20060798 Ver 2_More Info Received_20070730

1~VNZ
d~- o?q~ Va
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
July 25, 2007
Ms. Amanda Jones
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Kevin Barnett
NC Division of Water Quality
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778
RE: Request for Additional Information
Bill's Mountain Individual Permit Application
Action ID. 2006-41710-381
DWQ Project # 06-0798
Rutherford County, NC
This letter is in response to the comments and request for additional information,
submitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NC DWQ), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS), and public commenters, regarding the lake
proposed by Vista Developers LLC (Vista) at their development named Bill's Mountain in
Rutherford County, NC.
The primary concerns mentioned by the regulatory agencies were impact avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation. In consideration of these comments Vista has updated
their proposal. Other comments and concerns are also addressed below.
Best Regards,
I ,- ~~ I
L
Neill Yelverton
CC: Cyndi Karoly (5 copies)
David McHenry (1 copy)
Bryan Tompkins (1 copy)
__ ~ .. ..
i14'~/
._ v .. ~V
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

1.0 Alternatives Analysis
Vista has updated its alternative analysis based on comments by regulatory agencies;
their purpose & need remains the same (Attachment 1. Purpose & Need). Plan review
by the engineer confirmed their original finding that the proposed dam location is still
the best potential dam location on site. In order to meet their goals and heed
regulatory comment, Vista has added a smaller lake option. Since multiple small ponds
would not meet all of the stated goals, they were not considered. The proponent is no
longer considering an off site lake option due to the cost prohibitive nature of acquiring
new land.
1) 7.45 acre On-Site Lake
2) 5.10 acre On-Site Lake
3) No Lake
Alternative #1. 7.45 acre Lake
A 7.45 acre lake on site will maximize recreational and aesthetic benefits for multiple
parties at the same time. As an amenity it will also support the economic viability of
the site both in increased property values, rate of property sales, and long term
desirability and success of the development as a whole. It will also supply a suitable
source of water for fire suppression, thereby increasing response time for local fire
departments. Impacts are summarized below.
Wetted surface area 7.45 acres
Dam Impact (Fill) 537 linear feet
Flooding Impact 2028 linear feet
Total Impact 2565 linear feet
Alternative #2. 5.10 acre Lake
A 5.10 acre lake option has been created in order to minimize impacts while still
achieving the needs of the project (The same dam location was used in order to
minimize redesign costs for the lake as well as adjacent lot & road layout). While on a
slightly smaller scale the 5.10 acre lake would be suitable for recreation, aesthetics, and
fire suppression. As an amenity it will also support the economic viability of the site
both in increased property values, rate of property sales; and long term desirability and
success of the development. It will also supply a suitable source of water for fire
suppression. Impacts are summarized below.
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

Wetted surface area 5.10 acres
Dam Impact (Fill) 384 linear feet
Flooding Impact 1620 linear feet
Total Impact 2095 linear feet
Alternative #3. No Lake
A No Lake option fails to meet the stated needs of the project. Vista considers the lake,
as a central amenity, a vital part of the long term success of Bill's Mountain.
Preferred Alternative
Alternative #2, the 5.10 acre Lake, as detailed above is the preferred alternative,
because it will meet project goals and reduce impacts to waters. Upon reviewing
regulatory comments, Vista conferred with the design team who felt they could
minimize stream impacts while still meeting its goals. This will result in less hard impact
for the dam, and less flooding impact.
2.0 Economic Analysis
The proposed lake will be the primary amenity for this development. As seen in the
Cost Benefit Analysis (Attachment 2.) the total cost for the dam is projected to be
$1,000,000, but based on sales at comparable developments (Attachment 3.) the lake
benefits will offset this cost with better long term economic success of the development
for the developer, the residents, and the community (through increased tax revenue).
The desirability of this type of amenity will make the community as a whole more
desirable, increase sales rates and revenue, and increase the long term value to the
residents. Lake front lots and lake view lots (Attachment 4. Lot Description Map). will
help ensure continued revenue and speed up return, as compared to comparable lots
without such an amenity.
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

3.0 Description of Discharge Alternative #2)
The subject streams are unnamed tributaries to the Broad River; the lake has
approximately 176 acres of drainage measured at the proposed dam site. The NC
Division of Water Quality has classified this section of the Broad River as a "Class C"
water; other onsite drainages with named streams (Bills Creek and Cove Creek) are also
"Class C" waters.
The 5.10. acre lake (Alternative #2) proposes impacts as follows
• 180 cubic yards of fill will be discharged into waters for the dam
• 384 linear feet of direct impacts for dam structure
• 1620 linear feet of indirect impacts for flooding
• No wetlands will be impacted
Description of work remains as stated in the original application, with the exception that
proposed impacts have been decreased. The proposed permanent impacts to stream
channels resulting from the placement of fill material associated with the dam totals
384 linear feet or 0.064 acres of stream surface area. The proposed impacts resulting
from flooding streams total 1620 linear feet or 0.18 acres of stream surface area. As
with the previous plan, there are no proposed impacts to wetlands resulting from
construction of the lake.
The lake will be constructed with littoral shelves that will add to the diverse habitats
created for terrestrial and semi-aquatic wildlife. After construction the lake will be
stocked with trout; initial stocking rates will follow NC WRC stocking practices of brook,
rainbow, and brown trout at a 40:40:20 ratio, respectively. The outlet of the lake will
utilize low-flow cold water design strategies, to create suitable downstream habitat for
fish as well (Attachment 5. Coldwater Release Design Typical).
4.0 Avoidance and Minimization
Vista has avoided hard impacts to "Waters of the U.S." on site by using arched spans
and bridges at three stream crossings on site. Vista will continue to use arched spans
or bridges for the remaining stream crossings on site, avoiding up to 500 additional
linear feet of hard impact to streams. In consultation with their engineers, Vista has
been advised that one large dam will result in approximately ~/z. the hard impact of
multiple dam in producing the same amount of lake surface area.
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

Impacts associated with the lake have been minimized by selecting a 5.10 acre option
(Alternative #2) to replace the 7.45 acre initially planned. Total impacts have been
minimized by 561 linear feet or 22% (see Table 3).
TahlP ~_ Rerluctinn of Lake ImDactS
Impacts for
5.10 ac. Lake Impacts for
7.45 ac. Lake
Reduction
% Reduction
Channel
Linear Feet filled 384 537 153 28%
Linear Feet flooded 1620 2028 408 20%
Total Linear Feet
Im acted
2004
2565
561
22%

Cubic Yards filled 180 243 63 26%
Cubic Yards flooded 374 450 76 17%
Total Cubic Yards of
Im act
554
693
139
20%
5.0 Mitigation Proposal
Impacts for the lake can be separated into two classes that merit different mitigation
ratios based upon the effect of the discharge (Table 4. Mitigation Needed Based on
Proposed Impacts). Impacts resulting from the construction of the dam will result in a
permanent loss of waters while impacts associated with flooding result in a net increase
in regulated Waters of the US. In consideration of the factors used to assess mitigation
we have developed the following proposal.
Proposed impacts to the subject streams include the 384 linear feet of dam structures
and 1620 linear feet of flooding impacts. The applicant considers all of these streams
to be "Good" quality (Attachment 6. Stream Quality Assessment Spreadsheet), and will
use the 2:1 Compensatory Mitigation Ratio set forth in the Corps Stream Mitigation
Guidelines for good quality streams. Vista has also agreed, per agency request, to
mitigate for previously permitted impacts which total 400 linear feet of culverts already
in place. Therefore Vista will need at least 3188 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU's) to
mitigate for their impacts with as calculated in Table 4.
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

TahlP 4_ Mitinatinn Needed Based on Proposed Impacts

Type of Impact Amount
(I.f.) Mitigation Ratio (Based
on Stream Quality) Multiplier (Based
on Impact) Final
Ratio Mitigation
needed (SMU)
Culverts rev. ermit 400 2:1 Good uali 1 for fill 2:1 800
Dam ro osed 384 2:1 Good uali 1 for fill 2:1 768
Floodin ro osed 1620 2:1 Good uali 1/2 for floodin 1:1 1620
total 3168
We propose 384 linear feet of stream restoration for the 384 linear feet of dam impact.
This mitigation will be through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's in-lieu fee
program (Attachment 7. NC EEP ILF Acceptance).
To mitigate for all other impact, we propose 12,129 linear feet of on site stream
channel preservation, equal to 3323 SMU's (This will provide a surplus of 519 SMU's).
The stream segments and buffers (Attachment 8. Stream Buffer Map) will be preserved
through deed restrictions, following Corps Guidance. The buffers are divided into two
categories based on their size. Buffers will be either 30' or 60' measured horizontally
from the each top of bank. A preservation multiplier of 1:5 is proposed for the streams
with 30' buffers and 1:2.5 for the streams with 60' buffer (twice the minimum required
buffer). Stream buffer preservation will result in 21.2 acres of preservation. (All
remaining streams on site will have deed notification mechanisms per DWQ guidance to
notify all property owners of the protected resources present on their property.)
Table 5. Mitiaation Proposed Categorized by Type

T e of Miti ation
Method Amount
Pro osed I.f.
Multi lier
SMU
Restoration EEP 384 1 384
Preservation 60' buffer on-site 4486 2.5 1794
Preservation 30' buffer on-site 7643 5 1529
Total 3707
6.0 Other Comments
Endangered species concerns expressed by the US FWS and the US ACE focused on the
endangered White Irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum), a federally endangered species,
that occurs in Rutherford County, NC. It was therefore recommended that a field
survey be conducted to determine if any White Irisette occurring on the Bill's Mountain
site. Suitable habitat on the Bill's Mountain site was minimal, but those areas deemed
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

potential occurrence sites were field. surveyed on June 13, 2007. No White Irisette was
discovered during this field survey (Attachment 9. Threatened & Endangered Species
Report).
Several adjoining neighbors also submitted comments on the project. Their main
concerns are associated with dam safety (potential dam failure) and the effects of the
dam on water quality. The dam has been designed such that it can withstand heavy
stormflow events with confidence (it will have to meet requirements fora 1/3 PMP
event which is greater than a 500-year storm).. The design team is always aware of
safety concerns, expressed by the landowner as well as the neighbors, and has
reminded us that the dam will have to be approved by the N.C. Department of
Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Land Quality, to meet their Dam Safety
Standards, including routine inspections by their staff. The engineers have already
preformed a calculated breach analysis and have put together an Emergency Action
Plan to follow in case of emergency. In regard to water quality, water quality
discharges will be minimized by sediment and erosion control practices, and the actual
construction of the dam will happen in the dry.
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

Attachment #1
Bill's Mountain Lake Purpose & Need

Bill's Mtn. Lake Purpose and Need
Vista, the project proponent, proposes to construct a lake that floods perennial
and intermittent streams to serve as the central amenity in Bill's Mountain
residential development. As the central amenity it will provide on-site
recreational opportunities not otherwise available. The development team
designed the lake to satisfy the needs listed below.
• Recreation: The proposed lake would provide onsite recreational
opportunities, with a focus on canoeing and fishing. The size of the lake
would allow enjoyable canoeing and fishing opportunities for multiple
parties at the same time.
• Aesthetic: Lakeview lots and common areas are very desirable for their
serene and picturesque nature. They are therefore more desirable for
potential property buyers, and increase the economic viability of the
project. (Attachment XX. Comparative Market Analysis)
• Economic: Desirable central amenities play an integral part in creating
initial interest and ensuring long term viability of second-home
developments. Generating initial interest is important for the developer,
while long term viability insures that the home buyer's investment and
provides a long term tax base for the community. According to the
Purchasers of second homes valued their proximity to "An ocean, river or
lake, 40%" (the highest percentage of all things rated), and Activities of
interest to vacation home buyers included "Beach, lake or water sports,
37%" (the highest percentage of all things rated).
*The study was based on two surveys. An eight-page questionnaire
mailed to a national sample of 100,000 recent homebuyers who
purchased their homes between mid-2003 and mid-2004, which
generated 8,205 usable responses. And an email survey conducted in
January 2005, which captured data for 3,371 home
purchasesin2003&2004.(http•//www.reailtor.org/press room/news
releases/ 2®®5/seconghomemktsurges®5.html)
• Fire suppression: A dry hydrant and fire truck access will be incorporated
into the lake design in order to provide sufficient water for fire
suppression in the event of structural and/or forest fires on site. This will
make water access faster and easier for on-site fire suppression, and will

improve fire safety for the community. (see Lake Lure Fire Coordinator
Letter Below)
From; Lake Lure Fire [mat/to:llfireCa~bellsouth.netJ
Sent; Tuesday, November ZI, 200611:01 AM
To; Scott McDowell
Subject; Lake for Vista at Bi/ls Mountain
Scott,
As we discussed on the phone the proposed lake for Vista development would be of
great benefit for Fire Protection as long as provisions are made for the Fire
Department to draft. There is currently no water source in the development that can
be adequately used for fire protection.
If 1 can be of further assistance please contact me.
Ron Morgan
Lake Lure Fire Coordinator

Attachment #2
Cost Benefit Analysis

Cost Benefit Analysis
1. Construction Cost of Dam: $500,000 est.
2. Cost of Permitting: $800 est.
3. Consulting Cost: $150,000 est.
4. Cost of Land Purchase: $6,000 per acre (800 acres x $6,000 =
$4,800,000)
5. Cost of Preservation : $300,000 est. improvements.
$50,000 est. annual maintenance
6. Cost vs. Anticipated Gain: Anticipated Gain@ $23,400,000
Cost @ $ 5,800,800
Difference @ $17,599,200
* total includes only one year of annual maintenance
The following summarizes the potential lot revenue differences:
Rill'c Mni mtain with I ake
Lot Descri tion # of Lots Avera e Unit Price Sub-Total
Lake 16 $450,000 $7 200 000
Lake View 49 $350,000 $17,150,000
Condo 24 $800,000 $19,200,000
Other Lots 200 $170,000 $34,000,000
Total Revenue: $77,550,000
Rill'c Mni intain withni ~t I ake (rec_ center f~ nark as central amenity)
Lot Description # of Lots Avera e Unit Price Sub-Total
Lake 16 $150 000 2 400 000
Lake View 49 $150,000 $7,350,000
Condo 24 $600,000 $14,400,000
Other Lots 200 $150,000 $30,000,000
Total Revenuer $54,150,000
Revenue
Difference: $23,400,000

*Other lots: Generally speaking, all other lots will go up in value since the
lake would be shared by all residents. Lot prices would increase
approximately 15%.

Attachment #3
Comparative Market Analysis

Comparative Market Analysis
Local real estate agents and developers were surveyed regarding property values
of lots with water versus lots without water. The unanimous conclusion was lots
with water are 100%-300% more valuable than lots without water. Even county
tax assessors increase taxable values of lots with water compared to lots without
water.
Specific examples of the differences in values are:
Blue Heron Development/Lake Lure
Lots with water selling for $800,000-$1,000,000 (1/2-3/4 acres)
Lots without water selling for $375,000-$400,000 (1-2.5 acres)
Lots with water views selling for $675,000 (1-2.5 acres)
Carriage Park/Hendersonville
Lots with water selling for $235,000-$275,000 (1/4 acre)
Lots without water selling for $80,000-$150,000 (1/4 acre)
There is no difFerence in values of lots with open/green space and lots without
open/green space in a mountain-rural community. Example is Vista at The
Riverbank.

Attachment #4
Lot Description Map

- -
__ - -
- -- _
-- ~~
~~~::o~z ,oa~~o~-~-oswtti~ ~_
- - - m ~ c io
., -
v, n o 3 -. m ~ w 3 ,
Z I it r =' '° ' o 0 0 °-" " a a ~'o m ~, io 0 0~ w `° a_ a
/r~ ~ ~ ,nom N 3 .+ O O !D 6i ~ .r w ~ O - ~. ~ y J ~ C ~, _
~J J ~ -o -o afD+ 'J^ J F ~ ,~ io ~ J ~ J ^ re ~ `° ~ v~ ~ ~ _'..
(~ _ o ro 3 .o c` C b ~ 3 p fD w `_° .
V -n r~ c -
~ n " _.
'o - c
_ ~ -
0 3
c w
a vi
w f
3 v ~, J w o- w a
a < - o
N O -
~ _ "
0
- J o. - o o- - ro a -o
< w
- O t0
o a x m
w J
I ^.J J< 3 y"» w m w^ J
o ~ (l w ., b
a
0
o- -
. n I
m o - n c
c a o ~ o .
w m c N io _
., ~
n w
J
a .-
_ r`o o' o a J '° ? ~ ' _
lei m J -
~ O O X ~ ~ °' ~ a ~ 30 o m ` N ~ ~ j ~ ~. s s ~ i ~~
d ~ N rte-' N -- O o a ^ .nar ~~ c ~. N '^ °-' ~ b a w
!D fD ~ f1 ~0 3 o n w m_ a a f° ~_ b w w
J - a =
3 ~ Cl O .^. A w n w N° o w c 3 ^y a_ a s
~. C 3 o w m m ~ J J -6~ ^.o'
b J - a ~
O
-~o a' ~o.,~ ~o w ~ =ate
(D (D ~ m ~ m n ~~ a~ w o fD ,~ J T .,. ~.
v. J J 3 ~ ,wi ~~~ b J C ,
C tp 10 _ - _
I N _ I
I~
I
,ill
I
^. Q I
~ S
~ ~ ~
~ r
i ~~
~ ~ ~ .:..1
~ N _
i
I
1
~I
/ _~=~
/ _
/~ _
~ . i
~ ~
` ~
¢ ~ ~ I
_~
~_
4
• ' \
~~
~,.~:~~'~ ~ III \ ~
s..f~~w# 1~ ,>
~ ~ `, ~.
,~ ~. Iii _ V ~,~ - ~ ,
~~
o ~ ~ ~~
ti
~ ~ • .-- _ ._~_~ ~ l ~ ~ _ ~ _ i f ~~~
~ '~ ~~ ~_
i
0o N
~ i ` it
rn ~ Q'
-p ~
00
00 ~ ~ 'l jll
oZ~
~ ~
c~ ~
n
n
N O ~ ~'I
o ,~
--~ ~ e ,
O~
sl
S
~ ~
n r ^u
0
~.
S O
O W
~ o ~ ~ j
m T3
~ rn~ co Q
..
n p
O ~ O '.
z o
C w ;i o
C/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 0
~ I
~ ~ ~ ?` a ~ I
_ __---~_
d ~ I _ I,
00 ~ ~
~, ~ _ fl
~ ~ ~' -
~ ~° r m !'I o ~ .~ o D ~ ~!
~,
~ Q" Cz7 d o ~Ij ~ ~; ~" o r, -a
~ =~~ N~ i ~ i /H L T O
r e~-r ~ ~ I O V ~ O ~ ~l' /VJ ~ r~ ~ II
" ~ ~ O r1 r r n
~ ~ po w a (~
o ^ ~ ~ o D m ~" a
~ ~ ~ _ _ I'
l1
° ~ ~ ~ ~ (~D N ~ ~ O W ~ ~ III
~• m i N ''* O ' c~D
O J v' ~
O N li ~ ~ I!
O o
~ ~' - - '~

Attachment #5
Coldwater Release Design Typical

' ;-, , fy~
/i %::% ' /. iii ~ /.' ~ , //. / . r' . r

`fir „ %` ,/~ i;r/~~r ~' ~i j ..~~/r,/ j, i/%l
r/ii'%/Jrfl :;/%~rrf/!~%rr,~/'i!' ~~ ~f~//.i/i /-,.

/ /-li' r, i ..' %~ Jib%: r`;;/.-
'
~ ~ ~
~%~
;/%r/r /,
``'r /''.r %/rte%~%; '?/1:~ ~/r%%% '

figure 1. C©ldwater Release Drainpipe Design Typical

Attachment #6
Stream Quality Assessment Spreadsheet

Sil9s Mountain Stream Quality Assessment
Channel Corps Stream Quality Assessment Score Classification
Ch "B" 63 Good
Ch "4B" 64 Good
Ch "A" 52 Good
Ch "F" 48 Good
Ch 'T" 50 Good
Ch "R" 49 Good
Ch "K" 64 Good
Ch"M" 60 Good

Attachment #7
NC Ecosystem Enchantment Program In Lieu Fee Acceptance

r~
,~~m ~.
~[,fi) 1st.. '711t~f i.
~,ooawn
Suly 12, X067
1'istu llevd[ryera.l.1..C:
S? 5 N. Main 5[.
lkndas:anilEc, NC 28;73
Project: Di0'7 ~Ianntaln C:nunry: Hutherfurd
Flu: pr4,po.v of l6ia: lrller is:u nolii}' you [hat tt,e Varth Carnlina itctt7yrotero P.nhnnrentem Yrngnim fVGEEiP) is willing to
acocp[ eaynw~d C,a i nrpacu aasucialaxl wilh the uhtsve rofetenced prnjcet E']ra9e Hatt thazdtin M~ixirrn ,hxo u6t d•snrn Thal
16c paynuan will be approved Try the palnit issuing agsncien ax nd,irp,tion tw pmjtx:l ittga,cls 11 is Utc rrapooaiLdlity of the
rl+plicam I. ~ <a ~ma,~ Ifmsr agontdes W determine if puytoa:nttn nc~'dCE?E?P will he apCrrnr,:rl.
Thin amctarsax in ,aL'd P . dr nwmha tram lhr dWlr o! lhix kther and is na transfaoblc. [f tachs7+e nna t+ecel.eda carp ..r
the ixnnat Mf4 NtrmieFlO! Cctti6n•aHotafCrlMA perndt tvlthtn [hlr Httte4l'Altle, Ihls hOCeplwtcc Hill axpirc. f[ is the
applicmu`a rcaprn,aihility to r„rtd capl~ iif,la, prnni,a la NCS:LP. Ooce NCB 7eceives a copy off the permits} au insniea
will hr iv,,~,ed hawed lm the rxquited miti~ttirnt itt that permit anti payroceamLLn6r, rnaJa Vries W cunducGog the mdhaizal
wt:rk. 7tte omatmt of the ]n Lieu !Le to ~ l,niA t„ N[.'Hh:l' by zn:gtpliauu is enlevlatod based ttpmt rheFcc Schcdala and
a~liaiat liatedd[.!~'u•W,nce+ep.rte[,
Baaud w, Ilrr inlunuahua supplied by you the impacts that may squiro onmpeneetnn• mirigminis nm aurnusa•i.xd in tl,r.
lellawioe taLle.
Steed
03650163 Stra7m (tied) ~ S7Jril~,ryrvix (ac.os7 Butter [
iSq.FY.j Buffer EI
lSy.Pl.}
l'u1d
~~ Cool 1Yurm
~
~- an Now-Ri miau C-oasralMarxh
rny,aetu
• +i aa~
-
. u o o ~ El u
-..
.
..[:rr.~lil.
. 0 7at$ U 0 6 6 II I~
...
Upon rarapr of poyntcM, EEl' ~.vil[ Ialte n:npunsiliili[y furprari,ling iha crmrpensaWt±~ mitigation ]f the rogttlatcuy agtn:iea
~,:yui ~ r n,ieiennr m t,e•IM17 growler lhrn itrl icat,xl above, ytld the applicant alanry NCBEP to Ix respnn: ihle inr i Ire .u li li I it mu I
mitigation. the applicant wil I Had ~ sahnaii n naitignliun roquesl lu yCL1sP Aa npprovul Tatar to permit iasuaraca The
n,itigat sin wi It Ix: l,erfprngd In itetxadwWC with the Mcmranndum of Understanding hatvreen fie N- C-17eptrn,nem of
Ynvimnmentand Natural Rennur.ca aaA the Z 1. C- A„ny Carps of CnKineaa dale) Navrtnbrr4.1978.
!?'tvu hutro any questions or Had eddlritsnal inkxiasrinn- plcaxc unni>r.l lfatly F ill ianr: al (9 ] 4) ; L6-15121
3,e_cicly.
... ..
[llismD.Gilm m~P'6
tinH:ke
Cyudi Knrnly, T'CDWQ tL'ctlendsf411I f fu it
.tn Waldo 7unr~, 1:5A{: h~p~haville
lCs,~in Saouett YCllWQ-Asheville
YeillYalxsrmv, agent
I•ile
Rea~~rir~,,, ~cuu~... Pra~ectr~ Orsi^ Sf.Rt~
Nctt.F Cardim E.ccayatEm Enl,arcemarrt Program, iG6? h1al18erv~e Carrmr, Raleigh, h1G 27999.1952: 9t 9-775Ld7E1 twrou.neeep.net

Attachment #8
Stream Buffer Map

r
Z
0
A
I
~~ ~ ~ O
S ~ ~
~ ~. ~
~ fl- fD
fD (p
~ Q ~
~ ~
3
~ O Q.
Q ~ O
Q N
(D N
n ~.
~ ~
(D
Q ~
n ~
O ~
~ !'1
to S
~~ ~
~Q
~ 3 N C~ p~ D .. ,-. c 3 a D n N ro » .o c` ~ w
m N. c o o o a a~ ~ a ~'o n~ 'c ~°~ w a a w a o ~ Z
o j~ ~_a o a N~ w j~ 3~ a <' a o N w~ a },~ ~ ~
~ r_
j .o v ~ ~ ` N ~ ~ s ~ > > ., ~ ~ s N o Z
v N~ ~ o c a o f1 v v n 0~ `° °: N a o a .. ~
=` w A N v m^ c ° io c~ m o- per, ~~ ~~ o y
ma m p '~ io<o c ~ 3 .a '^ x c~v~
w - _. o w m 1D
3
0 0 a U~ 3 O _ N~ O O O _. 6 n m~ 0
a y w o v, m w> >° v. ~ ~, w x.
a Q 3 X~ v o o ~,^ a~ w N j a o~~ N
rv v o ~~ m m ~ w 'y ~ m o o Q ;~ p ~~
~ o o ~- o ~ ^
3 w c %~ n `z 3 a~ w n o `° ° u~-
~~ o c -'w w 3 A a w o 0 o a °--
~ O v. w n 3 S O= N n O 3 w w
t ..i~# ~
~ ~
~ ~:~~~
~!*~; F •~
' •~ !~ *~ ~
e--r
M Q..
W
0
r~/ i7i+
/^,~ ~-/
N ~ ~
~ N
~•
00
~ ~
~ ~ ~
v
~~ ^~1
1
N
O
~rr
/H~ i~+
V
!"~
C ~ ..r
~~
e--r ~ ~
~
~
~
-{
V
~

I
~/~
V1
n
~
. ~
rn
`- •
0

O
r.~,..
~ O
O
r ~ i
I M
c~ W
^
l 1 ~ I~ I
o ~ ~ ~`
~ ~ . '""~ z
~

o
~ ~ ~
~
C ~°
y_.i
LJ --~
~ •
w
co
'

O ~ o
v

~ N
O ~
O
J
1

W i
O
I
I ~
C r
A n /~
~

m 7
/
~w~
`f
~.
~.,.
'
.. N N T i ..
oN S III
~ f ~
N ~_,_
'
N m
w
~ ~ D -~
~ ~ ~

n V S
~ - 7
y ~ m N 01 ~
W p~ O V ~
~
IV Q
j
D ~ ~ ~
~w~D
~ _
n
o ~
'm ~ m D_
~
n
N
~ V S
Q O j
~ 7 N
N y
.... N
~ ~ W
tv f~
m
D
w
0 rn
o m
x. ~-

m r~o ~ .
~ ~ n o
w
~"
~ w
m c ~
r
o
-.
A~

W
O
U
C
m
W n
O - ~
7 ~
m 7
d N ~
A
y
~
~ O
Q
C
~ r
N (7
.~
7
OJ ~
~
n
~

., m N 31
1 ~ _
~\\, ~i ~ ~
,, \„' /J
V ~ ~
~~
,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~
-- .
\ ~~
W m
~ N S
U - ~
~ m m
~ P1 41
O m ~
07 ~ Qp
~m
W
O
Q
c
m ~
o n
W O ~ ~
O ~
Q 61 N ~
A ~
~ (D N N -
O (7 ,
N ~~ ~
D) N 7
7
n ~ N
N m ~
~ S
~ O
v 4f
O
O'
c
~ o
o C)
r - S
~ N
~ (p 7
{U d ~
n ~
N N -1
n
Ci
° a
0
o © ~ ~~~
0
0
rnw
o ~ ,
C A ~
~ (D N
fD ~
~~
~~ - ,-
n
m

r~-
~~ _1
37 N
p. T
"' O :~
-~+ :D
~ ~,
N ~
i
V
O ~ ?
Q _
~mm
~~
~ ~ ~_
o~
m
y

n
r
w
CD

o w~
_ S
C - ~
mwfD
N ~ ~_
o~
N

V1
~-h
~ ~
~ ~

Attachment #9
Threatened & Endangered Species Report

L

Threatened & Endangered Species Report
A Field Inventory to Document the Presence or Absence of
Federally Protected Species
Project Site: Bill's Mountain
Rutherford County, NC
Field Survey: June 13, 2007
Report: July 5, 2007
Prepared by:
_~
~~ P.O. BOX 882
CANTON, NC 28716

Executive Su m ma ry
This report documents the results of a survey to determine presence or absence
of federally threatened or endangered species by Wetland & Natural Resource
Consultants (WNR) for Vista Developers, LLC (Vista) at their Bill's Mountain site
in Rutherford County, NC. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), in their
comment letter regarding Vista's Individual Permit application with the U.S. Army
Corps (USAGE), expressed concern -over potential existence of threatened and/or
endangered species on the site, with a particular concern for White Irisette
(Sisyrinchium dichotomum). No presence of White Irisette (Sisyrinchium
dichotomum) was documented during this survey, and we conclude probability of
occurrence as low.

Introduction
This Threatened & Endangered Species Report was requested by the USFWS in
their comment letter to the USACE regarding the project known as Bill's
Mountain, by Vista Developers, LLC in Rutherford County, NC. Vista's Individual
Permit Application to the USACE required notification to additional commenting
agencies including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Methods
Prior to the endangered and threatened species evaluation of Bill's Mountain,
WNR consulted the USFWS website and conducted a file review of records
maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). The initial
survey involved a review of the Lake Lure USGS Topo Quad on which NHP
identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for that locale. There
are no current or historic records of any occurrence of federally endangered or
threatened species within the parcel of land being considered for development.
There are federally endangered and threatened species found elsewhere within
the Lake Lure Quad. Our search of the Lake Lure USGS Topo Quad produced
the following list of federally endangered or threaten species within the project
vicinity:
Tahla 1 1 aka I i ire (quad T&E List
Federal Status Scientific Name Common Name Maior Group
Endan eyed Sisyrinchium dichotomum White Irisette Vascular Plant
Endan eyed Myotis grisescens Gra M otis Vertebrate Animal
We used the NHP Lake Lure Quad T&E list, as our baseline for potential species.
Next we reviewed each species profile to determine if suitable habitat for that
species exists on the Bill's Mountain site (Attachment #1. White Irisette Species
Description & Attachment #2. Gray Myotis Species Description)
Based on USFWS suggestion, stating their records indicate White Irisette on an
adjacent property, and on potential suitable habitat a field survey was conducted
for White Irisette. Since no suitable habitat is located on site for Gray Myotis, no
field survey was conducted for that species.
The field survey for White Irisette took place on June 13, 2007. Two field staff
from WNR spent a day investigating the site. Before arrival at the Bill's Mountain
site, staff visited a known population of White Irisette to determine if the plant
was currently in bloom. It was determined that the White Irisette may or may

not be in bloom, based on observing a percentage of the off site plants starting
to bloom.
Once on the Bill's Mountain site, staff surveyed potential suitable habitat looking
for any evidence of White Irisette. (Field observation consisted of two methods:
walking and driving. While walking and looking for White Irisette, observers
walked in a zig-zag or irregular pattern, to provide equal coverage of potential
habitat types. Eyes were focused on the. herbaceous layer of vegetation, and
any potential plant was examined closer. Driving consisted of two observers
seated on opposite sides of the vehicle. Each observer was focused on the
herbaceous layer present directly adjacent to the road.) The focus was on
clearings, wood edges, road edges, & utility rights-of-way. The most common
potential habitat was along the road edges, but they were viewed as unlikely
habitat, since almost all of them are new road cuts, which would mean that any
White Irisette would have had to establish within the last few years. Regardless
all road edges we either walked or driven slowly with two observers. The next
most suitable habitat exists at the main entrance where there is an open field.
The field itself is mowed grass, but all field edges were walked. There is a cell
phone tower on site; the cleared area around it was evaluated. There was also a
recently burned area which was evaluated. No White Irisette was observed
during the field survey.
Results
White Irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum)
Suitable habitat on site was minimal. After thorough field survey in the potential
suitable habitat for this species, no White Irisette was observed. It was
determined that the probability of occurrence for this species is low.
Gray Myotis (Myotis grisescens)
Suitable habitat for Gray Myotis does not exist on site since no cave or cave-like
habitats are within the project area. It was determined that the probability of
occurrence for this species is low.

Attachment # 1. White Irisette species description
White Irisette ~,Sisyrinchium dichotomum)
Description
White Irisette is a perennial herb that grows in branching pairs to a height of 4-8
inches. Leaves at the base of the plant are pale to bluish-green and grow to 1/3
to 1/2 the height of the plant. Tiny white flowers form from late May into June
in clusters of 4-6 at the tops of winged stems. Flowers produce small tan to
black fruit that contains 3-6 small black seeds.
Habitat
White Irisette is commonly found in clearings, at the edges of upland woods with
a thin canopy, and in road or powerline right-of-ways. White Irisette prefers
partial shade to direct sun and rich, well-drained, basic soils weathered from
amphibolite. It may also grow on sites where run-off has removed much of the
deep litter layer ordinarily present on these sites.

Attachment #2. Gray Myotis species description
Gray Myotis (Myotis grisescens)
Description
The gray myotis, or gray bat, is the largest member of its genus in the eastern
United States. They weigh between 7 and 16 grams and are 75 to 101
millimeters in length. Forearm length ranges between 40 and 46 millimeters.
Gray bats can be distinguished from all other eastern bats by their uni-colored
dorsal fur (all others have bi- or tri-colored dorsal fur). They are also the only
species of bat in which the wing membrane connects to the foot at the ankle as
opposed to connecting at the base of the first toe.
Gray bats are dark gray in color directly after they molt in July or August.
Between molts, they bleach to a russet color. This difference in fur color is most
apparent in females during the reproductive season (May or June). (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Division of Endangered Species, 1991)
Habitat
Gray bats are restricted entirely to areas with caves or cave-like habitats. These
caves are in limestone karst areas of the southeastern United States. Gray bats
do not inhabit barns or other similar structures. This leads to extremely restricted
nesting opportunities. Due to their requirement of unique cave types, gray bats
can only use 0.1% of available caves in the winter and 2.4% in the summer.
(Tuttle, 1986; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997)

J

Ninety-five percent of the total gray bat population hibernates in only eight or
nine caves. Two are located in Tennessee, three in Missouri, one in Kentucky,
one in Alabama, and one in Arkansas. The Arkansas hibernation cave houses
about 250,000 gray bats. The winter caves utilized by gray bats have deep,
vertical passages with large rooms that function as cold air traps. The
temperature of these caves ranges between 6 and 11 degrees Celsius (42 and 52
degrees Fahrenheit). (Kentucky Bat Working Group, 1999; U.S. Fish and Wildlfe
Service, 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Endangered Species,
1991)
Gray bats are highly selective for caves providing specific temperature and roost
conditions in the summer. These caves are warm, ranging between 14 and 25~
degrees Celsius (57 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit). As an alternative to finding a
cave within this temperature range, they can roost in caves with small rooms or
dorms that trap the body heat of the roosting bats. Summer colonies of gray
bats occupy a home range that often contains several roosting caves scattered
along as much as 81 kilometers of river or lake shore. Banding studies have
indicated that gray bats prefer summer caves that have a feeding area (river or
other reservoir of water) not over 2 kilometers away. Despite this, they have
been known to fly as far as 19 kilometers from the colony to feed. (Kentucky Bat
Working Group; 1999; U.S. Fish and Wildlfe Service, 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Division of Endangered Species, 1991)