20050732 Ver 01_Public Comments_20051209

Exhibit 1
KILPATRICK
- STOCKTON LLP
Attorneys at Law
December 9, 2005
~a Hand Delivery
1VIr. Todd Tugwell
United States Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
Deparhnent of Environment and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Suite 400 3737 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh NC 27612
t 919 4201700 f 919 4201800
www.Kilpatrickstockton.com
Steven ]. Levitas
direct dial 919 4201707
SL,[e-mail]
Re: Briar Chapel development, Chatham County, North Carolina
Responses to Comments on Application for 404 Permit/401 Certification
Dear Mr. Tugwell and Ms. Karoly:
Newland Communities (Newland) has received the comments from several citizen groups
addressed to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) on the 404 individual
permit application for Newland's Briar Chapel development in Chatham County, North
Carolina. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the concerns and requests of Chatham
Citizens for Effective Communities, Inc. (CCEC), the Haw River Assembly (HRA), and the
Fearrington Homeowners Association (FHA) as follows.
Comments of Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities. Inc ,dated July 11.2005
a. The applicant doesn't demonstrate that it has avoided stream and wetland
impacts to the maximum extent practicable .... We would like the Corps to review
this proposal and examine the possible elimination of these crossings on other land
available in the area.
RESPONSE: Newland believes that it has avoided stream crossings and wetland impacts to
the maximum extent practicable in designing the Briar Chapel development. Total wetland
ATLANTA AUGUSTA CHARLOTTE IANOON NEW YORK RALEIGH 8TOCKHOLM WASHINGTON WINSTON-SALEM

Mr. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Kazoly
December 9, 2005
Page 2
impacts are 1.06 acres, or approximately 2% of the 60 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, which
is down .06 acres from that originally proposed. Newland's origina1404 permit application
proposed only 15 stream crossings over the entire 1,589 acres, but Newland has worked with
Chatham County planners to eliminate two of those crossings. There are currently only 13
stream crossings, totaling 1,6531ineaz feet of impact (fewer than one per hundred acres). (In
addition, Newland attempted to use bottomless azch culverts and lower impact headwalls in
certain locations to further minimize impacts to streams, but those proposals were rejected by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation.)
b. The proposed stream and wetland impacts include fill for "building pads,
and other infrastructure." These activities are not water-dependent. We are interested
to know if alternative sites on the property are available for "building pads and other
infrastructure."
RESPONSE: Newland has attempted to design the Briar Chapel development to avoid
jurisdictional wetlands and streams wherever possible. After performing a wetlands
delineation, Newland's engineers and designers considered all possible azeas where the
Village Center, which is primarily responsible for wetlands impacts, could be located and
selected the site that resulted in the fewest wetlands impacts.
c. The applicant proposes to provide compensatory mitigation primarily
through stream restoration at the Harpers Crossroads mitigation site and payment to
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Certainly there would be more benefits
accrued by using practicable alternatives to reduce impacts to the affected sub-
watersheds. It is our understanding that the EEP program is having great difficulty in
locating appropriate mitigation sites in this area.
RESPONSE: As noted above, the currently proposed wetland and stream impacts are very
limited and Newland believes that there are no practicable alternatives for reducing these
limited impacts. Payment to EEP is authorized by law and will provide appropriate
mitigation for the proposed wetlands impacts. (Newland has learned that there are 3.06 acres
of wetland mitigation available to EEP in the area.) Newland looked extensively for stream
mitigation sites in the immediate vicinity and was unable to identify any that were owned by
persons who were willing to sell their land or to grant a conservation easement. However,
Newland's proposed Harpers Crossroads stream restoration site is within the same river basin
and will adequately mitigate for the Briar Chapel development's impacts to streams. The
Harpers Crossroads stream will be restored as a fully functional stream using Natural
Channel Design Methodology. Monitoring to ensure that ecological function is restored will
be performed for five years based on USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Our

