20042019 Ver 3_More Info Received_20110616

WN;t
03
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
June 14, 2011
Ms. Crystal Amschler
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
RE: Anderson Creek South Development, Harnett County, North Carolina
Action ID No. SAW-2006-41244
NC DWQ Project 40 4-2019
Dear Ms. Amschler:
s
DENR - WATEF3 CtUAL'ry {
'1Venandu 8 SfOrmwsat? a.e... P
We are in receipt of your April 8, 2011 correspondence as it relates to our March 10, 2011 submittal of
additional information. Reference is also made to our field meeting on May 5, 2011. In sum, your letter
defines the Corp's understanding of the project purpose, requests an expansion of the alternatives
analysis, requests additional information about the preferred alternative and requests a more thorough
response to public comments, specifically those comments provided by the US EPA.
Additionally, please find attached another copy of our May 16, 2011 submittal to the NC Division of
Water Quality. (Appendix 1: NC DWQ Submittal, May 16, 2011)
Response
Letter: US Army Corps of Engineers
Date: April 8, 2011
Project Purpose
1) After a detailed review of the project, we determined that the basic project purposes are to
construct a residential development and provide recreation. The project purpose as initially
stated by the applicant was to "construct a unique public recreational amenity within Anderson
Creek development to increase marketability of the proposed residential subdivision. " A
component of the proposed residential community includes the proposed construction of an on-
line impoundment, which is to fulfill a recreation need. The initial project purpose as stated by
the applicant was considered inappropriate for several reasons. The Lake SOP titled.-
"Information Regarding the Review and Processing of Standard Permit Applications for the
Construction of On-line Impoundments" date March 18, 2008 (see attached), states that the
project purpose may not be defined so narrowly as to unduly restrict the alternatives analysis. As
stated in your March 10, 2011 submittal, "there is no analysis of other unique amenities.
Unique, by definition, is without having a like. We are unable to identify any other practicable
unique amenities that have wide market appeal. " This statement emphasis that the initially
proposed project purpose as stated by the applicant is inappropriate and unduly restricts the
alternatives analysis. In regards to the increase marketability provided by the amenity in the
WNR
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
initially-stated project purpose, in agreement with the Lake SOP, we believe that cost, rather than
profit, is the appropriate factor to be used in determining practicable alternatives in accordance
with the Section 404 (b)1 Guidelines. Specifically, the Lake SOP states that:
"Corps and EPA guidance indicates that in making the determination of
reasonablelpracticable cost, we should focus not on a particular applicant's financial
standing, investment or market share but rather the characteristics of the project and
whether the projected cost of an alternative is substantially greater than the costs
normally associated with the particular type of project. In many instances, applicants
have attempted to eliminate alternatives based solely on the reduction of return on a
financial investment. While project viability is a consideration, it is the applicant's
responsibility to demonstrate why these other alternatives are not viable from a
standpoint of cost. "
As such, the initially proposed purpose indicating that the amenity should "increase
marketability" is not a suitable in defining the project purpose and when discussing the
practicability of alternatives.
We understand that the Corps of Engineers as determined that the basic project purposes are to construct a
residential development and provide recreation. We can accept this statement so long as it is understood
that the recreational facilities are an amenity for the project. We maintain that the actual purpose of the
lake is to provide a unique form of recreation that increases the marketability of the development.
Further, we must remind you that part of our initially stated reason for the discharge was to create a
project that appeals to a many socio-economic and generational groups.
Alternatives Analysis
2) The information provided in the March 10, 2011 submittal briefly addressed a golf
alternative, the preferred lake alternative and variations of the lake alternative, including lakes
excavated in high ground, the use of existing off-site lakes and the use of existing on-site lakes.
The alternatives analysis failed to adequately address the practicability and environmental
impact of these alternatives and provided either an inadequate analysis or no analysis of other
potential amenity alternatives that may meet the project purpose. According to the Section
404(b) (1) Guidelines, a discharge offill material shall not be permitted "if there is a practicable
alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences. " The project purpose is considered non water-dependent and as such it is
presumed that there are other practicable alternatives that should be considered and that these
alternatives may be less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem. It is the applicant's responsibility to
clearly demonstrate that no such alternatives exist.
In our letter dated January 25, 2011, we requested a comparison of the costs, logistics, impacts
to waters of the U. S, and other data to be included in the alternatives analysis. As a rebuttal to
our request your March 10, 2011 submittal references 33CFR 320.4(q), specifically the statement
"when private enterprise makes application for a permit, it will generally be assumed that the
appropriate economic evaluations have been completed, the proposal is economically viable and
is needed in the marketplace. " This statement is in reference to the need of a project and does
not apply when considering alternatives. Project cost is often a key factor in determining the
practicability of any alternative and it is the responsibility of the applicant to identify when less
environmentally damaging alternatives exist and that those less-damaging alternatives are not
cost-effective solutions to meeting the purpose and need. A comprehensive alternative analysis of
2
practicable alternatives that meet the project purpose and identifies the least environmental
damaging alternative is required before the proposed project can be further evaluated. This
analysis should include alternatives involving purchasing property around an existing lake within
the area, such as Buffalo Lake among others, and constructing facilities to support a sailboat
school for the use of Anderson Creek South development.
The Anderson Creek South project would not be a viable project without impacts to streams or wetlands.
The proposed lake concept was conceived in 2003 as the focal amenity of this project and it would have
to be eliminated without impacts. Financial expectations resulting from the construction of the lake, as the
preferred amenity, have been continually frustrated by changes in policy, guidelines and rules. The
project would not be financially feasible without amenities.
Below please find our analysis of the following recreational amenity alternatives:
• Golf Facilities
• Equestrian Facilities
• Open Space
• Lake Excavated in High Ground
• Expansion of Existing Lake
• Purchase of an Existing Lake
Golf Facilities
The projected direct cost a golf course with 18 holes is $4,750,000.00. The average cost to design and
construct a nice quality golf hole in the coastal plain of North Carolina is $250,000. A driving range
carries an additional cost of $250,000.
Logically, there is no need to construct another eighteen hole golf amenity within Anderson Creek. The
golf industry has had over 2 years of negative growth due to the economy and a lack of recruitment of
new and younger players. According to Golflink.com there are more than 20 golf facilities in a 20 mile
radius of Spring Lake, NC. Approximately 80% of these courses are associated with existing residential
development and most (greater than 70%) are open to the public. If constructed, the facilities would
appeal to only a small segment of the community and would likely be under-utilized.
Logistically, eighteen holes of golf generally require 180 acres of land. This acreage allowance generally
considers topographic restrictions, wetland and stream avoidance, and layout considerations. We
previously submitted a site development plan that was generated for the project in August 2007. It
depicts and alternative that shows the lake and an eighteen hole golf facility. The construction of this
particular eighteen hole facility would require the clearing of approximately 12 acres of forested riparian
wetlands adjacent to perennial streams.
Additional adverse environmental consequences occur because approximately one million gallons of
irrigation water per day are required to establish a golf course. This same number of gallons is necessary
to maintain the facility during drought conditions. In rough numbers, one acre foot of water contains
330,000 gallons. Daily water demand would be one acre of water three feet deep. A two-week water
supply would require 42 acre feet of water or a pond that is 10 acres in area and four feet deep. These
estimates do not account for evaporation. This water demand almost necessitates the construction of an
on-line pond or some other method to harvest enough irrigation water.
3
Further environmental impacts can be associated with habitat fragmentation, chemical discharges
