HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140193 Ver 1_Response_PermittingComments_20151028 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 828.774.5547 • 167‐B Haywood Rd. • Asheville, NC 28806
October 28, 2015
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
US Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
RE: SAW‐2014‐00538 – INCOMPLETE APPLICATION comments
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS #96306)
Catawba 03050103 Expanded Service Area, Catawba County, NC
Dear Ms. Hughes,
We have reviewed the comments on the Pre‐Construction Notification (PCN) for the above referenced
project emailed on October 19, 2015 by USACE, and on October 22, 2015 by DWR, and have revised the
Mitigation Plan based on these comments. Copies of these comment emails are provided as
attachments to this letter. The pages of the plan that have been revised are numbered in the lower
right corner of the page as 23, 35, 58, 59, and 62. The revised Mitigation Plan is being provided as a
complete document, in digital format. Hard copies of the revised pages are being mailed to IRT
members so that they can replace these pages in their binders. Below are responses to each of the
USACE review letter comments. We believe that these comments also address DWR’s informal
comments which also request that a hydroperiod of 8.5% be adopted for the project performance
standard. The USACE comments are reprinted with our response in italics.
1.Natural gas pipeline replacement
Recent information indicates the potential for impacts to the Henry Fork mitigation site associated
with replacement of a natural gas pipeline. We are unable to process your application until this
issue has been resolved.
Response: The gas company has indicated that based on our concerns, they have recently altered
their proposed plans to avoid the project area and its conservation easement in its entirety. Please
reference the attached email from the gas company.
2a. Wetland hydrology performance standards
Wetland areas receiving mitigation credit for hydrologic restoration/enhancement should
demonstrate saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 8.5% of the growing season
for Catawba County.
Response: We have revised performance standard criteria as required above. This is discussed in
revisions to section 5.3.1.4, and section 12.3. As discussed with Ms. Hughes, we have included
language that the performance criteria shall be applied such that it is a general trend exhibited in
most wells in most years. As long as this trend is met, hydrologic restoration shall be accepted.
2
2b. Invasive species management
Please provide details on contingency actions to address invasive species issues.
Response: Wildlands has already begun treating invasive species at the project site and will continue
to do so, as needed to ensure the hydrologic and ecologic success of the project, during the
monitoring period. Section 12.2 states that “It is anticipated that Chinese privet from the adjacent
areas to the west could migrate onto the site; this will be closely monitored. Invasive species
treatment will be conducted in the mitigation area during the 7‐year monitoring period as needed to
ensure the hydrologic and ecologic success of the project.” Footnote 5, in Table 22, in Section 13.1,
has been revised to specifically state that Chinese privet and other invasives will be identified within
the easement area, mapped and treated as needed with cut and treat, or other suitable methods.
Section 13.4 states that invasive species will be visually assessed, mapped, and treated where
present, and identified Chinese privet as a specific species of concern. The adaptive management
plan (Section 15.0) indicates that monitoring and maintenance will be performed as specified (in
Sections 12.2, 13.1 and 13.4).
2c. Sream gaging on intermittent streams
Please note that a sufficient flow regime is typically a minimum 30 consecutive days of flow.
Response: This has been added as part of the criteria for intermittent stream hydrology, and is stated
as follows in section 12.1.5: “The flow regime should indicate sufficient flow to maintain an Ordinary
High Water Mark (OHWM), specifically a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow during periods of
normal rainfall.”
3. General Comment Contingency plans for additional wetland credits
Regarding Section 8.2, please note that no additional credits may be requested for mitigation sites
after mitigation plan approval. Regarding recent discussions between NCDMS and the Corps,
areas that have the potential to generate mitigation credits should be identified during mitigation
plan development and included in the mitigation plan with established monitoring protocols and
performance standards.
Response: Upon further discussion of this matter with this Corps, additional credits may be accepted
under the condition that they are identified early in the monitoring period and gaged to demonstrate
that performance standards are met over the remainder of the monitoring period. The last
paragraph of Section 8.2 has been revised to clarify that any additional potential wetland credit
generating areas shall be identified and gaged in this manner.
Please let me know if you have any additional comments.
