20110438 Ver 1_401 Application_20110511

EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
May 5, 2011
Mr. Ian McMillan
DWQ 401Coordinator
NC DWQ - 401 Unit
512 North Salisbury Street (Archdale Building)
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: GC 3821 / Neuse Buffer Authorization
Carolina Country Club - Irrigation Reservoir
Raleigh, North Carolina
CCC-09000
Dear Mr. McMillan:
On behalf of the Carolina Country Club, we are applying for a Neuse River
Riparian Buffer Authorization for impacts to Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the Neuse
Buffer and NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) General Water Quality
Certification (GC) 3821 for temporary impacts and permanent impacts to
Beaverdam Creek and an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River, associated
with construction of an irrigation reservoir for the Carolina Country Club golf
course. The proposed project is in the center of the golf course of the Carolina
Country Club (CCC) located at 2500 Glenwood, within the Neuse River Basin
of North Carolina.
• Signed Agent Authorization
• Pre-Construction Notification
• Fig.1 - USGS Quad - Raleigh West
• Fig.2- Wake County Soil Survey
• Fig.3- Existing Conditions
• Fig.4- Existing Conditions / w. Aerial
• Fig.5- Overall Impact w. Inset 1/Inset 2
• Fig.6- Overall Impact w. Aerial
• Fig.7- Buffer Mitigation Map
• Fig.8- Alternatives Analysis - Aerial Map
• Picture Exhibit
• Construction Drawings (A,C, & E)
• Email From NC Division of Water Resources
• Letter to Fred Tarver (NCDWR) on Withdraw
• Letter from CCC on Use of Existing Pond
• DWQ Stream Forms (Stream A/Stream B)
• USACE Upland Data Form
Research Triangle Park, NC
Post Office Box 14005
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, North Carolina 27713
800-733-5646
919-287-4262
919-361-2269 Fax
www.ecoengccom I Design Services Focused On Client Success
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 2 of 15
WETLAND/STREAM MAPPING: There is approximately 1,480 linear
feet of Beaverdam Creek (Perennial Stream "A") and 58 linear feet of
Intermittent Stream "B" within the project area. Stream forms for Streams A
& B enclosed. There is a total of 3,531 linear feet of Beaver Dam with the
property boundary of CCC. Both Beaverdam Creek and Stream "B" are
depicted on the USGS quad and/or Wake County Soils Survey (Figure 1 & 2),
therefore both stream features are subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules.
There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project area. The land in and
around the project area has been altered over the years to meet the needs of
the golf course and surrounding properties, that includes Beaverdam Creek
and Stream B. Per our on-site visit with Mr. Ian McMillan of NCDWQ, on
April 21, 2011, he confirmed that intermittent Stream Feature B, currently
begins just south of the maintenance building and really only captures run-off
from the maintenance building, parking lot, and small forested area to the west
of the maintenance building. It is mostly a rip-rap lined channel, before it
enters into a .90-foot corrugated plastic pipe, which then empties into
Beaverdam Creek (See Picture Exhibit, Pies 1-9/Stream Forms for Streams A
& B). Although there is quite a bit of bedrock, the banks of Beaverdam
Creek are lined with rip-rap throughout the project area, and have historically
eroded in most areas. There are Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs, or 100-
year floodplain and `floodway) located on property owned by Carolina
Country Club as depicted on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel
372017 0500J, effective May 2, 2006. Special Flood Hazard Areas in this case
are composed of both floodway and floodway fringe areas. The proposed
project contains Beaverdam Creek and an unnamed tributary, which drain to
Crabtree Creek, and into the Neuse River (HUC 03020201).
PROJECT LOCATION/HABITAT: Carolina Country Club (CCC) is
located at 2500 Glenwood Avenue, within the beltline in the center of
suburban Raleigh. CCC consists of an 18-hole golf course, tennis courts, pool,
clubhouse, parking lot, and various maintenance buildings that encompasses
approximately 171 acres. Beaverdam Creek bisects the property in a northeast
direction and has a length of approximately 3,500 feet within the golf course
property. An aesthetic pond is located along the eastern edge of the golf
course and is adjacent to Beaverdam Creek. The CCC property is bound by
Glenwood Avenue to the south and Granville Road to the north. The proposed
project area is located in the central portion of the golf course, adjacent to the
maintenance facilities (Figure 1, 2, and 8).. There is a City of Raleigh sewer
line running through the proposed project area, which consist of mainly fescue
and sedges, with a sparsely forested thicket area made up of mostly red maple,
sweet gum, loblolly pine, and tulip poplar, with a pasture of sedges and fescue
grasses. There are few mature Sycamores and Tulip poplars adjacent to
Beaverdam Creek and within the vicinity of the proposed intake structure,
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 3 of 15
there is manicured Bermuda grass adjacent to the fairway, with a few River
Birch trees adjacent to Beaverdam Creek. Land use within the vicinity of the
project is high-end single-family residential, light commercial, and office.
Glenwood Avenue (Hwy. 70) is a major artery through the city of Raleigh,
which is adjacent to the property boundary.
PROPOSED PROJECTAMPACTS:
Purpose: The purpose of the proposed project is to provide an irrigation
reservoir for the Carolina Country Club golf course.
Background
In May 2008 Carolina Country Club retained EcoEngineering to evaluate
potential options that will provide The Carolina Country Club (CCC) with a long
term solution to its water usage needs. The primary goals of this study are to
identify feasible alternative water sources for irrigation and also plan for
increased future water supply needs. During this study a water budget for the
course was completed, future water needs were documented and summarized, the
potential for stormwater harvesting at several locations was evaluated, and an
initial estimate of wetland and stream permitting requirements was conducted.
• An on-site meeting with Mr. Ian McMillan was conducted on
04/21/2010, to discuss the proposed project and make a Neuse Buffer
determination, on the historically altered "Stream B", however there was
not a formal Neuse Buffer determination letter issued. Stream forms for
Streams A & B enclosed.
9 There was also an in office pre-application meeting held on August 2,
2010, with NCDWQ representatives Ian McMillan and Amy Chapman to
discuss the project as currently proposed.
• The Corps was invited to our pre-application meetings, however, in
discussing the proposed project with Mr. Jamie Shern, Wake County
Corps representative, on April 8, 2010, he was comfortable with the
project as proposed and has deferred to NCDWQ for on-site stream
jurisdiction and the best professional judgement of EcoEngineering staff
for stream and/or wetland confirmation.
Summary of Water Supply and Needs
To estimate current water use for each month, the December 2003 to
November 2005 data was distributed across the month range provided.
Current use is meant to depict the current water usage patterns of the course.
The maximum consumption for each month was then used to determine
average daily water needs for peak and off-peak seasons. Although the peak
season reported by CCC was May to October, water usage records indicated
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 4 of 15
that significant water usage occurs between April and November, and a
decline in water usage was observed from December to March. Peak, off-
peak and annual water usage was analyzed for current conditions. This
analysis indicates that CCC uses approximately 250,000 gallons of water per
day to the course, annually. Water records indicate that the peak usage for the
course is approximately 400,000 gallons per day and that off-peak usage is
approximately 220,000 gallons per day. Based on the information provided
by CCC, the golf course is currently the second largest user of the City of
Raleigh water supply, using between 200,000 to 300,000 gallons of water per
day, annually. Based on current and projected future irrigation needs for
Carolina Country Club (CCC), an alternate source of irrigation water will be
required for the property. Several options have been explored with Carolina
Country Club by EcoEngineering, including new reservoirs in several
locations across the project site, above-ground and below-ground cistern
systems, wells, and use of the existing pond dammed on the east side of
Beaverdam Creek.
IrriLyation Ontions - Alternatives Analysis
Several locations were explored as potential sites for constructed irrigation
ponds that would be filled by rainfall runoff and/or impoundment of streams.
Each site was selected based on the surrounding topography as well as
location within the Carolina Country Club property boundary with the goal of
maximizing the area draining to each location and thus maximizing the
amount of water available for irrigation. Six test wells were also dug to
investigate the use of wells as a source of irrigation water.
Well-Water Irrigation Option Six test wells were dug at a cost of $15,000 a
piece, with five of the wells producing 3-5 gallons per minute, and only one
well producing 10-15 gallons per minute (gpm), near Scotland Street on the
backside of the property. As a sole source of irrigation water, these low gpm
readings from the test wells will not supply adequate irrigation water, and
have been ruled out as a consistent source of irrigation water.
On-Site Irrigation Pond Options (Sites 1-Z) Seven potential sites were
analyzed. For each site the amount of area draining to the location was
delineated. Within each drainage area, the USGS Soil Hydrologic Soil Group
was found using a Wake County Soils Map. The drainage areas to all sites
selected consisted primarily of type `B' soils, with greater than 95% of the
soils falling into this category. USGS Soils are classified into groups A, B, C
and D based on how easily they drain, with type `A' soils being the most
porous and type `D' the least. `B' soils are typical of this area of Wake
County.
CCC-09000
Ec®Engineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 5 of 15
Sites 1-4, & 7 - Offline Ponds: For each of the other six sites evaluated the
average monthly rainfall was used to calculate the volume of rainfall runoff
based on the drainage area and soil type. The rainfall data was a 30-year
average of monthly rainfall from 1971-2000 provided by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The volume of rainfall was
multiplied by a runoff coefficient to account for the relatively porous type `B'
soils and the amount of impervious surface within the drainage area. A
capture coefficient was used to estimate the amount that would be captured
and held by a constructed storage facility in each rainfall event. The results of
this preliminary analysis showed that the amount of rainfall runoff available
for storage and use was not enough to provide adequate volume for golf
course irrigation. This result was based on two primary factors: relatively
small drainage areas (from 18 to 125 acres) and type `B' soils that absorb
much of the rainfall leaving little runoff in each storm event (only runoff from
large storm events).
The five sites faced with this. problem included: the area along the unnamed
tributary to Crabtree Creek that crosses the northern edge of Carolina Country
Club property near Hole #14; a potential storage facility in the area of the
current driving range; two locations within the wooded area in the center of
the golf course along Beaverdam Creek; and the drainage to the existing
aesthetic pond. Based on these preliminary findings, water withdrawal from
on-site or nearby stream and/or on-site wells appear to be the only viable
option to provide irrigation water for the course. A pond constructed near
Hole #14 could be used as a reservoir or storage pond, doubling to harvest
stormwater runoff (125 acres of drainage area) and to store water pumped
from Beaverdam Creek. Pumping irrigation water from this location to other
areas of the course would be very difficult due to topographic constraints and
it is questionable whether Duke/Progress Energy would allow such a large
reservoir to constructed under their transmission lines in this location due to
existing constraints of roads, homes, and other utilities.
Site S - Existing Pond: Per conversations with staff members of the Carolina
Country Club, the existing pond has a limited storage capacity for water and
may have as little as two (2) feet of water at normal pool. This could be due to
sediment accumulation over the lifetime of the pond and dam. Using the pond
for irrigation water in its current configuration would likely cause significant
drawdown of the pond and relatively large fluctuations in the pool elevation of
the pond. A significant source of "recharge" water would be required to
prevent these fluctuations in the pool level of the pond, however,.the drainage
area to the pond is relatively small compared with the size of the pool.
Therefore, refilling the pond with stormwater runoff would likely not be a
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 6 of 15
practical option if irrigation water were regularly drawn from the pond.
Drawdown of the pond pool could also cause problems with the slope stability
of the existing dam embankment. Restrictions on fluctuations and the shallow
depth of the existing pond preclude it from being a source for irrigation or
from being a storage reservoir for irrigation water withdrawn from Beaverdam
Creek.
The existing pond on the northeastern side of the golf course was first chosen
for investigation into water storage potential, as it seemed an obvious solution.
During a site visit on April 23, 2008 it was conveyed to EcoEngineering
personnel that that lake is collectively owned by six (6) property owners
adjacent to the lake. Per conversations with staff members of the Carolina
Country Club, the existing pond has a limited storage capacity for water and
may have as little as two (2) feet of water at normal pool. This could be due to
sediment accumulation over the lifetime of the pond and dam. Using the pond
for irrigation water in its current configuration would likely cause significant
drawdown of the pond and relatively large fluctuations in the pool elevation of
the pond. A significant source of "recharge" water would be required to
prevent these fluctuations in the pool level of the pond, however,.the drainage
area to the pond is relatively small compared with the size of the pool.
Therefore, refilling the pond with stormwater runoff would likely not be a
practical option if irrigation water were regularly drawn from the pond, and
the existing pond would need to be dredged, and the current dam re-
constructed due to its original masonry construction and current condition.
The six property owners were approached about utilizing the existing pond as
an irrigation reservoir for the golf course, and the work required if they were
to allow the pond to be utilized. Because the pond is owned by multiple
adjacent property owners, the Carolina Country Club would have to make
contractual arrangements with these owners to utilize the water from the pond
for irrigation. A proposal was set forth to the adjacent property owners and all
were not willing in letting CCC have continuous and perpetual use of the pond
for irrigation under any financial arrangement, and there is no sign of
reversing their position in the future, therefore the next best alternative for
water storage was developed. Please reference the April 26, 2011 letter from
CCC General Manager Jack S. Slaughter summarizing the use of the existing
pond for water storage and position of adjacent property owners (enclosed).
Site.6 - In-line Impoundment: Only one site evaluated had an appropriately
sized drainage area (approximately 2,280 acres) to provide adequate volumes
of water for irrigation year round. This site was located where Beaverdam
Creek exits Carolina Country Club property. Impounding Beaverdam Creek at
location six could provide an adequate irrigation supply however, there would
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 7 of 15
be a greater impact on aquatic resources, and it was decided to minimize
impacts to Beaverdam Creek and explore other options for an offline
reservoir. The same scenario played out at location one, when investigating
impoundment of the unnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek in the northwestern
portion of the golf course, to avoid direct impacts to the unnamed tributary
while investigating offline storage facilities in other locations within the
property.
OPTION CHOSEN. Sites 2 & 3 /Beaverdam Creek: Although sites 2 and 3
could not provide enough storage from rainfall alone, they could work as an
offline storage facility or reservoir, using withdraws from Beaverdam Creek
to supplement the volume and irrigation water needed. However, it does
present the option of making withdrawals for irrigation directly from the
creek. These withdrawals could then be stored in a facility elsewhere on
Carolina Country Club property. Based on these findings, the most viable
alternative was to withdraw water from Beaverdam Creek, and store it in an
adjacent reservoir to be utilized for irrigation. This design is for an above-
ground, offline reservoir located on the west side of Beaverdam Creek in the
vicinity of the existing maintenance building for the golf course. (Reference
Figure 8 & Letter from CCC for Existing Pond Option).
Proposed Desimn /Impacts
The proposed reservoir would have an intake riser structure which captures
stormflows from in Beaverdam Creek and gravity flows into an offline 1.8
million gallon pond, then outlets back into Beaverdam Creek in the vicinity of
the current maintenance facility. The proposed reservoir would provide the
golf course with up to 250,000 gallons of water per day. The design of the
intake riser structure would only capture stormflows, which ensure baseflow
year-round and at low-flow conditions. A 6' x 6' riser intake structure is
proposed to be set within the stream bank of Beaverdam Creek, with a weir set
at elevation 230.6, which is 0.34-feet above the base flow of 230.26-feet. The
weir structure would only capture storm flows, of at least 2.89 cfs,from
Beaverdam Creek and funnel this flow into a 36" RCP diversion pipe and into
the proposed reservoir location. The captured flow rate of 2.89-cfs, is well
above the 7Q10 flow of 0.3-cfs, set by the NC Division of Water Resources
(05/12/2011 email from Fred Tarver-NCDWR enclosed. Please also see the
enclosed letter to NCDWR detailing the withdraw proposal, design, and stream
gauge data (letter from EcoEngineering to NCDWR, dated 04/29/2011).
The most effective design for an offline reservoir is to locate it adjacent to
Beaverdam Creek at or close to the same elevation of normal flows within the
creek. The most practical location and only option to construct a reservoir is
in the proposed location within the 13-acre wooded area just south of the
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 8 of 15
maintenance facility in the center of the golf course (Figures 4, 5, 6, &
7/Construction Drawings A, C, and E). Due to the design criteria of capturing
only gravity fed, storm flows, there are proposed stream and Neuse Buffer
impacts associated with the proposed project (See Picture Exhibit, Pics 1-9).
IMPACT AREA "A" (See Inset 1 of Figure 5 & 6 / Construction Drawings A,
C and E) Stream/Open Water Impacts (NWP 18): A 6' x 6' riser intake
structure is proposed to be set within the stream bank of Beaverdam Creek, just
upstream of the bridge connecting holes 8 and 9 of the golf course. with a weir
set at elevation 230.6, which is 0.34-feet above the base flow of 230.26-feet.
There are temporary open water impacts of 0.006 acre and 19 cubic yards
below ordinary high water, over 30 linear feet, associated with installation of
the intake structure. Neuse Buffer Impacts: There is 36 square feet of
allowable Zone 1 impacts associated with the riser structure, in which the
diversion pipe will exit the riser, then cross through Zone 1 at a near
perpendicular angle and then make a 90 degree turn, just outside of Zone 2
toward the proposed pond. A majority of the diversion pipe maintenance
corridor will be outside of the Neuse Buffer in this location, however, there will
be 908 s.f. of allowable Zone 1 impacts and 3,573 s.f. of allowable Zone 2
impacts associated with the 30-ft wide vegetated maintenance corridor for the
diversion pipe.
IMPACT AREA "B" (See Inset 2 of Figure 5 & 6/Construction Drawings A,
C, and E ) Stream/Open Water Impacts (NWP 18): The outfall structure
from the reservoir outlets back into Beaverdam Creek when the water level
reaches elevation 228. The overflow will exit into a dissipater pad, along a
previously armored section of stream bank and adjacent to a rock vein, which
will help diffuse and oxygenate the overflow water going into Beaverdam
Creek. There are temporary open water impacts of 0.004-acre and 13 cubic
yards below ordinary high water, over 36 linear feet associated with installation
of the dissipater pad. And there is 0.007 acre and 22 cubic yards below
ordinary high water, over 30 linear feet of permanent impact associated with the
dissipater pad at the edge of the stream channel. Neuse Buffer Impacts: The
outfall pipe from the reservoir will discharge through an area that is currently
sparsely vegetated, at a near perpendicular angle through Zone 1 of the Neuse
Buffer, resulting in 1,119 square feet of impact. The diversion pipe and its
maintenance corridor parallels Zone 2 of the Neuse Buffer before it discharges
into the offline reservoir. Due to bedrock constraints and uphill grades the
existing gravity sewer line is proposed to be relocated between the reservoir and
parallel to Beaverdam Creek. The sewer line will be constructed outside of
Zone 2, however, the required maintenance corridor will skirt Zone 2 of the
Neuse Buffer. There are no stream crossings associated with the re-location of
the existing sewer line. The combined allowable Zone 2 impacts to the Neuse
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 9 of 15
Buffer associated with the diversion pipe and sewer line maintenance corridor is
9,659 square feet.
IMPACT AREA "C" (See Inset 2 of Figure S & 6): Stream Impacts (NWP
39). The most effective design for an offline reservoir is to locate it adjacent
to Beaverdam Creek at or close to the same elevation of normal flows within
the creek. The most practical location and only option to construct a reservoir
is in the proposed location within the 13-acre wooded area just south •of the
maintenance facility in the center of the golf course. There are proposed
impacts of 58 linear feet to an unnamed intermittent tributary, "Stream B",
however, this section of stream has been historically altered over the past 50
years, and is in a highly degraded state. Per our pre-application meeting on
April 21, 2010, most of Stream B, has been piped and the remaining section is
mostly rip-rapped and drains the run-off from the maintenance facility and
adjacent parking area. Neuse Buffer Impacts: There will be impacts of 6,510
square feet to Zone 1 and 7,391 square feet to Zone 2 of the Neuse Buffers
associated with impacts to "Stream B". The buffer along "Stream B" is
currently, only partially forested on one side with approximately 1,628 s.f. of
vegetation within Zone 1 and 1,848 s.f. within Zone 2, and is denuded of Zone
1 vegetation on the western portion of the stream bank. There will be much
more robust and stable buffer established along the perimeter of the new
irrigation pond, and it will consist of a minimum of 15,295 s.f. of forested
vegetation within Zone 1 and 10,220 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 2.
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 10 of 15
TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS:
Stream Impact Stream Impact Length
Location Type of Impact (Linear feet - ffl
Inset 1
Impact Area "A" Installation of Riser into 30
Temporary Stream Bank
(NWP18)

Inset 2
Impact Area "B" Installation of Dissipator 36
Temporary at pond outfall
(NWP 18)
Inset 2
Impact Area "B" Rip-Rap Dissipator at 30
Permanent pond outfall
(NWP 18)
Inset 2
Impact Area "C" Excavation & Fill for 58
Permanenet Pond /Berm
(NWP 39)
88 If-Perm.
TOTAL 1,714 66 If- Temp.
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 11 of 15
TOTAL OPEN WATER IMPACTS:
Open Water Impact Type of Impact Area of impact (acres)
Location
Inset 1 Installation of Riser into 0.006 ac. (254 s.f.)
Impact Area "A" Stream Bank * 19 cubic yards
Temporary (NWP 18)
Inset 2
"
" Installation of Dissipator 0.004 ac. (181 s.f.)
Impact Area
B at pond outfall 13 cubic yards
Temporary (NWP 18)
Inset 2
Impact Area "B" Rip-Rap Dissipator at 0.007 ac. (295 s.f.)

Permanent (NWP 18) pond outfall 22 cubic yards

0.017 ac. (730 s.f.)
TOTAL 32 cubic yards - temp.
22 cubic yards- perm.
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 12 of 15
TOTAL NEUSE BUFFER IMPACTS:
Buffer Impact
Location 1 Type o Impact

