19950274 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19950110

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
. Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 1, 1995
Landfall Associates
P. O. Box 5368
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
Dear Sirs:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed Horseshoe Lake construction
Project # 95274, COE # 199500221
New Hanover County
FILE COPY
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3002 issued to Landfall Associates
dated 1 June 1995.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Pston oward, Jr.
Attachments
3002.wgc
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Larry Zucchino; Paton/Zucchino
Cornelius Milmoe; L.O.A.F.
A IF
'VA
4; -too
ID FE F1
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
' NORTH CAROLINA
New Hanover County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North. Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Landfall Associates
resulting in 3.57 acres of wetland impact in New Hanover County pursuant to an application filed on
the 13th day of April of 1995 to excavate and plant wetlands adjacent to Horseshoe Lake. ,
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters
of Horseshoe Lake in conjunction with the proposed development in New Hanover County will not
result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter
set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction related
discharge (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by
DEM; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTUs
in trout waters).
2. DEM shall be copied on all as-built and mitigation plans for this project.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification. This
Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made conditions of the
Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 1st day of June, 1995.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P ston How-- r. P.E.
WQC# 3002

1.1 H 4.`r,(- .^ •..i? 1, .`.l ? _? .? ? 4: "f ?, l V ? ? ? ?\` "_ S ? i -? .. , t _... + ? ?._
nfi R" ^ t r "N 7? 77 T?

0 7,7

_ 1.
L:; 1N11 (_t _+._•x\
C.
C ;
-. t
F???'q`? c?GFo
OAN 2? ??
Fs
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
Environmental Sciences Branch
Ecological Assessment Group
FROM: James K. Leumas, P. E. J W L/
State Dam Safety Engineer
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Dam Safety Program
RE: Proposed Landfall Upper Lake Dam
New Hanover County
Corps of Engineers' Action ID No. 199500221
AT:.KWA
C) FE F1
August 10, 1995
RECEDED
40G 141995
ENVIRCNMHV
T? kSC1ENCES
?q-l ,?„
This memorandum acknowledges receipt of your facsimile transmission sheet dated August
9, 1995 along with the Corps of Engineers' "Public Notice" dated April 13, 1995 for the referenced
project. Also included in your transmittal was a letter and associated attachments dated May 10,
1995 from the "Landfall Owners Against Fill." I appreciate you sending me a copy of the "Public
Notice" because I was unaware of the applicant's desire to construct a dam. I do not generally
receive such notices from the Corps of Engineers. Since you do receive these notices, I would
appreciate you advising me when dams are to be constructed pursuant to Corps of Engineers'
"Public Notices."
By copy of this memorandum to Landfall Associates, a permit to construct a dam may be
required in accordance with the North Carolina Dam Safety Law of 1967. (G. S. 143-215.23 et
sea.) The applicant's engineer may wish to discuss permitting requirements for construction of a
dam with either Mr. Jack H. Palmer, Jr., E.I.T., Assistant Dam Safety Engineer or me at telephone
number [phone].
JKL/
cc: Mr. Daniel E. Sams, P. E.
Mr. Jeff Richter
Landfall Associates (cert. mail)
Geological Survey Section Land Quality Section Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
L.O.A. E
Landfall Owners Against Fill
1700 Verrazzano Place
Wilmington, NC 28405
"Committed to a firm Foundation"
May 10, 1995
Mr. Jeff Richter
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington NC, 28402-1890
Re: (ALItior? 1D No. 199500221)
Dear Mr. Richter,
LOAF is committed to maintaining and improving the Landfall community environment. As
owners we are directly and substantially affected by any construction, dredge, and fill actions in or
around Landfall. Past dredge and fill actions at Landfall have adversely impacted property values, and
Landfall has an express "no exceptions" policy of not taking responsibility for subsurface problems
including fill on lots it has marketed as suitable for residential construction.
Given this record of non-responsibility, LOAF opposes issuance of any permits authorizing
dredging or filling at Landfall without full hearings with an opportunity for owner-victims to be heard and
for the Landfall management and engineers to be cross examined under oath. Landfall management
has mislead Landfall Owners, there is no reason for the Corps and North Carolina permitting authorities
to assume they have told the truth in the permit application or that they will undertake any commitments
they make with regard to subsurface improvements. Again, we have documented evidence that Landfall
denies any responsibility for subsurface conditions, regardless of legal obligations, contractual
representations, land covenants or the good of the Landfall community or the environment. Until
Landfall changes this policy, it should not be issued any new permits involving dredge and fill. A full
environmental impact analysis is the only meaningful alternate.
But for the vigilance of other residents, this stealthy permit application might have gone
unnoticed by LOAF, and State and Federal review would have occurred without the proper measure of
public participation. Please include our organization on your list of interested parties or intervenors and
provide us notice of all further hearings, proceedings, submittals, comments, and decisions in this
matter.
Respectfully sub ied
Cornelius J. Mil oe,
Issues Coordinator
M ??Fi?Fo
Copies: John Yelverton, Landfall
Rar????
N. Carolina DEM oNNI .S
Membership (25)
ti ?40FS
0. y p, U k
os E- ` SC
03
VJ ??j ps Up ?OdR ?? Ot V 0 ? ???3t 2 ?? n ¦
A-4 k
0
W
?YYYYYYYYYYYY
C N.?000PNnMN/jh
o ^^o
N 444F F4F4F444F F4F FF444F ~
? y? W W? W W W W W= W
0: 0000000000p
d N GA V1 VI N YI YI Vi UA.
p W W W W Wy! W W W W=
6CKKCKOCKCCYp,
? 3^?0
VI WWI
Y
W N?<
C' .-i, MI '11f1101?i 01?dF
d d daao.dd??dpdp
xzr
1.
?1
J?
?j
41,
0
a
-s-
FIGURE 4 Proposed Development Program for Project Area
w z" ?
a o 3 a. G
r, w z
x
w ? od y o= ac o= ca F ? Y ? _ .
ugt C (t] CS yj ? ? I t i
R!
O
M ??? i 9i 6 u 6 ? -
04 IN,
fi 'r •J
rr?
ti I ?. n a
? 1 d
a ?
z ', \
\ \
I ?
?of
1111119
p!?'/l3thR et.vi?ttrr i ? 1' - i? zw
4YYY\N_4 MAa..MA. ?i 1 f ??N?
1 / I I ? w°1
o ^^ -
s '1 w
1 1
o O0. - ?
`• 1 - :.„??,. .0 0.'J -• e :i'
0000
ceooo0o °r.n„ '111111!: '?.?.. .1. '?'?•?
Illlll r. ..d ,.' ? ?
1111 / o
nn ? uln;, oa
1111. Ilan. °Z
ii?iiu . ? nnnu. ,?
r. u
ii:K iiiiiill?? •n I1" ?
innnl:l un li: ?
N .
1111111111` 111 Ins Z?
1 Id W
wo
1 i .I:

1 i I
I
Ormn Pl 1
- NI 11 ,Il 11111 111
Z - ?yl
l1iIl1 I: 11111111
?N '•I' 1 ,IIIlI W:111•
y ? 1?', It' .. 11 ::1111flo` 111 -
zo '1111111li 1111 k?1I
Vz Illlll I lilt
in - -
y :I!1ll11l 1 I lilt
o . Ill
Z ••bb? / 'lilt!! ?' o
••p.'.. o / 111;
O , t ac
28
\ v' ,y e' l},. Illlll , a ooo0n
Vp? • .1:11118 1111111. ^I, r•o °oo
1 .i'.^?'??- II:IIIIL?illltll+' \ ?4r, ., °ooo
1 ,EO, oil •• o.." .[:11111 fill" ?? +?' aoa'?o °'
.?.. .w ?? '111:1!•. nir7
1?:::': .I :? ? • 1 ?. 1' ? ^V Op0?00 00000
- - •, •lO V000 00e0oa
}i ?cot?33?... .' n000 aoOC
1' tl. O.
_ C? o•;,,,;?:: ??i.l 1'„'41111:. ;.
T. o
T"oj ,.oo coo ca o. ^ ?` It
-0 It
Cn :is c I
1 04 ?° It
N `` ? C qA
\• ?ici?°ac •?p u + ? o"Y U
INS
7Ca ! `
F?ti / V `I` as •rrr??erw r+ttiwiwi'',
.. f?Z (/ ?1° / ? ; . ?_ !•!t7>1SRhtiiQ i//iKI713
? s #iiss?0
\
. ? =rte
\ k ? r ? ? tic
X i 2
t #
Z ? =,c'? "? ? ? ? # tl t ?{it{tgy??? p
i?i BRIE
a:
MATM
x ?' ICI' ? .-,?C7 ? °? ? x _.....
s
1-3
g QQR4 _ yo? z Coga?a? xz
`tl -sip '°
? Y m r,r.
F
Qt F ga
Z
oA,r?
w ? ?z

>U
F
O? ?u
1
E
U
C4
z ?
V E
°pg E.
ti0
IN a Q0•,
f r
tl 6 E'
? i????_ ? o ??. it v•- - ...
Y
I ,!!last s ? ---, ._
HM 10i
Y YY Y YYY YfY 1• Y ?' ' 1 ? '? Y 1 ' l.:
,i !a
I ! 1 Old
{ ¢ { ?' JI hif
';t t, 1 s ' Itt, 111! • ?-' I (I, 1 ;? t...;?
li,llt (jl ? ,II 1s)I ill! t'll !!!!iii; ? viii 1 s s >! 1 19 i ? „t j
jiu,, III I iq II?, au,1 In illulU I IIII
1 )I 'Al ?1l1;
--------. jr .? ?. ? ? 1 i . ? ,1111,
a ??GI? V/tl

i
x F ? a c
g 8
v a a ?y a? ? :95, ?? s
f ?
c0N° yo?Qz °mo?o7f ^+ z? tl l cis
In iIl G ?. Zed ?G _?A Fo fib' I y
OG 4O og° °? o NCO ?jy ¦ Q' a
x ?-? ? 3 a3 ? b.°. C4 W U i 5 I 1
A?h ?J
0
0
3
a
P.
p. 0.
fn A.,
n 2 y ',a V c o
u
pp,,X ? oX E-?
to -?"? rNZ UX IL•i F
mz
>40
HIP
?a
F h
0111
gf-
Y iC
O
Lr
O

P ?
P

s .

z
i

E ?
rr
S
Y 4
4.
?(fSS
AoR7T RIVER
, 1
N 1\ W
0
?