Ivlr. Todd Tugwell
IVts. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 3
understanding is that USACE and DWQ have agreed that the Harpers Crossroads site is
appropriate in the absence of suitable mitigation sites in the immediate hydrogeologic unit.
1. This property is located on Wilkinson and Pokeberry Creeks that headwater on
the property. These flow into the Haw River that flows into Jordan Lake. According
to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality Planning, Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Draft, March
2005, "The current status of Jordan Reservoir (9,766.5 acres) is Impaired because the
chlorophyll a standard was violated at stations in all mainstream segments of the
reservoir and because modeling indicated violations of the chlorophyll a standard in the
New Hope Creek, Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of the reservoir." (p. 61).
RESPONSE: Newland is mmimizing nutrient loadings with its extensive stormwater
management system.which will achieve at least 25% nitrogen removal. Specifically with
respect to stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, Briaz Chapel will implement a
stormwater management plan that meets or exceeds all applicable Chatham County
ordinance requirements. Stormwater detention will be provided such that peak flowrates in
the one-yeaz, 24-hour duration storm event after development do not exceed those computed
for the pre-development condition. Stormwater discharge volume control will be provided
such that the first inch of runoff from the developed areas of the site is captured and released
(or infiltrated) over atwo- to five-day period Briaz Chapel will implement stormwater
controls beyond that required by provided stormwater detention for all commercial areas
draining directly to offsite residential azeas such that peak flowrates in the one-, two-, five-,
ten-, and twenty-five yeaz, 24-hour duration storm events after development do not exceed
those computed for the pre-development condition. See also the response to CCEC
Comment #4 below. Further, most stormwater management basins will provide water
quality controls such that at least 85% of the total suspended solids will be removed prior to
exiting the facility.
2. In the plan Newland has submitted to the Corps, we did not fmd mention that
part of Newland's property is on the east side of US 15-501 on a creek that runs into
Bush Creek and then directly into Jordan Lake.
The Homeowners Association of Fearrington Village which adjoins the tract on the east
side of US 15-501 is in dialog with the NC Department of Transportation concerning
the present impairment of the creek, gross sediment in Bush Creek as well as damage to
Beaver Pond within Fearrington Village.

Mr. Todd Tugwell
Ivis. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 4
Damage assessment and plans to restore these waters are underway. Allowing further
construction at this site would destroy any mitigation the homeowners might have
gotten from the Department of Transportation.
RESPONSE: Newland is developing the Briar Chapel tract in accordance with an erosion
and sedimentation control plan` approved by the Division of Land Resources. Newland will
develop Briar Chapel in phases so that the amount of time that land is cleared is minimized,
thereby reducing sedimentation and erosion rates. Newland will also implement best
management practices to capture any sedimentation occurring during all storms up to the 10-
year event. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be designed conservatively and
will be inspected regularly.
3. The size of this development is cause for further study. At buildout of the
proposed 2,389 units (using a conservative estimate of 2.58 persons to a unit) there will
be 6,164 people living in the 1,589 acre development. This is almost as large as our
largest city, Siler City. It includes a commercial area, two schools, a library and
buildings for public services. All of these require parlang lots.
RESPONSE: It is not entirely clear what the specific point of this comment is. To the extent
that this concerns the size of the development, it should be noted that the Briar Chapel
development fully complies with Chatham County's Compact Community Ordinance
(CCO), which was developed over several years, with extensive public input, specifically to
address the appropriate size of this development. After an equally extensive public process,
the Briar Chapel development was fully approved by the Chatham County Commissioners
pursuant to the CCO. Thus, the size of the development has been exhaustively studied,
debated, and properly approved
It should also be noted that, as required by the CCO, Newland contracted with CH2M Hill to
perform an Environmental Impact Assessment (ElA) that thoroughly examined the
environmental affects of the Briar Chapel development on the site's geology and topography,
soils, land use, wetlands, important agricultural lands, scenic, recreational, and State natural
azeas, areas of archaeological or historical value, air quality, noise levels, water resources,
groundwater, forest resources, shellfish or fish and their habitats, wildlife and natural
vegetation, and toxic substances. It also examined the secondary and cumulative impacts
resulting from the development. The EIA, which was reviewed to the satisfaction of
independent peer reviewers retained by Chatham County, concluded that the development
would not result insignificant adverse impacts to these resources.