Sincerely,
Jacob P. McLean, PE, CFM
3
CC:
Tim Baumgartner, tim.baumgartner@ncdenr.gov
Matthew Reid, matthew.reid@ncdenr.gov
Todd Tugwell, Todd.Tugwell@usace.army.mil
Lin Xu, Lin.Xu@ncdenr.gov
Paul Wiesner, paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov
Alan Johnson, alan.johnson@ncdenr.gov
Ginny Baker, virginia.baker@ncdenr.gov
Steve Kichefski, Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil
1
Ja
k
e
M
c
L
e
a
n
Fr
o
m
:
Ja
k
e
M
c
L
e
a
n
Se
n
t
:
We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
8
,
2
0
1
5
1
1
:
2
4
A
M
To
:
Ja
k
e
M
c
L
e
a
n
Su
b
j
e
c
t
:
FW
:
P
i
e
d
m
o
n
t
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
L
i
n
e
Fr
o
m
:
Ry
a
n
Ho
u
c
k
<Ry
a
n
.
H
o
u
c
k
@
p
i
e
d
m
o
n
t
n
g
.
c
o
m
>
Da
t
e
:
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
1
5
at
7:
4
5
:
4
8
AM
ED
T
To
:
Sh
a
w
n
Wi
l
k
e
r
s
o
n
<sw
i
l
k
e
r
s
o
n
@
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
.
c
o
m
>
Su
b
j
e
c
t
:
Pi
e
d
m
o
n
t
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Ga
s
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Li
n
e
Go
o
d
mo
r
n
i
n
g
Sh
a
w
n
,
I am
wr
i
t
i
n
g
to
co
n
f
i
r
m
th
a
t
Pi
e
d
m
o
n
t
ha
s
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
a ne
w
ro
u
t
e
an
d
ac
q
u
i
r
e
d
th
e
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
la
y
th
e
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
pipeline without
im
p
a
c
t
i
n
g
yo
u
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
ne
a
r
th
e
He
n
r
y
Fo
r
k
Ri
v
e
r
.
Th
e
ne
w
al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
st
a
y
s
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
of
f
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
owned by WEI‐HENRY
FO
R
K
,
LL
C
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
di
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
an
y
of
ou
r
ea
r
l
i
e
r
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
to
ac
q
u
i
r
e
an
ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
(e
i
t
h
e
r
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
or
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
)
on
th
i
s
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Wh
i
l
e
we
fa
i
r
l
y
co
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
in
th
e
ne
w
ro
u
t
e
,
I fe
e
l
I mu
s
t
ad
d
so
m
e
di
s
c
l
a
i
m
e
r
,
th
a
t
th
e
ro
u
t
e
is
su
b
j
e
c
t
to
ch
a
n
g
e
.
In
th
e
un
l
i
k
e
l
y
event that
so
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
ar
i
s
e
s
to
ma
k
e
us
re
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
ou
r
ro
u
t
e
,
we
wi
l
l
app
r
o
a
c
h
yo
u
on
c
e
ag
a
i
n
wi
t
h
a ne
w
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
.
J.
Ry
a
n
Ho
u
c
k
Se
n
i
o
r
La
n
d
Ag
e
n
t
47
2
0
Pi
e
d
m
o
n
t
Ro
w
Dr
i
v
e
| Ch
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
,
NC
28
2
1
0
Of
f
i
c
e
:
70
4
.
7
3
1
.
4
4
6
8
| Ce
l
l
:
70
4
.
7
6
3
.
0
0
6
8
Fa
x
:
70
4
.
7
3
1
.
4
0
9
2
| ry
a
n
.
h
o
u
c
k
@
p
i
e
d
m
o
n
t
n
g
.
c
o
m
1
Ja
k
e
M
c
L
e
a
n
Fr
o
m
:
Hu
g
h
e
s
,
A
n
d
r
e
a
W
S
A
W
<
A
n
d
r
e
a.
W
.
H
u
g
h
e
s
@
u
s
a
c
e
.
a
r
m
y
.
m
i
l
>
Se
n
t
:
Mo
n
d
a
y
,
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
9
,
2
0
1
5
5
:
3
5
P
M
To
:
Ba
u
m
g
a
r
t
n
e
r
,
T
i
m
Cc
:
Wi
e
s
n
e
r
,
P
a
u
l
;
R
e
i
d
,
M
a
t
t
h
e
w
;
T
u
g
w
e
l
l
,
T
o
dd
S
A
W
;
L
i
n
.
X
u
@
n
c
d
e
n
r
.
g
o
v
;
J
a
k
e
M
c
L
e
a
n
Su
b
j
e
c
t
:
SA
W
-
2
0
1
4
-
0
0
5
3
8
-
I
N
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
E
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
-
H
e
n
r
y
F
o
r
k
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
i
t
e
-
C
a
t
a
wb
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
(
U
N
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
D
)
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
UN
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
D
Ca
v
e
a
t
s
:
NO
N
E
On
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
22
,
20
1
5
,
we
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
th
e
Pr
e
‐Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
No
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(P
C
N
)
fo
r
a Na
t
i
o
n
w
i
d
e
Pe
r
m
i
t
#2
7
in
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
fo
u
r
(4
)
st
r
e
a
m
reaches and ten (10) wetland
ar
e
a
s
on
th
e
He
n
r
y
Fo
r
k
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Si
t
e
.
Th
e
st
r
e
a
m
re
a
c
h
e
s
ar
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
as
UT
1
,
UT
1
A
,
UT
1
B
,
an
d
UT
2 an
d
th
e
we
t
l
a
n
d
ar
e
a
s
are identified as Wetlands
A,
B
,
C
,
D
,
F
,
G
,
J
,
O
,
R
,
an
d
S.
Th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
si
t
e
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
no
r
t
h
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Ha
r
r
i
s
Fa
r
m
Ro
a
d
an
d
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
Vi
e
w
Ro
a
d
,
so
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
of Hickory, Catawba
Co
u
n
t
y
,
No
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
.
(3
5
.
7
0
2
.
8
9
3
,
‐
81
.
3
6
4
4
3
6
)
Th
e
PC
N
re
q
u
e
s
t
s
DA
pe
r
m
i
t
au
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
5,
5
4
4
li
n
e
a
r
fe
e
t
of
st
r
e
a
m
channel and 0.380 acre of
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
as
s
oc
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
st
r
e
a
m
an
d
we
t
l
a
n
d
re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
is
in
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
an
d
ca
n
n
o
t
be
pr
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
un
t
i
l
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
is
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
:
1.
Re
c
e
n
t
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
th
e
He
n
r
y
Fo
r
k
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
si
t
e
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
of
a na
t
u
r
a
l
gas pipeline. We are unable
to
pr
o
c
e
s
s
yo
u
r
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
un
t
i
l
th
i
s
is
s
u
e
ha
s
be
e
n
re
s
o
l
v
e
d
.
2.
Th
e
He
n
r
y
Fo
r
k
Dr
a
f
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
wa
s
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
up
o
n
th
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
re
v
i
s
i
n
g
th
e
fi
n
a
l
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
IR
T
concerns. See below for IRT
co
n
c
e
r
n
s
th
a
t
ha
v
e
no
t
be
e
n
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
y
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
in
th
e
re
v
i
s
e
d
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
.
a.
We
t
l
a
n
d
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
St
a
nd
a
r
d
s
:
We
t
l
a
n
d
ar
e
a
s
re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
cr
e
d
i
t
fo
r
hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
/
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
should demonstrate
sa
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
i
n
12
in
c
h
e
s
of
th
e
so
i
l
su
r
f
a
c
e
fo
r
at
le
a
s
t
8.
5
%
of
th
e
gr
o
w
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
fo
r
Ca
t
a
w
b
a
Co
u
n
t
y
.
b.
In
v
a
s
i
v
e
Sp
e
c
i
e
s
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
:
Pl
e
a
s
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
de
t
a
i
l
s
on
co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
ac
t
i
o
n
s
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
in
v
a
s
i
v
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s
is
s
u
e
s
.
c.
St
r
e
a
m Ga
g
i
n
g
on
In
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t
St
r
e
a
m
s
:
Pl
e
a
s
e
no
t
e
th
a
t
a su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
fl
o
w
re
g
i
m
e
is
ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
a mi
n
i
m
u
m
30
co
n
s
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
days of flow.
