20042019 Ver 3_Public Notice Comments_20110210

February 8, 2011
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 2006-41244
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc,
Attn: Mr. Christopher Huysman
PO Box 1492
Sparta, North Carolina 28675
Dear Sir:
On November 12, 2010, this office received your application for Department of the Army
authorization for the construction of the Anderson Creek South development and associated
infrastructure and amenities, including a 40-acre amenity lake, on property located adjacent to
South Prong Anderson Creek, on the east side of Ray Road and Nursery Road, north of Overhills
Road, south of Lemuel Black Road, west of Country Time Lane, and to the north of Spring Lake,
Harnett County, North Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments from resource
agencies and the general public for rebuttal purposes as a part of the individual permit review.
At the conclusion of the forty four day public notice period, we received multiple
comments regarding this project, including comments from regulatory and or natural resource
agencies. The commenting agencies, which have forwarded correspondences to date, include the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)-Division of
Water Quality and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Comments
from the agencies as well as all other comments are attached for rebuttal purposes.
The NCDENR, Division of Water Quality reviewed your proposal while out on public
notice and delivered a letter requesting clarification and expressing concerns on a number of
issues, including project purpose, avoidance and minimization, mitigation and project need to
name a few. Please review and address all of the comments offered by the NCDENR, Division
of Water Quality as you prepare a response to this correspondence.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) recommends denial of the
permit as currently proposed. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
submitted comments in response to the permit application indicating that the EPA believes the
project purpose for the development is misidentified, the alternative analysis is insufficient and
the preferred alternative has not been shown to be the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative, that there has not been an adequate mitigation plan supplied and that the EPA
considers the aquatic resources on site to be aquatic resources of national importance (ARNI).
The EPA further indicates that the currently proposed project does not comply with the Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines and may have substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts to an aquatic
resource of national importance. As with the NCDENR, Division of Water Quality's letter,
please review and address comments offered by the USEPA.
In addition to the agency's comments, please review and address as appropriate, all other
comments received in regards to this project.
Our administrative process provides you the opportunity to propose a resolution and/or
rebut any and all objections before a final decision is made. In this regard, I would appreciate
being made aware of your intentions, in writing, on or before March 10, 2011.
I am responsible for processing your application and available to assist you in coordinating
with the review agencies. If you have any questions you may call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Crystal Amschler
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Copies furnished with enclosure:
Anderson Creek Partners, LP,
Attn: Mr. David Levinson
125 Whispering Pines Drive
Spring Lake, North Carolina 28390
Copies Furnished without enclosure:
Mr. Kelly Laycock
US EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Ms. Jennifer Derby
Chief, Wetlands Protection Section
Water Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ian McMillan
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
John Ellis
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Molly Ellwood
Southeast Permit Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
127 Cardinal Dr. Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405
3
United States Department of the
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 7, 2011
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
Interior -
Dear Ms. Amschler:
Subject: Anderson Creek South development and associated infrastructure and amenities in
Harnett County, NC (Action ID # - SAW-2006-41244)
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior on the
December 23, 2010 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) public notice of an application for
an individual permit submitted by Anderson Creek Partners, LP. The following comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321
et seq.) (NEPA); section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543) (ESA); and Section 10 of Rivers and Harbors Act.
Anderson Creek Partners, LP is proposing to impact 1,512 linear feet of perennial stream, 1,191
feet of intermittent stream channel and 12.98 acres of wetlands associated with the construction
of the Anderson Creek South development and associated infrastructure and amenities in Harnett
County, NC. The proposed development will involve approximately 909 acres of land for the
construction of single and multi-family structures, approximately 59 acres of land for mixed
commercial use and associated infrastructure and the construction of amenities to include a
tennis center, small recreation parks and a 40-acre public access lake. The site is forested land
that has been used for timber production in the past and is transected by logging roads that were
constructed approximately 50 years ago. The site contains Anderson Creek and several
tributaries which are classified by the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) as Class "C"
waters.
The Service is very concerned with the proposed construction of in-line structures such as the
proposed lake because they significantly alter both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The
conversion of Anderson Creek to a lake will result in the loss of natural stream functions, alter
the hydrology, and affect native ecosystem processes within, and downstream of, the proposed
reservoir site. 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. Water depth
increases, flow decreases, and silt accumulates on the bottom. Impoundments not only destroy
riverine habitat within the impounded portion of the stream but also alter the quality and stability
of the upstream and downstream reaches by adversely affecting water flow regimes, velocities,
temperature, chemistry, and nutrient cycles. The effects of impoundments result in changes in
fish and macroinvertebrate communities, often favoring nonindigenous species; species that
require clean gravel and sand substrates are lost. In addition, dams result in the fragmentation
and isolation of populations of species, acting as effective barriers to the natural upstream and
downstream expansion or recruitment of fish species. This reduction in range and isolation of
the populations greatly increase the vulnerability of a species to extirpation. It reduces the
species' ability to respond to changes (natural or manmade) within its environment and to
recover from impacts (large or repeated small scale impacts) to its numbers that a species with
widely dispersed, interconnected healthy populations would likely be able to overcome.
Although the habitat will remain in an aquatic state, the fauna and ecosystem functions
associated with streams are not alike and cannot be replaced with associated fauna and functions
from a reservoir.
A large portion of the supporting document to PN regards construction of a public lake of
sufficient size to support sailing and guarded swimming. It goes on to state that there are no
similar facilities within 30 and 100 miles of the project. However there are many lakes of
suitable size for this within 100 miles. These include Jordan, Falls, and Harris Lakes to the north
and the chain of lakes on the Yadkin-Pee Dee rivers to the west and any number of smaller lakes.
The document does not explain how the water quality classification will improve from the
current Class C of the streams to a Class B which is for waters to have human body contact with
water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis.
The document does not clearly state what measures will be used to determine the flow regime
that will be provided downstream of the proposed dam. Evaporative losses as well as any
withdrawals for irrigation will change the flow regime of Anderson Creek. Nor does the
document provide detailed information on how such releases will be made in such a way that
downstream water temperatures and quality do not change.
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the Corps and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on February 6, 1990 provides guidance for: (1) avoiding impacts to waters and
wetlands through the selection of the least damaging and most practical alternative, (2) taking
appropriate and practical steps to minimize impacts on waters and wetlands, and
(3) compensating for any remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical.
For that reason, we recommend that the Corps adhere to this MOA and evaluate all practicable
alternatives to the proposed dam construction and minimize/avoid impacts Section 404 (b)(1)
guidelines also prohibit the filling of wetlands for nonwater-dependent activities when
practicable alternatives exist. We do not believe that the proposed amenity lake is a
water-dependent activity; thus, it should not be permitted.
2
The mitigation proposed for this project is not detailed and from the information we have
received, it does not adequately compensate for the impacts that this project will have on aquatic
and terrestrial resources. To compensate for the impacts of the project, the applicant is
proposing to replace wetlands and streams at a 1.5:1 ration inclusive of all perennial stream
impacts. However no information is provided regarding how or where this mitigation will be
provided.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Anderson Creek partners, has not yet presented a detailed account of project impacts to stream
and wetland habitat and other fish and wildlife resources, nor have they presented a detailed
mitigation plan to compensate for the adverse environmental impacts that will occur as a result
of this project. Also, the application and public notice does not include any evidence of on-site
biological surveys conducted, stream type/quality assessments, or detailed plans (including
proposed impacts and alternatives) for the proposed amenity lake and residential development
that will be constructed on the land that borders Anderson Creek. We believe the direct, indirect,
secondary and cumulative impacts from this project should be critically assessed. It is the
responsibility of the federal agency or their nonfederal representative to address the indirect and
cumulative impacts associated with an action that is funded, permitted, or implemented by a
federal agency. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) directs federal agencies to
examine the consequences of their proposed or permitted activities in an overall goal to protect
and enhance the human environment. When impacts from development are deemed adverse to
fish and wildlife resources, it is appropriate for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recommend
measures to minimize those impacts pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and
NEPA. Therefore, we believe the cumulative and secondary impacts associated with the subject
project, and any measures that will be taken to minimize these impacts, should be addressed.
Given that the Corps' NEPA implementing regulations list regulatory actions as actions that
normally require an Environmental Assessment (EA) (33 CFR 230.7 (a)) and an action such as
the proposed project is not listed as a Categorically Excluded Action (33 CFR 230.9), an EA,
should be developed for this project. We believe more information, including a detailed
alternatives analysis, delineation and classification of all streams and wetlands, specific
mitigation measures to offset impacts, and comprehensive environmental surveys of the entire
project area (dam location, flood pool, etc.), is needed to determine the necessity of this
reservoir. If the Corps decides to allow this project to move forward, we believe an EA or EIS
should be completed and is essential to assess the adverse environmental impacts from this
project. Before a permit is issued for the proposed project, we request that we be provided a
copy of the appropriate NEPA document. We are requesting a copy of these documents under
3
the provisions set forth in the Corps NEPA implementing regulations and the Council of
Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations:
"The district commander is responsible for...and for keeping the public informed
of the availability of the EA and FONSI " (33 CFR 230.10 (a)). "In the case of operation
and maintenance activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material requiring a
public notice, the notice will indicate the availability of the EA/FONSI. For all other
Corps project actions a notice of availability of the FONSI will be sent to concerned
agencies, organizations and the interested public (40 CFR 1501.4(e)(1))." (33 CFR
230.11) If the agency determines on the basis of the EA not to prepare a EIS, "the
agency shall make the finding of no significant impact available to the affected public as
specified in Sec. 1506.6." (40 CFR 1501.4(e)(1))
Once we have received the appropriate NEPA document for the subject project, we will use the
NEPA document evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and evaluation
of alternatives of the action to make more substantial comments on the project. Until we can
review the NEPA document and because of the significant amount of impacts to Anderson
Creek, unnamed tributaries, wetlands, and upland habitat, we recommend that the permit for this
project, as proposed, be denied.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of further please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. John Ellis at 919-856-4520, ext 26.
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
4
January 20, 2011
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2006-41244
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc,
Attn: Mr. Christopher Huysman
PO Box 1492
Sparta, North Carolina 28675
Dear Sir:
Please reference your request for a Department of the Army authorization and a State Water
Quality Certification to discharge fill material into 1,512 linear feet of perennial stream channel,
1,191 linear feet of intermittent stream channel and 12.98 acres of adjacent wetlands for the
construction of the Anderson Creek South development and associated infrastructure and 40 acre
amenity lake. The project area is adjacent to South Prong Anderson Creek and is located on the
east side of Ray Road and Nursery Road, north of Overhills Road, south of Lemuel Black Road,
west of Country Time Lane, and to the north of Spring Lake, Harnett County, North Carolina (N
35.28363, W -78.97333).
On February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to
determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands
through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and
practical steps to reduce impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensation for
remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To enable us to process
your application, in compliance with the MOA, we request that you provide the following
additional information:
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.
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
work for 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.
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.
c. Please provide your analysis of other unique amenities besides the 40 acre lake.
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.
e. Please provide further information on an alternative to facilitate the 40 acre lake
that involves expanding the existing impoundments on-site by either altering the
existing dam to expand the impoundments or using adjacent uplands to create
larger impoundments.
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.
Please Note: The above includes examples of items expected in the alternative analysis and
is not all inclusive. Depending on your response and on the comments that will be received
upon closure of the notice period, the alternatives may need to be discussed further.
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.
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.
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.
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
2
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.
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.
The aforementioned, requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of
your application and should be forwarded to us within two (2) weeks of your receipt of this letter.
Also, you should be aware that State and Federal commenting agencies may recommend design
modifications and comments will be forward to you upon the 2/4/2011 closure of the notice
period which also may need to be addressed.
If you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at telephone (910)
251-4170.
Sincerely,
Crystal Amschler
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
3
Copies Furnished:
Anderson Creek Partners, LP,
Attn: Mr. David Levinson
125 Whispering Pines Drive
Spring Lake, North Carolina 28390
Ms. Becky Fox
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4
1307 Firefly Road
Whittier, NC 28789
Ms. Jennifer Derby
Chief, Wetlands Protection Section
Water Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ian McMillan
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
John Ellis
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Molly Ellwood
Southeast Permit Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
127 Cardinal Dr. Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405
4
RECEIVED
?4 ;•%i4fcttp x+A FW BUCC AND POK NA FOBCE&SE
w BEA,C
REGIONAL
?.::. *t* TASK FORCE
COMML*M KMNI%FOB BAAC UPIEMENrATION
December 31, 2010
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Re: Anderson Creek South, Harnett County, NC
Dear Mr. Jolly:
JAN 0 5 2011
REG. WILM. FLD. OFC.
We are pleased to hear that the Anderson Creek South project is still under consideration. As
evidenced by the attached letter from the BRAC RTF dated December 3, 2008, projects such as
this will aid in our efforts to support the tremendous growth in our region.
On behalf of the BRAC Regional Task Force, we re-affirm our previous endorsement of this
project. Thank you for your consideration and please contact us at [phone] if we can be
of further assistance.
Sincer y,
Greg Yaylor, Executive Director
RECEIVE
•__?, JAN 0 5 2011
BRAG Regional Task Force po BOX 70999 - Ft. BMW, NC n307 . (91 FLa of-
December 3, 2088
Mr. Samuel K. "Ken" Jolly, thief_
Regulatory Division
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1898
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1848
Re: Anderson Creek South, Harnett County, NC
Dear Mr. Jolly:
The BRAG Regional Task Force Is a partnership of local governments and our purpose
Is to plan and prepare for the Impact on our local communities of mission growth at
Fort Bragg. We expect an additional 25,000 soldiers, DA civilians and on-post
contractors as part of the direct Impact of mission growth and a total of more than
40,000 additional people: arriving within the next six years. This tremendous growth
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.
Anderson Creek South would be an exemplar for our region In several ways, First, It
corresponds to our regional development strategy of focusing new growth Into
Identified core areas. The proposal would add hundreds of homes adjacent to the
existing Anderson Creek neighborhood where infrastructure, schools, and other
public facilities are available. Secondly, it would provide a diversity of housing stock
suitable for military families, with prices starting at $150,000. Thirdly, the proposed
design places an emphasis on the preservation of open space - over 180 acres would
be preserved - and the designers have taken care to avoid wetlands and minimize
stream crossings. This Is an approach we would like to see replicated In new
residential developments throughout our region.
The proposed development would also create a central lake as a featured amenity,
which will Include a sailing school. We support this concept, as It would add an
attractive recreational option for area residents and the general public,
Anderson Creek South will be an asset to the region and we feel that the value of
adding the take to this development, which also provides water conservation
measures, should be considered while mitigating the toss of wetlands, and request
that this Issue be given a high priority. The BRAC Regional Task Force stands ready
to assist with coordinating the replacement or restoration of compensatory wetlands
elsewhere In the area with land conservation organizations in the region.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
114aloe_?
Paul R. Dordal
Brigadier General, USAF (ret)
Executive Director
RECEIVED
January 2, 2011
Ms. Amschler,
SFC and Mrs. Orio-Dettling JAN 12 2011
827 Stone Cross Drive
Spring Lake, NC 28390 REG. WILM. FLD. OFC.
I am in receipt of a public notice dated December 23, 2010 concerning a proposal submitted by
Anderson creek partners, LP. After carefully reading the application I am convinced that the granting of
this proposal will result in a substantial negative impact on the wildlife and vegetation community as well
as lowering the value of my property.
My property, located at 827 Stone Cross Drive, borders the wetlands impacted by the proposal.
Any type of development will severely impact the value of my property as well as destroy the natural
habitat of countless forms of wildlife, including deer, new and old growth long needled pine and other
vegetation, numerous varieties of birds and possible endangered species. The ecosystem currently present
will be irreversibly damaged and any areas that are relocated or replaced by Anderson creek partners, LP
(as outlined in their proposal) would take years, if ever, to even marginally recover.
In their application Anderson creek partners, LP states that typically property values raise when
improvements, such as the proposed lake, are added. However, this increase in value would only benefit
the Anderson Creek development and would, in fact, have a detrimental impact on any existing property
(such as my home) that is not part of the proposed Anderson creek development. Additionally, the
proposed construction has the every real potential to necessitate sewage lines, drainage and roadway
updates that will place a devastating financial burden on existing homeowners such as myself.
Please consider this letter a formal request for a public hearing on this matter. Specifically I
would like Anderson creek partners, LP to clarify the location and public access of the proposed lake,
location of the "relocated" wetlands and proposed parks, major roadways, multiple family homes and
shopping center. A buffer protecting the existing wetlands should be demanded instead of "relocation".
Buffers behind the affected properties, such as mine, should also be required in order to protect woodland
habitat as well as property values.
Please take into careful consideration the negative environmental and financial impact the
granting of this proposal will have on property owners before granting this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration,
Troy Orio-Dettling
V
Lisagail Vandver-Orio
P
,?yy 1

