20141127 Ver 1_Meeting Min Notes_20160322

Strickland, Bev
From:Baker, Virginia
Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:53 PM
To:Haupt, Mac
Cc:Higgins, Karen
Subject:FW: meeting
Attachments:Meeting Min Notes for MudLick Creek 3.docx
Hey Mac,
I attached my rough notes from the meeting we had on Mud Lick Creek last week. I’m not sure if you are really
th
wanting to get this permit out the door before Apr 4….. I would prefer to see what Greg’s changed draft looks like
before the permit is approved. If that will not work with your schedule please note my comments to Greg below. I am
particularly uncomfortable with using another site as a “disturbance proxy”, I don’t think that data will be worthwhile to
collect or use for informing baseline condition at all. Hopefully Greg will be able to get some samples collected this
summer at Mudlick since the baseline was confirmed at only 8. It is possible our lab could help with some of the analysis
this summer if he runs into a contracting issue for his timeline of getting the work done. Since this plan really is in flux I
had talked to Karen about this issue and she suggested putting a disclaimer in our permit conditions. You might want to
work with her on the language. I think it would also wise to include the success criteria in that disclaimer, I know Greg
was going to make it much more vague… We probably don’t need a disclaimer for the macroinvertebrate and fish
methodology which would be a little strange since they are DWR methods.

Ginny

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>
Cc: Higgins, Karen <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Hi Greg,
I will be working part of the day tomorrow at home so if the revisions to the Mudlick Plan are done please send them to
th
me. Otherwise I will review them when I get back on Apr 4, I’m not sure of Mac will want to issue this before then.
th
Please, see my comments below in your March 18 email. I was going to see if Karen had any other input, but she has
not had a chance to get back to me.
Ginny

From: Melia, Gregory
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 8:46 PM
To: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Thanks Ginny

OK, that makes sense. I could see you wanting that in the permit language

Have a good weekend

Please Note our new Department Name Below
1

Greg Melia
Stream Sciences and Monitoring Specialist | Science & Analysis Section |
NC Dept of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services |
Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 | Office: 217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A, Raleigh, NC 27603
Office: 919.707.8919 | Fax: [phone] | Mobile: [phone] | http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep
Parking and visitor access information

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to

third parties.

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 6:14 PM
To: Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Hey Greg, Thanks for checking on the base samples Wildlands collected. Since the plan will need to have some flexibility
in regards to base samples, assuming the results direct you to move forward I wanted to check with Karen on my
response to item 3. We can permit the plan as is, you are right there, but we might want to put some kind of a
“disclaimer” in our permit conditions regarding the extra wq monitoring methodology. I should be able to get back to
you early next week when I hear back from Karen. Number 1 and 2 are clear since we discussed.

Ginny
From: Melia, Gregory
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 11:15 AM
To: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Schaffer, Jeff <[e-mail]>; Andrea Hughes
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Ginny,

Just glancing at the Wildlands pre-work it looks like the results were a lot better organized than I thought, but it looks
they have 4 base flow and 4 storm flow samples at this point for the physico-chemical parameters. That’s not enough
obviously, but I would like to leave it open because I’m hoping that I will be able to get out with our summer interns or
tech and get more samples. Bet estimate for construction is October-Nov. Alternatively I may be able to locate a
neighboring disturbed site further up in the watershed that will serve as a “disturbed proxy” and we could collect
supplemental data from to pool with the data we’ve already collected to characterize the pre-con condition.

My thought on using another site further upstream as a “disturbed proxy” seems to be an approach that should be
avoided. I would think this would introduce too much variability into your sample design and analysis, although I would
be open to hearing what Jamie and your contacts at NC State think about that.

Collecting some additional baseline data this summer with an intern would be more useful and seems to be a better
approach. Could language be added to your revision of the methodology (even if these are potential plans) along these
lines?

From my point of view, the language in the mit plan and the above makes 3 things clear:
2

1.The supplemental credit sought is contingent upon the cost, so the exact amount will never be known in

advance, only that it will not exceed 10% (and will in all likelihood be substantially less than that) Yes

2.The pre-con and/or disturbed data set will inform the final scope, which now looks like we won’t know for sure

at least until the fall based on my discussion above. (Yes, see above)

3.The supplemental credit being sought exists outside the mitigation per se and the permit is really to properly

consider and account for impacts and to some extent approve the mitigation/mitigation approach. It seems
what we are proposing here is “firewalled” from those functions of the permitting process, so should it matter if
we move forward with some uncertainty given what is spelled out in the plan? As I mentioned before since the
water quality methodology is still in this “flexible” state and the fact that the whole sampling may or may not
move forward DWR would probably put a “disclaimer” in our approval conditions. Generally I am more
comfortable with the macroinvertebrate and fish methodology (and success criteria) that was proposed since
those are DWR methods that have been tested and used for a number of years. Please be sure to reference the
methodology and mention the Qual 4 macroinvertebrate procedure you plan to use since there are four
methods in that SOP for macroinverts. Larry Eaton had expressed some concern about who would do the IDs
and also I think about carrying out the procedure correctly. It is possible someone from the lab could answer
questions or do some brief training on the Qual 4 procedures.

Again, I don’t have a lot of the regulatory perspective on this, but given what I’ve stated above, let us know your
thoughts.

