20131200 Ver 3_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20151008

DEPARTMENT OFTnE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151. PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
October 2, 2 0 15
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW-2013-02262
Mr. Jeff Brown
Tryon Equestrian Partners, LLC
2659 Sandy Plains Road
Tryon, North Carolina 28782
Dear Mr. Brown:
Reference is made to your application of June 24, 2015, for Department of the Army (DA)
permit authorization to impact 1,463 linear feet (10 of unnamed tributaries (UT) of White Oak
Creek and 0.02 acres (ac) of jurisdictional wetlands, associated with the proposed development
of 1,276 acres for a resort, equestrian center, and residential community known as the Tryon
International Equestrian Center (TIEC) southeast of the intersection of Pea Ridge Road and U.S.
Highway 74, northeast of Tryon in Polk County, North Carolina.
After review of your proposal, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS)
submitted comments dated August 4, 2015. They determined that the project "may affect, not
likely to adversely affect" based upon the information submitted, including the commitment to
avoid forest clearing during the Northern Long-eared Bat (Allyotis septentrionalis) May 15 —
August 15 maternity roosting period. They offered several recommendations should the permit
be issued and a copy of their letter is enclosed for your consideration.
Written comments were also received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) on August 7, 2015. The WRC commented, "The project should not impact
trout and activities do not need to be avoided during the trout spawning moratorium." They
offered several recommendations regarding the proposed impacts and mitigation should the
permit be issued. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed for your consideration and response.
By letter dated August 4, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) provided comments from their project evaluation. Specifically the USEPA discusses
the avoidance, minimization, alternatives analysis and mitigation of the applicant's proposed
plan. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed for your consideration and response.
Written comments on the project were received on August 7, 2015, from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). They have determined that the project as proposed will not have an
effect on any historic structures. The SHPO noted one previously recorded site within the project
that was evaluated as ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. They felt

-z
that there was ahigh probability for the presence oF prehistoric orhistoric archaeological sites
and zc000zniond*docomprehensive Survey be conducted u)evaluate potential effects on
unknown resources prior 10 the initiation *f construction activities. A copy o[this
correspondence im enclosed for your consideration and response.
Wc received u comment letter, via email 0oJuly 17, 2015, from Pat Larsen, uo»diaoeot/anca
property owner, in response to the PN advertising this project. In her comments, Ma. Larsen
expressed concern regarding the partial ownership of the Larsen Lane Right-()f-VVuy(l<(}W)and
how development plans would affect that ROW. She also stated a general concern about the
development and potential impacts to wildlife. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed for
your consideration and response.
VVc also received comments via email ou August 4,5 &7,2015, from Ms. Mary Hay, uo
adjacent/area property owner. Ms. Hay raised concerns over Plans \0 utilize Larsen Lane for the
development, 1zo[fioroudrcconfigora1i0no/}ohnShchanKood`pu6licizdo;eotoouoidemtioua,
and correctly identifying Columbus as the nearest town instead of Tryon. A copy of this
correspondence ioenclosed for your consideration and response.
Written cornznco1x received on July 22, 2015, from the National Marine Fisheries Service
stating "the proposed project vvou}doo1occo/iu1hcrioiui1vo[cuocntia|fish hahitu1," therefore
they are ^^ neither supportive oforio opposition to authorization of the proposed p/nrk". While no
response io necessary, their correspondence iyattached for your records.
The Corps has also reviewed your request for Department of the Army authorization and
request that you provide urcoponac to the following items:
l. In order to effectively evaluate potential alternatives for this project additional
iufbrozo1ionregurdioA potential alternatives is needed. lo prior meetings regarding the equestrian
center a much broader region than Polk County was evaluated by the applicant prior to site
selection. Provide more detailed in{onuo1ion regarding the criteria used in property yo}rotioo and
other areas that were considered to 'justify that oo off-site aKenou1ivcS would meet the least
environmentally damaging 9rudioub{e alternative /I.El0PA\. For example licensing 0000bmio1x,
acreage needed for the equestrian center component, acreage/units needed for residential
component, existing residential versus new build criteria, potential n/etloud/streaoz izupuoio, other
recreational possibilities associated with the residential component and other potential project
considerations/constraints associated with the equestrian center layout.
2. Apodinn oF the proposed impacts are associated with further development 0fthe
equestrian center (El & E2). Elaborate as to why these impacts are needed, why they cannot be
further avoided or minimized and provide dc1mi]S (including plans) as to the impacts proposed.
How would the design of the proposed impact area direct the existing flow ofthe jurisdictional
stream and will any flow bc reduced to downstream vva1croY