307 Deer Creek Lane RECEIVED
Greenville, NC 27834 JAN 12 2011
January 10, 2011
REG. WILM. FLD. OFC.
VIA: Certified Letter/Return Receipt
Corps of Engineers
Attn: Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Corps Action ID#: SAW-2006-41244
To Whom It May Concern:
We have received your public notice dated December 23, 2010 regarding the above-referenced letter.
We own several parcels located directly adjacent to Anderson Creek Partners, LP: Harnett Co PIN
numbers: 0515-33-0033.000, 0515-31-9766.000, 0515-41-8089, and 0515-50-7444.
As our property is directly adjacent to and directly downstream from the proposed areas of disturbance,
we have several reservations about the project.
1. The wetland impact maps received from your office were small, in black and white only, and
nearly impossible to read. Can you send larger, more legible maps? It is impossible to
understand the information you intended to convey with the maps we received.
2. The stated purpose is "a unique public recreational amenity". How is the lake going to be public if
Anderson Creek is closed to the public? There are pates and/or security guard houses at every
entrance to Anderson Creek specifically to keep the public out. Will this new pond have publically
maintained street frontage and access along with the required parking and restroom facilities
necessary for the lake to be open as a "public recreational amenity"?
3. As the owner of land downstream, we have serious concerns about the safety of any property
that may be developed downstream. Dams, both old and new, break and burst with alarming
regularity. How much water can be released should the dam fail and what sort of damage will the
water do to homes built anywhere downstream? What sort of liability are we now incurring as the
owner to property under a lake dam? What will this potential liability do to the value and
marketability of our property?
4. What sort of impacts will our property suffer even if the dam functions properly? Will our wetlands
dry up? Might we experience water surges as the dam is forced to release large volumes of
water as it is received during and after large storm events? What other impacts will we suffer that
we aren't aware of?
5. Per your letter, the only consideration given to endangered species to be impacted, other than a
computer database, was provided by the applicant. This appears to me to be an extreme conflict
of interest. I would expect the Corps, or other governmental agency, to perform their own field
audit and inspection.
6. The stated purpose goes on to read the "purpose of the project is to... increase marketability". I
understand the desire for the applicant to increase the marketability of their property. However, I
do not feel that is possible without negatively impacting the marketability of our own property. Is
this equitable and justifiable?
7. One can't help but notice the detail and concern that the Anderson Creek proposal shows for
"aquatic species" and "habitat fragmentation" and the "Ph of the lake" and "the ambient lake
monitoring program". I could not find any mention of the human effect on those downstream
should a dam failure occur like the one at Walnut Creek Country Club, Goldsboro, NC, a few
years ago after a hurricane and heavy rains took out their dam.
Given the concerns above, we hereby specifically request a public hearing to be held to consider the
application.
We look forward to your response of our concerns and requests above.
Sincerely,
r
Elwood E. Perry
Terry ruse
.1V
January 3, 2011 !AN 13 2011 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Corps of Engineers SEG. WILM. FLD. OFG.
Attn: Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Corps Action ID#: SAW-2006-41244
To Whom It May Concern:
We have received your letter dated December 23, 2010 regarding the above-reference letter.
We own two parcels located directly adjacent to Anderson Creek Partners, LP. They have the following
Harnett Co PIN numbers: 0515-33-0033.000 and 0515-31-9766.000.
As our property is directly adjacent to and directly downstream from the proposed areas of disturbance,
we have several reservations about the project.
1. The wetland impact maps received from your office were small, in black and white only, and
nearly impossible to read. Can you send larger, more legible maps? It is impossible to
understand the information you intended to convey with the maps we received.
2. The stated purpose is "a unique public recreational amenity". How is the lake going to be public
if Anderson Creek is closed to the public? There are gates and/or security guard houses at every
entrance to Anderson Creek specifically to keep the public out. Will this new pond have
publically maintained street frontage and access along with the required parking and restroom
facilities necessary for the lake to be open as a "public recreational amenity"?
3. As the owner of land downstream, we have serious concerns about the safety of any property
that may be developed downstream. Dams, both old and new, break and burst with alarming
regularity. How much water can be released should the dam fail and what sort of damage will
the water do to homes built anywhere downstream? What sort of liability are we now incurring
as the owner to property under a lake dam? What will this potential liability do to the value and
marketability of our property?
4. What sort of impacts will our property suffer even if the dam functions properly? Will our
wetlands dry up? Might we experience water surges as the dam is forced to release large
volumes of water as it is received during and after large storm events? What other impacts will
we suffer that we aren't aware of?
5. Per your letter, the only consideration given to endangered species to be impacted, other than a
computer database, was provided by the applicant. This appears to me to be an extreme
conflict of interest. I would expect the Corps, or other governmental agency, to perform their
own field audit and inspection.
6. The stated purpose goes on to read the "purpose of the project is to-increase marketability". I
understand the desire for the applicant to increase the marketability of their property.
However, I do not feel that is possible without negatively impacting the marketability of our own
property. If this equitable and justifiable?
Given the concerns above, we hereby specifically request a public hearing to be held to consider the
application.
We look forward to your response of our concerns and requests above.
Sincerely,
L
Elwood E. Perry
307 Deer Creek Lane
Greenville, NC 27834
252-714-3458
Terry Cruse
6245 Pasture Drive
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
910-512-2232
1a es M. Tyso III
28 Dale Drive
Farmville, NC 27828
252-561-6920
Insurance Service, Inc.
and
January 13, 2011 Insurance Network Group
Ms. Crystal Amschler
USACOE
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
RECEIVED
JAN 19 2011
REG. WILM. FLD. OFC.
Re: Corps Action ID #: SAW-2006-41244, Anderson Creek South, Harnett County, NC
Dear Ms. Amschler:
I presently serve on the Harnett County Board of Commissioners and am a businessman and
long time resident of Harnett County, North Carolina. I have observed the development of the existing
community known as Anderson Creek Club and am aware of the plans for the development of
Anderson Creek South. In my capacity as a county commissioner as well as a businessman, I am well
acquainted with the current and projected growth for Harnett County in the area in which Anderson
Creek South will be located and the issues this growth presents to our county.
I believe construction of Anderson Creek South will be a great asset to Harnett County and its
current and future citizens. Anderson Creek South will add significantly to the county's tax base and
will provide an array of residential options for its populace. The inclusion of approximately 180 acres
of open space within the development is of particular note and far exceeds the requirements of the
applicable county ordinances. In fact, I believe the development of Anderson Creek South will in
almost every particular substantially surpass the requirements of Harnett County's existing rules and
regulations. I have attended any number of meetings in which the work of Anderson Creek South's
developer has been cited as an example of the standards to which we wish more developers aspired.
I am aware that plans for Anderson Creek South include the creation of an approximately 40-
acre lake which will be a central feature of the development and will be used in connection with the
establishment of a sailing school. This feature of the development will provide a unique and appealing
recreational opportunity for Harnett County's residents and the public at large, one which I support
and hope someday to take advantage of. I believe inclusion of the lake in the development will
constitute a valuable addition to the county at large and particularly urge you to look favorably upon
plans for its creation.
Thank you for your consideration of this project.
7mes erely,
A. Zurgin ,
u
ted
i deuendenl QCho
P.O. Box 1685 - 53 S. Broad St. East - Angier, NC 27501-1685 u IC e®
Agenl®
[phone] - FAX [phone]
STAiE or
N
?0 RECEIVED
''+u apr
JAN 19 2011
?nrt? C??roCYn?x (?Pxrrrttl ?ssem?l?r
Pauor of ?6preserrlafittes = `G. WILM. FLD. OFC.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID R. LEWIS
53RD DISTRICT
OFFICE ADDRESS: 533 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING
300 N. SALISBURY STREET
RALEIGH, NC 27603-5925
6 January 2011
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
REF: Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-1244, Anderson Creek Club
Dear Ms. Amschler,
I write today in wholehearted support for the approval of the application to develop a public
recreational lake at Anderson Creek Club South and the overall application.
Anderson Creek Club provides high quality housing in an absolutely beautiful community setting
seamlessly and respectfully blending nature with a variety of appealing choices in
accommodations.
The developers of Anderson Creek Club are meeting crucial objectives by providing a
community not just to live but to make a good life. Our region is fortunate to be gaining military
population as result of the BRAC Commission and Anderson Creek. Club is sorely needed to
provide exceptional housing for our growing military and civilian population.
The public recreational lake will serve not only as an attractive recreational attraction but also
aid in water conservation and wetlands mitigation.
Again, I wholeheartedly support this project and respectfully ask for your favorable review and
approval.
Thank you.
I I I ?- ?(A? WZ)
David R. Lewis
yowl
r4F
RECEIVED
To: Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office !AN 1 9 2011
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403 REG. WILM. FLD. OFC.
From: Frederick M. Shipley
1015 Stone Cross Drive
Spring Lake, NC 28390
Re: Corps Action #SAW-2006-41244
Anderson Creek Club alteration to existing wetlands adjacent to private property.
Dear Ms. Amschler:
This letter serves to both inform your office of my disagreement with the proposal and to protest
the allowing of the mentioned projects as they appear in the notice you have sent. I have been a
property owner in the Anderson Creek Township area since very early 2000. I was one of the
original handful of property owners who built my home bordering Anderson Creek Club
property on Stone Cross Drive in its earliest inception. One of the wetlands to be effected is just
yards off my rear lot line and removal or alteration of this will negatively affect my property and
lifestyle. These wetlands harbor many species of wildlife and vegetation. We have several
groups of white tail deer living in the confines of these areas as well as Squirrels, Rabbits,
Coyotes, and many species of birds including Quail and Turkey. We also have several types of
resident Wood Peckers such as the red-headed and Red-cockaded verities. The later being
protected in our area by Ft. Bragg which boundaries this property also. I am not convinced that
the club's plan will not alter the flow of the wetlands and cause a change in the patterns of these
natural ecological systems.
Anderson Creek Club makes many claims about enhancing a "public" recreation area. I have my
doubts that this is true as the club is a "closed" and "gated" community and makes no facilities
open to adjacent property owners except its golf course. I see no reason to believe this lake
would not be a closed facility also and that would only enhance the property values of club
owned properties and those future residents who will live around it. Certainly by destroying or
altering the wooded wetland areas and wildlife habitat it would serve to actually lower our
appeal and possibly, property values. These have seen nearly a 35% growth since year 2000. The
majority of my neighbors prefer the wooded appeal and roaming populations of wildlife. This is
what attracted them to our area both as original builders such as me or as recent buyers of
existing homes. The planned access road seems to run right up the lot line on several homes
towards the entrance to our neighborhood. So far we have enjoyed a relatively crime free period
over the last 11 years due to our limited access and lack of traffic from adjacent communities. I
can only wonder if this may suffer should we have an additional access road right on our
boundary that will connect directly to a state road.
In actuality, I have seen Anderson Creek Club as NOT being a good steward of its land adjacent
to our property or those few lots the club still owns on our street. Two instances that come to
mind are...
• In early 2000 the club destroyed a pristine wooded pond that was just on the border of
their property and ft. Bragg by collapsing the retention dam and allowing it to drain dry
into the forest. This action not only deprived the wildlife and fish eating birds (a family
of herons lived there) of a vital source clean water and food in the front of the Stone
Cross property but killed all the many fish that were abundant in the pond by allowing
them to wash through the surrounding wetland and suffocate on level ground. They
allowed this pond area to sit dry and overgrown for the last 10 years and have just
recently (last 8-10 months) reconstructed the dam and allowed it to begin refilling. This
pond is now barely 20% full. The pre-construction condition can be seen on the most
recent Google Earth view which shows a total overgrowth. Even if stocked the fish will
not be able to survive in this pond for many years because of the vegetation that was left
behind.
Instance #2 occurred just across the street from my home on a lot that was deemed
unbuildable due to wetlands and non-perking status for over 10 years. Anderson Creek's
builders cleared the entire lot leaving only a handful of mature trees on the extreme
borders (contrary to neighborhood covenants) to include the wetland in the lowest North
East corner of the lot, built a house completely in the upper South West corner and
attempted to overfill much of the swampy area with fill dirt. This area is just a large black
mud hole now and has ruined the wooded appeal of the existing lot next door. The owner
of that lot has just recently died and his widow has not been able to sell that house in over
a year. The fact that this house is built below the standard of any other in the
neighborhood may also make it less desirable.
I and many of my property owner neighbors would like to request a public hearing and a viewing
of the detailed plan that Anderson Creek Club has for the area adjacent to our land. The last
thing we want to see is condos or the like backing up to our lot lines or the "no buffer" clear
cutting of this wooded area during logging to ruin the ambiance of our back yard views. We
certainly do not want to look at the back of someone's balcony where we once had a wonderful
forest of pines and abundant wildlife. We understand this is their property and they are free to do
as they see fit but we also feel that this enterprise should be a good neighbor and not a detriment
to those around in the name of their profit margin. In its inception Anderson Creek was billed as
a retirement oriented community for senior military and upper income older professionals
"Nestled in the pine forest of the Carolina sandhills". It was even advertised in many career
military affiliated publications including Military Officers Association of America (MOAA).
Many early residents purchased home sites on that premise. Now they have a huge amount of
families and small children living and running around in this area as the properties have been
priced down so they are affordable to even the average military family. Imagine the retired upper
level officers who never imagined daily school busses full of children and bicycles running
around their retirement community. This is why I have more than a slight suspicion as to what
type of construction the club will undertake should the need to develop further tracts to produce
more capital for the club developers. While some of these comments are real estate based in
general, I believe past behavior leads to the type of stewards the developers might be of the
natural resources they plan to alter.
I thank you for your time and consideration and suspect you will be hearing from many more of
my fellow land owners before the deadline in the packet you have sent. I look forward to your
future correspondence and please do not hesitate to contact me at anytime in the future.
Sincerely
?, /n J --
Frederick M. Shipley
CWO USA (ret)
1015 Stone Cross Drive
Spring Lake, NC 28390
PH: 910 436 4007
Harnett
C 0 U N T Y
NORTH CAROLINA