w? 3 ,
\

- NEW HANOVER
ll;
F
COUNTY F
j <r

x y
O .
W
_ • I(i?Qi' ,? i
3! i?VS i.• Z? !
z ^ -
Y .l<.• JJ,j•Y
LOCATION OF LANDFALL
7' Avvnno+EOer
SCALE: 3.33 mi
?? ' ..... DATE:
0"4" e.
?_- - Jane 1994
= ri
FIGURE 1
?CZR »CC AaE pE.Ow<
wMJ?'.uQ M„E r
CP 1150.06
FIGURE 1 Landfall Location Map
-2-
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA)
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDEM 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 NCDEA for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, NCDEM,
Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such
materials will be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of
reproduction costs.
NCDEM plans to take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act
certification on or after May 30, 1995.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to NCDEM, Post
Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before
May 5, 1995, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work,. as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Jeff Richter, until 4-:15 p.m.,
May 12, 1995, or telephone
[phone].
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA)
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) issues, denies, or waives state certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDEM 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.NCDE.1 for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section,,. NCDEM,
Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such
materials will be furnished to any person requesting, copies upon payment of
reproduction costs.
NCDEM plans to take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act
certification on or after May 30,:1995.
All persons desiring-to make comments regarding the-application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to NCDEM, Post
Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687,` on or before
May 5, 1995, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Jeff Richter, until 4-:15 p.m.,
May 12, 1995, or telephone
(910) 251-.4636.
5
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, and
this site is not registered property or property listed as being eligible for
inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes
the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and
he is otherwise unaware of the presence of 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 which 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 which
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 Agencies' 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.
4
The applicant's mitigation proposal includes success criteria and a
monitoring plan. The plan states that the hydrology will be saturated for
sufficient duration, considering normal climatic conditions, necessary for a
wetland jurisdictional determination using the "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual" (Technical Report Y-87-1, January 1987). The soils will
be suitable to support target plant species. With regards to hydrophytic
vegetation, for areas to be dominated by woody species, a minimum density of
320 trees per acre will survive for at least three years. Replanting will be
done if survival falls below this limit. For areas to be dominated by
herbaceous species, a relative coverage of 60 percent of wetlands species
should be achieved at the end of the first growing season and 80 percent for
the next two consecutive years. If survival rates fall below these limits,
replanting will be done to accomplish an 80 percent survival rate. The
survival of planted herbaceous species will be based on a qualitative
assessment of relative coverage. The results of each of the three years of
the monitoring period will be reported in an end of the year report. The
first year-end report will include an "as-built" report.
The purpose of the work is to create an aesthetically pleasing lake area
for future development, as well as to enhance wetland functions within an
existing impacted wetland. Plans showing the work are included with this
public notice.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this
determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for
their review and concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for the
applicability of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM).
C. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the
North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant
to the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-
66).
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any
required State or local authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA
permit will be issued until a State coordinated viewpoint is received and
reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish
comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies directly to
the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
3
The applicant's mitigation proposal includes success criteria and a
monitoring plan. The-plan'states that the` hydrology` will be 'saturated for,
sufficient duration, considering normal climatic-conditions, necessary for a
wetland jurisdictional determination using the "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual" (Technical Report Y-87-1, January 1987)., The soils will
be suitable to support target plant species. With regards to hydrophytic
vegetation, for areas to be`dominated by woody species,.a minimum density of
320 trees per acre will survive-for at least three' years. Replanting will be
done if survival falls below'th s limit. For areas_to'be`dominated by
herbaceous. species, _a relative coverage of 60 percent of wetlands species
should be achieved at the-end of-the first growing-season and 80"percent for
the next two consecutive years." If survival rates fall'.below these limits,
replanting will be done to accomplish"an 80 percent survival rate. The
survival of planted herbaceous species will be based on a qualitative' `
assessment of relative coverage.- The results of each of- the three years of
the monitoring period will be'_ reported in an end of the year report. The
first year-end report will"include_an -as-built""report.;:
The purpose of the work is to create an aesthetically pleasing lake area
for future development, as well as to enhance wetland functions within an
existing impacted wetland. Plans showing the work are included with this
public notice.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has. submitted this
determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for
their review and concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for. the
applicability of other actions by North Carolina 'agencies such as_
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM)
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) .
c. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina, Department of Administration (NCDA) and the
North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant
to the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-
66).
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any
required state or local authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA
permit will be issued until a State coordinated viewpoint is received and
reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish
comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies directly to
the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
3
sweetgum, red bay (Persea borbonia), water oak (Quercus niara), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulivifera), southern wax
myrtle (MVrica cerifera), fetter bush (LVonia lucida), netted chain fern
(Woodwardia aerolata), and greenbriers (Smilax spp).
The applicant acquired the property in 1984. From 1984 to the present
the lake has served as a catch basin for eroded material. The erosion has
occurred as a result of the removal of natural vegetation and subsequent
development within the lake's watershed, primarily associated with the
development of the Landfall and Pembroke Jones Park subdivisions. Eroded
material has accumulated in the lake and along its shoreline to the point that
in some places it has created shallows, vegetated primarily with cattails
(Tvnha sp). One part of the proposed project will involve the removal of all
sediment necessary to restore the lake to those dimensions present at the time
of the property's acquisition, based on a 1984 aerial photograph. 1.16 acres
of cattail marsh and 3.00 acres of open water will be excavated to a depth of
7-8 feet. Around this deep water, a wetland fringe will be enhanced or
created and will be bounded by forested wetlands. Excavated material will be
used as either fill material for another part of the proposed project or as
high ground fill for residential development.
After the Horseshoe Lake excavation is completed, the applicant proposes
to construct a bridge across the southernmost leg of Horseshoe Lake to access
the high ground in the middle of the horseshoe for development purposes.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will occur as a result of the pouring of
concrete pilings into sealed forms. These impacts are anticipated to be
minor.
The applicant also proposes constructing a dam/road between the Upper
Lake area and Horseshoe Lake to serve as a water control structure. This dam
will create the 13.6 acre Upper Lake and will result in the inundation or
filling of 1.28 acres of man-made wetlands (created post-1984) and 2.29 acres
of natural wetlands. The wetlands to be impacted by this aspect of the
project are of a disturbed nature.
Finally, the applicant proposes to construct a road for development
purposes through relatively undisturbed natural wetlands. This construction
will impact approximately 0.05 acre of wetlands located on a finger off of the
northern side of the Upper Lake.
With the construction of the Upper Lake, the applicant has proposed
replacing and enhancing the wetland functions which will either be adversely
impacted by the project or are presently of low quality. This replacement and
enhancement is both a goal of the project and a mitigation proposal.
The Upper Lake dam will maintain the lake's normal pool level at
elevation 4.50 mean sea level (MSL) by 5 inverted PVC siphons located in the
face of an outlet structure on the north face of the dam. The outlet
structure will be connected to Horseshoe Lake by a 30 inch culvert through the
dam. In addition, an emergency spillway will be constructed in native soil
(not in the dam itself) to minimize erosion and possibilities of breaching.
This spillway will be at elevation 8.5 MSL, slightly above the 50 year storm
elevation. The top of the dam is to be at 10.0 MSL.
The Upper Lake will be contoured so that gradually sloping shelves or
terraces are created along the edges and open water in the middle of the lake..
The shelves will be planted with both woody and herbaceous species of
hydrophytic vegetation. This will provide for deep water and a higher
quality, continuous wetland littoral fringe bounded by forested wetlands.
2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199500221
April 13, 1995
PUBLIC NOTICE
LANDFALL ASSOCIATES, POST OFFICE BOX 5368, WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA,
28405, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO PLACE FILL
MATERIAL IN AND EXCAVATE WETLANDS ADJACENT TO HORSESHOE LAKE, NEXT TO THE
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (AIWW), OFF ARBORETUM DRIVE, IN THE LANDFALL
DEVELOPMENT, IN WILMINGTON, New Hanover 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 that the
original Horseshoe Lake was created by impounding a natural drain, and
possibly some excavation, in the 1920s. Horseshoe Lake is shaped like a.
horseshoe with both ends facing roughly southeast. A watershed of
approximately 260 acres drains into the lake. A high ground berm or dam
separates the lake from tidal marsh adjacent to the AIWW. A culvert in the
southernmost "leg" of the lake connects it with the marsh. Due to the
presence of cattails within the lake, it is presumed that the lake is at a
high enough elevation that regular salt water intrusion does not occur. There
is natural high ground in the middle of the horseshoe.
Since 1984, a water body (called the Upper Lake) has been created above
(upstream of) Horseshoe Lake as a result of various excavation and borrow
activities. The excavated material was primarily sand and was used for
residential development. The sand was removed to a clay layer which presently
ponds water, thus the creation of the Upper Lake. The excavation was
conducted in such a manner so as to facilitate the construction of an
anticipated marina at this site.
Soils were noted at the time of acquisition and the hydric soils
identified at that time were mapped. A delineation of the wetlands subject to
Corps of Engineers, regulatory jurisdiction was verified by a Corps'
representative in 1989. The wetlands were redelineated by the applicant and
approved by a Corps' representative in 1994. These three lines have been
placed on a map for comparison and reference purposes. As stated earlier,
past disturbances have removed the natural soil in the project area. These
soils were mapped as Torhunta loamy fine sand and Lakeland sand. Currently,
in many areas a very poorly drained clay is at or near the surface, resulting
in impounded water and saturated soil conditions. Most of the hydrology
occurs due to impounded rain and runoff. The wetland types are patchy and
scattered as a result of the amount of material originally excavated.
A large percentage of the wetlands present within the project area are in
a disturbed state. These wetlands are primarily vegetated with emergent
species including rushes (Juncus spp), beakrushes (Rhvnchospora spp), sedges
(Carex spp and Cvperus spp), and woody vegetation including red maple (Acer
rubrum), willow (Salix ni ra), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum
(Licguidambar styraciflua), and eastern false willow (Baccharis halimifolia).
There are also areas of open water. While some of these areas are
unvegetated, some contain submerged beds vegetated primarily by hornwort
(Cenatophvllum demersum) and pondweeds (Potamogeton spp). In addition to
these types of wetland systems, there are also relatively natural, undisturbed
wetlands. These areas are vegetated with species including red maple,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199500221 April 13, 1995
PUBLIC NOTICE
LANDFALL ASSOCIATES, POST OFFICE BOX 5368, WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA,"
28405, has applied fora Department of the Army (DA) permit TO PLACE FILL
MATERIAL IN AND EXCAVATE WETLANDS. ADJACENT TO HORSESHOE LAKE, NEXT TO THE.
ATLANTIC.INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (AIWW),_ OFF ARBORETUM DRIVE, IN THE LANDFALL
DEVELOPMENT, IN WILMINGTON, New Hanover 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 that the
original Horseshoe Lake was. created by impounding a natural drain, and-='
possibly some excavation, in the 1920s. Horseshoe Lake is shaped like a.'
horseshoe with both ends facing roughly southeast. A watershed of
approximately 260 acres drains into the lake. A high ground berm or dam
separates the lake from tidal marsh adjacent to the AIWW. A culvert in the
southernmost "leg" of the lake connects it with the marsh. Due to the
presence of cattails within the lake, it. is presumed that the lake is at a
high enough elevation that regular salt water intrusion does not occur. There
is natural high ground in the middle of the horseshoe.
Since 1984, a water body (called the Upper Lake) has been created above
(upstream of) Horseshoe Lake as a result of various excavation and borrow
activities. The excavated material was primarily sand and was used for
residential development. The sand was removed to a clay layer which presently
ponds water, thus the creation of the Upper Lake. The excavation was
conducted in such a manner so as to facilitate the construction of an
anticipated marina at this site.
Soils were noted at the time of acquisition and the hydric soils
identified at that time were mapped. A delineation of the wetlands subject to
Corps of Engineers' regulatory jurisdiction was verified by a Corps'
representative in 1989. The wetlands were redelineated by the applicant and
approved by a Corps' representative in 1994. These three lines have been
placed on a map for comparison and reference purposes. As stated earlier,
past disturbances have removed the natural soil in the project area. These
soils were mapped as Torhunta loamy fine sand and Lakeland sand. Currently,
in many areas a very poorly drained clay is at or near the surface, resulting
in impounded water and saturated soil conditions. Most of the hydrology
occurs due to impounded rain and runoff. The wetland types are patchy and
scattered as a result of the amount of material originally excavated.
A large percentage of the wetlands present within the project area are in
a disturbed state. These wetlands are primarily vegetated with emergent
species including rushes (Juncus spp), beakrushes (Rhynchospora spp), sedges
(Carex spp and Cyperus spp), and woody vegetation including red maple (Acer
rubrum), willow (Salix ni ra), loblolly pine (Pines taeda), sweetgum
(Licruidambar styraciflua), and eastern false willow (Baccharis halimifolia).
There are also areas of open water. While some of these areas are
unvegetated, some contain submerged beds vegetated primarily by hornwort
(Cenatophyllum demersum) and pondweeds (Potamogeton spp). In addition to
these types of wetland systems, there are also relatively natural, undisturbed
wetlands. These areas are vegetated with species including red maple,
State of North Carolina
epartment of Environment,
realth and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary_
Division of Environmental Management
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
FROM:John Dorney, Ecological Assessment Group
PHONE: [phone]
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
ro le- CIL45

f?
?lo?ze)
h9AY--17-'19S f 2:56
`t
F^Oi''i PATCHN-71_ICCHIND AJJI_II-b. TO
vk,
hot 1643
All -X W,von
?jtj"n !r 70 1MIN2 -.

