20080134 Ver 1_DMS communication post 6-16-15 site visit_20150611

Baker, Virginia
From: Tsomides, Harry
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:30 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Cc: Hughes, Andrea W SAW; Baker, Virginia; Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Wilson, Travis W.;
Melia, Gregory
Subject: Suther Site Visit - Follow Up
Attachments: Suther MY4 Spring Assessment2015.pdf
Todd
Thanks for your time and attention the other day. I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts. Greg and I are going to
work up an addendum document for the site that incorporates site discussions from this week, and project summary,
and send it your way for comments.
Attached is the draft Spring 2015 site assessment we just received. I thought it was interesting that the tributary had
ample hydrology during the consultant visit, see photos. The visit was during the first week of May. This tributary also
showed good hydrology on last year's annual assessment. I was surprised to see it drier this year. This report also
indicates that some areas of previous vegetation concern "bare areas" are now emerging with woody growth. Anyways
this is the most recent document for the site and may be of interest to you after having seen the site in person.
Greg and I did catch up in person with Louis Suther after you all left. We discussed the lower reach and presence of
cattle down there at project inception. Louis said historically cattle had access to that entire section, and crossed over
into pasture area on the other side, however by the time the project came around with DOT most of that reach was
already fenced right up on the creek. Cattle continued to use the crossing and get astray at the crossing from time to
time but based on this discussion we will likely keep this (lower main stem) in a preservation context in the addendum.
He did say cattle were present in most of the upper main stem section up until it became a project. We are trying to get
ahold of the old NCDOT feasibility study to determine any pre - project conditions that might help provide clarity on
historical conditions. Also we will try to get a better handle on the location /nature of the wetland ditch filling /plugging
as well. I looked back at the construction docs and there was impervious fill material specified. It looks possibly like
there was ditch filling down to those points where there was a notched log dropdown on each ditch but I will look into
this further.
Finally, I looked into the performance criteria issue where the MY03 had some stringent measurement -type
performance language that would be difficult /impossible to attain on this project. It turns out that out that this was
erroneously introduced by the former designer (JJG) as part of the baseline monitoring (MYO) document from
boilerplate guidance we had put out, however the guidance also specifically cautioned against inserting criteria without
detailed evaluation, and that was not done. It was a cut - and -paste usage of the criteria that were not part of the
restoration plan:
"The specific indicators and criteria were provided as examples and should not necessarily be taken as standard criteria.
Designers can use them if they feel they are appropriate to their project, but does not absolve a designer /provider from a
thorough, careful and independent development of goals, objectives and monitoring elements"
We did not catch it back at the MYO and then we did not catch it on the most recent (MY3) report. Apologies for that.
We plan on removing it moving forward while keeping the standard performance criteria intact, and will reiterate that in
the mitigation plan addendum.
Thanks again for the discussion and input the other day. If there is anything you need from us in the meantime please let
me know.

Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
NCDENR - Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
tel. [phone]
http: / /Portal.ncdenr.org /web /eep/
harrv.tsomides @ncdenr.gov
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the forth Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.