20070184 Ver 1_More Info Received_20070803

o7-oi8~4
TRANSMITTAL
Date: ~ c~G ys i ~ 02 00'7
To: /N~ ~ /C L~~OL si
C ~ ~ Q. ~{D/ Gr~~TGA~ f BERT rJ•/i/
~- o d~A/c .tom/~cE C~.~~~
.~i¢cE/G~( ~tl C ~?G 99 ~/~~D
~~~)
(. `- ~' ~ J
~ _~
WAT~It c~AK
Reference: (~,~oci~/A G~k~/ ~c.oc,(~~
Enclosures:
~Of~~~G?(~ ~~ ?~~ ~ l l€~ ~~G~l2GLiJ~r-~iu~O.t~ljl~ li~
Remarks:
F l i~i2 .SE~/? l~Ny~ ~~~~4,~A~ ~oriE,2 Ttlr9T
G~J ~i~ CO~c.?EC~CSi ~~- ~~r~ ~~ /daJ~ /~ oZDO'7. ~~
li~i~/J ~stJG L OJ~() OF~S~ Gib ~f~~ G~ r~/Z ,
l'y~?~?~c ~GS/ ~s9 ~~~ . ~ t ir-/~ %.~OT~i2 ~,z~l~~
,G~O~Z ~/D yiZ ~/ G~,l•
~02i2 Y ~~i2 T~ .~ix-~i?
By:
Q~c~~oe~D
AUG 3 2007
' / ~ ~ ~~ ~ w~~~ cwaurr
~osro~ya~
WATER DAK 301 Water Oak Lane Office/Fax [phone]
[e-mail] Matthews, NC 28104 Mobile [phone]

0`1-ol8y
August 2, 20b7
Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
AUG 3 g 2007
~~~
~ ~
~~, ~ ,
WATER OAK
Re: Carolina Lakes Block T
Application for 401 Certification
Dear Ms. Karoly:
~~~~ ^ VVA1'Ei~ ~~~..~~
y~TUwosa~o sTO~c~a~R sruHCH
On behalf of Carolina Lakes Development Company (CLDC), this is to provide an update on the
status of the subject project as it is being evaluated by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) for an Individual Permit. Prefatory to the following discussion of the project status it
should be noted again that the proposed design of the Block T project had previously been
reviewed and authorized by both the USAGE and NCDWQ.
Following careful review of the prospects and practicability of various impact minimization
possibilities, the final amount of permanent roadway impacts from the project has been reduced
from 0.716 acres to 0.712 acres. This was accomplished by repositioning the cul-de-sac at area
H. Other possibilities for further minimization were determined to be impracticable, as
described below in an excerpt from the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
"Project Description: The Block T project is a proposed expansion of the existing Carolina
Lakes subdivision. The planned design for Block T comprises 211 individual lots to be
developed in two phases. Phase 1 development is to be in the western section of the property,
i.e., the section nearest the end of Grossman Way through an existing developed area of
Carolina Lakes. Phase 2, the approximate eastern half of Block T, is planned for development
following some measure of progress with Phase 1.
Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 will include the infrastructure -roads, water, sewer -necessary to
support the Block T development. It is the proposed road construction that would result in
permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, while the proposed sewer construction would
result in temporary impacts and a transition from "shrub/small tree" wetlands to emergent
herbaceous wetlands. More specifically, CLDC is applying for authorization to permanently
fill a total of 0.886 acres of shrub/small tree wetlands (0.712 ac. for road construction, 0.1 L O
ac. for driveways, & 0.064 ac. for lot development) and to disturb 2.750 acres of the same type
of wetlands habitat for sewer construction. Following sewer construction, 50% (1.375 acres)
of the disturbed sewerline area will be allowed to re-grow as before and the remainder will be
maintained as herbaceous wetland in the sewerline right-of--way. Impacts areas have been
identified alphabetically and are represented in Figure X in the Appendix.
CLDC's proposed design for the Block T expansion of Carolina Lakes has previously been
reviewed and approved by both the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ, previously the North Carolina Division of

Environmental Management). This approved design had been submitted as part of a past
expansion of Carolina Lakes. The last expansion of Carolina Lakes was in the middle 1990s,
and the 1995 404/401 permitting for the work at that time included the property designated as
Block T along with another portion of Carolina Lakes and the separate "Carolina Hills"
development. Department of the Army (DA) authorization for that work was Action ID No.
199502883.
Due to a decision by the Patten Corporation, the property owner at that time, Block T itself was
not developed, though the other authorized new portion of Carolina Lakes and Carolina Hills
were constructed. Block T has since passed through changes in ownership, and the current
owner, Carolina Lakes Development Company, LLC (CLDC), proposed to develop the
property in accordance with the site layout that had been approved for the 1995 authorization.
CLDC thought that proposing a project design that had previously been approved and
authorized by the USACE and NCDWQ would be a sensible means of achieving ready
compliance with Clean Water Act standards, the USACE, and NCDWQ. Because the design
for Block T had previously received DA authorization, it was believed that the project layout
had already been proven to be duly diligent in pursuing avoidance and minimization of
jurisdictional impacts. However, due to the time that has passed since the issuance of the
original DA authorization for the proposed Block T design, and due to changes in nationwide
permits, the Block T project requires new authorization and must be processed as an Individual
Permit application.
Changes to Project: Despite the fact that the USACE and NCDWQ had previously
authorized the proposed project design, with this application both of these agencies have
requested updated efforts to minimize jurisdictional impacts at Block T. Additionally, there
were some other concerns expressed by other parties in responses to the public notice. Based
on feedback from the USACE and the public notice responses, CLDC has pursued
consideration of certain changes in the initially proposed project design. Copies of pertinent
correspondence related to possible changes to the project are presented in the "Exhibits"
section of the Appendix. Some considerations for possible project changes were matters of
telephone discussion between the USACE and the applicant.
Principal among the comments from the USACE was a call for further analysis of the proposed
impacts in areas D, H and G (see Figure X in Appendix). Proposed impacts for areas D, H and
G are 0.088 acres, 0.004 acres, and 0.246 acres respectively. The USACE believed that it
might be possible to further minimize impacts in these areas by repositioning the cul-de-sac
placements for areas D and H, and by realigning the roadway pattern associated with the
impact to area G. CLDC has examined these considerations and found that it will be possible
to reposition the cul-de-sac near area H to avoid jurisdictional impacts, but that it will not be
feasible to avoid or further minimize impacts near area D without significantly affecting
project design and subsequently incurring significant financial loss.
Pursuant to directive by the USACE, a prospective re-design for the road construction impacts
associated with area G was developed and evaluated (see Figure X in the Appendix). The best
prospective road realignment reduced the jurisdictional impacts associated with area G from
0.246 acres to 0.094 acres - a minimization of jurisdictional impacts of 0.152 acres. However,
in order to achieve this minimization it was necessary to make the access route to and from the
southeastern corner of the property longer and more complex. The associated construction
would require an additional cul-de-sac, an increase in total project road length, and elimination
of one of the lots. Besides the significant financial costs associated with the loss of a lot and

increased road construction, CLDC believes that there are significant general adverse
consequences associated with the prospective road re-alignment that outweigh the benefit of
further minimization.
Significant among the drawbacks associated with the road realignment for area G is the greater
difficulty for emergency responders (especially the fire department) to gain ready access to the
southeastern portion of the project. Routing emergency responders through additional turns in
a subdivision poses an increased risk to life and safety of the affected residents. Other adverse
consequences caused by the re-alignment would be an increase in impervious surface (and
related watershed concerns) associated with the project, and greater commute distances for
general traffic flow to and from the southeastern portion of the property. The increase in
vehicle travel distance and number of turns would contribute to a greater quantity of vehicle
emissions associated with the subdivision, and would make emergency exodus from the
southeastern portion of the property slower and more complicated. Altogether, the costs and
risks associated with a road realignment for area G are considered to outweigh the benefit of
avoiding impact to 0.152 acres of relatively common and lower quality linear wet depressions.
In addition to the areas of concern identified by the USACE, the NCDWQ expressed their
belief that the impacts at area F could be avoided. However, avoidance of the impact at area F
would require a major redesign of the project. Such a redesign is neither truly feasible nor
practical relative to certain aspects of the Block T project that differ from most new
subdivision projects. As mentioned and important to reiterate, the Block T project design had
been. both approved and initiated in the past. There have already been impacts on the Block T
property that were authorized and are tied to the proposed design. In the belief that a
previously authorized project design would be ideally consistent with the guidelines of the
Clean Water Act, CLDC has, in good faith, invested significant capital in pursuing
implementation of the Block T project. The previously authorized Block T project has also
been approved by the Harnett County Planning Department, and Phase 1 lots have already been
surveyed and platted. To attempt to redesign the Phase 1 component of the project at this stage
would be inordinately expensive with respect to Planning Department design and review,
engineering, and surveying costs.
In addition to the above cost concerns, it should be reiterated that there have already been
physical impacts on the Block T property under the previous authorization. One of the impacts
was at area E, immediately south of area F. In fact the roadway cut for access leading to and
through area E had previously been established and the proposed project design. will be
utilizing the previously authorized road pattern. To attempt to establish a new pattern that
discards the established road cut would likely force some other jurisdictional impact due to the
size and pattern of the jurisdictional system comprising areas E and F. That jurisdictional
system cuts across the Block T property in such a way as to be virtually unavoidable when
evaluated in conjunction with the presence of the adjacent sewage treatment operations
property."
Not included in the above discussion is the effort to avoid and minimize impacts associated with
driveway crossings and lot development. Great care has been taken along these lines, including
analysis of the possibilities for either bridge crossing or large span culvert crossings for certain
concerned driveways that could not avoid crossing wetland areas. The cost for either of those
driveway alternatives was found to be exorbitantly high. As for the lot impacts, it is hoped that
NCDWQ recognizes the assiduousness of minimization exercised to achieve a total of only
0.0646 acres of impacts for the actual development of the lots. An overall drawing depicting the

specific location of the driveway and lot impacts, plus roadway impacts and conservation areas,
is in process of being developed for recording with Harnett County. A draft of that drawing will
be forwarded to NCDWQ when it is available.
Besides recording the undisturbed wetlands on the property as conservation areas to be held in
perpetuity under restrictive covenant, CLDC has applied to and been accepted by the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program for In-lieu fee mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts.
This approach for mitigation has been recognized and approved by the USACE.
It is our understanding that the USACE is working towards finalizing a renewed authorization
for Carolina Lakes Block T. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do to assist
NCDWQ with its review of the project.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
WATIER OAK
Michael Wolfe
Environmental Consultant
cc: Bruce Blackmon, CLDC

~ ~ - 01 $'~
June 14, 2007
Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Carolina Lakes Block T
Application for 401 Certification
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Q~c~~od~
AUG 3 207
~ ~
C ~~
~~-~~--~
O WATER OAK
WATER QUALITY
~. pND STORNR~ATER BRANCH
On behalf of Carolina Lakes Development Company (CLDC), this is to provide an update on the
status of the subject project as it is being evaluated by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) for an Individual Permit. Prefatory to the following discussion of the project status it
should be noted again that the proposed design of the Block T project had previously been
reviewed and authorized by both the USAGE and NCDWQ.
Following careful review of the prospects and practicability of various impact minimization
possibilities, the final amount of permanent roadway impacts from the project has been reduced
from 0.716 acres to 0.712 acres. This was accomplished by repositioning the cul-de-sac at area
H. Other possibilities for further minimization were determined to be impracticable, as
described below in an excerpt from the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
"Project Description: The Block T project is a proposed expansion of the existing Carolina
Lakes subdivision. The planned design for Block T comprises 211 individual lots to be
developed in two phases. Phase 1 development is to be in the western section of the property,
i.e., the section nearest the end of Grossman Way through an existing developed area of
Carolina Lakes. Phase 2, the approximate eastern half of Block T, is planned for development
following some measure of progress with Phase 1.
Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 will include the infrastructure -roads, water, sewer -necessary to
support the Block T development. It is the proposed road construction that would result in
permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, while the proposed sewer construction would
result in temporary impacts and a transition from "shrub/small tree" wetlands to emergent
herbaceous wetlands. More specifically, CLDC is applying for authorization to permanently
fill a total of 0.886 acres of shrub/small tree wetlands (0.712 ac. for road construction, 0.110
ac. for driveways, & 0.064 ac. for lot development) and to disturb 2.750 acres of the same type
of wetlands habitat for sewer construction. Following sewer construction, 50% (1.375 acres)
of the disturbed sewerline area will be allowed to re-grow as before and the remainder will be
maintained as herbaceous wetland in the sewerline right-of--way. Impacts areas have been
identified alphabetically and are represented in Figure X in the Appendix.
CLDC's proposed design for the Block T expansion of Carolina Lakes has previously been
reviewed and approved by both the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ, previously the North Carolina Division of

Environmental Management). This approved design had been submitted as part of a past
expansion of Carolina Lakes. The last expansion of Carolina Lakes was in the middle 1990s,
and the 1995 404/401 permitting for the work at that time included the property designated as
Block T along with another portion of Carolina Lakes and the separate "Carolina Hills"
development. Department of the Army (DA) authorization for that work was Action ID No.
199502883.
Due to a decision by the Patten Corporation, the property owner at that time, Block T itself was
not developed, though the other authorized new portion of Carolina Lakes and Carolina Hills
were constructed. Block T has since passed through changes in ownership, and the current
owner, Carolina Lakes Development Company, LLC (CLDC), proposed to develop the
property in accordance with the site layout that had been approved for the 1995 authorization.
CLDC thought that proposing a project design that had previously been approved and
authorized by the USAGE and NCDWQ would be a sensible means of achieving ready
compliance with Clean Water Act standards, the USAGE, and NCDWQ. Because the design
for Block T had previously received DA authorization, it was believed that the project layout
had already been proven to be duly diligent in pursuing avoidance and minimization of
jurisdictional impacts. However, due to the time that has passed since the issuance of the
original DA authorization for the proposed Block T design, and due to changes in nationwide
permits, the Block. T project requires new authorization and must be processed as an Individual
Permit application.
Changes to Project: Despite the fact that the USAGE and NCDWQ had previously
authorized the proposed project design, with this application both of these agencies have
requested updated efforts to minimize jurisdictional impacts at Block T. Additionally, there
were some other concerns expressed by other parties in responses to the public notice. Based
on feedback from the USACE and the public notice responses, CLDC has pursued
consideration of certain changes in the initially proposed project design. Copies of pertinent
correspondence related to possible changes to the project are presented in the "Exhibits"
section of the Appendix. Some considerations for possible project changes were matters of
telephone discussion between the USAGE and the applicant.
Principal among the comments from the USAGE was a call for further analysis of the proposed
impacts in areas D, H and G (see Figure X in Appendix). Proposed impacts for areas D, H and
G are 0.088 acres, 0.004 acres, and 0.246 acres respectively. The USAGE believed that it
might be possible to further minimize impacts in these areas by repositioning the cul-de-sac
placements for areas D and H, and by realigning the roadway pattern associated with the
impact to area G. CLDC has examined these considerations and found that it will be possible
to reposition the cul-de-sac near area H to avoid jurisdictional impacts, but that it will not be
feasible to avoid or further minimize impacts near area D without significantly affecting
project design and subsequently incurring significant financial loss.
Pursuant to directive by the USACE, a prospective re-design for the road construction impacts
associated with area G was developed and evaluated (see Figure X in the Appendix). The best
prospective road realignment reduced the jurisdictional impacts associated with area G from
0.246 acres to 0.094 acres - a minimization of jurisdictional impacts of 0.152 acres. However,
in order to achieve this minimization it was necessary to make the access route to and from the
southeastern corner of the property longer and more complex. The associated construction
would require an additional cul-de-sac, an increase in total project road length, and elimination
of one of the lots. Besides the significant financial costs associated with the loss of a lot and

increased road construction, CLDC believes that there are significant general adverse
consequences associated with the prospective road re-alignment that outweigh the benefit of
further minimization.
Significant among the drawbacks associated with the road realignment for area G is the greater
difficulty for emergency responders (especially the fire department) to gain ready access to the
southeastern portion of the project. Routing emergency responders through additional turns in
a subdivision poses an increased risk to life and safety of the affected residents. Other adverse
consequences caused by the re-alignment would be an increase in impervious surface (and
related watershed concerns) associated with the project, and greater commute distances for
general traffic flow to and from the southeastern portion of the property. The increase in
vehicle travel distance and number of turns would contribute to a greater quantity of vehicle
emissions associated with the subdivision, and would make emergency exodus from the
southeastern portion of the property slower and more complicated. Altogether, the costs and
risks associated with a road realignment for area G are considered to outweigh the benefit of
avoiding impact to 0.152 acres of relatively common and lower quality linear wet depressions.
In addition to the areas of concern identified by the USACE, the NCDWQ expressed their
belief that the impacts at area F could be avoided. However, avoidance of the impact at area F
would require a major redesign of the project. Such a redesign is neither truly feasible nor
practical relative to certain aspects of the Block T project that differ from most new
subdivision projects. As mentioned and important to reiterate, the Block T project design had
been both approved and initiated in the past. There have already been impacts on the Block T
property that were authorized and are tied to the proposed design. In the belief that a
previously authorized project design would be ideally consistent with the guidelines of the
Clean Water Act, CLDC has, in good faith, invested significant capital in pursuing
implementation of the Block T project. The previously authorized Block T project has also
been approved by the Harnett County Planning Department, and Phase 1 lots have already been
surveyed and platted. To attempt to redesign the Phase 1 component of the project at this stage
would be inordinately expensive with respect to Planning Department design and review,
engineering, and surveying costs.
In addition to the above cost concerns, it should be reiterated that there have already been
physical impacts on the Block T property under the previous authorization. One of the impacts
was at area E, immediately south of area F. In fact the roadway cut for access leading to and
through area E had previously been established and the proposed project design will be
utilizing the previously authorized road pattern. To attempt to establish a new pattern that
discards the established road cut would likely force some other jurisdictional impact due to the
size and pattern of the jurisdictional system comprising areas E and F. That jurisdictional
system cuts across the Block T property in such a way as to be virtually unavoidable when
evaluated in conjunction with the presence of the adjacent sewage treatment operations
property."
Not included in the above discussion is the effort to avoid and minimize impacts associated with
driveway crossings and lot development. Great care has been taken along these lines, including
analysis of the possibilities for either bridge crossing or large span culvert crossings for certain
concerned driveways that could not avoid crossing wetland areas. The cost for either of those
driveway alternatives was found to be exorbitantly high. As for the lot impacts, it is hoped that
NCDWQ recognizes the assiduousness of minimization exercised to achieve a total of only
0.0646 acres of impacts for the actual development of the lots. An overall drawing depicting the

specific location of the driveway and lot impacts, plus roadway impacts and conservation areas,
is in process of being developed for recording with Harnett County. A draft of that drawing will
be forwarded to NCDWQ when it is available.
Besides recording the undisturbed wetlands on the property as conservation areas to be held in
perpetuity under restrictive covenant, CLDC has applied to and been accepted by the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program for In-lieu fee mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts.
This approach for mitigation has been recognized and approved by the USACE.
It is our understanding that the USACE is working towards finalizing a renewed authorization
for Carolina Lakes Block T. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do to assist
NCDWQ with its review of the project.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
WATIER OAK
~ ,~
ichael Wolfe
Environmental Consultant
cc: Bruce Blackmon, CLDC