20011743 Ver 1_More Info Received_20081103

rt -**-- I
Ecosystem
, J
t
PROGRAM
Q
NOV 3 2008
DENR WATER QUALITY
WE?LANDS AND STORM`NATER 6R,gNCri
October 30, 2008
Mr. Eric Kulz
Senior Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Re: August 6, 2008 Review letter for: County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoration Site
Year 4 Annual Monitoring Report, Buncombe and Henderson Counties
DWQ #01-1743/05-2093
Dear Mr. Kulz,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Monitoring staff have reviewed your August 6, 2008 letter and
made a site visit to the County Line stream restoration project. EEP staff responses to the DWQ comments are
as follows:
1. DWQ stated that substantial repairs were conducted on lowest 2,100 linear feet of the 3,500 linear
foot project and it may be necessary to extend the monitoring period for several years.
EEP response: EEP agrees that further monitoring is needed to verify that the repairs result in a stable
stream reach. Whenever the EEP conducts moderate to extensive repair on stream restoration projects, it
is always the intent to extend the monitoring period. Stream channel repairs were completed on the
downstream portion of the project by February 2007. While determining the exact cause of the
geomorphic instability is often unclear, it was thought that the channel repairs were needed due to
improperly built and/or designed structures. In addition, the placement of these structures came into
question. The EEP Monitoring staff will recommend to the PACG-TC that the County Line stream
restoration project be monitored for three additional years.
2. DWQ is concerned about the vegetation in the riparian buffer. While the number of stems per acre
do meet the success criteria, many of the planted "characteristic" species did not survive The
fijzures show numerous areas of bare banks.
EEP response: EEP staff agrees that there are a few areas where stem density is a problem. The EEP
will pursue supplemental plantings in conjunction with the golf club in specified areas. On the whole,
when the vegetation is left alone, it does well. Another important distinction to note regarding the
riparian buffer at County Line is the management plan as specified in the conversation easement. This
management plan specifies that the lower portion of the project (approximately from station #23+00 to
33+50) a play-over area. The vegetation in this area can be cut to a height of 2 feet above the ground.
EEP realizes this fact will affect the credit of the project.
3. DWQ stated that there appeared to be areas of encroachment within the conservation easement.
EEP response: Since the repair work has been initiated, EEP staff have been negotiating a "revised"
easement with three different management companies. The latest firm appears to be the most
cooperative. Considerable time has been spent by our Property Management Specialist in obtaining an
agreement on a revised easement and marking of the boundary. As a result, EEP staff observed in the
October 2008 visit that the encroachment areas that DWQ noted in the August 6th letter have since been
left untouched.
4. DWQ recommends supplemental planting of more desirable species to increase the diversity
should consider some type of barrier along the conservation easement.
EEP response: The EEP Monitoring staff will pursue a limited amount of supplemental planting in
conjunction with the golf club. The conservation easement boundary is now marked with bollards and
signage.
5. DWQ stated that the success of this project is not certain and it is not clear the cause of the failure on
the repaired reach. In addition, two headcuts were identified in the monitoring report that may have
to be repaired.
EEP response: The EEP staff believe that the County Line stream project is a successful project and will
continue to be a successful project. The cause of the failure was addressed in #1. The recent repairs
have held over the past growing season and EEP will be monitoring the reach for the next three years.
The headcuts that the report identified were found and are very minimal, and have not changed over the
past couple of monitoring periods. There is very coarse material and grade control in the immediate
areas of these zones and the head cuts were in the 2-4 inch range. As such, monitoring staff reasoned
that no repairs were needed on the identified minimal headcuts (the cuts were 2-4 inches). The
identification of problem areas on the Current Condition Plan Views (CCPVs), while helpful, can
sometimes represent over-cataloging. Members of the monitoring staff have been working to try to
better define thresholds and criteria for the large number of firms participating, so that false positives
and false negatives can be further reduced.
Please contact me at (919-715-1070) if you have any questions about this letter or this project.
Sincerely,
Mac Haupt, Monitoring Supervisor
eCC: Kathy Matthews- EPA
Tom Walker- USACE
Scott McLendon- USACE
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net