- 3 -
3. Provide detail as to the need for impact RC2/IJC2 and why it cannot be further
avoided/minimized (avoided, moved to only cross one stream channel or bridged). For example,
in this impact area there appear to be multiple other access points, the proposed crossing is not
utilizing an existing culvert in the immediate area, the proposed crossing is not utilizing the
proposed fill to the southwest where it would only cross one channel and it is proposed in a
location just before the confluence of two stream channels.
4. Road crossings 1-5 do not appear to cross at perpendicular angles to the stream and
thereby are not providing further minimization of impacts. Provide detail as to why they cannot
be designed to cross at a more perpendicular angle. Also, these road crossings vary from 2.42-
8% in slope and 57.75-110 linear feet in length. While the plans appropriately mention pipe
burial of either 20% or I foot in depth (depending on the pipe diameter) there is concern over
scour to both the pipe's substrate and the downstream channel based on the slope and lengths.
Provide further information as to the existing stream slopes for these streams and why additional
channel scour or head cutting will not occur as currently proposed. Would other measures (sills,
baffles, grade control or dissipater pads) be needed to help ensure retention of the buried pipe
substrate or prevent head cutting/scour either up or downstream of the channel.
5. Will any of the newly proposed development areas on the property require storm water
treatment? If yes, will the storm water treatment impact any additional jurisdictional features on
the property or significantly reduce normal stream flow due to the relocation of catchment
drainage?
6. The application package notes that the proposed utility lines will be "trenched in and
upon completion, the stream beds, and banks will be returned to their pre-impact condition."
Will any hard armoring be involved in the utility crossings and will the original channel substrate
be returned to the impact area post channel restoration?
7. Preservation to 7,979 linear feet of stream channel onsite has been proposed to help
compensate for the proposed project impacts. Provide further clarification to the following
aspects of that proposal for further consideration:
a. Make sure all components of a mitigation plan are provided as required by 33 CFR
332.4 (c) such as a long term management plan, an adaptive management plan, financial
assurances, etc.
b. As stated under 33 CFR332.7, "To provide sufficient site protection, a conservation
easement or restrictive covenant should, where practicable, establish in an appropriate third party
the right to enforce site protections and provide the third party the resources necessary to monitor
and enforce these site protections." For this reason the Wilmington District prefers the use of a
conservation easement as the site protection instrument. As part of the mitigation plan for this
project clarify how the site protections will be enforced over the long term and the financial
assurances that will guarantee this long term protection.

- 4 -
c. In our evaluation of compensatory mitigation options, we will consider what would
be environmentally preferable. Are enough of the appropriate credits available to provide
compensatory mitigation through a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program? Provide further
information as to why the permittee-responsible mitigation proposed would be environmentally
preferable to credit provided by a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program.
d. Several areas of the preservation proposed seem to have limited buffer widths due to
adjacent roads. Provide information or a figure depicting the range and average buffer widths
that will be preserved within the proposed restrictive covenant. Will any proposed buffer areas
be less than 15 feet in width on one side of the channel? Are there any existing/proposed utility
lines/easements or culverts within the proposed preservation stream or buffer areas?
e. The proposed impacts shown on Figure 4 of the application package depict several
potential residential areas without lot lines, including around the proposed preservation area.
Provide clarification as to how these areas will be developed from the perspective of whether any
future impacts might occur and how the development of these areas might degrade the function
of the proposed preservation area.
f The proposed preservation area has an existing perched road crossing. Are
improvements planned for this crossing as part of the proposed development or for the perched
culvert as part of the mitigation proposal?
g. In conjunction with question 5 above, will any storm water features impact the natural
drainage and therefore the normal channel flows to streams that are part of the proposed
preservation areas? If yes, how would the storm water features be designed to prevent any
reduced function to the proposed preservation areas?
h. Provide further detail of the type and general abundance of invasive species in the
proposed preservation area. Is there a presence of the same invasive species in the adjacent
forested area that would decrease the likelihood of long term success keeping them out of the
buffer area?
Your response to the comments identified above must be given full consideration before we
can make a final decision on your application. We need your information to address the
concems/issues raised over the proposed project. You may submit additional information, revise
your plans to help resolve the issues, rebut the issues made or request a decision based on the
existing record.
We request that you provide responses to all comments in this letter by November 2, 2015. If
you fail to respond by November 2, 2015, we will administratively withdraw your application.
We will reopen your application and continue to process it once you have submitted all of the
information we have requested in this letter. If you have questions or comments, please contact
me at my Asheville Regulatory Field Office address, telephone [phone] extension 234.

- 5 -
Sincerely,
Steve Kichet'ski
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
cc: w/enclosures
Mr. Clement Riddle
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
32 Clayton Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
cc: w/o enclosures
V,'Ms. Karen Higgins
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater, Compliance
and Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Todd Bowers, Permit Review Specialist
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA — Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Ms. Shari Bryant, Piedmont Region Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
Post Office Box 129
Sedalia, North Carolina 27342 -0129