20140356 Ver 1_Emails_20140724

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Higgins, Karen
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:31 AM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: FW: The Quartz Corp, USA -- SAW - 2013 -01376
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Tim Sweeney rmailto:chatham130Cd)amail.com1
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 10:54 PM
To: aburnette(a)selcnc.orq; diaerken(a)selcnc.orq; tasha .l.alexander(a)usace.army.mil; Higgins, Karen; Hartwell(a)WNCA.orq
Cc: Lynnette Batt; Jeff Fisher
Subject: The Quartz Corp, USA -- SAW- 2013 -01376
Dear all,
As the sole owner of Rocky River Hydro LLC, holder of the land around and including the Spruce Pine
Watershed, I'm writing to share my thinking on the topic that the SELC folks recently brought up: credible
threat.
I fully acknowledge that RRH's purchase of this tract, and the Town of Spruce Pine's sale of the tract, were
guided by a shared desire to protect and preserve the beautiful forest and streams there.
I state no intent to cut any trees. My basis for believing that this site falls under the defined scope of credible
threat is that (a) the 50 -300ft range of the stream buffers may lawfully be timbered; (b) the net value of the
mature, harvestable timber on the site is sufficiently high to provide a clear economic motive for the parties
jointly in control of the buffers (being Rocky River Hydro as the fee - simple land owner, and the Town of
Spruce Pine as the holder of the current restrictive covenant) to agree to allow timbering there; and (c)
timbering so close to the buffers would impact water quality.
If the conservation - mindedness of a landowner or renegotiable covenant holder becomes a determining factor in
establishing credible threat, then it will be impossible for conservation- minded folks to participate in mitigation,
either individually or through collaborative relationships like that between RRH and the Town of Spruce
Pine. Surely that's not the intent!
To preserve the equality of rights regardless of a person or entity's beliefs or goals, I think credible threat must
be judged on basis of joint legal rights (what the various land rights - holders together are allowed to do by law)
and economic feasibility (whether there is a clear economic motive for them doing it).
As conservation - minded entities, both RRH and the Town of Spruce Pine entered into the land transactions and
restrictive covenants with a desire to preserve the land, and explicitly named mitigation banking rights in that
bargain. Other possible structures were explored (such as permanent conservation easements held by SAHC)
but this structure was agreed upon, and mitigation rights were explicitly negotiated as part of the bargain.

If anybody has any comments or questions for me personally, feel free to email me.
Best Regards,
Tim Sweeney
(Note: I'm the sole owner 130 of Chatham LLC and Rocky River Hydro LLC, and CEO of Epic Games, all
separate and unrelated entities)