of
1 Zone 1 Zone 2
Inset 1 Clearing
Impact Area "A" For intake 908 3,573
Permanent structurelpipe
Inset 1
Impact Area "A„
Installation of intake
36
-
Riser structure
Permanent
Inset 2 Clearing
Impact Area "B" For intake 949 9,659
Permanent structure/pipe
Inset 2
Impact Area "B"
u
at
Rip-Rap
170
-
o
tfall
pond outf
Permanent
Inset 2
Impact Area "C„
Excavation & Fill for
6,510
7,391
Pond /Berm
Permanent
TOTAL 8,573 20,623
* The buffer along "Stream B" is currently, only partially forested on one side with
approximately 1,628 s. f. of vegetation within Zone 1 and 1,848 s. f. within Zone 2, and
is denuded of Zone 1 vegetation on the western portion of the stream bank. There
will be much more robust and stable buffer established along the perimeter of the new
irrigation pond, and it will consist of a minimum of 15,295 s.f of forested vegetation
within Zone 1 and 10,220 s. f. of forested vegetation within Zone 2.
AVOIDANCE and MINIMIZATION: Utilizing an extensive alternative
analysis (detailed in the cover letter), wetland, stream, and buffer impacts have
been avoided to the greatest extent practicable, while achieving a successful
project. There are 88'linear feet of permanent stream impact associated with
this portion of the project, while avoiding 3,443 linear of the remaining Beaver
Dam Creek, and its associated stream buffers.
Only one site evaluated had an appropriately sized drainage area
(approximately 2,280 acres) to provide adequate volumes of water for
irrigation year round. This site was located where Beaverdam Creek exits
Carolina Country Club property. Impounding Beaverdam Creek at location six
could provide an adequate irrigation supply however, while this is the obvious
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 13 of 15
first option, there would be a greater impact on aquatic resources, and it was
decided to minimize impacts to Beaverdam Creek and explore other options
for an offline reservoir. The same scenario played out at location one, when
investigating impoundment of the unnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek in the
northwestern portion of the golf course, to avoid direct impacts to the
unnamed tributary while investigating offline storage 'facilities in other
locations within the property. In order to minimize direct impacts to
Beaverdam Creek, an offline reservoir option was chosen, using withdraws
from Beaverdam Creek to provide the volume required for irrigation of the
golf course. Furthermore, only stormflows are to be captured from
Beaverdam Creek in order to fill the reservoir. This will ensure there is
always at least adequate baseflow of 2.88-cfs, and not just the 7Q10 flow of
0.3-cfs, as referenced by the NC Division of Water Resources for this location.
Stream Impacts: The most effective design for an offline reservoir is to
locate it adjacent to Beaverdam Creek at or close to the same elevation of
normal flows within the creek. The most practical location and only option to
construct a reservoir is in the proposed location within the 13-acre wooded
area just south of the maintenance facility in the center of the golf course.
There are proposed impacts of 58 linear feet to an unnamed intermittent
tributary, "Stream B", however, this section of stream has been historically
altered over the past 50 years, and is in a highly degraded state. Per our pre-
application meeting on April 21, 2010, most of Stream B, has been piped and
the 'remaining section is mostly rip-rapped and drains the run-off from the
maintenance facility and adjacent parking area.
Neuse Buffer Impacts: There will be impacts of 6,510 square feet to Zone 1
and 7,391 square feet to Zone 2 of the Neuse Buffers associated with impacts
to "Stream B". The buffer along "Stream B" is currently, only partially
forested on one side with approximately 1,628 s.f. of vegetation within Zone 1
and 1,848 s.f. within Zone 2, and is denuded of Zone 1 vegetation on the
western portion of the stream bank. There will be much more robust and
stable buffer established along the perimeter of the new irrigation pond, and it
will consist of a minimum of 15,295 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 1
and 10,220 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 2.
To minimize impacts, the sanitary sewer re-location was designed so that it
would not impact Beaverdam Creek and is also physically located outside of the
Neuse Buffer, with only the maintenance corridor impacting the already
sparsely vegetated Zone 2, along. Beaverdam Creek. The intake and outfall
structures are located at perpendicular angles where they are proposed to impact
Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the Neuse Buffer, with the minimal amount of temporary
impact to safely construct these structures.
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 14 of 15
DIFFUSE FLOW: There is no new impervious surface associated with the
proposed project and only one point of discharge, which is the outlet from the
proposed pond back into Beaver Dam Creek. All overland flow will be
captured into the pond before discharge and directed into the outlet during
storm events that are above normal pool.
There was also an in office pre-application meeting held on August 2, 2010,
with NCDWQ representatives Mr. Ian McMillan and Ms. Amy Chapman to
discuss the project as currently proposed and diffuse flow measures. Since the
pond is not a stormwater treatment device, Ms. Amy Chapman recommended
discharging the flow from'the outlet right through a velocity dissipater directly
into Beaverdam Creek, as depicted on the construction drawings and impact
maps.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: The proposed development is
located within the Neuse River basin and will be subject to the stormwater
management requirements set forth in Section 10, Chapter 9 of the City of
Raleigh regulations. Per City of Raleigh regulations, stormwater management
on this site shall address two primary issues: (1) peak discharge rates and (2)
water quality management. However there is no new impervious surface
associated with the project, therefore no stormwater management plan is
required.
MITIGATION: All stream impacts are below 150 linear feet, therefore,
compensatory mitigation is not required for stream impacts. The Neuse
Buffer along "Stream B"(Impact Area Q is currently only partially forested
on one side with approximately 1,628 s.f of vegetation within Zone 1 and
1,848 s.f. within Zone 2, and is denuded of Zone 1 vegetation on the western
portion of the stream bank. There will be a much more robust and stable
buffer established along the perimeter of the new irrigation pond, and it will
consist of a minimum of 15, 295 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zonel and
10,220 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 2 (Figure 7). All other buffer
impacts are deemed "Allowable" under the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules
- Table of Uses, and stream impacts are below 150 linear feet, therefore no
mitigation is proposed.
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. McMillan
CCC Irrigation Reservoir
May 5, 2011
Page 15 of 15
Consideration of this project is greatly appreciated. If you should have any
questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Kevin Yates
Senior Environmental Scientist
Project Manager
Enclosures
CCC-09000
40F IN A rF9QG
?? r
o ?
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: X Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: or General Permit (GP) number: NWP 18 / 39 /GC 3821
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? Yes X No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
X 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
401 Water Quality Certification - Express X Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes X No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes X No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes X No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes X No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes X No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Carolina Country Club
2b. County: Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Raleigh
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Carolina Country Club
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Deed Book: 02056 / Page No. 0088
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Bob Wright
3d. Street address: 2500 Glenwood Avenue
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, North Carolina 27608
3f. Telephone no.: 919-677-2003
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 15
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: Agent Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Kevin Yates
5b. Business name
(if applicable): EcoEngineering, A division of The John R. McAdams Company
5c. Street address: 2905 Meridian Parkway
5d. City, state, zip: Durham, NC, 27713
5e. Telephone no.: 919-287-4262
5f. Fax no.: 919-361-2269
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): PIN # 1705142018
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.821747°N Longitude: -78.657214°W
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 171.74 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project: Beaverdam Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C; NSW
2c. River basin: Neuse River (03020201)
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Carolina Country Club (CCC) is located at 2500 Glenwood Avenue, within the beltline in the center of suburban Raleigh. CCC
consists of an 18-hole golf course, tennis courts, pool, clubhouse, parking lot, and various maintenance buildings that encompasses
approximately 171 acres. Beaverdam Creek bisects the property in a northeast direction and has a length of approximately 3,500
feet within the golf course property. An aesthetic pond is located along the eastern edge of the golf course and is adjacent to
Beaverdam Creek. The CCC property is bound by Glenwood Avenue to the south and Granville Road to the north. The proposed
project area is located in the central portion of the golf course, adjacent to the maintenance facilities (Figure 1, 2, and 8)..
There is approximately 1,480 linear feet of Beaverdam Creek (Perennial Stream "A") and 58 linear feet of Intermittent Stream
"B" within the project area. Both Beaverdam Creek and Stream "B" are depicted on the USGS quad and/or Wake County
Soils Survey (Figure 1 & 2), therefore both stream features are subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules. There are no
jurisdictional wetlands within the project area. The land in and around the project area has been altered over the years to meet
the needs of the golf course and surrounding properties, that includes Beaverdam Creek and Stream B. Per our on-site visit with Mr.
Ian McMillan of NCDWQ, on April 21, 2011, he confirmed that intermittent Stream Feature B, currently begins just south of the
maintenance building and really only captures run-off from the maintenance building, parking lot, and small forested area to the west
of the maintenance building. It is mostly a rip-rap lined channel, before it enters into a 90-foot corrugated plastic pipe, which then
empties into Beaverdam Creek (See Picture Exhibit, Pics 1-9). Although there is quite a bit of bedrock, the banks of Beaverdam
Creek are lined with rip-rap throughout the project area, and have historically eroded in most areas. There are Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs, or 100-year floodplain and floodway) located on property owned by Carolina Country Club as depicted on FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 372017 0500J, effective May 2, 2006. Special Flood Hazard Areas in this case are
composed of both floodway and floodway fringe areas.
There is a City of Raleigh sewer line running through the proposed project area, which consist of mainly fescue and sedges,
with a sparsely forested thicket area made up of mostly red maple, sweet gum, loblolly pine, and tulip poplar, with a pasture of
sedges and fescue grasses. There are few mature Sycamores and Tulip poplars adjacent to Beaverdam Creek and within the
vicinity of the proposed intake structure, there is manicured Bermuda grass adjacent to the fairway, with a few River Birch trees
adjacent to Beaverdam Creek. Land use within the vicinity of the project is high-end single-family residential, light commercial, and
office. Glenwood Avenue (Hwy. 70) is a major artery through the city of Raleigh, which is adjacent to the property boundary.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the current proposed project boundary.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
There is approximately 1,480 linear feet of Beaverdam Creek (Perennial Stream "A") and 58 linear feet of Intermittent
Stream "B" within the project area. Stream forms for Streams A & B enclosed. There is a total of 3,531 linear feet of
Beaver Dam with the property boundary of CCC.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide an irrigation reservoir for the Carolina Country Club golf course.
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Background
In May 2008 Carolina Country Club retained EcoEngineering to evaluate potential options that will provide The Carolina
Country Club (CCC) with a long term solution to its water usage needs. The primary goals of this study are to identify
feasible alternative water sources for irrigation and also plan for increased future water supply needs. During this study a
water budget for the course was completed, future water needs were documented and summarized, the potential for
stormwater harvesting at several locations was evaluated, and an initial estimate of wetland and stream permitting
requirements was conducted.
Summary of Water Supply and Needs
To estimate current water use for each month, the December 2003 to November 2005 data was distributed across the
month range provided. Current use is meant to depict the current water usage patterns of the course. The maximum
consumption for each month was then used to determine average daily water needs for peak and off-peak seasons.
Although the peak season reported by CCC was May to October, water usage records indicated that significant water
usage occurs between April and November, and a decline in water usage was observed from December to March.
Peak, off-peak and annual water usage was analyzed for current conditions. This analysis indicates that CCC uses
approximately 250,000 gallons of water per day to the course, annually. Water records indicate that the peak usage for
the course is approximately 400,000 gallons per day and that off-peak usage is approximately 220,000 gallons per day.
Based on the information provided by CCC, the golf course is currently the second largest user of the City of Raleigh
water supply, using between 200,000 to 300,000 gallons of water per day, annually. Based on current and projected
future irrigation needs for Carolina Country Club (CCC), an alternate source of irrigation water will be required for the
property. Several options have been explored with Carolina Country Club by EcoEngineering, including new reservoirs
in several locations across the project site, above-ground and below-ground cistern systems, wells, and use of the
existing pond dammed on the east side of Beaverdam Creek.
Irrigation Options Investigation
Several locations were explored as potential sites for constructed irrigation ponds that would be filled by rainfall runoff
and/or impoundment of streams. Each site was selected based on the surrounding topography as well as location
within the Carolina Country Club property boundary with the goal of maximizing the area draining to each location and
thus maximizing the amount of water available for irrigation. Six test wells were also dug to investigate the use of wells
as a source of irrigation water. Included in the cover letter to the application is a copy of the alternatives analysis
that was conducted to explore various options for irrigation supply and detailed discussion of using existing
on-site pond (Reference Figure 8 & Letter from CCC for Existing Pond Option).
Well-Water Irrigation Option Six test wells were dug at a cost of $15,000 a piece, with five of the wells producing 3-5
gallons per minute, and only one well producing 10-15 gallons per minute (gpm), near Scotland Street on the backside
of the property. As a sole source of irrigation water, these low gpm readings from the test wells will not supply
adequate irrigation water, and have been ruled out as a consistent source of irrigation water.
On-site irrigation ponds (Sites 1-7) Seven potential sites were analyzed. For each site the amount of area draining to
the location was delineated. Within each drainage area, the USGS Soil Hydrologic Soil Group was found using a Wake
County Soils Map. There is a detailed discussion of using existing on-site pond (Site 5) in the alternatives analysis
included in the cover letter (Reference Figure 8 & Letter from CCC for Existing Pond Option). For each of the other six
sites evaluated the average monthly rainfall was used to calculate the volume of rainfall runoff based on the drainage
area and soil type. The rainfall data was a 30-year average of monthly rainfall from 1971-2000 provided by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The volume of rainfall was multiplied by a runoff coefficient to
account for the relatively porous type `B' soils and the amount of impervious surface within the drainage area. A capture
coefficient was used to estimate the amount that would be captured and held by a constructed storage facility in each
rainfall event. The results of this preliminary analysis showed that the amount of rainfall runoff available for storage and
use was not enough to provide adequate volume for golf course irrigation. This result was based on two primary factors:
relatively small drainage areas (from 18 to 125 acres) and type 'B' soils that absorb much of the rainfall leaving little
runoff in each storm event (only runoff from large storm events). Although sites 2 and 3 could not provide enough
storage from rainfall alone, they could work as an offline storage facility or reservoir, using withdraws from Beaverdam
Creek to supplement the volume and irrigation water needed. However, it does present the option of making
withdrawals for irrigation directly from the creek. These withdrawals could then be stored in a facility elsewhere on
Carolina Country Club property. (Section 3e, CONTINUED on Next Page)
Section 3e, CONTINUED
Carolina Country Club
Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
OPTION CHOSEN: Sites 2 & 3 / Beaverdam Creek: Based on these findings, the most
viable alternative was to withdraw water from Beaverdam Creek, and store it in an adjacent
reservoir to be utilized for irrigation. This design is for an above-ground, offline reservoir
located on the west side of Beaverdam Creek in the vicinity of the existing maintenance
building for the golf course. Included in the cover letter to the application is a copy of
the alternatives analysis that was conducted to explore various options for irrigation
supply and detailed discussion of using existing on-site pond (Reference Figure 8 &
Letter from CCC for Existing Pond Option).
Proposed Design /Impacts
The proposed reservoir would have an intake riser structure which captures stormflows from
in Beaverdam Creek and gravity flows into an offline 1.8 million gallon pond, then outlets
back into Beaverdam Creek in the vicinity of the current maintenance facility. The proposed
reservoir would provide the golf course with up to 250,000 gallons of water per day. The
design of the intake riser structure would only capture stormflows, which ensure baseflow
year-round and at low-flow conditions. A 6' x 6' riser intake structure is proposed to be set
within the stream bank of Beaverdam Creek, with a weir set at elevation 230.6, which is 0.34-
feet above the base flow of 230.26-feet. The weir structure would only capture storm flows, of
at least 2.89 cfs,from Beaverdam Creek and funnel this flow into a 36" RCP diversion pipe and
into the proposed reservoir location. The captured flow rate of 2.89-cfs, is well above the 7Q10
flow of 0.3-cfs, set by the NC Division of Water Resources (05/12/2011 email from Fred Tarver-
NCDWR enclosed). Please also see the enclosed letter to NCDWR detailing the withdraw
proposal, design, and stream gauge data (letter from EcoEngineering to NCDWR, dated
04/29/2011).
The most effective design for an offline reservoir is to locate it adjacent to Beaverdam Creek
at or close to the same elevation of normal flows within the creek. The most practical location
and only option to construct a reservoir is in the proposed location within the 13-acre wooded
area just south of the maintenance facility in the center of the golf course (Figures 4, 5, 6, &
7/Construction Drawings A, C, and E). Due to the design criteria of capturing only gravity fed,
storm flows, there are proposed stream and Neuse Buffer impacts associated with the
proposed project (See Picture Exhibit, Pics 1-9).
3(e): Overall Project Impacts Continued Below.
IMPACT AREA "A" (See Inset 1 of Figure 5 & 6 / Construction Drawings A, C, and E)
Stream/Open Water Impacts (NWP 18): A 6' x 6' riser intake structure is proposed to be set
within the stream bank of Beaverdam Creek, just upstream of the bridge connecting holes 8
and 9 of the golf course. with a weir set at elevation 230.6, which is 0.34-feet above the base
flow of 230.26-feet. There are temporary open water impacts of 0.006 acre and 19 cubic yards
below ordinary high water, over 30 linear feet, associated with installation of the intake
structure. Neuse Buffer Impacts: There is 36 square feet of allowable Zone 1 impacts
associated with the riser structure, in which the diversion pipe will exit the riser, then cross
through Zone 1 at a near perpendicular angle and then make a 90 degree turn, just outside of
Zone 2 toward the proposed pond. A majority of the diversion pipe maintenance corridor will be
outside of the Neuse Buffer in this location, however, there will be 908 s.f. of allowable Zone 1
impacts and 3,573 s.f. of allowable Zone 2 impacts associated with the 30-ft wide vegetated
maintenance corridor for the diversion pipe.
(Section 3e, CONTINUED on Next Page)
Section 3e, CONTINUED
Carolina Country Club
Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
IMPACT AREA "B" (See Inset 2 of Figure 5 & &Construction Drawings A, C, and E )
Stream/Open Water Impacts (NWP 18): The outfall structure from the reservoir outlets back
into Beaverdam Creek when the water level reaches elevation 228. The overflow will exit into a
dissipater pad, along a previously armored section of stream bank and adjacent to a rock vein,
which will help diffuse and oxygenate the overflow water going into Beaverdam Creek. There
are temporary open water impacts of 0.004-acre and 13 cubic yards below ordinary high water,
over 36 linear feet associated with installation of the dissipater pad. And there is 0.007 acre
and 22 cubic yards below ordinary high water, over 30 linear feet of permanent impact
associated with the dissipater pad at the edge of the stream channel. Neuse Buffer Impacts:
The outfall pipe from the reservoir will discharge through an area that is currently sparsely
vegetated, at a near perpendicular angle through Zone 1 of the Neuse Buffer, resulting in 1,119
square feet of impact. The diversion pipe and its maintenance corridor parallels Zone 2 of the
Neuse Buffer before it discharges into the offline reservoir. Due to bedrock constraints and
uphill grades the existing gravity sewer line is proposed to be relocated between the reservoir
and parallel to Beaverdam Creek. The sewer line will be constructed outside of Zone 2,
however, the required maintenance corridor will skirt Zone 2 of the Neuse Buffer. There are no
stream crossings associated with the re-location of the existing sewer line. The combined
allowable Zone 2 impacts to the Neuse Buffer associated with the diversion pipe and sewer line
maintenance corridor is 9,659 square feet.
IMPACT AREA "C" (See Inset 2 of Figure 5 & 6): Stream Impacts (NWP 39): The most
effective design for an offline reservoir is to locate it adjacent to Beaverdam Creek at or close to the
same elevation of normal flows within the creek. The most practical location and only option to
construct a reservoir is in the proposed location within the 13-acre wooded area just south of the
maintenance facility in the center of the golf course. There are proposed impacts of 58 linear feet to an
unnamed intermittent tributary, "Stream B", however, this section of stream has been historically altered
over the past 50 years, and is in a highly degraded state. Per our pre-application meeting on April 21,
2010, most of Stream B, has been piped and the remaining section is mostly rip-rapped and drains the
run-off from the maintenance facility and adjacent parking area. Neuse Buffer Impacts: There will
be impacts of 6,510 square feet to Zone 1 and 7,391 square feet to Zone 2 of the Neuse
Buffers associated with impacts to "Stream B". The buffer along "Stream B" is currently, only
partially forested on one side with approximately 1,628 s.f. of vegetation within Zone 1 and 1,848
s.f. within Zone 2, and is denuded of Zone 1 vegetation on the western portion of the stream bank.
There will be much more robust and stable buffer established along the perimeter of the new
irrigation pond, and it will consist of a minimum of 15,295 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 1
and 10,220 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 2.
End Section 3(e)
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by
the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this Yes ? No ? Unknown
property / project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: NCDWQ only
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what Preliminary Final N/A
type of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: EcoEngineering
Name (if known): Kevin Yates Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
• An on-site meeting with Mr. Ian McMillan was conducted on 04/21/2010, to discuss the proposed project and make a
Neuse Buffer determination, on the historically altered "Stream B", however there was not a formal Neuse Buffer
determination letter issued. Stream forms for Streams A & B enclosed.
• There was also an in office pre-application meeting held on August 2, 2010, with NCDWQ representatives Ian McMillan
and Amy Chapman to discuss the project as currently proposed.
• The Corps was invited to our pre-application meetings, however, in discussing the proposed project with Mr. Jamie
Shern, Wake County Corps representative, on April 8, 2010, he was comfortable with the project as proposed and has
deferred to NCDWQ for on-site stream jurisdiction and the best professional judgement of EcoEngineering staff for
stream and/or wetland confirmation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained Yes X No ? Unknown
for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? X Yes No
6b. If yes, explain. There is a proposal to relocate the maintenance building, redesign the golf course, and add some
indoor tennis courts within the country club property over the next five years. However, the proposed irrigation reservoir
is an immediate need in watering the current golf course and is being treated as an independent project at this point.
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands X Streams - tributaries X Buffers
? Open waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
? Yes ? Corps
W1 ? P T ?No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W2 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W3 ? P ? T ?No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments: None with currently proposed project.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact length
number - _ (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream (linear feet)
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet)
Inset 1
Impact Area "A" Installation of

