PERMFILE56651 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• INTRODUCTION During the site visit conducted by Mr. Nick Mezei, of the Corps of Engineers; of the proposed Hogue Gravel Pit and in subsequent telephone conversations regarding the permitting situation for the proposed Hogue Gravel Pit being developed by Duckels Construction, Inc., Mr. Randy Jackson, of Duckels, was informed that a functional analysis of the wetlands on this site would have to be performed to facilitate processing the 404 permit application that may be needed for gravel deposits on this site. At that time, the WET Methodology outlined in Adamus et. al. (1987) was recommended. The purpose of this report is to give an account of the analysis of wetland functions and values as requested by the Corps. In order to make the Adamus et. al. (1987) report applicable to this location, the Corps recommended that the experience and professional -. opinion of the wetlands.consultant who mapped the wetland on this site be incorporated . _ into this.functional analysis. This-report therefore includes an evaluation of the property. ..._ _. -. . using the WET Methodology as well as the professional opinion of the wetlands consultant. METHODS • Examination of the WET Methodology (Adamus et. al. 1987), and the areas of .. environmental concern identified in the 404 (b)(1), 24 December 1980 Federal Register, requirements reveals. that essentially all of the sections covered in the Federal Register _ are also covered, usually_in greater detaif, in the WET Methodology. Since the WET -_ Methodology has several distinct advantages Qisted on page 9 of that document) that . readily allow for the differences in functional values and probability ratings to "be pinpointed, it was decided that the initial analysis would consist of performing a functional analysis of the wetland values on the proposed Hogue Pit using this technique. Then as a means of checking the accuracy of this evaluation methodology, the experience of Duckels' consultant in this immediate area would then be compared with the probability ratings obtained using the WET Methodology. Areas where apparent differences of opinion existed between the results obtained from the WET Methodology, the existing scientific literature and those of Duckel's consultant are found in the Discussion Section. Quantitative and qualitative information used to respond to the questions found in the WET Methodology regarding water quality, aquatic biology, soils, etc., were obtained from the sources listed in the Literature Cited section. Additional data were obtained using existing aerial photographs and topographic maps of the site. As recommended by the Corps, this evaluation was conducted using only the readily available existing information for the site. The computerized WET Methodology was used as the basis of this evaluation. Evaluation levels completed in this effort included Social Significance Levels 1 and 2, Effectiveness and Opportunity Levels 1, 2 and 3 and Habitat Suitability. • The Assessment Area used in this evaluation included the entire project area depicted on the previously submitted wetland maps. This area encompassed essentially the entire area to be impacted as well as the possible mitigation areas.