Ms. Crystal Amschler
January 14, 2011
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-41244, Anderson Creek Club
Dear Ms. Amschler:
Office of the County Manager
www.harnett.org
ScottSauer
County Manager
William A. (Tony) Wilder
Assistant County Manager
PO Box 759
102 East Front Street
Lillington, NC 27546
ph: 910-893-7555
fax: [phone]
I'm writing on behalf of the proposed development of a lake at Anderson Creek Club
subdivision located in western Harnett County. As you may be aware Harnett County continues
to be one of the fastest growing continues in North Carolina and because of such rapid growth
the county faces many challenges. Currently our biggest challenge is providing adequate public
resources for the influx of citizens brought on by the recent base realignment and closure
changes taking place at Ft. Bragg often referred to as BRAC. As always we strive to improve the
standard of living for our existing and future residents; and being a good partner with the
development community is very important to me and the leadership of Harnett County.
Anderson Creek Club has been part of Harnett County for almost a decade and is
considered a catalyst for quality growth in western Harnett County. Anderson Creek club is often
considered the standard which other developments within the county work to achieve. To date
Anderson Creek Clubs management have been excellent partners to work with and have been
engaged in improving the quality of life for our residents.
It is my understanding that Anderson Creek club has requested approval for the
disturbance of streams and wetlands for the purpose of constructing a 40 acre lake within our
jurisdiction. Please be aware Harnett County is committed to being a good steward of the
environment, this is evident by the measures our elected officials have taken to protect
environmentally sensitive areas within our adopted ordinances. It is our belief that the natural
environment is one of greatest assets and is one of many characteristic that makes us unique,
preservation of our natural environment is done out of necessity for future generations to come.
strong roots • new growth
Letter to Ms. Crystal Amschler, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Regarding Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-41244, Anderson Creek Club
Page Two
January 14, 2011
We have confidence in the system in which your office has in place and feel that through
mitigation opportunities and other land management measures any disturbance of our wetlands
will be offset. Additionally the creation of a lake could help fill the need for additional
recreational opportunities to the residents in that area. Anderson Creek Club has served the
residents of Harnett County well and as the US Army Corps of Engineer reviews the proposal we
request that you consider the value of a master planned community to this region and partner
with our community to help create a product that will balance the necessity of protecting our
environment and improving the standards living within Harnett County. With that said, I support
the proposal for construction of the lake in the Anderson Creek Club South development.
Sincerely,

Scott T. Sauer
County Manager
cc: Joseph Jeffries, Planning Services
5
ANDERSON CREEK CLUB
125 WHISPERING PINES DRIVE • SPRING LAKE, NC 28390
866-465-3568 910-814-2633 910-814-2892(FAx)
www.andersoncreekclub.com
Janurary 20, 2011
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Ms. Amschler,
RECEIVED
JAN 2 1 2011
REG. WILM. FLD. OFC.
You have received or in the next few days you will be receiving letters of support from various leaders in our
community expressing their support for the public access lake that is referenced in Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-
41244 Anderson Creek Club. In your public notice you stated that January 21, 2011 was the deadline for receiving
written comments, so to guarantee that these letters are received in your office by the deadline, I have included
copies of those letters in this package. The originals will be sent directly to you.
Also included in this package is the original copy of a petition that was circulated to the adjacent property owners
and which was signed by the vast majority of them (a few were not at home and some property owners were not
local residents). The support for a public access lake with a sailing school has been overwhelming and we wanted
your application review committee to know firsthand what the sentiment of the community is. Some petition signers
indicated that they would also be commenting directly to you, so you may be receiving additional letters of support.
Included here are letters from:
Brigadier General Paul Dordal, USAF (Ret), Former Executive Director of BRACRTF
Greg Taylor, Current Executive Director of BRACRTF
Representative David Lewis, NC House of Representatives
Scott Sauer, Harnett County Manager
Joseph Jefferies, Harnett County Planning Director
Jim Burgin, Harnett County Commissioner
Gary Steimle, Anderson Creek Club Property Owners Association
Signed Petition from local adjacent property owners
We trust that this indication of support from the citizens of the community and its leaders would be considered
favorably upon review.
Thank you for your consideration,
J. ret Mangum
of Operations/Land Development
Anderson Creek Club
ll?,
*f
*?as?
BRAG Regional Task Force RO. Box 70999 - Ft. Bragg, NC 28307 - [phone]
December 3, 2008
Mr. Samuel K. "Ken" Jolly, Chief
Regulatory Division
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Re: Anderson Creek South, Harnett County, NC
Dear Mr. ]oily:
RECEIVED
JAN 2 1 2011
REG. WILM. FLD. OFG
The BRAC Regional Task Force is a partnership of local governments and our purpose
is to plan and prepare for the impact on our local communities of mission growth at
Fort Bragg. We expect an additional 25,000 soldiers, DA civilians and on-post
contractors as part of the direct impact of mission growth and a total of more than
40,000 additional people arriving within the next six years. This tremendous growth
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.
Anderson Creek South would be an exemplar for our region in several ways. First, it
corresponds to our regional development strategy of focusing new growth into
identified core areas. The proposal would add hundreds of homes adjacent to the
existing Anderson Creek neighborhood where infrastructure, schools, and other
public facilities are available. Secondly, it would provide a diversity of housing stock
suitable for military families, with prices starting at $160,000. Thirdly, the proposed
design places an emphasis on the preservation of open space - over 180 acres would
be preserved - and the designers have taken care to avoid wetlands and minimize
stream crossings. This is an approach we would like to see replicated in new
residential developments throughout our region.
The proposed development would also create a central lake as a featured amenity,
which will include a sailing school. We support this concept, as it would add an
attractive recreational option for area residents and the general public.
Anderson Creek South will be an asset to the region and we feel that the value of
adding the lake to this development, which also provides water conservation
measures, should be considered while mitigating the loss of wetlands, and request
that this issue be given a high priority. The BRAC Regional Task Force stands ready
to assist with coordinating the replacement or restoration of compensatory wetlands
elsewhere in the area with land conservation organizations in the region.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul R. Dordal
Brigadier General, USAF (ret)
Executive Director
':?CC:aA. /aTdAALGA4Utaf AIAfPKI B1it
'.p r?cloNAi.
TASK FORCE
KIAW?' FM u< M-4MAMi
December 31, 2010
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Re: Anderson Creek South, Harnett County, NC
Dear Mr. Jolly:
RECEIVED
JAN 2 1 2®11
REG. WILK FLD. OFC.
We are pleased to hear that the Anderson Creek South project is still under consideration. As
evidenced by the attached letter from the BRAC RTF dated December 3, 2008, projects such as
this will aid in our efforts to support the tremendous growth in our region.
On behalf of the BRAC Regional Task Force, we re-affirm our previous endorsement of this
project. Thank you for your consideration and please contact us at [phone] if we can be
of further assistance.
Sincer y,
Greg Taylor, Executive Director