Riser into Stream A

(Beaverdam
Perennial
XCorps
10 I. f.
30 I.f.
Temporary
Stream Bank
Creek) (important) XDWQ
(NWP18)

Inset 2
Impact Area "B" Installation of Stream A
Perennial
XCorps

10 I
f

36
Temporary Dissipator at (Beaverdam (important) XDWQ .
.
pond outfall Creek)
(NWP 18)

Inset 2

Impact Area "B"
Rip-Rap
Dissipator at
Stream A
(Beaverdam

Perennial

XCorps

10 I. f.

30
Permanent pond outfall Creek) (important) XDWQ
(NWP 18)

Inset 2

Impact Area "C"
Excavation &
Stream B

Intermittent

XCorps

1
5

8
Permanenet Fill for Pond Ut to Beaverdam (unimportant) XDWQ .
Berm Creek
(NWP 39)
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 88 If- Perm.
66 If- Temp.
3i. Comments: * There will also be 22 cubic yards of impact below the ordinary high water mark, associated with the outfall
and dissipater pad.
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
4. Open Water Impacts (N/A)
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
- Permanent
(P) or
Temporary T
Inset 1
Impact Area Stream A Installation of Riser into Stream
*
Perennial stream 0.006 ac. (254 s.f.)

"A" Temporary (geaverdam Creek) Bank 19 cubic yards
Inset 2
Impact Area Stream A Installation of Dissipator at pond
Perennial stream 0.004 ac. (181 s.f.)

"B" Temporary (geaverdam Creek) outfall 13 cubic yards
Inset 2 Stream A 0.007 ac. (295 s.f.)
Impact Area
"
" (geaverdam Creek) Rip-Rap Dissipator at pond outfall Perennial stream 22 cubic yards
B
Permanent
0.017 ac. (730 s.f.)
0. Total open water impacts 32 cubic yards - temp.
22 cubic yards - perm.
4g. Comments: The riser will serve as an intake structure that captures storm flows, which will be used to fill the irrigation
reservoir.
5. Pond or Lake Construction (N/A)
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. X Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) impact Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
Inset 1 Clearing
Impact Area For intake Beaverdam Creek No 908 3,573
«A„
structure/pipe
Permanent
Inset 1 Installation of
Impact Area
intake Riser
Beaverdam Creek
No
36 _
structure
Permanent
Inset 2 Clearing
Impact Area
«B» For intake Beaverdam Creek No 949 9,659
Permanent structure/pipe
Inset 2
Impact Area Rip-Rap
Dissipator at
Beaverdam Creek
No
170 _
pond outfall
Permanent
inset 2
Impact Area Excavation &
Unnamed tributary to Requirements

