- Joined
- Apr 18, 2005
- Location
- Greensboro, NC
These are some technical discrepancies noted by forum member yellowjeepcj who is a Registered Professional Engineer with expertise in Hydrology and Sedimentation. Please check these out and use them in your letters and calls!
General:
On Page one of the EA you make the following statement:
“There is a need to stem the flow of sediment that is entering the Upper Tellico River and its tributaries from the OHV System, and thereby improve habitat for native brook trout.”
I disagree with this assertion. If we are truly trying to improve the habitat for the native brook trout then we need to be about the business of reducing the flow of sediment entering the Upper Tellico River period, regardless of the source. We should be considering all sources of sediment. This EA does not consider all the sediment sources. To properly evaluate the total impact to the fishery the environmental assessment, while studying the impact of the OHV system, must include the contribution of other sediment sources. You have made an assumption that the OHV activity in the watershed is contributing sediment of significance.
In Chapter 3 of the EA you report data from various watersheds. You fail to evaluate each watershed for similarity to the upper Tellico watershed. You have reported data from other sub-basins but have not provided any analysis to determine if these basins as statistically similar in nature to the watershed in question. For example, you need to make a comparison of size, slope, soils, percent of private ownership vs. public, flow, management techniques, stream characteristics, rainfall amounts in each basin, etc.
It does not appear that your monitoring plan has been in place long enough to provide enough data to develop a conclusion.
The manner in which you have reported the TSS and Turbidity measurements give the appearance that there is an impact due to the OHV system. This may not be the case if the data were properly analyzed. The proper reporting of the comparison between the reference watersheds is to report the values that are statistically significantly different. I suspect that when all the information is considered that none of the data from the OHV area are significantly different from any similar reference watershed. In addition, you fail to recognize the fact that Turbidity is not a measure of sediment in the stream. EPA admits that Turbidity is not a good measure of sediment in their proposed rules for Effluent Limit Guidelines for Construction Activities published in the Federal Register November 28, 2008. In this document they provide an example of the case where a high turbidity reading is obtained but no suspended sediment is found. EPA also recognizes that the converse can be true. In your data this is the case where you show a high TSS level for Bald River but a lower turbidity measurement. There are two data points you have reported in table 3.1.1.4 that should make you question the conclusion you have drawn. Again the data is reported in such a manner that it is misleading and slanted to show an impact due to the OHV area. The same is true for the data presented in the appendix. All of this data should have been tested significantly to determine if there is really a difference between the sub-basins reported. This error must be corrected to reach the correct conclusion.
In Figure 3.1.1.3 you report turbidity measurements from a single storm event and appear to compare to the standard of 10 NTU. This is an incorrect application of the 10 NTU standards. This standard is not a storm event standard it is applicable to 7Q10 flows as per 15A NCAC 02B.0206 (a) (1). Please correct this error.
In Table 3.1.1.5 you report storm event data from 1999 to 2006 for the median values of TSS in mg/l. You do not include all of the reference sites. There were several large events (i.e hurricanes 2004) that will skew this information. It is important to include all the reference sites. The Citico Creek site does not appear to pass the test of similarity to the Upper Tellico site due to the ownership status. Please correct the reporting in this table.
You have applied the Rosgen methodology for stream stability classification and tried to directly tie this classification to habitat improvement. Rosgen techniques were developed for western streams primarily receiving their runoff from snow melt. This is a completely different application that streams in the eastern and southeastern US. Streams like the ones in the Upper Tellico Watershed were develop to receive runoff from high intensity rainfall events with yearly totals 50 plus inches. Many western streams where Rosgen techniques were developed only receive a fraction of the rainfall amounts in the western North Carolina area. I object to the use of Rosgen methodology and recommend you use the tractive force and permissible velocity methods to determine stream stability.
Based on the results presented from the biological assessment it inconclusive at best the improvement to be achieved by selecting alternative C. You do not present compelling evidence that any improvement will occur by selecting this alternative. You indicate it is more likely that improvement may occur. This is hardly convincing enough to eliminate $4.8 million from the local economy.
Specific comments:
Section 1.1
Forest Plan standards for soil and water are being violated.
· Visible sediment standards are neither part of the Federal Clean Water Act requirements nor part of a North Carolina standard. This is admirable as part of the Land and Resource Management Plan for Nantahala but, is not necessary for water quality compliance.
· You mention 1/3 of the 2000 visible sediment sources are reaching the Upper Tellico River. Please provide a location map of these sources and evidence that they are discharging sediment to the upper Tellico River or its tributaries. I am requesting this information as part of an FOI request.
· You mention that six miles of trails are within 25 feet of the stream. According to 15A.NCAC 02B.0104 (p) (1) this 25 foot buffer is 2.5 times the required buffer for forestry and agricultural activities.
4. North Carolina standards for turbidity are being violated.
· 15A NCAC 02B.0206 (a) (1) provides the flow criteria to apply all water quality standards for classification as 7Q10 flows. You have applied the turbidity standard to storm flows. This is in error and should be corrected. The standard of 10 NTU is a standard to be met in 7Q10 flow conditions not in storm events. No watershed in the region will meet this standard in a storm event including those without OHV activity. The data you report supports that this is the case.
5. Brook trout reproduction is being negatively affected.
· The following streams mentioned in the study are all meeting their classified uses as follows:
o Tipton Creek C,TR
o Bob Creek C,TR
o Mistletoe Creek C,TR
o Tellico River C,TR
o Peckerwood C,TR
o Round Mtn Br. C,TR
o Bearpen Br. C,TR
o Jenks Br. C,TR
· There is no indication by the NC standards that trout reproduction has been affected. Please present studies on trout reproduction numbers compared to one of the test watersheds used for comparison with no OHV areas. Without data to back up this claim please remove it from the EA. You mention in this section a number of things that can affect the trout population but provide no evidence of impact to the trout population.
2) Trail density is being exceeded.
· An allowable trail density by the Forest Plan is 25 miles for 8000 acres. I am not opposed to reducing the trail density to the required levels. However, we should be able to do this and maintain some significant challenge areas. Again, I believe a trail rotation plan will achieve this objective as well as protecting the fishery.
Section 1.4
Item1. a and b. The State Water Quality rules establish a 10 foot separation between the active disturbed area and the waterbody. You reference the NC Forest Practice Guidelines for Water Quality. These have no force and effect, they are guidelines. While these guidelines present some good ideas they are very vague and obscure. The fact is that the Tellico OHV system meets the requirement in the 15A NCAC 02B.0206. As a matter of fact and by admission in your EA exceeds the rule by 2.5 times.
General:
On Page one of the EA you make the following statement:
“There is a need to stem the flow of sediment that is entering the Upper Tellico River and its tributaries from the OHV System, and thereby improve habitat for native brook trout.”
I disagree with this assertion. If we are truly trying to improve the habitat for the native brook trout then we need to be about the business of reducing the flow of sediment entering the Upper Tellico River period, regardless of the source. We should be considering all sources of sediment. This EA does not consider all the sediment sources. To properly evaluate the total impact to the fishery the environmental assessment, while studying the impact of the OHV system, must include the contribution of other sediment sources. You have made an assumption that the OHV activity in the watershed is contributing sediment of significance.
In Chapter 3 of the EA you report data from various watersheds. You fail to evaluate each watershed for similarity to the upper Tellico watershed. You have reported data from other sub-basins but have not provided any analysis to determine if these basins as statistically similar in nature to the watershed in question. For example, you need to make a comparison of size, slope, soils, percent of private ownership vs. public, flow, management techniques, stream characteristics, rainfall amounts in each basin, etc.
It does not appear that your monitoring plan has been in place long enough to provide enough data to develop a conclusion.
The manner in which you have reported the TSS and Turbidity measurements give the appearance that there is an impact due to the OHV system. This may not be the case if the data were properly analyzed. The proper reporting of the comparison between the reference watersheds is to report the values that are statistically significantly different. I suspect that when all the information is considered that none of the data from the OHV area are significantly different from any similar reference watershed. In addition, you fail to recognize the fact that Turbidity is not a measure of sediment in the stream. EPA admits that Turbidity is not a good measure of sediment in their proposed rules for Effluent Limit Guidelines for Construction Activities published in the Federal Register November 28, 2008. In this document they provide an example of the case where a high turbidity reading is obtained but no suspended sediment is found. EPA also recognizes that the converse can be true. In your data this is the case where you show a high TSS level for Bald River but a lower turbidity measurement. There are two data points you have reported in table 3.1.1.4 that should make you question the conclusion you have drawn. Again the data is reported in such a manner that it is misleading and slanted to show an impact due to the OHV area. The same is true for the data presented in the appendix. All of this data should have been tested significantly to determine if there is really a difference between the sub-basins reported. This error must be corrected to reach the correct conclusion.