?Xnrt4 TarvIina Genvra As- semh1L.
oixss of resetzfrztie
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID R. LEWIS
53RD DISTRICT
OFFICE ADDRESS: 533 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING
300 N. SALISBURY STREET
6 January 1217603-5925
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
E9 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
REF: Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-1244, Anderson Creek Club
Dear Ms. Amschler,
RECEIVED
JAN 2 1 2011
REG. WILM. FLD. OFG.
I write today in wholehearted support for the approval of the application to develop a
public recreational lake at Anderson Creek Club South and the overall application.
Anderson Creek Club provides high quality housing in an absolutely beautiful
community setting seamlessly and respectfully blending nature with a variety of
appealing choices in accommodations.
The developers of Anderson Creek Club are meeting crucial objectives by providing a
community not just to live but to make a good life. Our region is fortunate to be gaining
military population as result of the BRAC Commission and Anderson Creek Club is
sorely needed to provide exceptional housing for our growing military and civilian
population.
The public recreational lake will serve not only as an attractive recreational attraction but
also aid in water conservation and wetlands mitigation.
Again, I wholeheartedly support this project and respectfully ask for your favorable
review and approval.
Thank you.
avid R. Lewzs
#A%
r?
Harnett
% C O U N T Y Office of the County Manager
www.harnett.org
January 14, 2011
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
O?OpY
Re: Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-41244, Anderson Creek Club
Dear Ms. Amschler:
Scott Sauer
County Manager
William A. (Tony) Wilder
Assistant County Manager
PO Box 759
102 East Front Street
Lillington, NC 27546
ph: 910-893-7555
fax: [phone]
RECEIVE
JAN 2 1 2011
REG. WILM. FLD. QFG.
I'm writing on behalf of the proposed development of a lake at Anderson Creek Club
subdivision located in western Harnett County. As you may be aware Harnett County continues
to be one of the fastest growing continues in North Carolina and because of such rapid growth
the county faces many challenges. Currently our biggest challenge is providing adequate public
resources for the influx of citizens brought on by the recent base realignment and closure
changes taking place at Ft. Bragg often referred to as BRAG. As always we strive to improve the
standard of living for our existing and future residents; and being a good partner with the
development community is very important to me and the leadership of Harnett County.
Anderson Creek Club has been part of Harnett County for almost a decade and is
considered a catalyst for quality growth in western Harnett County. Anderson Creek club is often
considered the standard which other developments within the county work to achieve. To date
Anderson Creek Clubs management have been excellent partners to work with and have been
engaged in improving the quality of life for our residents.
It is my understanding that Anderson Creek club has requested approval for the
disturbance of streams and wetlands for the purpose of constructing a 40 acre lake within our
jurisdiction. Please be aware Harnett County is committed to being a good steward of the
environment, this is evident by the measures our elected officials have taken to protect
environmentally sensitive areas within our adopted ordinances. It is our belief that the natural
environment is one of greatest assets and is one of many characteristic that makes us unique,
preservation of our natural environment is done out of necessity for future generations to come.
strong roots • new growth
RECEIVED
Letter to Ms. Crystal Amschler, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District JAN 2 1 2011
Regarding Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-41244, Anderson Creek Club REG. WiLM. FLD. ®FC,
Page Two
January 14, 2011
We have confidence in the system in which your office has in place and feel that through
mitigation opportunities and other land management measures any disturbance of our wetlands
will be offset. Additionally the creation of a lake could help fill the need for additional
recreational opportunities to the residents in that area. Anderson Creek Club has served the
residents of Harnett County well and as the US Army Corps of Engineer reviews the proposal we
request that you consider the value of a master planned community to this region and partner
with our community to help create a product that will balance the necessity of protecting our
environment and improving the standards living within Harnett County. With that said, I support
the proposal for construction of the lake in the Anderson Creek Club South development.
Sincerely,

Scott T. Sauer
County Manager
cc: Joseph Jeffries, Planning Services
Harnett
C 0 U N T Y Planning Departinent
vwww harnett-nrta
January 13, 2011
Applicant: Anderson Creek Partners, LP
Attn: Mr. David Levinson
125 Whispering Pines Drive RECEIVED
Spring Lake, NC 28390
JAN 1 2011
Agent: Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Christopher Huysman REG. WiLM. FLD, C;i C:
Post Office Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
The Harnett County Planning Services Department, within an ever changing landscape, is
committed to ensuring quality development and housing for our community. Harnett County is
experiencing some of the most dramatic population growth and land development it's ever seen.
With these changes, we are carefully planning to mitigate any negative impact to the quality of
life for our current and future residents. Anderson Creek Club is a planned community of
approximately 1,700 acres located in Anderson Creek Township. The planned development
has 340 acres of open space and recreation areas that far exceed the minimum required for
developments of this size. In addition Anderson Creek Club offers a variety of housing types
and price points. I believe that Anderson Creek Club is a well planned community and contains
many features planners often encourage and strive to achieve when working with new
developments.
In the planned development referred to as Anderson Creek South the developer is proposing a
mix of residential, mulitifamily, commercial, and recreation development. 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 both a great amenity and provide environmental
benefits to the development as well.
Anderson Creek Club has always considered the environmental component of development as
important. This is evident through preservation and dedication of natural areas and
environmentally sensitive areas into open space and recreational areas. The proposed
development will avoid and minimize wetland impact as well as offset the loss of wetlands
through mitigation opportunities.
We look forward to working with you on this project and welcome the opportunity to discuss the
proposed project.
Sincerely,
oseph D. Jeffries
Director of Planning Services
strong roots • ne, growth
01/18/2021 09:46 FAX [phone] Johnson & Johnson, P.A.
0
C Insurance Service, Inc.
and
January 13, 2011 Insurance Network Group
Ms. Crystal Amschler
USACOE
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
R002
RECD`
JAN 1 2 ?1
REG. WILM. F1. J. _ ;
Re: Corps Action ID k SAW-2006-41244, Anderson Creek South, Harnett County, NC
Dear Ms. Amschler:
I presently serve on the Harnett County Board of Commissioners and am a businessman and
long time resident of Harnett County, North Carolina- I have observed the development of the existing
community known as Anderson Creek Club and am aware of the plans for the development of
Anderson Creek South. In my capacity as a county commissioner as well as a businessman, I am well.
acquainted with the current and projected
growth fox Harnett County in the area in which Anderson
Creek South will be located and the issues this growth presents to our county,
a. 9 I believe construction of Anderson Creek South will be a great asset to Harnett County and its
current and future citizens. Anderson Creek South will add significantly to the county's tax base and
will provide an array of residential options for its populace. The inclusion of approximately 180 acres
of open space within the development is of particular note and far exceeds the requirements of the
applicable county ordinances. In fact, I believe the development of Anderson Creek South will in
almost every particular substantially surpass the requirements of Harnett County's existing rules and
regulations. 7 have attended any number of meetings in which the work of Anderson Creek South's
developer has been cited as an example of the standards to which we wish more developers aspired-
I am aware that plans for Anderson Creek South include the creation of an approximately 40-
acre lake which will be a central feature of the development and will be used in connection with the
establishment of a sailing school. This feature of the development will provide a unique and appealing
recreational opportunity for Harnett County's residents and the public at large, one which I support
and hope someday to take advantage of. I believe inclusion of the lake in the development will
constitute a valuable addition to the county at large and particularly urge you to look favorably upon
plans for its creation.
Thank you for your consideration of this project.
erely,
Fes A. Burgin
Indepee?en! ?
rusted
lasgpanto P.O_ Box ]685.53 S, Broad St. East • Angier, NC 27501-168-5 (Choice."'
A9P01, [phone] • FAX [phone],99
ANDERSON
CREEK CLUB
Property Owners Association
216 Anderson Creek Drive - Spring Lake, NC 28390
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
VV W W.aCCpOa.COfn
poa@a andersoncreekclubxom
January 20, 2011
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Re: Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-41244
Dear Ms. Amschler,
R E C E ` -,
JAN 2 1 U i
REG. WILM.
I am writing on behalf of the Anderson Creek Club Property Owners Association with a
current membership of 515 homes and an anticipated future membership of over 4000 homes
regarding the application by Anderson Creek Partners, LP to build a lake in the southern
portion of Anderson Creek Club. The Property Owners Association is in complete support of
the effort and strongly recommends approval of the application. The addition of a lake with a
sailing school would provide residents and the general public with a unique amenity not
otherwise available in our region.
Sincerely,
Gary T. eimle
Chairman, POA Advisory Committee
Member, Board of Advisors

Z z
y?

FA
_
I,?'
N

A
kn, In

r II

w W C

T (? 0 a

G v c11 \ ?I

G
D
0
CD
0
m
Q
0
n m
E
Ln
?'ID
?'?
? ID
a
((DD
o_ c
Z oz m
, 0'
rt
C
D1
n
?p O
m r)
O N
c
7
Q
? n
o
O
Z LO
o m
m
m (D
0) Ln
-° D
a ?
3
rt ?
O
0
0-0
Qm
c
CD Lo
-a c.
c ?
ull
c,
n ?
n O-
m
Lnn
?(D
-a
r+3
?• m
Q0
m
Ln
O
n
(D
m
77
nj
?-- m
0
ca x'11
b
f+
?¦
r07
pl
rF
O
a

Cr
n'
A
tD
lw
m
17
r
f-
m

`y
c sz?

rt

-lz
r

'LA
70

to

rt
I

Jj CL
k-A

a rN O0 ?, T

G

?y ? '\J Q 6

'
,??

