20042019 Ver 3_More Info Received_20110310

WN;t
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
March 9, 2011
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
00
?? 2 Q 11
MAP
°ENR _ ?yAr€H at tY
?1'edand? x ems.
RE: Anderson Creek South Development, Harnett County, North Carolina
Action ID No. SAW-2006-41244
NC DWQ Project #0 4-2019
Dear Ms. Amschler:
We are in receipt of your January 25, 2011 and February 15, 2011 correspondence to which were attached
comment letters from reviewing resource agencies and the general public. In sum, these letters included
correspondence from Mr. Ian McMillian of the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to Mr. Brad Shaver
of your office dated January 25, 2011, correspondence from Mr. Pete Benjamin of the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) to yourself dated February 7, 2011, and correspondence from Ms. Jennifer
Derby and Mr. James Giattina of the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to yourself dated
January 31, 2011 and February 4, 2011, respectively. Additionally, attached were four letters with
concerns from the general public, six letters of support from various governmental entities and a petition
of support with 38 signatures. The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments from the resource
agencies and the general public.
Generally, the resource agency letters focus on the purpose and need for the project, the alternatives
analysis, compensatory mitigation and overall environmental impact. We believe that our responses to
your inquiries, as well as those from the NC Division of Water Quality, satisfactorily address concerns
raised by the US FWS and US EPA. We have identified the source and date of the comment letter,
extracted the comments and concerns from each and prepared our response and supporting
documentation. The extracted text is in italics and our reply immediately follows.
Comments from the general public focus on issues relating to public access, dam safety, impact to forest
and wildlife, compliance and mitigation. We have addressed many of these concerns in our replies to the
resource agency letters and have included separate generalized responses to some of the specific
concerns.
Letters of support come from local, state and federal governmental officials. The overall project is
important to support the growth in the region. These letters support the economic, recreational and
aesthetic objectives of the development.
Under separate cover, Withers and Ravenel Engineers will be sending the requested large size maps. This
submittal contains all figures on standard size paper for ease of filing. The entirety of this submittal can
WNR
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
be made available in digital format; please call or write for a copy.
Please feel free to call me at 336 / 406-0906 with any questions that you may have.
Best regards,
t,J,o''??
Chris Huysman
Cc:
Mr. Ian McMillian Congresswoman Renee Ellmers
NC DWQ Wetlands Unit US House of Representative
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Ste 250 1533 Longworth House Office Building
Raleigh, NC 27604 Washington, DC 20515-3302
Representative David Lewis Mr. Greg Taylor
533 Legislative Office Building BRAC Regional Task Force
300 N. Salisbury Street PO Box 70999
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Fort Bragg, NC 28307
Mr. Scott Sauer, County Manager Mr. Joseph Jefferies, Planning Services
102 East Front Street 102 East Front Street
Lillington, NC 27546 Lillington, NC 27546
Senator Kay Hagan Governor James Holshouser
310 New Bern Avenue 100 Market Square
Raleigh, NC 27601 PO Box 1227
Pinehurst, NC 28370
Ms. Jenny Hartsock Ms. Phyllis Owens, Director
310 New Bern Avenue Harnett County Economic Development
Raleigh, NC 27601 PO Box 1270
Lillington, NC 27546
Mr. James Burgin Mr. Paul Dordal
Harnett County Commissioner BRAC Regional Task Force
PO Box 1685 PO Box 70999
Angier, NC 27501 Fort Bragg, NC 28307
Mr. Robbie Oldham Mr. John Hutton
Withers and Ravenel Wildlands Engineering
111 MacKenan Drive 5605 Chapel Hill Blvd. #122
Cary, NC 27511 Raleigh, NC 27607
WNR
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675

Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
Response
Letter: US Army Corps of Engineers to Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
Date: January 15, 2011
1. As stated in your application, the purpose of the project is to construct a unique public
recreational amenity within Anderson Creek to increase marketability. Although it is implied in the
application, the project purpose does not include the development of a residential subdivision even
though some impacts are related to the infrastructure of such development. Without the residential
subdivision and infrastructure, there would be nothing to market and therefore the residential
subdivision appears to be the primary purpose of the project. As such, please revise the purpose and
need statement.
Our revised purpose and need statement is found below. The modification is underlined.
The purpose of the project is to construct a unique public recreational amenity within the Anderson Creek
development to increase marketability of the proposed residential subdivision.
Development of the property is certain, it is not implied. The conclusion that "Without the residential
subdivision and infrastructure, there would be nothing to market ..." seems to be predicated on the
position that the parcel will not be developed but for the construction of the lake. We can assure you that
the applicant is determined that a residential and commercial development will occur on the 1,740 acre
parcel in Harnett County. Therefore, we maintain that the actual purpose of the discharge associated with
the lake is to market the project.
The amenity lake, like the existing golf, grill and inn, will be open to the public and generate positive
recreational and community opportunities that support the local economy and increase market exposure
for the development.
2. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the proposed
work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. Please furnish information
regarding any other alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the workfor which you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or wetland
areas. Specifically, please address more thoroughly the following alternatives:
a. Please include a comparison of the costs, logistics, impacts to waters of the US and other
factors, in detail, of all alternatives.
We would like to remind the Corps that "When private enterprise makes application for a permit, it will
generally be assumed that the appropriate economic evaluations have been completed, the proposal is
economically viable, and is needed in the marketplace." (33CFR 320.4(q)).
Golf Alternative 18 Holes (Attachment 1- Lake and 18 Holes of Golf August 2007)
The projected cost a golf course with 18 holes is $4,750,000.00. The average cost to design and construct
a nice quality golf hole in the coastal plain of North Carolina is $250,000. A driving range carries an
additional cost of $250,000. The course would need approximately 1,000,000 gallons of water to support
it during dry periods.
The golf industry has had 2 years of negative growth due to the economy and a lack of recruitment of new
players. Logically, there is no need to construct another eighteen hole golf amenity within Anderson
Creek. The existing utilization of the course at Anderson Creek is low and an additional eighteen holes
will be under utilized.
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
Attached is a site development plan that was generated for the project in August 2007. It depicts and
alternative that shows the lake and an eighteen hole golf facility. The eighteen hole facility would require
the clearing of approximately 12 acres of forested riparian wetlands adjacent to perennial streams. The
lake area, which is comprised of approximately 40 acres, is too dissected with wetlands to easily
accommodate a golf hole. Length of play and circulation of players are important factors and dictate the
layout of the facilities.
Lake Excavated in High Ground
The estimated cost to excavate a 40 acre lake in high ground is $3,300,000. Excavation of the lake would
cost $1,000,000 (approximately $165,000 per foot of depth based on an estimated cost of three dollars per
yard for excavation). The lake would need to be lined at a cost of $2,000,000 (approximately $0.50/sqft
of liner, $0.50/sqft of underlayment and labor). Water circulation pumps and monitoring facilities
$300,000 (pumps and aerators such as those used in waste lagoons).
Logically, one cannot expand any of the existing lakes on the site and accommodate the intended
recreational objectives. Nor can a lake logically be excavated in high ground. The permeability of the
high ground soils would require that the lake be lined. Excavated soils would need to be stockpiled.
The construction of a lake in high ground does not directly impact wetlands and or streams. However,
filling the lake and maintaining the water level requires that 100% of the water is pumped from well and
or diverted from flowing streams.
Passive Recreation and Open Space (EPA and US FWS recommendation)
Open space is not unique and the suggested reference material is biased. The reference material seems
dissimilar to the proposed project and are judged to be irrelevant because 1) the references study larger
metropolitan areas 2) there are perceived intrinsic values that are hard to compare and 3) the values are
stated in terms of value to a municipality. This site is in a relatively small urban area with significantly
large areas of dedicated open space (Ft. Bragg properties). The majority of the development site is
loblolly pine plantation and has little aesthetic value. The proposed public lake would be considered, in
some studies, to be open space. We would welcome the suggestion of pertinent studies.
Preferred Alternative (Attachment 2: Anderson Creek South, Current Site Plan, March 2011)
The projected approximate cost for the 40 acre lake is $1,800,000. The design and construction
monitoring is approximately $125,000. The approximate mitigation cost is $900,000. The approximate
excavation cost is $260,000. The approximate control structure costs are $250,000. The approximate
cost of additional excavation to increase lake surface is $250,000
The valley that supports the lake is approximately 30 acres. The additional 10 acres in size is achieved
through excavating the perimeter. Effectually, 25% of the proposed lake is excavated to achieve the
applicant's objectives. The valley narrows at the proposed dam location and ties into soils that can
support the embankment. Moving the lake upstream reduces available surface water and will require a
wider embankment, which increases the potential for failure across the dam.
The embankment will require the filling of approximately 1.26 acres of wetlands and 374 linear feet of
perennial streams. The proposed lake will flood 8.27 acres of wetlands, 590 linear feet of perennial
streams and 874 linear feet of intermittent streams. The proposed lake surface area of 40 acres represents
nearly a 400% gain of Waters of the US / State over the wetlands that are flooded.
Impacts associated with the roads and sewer facilities will be the same for the project regardless of the
amenities since the proposed roads are aligned along existing roads.
A unique amenity is needed to market the development. The commonplace amenities of golf, soccer
field, equestrian facilities and passive open space will not suffice in marketing a large scale project in
these economic times. In North Carolina, lake front and lake access properties have been the most stable
sellers for the last few years. The lake is the amenity that is needed in the marketplace.

LJ
• Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
b. For the preferred alternative, please provide further information and documentation on
size and depth requirements for the use of the lake for a sail boat school.
Attached is a letter from the American Sailing Association supports the dimensional aspects of the lake
for a sailing school. (Attachment 3: American Sailing Association, March 2011). The JY 15 and Laser
420 boats each have centerboards that are approximately four feet long. The absolute minimum turning
depth is three feet. However, it is suggested that novice sailors operate in deeper water.
c. Please provide your analysis of other unique amenities besides the 40 acre lake.
There is no analysis of other unique amenities. Unique, by definition, is without having alike. We are
unable to identify any other practicable unique amenities that have wide market appeal. As stated in the
application material (20. Reason(s) for Discharge), the applicant would like to replicate what the US
Army Corps of Engineers has already identified as positive market and community influences resulting
from their lakes. Further, we believe that one of the elements that contributes to the uniqueness of a lake
is that they are not naturally found in the project region, or for that matter the southeast. Similarly, this is
why we believe that there are great public demands at established lakes within State Parks.
d Please provide further information on off-site alternatives. During a quick search of
aerial maps, several impoundments were observed which could potentially be used, either
in the current condition or enlarged, to facilitate the proposed alternative of a 40 acre
lake and would potentially result in less environmental impact. Please provide further
information on an alternative that involves obtaining property that already has or is
adjacent to an existing impoundment that can be utilized and/or expanded to meet the
needs of this project.
There are no lakes for sale of the appropriate dimensions for sailing facility within a 10 minute drive of
the development. As implied in the application, the intent is to create a local amenity for the region. To
suggest that the applicant review alternatives (such as Jordan Lake) that are one hour or more travel time
from the site seems to ignore the stated purpose for increasing marketability.
The application presented (20. Reason(s) for Discharge) that the larger lakes, such as Buffalo Lake and
Woodlake, are private and are thus not available for use by the residents of Anderson Creek or the general
public.

e. Please provide further information on an alternative to facilitate the 40 acre lake that
l
invo
ves expanding the existing impoundments on-site by either altering the existing dam
. to expand the impoundments or using adjacent uplands to create larger impoundments.
None of the existing lakes can be expanded to accommodate the dimensional requirements for the sailing
• school. Upon evaluation of the current site plan (Attachment 2. Current Site Plan) you will find that most
0 of the lots adjacent to these private lakes are privately held. None of the lakes are in valleys that are
sufficiently deep enough to support a lake of the required size.

f. Please provide information on an alternative to facilitate the 40 acre lake that involves
locating the proposed lake upstream of its currently proposed location potentially
resulting in less environmental impact.

The proposed lake is already situated in the headwaters of the stream system at the approximate location
i where ground water and surface run-off are anticipated to maintain a 40 acre lake. Moving the lake
further upstream would compromise the sustainability of the lake. The lake floods upstream and beyond
the point where it was determined to be intermittent.

• 3

Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
3. The application indicates that the proposed alternative, the amenity lake, will be open to the public
in the same way that all the amenities at Anderson Creek are. Please elaborate on how the public will
be able to access the lake.
Attached is a photograph of the entrance of Anderson Creek (Attachment 4. Photograph of Anderson
Creek Club Entrance). The NC Department of Transportation has a "Multi -Use Community Signing
Program" that provides signs directing drivers to specified destination. Attached is the signing agreement
between NC Department of Transportation and Anderson Creek (Attachment 5. NC DOT Signing
Agreement, April 2005). This agreement, stipulates that three amenities are open to the public in order to
qualify for the signing program. The public currently has access to the golf facilities, the clubhouse and
the inn.
4. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical steps to reduce wetland losses.
Please show all that you have done, especially regarding development and modification of plans and
proposed construction techniques, to reduce adverse impacts.
Situating the lake in the head of a drainage basin has reduced wetland and stream losses. Further, the
shoreline of the lake is proposed as being excavated to increase the functional area of the lake for sailing
purposes. The application described how the initial design achieved only 31.4 acres but that with
excavation the lake could be functionally increased to 40 acres. Specifically, the entire perimeter has
been excavated 4 below the 234 elevation mean sea level to decrease the dam height and reduce flooding
impacts. Twenty five percent of the lake area is excavated to reduce impacts to wetlands.
The proposed outlet structure, presented in the application (Attachment 6. Proposed Lake Dam Cross-
Section), provides a low flow orifice and a cool water discharge. Attached are additional plan sections for
the proposed embankment as well as a proposed construction sequence. The plans depict the necessary
erosion control, grading and by-pass of base-flow during the construction and placement of the primary
outlet structure.
The final plans will be subject to review and approval under the NC Dam Safety Law of 1967. This
encompassing review will ensure a safe structure is constructed. The design, construction, and potential
failure scenarios of the dam will be carefully and thoroughly examined. Preliminary calculations are
found in Attachment 7. Preliminary Lake Routing Calculations.
5. The application indicates that impacts are calculated using approximations of stream size and
assumptions. Please provide actual proposed impacts using hard data as opposed to assumptions and
approximations.
Actual Impacts are as tabulated
Ma Resource Type Length Width Depth
Road Impact 1 2 of 7 Per. Stream 203 6' 6" max
Road Impact 2 2 of 7 Wetland n/a n/a n/a
Road Impact 4 3 of 7 Wetland n/a n/a n/a
Road Impact 5 3 of 7 Per. Stream 65 4' 4" max
Road Impact 6 4 of 7 Per. Stream 194 5' 5" max
Road Impact 7 5 of 7 Wetland n/a n/a n/a
Road Impact 8 6 of 7 Wetland n/a n/a n/a
Perennial Flooded 7 of 7 Per. Stream 590 4' 5" max
Intermittent Flooded 7 of 7 Int. Stream 874 4' 3" max
Embankment Impact 7 of 7 Per. Stream 374 5' 5" max
4
i
•
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
6. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required for all unavoidable
adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been employed.
Your application indicates that the project restoration consultant has identified numerous mitigation
opportunities for the project sufficient to replace wetlands and streams at a 1.5:1 ration, inclusive of
all perennial stream impacts. Please provide further information on the mitigation proposal to
include the rationale behind the proposed 1.5:1 mitigation ratio for impacts and any data or site
analysis supporting the proposal. You should be aware that a minimal of a 2:1 ratio will be required
for all permanent impacts associated with road fill and dam construction for all wetlands and
perennial streams. Additionally, although the application indicates that the consultant has "identified
numerous mitigation opportunities, "prior to the issuance of a permit, a mitigation plan will have to
be finalized, with the location, acreage and other details submitted for our approval.
The cost of the mitigation would be approximately $1,600,000 ($839,835 for wetlands and $764,556
for streams) through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program if a 2:1 restoration ratio is applied to the
project.
The application proposed 1.5:1 restoration for all impacts to simplify the application and to demonstrate
that mitigation could be achieved. In sum, at a 1:5:1 restoration ratio the project would restore 3,450
linear feet of streams and 16.58 acres of wetlands: at a 2:1 ratio the amounts would be 4,600 linear feet
and 22.12 acres respectively. The application utilized the letter from Wildlands to indicate that up to
11,000 linear feet of stream restoration and 30 acres of wetland restoration are attainable.
Below are tables that further delineate the types of impacts and offer potential quantities of mitigation
necessary to offset impacts. These are speculative until an on-site determination is made by the
reviewing agencies.
Potential Mitijzation for Fill Impacts:
Wetland Impact (ac) Stream Impact Qf)
Road Impacts 1.18 462
Embankment Impacts 1.25 374
Total Impacts 2.43 836
Mitigation 1:1 Ratio 2.43 836
Mitigation @ 1.5:1 3.64 1,254
Mitigation 2:1 4.86 1,672
Potential Miti ation for Flooding IM pacts:
Area (ac) Stream Impact (If)
Wetland 8.63 n/a
Perennial Streams n/a 590
Intermittent Streams n/a 874
Total Impacts 8.63 1,464
Mitigation 0.5:1 4.31 732
Miti ation 1:1 8.63 1,464
Mitigation 1.5:1 12.94 2,196
Mitigation 2:1 17.26 2,928
We agree that a 2:1 ratio will be required for all permanent impacts associated with road fill and dam
construction for all wetlands and perennial streams. Thus, absent reduction in impacts, 1,672 linear feet
of stream mitigation credits and 4.86 acres of wetland mitigation credits will be required for the roads
and embankment. We understand that half of the required mitigation will need to be restoration and
that the balance can be achieved through a combination of creation, enhancement and/or preservation.
We have knowledge that mitigation ratios have been reduced to 0.5:1 ratio for stream flooding. We
believe that the maximum mitigation ratio for the flooding would be a 1:1 ratio. Further, as implied by
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
your letter we believe that the stream mitigation would be required for perennial streams only. Thus,
590 linear feet of stream mitigation credits and 8.63 acres of wetland mitigation credits will be required
for the flooding.
Attached is a recent letter from Wildlands that explains the status of our current proposal of 2,262 linear
feet of stream mitigation credits and 13.49 wetland mitigation units (Attachment 8. Mitigation Concept
Plan). They have identified specific parcels of land and have conducted preliminary field evaluations;
their preliminary conceptual mitigation plan will be forwarded within 14 days.
We reserve our final proposal until a site inspection conclusively determines the requisite mitigation.
We propose that mitigation be conducted prior to impacts or concurrent with the impacts.
7. Additionally, please provide an overall site plan that shows the entire property boundary with all
jurisdictional areas and isolated wetlands overlain by the project plans to include all proposed road
crossings, utility lines and the proposed impoundment and dam. Additionally please provide a
detailed plan of the impoundments and cross-section views of road crossings.
Attached as requested is an overall site plan that depicts the requested information for Anderson Creek
South (Attachment 2: Anderson Creek South, Current Site Plan, March 2011). Anderson Creek North is
depicted on a separate site plan and we are working to combine the information into one map (Attachment
9. Anderson Creek North). Additionally we have attached details for the road crossings and the dam
(Attachment 10. Road Sections and Attachment 6. Proposed Lake Dam Cross-Section).
6
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
Response
Letter: NC Division of Water Quality to Anderson Creek
Date: January 15, 2011
1. Your compensatory mitigation plan is not satisfactory. Please provide an appropriate
comprehensive and complete mitigation plan.
Attached is a recent letter from Wildlands that states the current status of our proposal of 2,262 linear feet
of stream mitigation credits and 13.49 wetland mitigation units (Attachment 8. Mitigation Concept Plan).
We reserve our final proposal until a site inspection conclusively determines the requisite mitigation. We
propose that mitigation be conducted prior to impacts or concurrent with the impacts.
We are of the opinion that it is premature to develop a comprehensive and complete mitigation plan
absent a better understanding of whether the permit will be issued or not. The preparation of a complete
and comprehensive plan would be an unwise expenditure of money and a waste of regulatory manpower
should the permit not be issued.
2. To DWQ' knowledge, a geotechnical study has not been performed within the area identified for
the proposed "sailing lake. " This Office has concerns regarding whether a lake is truly feasible
in this area, and strongly encourages such a study be undertaken. Please comment.
Attached is a preliminary study for the lake (Attachment 11. Lake Hydrology Study, January 2008). The
study does not account for groundwater influence nor does it account for supplemental filling with wells.
A more thorough hydrogeologic study will be conducted concurrent with future geotechnical studies
necessary to construct a safe dam.
3. It is our understanding that several years ago DWQ had concerns that this lake was being
proposed in an area that included an impressive stand ofAtlantic white cedar. It is unclear if the
current proposed "sailing lake " is located in the area that includes the aforementioned stand of
Atlantic white cedar?
The proposed lake-bed does not impact an "impressive stand of Atlantic white cedar": in fact, we have not
observed more than a scattered few of these trees within the proposed lake area. We are not familiar nor
have located this stand of Atlantic white cedar that was referenced. While we are not certain as to the
regulatory relevance of this particular trees species, we will include white cedar in planting plans where it
is appropriate.
The US EPA has concluded in their February 4, 2011 letter that the wetlands impacted by the proposed
lake are "aquatic resources of national importance". While the impacted wetlands would be classified as
riparian they are in fact not a mature bottomland forest. We disagree with this classification since the
impacted wetlands are not unique nor are they rare.
4. On page 3 of 6 of the application under 18. Nature ofActivity (Project Description), the
applicant states, "Proposed amenities include a tennis center, small recreational parks, and a 40-
acre public access lake to accommodate the establishment of a sailing school and beach areas. "
and on page S of 6 of the Public Notice under 23. Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation,
you state "smaller more dispersed ponds are not conducive to providing organized swimming
under the supervision of lifeguards. " The proposed lake is located in Class C waters which are,
"waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption,
aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or
incidental manner. " Will you be seeking a re-classification of the surface water to "B"? Class
"B " waters are, "waters protected for all Class C uses in addition to primary recreation.
Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing and similar uses
involvinz human body contact with water where such activities take place in an orQani ed
manner or on a frequent basis. "
We intend to seek reclassification upon a high confidence that the permit will be issued. It is only
appropriate to ensure the health of the public. There will be no sewer or other waste directly discharged
into the lake and the coliform levels will be closely monitored. It would be inappropriate to reclassify the
streams on the site until the proposed lake is permitted as the impacted streams are not large enough to
wade in let alone swim in.
5. Are the proposed lakes to be located in streams that contain migrating or spawning fish? Please
provide documentation of any studies or data collected that indicate that no fish species spawn in
the stream segments proposed for impact.
The streams do not contain migrating or spawning fish. Attached are photographs of the stream at the
location of the proposed dam; the stream was dry on February 2, 2011 and again on March 2, 2011
(Attachment 12. Stream Impact Photographs). The streams impacted by the lake are primarily
intermittent.
The US EPA, in their February 4, 2011 letter, refers to the streams as high quality streams. Further, they
presume that downstream flows will be altered by the proposed lake. Based on our observations of the
channel we do not concur with their assumptions.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service, in their February 7, 2011 letter, states that "The majority of native
aquatic species are adapted to stream conditions (flowing highly oxygenated water and coarse sand,
gravel, and rocky bottoms). The impoundments created by the construction of dams eliminate spawning
and foraging habitat." These comments do not apply to this project since it is located in the headwaters
of a system and where there is very limited intermittent flow.
6. We would like to hear from the applicant on how they propose to maintain water quality
standards upstream from the impoundment, within the entire impoundment, and downstream of
the impoundment. The explanation provided is insufficient.
The lake is proposed such that there are no stream segments above the normal pool elevation; it is located
in the headwaters to the greatest extent possible. In other words, only wetland standards will need to be
maintained above the normal pool elevation. Since there will be no discharges into the wetlands upstream
of the proposed lake it is expected that the existing water quality standards will not change.
Absent hard science, it is difficult to project actual conditions once the lake is constructed. As needed,
applicant proposes to construct an active base discharge system. The innovative approach would include
using remote sensors and a pump to mimic conditions in a reference stream. The pumping system would
draw from various depths to create a suitable discharge. Complete plans for the system will be submitted
for review upon approval of the permit.
The US Geologic Survey has preliminarily estimated the 7Q10 flow at the outlet of the lake to be zero.
They further estimate the mean annual flow to be in the range of 1.2 and 1.3 cubic feet per square mile
drainage area. (Attachment 13. US Geologic Survey 7010 Estimate)
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
7. This Office will need to seethe applicant's complete and comprehensive lake design and dam
details.
The cost of a complete and comprehensive set of construction documents is $90,000. The comprehensive
plans will be approved by the NC Division of Land Resources and will be forwarded to your office when
they are completed.
8. Will the lake shoreline be a natural shoreline or an "armored" shoreline (having installed
bulkheads/seawalls)?
The shoreline will be vegetated but for armoring necessary at the beach and sailing facility. The applicant
proposes to a 25 foot wide common area along the shoreline. None of the adjacent lots would extend to
the normal pool elevation.
9. On page 3 of 6 of the Public Notice under 23. Avoidance. Minimization, and Compensation, this
Ojflce believes there is an intent to dismiss several State regulations as "inappropriate" or "not
applicable" based upon the assumption of natural condition. First, an impoundment is not a
"natural condition ". With that said, impoundments once completed, would be held to water
quality standards in accordance with NC 15A NCAC.028 and federal Clean Water Act
provisions. One comment relating to applicability of a water quality standard notes that "the
violation of the numerical water quality standard (temperature, pH, etc) would need to
compromise the use before a violation is incurred: in other words, the violation would occur only
after the water could no longer be able to support aquatic life (i.e. dead fish are floating on the
lake), wildlife, or be used for recreation (i.e. can't sail a boat due to algae). " This statement is
incorrect. An exceedence of a water quality standard that precludes "aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity " on a short or long term basis is indeed a violation of water
quality standards. The regulations do not allow for fish to die before determining that a water
body is not supporting its designated use, and in fact would defeat the purpose of water quality
standards protecting wildlife and biology be ore mortality or extreme stress occurs.
This is a statement.
10. Please locate the project boundaries on the most recent bound and published Harnett County soil
survey and the USGS 1:24, 000 topographic map for the project.
Attached is a copy of a USGS topographic map and a Harnett County soil survey. (Attachment 14. USGS
Topographic May and Harnett County Soils Map). The attached map was generated using the Web Soil
Survey; a copy of the published map will be forwarded within 14 days.
IL Please re-submit your site plans on full plan sheets at a scale of no smaller than I "=50' with
topographic contours shown.
Attached are 1"=50' drawings for each of the impact areas (Attachment 10. Road and Dam Details).
12. Please provide cross section details showing the provisions for aquatic life passage.
Road design details (Attachment 10) contain sheets that show compliance with the aquatic life passage
objectives for the road crossings. There is no need to demonstrate aquatic life passage upstream of the
dam since all streams will be flooded and there will be no isolated channels.
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
13. Please provide building envelopes for all lots with wetlands and/or streams on the site plans.
The current site plan for the proposed development is found in Attachment 2: Anderson Creek South,
Current Site Plan, March 2011. The site plan does not depict building envelopes since it is subject to
change absent the lake. It is premature to develop such a plan with the uncertainty related to market
forces and the permitting of the lake. Though it has not been finalized nor sketched, one alternative would
be to place 360 apartment units on the 30 acres of high ground that would be otherwise flooded by the
lake.
14. Please indicate all existing and proposed lot layouts as overlays on the site plan. Additionally,
please indicate which lots are sold.
No lots have been sold in Anderson Creek South. Privately held lots are depicted in the site plan for
Anderson Creek North. Attachment 9. Anderson Creek North
15. Please locate any planned sewer lines on the site plan. Additionally, please comment on whether
there are any septic fields within the Anderson Creek development.
There are no septic fields within the development. Proposed trunklines were depicted in the original
application. Lines will be placed parallel to wetlands and beyond the proposed 25 foot buffer. The final
plans will be drafted as part of the final site plan.
16. Please indicate all proposed stream or wetland driveway crossings on your plan sheet (including
future proposed).
See Attachment 2: Anderson Creek South, Current Site Plan, March 2011. There are no driveway
crossings as proposed. Further, each lot will be deed restricted to prevent future wetland fills. This is
being done so that in the event that there is a future unauthorized discharge the agencies will be able to
enforce regulations.
17. Please indicate all stream impacts including all fill slopes, dissipaters, and bank stabilization on
the site plan.
All fills are depicted on the submitted plans.
18. Please indicate all wetland impacts including fill slopes on the site plan.
All fills are depicted on the submitted plans.
19. Please locate all isolated or non-isolated wetlands, streams, and other waters of the State as
overlays on the site plan.
All waters of the State are depicted on the submitted plans.
20. Please provide a qualitative indirect and cumulative impact analysis for the project. Please see
Mortal.ncdem:o)g/1ieb/titi,g/sxp/ia,s/401/policies
DWQ 'spolicyfor guidance on our website at: http:11
10
•
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
•
•
We are preparing the requested document and will submit it within 30 days.
•
•

