20070989 Ver 1_More Info Letter_20060324

~~::
.wry ~~
N~DENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
March 24, 2006
Mr. Ryan Smith /1(1 ~1,~ ~~~
KO and Associates, Inc. (,1 ( (J
1011 Schaub Dr.
Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Mr. Smith:
RE: Little Lick Creek Stream Restoration at Grove Park Golf Course, Durham, NC
Durham County
The following comments relate to the site visit made by myself and Ms. Amy Chapman
on March 20, 2006. This project is a proposed stream mitigation site for the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program for stream/buffer restoration and stormwater Best Management Practice
installation. The purpose of our site visit was to determine which types of stream mitigation
were appropriate for this site with respect to the required 401 Certification for this project.
The site involves Little Lick Creek as it flows through the golf course. We walked the
length of the channel from hole 11 where the project starts to hole 17 where the project ends.
The following discussion concerns stream segments along that transect.
I. Area near Hole 11 and 12 in golf course right of way -This section of the
creek is experiencing some instability and bank failure probably due to the lack of
wooded buffer. Your plans to relocate this section, stabilize banks and plant
woody vegetation (although not trees) seems reasonable. The exact amount of
credit for planting a woody but not treed buffer has not been dealt with by the
PACG-TC but I will refer the issue to that committee for decision.
II. Wooded area between Hole 11 and 14 -This area is in a mature hardwood
forest. Although there are a few small locations of unstable channels (mostly
where there is active golf course on one side), the vast majority of the channel is
stable with an excellent wooded buffer. Your plans to relocate this channel are
not acceptable to the Division - in short, this channel does not need to be
relocated/restored and we believe that more damage will be done to the channel
if it is relocated. Please develop a modified plan to identify and address the few
locations of severe bank failure with in-place stabilization instead. Also see the
note in item V below for an additional discussion of work in this area.
III. Area through Holes 14 and 15 in golf course right of way -Again this section
of the creek is unstable due to the lack of woody vegetation. Your plans to
relocate this section, stabilize banks and plant woody vegetation (although not
trees) seems reasonable. The exact amount of credit for planting a woody but
not treed buffer has not been dealt with by the PACG-TC but I will refer the issue
to that committee for decision.
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal OpportunitylAfrirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarolina
~aturaltr~

IV. Area between Holes 14 and 15 -This area is dominated by a mature
bottomland hardwood forest and the stream channel is fairly stable. Again, there
is no reason to do any stream relocation work in this area.
V. Area between Hole 15 and 17 -The stream in this area has been diverted to
run along Hole 16 and the remnant channel is located in the woods. Your plans
to construct a new channel in the woods is not acceptable as we have discussed
in the field since it would disturb a mature hardwood forest. Instead based on
our discussions, a plan to divert flow back into the remnant channel after first
carefully removing the sediment that has filled the channel (back to a typical
cross sectional area) over the past several years would be acceptable to DWQ.
The present channel will then be turned into a linear wetland system to treat
stormwater from the golf course. I have attached a copy of the map for this area
that was attached to the application. The channel appears to have been located
as drawn in yellow on the map you provided to us during the site visit rather than
in the location of the wetland that we saw in the field. Based on this information,
I believe that the wetland is a much older location for the stream channel. If you
would like to review the complete files, please let me know.
VI. Past permitting for the Grove Park golf course - I have examined our project
files for this project (DWQ # 97-0670, 95-1283 and 90-0137). The present
alignment of the stream channel near Hole 16 does not appear on the site plan
and must have been done at a later date. However it appears to me that this
relocation could have been done without needing a 404 Permit or 401
Certification and was therefore probably done legally (although the reasons for
this relocation are not clear). However, the approvals that DWQ gave back in
1990, 1995 and 1997 clearly were issued with a requirement for long-term
protection of the remaining bottomland hardwood forests (both wetland and non-
wetland) on the site in return for allowing the wetland impact to construct the golf
course, roads and homes. This is another compelling reason not to allow
relocation of the channel of Little Lick Creek in the already wooded areas since
they were mitigation areas for our earlier approvals. This restriction does not
apply to the cleared fairways -therefore, stream relocation in these locations is
acceptable (as outlined above).
VII. Credits for the above work - As noted above the PACG-TC has not addressed
the issue of credits for woody, non-treed buffers like the shrub buffer you are
proposing at the golf course crossings. In our opinion, some stream and buffer
credits would be reasonable but not at the full ratio for woody, treed buffers. I
plan to discuss the issue with the PACG-TC in the context of buffer credits and
EEP will then have a programmatic answer to the question. The channel
between holes 11 and 14 will not be relocated. Therefore restoration credits are
not available for this work. If some work is done on selected locations, that may
receive enhancement credit. If work is done to relocate the channel to its original
location between holes 15 and 17, then stream restoration credit and buffer
restoration credit may be given for this work. Again, we believe that channel
relocation is not necessary (and will not be approved) but if the channel is
relocated to its original location (as outlined in V above), the stream and buffer
mitigation credits are possible.
2

Thank you for the opportunity to review this plan. It is clear that written DWQ approval
for relocation or stabilization of the stream will be required probably under Nationwide Permit
27. If you have any additional questions, please call me at 919-733-9646.
Sincerely yours,
John Dorney
Attachment (to original letter only)
Cc: Khristie Corson, Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Eric Kulz, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Amy Chapman, DWQ
Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers
File copy
Central files