V

V
rt
C
- ` oz)
co
r-

i

? a
ss ? ? Z r 6

kIl-

a

Harnett
C O U N T Y Planning Department
NORTH CAROLINA
www.harneft.org
RECEIVED
PO Box 65
JAN 2 1 2011 102 East Front Street
January 13, 2011 Lillington, NC 27546
REG. WILM. FLD. OFC
ph:910-893-7525
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District fax: [phone]
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-41244, Anderson Creek Club
Dear Ms. Amschler:
The Harnett County Planning Services Department, within an ever changing landscape, is committed to
ensuring quality development and housing for our community. Harnett County is experiencing some of
the most dramatic population growth and land development it's ever seen. With these changes, we are
carefully planning to mitigate any negative impact to the quality of life for our current and future
residents. Anderson Creek Club is a planned community of approximately 1,700 acres located in
Anderson Creek Township. The planned development has 340 acres of open space and recreation areas
that far exceed the minimum required for developments of this size. In addition Anderson Creek Club
offers a variety of housing types and price points. I believe that Anderson Creek Club is a well planned
community and contains many features planners often encourage and strive to achieve when working
with new developments.
In the planned development referred to as Anderson Creek South the developer is proposing a mix of
residential, mulitifamily, commercial, and recreation development. 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 both a great amenity and provide environmental benefits to the development
as well.
Anderson Creek Club has always considered the environmental component of development as
important. This is evident through preservation and dedication of natural areas and environmentally
sensitive areas into open space and recreational areas. The proposed development will avoid and
minimize wetland impact as well as offset the loss of wetlands through mitigation opportunities.
We look forward to working with you on this project and welcome the opportunity to discuss the
proposed project.
C+-merely,
Joseph D. Jeffries
Director of Planning Services
strong roots • new growth
RENEE L. ELLMERS
2ND DISTRICT. NORTH CAROLINA
Congrezz of the Uniteb *tate!5
gouge of 3&epregentatibo
Wagbington, W 20515-3302
January 19, 2011
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dear Ms. Amschler,
1533 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
[phone]
RECEIVED
JAN 4 2011
REG. WILM., FLD. OFD,
This letter is written to extend my full support for Corps Action ID #SAW-2006-1244,
Anderson Creek Club.
Anderson Creek Club's pending permit with the Corps of Engineers, regarding the
development of a public recreational lake, and the general expansion of the development has my
full support. As the population in the second district of North Carolina increases due to BRAC,
the need for supplementary infrastructure is critical to the civilian and military families that
continue to move into the area. The expansion of the Anderson Creek neighborhood would add
hundreds of affordable homes suitable for the influx of these families, and the public lake will
add countless recreational opportunities for those living in and around the community. For these
reasons, I believe that these additions will only help to better serve my constituents in the second
district of North Carolina.
Thank you for your consideration of this project. As you move this project through the
approval process, I simply ask that you take a hard look at the Anderson Creek proposal that will
assist with the influx of people to this area. I am very excited about the quality of life
improvements that this endeavor will bring to those I serve.
Sincerely,
X
Renee Ellmers
Member of Congress
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
A L - A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
January 25, 2011
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Brad Shaver, Acting Field Chief
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Subject Property: Anderson Creek Development
Dear Mr. Shaver:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
DWQ Project # 04-2019, Ver. 3
Harnett County
RECEIVED
JAN 2 6 2011
?'c'Ca_. WILMl, FLD. OFC.
On behalf of the NC DWQ 401/Wetlands Permitting Unit, we again respectfully request that you
consider the following comments within your review of the 404 Individual Permit request for the
above referenced property:
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 (BRAC). 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 USACE
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.
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
USACE
Page 2 of 7
January 14, 2011
impacts to resources and water quality cannot be properly evaluated at this time. These
deficiencies include:
a. 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).
b. 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.
3. The compensatory mitigation plan included is not satisfactory. What was submitted is not even
conceptual, but only speculative.
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:
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/w,pe/publications/pdf/isp repo rt.pdf and please carefully
read DWQ's attached Selected Bibliography - Stream Impoundment Perspectives - 2008, and
please consider the NC Dam Safety statewide dam assessment at this link:
http://sections.asce.org/n carolina/ReportCard/dams.pdf Additionally, a preimpoundment study
conducted by Hayden M. Ratledge of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission titled
Preimpoundment Study 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.
On page 5 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 of size and scope of Anderson 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.
USACE
Page 3 of 7
January 14, 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.
7. To DWQ's 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.
8. 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 of Atlantic 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?
On page 3 of 6 of the application under 18. Nature ofActivity (Proiect 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 5 of 6 of the Public Notice under 23. Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation,
the applicant states "smaller more dispersed ponds are not conducive to providing organized
swimming under the supervision of li eguards. " 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 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 the applicant 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 involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in
an organized manner or on a frequent basis."
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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
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.
USACE
Page 4 of 7
January 14, 2011
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 other withdrawal
14. This Office will need to see the applicant's complete and comprehensive lake design and dam
details.
15. Will the lake shoreline be a natural shoreline or an "armored" shoreline (having installed
bulkheads/seawalls)?
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"?
17. On page 3 of 6 of the Public Notice under 23. Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation, this
Office 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 .0213 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 before mortality or extreme stress occurs.
18. This Office requests that the applicant 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.
19. This Office requests that the applicant please re-submit your site plans on full plan sheets at a
scale of no smaller than 1 "=50' with topographic contours shown.
20. This Office requests that the applicant please provide cross section details showing the provisions
for aquatic life passage.
21. This Office requests that the applicant please provide building envelopes for all lots with
wetlands and/or streams on the site plans.
22. This Office requests that the applicant please indicate all existing and proposed lot layouts as
overlays on the site plan. Additionally, please indicate which lots are sold.
USACE
Page 5 of 7
January 14, 2011
23. This Office requests that the applicant 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.
24. This Office requests that the applicant please indicate all proposed stream or wetland driveway
crossings on your plan sheet (including future proposed).
25. This Office requests that the applicant please indicate all stream impacts including all fill slopes,
dissipaters, and bank stabilization on the site plan.
26. This Office requests that the applicant please indicate all wetland impacts including fill slopes on
the site plan.
27. This Office requests that the applicant please locate all isolated or non-isolated wetlands, streams,
and other waters of the State as overlays on the site plan.
28. This Office requests that the applicant please provide a qualitative indirect and cumulative impact
analysis for the project. Please see DWQ's policy for guidance on our website at:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ws/40 I/policies
29. This Office requests that the applicant 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.
A. Project Density: Projects with SMPs that require 401 Oversight/ Express Unit approval
shall be classified as either Low or High Density according to the criteria described below.
1. Low Density: A development shall be considered Low Density if ALL of the
following criteria are shown to have been met.
a. The overall site plan, excluding ponds, lakes, rivers (as specified in
North Carolina's Schedule of Classifications) and saltwater wetlands
(SWL), must contain less than 24% impervious surface area considering
both current and future development.
b. All stormwater from the entire site must be transported primarily via
vegetated conveyances designed in accordance with the most recent
version of the NC DWQ Stormwater BMP Manual.
c. The project must not include a Stormwater collection system (such as
piped conveyances) as defined in NCAC 2B .0202.
d. If a portion of project has a density greater than 24%, the project shall be
considered low density as long as the higher density portion of the
project complies with Items 1-3 above and the higher density area is
located in upland areas and away from surface waters and drainageways
to the maximum extent practicable.
USACE
Page 6 of 7
January 14, 2011
11. High Density: Projects that do not meet the Low Density criteria described
above are considered to be High Density, requiring the installation of appropriate
BMPs as described below.
a. All stormwater runoff from the site must be treated by BMPs that are
designed, at a minimum, to remove 85 percent of Total Suspended Solids
(TSS).
b. In addition to controlling 85 percent of TSS, projects requiring located in
watersheds that drain directly to waters containing these supplemental
classifications shall meet the following requirements:
Water Quality Stormwater BMP
Supplemental Classification Requirement
§303(d) Project-specific conditions may be added
by the Division to target the cause of the
water quality impairment.
NSW A minimum of 30 percent total phosphorus
and 30 percent total nitrogen removal.
Trout (Tr) A minimum of 30 percent total phosphorus
and 30 percent total nitrogen removal;
BMPs should also be designed to minimize
thermal pollution.
c. All BMPs must be designed in accordance with the most recent version
of the NC Division of Water Quality Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual. Use of stormwater BMPs other than those listed in
the Manual may be approved on a case-by-case basis if the applicant can
demonstrate that these BMPs provide equivalent or higher pollutant
removal.
B. Vegetated Buffer: In areas that are not subject to a state Riparian Area Protection Rule, a
30-foot wide vegetated buffer must be maintained adjacent to streams, rivers and tidal waters
as specified below.
a. The width of the buffer shall be measured horizontally from:
i. The normal pool elevation of impounded structures,
ii. The streambank of streams and rivers,
iii. The mean high waterline of tidal waters, perpendicular to shoreline.
b. The vegetated buffer may be cleared or graded, but must be planted with
and maintained in grass or other appropriate plant cover.
c. The DWQ may, on a case-by-case basis, grant a minor variance from the
vegetated buffer requirements pursuant to the procedures set forth in 15A
NCAC 02B.0233(9)(h).
d. Vegetated buffers and filters required by state rules or local governments
may be met concurrently with this requirement and may contain coastal,
isolated or 404 jurisdictional wetlands.
USACE
Page 7 of 7
January 14, 2011
C. Stormwater Flowing to Wetlands: Stormwater conveyances that discharge to wetlands
must discharge at a non-erosive velocity prior to entering the wetland during the peak flow
from the ten-year storm.
D. Phased Projects: The DWQ will allow SMPs to be phased on a case-by-case basis, with a
final SMP required for the current phase and a conceptual SMP for the future phase(s). If the
current phase meets the Low Density criteria, but future phase(s) do not meet the Low
Density criteria, then the entire project shall be considered to be High Density.
Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please contact Ian McMillan in our Central Office
in Raleigh at [phone].
Sincerely
?f
Ian McMillan, Acting Supervisor
Acting Supervisor - Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater,
Compliance and Permitting Unit (WeBSCaPe)
IJM
Enclosure: Selected Bibliography - Stream Impoundment Perspectives - 2008
cc: Crystal Amschler, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Chad Turlington, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
File Copy
Chris Huysman, WNR, P.O. Box 1492, Sparta, NC 28675
Jim Mead, DWR
Connie Brower, DWQ
Jennifer Derby, Wetlands, Coastal, and Oceans Branch, Water Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, l 5th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303
Becky Fox, 1307 Firefly Road, Whittier, NC 28789
D.J. Gerken, SELC, 29 N. Market St., Suite 604, Asheville, NC 28801
Filename: 042019 Ver3AndersonCreekDevelopment(Harnett)IP_Commenting_Letter_USACE
Selected Bibliography - Stream Impoundment Perspectives
Compiled by North Carolina Division of Water Quality Staff
June 2008
Introduction:
Although Egyptians first constructed dams for the purpose of river regulation thousands of years
ago (Smith, 1971), Man has only recently begun to understand and appreciate the dramatic and
widespread effects of dams on river systems. The recent volume of work on impoundments,
primarily published by environmental scientists in the United States and abroad in the last 50
years, suggests that the benefits associated with some impoundments (e.g. water supply,
hydroelectric power, flood control, etc.) are accompanied by a great number of costs to nature, and
ultimately, society. While far from comprehensive, the following summary document provides a
good foundation on the many consequences of river impoundment. It is important to note that the
literature uses the term "impoundment" to describe everything from large, water supply reservoirs
to farm ponds created by small, earthen dams. It is also important to recognize that the
summarized environmental, social, and economic effects will vary in magnitude depending on the
impoundment's size and location. That said, the literature supports the following conclusions
regarding the effects of river impoundment:
Conclusions:
1. Impoundments negatively impact the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
water (i.e. water quality)
2. Impoundments negatively impact ecological systems and native faunal/floral communities
3. Impoundments/dams create numerous maintenance and safety issues
4. Impoundments cause numerous hydrological, biological, and geomorphological impacts
downstream due to changes in the flow regime and water quality
Supporting Information:
1. Impoundments negatively impact the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
water (i.e. water quality)
a. Water temperature and dissolved oxygen
When an impoundment is created, temperature and oxygen stratification may occur
as water depth increases and flow velocity decreases. This process involves the in-
flow of cooler, denser stream water to the bottom layer (hypolimnion) which pushes
the water above it into the impoundment's top layer (epilimnion). Here, according
to Maxted, McCready, and Scarsbrook (2005), the water warms and decreases in
density as it is subject to "incoming solar radiation, unhindered by any of the
topographic or vegetation shading characteristic of a stream channel". As the
2
suspended particles and substances in the epilimnion absorb solar radiation, the