associated with maintaining facilities and greater land clearing requirements associated with fairways.
Specifically, the lake proper requires 40 acres of land clearing as opposed to the 180 acres of clearing for
golf.
The submitted golf alternative is not practical since it is more costly than the proposed lake, does not meet
the stated multigenerational / socioeconomic recreational purpose, will have impacts to approximately the
same acreage of wetlands and has additional environmental consequences.
Equestrian Facilities
The projected direct cost of comprehensive equestrian facilities is approximately $1,500,000. This is
inclusive of establishing dedicated pasture lands, an indoor arena, barns, western riding facilities, hunter
jumper facilities and riding trails. Clearing and establishing pasture is projected to cost $675,000
(Seventy-five acres at $9,000 / ac clearing, soils amendments and establishing quality grasses). An indoor
arena and barn facilities cost approximately $500,000. Hunter jumper facilities and associated courses
would cost approximately $300,000. These costs are based on comprehensive equestrian facilities for
approximately 35 to 40 horses.
Logically, there is no need to construct equestrian recreational facilities since less than 2% of Americans
own a horse according to a Gallup survey. The facilities would appeal to such a small segment of the
population and this segment of the population prefers large lots in a rural setting. Regional equestrian
facilities are available to local enthusiasts and planned parks are considering additional facilities.
Logistically, the existing site conditions are not conducive to an equestrian facility. Forested areas would
need to be cleared and pastures would need to be established. Extensive liming and fertilizing would be
required to establish orchard grasses and quality Bermuda grasses. These facilities would have a footprint
of approximately 90 acres. Additional impacts would be associated with the establishment of trails.
Additional adverse impacts associated with this type of amenity are the establishment of invasive grass
species and extensive land clearing. Additional impacts are associated with farm chemicals used in pest
control and vegetation control.
Equestrian facilities are not a practical alternative even though they can be constructed with no impacts to
waters. The costs are approximately the same as the lake but the stated project purpose of constructing a
widely appealing recreational facility is not achieved.
Passive Recreation and Open Space
Passive recreation is projected to cost in excess of $6,000,000. This is based on our understanding that the
request is for an assessment of preserving as undeveloped green space the land that would otherwise be
used to construct the lake. While there are no direct costs to the developer to establish passive open space
there are significant economic costs (losses). The 40 acres on which the lake is situated could be
developed as 300 apartments which generate approximately $20,000 in profits each; this assumption is
based on establishing 10 apartment units per acre while avoiding the 10 plus acres of wetlands within the
proposed lake bottom. Additional public costs will be incurred due to a further erosion of the tax base.
Logically, there is no need for additional open space since the Harnett Forward Together Committee
announced that a 1,014 acre tract in the Anderson Creek Township has been permanently protected and is
slated to become a major recreation park site for Harnett County. The rolling scenic parcel is considered
an essential addition to meeting the recreational and greenspace needs of Harnett County. The property is
4
located approximately 1.5 miles north of the main entrance of Anderson Creek along Nursery Road and
within a few yards of the planned access on Lemuel Black Road. According to a press release, the
possible park amenities include running, birding and hiking trails, equestrian and public education
programs, picnic areas, and community recreation fields (soccer, baseball, etc...). There is no open water
within the tract. (Appendix 2: Harnett Forward Together Committee Tract)
The unintended environmental consequence of not permitting the lake is the establishment of 300
apartments within the area that was proposed for the lake. These units will impact water quality and
fragment habitat.
Superficially, passive recreation is assessed to be less damaging than the lake but actually the unintended
consequences could be severe. As open space, the 40 acre lake site would not provide unique recreational
opportunities that are marketable in light of the abundance of park areas in the project region. The
indirect non-recoverable costs of open space are not practical.
Lake Excavated in High Ground
The conservative estimated cost to excavate a 30 to 40 acre lake in 40 acres of high ground is $3,300,000.
Excavation of the lake would cost $1,000,000 (approximately $165,000 per foot of depth based on an
estimated cost of three dollars per yard for excavation). The lake would need to be lined at a cost of
$2,000,000 (approximately $0.50/sqft of liner, $0.50/sqft of underlayment and labor). Water circulation
pumps and monitoring facilities $300,000 (pumps and aerators such as those used in waste lagoons).
Logistically, a lake of the desired size can not be excavated in high ground. The ideal excavation area,
from which the costs were generated, would need to be relatively flat yet proximate to a water source to
reduce pumping. No such expansive flat areas exist within the development. That is to say, that valleys
and hills would need to be moved to create the lake and the result would be more embankment area
relative to the lake size and thus more potential for a dam breach.
An approximately 40 acre area between the proposed lake site and South Prong Anderson Creek was
determined to be non practicable. The 40 acres area would need to be cleared and grubbed and an
additional 30 plus acres would need to be cleared as a disposal area. The top soil would need to be
temporarily stock piled in a two to three acre area to cap the disposal area. The lake would need to be
excavated and the spoil transported. The entire area would require up to 20 feet of excavation to
construct the lake. Once the lake bed was established it would need to be lined with the appropriate
bentonite / rubber liner and pumps installed. A pump station would need to be constructed on the South
Prong and distribution lines would need to be installed. Pumps would need to be sized to lift the water
horizontally approximately 20 feet from the South Prong. The projected volume of a 30 acre excavated
lake 6 feet deep would be just under 60 million gallons. It would take approximately two months to fill
the lake if pumping at a rate of one million gallons of water per day.
Soils excavated from a lake in high ground would need to be stockpiled. The stock piled soils would be
disposed of on approximately 30 surface acres with soils stacked 12-14 feet deep. The stock piled soils
would need to be compacted prior to any construction it. The effective land disturbance is more like 73
acres - 40 acres for the lake and 33 acres for the disposal areas.
The permeability of the high ground soils would require that the lake be lined. Otherwise, continual
pumping would be required to maintain the surface elevation.
The water quality in an excavated lake is projected to be poorer than that of a lake situated in a valley.
The excavated lake would need to be further excavated (than projected above) to have the ability to
5
naturally turn-over and mix. Our opinion is that the excavated lake would require more monitoring and
treatment to be used for swimming.
Adverse environmental consequences include impacts to water supplies, additional land clearing for
waste disposal sites and additional air pollution associated with grading machinery and haul trucks. Air
quality will also be impacted when sites are cleared and grubbed, particularly if laps are burned. Filling
the lake and maintaining the water level requires that 100% of the water is pumped from wells and or
diverted from flowing streams; there would be adverse groundwater impacts. Hauling waste material will
be fuel intensive and burning will be proposed; both will have proportionally greater impacts than
locating a pond on-line.
The long term maintenance costs are projected to be similar between this alternative and the preferred
alternative but for the pumping cost and those associated with chemical treatments that maintain water
quality. Long term energy use concerns are greater with a lake excavated in high ground. Maintaining
the water elevation in periods of drought would necessitate either pumping from the South Prong or
establishing wells. Groundwater depletion during droughts would be likely.
A lake constructed in high ground would satisfy the project needs but it is not cost-effective. While it
would directly impact less wetlands, it is impractical from a construction and logistics perspective and
more than twice as costly as an on line impoundment. Indirect environmental impacts to surface and
groundwater waters will occur during pumping to fill the lake and unnecessary habitat fragmentation and
degradation will result from the additionally cleared land necessary to establish a lake.
Expansion of an Existing Lake
Only one other drainage area within the existing development has an existing lake situated on a stream
that has sufficient enough flow to support a larger body of water. This drainage supports the existing
