20020492 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan Review_20090730

Kulz, Eric 4 7-
From: -
Kulz, Eric
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:28 AM
To: 'O'Rourke, Michael'; 'Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW'
Cc: Eaton, Larry; Dorney, John
Subject: RE: Homestead Creek site
Mike:
Your point is noted regarding the information the gauge provides. It does appear that the stream channel had
water in it during most of each of the growing seasons, at the location of the stream gauge. We cannot make
assumptions on the hydrology of the stream upstream from the gauge.
As we stated in previous correspondence, biological sampling of this stream has suggested that the upper
portion of the stream has intermittent flow. In order to expedite the closeout and credit release process, DWQ
proposes the following; all stream length downstream from the stream gauge is perennial, based on the gauge
data (and the assumption that the hydrology shown in the gauge data is representative of areas further
downstream).
We feel we cannot make assumptions regarding the hydrology upstream from the gauge, and we fall back on
our macrobenthos sampling, the results of which were more indicative of intermittent flow. Therefore, all
stream length upstream from the gauge is intermittent, and credits generated from this portion of the stream can
only be used to provide mitigation for intermittent stream impacts.
Eric, please let me know if this provides you with the information you need.
I am in the office today if anyone wishes to discuss this further.
Eric
From: O'Rourke, Michael [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:02 PM
To: Kulz, Eric
Cc: Eaton, Larry; Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW; Dorney, John
Subject: RE: Homestead Creek site
Eric,
Ok.
We did notice there was a discrepancy from some of the earlier data to the more recent data and I think I
remember it was simply an error in reporting the datum used on the survey one year. My guess is that it sounds
like we probably shifted all the good data to the bad datum to match up the elevations instead of shifting the
other way around. I need to go back and look at it again, to determine where and why the shift occurred to
answer you with more certainty since it has been months since we performed those calculations, but I will and
I'll get back to you on that answer.
I don't know if it makes any difference, but since the data was always measured from the calibration point on
the well - even if the channel elevation is incorrect, the data shown will represent the relative height of water
compared to the channel bottom and relative to bankf ill. At the end of the day aren't we concerned with how
much water is in the channel throughout the course of the year?
One more time, just so I'm clear - I thought at the close-out meeting that it was said that it did not matter if the
stream credit was perennial or intermittent at this point in time. I thought that was still pending, am I mistaken
on that? Thanks.
Michael
From: Kulz, Eric [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:46 PM
To: O'Rourke, Michael
Cc: Eaton, Larry; Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW; Dorney, John
Subject: RE: Homestead Creek site
Eric Alsmeyer has asked us to look at the stream gauge data that you provided to see if it has any effect on our
position that the upper portion of this stream is intermittent, and can generate only intermittent credit.
In looking at the plan you attached, and the gauge data you provided, we are confused over an inconsistency
related to the elevations at the site. According to the site plan, the stream gauge, identified as SG1, is situated at
an elevation between 683 and 684 feet (based on topographic contours on the plan). However, the stream gauge
data you provided appears to indicate that the channel bed elevation is between 674.5 and 675.0 feet.
Please clarify.
Thanks,
Eric
From: O'Rourke, Michael [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:40 PM
To: Kulz, Eric
Subject: RE: Homestead Creek site
Ok, no problem, Eric.
Just out of curiosity, what are you guys looking at now?
I thought we had beaten this horse to death already.
I'm not sure I can make the trip down memory lane any more entertaining than the last few times we were on
site.
Michael
From: Kulz, Eric [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:32 PM
To: O'Rourke, Michael
Subject: RE: Homestead Creek site
Mike:
Kind of frazzled today .... lots going on.
I needed the Homestead Creek figure.
thanks,
Eric
From: O'Rourke, Michael [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Kulz, Eric
Cc: Eaton, Larry; Bode, Raymond
Subject: RE: Homestead Creek site
Here you go Eric,
Michael
From: Kulz, Eric [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:40 PM
To: O'Rourke, Michael; Bode, Raymond
Cc: Eaton, Larry
Subject: Homestead Creek site
Mike/Ray;
Can you please send me something showing where on the Second Creek channel the stream gauge is located? It
is not clear on the graphics that I have.
Thanks,
Eric