19990974 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20070920

Re: TC Roberson Additional Monitoring Requirements
Subject: Re: TC Roberson Additional Monitoring Requirements
From: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:00:37 -0400
To: Barbara Wiggins <[e-mail]>
CC: Kevin Barnett <[e-mail]>
Barbara:
qq-o9?~'
Based on my observations, I didn't see any concerns regarding the stability from a longitudinal
standpoint, and you are correct, that many projects require the longpro and pebble counts in
alternating years.
Go ahead and leave those out of year 4. We'll do a complete physical monitoring in year 5. My
biggest concern out there anyway is the vegetation, more specifically maintaining the buffer width, as
well as watching a few isolated areas of bank scour/erosion.
I look forward to next years monitoring report.
Eric
Barbara Wiggins wrote:
Eric - by complete, I will include the Long pro and pebble count for year 4, correct? I guess I was
remembering the few projects that were really long (almost a mile) or very small (almost
intermittent streams) where the Long pro was dropped on years 2 and 4. I am pretty sure that
BannerLowe Individual Permit 404/401 is proposed that way. I called to clarify this so just let me
know by phone or email if this is correct.
OK on the benthic. I know from talking with Dave Penrose that the benthic work was being
phased out (at least on new projects) for many regions in NC and the data was not significant or as
significant in showing improvement as DWQ had hoped. Your information on the continuing
data collection was good and will help us in talking with clients about what they may have to do
for monitoring requirements.
The TC Roberson proposed vegetation plan revisions for management are in the hands of Mr.
Roberts and he should get back to me this week. These are mainly the lower section proposal for
management. He met with school officials on Monday to "berate" them on the mowing that they
have been doing. He is looking at fencing the upper section as one option or managing the upper
area similar to the lower section.. Once they have determined what they need to do, we will let
you and. Kevin and the COE know. It is in the works as we speak. We will also address what they
propose to do on the bank erosion at that point.
Barbara
1 of 3 11/19/2007 10:48 AM

Re: TC Roberson Additional Monitoring Requirements
__
From: Eric Kulz [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 7:28 AM
To: Barbara Wiggins
Cc: Kevin Barnett
Subject: Re: TC Roberson Additional Monitoring Requirements
Barbara:
We will need the complete monitoring for five years, as we require from the majority of
mitigation sites (except those strange ones where, for whatever reason, we approved something
that deviated from the norm). Please proceed as you described for years 4 and 5.
In addition, please continue the benthic monitoring. Wa actually have ongoing monitoring for
quite a few sites int he various ecoregions, and are adding more, speneding on the ecoregion. We
have been assembling a dataset often sites (five large, five small) per ecoregion, and have been
compiling this for some time now. We still have additional data needs in several ecoregions.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Also, please keep both Kevin and I in
the loop about the proposed vegetation management issues we discussed at the site..
Thanks,
Eric
Barbara Wiggins wrote:
Eric -FWA is preparing a scope and fee for Buncombe County School system for the additional
two years of monitoring that will be required at TC Roberson. If we use the standard DWQ
monitoring requirements, that would mean 4th year -cross section survey, photos and vegetation
monitoring and 5th year -long pro, cross section surveys, pebble counts, and vegetation surveys
for the final year. This site never did have the erosion pins or BEHI requirement at the site.
However, the first three years we did the Longitudinal profile and pebble count annually per the
School's original proposal. Will you allow the school to drop the long pro and pebble count for
the 4th year? If so, we will scope the work accordingly.
This site is one of the last 401 permit sites to be monitored for benthic community recovery that I
am aware of. Will you require benthic monitoring in the 4th and 5th year? I just want to make
clear what DWQ wants to have monitored for the fu115 years.
Thanks for your information. We will design the monitoring program appropriately for the final 2
years at TC Roberson.
Barbara Wiggins, CLM
FWA
2 of 3 11/19/2007 10:48 AM

Re: TC Roberson Additional Monitoring Requirements
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
3 of 3 11/19/2007 10:48 AM

TC Roberson Plan
Subject: TC Roberson Plan
From: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:28:54 -0500
To: Barbara Wiggins <[e-mail]>
Barbara:
Sorry to have not gotten back to this project...it has been pretty crazy around here recently. the answer
is that the plan is acceptable; however, our conditions are going to be that all work be overseen by a
qualified person with knowledge and understanding of riparian zone design and function (not simply
esthetics). In addition, DWQ also requests that you work with Kevin to make sure he is able to be at
the site, definitely for a meeting with the folks who are going to do the work, whether it be a contractor
or county personnel, as well as to check on the progress of the work. Please coordinate with him to
determine what kind of lead time he will need to be able to be there.
In addition, I am imploring you to remind the applicant that this is a mitigation site, and that a 30-foot
wooded riparian zone must be maintained at the site. There is a conservation easement that must be
maintained in perpetuity. My one concern is that after the monitoring period is done, there will be
wholesale cutting and mowing to maintain a "park-like" appearance to satisfy the concerns of the
school community (the usual snakes, etc.). After having spent two years in the Raleigh Regional
Office, I understand public sentiment about "natural" areas along streams (that they need to be
"cleaned up", etc.)..
The applicant really needs to evaluate whether they are willing to commit to this in perpetuity. If there
is a lot of resistance, it may be that they need to seek alternative mitigation for a portion of the site.
I will get a letter out within the next two weeks outlining the issues I have included in this a-mail.
Eric
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 11/19/2007 10:48 AM