20060952 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20100129

2_0d?00g5Z
Hill, Tammy
From: Baumgartner, Tim
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 9:36 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Cc: Eric Kulz; Hill, Tammy; Pearce, Guy; Haupt, Mac
Subject: RE: Brown Farm
Todd and Eric,
Thanks for the comments on this. I'll share this with the Provider (KCI) and figure out a
game plan for the future. This site is on the Durham/Orange County line if you would like to
make a quick visit one afternoon. Could be there and back in a few hours.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim Baumgartner, CPESC
Full Delivery Program Specialist
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone - [phone]
Cell - [phone]
****************************************************************
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.
****************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:57 AM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Eric Kulz; Hill, Tammy
Subject: RE: Brown Farm
Tim,
sorry for the delay in responding. Based on what you've written below and the info in the
table, I think it is likely that replanting would not be required. Obviously the goal is to
have a forested site with a desirable mix of species, which appears to be happening despite
the mortality of some of the planted species. I suspect the volunteers are probably better
suited for the site than the planted trees anyway.
I agree with Eric's comment about sweetgums and maples potentially crowding out the more
desirable species. This might be a situation where its appropriate to conduct a single
treatment to remove sweetgum and maples-froni'certain areas where they are thickest. To me,
this would be preferable to replanting new trees that will be immediately shaded out.
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
1

t
Hill, Tammy
From. Tugwell, Todd SAW [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:57 AM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Eric Kulz; Hill, Tammy
Subject: RE: Brown Farm
Tim.
sorrry for the delay in responding. Based on what you've written below and the info in the
table, I think it is likely that replanting would not be required. Obviously the goal is to
have a forested site with a desirable mix of species, which appears to be happening despite
the mortality of some of the planted species. I suspect the volunteers are probably better
suited for the site than the planted trees anyway.
I agree with Eric's comment about sweetgums and maples potentially crowding out the more
desirable species. This might be a situation where its appropriate to conduct a single
treatment to remove sweetgum and maples from certain areas where they are thickest. To me,
this would be preferable to replanting new trees that will be immediately shaded out.
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer
Service Survey is located at:
http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.'himl.' Thank you for taking the time to complete the
survey.
-----Original Message-----
From: Baumgartner, Tim [mailto:tim.batmgartnergancdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:27'PM`
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: FW: Brown Farm
Todd,
Hope you are doing great. We would really appreciate your perspective on a situation we
have.
We have a project on the Orange/Durham County line called Brown Farm now in Year 3. It is a
wetland project that has met success for hydrology for the most part (ie. now at >12.5%)
since construction.

x ,
Looking strictly at the planted stems, they are below in planted stems in some plots.
Volunteers included in the mix however, are well above success criteria. Note the document
portion and table below. The report write up and note at the bottom of the table points out
that the volunteers counted exclude red maple and sweet gum and appear to be very desirable
for this area. By the way, the site visually looks great...trees growing well.
So, how would you react to this data? Would this potentially be acceptable in the thinking
of closeout down the road? Thanks for any comments you may have. Below are Eric's commen"
Thanks,
Tim
cid:[e-mail]92E10
cid:[e-mail]92ElO

-------------------------------------
Tim Baumgartner, CPESC
Full Delivery Program Specialist
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone - [phone]
Cell - [phone]

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.

2
s
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:00 PM
To: Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Hill, Tammy
Subject: RE: Brown Farm
Tim;
Probably a site to be looked at. The planted stem counts are a little low (<320 spa, which
you indicate is the success criterion). However, there are some quality volunteers that have
come up in reasonably good numbers. I:guess one question we would have is are the stem
densities of maple and sweetgum such that they would be considered invasive, e.g. are they
growing so densely that they are physically .crowding desirable species out, or outcompeting
the desirable species for water/nutrients? Also, is the density and growth rate of the maple
and sweetgum such that they are going to shade out the desirable species?
Tammy, please chime in with your feelings as well. Also, you should probably query USACE, as
they are the final word on the IRT as''far as success of a particular site.
I know its not a definitive answer, but it is hard to say without looking at the site and
discussing with IRT folks.
Eric
From: Baumgartner, Tim
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:51 PM,'`
To: Kulz, Eric
Cc: Pearce, Guy
Subject: Brown Farm
Eric,
Hope you are doing great
I have a problem I need some advice on.
We have a project on the Orange/Durham County line called Brown Farm now in Year 3. It is a
wetland project that has met success for hydrology for the most part (ie. now at >12.5%)
since construction.
'3
r

Looking strictly at the planted stems, they are below in planted stems in some plots.
Volunteers included in the mix however, are well above success criteria. Note the document
portion and table below. The report write up and note at the bottom of the table points out
that the volunteers counted exclude red maple and sweet gum and appear to be very desirable
for this area. By the way, the site visually looks great.:.trees growing well.
So, how would you react to this data? Would this potentially be acceptable in the thinking
of closeout down the road? Thanks for any comments you may have.
Thanks,
Tim

Tim Baumgartner, CPESC
Full Delivery Program Specialist
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone - [phone]
Cell - [phone]
****************************************************************
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.

4