20021345 Ver 1_Emails_20071211

Re: [Fwd: Re: Sandy Creek Mit. Site -Durham County]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Sandy Creek Mit. Site -Durham County]
From: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:55:51 -0500
To: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
~z l3ys
Eric - I'm not trying to speak for the EEP here, but isn't it their position that if
they choose to, they can just write a site off and accept partial, or no, credit
for the site when the close-out is due at the 5 year point. The only reason I bring
that up is because that might explain their lack of response, if they have chosen
not to invest further resources at this site at this time. In that case, we have
done our job by notifying them of the deficiencies and then it is up to them to do
what they want to do with that info. What do you think? Thanks.
Eric Kulz wrote:
Tom:
Please let me know your opinion on this issue. The site is really bad, and it
will likely take complete re-construction to make it work. This project is
specifically for mitigation for Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway in Durham. In
the attached letter I specifically asked for a response (standard for these type
of letters), and never got it.
Eric
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Subject:
Re: Sandy Creek Mit. Site - Durham County
From:
Cyndi Karoly <cyndi.karolyc~ncmail.net>
Date:
Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:11:36 -0500
To:
Eric Kulz <eric.kulzCncmail.net>
To:
Eric Kulz <eric.kulzc~ncmail.net>
CC:
John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Tammy L Hill <Tammy.L.HillCncmail.net>
I think we need to send a letter to Mac through Tom, referencing this letter and
the lack of response, advising that credits cannot be validated until the site is
remedied. Or that if it's not fixable, it's officially put in the failure
column and any credits associated with it have to be tied to another site.
1 of 2 12/12/2007 8:44 AM

Re: [Fwd: Re: Sandy Creek Mit. Site -Durham County]
Eric Kulz wrote:
Cyndi/John:
Now that we have been able to catch our breath following compilation of our
annual report data, I was going back through some of the site we looked at
this past year a realized that we never received a response from EEP on this
site. the site has serious problems, and we requested (see attached letter)
a response within 30 days detailing how they were going to address the
problems.
I know how we would handle this if it was a private mitigation site, but what
do we do about this? This year will be year 5 for this site. I can't see
any way to award credit for this site, although the credits are already
attached to Marthin Luther king Jr. Parkway in Durham.
Any suggestions on what we should do??
Eric
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
2 of 2 12/12/2007 8:44 AM