Thanks,

Greg

Please Note our new Department Name Below

Greg Melia
Stream Sciences and Monitoring Specialist | Science & Analysis Section |
NC Dept of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services |
Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 | Office: 217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A, Raleigh, NC 27603
Office: 919.707.8919 | Fax: [phone] | Mobile: [phone] | http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep
Parking and visitor access information

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to

third parties.

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:48 PM
To: Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>
3

Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Hi Greg, Thanks, I’m sure if you are going on vacation as I am you have a number of things to get done before you leave
so I understand.

I think your saying that no extra credit would be sought if the pre –data indicated the effort was not worthwhile may
have been in there and I missed it, but we discussed that in the meeting so that part is clear. I was kind of wandering
about the number of event samples for the pre data, if you ended up obtaining too few (<12-14? Jamie had mentioned
17?) would you then move forward or not? I know you were also going to look at the WQ results in making your
decision, but I was not real clear on exactly what the deciding factor would be.

I’m not 100% certain about moving forward with the permit when the extra credits are hinging on the baseline results
being evaluated first, I’m also too new to the regulatory world and have not issued permits to have an answer to your
question on flexibility. That one so I might like to have Mac confer with Karen first before issuing the 401 while these
prelim results are pending. This is also a unique project so there’s that too. Since it sounds like you will have the data
assessed and we will still be within the 60d window (although not the 30d window) it may not be an issue.
Ginny

From: Melia, Gregory
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: meeting

Thanks, Ginny

Yes, I will try and get a look at that as soon as I can, but I’m out the week after next and I’ve got a ton to get done on
many fronts before then. So, I can get the revised mit plan text by next week, but I’m not sure about the assessment of
the pre-data.

Doesn’t my language in the narrative that indicates that the pre-data once assessed will help inform the final monitoring
plan (which can range from nothing, to implementing the full plan) kind of address the concern?

Again, I don’t have the regulatory perspective in mind a lot of the time, so is there a problem with the mit plan moving
forward with this kind of flexibility?

If so, let me know

Thanks,

Greg

Please Note our new Department Name Below

Greg Melia
Stream Sciences and Monitoring Specialist | Science & Analysis Section |
NC Dept of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services |
Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 | Office: 217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A, Raleigh, NC 27603
Office: 919.707.8919 | Fax: [phone] | Mobile: [phone] | http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep
Parking and visitor access information

4

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to

third parties.

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:54 PM
To: Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W SAW <[e-mail]>; Schaffer, Jeff
<[e-mail]>
Subject: meeting

Hey Greg, thanks again for planning the meeting today, I felt much more comfortable with my questions being answered
and your approach moving forward. If you are able to get the revisions out by next Wed before I go on vacation that
would be much appreciated. Also, if you are able, to can you let me know the number of sample events (base and storm
flow) that occurred for the baseline conditions. You had indicated the wq baseline is complete now, right (?), but it will
be 2-3 more weeks before the baseline is reviewed and you know if this extra sampling will go forward.

Thanks!

Ginny Baker
Transportation Permitting Unit
NCDEQ-Division of Water Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phone-[phone], Fax-[phone]

5

Meeting Min Notes for MudLick Creek 3-17-2016 Project # 20141127
Attendees at Green Sq
Greg Melia and Jeff Schaeffer (DMS), Mac Haupt and Ginny Baker (DWR), Andrea Hughs (ACOE)

Greg Melia said he had conferred with Dan Line and Jerry Miller in regards to number of water quality
sampling events that would result in a statically valid and representative study of a site. Greg was saying
12-14/yr although later he introduced me to Jamie, a new employee at DMS who thought the number
was 17.
DMS is proposing to change the methods to 12-14 sampling events / yr, base flow and multiple storm
flows. Sampling would be done for base conditions and yrs 4-7 in the latter half of the study.
Wildlands has already collected base information and turned into DMS. Greg has not evaluated so does
not know the number of base samples yet. DMS will bid out the biocriteria and wq work for years 4-7 as
wildlands with cataena as a subcontractor was way too expensive.
The wq and biocriteria sampling for mudlick creek was DMS’s idea not Wildlands (as I had thought).
I asked Greg to reference the Professors, Dan Line and Jerry Miller in the wq directions as well as
reference the DWR lab for the biocriteria methods.
Greg said that no credit will be sought if the baseline data indicates that it is not really possible to obtain
improvement due to the wq parameters being too poor OR too good etc. This fact was not clear from
reading the final draft. Baseline work will not be compensated for in credits if no further work is done.
Andrea said she found some emails that supported the change in the crediting from 300-500 credits to
up to 10% of the credits. Greg assured they just wanted to get paid back for doing the work.
I (ginny) asked about deploying the ISCOs that DMS picked up from the lab but Greg said the DO sensor
in all of them needed to be repaired which is $2500/each. ???? Was this as they were stored with the
membrane or stored in our non-air conditioned shed? Strange that all seven would need repair. Greg
seemed open to deploying them later on in the study. It would be really interesting to compare the
individual data sets taken and results to constant data sets taken with the Isco.
Andrea and Ginny were both concerned about putting success criteria in this study as it may be
precedence setting for some future study. We both wanted definitive success criteria to be removed
throughout, including with the biocriteria. Although I had said based on my conversations with the DWR
lab (Brynn Tracey and Larry Eaton) that I felt the increase in a bioclass was potentially a valid way of
showing improvement. I was more concerned about putting success criteria on the wq. As it now read
and ave improvement in the mean would constitute success.
Greg to rewrite methodology with changes next week and will evaluate baseline data in a few weeks.