In Figure 3.1.1.3 you report turbidity measurements from a single storm event and appear to compare to the standard of 10 NTU. This is an incorrect application of the 10 NTU standards. This standard is not a storm event standard it is applicable to 7Q10 flows as per 15A NCAC 02B.0206 (a) (1). Please correct this error.
In Table 3.1.1.5 you report storm event data from 1999 to 2006 for the median values of TSS in mg/l. You do not include all of the reference sites. There were several large events (i.e hurricanes 2004) that will skew this information. It is important to include all the reference sites. The Citico Creek site does not appear to pass the test of similarity to the Upper Tellico site due to the ownership status. Please correct the reporting in this table.
You have applied the Rosgen methodology for stream stability classification and tried to directly tie this classification to habitat improvement. Rosgen techniques were developed for western streams primarily receiving their runoff from snow melt. This is a completely different application that streams in the eastern and southeastern US. Streams like the ones in the Upper Tellico Watershed were develop to receive runoff from high intensity rainfall events with yearly totals 50 plus inches. Many western streams where Rosgen techniques were developed only receive a fraction of the rainfall amounts in the western North Carolina area. I object to the use of Rosgen methodology and recommend you use the tractive force and permissible velocity methods to determine stream stability.
Based on the results presented from the biological assessment it inconclusive at best the improvement to be achieved by selecting alternative C. You do not present compelling evidence that any improvement will occur by selecting this alternative. You indicate it is more likely that improvement may occur. This is hardly convincing enough to eliminate $4.8 million from the local economy.
Specific comments:
Section 1.1
Forest Plan standards for soil and water are being violated.
· Visible sediment standards are neither part of the Federal Clean Water Act requirements nor part of a North Carolina standard. This is admirable as part of the Land and Resource Management Plan for Nantahala but, is not necessary for water quality compliance.
· You mention 1/3 of the 2000 visible sediment sources are reaching the Upper Tellico River. Please provide a location map of these sources and evidence that they are discharging sediment to the upper Tellico River or its tributaries. I am requesting this information as part of an FOI request.
· You mention that six miles of trails are within 25 feet of the stream. According to 15A.NCAC 02B.0104 (p) (1) this 25 foot buffer is 2.5 times the required buffer for forestry and agricultural activities.
4. North Carolina standards for turbidity are being violated.
· 15A NCAC 02B.0206 (a) (1) provides the flow criteria to apply all water quality standards for classification as 7Q10 flows. You have applied the turbidity standard to storm flows. This is in error and should be corrected. The standard of 10 NTU is a standard to be met in 7Q10 flow conditions not in storm events. No watershed in the region will meet this standard in a storm event including those without OHV activity. The data you report supports that this is the case.
5. Brook trout reproduction is being negatively affected.
· The following streams mentioned in the study are all meeting their classified uses as follows:
o Tipton Creek C,TR
o Bob Creek C,TR
o Mistletoe Creek C,TR
o Tellico River C,TR
o Peckerwood C,TR
o Round Mtn Br. C,TR
o Bearpen Br. C,TR
o Jenks Br. C,TR
· There is no indication by the NC standards that trout reproduction has been affected. Please present studies on trout reproduction numbers compared to one of the test watersheds used for comparison with no OHV areas. Without data to back up this claim please remove it from the EA. You mention in this section a number of things that can affect the trout population but provide no evidence of impact to the trout population.
2) Trail density is being exceeded.
· An allowable trail density by the Forest Plan is 25 miles for 8000 acres. I am not opposed to reducing the trail density to the required levels. However, we should be able to do this and maintain some significant challenge areas. Again, I believe a trail rotation plan will achieve this objective as well as protecting the fishery.
Section 1.4
Item1. a and b. The State Water Quality rules establish a 10 foot separation between the active disturbed area and the waterbody. You reference the NC Forest Practice Guidelines for Water Quality. These have no force and effect, they are guidelines. While these guidelines present some good ideas they are very vague and obscure. The fact is that the Tellico OHV system meets the requirement in the 15A NCAC 02B.0206. As a matter of fact and by admission in your EA exceeds the rule by 2.5 times.