approximately 8 acre pond located in Anderson Creek North adjacent to a fairway; we visited this area on
May 5, 2011. Other smaller ponds have been eliminated due to more complex property ownership issues
and drainage characteristics.
The costs associated with potentially expanding the lake are more than $3,000,000. The fairway
remodeling required to increase the lake area is approximately $120,000. Developed parcels and lots
would need to be bought-back at a cost of approximately $2,000,000. Dam rehabilitation to increase
water surface area would be approximately $150,000 and wetland and stream mitigation could cost
upwards to $400,000. Lake excavation, due to topographic constrains, could cost approximately
$500,000.
Logistically, the first step is to buy-back existing homes and lots. Then the existing lake would need to be
drained, the bottom mucked out, the sides expanded into bought-back lots, the golf course and the
forested area north and west of the existing golf fairway. The excavation would need to ensure a lake
depth of approximately 4 feet deep and dimensionally 200 to 300 feet landward of the existing water's
edge. The expansion would necessitate approximately 25 feet or more of excavation in the forested area
north of the lake. All excavated slopes would need to be stabilized on a 2:1 slope. Excavated soils would
need to be removed to a waste area on Anderson Creek South via trucks driving through residential areas.
Additional costs relating to infrastructure deterioration and intrinsic safety concerns have not been
assessed.
Expansion of the existing lake would require temporary impacts to 8 acres of open water and permanent
impacts to approximately 3.5 acres of wetlands and approximately 500 linear feet of perennial streams.
6
Poor wind conditions are expected in this lake because it is situated in a relatively deep valley. Also, as
discussed in correspondence from the sailing consultant, there is a zone of reduced wind that will not be
conducive to setting up a sailing course on this lake even if it were expanded.
Additional environmental consequences include air pollution, noise pollution and water pollution.
Trucking waste materials to disposal sites will result in air and noise pollution within residential areas
during daylight hours. Fuel consumption and exhaust pollution will be greater in any situation where
mass grading is proposed. Habitat fragmentation will be increase at both the waste disposal site and in
the vicinity of the expansion. There is a high likelihood of a sediment release to downstream Waters of
the US during the mucking process, particularly in a sudden rain event. These adverse environmental
consequences will be more proximate to the existing population center in Anderson Creek North, and the
Woodshire, Forest Oaks, and Senter Hill's developments.
It is assessed to be impractical to expand the existing lake in order to achieve both sailing and swimming
objectives. While wetland impacts are reduced by roughly 30% the costs are over 200% of those
projected for the preferred alternative. Expansion is impractical from a construction logistics and land
acquisition perspective and results in more safety concerns, disruption to the public and potential
pollution exposure to more individuals.
Purchase of and Existing Lake or Lake Access Property
There are no existing lakes for sale in the vicinity of Anderson Creek that would allow the proposed
sailing school to be a functional recreational amenity for the development. As stated previously, the
sailing school would have classes tailored specifically for youth; for clarification, it is anticipated that
some of the youth will walk or bicycle to the facilities. It is not practical to expect the students to drive or
be driven more than '/z hour to the facilities.
Buffalo Lakes is not accessible to the public, their property owners association limits the use of the lake
to individuals that own property on the lake and their families and guests. As discussed in out initial
application under Reason(s) for Discharge, the same holds true for Woodlake.
Attached is correspondence from a regional land broker commissioned to find property in the vicinity of
the Anderson Creek Club. Attachment 1: Land Broker's Analysis
The purchase of a parcel with a lake would obviously be the preferred alternative but it is not available.
Preferred Alternative Analysis
3) In addition to information on an alternative analysis, further information on the preferred
alternative is required to determine the need of the preferred alternative and ensure its
compliant with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. In our letter dated January 25, 2011 we requested
additional information on the preferred alternative, specifically, further information and
documentation on size and depth requirements for the use of the lake for a sail boat school. In
your March 10, 2011 submittal you provided a letter from Capt. Jack Feeney indicating that
the "project is quite feasible. " This information indicates that the project as proposed is
adequate in Capt Feeney's opinion, but still does not provide any information indicating
minimum depth and size requirements for the use of the proposed lake as a sailboat school.
This information is required to provide justification and demonstrate need for the size of the
proposed 40-acre lake that is your preferred alternative, as well as define the needs for
alternative lakes that could potentially be constructed in high ground or by using existing
7
impoundments on site and offsite. This information is required before the application can be
further evaluated.
Preferred Alternative
As presented previously, the projected approximate cost for the 40 acre lake is $1,800,000. The design
and construction monitoring is approximately $125,000. The approximate mitigation cost is $900,000.
The approximate excavation cost is $260,000. The approximate control structure costs are $250,000.
The approximate cost of additional excavation to increase lake surface is $250,000. The projected cost to
construct the 2008 lake alternative, which was approximately 44 acres, was $2,000,000.
The proposed lake bed would be cleared, the additional excavation to create the expanded surface area
would be conducted and the dam would be constructed. The construction sequence is identified on the
Proposed Lake and Erosion Control Plan that was previously submitted; it is herein attached as Appendix
3: Proposed Lake and Erosion Control Plan. Generally, the plans call for the installation of a stream
bypass such that all work is conducted in the dry.
Construction of the embankment will require the filling of approximately 1.26 acres of wetlands and 374
linear feet of perennial streams. The proposed lake will flood 8.27 acres of wetlands, 590 linear feet of
perennial streams and 874 linear feet of intermittent streams. The proposed lake surface area of 40 acres
represents nearly a 400% gain of Waters of the US / State over the wetlands that are flooded.
As described in the prior submittals, the intended recreation purposes of the lake are for a sailing school
and an organized swimming facility. The lake needs to be of sufficient dimensions to serve concurrent
activities within the sailing school and at a life-guarded beach while providing incidental recreational
opportunities for environmental education and fishing. The necessary lake size had been determined to be
approximately 40 acres in order to accommodate these concurrent activities. The sailing consultant has
determined that 25 plus acres of four foot deep open water is necessary and we propose that the beach
requires another 2 acres of open water.
The sailing consultant has provided a package that better qualifies the dimensional requirements for the
sailing school. The document narrates the rationale behind the statement that the site is quite feasible for
a sailing school. It presents a logical discussion that the proposed lake is adequate for the intended
purpose but not an ideal facility; an ideal facility would be larger and would be more on the order of a 50
acre lake. Further, compelling arguments are made for sailing related educational opportunities on the
lake and differing course configurations. Included in the information is a collaboratively generated figure
that depicts the sailing school constraints; we worked with the project engineer to visually present the
constraints. Notably, the figure identifies areas of sufficient depth and unobstructed wind circulation such
that the school is feasible. Approximately 25 acres of 4 foot deep and deeper water are represented in the
figure. See Attachment 2. Sailing School Parameters.
In 2008 the lake was slated to be approximately 44 acres and would have provide 27 acres of 8 foot deep
open water (See Attachment 2). The current plan has reduced the dimensional parameters of the lake and
has preserved the ability to provide sailing and swimming.
The swimming facilities are proposed to be located along the southeastern shore of the lake proximate to
the dam. Here a sand beach can be created with easy access to deeper water, the approximate swimming
area, deep water area and safety zone is two acres. The deeper water would allow a diving platform as
well as a floating guard station. A floating guard station will allow better observation of the bathers in the
evening hours as the sun will be to the guards back. It will serve the dual purpose of being a visual
marker for those who are sailing in the proximity of the public beach.
Response to EPA Comments
4) Lastly, the March 10, 2011 submittal does not respond to all comments provided, specifically
comments provided by the US EPA. In addition, your submittal does not adequately address
comments concerning downstream property value. These comments will need to be addressed
before the application can be further evaluated.
The US Environmental Protection Agency provided comments to the US Army Corps of Engineers in a
letter date stamped February 4, 2011. The comments related to their understanding of the type and
quality of the stream and wetlands that are proposed to be impacted, the project purpose, the reason for
discharge, the alternatives analysis, the preferred alternative, avoidance and minimization and finally
mitigation. Many of these same concerns have been previously addressed and or are addressed herein.
Type of Resources Impacted: (Taken from EPA Letter dated February 4 2011)
EPA considers the mature bottomland hardwood forests at the applicants proposed site to be
aquatic resources of national importance (ARNI). The existing conditions on the project site
appear to contain mature forest within the proposed wetland impact areas that include large
stands ofAtlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). The proposed impacts would also
include flooding of high quality streams. Adjacent land use includes residential and
commercial development, as well as timber harvest. We believe the remaining wetlands and
streams are essential to the region, as they provide important water quality and wildlife
benefits.
These comments were addressed in our March 9, 2011 submittal on Page 8.
During the May 5, 2011 the multi-agency field meeting the US Army Corps of Engineers and the NC
Division of Water Quality observed that the proposed lake bed is not a mature bottomland hardwood
forest and contains few if any Atlantic white cedars. The wetlands proposed to be impacted by the lake
are not unique to the region.
On May 5, 2011, the stream was observed to be dry for much of the reach. Further, the proposed impact
area shows evidence of historical manipulation.
Like much of the surrounding landscape, the impact site has been timbered in the past couple of decades
and does not contain many, if any, mature high quality hardwood specimens.
On May 5, 2011, the field review included an evaluation of the bottomland forests within the Anderson
Creek land holdings proximate to the South Prong Anderson Creek. This area included numerous
Atlantic white cedars and other specimen trees. This area will not be impacted and is slated to be
preserved as part of the mitigation for the project. This is a high quality wetland system that has been
avoided and we agree that it is a resource of importance.
Project Purpose: (Taken from EPA Letter dated February 4 2011)
The stated purpose is to construct a unique pubic recreational amenity within Anderson Creek
to increase marketability. However, it appears this is only one aspect of the impacts proposed
by the development of Anderson Creek.
9
As identified earlier, the Corps has determined that the basic project purposes are to construct a
residential development and provide recreation.
Reason(s) for Discharge: (Taken from EPA Letter dated February 4, 2011)
The applicant states that a development the size and scope of Anderson Creek legally and
practically requires amenities to make the marketable. EPA is requesting information from the
applicant or the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) supporting the claim that there is a legal
requirement to have this amenity. It is also stated that there are no public access lakes within
30 aerial miles (up to 1.5 hours drive time). However, Jordan Lake and Harris Lake, which
have public access are within 1.5 hours of the development. Further, the applicant states
"Thus, as required by the law, we believe that we need only to evaluate potential alternative
amenities that meet the need for both public recreational access and increased marketability. "
Since the actual project purpose is residential development, the applicant should evaluate
alternatives including other potential development locations, and developments without the
proposed large amenities, given their anticipated environmental impacts.
Le ag 1 Requirements:
Comments relating to the legal requirement to construct a lake were addressed in our March 9, 2011 reply
to NC Division of Water Quality Comments. Below is an excerpt from the prior submittal:
The developers of Anderson Creek are contractuallv obligated to provide amenities through their PUD
approval. As noted by Mr. Joseph Jefferies, Director of Planning Services, in his January 13, 2011 letter:
"The planned development has 340 acres of open space and recreation areas that far exceed the minimum
required for developments of this size. ...As part of the recreation component, the developer is proposing
a 40 acre lake, all of which will be included as open space. The proposed lake would be a great amenity
and provide environmental benefits to the development as well." Open space is required under the
contractual agreements stipulated under the zoning approval.
The lake is not legally required as is claimed by the US EPA in their February 4, 2011 letter. Simply,
they did not understand the application.
Distance to Other Lakes:
Based on personal experience, it takes about 1.5 hours to drive from the Anderson Creek Club to the
public access areas on each of the above reference lakes. Google Maps, and other computer generated
directions, which estimate 1 hour and 11 minutes, do not fully account for stoplights and congestion. We
maintain our position.
Likewise, to be regularly used by the public, any amenity should be more proximate to the population
center that it intends to serves. To propose that a lake 1.5 hours from the population center as a viable
recreational facility seems to ignore both practical time and economic constraints. The suggested use of
these lakes would require a minimum of 3 hours of travel time per event and with unintended
consequence is more air pollution and traffic.
As noted by the applicant, military personnel are the intended market for Anderson Creek. It is not
prudent to construct the development closer to one of these established lakes and expect to serve the Fort
Bragg residential housing market.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10
Project Purpose:
As identified earlier, the Corps has determined that the basic project purposes are to construct a
residential development and provide recreation. The US Environmental Protection Agency seems to be
further restricting the project purpose. As a matter of process, we understand that the US Army Corps of
Engineers is charged with validating the applicants stated purpose.
Alternatives Analysis: (Taken from EPA Letter dated February 4, 2011)
The applicant's alternative analysis is inadequate and should include alternative site locations
for the residential development as well as less damaging alternatives on-site.
Alternatives, such as natural trails systems and parks, should be explored. These will allow
recreational opportunities for all socio-economic groups and minimize impacts to the
environment. In fact, many studies have shown that greenways, parks, and wetlands can
increase property values of the surrounding land
The applicant also did not explore the no build alternative, citing that an amenity must be
constructed to comply with the local zoning requirements. A pro-tennis club, an environmental
education facility, and a golf instructional facility are scheduled to be built on the property.
Alternatives utilizing some or all of these amenities should be explored. We request more
specific information regarding these zoning requirements.
Multiple alternatives as well as the zoning requirements are discussed herein.
Preferred Alternative:
The US Environmental Protection Agency dedicated approximately two pages to comments relating to
the construction of on-line impoundments. We believe that only one point merits discussion as the
balance of the comments has been previously addressed by your office or prior submittals.
Conversion of Waters: (Taken from EPA Letter dated February 4 2011)
EPA also has significant concerns that the effect of conversion of these streams into lakes could
result in the elimination of existing uses of the streams in and downstream if the area of the
proposed project, including the segments of the streams that could become the tailrace waters of
the reservoir during and after impoundment. The conversion may also require a change in the
designation of uses that are currently assigned to these streams in North Carolina's water quality
standards. Prior to the conversion, it must be demonstrated that such a conversion complies with
all aspects and requirements of North Carolina antidegredation policy as well as any other
applicable provision of North Carolina's water quality standards.
The NC Division of Water Quality currently protects the stream for Class C uses. The stream currently
supports the mandated uses which are "...waters protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing,
wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact
with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner." The
states water quality standards do not differentiate between impounded waters and free flowing waters.
Thus the conversion of the stream to an impoundment does not require a change in use classifications
promulgated by the NC Division of Water Quality. For reference, Buffalo Lake, as well as the
discharging tributary are classified the same. Incidentally, this is why the NC Division of Water Quality
11
does not require mitigation for stream channels that are impounded: their position is that there is no loss
of use and therefore no basis for requiring mitigation.
Incidentally, the applicants desire to reclassify the lake as a Class B Waters will elevate the regulatory
protection of the waters. This should be viewed as a form of mitigation in that it increases the value of
the water and also increases the regulatory protection of the aquatic resource.
Further discussion relating to this topic can be found in the March 9, 2011 submittal on pages 7 and 8.
Avoidance and Minimization:
The applicant only briefly addresses avoidance and minimization in the design of the road and
sewer infrastructure but does not address avoidance and minimization with regards to the
proposed lake. Information, such as alternative routes, lake placement and design, along with
clear plans showing size and placement of impacts should be provided.
Since our initial application, we have consistently proposed design measures and management measures
that minimize foreseeable impacts to water quality. The design measures include a low flow orifice and a
cool water discharge; the management measures include securing a lake management consultant. The
March 9, 2011 submittal details the commitment in more detail on page 8 and we again made the same
commitments in our May 16, 2011 submittal to the NC Division of Water Quality (Appendix 1)
Mitigation:
The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program is willing to accept payment for impacts associated with the
proposed lake at Anderson Creek. Supporting documentation is found in Appendix 1.
Downstream Property Values
Mr. Elwood Perry, Mr. Terry Cruse, and Mr. James M. Tyson III represent in their January 10, 2011 letter
that they own land that is directly adjoining to and directly downstream from the proposed disturbance.
Only Mr. Elwood owns property that is remotely in the vicinity of the proposed lake: it is part of the
Anderson Creek Mobile Home Park. As intimated in their letter, we believe that these individuals were
not clear about the location of the proposed lake because of the small-scale maps. The parcels are
depicted in Attachment 3: Downstream Property Values.
Parcel number 0515-33-0033.000 is located along one of the boundaries of Anderson Creek and is at the
terminus of Ivey Street (a parcel within the Anderson Creek Mobile Home Park). The northern boundary
of this parcel abuts the large drainage located to the south of the drainage that supports the proposed lake.
It is inconceivable that a breach of the proposed dam would impact any of this owner's property.
Accordingly, this will be evaluated during the dam permit review.
Further, the approximate location of the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) mapped
floodplains is below the confluence of the drainage that would support the proposed lake and South Prong
Anderson Creek. It is our understanding that the breach analysis required by the NC Division of Land
Resources will ensure that there is minimal impact in the event of a "sunny day breach". The final details
will be determined during the final project review.
Based on our review of topographical maps and GIS data that these comments relating to reduced values
and increased risk are unfounded. We have a high level of confidence that this will be borne out in the
Dam Safety review.
12
We believe that we have in full supplied the information that you requested in your April 8, 2011 letter.
However, we request in advance, a meeting at your office should you find that this submittal is deficient
in any way. Since 2007, when formal permit considerations commenced, this project has remained an
important priority for the applicant and we are continually striving to find ways to ensure that it will be
authorized.
If you have questions or wish to schedule a meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at 336 / 406-
0906.
Best regards,
jmkow??
Chris Huysman
Cc:
Mr. Ian McMillian
NC DWQ Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Representative David Lewis
533 Legislative Office Building
300 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
Mr. Scott Sauer, County Manager
102 East Front Street
Lillington, NC 27546
Senator Kay Hagan
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ms. Jenny Hartsock
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
Mr. James Burgin
Harnett County Commissioner
PO Box 1685
Angier, NC 27501
Congresswoman Renee Ellmers
US House of Representative
1533 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3302
Mr. Greg Taylor
BRAC Regional Task Force
PO Box 87129
Fort Bragg, NC 28307
Mr. Joseph Jefferies, Planning Services
102 East Front Street
Lillington, NC 27546
Governor James Holshouser
100 Market Square
PO Box 1227
Pinehurst, NC 28370
Ms. Phyllis Owens, Director
Harnett County Economic Development
PO Box 1270
Lillington, NC 27546
Mr. Donald Belk
BRAC Regional Task Force
PO Box 87129
Fort Bragg, NC 28307
13
Mr. Robbie Oldham
Withers and Ravenel
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Mr. John Hutton
Wildlands Engineering
5605 Chapel Hill Blvd. #122
Raleigh, NC 27607
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
i
•
14
Attachment 1: Land Broker's Anal
June 14, 2011
From: Jim Grimes [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 20112:33 PM
To: chris huysman
Subject: grimes letter
June 14, 2011
Mr. Christopher Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
Dear Mr. Huysman,
Page 1 of 1
The purpose of this letter is to reply to your inquiries as they relate to other properties that would be
suitable to meet the Anderson Creek Club's desire to provide water based recreation. Based on our
conversations, I understand that you want me to 1) identify potential water access on existing regional
lakes and 2) identify any parcels with lakes greater than 20 acres.
I currently work as a broker in the greater Fayetteville metropolitan area. My firm has over 13 years of
experience. I have been a broker since 1980 and have lived in this region since 1975.
First, I would like to share with you that lake front property is consistently selling in today's market and
has not experienced the declines seen in golf communities. There is a shortage of lake front and water
front lots in Harnett County. I particularly think that organized water recreation will be a big selling
point for Anderson Creek.
There is a glut of housing within developments that provide some recreational amenities ranging from
open space to golf. There are at least fifty (50) developments that supply basic housing within twenty
(20) miles of the development. Currently, the most common amenity is golf but these areas are not
selling.
We understand that the Anderson Creek Club is looking to acquire a parcel of land in Harnett County for
the purpose of constructing a sailing school and organized swimming facilities. Based on the search
parameters, the parcel should be within 10 miles of Anderson Creek and either contain a lake of
approximately 40 acres or have access to greater than 20 acres of unrestricted open waters and a beach.
There are currently no parcels of land that meet your search requirements for a sailing and swimming
lake. There are four properties that generally meet your search requirements within fifteen (15) miles of
Spring Lake. These are Buffalo Lake, Carolina Lake, Woodlake and Carolina Trace. These are all
owned by homeowner's associations and do not allow use by outside property owners. Jordan and
Harris Lakes are two public facilities that are approximately one and one-half hours drive from the
development and I do not see how these could practicably be called amenities to the existing
development.
JIM GRIMES
Owner/Broker
•
http://mail.aol.com/33790-111 /aol-6/en-us/mail/get-attachment.aspx?uid=35403665 &folde... 6/14/2011
•
•
•
•
!
•
•
!
•
•
Attachment 2: Sailing School Parameter
Capt. Jack Feeney
June 13, 2011
Mr. Chris Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
Dear Mr. Huysman:
United States Coast Guard
License # 1087254
AMERICAN
-A 'A SAILING
= S A ASSOCIATION@
Instructor Evaluator
License # 2000790
The purpose of this letter is to respond to the inquiries made by the Corps of Engineers in their
April 8, 2011 letter. Attached you will find some sketches of the facilities that I propose as well
as the websites for various sailing information. Also, you will find the generalized constraints
map that we collaboratively generated.
Based on my review of the letter it appears that I should begin with sharing my personal and
professional qualifications. I am an avid sailor that was introduced to the sport when I was a
boy. My lifelong commitment to the sport has been realized through teaching hundreds of
youngsters and adults to sail. I believe that sailing provides valuable problem solving and team
building skills. In my 40+ years of sailing experience, I sailed to foreign counties, owned a
sailing school, conducted summer sailing camps, and trained and certified sailing instructors. I
currently hold the position of Head Sailing Instructor at the prestigious Epping Forest Yacht
Club.
I belong to a number of professional marina associations including the American Sailing
Association (ASA) and the United States Sailing Association (US Sailing). I am licensed by the
United States Coast Guard as a Merchant Mariner and a Master Captain. From the state of
Florida, I am licensed to teach in public schools K-12. Specifically, the certifications I hold
authorize me to teach, and certify instructors, in the following subjects:
Small Boat Sailing
Basic Sailing
Coastal Cruising
Bareboat Chartering
Advanced Coastal Cruising
Coastal Navigation
Celestial Navigation
•
!
•
•
! Let me start by answering what appear to be the critical questions.
•

• • What is the minimum depth for beginners?
! The sailing area must have a minimum depth of three to four feet. While three feet is
• adequate for the smallest of sailboats, slight undulations in the lake-bottom and minor
• wave action mandate that the safe depth for a school is four feet.
! • What are the size requirements for a sailing school?
•

! There is no absolute minimum or maximum for the size of the lake. However, to put
things into perspective, it is appropriate to look at race course designs and parameters.
• Racing is conducted more as a time trial than a distance traveled. The race course can be
! designed to allow a series of quick races, or one long race depending on the skills that are
• being taught. Based on my experience, the triangular course is the best test of sailing
skills. The triangle forces the sailor to use all of their skills, such as tacking, turning, and
• running, under time constraints. The equilateral triangle is the best test of overall sailing
! skills. You see, one individual may excel in tacking and another in running and another
• in turning but only the equilateral course balances these maneuvers and more clearly
shows skill areas that need to be improved.
•
! Based on my experience, each leg of an equilateral course should be no less than 600

• feet. Weather conditions permitting, that is to say sufficient winds, some of the legs can
l
b
e
engthened to 1,000 feet in an isosceles or obtuse triangle. A sufficiently sized sailing
school would have a few opportunities to have 1,000 foot legs. The ideal training facility
• would have opportunities for multiple leg lengths of 1,200 feet in length or more.

• Learning to sail is mostly about how to maneuver the boat and that is why a race course is
an appropriate venue for instruction.
•
With all that said, a larger body of water allows you to set a long course or a short course.
A small body of water limits you to only a short course which limits the type of
! instruction that can take place. For example, it would be impractical to attempt launching
• a spinnaker sail without a downwind run of at least 1,000 feet. A very small body of
water will also feel "restrictive" to all but the youngest sailors.
• Additional area must be reserved for the dock and marina facilities. This area can not be
• congested in any way. That is to say, you need approximately one acre of open water in
order to stage boats and allow safe access to the docks. Based on the projected layout an
additional acre or two of open water will be needed just to allow boats to circulate safely
• when launching and docking. This factor is particularly important during sailing classes
• when groups of novice sailors are "circling for a landing".
• If there are trees along the shore of average height, they will block the wind for 100-200
• feet out into the water. This will happen on the opposite side of the lake too as the wind
stacks up against the trees. This 200 foot reduced wind zone around the perimeter of the
! lake either needs to be accounted for or the trees along the shoreline can be cut and
removed.
•
•
•
!
•
In sum, and only at your request, I have reluctantly forced sailing into dimensional
constraints as depicted on the map. Considering the above parameters, the minimum area
of 4 foot deep water of a 600 foot leg triangular training course would be 7 to 8 acres of
unobstructed open water. The maximum area for a 1000 foot leg course would be 14 to
15 acres of unobstructed open water. Be reminded that, if the lake perimeter is forested
and the training area is roughly square, you need to add considerable area to the lake;
such that if forested the lake must be minimally 13 to 14 acres and the maximum size
would be 27 to 29 acres. The area for a 1,200 foot facility would be well over 30 acres.
The above presented minimum size lake (13 to 14 acres) would be inadequate for a
school. It would not provide the opportunities necessary for instructing the students and
would be too confined to have a positive sailing experience. However, twenty five plus
acres of four foot deep open water is quite feasible for the proposed school.
Sailing does not lend itself to the confines of dimensions as each body of water has its
own nuances. Sailing skills are honed over time with practice, and practice must take
into account all of the character of a particular body of water. In this case, the lake has
smaller coves and spits of land that will help the students learn the critical interactions
between landforms and the body of water on which they are sailing.
Simply forcing sailing into a square or some other contrived form removes most of the
natural variability that makes sailing an art of the mind, the wind, and the water.
Some interesting websites for your review-
Sailing Course Lay-out
http://cosc-wi.org/cosc/std-course-d?,)ms.php
US International 420 Class Association
http://www.usi420.ort;
American Sailing Association
http://asa.com
Sincerely,
Jack Feeney
10878 Scott Mill Rd. Jacksonville, FL 32223 Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]
I ? ?! I
t
h?
I? ? e
D
Z
m
N
? Z
r
m
m
qI
,I I
C u,;' ? ? ill r j
2 I
$ I jlll
? I
u o
I n II I'I m
c
O O
rt
N ? I I' x_ in ? D
III
A
O -
D
N
I
Z
h
? n A
n
N I I', I o z z_
l I I L c O
2 II I I ? A A
II
r
lj? ti
O II
cZi? III ? s ??I ? ?
? ? ICI I a ?
? A? I m z
D or m
.\ I vI I
Z III i ? I
J tl I Z
a
c
!w
y14
S
do
s w Z o
€ m
E r $ L Z
N ? $
o
v'o D
yy m
0
z
? A f
O
O D n A
z ° m
O F ?
a z
- o ?
° H s
\ ° z
m A
o
r
m
Z
O
Capt. Jack Feeney
October 1, 2008
David N. Levinson
Anderson Creek Partners LP
Anderson Creek Club
125 Whispering Pines Drive
Spring Lake, NC 28390
Dear Mr. Levinson:
United States Coast Guard
License # 1087254
AMERICAN
-A -,A SAILING
A S A ASSOCIATION@
Instructor Evaluator
License # 2000790
Over the past several weeks I have reviewed and discussed with your consultants plans
for a proposed lake of approximately 40 acres in Anderson Creek Club to be used
primarily for sailing and most specifically for a sailing school. I have reviewed the
parameters of the proposed lake and, with the modifications that I have proposed and that
your consultants have incorporated into their plans, I can advise you that this project is
quite feasible.
With the small cove that has been incorporated into the design, Optimist dinghies can be
utilized to instruct the younger beginners. Using Laser, 420 or JY 15 sailboats, teenage
and older pupils can be trained in the deeper and larger portions of the lake. A stable
keelboat 16 to 18 feet in length would also be appropriate for teaching youngsters and
adults of any age.
I have outlined locations for docks and the integration of a sand beach for swimming.
These functions have also been incorporated into the plan. At such time as you are ready
to acquire the appropriate boats, I will be happy to assist you. I am also ready to assist
your organization in becoming affiliated with the appropriate sail training associations
and locating properly licensed instructors. I look forward to working with you in this
venture.
Sincerely,
Jack Feeney
10878 Scott Mill Rd. Jacksonville, FL 32223 Tel. [phone]
•
• '" ?.t.? peep 271).
• - ?_ - - -- - -- TENNIS. CQMPLE
• i __--
ARK)
•
oplo
•t? t CLUB H W ' + =
10011,00
•
E FAMILY
i f J ,` ? I r?
• I r r I
I
WAMILY
14
•
orr- Lie-e a"4'?Pw)
•
A"vew,*P-A Is
(Hoir -ro Jg?CALC--) / ?10
•
Far Side of
Sailors Cove
Clubhouse
Floating dock with
gangway and walking
path leading back to sand
beach and sail loft /
equipment barn. Fleet of
six 420 sailboats
designed for high school
training and competition.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LQU a?!?C?
Near Side of
Sailors Cove

Clubhouse

Floating dock with racks for
8-12 Optimist sailboats (Red).
Laser Sailboats (green) stored
on hand dollies beside or
behind sail loft building and
beach launched
"Coaches Corner" covered
open-air space for ground
school and skipper's
meetings. Solid back wall for
white board, racing notices
etc.

David-
As I mentioned, there are a lot of boat designs to choose from when we talk about a fleet for the adults. Below
are photos of 16-22 foot boats that could make sense depending on how they are to be used.
M
Other boats you'll need are
coach/safety boats. I've
included pictures of a
couple options at the
bottom.
Hope I've been helpful -
looking forward to seeing
your proposal. Good luck on
October 7`h.
Jack Feeney

?? r
Attachment 3: Downstream Property Values
DERSON CREEK SOUTH
?} NIN
o?'Vnsty? l e?m Parcel Loa,ctlon ap HARNETT COUNTY. NC
i/
NCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
ro es of. Perry, Cruse and Tys?A g/Oq„1
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
-'=--_ - _ - -:. 25' WETLAND BUFFER
GOLF COURSE
CLUBHOUSE/TENNIS COMPLEX
IFS - N SINGLE FAMILY 60' LOTS
- y - SINGLE FAMILY 80' LOTS
W E
., j
MULTI-FAMILY
y' , - -- . . . + - -
1
/?. _` v )o / 1=. S" COMMERCIAL
• ,.?? 'k-- - WITHERS_ C5C RAVENEL
.... susvsross
01
a? y\ / 7
I?• ? O t ? f) ??? i? - I 333--- ? -
TI-0 {?-
f
t - - 1 J
_ l 1
i
I i
X1
-- l?*
1 '
r ?
o
i , f l ?f RHO<<S Oq
SR 77,,o
Property Records
Downstream Property Values
7
IV

r

T T T O O

C
li

J
0
0
v
Noo ----?-?v?oooo
O N tl? In
O w OC A N D? D W??
w N? x 0 "? N i l O -.
O a D N ? m ?? p
N N n O z v 0
A p A d d ? p
-- V] O
x ? o
n
z
b
r
r
n

y m
z TR
x -?
7 m
Parcels of:
Mr. Elwood E.
Mr. Terry Cruse
Mr. James M. 1
Parcels Outline
0515-33-0033.(
0515-31-9766.(
0515-41-8089
0515-50-7444
North
Not to Scal

Appendix 1: NC DWQ Submittal, May 16, 2011
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
May 16, 2011
Mr. Ian McMillian
NC Division Of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
RE: Anderson Creek South Development, Harnett County, North Carolina
Action ID No. SAW-2006-41244
NC DWQ Project #0 4-2019
Dear Mr. McMillian:
On March 31, 2011 we met in your office to discuss additional information necessary for the review of
the Anderson Creek Club's request to construct a lake. Supplemental to our March 9, 2011 submittal we
are providing the following, 1) an acceptance letter from the NC EEP, 2) a copy of the soil survey, 3) a
commitment to a minimum low flow, and 4) a commitment to engage a lake management firm.
Under separate cover you will receive a site plan for Anderson Creek South Phase 1. Site plans for each
additional future phase of Anderson Creek South will be submitted to your office for review to ensure
compliance with DWQ rules and regulations.
NC EEP Acceptance Letter
On April 26, 2011 the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program issued a letter accepting mitigation
responsibility for up to 4,600 feet of stream mitigation and 22.5 acres of riparian wetland mitigation. This
quantity exceeds those determined on our May 5, 2011 site evaluation as shown in the table below. Our
understanding during the meeting was that there would be no mitigation required for stream flooding but
that there would be a 1:1 mitigation ratio for wetland flooding impacts and stream filling impacts. We
will address the US Army Corps of Engineer's mitigation requirements in a forthcoming submittal to their
office.
Wetland Impact DWQ Mitigation
8.63 ac wetland flooding 8.63 ac
1.18 ac of road embankment 1.18 ac
1.25 ac of dam embankment 1.25 ac
Total Wetland Mitigation
11.06 ac
Stream Impacts
590 If perennial stream flooding N/A
874 If intermittent stream flooding N/A
462 If of road embankments 462 if
374 if of dam embankment 374 If
Total Stream Mitigation
836 if
WNR
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
Harnett County Soil Survey (Attachment 2.)
The approximate boundaries of the project are depicted on the attached published soil survey.
Low Flow Commitment
The lake will comply with all of the requirements of 15A NCAC 2K - Dam Safety, including 15 A
NCAC 2K.0502 Required Minimum Flow for Dams (Not Small Hydro Projects); and 15 A NCAC
2K.0504 Monitoring of Minimum Flow Requirements.
Lake Management Strategy
Anderson Creek Club will procure the services of Foster Lake and Pond Management, or another firm
specializing in lake maintenance, lake management and lake and stream water quality regulatory
parameters, to ensure responsible environmental stewardship of the impoundment and associated stream
waters is conducted as an on-going program. It is anticipated that, as a minimum, the overall erosion
control program in conjunction with the stormwater management plan associated with the lake and
surrounding subdivision as well as the general lake appearance and any required water quality analyses,
(consistent with other recent 401 Water Quality Certifications for similar impoundments) are in
compliance with NC Division of Water Quality standards.
Please feel free to call me at 336 / 406-0906 with any questions that you may have.
Best regards,
owkfk?
Chris Huysman
Cc:
Ms. Crystal Amschler
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
Mr. Steve Tedder
1282 Coy Hall Road
King, NC 27021
Mr. Robbie Oldham
Withers and Ravenel
11 1 MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Mr. Mitch Morton
Foster lake and Pond Management
PO Box 1294
Garner, NC 27529
WNR
PO Box 1492
Sparta, NC 28675
1--
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
April 26, 2011
David Levinson
Anderson Creek Club
125 Whispering Pine
Spring Lake, NC 28390
Project: Anderson Creek Club Lake
Expiration of Acceptance: January 26, 2012
County: Harnett
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also comply with all other state federal or local
government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity including SL 2009 337 An Act to Promote
Compensatory Mitigation by Private Mitigation Banks
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River CU Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I Buffer 11
•
Basin Location (Sq. Ft.) (S
q. Ft.)
•
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh

Impact
Cape Fear
03030004
0
0
2,300
11.25
0
0
0
0 •

Credits
Cape Fear
03030004
0
0
Up to
Up to
0
0
0
0 •
4,600 22.5 •
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
W Ilia n D. Gilmore, PE
Dii c r
cc: Ian McMillan, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Crystal Amschler, USACE-Wilmington
Chris Huysman, agent
File
R utort kt9... F ... Prote" Our fta to
en
RC-6 ERR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
I•

z ? e
o? a
8
a ? k
o ?
z ?
p z
\
1
1 1 \\ ? ? I g ?
1 I ? ` i / 1
Cw
;ee + ? og
3 J \II ? ? I .-'?ap
1 1 I?yi
a 1 1
1
S \ \ ? \ 111 RB ? ?\ ? F?
m y 1 ? J
Z °ic) Ra
V)
/ Rq ?\ p Fq
C9 R5
rrI
o ` -
_.. ?r f.
41
_ \\\ c= i? v Fq
# fa
j / Fa
ci)
Z Fp ? og #
D ? Rce ;?0i RyIC? 1??5 ?• °? T ? I I
AR ? q
g ?
Re U ? Rx r1 ? V ? 0
? ? ? U - ?\ Fa e?? RM?J l / "?,?
_ ? 1'Yt Rp ?F? \ Rtl
gg ? / N gF YY
//Y +i4 t g Np ??; l
art
?fp ? ? \ 1 g v G FI r? Rk (d
_ ? SN
S M 1 ? /^\ \ ? CN) ONO
< y D,dO'A
m
a ?
Appendix 2: Harnett Forward Together Committee Tract

A?
CD
'"d O
O
'.d
O ?
CL
,.b O
x ?
Cn CD
D n
O
CD
CD
Appendix 3: Lake and Dam Plans
a ?
ate. ?_ s
a ..
can ` Y
o ?,
...
m
li
---- - ---------
O
? '.
70
0
0, m
m
ZO
sn -I
0
z
o - . . . . .
???g?8 ?oN =N o?o?m 3m ? a? p ?
a e ° me F 3 3 £" a?€ g €m? €?s om
?g? " 3 mgt °°n=?°° p _ a
g? =off =gym a? _? F o ^o € s ' o gm. ? ? ?"? 9 i~ N
?_ 3 g g G?'g € ? a=N p o q b -zi ? ' god $ € m soy # s o
: im $ to g ?" AT
° "R. 11 fT F -;
o^? ?o a £? € goad" § `? a o
?JF
g-W Go
Jai A
z?? ??g °g a =s am g? sus 6 g 7
F
a ao °? am p £8 p o= ?. Imo ? " ?? ?m g z PIP R aq 'U1 mss ?a 1.0
€
K art z 8
$m 4
625
ftt
a
N
a
8
? I

D a
Z i

70

n I ?? I

m

N

2 g ? ?
I
? q ? }
L
?-
s s r a;

FM r

'
M
Z
? El

t/1 m
Co g
I

Z
C .? I
70 =
m ?

C
n

1
9 4

Ic? ?
? a
R
w Iq
o ?
?w Z y
E ?9g
??
6
a?

?

N

N
?
?
E E
Z