20042019 Ver 3_Meeting Note_20110707

0q-;2N9 -1 S
7 July 2011
Discussion Points on the Anderson Creek Phased Development, SAW-2006-41244
1. Purpose
To discuss the recent submittal from Anderson Creek South for the proposed construction of
the Anderson Creek South development, associated infrastructure and amenities (including a
40-acre amenity lake) and to identify information required in order for the Corps to move
forward towards final decision on this project.
2. Issues
• The Corps maintains that the project purpose is to construct a residential
development and provide recreation. We disagree with the applicant's statement
that the actual purpose of the lake is to provide a unique form of recreation that
increases the marketability of the development.
• There may be other less environmentally damaging proposed alternatives that
meet the project purpose, other than the preferred alternative. Other less
damaging alternatives may include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Use of the proposed lake area as open space. The applicant's assumption
that the entire 40 acres would need to be preserved as open space, which would
result in $6 million in lost profit, is incorrect. The design and amount of open
space would be determined based on the project need and purpose, feasibility,
and if the new plan could incorporate additional apartment buildings as needed.
o Use of the proposed lake area as an equestrian center.
o Utilization of existing local lakes currently owned by private parties.
Further inquiry with ownership of local lakes could result in negotiating the use of
such lakes to meet the project purpose of providing recreation for the Anderson
Creek community.
o Smaller impoundments on the existing property. It is our opinion that
construction of a smaller lake that does not facilitate a sailboat instruction facility,
but does provide recreation, may be less environmentally damaging than the
proposed preferred alternative.
POC: Crystal Amschler/RG-L [phone]
The following is table provides a comparison between the proposed alternative with
other practicable alternatives:
Cost Impacts Ability to provide Significant benefit
opportunity for to property value
recreational
benefits
Golf Facilities 4.75 million 12 acres wetland clearing Yes ?
Equestrian Facilities 1.5 million 0 Yes ?
Passive 0 0 Yes ?
Recreation/Open
Space
Lake Excavated in 3.3 million 0 Yes Yes
High Ground
Expansion of 3.0 million 8 acres open water temporary impacts Yes Yes
Existing Lake 3.5 acres wetland impact
500 If of stream impact
Purchase Existing ? Potentially 0 impacts Yes Yes
Lake or Lake
Access Property
Preferred 40-Acre 1.8 million (+ 11.06 acres wetland impact Yes Yes
Lake increased cost 2300 If of stream channel impact
of mitigation)
Constructing a ? ? Yes Yes
smaller lake that
doesn't support
sailing
Based on the information we have to date, it appears as though, the project, as
proposed, does not comply with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. The Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines state that a discharge of fill 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."
It is our opinion that there are other practicable alternatives that are less environmentally
damaging than the proposed preferred alternative, which do not have other significant
adverse environmental consequences. While we agree with the applicant's repeated
statement that other proposed alternatives will result in environmental consequences
(e.g., habitat fragmentation, chemical discharges associated with maintaining facilities,
degraded water quality and impacts from land clearing), we disagree that these impacts
will occur to a greater degree than with the proposed preferred alternative For example,
activities that may adversely affect the environment, which would occur as a result of the
proposed project include habitat fragmentation, chemical discharge associated with lake
and associated facilities maintenance, and water quality degradation.
• The mitigation plan submitted under Appendix I: NC DWQ does not sufficiently
compensate for impacts. The following table compares the currently proposed
POC. Crystal Amschler/RG-L [phone]
mitigation plan with the minimal required mitigation needed to compensate for proposed
impacts for the preferred alternative:
Mitigation summarv
Impacts Currently
Proposed Minimal required
Wetlands
Flooding 8.63 acres 1:1 1:1
Dam and road fill 1.25 and 1.18 acres 1:1 2:1
Sewer 1.81 acres None Permanent conversion of
forested to herbaceous?
Total 12.87 11.06 13.5
Streams
Flooding 1464 None 0.5:1
Dam and road fill 374 If and 462 If
perennial stream 1:1 2:1
Total 2300 836 2404
Sewer
Perennial 280 None None
Intermittent 123 None None
Total 403
Further, the total cost of the preferred alternative should be updated to include the cost
of an adequate mitigation plan when comparing the feasibility of proposed alternatives.
The proposed alternative will potentially have detrimental effects to the aquatic
environment. It is our understanding that in order to fill and maintain the lake, water
would need to be pumped from wells and/or diverted from flowing streams. The effects
of this proposal may have adverse secondary and cumulative effects on the aquatic
environment. Additional information would be needed to make a determination on this
proposal.
Prepared By
Crystal Amschler, Project Manager
POC: Crystal Amschler/RG-L [phone]