Re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
Se
c
t
i
o
n
8.
2
,
co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
pl
a
n
s
fo
r
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
we
t
l
a
n
d
cr
e
d
i
t
s
,
pl
e
a
s
e
no
t
e
th
a
t
no
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
cr
e
d
i
t
s
ma
y
be
re
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
for mitigation sites after
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
Re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
re
c
e
n
t
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
NC
D
M
S
an
d
th
e
Co
r
p
s
,
ar
e
a
s
th
a
t
ha
v
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
mitigation credits should be
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
wi
t
h
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
pr
o
t
o
c
o
l
s
an
d
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
standards.
If
yo
u
ar
e
un
a
b
l
e
to
su
b
m
i
t
th
e
ab
o
v
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
i
n
30
da
y
s
of
re
c
e
i
p
t
of
th
i
s
No
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
we
wi
l
l
co
ns
i
d
e
r
yo
u
r
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
withdrawn. Please call or email
me
if
yo
u
ha
v
e
an
y
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
.
2
An
d
r
e
a
Hug
h
e
s
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
,
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
11
4
0
5
Fa
l
l
s
of
Ne
u
s
e
Ro
a
d
Wa
k
e
Fo
r
e
s
t
,
No
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
27
5
8
7
(9
1
9
)
84
6
‐25
6
4
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
UN
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
E
D
Ca
v
e
a
t
s
:
NO
N
E
DWR comments on the Henry Fork Wetland Hydrology Performance Criterion
The Wildlands letter (September 2, 2015) responding to the IRT concerns regarding the wetland
hydrology performance criterion focused on two primary factors for their desire to keep the standard at
a 7.2% hydroperiod:
1.“Assessment of the hydrology data was focused on the response of the water table
elevations to precipitation (DrainMod model) as opposed to setting minimum hydrology
criteria based on the reference hydrology”.
2.Wetland hydrologic criterion utilized on past projects.
a.Four sites show a Bottomland Hardwood forest with hydrologic criteria ranging from
6.5% to 8.5%, based on the information below these sites should probably be at
least 10-12%
b.One site is a Coastal Plain Stream/Swamp and Bottomland Hardwood, without
knowing the soils on site, the fact that the wetland type is identified as a Swamp
would likely push this hydrologic success criterion higher (12%) in the future.
c.One site is an Emergent Wetland-typically emergent wetlands have significantly
greater hydroperiods than 7.5%
After reviewing the Wildlands response, DWR believes the wetland hydrologic performance criterion
should be at least 8.5% as previously recommended based on the following information:
1.In 2012, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP, now Division of Mitigation Services) formed
the Science Advisory Panel to assist the Program with a number of issues. One of the issues
identified was wetland hydrology assessment. The expert panel, to name just a few, consisted
of Michael Vepraskas, Wayne Skaggs (developed DrainMod), and Steve Broome of North
Carolina State University. In short, their recommendation to EEP was a wetland hydrology
performance criterion of 12.5%.
2.While utilizing DrainMod as tool to predict wetland hydrology is useful, it should not be relied
on solely to come up with the wetland hydrology standard. DWR believes this tool should be
used in conjunction with the reference hydrology and soil data. Wildland states in their
response letter that the reference data showed a 23% hydroperiod.
3.The soils data (and landscape position) also support a wetland hydrologic criterion of greater
than 7.2%. First of all, good information can be gleaned from the taxonomy of the mapped soils.
The reference soil is mapped as Chewacla and its taxonomic subgroup is identified as a
Fluvaquentic Dystrudept, or a young developing soil located in a riparian landscape position with
a udic moisture regime (not hydric). The restoration site is mapped (and confirmed by the
mitigation plan) as Hatboro, and its taxonomic subgroup is identified as a Fluvaquentic
Endoaquept, or a young developing soil in a riparian landscape position with an aquic (hydric)
moisture regime. DWR believes that two important points can be surmised from this
information; one, that the mapped soil on the restoration site has a wetter regime than the
reference and two, the fact that both soils reflect a fluvial landscape position supports the
contention that both groundwater and surface flow should be considered when determining a
wetland hydrologic performance criterion.