«C„ Fill for Pond
Beaverdam Creek (4) & (5) will 6,510 7,391
/Berm be met
Permanent
6h. Total buffer impacts 8,573 20,623
6i. Comments: * The buffer along "Stream B" is currently, only partially forested on one side with approximately 1,628 s.f. of
vegetation within Zone 1 and 1,848 s.f. within Zone 2, and is denuded of Zone 1 vegetation on the western portion of the
stream bank. There will be much more robust and stable buffer established along the perimeter of the new irrigation pond,
and it will consist of a minimum of 15,295 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 1 and 10,220 s.f. of forested vegetation within
Zone 2.
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Utilizing an extensive alternative analysis (detailed in the cover letter), wetland, stream, and buffer impacts have been
avoided to the greatest extent practicable, while achieving a successful project. There are 88 linear feet of permanent
stream impact associated with this portion of the project, while avoiding 3,443 linear of the remaining Beaver Dam Creek,
and its associated stream buffers.
Only one site evaluated had an appropriately sized drainage area (approximately 2,280 acres) to provide adequate
volumes of water for irrigation year round. This site was located where Beaverdam Creek exits Carolina Country Club
property. Impounding Beaverdam Creek at location six could provide an adequate irrigation supply however, while this
is the obvious first option, there would be a greater impact on aquatic resources, and it was decided to minimize
impacts to Beaverdam Creek and explore other options for an offline reservoir. The same scenario played out at
location one, when investigating impoundment of the unnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek in the northwestern portion
of the golf course, to avoid direct impacts to the unnamed tributary while investigating offline storage facilities in other
locations within the property. In order to minimize direct impacts to Beaverdam Creek, an offline reservoir option was
chosen, using withdraws from Beaverdam Creek to provide the volume required for irrigation of the golf course.
Furthermore, only stormflows are to be captured from Beaverdam Creek in order to fill the reservoir. This will ensure
there is always at least adequate baseflow of 2.88-cfs, and not just the 7Q10 flow of 0.3-cfs, as referenced by the NC
Division of Water Resources for this location.
Stream Impacts: The most effective design for an offline reservoir is to locate it adjacent to Beaverdam Creek at or close to the
same elevation of normal flows within the creek. The most practical location and only option to construct a reservoir is in the
proposed location within the 13-acre wooded area just south of the maintenance facility in the center of the golf course. There are
proposed impacts of 58 linear feet to an unnamed intermittent tributary, "Stream B", however, this section of stream has been
historically altered over the past 50 years, and is in a highly degraded state. Per our pre-application meeting on April 21, 2010, most
of Stream B, has been piped and the remaining section is mostly rip-rapped and drains the run-off from the maintenance facility and
adjacent parking area.
Neuse Buffer Impacts: There will be impacts of 6,510 square feet to Zone 1 and 7,391 square feet to Zone 2 of the
Neuse Buffers associated with impacts to "Stream B". The buffer along "Stream B" is currently, only partially forested on
one side with approximately 1,628 s.f. of vegetation within Zone 1 and 1,848 s.f. within Zone 2, and is denuded of Zone 1
vegetation on the western portion of the stream bank. There will be much more robust and stable buffer established along
the perimeter of the new irrigation pond, and it will consist of a minimum of 15,295 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 1
and 10,220 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 2.
To minimize impacts, the sanitary sewer re-location was designed so that it would not impact Beaverdam Creek and is
also physically located outside of the Neuse Buffer, with only the maintenance corridor impacting the already sparsely
vegetated Zone 2, along Beaverdam Creek. The intake and outfall structures are located at perpendicular angles where
they are proposed to impact Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the Neuse Buffer, with the minimal amount of temporary impact to
safely construct these structures.
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
- The temporary construction corridors required for the project within the Neuse River Buffer will fall mainly within
currently cleared areas of the property, minimizing temporary impacts from construction. All in-stream structures
and/or disturbance will be carried out from high-ground, during dry conditions to minimize sedimentation.
- Proper sedimentation and erosion control methods will be utilized during all phases of construction and installation
as described in the Erosion Control Plan sheet reviewed and approved by the NC Division of Land Quality and City
of Raleigh. All work will take place during dry conditions and can be facilitated from high, non-jurisdictional, stable
ground adjacent to the Neuse Buffer. The contractor shall install silt fence, inlet protection, sediment traps,
diversion ditches, tree protection, clearing only as necessary to install these devices. All erosion and sediment
control measures will be checked for stability and operation following every runoff producing rainfall , but in no case
less than once every week. Any needed repairs will be made immediately to maintain all measures designed. An
erosion control inspections report is required and will be kept by the owner's representative.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts ? Yes X No
to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ? Payment to in-lieu fee program
X Permittee Responsible Mitigation (if required)
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires X Yes No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
1,628 sf 3 (2 for
Zone 1 (4,882 sf previously
Catawba) 4,484 sf
impacted)
1,848 sf
Zone 2 (5,543 sf previously 1.5 2,772 sf
impacted)
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
The buffer along "Stream B" is currently, only partially forested on one side with approximately 1,628 s.f. of vegetation
within Zone 1 and 1,848 s.f. within Zone 2, and is denuded of Zone 1 vegetation on the western portion of the stream
bank. There will be much more robust and stable buffer established along the perimeter of the new irrigation pond, and it
will consist of a minimum of 15,295 s.f. of forested vegetation within Zone 1 and 10,220 s.f. of forested vegetation within
Zone 2.
6h. Comments:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified X Yes ? No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
There is no new impervious surface associated with the proposed project and only
one point of discharge, which is the outlet from the proposed pond back into Beaver
Dam Creek. All overland flow will be captured into the pond before discharge and
directed into the outlet during storm events that are above normal pool.
There was also an in office pre-application meeting held on August 2, 2010, with X Yes No
NCDWQ representatives Mr. Ian McMillan and Ms. Amy Chapman to discuss the
project as currently proposed and diffuse flow measures. Since the pond is not a
stormwater treatment device, Ms. Amy Chapman recommended discharging the
flow from the outlet right through a velocity dissipater directly into Beaverdam
Creek, as depicted on the construction drawings and impact maps.
C. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ), continued
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? No new impervious
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? Yes X No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Comments:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The proposed development is located within the Neuse River basin and will be subject to the stormwater
management requirements set forth in Section 10, Chapter 9 of the City of Raleig h regulations. Per City of Raleigh
regulations, stormwater management on this site shall address two primary issue s: (1) peak discharge rates and (2)
water quality management. However there is no new impervious surface associated with the project, therefore no
stormwater management plan is required.
X Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? DWQ Stormwater Program
DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? City of Raleigh
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs X NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been Yes No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): X Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? A copy of the plan has been submitted, but has not yet been approved ? Yes No
by the City of Raleigh.
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? X Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? X Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ? Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The intended purpose of this project is for irrigation of an existing golf course. There are no plans for additional golf holes
within the Carolina Country Club property, nor is there any land within or adjacent to expand the existing golf course.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The existing sanitary sewer line running through the project will only be relocated so that it avoids the footprint of the
proposed pond. There will be no new wastewater generated from the proposed project.
Page 13 of 15
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?

Raleigh
?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serive web site (http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html) was accessed on April 18, 2011 to
determine threatened and endangered species which may potential occur within Wake County. Based on field surveys
coducted within the project area, it is believed threatened and endagered species and their habitat are not present.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Protection Virtual Workroom internet service (accessed April 18, 2011) does not lists
any federally protected species within a 2 mile radius of the project area.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Protection Virtual Workroom internet service (accessed April 18, 2011) does not lists
any federally protected species within a 2 mile radius of the project area.
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund we site (http://216.237.216.18/cwmtfweb/default.aspx) was accessed on April
18, 2011 to determine whether the proposed project would impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and it was determined that
EFH is not present within the proposed project study area.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A review of the list of properties and districts in North Carolina entered in the National Register of Historic Places
(http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nrlist.htm) for Wake County did not reveal any listing within the proposed project study area. It
is believed the proposed project will not occur in or near an area that has been designated as having historic or cultural
preservation status by the state, federal, or tribal governments.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: (FIRM) Panel 372017 0500J
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? The North Carolina Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map #
3720170500J ; Effective Date May 2, 2006) was reviewed and it was determined that 100-year floodplain and floodway
areas are present on the subject property. There is currenlty a flood study (CLOMR) being conducted to determine the
impacts, if any, to the 100-year floodplain.

Date
Kevin Yates
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Since 1979
:TI--JI=? JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC.
AGEN'F AU'1J101T1ZA'1'ION 1<OIZM
All Blanks To 13e Filled In 13 Tlie Current Property Owlie"
Name: Carolina Country Club -
Address: 2500 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27608
Phone: 1?19-865-1900
Project Nary.. . ription: 11)ky n l Irrigation lies.
Prt>jcct Numbcl r'C'C:'-09000 Project Maria >:,:
?utc; 05/01/2011
U.S, Army Corps of I"ngineers
Attn: Jamie Shern
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake 1-"orest, NC 27587
Re: Wetlarr.s, '.'"l rtcd C011sultin . :d Permitting
, o i hom It May Conct : ir:
CCC Golf t u;cr ;: i; rlcigh, NC
I:cvin Yates
1, the current property owner, hereby designate and authorize The John R. McAdams Company,
Inc. to act in my behalf as nay agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon
request supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward. The
TA day of May 2011.
,.']'his notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.

NO`t'ICE. '"iris authorization, for liability and pr.;fr?tiional courtcs3 ;,,rsolrs, is valid 0111,,,
f'rrr• gover•nrir. ,` idTicials to eruc` "he property ,rccariipanied l-, The John R.
.i! .` darns Conipaii, ?- 'Aiw. staff. You ?' , 4?!d call The Jol- k. McAdanis C w ;r:rrty, Inc. to
aa-; ::r;ge a site meeting lwi"rr to visiting the site.
Al 6%. C oU /A ?. C_ (LA
Print Property 04vner .Snature ( ?tGL? P A't vt r??e.? C'Cr` J
Cc: Mr, lan McMillan
NC'DF'NR-DWG)
512 ;i-4iury Street (Archil:dc Building)
Raleigli, '17004
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G . L A N D P L A N N I N G - S U R V E Y I N G
PO Box 14005 • Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 • [phone] • fax [phone]
www.johnrrncadams.com
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: t. Gil ohm %"A, J , City/County: (+ `5 Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: C , State: /V(_ Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hiilslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%a):
}? r
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Let: d? 14 fV Long: 7 , L?a Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:?," NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical or this time of year? Yes_ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 1Z< No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 4- No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) , Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) - Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _. Thin Muck Surface (C7) _„ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
- Algal Mat or Crust (134) - Other (Explain in Remarks) .- Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65) - Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (139) - Microtopographic Relief (134)
- Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ' Depth (inches): a _..." Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Norte
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 1) P4
P4

Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Soecies? Status Dominance Test worksheet:
D
i
t S
i

1. om
nan
pec
es
Number of
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ?? n-- (A)
2'

3• Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4. _
5
?11 4-4 ',-d LA Ad Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total % Cover of Multiply by:
=Total Cover 013L species 42 x 1 =
Sa lin /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: } FACW species _0 x2= D
1 n l O 024 V 44 C4W FAC species -7 x 3=
2 A°. FACU species x4=
3 _ UPL species x5= 7,0
4, , 11,20 Column Totals: (A) (B)
5. 4
6
? 6 ., r•,? ?? 7???, , , Prevalence Index = B/A = _J L
.
-- h
tic Vegetation Indicators:
H
dro
7. y
y
p

8. _ 1 - vapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
- Dominance Test is >50%
'
10. 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0
!
'
Z
Total Cover (Provide supporting
4 - Morphological Adaptations
data in R
ark
or on a se
arate she
t)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) p
em
s
e

- -- - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)

2. a
14 " ` - @

-- --

'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3. resent
unless disturbed or
roblematic
be
,
p
.
p
4. D
fi
iti
f F
V
t
ti
St
t
e
n
ons o
our
ege
a
on
ra
a:
5.
6 Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7. height.

8.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9• DBH and greater than 3
28 ft (1 m) tall
than 3 in
.
.
.
10.
11 Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size
and wood
lants less than 3
28 ft tall
,
.
.
y p
12.
y 1
5 =Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
height.
1. "s-7A(??
2.
3.
4.

