20211843 Ver 1_More Information Received_20220729

Staff Review Form
NORTH CAROLINA
Envlronm¢ntcl Qvofiry
Updated September 4, 2020
Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
Yes No
ID# *
20211843
Version* 1
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes
• No
Reviewer List: * Sue Homewood:eads\slhomewood
Select Reviewing Office: *
Winston-Salem Regional Office - [phone]
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
Yes
No

Project Submittal Form
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk * below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: *
For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
New Project
Modification/New Project with Existing ID
More Information Response
Other Agency Comments
Pre -Application Submittal
Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
Stream or Buffer Appeal
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
6/1/2021
Is this supplemental information that needs to be sent to the Corps?*
Yes No
Project Contact Information
Name:
Tyson Kurtz
Who is submitting the information?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #:
20211843
20170001 (no dashes)
Project Name: Little Leaf Farms - Micaville
Is this a public transportation project?
Yes
No
Existing Version:
1
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes No Unknown
County (ies)
Yancey
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
LLF Micaville USACE Add Info 1 Reponse Letter
7.29.22 Signed.pdf
LLF Micaville DWR Add Info Response 2 - 7.29.22
Signed.pdf
Only pdf or kmz files are accepted.
8.91 MB
2.31MB

Describe the attachments or
comments:
DWR and USACE Additional Information response letters.
Sign and Submit
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
• I, the project proponent, hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
• I, the project proponent, hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401
certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I agree that submission of this online form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a
written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form.
Signature:
Submittal Date: Is filled in automatically.

DocuSign Envelope
ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934896ADC72F
CLearWaer
An EnviroScience Company
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
www.cwenv.com
July 29, 2022
Mr. David Brown
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
RE: Response to USACE Request for Additional Information
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville (+/- 97 Ac)
Action ID: SAW-2021-01244; DWR Project No. 2021-1843
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Brown,
Please reference the letter dated March 2, 2022 (Attachment A) sent by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) in response to the permit application submitted by ClearWater, and
EnviroScience Company (ClearWater), on behalf of Yancy County represented by Ms. Lynn
Austin. The permit application requested written authorization for the impacts associated with the
development of a greenhouse complex and associated utilities. The comments provided by the
USACE are summarized and discussed below.
USACE Comment 1: "Per comments from N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources,
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), conduct a comprehensive archeological survey of the
building parcel. This survey is to be conducted by an experienced archaeologist who meets the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Results of the survey are to be
submitted to the Corps, SHPO, and National Park Service (NPS) for review and comment."
The Intensive Archaeological Survey conducted by TRC Companies, Inc. was submitted
to the USACE on May 10, 2022. A May 12, 2022, email from the Corps to SHPO requested
their review and comments by August 31, 2022. SHPO issued a concurrence letter dated
June 14, 2022 (Attachment B).
USACE Comment 2: "Per comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), conduct a survey
for suitable roosting habitat for gray bat (Myotis grisescens) at the building parcel. Results
of the survey are to be submitted to the Corps and FWS for review and comment."
The gray bat suitable roosting habitat and emergency study letter was submitted to the
USACE and FWS on May 2, 2022. The acoustic recordings of the emergence study were
sent to FWS on June 8, 2022. A concurrence letter from FWS was issued on June 2, 2022
(Attachment C). The tree clearing moratorium from March 15 — November 15 results in
the "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination for the gray bat.
145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800 Tel

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Mr. David Brown
July 29, 2022
Page 2 of 4
USACE Comment 3: "Per comments from FWS, submit an outdoor lighting plan that will avoid
and minimizing night lighting effects on protected species in the genus Myotis. This plan is to be
submitted to the Corps and FWS for review and comment. The plan will be finalized based
comments from the agency. The final plan will be a special condition of the Corps' permit."
The outdoor lighting plan is included in Attachment D. The lighting plan complies with all
FWS recommendations for lighting avoidance and minimization measures for Myotis bat
species.
If needed, refer to Section 2.0 of the December 15, 2021, permit application where it is
stated that the greenhouses will be fitted with blackout shutters that automatically close at
sunset and open at sunrise to prevent interior light from escaping during dark hours. The
schedule is based on sunset and sunrise tables, specific to the project site location. An
alarm system will notify employees if there is an error in the blackout shutters drawing on
schedule.
USACE Comment 4: "Per comments from NPS, conduct a viewshed analysis from the viewpoint
of Three Knobs Overlook on the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP). This analysis is to determine if glare
from the greenhouses will be visible from the BRP and determine the effects of light escaping
from the developed building parcel will have on night views from the BRP. Results of the analysis
is to be submitted to the Corps, SHPO, and NPS for review and comment."
The viewshed analysis from the viewpoint of Three Knobs Overlook on the BRP, prepared
by Civil Design Concepts, P.A. is included in Attachment E. 2,782 feet is the approximate
proposed height of the greenhouse roofs. No viewshed impacts to the BRP are
anticipated.
If needed, refer to Section 2.0 of the December 15, 2021, permit application where it is
stated that the greenhouses will be fitted with blackout shutters that automatically close at
sunset and open at sunrise to prevent interior light from escaping during dark hours. The
schedule is based on sunset and sunrise tables, specific to the project site location. An
alarm system will notify employees if there is an error in the blackout shutters drawing on
schedule.
USACE Comment 5: "The submitted alternative analysis does not provide sufficient information
to aid in the determination that the proposed preferred project site would avoid and minimize
impacts to the environment to the maximum extent practicable. Resubmit the alternative analysis
with revisions that include:
a) As proposed the compensatory mitigation cost through North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) is estimated at upwards of $5 million.
b) The proposed development impacts will directly affect 65% of the streams and 96% of the
wetlands at the building parcel. Submit additional on -site alternative analysis options for
the development of the building parcel.
c) Provide information noting the potential impacts to protected species of each off -site and
on -site alternative.
d) Provide information noting potential impacts to historic, cultural, and NPS resources for
each off -site and on -site alternative.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Mr. David Brown
July 29, 2022
Page 3 of 4
e) Provide information for the estimated cost of compensatory mitigation through DMS for
each off -site and on -site alternative.
f) Provide information for the estimate cost of clearing, grading, and site preparation for each
off -site and on -site alternative.
g) Provide information about alternative building layouts for each off -site and on- site
alternative."
The expanded alternative analysis is included in Attachment F. Three new criteria
were added (Criteria 9, 10, and 11) to address comments 5c-5g. Additional
information is provided on why Yancey County was required to be the focus of
considered alternatives to address the US Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) public notice comments (response email dated January 26, 2022).
The on -site alternative layout wetland and stream impact map is provided in
Attachment G to address comment 5b.
As needed, please reference the April 4, 2022, response to Comment #2 of the
DWR request for additional information letter dated January 25, 2022. This
response includes details as to why the greenhouse complex layout is restricted
to only two feasible on -site alternatives.
USACE Comment 6: "Submitted a conditional acceptance letter from DMS"
The conditional acceptance letter from DMs was included in Appendix E of the December
15, 2021, permit application submittal. The request expired and a new acceptance letter
dated June 28, 2022, is included in Attachment H.
USACE Comment 7: "In order to aid in determining ratios for compensatory mitigation, submit the
data inputs and results of the N.C. Stream Assessment Methodology and N.C. Wetland
Assessment Mythology for the aquatic resources at the building parcel."
The NC SAM and NC WAM form, results, and map of the assessment areas were included
in Appendix C of the December 15, 2021, permit application submittal.
Pertaining to this comment, the applicant requests three revisions to the USACE proposed
compensatory mitigation ratios, per the USACE email dated March 3, 2022 (Attachment
I). Attachment J includes the USACE proposed mitigation ratios in comparison to what
was initially proposed and what is now being proposed by the application. Additional
justification for the proposed revisions is below:
• Impact W1 for the WE-1 Assessment Area (1.240 Ac).
o A 1.25:1 mitigation ratio is proposed by the applicant due to this
wetland being historically subject to livestock use and compaction.
The WE-1 assessment area has pockets of alder shrub thickets but
is primarily dominated by emergent vegetation.
• Impact S1/S6 for the SE-2 Assessment Reach (402 LF).
o A 1.75:1 mitigation ratio is proposed by the applicant due to the
stream running through historically active pasture with livestock
access to the stream. The stream lacks mature woody vegetation
along the banks; alder shrub thickets provide minimal, scattered

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Mr. David Brown
July 29, 2022
Page 4 of 4
shade to the stream. Hydrology from the watershed above the
assessment reach is severely disturbed due to highway NC-80
running perpendicular to the slope, above the stream origin.
• Impact S5 for the SJ Assessment Reach (122 LF).
o A 1.25:1 ratio is proposed by the applicant due to the stream being
intermittent and running through historically active pasture with
livestock access to the stream. There is a lack of mature woody
riparian buffer along the right bank of the stream and the mature
woody vegetation along the left bank of the stream is offset by a 10-
30 feet wide strip of low growing herbaceous vegetation. The
stream lacks the expected longitudinal profile, and the substrate is
primarily sand.
USACE Comment 8: "Copy the Corps on the applicant's responses to N.C. Division of Water
Resources' (DWR) request for additional information dated January 25, 2022."
The USACE was copied on the response to the DWR additional information request dated
January 25, 2022. The USACE has been and will be copied on all additional information
request responses to DWR.
USACE Comment 9: "Provide a schedule for the phases of the proposed project."
The approximate construction schedule is included in Attachment K
The applicant believes the information submitted in this package addresses all issues set forth by
the USACE in the letter dated March 2, 2022. Should you have any questions or comments
concerning this project please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-9800.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
T7suti Vs.,112
`-8BE1 DDE05B634F5...
Tyson Kurtz
Biologist
r DocuSigned by:
2. U 24a1c.
R. 6femeniEtiddle
Senior Scientist
Copy Issued:
FWS, Byron Hamstead, byron [e-mail]
NPS Blue Ridge Parkway, Andrew Triplett, andrew [e-mail]
NCDEQ-DWR, Andrew Moore, [e-mail]
NCDEQ-DWR, Sue Homewood, [e-mail]
NCWRC, Andrea Leslie, [e-mail]
NCDNCR-SHPO, Renee Gledhill -Early, [e-mail]
US EPA, Todd Bowers, [e-mail]

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment A:
USACE Additional Information
Required Email (March 2, 2022)

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
March 2, 2022
Action ID: SAW-2021-01244
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Attn.: Clement Riddle
145 7th Avenue W, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Subject: Corps Comments and Request for Additional Information — Little Leaf Farms
Dear Mr. Riddle:
Reference is made to your December 15, 2021, Department of the Army permit
application, submitted on behalf of Yancey County, for the Little Leaf Farms project in
Micaville, Yancey County, North Carolina. Based on our review of the application, supporting
documents, and comments submitted by government agencies and the public, the Corps is
requesting additional information and providing comments as follows:
1. Per comments from N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), conduct an comprehensive archeological survey of the
building parcel. This survey is to be conducted by an experienced archaeologist who
meets the Secretary of the Interior 's Professional Qualification Standards. Results of the
survey are to be submitted to the Corps, SHPO, and National Park Service (NPS) for
review and comment.
2. Per comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), conduct a survey for
suitable roosting habitat for gray bat (Myotis grisescens) at the building parcel. Results
of the survey are to be submitted to the Corps and FWS for review and comment.
3. Per comments from FWS, submit an outdoor lighting plan that will avoid and
minimizing night lighting effects on protected species in the genus Myotis. This plan is
to be submitted to the Corps and FWS for review and comment. The plan will be finalized
based comments from the agency. The final plan will be a special condition of the
Corps' permit.
4. Per comments from NPS, conduct a viewshed analysis from the viewpoint of Three
Knobs Overlook on the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP). This analysis is to determine if
glare from the greenhouses will be visible from the BRP and determine the effects of
light escaping from the developed building parcel will have on night views from the
BRP. Results of the analysis is to be submitted to the Corps, SHPO, and NPS for review
and comment.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
5. The submitted alternative analysis does not provide sufficient information to aid in the
determination that the proposed preferred project site would avoid and minimize
impacts to the environment to the maximum extent practicable. Resubmit the
alternative analysis with revisions that include:
• As proposed the compensatory mitigation cost through North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) is estimated at upwards of $5 million.
• The proposed development impacts will directly affect 65% of the streams and
96% of the wetlands at the building parcel. Submit additional on -site alternative
analysis options for the development of the building parcel.
• Provide information noting the potential impacts to protected species of each
off -site and on -site alternative.
• Provide information noting potential impacts to historic, cultural, and NPS
resources for each off -site and on -site alternative.
• Provide information for the estimated cost of compensatory mitigation through
DMS for each off -site and on -site alternative.
• Provide information for the estimate cost of clearing, grading, and site
preparation for each off -site and on -site alternative.
• Provide information about alternative building layouts for each off -site and on -
site alternative.
6. Submitted a conditional acceptance letter from DMS.
7. In order to aid in determining ratios for compensatory mitigation, submit the data inputs
and results of the N.C. Stream Assessment Methodology and N.C. Wetland Assessment
Mythology for the aquatic resources at the building parcel.
8. Copy the Corps on the applicant's responses to N.C. Division of Water Resources'
(DWR) request for additional information dated January 25, 2022.
9. Provide a schedule for the phases of the proposed project.
Please submit comments and the requested additional information by July 2, 2022. Once
the Corps receives the information, a meeting with FWS, NPS, WRC, DWR, SHPO, and the
Corps may be appropriate in order to review and discuss the information submitted. In order to
aid in the 401 permit process for this project, please copy Sue Homewood and Andrew Moore
with DWR and Andera Leslie with WRC on your documents submitted to the Corps. If you have
any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
David Brown, PG
Regulatory Specialist/Geologist
Asheville Regulatory Field Office

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Copy (by email):
FWS, Byron Hamstead, [e-mail]
NPS — Blue Ridge Parkway, Andrew Triplett, [e-mail]
NCDEQ-DWR, Andrew Moore, [e-mail]
NCDEQ-DWR, Sue Homewood, [e-mail]
NCWRC, Andrea Leslie, [e-mail]
NCDNCR-SHPO, Renee Gledhill -Early, [e-mail]

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment B:
NC SHPO Concurrence
Letter (June 14, 2022)

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
June 14, 2022
Paul Webb
TRC Environmental Corporation
705 Dogwood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
[e-mail]
Re: Intensive Archaeological Survey for the Little Leaf Farms Project, Yancey County, ER 22-0176
Dear Mr. Webb:
Thank you for your letter of April 29, 2022, transmitting the draft report for the above -referenced project.
We have reviewed the report and offer the following comments:
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted a systematic Phase I archaeological survey for the
proposed Little Leaf Farms and waterline project. The survey identified 11 new archaeological sites
(31YC210-31YC220) within the area of potential effects (APE) that include both precontact and post -
contact components. Two portions of the proposed waterline corridor could not be surveyed due to lack of
landowner permission. One of these areas that includes a 45-meter segment south of Shenandoah Drive is
contained wholly within the modern road shoulder, and TRC recommends no further work at this location
because of significant disturbance. A second 375-meter segment that could not be surveyed may extend
beyond the right-of-way of residential streets and Highway 80. TRC recommends archaeological
monitoring during construction for this segment in any areas that extend beyond the immediate shoulder of
the roadways. Based on the information provided, we concur with these recommendations.
Site 31YC210, contains both precontact and post -contact (Late 19th-20th century) components. The
precontact component of this site consists of an isolated projectile point found within the disturbed plow
zone, and no intact subsurface features were recorded that could contribute to the site being eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D. The post -contact component
at 31YC210 consists of a low -density artifact scatter found on the surface and within the plow zone
associated with a 20th century barn and the site of a former cabin. Due to lack of intact features and
integrity, the archaeological deposits do not contribute to our understanding the historic significance of the
barn or cabin. TRC concludes that 31YC210 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP and no further work is
recommended ahead of construction. Based on the information provided, we concur with these
recommendations.
Site 31YC211 consists of a substantial precontact and post -contact artifact scatter spread across a plowed
field. Most of the artifacts are non -diagnostic lithic debitage and a small amount of Woodland and Late
Mississippian -period ceramics. The post -contact artifacts date to the late 19th-20th century. No intact
historic ground surface or cultural features below the mixed plow zone were recorded, and the site also
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
lacks artifact concentrations and contexts that could provide additional information on the different human
occupations of the landscape. As a result, TRC concludes that 31YC211 is not NRHP eligible and
recommends no further investigation prior to construction. While this site may have been part of an
extensive settlement in the past, the post -contact agriculture appears to have significantly disturbed the site,
and we concur with TRC's assessment that the proposed construction will have no adverse effect to NRHP-
eligible cultural resources.
Sites 31YC212 and YC214 consist of two isolated precontact lithic fragments and a scatter of late 20th
century refuse. No intact cultural features were identified below the plow zone at either site. TRC
recommends these sites be considered not eligible for the NRHP, and no further archaeological
investigation is warranted prior to construction. Based on the information provided, we concur with these
assessments and recommendations.
Site 31YC213 is a historic road trace near the northwest corner of the APE that corresponds to a road that
appears on maps dating as early as 1903. It was later replaced by Hickory Springs Road, currently in use.
TRC has determined that the road trace is not eligible for the NRHP under any of the four criteria and does
not require further evaluation prior to construction. Based on the information provided, we concur with
these recommendations.
Site 31YC215 consists of small pits and trenches on the surface that are associated with mica mining in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries. TRC concludes that these features are not of sufficient scale or integrity
to provide significant new information related to mica mining common in the area and are, therefore, not
eligible for listing in the NRHP. Based on the information provided, we concur with this assessment and
the recommendation of no further work ahead of construction.
Site 31YC216 consists of tracks of the former Black Mountain Railroad that served the timber industry in
the early 20th century and would have once continued to the nearby town of Micaville. Besides the rails, no
artifacts were recovered from the surface, and the historic railroad bed extends beyond the project APE. As
a result, TRC recommends that the site remain unassessed for NRHP eligibility, while the portion within
the APE will not require further investigation prior to construction. Based on the information provided, we
concur with this assessment and recommendation.
Site 3 1YC217 consists of a scatter of late 19th-mid-20th century artifacts recovered from the surface of a
graded slope and unimproved farm road. Due to previous disturbance and lack of intact subsurface features,
TRC recommends the site be considered not eligible for the NRHP and no further evaluation is
recommended ahead of construction. Based on the information provided, we concur with these
recommendations.
Site 31YC218 consists of three artifacts associated with an early 20th century house that no longer stands,
except for a partially intact brick chimney. The standing portion of the house is located outside the project
APE, and the site could not be fully delineated and remains unassessed for inclusion in the NRHP. TRC
determined that the material culture recovered from one shovel test within the APE would not contribute to
the significance of the site, if fully delineated. Therefore, TRC recommends no further work ahead of
ground disturbance. Based on the information provided, we also concur with this recommendation.
Sites 3 1YC219 and 31YC220 were also not fully delineated because they likely extend beyond the APE.
Within the proposed waterline corridor, non -diagnostic precontact lithic fragments were recovered from the
surface and within the disturbed plow zone of a currently cultivated agricultural field. TRC concludes that
the cultural resources within the APE are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and while these sites likely
extend beyond the waterline corridor and therefore could not be fully assessed, no additional investigation

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
is required ahead of the current project as proposed. Based on the information provided, we concur with
these recommendations.
This archaeological survey report meets the Office of State Archaeology's Archaeological Investigation
Standards and Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and
Curation and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
If archaeological monitoring is conducted during construction of the waterline in any segments that were
not surveyed due to landowner permission, we ask that one paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of the
resulting monitoring report be forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) through this office for
review and comment as an addendum to this report when available.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
aka &cutt
14,4- Ramona Bartos, Deputy
(- State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: David Brown, USACE
Jess Gardner, Civil Design Concepts
Clement Riddle, ClearWater
Kelly Coffee, HCCOG
Heather Hockaday, Town of Burnsville
Stephen Yerka, EBCI
Acee Watt, UKB
Elizabeth Toombs, Cherokee Nation
LeeAnne Wendt, Muscogee (Creek) Nation
Dr. Wenonah Haire, Catawba Indian Nation
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
hhockaday@a,townofburnsville.org
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
elizabeth-toombs(a,cherokee. org
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment C:
USFWS Concurrence Letter
(June 2, 2022)

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
From: Hamstead, Byron A
To: Tyson Kurtz
Cc: Brown, David W CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Clement Riddle; Cameron, Susan
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Little Leaf Farms Micaville - Action ID SAW-2021-01244
Date: Thursday, June 02, 2022 9:42:59 AM
Attachments: image001.pnq
image002.pnq
image004.pnq
CW1148 Emergence Summary Letter - Signed.pdf
21-275 USACE Little Leaf Farms Commercial Development Yancey Co.pdf
Thanks Tyson. Please see our comments below pertaining to gray bat and northern long-eared bat
based on your findings:
Gray bat
Our February 15, 2022, comments for this project (attached) indicated that known records of
the federally endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens) occur in the project vicinity and we requested
that the Applicant confirm that no manmade cave -like structures are present within the action area
that may provide suitable roosting habitat for this animal. The bat habitat evaluation and survey
results summary dated April 11, 2022, indicates that project proponents identified no karst, caves, or
cave -like features within the proposed action area and that no signs of bat use were detected in the
barn, stone chimney, and bridges onsite.
Nearby records and your acoustic findings suggest that gray bats occur within the action area and
may use onsite habitats to forage or commute. Thanks for the offer to send the raw files and
acoustic output. Please pass those data to our office.
To assist with the action agency's effect determination for this species, we reiterate our previous
comments regarding gray bat:
During its active season (March 15 — November 15), gray bats forage for insects along rivers,
reservoirs, ponds, and wetlands. Rivers serve as the main commuting areas for this migratory
species, but gray bats will also commute over land. Based on the information provided, suitable
forage and commuting habitat may be present within the action area for this animal. Project -related
tree clearing, grading, and construction lighting activities may affect these suitable habitats.
Avoiding project -mediated impacts to suitable forage and commuting habitats during this animal's
active season would support our concurrence with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect"
determination from the action agency for this species.
Species in the genus Myotis, including gray bat, are light adverse and the addition of permanent
night lighting may may repel foraging or commuting bats from affected habitats. We appreciate the
Applicant's proposed commitments to minimize lighting -related impacts which include the use of
black out shutters for nighttime growing, minimizing exterior lighting to what is necessary for human
safety, and using fully shielded downcast lighting. We encourage the Applicant to consider the
feasibility of additional measures outlined in Appendix A (of our February 15, 2022, correspondence)
that are intended to reduce lighting impacts to this animal. At the Applicant's request, our office
offers to assist them with the development and/or review of a proposed lighting design for this
project. These impact avoidance and minimization measures would also support our concurrence

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination from the action agency.
Northern long-eared bat
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the action area
(50CFR 402.02) for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). We
reiterate that the impact avoidance and minimization measures listed above for gray bat would also
be protective of the northern long-eared bat. If adhered to, those measures would also support our
concurrence with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination from the action agency
for northern long-eared bat.
Please note that on March 23, 2022, the Service published a proposal to reclassify the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB) as endangered under the Act. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
has ordered the Service to complete a new final listing determination for the NLEB by November
2022 (Case 1:15-cv-00477, March 1, 2021). The bat, currently listed as threatened, faces extinction
due to the range -wide impacts of white -nose syndrome (WNS), a deadly fungal disease affecting
cave -dwelling bats across the continent. The proposed reclassification, if finalized, would remove the
current 4(d) rule for the NLEB, as these rules may be applied only to threatened species. Depending
on the type of effects a project has on NLEB, the change in the species' status may trigger the need
to re -initiate consultation for any actions that are not completed and for which the Federal action
agency retains discretion once the new listing determination becomes effective (anticipated to occur
by December 30, 2022). If your project may result in incidental take of NLEB after the new listing
goes into effect this will need to be addressed in an updated consultation that includes an Incidental
Take Statement. If your project may require re -initiation of consultation, please contact our office
for additional guidance. Additional information about this animal including its proposed
reclassification can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/species/northern-long-eared-bat-myotis-
septentrionalis
Please contact me if you have any questions. That offer extends to you too David.
Regards,
Byron
Byron Hamstead
(he/him/his)
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina, 28801
This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment D:
Outdoor Lighting Plan

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
little leaf
FARMS
General Lighting Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Myotis sp.
When developing an outdoor lighting plan, installing any outdoor lighting devices, performing
maintenance at existing lights, or modifying lighting, we recommend consideration for the
following measures on behalf of bats that are adverse to lighting. For additional information and
practices to reduce outdoor light pollution, please visit https://www.darksky.org/our-
work/lighting/lighting- for-citizens/lighting-basics/.
• Reduce the amount of lighting needed for all activities to the maximum extent practicable
while meeting lighting objectives.
• Install lighting only in areas that need illumination for safety (e.g. paths, roads, etc.).
• Avoid lighting landscape features such as trees, shrubs, building facades, adjacent
wooded areas, or the surface waters of rivers and streams that provide suitable habitat for
bats, pollinators and other wildlife species.
• Use the shortest light pole that meets safety requirements.
• Use light fixtures with a Backlight-Uplight-Glare (BUG) rating of 1-0-3 or less. The goal
is to be as close to 0 for all three ratings with a priority for "uplight" rating of 0 and
"backlight" rating as low as practicable.
• Use light fixtures with a lower lumen output, reducing overall brightness.
• Use light fixtures with a more rectangular light pattern as well as house side or fully
shielded lights to minimize lighting outside of the pavement area and direct light
downwards.
• Use only low-pressure sodium (LPS), high-pressure sodium (HPS), or light emitting
diode (LED) light sources that emit "warm" light. "Warm" light sources are those that
contain low amounts of blue light in their spectrum. Choosing light sources with a color
temperature of no more than 3,000 Kelvins will minimize the effects of blue light
exposure (Downs 2003).
Construction Lighting
• Between March 15 and November 15 (active season for gray bat), limit all construction -
related lighting to whatever is necessary to maintain safety in active work areas.
• Limit night work that requires artificial light.
• Restrict lighting to where active construction is occurring.
• If installing lighting on construction sites to ensure safe passage for river users, install
steady-state, solar -powered red lighting to avoid additional noise from generators.
5
Little Leaf Farms • P.O. Box 2069 * Devens, MA 01434
hello littlele i �R. * 844-LIL-LEAF (545-5323)

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment E:
BRP Three Knobs Overlook
Viewshed Analysis

DocuSign Envelope ID:A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F , .,, ....._,w,. ..--„7..a ,..r. -•--
- t .� III
*4..
l
ti �•
•
/ere �•- •
N t ` �' •
r:
- - • `
-
r.
LITTLE LEAF FARMS LI OF SIGHT
2
HREE KNOBS OV'LOB
- •
9L
cP
�' O
��
• d - '- -
B ,�i�
�?i �y+.Lw...; tar. r , ..- .7•-' - - - ." ••i.' -' -,s. In _ 1', _ .' -
r„
.3
• •
t•
Graph:Min,Avg,Max Elevation:2593,2963,3881 ft
Range Totals:Distance:6.28 mi Elevation Gains/Loss:3490 ft/2391 ft Max Slope:59.3%,-49.0% Avg Slope:16.7%,-15.2% THREE KNOBS OVERLOOK
3881 ft
3750 ft 3879 it
/
/
/
3500 ft
LINE OF SIGHT - \ I /
l�� r
APPROXIMATE TREE LINE /
_3000 ft — _ - /
2782f .. I-�� - .._-I
TLE LEAF FARMS \—i
2593 ft
0.5 mi 1 mi 1.5 mi 2 mi 2.5 mi 3 mi 3.5 mi 4 mi 4.5 mi 5 mi 5.5 mi 6 mi 6.28 mi
LITTLE LEAF FARMS
CDCCivil VI EWS H E D
Design
Conepts,PA
MAY 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment F:
Expanded Alternative Analysis

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville: Expanded Alternative Analysis
ClearWater, an EnviroScience Company (ClearWater) submitted an Individual Permit application
on December 15, 2021, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that includes an alternative
analysis for the selected of the project site. The March 2, 2022, letter issued by the USACE
requested additional details on the alternative analysis process to include considerations of on -
site alternative for each of the considered alternatives, potential impacts to historic and cultural
resources, federally protected species, and compensatory mitigation costs. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also questioned in their January 26, 2022, email (public
comment) how Yancey County was selected for the proposed project.
Information from the original alternative analysis, extracted from the individual permit application
(Section 6.0 and Figure 7) is reiterated below along with some additional information and three
new site selection criteria (9, 10, 11) to address the comments received by the USACE and EPA.
Yancey County Selection Process
Little Leaf Farms NC, LLC ("Little Leaf") and Yancey County, North Carolina entered into an
Economic Development Incentive Agreement in January 2021. Pursuant to the terms of the
Economic Development Incentive Agreement, Little Leaf is committed to constructing a
greenhouse facility for the commercial production of greens in Yancey County, North Carolina.
Little Leaf will invest approximately $90 million and create 100 jobs over a five year period. The
average salary for the jobs to be created exceeds the average prevailing annual wage in Yancey
County and includes benefits including health insurance. In exchange, Yancey County agreed to
purchase and do the necessary site development to provide Little Leaf a site suitable for the
construction and operation of the greenhouse facility.
Little Leaf also entered into a Job Development Investment Grant ("JDIG") with the North Carolina
Department of Commerce related to the Project. Essentially, the North Carolina Department of
Commerce, in exchange for Little Leaf's commitment to invest in economic development in North
Carolina, agreed to reimburse Little Leaf based on the number of jobs created. The JDIG grant
and the reimbursement are tied to the fact that Yancey County is a Tier 2 county in the county
ranking system developed by the North Carolina Department of Commerce. Both the Economic
Development Incentive Agreement and the Job Development Investment Grant require that the
Project be located in Yancey County, North Carolina.
In addition to the requirements in the economic development agreements, Little Leaf identified
and chose Yancey County for certain specific climate conditions favorable for the production of
greens (elaborated in Section 6.1 of the December 15, 2021, permit application).
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 1 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
As a reminder, the following criteria were identified as pertinent to site selection in the permit
application:
1. Previous Site Use — Existing buildings, compaction, grading, would all require
additional site preparations for the proposed project. Former agriculture sites are
preferred due to light use of the land and existing open spaces that minimize additional
tree clearing and demolition of existing structures.
2. Topography — A large area of relatively low-grade slopes is preferred for construction
of the level building pad. Yancey County is in a mountainous area with limited flat
space. Therefore; bottomland, floodplain, and mountain bases are ideal locations to
find minimal grade within the vicinity of the target location.
3. Proximity to Highway — Site must be within a few miles of a multilane highway to
facilitate expedient distribution of produce leaving the site. If site is not located on a
divided highway, the access road to the site must be paved and easily accessible for
large truck traffic.
4. Property Size — A suitable project site would need to allow for a 25-acre building pad
to accommodate the planned project components. Additional room for grading,
temporary construction areas, and stormwater management features were also
considered. 40 acres is the minimum.
5. Access to utilities — The selected site will require connections to water, sewer, electric,
and natural gas utilities. Within the vicinity of the desired project location, a parcel with
existing connections to all required utilities is uncommon. Therefore, the ideal site
would be within approximately two miles of existing utility connections. Lower cost
utility extensions are preferred when comparing distances to different utilities across
the potential sites.
6. Cost of property — Lowest cost to purchase a suitable property is preferred when
comparing potential sites.
7. Proximity of FEMA Floodplain — Building within a designated FEMA 100-year
floodplain is undesirable. A property with enough buildable area outside of a
designated 100-year FEMA floodplain is preferred.
8. Aquatic Resources — The ideal site would have minimal impacts to streams and
wetlands. Not all sites could be formally delineated before property acquisition;
therefore, quantity and potential impacts to aquatic resources were based on a
desktop review utilizing best available data and aerial interpretation.
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 2 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Additional factors the applicant would like to add to the site selection criteria include the following:
9. Federally Protected Species — The ideal site would have no effects to federally
protected species. Without access to the off -site alternatives, only publicly available
information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NC Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) in combination with latest publicly available aerial imagery could be
used to determine potential affects to federally listed species.
10. Historic and Cultural Resources — The ideal site would have no effects to historic and
cultural resources, including National Park Service properties. Analysis is based on
publicly available GIS data provided by NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Sites within a one -mile -radius were considered and those potentially in the viewshed
of the project site that are greater than one mile away. Sites documented by SHPO as
"gone" were excluded.
11. Total Site Preparation Cost — Lowest cost to make the site usable to develop the
proposed greenhouse complex is ideal. Acquisition and utility connection costs have
been incorporated into this. Site preparation costs are assumed to be approximately
the same for the two suitable on -site layouts.
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 3 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Alternative Location 1 — Trittico Investments, LLC
A 61-acre existing industrial site was considered. This tract is located along the south side
of US-19, at the intersection of State Highway 197 (NC-197). A private road (OMC Drive)
is used to access the site, which contains approximately 16 acres of previously built upon
area. Multiple overhead powerline utility corridors cut through the site. The existing
industrial area is surrounded by planted stands of pine and a large retaining wall is present
along the southeast edge of the building pad where the side of the mountain was
excavated.
1. A Phase 1 study of this site revealed a history of heavy industrial use which raises
concerns for potential brownfield issues. The proposed organic greenhouse facility
would not be built on a concrete base so the potential for contaminated soils infiltrating
the growing operation is undesirable. The large retaining wall is also a potential liability.
2. An existing building pad is present but is too small for the proposed greenhouse facility.
A large retaining wall and steep slopes are present along the north side of the existing
pad. US-19 restricts the expansion of the building pad to the north. Bedrock lies to the
south of the existing building pad, restricting the expansion of the pad to the south.
Topography is a critical flaw on this site due to the constraints that restrict the ability
to develop a large enough building pad to meet the project's needs.
3. This site has direct access to US-19.
4. The site is 60 acres but does not have enough room to fit a large enough building pad
due to topographic, geologic, and highway constraints.
5. All required utilities are on site.
6. The listing price of this property in 2022 is approximately $3 million.
7. The stream along the northern edge of the site lies within a FEMA designated 100-
year floodplain.
8. The USGS Hydrography dataset shows approximately 4,683 linear feet of stream on
site. Expansion of the building pad in any direction would require impacts to streams.
An estimate of stream impacts and mitigation costs are summarized in Table 1. The
fill slopes of the existing building pad appear to have been constructed right up to the
edge of streams along the north, east, and south sides.
9. Site may contain potentially suitable habitat for federally protected plant and mussel
species. Tree clearing would be required, and protected bat species are known to
occur within the vicinity of the project. The site is mostly a previously developed
industrial facility, so the risk of potential adverse effects to federally protected species
is low.
10. Within a one -mile radius there is one registered historic site (ID: YC0010) that may be
within the viewshed of this site, no determined eligible sites, and 11 potential historic
sites. Approximately 1.1-1.2 miles from the project site, there are five additional
registered historic sites in downtown Burnsville that may be in the viewshed of this
site.
11. The total estimated site preparation costs are approximately $15.5 million. The
purchase price is currently listed in 2022 for $3 million with earth work estimated at
$10 million. Wetland and stream mitigation is estimated at $2.5 million. Utilities
connections are readily available, minimal additional cost to serve the site.
Alternative 1 meets criteria 3 (Interstate), 4 (Size), 5 (Utilities), and is neutral to 6 (Cost),
7 (FEMA), 8 (Aquatic Resources), 9 (Protected Species), and 11 (Site Preparation) when
compared to the other alternatives. However, this alternative fails to meet criteria 1
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 4 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
(History), 2 (Topography), 10 (Historic Resources) and therefore was dismissed for
analysis. See Table 2 Alternative Analysis Matrix for a comparison of the alternatives.
Alternative Location 2 — Fincas, LLC
An 86-acre parcel located along the west side of NC-80 S, approximately two miles south
of US-19 was available for sale during the site selection process. This tract has existing,
and ongoing agriculture use within the floodplain of Ayles Creek, a large stream.
Approximately 20 acres are in agricultural use. Steep slopes directly abut the agricultural
fields.
1. The site is approximately half in active agricultural use and half forested. The entire
site is a designated conservation easement
2. Topography on site is less than ideal. The narrow agricultural area is not wide enough
to fit the required building pad dimension without extensive grading into the steep
mountain side on the western half of the property. NC-80 constrains the site to the
east.
3. The site is located along NC-80S, less than two miles south of US-19.
4. The site is approximately 86 acres. The orientation of the agricultural area is not wide
enough to fit the required building pad dimensions without significant grading into the
steep mountain above the floodplain.
5. Natural gas, sewer, and electric are all available on NC-80 adjacent to the parcel. A
water utility connection is located on NC-80 less than two miles north.
6. Parcel was sold for $829,000 in 2015. The estimated purchase price in 2022 is $1
million.
7. Approximately half of the agricultural area is within a designated FEMA 100-year
floodplain. The FEMA 100-year floodplain is in the center of the parcel, running north
to south. The position of the FEMA 100-year floodplain is a critical flaw for this site.
8. The USGS Hydrography data set shows approximately 8,648 linear feet of stream on
site. Ayles Creek and several unnamed tributaries are located within the valley bottom
of this site. Additionally, an approximately three -acre wetland can be clearly seen from
aerial imagery in the center of the low-grade area, with several additional areas that
are likely wetland. Large quantity of impacts to streams and wetlands expected to
develop site, similar to the preferred alternative. An estimate of stream impacts and
mitigation costs are summarized in Table 1.
9. Site may contain potentially suitable habitat for federally protected plant and mussel
species. Tree clearing would be required, and protected bat species are known to
occur within the vicinity of the project. Site is closest (within same watershed)
alternative to FWS designated critical habitat for Appalachian elktoe.
10. Within a one -mile radius there are no registered historic sites, one determined eligible
site (ID: YC0015) that is outside of the viewshed of this site, and five potential historic
sites. The site contains a floodplain along a large creek which has high potential for
discovery of historic or cultural artifacts. Site may be within the direct viewshed of the
Blue Ridge Parkway at Three Knobs Overlook.
11. The total estimated site preparation costs are approximately $16 million. The purchase
price is estimated in 2022 for $1 million with earth work estimated at $7 million.
Wetland and stream mitigation is estimated at $7 million. Utilities connections are
readily available, except for water. A waterline extension to this site is estimated at $1
million. The cost to undo the conservation easement held on the entire site is unknown.
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 5 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Alternative 1 meets criteria 1 (History), 3 (Interstate), 4 (Size), and 5 (Utilities). Sufficient
data on criteria 6 (Cost) is unavailable. Alternative 2 is neutral to criteria 10 (Historic
Resources) and 11 (Site Preparation) when compared to the other alternatives. This
alternative fails to meet criteria 2 (Topography), 7 (FEMA), 8 (Aquatic Resources), and 9
(Protected Species) and therefore was dismissed for analysis. See Table 2 Alternative
Analysis Matrix for a comparison of the alternatives.
Alternative Location 3 — Ordie Brown Estate
An 83-acre linear shaped parcel directly north of US-19, west of downtown Burnsville, was
evaluated. This property, referred to as Ordie Brown Estate, is accessed via George
Brown Road and has approximately 25 acres of cleared area on a moderate grade hillside.
The remainder of the property is steep and forested. Residential neighbors are very close
to both sides of the property.
1. The site is a mixture of open field and forested land.
2. The southern end of the site that is maintained as a field has low -moderate
topography. The central and northern portion of the parcel is very steep and unsuitable
for development.
3. The site is located along US-19.
4. The site is 83 acres but is linear in shape. The parcel is too narrow in the existing open
area to fit the required dimensions of the building pad. The only portion of the parcel
wide enough to develop a building pad is in the center of the site, which would require
extensive grading and clearing. This is a critical flaw for the site. There would be too
much cut and fill slopes required to develop this site due to the shape of the parcel
paired with its topography.
5. Connections to all required utilities are available along US-19.
6. Property was listed for sale at $2.49 million during the site selection process.
7. No FEMA designated 100-year floodplains within parcel.
8. The USGS Hydrography data set shows approximately 5,633 linear feet of stream on
site. At least two stream systems are present within the center of the parcel that would
need to be impacted to fit a building pad. Significant impacts would be required to
develop this site. An estimate of stream impacts and mitigation costs are summarized
in Table 1.
9. Site may contain potentially suitable habitat for federally protected plant and mussel
species. NHP data documents a 2020 finding of Appalachian elktoe within 0.5 miles
downstream of the site. Tree clearing would be required, and protected bat species
are known to occur within the vicinity of the project. FWS documents known northern
long-eared bat hibernacula or maternity roosts within the same HUC 12 watershed as
this site.
10. Within a one -mile radius there is one registered historic site (ID: YC004) that is
potentially within the viewshed of the project site. Additionally, four more registered
historic sites are located just outside the one -mile -radius and may be within the
viewshed of the project site. One determined eligible site (ID: YC0132) is
approximately 0.25 miles from the site and is very likely to be within the viewshed of
the project site. 13 potential historic sites are within a one -mile -radius.
11. The total estimated site preparation cannot be determined due to the lack of feasible
earthwork; the required building pad dimension will not fit within the site. The current
purchase price listed in 2022 is $2.3 million. Wetland and stream mitigation is
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 6 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
estimated at $4 million. Utilities connections are readily available, except for sewer. A
sewer utility extension to this site is estimated at $0.5 million.
Alternative 3 meets criteria 1 (History), 3 (Interstate), 5 (Utilities), and 7 (FEMA). Criteria
8 (Aquatic Resources) is neutral for this site when compared to the alternatives. This
alternative fails to meet criteria 2 (Topography), 4 (Size), 6 (Cost), 9 (Protected Species),
10 (Historic Resources), and 11 (Site Preparation); therefore, was dismissed for analysis.
See Table 2 Alternative Analysis Matrix for a comparison of the alternatives.
Alternative Location 4 — Yancey County Farms
A 40-acre agricultural parcel, titled Yancey County Farms, is approximately five miles west
of downtown Burnsville, located along the south side of US-19. The site is almost entirely
devoid of trees and has moderate -low grade slopes.
1. This site was used as a laydown yard and disposal area for recent Department of
Transportation (DOT) work on US-19. The result is an approximately 8-acre pad that
is relatively level with the highway but was not sufficiently compacted to be used as a
building site. This area is at the entrance of the site and would need to be regraded
and compacted to be used for the project's needs. The remainder of the site has
historic agricultural use.
2. Site has a moderate grade that is within the means of grading to meet project's needs.
3. Site is located along US-19 but is adjacent to a divided lane bridge and there is no
traffic light at the site entrance. Trucks leaving the site would have difficulty heading
west towards 1-26, which would likely be the most frequently traveled truck route.
Turning left out of the site would require crossing three lanes of opposing traffic in a
downhill bend where speed limits are 55 mph. The alternative would be to head east
on US-19 and make a U-turn (illegal for most trucking companies) or turn onto side
streets and make their way back to US-19 westbound. Site access is a safety concern
for this alternative.
4. Parcel size is 40 acres but has an irregular boundary along the south side. The
required dimensions of the building pad in combination with the need for a large
stormwater basin and employee parking would not fit within the parcel. The size and
shape of the parcel is a fatal flaw.
5. The site has no existing utility infrastructure. To connect sewer to the site, hydraulic lift
and multiple pump stations would be required between the site and the nearest
existing connection in Burnsville. Bringing a natural gas utility to the site is not practical
at this time and uninterrupted natural gas is required for the proposed development.
The distance, cost, and lack potential utility connections is a fatal flaw for this site.
6. The estimated purchase price in 2022 is $500,000.
7. A small portion of the eastern edge of the parcel lies within a FEMA designated 100-
year floodplain; not likely to affect the proposed development.
8. The USGS Hydrography data set shows 1,855 linear feet of stream on site, with an
additional 1,000 feet of stream along the eastern property line. At least one stream is
present within the central valley of the parcel. To accommodate the proposed facility,
all waters on site would likely need to be impacted. An estimate of stream impacts and
mitigation costs are summarized in Table 1.
9. Site may contain potentially suitable habitat for federally protected plant and mussel
species. NHP data documents a 2020 finding of Appalachian elktoe within 0.25 miles
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 7 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
downstream of the site. Protected bat species are known to occur within the vicinity of
the project, however, minimal tree clearing would be required.
10. Within a one -mile radius there are no registered historic sites, one determined eligible
site (ID: YC 0151) that is approximately 0.5 miles away but likely outside of the
viewshed of this site, and three potential historic sites.
11. Total estimated site preparations costs are approximated $18.5 million. The purchase
price in 2022 is estimated at $0.5 million. If fitting the building pad on site is possible,
earthwork is estimated at $8 million. Wetland and stream mitigation is estimated at $2
million. Connecting all required utilities to this site is estimated at $8 million.
Alternative 4 meets criteria 2 (Topography), 3 (Interstate), 8 (Aquatic Resources), and 10
Historic Resources). Criteria 7 (FEMA) is neutral for this site when compared to the
alternatives and sufficient data of criteria 6 (Cost) is unavailable. This alternative fails to
meet criteria 1 (History), 4 (Size), 5 (Utilities), 9 (Protected Species), and 11 (Site
Preparation); therefore, was dismissed for analysis. See Table 2 Alternative Analysis
Matrix for a comparison of the alternatives.
Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative (proposed Little Leaf Farms - Micaville) is a 97-acre parcel
located just over two miles south of NC-19. The site abuts the west side of NC-80 S, south
of the intersection of Hickory Spring Road. Approximately 18 acres on the eastern side of
the site are open fields with moderate grade. Moderate -steep slopes abut the central
stream system. The only building on site is barn and the landscape is mostly undisturbed.
A factory, low density residential, and undeveloped land border the property.
1. The site has approximately 18 acres of former pasture with the remainder being
undeveloped forest.
2. Topography varies from bottomlands, to moderate sloping fields, to moderate -steep
grade forest. Most of the former pastureland will be made use of for project
development. The base of a moderately steep ridge will need to be cut into and graded
to form the required dimensions for a level building pad. Geotechnical studies showed
that grading was favorable in this location due to a lack of rock impediments.
3. The site is located along NC-80 approximately two miles sue of the intersection of NC-
80 and Highway 19. From Highway 19, NC-80 has a gentle grade without sharp turns,
suitable for large truck traffic.
4. The parcel is 97 acres. Approximately half of the site will be developed to meet the
project's needs. The southernmost portion of the parcel is not proposed for
development at this time.
5. Overhead electric is present on site. A tie-in to the municipal sewer abuts the northern
parcel boundary. A tie-in to natural gas is approximately 750 feet north of the project
parcel, along NC-80. The nearest municipal water line tie-in is located at Micaville
Elementary School approximately two miles north on NC-80.
6. The property was purchased for $760,000.
7. The floodplain surrounding the short reach of Ayles Creek within the northern portion
of the project parcel is within a designated FEMA 100-year floodplain. The only work
proposed in this area is the sewer line extension, which will not alter the floodplain
elevation.
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 8 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
8. The site has approximately 6,430 linear feet of stream and 2.573 acres of wetland.
The parcel was formerly delineated based on the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland
delineation manual. Based on topography, the largest buildable portion of the site,
capable of fitting the required dimension of the building pad, coincides with the
centrally valley containing the majority of the wetland and stream area on site. The
quantity of impact was minimized to the extent practical given existing site conditions.
An estimate of stream impacts and mitigation costs are summarized in Table 1.
9. Site was investigated for potential presence of federally protected species. Site does
not contain federally protected species with the potential exception of bat species that
may inhabit the forested areas during summer months. Structures on site were
investigated and no evidence was found of bats occupying the man-made structures
on site. Implementation of a tree clearing moratorium during the active season for the
bat species potentially occurring on site will avoid adverse impacts. Development of
this site would not adversely affect federally protected species.
10. Within a one -mile radius there are no registered, potentially eligible, or potential
historic sites. An in-depth archaeological investigation was conducted on site and no
significant resources were discovered. The NC State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) reviewed the archaeological report and issued a letter of concurrence. A
viewshed analysis study was conducted and determined that development of the
project parcel would not be visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway, specifically at Three
Knobs Overlook. Development of this site would not adversely affect historic or cultural
resources.
11. Total site preparations costs are estimated at $15 million. The property was purchased
for $0.76 million. Earthwork costs to prepare for the building pad are estimated at $7.5
million. Anticipated wetland and stream mitigation is $5 million. The anticipated cost of
extending the water line to the site is $2 million. The remainder of utilities are on site
or nearby, resulting in minimal additional cost.
The preferred alternative meets criteria 1 (History), 2 (Topography), 3 (Interstate), 4 (Size),
5 (Utilities), 6 (Cost), 9 (Protected Species), and 10 (Historic Resources). This is neutral
to criteria 7 (FEMA), 8 (Aquatic Resources), and 11 (Site preparation). This alternative did
not fail to meet any of the selection criteria and therefore, was selected for the proposed
project. See Table 2 Alternative Analysis Matrix for a comparison of the alternatives.
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 9 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Table 1: Expanded assessment of potential impacts to aquatic resources (Criteria 8).
Site
Streams
(LF)1
Potential
Stream Impacts
p
(LF)2
Adjusted
Stream Impacts
p
(LF)3
Mitigation
Cost 4
Percent of
Streams
Impacteds
Trittico Investments
4,683
1,501-1,725
1,741-2,001
$2.2M-2.6M
37-43%
Fincas
8,648
4,293-5,015
4,980-5,817
$6.4M-7.5M
58-67%
Ordie Brown Estate
5,633
2,369-2,780
2,748-3,225
$3.5M-4.2M
49-57%
Yancey Co. Farms
1,855
1,487-1,4966
1,725-1,735
$2.2M-2.2M
93-94%
Preferred Alternative
7,271
3,559-4,148
4,1287-4,812
$5.3M-6.2M
57-66%
Based on GIS for discussion purposes only. Source: NC Mapping Program LiDAR derived GIS stream layer -
Western NC Hydrography Flow Lines.
2 Range of impacts is based on intersection of Western NC Hydrography Flow Lines with a 100-ft buffer around
each of the two building pad layouts (on -site alternatives).
3 Preferred alternative site was formally delineated and the actual stream impact numbers were 16% higher than
the given result of the GIS exercise. Impact quantities were increased by 16% to accommodate for this
discrepancy so all sites are equally comparable with available data.
° Cost determined using NC DMS In -lieu fee rate schedule as of July 2022, assuming a 2:1 multiplayer.
5 Determined using the adjusted stream impact length and stream length data. Actual percentage of stream
impacts for preferred alternative site with parallel layout is 65%.
6 Neither on -site alternative fits within the property boundary.
Actual stream impact quantity proposed.
A summary of the assessed alternatives and criteria are included in the table below. This table is
the expanded Table 7 of December. 15, 2021, permit application.
Table 2: Alternative analysis matrix.
Criteria
Alternative
Site
History
Topography
Interstate
Site
Size
Distance
to
Utilities
Cost
FEMA
Floodplain
Aquatic
Resources
Protected
Species
Historic
Resources
Site
Prep
Trittico
Investments
-*
-*
+
+
+
-
0
0
0
-
0
Fincas
-
-
+
+
+
O
-*
-
-
O
O
Ordie
Brown
Estate
+
-
+
-*
+
-
+
0
-
-
_*
Yancey
County
Farms
-
+
+
-
-*
+
0
+
0
-
-*
Preferred
Alternative
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
+
+
0
+ Site has optimal characteristic for criteria when compared to other alternatives
- Site has suboptimal characteristic for criteria when compared to other alternatives
o Site has neutral effect on criteria or does not apply
* Fatal flaw
Little Leaf Farms — Micaville
Alternative Analysis Supplement
Page 10 of 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Little Leaf Farms - Micaville (+1- 97 AC)
US
Ordie Brown Estate
Alternative 3
CT
z
Burnsville
w esiP3° EMain St 0
Yancey County Farms, LP
Alternative 4
1 g'N
Green
Mountain 3
N
7
Trittico Investments, LLC
Alternative 1
Fincas, LLC
Alternative 2
Preferred Alternative
Pisgah
Na tonal
Forest
Selected Alternative
Alternative Sites
Drawn by: JMG 06.08.21; CEC Project# 1148
E OS Nigh,
o
Yancey County,
North Carolina
CLearWater
An EnviroScience Company
145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Alternative Sites
Overview
Figure 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment G:
Preferred/Selected Alternative
On -site Alternative Layout

DocuSign Envelope ID:A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
0V
/ ,/ Nt ' /-----/;-A \,
�' �I� / � /�� ram• \
/ �, �2�
l' q�. ji /' \ / -
\ - VI
// / --------- / / ,/ '\ •
?\ / 4/1)-\ •
/ ' _ ,'\, ,- - , ' ,,, / ,
,,, I i 71 ; , /--' ,- 4\ \ \;\ \07),) / 'c.),
/ lfi ,...- ,\
/'N, / / \ \ s's\ 4 4 `
4,
-\-- �. �,���I/ ; Jj : . , „ ,
\, ‘ .1 '-V ----7-- '._v,,, \ A' ', Y,
i / \ ' 4 e `® `,,a •
1,,,,,,, .-,
. , ,��
N ,/-----___ / / -V\ \ \ i I
i ,
-. ,t -
A
V,
X /
..X -
SUMMARY I
-—-_
PROJECT DATA. __ _————
PROJECT SITE ACREAGE 97.78 ACRES y—
TOTAL PAO 25 ACRES /
PROJFfT S,TE IMPACTS.
TOTAL PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT 2.544 AC /
TOTAL PERMANENT STREAM IMPACTS 0.472 AC
4,374 LF
LITTLE LEAF FARMS
C
iievsilignpts,
LAYOUT OPTION 2
NCBELS#: C-2184 J U LY 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment H:
NC DMS ILF Acceptance Letter
(June 28, 2022)

DocuSign Envelope ID:A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
STATE. y.
iiiK
ROY COOPER 'a ��r^
Governor
1.
ELIZABETH S.BISER
Secretary
+�wwvfolt
MARC RECKTENWALD NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
June 28, 2022
Lynn Austin
Yancey County
110 Town Square Room#11
Burnsville, NC 28714 Expiration of Acceptance: 12/28/2022
Project: Little Leaf Farms- Micaville County: Yancey
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in-
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s)an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in-lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin Impact Location Impact Type Impact Quantity
(8-digit HUG)
French Broad 06010108 Cold Stream 4,151
French Broad 06010108 Riparian Wetland 2.464
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In-Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in-lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Att4jl:1/6/-yk_v
FOR James. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc: Tyson Kurtz, agent
D
—5
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
nr.-.T• -nn:,�rt„� 217 West Janes Street I1652 Mail Service Center Rleih,North Carolina 27699-1652
o-:ervhem memsronmarwi wet 919.707.8976

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment I:
USACE Mitigation Email
(March 3, 2022)

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
From: Brown, David W CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
To: Clement Riddle; Tyson Kurtz
Cc: Leslie, Andrea J; Hamstead, Byron A; Homewood, Sue; Moore, Andrew W
Subject: Mitigation Ratios - Little Leaf Farms, SAW-2021-01422
Date: Thursday, March 03, 2022 12:07:47 PM
Attachments: SAW-2021-01244 Little Leaf Farms Mitigation Ratios Mar 2022.pdf
Clement and Tyson,
The Corps has reviewed and evaluated the NCSAM and NCWAM assessments for the Little Leaf
Farms building parcel. Based upon this review and comments received from the WRC and FWS, the
Corps has set the mitigation ratios for compensatory mitigation. The attached table summarizes the
ratios and the required mitigation credits. Based on the current DMS rates, the mitigation cost for
the proposed project will likely be in the range of $5.3 million. This is a significant cost and should be
a factor in the alternative analysis for the project. When the cost of mitigation is taken into account,
the practicability of an off -site and/or on -site alternative could become workable.
Thanks,
David
David Brown, PG
Regulatory Specialist/Geologist
USACE Wilmington District -Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
828-271-7980, ext. 4232
[e-mail]

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment J:
Revised Proposed Mitigation
Ratio Tables

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Wetland Impact Mitigation
USACE Proposed
Mitigation
Revised Proposed
Mitigation
Impact
Number
Wetland Name
Area (AC)
Type
NC WAM
Rating
Initial Proposed
Mitigation Ratio
Mitigation
Ratio
Total
Credits
Mitigation
Ratio
Total
Credits
W1
WC
0.084
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Medium
2
2
0.168
2
0.168
W1
WD
0.070
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Medium
2
2
0.140
2
0.140
W1
WE-1
1.240
Seep
Medium
1
1.860
1.550
W1
WE-2
0.358
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.716
2
0.716
W1
WF-1
0.138
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Medium
2
2
0.276
2
0.276
W1
WF-2
0.149
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.298
2
0.298
W7
WG
0.015
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.030
2
0.030
W8
WH
0.046
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.092
2
0.092
W9
WJ
0.011
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.022
2
0.022
W12
WK
0.007
Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh
Low
1
1
0.007
1
0.007
W10
WL
0.033
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.066
2
0.066
W2
WM
0.021
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.042
2
0.042
W10
WN
0.001
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.002
2
0.002
W6
WP
0.014
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.028
2
0.028
W4
WQ
0.236
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.472
2
0.472
W5
WR
0.005
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.010
2
0.010
W3
WS
0.003
Seep
High
2
2
0.006
2
0.006
W4
WT
0.005
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.010
2
0.010
W11
WU
0.010
Headwater Forest
Medium
1.5
1.5
0.015
1.5
0.015
W1
WV
0.007
Headwater Forest
Low
1.5
0.007
1
0.007
W1
WW
0.002
Headwater Forest
Low
1.5
0.002
1
0.002
W4
WX
0.002
Headwater Forest
High
2
2
0.004
2
0.004
W1
WY
0.006
Headwater Forest
Low
1.5
0.006
1
0.006
Total
2.463
Total
4.279
Total
3.969

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Stream Impact Mitigation
USACE Proposed
Mitigation
Revised Proposed
Mitigation
Impact
Number
Stream
Name
Len th
g
T e
Yp
NC SAM
Rating
Intial Proposed
Mitigation Ratio
Mitigation
Ratio
Total
Credits
Mitigation
Ratio
Total
Credits
S1
SE-1
1060
Perennial
High
2
2
2120.0
2
2120.0
S1/S6
SE-2
402
Perennial
Medium
1.5
2
804.0
703.5
S2
SF
920
Perennial
High
2
2
1840.0
1840.0
S4/S8
SG-1
340
Perennial
High
2
2
680.0
2
680.0
S4
SG-2
683
Perennial
High
2
2
1366.0
2
1366.0
S3
SH
544
Perennial
High
2
2
1088.0
2
1088.0
S5
Si
122
Intermittent
Medium
1
2
244.0
152.5
S7
SK
80
Perennial
High
2
2
160.0
2
160.0
Total
4151
Total
8302.0
Total
8110.0

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Attachment K:
Proposed Construction Schedule

DocuSign Envelope ID: A925F29E-B7D5-45A5-9186-934B96ADC72F
Little Leaf Farms - Micaville: Approx. Construction Schedule
Project Site Task
Estimated Timeframe
Permit Approvals
Jul - Oct 2022
Tree Clearing
Nov - Dec 2022
Grading Pad 1
Nov - Feb 2023
Grading Pad 2
Feb - May 2023
Under Slab Pad 1
Feb - Apr 2023
Under Slab Pad 2
May - Jul 2023
Vertical Construciton Pad 1
Apr - Dec 2023
Vertical Construction Pad 2
Jul - Mar 2024
Final Paving / Outdoor Lighting - Pad 1
Jan - 2024
Final Paving / Outdoor Lighting - Pad 2
Apr - 2024
Utility Extensions Task
Estimated Timeframe
Bidding/Award
Feb - 2023
Construction
Mar - Oct 2023
1. All in -stream work will be avoided between Janurary 1 and April 15
2. Tree clearing activities will be avoided between March 15 and November
15

DocuSign Envelope
ID: 7089C6F6-4A73-481 C-A5F2-6253C9E7E362
CLearWaer
An EnviroScience Company
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
www.cwenv.com
July 29, 2022
Mrs. Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
RE: Response to DWR Additional Information Request
Little Leaf Farms - Micaville
Yancey County, North Carolina
NC DWR No. 20211843; Corps Action ID 2021-01244
Dear Mrs. Homewood,
Please reference the additional information request letter dated May 5, 2021 (Attachment A) sent
by the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) in response to the permit application submitted by
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (ClearWater), on behalf of Yancey County, NC. The
permit application requested written authorization for the impacts associated with the
development of a greenhouse complex and associated infrastructure along NC-80S,
approximately two miles south of Micaville, in Yancey County. The comments provided by the
DWR are summarized and discussed below.
DWR Comment 1: "As indicated in your April 5, 2022, submittal, if the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers requests a response to any comments received as a result of the Public Notice, please
provide the Division with a copy of your response to the USACE. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)j'
DWR will be copied on all responses to comments received from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) public notice.
DWR Comment 2: "You have indicated that you will provide the following previously requested
information by May 31, 2022: Submit a complete Stormwater Management Plan for the project
which shall include all appropriate supplemental forms, O&M agreements, calculations,
engineering drawings, etc., that complies with the requirements of the State Stormwater Program.
The Stormwater Design Manual and applicable forms may be found on the DEMLR's website at
https://deq. nc. qov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/energy-mineralland-permit-
quidance/stormwater-bmp-manual. In addition, please also submit the application form SWU-101
(attached). However, the $505 application fee and last two signature pages of this form may be
omitted. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2) and (3)j'
Civil Design Concepts (project engineer) held discussions with Ms. Chonticha McDaniel
to determine the required preliminary stormwater management engineering details
needed to understand how stormwater will be managed on site. The agreed upon
145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800 Tel

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7089C6F6-4A73-481 C-A5F2-6253C9E7E362
Response to DWR Additional Information Request; Corps Action ID 2021-01244; NC DWR No. 20211843
July 29, 2022
Page 2 of 2
stormwater details will be submitted by Civil Design Concepts to Ms. McDaniel by July 31,
2022.
Once the project reaches the final design stage, a full Stormwater Management Plan
(SMP) will be submitted. The applicant understands an approved SMP is required prior to
commencing earthwork on site.
DWR Comment 3: "Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H.0506(b) "a 401 Water Quality Certification may
only be issued upon determining that the proposed activity will comply with state water quality
standards which includes designated uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria and the state's
antidegradation policy, as defined in rules of 15A NCAC 02B .0200... In assessing whether the
proposed activity will comply with water quality standards, the Division shall evaluate if the
proposed activity: (2) would cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards; (3) would
result in secondary or cumulative impacts that cause or contribute to, or will cause or contribute
to, a violation of water quality standards;" Based on the information provided in the additional
information provided the Division has the following concerns:
a. It appears that there will be a portion of stream channel between the building pad/fill
and the outlets of both the upslope drainage and the stormwater control measure (shown
circled in red below). The Division believes that this portion of channel will be degraded
based on a lack of surface hydrology. Please calculate this length of stream channel and
update the impact amounts to include this length as indirect stream impacts."
Please see the revised stormwater diversion Figure 6.5 (Attachment B). Both the
wet detention pond and stormwater bypass culvert outlets have been realigned to
discharge flows farther upstream. The stormwater bypass culvert is now proposed
to discharge at the top of the stream reach to be left unimpacted. This will facilitate
more typical patterns of stormwater water flows throughout the reach in question
of drying out. Additionally, the groundwater from the wetland and streams to be
impacted by the building pad will enter a French drain and culvert system that
outlets in line with the stream channel below the pad. Therefore, groundwater and
fluctuating surface water flows will be present throughout the stream channel
below the impact area. The proposed changes should eliminate impacts to the
section of stream.
The applicant believes the information submitted in this package addresses all issues set forth by
the DWR in the additional information letter dated May 5, 2022. An update email will be provided
to DWR when the full Stormwater Management Plan has been submitted. Should you have any
questions or comments concerning this project please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-
9800.
Sincerely,
r DocuSigned by:
`-8BE1 DDE05B634F5...
Tyson Kurtz
Biologist
Copy Issued:
David Brown — USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
r DocuSigned by:
2.C-AtAACA 21Mt.
�— 0A79F7DC85EE4F7...
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Senior Scientist

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7089C6F6-4A73-481 C-A5F2-6253C9E7E362
Attachment A:
NC DWR Additional
Information Request
Email (May 5, 2022)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7089C6F6-4A73-481 C-A5F2-6253C9E7E362
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
May 5, 2022
DWR # 20211843
Yancey County
Yancey County
Attn: Ms. Lynn Austin
110 Town Square, Room #11
Burnsville NC 28714
Delivered via email to: [e-mail]
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Little Leaf Farms
Dear Ms. Austin:
On December 21, 2021 the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application
requesting a 401 Individual Water Quality Certification from the Division for the subject project.
The Division requested additional information by letter dated January 25, 2022 and received a
response to the request on April 5, 2022. Upon review of the additional information submitted
on April 5, 2022 the Division has determined that your application remains incomplete and
cannot be processed without additional information. The application is on -hold until all of the
following information is received:
1. As indicated in your April 5, 2022 submittal, if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
requests a response to any comments received as a result of the Public Notice, please
provide the Division with a copy of your response to the USACE. [15A NCAC
02H .0502(c)]
2. You have indicated that you will provide the following previously requested
information by May 31, 2022: Submit a complete Stormwater Management Plan for
the project which shall include all appropriate supplemental forms, O&M
agreements, calculations, engineering drawings, etc., that complies with the
requirements of the State Stormwater Program. The Stormwater Design Manual and
applicable forms may be found on the DEMLR's website at
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/energy-mineral-
land-permit-guidance/stormwater-bmp-manual. In addition, please also submit the
D_E
NORTH CAROLINA
napermrene m EIMrnwren al gnaiiry
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID:7089C6F6-4A73-481 C-A5F2-6253C9E7E362
Yancey County
DWR#20211843
Request for Additional Information
Page 2 of 3
application form SWU-101 (attached). However, the S505 application fee and last two
signature pages of this form may be omitted. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2) and (3)]
3. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H.0506(b) "a 401 Water Quality Certification may only be
issued upon determining that the proposed activity will comply with state water
quality standards which includes designated uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria
and the state's antidegradation policy, as defined in rules of 15A NCAC 02B .0200... In
assessing whether the proposed activity will comply with water quality standards, the
Division shall evaluate if the proposed activity: (2) would cause or contribute to a
violation of water quality standards; (3) would result in secondary or cumulative
impacts that cause or contribute to, or will cause or contribute to, a violation of
water quality standards;" Based on the information provided in the additional
information provided the Division has the following concerns:
a. It appears that there will be a portion of stream channel between the building
pad/fill and the outlets of both the upslope drainage and the stormwater
control measure (shown circled in red below). The Division believes that this
portion of channel will be degraded based on a lack of surface hydrology.
Please calculate this length of stream channel and update the impact amounts
to include this length as indirect stream impacts.
11
J I \
• 1I
I.
ii " 1
k }
r sib ‘ .
,,,i
n
i1 1
11 =
///*;
•
I ..".....................<#.7"--.- \''' \ —
.. ...1164
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e), the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested
information for the proper consideration of the application. Please respond in writing within 30
calendar days of receipt of this letter by sending one (1) copy of all of the above requested
-
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
. .,,,-
D . ) 512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1611
Noalr+cnaouNA " 919.707.9000
Dnperhrent of Environments 14eai

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7089C6F6-4A73-481 C-A5F2-6253C9E7E362
Yancey County
DWR# 20211843
Request for Additional Information
Page 3 of 3
information to the 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1617 OR by submitting all of the above requested information through this
link: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form (note the DWR#
requested on the link is referenced above).
If all of the requested information is not received within 30 calendar days of receipt of this
letter, the Division will be unable to approve the application and it will be denied as
incomplete. The denial of this project will necessitate reapplication to the Division for approval,
including a complete application package and the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under the Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
for this activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of North
Carolina General Statutes and Administrative Code.
Please contact Sue Homewood at 336-776-9693 or [e-mail] if you have
any questions or concerns.
Electronic cc:
Sincerely,
—DocuSignn�e/d by:
Paue
�-- 949D91BA53EF4E0...
Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Clement Riddle, ClearWater Environmental
David Brown, USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
NORTH CAROLINAD E
ffaperhrentof Emironmente 14uaI\
Filename: 20211843 Ver 1_LittleLeafFarms_Yancey_RA12.docx
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7089C6F6-4A73-481 C-A5F2-6253C9E7E362
Attachment B:
Revised Stormwater
Culvert Figure

flnniCinn Fr -wolf -Ina Ifl• 711RQ(:FiFFi-d073-4521(:-OSF9-F.9S'ArQF7F4F.9
y \I
J) I II 11 1 1 11 ,
BMP
,„
—
I/ I
/ II
IIII I ' —_ _ � — _
0
EXISTING STREAM (TYP)
N O JH
200
>'
' —i—'
ii
ii d /
ii /'
LEGEND
24" HDPE PIPE
30" HDPE PIPE
36" HDPE PIPE
42" HDPE PIPE
PROPOSED RIP RAP APRON 'B'
LENGTH: APPROX 23'
(DEPENDENT UPON BMP DESIGN)
PROPOSED STREAM PIPE
SYSTEM (TYP)
PROPOSED BMP OUTFALL
PROPOSED 42" HDPE STORM
PIPE ® APPROX 6-8% SLOPE
'illll _----
I�=
it
/
-- rT
PROPOSED STORMWATER
/� _--- , / , 1 1 I ; / \ 11
�' ,� j i,',, / / / , 11 1 PROPOSED 42" HDPE STORM
• , _ — - 11 1 PIPE ® APPROX 1% SLOPE — - \
,ter'/�// // ///// �, _ / ' _\\\ ll 11 III Y— �\�; \\\ \
— _ — ,\ 1 k PROPOSED 36" HDPE STORM \
_________,,,,
h d _ / ///
� _ +) \ \ `, _ PIPE ®APP„IIROX 1% SLOPE
_.,
.„
x _ I .,/ / / -/ 1 / , ,\\\,\\,\\\,„
�\ \ I II I I I I\\11 \ \\ \�\ \ ))i1 I --- _ �,,
, \
/ 1 �� �_____
\ \ 11 1 1 1. I 1\ I 1 +R_ \\ \ , I I, I 1 I r. /,---\
r 1 i
1 1 III \ ' ._\\ \ \ i ,— _ _
' '/ % /*Ns4",‘ ▪ 11\ 11 1 I \\ \1 \ \1)-----,, \ \\\\\ \`i % 1) I 1 I 1 I I ///r—
PROPOSED
APPROX LOCATION OF STOR
STRUCTURES (TYP)
\\\ \\
PARKING BAY (TYP)\\ \ \` \
\
/ / / /
/ \ \\\\\ \ \\\\ \\ \\ \
I i i .i i 1 \\ \\` \`
II I \\ .\\\\\
PROPOSED 42" HDPE STORM
PIPE ® APPROX 6-8% SLOPE
PROPOSED 361,000 SF BUILDING
1 1 / �',�'/'l/1 \ I \ 1 i N\ \ '\ / /// ' //l /I 1 1 / III)
/r' r' it '/ \ \ \ \ 11 \\` F\` '1'/// 1 //// // / • 1 I
111
\\ f \ it `\` , I I I/ I I I 1
1 I
\ \
/
PROPOSED 24" HDPE STORM PIPE
//
� „ 1 11 \ } 111 11 1 I I I I , /\
j \I I II I II III I I I /�
\` \
I 1
\ i i 1 \
�\� �� \ / I I I
�' ..-\- -- \ ._--r/,1 / ,) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1'
\ \-.`:: �'--- i / l I I I 1
" / ,-- PIPE SLOPES STEEPER THAN 20%
SHALL HAVE CONCRETE COLLARS
.'"IP'''.\\N:;%„
�: �" \
__
-- \\ x,
,/ I i i / /I ' / ?` = = _ __ PROPOSED 30" HDPE STORM PIPE
ii lIN
NCBELS #: C-2184
r.// I 1 1 I
/ / I 1 1 1
/ 1 1 I
PROPOSED
ACCESS DRIVE
PROPOSED 361,000 SF BUILDING
% 1 1 1 ;l
I
I)
/ 1 -I
/ I
' ' // / / /
/
--_ --- /
/ / /
,_ _ PROPOSED GREENHOUSE �� ��
/ / /'� ;� PAD GRADING \NN
_ • -- __ __
O ------____ - ;- \\\\\ \`
/ \\\\\%\\:\.\\\\•\\`' \NN• N\\• N•N:\
/
/
\\\
_—-- "�\ � ��� �\
\\\• \`\ \\\\1
/
� - \ \\'N\ \\ \ \•
\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
�\\\ \ \ \ \\ - \ \ \ �
r' / • ,j — ----- \\\• v \\` \\\�\•\\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \' \ \\\\•\ 1 - 1 1 1
iiiiitiigel
pts, PA
Th
LITTLE LEAF FARMS
BYPASS PIPE BULLETIN
J U LY 2022
Figure 6.5