20040789 Ver 1_Complete File_20040511

F WATT
©?? Michael F. Easley, Governor
y William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r" North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 24, 2005
DWQ # 20040789
Randolph County
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Terry Farlow
3232 Mt. Olive Church Road
Sophia, NC 27350
Subject Property: Kings View Gold Clinks
COE ID No 200321395
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWL
Dear Mr. Farlow:
On May 11, 2004, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received a copy of the Public Notice for the
above-mentioned project. We wrote to you on June 14, 2004 discussing concerns that we have
regarding the design of the project and stating that it would be placed on hold for three weeks giving
you time to address DWQ's concerns. As of today, DWQ has not received a response to this request.
Therefore, your file is hereby considered withdrawn and will not be reviewed until DWQ's earlier
concerns are addressed. Once you have collected sufficient information to have a complete
application (please see our June 14, 2004 letter for the missing information), you will need to reapply
for DWQ approval. This includes submitting a complete application package with the appropriate
fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clear Water Act for this
activity and any work done within waters of the state would be a violation of North Carolina General
Statutes and Administrative Code. Please call Mr. Ian McMillan at 919-7154631 if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
d isor
1
s Revi W Permitting Unit
cc: Daryl Lamb, Winston-Salem DWQ Re n Office
Raleigh Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy
Summey Engineering Associates, 1019B South Cox Street, Asheboro, NC 270203
Filename: S:\2005 Conrspondence\401+Buffer+lsolated\Regular401Wotice of Withdrawal.doc
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: h!W:/lh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
I Carolina
ally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
golf course pond - modeling
Subject: golf course pond - modeling
From: "J. Todd Kennedy" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:51:51 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
There are two components to this analysis: watershed loading and lake response. For
each component, the methods range from simple to complex. For the type of analysis
that you discussed, I would recommend simple to mid-range approaches. For estimating
watershed loading to the lake, methods along these lines would include simple export
coeffients, loading functions, and empirical equations. A mid-range approach would be
something like GWLF. For lake response, you may consider simple EPA screening
methods, BATHTUB, and EUTROMOD. Caution: several of the empirical and mass balance
models assume phosphorus limitation. So if that's not the case, then these cannot be
used. BATHTUB would be my preference. BATHTUB was used for Randleman Lake and I used
it for the Roberson Creek cove TMDL. I've provided some references for model selection
below.
Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs
EPA 841B99007
November, 1997
Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development
EPA 841B97006
May, 1997
Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Lakes and Reservoirs
EPA 822F00002
April, 2000
Couple points regarding the modeling analysis. Don't assume phosphorus limitation.
Should make a determination of expected nutrient limitation based on loading ratio
(N:P). Chl a target should be a 10% exceedence frequency of 40 ug/L. Should probably
be based on the growing season. That's what we used in Roberson and Jordan Lake,
althought slightly different definitions of the growing season. Most common is May
through September.
J. Todd Kennedy
NC Division of Water Quality
Modeling & TMDL Unit
919.733.5083 x514
oalIC-3
1 of 1 7/26/04 11:10
?OF WA TE9Q Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`O North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
`-! Division of Water Quality
0 'C Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
June 14, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Terry Farlow
3232 Mt. Olive Church Road
Sophia, NC 27350
. Dear Mr. Farlow:
RE: Kings View Golf Clinks
Randolph County
DWQ # 04-0789
Action ID No. 200321395
On May 11, 2004, the Division received a copy of the Public Notice for the above-
mentioned project that proposes to fill 405 feet of stream channel and flood 1,108 feet of stream
channel in order to construct a golf course. Staff have begun to review this application.
However an application fee of $475 must be received by the Division before we can complete
our review of this project. Please make a check out to "NC Division of Water Quality" and send it
to our offices c/o Beverly Strickland who will process it. Also please refer to the DWQ project
number with the correspondence.
The following technical issues will also need to be addressed before we can complete
our review of this project. Until this information and application fee are received, this project will
remain on hold as incomplete and our 60-day review time will not begin.
1. Please address how you plan to maintain low flow from the pond to downstream
waters. A target flow of 7Q10 is suggested for design purposes. USGS estimates of
this flow are acceptable to DWQ.
2. Please provide modeling or other evidence that shows that the pond will meet water
quality standards especially the chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen standards. The
underlying question is whether the pond will become eutrophic and thereby violate
water quality standards.
3. Please address how stormwater will be managed from the golf course. DWQ cannot
permit any direct discharge of stormwater from the golf course into streams so please
provide a stormwater plan that meets this criterion.
4. Compensatory stream mitigation - DWQ will require compensatory stream mitigation
for the fill of 405 feet of stream for the dam. Your proposed stream mitigation does
not meet the policy guidance for stream mitigation. In addition, utilization of stream
locations as mitigation while also planning the golf course layout to play across the
stream is not acceptable mitigation since a wooded buffer cannot be established in
these areas.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone]
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions. If you believe that a site
visit would help to address these issues, please call me to arrange one.
Sin
Cc: Andrea Wade, Raleigh Field ffi US Army Corps of Engineers
Daryl Lamb, DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
Central files
File copy
Shari Bryant, NC Wildlife Resources Commission _
Summey Engineering Associates; 1019-13 S. Cox Street, Asheboro, NC 27203
A WWI
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
Kings View Golf Links - DWQ Comments
Subject: Kings View Golf Links - DWQ Comments
From: "H. Mack Summey, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:48:20 -0400
To: "'Cyndi Karoly"' <[e-mail]>
Cyndi
Hope you are doing ok, been meaning to call you. I have some questions on the Kings
View Golf Links project in Sophia that I have been working on. I spoke with John about the
comments and he said a site visit might be in order but he said he would pass the
comments on to you since you have been on-site and it would take forever for him to get
out there. I have submitted for the IP permit and worked very closely with Todd Tugwell
and Andrea Wade on the mitigation lengths and such and thought I had a good plan.
Specifically my questions are as follows:
1 - Question 2 requested I provide modeling or other evidence that that the pond will meet
water quality standards especially in the Chlorophyl A and DO standards. The underlying
question is whether the pond will become eutrophic or not. I have talked to several people
and no one knows how to do that .... Can you give me any recommendations as to how to
resolve this. I have seen several golf courses with ponds much smaller with much less flow
than this one and they have no problems at all. I don't know why this is even a question.
Please let me know what you think.
2 - The question was asked how the stormwater will be managed from the golf course. We
are developing a plan to where there will be no direct pipe discharge into any stream. Each
discharge pipe from the sand traps or from where ever will be ran thru a level spreader to
ensure nothing is concentrated into the buffer areas. The parking lot area and clubhouse
roof will discharge to either a bio-cell or other means (not yet thought of by me, that is
cheaper,....open for suggestions) All impervious golf cart path runoff will go thru several
feet of grass prior to entering the streams. Does that sound ok?
3- The biggie.... It stated that compensatory mitigation will be required for the 405 If
(actually 385 ft) of stream that is impacted. Actually only 148 +/- is impacted at the dam,
and at Hole No. 12 there is approx 240 If that is piped. The letter stated that. my plan does
not meet the policy guidelines for such work and utilization of the stream locations as
mitigation while also planning the golf course layout to play across the stream is not
acceptable since a wooded buffer would not be there. I guess to begin with, I made a
special trip to Raleigh to meet Todd and Andrea and go thru the ratios and mitigation plan.
used the exact distances they recommended me use ( I was confused on the chart so I
learned from them how to account for the ratios for the different type mitigation options
chose) We came up with how many feet to enhance and how many feet of buffer to put
into the conservation easement. One thing I ask you to consider (which is what Todd and
Andrea considered) is the bad shape of whats there now. If you remember, the streams
are in bad shape and anything we do will be a great benefit. On the flooded channel part
the Corp was allowing us to go 1/2:1. Finally, I don't understand the very last comment
about the wooded stream buffers. We can't plant trees because of it being a golf course
but when our mitigation plans were done for the enhancement and other items we would
use low growing varieties of plants suited for stream enhancement and restoration. Please
let me know if any of this makes sense. I told John I would do a summary of how we came
up with the lengths we are proposing if need be. Just let me know.
Thanks!
Mack
1 of 2 7/22/04 11:31 A
Kings View Golf Links - DWQ Comments
H. Mack Summey, Jr., PE
Summey Engineering Associates, PLLC
1019-B S. Cox Street
Asheboro, NC 27203
Phone: [phone]
Cell: 336-302-2191
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

-7 3,3 Z3
74-
-spa /I?s?i
2 of 2 7/22/04 11:31 AM
15A NCAC 0213.0211 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS C WATERS
General. The water quality standards for all fresh surface waters are the basic standards applicable to Class C waters. See
Rule .0208 of this Section for standards for toxic substances and temperature. Additional and more stringent standards
applicable to other specific freshwater classifications are specified in Rules .0212, .0214, .0215, .0216, .0217, .0218, .0219,
.0223,.0224 and .0225 of this Section.
(1) Best Usage of Waters. Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing,
and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for primary recreation or
as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage. The waters shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance
of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture; sources of water pollution which
preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a
water quality standard;
(3) Quality standards applicable to all fresh surface waters:
(a) Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 ug/1 for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters subject
to growths of macroscopic or microscopic vegetation not designated as trout waters, and not
greater than 15 ug/1 for lakes, reservoirs, and other waters subject to growths of macroscopic or
microscopic vegetation designated as trout waters (not applicable to lakes and reservoirs less than
10 acres in surface area); the Commission or its designee may prohibit or limit any discharge of
?6L V waste into surface waters if, in the opinion of the Director, the surface waters experience or the
discharge would result in growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation such that the
standards established pursuant to this Rule would be violated or the intended best usage of the
r? G f waters would be impaired;
5 '[ (b) Dissolved oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/1 for trout waters; for non-trout waters, not less than a daily
` t v-15 average of 5.0 mg/1 with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/l; swamp waters,
lake coves or backwaters, and lake bottom waters may have lower values if caused by natural
r S S t? ??? conditions;
C U (c) Floating solids; settleable solids; sludge deposits: only such amounts attributable to sewage,
industrial wastes or other wastes as shall not make the water unsafe or unsuitable for aquatic life
k and wildlife or impair the waters for any designated uses;
l/tb J (d) Gases, total dissolved: not greater than 110 percent of saturation;
(e) Organisms of the coliform group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100ml
(MF count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30 day period, nor
r exceed 400/100m1 in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period; violations
/W of the fecal coliform standard are expected during rainfall events and, in some cases, this violation
5 is expected to be caused by uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution; all coliform concentrations
are to be analyzed using the membrane filter technique unless high turbidity or other adverse
conditions necessitate the tube dilution method; in case of controversy over results, the MPN
5-tube dilution technique shall be used as the reference method;
(f) Oils; deleterious substances; colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the
?e waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation or to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely
affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses; for the
purpose of implementing this Rule, oils, deleterious substances, colored or other wastes shall
include but not be limited to substances that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the
D ' surface of the water or adjoining shorelines pursuant to 40 CFR 110.4(a)-(b) which are hereby
,v incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments and additions. This material is
v available for inspection at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies may be obtained from
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402-9325 at a cost of thirteen dollars ($13.00).
(g) pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and 9.0
except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions;
(h) Phenolic compounds: only such levels as shall not result in fish-flesh tainting or impairment of
other best usage;
(i) Radioactive substances:
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff: April 1, 2003 Page 21
4, . -- -1
u-)C? 4:?- C ?I - O 7? 5
r +
r
er
t
0
_ : ail. ?. ?'?., J ? ? :.i,?. J.'? ..?f v,i3.,??:.- - ,? ?.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Andrea Wade WETLANDS /40 GROUP
U-$- Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: S rBryant, iedmont Region Coordinator JUN 1 12004
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 9 June 2004 WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT: Public Notice for Terry Farlow-Kings View Golf Links, Randolph County, North
Carolina. Action ID No. 200321395
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC) have reviewed the
subject document. A site visit was conducted on 2 June 2004 to further assess impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), and
North Carolina General Statutes (G. S. 113-131 et seq.).
The applicant proposes to place fill material into 148 linear feet, flood 1,108 linear feet, and pipe
240 linear feet of an unnamed tributary of Caraway Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin.
Construction activities include a 5-acre irrigation lake, associated fairways, and a proposed intake
structure. Additionally, the applicant proposes to discharge fill material into 12 linear feet of Caraway
Creek associated with the construction of a temporary access road for construction vehicles until bridge
construction is completed. The applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to stream channels by
providing 582 linear feet of Stream Enhancement H designs to the same unnamed tributary located on-site
and to mitigate for impacts associated with lake construction and intake structure by preserving and
enhancing a 75-foot buffer on an unnamed tributary located off-site. Detailed plans for the mitigation
sites were not available at time of the site visit.
The unnamed tributary is approximately 3 feet wide and appears to be intermittent. The riparian
area that will be impacted from dam construction and channel impoundment consists of grasses, aged
cropland, and is minimally forested. The stream in this area is channelized, overgrown with grasses and
weeds, and is of degraded quality. Upstream of the proposed impoundment, the applicant proposes to
pipe 240 linear feet of the unnamed tributary for construction of a fairway. The riparian area consists of
hardwood trees and grasses; the channel is sinuous, has stable banks, and is less degraded compared to
downstream conditions. Caraway Creek is approximately 15 feet wide and has a cobble, gravel, and
bedrock substrate. It sustains adequate pool and riffle sequences and has a naturally forested riparian
area. There are records for the following federal species of concern and state endangered species in
Caraway Creek - brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masom), and Carolina
creekshell (Vllosa vaughaniana).
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
9 June 2004
404-Farlow
PN 200321395
The consultant for the project, Mack Summey of Summey Engineering Associates, indicated that
design changes have been implemented to reduce impacts from those originally proposed We appreciate
that the proposed impacts from dam construction and channel impoundment have been decreased by 427
linear feet compared to the original layout for the irrigation lake. We hesitate to concur with the
construction of dams on streams due to the potential for downstream stream bed erosion and degradation
caused by outfall waters that are relatively free of sediment (Kondolf 1997). Also, impounding aquatic
resources will remove their natural functionality and will likely result in vegetation shifts and water
quality modification with concomitant changes in wildlife and fish species compositions. However, given
the degraded habitat conditions of the stream and riparian area, we will not object to the dam construction
and channel impoundment.
The placement of a concrete intake structure in Caraway Creek should have minimal impacts to
stream habitats and organisms. However, case should be taken when installing the intake line to minimize
impacts to the stream bank and riparian area. Additionally, the intake structure should utilize passive
screens with openings not to exceed 1 centimeter and with a maximum intake velocity of 0.5 fps (feet per
second). The intake structure should be marked in a manner that will reduce hazards to navigation during
and after construction.
We hesitate to concur with the piping of any stream due to the potential negative impacts to
downstream areas and the elimination of fish and wildlife habitat. Stream piping reduces the infiltration
of stormwater and associated pollutants, as well as the dissipation of stream energy. Culverting a stream
and placing it underground obviously removes both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Existing uses by
wildlife are lost and future opportunities to improve aquatic diversity are precluded. We feel that the
section of stream that flows through proposed fairway #12 has good aquatic habitat, therefore, we cannot
concur with the piping of the stream channel for construction of fairway #12. Additionally, we
recommend that a minimum 50-foot buffer is maintained along this section of stream. We recognize that
a native, forested riparian buffer is not be feasible, but recommend that a buffer of native, low growing
shrubs and herbaceous plants is established to minimize impacts to the stream channel and water quality.
Additionally, we cannot concur with adding fill material to create a 12-foot wide temporary
crossing of Caraway Creek. A 12-foot wide bridge across Caraway Creek is being constructed to
accommodate golf course maintenance vehicles. Therefore, we feel that this bridge should be used by
construction vehicles to cross the stream as opposed to creating a temporary crossing. We are particularly
concerned about the many listed species that are located in Caraway Creek downstream of this proposed
impact. - ,
The mitigation proposed for the dam construction, channel impoundment, and intake structure
placement appears adequate for the proposed impacts. However, the designs associated with the Stream
Enhancement II plans should be further detailed We are pleased that the buffer preservation and
enhancement sites will meet the 380 tree per acre guidelines and that these areas will be placed in a Land
Conservation Easement.
Should the permit be issued, we recommend that the following conditions be incorporated into
the permit to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
Remaining wetlands and streams on the site should be protected from additional impacts by
placing them in a permanent conservation easement to prohibit filling, draining, flooding, and
excavation.

Page 3
9 June 2004
404-Farlow
PN 200321395
2. In order to minimize stream impacts, while retaining some measure of wildlife habitat, we
recommend a 100-foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a 50-foot
buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along
these areas will minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, water quality, aquatic habitat
both within and downstream of the project area, and help prevent the extirpation of endangered
and threatened species. In addition, wide riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stability of
stream banks and for treatment of pollutants. Whereas, a grassed buffer, particularly fescue, is a
vegetated buffer but will not provide the necessary and highly valuable functions as discussed for
forested buffers.
3. A detailed mitigation plan should be submitted and approved before impacts occur. Additionally,
should piping of the stream for construction of fairway #12 be permitted, we suggest a
compensatory mitigation ratio of 2:1.
4. If culverts are used, the culvert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed. This
will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate
aquatic life. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually causes a decrease in
water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future maintenance. Finally, riprap
should not be placed on the streambed.
5. Locate sewers and other utilities as far away from creeks as functionally possible and minimize
stream crossings. It is preferable that sewers be located outside the riparian buffers.
6. Excavated materials should not be stockpiled where sediment will erode to surface waters.
7. Wet concrete is toxic to aquatic organisms. Construction procedures which prevent wet concrete
from contacting surface waters should be used.
8. We request that stormwater best management practices be included Grassed swales should be
used instead of curb and gutter for conveyance, and water from parking lots and buildings should
be sheet flowed into grassed swales or routed to bioretention areas, also referred to as rain
gardens. If parking lots are to be landscaped, we request these be designed as bioretention areas
instead of raised islands.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If we can provide further
assistance, please contact me at [phone] or Brian McRae, District Fisheries Biologist, at (336)
437-0199.
Kondolf, G.M. 1997. Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.
Environmental Management 21:533-551.
cc: John Dorney, DWQ
E-mail: Brian McRae, WRC
Sarah McRae, NHP
Ryan Heise, WRC
Rob Nichols, WRC
,is
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 200321395
PUBLIC NOTICE

A?AA]rN? P
JU1 0 2 2004
IE s tif,Vll.e.?;t
May 10, 2004
Mr. Terry Farlow, 3232 Mt. Olive Church Road, Sophia, Randolph County, 27350, has
applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO PLACE FILL MATERIAL INTO
405LINEAR FEET OF STREAM CHANNEL AND TO FLOOD 1,108 LINEAR FEET OF
STREAM CHANNEL, ALONG CARAWAY CREEK AND TWO OF ITS UNNAMED
TRIBUTARIES, IN THE YADKIN-PEEDEE RIVER BASIN, ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GOLF COURSE (KING'S VIEW GOLF LINKS), IN SOPHIA,
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and
from observations made during a site visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show the proposed development of a 186.38-acre commercial golf
course, including the construction of a 5-acre irrigation lake and an intake structure located in
Caraway Creek to sustain irrigation needs of the golf course. The project site is located at 3258
Farlow Pines Road, in Sophia, Randolph County, North Carolina.
The proposed project would involve the placement of fill material into five linear feet of
Caraway Creek for the proposed construction of the intake structure. The project also involves
the discharge of fill material into 148 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Caraway Creek or the
construction of the proposed dam and subsequent flooding of approximately 1,108 linear feet of
the stream channel. The project would impact an additional 240 linear feet of stream through
pipe placement and filling of another unnamed tributary to Caraway Creek associated with the
construction of Fairway Number 12. Finally, the project would involve the temporary discharge
of fill material into twelve linear feet of stream channel associated with the construction of a
temporary access road across Caraway Creek for construction access until bridge construction is
completed. Plans showing the work are included with this public notice.
The applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to stream channels associated with the
project through stream enhancement and buffer preservation and enhancement. The applicant
would provide 582 linear feet of Stream Enhancement 11 to compensate for impacts at Sites 1 and
3. For further information about stream enhancement levels, please see the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines available at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.miYWETLANDS/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html.

Furthermore, he proposes to provide a 75-foot buffer along 1,435 linear feet of stream
channel to mitigate for impacts associated with the pond construction and intake structure. The
proposed restoration and preservation sites are depicted on the attached plans; however,
submittal of the detailed plans for the mitigation sites is still pending.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit
will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and
reviewed by this agency, nor will 'a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as
required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein. Based on the best available evidence, it has been determined that
no sites within the vicinity of•the project are registered or listed as being eligible for inclusion in
the Register. Examination of the National Register of Historic Places constitutes the extent of
cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the
presence of other such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed
activity will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts that the proposed activity may have on the public
interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors, which become relevant in each particular
P-' case. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be?_ --
balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a
proposal, and if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore
determined by the outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the
national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors that may
be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among
those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural
values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with
Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral
needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United
States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would
not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the
preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless
the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit
modification will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
issues, denies, or waives State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The
NCDWQ considers whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department
of the Army (DA) permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Wetlands /401 Unit, North Carolina DENR, Division of Water Quality, 2321
Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any
person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-
1650, on or before June 1, 2004, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in
this office, Attention: Ms. Andrea Wade, until 4:15 p.m., June 10, 2004, or telephone (919) 876-
8441, extension 31.
3

r
of o
summcy EnginccringAssociatcs, n1C
En.!qinccnn3-sand PlanninS- ConsuknS?
A.R.?4nrC???
rxe,.. »???2 rM »suso?zi
C.d-..d+r.ti.baom.
VICINITY MAP
IRRIGATION LIKE - KJNGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
SOPHIA, RANDOM COUNTY, NORTH MOUNA
USACE-A M -20032139S
PROPOSED KINGS
VIEW GOLF LINKS
R
?. `
SED
TIUN
~-
3 D TopoQuads Copyright 81999 DeLorme Yarmouth, ME 040% Source Data: USGS 50 R Scale: 1 : 12,000 Detail: 13-1 Datum: NAD27
s?ee? 2 of I O
Impact Summary
Impact #I - Fill placed in Channel for Dam Construction -1481f total
Impact #2 - Flooded Channel as a result of Dam Construction -1108 if total
Impact #3 - Hole #12 Piped - 2401f total
Impact #4 - Temporary Creek Crossing - Will be restored after construction
Impact #5 - Placement of Precast Concrete Intake Structure - 10 if total
Basic
Impact Impact Impact Channel Compensatory Compensatory
# Length Description Quality Mitigation Mitigation
(Feet) Ratio Requirement
1 128 Fill Poor 1:1 148'
20 Rip Rap
2 1108 Flood Poor 554'
3 215 Fill Poor 1:1 240'
25 Rip Rap
4 12 Temporary Good N/A Will be restored
Crossing
5 5 Placement of
P Good 2:1 10'
recast
Concrete
Intake
Structure
Sv1ee* 3 Of 10
61lcc' 4 of 1 0
summey EngineeringAssociates, rac
Enynaedns- Land P/annin3- C--Itinq
,o?tas t1•,s....
AA4,m IVCvxo.t
INDEX MAP
IRRKATION LAKE - KING'S VIEW GOLF LINKS
SOPM RANDOIPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LUCE-AJ.D. - 20032139S
r
A
?/ f I A II
R0 A
--= L DED
ti E
.?
7 7 7
«y! ?. TE
! FLO ED C
PIPED CH N
?' I I
,i
rr•

L=145 /,? ;
?2
I!t; t l _

was
T

54
?? \ \ \ ` I 1 \ GRAPH%C SC LE
200' 100' O 200' 400'
MEMEMW
1 200 FEET
sl,?ea 5 of t o
AVOIDANCE MMMLZATION
summcy Enginccn`ngA55ociatc5, fac ORIGINAL POND LAYOUT
Engineering-Land Planning- Consulting
,o„-5,5 c-,s? IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
NC272o5 SOPHIA, RANDOIPH COUNTY, NORTH UROUNA
r..?_..?. UW-AID. -200311345

1
i
i?
?lr?.? ?lri I
X N
r
I f/
IMPACT #I & #2 3htr?- Cc of tO
Summcy EnginccringAssociatcs, fUC PROPOSED IRRIGATION LAKE
Ensineeiing-Land Planning- consulting
,o„$s c.sv- t IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VfEW GOLF LINKS
nr ivc??? SOPHIA RANDOU'H COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
P?.b 1?4is?osnz r.. »s-uFOr:s
G•.?-?. USACE-ALL -100311395

l ..- i
•
'• I
•
H E •,
s •
• •
•
•...
0 too
••
•
• •• •
•.
• •• ' ;.
I
•
•
582 LF. F •
ENH NC- ENT!
•4
t
=I
215 LF. PIPE
W/ 25' RIP RAP
OUTLET PROTECT]
• •' • • • ; GRAPHIC SCALE
??: • ' •: • 100' 50' O 100' 200'
•
100' FEET
%
IMPACT #3 5?'14e."? '? of 1 O
Summcy EnginccringAssociatcs, PL LC HOLE No. 12 PIPING
engineering- Land Planning- Consulting IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW/ GOLF LINKS
loft-5S5 c--'A-t
A-&-b--,NC-Z7-3 SOPHK RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
Px••. »<fz?oPoz P.R ?j<szsgz: USACE . A.LD. -100311395

N.)

?- X?

' ORCEMAIN
TO I R
E LINE I
INTAKE STRUCTURE
'x3' PRECAST CONC.
r
PROP D BRIDGE
12' WIDE NO FILL TO
_ E PLACED CHANNEL

? ? II
1
I
J
GRAO? EAL-
,60' ?-
/
1 50' FEET IMPACT #4 & #5 4)zet, o? 1
Summey,EngincclingAssociates, fay CREEK CROSSING
engineering-Land Planning- Consulting
sIRRIGATION LAKE - KING'S VIEW GOLF LINKS
A•1-? NC2,r2os SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
P.. w-32ioyo-, P. 33,ir 31"s2: USACE - AID. -100311395
e-r--ad-h-l-
Mitigation Proposal Summary
Type of Basic
Impact Mitigation Mitigation Compensatory Mitigation Mitigation
# Proposed Activity Mitigation Required Proposed
Multiplier Requirement (Feet) (Feet)
1 Stream 1.5 148' 222 222
Enhancement 11
2 75' Buffer 2.5 554' 1385 1385
Preservation &
Enhancement
3 Stream 1.5 240' 360 360
Enhancement 11
4 Restore to Temporary Will be restored Will Be Restored Will Be Restored
Natural State Crossing
Activity Multiplier agreed upon by USACE
Stream Enhancement II plans to be approved prior to issuance of Individual Permit and to follow minimum
guidelines as set forth by regulatory agencies and latest design information available.
The 75' Stream Buffer Preservation and Enhancement Areas are to be 75' from top of bank landward on
each side of stream. Buffer to meet 380 tree per acre minimum guidelines. Buffer to be placed in Land
Conservation Easement.
5 75' Buffer 5:1 10' 50' 50'
Preservation &
Enhancement
Total Stream Enhancement 11= 582'
Total 75' Buffer Preservation & Enhancement = 1435'
5h, e± 9 of 10
_-
II
E
11 /' 9
OL
dOP S/D,i EN A E 61T
VEYE 1 T 8 L.F
00 / % ? F I EI , b
DADAP 0
"/ \ OJ ;0 iVt I DU L
-?? Ir / ? I' GhyP/??•SCAE
200
MITIGATION PROPOSAL AREA FOR IMPACTS #I & #3
summey FngineeringAssociates, rac STREAM ENHANCEMENT AREA
Engineering- Land Planning- Consulting
,o',$s c-sue IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
sl. xbww NC:,r2o, SOPHK RANDOLPH COUNR NORTH CAROLINA
P7?.?.1f??:.-oyoz rw »?u?-osu
c..r•?. USACE-ALD.-100311395 Ghee.t tO of LO
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
May 10, 2004
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 200321395
Mr. John Domey
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetland/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
0 407 S9
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
MAY 1 1 2004
WATER (QUALITY SECTION
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application submitted by Mr. Terry Farlow, for Department of the Army
authorization and a State Water Quality Certification to authorize the proposed placement of fill
material into 405 linear feet of stream channel and to flood 1108 linear feet of stream channel,
along unnamed tributaries to Carraway Creek, in the Yadkin River Basin, associated with the
construction of a golf course (King's View Golf Links), in Sophia, Randolph County, North
Carolina.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by July 12, 2004, the District Engineer will deem
that waiver has occurred.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to
contact Andrea Wade at [phone], extension 31.
Sincerely,

Jean B. Manuele
Chief, Raleigh Field Office
Enclosure

WETLANDS! 401 GROUP
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MAY 1 1 2004
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
4V
Post Office Box 1890 A'i EFt QUALITY SECTION
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 200321395 May 10, 2004
PUBLIC NOTICE 040789
Mr. Terry Farlow, 3232 Mt. Olive Church Road, Sophia, Randolph County, 27350, has
applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO PLACE FILL MATERIAL INTO
405LINEAR FEET OF STREAM CHANNEL AND TO FLOOD 1,108 LINEAR FEET OF
?? - STREAM CHANNEL, ALONG CARAWAY CREEK AND TWO OF ITS UNNAMED
TRIBUTARIES, IN THE YADKIN-PEEDEE RIVER BASIN, ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GOLF COURSE (KING'S VIEW GOLF LINKS), IN SOPHIA,
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and
from observations made during a site visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show the proposed development of a 186.38-acre commercial golf
course, including the construction of a 5-acre irrigation lake and an intake structure located in
Caraway Creek to sustain irrigation needs of the golf course. The project site is located at 3258
Farlow Pines Road, in Sophia, Randolph County, North Carolina.
The proposed project would involve the placement of fill material into five linear feet of
Caraway Creek for the proposed construction of the intake structure. The project also involves
the discharge of fill material into 148 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Caraway Creek or the
45 construction of the proposed dam and subsequent flooding of approximately 1,108 linear feet of
'?-c.F v the stream channel. The project would impact an additional 240 linear feet of stream through
pipe placement and filling of another unnamed tributary to Caraway Creek associated with the
construction of Fairway Number 12. Finally, the project would involve the temporary discharge
of fill material into twelve linear feet of stream channel associated with the construction of a
temporary access road across Caraway Creek for construction access until bridge construction is
completed. Plans showing the work are included with this public notice.
The applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to stream channels associated with the
project through stream enhancement and buffer preservation and enhancement. The applicant
would provide 582 linear feet of Stream Enhancement 11 to compensate for impacts at Sites 1 and
3. For further information about stream enhancement levels, please see the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines available at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html.
i r T
Furthermore, he proposes to provide a 75-foot buffer along 1,435 linear feet of stream
channel to mitigate for impacts associated with the pond construction and intake structure. The
proposed restoration and preservation sites are depicted on the attached plans; however,
submittal of the detailed plans for the mitigation sites is still pending.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit
will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and
reviewed by this agency, nor will 'a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as
required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein. Based on the best available evidence, it has been determined that
no sites within the vicinity of the project are registered or listed as being eligible for inclusion in
the Register. Examination of the National Register of Historic Places constitutes the extent of
cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the
presence of other such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed
activity will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts that the proposed activity may have on the public
interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors, which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be
balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a
proposal, and if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore
determined by the outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the
national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors that may
be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among
those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural
values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with
Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water

supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral
needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United
States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would
not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the
preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless
the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit
modification will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
issues, denies, or waives State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The
NCDWQ considers whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department
of the Army (DA) permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Wetlands /401 Unit, North Carolina DENR, Division of Water Quality, 2321
Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any
person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-
1650, on or before June 1, 2004, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in
this office, Attention: Ms. Andrea Wade, until 4:15 p.m., June 10, 2004, or telephone (919) 876-
8441, extension 31.
,t

PROPOSED KINGS
VIEW GOLF UNKS
summcy EnginccringA55ociatcs, rL Lc
Ensineerins-Land Plannins- Conaultins
Jo„asCM-10 -
A*Aob-%MC=1=o
VICINITY MAP
IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS WEW GOLF UNKS
SOffiX RANDOLPH C" N, NORTH CAROLINA
USAGE-Am - 200321395
1o
%
70
?J
i
..1 _ . -
* J.

¦

r `? 1
3•D TopoQuads Copyright ©1999 DeLorme Yarmouth, ME 04096 Source Data: USGS 50 ft Sale: 1 12,000 Detail: 13-1 Datum: NAD27

/r? l Q
/
r
t
-C e.: `1

sheep 2 A-
t
Impact Summary
Impact #1- Fill placed in Channel for Dam Construction -1481f total
impact #2 - Flooded Channel as a result of Dam Construction -11081f total
Impact #3 - Hole #12 Piped - 2401f total
Impact #4 - Temporary Creek Crossing - Will be restored after construction
Impact #5 - Placement of Precast Concrete Intake Structure -101f total
Basic
Impact Impact Impact Channel Compensatory Compensatory
# Length Description Quality Mitigation Mitigation
(Feet) Ratio Requirement
1 128 Fill Poor 1:1 148'
20 Rip Rap
2 1108 Flood Poor h:l 554'
3 215 Fill Poor 1:1 240'
25 Rip Rap
4 12 Temporary Good N/A Will be restored
Crossing
5 5 Placement of Good 2:1 10'
Precast
Concrete
Intake
structure
slnee* `5 of 10
sl,fe,i 4 of 1 0
summcy EngineeringAssociates, fuc INDEX MAP
EnOneefins-[, end flannrng- Consulting M GgnON LAKE -KINGS VIEW COIF UNKS
ioi}BS Cs• 5r.r
.4.?.bd.4 NCs?m, SOPHIA RANDOM COWTY, NORTH WOUNA
USACF - AID. - 200321395

O
summcy EnginccringAssociatcs, nLc ORIGINAL POND LAYOUT
Enginccring- Land Planning- Consulting
,o,,.65 c-sb-a IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
A h-bo NCavzo? SOMA, RAND" COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
rxa.e »s ?i. oro: r.p ass i su USAGE - AID - 200311395
t
r

4f
summccy EnginccringAssociatcs, ruc
Ensineering-Land f lannrnJP- Consultin?p
poi,-BSG..S??
NCvzos
P1w,.a.11?luoyo2 /S. »<11eoJSs

,i
210
IMPACT #I & #2 31'It+ ?v of l0
PROPOSED IRRIGATION LAKE
IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
SOPHU& RMDOIPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
USAGE-AID. -100321395
1
--' ?' :: '
.. • •• •
' • : • ` '?
N ?••
• • ?• • it
:? • f s S
to
s ••
215 LF. PIPE
•• W/ 25' RIP RAP
• •• ! • OUTLET PROTECTION
• H E ? ? •.
0, Go 0
•• It 1 • w• •'" • •
• ` • ••
•? Of
• •?••
•• • • ' . •
• N
o to: •
•i •
y
• • •` s'
• a • •• . 582 F. F •,;
?b ENH NC ENT*
• • ARE
• • • .•
••• •
?• • • •
? ..
r ;•
• to
•
. •
r• • 110
410
to. 0
• . •' ' • • ; GRAPHIC SCALE
?; • , • •.; 100' 50' 0 100 200'
•,% .
• • f" = 100' FEET
?? ?.? •
IMPACT #3 of 10
jummcy EnginccrrngAssociatcs, P11C HOLE No 12 PIPING
engineering- Land Planning- Consulting IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
101t$5 c--,;e t
AJKLoa NC :,-s SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
. ssFS1. ?j P ss<s:mss: USACE - AJD. -100311395
_ OL p

ORCEMAI
TO I R
9'f6

E LINE
INTAKE STRUCTURE
'x3' PRECAST CONC.
B X
PROP D BRIDGE
\12' WIDE NO FILL TO
'BCE PLACED CHANNEL

f v = 50' FEET IMPACT #4 & #5 SI'leet $ o? O
summey EngincctingA55ociate5, Pay CREEK CROSSING
Ensineering-L and Planing- Consulting
,o,y,55 Cm6*--t IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
,a.r.b-., NC 2,72o3 SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
fl-- 33d-32joyo2 F- 33 6d2s o912
USACE - A I.D. -100311395

N itiiation Proposal Summary
Type of Basic
Impact Mitigation Mitigation Compensatory Mitigation Mitigation
# Proposed Activity Mitigation Required Proposed
Multiplier Requirement (Feet) (Feet)
1 Stream 1.5 148' 222 222
14 Enhancement 11
2 75' Buffer 2.5 554' 1385 1385
Preservation &
Enhancement
3 Stream 1.5 240' 360 360
aK? Enhancement H
4 Restore to Temporary Will be restored Will Be Restored Will Be Restored
Natural State Crossing
Activity Multipiter agreed upon o y u JAI:r,
Stream Enhancement II plans to be approved prior to issuance of Individual Permit and to follow minimum
guidelines as set forth by regulatory agencies and latest design information available.
The 75' Stream Buffer Preservation and Enhancement Areas are to be 75' from top of bank landward on
each side of stream. Buffer to meet 380 tree per acre minimum guidelines. Buffer to be placed in Land
Conservation Easement.
5 75' Buffer 5:1 10' S0' S0'
\ Preservation &
Enhancement
Total Stream Enhancement H = 582' a 1 a'2??
Total 75' Buffer Preservation & Enhancement = 1435'
5 t O
II ?
11
HOL
/ ' i
i
?i
SEA/ EN A
-it
EA
E

DA DAP 0
0 T I I DU h
' Gl? P /,SEA E
200
MITIGATION PROPOSAL AREA FOR IMPACTS #I & #3
Summcy EnginccringAssociatcs, fac STREAM ENHANCEMENT AREA
?n?vincenns-Land Plannins- consulting
10"9455 CQsg? IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
A .J-,& -%NC2,2o, SOPHA RANDOLPH COUNR NORTH CAROLINA
?+? s1 ?72soyo2 ra 11 ?72s•oyzz
USACE - A.ID. - 200321395 Sheet I C> of! O

'COPY
APR 2 U 204
R_ J,Rrnu Q o,, USACE - A.I.D. 200321395

Owner/Developer
Mr. Terry Farlow
3232 Mt Olive Church Road
Sophia, NC 27350
Contact: Mr. Terry Farlow
Phone: [phone]
Prepared By:
SUMMEY ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, PLLC
ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • CONSULTING
1019-B S. COX STREET
ASHEBORO, NC 27203
Phone: [phone] / Fax. [phone]
E-mail. [e-mail]
April 22, 2004
0 407 89
ICE
i
Table of Contents
Cover Letter
Cover
Table of Contents
1. Vicinity Map
2. USGS Map
3. Existing Channel/Stream Summary
4. Project Summary
5. Index Map
6. Boundary Map
7. Overall Project Sheet 1
8. Overall Project Sheet 2
9. Offsite Alternative Analysis
10. Avoidance and Minimization
11. Original Pond Layout
12. Impact Summary
13. Proposed Irrigation Lake - Impacts #1 & #2
14. Proposed Irrigation Lake - Impact # 1
15. Dam Cross Sections - Impact #1
16. Pond Cross Section "A" Impact #1
17. Pond Cross Section "B" Impact #1
18. Hole #12 Piping - Impact #3
19. Creek Crossing/Intake Structure - Impact #4 & #5
20. ;Mitigation Proposal Summary
21. Stream Enhancement Area - #1 & #3
22. Buffer Mitigation Plan - #2 & #5
23. Supplemental Permit Information
Supplemental Information
Tax Map Info. - Randolph County GIS
Pictures
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325)
Public reporting burden for this collection of Information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions.
Searching existing data sources, gathering and maintainkV the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, Including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-003), Washington, DC 20503.
Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction
over the location of the proposed PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities In, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States; the discharge of dredged or fW material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the
purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine uses: Information provided on this form will be used In evaluating the application for a permit.
Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If Inforrtma application cannot be processed nor
can a permit be issued. `gym
I One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location a ==,p( "proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District drmsdiction over the proposed activity. An
application that is not completed in full will be returned. _.-,.
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY tHE,? QRPS
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE E . DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
Ir , --?"Lqv r
.. APR 2 1
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLE AP ANTI
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME & TITLE (an agent is not required)
Mr. Terry Farlow RA E19Hfryk,OjIOE
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
3232 Mt. Olive Church Road 1019-B S. Cox Street
Sophia, NC 27350 Asheboro, NC 27203
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NUMBERS WITH AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NUMBERS WITH AREA CODE
a. Residence 336-861-1000 a. Residence 336-302-2191
b. Business 336-442-6665 b. Business 336-328-0902
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
H. Mack Summe , Jr.
I hereby authorize Y
to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this
application an to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
4/22/04
(APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
King's View Golf Links
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Caraway Creek 3258 Farlow Pines Road
Sophia, NC 27350
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Randolph NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see Instructions)
Parcel ID No. 7725946708: DB 1820 PG. 980
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Raleigh take 1-40 West to Greensboro, Take 1-85 South Toward Charlotte, Take US Hwy 311 North Toward
Randleman, Go 8 Miles, turn right on Edgar Road, Turn Right of Mt. Olive Church Road, Turn Left on Farlow Pines Drive,
Site is located at end of drive.
ENG FORM 4345 - ONLINE CESPK-CO-R
18. NATURE OF ACTIVITY (Description of project, include all features)
Project includes construction of Irrigation Lake to provide an adequate source of water for the proposed golf course. Impacts
include filling for dam area (148 If), flooding of channel (1108 If) and piping of Hole #12 (240 If), Crossing of Caraway Creek
with bridge (no fill to creek area would be done), crossing of several streams with bridges but no fill to be placed in channels
at crossings) See Individual Permit Application Package for more information.
19. PROJECT PURPOSE (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see Instructions)
To construct irrigation lake for golf course and pipe Hole #12. Lake will serve as water supply for irrigation, piping of Hole
#12 will allow better design for course. Course construction will take approximately 14 months. Estimated start date is July
2004, completion date is 9105. See Individual Permit Application Package for more information.
Uat OLUUNZI cU-LL It- L)KtUVtU ANU/UR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. REASON(S) FOR DISCHARGE
Impact #1 - Fill channel for dam embankment - 148 If (includes erosion control)
Impact #2 - Flood channel as a result of Impact #1 - 1108 If : Impact #3 - Pipe Channel #12 - 240 If (includes erosion control)
Impact #4 - Temporary Creek Crossing - for constructon only across Caraway Creek, will be restored.
21. TYPE(S) OF MATERIAL BEING DISCHARGED AND THE AMOUNT OF EACH TYPE IN CUBIC YARDS
Impacts #1 and #3 will be piped. The exact amount of fill material is not known at present since final design plans have not
been completed. Impact #2 will consist of channel being flooded. See Individual Permit Application Package for more
information.
22. SURFACE AREA IN ACRES OF WETLANDS OR OTHER WATERS FILLED (see instructions)
Impacts #1 and #3 consist of 388 If of stream being piped. Impact #2 includes 1108 If of stream being flooded as a result of
impact #1. See Individual Permit Application Package for more information.
23. IS ANY PORTION OF THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETE? YES O NO O IF YES, DESCRIBE THE WORK
24. ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES, ETC. WHOSE PROPERTY ADJOINS THE WATERBODY Of more than
can be entered here, please attach a supplemental fist)
See attached supplemental information.
25. LIST OF OTHER CERTIFICATIONS OR APPROVALS/DENIALS RECEIVED FROM OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL AGENCIES
FOR WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS APPLICATION
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
None Applied for yet
' Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood lain permits.
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the informatior
in this application is complete and accurate. 1 further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am
acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant.
4/22/04
OF APPLICANT DATE
SIGNATURE OF AG T
4/22/04
DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United
States knowingly and will fully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false,
facticious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any
false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 - ONLINE CESPK-CO-R

PROPOSED KINGS
VIEW GOLF UNKS
sheet 1 of 23
SummctJ. EnginccringAssociatcs, nLC VICINI1 1 M1r
EnsineerinS-Landf7annins-Consulting
001,455 Ca.56-t IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
A-6" NG i,rzoi SOPHA RANDOM COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
r1.w.7!<fts.oso: ra ?iLl?sosu
USACE-AID.-100311395
It
1 ' r
? a t
IUN
t ?---- - ,? it

C0Q?-.

s
k ? .1
3-D TopoQuads Copyright 0 1999 DeLorme Yarmouth, ME 04096 Source Data: USGS 50 ft Scale: 1: 12,000 Detail: 13-1 Datum: NAD27 „
Q}
4k-
GRAPHIC SCALE
800' 400' 0 800' MW
f = 800' FEET
sheet 3 of 23
summcy EnginccringA55odatc5, nLc EXISTING CHANNEL / STREAM SUMMARY
Ensin-,ins-[,end Tannins-C n.. ns
101t$5CM5 IRRIGATION lAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF L1NK5
anrCz,:o, SOPHK RANDOLPH COUMY, NORTH CAROLINA
USACE - ALD. -100321395
Proiect Summary
This site is located in Northern Randolph County approximately 15 miles South of Greensboro, NC.
The site is approximately 186.38 acres. See sheet #1 for the Vicinity Map showing the location of the
site. The Farlow Family has owned the property and ran a dairy farm since the early 1950's. Due to
relentless regulations the dairy farm had to close down in 2001 after over 50 years of milk production.
The property consists of over 100 acres of farm land that was used for crop production for many years.
Approximately 28 acres is wooded. To maintain income, the family has proposed to turn their farm
into the only true golf links course in the area in order to maintain ownership of their property. Several
developers have approached the Farlow's in hopes of developing the property into a subdivision but
the family desires to keep their property.
The project we propose is for the development of an 18 hole links golf course with an irrigation lake
centrally located to provide water for the yards. It is estimated the irrigation system would use in
excess of 1 million gallons per day. It would not be feasible to purchase this amount of water even if it
was available. It is necessary to have an irrigation lake for this reason.
As you can see from the site plans on sheets #7 & #8, the project is very complex. The site contains
several linear feet of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral channels. See sheet #3 for the existing
channel/stream summary for the site. This sheet describes each channels importance as described by
both the NCDENR-DWQ Wetland Unit and the US Army Corp of Engineers. Stream determinations
have been made by the proper agencies as listed on the summary sheet. Several site visits have been
performed by the engineer with both USACE and DWQ staff in the planning for this project. Many
months of preparation has been made in the planning for this project resulting in what we consider as
minimal impacts to the site stream/channel networks when considering there are over 7,500 If of
channels on the site.
The development of the irrigation lake will affect a perennial stream in two ways. First, the dam
construction will require a pipe to be placed that will impact 1181f of stream. Including the erosion
control rip rap outlet protection, the impact is 1481f. Secondly, the dam itself will flood approximately
11081f of channel. These are described in the application as Impacts #I and #2 respectively. Impact
#3 consists of piping approximately 2401f of stream for the construction of Hole #12. Impact #4
includes a temporary stream crossing in Caraway Creek. This crossing would be approximately 12
wide made of stone for the crossing of trucks as required during construction. The stone crossing
would be removed and the creek brought back to its original condition once the construction was
completed. The creek bottom is almost solid rock as it is now which will result in low disturbance.
Impact #5 consists of placement of a precast conc. Intake structure with a minimum disturbance of 51f
in creek.
Mitigation plans are also included in this application. In summary, these mitigation plans consist of
enhancing approximately 5821f of stream to an Enhancement II level for the 3881f of stream that is
proposed to be piped. Additional mitigation includes the preservation and enhancement of
approximately 14351f of stream buffer areas on a separate piece of property. This enhancement
consists of establishingtrestoring a 75 ft buffer on each side of the existing creek and placing the
property in a land conservation easement that is held by a third party.
Please refer to the other parts of this application for more details concerning the impacts, avoidance
and minimization efforts, and mitigation proposals.
toy 23
sheet S of 23
Summcy EnginccringAssociatcs, fuc INDEX MAP
?nsineeiing-Land Plannins- Consultins
,o,}s ca sue. IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COMM, NORTH CAROLINA
nb.. »? ?ssaso2 ra?1H:. osu
USACE -AID. -100311395 .
LINE TA BLE
LINE LENGTH BEARING
L1 647.91
L2 1662.68
L3 701.83
L4 939.47
L6 466.36
L6 227.83
L7 323.04 SMrOlft
La 347.94
L9 363.06
L10 18288 WWRYWE
L11 329.66
L12 815.11
L13 647.80
L14 1221.91
L15 808.39
L16 639.28
L17 29247
LIS 31294 S73-3r2"°
L19 18321
L20 1197.47
L21 872.62
L22 667.73
L23 385.63
L24 'M"
ADO
PRC
PUR
LINE TA BLE
LINE LENGTH BEARING
L25 140.41
L26 226.70
L27 17910
L20 ,;0.13
L29 199.34
L30 282.96
L31 264.66
L32 646.64
L33 460.26
L34 307.79
L35 189.62
L35 121.82
L37 146.63
L38 16202
L30 349.00
L40 26366 S781 r-'M'E
L41
i All 20242
eu M Soms
•.?rxrwrr?.MW
sheet 6 of 23
summcy f:nginccn"ngAssociatcs, fac BOUNDARY MAP
EngineennS- Land Planning- Consulting
,o,P-as cd.,~ IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
A-h-b--n NC:vzo.l SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
n° `"F"' °'°'r..1'?':• ?'? USACE - IUD. -100321395
Cd-gym.
Un
f" = 800' FEET
Y
ti 4,`
r_
s?
w C 'Y
-,`Y-- LTYPICAL CHANNEL CROSSING
WITH BRIDGE
NOTE:
CHANNEL CROSSINGS ARE SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE ONLY. BRIDGES WILL BE
USED AND WILL HAVE NO FILL
PLACEMENT IN CHANNEL.
summey EnginceringAssociates, ALC
Eng necring- Land Planning- Consulting
,v,eL85c?56-
A.1."1vc:7:o
r6• j)L32AOJ02roj§js-j26Of:2
GRAPHIC SCALE
500' 250' O 500' 1000'
1 500' FEET
sheet 7 of 23
OVERALL PROJECT SHEET I
IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
SOPHU, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
USAGE -AID. -100311395
4
6 ewer,
GLUM
.r.,,
4f
Lars
Lars`
V .
i? • _ oar NAWMMUM
?c 3
r I r

a? ? f.
k
TYPICAL CHANNEL
CROSSING W/-BRII
Fps ®. `
A° .? C,
NOTE: CHANNEL CROSSINGS ARE SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE ONLY. BRIDGES WILL BE ?o
USED AND WILL HAVE NO FILL PLACEMENT
IN CHANNEL.
15ummc EnginccfingA5socrates, fac
Engineering- Land Planning- Consulting
Ada /VC w2o1
P?? ss4l:ioyaz / ?.1 sL716o9:z
O 4.W.r•4!. .,
4 rem-?e•` `"`
GRAPHIC SCALE
500' 250 0 500' 1000'
1 " = 500' FEET
sheet 8 of 23
OVERALL PROJECT SHEET 2
IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
USACE-A1D.-100311395
Offske Alternative Analvsis
An offsite alternative analysis was done for this project. As the items summarized below indicate, no
feasible offsite alternative is even practical for this project. As noted earlier in the project summary this
project was developed as an alternative to the family farm that is out of business and in lieu of developing a
subdivision. It would not be feasible or even possible for the family in any way to purchase another piece
of property and do this project even if one existed. After much research and contacting two realtors
familiar with the Randolph County area, no other sites simply exist that would serve the purpose for the
project. Below are items that were looked at:
• Alternates sites are simply not available for this project either onsite or off-site that comply with
development plans.
• An off line lake for irrigation was considered but is simply not feasible with the site features
present with the given land.
• Land in the project vicinity is not for sale that would provide the same or similar project
characteristics.
• No land with existing pond sites are for sale in this area with development potential.
• Local licensed real estate agents familiar with Randolph County were consulted for property
listings in the area that would sustain this type development but none existed.
The land owner desires to develop his family property that has the hydrologic characteristics to support a
healthy thriving irrigation lake environment. Most other channels/streams on the tract owned by the family
whether perennial or intermittent will be protected.
°\ *4 Z3
Avoidance & Minimization
May hours have been spent revising the original plan in order to avoid and minimize impacts to the
channels and streams located on the project. Almost every hole was piped to begin with that had a channel
flowing through it but now all but one has been opened up and will be preserved. The following list shows
the effort put forth and compromises made by the family in order to minimize the affects the original plan
had on the streams.
• Alternates sites are simply not available as seen in the "Offsite Alternative Analysis" below for
this type project either onsite or offsite that comply with development plans.
• Land in the project vicinity is not for sale that would provide the same or similar project
characteristics.
• No land with existing pond sites is for sale in this area with development potential.
• The land owner desires to develop only his property that has the hydrologic characteristics to
support a healthy thriving pond environment. Other portions of the tract owned by the developer
are located on higher ground with no positive hydrologic features that would aid in the
development of a pond.
• This irrigation lake will be imperative to the development of this proposed golf course by
providing a source of adequate irrigation.
• The dam height has been reduced by eight (8) feet from the original size the developer planned for
due to efforts to minimize impacts to the stream areas surrounding the site. This reduction in
height and width of dam reduced the channel being filled approximately 50 feet. See Sheet # I I
• The dam height reduction decreased the water level thus reducing the flooded channel impacts by
approximately 350 feet.
• Approximately 1.8 Acres of additional land was purchased from an adjacent property owner for
over S 12,000.00 in order to move Hole #4 and avoid impacting the Stream "N". This reduced
piping a perennial stream by over 250 feet.
• Hole #5 will be moved back to reduce the piping impacts to the perennial stream by over 250 feet.
• Channel Banks along Hole #3 will retain the tree root system and plant root structures and not be
cleared and grassed all the way down to the waters edge as previously planned. The root system
will be maintained for erosion protection.
• Channel Banks along Hole #4 will retain the tree roots and plant root structures and not be cleared
and grassed all the way down to the waters edge as previously desired. The root system will be
maintained for erosion protection.
• Stream thru Hole # 10 was originally proposed to be piped but will now be part of the mitigation
for the site that will include stream enhancement II. This reduced piping impacts 350 feet.
• Stream thru Hole # 13 was originally proposed to be piped but is now undisturbed. This reduced
piping impacts by 320 feet on an intermittent stream.
• Stream thru Hole #17 was originally proposed to be piped but is now undisturbed. This reduced
piping impacts by 240 feet on a perennial stream.
• Stream thru Hole # 18 was originally proposed to be piped but is now undisturbed. This reduced
piping impacts by 345 feet on a perennial stream.
• Headwalls have been added to the dam outlet pipe reducing the disturbance by approximately 20
feet.
• Headwalls have been added to Hole #12 on the pipe to reduce impacts by approximately 15 feet.
As stated above, much effort has been put forth to minimize the stream impacts. Impacts of almost
2,500 If have been reduced through the avoidance and minimization process.
10 04 z3
V I sheet[ of 213
,5ummcy EnginccringAssociates, PLLC ORIGINAL POND LAYOUT
Engineering-Land f lanninS- ConsultinJY
IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
A. gNC2,mj SOMIA, MNDOIM COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
P?? i76-i1?-o902 P? ii6ils-o911
?••?-? ?. USACE -AID. - 200321395

Impact Summary
Impact #1- Fill placed in Channel for Dam Construction -1481f total
Impact #2 - Flooded Channel as a result of Dam Construction -11081f total
Impact #3 - Hole #12 Piped - 2401f total
Impact #4 - Temporary Creek Crossing - Will be restored after construction
Impact #5 - Placement of Precast Concrete Intake Structure -101f total
Basic
Impact Impact Impact Channel Compensatory Compensatory
# Length Description Quality Mitigation Mitigation
(Feet) Ratio Requirement
1 128 Fill Poor 1:1 148'
20 Rip Rap
2 1108 Flood Poor %z:1 554'
3 215 Fill Poor 1:1 240'
25 Rip Rap
4 12 Temporary Good N/A Will be restored
Crossing
5 5 Placement of Good 2:1 10'
Precast
Concrete
Intake
Structure
?2 ac 23

Summcy EnginceringAssociates, Iuc PROPOSED IRRIGATION LAKE
engineering-Land Planning- Consulting
,0,9 a.? c--%, t IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
A•&-b•n,1VC1,rzo3 SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
n- 33432bOy02 F- 336-32".?22
e?+ ..?r.?Kaa o?. USAGE - A.ID. -100311395
IMPACT #I & #2 sheet 13 of 23
+-.?_Y- - -- - - ---
-• -
i ! - - -

128' FILL
LACE IN
A/L.F. (INCLUD RIP RAP
IET PROTE, ON FOR
)SION CON,TROL.)
GRAPHIC SCALE
60' ,3'0, 0 60' 120'
1 ~ = 61' FEET IMPACT #1 sheet 14 of 23
summcy EnginccrrngAssociatcs, ruc PROPOSED IRRIGATION LAKE
Engineering-[.and flanning-ConsultinK
IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
A-6b •q NC2,-2o1 SOPHK RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROUINA
?l u'a 1316-3260y02 P-176-i2"f22
C-.4-4w"hcb a USACE - ALD. -100321395
lit

Z F-
OV?O

F-4N=
0 a)
W
F
C,p Z m0
?QZ
r°? W
U
UUJ
S M
I Q
00
r n .
CILZ
?
J
OaO
!-tf) -j O
i B LW
8
J J
Z W WQW
W ZL J in iE 13
/r WZ
W
d N J
O=XUQU
U-j
ZUW???
m
W
s; u
r a
Z

ib in O
gal w
h-
r Sq

? ?Hl
Q
Ii ?x3?
?
d
s m

N

IMPACT'#1 sheet 15 of 23
Summey EngineeringAssociates, Mc DAM CROSS SECTION
Engineering-Land Planning- Consulting
,o,,,.gs Cms*va IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
/YvwIVC2723 SOPHIA, RAND" COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
Pha?33L3?9?P?33v31sos22
(?`..?-a.JoimAebororo. USAGE-ALD -200321395

660
65(
64C
63C
"atom
SCALE:
HORIZ. 1 "=80'
VERT. 1 "- 8'

1 I
? i
1
/
? TER LE , L L
652.0
/
Pao POSm

I \ ?1 1 Ax ( vllft /
I
?

I
I •` I
I I ? ? I/
I !

i +
I +
I r" c"u v.4'" f
I

I I
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00
IMPACT #1 sheet 17 of 23
summey EngineeiingAssociates, juc POND CROSS SECTION B
Engineering- [, and Planning- Consulting
,ou,bs c-sue IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
AAd?•glVCZnm SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
rl-.336.32".suz P." 3i<3.2*- '22
E-d- ? USACE - A.LD. - 200321395
j
•g /
•
00 0
' •'• ..'
. t •?
H E •
%
*:a 0
CMLE
1•
..J
i•-
f •
215 LF. PIPE
W/ 25' RIP RAP
OUTLET PROTECT
bdl • 582 LF.
ENHgNCI
.. • .
• no
•
%
4
•
GRAPHIC SCALE
100' 50' 0 100' 200'
f" = 100' FEET
IMPACT #3 sheet 18 of 23
summcy EnginccrrngAssociafcs, rac HOLE No. 12 PIPING
Enginecring- Land Planning- Consulting
,a,YL85c-s&-t IRRIGATION TAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
A b-, NC272os SOPHA RMNDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
P "s-szeoyFw Fs3X-32"szz USACE - AID. -200321395
t---l O L
?(IDE\ TE PORA CR EK
\\\ \\c s S F E C S R ON.)
(1
CO P 0 0 GR 1
i
,l
l
' ORCEMAI
TO I R

E LINE
INTAKE STRUCTURE-'
?'x3' PRECAST CONC.
• - r
PROP D BRIDGE
\12' WIDE NO FILL TO
PLACE IN CHANNEL

I"= 50' FEET IMPACT #4 & #5 sheet 19 of 23
summey EngineeringAssociafcs, fa c
CREEK CROSSING
Engineering-Land f7anning-Consulting
,o,p-85 Cars IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
,a.1-IVCI,-2oi SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COUNR NORTH CAROUNA
USACE - A.M. -100321395
C?-gyp.
Miti!ation Proposal Summary
Type of Basic
Impact Mitigation Mitigation Compensatory Mitigation Mitigation
# Proposed Activity Mitigation Required Proposed
Multiplier Requirement eet (Feet)
1 Stream 1.5 148' 222 222
Enhancement H
2 75' Buffer 2.5 554' 1385 1385
Preservation &
Enhancement
3 Stream 1.5 240' 360 360
Enhancement H
4 . Restore to Temporary Will be restored Will Be Restored Will Be Restored
Natural State Crossing
Activity Multiplier agreed upon by USACE
Stream Enhancement II plans to be approved prior to issuance of Individual Permit and to follow minimum
guidelines as set forth by regulatory agencies and latest design information available.
The 75' Stream Buffer Preservation and Enhancement Areas are to be 75' from top of bank landward on
each side of stream. Buffer to meet 380 tree per acre minimum guidelines. Buffer to be placed in Land
Conservation Easement.
5 75' Buffer 5:1 10' 50' 50'
Preservation &
Enhancement
Total Stream Enhancement II = 582'
Total 75' Buffer Preservation & Enhancement =1435'
20 of 7 3

?.
10
Ile
I

Q Un Q EA

iW'P TIS
D AP (
IN DUA
MITIGATION PROPOSAL AREA FOR IMPACTS #1 & #3 sheet 21 of 23
summcy EnginccringAssociatcs, PLL_C STREAM ENHANCEMENT AREA
E,Sineering-LandPlanning-Consulting
,o,9$5 c--5b-f IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
q Ad-bom NCz,rzo3 SOMA RANDOM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
, -.f34 32&09OZ F- 334020-Q9Z2
USAGE - AID. - 200321395

H
"
98.00
S89-54-45"HI
143.10'
N18'50'00"W
121.24'
N 88'59'53"E
173.95'
Q
c, 0
? ?N
Q ?
?c
N
O
T .
T
Q1
T
T
N
N8721'28"w
439.86'
W p?
s M
N
}}
IN M
O co
z
r-
M
co
n
O
M
M
N co
cV M
o N
0
rn
0
N
G)
T
O
p 't
cs M
? to 00 M
O N N
PROPOSED 75' Z
00 N
N
PRESERVE AND ENHANCE
BUFFER ALONG CREEK A M
TOTAL OF 1,435 L.F. AND
PROVIDE LEVEL 3 MONITORING N N
N M
M

GRAPHIC SCALE co
N LO
c*4
300' 150' 0 300 600'
84'55 05

1 300' FEET 859.90'
MITIGA TION PROPOSAL AREA FOR IMPACTS #2 & #5 sheet 22 of 23
Summey EngincctingAssociatcs, rac BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
En jvinccn'nS-L,and Planing- Consulting
,o,yzS carsh- IRRIGATION LAKE - KINGS VIEW GOLF UNKS
,4•? , NC2.-3
33432"X2 Pao 31f-i20-0y22 SOPHA RANDOIPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
c...+-? USACE - AID. -100321395
cwr ?1
c?
N89*24'13"E
323.52
co
M
T
T
LO
T
co
T
n
T
co
T
USACE - A.I.D. 2003 21395
KING' S VIEW GOLF LINKS
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION
PACKAGE
SUPPLEMENTAL
PERMIT
INFORMATION
.
a3 a{' 03
Randolph County, NC - Geographic Inquiry System
rea Location
Randolph County, NC -
Search
Functions
Parcel Owner
PIN (Parcel Id
Nbr)
Address
Road
Tax_Map Id
Subdivision
Display
Functions
Refresh
Map
Map
Zoom In
Zoom
Out
Zoom
Factor
Identify Feature
None
Miscellaneous
Functions
Printable Map
Display_Parcel
Data
Full Map Extent
GIS Home Page
Hel I
Frequently Asked
Questions
Page 1 of 1
rapnic Inquiry System III Available
Apply Layers
Municipalities-
OShaded
Outlined
Parcel Coverage
Y ass tructure
Addresse
Parcel
v Annotation
i Lot
Dimensioi
QLot Numb
ss arcel
umbers
Rv Parcel Lot Lir
0Legal Lot
Lines
r=Subdivisic
LLAOutlined)
=Tax Parce
Water Covera_q(
?=Floodplaif
?®Streams
? Watersheds
Balance
ritical
Other Co_v_emgc
1998 Aeri
=Photos
?ire Distri
,, chool
?Districts
F,=Voter
Districts
7oning
Districts
?=Tax Map
Index
The data c ollection used to produce this media was last updated on 4/7/2004 @ 11:59:1 2 AM EST
Date/Time Stamp Ail Information on this media is prepared for the inventory of real property found within Randolph County. All data,
including maps, is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, and other public records and data. Users of this data are
hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the
4/22/2004 2:01:59 information. All information contained herein was created for the County's internal use. Randolph County, its agents
PM EST and employees make no warranty as to the correctness or accuracy of the information set forth on this media whether
Version 2.5 (December express or implied, in fact or In law, including without limitation the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
2003) particular use. Any resale of this data is strictly prohibited in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 132-10.
Grid is based on North Carolina State Plane NAD27.
http://www.co.randolph.nc.uslscriptslesrimap.dll?name=Randolph&DisplayDataHyperlink... 4/22/2004
Randolph County, NC - Parcel Information
Randolph County, NC - Residential Parcel Information
Page 1 of 3
The data collection used to induce this media was last updated on 4/7/2004 11:59:12 AM EST.
Tax Information
Parcel ID Nbr 7725946708 Tax Billing Code N
Owner Name FARLOW ISAAC RAPHAEL &
GERA Sale Date/Amt Unknown
LDINE ANDREWS City Dist(s) (°k) N/A
Owner Address 3258 FARLOW PINES DR
Fire Dist(s) (%) GUILRAND (100%)
Owner

City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8110 School Dist(s) (%) N/A
Property Land Value $399,850
Description R1536;E Building Value $243,750
Deed Book/Page 1820/980 Farm Deferred $0*
Plat Book/Page N/A Value
Revenue Stamps 0 Exempt Value $0*

Date Purchased
06/10/03 o

al
Tt Real Value

$643,600*
Tax Parcel Size 129.52 Acres Calculated
2003
Tax Amount $3,861*

• All Assessed Values shown (Land, Building, Farm Deferred
and/or Exempt) are as of Januar
1st
,
y
of the CURRENT YEAR
• * Because every TAXPAYER or every PARCEL may not qualify, please be advised:
o The Assessed Value shown does NOT reflect any Farm Deferred Value or Other Exemption
Value and is only a summation of Land and Building Value&
o The Calculated Tax shown is based on the tax rates for Randolph County and any Cit
Fire
y,
, .
and/or School Districts shown. Only the Land and Building Values are used for calculating the
Calculated Tax!
Top of Page Close Parcel Information Window
Location Information
Structure 3256 MT OLIVE CHURCH RD Census Tract 313.01

Addresses 3207 FARLOW PINES DR Zoning Dist(s)

City/St/Zip
(Jurisdiction) RA (RANDOLPH COUNTY)
SOPHIA
NC 27350
(Postal Dist) , Growth
Flood Plain
100 YEAR(A) (370195 01756) Management
A SECONDARY GROWTH AREA
(Map Nbr) rea
Watershed None School NEW MARKET (ELEMETARY)

Watershed Attendance RANDLEMAN (MIDDLE)
ype
T None Area RANDLEMAN (HIGH)
Township 13 -NEW MARKET
V
r Precinct
26 -NEWMARKET SOUTH
ivi sion
ffSubd N/A
Top of Page Close Parcel Information Window
Site/Land Information
Neighborhood 14960
Road Type DIRT ROAD
http://Www.co.randolph.nc.us/scriptslesrimap. dll?name=Randolph&Cmd=CreateDataWin... 4/22/2004
Randolph County, NC - Parcel Information
Page 2 of 3
Land Use
Type 101 WELL
Utilities
SEPTIC
Property Al
Class
Topography LEVEL W/STREET
ROLLING
Segment Type Segment Size
ACREAGE - (1)PRIMARY SITE 1.000 Acre(s)
ACREAGE - (7)SECONDARY SITE 1.000 Acre(s)
ACREAGE - (8)AGRICULTURE 118.960 Acre(s)
ACREAGE - (9)RESIDUAL 8.560 Acre(s)
Top.of Page Close Parcel Information Window
Appraisal Building Information (Card 01 of 02)
Living Area 1,344 Sq/Ft Basement N/A
Story Height 1.0 Garage
Exterior Walls ASBESTOS Ground Floor 1
120 Sq/Ft
Style CONVENTIONAL Living Area ,
Roof Material ASPHALT/ASBESTOS SHINGLE Building Section Level Type Area
Al 1
t 35

Year Built
1957 Additions s
16 Sq/Ft
A2 1st 35 28 Sq/Ft
Basement CRAWL Grade C-
Heating/Cooling CENTRAL Cost-Design N/A
Heating Fuel ELECTRIC CDU AVERAGE
Heating System WARM AIR Market
Baths 1 Adjustment 00
Half Baths 0 % Completed 100°/
Additional as of 01101103 °
Fixtures 2 Building YES
Finished Attic PARTIALLY FINISHED Sketch ----
Finished
N/A Building
Photo YES
-- -
Basement
Fireplace(s) 1 Masonry
Top of Page. Close Parcel Information Window
Other BuildingNard Improvement Information
Type Quantity Year Area Grade Condition Market
Adjustment Modification
Code(s) % Good
AG2 1 1963 18 X 13 C F 00% N/A 10%
AG2 1 1968 18 X 13 C F 00% N/A 10%
AG2 1 1974 18 X 26 C F 00% N/A 10%
AP2 1 1971 924 C F 00% N/A 10%
AM5 1 1976 880 C F 00% N/A 41%
AP6 1 1950 3,600 D F 00% N/A 10%
AS5 2 1950 20 X 60 C F 00% N/A 20%

http://Www. co.randolph.nc.us/scriptslesrimap. dll?name=Randolph&Cmd=CreateDataWin... 4/22/2004
Randolph County, NC - Parcel Information
RS5
1992 1 48 X 32 1 C I A 1 00%
Page 3 of 3
N/A 1 54%
Appraisal Building Information (Card 02 of 02)
Living Area 3,563 Sq/Ft Basement N/A
Story Height 1.5 Garage
Exterior Walls WD FRAME Ground Floor
Living Area 2,036 Sq/Ft
Style CONVENTIONAL Section Level Type Area
Roof Material ASPHALT/ASBESTOS SHINGLE Building Al 1st 31 256 Sq/Ft
Year Built 1983 Additions A2 1st 11 272 Sq/Ft
Basement CRAWL A3 1 St 35 25 Sq/Ft
Heating/Cooling CENTRAUAC Grade C+
Heating Fuel ELECTRIC Cost-Design N/A
Heating System HEAT PUMP CDU AVERAGE
Baths 3 Market 00%
Adjustment
Half Baths 0
Additional
2 % Completed
as of 01101103 100%
Fixtures
Finished Attic NONE Building
Sketch YES

Finished N/A Building
YES
Basement Photo
Fireplace(s) 1 Masonry
Top_ of Page Close_Parcel Information 1/llndow
Other BuildingNard Improvement Information
Type Quantity Year Area Grade Condition
l Market
Adjustment Modification
Code(s) % Good
AS5 1 1965 16 X 16 C F 00% N/A 29%
RS1 1 1984 2,700 D F 00% N/A 23%
1983 960 C F 00 % N/A 22 %
1983 960 D F 00 % N/A 22 %
E L 1975 99 C F 00 % N/A 13 %
AP6 I 1989 1,600 C F 00% N/A 35%
Date/ Time Stamp All information on this media is prepared for the inventory of real property found within Randolph County. All data,
d
ata are
including maps, is compiled from recorded deeds, plats, and other public records and data. Users of this
hereby notified that the aforementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the
4/22/2004 2:02:04 information. All information contained herein was created for the County's internal use. Randolph County, its agents
PM EST and employees make no warranty as to the correctness or accuracy of the information set forth on this media whether
express or implied, in fact or in law, Including without limitation the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
Version 2.5 (December particular use. Any resale of this data is strictly prohibited in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 132-10.
2003) Grid is based on North Carolina State Plane NAD27.
Top of Page Close _Parcel . Information Window
http://www.co.randolph.nc.uslscriptslesrimap.dll?name=Randolph&Cmd=CreateDataWin... 4/22/2004
AWN It )IIIJIM
06LL IM R fw

rmuI"
Vw
f4 3Q
?Rf
RL iW
ILL UK ft iH0
6?4 f 2w
NNW Efto
oa tm PC M9 y
da Drn au
MAY 4
oa 171
4 1/z alre o?reM ?a M & VAMA IM"* IA"
DA 17IQ6 PIL 1480
06L 317
i
"
a
ca +i?i
n
N
n
Julm
f
1
O4 . a7F caum UK
N®R F. JI
YLw W
M 4L 4 p ?,y?.
di 1 G??
ILL IM16 PG. C ?H?d
P96 an
ALA IL IdA"
06L SM PS 8"
?a7 6"'1 1474 R IM a t
DA IJM P06 00

4L ? ? dt tA 1?T71r
aa. ??ioa77arR
GRAPHIC SCALE
1000' 500' 0 1000' 2000'
1 1000'FEET
,5ummey
En EngineerrngAssociates, F.c ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS MAP
gincciing-L,and Planning- Consulting
iouLb5C-5r IRRIGATION LAKE -KINGS VIEW GOLF LINKS
A.1-b-aNC212o1 SOPHIA, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Pr'-«SiL3z-yo2F 116120oyzz
E-a_., lo-d-b . U14CE-ALD. - 200321395

a
r
Parcel ID Nbr 7725951095
Owner Name FARLOW TERRY RAY & SHARON P
Owner Address 3232 MT OLIVE CHURCH RD
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8248
Parcel ID Nbr 7725858626
Owner Name FARLOW JOEL
Owner Address 3325 MT OLIVE CHURCH RD
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8251
Parcel ID Nbr 7725953947
Owner Name FARLOW JOEL
Owner Address 3325 MT OLIVE CHURCH RD
Owner City/SUZip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8251
Parcel ID Nbr 7725964321
Owner Name SMITH ALEX & ROSALYNE A
Owner Address 3364 MT OLIVE CHURCH RD
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8250
Parcel ID Nbr 7725967555
Owner Name FARLOW MAX O & CECILE P
Owner Address 3277 FARLOW PINES DR
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350
Parcel ID Nbr 7725969605
Owner Name FARLOW RAPHAEL
Owner Address 3258 FARLOW PINES DR
Owner City/SUZip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8110
Parcel ID Nbr 7725968895
Owner Name DAVIS RAYMOND LEE & TERESA WHITE
Owner Address 3282 FARLOW PINES DR
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350
Parcel ID Nbr 7735062951
Owner Name NELSON JOSEPH E JR & JOYCE W
Owner Address 3696 MT OLIVE CHURCH RD
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8256
Parcel ID Nbr 7735075018
Owner Name NELSON JOYCE J & DONALD R WHITE
Owner Address 3462 MT OLIVE CHURCH RD
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8252
Parcel ID Nbr 7735164219
Owner Name FARLOW ARNOLD WAYNE & ELIZABETH A
Owner Address 630 FAIRGROVE CT
Owner City/SUZip EARLYSVILLE, VA 22936
Parcel ID Nbr 7735244800
Owner Name FARLOW MARY ELEANOR TRUSTEE OF 2000
Owner Address P O BOX 127 (ELEANOR FARLOW LIVIN)
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350
Parcel ID Nbr 7735044300
Owner Name FARLOW ISAAC RAPHAEL & GERALDINE ANDREWS
Owner Address 3258 FARLOW PINES DR
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8110
Parcel ID Nbr 7735032499
Owner Name FARLOW ISAAC RAPHAEL & GERALDINE ANDREWS
Owner Address 3258 FARLOW PINES DR
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8110
Parcel ID Nbr 7725919635
Owner Name FARLOW Q D & BETTY R
Owner Address 205 DELLWOOD ST
Owner City/SttZip ARCHDALE, NC 27263
Parcel ID Nbr 7725715960
Owner Name RICE STEVEN L & TAMMY S
Owner Address 3272 OLD FLINT HILL RD EXT
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350
Parcel ID Nbr
I 7725722421
Owner Name FARLOW MAX O & CECILE P
Owner Address 3277 FARLOW PINES DR
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350
Parcel ID Nbr 7725722421
Owner Name FARLOW MAX O & CECILE P
Owner Address 3277 FARLOW PINES DR
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350
Parcel ID Nbr 7725637383
Owner Name BAKER CHARLES E & BONNIE M
Owner Address 4646 PLINEY FARLOW RD
Owner City/St/Zip TRINITY, NC 27370-7449
Parcel ID Nbr 7725638860
Owner Name FARLOW JEFFREY ISAAC
Owner Address 3139 MT OLIVE CHURCH RD
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350-8247
Parcel ID Nbr 7725734846
Owner Name REEKES RHONDA COX & FELTON E III
Owner Address 3028 BAYBERRY DR
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350
i

I'll

11
i
I-
Parcel ID Nbr 7725737803
Owner Name STEPHENS BERKLEY M & MARGARET M
Owner Address 3054 BAYBERRY DR
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350
Parcel ID Nbr 7725842121
Owner Name HARRISON BENJAMIN L & CARRIE C
Owner Address 3080 BAYBERRY DR
Owner City/St/Zip SOPHIA, NC 27350
O ? 1(91t.lAL COmm`vtn?CG?.?:o/? p^ ?-d jcc.+
sti.o•a .n9 C??o?? '?0 0.VO tp ? ?r„n,cti-,?'2.C
imp
Golf Design Group
1*2MFA1 k
eR14kH L COSTELLO
MA29 E. HOLL04M
ROOM W LIOORL JR.
August 20, 2003
Re: King's View Golf Links
To: Project Team
The following is an effort to quantify our potential impacts to channels, to understand the scope of
those impacts, and to put it all into perspective. (Please note that all distances are approximate.)
Channel. A: The longest channel running North to South on which the hrigation Lake is to be sited.
Channel B: The channel running North to South through the proposed Practice Range.
Channel C: The channel running East to West which skirts the edge of Paul's property.
Caraway Creels: Running West to East in the southern part of the property.
Channel D: Than channel running West to East and feeding into Caraway Creek from the South.
Existing Length of Channels
Channel A: 3,950 If.
Channel R: 1,050 If. (this is a best guess at how much of the channel will be claimed)
Channel C: 1,400 It
Caraway: 650 It
Channel • 900 if.
Total: 7,850 If.
Aa presently proposed by the Route Plan, the total length of channel disturbance within the
Property i3 3,135 If. (or 40% of the channels).
Channel A: 1,700 If. of impact.
Channel B: 7001f. of impact.
Channel C: 735 If of impact.
Caraway: no impact
Channel D: no impact
1313 FOLGER DRIVE, DELMONT. CAUVORNIA 91002 USA- TEL: (6ri) 620400- FAX., (6W)G20-9M- k1WJ/wwrwjmpxn1Ue
614 MUR(:AN MEEK ROAD. CHAPEL TIM, NORTH CAROLINA 27517 USA • TEU (011) 96644 • FAX. [phone]
We have identified areas in which channel impacts can be reduced by introducing forced
carries and reducing total golf course yardage:
Revisions to Reduce Impacts:
Hole #12: Reduce piping & impact by 75 If.
Hole #13: Eliminate piping & reduce impact by 1801f.
Hole #14: Eliminate piping & educe impact by 150 If.
Hole #15: Eliminate piping & reduce Impact by 180 If
Hole 017: Eliminate piping & reduce impact by 250 If.
Hole #18• Reduce piping, and impact by 25 If.
Total Impact Reduction: 860 If
These reductions in impact would reduce the total impact on channels from 3,135 If. to 2,275
If. Channel impact would be reduced from 401A to 29% of the channels on the property. We
would preserve 71% of the channels (or 5,575 If. of the existing 7,850 If.)
Breakdown of Impacts:
Channel A: 1,2001£ for the Irrigation Lake.
175 If of pipe on Hole # 12.
Existing: 3,950 If.
Impact: 1,375 If.
Preserved: 2,550 If.
Channel B: 700 If of pipe for the Practice Range.
Existing: 11050 If.
Impact: 700 If.
Preserved 3501f:
Channel C: 200 If. of pipe on Hole #18.
Existing:
Impact
Preserved
Caraway: no
Existing:
Preserved
1,400 If.
2001f.
1,200 If.
impact
650 If.
6501f.
Channel D: no impact
Existing 800 if.
Preserved 8001f.
Discussion of Impacts and Perspective:
Our two most significant channel impacts occur with the Irrigation Cake and the Practice Range.
These two features account for 1,900 if (84%) of our impacts. The remaining channel disturbances
1513 FOLCLA DIUVL,1ELMO4T, CA1.iFO11MA 94M USA • TEL: (6M 62F9676- FAX: (65w) 62 }767 • k"V:Nwww40pCdLcm
614 MORCAN CREEK ROAD, CRAM. Htll, NORTH CAROLINA 27517 USA • TEL: (919)160-AM • FAX'019) 904363
account for only 3751f. of impact.
Irr[gadon Lake: We do not have Another viable option for an irrigation lake. We must have an
adequate water supply for golf course irrigation. Capturing the runoff from both on and off-site
provide us with this irrigation supply. A lake location on the southern part of Channel A provides
us with the best opportunity to capture substantial volumes of water. Wells in this area provide
inadequate yields for golf course irrigation. The terrain is such that attempting to excavate a lake
of sufficient storage capacity outside of the channels would acquire tremendous amounts of
earthwork, would significantly increased site disturbance and would be cost prohibitive. We simply
have no alternative. Perhaps on the positive side, even though the irrigation lake will impact 1,200
If, of channel, the channel will be rtplaced by a 5.1 acre body of water.
Practice Range: It is unclear at this time how much protected channel will be claimed along
Channel B. Channel R is the channel that bisects the Practice Range. IIopefully the length of
protected channel here can be minimized, thereby minimizing our impact. Regardless, the
orientation, topography and location of this area is ideal for the Practice Range. Preservation of this
section of Channel B would require a relocation of the Practice Range, Clubhouse Site and the
rerouting of virtually every golf hole The proposed Clubhouse Site and Practice Range location are
critical to the flow and sequence of golf holes, to the overall appeal of the golf course and to its
ultimate success. The golf course, as designed, follows the path of least resistance on the land-fbrm.
It fits comfortable on the land, thereby minimizing earthwork and site disturbance. A relocation of
the Practice Range and Clubhouse will require the Practice Range and numerous golf holes to be
forced on the site leading to significant increases in both cost and site disturbance.
The Edgar Road Property: A preliminary look at the mapping for this property indicates that we
could dedicate approximately 2,100 If of channel in exchange for our Impacts on the golf course
property.
Summary: The Irrigation Lake and Practice Range are the two elements of the design that are
creating the permitting hurdle for the Project. Yet, these two elements in their proposed locations
are absolutely critical to the quality of the golf course and the success of the Project. From the
perspective of "hardship" as it relates to the Farlows and the use of their land for this project, it
would seem that 7,850 If of channel (or blue-line stream) on a property of this size is unusual and
should be given consideration in the permitting process. I have worked on 1,000 acre projects in the
Piedmont that did not have half the length of the blue-line streams that this property possesses.
Please call with any thoughts, comments or questions.
Regards, t ,
Robert W. Moore, Jr. ASGCA
Principal
1513 FOLGZR DRIVE. DELMONT, CALTF011N1A 94002 USA - TZ1- (fah {M9670 • FAX: (6")620-9707 • rap:n r..w.)mftuacc
614 M(MGAN CBLEk ROAD, CHAPEL HILL, N1(MIM CAROLINA 27317 USA • TEL. [phone]. FAX: (919) %64M

Z-s
Ilk
?3 ?C y s
f
-.wry
•
4A4 I
Rik
`fey
pREA- DownI'sTl
r
f .i a
" V.0014
04-
ANN*
OR.
s ..
ZEA rJLftrD/A7= ?? ??JCc/,{I?((PE.:F 13 Pe
It ?, R.. It - jar. ..? ° ,i"??: •?
tq
? "? 4',-b..? y= ! S.?4.. i. `Yt ati •??! i ? ?'"' Y./ e ,4..' ?'rk : ?? ?, ?..
'?+?4r<.....?•?S? y„ . • ?•?, " f'° '? "!?`iy': w? 'fir. '-? 1 ???,?.. ? .w y;
re z
,`;r mss' ± s} ,„ „iaa ?t'F°A ` rr ? .•,i{F? # -
46-
4T?+'f4' fir, .i 9 j•!`: ,/?' ,?ISE,?" ?4i r
I vu?-
%a._ it r, t? ,4?i` '?> ; ? a .??1, y. c sj ? j-3`5.•? i`a ?v ? i s v
-3:o-.-? ?'" .-?.cx' ?ns•=` '` .? ?#? ? ffi. : ? .? ? q1F.??•? R ? '`,. ? y' '' ,:.. ' i, ? ?=-"?''
4 4k;t ?r ?F?' to{?xa s. R, btr?;y A.
aim ? 64 _
• : rr
t: ?ti'r a

a : - .aavr410
R
Aiii,

V'P,5TpE AVIV
-T a?, a E` C1 A ?`t;

ni V1,
r ?
+` i `•• sa?`??;t - ?4', ? ,. ?, ? L};:y .fir - a??'?
j:
k''dP ° ; e `wry 1 <
R f??}}. 5 tji - ? ..
'Ail
¢y ?r _#$a 1 kA xy "" ra rk
$ykr4'
ILL
46
G 1?`1 4?

40,
ie

k y
. ? s
9
'1?#I kj 6` c? 5?
+14%?'
-4 SCi
r ?$
?A
?tor t.fE. ?.:?f E,av
S+
l ?
E
Y
- s
?s . 1$
. .
Awl5
44
?r
Ya,,?xe-
? ,? e

t
Can 4. up 1 --q) '4,
tip ?'?raF?>p?E? ?rn??4.R?

vat • 7q?1?;?:' s
i
Ilk-

4!
. 1 , d4
1
r ?
r. 4"', *
%
TM
`s a
}MPaun4pt-, E-\T A?-tA
In 4?er t''?" 'S 1
Awl
lilt
.a t } x
-« . , ? ? h .tpJr
S : r A p"
a
1M PoUlt>aM?NT ?'

.
- a
..i
4jq
r'
y 7f
y ; ,fir ? ? ? i# a ?4
i 1sl j?a ? ?.1Dr«:wT /??2 E
PT alt. 41L c,',-
,t
? r
? F ,
?1ty

f
,a4
..

?r

4i.,

ll1'`?'ft?t:?;ra ?€ PT La
5
4 X ,
IPT
'w
c
'ig '

? .z
_ 'PS kan ?? a
7.0
4.1
l MPou?+?M?<<? C /? t2 ? tk
4, M,
ewes ate Z .,
V'A
!Wl - ?4I??igrtBy„. ,
# - -
IMPvumDtAV_S-t AV-CA
Q'S'. tr

f.
r .
3p v a
a d
den
'°-aMr°
3? ?T? x r
all
,r
am-
?a t / ?, '' .?7 9 ? y4 - > , apt '6t•,?• : k , . ! r' , ,
a r ! ? ? ? ?, ?,,?, ;£ , ? to 9i ?i e?9f??jt a - - r.?.! i ? ? r .y°i? } k '"?F L i?y' •
N4?.:. v st! Z' ?t ,ter k x
{?? .,"'.I ` +? ? / st,p? a? + !?'• fd ?'1 WYE c ? *?. its S?R',1??
:I7
?'f j a "4 8 7 i I'? • rJ ! ! ?i .y y :. P' i I3 l
i>°> r}I i it ??q' yYf r • i r;i7f-',"4VW '4
i
f ail lj f f r?, `A I'? ! ?P ? IS {! i ;m'r t?', i? a it r?? tr?ar ?• ?? _ ) i
?P o-?s ,,,???sss
',$N
??ID15iUt? E,ta AREA M.?OqC Pol.Q-` 32c,