Laserfiche WebLink
10/5/17 <br /> Mr. Montgomery, USACE <br /> Page 3 of 12 <br /> levels throughout the year. This means that there is little change in groundwater <br /> levels and that groundwater should provide a good supply to the replacement <br /> wetlands. <br /> The Reclamation Plan also includes a section describing the functions and values of <br /> the pre-existing and planned wetlands. There were to be three distinct habitats constructed, <br /> including <br /> (1) deep-water habitat with algae and floating and rooted aquatic vegetation, <br /> (2) wetlands with persistent emergent vegetation of similar composition to that in the <br /> existing wetlands, and <br /> (3) an area of wetlands consisting of persistent emergent vegetation with willows. <br /> Four ponds were originally to be created (Ponds 1, 2, West, and East Pond), along <br /> with emergent wetlands along the periphery of each pond and some zones of wet meadow. <br /> The proposed East and West Ponds were later rearranged and called the South Pond, the <br /> subject of this letter. The South Pond was to include an area of open water and peripheral <br /> wetlands with emergent and semi-emergent plant species planted from nursery stock. South <br /> of the open water was to be a wetland marsh area. The water supply to the South Pond area <br /> is the primary subject of this discussion. In particular, groundwater was observed to be <br /> upwelling into the marsh area on the south zone of the South Pond in 2004. WWE's drawing <br /> of the planting plan (attached) is the best portrayal of the plant species and the geometry of <br /> the South Pond. Also attached is the Final Planting and Seeding Plan that shows the entire <br /> mitigation area of the South and North Ponds. <br /> In anticipation of the expected acceptance of the mitigation wetlands by the Corps in <br /> 2004, 1 raised the question about the perpetual water supply to the South Pond that is crucial <br /> to the success of the wetland construction, among other topics. My concerns were the result <br /> of reviewing the DRMS files for the Maryland Creek Ranch (MCR) gravel mining permit. <br /> Drawings of the mining plan and reclamation plan for the MCR pit indicated that the lakes on <br /> the west side of Highway 9 would be lower than the Love Pit South Pond and therefore the <br /> groundwater supply would be eliminated. I discussed the concerns with Anthony Curtis at the <br /> time. He advised me that the property owner (Randy Winegard) had no official standing in <br /> the matter and would have to file a Freedom of Information request to become involved. He <br />