Mr. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 5
The Briar Chapel development has been designed to meet the growing demand for residential
housing in Chatham County using low-impact development techniques. These site designs
maximizes the amount of open space and reduces impervious surfaces, which results in
greater levels of forestland and habitat being preserved. Having less impervious surfaces
will also result in lower levels of stormwater runoff. Much of the open space that remains is
in the form of wetlands and riparian buffers which serve to filter pollutants and provide
habitat. Newland will implement a state of the art stormwater management system which is
discussed in more detail in response to CCEC comment d. above.
4. Because Jordan Lake and all the waters downward to the coast are now assigned
TDMLs, [itJ would be prudent to make plans for reducing impacts of all of the
developments that have recently been approved by Chatham County. Several thousand
more units are scheduled to be built either on creeks running into the Haw River or on
creeks running directly into the lake.
RESPONSE: Our understanding is that the Environmental Management Commission (EMC)
is developing nutrient management strategies for the Jordan Lake watershed. Newland
believes it is unlikely that those strategies will be more rigorous than those already planned
for Briaz Chapel. However, Newland will fully comply with any additional nutrient
management strategies that maybe adopted by the EMC or DWQ.
Comments of the Haw River Assembly. dated July 11, 2405
1. We request this public hearing so that the citizens of the surrounding
community, and those who will be impacted by degradation of the affected streams and
water bodies have a full opportunity to Gave these concerns addressed by your agency.
The streams and water bodies that will be impacted by Briar Chapel include:
a. Pokeberry Creek
b. Wilkerson Creek
c. Bush Creek
d. Haw River
e. Jordan Lake
RESPONSE: DWQ has decided to hold a public hearing on the 401 Water Quality
Certification for the Briar Chapel development. This forum is the appropriate place to
address the H1tA's concerns about the water quality in the above-listed streams. For this

1VIr. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 6
reason, Newland does not believe that an additional hearing for the 404 permit application is
necessary.
2. We request that the USAGE consider the cumulative impacts of this
development on Pokeberry Creek where another development, Williams Pond, has
been approved to be built at the confluence of Pokeberry Creek with the Haw River. A
404 permit and the 401 certification have already been issued for the William Pond
development.
RESPONSE: Newland's consultants have determined that the impacts from the Briar Chapel
development on Pokeberry Creek will be insignificant. That determination was accepted by
Chatham County and its peer reviewers. The additional potential impacts of the Williams
Pond development do not change that conclusion.
3. We urge US ACE to consider the additional loading of nutrients that this
enormous development will add to the Haw River and Jordan Lake where a Nutrient
Management Plan and TMDL to REDUCE nutrients is currently being developed by
the NC Division of Water Quality. All of Jordan Lake has been listed as "impaired
waters" for chlorophyll a, due to excessive nutrients, in the draft 2005 Cape Fear
Basinwide Plan.
RESPONSE: See response to CCEC Comment d. above.
4. We do not believe that this development can be built as proposed without
tremendous erosion of the clay soils into Pokeberry, Wilkerson and Bush creeks. We
have seen this problem repeatedly with new developments in Chatham County and we
consider the level of constant very high suspended sediment from clay particles in
streams to be unacceptable. (See attached photos of this problem in Dry Creek,
Chatham County, impacted by the Chapel Ridge development this spring.)
RESPONSE: See response to CCEC Comment e. above. The sedimentation problems at
Chapel Ridge resulted from the fact that a very large area was uncovered due to golf course
construction and sedimentation control devices were prematurely downsized in the final
phase of construction. Neither circumstance will be present at Briar Chapel.
5. We ask that you adequately consider the impact of this development on the
habitat of the federally listed endangered species, the Cape Fear Shiner,~which is
known to inhabit the Haw River in the area of the Lower Haw River State Natural
Area, where Pokeberry Creek meets the Haw River. We urge you to seek input from

IVir. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 7
the US Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species program biologists about this project
application.
RESPONSE: While the Cape Fear Shiner has been documented within the Haw River in the
vicinity of Jordan Lake, Newland does not believe that suitable habitat for the Cape Fear
Shiner exists on the Briar Chapel development. The Cape Fear Shiner is generally found in
streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate with low sediment loads (USFWS, 1988).
Braham and Braham (2001) examined the streams on the Briar Chapel property to determine
if , e was suitable habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner onsite. Their report indicates that
stable habitat does not exist; the streams on the Briar Chapel property have narrow bottoms
with sandy, pebbly, or leaf detritus bottoms. In addition, the presence of beaver ponds on the
site act as a barrier for migration of this listed species. The Briar Chapel development is
approximately 3.5 miles to the Haw River. For reasons stated above, there is no reason to
believe that the Briar Chapel development project will cause offsite impacts to the Cape Fear
Shiner or its habitat.
6. We are very concerned that mitigation for stream crossings for Briar Chapel has
been proposed to be carried out on a stream in the Deep River basin (Harpers
Crossroads). This will result in a loss of total functioning stream miles in the Jordan
Lake watershed at a time when the State of NorW Carolina is attempting to find
solutions to reducing pollution here. We strongly urge that mitigation for this project
be carried out within the Haw River Arm of the Jordan Lake watershed in order to
correctly mitigate for the damage that will be done.
RESPONSE: See response to CCEC Comment c. above.
Comments of the FearrinQton Homeowners Association, dated July 11, 2005
1. ff Newland Communities is given permission to proceed with its construction
without a specific remediation plan approved by the Corps of Engineers, the wetland
area built up around Beaver Creek and Beaver Pond will be subjected to even greater
stress than that which caused the degradation described above. There will be
additional run off during construction carrying sediment from dredged and fill
material as well as continuous run off from storm drains, pavement and well packed
lawns. Even if the FHA is able to restore the wetland as a result of its tort claim against
DOT, the aggravated conditions will return because of the expected runoff from Briar
Chapel's construction as well as the increased runoff from paved and tightly packed
lawn areas.

Mr. Todd Tugwell
iVls. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 8
Briar Chapel construction in this area will result in the "discharge of fill material" as
defined in 33 CFR Part 323.2(f). This is applicable because run-off conditions prevail
during construction, water flow carrying fill material will follow a relatively steep slope
beginning with contour 495 and eventually end up in Bush Creek via Beaver Creek and
Beaver Pond at contour 355. Bush Creek, of course, flows directly to Jordan Lake.
The former is considered to be part of the "waters of the United States" per 33 CFR
Part 328.3.
RESPONSE: See response to CCEC Comment e. above. Sedimentation and erosion during
construction will be prevented by compliance with an approved erosion and sedimentation
control (ESC) plan. There is no reason to believe that the Briar Chapel development will
result in the offsite transport of sediment. In the unlikely event that such transport should
occur, Newland will perform any remedial activities required by the North Carolina Division
of Land Resources or DWQ, but such an occurrence would not constitute the discharge of
dredged or fill material within the meaning of Section 404 of the CWA.
2. Moreover, the Corps of Engineers Public Notice explains that the Briar Chapel
development is "located west of US Highway 15-501" and does not, in so far we can
determine, take notice of the environmental impact on that portion of the Briar Chapel
development area east of US 15/501, consisting of some 60 acres bordering Phase I
residential units of Fearrington Village. The Public Notice does contain Section L
which, however, adds nothing to our understanding of how the run-off of fill material
will be mitigated. This omission only heightens the potential danger which Briar
Chapel development poses for Fearrington Village residences who both border the
proposed BC development and are, at the same time, directly connected to the Beaver
CreekBeaver Pond wetland. This, of course, would be in direct contradiction of the
USEPA's summary overview on Section 404 which notes that "Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material
into the waters of the United States, including wetlands." (See USEPA website paper,
"Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: An Overview.")
RESPONSE: See response to Comment 1. above. As previously noted, no impacts are
anticipated and any potential sedimentation impacts would not constitute the discharge of
dredged or fill material within the meaning of Section 404 ofthe CWA.
3. We understand that consideration of the specifics of Briar Chapel's storm water
containment and those ofnon-discharge sewer systems is not a concern, per se, of the
Corps of Engineers within the contents of Section 404. However, it should be noted that
the implementation of utility infrastructure will result, ipso facto, in a significant