temperature in this shallow surface layer typically rises above the high daily
maximum temperature of the inflowing stream. Maxted, McCready, and
Scarsbrook observed temperature stratification in each of the six small ponds
(ranging from 69-390 acres) they studied. Temperature (24° C) and dissolved
oxygen (4 mg/L) were exceeded 46% and 86%, respectively, during a 40-day
summer period. Maxted, McCready, and Scarsbrook also observed that
thermoclines (i.e. zones of rapid temperature change) occurred above .5 meters in
the small ponds.
According to Higgs (2002), the hypolimnion and epilimnion seldom mix well
enough to promote gas transfer from the highly-oxygenated surface water to the
poorly-oxygenated bottom layer. As a result, the bottom water layer in an
impoundment may become hypoxic and fail to support aquatic life. Depending on
how water is released from the impoundment, these oxygen and temperature
stratifications can lead to numerous problems downstream as well. In an attempt to
preserve habitat for cold-water species such as trout, some dams release water from
the cooler hypolimnion layer. However, while the temperature may be desirable for
cold-water species, the lack of dissolved oxygen may still render the downstream
habitat unsuitable. If the highly-oxygenated but warmer surface water is released
downstream, cold-water fish may have adequate oxygen, but a "thermal block" is
established which still prevents populations from reaching upstream spawning
habitats (Higgs, 2002).
Pelts (1984) cites two field observations of seasonal dissolved-oxygen sags related
to temperature stratification in upstream impoundments. The first, by Ingols
(1959), occurred along the Holston River, below Cherokee Dam in east Tennessee.
Ingols compared the dissolved-oxygen deficit in this location to be equivalent to
that caused by the effluent from a town of 3,500,000 people. Petts' second example
was from a study conducted by Walker et al. (1979) on the Murray River, below the
Hume Dam in Australia. In this case, a dissolved oxygen sag attributed to lake
stratification was observed for 100 km below the dam.
b. Metal thresholds
Metals can accumulate in impoundment sediments due to upstream pollution
discharges, or from natural sources such as local soils. Problems associated with
metals can be exacerbated by the aforementioned temperature and dissolved oxygen
stratifications. For example, in Lake Toxaway in the Savannah River Basin of
western North Carolina, researchers concluded that odor problems were emanating
from manganese and iron concentrations that "increased significantly in response to
increased hypoxic conditions near the bottom of the lake as summer progressed"
(NC DENR, 2005). Metal concentrations exceeding state water quality standards
have also been documented in impoundments in the Catawba, Yadkin, and Neuse
river basins of North Carolina.
c. Sedimentation
Sedimentation occurs when geologic or organic material falls out of suspension
and accumulates in a given area. This phenomenon is common in impoundments
for the following reasons: 1) inflowing streams/rivers slow down upon entering
impoundments, and suspended soil particles settle out of the water column, 2)
compared to natural streams and lakes, the water level in impoundments is
regulated to be virtually constant. According to Nakashima, Yamada, and Tada
(2007), nearly constant water levels may cause physical destabilization of
impoundment shorelines, and 3) land-disturbing activities such as construction
around the impoundment itself may lead to direct sedimentation. The sediment
load of a stream is produced by sheet erosion of the surrounding landscape or by
erosion of the stream bank itself (Baxter, 1977). Sedimentation is exacerbated
when erosion increases upstream during storm events or as a result of
construction, agriculture, or other land-disturbing activities. If flow rates decrease
rapidly upon entering the impoundment, sediment may accumulate near this entry
point, in the impoundment's upstream section. More often, however,
sedimentation is a bigger concern further downstream in the impoundment, next to
the dam. Sedimentation is a potential problem for water quality and aquatic life
(e.g. sediment may carry potentially toxic materials, such as phosphorous,
nitrogen, arsenic, chromium and copper), and it reduces the impoundment's water
depth and water storage capacity.
d. Turbidity
Sediment or silt that remains suspended in the water column also causes physical
and chemical changes in impoundments. In addition to detracting from a pond or
lake's aesthetic value, high turbidity limits penetration of visible light, affects the
heating and cooling rates of water, affects conditions on the bottom, and leads to the
retention of organic matter (Ellis, 1936). By limiting the penetration of visible
light, or by scattering light, turbidity can decrease the photosynthetic activity of
plants and reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen. Additionally, suspended
particles absorb heat from solar radiation causing the water to warm. Since oxygen
cannot dissolve as easily in warm water, turbidity can further lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations. High turbidity also leads directly to bottom effects as the
silt or sediment begins to drop from suspension. Fish eggs and insect larvae are
often blanketed and suffocated by silt, and gill structures can become clogged.
e. Nutrient pollution
The release of sewage effluent from point sources, such as wastewater treatment
facilities, and storm water runoff from non-point sources, such as lawns and
agricultural fields, to streams and tributaries, may cause nutrient pollution
problems. As these waters flow into receiving water impoundments, the water may
become eutrophic as elevated levels of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) cause
biological productivity to increase dramatically. This can lead to excessive algal
4
growth and decay, dissolved oxygen depletion, increased pH variation, and food-
chain alterations.
f. Algal blooms and Dissolved oxygen
Nutrients are often the limiting factor for algae and other aquatic plant growth. If
excess nutrients are present, such as the case in many impoundments, algae will
grow until some other factor becomes limiting (HALMS, 2007). Algae have other
significant growth advantages in impoundments as well, such as light intensity and
elevated temperatures. Due to the lack of topological or vegetation shading and the
aforementioned temperature stratification, algal photosynthesis can occur rapidly in
impoundments. Although algal photosynthesis actually increases dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the epilimnion, the algal bloom cycle can have far-reaching and
potentially disastrous consequences in the hypolimnion of the impoundment, and
downstream. Other aquatic plants may die during the bloom, and the algae itself
will eventually crash as available nutrients are consumed. This dead organic matter
eventually settles to the bottom and becomes a chief food source for heterotrophic
bacteria. Heterotrophic bacteria will increase in number based on the available food
source and, according to Petts (1984), "oxygen will be consumed in the
hypolimnion, often to exhaustion". This cycle often results in massive fish and
insect kills due to anoxic conditions, and the impoundment temporarily becomes a
dead area (HALMS, 2007). Aside from these immediate ecological effects, algal
blooms can also cause taste and odor problems in water supply impoundments, and
release toxic metals from lake sediments as organic-matter decay becomes
anaerobic (Fang et al., 2005).
g. pH
The pH of water can be altered by impoundment, and these changes often affect
how chemicals dissolve in the impoundment and whether they affect resident flora
and fauna. Impoundment eutrophication due to excess nutrients causes increased
biological activity, such as algal photosynthesis, which tends to increase pH.
Elevated pH may contribute to phosphorus release from the sediment and allow for
additional biological productivity (Ceballos and Rasmussen, 2007). When nutrients
are consumed, and dissolved oxygen drops, the water may become more acidic and
contribute to the death of fish and other aquatic organisms. This pH variation is
primarily a lake or impoundment phenomenon and not often observed in rivers or
streams.
2. Impoundments negatively impact ecological functioning and native faunal/floral
communities
Ecological systems and native faunal/floral communities within the impounded stream
reach are negatively impacted due to water quality deterioration, habitat destruction, and
effects on migration. For instance, sedimentation may cover existing rock and gravel
5
substrate, including riffles and breaks. This is especially detrimental to gravel-riffle
spawners, such as channel catfish and smallmouth bass, that only deposit eggs where the
water depth, current, temperature, clarity, dissolved oxygen content, and bottom types are
suitable. Also, according to Higgs (2007), dams disrupt river connectivity and create
physical and thermal barriers that prevent migrating fish and other wildlife from moving
up- or downstream in a river system. He emphasizes that this is problematic for sea-run
(anadromous and catadromous) fish as well as for residential fish that migrate up and down
a river system. These physical and thermal barriers affect fish spawning, rearing, and
foraging migrations, and also prevent re-colonization of other species following floods,
droughts, or human disturbances. For instance, during the larval stage, mussels can attach
to fish temporarily and move up- or downstream to re-colonize stream segments.
Neves and Angermeier (1990) found that dams on the upper Tennessee River system
(including parts of NC) have also altered habitat and adversely affected native fishes.
Obligatory riverine fish species typically do not survive in these impoundments, and
neither the reservoirs nor downstream areas receiving tailwaters provide suitable conditions
for native fish reproduction. Neves and Angermeier concluded that the cumulative effects
of dam-related stresses have significantly reduced the biological integrity of the rivers,
including tailwaters areas where faunal diversity has not recovered.
According to Mammoliti (2002), "a substantial body of literature indicates that
construction of dams has a negative impact on native stream fishes. In general, an
impoundment can reduce the quantity and quality of stream habitat, alter reproductive and
feeding behavior or fishes, and increase the number and sizes of predatory fish within a
stream system. These impacts suggest a negative relationship between impoundments and
obligate stream species."
Santucci, Gephard, and Pescitelli (2005) conducted an extensive study on the effects of
low-head dams on a 171-km reach of a warmwater river in Illinois. The river system is
fragmented by 15 dams that create an alternating series of deep-water and free-flowing
river habitats. For each of the three indexes considered (i.e. the index for biotic integrity
(IBI), the macroinvertebrate condition index (MCI), and the qualitative habitat evaluation
index (QHEI)), scores for free-flowing sections were significantly higher than for
impounded sections. In fact, the scores indicated alternating good-quality habitat (free-
flowing sections) and severely-degraded habitats (impoundments). The researchers
concluded, "From this large body of work, we know that dams can have dramatic effects on
rivers and aquatic biota by altering water quality and habitat, disrupting nutrient cycling
and sediment transport, and blocking fish and invertebrate movements". Furthermore,
Santucci, Gephard, and Pescitelli (2005) cited dam removal as the best option to restore a
river's ecological health.
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) sampled 75 streams
below small impoundments and published a report in September 2006 (Arnwine, Sparks,
and James, 2006). Benthic macroinvertebrate communities were adversely affected in most
of the streams sampled as only four passed biological criteria guidelines or were
comparable to first order stream references. In fact, 96% of the streams sampled failed to
6
meet reference guidelines for the number of distinct Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, and 86% had low EPT density. They also found that 39% of the
dams with year-round (low-flow) discharge provided insufficient flow to supply adequate
habitat for aquatic life during at least one season. Only about half of streams studied
appeared to have relatively stable channel structures, and approximately 80% failed to meet
regional expectations for sediment deposition.
3. Impoundments/dams create numerous maintenance and safety issues
Aside from deleterious effects on water quality and ecological systems, impoundments also
create numerous maintenance and safety issues. Even small, earthen dams installed to
create amenity ponds eventually deteriorate as they are easily damaged by floods, wind,
and ice. If maintenance activities are deferred or neglected, this deterioration can
accelerate and eventually cause dam failure. Therefore, it is important to note that capital
investment does not end when dam construction is complete. As with other critical
infrastructure, such as roads, sewer lines, and bridges, a significant investment is essential
to maintain dam structures and assure public health and safety (American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), 2008).
In the past two years alone, 67 dam incidents, including 29 dam failures, were reported to
the National Performance of Dams program by state and federal regulatory agencies and
private dam owners (ASCE, 2008). According to ASCE, events such as large floods,
earthquakes, and inspections that reveal dam deficiencies and/or safety concerns are
recorded as incidents. However, ASCE estimates that the actual number of dam incidents
and failures is likely to be higher due to non-reporting and understaffed state agencies.
ASCE also reports that the number of high-hazard potential dams (dams whose failure
would cause loss of human life) in the United States has increased from 9,281 in 1998, to at
least 10,213 today. Regrettably, greater than 10% (1046) of all high-hazard potential dams
are located in North Carolina. In their "2006 Infrastructure Report Card", the ASCE gave
the state's dam infrastructure a grade of "D", and estimated that it will cost North Carolina
approximately $400 million to "rehabilitate the most critical deficient structures" (ASCE,
2006).
Regardless of dam size, it is critical to perform regular maintenance activities in order to
reduce threats to downstream life and property. One of the many important dam
maintenance activities is dredging. Many dams silt-in with eroded soil and lose water
depth and storage capacity over time. Mahmood (1987) estimated that worldwide reservoir
storage capacity decreases 1% per year due to sedimentation. Evans et al. (1999) arrived at
a similar conclusion in a study prompted by the failure of the IVEX dam on the Chagrin
River in Ohio. They estimated that storage capacity loss due to sedimentation ranged from
.37% to 1.72% per year. Even in carefully managed watersheds where sediment-loading is
minimized due to strict sediment and erosion control measures (e.g. riparian buffers, silt
fencing, stormwater retention ponds, etc.), continual maintenance dredging may be
required (Newman, Perault, and Shahady, 2006).
7
Impoundments are also commonly afflicted with invasive aquatic plants like Hydrilla
(Hydrilla verticillata), Creeping Primrose (Ludwigia peploides), and Parrot Feather
(Myriophyllum aquaticum). At the least, these invasive plants are an intractable nuisance
that may out-compete native aquatic flora, and inhibit recreational activities. At the worst,
the presence of these aquatic plants may threaten public water supplies, and create
conditions conducive to anopheles mosquitos, which carry malaria. According to NC
DENR's Lake and Reservoir Assessments, Hydrilla covers approximately 625 acres of
Mountain Island Lake (Catawba River Basin) and is also problematic on Lake Norman (NC
DENR, 2005). In Lake Hickory, Parrot Feather has spread from the original 10 acre
infestation to approximately 84 acres. Duke Energy and NC DENR are now working on a
Parrot Feather management plan as it threatens to clog two drinking water intakes in the
area. To address invasive species and algae problems, impoundment managers have drawn
down water levels, introduced biological controls (e.g. grass carp), and treated water with
chemicals such as copper sulfate, which may create a host of new water quality problems.
Many small impoundments, such as farm ponds and amenity ponds associated with
residential subdivisions, create complex and expensive management issues as well.
However, these impoundments are seldom managed or maintained by experienced resource