O~O~ W AT F9QG
r
.:,~
o ~
June 15, 2007
Mr. Mac Haupt
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Re: Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report
Durham County
DWQ #02-1345
Dear. Mr. Haupt:
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Oversight and Express Review Permitting Unit has visited
the above-referenced site on several occasions during 2007. The site was visited by Tammy Hill and
Eric Kulz of DWQ on February 15, 2007; on March 30, 2007 by Tammy Hill of DWQ and Kathy
Matthews of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and on June 13, 2007 by Eric Kulz and John
Dorney of DWQ. In addition, DWQ has reviewed the 2005 and 2006 monitoring reports, prepared by
EcoScience Corporation. Our comments based on our observations at the site are as follows:
Stream Enhancement
All structures observed appeared to be stable, and no significant areas of bank failure were
observed. As noted in the monitoring plan, no improvement in the bedform or pebble counts has
occurred due to the excessive sediment load in the stream. No on-site sources of the sediment
were noted and multiple upstream sources are likely. Therefore, based on our evaluation, this
site appears to be successful stream mitigation.
Wetland Restoration
The conditions at the wetland restoration site are a serious concern. Observations made during
three separate site visits indicate that the northern portion of the restoration area is a pond (open
water) and does not show the characteristics of the targeted wetland.type. During all three site
visits, this area was completely inundated.
According to the Restoration Plan dated August 6, 2002, prepared by Becky L. Ward Consulting,
the ponded area, identified as Zone 1 in both the plan and the 2006 Monitoring Report,
apparently was to have been planted with Black Willow (Salix nigra), Tag Alder (Alnus
serrulata), Buttonbush (Cephalanthis occendentalis), and Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata).
401 OversighUExpress Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
No ° hCarolina
~atura!!y
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Haupt
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site -Year 3 Mon. Report.
Page 2 of 3
The 2006 monitoring report lists Plot 4, located within this zone, to contain three individuals of
Silky Dogwood (Corpus amomum), possible volunteers, as this was not listed as a planted
species. Several other small tree saplings were also observed in this zone, but for the most part it
was unvegetated. Based on our site visits, we believe that this area will never become the target
wetland since it is a permanent pond.
• The area surrounding the ponded area, variously shown as Zone 3 in the restoration plan and
Zone 8 in the monitoring report, was to be constructed as a temporarily flooded wetland area
planted with Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), River Birch
(Betula nigra) and Laurel Oak (Q. latifolia). Based on our site visits, these areas have few tree
saplings, but are dominated mainly by Lespedeza sp., with some Juncus sp.
• The remainder of the proposed wetland restoration areas on the site appeared to consist
predominantly of herbaceous vegetation except for a fairly densely vegetated area of Green Ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and Black Willow (Salix nigra) in the southwestern portion of the
restoration area. While data from the vegetation plots from these areas meets the stem density
criteria for success, the diversity does not.
• The monitoring report states that reasons for poor vegetation survival can be attributed to
flooding (Plot 4) and geese (not observed during the site visits), with an additional factor being
poor soil composition. During our site visits, numerous areas of bare soil were observed at a
number of locations within Zone 3 (from the restoration plan; identified as Zone 8 in the
monitoring report). Soils in these areas appeared compacted with gravel present, and advancing
auger borings was quite difficult to impossible in some areas. It is unclear if some of the soils on
the site can support vegetation without extensive alteration.
An additional concern regarding soils is the lack of hydric characteristics in a number of soil
borings advanced in the area described above. It may be necessary to have the site evaluated by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine which areas may be considered jurisdictional
wetlands with hydric soils.
• Another issue of concern involves information provided in the 2005 monitoring report (Year 2).
According to the Executive Summary of the report, prepared by EcoScience Corporation,
"Maintenance on the site is scheduled to be performed during Spring of 2006. The maintenance
will include grading and planting of appropriate species to help remedy poor vegetation
establishment".
The 2006 monitoring report (Year 3) did not indicate that any maintenance activities had been
conducted, and no indications of recent maintenance activities were observed during any of our
site visits.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting 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
Nose hCarolina
Jl~atura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Haupt
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site -Year 3 Mon. Report.
Page 3 of 3
The success of this wetland restoration project, and viability of the associated mitigation credits, is not at
all certain, due to extremely poor vegetation survival resulting from poor site soils and flooding. Based
on our evaluation, excessive flooding makes portions of the site not suitable for wetland establishment
and development. Currently, the portions of the site identified as Zone 1 consist of open water. In
addition, Lespedeza sp. appears to be a problem in many of the less wet areas of the site.
A written response addressing the concerns listed above must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of
this letter. Please submit a written plan detailing how the problems at this site are going to be addressed,
as well as a schedule for the repairs and a targeted completion date.
After the repairs are completed, please provide a written description of the repairs made and any
additional measures taken to successfully achieve the desired wetland restoration and fulfill the
mitigation requirements for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway project. Please note that our files for
this project are being scanned and we need to examine these files to determine if the amount of
mitigation on this site is sufficient to offset these impacts as noted in the mitigation plan.
Please note that next year is Year 4 of the required monitoring of this project. Depending on the amount
of work required to put this wetland restoration on a path to success, the monitoring period for this
project, or for at least a portion of the project, may need to be reset. Alternatively, part of the site may
need to be acknowledged as an open water pond, and the area within the footprint of the pond will need
to be compensated elsewhere.
Once the repairs are completed, please contact Eric Kulz at [phone] to schedule a followup site
visit.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz if you have any questions regarding this project or our comments.
Sincerely,
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
401 Oversight and Express.. Review Program
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Central Files
Tom Reeder - DWQ Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
Kathy Matthews - U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency
Jean Manuele - USACE, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Jens Geratz - EcoScience Corporation, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite lOlRaleigh, NC 27604
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: httg://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
NorthCarolina
,NllfllCR~~I~
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper