20160216 Ver 1_More Info Received_20160729

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Gerald Pottern <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 6:03 PM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a
Cc: 'Greer, Emily C SAW'; 'Mark Landis'; 'Kevin Lugo'; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Hope Mills wetland impacts
Attachments: Wetland Impact Calculations for 104.docx
Jennifer—
Attached is a new copy of Table D1 with the rows and columns lettered/numbered (red), and the Impact Summaries with
a new column showing which cells in Table D1 were used for each calculation. The acreages used in the Alt Mitig Plan are
more accurate and comprehensive than those used in the original permit application, and extend upstream of Camden
Rd, which the original application did not. The reason that "Existing marsh/scrub wetland lost" is the same (9.0 acres) for
both the 104 and 105 ft alternatives is because we considered flooding of existing marsh/scrub wetlands > 2 feet deep a
"loss", but we don't have a 102 -ft contour to use for the bottom cut-off on the 104 -ft alternative. Some of the "loss"
should actually be tallied in the "altered by deeper water" category above (for the 104 -ft alternative), but we don't know
how much without having a 102 -ft contour. The uncertain impact applies only to the 5 -yr old weedy marsh/scrub
wetlands (low -quality) that have colonized the drained lake bed.
I hope this explanation and revised table are sufficient for your needs. If you need any further clarification, let me know.
Sincerely,
Gerald Pottern
Mogensen Mitigation Inc - RALEIGH office
MMI-RJGA Environmental Consultants
104 East Chestnut Avenue
Wake Forest, NC 27587
---------------------------------------------------------
(formerly: Robert J Goldstein & Associates)
Office / Home: 919-556-8845
Mobile / Text: 919-649-6506
GPotternA_F®JGAcarolina.com
From: Burdette, Jennifer a[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:28 PM
To: Gerald Pottern <[e-mail]>
Cc: Greer, Emily C SAW ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hope Mills
Gerald,

Our Director, Jay Zimmerman, approved the alternative mitigation plan. I'm working on the approval letter, but
have some questions about the impact amounts. The original permit application based on 105 -ft spillway
reported 7.68 acres of marsh/scrub wetland loss to open water and 16.02 acres of forested wetland that would
be flooded, but is not anticipated to be a loss.
The alternative mitigation plan provided in a letter dated June 27, 2016 seems to have different impact
amounts. In the Wetland Impact Summary, 9.0 acres of marsh/scrub wetland loss and a total of 0.6 acre
flooded, but not lost, are reported for both the 104 and 105 -ft spillway. However, Table D1 lists 9.11 acres of
marsh/scrub within the 104' pool and 9.51 acres within the 105' pool. Are these discrepancies due to
marsh/scrub fringe habitat that should remain after flooding?
The Wetland Impact Summary for 104' spillway lists a total of 15.5 acres of forested wetland that will be
flooded resulting in either enhancement or alteration by deeper water and only 14.7 acres for the 105'
spillway. Table D1 only lists 10.39 acres of forest wetlands within the 104' pool and 13.98 acres for the 105'
pool.
Would you please clarify these impact amounts for me?
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer Burdette
401/Buffer Coordinator
Division of Water Resources - 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6364 office
iennifer.burdetteQncdenr.gov
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
(Physical Address: 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604 - 9t" Flr Archdale Bldg — Room 942F)
x
Email corretil'.Jol?"'{,ence to and ii`orn thio; a('{"'{I`ess o; sutYect to t1he
P,lodhl Carolina Public Records L w and 1`Y7ay be ftl`ii:'losed to tr'loird I'.'s'ai{`ies,

Wetland Impact Calculations for 104 -ft and 105 -ft spillway elevation alternatives at Hope Mills Lake
Table D1. Wetland and Non -Wetland Communities and Acreages Between Contours(NAVD-88).
Topographic
Contour
C3 + D3 +E3
Forested
Wetlands
Marsh/Scrub
Wetlands
Non-
Wetland
Forests**
Non-
Wetland
Scrub **
Open water
+ st ream
E1
Total
acres
0.0 acre
106-107 ft
A
1.48
0.00
11.42
5.79
0.00
Existing marsh/scrub wetland altered by deeper water:
18.70
105-106 ft
B
2.78
0.12
14.87
6.08
0.00
23.85
104105 ft
C
3.59
0.40
9.83
4.84
0.00
18.65
103-104 ft
D
1.21
0.09
2.66
2.66
0.00
6.62
below 103 ft
IE
9.18
9.02
16.42
39.83
13.44
87.89
104' pool acres
10.39
9.11
19.08
42.49
13.44
94.51
105' pool acres
13.98
9.51
28.91
47.33
13.44
113.16
106' total acres
16.76
9.63
43.78
53.41
13.44
137.02
107 total acres
18.24
9.63
55.20
59.20
13.44
155.71
** Non -wetland areas includedewatered former wetlands (drained cypress -gum forest,
bottomland hardwood forest, marsh/scrub, and open pool) plus bottomland hardwood and mesic
foreststhat were probably not wetlandswhen the lake wasfull.
Wetland Impact Summary for 104 -ft spillway elevation:
Former (drained) forested wetland restored:
28.8 acre
C3 + D3 +E3
Existing forested wetland enhanced:
6.3 acre
131+C1
Existing forested wetland altered by deeper water:
9.2 acre
E1
Existing forested wetland lost:
0.0 acre
Former (drained) marsh/scrub wetland restored:
7.5 acre
C4 + D4
Existing marsh/scrub wetland enhanced:
0.5 acre
132 + C2
Existing marsh/scrub wetland altered by deeper water:
0.1 acre
D2
Existing (recent) marsh/scrub wetland lost:
9.0 acre
E2
Wetland Impact Summary for 105 -ft spillway elevation:
Former (drained) forested wetland restored:
43.8 acre
133 + C3 + D3 +E3
Existing forested wetland enhanced:
4.3 acre
Al + 131
Existing forested wetland altered by deeper water:
10.4 acre
D1 + E1
Existing forested wetland lost:
0.0 acre
Former (drained) marsh/scrub wetland restored:
13.6 acre
134 + C4 + D4
Existing marsh/scrub wetland enhanced:
0.1 acre
A2 + 132
Existing marsh/scrub wetland altered by deeper water:
0.5 acre
C2 + D2
Existing (recent) marsh/scrub wetland lost:
9.0 acre
E2