20141127 Ver 1_Emails_20141107 (2)

Baker, Virginia
From:
Eaton, Larry
Sent:
Friday, November 07, 2014 12:10 PM
To:
Baker, Virginia
Cc:
Tracy, Bryn
Subject:
FW: Mud Lick Creek Comments
Hey Ginny,
Bryn makes some good comments, though you will probably find the ones that call for more sampling to be unpalatable
to Wildlands. You may be able to point out to them that if they are basing their additional credit on "measurable
sustained improvements over baseline conditions" will require more than 1 or 2 pre restoration samples. Your idea for
at least 6 specific conductance measurements would probably be appropriate for whatever other water quality metrics
they want to show improvement on (DO, nutrients, turbidity ?). His points about the probability of summer no
flow /drying should play into which stream is used as a biological reference — preferably one with a similar watershed
size (3.6mi) and ecoregion moreso than similar rosgen type or other considerations. His final comments about
promising a level of improvement before they know what they have is a good cautionary tale for future projects — if they
want credit for improving wq, they should start with a site with demonstrably impaired wq, as opposed to probable wq
impairments, which may mean a little pre pre restoration work (as Bryn puts it).
I still would be interested to know who would be doing the bug and fish collecting and IDs.
Larry
From: Tracy, Bryn
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 9:40 AM
To: Eaton, Larry
Subject: Mud Lick Creek Comments
1. Page 1 —they state that nutrients, sediment, and dissolved oxygen are a problems now and will be improved in
the future. But where are the data to support these statements? Has any pre -pre- monitoring been done to
substantiate these statements? Before the project proceeds, I think they should show there is a water quality
problem, besides a riparian habitat problem.
2. Drainage area of project is — 3.6 mil; our basinwide site upstream on the Rocky River at the USGS gage site is — 7
mil and it probably dries out. Chances are Mud Lick Creek may also go dry by mid -late summer. See graph
below. Such persistent low flows would most likely affect the biological communities.

2000.00
1000.00
c
0
c�
a�
y 100.00
CL
a�
a�
s�
10.00
c�
5
t° 1.00
L
C]
N
G
0.10
Jan
2012
USGS 0210166029 ROCKY R AT SR1300 HR CRUTCHFIELD CROSSROADS, HC
Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct
2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014
Median daily statistic {25 years} Period of approved data
— Discharge Period of provisional data
3. What is their reference site -- Spencer and /or Dutchman creeks in Montgomery County? They need a
reference stream of similar size for biological monitoring.
4. What are the biological communities like now? Is there any pre -pre- monitoring data? Is the stream impaired?
5. If the current biological communities are Good or Good -Fair, are they willing to accept the definition of success
as having the communities rate Excellent (increase from Good to Excellent) or Good (increase from Good -Fair to
Good)? That is a pretty high bar to set for project achievement for maximum credits.
If you have questions, please let me know.
a
M a
E- ii correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Pubhc Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.