IVir. Todd Tugwell
lVls. Cyndi Kazoly
Decernber 9, 2005
Page 9
discharge of fill material (33 CFR Part 323.2 (L) and some dredged material (33 CFR
Part 323.2 (C). In view of this, we recommend that the Corps of Engineers request
from Newland Communities a generalized schematic of their proposed utility
infrastructure -water, waste water and storm water - in order that the full impact of
Briar Chapel construction can be evaluated within the Section 404 contest. This
recommendation is supported by 33 CFR 323.2(d)(2i) which notes in part that "The
Corps and EPA regard the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment to conduct land
clearing, ditching, channelization, in-stream mining or other earth-moving activity in
the United States as resulting in the discharge of dredged material..."
RESPONSE: The construction and operation of the wastewater, stormwater, and water
supply systems at Briar Chapel will not result in any discharge of dredged or fill material to
waters of the United States other than those identified in Newland's 404 permit application,
The reclaimed water system has already been fully addressed by DWQ through the issuance
of anon-discharge permit; it is unnecessary and inappropriate for that system to be further
regulated through the 404 permit or 401 certification. To the extent DWQ wishes, to address
the impacts of stormwater from the Briar Chapel development project, Newland believes
that, through the 401 certification, it has provided information in sufficient detail to support
such analysis.
4. We would like, as well, to bring to your attention a number of other specific
elements in the Briar Chapel proposal that raise concerns for the whole of this
development and may negatively impact the general area covered by their proposals,
including Fearrington Village. These are listed as subheadings a-d below.
a. As we read the Briar Chapel proposal now before the Corps of Engineers,
the developer will construct 16 stream channel or wetland road crossings, resulting in
fill, culvert or rip-rap of 1,6451inear feet (over one quarter of a mile) of stream
channel, including 1,379 linear feet of perennial stream. In addition to stream impacts,
1.2 acres of wetlands will be filled for roads, building pads and other infrastructure. As
you are aware stream and wetland impacts must be avoided as much as possible when
considering nan-water dependent activities, e.g., roads and building lots. However, we
believe the developer has not taken into account alternative sites within the
development by which these potentially adverse affects could be mitigated without
serious impact on the envlronment. A detailed scrutiny of the development by the
Corps will, we are certain, show that many such sites already exist within the proposed
development.
RESPONSE: See responses to CCEC Continents a.-c. above.

Mr. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 10
b. We also note that the developer has proposed to bridge only one stream
crossing while. the remaining fifteen proposed stream crossings will likely destroy
stream channels and wetland. We believe that such losses are avoidable and should not
be allowed. Moreover, we also question whether the developer has actually
demonstrated the required minimization of stream and wetlands impact. As you must
realize, sixteen stream and wetland crossings are an excessive number of crossings for a
development of this size.
RESPONSE: See responses to CCEC Comments a.-c. above.
c. However, if the applicant insists on these stream crossings then we would
encourage the US Corps of Engineers to carefully evaluate the impact of the entire
development. Based on Section 404 requirements, the Corps should prepare, or have
prepared, an Environmental Impact Statement on these proposals before any other
action is taken. We also suggest that since this issue has already been litigated, the
Corps might review the results of Case No. 02-16156 (9 Cir. 20057: Sonoran v. Flowers,
as to its applicability to the Briar Chapel proposal.
RESPONSE: Newland does not dispute that the environmental impacts of the entire
development should be assessed during the permitting process. As previously noted, as
required by the Chatham County CCO, CHZIv1Hi11 prepazed a detailed Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) for the development. The EIA, which was reviewed to the satisfaction of
independent peer reviewers retained by Chatham County, concluded that the development
would not result in significant adverse impacts to the environment. USACE will prepare its
own environmental document in connection with the 404 permit, but there is absolutely no
reason to believe that an Environmental Impact Statement, as opposed to an Environmental
Assessment, is required or would serve any purpose (and Newland is not aware of USACE
having required an EIS for other similar projects in North Cazolina).
d. Briar Chapel has proposed compensatory compensation via stream
restoration at the Harpers Crossroads mitigation site as well as payments to the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Frogram. But we believe these impacts are avoidable, that
practical alternatives exist and, further, that the proposed mitigation will not offset the
substantial negative impacts on streams and wetlands in the affected sub-watersheds.
Moreover, we understand that the EEP program is having great difficulty in locating
usable mitigation sites in this area. Thus we recommend that the Corps of Engineers
encourage the applicant to propose other alternatives that would eliminate - or

1VIr. Todd Tugwell
1VIs. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 11
drastically reduce -these impacts, eliminating as well the need for compensatory
mitigation.
RESPONSE: See response to CCEC Comment c. above.
5. We are also concerned that in consideration of the physical extent and the
pervasive environmental, ecological influence that Briar Chapel will have on
Fearrington and surrounding communities, there has been little chance to carefully
review the material submitted to the Corps of Engineers in the very short time frame
allotted. Moreover, during the public review process accorded Newland Communities
before the County Commissioners, the detailed presentation regarding waste and storm
water mitigation were not forthcoming because these were to be addressed at the State
and Federal level. Yet for many of us these most vital elements are still, in their detail,
largely unknown or unavailable.
RESPONSE: The 404 permit application was submitted on June 2, 2005, and it does not
appear that the permit will be issued before February 1, 2006. Thus, there will have been
ample opportunity for public review of, and comment on, the application..In addition, as
previously noted, DWQ is holding a public hearing on Newland's application fora 401 water
quality certification, which provided further opportunity for public participation in this
process.
6. Based on these comments -and consistent with 33 CFR Part 327 -Public
Hearings, westrongly -and respectfully -urge that in considering Briar Chapel's
application for a certificate under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act the Corps of
Engineers hold a public bearing in order to apprise the public more fully on what is
being considered and to ezhibit and ezplain the details of Briar Chapel's plans to offset
the proposed unnecessary and unacceptable mitigation as discussed in our previous
comments.
RESPONSE: See response to HRA Comment 1. above.
Comments of the Haw River Assembly Comments, dated September 21.2005
The Haw River Assembly has recommended that the following conditions be placed on the
404 Permit for Briar Chapel.
RESPONSE: To the extent indicated below, Newland agrees to the requested conditions
being included in the 401 water quality certification for the project, which is the appropriate

Mr. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 12
instrument for addressing water quality concerns. Compliance with the conditions of the 401
certification will be a condition of the 404 permit.
1. Sedimentation and Erosion Control measures designed to meet High Quality
Water standards must be designed, constructed and maintained properly for the entire
site.
RESPONSE: Agreed. DWQ regulations provide design criteria for efficiency-based
sediment basins that are intended for use in azeas designated as High Quality Waters. In an
effort to improve further upon this design, the use of skimmers maybe included in the
proposed design and installed if approved by the review agency. Rather than relying on
standard No. 57 stone to filter sediment from the stormwater entering the traps or relying on
the perforated riser to allow the most sediment-laden water near the bottom of the basin to be
forced out, the skimmers will draw the supernatant (cleared) water from the top of the
sediment traps/basins. The water from near the top of the traps and basins will contain the
least amount of sediment. In addition, plunge pools are also proposed at the end of various
culverts and sediment traps/basins since these plunge pools will greatly minimise the impact
to the stream channels by considerably decreasing the length of rip-rap that would otherwise
have to be placed in the channel to dissipate the flow of water exiting the culverts. Finally,
the sedimentation and erosion control measures to be implemented during the development
of the Briaz Chapel community will incorporate standazd erosion control measures
commonly utilized such as silt fencing, diversion ditches, inlet protection, etc.
2. Tree removal within 30 feet of stream channels shall be restricted to road
crossings in order to protect the temperature water quality standard.
RESPONSE: The buffers that were established during the Chatham County Master Plan
approval process restrict tree removal from within~30 feet of the stream channels. Such
buffers aze required on all perennial and intermittent stream and on ephemeral stream
draining more than 10 acres.
3. Written DWQ approval is required for a water quality monitoring plan for
water chemistry, macrobenthos, and physical parameters directed at TSS, temperature
and dissolved oxygen for all perennial streams at the site boundaries where channel
flow is present. This monitoring plan must continue for at least five (S~ years after all
construction is completed at the development. Three copies of the annual monitoring
reports must be sent to DWQ by Apri11't of each year. Remedial actions to correct any
identified exceedance of water quality standards must be proposed by the applicant in
these reports and, when approved by DWQ, implemented by the applicant.

Mr. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Kazoly
December 9, 2005
Page 13
RESPONSE: Newland agreed to implement a monitoring plan consistent with the Chatham
County Compact Community Ordinance and with commitments made regazding such a plan
during the hearings on re-zoning. In April 2005, Newland's consultant Eagle Resources
prepared a monitoring plan to:
• Assess baseline groundwater and surface water quality;
• Monitor groundwater quality downgradient of reclaimed water sprayfields; and
• Assess input of nutrients from the sprayfield application and overall development to
streams that drain to Jordan Lake.
A copy of this plan was provided to Mr. $eith Megginson, Chatham County Planning
Director, via email on October 11, 2005. Eagle Resources began construction of monitoring
wells and surface water sampling stations on October 25, 2005. The plan does not include
macrobenthos sampling because Newland believes that the risk of surface water impacts
from the development-related activities is very low considering the many protective
measures and the pazameters that it will monitor including temperature, dissolved oxygen,
nitrate-nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, total phosphate, total dissolved solids, turbidity, and
fecal coliform bacteria will adequately characterize surface water quality at the development.
The significant additional cost and level of effort associated with macrobenthic sampling is
not justified given the limited incremental value that such sampling would provide. (It
should be noted that even major municipal and industrial wastewater dischazgers are not
typically required to perform macrobenthic sampling.)
4. Anon-discharge permit for the wastewater application must be received from
the DWQ before construction begins.
RESPONSE: Agreed. On Apri129, 2005, Newland received from DWQ anon-discharge
permit for wastewater treatment and disposal. Mitigation under the Wetland Restoration
Program (EEP) in order to compensate for impacts to wetlands and or streams must be made
in the sub-basin watershed of the Haw River that flows to Jordan Lake, in order to
compensate for any increased nutrient loading these impacts may cause.
RESPONSE: Agreed as to wetlands only. Impacts to streams will be mitigated through the
restoration of the stream at Harpers Crossroads. See response to CCEC comment c. above.
It should also be noted that the stream crossings in question are not expected to result in any
significant increase in nutrient loadings to Jordan Lake. Rather, the issue with such impacts

Mr. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 14
is their direct effect on aquatic (stream) habitat, which will be fully mitigated through the
Harpers Crossroads project.
5. Instream work shall be prohibited from March 15 through June 30 to minimize
impacts to spawning fish.
RESPONSE: Newland does not believe that the streams at the Briar Chapel development
aze utilized by fish for spawning to any significant extent. In light of this, such permit
condition is not necessary.
6. The culverts for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original
stream profiles are not altered. Ezisting stream dimensions (including the cross section
dimensions, patterns and longitudinal profile) are to be maintained above and below
locations of each culvert. The culvert shall be designed and installed to allow for
aquatic life movement as well as to prevent head-cutting of the streams. If any of the
existing pipes are to become perched, the appropriate stream grade shall be re-
established or, if the pipes installed in a perched manner, the pipes shall be removed
and re-installed correctly.
RESPONSE: Agreed. All proposed culverts that aze to be closed conduit systems (i.e.,
pipes, box culverts, etc.) will be designed and constructed to have buried inverts to allow for
aquatic life movement per DWQ standards. Additionally, stream dimensions will not be
altered outside of the area permitted for disturbance.
7. The establishment of native, woody, vegetation and.other soft stream bank
stabilization techniques must be used where practicable instead of rip-rap or other
bank hardening methods; if rip-rap is necessary, it shall not be placed in the stream
bed, unless specifically approved by DWQ.
RESPONSE: Soft stream bank stabilization techniques will be used where feasible.
However, stream hazdening methods such as rip-rap will be required for those azeas with
high velocities and excessive potential for scour, such as the outlet of proposed culverts. The
outlets have been designed as plunge pool type dissipators that will greatly reduce the impact
along the stream channel required for the dissipator. Reducing the scour in this way will
reduce the possibility of perching the culvert in the future, and will reduce the long-term
sediment loading downstream from in channel erosion.
8. Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement
and be designed to adequately accommodate high water or flood conditions.

Ivlr. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Kazoly
December 9, 2005
Page 15
RESPONSE: Agreed. Culverts in jurisdictional azeas will be designed for both hydraulic
function and the passage of water and aquatic life.
Comments of The Fearrington Howeowners Association. Dated September 7, 2005
1. I would like to propose that when the Corps of Engineers issues its work permit
to Briar Chapel, the Corps will see fit to include the following condition:
"It is a condition of this permit that in the development of that phase of its construction
which include the 60 acres on the east side of US Rt. 15-501 which abuts property
owners in Fearrington Village that Briar Chapel management and engineering staff
meet with the Fearrington Home Owners Association to discuss the storm water and
non-point source drainage of the 60 acres before undertaking any construction activity
on that piece of property. This discussion should also include the proposal of Briar
Chapel to use the proposed buffer zone as an area to re-water with treated effluent
from its waste water plant."
RESPONSE: Newland is happy to honor this request and can provide a letter to that effect,
if necessary. A permit condition requiring such a meeting is not necessary.
2. Fearrington Village residents are still concerned regarding Briar Chapel's
overall development, especially in the still rather substantial number of stream
crossings and environmental disruptions. We urge the Corps together with the DWQ
to reduce these crossings as much as possible, relying more on bridge crossings where
feasible.
RESPONSE: See Response to CCEC comment a. above.
If you have any questions concerning these responses, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
Steven J. Levitas
sjUtnl

Mr. Todd Tugwell
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 9, 2005
Page 16
cc: Mark Ashness
Mitch Barron
Elaine Chiosso
Sean Clark
John Dorney
Loyse Hurley
Jon Moore
Rick Shiver
William Sommers
Ed Timoney