7339959
-Y
P.02
?XISKIL R0=171- 0M
so: 7
010W AS 0 K, Von AS in
,...s .T... Y.. ate.. ..M. , ae ',_;.A ° 04, _ ut, 2Mo . .. .. .,{ ..
- Cox; av'E... W e , + t y
, A?.
so", manv"010. 4" re 7120S. a
v
` `e a m: a m i. r too . . Lei A
«a ? r. ..
$ .n 7&4:1 er gr 0. m: • iink,
1 ROW M
W7 A
OaW UN rho, ?y of malz 411.x ban - +. mran _
An fir. Asu,`. K•t z O '._? »:. $ L.. .,,S }' la .''n, W-5 WAR W
I ; I 00y; i?_: Ahn? 40* g ,,,? ;j' »,. `
,yd2 ?
on n
of
xM11210 0, Ina. W_- or ?.. he, 5y A Wi ® 614 TA ba Zoo .. y v TWITZI It
r
1-4,:S4 , All! .
. 's.? to, qav. mu: t# 'rd tvx .w w.?r e3 `4: `? w
N 241w-, Am? %.A oil 7, s :<
A14, Lfy ", 1A
03111-4 1-1, it my 1W W
i t r 1' x!! e a ?a
r:
s?
n? _nAAA "I "act
-
(f+'
h9A1'-17-19 5 ?: 7 FF'L,w' PIP7ON-^LICf HINL° & GSSCE. 70 7339959 P.03
1 n r-, n r v , +s1dX t? ' oak
?_ '•' i;+" ??? ?r$? ??rtr ? H??` s,?,?+L-?? ?Gd.tC ?L" t, .+.T.?? ?v ?.1?6?•s?'"?L
r m. al iS°« r` s y4 {t1e It l 1 = = r`= » t?.?c. a.o y $H
.
myrtle * oer? ?xxd f3' g mi Z tit S pp,
CS?4P7 M '? ? d ,
Vhs ap, .?Ca31 « ti :ia ee0si'm ham
rve t: as C'?£' t `: $?2!. .XI 5rr $XCC?lo two nkC M ° µ aftqu r'.
ti?@ 1RkJ is @ }@
r, ...r.,,.9 c" a•'?tn;t :r pae ;`'C`aw °5 Tt&'.'-i•;:9t.i.- $.c",a-?
l?iCaT=?'a a?!'?d 'r7?.?.F the
uaI AO it$a 'V?r :.:°L t?1: i 7S@` j„iei ?s -
devs!Qpmarlt o? `he :Andfall and ;iwro e :ones pa_k w'3 oils, Odftd
materfaw hAs a a a? a tad in tie le`'ke, "tad OtIong '??e shorel s w, the. po
rzma?ri3.y with cattails
4S„v"?$ yv
r @ One part ,f the dopa Se"'3 ?, 05evz vs. . W at t r 1:7e
@d? "$ y S ? 3L C ?^E4$ "dSL the 3L r1CS -6 ay }, q 5_9 Yy?. a "$
y `@?'vzry
w Tn rsh an 1,00 at;re E Oper. •4atar wi to ? . ?@ e3?Gaya°>?
of
..Q `".. 4yy>s@$pPJ ?.r riktJ. +t.l' ?y. Aelt3 4°--ya.
'f .. s^s st . .," rG?",:Y"md M •- , @ ?. ti3' sR'i+nfL+ ra . a1'G S i l
--?asd and Wbe
ect or a6
'.9zedta8 either r4_1` 7*aterial for Morh1t part ut t_ "'S P=P"Ised p. ro:
high ground £ 14.lfot rta Lderit.& !eVeLl ;pment .
tr we W? cif the applica.?tt props ess
avfte C"rle :3i a l.v'- S. '- Ao"r; e6s hoe !,ak? v,r
'.Gi?a°?.`.'?a`f°: 6c ta".d?5e a?L"'?qf? ?'?."?! E'?t41W'?'aj$?"T'.il`rG?5 lea .? ?? •,? w 'tA'?
groard r a t-e? middle of the hogwesh;9 for - e e'.op ? "yea p"yssa. I
Ipry,..;aats to lu isdict-"onal 'n'@fi.lants µ,11 ocdur as a rest;!"
e`e 0i14n s Ir.:o 9CZl10G .ax'M9, These impacts a; ar;t;b:??sgted to 'r?
T..
066
The t + l::? ?7i.? 35r '.s GS' "•;?"4etit'.2":ns :b phi' L1 a±t ilrO t?. ? to ll1 the Upper
'd.ati+'v kt:k?:e? and RC?r5$w,P1oe Lake .t) ;5$r
a 11 11 create th Sry,1v ?"aouit in the :a.":'.lYlci?lw'on `the .5 ?Cr ipr,?x '?aw? and
'>P.+'.i42'xda ' "ww sa.,£'d pCst": 9d41 ar'd 41.29 &tre 1
nat" Th VR+C ? a??s" ' A t SfS , `e44."C' ?? ?.T:1 o,5pect of t1hg^?
art 0.4 a. disturbed nat, 9.
r"hq ?pr E'
.3Xl f?
Sti old 3 $'3 ? ' ?+?P t;S a Sus. lw$ w ! `'a we
Will, it 05 acre V.a wetlands iar•^ated n a +?lSagayCi a' ii {:: the
tti?.. ?, J,TT°.°??•'. "•°s ?'IYC pp a"". o?;i.!TfrGAr er ???-'C•?.
north-arr. side of the t3rp
c, .-r % ?'? th4p app- 1c ar.tt has pxopo?rad
:ae ? v ze ? ,
a.th h oo. ?r got *? • ?,; a:i t her
*°'^ c t:.r r-j* "iX1l'.? $'al`a51 W9-t nrE iffi `., ;1c 4's3.t:`?.e. 11? W .?? a t ! ? Th a replazene• t wnd
Of m ,e az 41 °s;: ti s ota p.opoea .
is ?t?tYt a oral o up project !p y p??q p
:e..a : doe+ da', '+ Will pn* nt:J? ? ?Y lske' (4 .a ,:?o??pk?6. jr'!1 J1 sae a at in ki6sG
,y r .i, V6.-te i 'Vp14a C r. dam _00 q to
l'?^'z ..?ro• ? - ?? °.C1??'S' ?Pw'? 1a'YR: ?d`?..+) ?Y , ? ??' ® --if the a$Y", t The ®'lgt+S$w ?
c
t ra eq a7 "e ?:O=acted tc the °+i? " Y 101 a r'r v ar4 ho
,,i,?-! 1. b`??$ 4"?3?1"1•^..f.?"'??'? r,? Lake ? ? ?3t?'.?r? ?`•+'S$''t
?+i .,, ?,• .y?.? 1'??;a?3 +:?«. ?;. ?t?$ :4:.1??. kr15!' yi? ? yn
at eY.fi e`y ¢`.; NJ.p?'N .?ahh ,•?e?t'.°3 °.,, sj - y,.i ??•mZ4 "J¢ir?.^Y#".J' '
:z"??.f? to and p ??, tea ?4 ?'? rC
?.? v ? gr l,lway will be at Olevat J-0r. a.5 MSL, A'I' g ltI7 ak>o
e`.e.r?tt?,nn = the top cE the dim il to ]?e at 10.0 MM, sbelvs? or
t?rrac be c a tourad Wo thakL ;r'aiually 31opi ?q
the per eated a?tart al':g et a-ld ?pen water in the middle of =1-a leach.
??? axe saxe?t :ae e?Zg
Th? will be ,p 1a.-: isd w?, h both wmody &;aC Ala=''L anAstta5.hijof
n rcphytia vagetavion. "S?~i:?$s`jill provide for deep aStCOI.
e '14ne by fceatedwtlnd •
s I ti S?,Yf ; i"6 .t?. ,T.S ?d we. l a 9r.++ A.,,. r v ... h. ?. ?._
2
r? -_ 5 - --?? ihi -' rN?7i -7iiCi'Hltiti_?-i n
??N'•r'-1.7-1'??._ FR.J. _Ild ,.. HSSO??S. T0 7_,39955 P.0
By:w IMingtoi 254 l?V , Y t Vv .. 4
' e a ppl va t'as 1?tii it on pxo?? aa? ±,r.??ud?? aucrs?, ?xitev;~_e aid a
lilt?orirg plant :fie plan etatce t at; h?td_cl Le - -
?:isTi dratit3A, CoI`. ra?:' *I %""ti"e, s.': .t?vaC GGar G a» <^va: a 7 for tt
c i ' <Z ?..> 2Es lw, rctt?.a 4°
sv.f '
alt 1?
, ,
g;.la%iti vsz:.a+ iCfi: sG'%isl $6CErP." Kati n the .t,worpa of
goil? ,4 11
Ce.:T•i.)r,o 'C?? ?n V r
•s'?.6 ,5.-J??, rw??.'?,, i'4{?,nd. =dK,? ?'w d+..
he di tale to support; targets plaint. 0pec*ea. Wit ??I* aria t° hyix tode density w
> w ore for areas to l,a do-mrat ed by woody in
X20 trsee po afire wiI.I. alarvi,ve for at i0w. Ciree Yeats, ';,ePlAttri.r;g will h6
dorie is aurvival !a:le bslew thi a ..itit. For ate&s tc L"t do*"li°zate o;.
er'-acecua species, a relative movoracje cl 60 pa??-cent of°get`._& sndg 9Zea?:gaaw"
Zo?,zld be achieved at .,he end of the +wrat grow ,r.g s_aao""_ ..ne y?O P?q? .b 9 i.iGl?rd py,,???? pp ?
? 9 ,` 4J t Gi?6?:
the next two consecutive yemra = I : earv ??al rater ?a lI ba
revlsnMing will be donek to acc=pllsh as 8C percent aut-vitia.I, -..ate. The
ai:r°,rivay tit plattxed heroace ua apaa ? es Wd.s.q: be rte?'c }.?*1"'a i ,O w
soztLa Otf Ant of ?r ela?' .iv s CoYeX'e 7e , Irthe set ,U-?.t s ?a lac"- a_ l=ee?° _' r
the ?nitcrina period will be reps rtad in an and of the y*a?.: x Tho
first year-:end r*portr w`11 incl.ad,e aLn "as-built" repot,
The pu ;sae of tho wor'< io to creat.?*- an eeathetita' y pleasing lake area
for ``"ut:ure develtp-ment, as well an nv e,7..hance ?+ptlazi o'er x? hri? k°` t Eri1Z4 a.r,
J?y atfng impacted, te"Ila d, Plar,:a ahcw'-11ho work &:e intl%Ade& thI
-aut?li notice,
cn^:aiqteMt wiwh
The appsica r .4ta da#IS%n4rgd 'hat the propc:ar$ rk Iq
the North Carolina Coastal Ice M94"gene.;,t. Plan 4u-i has vub;, it;ted thin
de er'"ination to -%.14 Kortrt Tasolira : ViOii?r of a sal Mme:<a em. ont {? nt> f=
their review and, Yo=;wrencs, TMq ;ropotml ??:a11 be rgriatwl for °ha
a 9 Ths ivsuanoe og a water Quality Cer".if ,ca.tion under se_t<i or 401 of.
rre. '«'_ ,a water. Act by the Noruh ('.arol 4x1ia D:via:or. of
YM ,..•e? yy of # ,r to dtaade to :1. a.t .endeY "I'larth droll a
The. 3.98 j a . 2 b ?l the IhLC.o. .i 'Car-- liaii ?."..°?J.P-?;'.;,•._ w? .`",.Qe`r:?. tel?? Manag ma nt
he ? gsuar oe ©. & permit =d(:: tho Aorta Carcl"_nt r_caat,al Area
Management Act ! -W by the .vcrt% ca rt 3.§z,-
'tNCDr,Ml or their de?.ea?a uea a
_ I= fill vd. 7!."? l410uA4,-+We of i?F? Pd1q QY,&:n4 w5tl r o}a,.h _tww9 Ge ,•• ?+.'Yirv vpy Ot ate-owned
;Mblner ..A land =dar North Ca?=1*L G aenaal. 9r? 1.43-34,11,4" , :,49-6, 146-11,
,§ r +W .p w?oo?gs-y. /lws?7 t?Sk LVttii C (`?/?y7r?
?W 4a, uCy? b ?:: 16T??#/{Sr iJbI%d 6.ht
Mld, q.46-1,2 b i.h. Nor '?sYy kyaZ?s ?aa®i y ayS .f4 a??,fG rR4 of
???'?l: 1.+1i??.A. ?.Za?l G'.Ai3ri C.?? fFr At.r Pb l?C° i
e, the approval of an a b t& and ?7edziime tatio74 s`.? *x^{. Pla,r: by the Land
Quality Sect*:oa, North Carut.i. a a! Land Aefflourcet t' =LI R) , pursuant
V-
V. _.:^is State adi- e:°tatior Poll-,tio: Conti l A.?t of 19? iN°C° ,9, ;ill A-5^
U, i .
f.h4 re jue4ts,5 Dep'artmt W of ;ht Avrr r' /DA' p vi\- i- wdri.j be det.1ted if any
raqxir"ed State Or loaal art=?.fiCatiCst' q daniQd. NO DPL
C Tyr--a WI I L'Ta issued until & $tbte. is recoiVe'd rind
%ed b, this agency. Peahper,4.a of `„pia notice are ezt^otare.ged a furnish
OMI,Iients c.. fa£cta :a o3 c r:nere: rtpreset.ted by ha abtvo- ager:ti as direc ly to
the ^`u3?PdCtiVQ ago'iry. with r. **Vy f`i?r„?. «???:ea to the Torpe of ?`n5lneers,
., a?spd?cgtis ri a be ri ,tv a? de sd. pursuant to jecticn 404 of the Claar.
f•1A`r'-i?-i99e = 79 7 RIDC'1 PHTI_I`'•!-^UC:C?;IhJO ASSOCS. TO
Ga ?? A;; ;?. `.1. <-we a. DIVA ^44';
C_:.tv '. `?..:k? ?g??yL Se owS? v??,??q?L9wns ?Y{?e Le 1?We.L
pate ,icalar.°-ity, the X49A4O.:9
777_q959 P. 35
eKf.`C?P4. ?, :'Y 7a.. k t.:.o L? cAhr r with
":'+ °a:te 9ari? !,` ''? a. ?.` y ? .. ° 1 a •.da' Vt1rai-on a. the
_?'i+s Lrct ar .?I_g'1?1??: ?
-•ibya.?°1a?.1 gci e 1.S t'°v' 'p. .r'fgE'• G+T 4;s} «=: .3Y:C6 ti<' 1w.?7?•t`-- rlt?'.ifitered:
dG""`fl::`'".:.>!°s': tL riLE6.'°.Cies a.;C 1 's.: autd
a s 8'?f?e5 eR tJ? Lstered ?L.'sFf. igi
.'L .''"..1,1 Ion In the !7fif.#~ .¢¢pp.?? t5 the -.`av.?sct?1.y?gl??E
~ Peg-
ha a4 'S.Li ti_ +. '?..ia?s?kn?'.iw u. G.6 vtLt]C, ;"„ ry b.r bba.+a i /,ai m we O. t'S b:'t. .}r. •..',_ sy 4. a VH J 31Cd
.$mm Is ot:h'*rw- 38 _=&wa=e ,°f the ? aY z:»+d ? ?" ``? ?'s? 1 '?F?es'•x?w:?, Y e?++a4a' °, ,
T a Dint.`..I-'- !5'?"gi-fifer, baMS ;)n a.-mill Kin! 2 1,-Zl?n,.,Ut.
s3 «n.. `-: ,+.pd +.!% A 9 y ?? w
`.1. proposed +
'v s 1. MJ4e es 94'?b$' :7r • 4-Ie-NS -xb» r
m a ?.?
tz e .d. w.fa4?. .,. -'a?A: r...ti ri? U..Ldi 'P"w >d P`+.? r+ e e•:.z?: 4'w>.liar.?jcie,d:tw ?? ?eir. .wS Act.
The v
L 5e m A x+4 t Nd 9 ?v^. .y •" an *f...: i. -_..:a
°n .-tm iefifith thin :p^.aed nC"it?". / 'lei «3u°_s ?*? ke Xt6rea ,c,e?t?? a
_digd.:l alli-; h r.v wAl. hnee fm' APCa J.k ci..: to _ S 1. s. d6t '<dp wi GL :,c
?S
must bq y}a...A's"5.ct, a;-A,i,.Fy.t # P i :*,SA5tl tb :4 The
Who- fi"_;?T `k#`.. x
be a".I_O es?+???. $?Q w-
iti %' 15_175^ d YQ ??' U?@4 - ~ .ae sn y1 Sa. P + ..Pg a? ', `«< y°%J! s y ^: rq x
) O pl°ct,_ce":aOn and a awry hh4. h
_-Av be tc- "lit
'?_y - °'? `r w., w:: ti. 7''°:: W a:'d wi'? off` : c:•,?F e+?s 4adrylC?'" c-'F ?. hl of ::?ir:.c•-`-,..; wer'`{ai .F,
.,Tim4? xI -orvr a+:^14. wgtv? .f?'? ? ?l.a.*r. •?• '??;, ? s"rt ,a:iu tre. spa t ,a i.1 8a,
WC;!`y.: az?ariS AnA_ flood vlaa=n m_%ker. i 7Kt.. °'-vo ^Jc°.°?1
l `S EaL- . .zl-"i li :er g i `; " s_?; sql ??" 3 c a .7 Ett. c i`:, C a1, 464 v` ?,lrz "ea }G's
ti,=4 .!vn.§?trvt io 'vater iaiA t tea' :?c f' .zee, , Ella is .a docd and
3:.r„'11k 3-' "+_;. ^-? u;'?' ;,it p• ?:. rl ". ".??.- :> ., a F fr?r, :+s:?,
ml-naral ;°:`t4A- A. -a:?.'"wn 5
a a., FT: i., t s . x H _
" _a c':'e?'e,°°ae?'A t e4y'y.rea ?::. i"?,' C ' 11 +,a ? ?r
CY, but a -!n
d>> ?. u4 f Yid ei. h. *e^''• l»,.. k gy. i { ?, ']± " `< ,d t o Y "ate eV .9
110 1?
wit" . --"9e
y
R
LL.
vv"ti:'? ti„ems s + a a r. r'-#^° .x. ., ;,?c §6 •..0
`'22c. "?r"."°°q of Sa••xr'inn_or4 ?9 9t.d_.; 5t'te, 4`J; a'97 a' sswj V%de%al
and is m`.: agent ieY and ? ?Ya a' a ': C re"a' •'h,,; i.-,e eeterd
-_?r ?.? ??•u ?+._?.?. .???.:n'??7+z.,? d,?4'???_?`t4». '1`?.». ._?'. s.s.:;x;t.•e.t:..:'?"?. a,5d -.%z ? ?.'^ -?a ? ??:r,X"?4'?€a
rni Iva, , A '', :€ y:'i'•` . ar r
d'.3?"t 3ri'w sgr or
L'! ».s' .'t' ?. iFz,ir z £9 aS mk2 MS?;g
f,med.-ss !limd Aft A*._ PlIllb .. :cn '. C. ... .•..Cw .. ...?. i.:. t}4. t \.,k ;,lae4.
- y?1"sr Y?Y{9?dk.i'??ii'3'I'I ^Jfi ?T;, _??Spa T°P±Yi'?'`?!.'. ?.: ?•..?.'?i'??s?f c6ai. nua:w?a?:'?' ?ti.? ?.?,:111.s;h`1'4'?.1?"a?',:.a??
=A` r:1Tgllan* trc a? it"e t_,' c.:tjqL . ZSdr.bai3mi4a:'':v+`y.9i. Igo" i c' Act
t cCcir',P"t'a,^e`s a:?m al -3%_'- us ad 'S?,- df3tgv -4 m:'•?' i:oQ'k loo- hea- swig isdkl.
:?,.5,±I i w ?..., °? F .; 4 v z{ the

7-1' 95 1-: 22 P:POt'i PATON-'UC:CHINO & HSSCICS. TO 7379959 P. o6

p *L Ea. .¢ .. -

1 "
? ?••y ?`.
? yM
Y.•/{
_
m 'L "j. eT.::.n w w $ ,:
: . ?
K``n
?

