieving a minimum of 5% saturation will be considered non-attaining even if the spatial average
exceeds the credit validation performance standard.
Hydrologic performance will be determined through evaluation of automatic recording gauge data
supplemented by documentation of wetland hydrology indicators as defined in the 1987 US ACOE
Wetland Delineation Manual (Manual). Seven automatic recording gauges will be established within
the restoration areas of the site and two gauges will be established within the wetland creation area and
will record data daily.
Vegetation Success
The site will demonstrate the re-establishment of targeted vegetative communities based on survival
and growth of planted species and volunteer colonization, with an average planted stem density of 320
stems/acre after three years, 288 stems/acre after four years, 260 stems/acre after five years, and 210
seven year old stems/acre after 7 years.
Permanent monitoring plots (10 by 10 meters) will be established in the wetland restoration and
creation areas at a density that will statistically represent the total mitigation acreage. The average
density of these plots will determine whether the site meets the success criterion of a planted stem
density. Non-target species must not constitute more than 20% of the woody vegetation based on
permanent monitoring plots.
Soil Development
The 1.2 acre wetland creation area will be monitored to document the development of redoximorphic
features in the soil by evidence of two or more indicators i.e. changes in chroma, organic matter
content, oxidized root channels, concretions,, mottles and other indications that the soil is subject to
low oxygen conditions etc. within the seven-year monitoring period.
Two permanent monitoring plots will be established and soil profiles will be monitored yearly for
development of redoximorphic conditions by a licensed soil scientist. Profiles will be compared from
year to year and changes will be documented in the yearly monitoring reports.
Attachment C
Field Notes from August 30, 2010 Agency Field Walk
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee-Owned Since 1988
Memo
TO: Joe Pfeiffer
From: Steven F. Stokes
Attendees: Guy Pierce, Tim Baumgarder, Todd Tugwell, John Domey, Eric Kulz
CC: Ecosystem Dynamics
Date: September 17, 2010
Re: Agency Meeting at Buffalo Flats Wetland Restoration Site
KCI's Joe Pfeiffer and Steven Stokes met with the NCEEP, USACOE and NCDWQ
at a kickoff meeting at 1:30PM on August 30, 2010 to evaluate the site for wetland
restoration in accordance with our NCEEP contract. Apparently, NCEEP was
interested in getting the USACOE and NCDWQ approval of the site in advance of
starting work instead of at the end of the job. The meeting began with KCI giving to
each attendee a soil map depicting the drained hydric soil areas in the easement, the
Wehadkee and Chewacla soil complex map units, non-hydric upland areas,
Udorthents (fill and disturbed areas), seepage zones and surrounding soils by series
name (see attached map). Issues discussed included the following:
Joe mentioned that the seepage zone occurred in the transition area between the
uplands and the floodplain and in association with a weathered granite, gneiss or
sandrock outcrop. The outcrop lies parallel to KCI's easement and delivers
groundwater to the site that is quickly drained away.
Todd Tugwell made certain from the beginning that the USACOE will not verify the
hydric soils line for NCEEP and clearly stated that it is not there responsibility. That
is why NCEEP requires that a NC Licensed Soil Scientist delineate the soils. The
USACE is only responsible for a jurisdictional determination.
NCDWQ gave KCI permission to fill wetland # W1 and receive wetland restoration
credit for the impact. W 1 drains from the 2°d dug spring toward Gold Hill Road into
Dutch Buffalo Creek.
Wetland # W2, the 2"d dug spring, may be filled to receive wetland restoration credit
however neither the USACOE nor NCDWQ wants a shallow pond here and it must
be able to support tree growth.
Todd commented on the possibility of the ditches being jurisdictional wetlands as
well as some smaller areas within the hydric soils delineation and elsewhere. He
decided that these potential wetland areas were too small to account for since the
greater good would be accomplished by the restoration and water quality benefits.
Additionally, Todd said to make a note in the Restoration Plan that small areas of
jurisdictional wetlands were observed on site however they occupy such a small area
that they will be considered as restoration for this site. These wetlands were not
delineated by KCL John Domey was in full agreement.
Todd Tugwell said; do not use the word mosaic to describe the soils on site.
Apparently, he is okay with using the soil complex description.
John Dorney and Todd Tugwell both agreed that the Armenia Soil Series would be a
good soil for holding water on the restoration site. Additionally they agreed that
removing the higher areas along the unnamed creek would enhance the restoration
activities.
John Dorney stated that NCDWQ is using NCWAM to define riparian, riverine, non
riparian, etc. Guy interjected that the document was not in place when the FDP's
were advertised and KCI will not be held to those current standards. All we need is to
differentiate between riparian and non-riparian as per our proposal. John Domey said
that KCI could use the top of the wrack lines (farthest from the creek) as riparian and
the top of the wrack lines to the top of the slope as non-riparian.
John also thought the site was either Piedmont Mtn. Bottomland Forest or Piedmont
Mtn. Swamp Forest according to Schafale & Weakley.
N: Enviro.Stokes&I1-24-09 FDP.
0 Page 2
Attachment D
Cross Sections - Riparian vs. Non Riparian
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee-Owned Since 1988
DOWN ,
41M 4 vNnoavO HuaoN'uNnoosnaavevo'aaooNOO ? a
91BIIN3I?H•Btl3M1Yld•8tl3)NkYl3 R
? z
a?nru?oavw 311S NOIlV80lS3L1 z
I JIl Slv =i Old=i=if19 a
........... •S
p0 J
?w
CHCSBHEC -
9.Po
j
6 ?.
ti
1
/ `r
SNOSk%
?NNy
y ?'pp r
Nu

?
=
e
aycwadv ?w wuaWCio 'pus }}}
j??y??
M WTI xeod ne ioer
?aiure ?s
VNIIOUVO HLiION 'ALNn00 Sn21ilVBVO'02100N00 z ,?
,1 m
o
81° "' ?N3 311S NOllvilOlS3il R $ o
slvi
-iv
n
i °w
M
E

dd
=
o
e

p

N
E7
i

nmaaooia wi. ro? vr

i gZ
C
a

id
9Nd9A3tl
' c e
?OUtl[c 3lq NOYmp630 J KW 4
` 117'' mWZ tmnOUrJ wnM
MM3m
vrmoavoEUaoN•
urinoosnaavsVO'aaooNOo n
. do
9 s "3n •se3 on3 311S NOI1V2101SRI R 8 °
~
z
°W
I ??I s1V13 owuns N

B

a

a ?

SN018N3tl e
®nouan uw 1 '
'
IIIIIM A/?l VNIIOMWJ NLNON
ALNnoo snHuvsvo
aNOJNO3
N2
311S NOI1b21 a S F
01S3M a
siyu owlins

X

wnaaooi? w?.m? v? `a

9NOMAN a
X1`1 ?xa?
'
vnnoavO ruaoN
uNnoosnaavevo aaooNOo
418LLN3YJ8.8tllWVld•8tl33?CN3 ? ?
a NQ
31lS NOlIV80193H S u,
I
?I S1V13 oiv:u s y
?

3

Hmaaooiau?. m?
rn? a9
t
8 Y

SWORN a
°y9tld°' 3Y0 '""?A630 Pi
PMMy
? Vwn
v
E
'
' ?
. o
oa
UaoN
ur+noosnaaVeVO
oaooNOO
y2 g
B1W
' 31lS NOIIVMOIS3M R s

- 0p
u
r?
p
am S1V13 oivA:i e = W
N
5
a
k

i

xmaaooa w?ro?vbi
a

i

3

g