5. Hydrophytic
Ve
etation
g
6. Present? Yes No
?J = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
SOIL
Sampling Point: ~
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tyoe Loc Texture Remarks
a 11,
p
low
7's-ye, V3 0 L) -
7 , " A&
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosoi (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) - 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3) - Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) - Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (1713) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (Fig) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version
j V
3
? i
t its s 4
,
L_ ! P I
0 100-YRFLOODZONE FIGURE 8: AERIAL SITE MAP Water Main 40'Esmt
FLOODWAY 0 Overhead Electric 65' Esmt.
500-YR FLOODZONE 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 Proposed Water Re-use Pond
Feet
17 Golf Course Hole Number 1 inch equals 500 feet Pressurized Water Main
Gravity Sewer
Power Transmission Tower - - - Intermittent
Point of ?J ECOEngineering Perennial 0
4
Analysis A division ofTlic John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
®
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
April 29, 2011
Mr. Fred Tarver
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Carolina Country Club
On-Site Irrigation Reservoir
Storm Event Water Intake Structure
Dear Mr. Tarver:
The purpose of this letter is to inform the North Carolina Department of the
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources (NC
DENR-DWR or simply DWR) of a proposed project at Carolina Country Club
(CCC) where storm event flows will be captured and used for irrigation
purposes. This letter also provides documentation of the proposed system and
data that has been collected since May 11, 2009 as part of the effort to
responsibly design this off-channel system along Beaverdam Creek. On April
12, 2011 EcoEngineering met with DWR onsite to discuss this project. More
than a year ago on April 21, 2010 EcoEngineering met with Ian McMillan
with the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to discuss this project as well. The
proposed method to harvest stormwater has not changed since the meeting
with Mr. McMillan. The proposed withdraw system and supporting gauge
data are outlined in this letter.
Project Background
Carolina Country Club has been evaluating alternative irrigation options since
2008. Initially six locations at the course were evaluated for stormwater
capture and re-use. Based on our analysis of expected annual runoff at each
location, it was evident that the smaller on-site drainage areas did not produce
enough runoff to meet the irrigation needs of the course. Anticipating that
Beaverdam Creek could be used as a potential source of water for irrigation, a
pressure gauge was installed in the creek during 2009. Several additional
irrigation options were explored including aboveground and belowground
cistern systems and the existing lake on the east side of Beaverdam Creek.
Several issues emerged when the existing lake was evaluated as a potential
irrigation source for CCC. One of the primary issues was the condition of the
existing dam and the probable need to replace it if the pond were converted
into a water re-use facility. Secondary issues included the need to likely
dredge the lake and also the unsightly lake edges that would be exposed as the
pond fluctuated during irrigation pumping. Another complicating factor is
that the pond is actually owned by the adjacent property owners - not CCC.
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Fred Tarver
On-Site Irrigation Reservoir
April 29, 2011
Page 2
Due to these factors, in 2010 CCC started exploring options within an area of
the course near their maintenance building that was not previously considered
for a water re-use pond.
Proposed Project
As discussed on-site, CCC is planning to construct an off-channel water
reservoir to supplement irrigation for the golf course. The current proposed
project is an off-channel (or off-line) pond that captures storm event flows
through a gravity pipe system. The proposed reservoir would have an intake
structure in Beaverdam Creek upstream of the reservoir. The intake structure
would only capture water resulting from storm events by being set slightly
above the average or baseflow water elevation. The proposed pond is depicted
on the attached Site Map. The location of the site and Beaverdam Creek is
shown on the attached Vicinity Map.
Setting the Intake Weir Elevation
To remain consistent with the naming convention that has been used in the
design documents for this project, any reference to "baseflow" should be
interpreted as average flow. As discussed in the field, DWR's definition for
baseflow is the flow in the creek during drought conditions - and is seen as
the minimum natural flow regime when rainfall is below average for an
extended period of time.
The proposed elevation of the intake weir is based on nearly two years of
recorded stream data. On May 11, 2009 a differential pressure transducer
(HOBO® water level logger) and corresponding atmospheric pressure gauge
were installed in the vicinity of the proposed intake. The attached stream
elevation graphs show the water fluctuation in the creek at the location of the
proposed intake. Analysis of the data focused on average stream elevation
(including storm events) and concluded that the water elevation has ranged
between 230.18 and 230.32 feet mean sea level (msl) during the monitoring
period. Please see Table 1 for a summary of the data and when it was
collected.
CCC-09000
[jEcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Fred Tarver
On-Site Irrigation Reservoir
April 29, 2011
Page 3
The gauge reading for the time we were looking at the creek was 2.71 feet on
April 12, 2011 at approximately 9:15 in the morning. This depth equates to a
stream elevation of 230.11. This elevation is comparable to the observed
average flow elevation presented in Table 1 of 230.26. Generally the on-site
conditions observed on April 12 were representative of the stream during a
non-precipitation event.
Table 1- Weir Elevation Supporting Data
Time
Stream Data Sets Average Stream Elevation (ft)
Period
1.11
11 Data Set 1 5/11/2009 to 11/27/2009
..
230.21 (15 mm intervals)
............ ...
.............
Data Set 2 1/14/2010 to 12/31/2010

231101-2.6. (15 mm intervals)
Data Set 3 1/1/2011 to 4/12/2011 230 18 (15 mm interva s
.
. .....
Overall Average
..._..... 230.23 (includes stone events
...... .

Gauge Elevation (ft) .....
227.40 (surveye
...
Water Depth ft 2.86 (5111/09)
Stream Elevation (ft) 230.2
Intake Weir Elevation 230.60
..
..... ..... ................
Estimated Discharge (Q) using cross-section survey 2.75 CFS (5/11
Global Water FP101 Flow Probe, depth 2.86 ft
......... ... ..
.....
Estimated Q using average of 7 float measurements 2.89 CFS (5/11.111/10.91
to obtain velocity (0.74 ft/s) and wetted area = 3.9
ftZ
.
Therefore, a conservative estimate of discharge 2.75 CFS
when
.....
the stream is at average flow conditions (230.26) is or
... .....
1.7 million gallons per day
CCC-09000
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Fred Tarver
On-Site Irrigation Reservoir
Apri129, 2011
Page 4
The inlet system for the proposed reservoir is a six foot by six foot riser box
positioned in the stream bank such that half of the box is exposed to the
stream. This gives a weir length of 12 feet. A 36" RCP pipe system then
conveys the water to the reservoir. Setting the weir at elevation 230.6 will
capture runoff from most storm events while not impacting what has been
observed as baseflow (or more appropriately "average" stream flow)
conditions. Additionally, rainfall data indicates that precipitation conditions
for the past 22 months has been relatively normal and below historic 30 year
averages by only 11 inches over the 22 month monitoring period.
Please contact me directly anytime if you have any questions regarding this
project.. I can be reached at [phone] or via email at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
A ivision of The John _R. McAdams Company, Inc.
ames M. Halley, .E., LEED AP
Project Engineer
Attachments
cc: Carolina Country Club
Research Triangle Park, NC
Post Office Box 14005
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, North Carolina 27713
800-733-5646
919-287-4262
919-361-2269 Fax
www.ecoengrcom CCC-09000 Design Services Focused On Client Success

0 100-YR FLOODZONE O Site Map [::] Water Main 40' Esmt
FLOODWAY 0 Overhead Electric 65' Esmt.
I? Pa
500-YR FLOODZONE Analysis
L?
[J
EcoEngineering
0

osed Water Re-use Pond
Prop
17 Golf Course Hole Number ' di,,,, A I h, J,>>, R nIcAda- c um,x,ny hw Pressurized Water Main

Power Transmission Tower 0 130 260 520 780 1,040 0
T"M Feet Gravity Sewer
- - - Intermittent
1 inch equals 500 feet °- Perennial
Legend Figure 1: Vicinity Map Fjg]EeoEngineering
PressurizedWaterMain A dnision ufTnc John R, McAdams company. lnc.
GravitySewer 0 255 510 1,020 1,530 2,040
Feet
USGS Map: RALEIGH WEST, Created 1968, Photorevised 1988
1 inch equals 1,000 feet 3-18-09
9feariatio t)
N N N N N N N N N N N
? O O ? ? N N W W ? ?
Ul O (A O (J7 O Ul O Ut O Ul
O O O O O O O O O O O
04/21/09
05/03/09
05/15/09
05/27/09
06/08/09
06/20/09
I
07/02/09
07/14/09
07/26/09
08/07/09
m?R 08/19/09
08/31/09
09/12/09
09/24/09 I
10/06/09 I I
10/18/09 I
0
10/30/09 I
? I
LD.
11/11/09 m
(D
<
w
11 /23/09 0
u ( I
12/05/09 w
I
U)
v 0
3
m°
F =.
< n?
v n
5.0
? n
CD
Stream Elevation (ft)
CNO O N W cc n
O O O O O O O
12/17/09
12/29/09
01/10/10
01/22/10
02/03/10
02/15/10
02/27/10
03/11/10
03/23/10
04/04/10
04/16/10
04/28/10
05/10/10
05/22/10
06/03/10
06/15/10
06/27/10
c?
07/09/10
07/21/10
08/02/10
08/14/10
08/26/10
09/07/10
09/19/10
10/01/10
10/13/10
10/25/10
11/06/10
11/18/10
11/30/10
12/12/10
12/24/10
01/05/11
CD
CD n
3 v
M
F i.
< v
v n
o' o
? o
?o
< n
c -
. o
3
CD
Stream Elevation (ft)
NO N)
N W W
N N W
CO O O
O O O O O O O O
12/24/10
01/05/11
01/17/11
01/29/11
02/10/11
w 02/22/11
M
03/06/11
03/18/11
03/30/11
04/11/11
04/23/11
co
C-I
N n
3
M °-
< w
0 0
< n
-? cr
3
CD
?
010
9
?4?0
9
(190
0
S
04,09
OCI/
9
Sot
9
O o
"c0
9
d? 7
0
T
?b 7
O
170
-14",70
O
?
7
O
70
9
4`17
O
6
0? 70
OCII
70
?oG7
O
O?c 7
O
?
7
T
L 77
?ar
77
Monthly Rainfall (in.)
O N w •P On 0) V 00

P7777777777 7

.............. .:.:'

CD
0 0
Q
v co

C
C
CD ?