• 21. Please assess the need for a storm water management plan (SMP) on the site. Please comply
with the requirements set forth below. In addition, the applicants shall follow the procedures
• explained in Protocol for Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) Approval and Implementation
• that is in place on the date of the submittal of the SMP.
• The applicant understands that a storm water management plan will be required for all new commercial
• areas and certain of the proposed residential areas. The attached site plans show the projected land uses
throughout the development.
•
• Pockets of high density development will de designed to have Stormwater controls in accordance with
current regulations. A final storm water management plan will be completed for those portions of the
• development that exceed the low density parameters cited in the DWQ letter.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 11
•
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
Response
Letter: NC Division of Water Quality to USACE
Date: January 15, 2011
The NC Division of Water Quality uncharacteristically wrote to your office requesting that you consider a
number of comments within the review of the 404 permit request. Their letter included all of the
comments listed above plus a number of specific comments that we have addressed below. Again, we
have extracted the comments and replied. We are not aware of this being done on any other private
development projects.
1. Applicant's Stated Purpose within the Public Notice states, "The purpose of the project is to
construct a unique public recreational amenity within Anderson Creek to increase marketability. "yet,
the Project Description located within 18. Nature ofActivity (Project Description) as part of the
application, states the project is the development of Anderson Creek South (an expansion of the
existing 773-acres Anderson Creek North residential Development) and requires the development of a
road network, sewer outfalls, and an amenity to ensure the success of the development. It is unclear
why the stated purpose does not include the residential development, road network and utility
installation, since it would seem there would be no need for the recreational amenity were it not for
the residential development to support it. Please clarify this inconsistency. Additionally, although
the applicant's narrative attempts to convey the need for the "sailing" lake, the reader is left
believing that the true need for the project in the area is the projected demand for reasonably priced
housing due to the Base Relocation And Consolidation (BRA C). Our position regarding this
understanding is further supported by enclosure of the letter from retired Brigadier General Paul R.
Dordal to Ken Jolly of the USA CE which states in the first paragraph, "this tremendous growth (at
Fort Bragg) is straining our infrastructure and housing requirements, and we are encouraging
developments, such as Anderson Creek South that meet the needs of military related growth while not
encroaching on the installation. " The second paragraph continues to discuss the need for housing in
the area and ends with a comment regarding the applicant's avoidance and minimization of impacts
to onsite wetlands for the project. It is not until the third paragraph in a four paragraph letter that
the proposed "sailing lake " is mentioned. Therefore it is the opinion of this Office that the "sailing
lake " should be regarded as an amenity to the residential and commercial development and not vice
versa.
The submitted application clearly accounted for impacts associated with the installation of road and sewer
infrastructure. Our position is that development of the tract is imminent. Earlier we modified our
purpose as follows: The purpose of the project is to construct a unique public recreational amenity within
the Anderson Creek development to increase marketability of the proposed residential subdivision.
2. This project cannot be properly reviewed due to the lack of information contained in the Public
Notice and the incredibly small scale of the submitted maps. Therefore, concerns regarding impacts
to resources and water quality cannot be properly evaluated at this time. These deficiencies include.
Lack of a map and tables describing the residential and commercial development, both proposed and
existing within the project boundaries (specific map and data requests are cited later in this
commenting letter).
Lack of a map and tables describing roads and infrastructure, both proposed and existing within the
project boundaries (specific map and data requests are cited later in this commenting letter). This
should include road designs and traffic studies/justifications.
See Attachment 2. Anderson Creek South, Current Site Plan, March 2011 for proposed development and
see Attachment 9. Anderson Creek North for existing development.
12
Anderson Creek Club
• Additional Information
March 9, 2011

4. On page 2 of 6 of the Public Notice under 23. Avoidance. Minimization, and Compensation, the
applicant states that the "we are of the opinion that any regulatory position that all ponds are
detrimental to water quality and aquatic resources is based on subjective science that represents
• worst case scenarios... and believe that current technology can be employed to mitigate all
practically foreseeable potential adverse impacts " (and yet the applicant offers no information to
support their position). This Office very strongly disagrees with this statement. This Office
recommends the applicant carefully read adjoining state Tennessee's study of the impact of small
impoundments on stream (link: ht1p:L/wwvv.stale.In.us/environrnent/iipc/publicationsI df/isp -epor
and please carefully read DWQ' attached Selected Bibliography - Stream Impoundment
. Perspectives - 2008, and please consider the NC Dam Safety statewide dam assessment at this link:
hitp:11,rections.asce.org?lt7 caro1ina1Repor1Card1dams.pol Additionally, a preimpoundment study
conducted by Hayden M. Ratledge of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission titled
Preimnoundment Studv of the French Broad River Watershed. 1962: Anticipated Effects of the
• Presence of Ponds on Trout Streams in Transylvania and Henderson Counties, North Carolina,
concluded the following: a.) "It can be anticipated that the proposed flood control impoundments will
increase the temperature below those impoundments approximately 13°F. This will make the water
• of the tributaries below the dams, and also of the main river, unsuitable for trout. " b.) "The
construction of the proposed impoundments appears to be in contravention of the stated U.S. Forest
Service Policy. " and c.) "The construction of the proposed impoundments appears to be in
• contravention of the N. C. State Stream Sanitation classifications so far as thermal pollution is
concerned. " While this Office acknowledges this study was conducted in the mountains of the State,
and the proposed "sailing lake " project is located within the Sandhills region of the state, the effect of
impoundments on streams within either region of the State is comparable. Should you have any
questions or need any clarification we will be happy to assist you in any way we can. Finally, please
note that because the DWQ has a very strong opinion on this issue and it is very important to us, we
were awarded a US EPA grant this year to conduct a similar study to the one Tennessee performed.

• We are of the opinion that DWQ should be reviewing this pond based on current documented science and
not the expected results from future studies. By this letter, we request DWQ explain how the effects of
the impoundments are comparable before their study has been completed or even be tg_tn.

• S. On page S of 6 of the Public Notice under 23. Avoidance. Minimization, and Compensation, the
applicant states that the "amenity must be constructed to comply with local zoning requirements. ",
and on page 1 of 4 of your application narrative, under 20. Reason(s) for Discharge, the applicant
states that "Development ofsize and scope ofAnderson Creek legally and practically require
amenities to make them marketable. " Please provide documentation of this requirement and a
contact name of an individual member of the local zoning board who would be available to discuss
this requirement, and cite a source stating that Anderson Creek is legally required to have amenities.
The developers of Anderson Creek are contractually obligated to provide amenities through their PUD

•

• approval. As noted by Mr. Joseph Jefferies, Director of Planning Services, in his January 13, 2011 letter:
"The planned development has 340 acres of open space and recreation areas that far exceed the minimum
required for developments of this size. ...As part of the recreation component, the developer is proposing
a 40 acre lake, all of which will be included as open space. The proposed lake would be a great amenity
and provide environmental benefits to the development as well." Open space is required under the
contractual agreements stipulated under the zoning approval.
The lake is not legally required as is claimed by the US EPA in their February 4, 2011 letter. Simply, they
did not understand the application.

• 13
r1

Anderson Creek Club •
Additional Information .
March 9, 2011

6. This Office was unable to locate an alternatives analysis for other properties that were considered
for this project and would like the applicant to address this concern.

As a matter of process, the NC Division of Water Quality is not charged with reviewing alternatives •
analysis on individual permits. However, please refer to our response to Question 2, Item d of the US
Army Corps of Engineers letter dated January 15, 2011.

10. It is not clear to this Office why there is a need for a 40-acre "sailing lake" at the proposed
location when Harris Lake and Jordan Lake, which are much larger than the proposed lake, and
allow for sailing, are both located approximately one-hour from the project site. This position is
further supported by our calculation that approximately five million gallons of water per month will
be lost from this proposed lake through evaporation. This would be a significant concern in light of
recent statewide droughts.
See above regarding review process and please refer to our response to Question 2, Item d of the US •
Army Corps of Engineers letter dated January 15, 2011.
Please provide the parameters and data supporting the calculations that the lake will loose approximately •
five million gallons of water per month.

13. Staff with the North Carolina Division of Water Resources have the following comments:
Our major interest is the release from the dam forming the "amenity " lake and the resulting
downstream flow regime. To evaluate this release the applicant will need to provide the drainage
area, mean annual flow and 7Q10 flow for the dam site. The latter two flow statistics should be
obtained from the USGS.

The application should also provide a description of how downstream flows will be provided - both
how a constant minimum flow will be maintained and how the dam structure will provide an outflow
equal to the inflow to the lake (assuming that is how it will operate).
The application should also indicate whether the lake will be used for irrigation or any other activity
requiring withdrawal. If not, then the applicant should indicate through covenants or some other
mechanism how this will be assured for the life of the project. If the lake will be used for
withdrawals, then this will need to be incorporated in how the downstream release is made, and may
require gauging of inflow so the release can match inflow prior to any loss of water via irrigation or i
other withdrawal
i
The US Geologic Survey has preliminarily estimated the 7Q10 flow at the outlet of the lake to be zero. •
They further estimate the mean annual flow to be in the range of 1.2 and 1.3 cubic feet per square mile
drainage area. (Attachment 13. US Geologic Survey 7Q10 Estimate). The drainage area is approximately
213 acres.
The inflow to the lake is zero as there are no stream segments above the normal pool. The proposed low -
flow orifice, as shown on the dam details (Attachment 10.), is approximately 10 feet below the normal
pool elevation and will be sized accordingly.
The lake is not proposed as an irrigation source. Covenants will be accordingly drafted.

16. This Office identified fourteen (14) ponds currently on the subject property. Are all of these too
small for a "sailing school "? Could any be expanded or combined to accommodate the applicants
"
"
sailing lake
?
14 •

Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
All of the existing ponds are too small for the sailing school. None of them can be expanded to provide
the appropriate dimensional requirements of the facility.
15
Anderson Creek Club
Additional Information
March 9, 2011
Response
General Public Comments to US Army Corps of Engineers
Comments from the general public focus on issues relating to public access, dam safety, impact to forest
and wildlife, compliance and mitigation. In addition to information provided above and attached, we
provide the following information.
Public Access
All amenities are open to the public.
Dam Safety and Downstream Impacts
The impoundment design and construction will comply with all State regulations. Downstream land
owners can be assured that there will be the appropriate breach analysis studies and that the embankment
and outlet structures can withstand one-third of the probable maximum precipitation (1/3 PMP): this is the
equivalent of 10 inches of rain in 6 hours.
The control structure will ensure that there is no interruption in downstream flows and quantities of water.
This is achieved through the low flow orifice and the outlet structure of the dam.
Forest and Wildlife Resources
Uplands within the project area are dominated by a loblolly pine plantation. The low lying lands are
dominated by wetlands that total approximately 180 acres. These wetlands are comprised of small stream
swamps and bottomland forests. There are no unique forest resources within the site.
Accordingly, the wildlife associated with the development is not unique. It is comprised of large-game
and non-game species that are typically found in the project vicinity.
Based on our observations, we concur with the US FWS conclusion that the proposed action is not likely
to affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their designated critical habitat or species
proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Compliance
The site generally appears to be in compliance. But for the lake, Anderson Creek South has been
designed to minimize impacts to wetlands through the establishment of buffers adjacent to wetlands that
are depicted on the current comprehensive delineation.
Prior violations have been resolved and the applicant is committed to strict compliance moving forward.
Lowered Property Values
While this does not pertain to water quality it should be noted that proximity to public access open water
increases property values as is evidenced by the relative stability of home prices near lakes.
Absent the developer and his commitments, the property could be a trailer park or it could be developed
with home at a lower price point; both would conclusively reduce property values.
16
Attachment 1:
Lake and 18 Holes of Golf, August 2007
`.NO Axoxs sIO .s o.r a s x. zoos. uo.
Axo oArtn xv+D9w 7. Iesn
i camaxAlcs s+oxx cN Ires x.a Aa xc mo-xuv ra xEnE
ns.n wuAT A"o ra+ TaaNa
?smcA,. aeaa?a?Aaw?wAS I
ma as oar
'77
a ..z ?a, .wc.rs - ac.eos
I¦
0
GLEASON GOLF COURSE DESIGN, INC.
roam.iii v..+...I xc mar Ie?cK sam
1
""CK RD
•
•
SITE
•
OVERHILLS
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
is
•
•
Anderson Creek South •
i
Harnett County, NC •
0
•
DEVELOPMENT TABULATIONS •
ipir AO?ES Kmnl®qa: 9be K
/ r _ a®oExnu - wK
- ® ?rx+nexar -C Ip
® (r?NSFxvAxCY CpWOPi - -Al - ?tl w... ?..c •
Q Ea1sTiN4 nEaH.naN ]3K ?o.-?. ,o..c
Hs.ro a5K •
'- JEWFA SiATgN-tfµ: ?,qf ?-/IK bu*N COUxsE
pAx JK
_ 9:YIFP STATION - i AC •
'.,-, "rew'm e?aem 'oro m?i.s ac .
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ( NORTH)
- © caw AxE. YAc
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN i
SCHEME "A" RED vloN, LEO •
•
I GRAY'i lll; SIAL€ ,
?s m1
•
Attachment 2:
Anderson Creek South, Current Site Plan, March 2011
e:
4
I - 1-
21
A
O

j
?'?3r ~ c
-- }? V
h
_ ?T.l_

ANDERSON CREEK SOUTH
1
HARNETT COUNTY, NC
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
3/04/11

JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS

F -_ - -, / - -- 25' WETLAND BUFFER
GOLF COURSE
CLUBHOUSE/TENNIS COMPLEX

SINGLE FAMILY W LOTS
`
-- _•?'? SINGLE FAMILY 80' LOTS
?5
. -?
MULTI-FAMILY

COMMERCIAL
WITHERS
RAVENEL

r
,? L99.F
L?
s r u i suavsraas

r
;,
?J
urfrvvc acwo
- "x ?
,:
y _ eana,wr LINE
k - _ - - - - 1BAYfIB,T STIIfMlS
"??? ! ?. - w eupr+c s[*e.a vm
l i C
- _ _ ( F iauaHOUg ?

, \X
Attachment 3:
American Sailing Association, March 2011
Qct-10-2008 07:55am From-
T-248 P.001/001 F-604
Capt. Jack Feeney
October 1, 2008
David N. Levbison
An&trson Creek Partners LP
Anderson Creek Club
125 Whispering fines Drive
Spring Fake, NC 28390
Dear, Mr_ Levinson:
United States Coast Guard
License # 1087254
AMERICAN
- ._ J SAILING
MOM ASSOCIATIOI®
Iustructor Evaluator
License # 2000790

Over the past several weeks I have reviewed and discussed with your consultants pans
for tF proposed lake of approximately 40 acres in Anderson Creek Club to be ed
primarily for sailing and most specifically for a sailing school. I have reviewed the
partuneters of the proposed lake and, with the modifications that I have proposed and 1 hat
your consultants have incorporated into their plans, I can advise you that this prole t is
quits feasible. :I
With} the small cove that has been incorporated into the design, Optimist dinghies cat. be
utilized to instruct the younger beginners. Using Laser, 420 or JY 15 sailboats, tee age
and plder pupils can be trained in the deeper and larger portions of the lake. ,A s ble
keelboat 16 to 18 feet in len& would also be appropriate for teaching youngsters d
adults of any age.
I have outlined locations for docks and the integration of a sand beach for swim m
These functiorns have also been incorporated into the plan. At such time as you are rq
to acquire the appropriate boats, I will be happy to assist you. I am also ready to a.,
your orgaWzadon in becoming affiliated with the appropriate sail training associat?
and-locating properly licensed instructors. I look forward to working with you in ti
veptiure. a
Sincerely,
act F ey
Scott Mill Rd. J
Attachment 4:
Photograph of Anderson Creek Club Entrance
Anderson Creek Club
Entrance Gate
Attachment 5:
NC DOT Signing Aareement, April 2005

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 29, 2005
Mr. J. Bret Mangum,
Vice President of Development
Anderson Creek Club
125 Whispering Pines Drive
Spring Lake, NC 28390
Dear Mr. Mangum:
LYNDo TIP=
SECRETARY
We have reviewed your latest request for "Multi-Use Community Signing" for Anderson Creek
Club.
As you are aware, three amenities that are open to the public are required to qualify for this
signing program. In your latest request, you indicated that an equestrian center was going to
open at Anderson Creek Club. This qualifies as your third amenity, provided it is open within
eighteen months.
Based on this latest information, I am pleased to inform you that Anderson Creek Club now
qualifies for "multi-use community signing." Please provide for the Department's review the
proposed locations of the signs so that we may expedite your request.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Afred L. Grandy
Sandhills Regional Traffic Engineer
ALG:alg
cc: Terry Gibson, P.E., Division Engineer
Ray Stone, P.E., District Engineer
E. Ray Goff, Division Traffic Engineer
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
SANorous REGIONALTRAFRcOFFICE TELEPHONE: [phone] GILLESPIE ST.
P.O. Box 1150 FAX: [phone] FAYETrEvILLE, NC 28301
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28302 WEBSITE: WKW..NCDOT.ORG
10-16-03
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Traffic engineering and Safety Systems Branch
STANDARD PRACTICE
For
Multi-Use Community Signing
M-37
It is the standard practice of NCDOT, based on engineering judgement, to install "Multi-Use
Community" signs for qualifying developments. Signs shall be located and erected according
to the standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the North
Carolina Supplement to the MUTCD, and the North Carolina Roadway Standard Drawings.
CRITERIA
Qualifying Multi-Use Communities shall consist of multiple land uses including, residential,
retail and office (or other employment opportunities) uses. Each qualifying multi-use
community must also have at least three (3) amenities that are open, during normal operating
hours, to the public such as a community park, golf course, community center, library,
school, restaurant, wellness center, swimming pool, cinema, church, or other public
enrichment opportunities.
• A planned Multi-Use Community that is under construction qualifies for signage if the
community has a minimum of two (2) of their proposed amenities operational and opened to
the public.
• The Multi-Use Community must be recorded in the appropriate County Court House as a
planned Multi-Use Community.
• The Multi-Use Community may be signed from the nearest US, NC, or Secondary Road. It
must be within ten (10) miles of the route to qualify if located outside of an incorporated city.
• The Multi-Use Community must be within two (2) miles of the nearest US, NC or Secondary
Route to qualify for signing if located within an incorporated city.
• Multi-Use Community signs shall not be allowed on interstates, freeways, or any full control
of access facility.
• Private or gated Multi-Use Communities do not qualify for signs, unless a sign is posted on or
near the gate that list the amenities that are open and available to the public.
• A qualifying Multi-Use Community shall submit their request in writing to the appropriate
Division Engineer.
• All costs associated with the installation and maintenance of approved Multi-Use Community
signs are the responsibility of the requester.
• The sign designs shall conform to the attached NCDOT standards.
it
r v
V U
in. qr -M a N m N
To!
V V
in iv in iv main
T°:
61 V V
ineen'acnven
Td!

a Z i
_
N N O N
Z ip m 10 ? tp ?

to!
r
?
e
Q W N IM
W N
G ,
a
`
_

ID 0 C;

1
Co
N
N
r
O O Q
i
N V V N
V 6i ; V
V
'
O ,ri < h? v fy io ,c? H a ion 0 e
+? a io col din 11 -0 1

U) An

W

a
?
p
ip N
? O
i0 N
?0 O
10 G
t0
W ?
-W
,,0'.Z ac
W O O
mae3
E-
a?Big
w in
o°c in o
°m¢#
Typical sign to be posted on or near the gate that list the amenities that are
open and available to the public of a private or gated Multi-Use Community.
•
s
t
i
•
0
•
•
•
0
0
•
•
0
io
N
BORDER
R=3"
W=O.5
3.5"
3"C
22„
"C
311
3"C
:2 „
.3 "C
-,.,?
3"C
3.5"
VRE TEXT
4'-0"
Attachment 6:
Proposed Lake Dam Cross-Section
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
n RI :y -3 'x 91,11
! arc h v "N
Rh w
n"€s Y? OW€ w$g w?
El?
"
m? goo ;' >
3 _ g N_ € fig= 08 4 g ? m _ w3l ? a€ y$ IL
e W s x o n ??a x o m" g 11 g
air'. a'
121
IN RE yr
XP i
sk,
?
a€'? W wags °°°s gig= m ?a€ x e= is :S 9 -1
€ Px € w° 3°
95. o W41 ego
REM in 11? R,
z " F 9 G P Mg , a? xa 6.1 &; 91 °g 8 `9
R gx°
0i a
r
Wg
as CL
Y
Lu _j
? Y0
r WO
??. a
t w J. ' CL
- - -------- ---
r w ? •: o
W
1 ?? ? 1
I
Z
0 A O ? N
8 R d 8 N R R R @ ?
IL

"
°
2 w
.?
W
to `
? as

p y X11

? H =a

l\
T

? W
Mae

O

$$$ gg V F-
i W N
V) W
N Y
to Q
b
W
O Y

O
4

8
A
RQ
?
??77
4 d ?

k
S 9?
(
?

O

O

I N
?

i Z

? a

? 9 ? d R R B Q @
3

Attachment 7:
Preliminary Lake Routing Calculations
WITHERS L RAVENEL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
PRELIMINARY LAKE
ROUTING CALCULATIONS
ANDERSON CREEK SOUTH
Spring Lake, Harnett County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Anderson Creek Club
125 Whispering Pines Drive
Spring Lake, NC 28390
Prepared by:
WITHERS & RAVENEL
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, North Carolina 27511
March 2011
W&R Project No. 02100066.0
Ty?c.... Master Network Summary Page 2. 01
Name.... Watershed
Fil.e.... K:\10\10-0060\100066-Andersori Creek South\H-H\Dam Sizing\Lake Sizing.ppw
MASTER DESIGN STORM SUMMARY
Network Storm Collection: Rainfall Events

Total
Depth Rainfall
Return Event
------
-- in Type RN F ID
--
-
1 ------
3.0600 ----------------
Synthetic Curve -------
Typell ---------
24hr
10 5.4500 Synthetic Curve TypeII 24hr
25 6.4900 Synthetic Curve TypeII 24hr
50 7.3400 Synthetic Curve TypeII 24hr
100 8.2100 Synthetic Curve TypeII 24hr
333 10.0000 Synthetic Curve TypeII 24hr
MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY
SCS Unit Hydrograph Method
(*Node=Outfali; +Node=Diversion;)
(Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank=None; L=Left; R=Rt; LR=Left&Rt)
Return HYG Vol Qpeak
Node ID Type Event ac-ft Trun hrs
---------------- ---- ------ ---------- -- --------
DA AREA 1 24.344 12.0200
DA AREA 10 61.818 12.0200
DA AREA 25 79.435 12.0000
DA AREA 50 94.152 12.0000
DA AREA 100 109.433 12.0000
DA AREA 333 141.359 3.0800
LAKE IN POND 1 24.344 12.0200
LAKE IN POND 10 61.818 12.0200
LAKE IN POND 25 79.435 12.0000
LAKE IN POND 50 94.152 12.0000
LAKE IN POND 100 109.433 12.0000
LAKE IN POND 333 141.359 3.0800
(? 1 X 10, riser
L
Max
Qpeak Max WSEL Pond Storage
cfs ft ac-ft
-------- -------- ------------
375.99
953.67
1216.20
1433.98
1657.37
4076.09
375.99
953.67
1216.20
1433.98
1657.37
4076.09
3/1111
SIN:
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 5:35 PM
Bentley Systems, Inc.
3/1/2011
Typu.... Master Network Summary Page 2.02
Name.... Watershed
File.... K:\10\10-0060\100066-Anderson Creek South\H-H\Dam Sizinq\Lake Sizing.ppw
MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY
SCS Unit Hydrograph Method
(*Node=Outfall; +Node=Diversion;)
(Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank=None; L=Left; R=Rt; LR=Left&Rt)
Return HYG Vol
Node ID
-----------
------ Type
---- Event
----- ac-ft Trun

LAKE
OUT
POND -
1 ----------
23.891 --
R
LAKE 013T POND 10 60.976 R
LAKE OUT POND 25 78.451 R
LAKE OUT POND 50 93.065 R
LAKE OUT POND 100 108.250 R
LAKE OUT POND 333 140.866 R
*OUT 10 JCT 1 23.891 R
*OUT 10 JCT 10 60.976 R
*OUT 10 JCT 25 78.450
*OUT 10 JCT 50 93.065 R
*OUT 10 JCT 100 108.250 R
*OUT 10 JCT 333 140.866 R
Max
Qpeak Qpeak Max WSEL Pond Storage
hrs
--------- cfs
-------- ft
--- ac-ft

13.2800
27.09 -----
234.31 ------------
12.557
12.5800 108.99 234.79 32.017
12.5200 157.42 235.01 41.036
12.4800 201.25 235.18 48.441
12.4400 249.35 235.37 56.005
3.5000 482.46 236.12 87.806
13.2800 27.09
12.5800 108.99
12.5200 157.42
12.4800 201.25
12.4400 249.35
3.5000 482.46

SIN: Bentley Systems, Inc.
Bentley PondPack (10.00.027.00) 5:35 PM 3/1/2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Normal Pool Volume Calculation
Date: 3/1/2011
By: JCI
Project # 2100066.00
Project Name: Anderson Cre)gk
Dam Top Elevatio 88y)
Downstream Toe Elevatioh 4,4s
Dam Height (ft) = 34
Permanent Pool Elevation = 234
Volume Calculated using Conic Method
Elevation Area (SF) Incremental
Volume (CF) Cumulative
Volume (CF)
208 20,755 0 0
210 87,727 100,768 100,768
212 145,086 230,421 331,189
214 200,489 344,086 675,275
216 275,283 473,800 1,149,075
218 354,806 628,409 1,777,485
220 444,183 797,318 2,574,803
222 543,067 985,595 3,560,398
224 646,277 1,187,849 4,748,247
226 769,213 1,413,708 6,161,955
228 901,857 1,669,312 7,831,267
230 1,040,813 1,941,010 9,772,278
232 1,321,145 2,356,393 12,128,671
234 1,754,602 3,065,515 15,194,186
236 1,844,391 3,598,620 18,792,805
238 1,932,995 3,777,040 22,569,845
Permanent Pool Volume = 348.81 ac-ft
Total Volume to Top of Dam = 518.13 ac-ft
Storage Volume between Permanent Pool and Top of 169.32 ac-ft
Dam =
Volume to Crest Auxillary Spillway
(Emergency Spillway) = 348.81 ac-ft
Effective Height Below Auxillary Spillway = 30 ft
PLUNGE POOL CALCULATIONS
HEC-14 METHOD
Project Name: Anderson Creek
Date: 1-Mar-11
Engineer: JCI
Outlet ID: OUTLET
Known Data
Q (design cfs = 150
Pie Diameter (in )= 72
# of Barrels 1
TW Depth (ft)= 1
Computed Data
Total Pipe Area s = 28.27
Effective Pi a Diameter ft = 6.00
Original Width (Wo) (ft) = 6
Basin Size Calculation
Q/(D2
TWID
From Figure 3.4
YdD = 0.45 <---- User Entry
Yo=" 1',t
TW/Yo =
TW/yo < 0.75 ?
Determine Brink Area
YdD =
From Table B.2
A/D2 = 0.3428 <-- r Entry. '
A
Vo = Q/A
=# l f
Y. = (a2)v2
?9!
Fr = Vd[(32.2)(Ye)]v2 =
Try d5o/Ye =
dso = 0.83 ft <---- User Entry
dsdye > or = 0.1 ? Arffiw?
From Equation 10.1 & 10.2
TW/ye
Co =
hs/ye=
hs='.,.....
Check:
hs/d50=7 2 k,
hs/d50>or=2?
Basin Dimensions
L. = (10)(hs) = 18.3 ft
or Ls = (3)(Wo) = 18.0 ft
Use - 18.3 ft
Lb = (15)(h.) = 27.5 ft
or Lb = (4)(Wo) = 24.0 ft
Use - 27.5 ft
Dissipator Length = 19.0 ft
Total Basin Length = 28.0 ft
Riprap d50 = 0.83 ft
Basin Depth = 1.90 ft
rl

Reference: Chapter 10-HEC 14, Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culerts and Channels, Hydraulic Engineering Circular
Number 14, Third Edition
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attachment 8:
Mitigation Concept Plan
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
1
WILDLANDS
March 9, 2011
Mr. Chris Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc
11 South College Ave., Suite 206
Newton, NC 28658
Subject: 404 Mitigation for the Anderson Creek Development
Dear Mr. Huysman,
We have identified and field evaluated six properties as potential mitigation sites for your
project. We are currently in negotiations with the owner of one specific property but we
have not been able to secure the contract to purchase. At this time, we can not share site
specific details due to the highly competitive nature of site selection. This information, if
in the public domain could encourage other mitigation bankers to pursue the selected site.
We are concerned that if this were to happen then the mitigation would not be as cost
effective.
We will submit a more detailed analysis and a conceptual plan within 2 weeks of this
letter. The conceptual plan will be in a format similar to those that we submit to the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). It will provide enough detail to
demonstrate that this is a sound mitigation site.
The selected site can produce the maximum anticipated restoration that you have
calculated in your application. Based on preliminary hydrologic and drainage assessment
we can achieve in excess of 2,262 linear feet of stream restoration and 13.49 acres of
riparian wetlands.
We can share with you that the site is located in Cumberland County and approximately
12 miles from the Anderson Creek project. The property is comprised of approximately
8,000 linear feet of ditched streams that are devoid of buffers. The soils are mapped
primarily as Roanoke Loam. Based on our analysis there will not be a need to excavate
any overburden from the projected wetland areas. The site is currently used as cattle
pasture and cattle have access to all of the streams on the property.
Sincerely,
John Hutton
Project Manager
\\ Ulan& I ligineciing. hic. • ph(me) 919-ti?1-99,1"(, • tha1919-2i 1-`>9y ? • >60? Chapel Hill 131Nd..:? I?'_ • Raleigh. hC 27607
Attachment 9:
Anderson Creek North

INV

4-1
x ?
1
oWey
19
Y
r
i ?

O
Z
v

Y e
a

1 v
CL
U
o
=
CL o
u
c
O
r d
t:
V
o o
a

e

a ti

y?j
C 3
y
7
x/ '
Attachment 10:
Road Sections
WITHERS & RAV E N E L ANDERSON CREEK SOUTH
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING R-1
III MacKenan Drive Cary. North Carolina 27511 tel: [phone] www.withersrayenel.com License No. C-0832 SPRING LAKE HARNETT COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
•
•
•
WITHERS & RAV E N E L ANDERSON CREEK SOUTH
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING R-2
111 NacNenan Drive Cary. North Carolina 27511 tel: 9i9-469-3340 www.withersravenel.com License No. C-0832 SPRING LAKE HARNETT COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
WITHERS & RAV E N E L ANDERSON CREEK SOUTH
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING R-4
111 NacNenan Drive Cary. North Carolina 27511 tel: [phone] www.withersravenel.con License No. C-0032 SPRING LAKE HARNM COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA =
•
•
•
WITHERS & RAV E N E L ANDERSON CREEK SOUTH
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING R-5
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 tel: [phone] www.withersravenel.com License No. C-0632 SPRING LAKE HARNETT COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
WITHERS &' RAV E N E L ANDERSON CREEK SOUTH
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING R-6
111 MacKenan Drive Cary. North Carolina 27511 tel: [phone] www.withersravenel.com License No. C-0832 SPRING LAKE HARNM COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
Attachment 11:
Lake Hydrology Study, January 008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 1
Z.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2
3.0 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................... 3
4.0 STUDY SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 4
4.1 Lake Drainage Area Delineation: ................................................................................ .4
4.2 Average Rainfall Determination: ................................................................................. . 4
4.3 Evaporation Rate: ...................................................................................................... . 4
4.4 Existing Stream Flow :................................................................................................ .4
4.3 Rainfall Runoff Depth: ................................................................................................ . 5
4.6 Stage Storage Function ............................................................................................. .6
4.7 Determine Supportable Lake Size ............................................................................... .7
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 9
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Predevelopment SCS Curve Numbers of the Drainage Area
Figure 2 - Post Development SCS Curve Numbers of the Drainage Area
Aaaendices
Appendix A -Calculations
Appendix B -Supporting Information
Appendix C - References
Anderson Creek Club - South
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Anderson Creek Club contracted with C. T. Clayton, Sr, PE, Inc. to conduct a study that
determines the supportable lake size in the Anderson Creek Club -South Development.
The analysis was completed utilizing the current existing conditions (predevelopment) of
the lake drainage area and the future potential built out conditions (post development) of
the drainage area based on the Master Development Plan provided by the Owner. The
study was completed by modeling the average rainfall run-off to the proposed lake area
and then determining the depth of the lake over time.
Based on these calculations, we were able to determine a graphical model that depicts
the lake size as a function of time for both predevelopment and post development
conditions.
Anderson Creek Club - South 10(9
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001

•
•
•
•
•
2.0 INTRODUCTION
• The Anderson Creek Club development is located in South-Central North
Carolina, specifically South Western Harnett County, approximately 15 miles northwest

of Fayetteville.

Currently, the Anderson Creek Club is divided into two major development
phases, Anderson Creek Club North and Anderson Creek Club South. The "North"
phase is approaching full development and the owners of the development are currently
! proceeding with the planning of the "South" phase.
•
• Both the North and South phases are a mixture of residential development pods,
. golf course & amenities, and openlundeveloped land.

• The proposed lake will be a central aesthetic and recreational facility for the
South phase.
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i

•
•
• Anderson Creek Club - South 20(9
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
•
•
•
•
3.0 STUDYASSUMPTIONS
Due to the scope of this study, it was necessary to make several assumptions in order
to draw the conclusions presented in the following text
• This study does not take into account the effects of groundwater pertaining to
the proposed lake. This would require a substantial subsurface investigation
over a longer period of time. As such, we would like to issue a disclaimer that
the results of this study may very well vary in actual conditions due to the impact
of groundwater flow and elevations.
• Runoff SCS Curve Numbers needed to complete the run-off calculations were
taken from known published material for SCS Curve Numbers in North Carolina
• Actual historical rainfall data was not available for the site. As such, average
rainfall data from Fayetteville, NC was utilized for this study. Due to the recent
drought conditions experienced during the previous year, the rainfall average for
2007 was not utilized for this study.
NCDOT contour information was utilized for volume calculations and drainage
area determinations.
• In modeling the stage storage function of the proposed lake, it was assumed that
the lake would not be excavated. Instead, it was assumed that a dam would be
constructed to form a lake from the existing topographical features.
Anderson Creek Club - South 3 ot9
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
4.0 STUDY SUMMARY
In order to complete the study, the following tasks were completed:
4.1 Lake Drainage Area Delineation:
Based on the location of the lake dam depicted on the Anderson Creek
South Master Plan, the drainage area of the lake was delineated utilizing NCDOT
contours. This drainage area was found to be approximately 213 acres.
4.2 Average Rainfall Determination:
Our original proposal for this study stated that our calculations would be
based upon a 20-year historical rainfall for the subject site. Due to the time
frame for the delivery of this study, a 20-year database for the Fayetteville
recording station would need to be hand pulled from hard copy archives by the
recording institution and therefore not feasible. As such, we utilized a 4-year
monthly average that was readily available. A copy of this data is available in
Appendix A: Calculations.
4.3 Evaporation Rate:
In order to accurately calculate the inflow to the proposed lake, it was
necessary to model the evaporation that would take place on the lake's surface.
This was done by taking the average annual lake evaporation published by U.
S. National Weather Service and distributing this loss on an equal monthly
basis for the entire year. A copy of a U. S. Annual Lake Evaporation contour
map is provided in Appendix B: Supporting Information.
4.4 Existing Stream Flow:
Our original proposal indicated that we would determine an average entry
and exiting stream flow to the proposed lake area. This was to be done by
examining the existing stream channel physical dimensions and apparent flow
Anderson Creek Club - South 4 of 9
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
lines. A field visit was made to record this information. During this field visit, the
stream area was thoroughly investigated. Our observations determined that a
defined stream channel is not currently present on the project site and no base
line flow was observed during the field visit (see photos in Appendix B:
Supporting Information). Based on these observations, it is our professional
opinion the average base line flow of this stream is negligible in the scope of this
study.
4.5 Rainfaff Runoff Depth:
In order to determine the amount of flow entering the proposed lake, it was
necessary to compute the depth of runoff from rainfall events during the course
of an average year. The depth of runoff was calculated for both predevelopment
and post development conditions in order to ultimately estimate the worst and
best cases of the time required to fill the proposed lake.
The Discrete SCS Curve Number Method was utilized to determine the
volume of stormwater runoff generated from an average monthly rainfall. This
method requires assigning each individual land use within the drainage area a
Curve Number (CN). Figures 1 and 2 graphically show the associated land uses
and assigned Curve Numbers for predevelopment and post development
conditions, respectively. Once a weighted CN average is obtained, the following
SCS runoff equation can be utilized to obtain a runoff depth.
Q, r (P - 0.2S)2
P+US
Where: Q* = runoff depth (in)
P = Rainfall depth (in) = Average Rainfall from historical data
S = Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)
Anderson Creek Club - South 509
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
s_iooo_io
The CN takes into account the land absorption rate based on the
hydrologic soils groups as defined by SCS.
Once the runoff depth is determined, it is simply multiplied by the drainage
area to determine the runoff volume. Refer to the attached calculations in
Appendix A for CN, cumulative annual runoff depth and cumulative volume
calculations for the project site.
4.6 Stage Storage Function
In order to estimate the size of the lake as rainfall fills the lake, it is
necessary to formulate a stage storage function. Stage is defined as the water
elevation in the lake above a given datum. Storage is the volume held in the
lake. The stage storage function was determined for the topography existing in
the location of the
proposed lake, as
shown in Appendix
A: Calculations. The gas
stage storage 240
function for the 235
proposed lake is 230
graphically
226
represented here:
220
Anderson Creek Club South
LAKE STAGE-STORAGE
215
210
Anderson Creek Club - South
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000
STORAGE (cu fq
6 of 9
4.7 Determine Supportable Lake Size
The ultimate goal of this study was to determine the size of the lake that
can be supported by the drainage area. In order to do this, the Stage Storage
Function was utilized in conjunction with the monthly runoff volume and
evaporation losses described above to formulate an Inflow versus Time graphical
model.
The graph on the following page depicts the depth of a lake versus time
passed after the completion of the lake dam construction for both
predevelopment and post development conditions. Notations are present to list
the corresponding take area covered (in acres) at certain stage elevations.
Anderson Creek Club - South 7d9
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
N ?
E E
o °
a?
CA
o
a. a
I I
.C
3
O LU
N ?
H
3 ?
V ?
v3
?o
o u.
?z
v
a
CO. A b
v
A
m
w N N N co 0 r r Cl
M Doe;S
co
v
M
t
N O
E
as
E
N
r
0
00 co IV N O
rn
o -•
ao $
d
a
H
U
y
7
O
7 7
,r
U rr?
x ?
N o0
0
U o
0 >1
V
L' x
Q r.?
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
As you can see from the Inflow vs. Time graph, the built out conditions of the
drainage area make a significant impact on the size of the lake to be supported. If the
drainage area is left in the condition exists today, the largest lake the drainage area will
support is approximately 16 acres at a minimum of 2.75 years after the completion of
the lake dam construction. This is depicted by the blue line on the graph.
However, based on the Conceptual Master Plan for Anderson Creek Club South
and specifically the drainage area for the proposed lake, the drainage area will
experience major development. If the lake dam is constructed after a majority of the
development has occurred, the lake will fill to a size of approximately 24 acres in
approximately 2 years. This is depicted by the red line on the graph.
Realistically, development will occur during and after the construction of the lake
dam. Therefore, it can be expected that the lake will fill to a size of approximately 10 to
13 acres the first year and 16 to 24 acres during the second year after construction of
the dam with average rainfall occurring during these two years. Ultimately, after full
development as depicted on the Conceptual Master Plan, the lake could be
approximately 27 acres in size. The drainage area will not support a lake larger than
this. During dryer years, such as experienced in 2007, a maximum sized lake (- 27
acres) may drop as much as 3 to 5 feet in depth and up to 5 acres in size. Based on
the results of this study, it is our opinion a lake size of 18 to 22 acres can be maintained
by the drainage area after full development.
Prior to design and construction of a lake, we recommend that a more thorough
study be completed that incorporates a geotechnical investigation soils underlying the
lake dam site and a hydrogeologic study of the regional and local groundwater
characteristics. The conclusions made from this study will need to be re-evaluated once
this additional information is gathered.
Anderson Creek Club - South 9 s
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
FIGURES
Anderson Creek Club - South Figures
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001

