The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140193 Ver 1_ACOE-EEP communication_20151005Baker, Virginia From: Hughes, Andrea W SAW <Andrea.W.Hughes @usace.army.mil> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 1:13 PM To: Baker, Virginia Subject: FW: Notice of Intent to Approve DMS Draft Mitigation Plan with Comments /Henry Fork Mitigation Project /Catawba County /SAW - 2014 -00538 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE I'm forwarding the e -mail correspondence I had with Tim after the memo went out. So to answer your question, no - I am not satisfied with their response. I just received the NWP so I'll review the entire document today. We can either condition the permit to address our concerns or tell them that they did not address the concerns and direct them to revise the MBI. Thanks for putting it on my radar. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hughes, Andrea W SAW Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:22 PM To: 'Baumgartner, Tim' Cc: Wiesner, Paul; Tugwell, Todd SAW; Russell, Periann; Ellison, Michael; Jurek, Jeff Subject: RE: Notice of Intent to Approve DMS Draft Mitigation Plan with Comments /Henry Fork Mitigation Project /Catawba County /SAW- 2014 -00538 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Hi Tim, If the provider is proposing to restore a bottomland hardwood wetland, I would encourage 8.5 % of the growing season based on the WETS table or soil temperature for consistency. Alternately, they could propose to identify an appropriate reference site, collect data on the reference hydrologic regime (timing, frequency, depth, and duration), and propose performance standards tied directly to the reference data. However, this alternative requires at least one year of pre - construction monitoring as well as data collection throughout the entire monitoring period (7 years) for the reference site and the mitigation site. For the Henry Fork site, the plan indicates they used Drain -mod to model existing and proposed conditions. They state that they used a performance standard of 7.2% for the model to ensure that soil wetness would be suitable for the proposed wetland re- establishment. They do not provide any other reason for using this performance standard in the model. They also state they have a wetland reference site and they have collected data on the reference site for 3 years yet they do not provide a location (lat /long), data forms, photographs, or monitoring data. The reference site has Chewacla soils and the mitigation site has Hatboro soils. Chewacla soils are frequently flooded for long duration, somewhat poorly drained, have a thermic temperature regime, and a high water table from November to April. Chewacla is included on the hydric soils list due to criteria #4. Hatboro soils are briefly flooded, poorly drained, have a mesic temperature regime, and a high water table from October to May. Hatboro is included on the hydric soils list due to criteria #2b3. A wetland reference site with Chewacla soils may not be appropriate for the Henry Fork mitigation site but again, very little information was provided. The difference between 7.2 and 8.5 is approximately 3 days. I don't anticipate the provider having difficulty in meeting the 8.5% standard. Regarding long -term management, the Rule (see 33 CFR 332.4(c)(iii)) stipulates that mitigation banks and in -lieu fee programs must prepare a mitigation plan that includes the items listed in [33 CFR 332.4] (c)(2) through (c)(14) for each separate compensatory mitigation project site. Site protection is listed under (c)(4) and long -term management plan is listed under (c)(11): Site protection: A description of the legal arrangements and instrument, including site ownership, that will be used to ensure the long -term protection of the compensatory mitigation site. Long -term Management Plan: A description of how the compensatory mitigation project will be managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the long -term sustainability of the resource, including long -term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long -term management. The Rule provides additional details on the requirements of a long -term management plan under 33 CFR 332.7 (d). A long -term management plan should include a description of long -term management needs, annual cost estimates for these needs, and identify the funding mechanism that will be used to meet those needs. Some examples of long -term management activities include signage, invasive species management, repair /replacement of fencing, repair /maintenance /replacement of structures, etc. If the CE holder will serve as the long -term manager but the owner will be responsible for a long -term management activity such as fence repair /replacement, this information should be included in the mitigation plan and the conservation easement. The in -lieu fee agreement states (first paragraph under section G on page 13) that sites will be managed in perpetuity in accordance with the long -term management plan included with the mitigation plan or report for the property. Regarding service area for the Henry Fork site, my comment pertains only to this property. It has no reflection on the outcome of your request and no decision has been made at this point. The dilemma is the timing of the Henry Fork submittal. Since a decision has not been made, the only way to proceed is to review the service area request on a "case - by- case" basis until an extended area is approved. Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss any of these issues. Thanks, Andrea Andrea Hughes Mitigation Project Manager Regulatory Division, Wilmington District 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 (919) 846 -2564 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Baumgartner, Tim [mailto :tim.baumgartner @ncdenr.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:17 PM To: Hughes, Andrea W SAW Cc: Wiesner, Paul; Tugwell, Todd SAW; Russell, Periann; Ellison, Michael; Jurek, Jeff Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Notice of Intent to Approve DMS Draft Mitigation Plan with Comments /Henry Fork Mitigation Project /Catawba County /SAW- 2014 -00538 (UNCLASSIFIED) Andrea, Thanks for forwarding the comments to us. I know we emailed about this topic concerning Aycock Springs, but this is the second time I have seen the comment. Is there really a statistical difference between 7.2% as proposed and 8.5% as you are requiring? Is the USACE setting a standard in which all wetlands shall demonstrate 8.5% hydroperiod? If that is so, Providers and DMS need to know that way ahead of mitigation plan submittal. Also, I'm still not seeing the scientific basis for this call, especially without consideration for site conditions, soils, topography, landuse, etc. Is there any other reasoning other than it sounds good? Also, the comments concerning long term management are covered by our instrument (Page 13, G). Not sure why this information is being requested on a project by project basis. For your #9 comment, we brought this to the IRT's consideration last meeting. It is scheduled for more discussion in Sept. meeting. Are you saying the IRT has reservations about approving the use of Catawba credits? Thanks for your time. [iliil Tim Baumgartner Deputy Director of Operations Division of Mitigation Services Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office - 919 - 707 -8543 Cell - 919 - 218 -2557 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hughes, Andrea W SAW [ mailto: Andrea.W.Hughes @usace.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:02 PM To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Johnson, Alan; Brown, David W SAW; Fritz Rohde (Fritz. Rohde @noaa.gov); Leslie, Andrea J; Baker, Virginia; bowers.todd @epa.gov; Karoly, Cyndi; Jones, Scott SAW; Higgins, Karen; Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Marella Buncick (Marella_Buncick @fws.gov); McLendon, Scott C SAW; Poupart, Jeff; Gledhill- earley, Renee; Wilson, Travis W.; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW Cc: Baumgartner, Tim; Wiesner, Paul; Jake McLean Subject: Notice of Intent to Approve DMS Draft Mitigation Plan with Comments /Henry Fork Mitigation Project /Catawba County /SAW- 2014 -00538 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE on The 30 -day comment review period for the Henry Fork Mitigation Project ( USACE AID SAW- 2014 - 00538, EEP Project # 96306) closed on July 25, 2015. All comments that were posted on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the review process are attached for your records. Additionally, comments can be reviewed on the Mitigation Plan Review Portal (utilizing the excel option). We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period, and determined that the concerns raised during the review are generally minor and can be addressed in the final mitigation plan. Accordingly, it is our intent to approve this Mitigation Plan unless a member of the NCIRT initiates the Dispute Resolution Process, described in the Final Mitigation Rule (33 CFR Section 332.8(e)). Please note that initiation of this process requires that a senior official of the agency objecting to the approval of the mitigation plan (instrument amendment) notify the District Engineer by letter within 15 days of this email (by COB on September 2, 2015). Please notify me if you intend to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process. Provided that we do not get any objections, we will provide an approval letter to NCDMS at the conclusion of the 15 -day Dispute Resolution window. This approval will also transmit all comments generated during the review process to NCDMS, and indicate the comments that must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All NCIRT members will receive a copy of this letter and all comments for your records. Thanks for your participation, Andrea Hughes Mitigation Project Manager Regulatory Division, Wilmington District 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 (919) 846 -2564 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE