20141127 Ver 1_Methods for measuring wq imprv_20141112

Baker, Virginia
From: Jean Spooner <jean_spooner @ncsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:09 PM
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: Re: methods for measuring water quality improvement in mitigation sites
I have a graduate student meeting until about 2pm. After that, you can call me on Friday.
Try my office: (919) 515 -8240
Personnel cell: (919) 602 -0049
Ideally upstream will stay the 'same' land use over time. But, it can be 'dirty.'
On 11/12/2014 12:50 PM, Baker, Virginia wrote:
Hi Jean, thank you so much for taking the time to respond to me. If it is alright I would like to follow up
with a few questions on sample size /design and proposed parameters.
It will not be to ask the consultant to install a continuous flow meter. Those are often installed on
mitigation sites. The plan will fence cattle out of the stream area and plant trees in the buffer, but I'm
not sure what is happening upstream.
Is there a time I can reach you on Friday? I will be in a meeting from 9:30 to noon then out at lunch.
Next week I potentially have jury duty all week but could probably reach you at lunch or before 9 am.
My comments are due on Friday of next week.
I really appreciate your insight. Having research and professional experience behind our regulatory
decisions is paramount.
Thanks, Ginny Baker
From: Jean Spooner [mailtoJean spoonerCa)ncsu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:36 AM
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: Re: methods for measuring water quality improvement in mitigation sites
Your project has good potential, but your insights to the need to strengthen the proposed monitoring
are correct.
To document changes for non - biological water quality variables, you will need several monitoring
components. From your discussion below, you seem to be on target for a potentially good
project. You'll need:
1. a water quality problem in which the mitigation will results in at least a 30% improvement in wq (I
thing you will have if you plan to fence and give the cattle alternative water /shade)
2. Pre - monitoring of both UPSTREAM and DOWNSTREAM. You will need enough samples to document
the relationship between these 2 sites. We use continuous flow monitoring and composite samples
(using an ISCO sampler). The number of grab samples suggested below will NOT yield definitive results.

3. MUST have hydrology measurements. Ideally a continuous flow meter. If not, at least a continuous
gage height and rainfall. Rainfall gages with continuous measurements are fairly inexpensive and stage
height monitoring which is a little more money. Without this, the water quality measured could be
better or worse, just related to the hydrology /weather and you won't know if due to mitigation.
4. POST - mitigation monitoring. Same frequency /sampling regime as pre- monitoring. Again, sufficient
timeframe to document results.
I am committed today and tomorrow, but if you want to call me on Friday or next week, I would be glad
to hear /share more.
jean
On 11/12/2014 10:56 AM, Baker, Virginia wrote:
Hello Dr. Spooner,
I received your contact information from Steve Kroeger who heads up our intensive
survey unit at the Division of Water Resources. He gave me your attached article as
reference. I was wandering if you had time to give some feedback on ways to determine
stream mitigation success using water quality parameters?
My current job at NCDWR involves reviewing and making comments on stream and
wetland mitigation plans. There has been a trend toward basing mitigation credit ratios
on successful ecological uplift. In the past most of the ecological uplift for streams has
been determined by vegetation, stable banks, removal of livestock and fencing of
riparian buffers etc. We currently have means of measuring success for these
improvements. However, I recently received a mitigation plan for review that proposed
receiving extra credit for the "sustained improvement" of aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish communities as well as water quality parameters. The plan defined success as
sustained improvement of at least one of the biological communities and /or three of
the water quality parameters (Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Fecal Coliform,
Turbidity, Temperature, pH, DO, Conductivity). Unfortunately defining success as
"sustained improvement" seemed very vague to me so I am trying to come up with
something more appropriate to advice the consultant on in my comments. NC DWR has
methodology for measuring improvement through biological indices for the aquatic
macroinvertebrates and fish communities which I feel comfortable advising this
consultant on, but I have not found that we have an appropriate method for water
quality. I talked to one person at our 319 program and am waiting to hear from the
other, but I thought I would contact you as well.
Right now the consultant, who is very reputable at designing mitigation projects but less
experienced in this type of monitoring, has proposed collecting 8 baseline samples (2
each season, high flow and base flow). Post construction samples will be collected in
years 2, 4, and 7 at the same two locations (same seasonal schedule as baseline) and at
the downstream extent of each reach (5 locations with the same seasonal schedule). I
plan to suggest that baseline samples and post construction samples be collected at the
same exact locations. Right now there are cattle in the stream with no shade. The
mitigation plan calls for removing the cattle, redesigning the stream, and planting trees
in the buffer so I would expect a number of these parameters like fecal coliform,
temperature etc would improve, however I am not sure what the conditions upstream
of the mitigation site are like. The consultant also plans to take water quality samples
just above the site and believes these should be taken into account when determining
success. The sections of the report that address water quality monitoring and success

are attached, these are very brief. I suspect we will be receiving more plans in the future
that request additional credits if more involved monitoring can show successful
ecological uplift.
From my experience with collecting water quality data in wetlands and small headwater
streams I know that parameters have lots of variation and much it is due to natural
variation at the site and not necessarily significant changes in the system so I would be
concerned about awarding extra credit for something that might be just happen
stance. I looked at your paper on water quality and was thinking of using this to advice
the consultant, however I am not sure if their pre - sampling size and over all sampling
number would be sufficient to statistically detect measurable significant success.
Any advice or suggestions you might have would be much appreciated.
Thank you,
Ginnv Baker
Transportation Permitting Unit
NCDENR- Division of Water Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 2 7699 -1 65 0
Phone -(919) 707 -8788, Fax -(919) 733 -1290
Dr. Jean Spooner, Emeritis Extension Professor
Director, Soil & Water Environmental Technology Center
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina State University
Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695 -7625
PHONE: 919 - 515 -8240 FAX: 919 - 515 -6772
INTERNET: jean spooner @ncsu.edu
WWW: http : / /www.ncsu.edu /waterquality
Dr. Jean Spooner, Emeritis Extension Professor
Director, Soil & Water Environmental Technology Center
NCSU Water Quality Group
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina State University
Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695 -7625
PERSONEL CELL: (919) 602 -0049
OFFICE PHONE: 919 - 515 -8240 (answered infrequently FAX: 919 - 515 -6772
INTERNET: jean spooner @ncsu.edu
3

WWW: http : / /www.ncsu.edu /waterquality