10

%? J
a
W
Q
W
M.
N
O J N V z 4
w z i Z
00
t
LJ
F=
0 0 QQ~ as
L in to to m
Ll"A
a

00
a
T
a
M ?

9
9
9
W
Lal
J ZON
L3
cn
�
LLJ
q,
O
�
9

APPENDIX A
CALCULATIONS
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
SITE INFORMATION
Anderson Creek Club South
Project Number: 110001
Date: 12-17-2007
Soils Within Lake Drainage Area

Soil Symbol
Soil Type S Soil
Group
Bb Bibb Loam D/B
Bn Blaney Loam Sand B
Ga Gilead Loam Sand C
Use SCS Soil Group B
Pre-development Conditions (existinal
SCS CN # Size Acres CNxA Description
60 6.6 396 Lawn dense soil flat
53 21 1113 Wooded, Dee round liter
58 135.5 7859 wooded, sparse round cover
65 47.8 3107 unimproved cleared area
87 1.8 156.6 residential area (2 dwellings per
acre
Total 212.7 12632
Average Pre-development CN: 59
Post-development Conditions (built-out)
CS CN # Size Acres CNxA Description
60 1.3 78 Lawn dense soil, flat
70 123.9 8673 -r3 residential units/acre

78
48.5
3783 Multifamily units (apartments,
du lexs or townhouses
65 39 2535 unim roved cleared area
Total 212.7 15069
Average Post-development CN: 71
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
Z
J V
V ?
T ?
h
a
Z W
LL LL
O
ai
U o
0 a ro
wa°
JZA
W m
U
NZO
5

?? G N
M N
N p
N P
r V
M N1
M? ?
A M
? r
a N
p r
{V O
?
?
a

?

< m
?
ao M C! O OR O ey IR el' "
Ol
< m a ? ? e r ro m a? a? a`a ? e

TY
L O O.
C? ?'?
M
M M
O
N C°
tO
r m
Y
N
O
N
N
r '

It) M
C',
N

O N

Vj

0

0
0=1 E
Emc ?
f0 16 a12 LL 0 O OD N CO r ?
ry M r r
gi 00 `° uoi uNi ? i C°o aO C
p
CO a
pi p
A E
0
E S o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
.
E 8 E r r r I r r r z r r
xU n I") M M M M C09 M M
T "- &
° b•a
O 'D = Cf)
p'>
r
N
4Y
?
7 CO
t°
7
?
0
M O
M
V
r.- CO
t 0
CA
N N
M
O
N Y r r f
1 C ` C
E U)
d O
H TAl.? LL
z N
i O
to O m N CO " tO Cl W r
QN c
l
E
E::
°

'g
_
E
'-
2 a4
o ?
o aR
o aQ
o 3E
o Se
0 ?
0 ae

S aE
0 ae
0 aE
0
a
E U E o
r a
r o
r o_ _o o_ o
r
r
r o
r 0
r 0
v
7 d O
0
Z
Q' r Op
N r
M O
M r
M O
M r
M r
M 0
M
M p
tD
w •y
L O m G C
(R
c
l
C
R
W
a
1
1

y
0)

M
'-
C r CV N N en N 0 h m M
c
q
q
E to E O
} ?`_LL co N CO O> N 0 14*
c
d fO
o M
i 1n
o
N
c(90x
i
?i
+?i
°m
n
n
`
ao
of
o
oo t
o
r
^
O
c
o?EAE
E¢N E-M
° y
- 2°

0 24

0 ?

O ?

O 02

O 0

p
S

S

S
e
p
S
a

S
d°

S
E
a
0
0
0
0
0

? o
r r r r r r r r
?.
Z? M M N lr7 f?7 ? 1'09 M M M M M
E o

.bN b
b
n
O

O
M a
b C?pp
O
O p?
N p?
O
N
?C ? T •?
a A
C M r G lM In M M 41 h r M

'-
Ew?a
O ?+w BALL
O
0 0
in CO
W) fO
N t7?p
fO
C+ LQ
1 q
a CO
co O a?
aD N
co tO
n V
m
x E
?
E Q N E m
0
? $ ?j
0
?
? $ $
0
a E
E 8 E 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
r
r
r 4
r 0
r
r
00

ZK0
-
r
M
r
M
Of
N
r
M
O
M
r
M
O
CO
r
M
r
M
O
M
r
M
pp
M
r
-1 1i a 3 , ? N
i 0 O Z
9
b
r
Q
0
O
U ?
,r

U c o

C U
•
•

•

STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION GENERATION
Anderson Creek Club South
Project Number: 110001
Date: 12-17-2007 Page 1 of 2

Stage
Contour
Area
of Incremental
Volume
cu ft ummulat ve
Volume
S
Ln S
Ln Z
0 210 0 0 0
1 211 6,388 3,194 3,194 8.069 0.000
2 212 12,864 9,626 12,820 9.459 0.693
3 213 21,125 16,995 29,815 10.303 1.099
4 214 61126 41,126 70,940 11.170 1.386
5 215 201,235 131181 202,121 12.217 1.609
6 216 228,856 215,046 417166 12.941 1.792
7 217 253,991 241,424 658,590 13.398 1.946
8 218 280,810 267,401 925,990 13.739 2.079
9 219 309,313 295,062 1,221,052 14.015 2.197
10 220 339,497 324,405 1,545,457 14.251 2.303
11 221 371,361 355,429 1,900,886 14.458 2.398
12 222 404,905 388,133 2,289 019 14.644 2.485
13 223 440.117 422,511 2 711 530 14.813 2.565
14 224 477,993 459,055 3,170.585 14.969 2.639
15 225 631,253 554,623 3,725.208 15.131 2.708
16 226 688 572 659,913 4,385,120 15.294 2.773
17 227 740.907 714,740 5,099,860 15.445 2.833
18 228 794,265 767,586 5,867.446 15.585 2.890
19 229 848,647 821,456 6,688.902 15.716 2.944
20 230 904,052 876,350 7,565,251 15.839 2.996
21 231 960.484 932,268 8,497,519 15.955 3.045
22 232 1,017,950 989,217 9,488,736 16.065 3.091
23 233 1,076,451 1,047,201 10,533.937 16.170 3.135
24 234 1,142,527 1,109,489 11,643,426 16.270 3.178
25 235 1,333,139 1,237 833 12,881,259 16.371 3.219
26 236 1507,791 1,420,465 14,301,724 16.478 3.258
27 237 1638,790 1,573,291 15,875,014 16.580 3.296
26 238 1,722,251 1,680,521 17,555 535 16.681 3.332
29 239 1,803,324 1,762,788 19,318,322 16.777 3.367
30 240 1,886,091 1,844,708 21,163,030 16.868 3.401
To generate stage storage function, run Nnear regression as follows:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.995141
R Square 0.990305
Adjusted R 0.989946
Standard E 0.195643
Observatio 29
ANOVA
df SS MS F s4ntffcance F
Regressior 1 105.56662 105.5666208 2758.016768 1.0056E-28
Residual 27 1.0334595 0.03827628
Total 28 106.60008
Coef ientstandard Fm t Stat P-value tower 95% Upper 95%Lower 95.09iJ aaer 95.09E
Intercept 7.814434 0.1368735 57.09236586 1.07484E-29 7.53359294 8.095276 7.5335929 8.095276
X Variable 2.691994 0.0512597 52.51682366 1.00564E-28 2.5868183 2.797171 2.5868183 2.797171

Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
STAGE STORAGE FUNCTION GENERATION
Anderson Creek Club South
Project Number. 110001
Date: 12-17-2007 Page 2 of 2
From this we get the following constants for the stage storage equation:
IS = KsZ b
Where:
S = Storage Vokime (cu ft)
Z = Stage (ft)
Ks = 2476
b = 2.692
Utilizing this equation the following stage storage graph is generated:
Anderson Creek Club South
LAKE STAGE-STORAGE
245
240
235
m
m 230

0 225

220
215
21Q
0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000
STORAGE (cu ft)
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
RUNN-OFF VOLUME CALCULATION
Anderson Creek Club South
Project Number: 110001 Page 1 of 2
Date: 12-17-2007
Computing Annual Runoff Depth and Volume
Use SCS Discrete Curve Number Method
Q. 4 (P - 0.2S)2
P + 0.85
Where: Q' = runoff depth (in)
P = Rainfall depth (in)
S = Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in)
5-1000_10
CN
Where: CN is the curve number
In our case: CN Predevelopment = 59
CN Postdevelopment a 72
Runoff Volume = Q' x DA
Where: DA = Drainage Area
In our case: DA = 212.7 acres
Predevelooment
S(predev)= 6.95
S(predev)= 3.89

Month
Average
Rainfall
Runoff
Depth
Runoff
Depth InCrOmental
Runoff
Volume e
Runnoff
Volume
n n v cu cu ft)
Jan 2.2 0.08 0.01 65,313 65,313
Feb 2.7 0.21 0.02 162,728 228,042
Mar 1.7 0.01 0.00 7,249 235,291
Apr 3.4 0.43 0.04 333,735 569,026
May 3.2 0.36 0.03 276,066 845,093
Jun 5.7 1.62 0.14 1,253,678 2,098,770
Jul 4.3 0.86 0.07 666,145 2,764,915
Au 4.4 0.89 0.07 684,715 3,449 631
Se 5.2 1.37 0.11 1,058,702 4,508,333
Oct 2.1 0.06 0.01 48,811 4,557 144
Nov 4.0 0.73 0.06 562,158 19.302
Dec 3.2 0.37 0.031 288,830 5,408,132
Total Annual Volume of Water to Lake due to Rainfall 5,408,132 cu ft
based on Predevelopment conditions
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
RUNN-OFF VOLUME CALCULATION
Anderson Creek Club South
Project Number: 110001
Date: 12-17-2007
Page 2 of 2
Postdevelopment

