20131200 Ver 5_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20170428

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Steven. L.Kichefski @usace.army.miI>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 1:40 PM
To: Clement Riddle
Cc: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Burdette, Jennifer a; Moore, Andrew
W
Subject: RE: SAW -2013-02262 TIEC Draft Modified IP comments
Attachments: SAW -2013-02262 modification PN Comment Letter_27April2017.pdf
Clement,
Attached is an electronic copy of the letter that went out yesterday. Due to the complexity of dealing with so
many potential avoidance, minimization and alternative scenario's, I would recommend that we sit down with
DWR and sort through this together when you are ready for response. Feel free to contact me with any
comments or questions.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure
we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message -----
From: Clement Riddle [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 4:39 PM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Steven. L.Kichefski @usace.army.mil>
Cc: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW -2013-02262 TIEC Draft Modified IP comments
Steve,
Thank you, talk soon.
Clement
-----Original Message-----

From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:59 PM
To: Clement Riddle <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW -2013-02262 TIEC Draft Modified IP comments
Clement,
We were unable to get this letter out today, but attached is a draft copy of what we expect to go out tomorrow.
Feel free to contact me with any questions.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure
we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
April 27, 2017
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW -2013-02262
Mr. Jeff Brown
Tryon Equestrian Partners, LLC
2659 Sandy Plains Road
Tryon, North Carolina 25782
Dear Mr. Brown:
Reference is made to your modified application on February 16, 2017, for Department of the
Army (DA) permit authorization to impact 3,929 linear feet of unnamed tributaries (UT) of
White Oak Creek and 0.09 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. This modification request includes
impacts to 446 linear feet of stream (known as EI and E2) that were previously authorized and
subsequently suspended. All of the impacts are associated with the ongoing development of the
Tryon International Equestrian Center (TIEC) which is comprised of 1,405 acres, resort
facilities, equestrian center, and a residential community located southeast of the intersection of
Pea Ridge Road and U.S. Highway 74, northeast of Tryon in Polk County, North Carolina.
The project was advertised by public notice on February 22, 2017. Comments in response to
the notice were received from the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resource's
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Indians (EBCI), and the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians in
Oklahoma (UKB). These comments are enclosed for your information. Please provide written
responses to the comments submitted by the NCDWR and the NCWRC.
Written comments on the project were received on March 31, 2017, from the SHPO. They
stated, "We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which
would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed."
Written comments were also received on April 11, 2017, by the UKB. The UKB determined,
"Information on the Native American use in the project vicinity shows that prehistoric,
ethnographic, historic, and traditional sites of value to the UKB surround the project area. We
recommend that a cultural resources inventory be completed prior to project implementation."
You provided the Corps and SHPO intensive archaeological survey reports dated February 25,
2016, as part of the previous individual permit application, and March 30, 2017, in response to

2
the proposed impact modifications. Based on the results of these surveys, the EBCI Tribal
Historic Preservation Office and SHPO effects determination for this project, and the general
nature of the UKB comments, the Corps believes that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant
additional investigation at this time.
In addition to conducting a public interest review which balances the reasonably expected
benefits against the reasonably foreseeable detriments, all Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404
permits must meet guidelines for the specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material
under CWA Section 404(b)(1). The following comments are being submitted pursuant to the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230). The Corps has completed our
initial review of the application and determined that the following additional information is
necessary to expeditiously complete our permit decision:
1. Provide updated information regarding any additional projector property expansion
pertinent to the cumulative analysis of the Corps permit evaluation. For example, are
there any impacts associated with road, bridge or additional property projects that have
been changed or added since your February 16, 2017, modified application? Are there
additional impacts proposed for the residential portion of the project?
2. Provide details for the impacts currently proposed such as phasing, fill and structures to
be used, any additional temporary impacts, will work be conducted in the dry, etc. 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 reduce normal stream flow to all or a portion of a
jurisdictional feature due to the relocation of catchment drainage?
3. You stated in your modification request that, "TIEC was chosen to host the Games [sic
World Equestrian Games] due to the existence of a substantial portion of the needed
infrastructure already in place and also being centrally located in one place (versus being
spread out through the region)." Please provide a description of the infrastructure that the
World Equestrian Games (WEG) identifies as necessary components of their sanctioned
events and noting which components TIEC currently has in place. Similarly, please
provide an overview of the selection criteria WEG utilizes to award said event.
4. In the fall of 2013, TIEC requested authorization under the Nationwide Permit Program
for unavoidable impacts associated with initial construction of the equestrian center
despite acknowledgement that additional development and/or impacts would be
proposed. On December 23, 2013, the Corps authorized 290 linear feet of permanent
stream impacts via Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39 associated with Phase 1. As part of the
authorization, we cautioned that future impacts may be seen as cumulative and the
construction of Phase I would not be adequate justification to dictate future impacts. The
following special conditions were included in the NWP39 verification:

- 3 -
Special Condition #2: Based on previously submitted documentation and conversations, you
have submitted the current request for verification with the understanding that you will propose
additional, unknown impacts in the future for other phases of the Tryon International Equestrian
Center. The construction/presence of this phase of the Tryon International Equestrian Center (to
which this NWP verification letter pertains) will not affect our review of any future proposed
impacts. The presence of this phase of impact will not be an adequate justification for future
impacts (e.g., additional roads must be built in jurisdictional waters of the U.S. because the
location of this road necessitates the location of the other roads). We will examine any future
proposal to impact jurisdictional waters of the U.S. to ensure that you have avoided, minimized,
and/or mitigated for unavoidable impacts.
Special Condition #5: Please be advised that if additional impacts to waters of the U.S., either on
this property or on/adj acent to this property and associated with this proj ect/activity, are
proposed at a later date, those impacts will be combined with the current impacts to waters of the
U.S, and will be reviewed cumulatively. Generally, compensatory mitigation will be required if
individual or cumulative (i.e., past and present) losses or degradation of waters of the U.S. are
greater than 150 linear feet of perennial or intermittent stream channel and/or 0.1 acre of
wetland. Additionally, cumulative impacts that result in the loss or degradation of greater than
300 linear feet of perennial or intermittent' stream channel, and/or 0.5 acre of wetland, will be
processed under an Individual Permit. This verification of the use of the Nationwide Permit
Program for this project does not imply that this office will necessarily approve any future
proposal to impact waters of the U.S. on this property and/or associated with ibis project/activity.
Additional information is needed to demonstrate appropriate avoidance and minimization
steps have been undertaken and document a proper evaluation of alternatives has been
considered for the proposed impact areas.
a) Multi -Purpose Field: Proposed impacts Ei, E2, and E3 (referred to as Area C), total
2,054 linear feet of perennial stream. These impacts provide for the construction of a
multi-purpose field and associated infrastructure including parking, roads, vendor
space, restrooms, temporary stalls, and fill slopes. There appear to be several
avoidance and minimization options that were not considered or communicated
regarding the proposed impacts in this area.
i. Elaborate as to why the additional multi-purpose field is needed for the WEG
and future events.
'- The District Commander has the ability to waive the 300 linear foot limit for intermittent
streams on a case-by-case basis. All requests for waiver must be in writing and shall include
rationale for the request.

- 4 --
ii. Why are the 500' x 650' dimensions required for this area if multiple different
events are proposed and why they cannot be reconfigured or separated to other
portions of the property that would further avoid and minimize impacts?
iii. Provide detail as to the criteria needed for the starting line of the 100 -mile
cross-country endurance event planned for this area. Explain why it cannot be
reconfigured or relocated to further avoid and minimize impacts.
iv. An additional facility entrance road is proposed for this area around the multi-
purpose field. Why is this road needed in addition to International Boulevard
currently proposed to the west of the field? If the need for the additional road is
justified, would widening or utilizing International Boulevard differently
provide the additional traffic capacity and minimize impacts? Could such a road
reconfiguration minimize the impact needed for multi-purpose field alternative
#2?
V. Provide further details why the multi-purpose field could not be reconfigured
with other components of the TIEC such as the existing polo field (future
stadium), the farmettes to the southeast, or the upland area east of Area C's
impact locations to further avoid and minimize impacts. Could property on the
other side of White Oak Creek be utilized in a way to avoid and minimize
impacts and provide egress to the TIEC via a bridge?
vi. Our research has found that previous WEG have not required all event
components to be located in one centralized area. Elaborate why components of
the games cannot be held offsite, including the property located across US -74
that is currently proposed for parking.
vii. Provide additional details describing the long term need and plans for the multi-
purpose field and the current polo field beyond the WEG.
b) Hotel Parking: Proposed impact E4 (referred to as Area A) total 803 linear feet of
perennial stream and 0.09 acre of wetlands. These impacts provide for the
construction of a hotel and associated parking. There appear to be several avoidance
and minimization options that were not considered or communicated regarding the
proposed impacts in this area.
i. Provide details on the WEG requirements for on-site hotel occupancy and
elaborate why off-site hotel locations will not suffice. Do the cabins and
Recreational Vehicle (RV) opportunities planned for the TIEC count towards
the stated goal of 1000 rooms available for the WEG? Will all hotels proposed
be constructed prior to the games?

- 5 -
ii. What is the long-term need and plan for on-site hotel(s)?
iii. Elaborate as to why the other three hotels and their associated parking facilities
proposed on the property cannot be designed to increase their capacity and
reduce the need for the hotel parking lot currently proposed to impact a stream.
iv. Are there reasons other than county ordinances (such as geotechnical issues)
that restrict the hotel height which could conceivably reduce hotel footprint,
thereby providing additional avoidance and minimization opportunities? Has
TIEC proposed increasing the height requirement to Polk County? Is there an
opportunity for a variance? The selection of alternatives is not necessarily
determined by local zoning ordinances.
V. How many parking spaces are currently proposed in the preferred alternative
and hotel parking alternative #2 submitted with the application? Based on
conversations with Polk County about requirements for the proposed hotel,
current County ordinances require six handicap spaces located within 200 feet
of the door. The remaining spaces must be within 400 feet of the door or located
on the same parcel as the hotel. The current hotel parcel is over 19 acres and
provides other opportunities for reconfiguring the RV lots, cabins, hotel and
parking that might further avoid and minimize impacts. The preferred hotel
proposal utilizes adjacent TIEC parcels. Provide further details on what other
configurations were evaluated or why the other TIEC components such as the
RV area, rental cottages, Olympic Village, mixed use residential and
commercial area, cabins, across the street parking, etc. cannot be redesigned to
further avoid and minimize impacts to streams for hotel parking. If County
ordinance does allow for some parking spaces to be greater than 400 feet from
the hotel door, elaborate why Hotel Parking Alternative #1 and #2 are not viable
and practicable alternatives since they could potentially provide a significant
reduction to stream impacts.
c) Barns/Parking: Proposed impact E5 (part of Area A and B) total 1,072 linear feet of
perennial stream.. These impacts provide for additional barns and associated parking.
No discussion of avoidance, minimization or other practical alternatives were
provided regarding proposed impacts due to this portion of the project.
i. What is the current barn capacity available to the TIEC without stream impacts
and what, if any, capacity requirements do the WEG dictate for their events?
Why must the barns be located in this area and how do the horses enter the
existing arena? Can other barn areas be expanded in a way that would avoid and
minimize stream impacts?

- 6 -
ii. Provide additional information on why other TIEC areas cannot be reconfigured
in order to allow the needed barn space and parking to occur while avoiding or
minimizing impacts in this area. For example, the reconfiguration of the
Olympic Village, rental cottages, hotel, RV area and parking to allow the barns
while providing horse and pedestrian access to needed areas via bridge. Could
property on the other side of White Oak Creek be utilized in a way to avoid and
minimize and provide access to the TIEC via bridge?
5. A complete mitigation plan is needed to evaluate the potential of the proposed permittee -
responsible compensatory mitigation.
6. Provide Kirther information on any anticipated cumulative and secondary impacts from
the TIEC and WEG that will occur in the project area or the local region.
The information requested above is essential to the expeditious processing of the application;
please submit one consolidated response to all comments by May 31, 2017. If you do not submit
this information within the given timeframe, then the application will be administratively
withdrawn. Withdrawal of the application does not preclude you from reopening the application
at a later time, provided you submit the required information. 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.
If you have questions or would like to schedule a meeting to review these comments and/or
your response, please contact me at my Asheville Regulatory Field Office address, telephone
[phone] extension 4234.
Sincerely,
' - ACE-: — r,,.,. L�-kC
Steve Kichefski
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
cc: w/enclosures
Mr. Clement Riddle
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
32 Clayton Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

- 7 -
cc: w/o enclosures
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
Mr. Andrew Moore
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778
Mr. Byron Hamstead
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. Andrea Leslie
Mountain Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
20830 Great ,Smoky Mountain Expressway
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786