managers or civil engineers. In fact, many homeowners associations become dam
"owners" upon completion of subdivision and dam construction activities. As such, they
must assume the daunting maintenance and inspection responsibilities, as well as manage
the aquatic resource. In fact, private companies have been created to capitalize on the
demand for pond management services such as aeration, algae control, water quality
improvement, odor reduction, and nuisance aquatic vegetation control.
4. Impoundments cause numerous geomorphological, hydrological, and biological impacts
downstream due to changes in the flow regime and water quality
The act of impounding streams affects more than just the impounded reach itself. In fact,
some of the most harmful effects may occur well downstream from the impoundment. For
instance, dams often decrease flow rates and prevent flow variations downstream, both of
which can cause geomorphic changes. These changes might include bank instability, loss
of sinuosity, disruption of bank vegetation, destruction of pool and riffle complexes, and
tributary headcutting. As Mammoliti (2002) and Leopold (1997) note in separate studies,
stream channel morphology is formed and maintained by natural flow variations, not by the
steady flows associated with impounded streams.
Higgs (2002) linked flow variation, and the movement of sediment and larger cobbles and
boulders, to the creation of "new and more diverse habitat for aquatic species" downstream.
Such transport cannot occur along impounded stream reaches however, because much of
the sediment carried by the stream is deposited behind the dam. The resulting water
releases from impoundments are characterized as "sediment-starved" or "clear-water
releases". The downstream, sediment-deprived stream reaches "often regain sediments lost
behind the dam by eroding deeper into the river channel and away at the stream banks"
8
(Higgs, 2007). Evans et al. (1999) describe this bed and bank erosion as a "natural
consequence of the stream adjusting to steepened gradients and low initial sediment load
after exiting the reservoir".
Low-flow rate and low-flow variability can negatively impact downstream habitats in other
ways as well. The stream may be unable to transfer large particles, such as food sources,
and water levels downstream may be too low to allow habitats to support aquatic life. In
the event that some sediment has accumulated in the downstream reach, perhaps due to
overland flow or sedimentation from an entering tributary, periodic scouring flows are
important to maintaining the type and quality of downstream habitat. According to
Mammoliti (2002), without scouring flow, sediments may "cover coarse substrates and
prevent seepage or subsurface flow that maintains pool refugia during drought periods".
Additionally, dams may reduce the ability of aquatic populations to recover following a
drought if they cause low or no-flow events to increase in frequency and magnitude.
According to Magilligan, Nislow, and Graber (2003), dams can cause other hydrological
and biological changes by reducing out-of-bank flows and prolonging bank full flows.
Over time this can "disconnect riparian zones from riverine influence" because floods
greater than bankfull flow are essentially eliminated. They concluded that the 2-year
interval discharge (bankfull discharge) decreased by approximately 60% as a result of
impoundment. The lack of overbank inundation completely limits the transport of
sediment, nutrients, and water to higher floodplain surfaces that work to sustain riparian
habitat and species, and in-channel structure.
Lake-induced water quality problems, as well as problem-management strategies (e.g.
herbicides used to control invasive aquatic plants), often cause as many problems
downstream as they do within the impoundment. For example, water released from
impoundments often exhibits elevated temperatures compared to up- and downstream
reaches. According to Maxted, McCready, and Scarsbrook (2005), "elevated temperatures
were observed for hundreds of meters downstream owing to the slow rate of cooling (1 °
C/100 m), expanding the extent of adverse effects well beyond the footprint of the pond".
They also concluded that water quality criteria exceedences (i.e. temperature and dissolved
oxygen) significantly decreased invertebrate community richness and diversity for
hundreds of meters downstream. Saila, Poyer, and Aube (2005) reached similar conclusion
after studying 5 impoundments ranging from 8-10 feet in height and 112-358 feet in length.
They found that the small dams increased temperatures 4-5 C° at the source, and the water
did not recover from the warming effects (i.e. recover to 17° C) until 5 miles downstream
of the dam.
Here are some examples of how water quality problems in impoundments affect
downstream segments:
• Heavy metal accumulations in the hypolimnion may be released during anaerobic
organic-matter decay, and cause toxicity in downstream aquatic life
• Nutrient-rich water may create algal colonies that render substrates unusable for
colonization by aquatic fauna
9
• pH fluctuations may cause regulatory failure and/or an inability to molt among
aquatic insects
• Herbicides and pesticides (commonly introduced as a management strategy in
impoundments) may be highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates (e.g. copper
sulfate)
From the works cited above and other materials collected during this literature review, it is
evident that the scientific community is progressing towards a consensus on the subject of
river impoundment. River impoundments negatively impact water quality and ecological
systems, cause undesirable hydrological and geomorphological changes, and create costly
maintenance and safety issues for society. While river impoundment can provide benefits
such as public water supply, hydroelectric power, and flood control, the practice should be
avoided if possible based on the likely environmental, economic, and social consequences.
10
Works Cited
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2006. Dams - 2006 North Carolina Infrastructure
Report Card. Available online at: http://sections.asce.org/n carolina/ReportCard/dams.pdf
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2008. Report Card for America's Infrastructure.
Available online at: http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=23
Arnwine, D.H., Sparks, K.J., and R.R. James. 2006. Probabilistic Monitoring of Streams Below
Small Impoundments in Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC), Division of Water Pollution.
Baxter, R.M. 1977. Environmental Effects of Dams and Impoundments. Annual Reviews
Ecological Systems; 1977.8:255-283. Available from arjoumals.annualreviews.org. Accessed
2008 May 30.
Ceballos, E., and Rasmussen, T. 2007. Internal Loading in Southeastern Piedmont Impoundments.
Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17(1): 29-42.
Accessed 2008 February 6.
Evans, J.E., Mackey, S.D., Gottgens, J.F., and W.M. Gill. 1999. Lessons from a Dam Failure. Ohio
Journal of Science 100(5): 121-131, 2000.
Fang, T., Liu, J.T., Xiao, B.D., Chen, X.G. and X.Q. Xu. 2005. Mobilization potential of heavy
metals: A comparison between river and lake sediments. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 161 (1-
4):209-225.
Higgs, Stephen. 2002. The Ecology of Dam Removal: A Summary of Benefits and Impacts.
American Rivers; 2002 February.
Ingols, R.S. 1959. Effect of impoundment on downstream water quality, Catawba River, S.C.
Journal of the American Water Works Association, 51, 42-6.
Leopold, L.B. 1997. Waters, rivers, and creeks. University Science Books, Sausalito, California,
185 pp.
Magilligan, F., Nislow, K., and B. Graber. 2003. Scale-independent assessment of discharge
reduction and riparian disconnectivity following flow regulation by dams. Geology 31(7): 569-
572.
Mahmood, K. 1987. Reservoir Sedimentation: Impact, Extent, and Mitigation. World Bank
Technical Paper Number 71. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
11
Mammoliti, C.S. 2002. The Effects of Small Watershed Impoundments on Native Stream Fishes:
A Focus on the Topeka Shiner and Hornyhead Chub. The Kansas Academy of Science 105(3-4),
2002, 219-231.
Maxted, J.R., McCready, C.H., and M.R. Scarsbrook. 2005. Effects of small ponds on stream
water quality and macroinvertebrate communities. New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research 39:1069-1084.
Nakashima, S., Yamada, Y., and K. Tada. 2007. Characterization of the water quality of dam lakes
on Skikoku Island, Japan. Limnology (2007) 8:1-22
Neves, R.J. and Angermeier, P.L. 1990. Habitat alteration and its effects on native fishes in the
upper Tennessee River system, east-central U.S.A. Journal of Fish Biology 37(Supplement A),
45-52.
Newman, D.J., Perault, D.R., and T.D. Shahady. 2006. Watershed development and sediment
accumulation in a small urban lake. Lake and Reservoir Management. 22(4): 303-307.
North American Lake Management Society (NALMS). 2007. Bluegreen Initiative - Overview.
Basic Information on cyanobacteria. Last modified: 2007 March 21.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR). 2005. Lake &
Reservoir Assessments - Savannah River Basin. Available from: Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), Environmental Sciences Section, Intensive Survey Unit.
Petts, G.E. 1984. Impounded Rivers: Perspectives for Ecological Management. Department of
Geography, University of Technology, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK. John Wiley & Sons,
1984.
Saila, S.B., Poyer, D., and D. Aube. 2005. Small dams and Habitat Quality in Low Order Streams.
Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association, Hope Valley, RI.
Santucci, V.J., Gephard, S.R., and S.M. Pescitelli. 2005. Effects of Multiple Low-Head Dams on
Fish, Macroinvertebrates, Habitat, and Water Quality in the Fox River, Illinois. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 25:975-992, 2005.
Smith, N. 1971. A History of Dams. Peter Davies, London: xiv + 279 pp., illustr.
Walker, K.F., Hillman, T.J., and W.D. Williams. 1979. The effects of impoundment on rivers: an
Australian case study. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung fur Theoretische and
Angewandte Limnologie, 20,1695-701.
12
Amschler, Crystal C SAW
From: Averitte, Kenneth L CTR US USA [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 9:43 AM
To: Amschler, Crystal C SAW
Cc: Mcmillan, Ian
Subject: Anderson Creek Club sailing pond permit, Action ID SAW 2006-41244 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO
Crystal,
Unfortunately, I have missed the comment period for Mr. Levinson's IP application.
For what it's worth at this late date, it's obvious that the application and supporting
information is slanted toward justifying what he wants to do. Using their logic, there should
never be another golf course permitted anywhere.
My reasons for objecting to this project are: 1) the questionable permitting/compliance
history of Mr. Levinson. A drive though the development will find a number of small amenity
ponds, especially on the entrance road. Were these permitted? There are also some suspect lot
fills. Can you require that the applicant provide a comprehensive, believable wetland map of
the entire project, including historic fills/alterations? I believe some former consultants
may have started this process but never saw it through. It would be important for the
regulatory branch to ground truth such a map. Also, 2) Although the consultant seems to
discount the water quality issues that may result from construction of this pond, (all the
while suggesting that golf courses WILL have a negative effect), it seems reasonable to
believe that the nutrient load will substantially increase, as well as the temperature. This
will be a relatively dense development. The streams feeding the lake are all first order
streams near the very top of the watershed. Low stream flows, coupled with storm water and
intense lawn management in such a development, will likely lead to poor water quality in the
lake as well as downstream. The argument that the lake will sustain downstream flow is weak,
given that the these streams are groundwater driven and susceptible to drought conditions.
Without a minimum release requirement, maintenance of a full pool may actually decrease
downstream flows in dry weather.
Also, fyi, Shearon Harris Lake, approximately 2000 acres, is easily within an hour's drive,
(less if you know shortcuts), and is open to the public.
Jordan Reservoir is just a few more minutes beyond that.
thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Ken
Ken Averitte
Versar Corporation
Directorate of Public Works
ATTN: IMSE-BRG-PWE
2175 Reilly Road, Stop A
Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000
Tel. No. 910-396-2301 x 219
Fax. No. 910-643-3422
kenneth.l.averitte.ctr(@us.army.mil
1
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO
J?\S? TFS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
o Q ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
Z+114 PROIeo 2 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 0303-8960
9 2011
REG. WiL M. FLD. GFC
January 31, 2011
Ms. Crystal Amschler
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Subject: Anderson Creek South Development - SAW-2006-41244
Dear Ms. Amschler:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has partially reviewed the Public
Notice (PN) for the Anderson Creek South Development in Harnett County, North Carolina.
This project was announced in a December 23, 2010 PN. The applicant proposes to construct a
40 acre amenity lake and infrastructure associated with the construction of a residential
community. The lake and infrastructure will impact 1,512 linear feet (If) of perennial stream,
1,191 if of intermittent stream, and 12.98 acres of wetlands.
EPA would like to further evaluate the applicant's information and collect additional
information related to the project and impacts. This would allow us to make detailed, site
specific comments regarding the project. Therefore, EPA requests a 30-day extension of the
comment period until February 20, 2011. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If
you have any questions, please contact Kelly Laycock of my staff at 404-562-9132 or at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
enh fer S. erby
of
Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section
cc: NCDWQ, Raleigh
Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
c; ,= UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
I ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
FNj ?G1°? 61 FORSYTH STREET
11 PROI ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
a8 Q'I ;W11
Colonel Jefferson Ryscavage
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Subject: Anderson Creek South Development - SAW-2006-41244
Dear Colonel Ryscavage:
This is in response to your request for comments on the above referenced joint public notice
(JPN). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the JPN for the
Anderson Creek South Development in Harnett County, North Carolina. This project was
announced in a December 23, 2010, JPN. The applicant proposes to construct a 40 acre amenity
lake and infrastructure associated with the construction of a residential community. The lake and
infrastructure will impact 1,512 linear feet (If) of perennial stream, 1,191 if of intermittent
stream, and 12.98 acres of wetlands.
EPA considers the mature bottomland hardwood forests at the applicant's proposed site to be
aquatic resources of national importance (ARNI). The existing conditions on the project site
appear to contain mature forest within the proposed wetland impact areas that include large
stands of Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). The moposed impacts would also
include the flooding of high quality streams. Adjacent land use.ncludes residential and
commercial development, as well as timber harvest. We believe the remaining wetlands and
streams are essential to the region, as they provide important water quality and wildlife benefits.
Project Purpose
The stated project purpose is to construct a unique public recreational amenity within
Anderson Creek to increase marketability. However, it appears this is only one aspect of the
impacts proposed by the development of Anderson Creek South..
Reason(s) for Discharge
The applicant states that a development the size and scope ol" Anderson Creek legally and
practically requires amenities to make them marketable. EPA-;,-, ,requesting information from the
applicant or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) supporti.- the claim that there is a legal
requirement to have this amenity. It is also stated that there are no public access lakes within 30
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recyelad/Reeyelabl• • Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Retyped Paper (MVAnum 3` I. Postconsumer)