Month
Average
Rainfall
Runoff
Depth
Runoff
Depth incrememat
Runoff
Volume ummu a ve
Runnoff
Volume
n n v cu ft) V cu ft)
Jan 2.2 0.38 0.03 289,587 289,587
Feb 2.7 0.64 0.05 495,202 784,789
Mar 1.7 0.16 0.01 123,373 908,162
Apr 3.4 1.03 0.09 791,881 1,700,043
May 3.2 0.90 0.08 696,331 2,396,373
Jun 5.7 2.72 0.23 2,096 687 4,493,060
Jul 4.3 1.68 0.14 1,296,679 5,789,739
Aug 4A 1.71 0.14 1323,340 7,113,079
Se 5.2 2.38 0.20 1,839 397 8.952,476
Oct 2.1 0.33 0.03 253,919 9,206,395
Nov 4.0 1.48 0.12 1144,944 10,351,339
Dec 3.2 0.93 1 0.08 1 717,788 11,069,127
Total Annual Volume of Water to Lake due to Rainfall 11,069,127 cu ft
based on Postdevelopment conditions
Anderson Creek Club - South ApMdicm
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
STAGE-INFLOW FUNCTION
Anderson Creek Club South Page 1 of 2
Project Number. 110001
Date: 12-17-2007
TIME VOLUME VOLUME Evaporation PREDEV. POSTDEV.
Year Month # Months increm. cumm. increm. cumm. (feet) Stage Stage
Jan 1 65,313 65,313 289,587 289,587 0.3 3.1 5.6
Feb 2 162,728 228,042 495,202 784,789 0.6 4.8 7.9
Mar 3 7,249 235,291, 123,373 908,162, 0.9 4.6 8.1
Apr 4 333,735 569,026 791,881 1,700 043 1.2 6.4 10.2
May 5 276066 845 093 696,331 2,396,373 1.5 7.3 11.4
Year 1 Jun
Jul 6
7 1,253,678
666,145 2,098,770
2,764,915 2,096,687
1,296 679 4,493,060
5,789,739 1.7
2.0 10.5
11.5 14.5
15.8
Au 8 684,715 3,449,631 1,323,340 7,113,079 2.3 12.4 16.9
Se 9 1 058 702 4508333 1,839 397 8,952 476 2.6 13.6 18.4
Oct 10 48,811 4,557,144 253,919 9,206,395 2,9 13.4 18.3
Nov 11 562,158 5,119,302 1,144,944 10,351,339 3.2 13.8 18.9
Dec 12 288,830 5,408,132 717,788 11,069,127 3.5 13.9 19.2
Jan 13 65,313 5,473,445 289,587 11,358,714 3.8 13.7 19.1
Feb 14 162,728 5,636,174 495,202 11,853,916 4.1 13.6 19.2
Mar 15 7,249 5,643,423 123,373 11,97 , 4.4 13.3
Apr 16 333,735 5,977,158 791,881 12,7 ,170 4.7 13.4
May 17 276,066 6,253 224 696,331 1 ,463,500 5.0 13.4
Year 2 Jun 18 1,253,678 7,506,902 2,096,687 15,562,187 5.2 14.4
Jul 19 666,145 173,047 1,296,679 16,858,866 5.5 14.7

Aug
20
684,715
8, 57,763
1,323,340
18,182,206
5.8
15.1 K21.5
Sep 21 1,058.702 9,916,465 1,839,397 20,01, 6.1 15.7
Oct 22 48,811 9,965,276 253,919 0, 75,522 6.4 15.4
Nov 23 562,158 1 7,434 1,144,944 21,4204 6.7 15.6
Dec 24 288,830 1 1 ,264 717,788 22,138,254 7.0 15.5
Jan 25 13 1Q 577 289,587 22,427, 41 73 153
Feb 26 162,728 1 ,306 495,202 22,923,043 7.6 15.1 22.2
Mar 27 7,249 1 1,555 123,373 237416 7.9 14.8 21.9
Apr 28 333,735 11,385,290 791,881 23,83 ,296 8.2 14.8 22.0
May 29 276,066 1,661,356 . 696,331 24,634,627 8.5 14.7 22.1
Year 3 Jun 30 1,253,678 1 2,915,034 1 2,096,687 26,631,314 8.7 15.3 22.7
Jul 31 666,145 13,581,179 1 1,296,679 27,9 ,993 9.0 15.5 23.0
Au 32 684,715 14,266,896 1,323,340 29,251,333 9.3 15.6 23.2
Sep 33 1,058,702 15,324,5 1,839,397 31,090, 0 9.6 16.0 23.7
Oct 34 48,811 15, 3,407 253,919 31,344,64 9.9 15.7 23.5
Nov 35 562,158 15,93. 1,144,944 32,4 9,593 10.2 15.8 23.7
Dec 36 268,830 717,788 33,207,381 10.5 15.7 23.6
Jan 37 13 16,289,709 289.587 -73749-6-0 , 10.8 15.4 3.5
Feb 38 162,728 16,4 ,438 495,202 33,992,170 11.1 15.2 23.4
Mar 39 7,249 16,459,687
-7 123,373 34,115,54 11.4 14.9 23.1
Apr 40 333.735 19770 ,422 791,881 34,907,423 11.7 14.8 23.1
May 41 276,066 1 , 9, 696,331 57 12.0 14.7 23.1-
Yes r4 Jun 42 1,253,678 18,323,166
-
-
-
- 2,096,687 37,700,441 12.2 15.1 23.5
Jul 43 666,145 1
8
939,71
1 1,296,679 38,997,120 12.5 15.2 23.7
Aug 44 684.715 19,674,027 17323,340 40,320,460 12.8 15.3 23.9
Sep 45 1,058,702 20,732, 1,839,397 42,159,857 13.1 15.5 24.2
Oct 46 48,811 20,781,5 9 253,919 42,413,776 13.4 15.3 24.0
Nov 47 562,198, 21, 3,6 1,144,944, 43,558,720 13.7 15.3 24.1
Dec 48 28 ,830 21,632,5281 717,788 44,276,5081 14.0 15.1 24,0
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
STAGE-INFLOW FUNCTION
Anderson Creek Club South Page 2 of 2
Project Number: 110001
Date: 12.17.2007
TIME VOLUME VOLUME Evaporation PREDEV. POSTOEV.
Year Month # Months increm, cumin. increm. cumm, (feet) Sta a St e
Jan T9- 65,313 1 TWO 289,587 44, ,495 14. 23.8
Feb 50 162,728 1, , 0 495,202 45,061,297 14.6 14.6 23.7
Mar 51 7,249 123,373 5,184,670 14.9 14.4 23.4
Apr 52 333,735 22,201,554 791,881 45,976.550 15.2 14.2 23.4
M 53 276,066 ' 22,477,620 696,331 -46.672,881 15.5 14.1 23.3
Year 5 Jun
Jul 54
55 1,253,678
666,145 298
4, 2,096,687
1,296,679
' 48,769,
,066,247 15.7
16.0 14.4
14.4 23.6
23.7
Aug 56 684,715 -79337-M 1,323,340 51,389,587 16.3 14A 23.8
Sep 57 1,058,702 26,1140,860 1,839,397 53,228,984 16.6 14.6 24.1
Oct 58 48,811 61 253,919 -5-377.W3
' 16.9 14.3 23.8
Nov 59 562,158 1, 1,144.944 54,627,97 17.2 14.3 23.9
Dec 60 288,830 717,788 55,345, 5 17.5 14.1 23.8
Jan 61 65,313 1 73 289,587 55,635,222 13.9 2 .6
Feb 62 162,728 27,268,701 495,202 56,130,4 4
-
- 18.1 13.6 23.4
Mar 63 7,249 -7737M 123,373 5
6
29r,777 18.4 13.4 23.2
r 64 333,735 791,881 57,045,677 18.7 13.2 23.1
May 65 276,066 696,331 57,742.001 19.0 13.0 23.0
Year Jun
Jul 66
67 1,253,678
666,145 ,1
29,805,575 2,096,687
1,296,679 59,838,695
61,135,374 19.2
19.5 13.3
13.3 23.2
23.3
A 68 684,715 4 1,323,340 62,458,714 19.8 13.2 23.3
69 1,058,702 1, 1,839,397 64,298,1111 20.1 13.4 23.5
Oct 70 48,811 1, 253,919 64,551,030 20.4 13.1 23.3
Nov 71 562,158 2,159,962 1,144,944 65,696,97 4 20.7 13.0 23.3
Dec 72 288,830 32,448,791 , 717,788 66.414,762 21.4 12.9 23.2
Notes: 1. Evaporation is based upon an average of 42 inches per year. See Append'a B for source
2. A 26 acre lake for this project site will have a stage of 24 feet
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
APPENDIX B
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001

s
o
s
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
PICTURES FROM DECEMBER 12, 2007 FIELD VISIT
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC IN 110-001
DOWN STREAM
CREEK CHANNEL -
NO DEFINED
CHANNEL
NCDHARStemawatar BMP Murual Qfaptar Raviad w-2w
Table 3-4
Hydrologic soil Swaps for sot? types found in North Cambria (Maloom, 1989)
Atop A Dae"n D/C toda E RideAad C
Abfaesoe H Dm Wr D/B tnrtabrva B Rimifd C
Mb-Y
A Alin
? LUCY A Rarrmlm D
lvim C/B Duduee e D/C Ruaen a
AmMne A DO- B Lyndiburg C/E RuwhW B
Applied a Bdnge rile B Lyfn Haven D/C Ruaaon B
Aafie B Mbet D MadWan B RnWv D/B
Auautls C Mimic B Mars B Sebfds CJB
Avery d Bldnboro E Maf""e C/B Sfrartm D/B
Ayoo& B Bm+ C Madeo D Senn C/B
Baday C Btibie A Mmibmo B Sbfr B
Bulb C BWM C/B Mends 6 sate 6
Bsybom D/C hmvdb a Mafden 6 Swkw& A
Belie C/o Akmmn B Msyaian a Sufry B
aft D/B laedm B mocall D/C Taiadea C
Blade D/C Ff4°'Y B Maddmbufs C Tatlepoesa C
Assey E Guns"" B ugwtt D/C Tate E
Kfinwn A Mod C Mailer A Talum B
Bowie a Goldfbao CJs Murcia a ZLufmant B
Braddock B Caldrknf C Myra D/C Toeom B
lihmay B Granville a Nabor" C/B Tdsmi C/B
aradywifr E Grow a Nren C Tories C/A
Nevafd B Goan A Nbcolon B Tosasray D
Budos b Gwbudt B Nafdk B Trantplvanis E
Eionmmbe A Fb dedis B Odtioelmnee B Tfaop A
bsdm B Hatboro DJC Odh C/B Tndefman D/C
"a D thywvdk B Oludee D/C T-waee Be
Catrbe B Haywood a Ordew a Udaon B
Capthm D/B Eider C OCUW D Yana C
Caaolbr C lfefndm B Oorsamm a Wdfr C
Gdseay C Hlweaase B Odw D Vaud"m C
Cayda C ..If n C tloolet B wadd+ao B
Call B Hddt B raddea C/A Wadral A
rim a Hyde D/C Hraiiao D/C Waiee D/C
C D bwersbiel C P*Ibw D/C Wake D
Maur a lasdall D Pngnatrik D/B Wabuaa e
C>umeadMid E It" C MOM D/C Wednwee 6
ateweda C harm C Pouter D
Cboq C/A labnrm D/B Penn C/B
Ciatm a Mras CJB nnimban C
Caidnnn C Kabda d FIUwm,er D/B
CAHN C KWUMW b A Arad, A
Caaua E Kerrbew A lbomrleilre D/B
Geo pme d larsten D/C p0mdb C/A
Cnwam C takel" A Para" D/C
Coaviie D/C test D/C P.- B
Craver C lardy DJB Pemmmtb D/C
Davidroa B Lan C/E Rdwn d
Dde.a C Umen D/C Rains DJB
Dwovan D U"d B Raney D
than B taddrsd a RXV- C
%mm tgr Mumo met and Catodmik- 36 MY ilW
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
NCD11rtA Stamtr.ster >!h@ Manual C]raptar Arviavd OD-]B•07
The type of ground cover at a given site greatly affects the volume of runoff,
Undisturbed natural areas, such as woods and brush, have high infiltration potentials
whereas impervious surfaces, such as parking iotsand sofa will not infiltrate runoff at
all. The ground surface can vary extensively, particularly in urban areas, and Table 3.8
lists appropriate curve numbers for most urban lard rue types according to hydrologic
"Igmup4 Land use maps, site plans, and field reconnaissance we all effective methods
for determining the ground cover.
'f'able 3-5
Runoff curve numbers in urban areas for the SCS method (SCS,1986)
Coveroasaipnim Carve Nanoben far
Hydrologic SedlGro p
FvatrdendWd ratan cry A 8 C D
OF- Spare P-M Paddy gauoo'. eta )
Poem-MWm(tW%Stanahree) 6s, 79 06 0
Rarr Owmit6n 00% fa 75% yam OWN) 49 69 79 at
Good adman (> 75% wars cam) 99 61 74 8o
haperviftastaw
Pavedladd%laWrook drbevay;arc. 98 96 9s,
9B
Streets bra,, 4-
%ve4 nAamddarmaewas 98 96 9s 99
Pa"4apeaddlr5es 83 89 99 is
Gravd 76 as 89 91
Dkt 72 82 as a
Dmdgdagrahmases
Newtygmdedamas 77 96 91 96
Pumas (<38%gmundoaverorharlygscad} 68 79 W
Palom(M%io73%Vamdmwrernatboviyyaed) 49 69 79 89
s,1
P9arrm (575% Stand sower a lgpdy yannd) 39 61 76 In
Mmdoar -asdinrous gmaS proeerted (nom graAngand 3o 58 71 73
gemrally amwedfx hay
&-h(le M Breard paver) 63 67 77 83
Nurb (sox to 75% VVwd o wr) 35 56 70 77
tlneh (>78% VMUM C rer) 3o 68 dd 73
Woods f-aiwa lour, caul trier, and brahdaa"d by 49 66 77 83
hmvy gmdng orngntar buming)
Woods (Woods am Stand b@A ad burned, and soaae fens} 36 60 73 79
Werarventhe 04
Woods (Woods am proteeied (romgaa>ing cad II>eerard 90 55 M 77
bmgh adwpAdyawerthelai)
Most drainage areas include a combination of land uses, The 9CS Curve Number Model
dwWd be applied separately: once for areas where impervious Cover is directly
connected to surface water via a swale or pipe and a sewed time for the remainder of
the site The runoff volumes computed from each of these ooanputations should be
added to determine the runoff volume for the entire sibs.
For the portion of the site that is NOT directly oonnected impervious surfaog, a
composite curve number can be determined to apply in the SCS Crave Number Model.
The composite curve rarnn, r must be area-weighted based on the distribution of land
uses at the site. Runoff from impervious areas that is allowed to Bow over pervious
It - - tw- MaregeawA rd Caladatimrs 3.7 jury MW
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
Anderson Creek Club - South Appendices
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001