0
o C:

0 ?
C.,
<
0

• ?,.. . Q
v (D
t? Q -
(D -
o ? CD
? - V

O0 CO C)
O O

?v
o c
3
G -ti
<D -
K3 <
O N
to =
O
0
? 1W
N
PIC 1. Facing Impact Area A- Beaverdam Creek - Intake Structure in center of photo.
OJECT No. CCC-09000 n
ineerig
EcoEn
Cl
b
t
li
C
C g
Faj]
E17A16E Pictures-Route
I ry
u
oun
na
aro Ioc
miy
flheJolmRMcAdamsCom
Adi
i
i
G .
p
,
v
a
ano
ALE: Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
N/A RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
BOX 14005 ZIP 27709-4005
P
O
RALEIGH, NC .
.
En D
ATE:
05-01-2011 (919) 3e1-5000
?., Ala i??iX+?, ?-_ r-

-
t

4
.-
?{
y
PIC 2. Facing left bank of Beaverdam Creek- Intake Structure approximately located
where current rip-rap is on for left of picture.
PROTECT NO. CCC-09000
ineerin
Ec
oEn

4
R
t
": P
t
Carolina Country Club g
g
?
ou
e
ic
ures- Adivision ofTheJohn RMcAdamsCompany, Inc.
9 SCALE: Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
NSA RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
4 RALEIGH NC P.O. BOX 14005 ZIP 27709-4005
Cn R n, 05 - 01 -'- 2 011 [phone]
?
-Ir.
I ? a ?
r _.! RJaxn?.. t j ? L
i rr+ 1' t k tr.
s 1 F.?}
1'R I
1
4.J. 7 1?, V F c? -
P
e-Yi{? jyi- ?M??s
A .
21
e 1
41
PIC 3. Facing north at approximate Tailwater Location of Proposed Pond. Standing in
the current Sanitary Sewer Easement.
PROJECT NO. CCC_09000
ineerin
ftoEn
Cl
b
li
t
C
C g
g
[A
Fl'?N"'¢ Pictures-Route ry
u
na
oun
aro d
C
i
?e
o?my,
ce.
A&vWonofTbe7oLnRMeA
tj SCALE: Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
NSA RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
RALEIGH NC P.O. BOX 14005 UP 27709-4005
"' DATE: 05-01-2011 [phone]
PIC 4. Facing North, standing on left bank of Beaverdam Creek. Highly eroded, and
denuded stream buffer section.
CCC-09000 ineerin
EcoEn

C
li
C
t
Cl
b g
g
?
ctures-Route aro
na
oun
ry
u I
Ad
C
f
L
J
I
RM
V ompmy,
nc.
ams
T
o
m
c
Adivismo
e
Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
NSA RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
RALEIGH, NC P.O. BOX 14005 ZIP 27709-4005
DATE:
5-01-2011
[phone]
A,?? v

_ yy

"r:7 N?i _'?4
PIC 5. Facing South toward proposed pond location, and standing in proposed pond berm
location. Headwaters of Stream B are on left, before it is rip-rapped.
. G•-9000
ineerin
EcoEn
IN ? Carolina Country Club g
g
a
tUrBS-ROUt2
E AdiviaioaOf71n7ohnRMcAdMaCompmyIoc,
NSA Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
S RALEIGH, NC P-0. Box 14005 ZIP 27709-4005
.
AIE:
-01-2011 [phone]

? ,
Y * II ??
}I ?
,I

. 44.
PIC 6. Facing southeast, toward Stream B. heavily armored and capturing surface runoff.
Standing approximately on proposed pond berm location. Small Shrub-Scrub stream
buffer on lower left bank, mostly denuded elswhere.

°?? NO C. CC-

Cl
b
C
li
?A
ftoEngineenng
FBExAME: Pi
es-Route
t ountry
u
na
Caro C
m
an
Inc
Ad
M
i
f Th
J
h
R
? c
ur p
y,
.
ams
o
c
A divis
on o
e
o
n
.
9 SCALE: Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
N/A

N RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
BOX 14005 ZIP 27709-4005
O
P
RALEIGH,
C .
.
DATE:
0`J-01 -2011 [phone] J
T IV',V,?
41, ':' "?: S 1 t? .; rY a`:• I ,_ /. 1 1 .,,a ,•,i ,:'f' f! ?, /f t f +?i' l w t '
-3 ?A
e ??' 1`lNI }?'? ` S
" '; { L ?{i ?F kr r a i a B>3 ?f l,+_ ' ggP kY *_
Ir
- „?'' `,_ ? YY '? ,?,?`` ,Fa sJ' ?t-+? t'v"? FPM i ?ra;* k T?J ??? V y' ii ?, ? . aet?
x???t P r"7' ;?: ), f,?Ey??? } 5.. ?"3` A??x .=V *j ?J'a i{ ?-•? '?? ? J °'; .(. r 7??44??a
'Ile
y0v
tip
%
A y
e. - - Tom. y. ate`. _
PIC 7. Facing Southeast. Closer View of Intermittent Stream B. Standing on right bank of
Stream B, before it goes into plastic culvert in center of picture.
PROJECT NO. G.L.(._09000
ftoEn
ineerin
®
R
t
Pi
t Carolina Country Club g
[A
g
ou
e
c
ures-
c1
A division of The John R McAdams Company, Inc.
SCALE: Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
NSA RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
RALEIGH NC P.O. BOX 14005 ZIP 27709-4005
°' nnTe 05-01-2011 [phone]

c!
?"
? ra 'Hlla?

A I
-`
,4 T?

PIC S. Facing Northeast. Facing lower section of Stream B, before it takes left turn and
flows into plastic pipe and then empties into Beaverdam Creek.
PROTECT 130. CCC-09000 ineerin
oEn
ft

FuEN^1?:
R
t
i
t
Carolina Country Club g
g
A
ou
e
P
c
ures- AdiviaioaofileJobn RMcAdamsCompany, Inc,
SCALE: Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
NSA RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC

RALEIGH, NC P.O. BOX 14005 ZIP 27709-4005
.ATE:
05-01-2011 [phone]

v\ i s.
_0

M-M
OW
Fy' E - - ?'_ ?.. 3*?i _?.. Fig ?.??jr??.{?' .5?..
.. ac
?. •- . ?a fin-- .. ?. _ :' ? - ?i.r '? ? ' R
_ r
tx ,L < p-
?
• x,,
PIC 9. Facing south and Beaverdam Creek in center of photo. Approximate pond outlet is
proposed to be located on right side of photo at rip-rap grass bank transition.

IN CCC-09000

Cl
b
li
C
C
F4
- EcoEngineering
4 ctures-Route
A ount ry
u
na
aro r
C
0 F ompeny,
r.
A&vmmofMwJohnR.bfrw me
Proposed Irrigation Reservoir
NSA RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
BOX 1.1005 UP 27799-4005
0
RALEIGH, NC .
P.
DATE:
5-01-2011 [phone]
i
X, 7

x 119?3
a

I
y! .
a? ?
r
i

Ro1 hg
Pa
Legend Figure 1: vicinity Map ?ftoEngineering
?-- PressurizedWaterMain A division ofThc John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
?- GravitySewer 0 250500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
USGS Map: RALEIGH WEST, Created 1968, Photorevised 1988
1 inch equals 1,000 feet 3-18-09
J
(. +r'l l "V it l t:1 (_ 11111111 <E? (111b
April 26, 2011
To Whom It May Concern,
Since the drought of 2008, Carolina Country Club has been exploring opportunities to reduce the
arnount of potable water being used to irrigate the golf course. As part of this process; EcoEngineering
was retained to evaluate several locations on the property where a lake or a Storage facility might be
constructed, One option investigated was to use the existing lake located along the Eastern property
boundary of the golf course. this lake is awned by the adjacent property owners therefore the Club
would have to make contractual arrangements to use the water.
Carolina Country Club has proposed to the owners of the lake that CCC would take on certain financial
ohligations and would rneet specific aestheui criteria associated with the lake in return fctr access tQ the
water in the lake. The owners have not been willing to assure contractually that CCC would be able to
have continuous and perpetual access to the water in the lake. While the lake owners may eventually
reverse their position, there is no indication of willingness to do so at this point. CCC will not make any
financial investment or take on any risks associated with the dams without assurance cif such perpetual
rights to the water in the lake.
After eliminating the adjacent lake as a water storage option, CCC has proceeded with developing the
best alternative for a water storage pond within our property boundaries. If you have questions or need
further clarification please contact me at 919 787-362:1 or e-rnail: jaLk @g roiinarc.net
Regards,
Jack S. Slaughter, CCM,CCE
General Manager/COO
. t??`! ttt_i_ u!7 (.I -i'il t6 liRll ??r l!- ?. t1. 111 !'.1 t!IIita '?hsf=, ? f I 1'h(i11
Page 1 of 1
Yates, Kevin
From: Tarver, Fred [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:03 PM
To: Yates, Kevin
Subject: RE: 7Q10 Request - Beaverdam Creek - Raleigh
Kevin,
Given an estimated drainage area of 303 sq,mi. at the indicated point, based on Giese & Mason (1991), l
estimated a 7Q10 value of 0,3 c f s {7g10 = 0.196 * D A I 0.53}e
We consider the US Geological Survey as the authority on the determination of flow statistics. Any
questions, disputes or discrepancies associated th this estimate should be referred to Curtis Weaver
(USGS) at [phone] or jcweaver usgs_gov .
Fred Tarver
From: Yates, Kevin [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:21 PM
To: Tarver, Fred
Subject: 7Q10 Request - Beaverdam Creek - Raleigh
Hey Fred,
I work with James Caldwell over here, and trying to get a 7Q10 for a point of analysis on Beaverdam
Creek, running through the Carolina Country Club in Raleigh. Attached is the USGS quad, with the point
of analysis labeled, which is just under the "r" of Beaverdam Creek on the quad map.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Yates
Senior Environmental Scientist
Office: 919-287-4262
Cell: 919-624-6901
;:,dd N ad#.=: ress I3c-3V
EcoEngineering
P.O. Box 14005, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Design Services Focused On Client Success
Please consider the environment before you print this a-mail.
7/21/2010