aerial miles (up to 1.5 hours drive time). However, Jordan Lake and Harris Lake, which have
public access, are within 1.5 hours of the development. Further, the applicant states, "Thus, as
required by the law, we believe that we need to only evaluate potential alternative amenities that
meet the need for both alternative public recreational access and increased marketability." Since
the actual project purpose is residential development, the applicant should evaluate alternatives
including other potential development locations, and development without the proposed large
amenities, given their anticipated environmental impacts.
Alternative Analysis
The applicant's alternative analysis is inadequate and should include alternative site locations
for the residential development, as well as less damaging alternatives on-site.
Alternatives, such as natural trail systems and parks, should be explored. These areas allow
recreational opportunities for all socio-economic groups and minimize impacts to the
environment. In fact, many studies have shown that greenways, parks, and wetlands can increase
property values of the surrounding land:
b=://www.MrLmgerlink-com/content/5vbjv5tdbLbmulpLfulltext.ndf
The applicant also did not explore the no build alternative, citing that an amenity must be
constructed to comply with the local zoning requirements. A pro-tennis club, an environmental
education facility, and a golf instructional facility are scheduled to be built on the property.
Alternatives utilizing some or all of these amenities should be explored. We request more
specific information regarding these zoning requirements.
Preferred Alternative
The applicant states that the COE guidance titled, " Information Regarding the Review
and Processing of Standard Permit Applications for the Construction of On-Line Impoundments
Within the Wilmington District" (On-Line Impoundments Within the Wilmington District),
which indicates on-line impoundments can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources, is
based on a biased sampling design. EPA concurs with the COE guidance as the aquatic impacts
associated with impoundments are well documented in the scientific literature. These impacts
range from fragmentation of aquatic species habitat, to water quality impacts both up and
downstream of an impoundment. In addition to the destruction of the riverine habitat within the
impounded area, there are also adverse effects on flow regimes, velocities, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll levels, sediment transport, and nutrient cycles, etc. A recent study
conducted in Tennessee supports the On-Line Impoundments within the Wilmington District
guidance:
http://www.tn.gov/environment/wpc/publications/pdf/isp_report.pdf
2
"The Natural Flow Regime", a paper published in BioScience in 1997 by Poff et al.
states, "Dams capture all but the finest sediments moving down a river, with many severe downstream
consequences For example, sediment-depleted water released from dams can erode finer sediments from
the receiving channel. The coarsening of the streambed can, in turn, reduce habitat availabilityfor the
many aquatic species living in or using interstitial spaces In addition, channels may erode, or downcut,
triggering rejuvenation of tributaries, which themselves begin eroding and migrating headward (Chien
1985, Pens 1984). Fine sediments that are contributed by tributaries downstream of a dam may be
deposited between the coarse particles of the streambed (e.g., Sear 1995). In the absence of high}lushing
flows, species with life stages that are sensitive to sedimentation, such as the eggs and larvae of many
invertebrates and fish, can suffer high mortality rates. "
Additional research, including the entire February 2007 issue of the Journal of the
American Waters Resources Association emphasizes the importance of headwater streams and
maintaining connectivity to downstream waters.
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.conVdoi/10.1111/j awr.2008.43.issue-1/issuetoc),
The On-Line Impoundments within the Wilmington District guidance states, "According
to The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines, for a project to be water
dependent, it must require access, proximity to, or sitting within a special aquatic site to fulfill its
basic project purpose." In this case, the project purpose is to build a residential subdivision with
amenities, including a recreational lake. From our review of the project information, there is the
opportunity to develop on-site amenities which do not require impacts to waters of the United
States (U.S.). EPA does not consider that water dependency is necessary for this project to fulfill
its project purpose. Therefore, practicable alternatives that do not involve a discharge into
special aquatic sites and are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem are presumed to be
available.
In the determination of the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
(LEDPA), the decision often revolves around the issue of practicability. Alternatives that have
less or no impact to waters of the U.S. will generally be considered to be less environmentally
damaging from a CWA 404 perspective than alternatives which impact waters of the U.S.
Practicability is defined as being "available and capable of being done after taking into
consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purpose." As
Wilmington District's Standard Operating Procedure for online impoundments states, "in making
the determination of reasonablelpracticable cost, we should focus not on a particular applicant's
financial standing, investment or market share but rather the characteristics of the project and
whether the projected cost of an alternative is substantially greater than the costs normally
associated with the particular type of project." A reduction on financial return does not make an
alternative non-viable from a cost perspective. Also, the cost evaluation for the lake construction
should include costs associated with lake development, maintenance, including sediment
removal, water quality maintenance, etc., and the mitigation costs.
EPA also has significant concerns that the effect of conversion of these streams into lakes
could result in the elimination of existing uses of the streams in and downstream of the area of
the proposed project, including the segments of the streams that could become the tailrace waters
of the reservoirs during and after impoundment. The conversion may also require a change in
the designated uses that are currently assigned to these streams in North Carolina's water quality
3
standards. Prior to the conversion, it must be demonstrated that such a conversion complies with
all aspects and requirements of North Carolina's antidegradation policy (North Carolina Division
of Water Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 02B .0201) as well as any other applicable
provision of North Carolina's water quality standards regulation.
Avoidance and Minimization
The applicant only briefly addresses avoidance and minimization in the design of road and
sewer infrastructure but does not address avoidance and minimization with regards to the
proposed lake. Information, such as possible alternative routes, lake placement and design,
along with clear plans showing size and placement of impacts should be provided.
Compensatory Mitigation
While we believe it is premature to address mitigation because other portions of the
Guidelines are not being met, we are including comments that, as part of our Guidelines
compliance review, specifically address compliance with the 2008 Mitigation Rule, subpart J.
The applicant does not supply a compensatory mitigation plan, only stating that the project
restoration consultant has identified numerous mitigation opportunities. In order to fully
evaluate the proposed mitigation, the applicant needs to supply information such as whether
mitigation banks, in-lieu fee, or permittee-responsible mitigation will be used. Before permittee-
responsible mitigation can be considered, the 2008 Mitigation Rule requires that a watershed
assessment be conducted to determine where mitigation would best serve the entire impacted
watershed If permittee-responsible mitigation is found to be acceptable, a mitigation plan must
include objectives, a site protection instrument, baseline data collection plan for biotic
communities, hydrology, etc., determinations of credits, a mitigation work plan, a maintenance
plan, performance standards, monitoring requirements, a long-term management plan, an
adaptive management plan, and financial assurances, as stated in the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
In summary, EPA believes the project purpose for this development is misidentified. We
also believe the alternatives analysis is insufficient and the preferred alternative has not been
shown to be the LEDPA. Further, an adequate compensatory mitigation plan has not been
supplied. Based on these observations, EPA has determined that the project, as currently
proposed, does not comply with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and may have substantial and
unacceptable adverse impacts on an ARNI. Therefore, we recommend denial of the project, as
currently proposed. This letter follows the field-level procedures outlined in the August 1992
Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and the Department of the Army, Part IV,
paragraph 3(a) regarding Section 404(q) of the CWA.
4
EPA very much appreciates your consideration of these comments. Thank you for the
opportunity to review this JPN and for the extension of the original comment period. We look
forward to working with your office and the applicant to resolve our comments on this project.
Should you have questions, feel free to coordinate with Kelly Laycock of my staff at 404-562-
9132 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
? ?'4'
Water Protection Division
cc: Mr. Ian J. McMillian, NCDENR
Mr. John Ellis, USFWS
Ms. Molly Ellwood, NC WRC
5