References
"Anderson Creek Club South - Conceptual Master Plan", Gleason Golf Course Design,
Inc. (2007).
Bedient (1992), Philip B., and Wayne C. Huber, Hydrology and Floodalain Analysis. 2nd
ed., Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Malcolm (1995), H. R., Elements of Urban Stormwater Design, North Carolina State
University
•
•
i
•
i
NCDENR (2007), Division of Water Quality, Stormwater Best Management Practices
Anderson Creek Club - South
Lake Hydrology Study
CTC PN 110-001
Appendices
Attachment 12:
Stream Impact Photographs
Anderson Creek Club
Photographs of proposed lakebed.
Above:
Photograph looking
northeast at the existing
crossing located near the
proposed dam. The
existing culvert is in
foreground.
Left:
Photograph looking
upstream into the
proposed lakebed.
Attachment 13:
US Geologic Survey Q10 Estimate
3/9/2011 FW: Initial USGS response concerning I...
From: chris huysman <[e-mail]>
To:'AmyHuysman' <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Initial USGS response concerning low-flow inquiry ...Re: 7Q10 Request, UT South Prong Anderson Creek,
Harnett County, NC
Date: Wed, Mar 9, 2011 7:10 am
Attached Message
From: John C Weaver <jcw [e-mail]>
To: chris huysman <[e-mail]>
Cc: Curtis Weaver <jcw [e-mail]>
Subject: Initial USGS response concerning low-flow inquiry... Re: 7Q10 Request, UT South Prong Anderson Creek, Harnett County,
NC
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:39:03 -0500
Chris,
In response to your inquiry about the flow statistics (7Q10, mean annual flow) for a location on an unnamed
tributary to South Prong Anderson Creek in Harnett County, the following initial response is provided:
A check of the low-flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center does not reveal any previous
determination for your point of interest. A rough delineation of the drainage basin (using mapping software)
upstream from your point of interest indicates the drainage area to be in range of 0.3 to 0.4 sqmi.
A preliminary assessment of available information at nearby locations where low-flow estimates were published in
a basinwide low-flow report for the Cape Fear River basin (Weaver and Pope, 2001; available online at
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/reports/wdO14094/) leads me to believe a 7Q10 estimate for your point of interest is likely
zero flow.
The mean annual flow yield for this area is estimated between 1.2 and 1.3 cubic feet per square mile drainage
area (cfsm). Once a more firm drainage area is determined, it can be applied to this yield range to estimate the
mean annual flow. The yield values were obtained from plate 2 included in a statewide low-flow report by Giese
and Mason (1993, available online at
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/#search:ad\ance/page=1/page size=100/series cd=WSP/reportnumber=2403:0).
Please understand this information is based on a preliminary assessment. Further analyses are needed to
confirm the initial assessment, and a fee of $250 per site is required for completion of a more in-depth
assessment and formal determination of estimates. If you want us to complete a more in-depth assessment,
please let me know and we'll proceed from there. The assessment would be completed within four weeks, and the
response would be made via email with an invoice attached to the email message.
Hope this information is helpful. Please call if you have questions.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver

J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
mail.aol.com/.../PrintMessage.aspx 1/6
3/9/2011
FW: Initial USGS response concerning I...
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
From "chdshuysman" <chds.huysman(aD_wetland-consultants.com>
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: 03/04/2011 11:35 AM
Subject: 7Q10 Request, UT South Prong Anderson Creek Harnett County, NC
Curtis,
Thanks for your time.
The site is in Harnett County NC along a tributary to South Prong Anderson
Creek.
In decimal degrees-
35.2746888 N
78.9647223 W
Many thanks,
Chris Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
336 / 406-0906
From: "John C Weaver" <[e-mail]>
To: "chris huysman" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Curtis Weaver" <[e-mail]>
References: <OFEIED229D.99CD9456-ON87257849.005B246C@LocalDomain>
Subject: Initial USGS response concerning low-flow inquiry ...Re: 7Q10 Request,
UT South Prong Anderson Creek, Harnett County, NC
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:39:03 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----= NextPart 000 0004 0ICBDE29.llF3B200"
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2 FP2 June 23, 2009
Thread-Index: Acvd6fW7F39JT9MeRy2ytvQ8EoQSiQ==
In-Reply-To: <OFElED229D.99CD9456-ON87257849.005B246C@LocalDomain>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
x-nonspam: Statistical 630
x-mimetrack: Serialize by Router on gsvaresm05/SERVER/USGS/DOI(Release
8.5.21August 10, 2010) at 03/08/2011 18:39:04,Serialize complete at 03/08/2011
18:39:04
x-ironport-anti-spam-result: AgEAAHVMdk2CCwoKhWdsb2JhbACfA4dkFQEBAQoLChgFIME2AoMWgksEhR2HFQ
x-keepsent: CDC60FB8:D107CA37-8525784D:007928C5; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-AOL-VSS-CODE: clean
mail.aol.com/.../PrintMessage.aspx 2/6
3/9/2011 FW: Initial USGS response concerning I...
X-AOL-VSS-INFO: 5400.1158/0
------= NextPart 000 0004 01CBDE29.llF3B200
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chris,
In response to your inquiry about the flow statistics (7Q10, mean annual
flow) for a location on an unnamed tributary to South Prong Anderson Creek
in Harnett County, the following initial response is provided:
A check of the low-flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science
Center does not reveal any previous determination for your point of
interest. A rough delineation of the drainage basin (using mapping
software) upstream from your point of interest indicates the drainage area
to be in range of 0.3 to 0.4 sqmi.
A preliminary assessment of available information at nearby locations where
low-flow estimates were published in a basinwide low-flow report for the
Cape Fear River basin (Weaver and Pope, 2001; available online at
<http://nc.water.usgs.gov/reports/wri014094/>
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/reports/wri014094/) leads me to believe a 7Q10
estimate for your point of interest is likely zero flow.
The mean annual flow yield for this area is estimated between 1.2 and 1.3
cubic feet per square mile drainage area (cfsm). Once a more firm drainage
area is determined, it can be applied to this yield range to estimate the
mean annual flow. The yield values were obtained from plate 2 included in a
statewide low-flow report by Giese and Mason (1993, available online at
<http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/#search:advance/page=l/page size=100/series cd=WSP/
report number=2403:0>
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/#search:advance/page=l/page size=100/series cd=WSP/r
eport number=2403:0).
Please understand this information is based on a preliminary assessment.
Further analyses are needed to confirm the initial assessment, and a fee of
$250 per site is required for completion of a more in-depth assessment and
formal determination of estimates. If you want us to complete a more
in-depth assessment, please let me know and we'll proceed from there. The
assessment would be completed within four weeks, and the response would be
made via email with an invoice attached to the email message.
Hope this information is helpful. Please call if you have questions.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver

J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
mail.aol.com/.../PrintMessage.aspx 3/6
3/9/2011 FW: Initial USGS response concerning I...
Internet address -- <http://nc.water.asgs.gov/> http://nc.water.usgs.gov;
From: "chris huysman" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: 03/04/2011 11:35 AM
Subject: 7Q10 Request, UT South Prong Anderson Creek, Harnett County,
NC
Curtis,
Thanks for your time.
The site is in Harnett County NC along a tributary to South Prong Anderson
Creek.
In decimal degrees-
35.2746888 N
78.9647223 W
Many thanks,
Chris Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
336 / 406-0906
------= NextPart 000 0004 01CBDE29.llF3B200
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Chris,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">In response to your inquiry about=
the
flow statistics (7Q10, mean annual flow) for a location on an unnamed trib=
utary
to South Prong Anderson Creek in Harnett County, the following initial
response is provided:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">A check of the low-flow files here=
mail.aol.com/.../PrintMessage.aspx 4/6

• 3/9/2011 FW: Initial USGS response concerning I...
• at
the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center does not reveal any previous
• determination for your point of interest. &nbsp;A rough delineation of
• the drainage basin (using mapping software) upstream from your point of
interest indicates the drainage area to be in range of 0.3 to 0.4 sqmi.</f=
• ont>
• <br>
<br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">A preliminary assessment of availab=
• le
• information at nearby locations where low-flow estimates were published
in a basinwide low-flow report for the Cape Fear River basin (Weaver and
• Pope, 2001; available online at </font><a href=3Dhttp://nc.water.usgs.gov/=
• reports/wri014094/><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">http://nc.water.usgs-
gov/reports/wriOl4O94/</font></a><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">)
• leads me to believe a 7Q10 estimate for your point of interest is likely
zero flow.</font>
. <br>
<br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">The mean annual flow yield for this
area is estimated between 1.2 and 1.3 cubic feet per square mile drainage
• area (cfsm). &nbsp;Once a more firm drainage area is determined, it can
• be applied to this yield range to estimate the mean annual flow. &nbsp;The
yield values were obtained from plate 2 included in a statewide low-flow
• report by Giese and Mason (1993, available online at </font><a href=3D"htt=
• p://pubs.er.usgs.gov/#search:advance/page=3Dl/page size=3D100/seriescd=3D=
WSP/report number=3D2403:0"><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">http://pubs-
- er.usgs.gov/#search:advance/page=3Dl/page size=3D100/series cd=3DWSP/repo=
• rt_number=3D2403:0</font></a><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">).</font>
<br>
• <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Please understand this information=
is
• based on a preliminary assessment. &nbsp;Further analyses are needed to
confirm the initial assessment, and a fee of $250 per site is required
for completion of a more in-depth assessment and formal determination of
• estimates. &nbsp;If you want us to complete a more in-depth assessment,
• please let me know and we'll proceed from there. &nbsp;The assessment woul=
d
• be completed within four weeks, and the response would be made via email
• with an invoice attached to the email message.</font>
<br>
• <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Hope this information is helpful.=
• &nbsp;Please
call if you have questions.</font>
• <br>
<br><font size=3D2 face=3D11sans-serif">Thank you.</font>
• <br>
• <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Curtis Weaver</font>
<br>
. <br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">***********************************_
**************************<br>
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE<br>
• USGS North Carolina Water Science Center<br>
• 3916 Sunset Ridge Road<br>
Raleigh, NC &nbsp;27607<br>
• <br>
• Phone: [phone] &nbsp;// &nbsp;Fax: [phone]<br>
Mobile: [phone]<br>
• <br>
• E-mail address -- [e-mail]<br>
Internet address -- </font><a href=3Dhttp://nc.water.usgs.gov/><font size=
• =3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">http://nc.water.usgs.gov/</font></a><font size=3D=
2 face=3D"sans-serif"><br>
• mail.aol.com/.../PrintMessage.aspx
5/6
3/9/2011 FW: Initial USGS response concerning I...
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=3D100%>
<tr valign=3Dtop>
<td><font size=3D1 color=3D#5f5f5f face=3D"sans-serif">From:</font>
<td><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">&quot;chris huysman&quot; &lt;chris=
[e-mail]&gt;</font>
<tr valign=3Dtop>
<td><font size=3D1 color=3D#5f5f5f face=3D"sans-serif">To:</font>
<td><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">&lt;[e-mail]&gt;</font>
<tr valign=3Dtop>
<td><font size=3D1 color=3D#5f5f5f face=3D"sans-serif">Date:</font>
<td><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">03/04/2011 11:35 AM</font>
<tr valign=3Dtop>
<td><font size=3D1 color=3D#5f5f5f face=3D"sans-serif">Subject:</font>
<td><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">7Q10 Request, UT South Prong Anders=
on
Creek, Harnett County, NC</font></table>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>Curtis,<br>
Thanks for your time.<br>
<br>
The site is in Harnett County NC along a tributary to South Prong Anderson=
<br>
Creek.<br>
<br>
In decimal degrees-<br>
35.2746888 N<br>
78.9647223 W<br>
<br>
Many thanks,<br>
Chris Huysman<br>
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants<br>
PO Box 1492<br>
Sparta, NC &nbsp;28675<br>
<br>
336 / 406-0906<br>
<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
------=-NextPart-000-0004-01CBDE29.llF3B200--
mail.aol.com/ ... /PrintMessage.aspx 6/6
Attachment 14:
USGS Topographical Survey and Web Soil Survey
rl
0-
78.9833333'W 78.9668666 ° W 78.9500000'W
z
- °
CY)
44
`ntl367 J
co
?- ? _375 ?0
1 X250 \ , 3 ?ii i
- - b' Andersa;1,C-reek North
A ?86 ????? °
? ? -! r t J 1 ppp
Gloom
(7
Cl)
CY)
P)
00
y 4 ?? 00
C\j
i
goo `;? x trtown Anderson CreekSouth
17 V`
r
•,
Go Springs L
'Ch
Trailer
z P.0
\ i> `O
I lio-1 (0
r /// ?/ 1 •/
CY)
00
-7 A
"It
.? ( X 9
?o?z I1b Pond z
00
ti - ?- o
?w - U-)
M 78.9833333 ° W 78.9666666 0 W 78.9500000 ° W
ch
Name: ANDERSON CREEK (NC) Location: 035.2756157°N 078.9676233° W
Date: 3 1 Caption: Anderson Creek Club
Scale: 1 1 inch inch equals 2000
feet
Copyright (C) 1998, Maptech, Inc