TOTAL P.06
?f ' u
I
February 28. 1995 MAR 195 PATON / ZUCCHINO
---------------------------
Mr. Jeff Richter
USACOE cx r
Regulatory Branchb
P.O. Box 1890 U?
Wilmington, NC 28402
RE: Horseshoe Lake Complex
Individual 404 Permit Request
Dear Mr. Richter:
Keith Cooper, Director of Land Development of Landfall, and I with you, Bob Stroud
(NCDCM), Jim Gregson (NCDEM) met last Wednesday at your office to discuss the individual
404 permit application for Landfall's proposed improvements for the Horseshoe Lake Complex.
You confirmed the application was received on February 3, 1995, that the application was
deemed to be complete, and that a public notice would be issued shortly for the permit request.
You also requested that a refinement to the mitigation plan be prepared and submitted specifically
addressing mitigation design, installation, monitoring and replanting standards. This refinement
will be prepared shortly and submitted to your office as Appendix F of the permit application.
Jim Gregson requested a second copy of the permit application. I will forward a copy to Mr. Ron
Ferrell (NCDEM) this week. Mr. Stroud indicated that his cursory review revealed no permit
jurisdiction by NCDCM other than confirming the consistency of the permit application with the
local Land Use Plan.
Thank you for arranging the meeting and for your input. We would appreciate your continued
cooperation in moving the permit application along. Please contact me directly should you have
any questions or if you have need for further information. I believe that it would be quite helpful
to meet with representatives of EPA, USFWS and NMFS after they have had an initial
opportunity to review the application. I will contact you about arranging a convenient time for
such a meeting.
Very truly yours,
Lawrence R. Zucchino, ASLA
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
cc: Keith Cooper, Landfall Associates
Jim Gregson, NCDEM
Bob Stroud, NCDCM
RECEIVED
MAR 0 91995,
ENVIRONAAENTAL SCIENCES
13RANCH
I.mid IT mning
mper
l l a l+ i! ? I +. N. C. 2 7 003
u10-183 1-1111620
I':,\\---,!I,!-?,..?,,.,„-Ali ,.„
?,
rs.'X7$'""+r'"'MVyg-8"q'z'?C'.?s'`as""r. .--?
a - N w
6 T N
_Z af 7 ?: F r?, r r•
wa x.y,y ..r 'i Rr? y- .:iPt,+? `,,u"ir'.<-AL)*c v.wr. ey?y, + F x 3 +`. 'A -
00#'P
St ..: ?? P ? e•:' T ? ??.??'+ys?'k'??,`E?i?..?r`??ia'hF",?•=i ?? ?? v x S ?- .
? • :4y?5&? IW's.**"z.Y''Se k?:s 'pw-d'.3. NY7i?k..?Y?,.ry.`. '?Y}'Iy'?MW'y9y.';'d ?•f ?. aS k?? -•?'Af'?`',%? -Y^?RbC?SSTS. Ji'?° ?t ? : t ?•11 S x~ }, J 'l
PLICATION Oft fN]ul UAL- 404 PERNUTJ.
'w„"'?"".°,'.... sc. 'S3. ? ?a? #?-- ? •r?a ? - r'? r ? +S ? t ?3-F '3 i<
'..".r""a.....? ?..•...•...4•a.;C•i'?# .S" ? y sYv s ? yn,?""?'+ ?• TY-? 7. _. s F
24
? ? .,?,?PO ?? ? -.. y 'd J` ? `?• ? y ? ? - °.?'S3-? '?f(rs•? T•+J ? ? ? Y xi is J
?.'.?4???„(-` ? r?? ..?r ? ? r x° -? •:?'rf' .ki?sbi:.2 ?aY.v?b.'t?'t?? ?;,3 s ?p'? ?? ??^7r'? ? Fat J..? r ? t? t ? ??
?.v2rtyl Y'a zil$ `'?t` .. ,..' °"s's ?b ?..,. .,, ... ?_ra.',• uf`.?`' .? -..? ?.`.'Fa. _..?ay'.f..a'?.?.+,?nc'? ?'?».. .r ??? `?# Y ???'. ?i ?.»
?•'=, x(?y;-y,?,f".? ? °ri??s5..? c'?r''^> `"?` a*.. _ :v_ -,:?{.a5? ? -- y.? ?FT' Q'? ? ? ,h,?'?€h, :.
_ ??"p?'g3f,?t s5st4'j ??`?•F.gj'y"ti r` ,•q .. ? Y -.;i? ?`'RY- r?,'?{?"){?.... f `?' °?`.. ?:??.y -
33j
T ?
6dtt,<Y' J y r `? tF ?xSe -m r?? ? y, -
y 1
;4 '.''`'?". .:. "` `? 1 , ?i'.yq. ? '?. ?• s' q. '>?';, :a r .} Y`..7??.2's .v'1 rs+r-? rwv3pt
' ?,. tf,,x rx.?.Y ., ?. '?`?„+`?? r 9, v'` .r .•r tea ,?, a?e ?.
. J?Yl 1 ?*} n v Sssr L k 4Tyit`t {'C r fc' L., r-? i.,?. y'''am
F wt Y { ] M .i. 1 >? k J } i ? 'S:' f F•'A 3 ?"? y - w t d5,. %? ? •: ?,k? F. i. ,.lY ?'
1? ? µs c, w..- uli:k4' .r'"r ? r ?0?7' ? ? , r .? ?.? ?c s -w,? .g.. '? ? r? ?
''"` y„ .-, ? k •? 3 ?wJ? ? _?,?.s ? ? trr:_;? r ? ?ti? t?? aq. ? , F '?S ?+,"•": '
"...-"°,. ? ` ?'? ''S ? ? ?? -. 'r•„3. ?;'?" ? _.'?.Y: ? r'.-mot, h.''r "`? &???•k- r?5 3:?
rRUARY 1? 95 r a
x,54 ?r,.?, ,?{ . ?, ?i.Y?s?, C????fi "?i ??v?r,+ X$.^Yx`*y:? 'a ?•a?Y?' ?°? c ?(rs '?5 F?o r 7 ? ? r
".?? 3•. p>? - ?Y ?. { ??'? ` S ? 2 ?' i .J'y' ' ? ?."r iii y •:.
?.,,?,? ?? ??€ •;t"r >?-?. ,f? 9?'ti?t'?`$" ??' r` ?,`?s??•.??t?;t????.,r?`; 2a ?S *f ,rr" ?a???tk?? .r-
"".,'?a
?? Q
??? =4?`+ N'`'..r ?a??p?{ ?? }s+t+,,1t u •.ti ?r?-'+. >t ! F ? y ? ',vlr f {r k? ? ? ? f? t; r
----?.?. "?' ,y re-? ?- :•+a e St 'L ?t {r?y.n 2 ,??` y "F f - .? °fY Ex' t2r°'9'z y' ft k rs+k F i(:. A
?.PATON%ZVCCHINO? ?,. =q y
'?`'' 9 T o?} ?? r v h a s ..+ A , Y ;ps ?5; 3 -. -i, 'Z '? i, ,, :. t „i c ; r ,?,•,,?} ?4 "`r, `.r
,.,dsgy r » s, . , ??< F? '{ ?fW t+r 7:.. . ,• ;;: 'k8?.h{;a ?,, rt ?'? .?`*y.*n??"?; ??? ?5*?.: ?i,' '??^ ; ?? t.
x?t.A.SSOGIATES,
a??I I:ANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
+-+....•.? ? ??L t G ? ?r"?'?'?'Vk t}ri`? ,.f E t yl?''r ?v ?°? f?'? ?, lf' : (' '..5 r 7} r ;. ?. 3' 'ti k y
5 x ? {
HORSESHOE LAKE COMPLEX AT LANDFALL
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL 404 PERMIT
LANDFALL ASSOCIATES
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING M FEB
PATON/ZUCCHINO & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
RALEIGH, NC [phone] """"""'-•-----•---
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
BROOKS, PIERCE, McLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD
GREENSBORO, NC
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
CZR, INC.
WILMINGTON, NC
U
ENGINEERING FEB 2 2 1995
#i THE JOHN R. MCADAMS COMPANY, INC. .N._•..____ __ _
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC " "" "
SURVEYING
HANOVER DESIGN SERVICES, P.A.
WILMINGTON, NC
FEBRUARY 1, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
HORSESHOE LAKE COMPLEX PROJECT AT LANDFALL
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 4
3.0 AFFE CTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Topography 10
3.2 Soils 10
3.3 Surface Waters 10
3.4 Vegetation Resources 10
3.5 Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas 10
3.6 Wildlife Resources 11
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 11
3.8 Unique Natural Areas 11
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4.1 Topography 12
4.2 Soils 12
4.3 Surface Waters 12
4.4 Vegetation Resources 12
4.5 Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas 13
4.6 Wildlife Resources 13
4.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 13
4.8 Unique Natural Areas 13
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
5.1 Introduction 15
5.2 Avoidance and Minimization 15
5.3 Evaluation of Wetland Functions and Values 20
5.3.1 Water Storage 22
5.3.2 Bank/Shoreline Stabilization 22
5.3.3 Pollutant Removal 22
5.3.4 Sensitive Watershed 22
5.3.5 Travel Corridor 22
5.3.6 Special Ecological Attributes 23
5.3.7 Wildlife Habitat 23
5.3.8 Aquatic Life Value 25
5.3.9 Recreation/Education 25
5.3.10 Economic Value 25
5.4 Summary of Lower Horseshoe Lake Maintenance Activities 25
5.5 Rationale for Proposed Mitigation Ratios 28
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1. Wetland Impact and Mitigation Measures Summary 6
Table 2. Affected Communities and Habitat Mitigation and Post 14
Project Summary .
Table 3. Wetland Impact by Development Activity 16
Table 4. Summary of Potential Wetland Impacts by Previous Marina 16
and Upper Lake Development Plans
Table 5. Valuation of Existing Wetland Communities Using DEM 21
Wetland Rating System
Table 6. Wetland Valuation in Horseshoe Lake Complex 23
for Existing and Post Project Conditions
Table 7 Mitigation Plant Materials Specifications and Quantities 24
Summary
Table 8. Horseshoe Lake Maintenance Excavation Summary 26
Table 9. Valuation of Future Section 404 Communities Without the 29
Project in Upper Lake Using DEM Wetland Rating System
Table 10. Valuation of Future Section 404 Communities With the Project 30
in Upper Lake area Using DEM Wetland Rating System
Table 11. Approximate Scores of Horseshoe Lake Complex Using 31
DEM Wetland Rating System
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Landfall Location Map 2
Figure 2. Horseshoe Lake Complex Location Map 3
Figure 3. 1994 Aerial Photo of Horseshoe Lake Complex Project Area 7
Figure 4. Proposed Development Program for Project Area 8
Figure 5. Landfall Master Plan Brochure Map 9
Figure 6. 1985 Marina Plan 17
Figure 7. 1990 Marina Plan 18
Figure S. 1994 Upper Lake Plan 19
Figure 9. 1984 Aerial Photo of Horseshoe Lake Complex 27
ii
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995

t
f
i
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A DCM/COE Permit Application
APPENDIX B Plant Communities of the Horseshoe Lake Area
APPENDIX C Upper Lake Routing Summary Report
APPENDIX D Soil Test Boring Report
APPENDIX E Project Plats (8'/z" x 11" Format)
LIST OF PLATS
PLAT 1 Existing Conditions
PLAT 2 Historic Environmental Conditions
PLAT 3 Existing Plant Communities
PLAT 4 Project Impact
PLAT 5 Historic Wetland Impacts
PLAT 6 Upper Lake Area Mitigation Plan
PLAT 7 Horseshoe Lake Complex Mitigation Detail
PLAT 8 Development Program
PLAT 9 Project Details
iii
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
1.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
Landfall is a residential and recreational area under development by Landfall Associates (Landfall) a
North Carolina General Partnership. Landfall is on a 2,250-acre tract (Landfall Tract) formerly
known as the Pembroke Jones Estate in eastern New Hanover County. The Landfall Tract is
roughly bordered by Eastwood Road (US 74) to the south, the Intracoastal Waterway to the east,
Howe Creek to the north, and a Carolina Power and Light powerline (roughly parallel to and just
east of Old Military Cutoff to the west (Figure 1). Begun in 1984, residential development
consists of single family homes, townhouses and recreational facilities including two golf courses
and a tennis complex on the Landfall Tract.
Landfall needs to restore and enhance the open waters and wetland areas of the Horseshoe Lake
Complex (also referred to as Project Area) to provide for a change in use from the previously
proposed development of a large marina into a residential community surrounding an ecologically
integrated and stable lake and wetland habitat system.
The residential development addressed in this Environmental Assessment is planned for the 83.61-
acre Project Area surrounding an upper lake area (referred to herein as Upper Lake) and the
original Horseshoe Lake (referred to herein as Horseshoe Lake). This Project Area is depicted in
Figure 2. The proposed project will involve the reconfiguration of the man-made Upper Lake and
the maintenance of the man-made Horseshoe Lake to:
-? 1. Control stormwater run-off from adjacent residential areas.
2. Function as a settling pond to protect the marsh and open water areas of Middle Sound
from excess nutrients and sediment associated with residential development.
3. Substantially enhance a degraded wetland complex.
4. Provide improved wildlife habitat.
5. Create a setting more attractive to the adjoining residential subdivision.
6. Provide a mechanism for long-term wetland and open water management.
Landfall proposes to construct a dam between Upper Lake and Horseshoe Lake to create two open
water lakes surrounded by a mixture of marsh vegetation that blends into forested wetlands and to
construct a bridge to connect lands adjacent to Horseshoe Lake. The reconfigurated Upper Lake
will occupy approximately 12.51 acres (5.99 acres of open water and 6.52 acres of wetland) and
have a normal pool at elevation 4.5 feet MSL. The Upper Lake water level will be maintained with
inverted siphons and spillway. Maintenance of Horseshoe Lake by removing accumulated silt and
vegetation will restore the lake to conditions present in 1984. The wetland areas around both lakes
will be enhanced, where appropriate, to create an expanded and diverse wetland marsh fringe
bounded by areas of wetland forest. Upland areas intermixed with existing wetlands around the
lakes will be converted to higher quality wetlands. Residential parcels will be developed on uplands
surrounding the lake complex (Plat 8).
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-1-
)RSESHOE
LAKE
COMPLEX
A
B
A FA
A
r
i
1
FIGURE 2 Horseshoe Lake Complex Location Map
-3-
APPENDIX A
Og?? CAS ,°N .
?
?,e t
Z?`s a4 ? Pct<Cp,1? FFA
p?? Qeme° t:??a
ea ?1Q •.••••....• ................?
t )O
C°asta? S •>>3 P'
C C'' a iU 9
? tea£e S
? C G • Qra???y 7.? f Pa???stta eat
raC G .s
teia` .
base G S %,%( `ce?a rota
C bed A? ?P,?. '?ivr %%99
e? s NO. ??Q? teag?r bed a a?boz
? CG5. 4t• °g °Utces
?
9
ara?.?
AV-1 VAN
C?'et r?0 °? a °t?'U as
Sec??° tease atet
co?e NO'
? of ar e
?sci'a a?e?streCie eefi
Vrto aro A °?
Col4s
Sec Pry ,st.
please type or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction, excava-
i tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stonmwater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your
';project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
-1 APPLICANT
a Name Landfall Associates
Address P.O. Box 5368
City
Wilmington
Zip 28405 Day phone [phone]
X Landowner or Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any)Horseshoe Lake at Landfall
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
owner's name and address.
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. Street address or secondary road number
Arboretum Drive
b. City, town, community, or landmark
¢
1 Land f all
.i
c.
County New Hanover
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
a
jurisdiction? No
? - e. Name of body of water nearest project
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway

3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT

a. Describe all development activities you propose (for
example., building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead,

;. or pier). New lake construction
accnriatPd residential development

3/91
State NC
If you plan to build a marina, also complete and
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both?
Both
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Private
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Stormwater control lake providing -a
residential project amenity
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 83.61 Acres
b. Size of individual lot(s) . N/A
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
MSL to 30'
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Silty Clays/Marine Clays
P Ve elation on tract See plant communities
g
Plat
f. Man-made features now on tract
Sanitary Sewer
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
X Conservation Transitional
?- Developed Community
Rural Other
h, How is the tract zoned by local government?
i. How are adjacent waters classified?
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? No If so, by whom?
I
.r
5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
Complete this section if the project includes any land
development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structures proposed Future residential unitsm
birdge, earthen am & utilities
b. Number of lots or parcels 9
c. Density (Give the number of residential units and the
unitsperacre.) up to 400 @ 5 units/acre
gross
m. Water supply source County Water System
n. If the project is oceanfront development, describe
the steps that will be taken to maintain established
public beach accessways or provide new access.
N/A
Size of area to be graded or disturbed
d o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will be the
.
t15.0 acres for lake construction and elevation above mean sea level of the first habitable
-- Horseshoe Lake maintenance
If the proposed project will disturb more than one
e floor?
y .
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins. 6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
- If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
n submitted to the Division of Land
b
l INFORMATION
_ ee
an
control p
Resources? Future submittal
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation
Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
f a.
or fill activities (excluding bulkheads, which are
- .
mean high water to be covered by impermeable covered in Section 7).
surfaces, such as pavement, buildings, rooftops. Length Width Depth
- None for lake construction
- g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, asphalt, Access channel
(MLW) or
for
to be
or concrete,
- concrete
sphalt and
a
Boat basin

-
h. If applicable, has a stotmwater management plan
(break-
Other
•
i

been submitted to the Division of Environmental er,
water, p
' - Management? Future subm!= boat ramp,
rock jetty) 13.57 Acres 5' -$'
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste

` watertreatment facilities.
Future gravity municipal sewer Fill placed in
wetland or below 0.64 Acres
_ MHW
?• - ?
J. Have these facilities received state or local approval? Upland fill

..., .......
areas
_ N
+ - Amount of material to be excavated from below
b

y
Describe existing treatment facilities.
k .
water level in cubic yards +50 , 000 cy
me
,
.-- .
Municipal sewer Varies marine clays to sa
Type of material
c
.
s- -
d. Does the area to be excavated include marshland,
_ 1. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of swamps, or other wetlands? Yes
the state (for example, surface runoff, sanitary
- wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards
down"). None anticipated +30 000 CY
s -.
3/91
,2
IE. -

f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
g. Location of spoil disposal area on site and on
Pembroke Jones tract
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? Yes
If not, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yeg
If so, where? p„=,z; + p and pemhrOka 7enes
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas? No
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean high
water? No
1. Amount of fill in cubic yards N/A
m. Type of fill material Marine clays/sand
n. Source of fill material Lake maintenance, lake
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? Yes
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled
0.64 Acres
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled?
Best management practices as approved
by N.C. Divsion of Land Quality
r. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? Bulldozer,track. loader. pans,
trucks
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment .
to project site? Yes If yes, explain steps that will
be taken to lessen environmental impacts.
All wetlands will be clearly identified
as non-construction areas. Special
construction fencing. Pre-construction
conference with contractor and Corps of
Engineers.
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap N/A
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water or
normal water level N/A
3/91
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months, in
feet N/A
d. Type of bulkhead material N/A
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed below
mean high water N/A
f. Type of fill material
N/A
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the follow-
ing items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other
instrument under which the applicant claims title to the
affected property. If the applicant is not claiming to be
the owner of said property, then forward a copy of the
deed or other instrument under which the owner claims
title, plus written permission from the owner to carry out
the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and cross
sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black ink on an 8
1/2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal Resources
Commission Rule 77.0203 for a detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 18 high
quality copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding that agency's
use of larger drawings.) A site or location map is a part
of plat requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed
to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and
the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management and should be advised by the applicant of
that opportunity.
Name
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
- permittee, and issuing dates.
A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
- Environment, Health, and Natural Resources to cover
the costs of processing the application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront
and inlet areas.
- A statement on the use of public funds. If the project
_ involves the expenditure of public funds, attach a state-
ment documenting compliance with the North Carolina
- Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
- 4
I
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
Any permit issued in response to this application will
allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to conditions and restrictions
contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's ap-
p,oved Coastal Management Program and will be con-
ducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in
fact, grant permission to representatives of state and
federal review agencies to enter on the aforementioned
lands in connection with evaluating information related
to this permit application and follow-up monitoring of
project.
This is the g, da of A! , 19?
X
L or Authorize gent
S. Keith Cooper, Authorized Agent
Director of Land Development
Landfall Associates
3/91

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
Landfall acquired the Project Area in 1984 as part of the Landfall Tract. Landfall developed a
master plan for the entire Landfall Tract which provided for development of a large marina and
related facilities in the Project Area (Figure 5).
Landfall filed a revised application with the Wilmington District of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) of the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources on 15 October 1985 to construct a
1,003-slip marina in the Project Area. The marina project included a boat basin of 27.83 acres and
the filling and inundation of 11.5 acres of adjacent wetlands (Figure 6). This application drew a
a. variety of negative comments from the COE, DCM, other interested agencies, and some adjacent
landowners. However, the application has never been denied or withdrawn, and the work on a
marina project has never been abandoned. Several revised and reduced marina plans were
developed for the Project Area and discussed with the COE, the latest in the summer of 1990.
?. Development of the residential subdivisions and recreational facilities of the overall Landfall Tract
_ began in 1984. Throughout the course of the construction, the Project Area was used as a source
of borrow material in a manner consistent with the anticipated expansion of the Horseshoe Lake
Complex into a large marina basin. These earth moving activities created pits, depressions and an
upper lake area above the original Horseshoe Lake. These areas now consist of water and
t^ temporary shallows which unintentionally facilitated wetland species emergence. These activities
resulted in the unintentional creation of 4.99 acres of wetlands (Figure 3).
In the late summer of 1991, the National Wildlife Federation and its North Carolina affiliate gave
notice of intent to file a civil action seeking to prevent certain development activities in the Landfall
tract. The Complaint was filed in January 1992. This litigation disrupted development activities
and delayed consideration of a revised marina design for the Project Area. This litigation was
resolved by Consent Decree and a Dismissal with Prejudice in the spring of 1993.
With the Dismissal, Landfall retained Paton/Zucchino & Associates, PA (PZA) to develop a marina
plan acceptable to the COE and the DCM. As PZA's work progressed, it became apparent to
Landfall that development of a marina commensurate with the upscale nature of the Landfall
community would likely elicit continued regulatory and public opposition. Landfall requested that
PZA develop an alternative that would restore the area o a stable and functional natural state and
make it amenable to adjacent residential development. area So
this permit is granted, Landfall intends to
pursue residential developmen3 [f this permit is denied, Landfall intends to resume investigation of
marina opportunities.
Figure 4 is a proposed summary plan for reconstructing the site to provide for residential
development in a natural setting. The plan provides for:
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-4-
I . Removing siltation from Horseshoe Lake to return the lake to the conditions as they existed
when Landfall purchased the property in 1984 (see Figure 10 on aerial photograph of the
Project Area taken in 1984). Thereafter, enhancing or creating stable and diverse wetland
fringes bounded by forested wetlands will improve water quality protection and increase
wildlife habitat.
2. Contouring the recently, man-made Upper Lake area to provide for deep water and a higher
quality, continuous wetland littoral fringe bounded by forested wetlands. This will require
the filling or inundation of 1.28 acres of post-1984 man-made wetland areas and 2.29 acres
of pre-1984 wetlands. However, this unified plan for the Horseshoe Lake Complex will
return the area to a functioning, higher quality natural environment which will include the
restoration of 0.56 acres of prior converted wetlands, creation of 3.24 acres of wetlands
from existing uplands, the enhancement of 4.64 acres of existing wetlands, and the creation
of 4.73 acres of new open-water habitat (Tables 1 and 2).
3. The preservation of 7.85 acres of pre-1984 natural and man-made wetlands, 1.34 acres of
stormwater ponds, and 2.99 acres of open water at the Horseshoe Lake Complex.
The goal of this plan is to provide for effective stormwater management in developed residential
areas with improved and increased wetland fringe areas that will be permanently sustained by
adjacent open water areas.
By implementing this plan, Landfall will have restored or created .80 acres of wetlands in the
Project Area and will have impacted 2.29 cres of natural pre-1984 wetlands areas for a 1.7 to 1
mitigation ratio, without taking into consideration enhancement and preservation credits. After
consideration of appropriate mitigation credits for all activities, the proposed project will result in a
greater tha 3 to 1 mitigation ratio for impacts on natural pre-1984 wetland areas.
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
-5- February 1, 1995
TABLE 1. Wetland Impact and Mitigation Measures Summary for Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall.
PROJECT AREA DATA 5.87 AC
Project Area Open Water
Project Area Wetlands 15.65 AC
Project Area Uplands 62.09 AC
Total Project Area 83.61 AC
fi; Y=
2, WETLAND ALTERATIONS BY PRIOR ACTIVITIES
Wetland Created by Prior Activities
Wetland Converted to Upland by Prior Activities
3, WETLAND IMPACTS Natural
Wetlands
Wetlands Filled 0.31 AC
Wetlands Flooded 1.98 AC
Proposed Wetland Impact Total 2.29 AC
4. WETLAND MITIGATION MEASURES
RESTORATION
t Prior Converted Wetland to Wetland Restoration Credit 0.56 AC
Prior Converted Wetland to Wetland Restoration Credit 0.56 AC
k CREATION
Upland to Wetland Creation 3.24 AC
Oven Water Habitat (From Fxi sting 1 ds 1.81 AC
LO pen Water Habitat (From Existing Wetlands), 2.92 AC
Wet an an pen a er reation re i 7.97 AC
i
ENHANCEMENT
Open Water to Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Enhancement 0 23 A_C
Wetland Enhancement Credit S 4.64 AC

X PRESERVATION
Existing Wetland Habitat (Upper Lake Wetland Zone) 0.77 AC
Existing Wetland Habitat (Upper Lake Drainageways) 0.87 AC
° Wetland Habitat (Horseshoe Lake Perimeter)
Existin 5.09 AC
g
Existing Open Water Habitat (Upper Lake) 1.30 AC
t" Existing Open Water Habitat (Horseshoe Lake) 2.99 AC
e Existing Open Water Habitat (2 Stormwater Ponds) 1.34 AC
Wetland and Open Water Habitat Preservation Credit 12.32 AC
Restoration + Creation + Enhancement + Preservation =
5. HORSESHOE LAKE MAINTENANCE SUMMARY
Maintenance Excavation - Cattail Marsh
Maintenance Excavation - Open Water
Maintenance Excavation Total

l
9 ;i -6-
.
25.49 AC
4.99 AC
1.13 AC
Man-Made
Wetlands
0.33 AC 0.64 AC
C 2.93 AC
1.28 AC 3.57 AC
@ 1:1 Credit = 0.56 AC
0.56 AC
@ 1:1 Credit = 3.24 AC
@-3;1-Credit = 0.60 AC
@ 5:1 Credff7 0.58 AC
4.42 AC
2
@ 4:1 Credit= 0.06 AC
@ 4:1 Credit = 1.10 AC
1.15 AC
@ 10:1 Credit =
@ 10:1 Credit =
@ 10:1 Credit=
@ 10:1 Credit =
@ 10:1 Credit =
@ 10:1 Credit =
0.08 AC
0.09 AC
0.51 AC
0.13 AC
0.30 AC
0.13 AC
1.24 AC
7.37 AC
1.16 AC
3.00 AC
4.16 AC
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
. February 1, 1995

.r
i
T
t# 3;
F
uj
a'.?
c y, ?'y F
w 1
xL
SC,
M
Y t ?+
yypp ?y?? f ??
za
xQx?
w Z C
x
a
?» z
OJ ?o m
yRNE as
O .
1-4
?? W Y?gH?p010 I?1YN0
`N'O?OOI?NNMI^^O
6
N JJ J J J J J J J
in
O°_O_O_O_0O_000N..
dWOO VIN N4INN Wd
?? C K K C C C K K C` N W
? J O
N WY?
W
V yWy??dJ
C ? "CIM'fY1101?0OIKdi<-
? ddda.a a. a. Q.dpyp
a o. x?..
t\\
' f
rJ : '`.

i ?

z
a
E a1. „
WaWC7 I Wa
°ax w a ! !2
a? ra rs.
1?
•a
ai
?O
of
Y?
L40 fy???
FIGURE 4 Proposed Development Program for Project Area
-8-
3,0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Topography. Much of the existing topography in Upper Lake and Horseshoe Lake
study area is a direct result of previous alterations by man. Horseshoe Lake was created in the 1920's
as the result of a berm/dam constructed perpendicular to a natural drain over natural contours.
Removal of sand soils from areas surrounding Horseshoe Lake during 1987 through 1990 has
lowered elevations and altered the topography. Elevations within the study area range generally from
2 feet to 40 feet above sea level.
'. 3.2 Soils. Soils of the Project Area have been significantly altered by past lake construction
and excavation activities. The historic drain is mapped as hydric Torhunta loamy fine sand. The
areas surrounding the drain are mapped as non-hydric Lakeland sand. Much of the Torhunta loamy
fine sand was inundated,,Ho` sseshoe Lake was created. Much of the surrounding Lakeland Sand has
been excavated and rem8ved from the site in recent years (Appendix D).
3.3 Surface Waters. Existing surface waters in the Project Area are primarily impounded
within Horseshoe Lake and adjacent excavated areas referred to as Upper Lake. Water from an
approximate 256-acre drainage basin drains into the Horseshoe Lake Complex and exits the lake
system primarily through a culvert in the southeast corner of Horseshoe Lake. Water from
Horseshoe Lake drains into the adjacent marsh areas of Middle Sound and thereafter into the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIW). The National Wetlands Inventory Map for the area identifies
Horseshoe Lake as a palustrine, nonconsolidated mud bottom, permanently flooded,
diked/impounded system. The presence of living cat-tails adjacent to the culvert indicates that the
lake is elevated enough to prevent regular saltwater intrusion.
3.4 Vegetation Resources. Man-related disturbances to the area have resulted in relatively
young vegetation communities that are characteristic of early successional habitats. Plant communities
of Upper Lake and Horseshoe Lake Project Area were described and delineated by CZR Incorporated
in 1994 (Appendix B). Communities and habitats described in the report include mixed herbaceous
assemblage, shrub-scrub, upland forest, cat-tail marsh, mixed marsh, wetland forest and open water.
3.5 Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas. Current Section 404 jurisdictional areas (wetlands
and waters of the U. S.) in the study area are more extensive than historic conditions. Additional
wetland areas have formed as the result of excavation activities in the non-hydric Lakeland soil series.
The excavation of sand down to a clay layer has allowed water to pool in low relief areas and has
created patchy wetland conditions. Wetlands surround the open water in narrow bands of relatively
distinct vegetation communities. Areas regulated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were delineated in the Project Area by CZR Incorporated and
were confirmed by the COE on 07 March 1994 (Plat 1).
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-10-
3.6 Wildlife Resources. Wildlife of the Project Area is characteristic of open, young
successional habitats and freshwater marshes. Upland communities of the Project Area are primarily
disturbed old field habitats that have been mowed regularly over the past few years. Wildlife use of
these open areas includes many animals that range over a variety of habitats. White-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and a variety of birds are highly mobile animals
characteristic of the upland habitats.
Aquatic communities of the area attract a variety of wildlife. Although no fish surveys have
been conducted, sunfish (Lepomis spp.) have been observed in the lake. The freshwater lake/marsh
complex attracts a variety of water birds. Birds such as the great-blue heron (Ardea herodias), great
egret (Casmerodius albus), green-backed heron (Butorides striatus), and little blue heron (Egretta
caerulea) often feed in shallow freshwater marshes. Aquatic turtles and amphibians also reside in the
aquatic communities associated with the lake complex.
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species. The following species are federally listed as
threatened or endangered and are recognized by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as occurring in
New Hanover County, North Carolina: green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum),
piping plover (Charadrius melodus), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Kemp's Ridley sea
turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) (based on similarity of
appearance), seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris fisheri).
No suitable habitat for sea turtles occurs in the Project Area. The listed sea turtles are found
primarily in the ocean and along the beaches. Shortnose sturgeon occur in deep-water rivers and in
coastal waters and no suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Piping plover and seabeach amaranth
occur primarily along coastal beaches and near inlets and no suitable habitat occurs in the Project Area.
Suitable habitat (mature pine forests) for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist in the Project
Area.
The bald eagle and peregrine falcon are rare to uncommon migrants and winter residents in
coastal habitats of New Hanover County. The American alligator is considered to be biologically
secure, and is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act. The American alligator is
listed only due to its similarity to the endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). American
alligators have been reported near the study area, and suitable habitat occurs in the Project Area. The
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew occurs in a variety of habitats and could occur in the Project Area.
None of the species listed in section 3.7 above have been identified within the Project Area.
3.8 Unique Natural Areas. Based on information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, no unique natural areas are located in the vicinity of the Project Area.
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-11-
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4.1 Topography. Construction of the proposed project will further alter the topographic
features within the Project Area. Construction of a dam, excavation of areas above the dam, and
filling of other areas surrounding the lake shore will occur as impacts of the proposed project.
Excavation of silt from Horseshoe Lake will restore the lake to conditions present in 1984.
4.2 Soils_ Excavation and inundation of soils within the Project Area will occur as a result of
the proposed project. However, the proposed project will mostly impact areas of previously
disturbed soils identified as Torhunta loamy fine sand and Lakeland sand.
4.3 Surface Waters. Activities associated with the preparation of the lake area will expose
some soils to erosion. Construction activities will comply with the North Carolina Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be approved by New Hanover
County which follows guidelines set forth by the North Carolina Land Quality Section prior to project
construction.
The proposed reconfiguration of Upper Lake along with the maintenance excavation of
Horseshoe Lake will create a system of terraced wetlands that will trap more nutrients and sediment
than the existing lake areas. This will improve downstream water quality by reducing sediment and
nutrient loading. Both lakes will function as large-scale settling ponds for both pollutants and
sediment. The perimeter of the proposed lakes will incorporate an extended shallow water terrace
favorable for marsh development that slopes into open water approximately 7-8 feet deep. The
proposed project will enhance the filter and buffer between any residential development and the marsh
areas of Middle Sound and the AIWW.
The lakes will also function as flood storage structures for a 256-acre drainage area. A
routing summary for the proposed lake complex has been prepared by John R. McAdams Company,
Inc. (see Appendix C). This report summarizes the expected frequency of inundation, flood
elevations, and peak flows of the lake area. The emergency spillway is located above the expected
flood elevation of a 50-year storm (8.5 feet MSL). The expansive flat areas, coupled with the bank
and terrace areas around the lake, provide a large storage volume with relatively small increases in
pool depth.
4.4 Vegetation Resources. Table 2 summarizes the impacts of the proposed project on
vegetation communities within the Project Area. Most areas inundated by the normal pool will be
converted from their present state to a lake environment. Buffer areas surrounding the lake will serve
as wetland mitigation and exist as a variety of mixed marshes and, where appropriate, wetland forests.
Surrounding upland terrestrial vegetation will be subject to impacts from residential development.
Most of the current communities exist as a result of human-related disturbances.
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-12-
4.5 Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas. Jurisdictional areas impacted by the proposed project
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The Horseshoe Lake Complex will impact a total of 2.29 acres of
natural wetlands (0.31 filled and 1.98 flooded) and 1.28 acres of man-made wetlands (0.33 filled and
0.95 flooded). Approximately 1.16 acres of sediment induced wetlands will be removed from
Horseshoe Lake as a result of maintenance activities. These wetlands are primarily dominated by cat-
tail and occur in areas of open water that was unvegetated in 1984. Section 404 Jurisdictional Area
impacts are further discussed in the description of mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts in
Section 5.0.
4.6 Wildlife Resources. Wildlife of the Project Area is characteristic of open, young,
successional habitats and freshwater marshes. Upland communities impacted by this proposed project
are primarily disturbed old field habitats that have been mowed regularly over the past few years.
Wildlife of these open areas include many animals that favor ecotones and fragmented habitats and
occur in a variety of habitats.
Some aquatic wildlife may benefit from the proposed mitigation. A variety of aquatic turtles,
amphibians, and birds are attracted to a diverse marsh/open water complex. Because there will be no
loss of wetland acreage associated with the impoundment project, any anticipated adverse impacts to
aquatic wildlife are expected to be temporary. The mixed vegetation species proposed in the
mitigation plan will provide a diverse food source and should attract a variety of aquatic wildlife
species. The proposed project is not expected to alter fish species found in the current lake; however,
fish biomass will increase proportionately to the increase in available habitat. Therefore, the
availability of food sources for aquatic feeding birds will also increase.
4.7 Threatened and Endangered Species. No significant impacts to state or federal listed
threatened or endangered species are expected as a result of the proposed project. The presence of
the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris fisheri) has recently been recognized as
occurring in New Hanover County. This federally threatened subspecies occurs in a variety of
habitats, including early successional fields to forested areas. The shrew has not been identified in the
Project Area. Any impacts to habitat would be temporary and offset through the wetlands mitigation.
The recent range extension and status of this species is currently under review.
4.8 Unique Natural Areas. No impacts to unique natural areas will occur as a result of the
proposed project.
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 199
-13-

r
U
z
G
0
U
i
0
x
z
0
U
a
0
O
x
O
bA
C
R
O
G
N
'L3
0
0
a,
a?
0
m
0
o.
w
C
cc
.C?
G
0
U
O
rn
cz
N
Q
N
W
a
Q
F
I I
y J
_
H U R
w M M ? ? ? M ? M

?
2,
O O
O
9
L H O N Ir O N ?i
a
L

h 1 1 O O O - Wi
Q o c 0 0 0 0

w
R ? N
L t` r O ?t O (?
? et O N O O O M
V
R

u
C O r O O h et

R 1 1 O ? O O 00 ?D
t O O O N ?
O
W

v kn M et 00 00
L In ifJ N ? O N O [h

a
'CS
U
w V L ^? N N M N V1 l-
R O O .? O O In
F-- E d o c o -- o o rS

•a
V
CSC ? O? N t` 111 M
1 O O O r- O eT
o -- o q
d e
e

i o 0 0 ° ? o o v
o
?, d o o c o 0 o c o
ono

? ?
? L 00 ?• et O O? ?
i ?
p? d v N N In d' O "y
W

R ?
L

? L rn
? 6? ? rn
C
F
u .C 1'-„ 'fl
R R V3 "G M E U C

E U
C c?C N Ln fx y

wms
??i ? ? CC ? U U R w ?

a w U G H U 3 3 H

u
O I

G °
O O
cc
cC pRp
G o
O •O,
V
? U
a O
o
a?
U ?
0 bGA
G co
o
y .N+
cC
C IU,
cc
U
?O G
^' O
O U
R N
> U
X R
a? G
c U c
U M cc
U G
U
G i. O
1° c
G 'C
3 0 0
o a w
?¢ 0
O G ?
a
A
CC
C U R
cv O
? N N
x
N
U W
ca ti
Q) h .--i IUA •--i
w ? a> p a?
N
oj U tU. X
UWU
cC .,O U
w?
cz
R "
X
?w
O
U
x
co
a
0

5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
5.1 Introduction. As previously discussed, the Project Area was historically an alluvial
forest bordered by uplands with well drained soils and topography of moderate relief.
Impoundment of the natural drain in the 1920s resulted in the creation of Horseshoe Lake. Much
of the existing topography, soils, surface waters, and vegetation in the Project Area are a direct
result of alterations by man. Based upon historic soils mapping, it appears that the current Section
404 jurisdictional areas are more extensive than historic (pre-1920s impoundment and pre-1984
acquisition) conditions (Plat 2). Additional wetland areas have formed as the result of excavation
.activities in the non-hydric Lakeland sand soil series down to a clay layer which has allowed water
to pool in low relief areas creating patchy wetland conditions.
Wetlands surround the lake areas in narrow bands of relatively distinct vegetative
communities dominated by herbaceous vegetation. A relatively diverse mixed marsh surrounds
much of the permanent water of Upper Lake. Much of the mixed herbaceous wetlands of Upper
Lake appear to have been created in excavated areas of the Lakeland sand. Cat-tails (Typha spp.),
consisting of largely monotypic, dense stands, have invaded much of the older Horseshoe Lake.
The water depth of Horseshoe Lake has decreased over the years due to of sedimentation and the
build-up of organic substrate.
V 5.2 Avoidance and Minimization. If the permit is granted, Landfall plans to develop the
Project Area for residential purposes. Several marina and residential development scenarios were
considered, all of which resulted in considerably more wetland impact than the proposed plan (see
Figures 6,7 and 8). Because the post project lake complex will be an amenity for the surrounding
residential areas, a more expansive open water system would be preferred. In changing from earlier
scenarios that maximize economic opportunity, Landfall has avoided and minimized impacts to
existing wetland areas and adjoining tidal areas by:
1. Avoiding two undisturbed natural wetlands, for example, two wetland forest areas totaling
1.11 acres which project into prime residential areas were excluded from impacts
(Tables 3 and 4).
2. Avoiding or minimizing impacts to higher quality wetland communities (i. e., wetland forest
and mixed marsh) and limiting construction activities to uplands and, when avoidable, in
lower quality mixed herbaceous wetland areas (Table 2).
3. Protecting and enhancing a fringe wetland on shallow water terraces surrounding the lake
(Plat 7).
4. Minimizing the impacts to wetlands as a result of fill versus inundation (Table 2).
5. Limiting maintenance excavation activities associated with Horseshoe Lake to conditions
that existed at the time of acquisition by Landfall rather than the original conditions in the
1920's (Table 7).
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-15-
TABLE 3. Wetland Impact Summary by Development Activity (in acres).
Fill Inundated Total Imp
Develo ment Activit 93
2 3.28
Lake Construction 0.19 .
0 0.46
Associated Develo ment 0.45 93
2 3.57
0.64 .
TOTAL
TABLE 4. Summary of Potential Wetland Impacts by Previous Marina and Upper Lake Development Plans.
1985 Marina Plan (Fig
1990 Marina Plan (Fig
1994 Upper Lake Plan
1995 Upper Lake Plan
Potential Wetland
11.50 Acres
6.08 Acres
44) 5.62 Acres
3.57 Acres
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-16-
5.3 Evaluation of Wetland Functions and Values. The proposed project involves the
creation/enlargement of the Upper Lake and the maintenance of the lower, older, original
horseshoe Lake. Substantial beneficial impacts and some short-term negative impacts will be
associated with the project. Discussed below are the potential project impacts and methods used to
evaluate the wetlands.
There are a number of different methods now used to determine the function and value of
specific wetlands. Because the surrounding upland areas either have been or will be developed into
residential areas and the run-off from these areas flows directly into the estuarine system of Middle
Sound, a valuation method which focuses more on water quality rather than habitat potential
appears more appropriate to this site. The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), Water Quality Section has
developed a holistic approach for evaluating wetland values using the "Third Version North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management Wetland Rating System" (May 1993) that places
strong emphasis on protecting water quality. This system was used to evaluate the pre- and post-
project Section 404 jurisdictional areas of the Project Area assuming residential build-out of the
adjacent upland areas.
This system rates ten values of wetlands including: 1) water storage, 2) bank/shoreline
stabilization, 3) pollutant removal, 4) sensitive watershed, 5) travel corridor, 6) special ecological
attributes, 7) wildlife habitat, 8) aquatic life value, 9) recreation/education, and 10) economic value.
Using a system of flow charts, each function is evaluated via choices selected from scientifically
based questions about the wetland system. Individual wetland values are grouped into water
quality, landscape, habitat, and human values. Each value is given an individual score, but the
group is given an overall weighting. These weightings reflect the DEM's regulatory emphasis on
protecting water quality.
Tables 5 through 10 set forth the numerical valuation using DEM's Wetland Rating System.
A discussion on each of the evaluated wetland values is presented below. Descriptions of these
functions were taken from DEM's "Third Version North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management Wetland Rating System" (May 1993).
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-20-
Table 5. Valuation of existing wetland communities in the Upper Lake area using the Division of Environmental
Management's Wetland Rating System.a
Evaluated wetland values
WATER QUALITY
1) Water storage
2) Bank/Shoreline
stabilization
3) Pollutant removal
Sum
Sumx4
E LANDSCAPE
4) Sensitive watershed
5) Travel corridor
Sum
Sum x 1.5
HABITAT
Wetland communities
Mixed Cat-tail Mixed Shrub- Wetland
herbaceous marsh marsh scrub . forest
2 3 3 3 3
3 4 4 4 4
2 3 3 3 3
7 10 10 10 10
28 40 40 40 40
3 4 4 4 4
1 1 1 1 1
4 5 5 5 5
6 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
6) Special ecological attributes 0 0 0 0 0
7) Wildlife value 2 3 4 3 4
8) Aquatic life value 2 3 4 2 2
Sum 4 6 8 5 6
Sum x 1.5 6 9 12 7.5 9
HUMAN VALUE
9) Recreation/education 1 1 1 1 1
10) Economic value 0 0 0 0 0
Sum 1 1 1 1 1
Sum x 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Total scores 40.25 56.75 59.75 55.25 56.75
- a Based on the "Third Version North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Wetland Rating System"
by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section (May 1993).
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-21-
5.3.1 Water Storage. The ability of the wetland site to receive, store, and filter run-off
water from an approximate 250-acre drainage basin, prior to run-off water entering an estuarine
wetland complex, is one of the site's greatest functions. A proposed dam will increase the water
depth of Upper Lake area by as much as 4 feet. Increasing the storage capacity of the wetland
complex and maintaining persistent emergent vegetation along the wetland edge will make the
wetland even more valuable for water/run-off storage.
5.3.2 Bank/Shoreline Stabilization. Wetland vegetation around the perimeter of the lake
serves to protect the shoreline from erosive forces. The opportunity for a wetland to stabilize a
shoreline is a function of the magnitude of erosion in the watershed as well as the erodability of
adjacent lands. An increase in development around the lake complex will increase run-off and,
therefore, the value of the wetland in terms of protecting the lake complex as well as the adjacent
coastal marshes. The improvement of the wetland fringe width, gradation, continuity, and
vegetative diversity that is proposed in this project will improve the wetland system with regard to
bank/shoreline stabilization.
5.3.3 Pollutant Removal. This function refers to the ability of a wetland to retain or
remove sediment, nutrients, and toxicants (e.g. heavy metals, oils, pesticides) as well as its
opportunity to receive these pollutants. Opportunity is primarily affected by the source of water,
land use in the watershed, and position in the landscape. Ability relates to the density, type, and
extent of vegetation and gradient of the watershed. The location of the Horseshoe Lake Complex
(next to estuarine marshes) and the fact that upland adjacent to the lake will be a residential
development, make the wetland system extremely important for maintaining and/or improving the
water quality of adjacent coastal marshes. Wetlands in urbanized watersheds (greater than 10%
impervious surface) will have a greater opportunity to retain and remove nutrients from adjacent
development. An increase in development around the lake complex will increase the value of the
wetland to protect the integrity of the lake complex as well as the adjacent coastal marshes. As
with bank/shore stabilization, the improvement in the wetland fringe width, gradation, continuity,
and vegetative diversity will increase pollutant removal opportunity and ability.
5.3.4 Sensitive Watershed. The evaluation of this wetland value is based on the highest
score received for any of the three water quality values. Since the proposed project will increase
the values of the system in regard to water quality, the rating for this value also increases.
i
5.3.5 Travel Corridor. The ability of the Horseshoe Lake Complex to serve as a system
enabling wildlife to move from one suitable habitat to another is limited, especially since the 83.61
acre Project Area is already isolated by surrounding residential development. Because of residential
encroachment outside the Project Area, the existing Project Area is of low to moderate value as a
terrestrial wildlife corridor. Therefore, travel corridor values are not substantial either before or
after the project.
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995

-22-
r
5.3.6 Special Ecological Attributes. This value is primarily associated with wetland areas
that may serve as buffers for registered natural areas, wildlife refuges, state and national parks,
sanctuaries, wild and scenic rivers, etc. Some freshwater marshes have received high ratings for this
value; however, the alterations and origin of the marshes associated with Upper Lake and Horseshoe
Lake areas are the result of major human-related disturbances. Post-project wetlands will replace or
improve the ratings associated with any freshwater marsh.
5.3.7 Wildlife Habitat. Factors affecting the value of wetlands for wildlife habitat include
diversity of vegetative structure, diversity of vegetative species (for both food and cover),
surrounding land use, spatial patterns within and between wetlands, size of the wetland, and water
quality and quantity. Generally, large, undisturbed wetlands that are near other wetlands and contain
vegetation that is important for both wildlife food and cover receive the highest rating for this
function.
The availability of several wetland communities and a diverse mixed marsh community make
the existing wetland complex attractive to wildlife. Despite the extensive disturbances to the area, the
Horseshoe Lake Complex serves as an example that man-altered/created wetlands in this area can
provide suitable habitat for some wildlife. However, the existing mixed herbaceous wetlands within
the Project Area have limited wildlife value. The lack of vegetative diversity and structure, poorly
developed leaf litter, and disturbed nature of this community contributed to its limited value.
Post-project wetland communities are planned to contain a vegetative structure and diversity
that is similar or better than existing communities (see Figure 9 and Plat 6). Because of improved
aquatic habitat, the lake complex should be able to serve a larger population of aquatic feeding birds.
The proposed plantings of mixed herbaceous and hardwood species create more valuable habitats
(mixed marsh or wetland forest) and would offset any reduced wildlife values as a result of adjacent
land use.
A review of the DEM wetland rating values for each community impacted by the proposed
project activities indicates that wildlife values will increase for the system (Table 6).
-I --A _. .. T-1--l- T oV ('nrnnlav fnr existing and nnSt-Drolect conditions
l aulu U. wuUMIU va,ua u.,,. 11i A--.......-....... ,. - - --- ----
Existin Conditions
Post
Project Conditions
Wetland
Communit T e Acreage DEM
Value Wetland
Value Indexa Acreage DEM
Value Wetland
Value Index
Mixed Marsh 2.44 59.75 145.79 5.89 80.00 471.20
Wetland Forest 0.92 56.75 52.21 4.60 75.50 347.30
Cattail Marsh 2.78 56.75 157.57 1.39 69.00 95.91
Wetland Shrub-Scrub 4.08 55.25 225.42 2.83 74.00 209.42
Mixed Herbaceous 5.43 40.25 218.56 0.47 50.75 23.85
15.65 799.74 15.18 1.147.68
a. Acreage x DEM value 1 ' ==?
b. Includes loss of 1.16 acres of cattail marsh from Horseshoe Lake maintenance excavation.
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-23-
Table 7. Mitigation Plant Materials Specifications and Quantities Summary.
pLANT SPECIFICATIONS
KEY WOODY SPECIES
AR Acer rubrum (Red Maple)
FC Fraxinus caroliniana (Water Ash)
GL Gordonia lasianthus (Loblolly Bay)
LS Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum)
MV Magnolia virginiana (Sweet Bay Magnolia)
MC Myrica cerifera (Wax Myrtle)
NS Nyssa sylvatica (Swamp Tupelo)
TA Taxodium ascendends (Pond Cypress)
TD Taxodium distichum (Bald Cypress)
HEIGHT-SPREAD
3'-4' x 2'x3'
3'-4 x 1.5'-2'
3'-4' x 2'-3
3'-4'x2.5'-3.5'
3'x4' x 2'-3'
18" x 18"
3'-4'x 2'-3'
3'-4'x 2'-3'
3'x4' x 2'-3'
HERBACEOUS SPECIES
CF Canna flacida (Canna Lily)
HC Hibiscus coccineus (Red Star Hibiscus)
IV Iris virginica (Blue-Flag Iris)
JE Juncus effusus (Softrush)
NL Nupha luteum (Yellow Pond Lily)
NO Nymphaea odorata (Fragrant Water Lily)
PC Pontederia cordata (Pickerelweed)
PV Peltandra virginia (Arrow Arum)
SC Sagittaria cernuus (Lizards Tail)
SL Sagittaria lancifolia (Arrowhead)
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION QUANTITIES
KEY WOODY SPECIES
AR Acer rubrum (Red Maple)
FC Fraxinus caroliniana (Water Ash)
GL Gordonia lasianthus (Loblollly Bay)
LS Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum)
MV Magnolia virginiana (Sweet Bay Magnolia)
MC Myrica cerifera (Wax Myrtle)
NS Nyssa sylvatica (Swamp Tupelo)
TA Taxodium ascendends (Pond Cypress)
TD Taxodium distichum (Bald Cypress)
HERBACEOUS SPECIES
CF Canna flacida (Canna Lily)
HC Hibiscus coccineus (Red Star Hibiscus)
IV Iris virginica (Blue-Flag Iris)
JE Juncus e$usus (Softrush)
NL Nupha luteum (Yellow Pond Lily)
NO Nymphaea odorata (Fragrant Water Lily)
PC Pontederia cordata (Pickerelweed)
PV Peltandra virginica (Arrow Arum)
SC Sagittaria cernuus (Lizards Tail)
SL Sagittaria lancifolia (Arrowhead)
12" x 8"
18"x24"
15"-15" ht
18"x18"
3-5 petioles/plant; petioles 18"-36" long
3-5 petioles/plant; 18" - 36" long
3-4 stems/plant I2"x24" tall
18"
12"-18" ht
3-4 stems/plant; 12"-24" tall
AC QTY OC
0.67 233 12'
0.35 122 12'
0.29 101 12'
0.43 150 12'
0.18 63 12'
0.13 102 8'
0.10 35 12'
0:81 282 -12'
0.81 282 12'
0.17 814 3'
0.05 239 3'
0.12 575 3'
2.19 5915 4'
0.475 2276 4'
0.453 2170 4'
0.45 2156 3'
0.20 958 3'
0.26 1246 3'
0.24 648 4'
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-24-
5.3.8 Aquatic Life Value. Aquatic life value refers to the ability of a wetland to support
fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. Water regime, type of vegetation, interspersion of
vegetation/water, and surrounding land use are all important factors affecting wetland value to
aquatic life. However, increased open water and improved wetland fringes will increase available
habitat for other wildlife aquatic species. Considering residential development will occur with or
without the proposed project, the proposed project activities will provide better habitat for aquatic
species than would be available without them.
5.3.9 Recreation/Education. This value refers to the use of a wetland for both
consumptive (hunting, fishing) and non-consumptive forms of recreation and education. The value
is based on the quality of the wetland as well as public access to the wetland. Wetlands with no
public access have reduced ratings for this value since only private landowners may benefit from
grant
this value. Landfall proposes to preserve the
servation easement to manage these areas.n With
the Northeast New Hanover Conservancy o con
this added protection and access, the education value of this area will increase.
5.3.10 Economic Value. Under the DEM system, this value is based on timber value,
importance to hunting, and/or some value to commercial fish associated with wetlands. As such,
the existing and future value of the Project Area wetlands is 0 and is so reflected in Tables 6,8,9,
and 10. However, from Landfall's economic perspective, the improvement the lake-wetland
complex will enhance property values and ultimately increase the tax base for New Hanover
County.
5.4 Summary of Horseshoe Lake Maintenance Activities. Since its construction in the
1920s, Horseshoe Lake has served as a sediment trap to prevent run-off from upland activities into the
coastal marsh areas of Middle Sound. Since 1984 this sedimentation has accelerated because of
construction activities in the 256 acre drainage basin. Landfall proposes to return Horseshoe Lake to
the conditions existing in 1984 to provide for continued stormwater and sediment control (Figure 10).
In addition, successional development of shallow lake ecosystems is often accelerated by a process
called eutrophication. Increased productivity associated with eutrophic lakes is often the result of the
increased availability of nutrients. Shallow lakes naturally fill in with time and associated wetland
communities also pass through a series of successional stages. A rapid increase in sediments and
nutrients often accelerates wetland plant growth and-productivity. Clearing of forest vegetation
surrounding Upper Lake and Horseshoe Lake, even with the implementation of proper sedimentation
control practices, has contributed to the accelerated sedimentation and invasion of cat-tails.
Eutrophic lakes are biologically productive systems; however, they can result in loss of value
for some functions. Degradation of lake systems due to eutrophication can create, 1) a decreased
diversity in plant and animal communities, 2) a development of organic sediments, 3) algal blooms,
4) an excessive growth of undesirable plants, and 5) an accumulation of nutrients. In addition, the
eutrophic conditions of freshwater lakes can adversely impact downstream riverine or saltmarsh areas.
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-25-
r,
A project entitled "Water Quality In New Hanover County Tidal Creeks 1993-1994", by the Center for
Marine Science Research of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (December 1994)
4
concluded that stormwater detention ponds in the tidal areas of the County "detain water and
suspended solids", but "often have unacceptably high levels of chlorophyll a, coliform bacteria and/or
phosphorus". Further, "Larger regional stormwater management structures, such as Anne McCrary
Pond, may be much more effective at removing nutrients and more easily monitored than numerous
small ponds." Upper Lake and Horseshoe bake (when returned to its 1984 conditions) will provide a
stormwater retention system comparable in volume to the Anne McCrary Pond. Dredging of these
' systems will physically improve the basin by removing excess vegetation and sediment (along with the
potential reduction of an internal nutrient source) and increasing the water storage capacity of the
system. Short-term consequences associated with dredging include destruction of benthic and
vegetative communities and reduced primary productivity due to increases in turbidity.
The Clean Water Act does regulate open water (capable of attracting interstate commerce)
under Section 404 jurisdiction. These open water areas can contribute to maintaining and improving
functions associated with water quality (i.e., water storage, sediment and pollutant removal), and these
functions should be considered when evaluating the importance of such areas.
TABLE 8. Horseshoe Lake Maintenance Summary (in acres).
Horseshoe Lake 1984 1994 Maintenance Post Project
OW- Open Water 4.16 3.00 3.00 4.16
CT - Cattail Marsh 1.29 2.45 1.16 1.29
TOTAL 5.45 5.45 4.16 5.45
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-26-
5.5 Rationale for Proposed Mitigation Ratios
1. Appropriate avoidance and minimization practices were considered and implemented.
2. The urbanization of land surrounding the wetland complex is unavoidable. The current
mitigation plan builds on the assumption that wetlands in urban settings provide
important water quality functions. Methods to improve the ecosystem include: 1)
enlarging the system to increase benefits associated with water quality; and, 2) convert
low quality, disturbed areas to higher valued wetland areas. Areas around Upper Lake
and Horseshoe Lake will be enhanced by the replacement of mixed herbaceous areas
with wetland communities (mixed marsh and wetland forest) more valuable to wildlife.
Any mixed marsh or wetland forest impacted by the project will be mitigated with the
creation/enhancement of similarly valued mixed marsh or wetland forest.
3. Wetland ratings for post project wetland communities will increase based on DEM's
Wetland Rating System (Tables 8, 9, and 10).
4. In the spirit of the Clean Water Act, open water is regulated and does provide some
functions associated with wetlands, and thus should be considered for mitigation credit.
5. Compensatory wetlands mitigation will offset the loss of wetland functions and values
impacted by the proposed project. Wetland mitigation through restoration, creation,
enhancement, and preservation will result in a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for all wetlands
t impacted and a ratio of 3:1 for natural wetlands impacted. A detailed mitigation plan
(Plats 6 and 7) has been provided by Paton/Zucchino and Associates, P.A. and is
summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
1

-28-
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
Table 9. Estimated valuation of future Section 404 jurisdictional communities without the project in the Upper Lake
area using the Division of Environmental Management's Wetland Rating System.a
Wetland communities

Evaluated wetland values Mixed
Herbaceous Cat-tail
marsh Mixed
marsh Shrub-
scrub Wetland
forest
WATER QUALITY
3
1) Water storage 2 3 3 .3
5 5
2) Bank/Shoreline stabilization 4 5 5
3) Pollutant removal 4 5 5 5 5
Sum 10 13 13 13 13
Sum x 4 40 52 52 52 52
LANDSCAPE
5
5
5
5
4) Sensitive watershed 4 1
5) Travel corridor 1 1 1 1
Sum 5 6 6 6 6
Sum x 1.5 7.5 9 9 9 9
HABITAT
0
0
0
0 0
6) Special ecological attributes 3
7) Wildlife value 1 2 3 2 1
8) Aquatic life value 1 3 4 1
Sum 2 5 7 3 4
:d Sumx1.5
3
7.5
10.5
4.5
6.0
HUMAN VALUE
1
9) Recreation/education 1 1 1 1
10) Economic value 0 0 0 0 0
Sum 1 1 1 1 1
Sum x 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Total scores 50.75 68.75 71.25 65.75 67.25
a Based on the "Third Version North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Wetland Rating System" by
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section (May 1993).
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-29-
Table 10. Estimated valuation of future Section 404 jurisdictional communities with the project in the Upper Lake
area using the Division of Environmental Management's Wetland Rating System.a
Wetland communities°
Cat-tail Mixed Shrub- Wetland
Evaluated wetland values marsh marsh scrub forest
WATER QUALITY 5 5 5
1) Water storage 3 5 5 5
2) Bank/Shoreline stabilization 5

5
5
3) Pollutant removal 5 5
15 15
Sum 13 15
Sum x 4 52 60 60 60
LANDSCAPE 5 5 5 5
4) Sensitive watershed 1 1
5) Travel corridor 1 1
6
6
Sum 6 6 g 9
Sum x 1.5 9 9
HABITAT
0 0 0 0
6) Special ecological attributes 2 3
7) Wildlife value 2 3
4
1 1
8) Aquatic life value 3 3 4
Sum
Sum x 1.5
5
7.5
7
10.5
4.5
6
f HUMAN VALUE
9) Recreation/education 2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
10) Economic value 2 2
Sum 2 2
Sum x 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total scores 69 80 74 75.5
3
a Wetland ratings are based on the "Third Version North Carolina Division of Emzronmental Management
Wetland Rating System" by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health. and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section (May 1993).
b Existing disturbed mixed herbaceous wetlands will be planted to create mixed marsh, shrub-scrub, or wetland
forest.
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-30-
Ible 11. Approximate scores of the Horseshoe Lake Complex using the Division of Environmental Management's
etland Rating System.a
al t d wetland values
Existing
Conditions
Future Conditions
Ev ua e
Without
With Project
Project
WATER QUALITY 5
1) Water storage 3 3
5
5+
2) Bank/Shoreline 4
stabilization
3
5
5+
3) Pollutant removal
Sum 10 13 15
Sum x 4 40 52 60
LANDSCAPE
5 5
4) Sensitive watershed 4 1
5) Travel corridor 1 1 6
Sum
5 6
Sum x 1.5 7.5 9 9
HABITAT
0
0 0
6) Special ecological attributes 3*
7) Wildlife value 4 3 4
8) Aquatic life value 4 4
7
Sum g 7
Sum x 1.5 12 10.5 10.5
HUMAN VALUE
1 2
9) Recreation/education 1 0
10) Economic value 0 0
Sum 1 1 2
0.25 0.25. 0.5
Tntal scnres 59.75 71.75 au-r-
a Wetland ratings are based on the "Third Version North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Wetland Rating System" by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section (May 1993).
+ Increased width of wetland buffers will increase pollutant removal (filtering capacity), and improve
bank/shoreline stabilization.
* Improved wildlife habitat as a result of conversion to higher quality wetland communities.
lfalll.doc
Horseshoe Lake Complex at Landfall
February 1, 1995
-31-

4-z 0,
IMPORTANT
To
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of-
Ph
one
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION

Message

Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
' N.C. Dept: of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

y
42-
0V ??A-tx,?
IMPORTANT
To
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
.M
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED

Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

IMPORTANT
To
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message

./
Sig
CU5
S-SDept. of EnvirciAme t, Healt ?and ft-" tResources
?` uuJJS ,? w Cn mle Pnnor
r
A
A
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina -28402-1890
Action ID No. 199500221
PUBLIC NOTICE
April 13, 1995
LANDFALL ASSOCIATES, POST OFFICE BOX 5368, WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA,
28405, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO PLACE FILL
MATERIAL IN AND EXCAVATE WETLANDS ADJACENT TO HORSESHOE LAKE, NEXT TO THE
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (AIWW), OFF ARBORETUM DRIVE, IN THE LANDFALL
DEVELOPMENT, IN WILMINGTON, New Hanover 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 that the
original Horseshoe Lake was created by impounding a natural drain, and
possibly some excavation, in the 1920s. Horseshoe Lake is shaped like a
horseshoe with both ends facing roughly southeast. A watershed of
approximately 260 acres drains into the lake. A high ground berm or dam
iy?'separates the lake from tidal marsh adjacent to the AIWW. A culvert in the
southernmost "leg" of the lake connects it with the marsh. Due to the
presence of cattails within the lake, it is presumed that the lake is at a
high enough elevation that regular salt water intrusion does not occur. There
is natural high ground in the middle of the horseshoe.
Since 1984, a water body (called the Upper Lake) has been created above
(upstream of) Horseshoe Lake as a result of various excavation and borrow
activities. The excavated material was primarily sand and was used for
residential development. The sand was removed to a clay layer which presently
ponds water, thus the creation of the Upper Lake. The excavation was
conducted in such a manner so as to facilitate the construction of an
anticipated marina at this site.
Soils were noted at the time of acquisition and the hydric soils
identified at that time were mapped. A delineation of the wetlands subject to
Corps of Engineers' regulatory jurisdiction was verified by a Corps'
representative in 1989. The wetlands were redelineated by the applicant and
approved by a Corps' representative in 1994. These three lines have been
placed on a map for comparison and reference purposes. As stated earlier,
past disturbances have removed the natural soil in the project area. These
soils were mapped as Torhunta loamy fine sand and Lakeland sand. Currently,
in many.areas a very poorly drained clay is at or near the surface, resulting
in impounded water and saturated soil conditions. Most of the hydrology
occurs due to impounded rain and runoff. The wetland types are patchy and
scattered as a result of the amount of material originally excavated.
A large percentage of the wetlands present within the project area are in
a disturbed state. These wetlands are primarily vegetated with emergent
species including rushes (Juncus spp), beakrushes (Rhynchospora spp), sedges
(Carex spp and Cvverus spp), and woody vegetation including red maple (Ater
rubrum), willow (Salix nicrra), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum
(Licruidambar styraciflua), and eastern false willow (Baccharis halimifolia).
There are also areas of open water. While some of these areas are
unvegetated, some contain submerged beds vegetated primarily by hornwort
(Cenatophvllum demersum) and pondweeds (Potamoaeton spp). In addition to
these types of wetland systems, there are also relatively natural, undisturbed
wetlands. These areas are vegetated with species including red maple,

sweetgum, red bay (Persea borbonia), water oak (Ouercus nigra), laurel oak
(Ouercus laurifolia), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), southern wax
myrtle (Mvrica cerifera), fetter bush (LVOnia lucida), netted chain fern
(Woodwardia aerolata), and greenbriers (Smilax spp).
The applicant acquired the property in 1984. From 1984 to the present
the lake has served as a catch basin for eroded material. The erosion has
occurred as a result of the removal of natural vegetation and subsequent
development within the lake's watershed, primarily associated with the
development of the Landfall and Pembroke Jones.Park subdivisions. Eroded
material has accumulated in the lake and along its shoreline to the point that
in some places it has created shallows, vegetated primarily with cattails
(Tyr)ha sp). One part of the proposed project will involve the removal of all
sediment necessary to restore the lake to those dimensions present at the time
of the property's acquisition, based on a 1984 aerial photograph. 1.16 acres
of cattail marsh and 3.00 acres of open water will be excavated to a depth of
7-8 feet. Around this deep water, a wetland fringe will be enhanced or
created and will be bounded by forested wetlands. Excavated material will be
used as either fill material for another part of the proposed project or as
high ground fill for residential development.
After the Horseshoe Lake excavation is completed, the applicant proposes .
to construct a bridge across the southernmost leg of Horseshoe Lake to access
the high ground in the middle of the horseshoe for development purposes.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will occur as a result of the pouring of
concrete pilings into sealed forms. These impacts are anticipated to be
minor.
The applicant also proposes constructing a dam/road between the Upper
Lake area and Horseshoe Lake to serve as a water control structure. This dam
will create the 13.6 acre Upper Lake and will result in the inundation or
filling of 1.28 acres of man-made wetlands (created post-1984) and 2.29 acres
of natural wetlands. The wetlands to be impacted by this aspect of the
project are of a disturbed nature.
Finally, the applicant proposes to construct a road for development
purposes through relatively undisturbed natural wetlands. This construction
will impact approximately 0.05 acre of wetlands located on a finger off of the
northern side of the Upper Lake.
With the construction of the Upper Lake, the applicant has proposed
replacing and enhancing the wetland functions which will either be adversely
impacted by the project or are presently of low quality. This replacement and
enhancement is both a goal of the project and a mitigation proposal.
The Upper Lake dam will maintain the lake's normal pool level at
elevation 4.50 mean sea level (MSL) by 5 inverted PVC siphons located in the
face of an outlet structure on the north face of the dam. The outlet
structure will be connected to Horseshoe Lake by a 30 inch culvert through the
dam. In addition, an emergency spillway will be constructed in native soil
(not in the dam itself) to minimize erosion and possibilities of breaching.
This spillway will be at elevation 8.5 MSL, slightly above the 50 year storm
elevation. The top of the dam is to be at 10.0 MSL.
The Upper Lake will be contoured so that gradually sloping shelves or
terraces are created along the edges and open water in the middle of the lake.
The shelves will be planted with both woody and herbaceous species of
hydrophytic vegetation. This will provide for deep water and a higher
quality, continuous wetland littoral fringe bounded by forested wetlands.
2

The applicant's mitigation proposal includes success criteria and a
monitoring plan. The plan states that the hydrology will be saturated for
sufficient duration, considering normal climatic conditions, necessary for a
wetland jurisdictional determination using the "Corps of Engineers wetlands
Delineation Manual" (Technical Report Y-87-1, January 1987). The soils will
be suitable to support target plant species. With regards to hydrophytic
vegetation, for areas to be dominated by woody species, a minimum density of
320 trees per acre will survive for at least three years. Replanting will be
done if survival falls below this limit. For areas to be dominated by
herbaceous species, a relative coverage of 60 percent of wetlands species
should be achieved at the end of the first growing season and 80 percent for
the next two consecutive years. If survival rates fall below these limits,
replanting will be done to accomplish an 80 percent survival rate. The
survival of planted herbaceous species will be based on a qualitative
assessment of relative coverage. The results of each of the three years of
the monitoring period will be reported in an end of the year report. The
first year-end report will include an "as-built" report.
The purpose of the work is to create an aesthetically pleasing lake area
for future development, as well as to enhance wetland functions within an
existing impacted wetland. Plans showing the work are included with this
public notice.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this
determination to.the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for
their review and concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for the
applicability of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM).
c. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the
North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant
to the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-
66)
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any
required State or local authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA
permit will be issued until a State coordinated viewpoint is received and
reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish
comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies directly to
the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
3
a?
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 list(3 as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this site is not registered property or property listed as being eligible for
inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes
the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and
he is otherwise unaware of the presence of 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 which 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 which
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 Agencies' 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.
4
1
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA)
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDEM 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 appl:.cation to the NCDETI for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, NCDEM,
Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such
materials will be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of
reproduction costs.
NCDEM plans to take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act
certification on or after May 30, 1995.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to NCDEM, Post
Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before
May 5, 1995, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Jeff Richter, until 4:15 p.m.,
May 12, 1995, or telephone
[phone].-
5
t ;
E N rr ?? F (.
5 4
St RIV
R \ . wr
R •r
P
a..?r.
XV4
NEW HANOVER
-r t
COUNTY
- V
o ?
2-y _ !. ws.e awr
a

-% s ro
: LANDFALL
p

,? .
Mai
cuN ww
LOCATION OF LANDFALL
sCALJE: 3.33 ml - APPROVED BY DRAWN BY
,- June 1994
FIGURE 1
1C ZR CP 1150.08
..........
FIGURE 1 Landfall Location Map
-2-
a
X
F
a o?
?Zy
x O?
V1 Z v ? q=
W ? ? ? ZIT
=act a?
NUMS
1 c

?p

u v

y

?

sag r ?C s
y s
y? y F ?
?
?Y
e
? y I a
f?
Q
ps
00
•-? z
E•
H

a i

•.
USE

all

?
29

0
0
a
d
i
CC 'S?F
OF7 F?1 Z ? ? up? ? p6z
q Z ?? °pi ?Vz
hl \ .

1
.
i ,
? i ?o ti3 i j ? 11 v< - ?•
z W I s -
s W 13
1 7J1?a ? 11 - .?.
ii. wifi
i s:z :: »Ea5 ; 1 , l . L!
nmpq
!? ??! !1' „?;?tl ,, .1• :. ,lei i;.,!, I
iuh, lil tli !!!! ]ill If 3IHIi Ill 1111 oft viii) lil! 11111!! I III{ !' It ! ? i
I 1 t 1„
iVI i -
jay ? ... . -
.
'. 1.`
;?: ? `` '•? ill.
.
??..r-' ..
1 ?

'
7
ai

7 ! R]L:
--? 1? ?? •1 1 ; % i ?, ai
_ r
i?
Os
v?
?u
Z?
YY?
p
E -
u
Z ?
v E+
as
7 ? 1
4 : i 7
55
q
•u

.1 t < . <
? a s o3 ? a WZ
IA' NQ f$
v ?-? qq a? d a i ,
R ?y o $= a W a i ?Irv
ell
?ZZ? yam= ims m E"al$ $1 ;
Nx o. e? iY,d
? s
s
off 2
w ,e
a
?d
t#1 r f
! all NO 6 LS
a
It #I
o is. a
It
wry?w w.n°?+wa d ? ? n ? 4 W
` 1 o aJ
.:5
E \ W >
d, .I + r
oaos°
- aoopo Do o°o°?' K? -
O as ?? '•:11:: Y7
•. „+??ij+l1 _ Ili i. ?l•:
MU.
a a6 \ 11:111!ie11111!111 1 !I.\.
oosooao pf° uunl?Jliurl `j?°`'1 ... •.
oooaa lull.. oid? '-e •?•
11 . O
??+Z?, / n `iao
' o ?p 111:111, / o •••? -•- Z
lil •+ ?
ill' / •• 11 Z
!li / . r.t -•• 1111 C0
1111 ( 111111. d
11?1I1 ( 111111.
11?I1111 l1i 1111!:, 02
It
a1i111!:11 ?' it
it I! tj
Ill: 11111' 1111 I1: _
11111111'1 ? '
IIIII IIII I' - Ill Iwi ?
1 Id W 1.
No
!I
ll'
N U

x q "pip
(/J z`
?
V
?qa
y
i
?? N

NJ

z?? lg ?
04 Olt
?•

W
?YYYYYYYYYYYY
W Sor??OO•h?we
Yc wi^ieie:?iri h^^Ij
o
W
? WWW WWWWI?IW=
C ??lifOCOSQY?N..?
L LyyN yNy yNy??N yNy??yNy yNy??yNy??N yjL
? N
N W?
W ?<
t L L L L L LL6 ° C
AL L S H

E- k r

E-o ?

0>0

-8-
a
i
.F
°
a
W
m
n i
i
?f
?o
a?
ri
f?
t4
1?
r'
. FIGURE 4 Proposed Development Program for Project Area
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
E H N F?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
June 15, 1995
Mr. Lawrence R. Zucchino, ASLA
Patton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Cooper Square
17 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Dear Mr. Zucchino:
Subject: Mitigation proposal for Landfall-Horseshoe Lake Complex
New Hanover County
I apologize for the delay in submitting comments on the subject proposal. I have reviewed
the information you have submitted and have outlined below the additional information that should
be included in the final mitigation proposal. I have also enclosed a copy of the Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers "Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines" which may be of assistance
to you. The overall mitigation proposal and background information was very thorough and
presented in an understandable format. Based on the information provided, I believe that this
proposal has an excellent chance to be successful and to provide significant water quality benefits.
Although the mitigation proposal is an integral part of the review of your request for a 401 Water
Quality Certification for this project, these comments should not be interpreted as a
recommendation that the certification be issued. As you are aware, that decision will be made
based on the recommendations of the Wilmington Regional Office and the information submitted
with your application.
INFORMATION NEEDED
SUCCESS CRITERIA: specify the following information for each wetland type
• HYDROLOGY: duration of flooding, ponding or saturation (minimum acceptable
is saturated within 12 inches of the surface for 12.5% of the growing season)
• VEGETATION: survival of planted species (usually expressed in trees/acres or %
cover for herbaceous species)
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
• PLOTS: number and location
• FREQUENCY: number of times each parameter monitored per year
• DURATION: number of years monitoring will be conducted
• METHODS: how each parameter will be monitored
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
• AS-BUILT PLANS
• ANNUAL MONITORING REPORTS
• FINAL REPORT
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
• PROVISIONS FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS IF NECESSARY TO ENSURE SUCCESS
• FINAL DISPOSITION OF SITE
I look forward to working with you to complete the development of this proposal. If you
have any questions concerning these comments or need assistance in providing this information I
can be reached at 919-733-0026.
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Ferrell
cc: Jim Gregson, WiRO
John Dorney
RECEIVED
JUG! 1 91995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
ran • „?
AUG-23-95 17=01 FROM=LEGAL-GE FUELS ID=96755957 PAGE 1/4
O,N ? ? Ell cIon.n

FAX COVER SHEET 'NIRotiN`sly?s
r
DATE: TIME:
47
To:
! 7b 77c
FAX: HONE. -543""
P
to,
FROM: CJ Miimoe PHONE: [phone] or 910-675-6657
Issues Coordinator FAX: [phone]
SeAe
a Wt e
CC:
Number of pages induding cover sheet
Message
0"e, ?
a
GA = CAC +D
?1?
J
e, CAvt , ?-
?? o 4rz;je-.
Landfall 11M gamsr i
1700 Verranano Place
Wilmington, NC 79405 _--
Towniffaj to a Fns Founjation"
4 RFcs
?'Fo
AUG-23-95 17=01 FROM=LEGAL-GE FUELS ID=96755957 PAGE 2/4
Landfall Owners Against Fill (LOAF)
1700 Umarzano Place
Wilmington, NC 28405
"CommitteJ to a him FmmJaHon"
August 19, 1995
Mr. Jeff Richter
Department of the Army
Wilmington 17istricL Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington NC, 28402-1890
Re: Landfall Horseshoe Lake Permit Application (Action 1D No. 199500221)
Dear Mr. Richter,
This will confirm what I told you on the phone on August 18_
By timely notice dated May 10, 1995, LOAF entered its appearance in this proceeding opposing
issuance of the requested permit until full public hearings had been held- I was most distressed to learn
from you that the Corps is considering issuance of the permit without hearings and without considering
the issues raised by LOAF.
LOAF is corn Wdied to maintaining and improving the Landfall community environment. As
owners we are directly and substantially affected by any construction, dredge, and fill actions in or
around Landfall. Past dredge and fill actions at Landfall have adversely impacted property values, and
Landfall has an express 'no exceptions" policy of not taking responsibility for subsurface problems
including fill on lots it has marketed as suitable for residential construction.
Landfall has poor record of compliance with wetlands protection law. It previously conducted
dredge and fill operations in this area illegally without a permit, with the National Wildlife Federation
lawsuit as a consequence- Landfall's current attempt to force its Harbor Lake Development scheme
through the permit process without full public scrutiny is barely better than its original violation.
Given this record of non-responsibility, LOAF continues to oppose issuance of any permits
authorizing dredging or filling at Landfall without full hearings with an opportunity for LOAF and all
interested parties to be heard and for the Landfall management and engineers to be cross examined
under oath. Landfall management has skirted the law before. There is no reason for the Corps and
North Carolina permitting authorities to assume Landfall Associates has told the truth in the permit
application or that they will undertake any commitments they make with regard to subsurface
improvements. Indeed, their most recent communication conveys the erroneous implication that the
Landfall Owners Against Fill "support' the permit application. Until Landfall changes its existing policy of
refusing to accept any responsibility for the consequences of past dredge and fill actions, regardless of
legal obligations, contractual representations, land covenants, the good of the Landfall community, or
environmental impact, we oppose issuance of the application. Until landfall changes this policy, it
should not be issued any new permits authorizing dredge and fill-
But for the vigilance of other residents, this stealthy permit application might have gone
unnoticed by LOAF, and State and Federal review would have occurred without the proper measure of
public participation. In May we asked you to include our organization on your list of interested parties or
intervenors and provide us notice of all further hearings, proceedings, submittals, comments. and
AUG-23-95 17=01 FROM=LEGAL-GE FUELS ID=96755957 PAGE 3/4
decisions in this matter_ If this request for public participation is being denied, we request a written
decision, so it may be appealed. More appropriately, we urge the Corps to promptly convene the
hearings we requested in May to address all the issues raised by the Landfall proposal, including by not
limited to:
I . The impact of the lake, whose function according to the permit will function as a pollution
lagoon for the excess nutrients, including pesticides, herbicides, stormwater run-off, and other
environmental towns, on the environment.
2_ The economic impact of the proposed development on surrounding properties.
3_ Who is responsible for the safety of the proposed dam? What would the impact of the
failure of the dam be on the Intracoastal Waterway? Why wasn't the proposal submitted for review by
the North Carolina Dam Safety Engineer? Apparently Landfall has ignored the North Carolina Dam
Safety Act, a law that has been on the books since 1967_ So once again Landfall has chosen to ignore a
law that was inconvenient to its development schemes. Is the Corps willing to issue a permit before this
state issue is resolved?
4. What assurances does the public have that Landfall will keep any of its promises and
comply with the law in the future? Isn't it likely that Landfall will develop the property, take its profits,
then leave the future problems and liabilities for LOAF and other Landfall residents to address? Why
can't Landfall be required to post a bond to assure claims will be its responsibility, not the responsibility
of the Property Owners Association?
5_ What will be the infrastructure requirements and environmental impacts of the proposed
residential development? Would restoration of the area to the condition that existed prior to Landfall's
original violation of the area better serve the public interest and environmental values?
6. Does the Landfall proposal fully comply with the requirements of the 1993 court decree
settling the National Wildlife f=ederation lawsuit?
7. What impacts (odor, toxic fumes, unsightly algae bloom, etc.) will the laketpollution lagoon
have on the surrounding residences? How will it differ from the hog feces lagoons? What investigations
have been undertaken to determine whether the development would disturb any archaeological
resources?
8. What continuing responsibility will the NE New Hanover Conservancy have for the
developed area? What access will Landfall residents and the general public have to the area?
These are just a few questions that LOAF, without experts or high-priced lawyers, has been
unable to get answers to. Them may be very reasonable answers, but they will never be heard unless
the Corps fulfills its responsibility to provide a public forum for all the issues to be raised and addressed
by the interested parties. Now is the time to commence public hearings.
Respectfully submiftec?,
Comelius J.
Issues Coordi or
Coples_ Keith Cooper, Landfall
John homey, Jim Leumas, N. Carolina DEM
Congressman Charlie Rose
Philip Hervey
Derb Carter, Environmental Law Center
Membership (25)
AUG-23-95 17=02 FROM=LEGAL-GE FUELS ID=96755957 PAGE 4/4
Landfill Owners Against Fill (LOAF)
1700 Verrazzano Place
Wilmington, HC 28405
"Ccmmitted to a Firm FounbfiaD "
August 21, 1995
Mr. Jeff Richter
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington NC, 28402-1890
Re: Landfall Horseshoe Lake Permit Application (Action 1D No. 198500221)
Dear Mr_ Richter,
This will confinn what I told you on the phone.
Early this afternoon, I received a call from a man identifying himself as Keith Cooper. He said
the meeting we had scheduled for Thursday august 24 to discuss our concerns about the Horseshoe
Lake project was canceled- I asked why and he said he had received a copy of my August 19 letter to
you. (He must have received it from you, since I have not mailed out copies yet.) I asked when we
could meet and he referred me to 'Alan Duncann, who he described as a lawyer. I asked whether Mr.
Duncan was prepared to address the technical issues involved in the Project permitting process. Mr.
Cooper refused to answer and said to call Mr. Duncan at 910-379-9558. 1 called the number. It is some
kind of fa),_ Mr. Cooper returned my subsequent call and gave me a better number. I called Mr. Duncan
who was unaware of the purpose of my call and said he could not talk to me until he had talked to Mr_
Cooper.
In view of Landfall's failure to discuss these issues informally, there is no alternative but a public
proceeding, so they may be fully addressed by all interested parties- Since Friday I have been in touch
with other residents who live near the project, have wetlands concerns, or are active in efforts to protect
Landfall wildlife. There is a growing concern that landfall plans to shoot first by getting the permit, and
answer questions later. This is the wrong way to get environmentally compatible development We call
upon the Corps to convene hearings on the Landfall proposal.
Respectfully submitted
3ne ?JMWiImoe,
Issues Coordinator
Copies: Keith Cooper. Landfall
Alan Duncan
Membership (25)
????
?S a?J,,? ? ? ?-e-?1?,?
?s ? ?
?- ??

?`-- ? ? c c_.._? ?`r BSc'

?r?s?-? ? w ? ?..a ,?'?
?e--?r P-- o -- ? c? ? ? c.,? ?-
S a ?- r ?_c.?,

?
-JCL P? l ?? ,,
? ? ? SC v•r'?S
IMPORTANT
To
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone

AREA CODE _
NUMBER EXTENSION

Message

Signed

TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
? N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources