20060798 Ver 2_Individual_20061204

~P
Pr®ject Surnrnary Sheet
p~~~,~~E~~T
_. _ _: , ;.,,~, RECEIVED
.. v~, flc~-o~~S
Owner /Applicant
Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone Number:
Vista Developers, LLC
Attn: Mr. Stig Wennerstrom
525 N. Main St.
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-2400
Street Address of Project: Bills Creek Road
Lake Lure, NC
Nearest Waterway: Broad River -~
River Basin• Broad
Nearest City: Lake Lure
County: Rutherford
Decimal Degree Coordinate Location of Project Site: 35.4375 N
82.1428 W
USGS Quadrangle Name: Lake Lure

1

Table of Contents - dill's Mountain IP Application
-- Cover Letter
-- Project Narrative
1.0 Project Purpose & Need
2.0 Alternatives Analysis
3.0 Description of Discharge
4.0 Avoidance & Minimization
5.0 Mitigation Proposal
-- Table 1. Bill's Mtn. Channel Impacts and Mitigation
Attachments
-- Attachment 1. Location Maps & Site Plans
-- Attachment 2. Agent Authorization Form
..... page 1
..... page 4
..... page 6
..... page 8
..... page 9
..... page 10
-- Attachment 3. Application for Department of Army Permit (ENG FORM 4345)
--Attachment 4. Bill's Mtn Previous Permits
--Attachment 5. Bill's Mtn. Real Estate Analysis
--Attachment 6. Lake Lure Fire Coordinator Letter
--Attachment 7. Stream Classifications & Stream Identification Forms
--Attachment 8. Photographs
--Attachment 9. Coldwater Release Design Typical
--Attachment 10. Adjacent Landowner List
--Attachment 11. NC EEP Acceptance Letter
--Attachment 12. Qualitative Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

~ i -r-
~
~ ~
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
November 27~', 2006
Ms. Lori Beckwith Mr. Kevin Barnett
US Army Corps of Engineers NC Division of Water Quality
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 2090 US Hwy. 70
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Swannanoa, NC 28772
Re: Bill's Mountain -Individual Permit Application
Rutherford County, North Carolina
Ms. Beckwith & Mr. Barnett:
Attached is an application for an individual permit to construct a 7.45 acre lake within
the Bill's Mountain development. The applicant is seeking authorization to impact 2565
linear feet of perennial and intermittent unnamed tributaries to the Broad River
associated with the construction of a 7.45 acre lake (Attachment 2. Agent Authorization
Form).
Applicant Vista Developers LLC
Attn: Mr. Stig Wennerstrom
525 N. Main Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Agent Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants
Attn: Mr. Neill Yelverton
P.O. Box 882
Canton, NC 28716
Location
The Bill's Mountain project is located on the east side of Bills Creek Road in Rutherford
County, NC. Coordinates (in decimal degrees) for the site are 35.4374° North, 82.1428°
West.
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

Existing Site Conditions
The land use in the surrounding area is primarily forestry and agriculture with some
residential development. The land use on the project site was historically forestry. The
site is primarily forested with mixed mesic hardwoods and the valleys are rich cove
rhododendron thickets. The site contains perennial and intermittent streams that are
unnamed tributaries to Bills Creek, Cove Creek, and the Broad River. These are all
"Class C" waters in the Broad River Basin.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
As stated by the applicant, the purpose of the project is to provide a recreational and
aesthetic lake for a residential development.
Project Description
The project consists of a 7.45 acre lake within a 769 acre residential development. The
applicant is seeking authorization to impact 2565 linear feet of Class "C" perennial and
intermittent unnamed tributaries to the Broad River. Development of the site will
require clearing the proposed lake bed, grading the proposed dam site, filling necessary
to impound the stream, and the resulting flooding. Heavy equipment, including
graders, pan scrapers, excavators, bull dozers, etc., will be used for the construction of
the project. Completion of the proposed project will require the construction of a dam
to impound water. The subject channel will be diverted while the fill is discharged into
the stream so that there is no contact between the fill and the water. There are no
proposed impacts to wetlands resulting from construction of the lake. The applicant
proposes to mitigate for impacts to stream channels with in-lieu fee payment to EEP
and preservation of all remaining streams on the site with a 30' vegetated buffer.
Previous permits (Action ID# 200630549) have been issued for impacts associated with
the construction of roads (Attachment 3. Application for Department of Army Permit
(ENG FORM 4345) & Attachment 4. Previous Permits).
Essential Fish Habitat
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The consultant found
that no EFH exists within the project area and therefore the project will not adversely
impact EFH or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Canton Office Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

Cultural Resources
The consultant has reviewed the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places and found no registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible
for inclusion therein located on the property.
Endangered Species
The consultant has reviewed the project area and the latest North Carolina Natural
Heritage Database and found no threatened or endangered species that occur within
the project area. Based on this available information, the. consultant has determined
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, that the proposed project will have no
effect on federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally designated
critical habitat.
Thank you for your time and consideration and please call me at [phone] with
any questions that you may have.
Bes regards, ~~'
~~-~~~'
~~
;'Neill Yelverton ~ ' --
Cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, NC DWQ
Mr. David McHenry, NC WRC
Ms. Becky Fox, US EPA
Mr. Brian Tompkins, US FWS
Canton O~Ce Newton Office
PO Box 882 wnrinc.com PO Box 224
Canton, NC 28716 Newton, NC 28658
828-648-8801 828-465-3035
828-648-8802 Fax [phone] Fax

Project Narrative
Bill's Mountain Individual Permit Application
1.0 Project Purpose and Need
Vista Developers, LLC, the. project proponent, proposes to construct a 7.45 acre
lake that floods perennial and intermittent streams to serve a subdivision in
Rutherford County, NC.
The development team designed the lake to satisfy the needs listed below.
• Recreation: The proposed lake would provide onsite recreational
opportunities, with a focus on canoeing and fishing. The size of the lake
would allow enjoyable canoeing and fishing opportunities for multiple
parties at the same time.
Economic: Waterfront lots and lake-view lots demand a premium; Vista
Developers estimates that the proposed Lake would increase sales
revenue from $38,500,000 to $58,000,000 an increase of $19,500,000
which is more than a 50% increase in revenue (Attachment 5. Real Estate
Analysis). The availability of and proximity to recreational and other
amenities creates more desirable communities. According to the National
Association of Homebuilders: Purchasers of second homes valued their
proximity to "An ocean, river or lake, 40%" (the highest percentage of all
things rated), and Activities of interest to vacation home buyers included
"Beach, lake or water sports, 37%" (the highest percentage of all things
rated).
Aesthetic: Lakeview lots and common areas are very desirable for their
serene and picturesque nature. They are therefore more desirable for
potential property buyers, and increase the economic viability of the
project. (Attachment 5. Real Estate Analysis)
Fire suppression: A dry hydrant and fire truck access will be incorporated
into the lake design in order to provide sufficient water for fire
suppression in the event of structural and/or forest fires on site. This will
make water access faster and easier for on-site fire suppression, and will
improve fire safety for the community. (Attachment 6. Lake Lure Fire
Coordinator Letter)
Bill's Mountain IP Application 4 WNR

Based on multiple needs, the proponent's desire was to maximize the lake's size
based on onsite conditions. Using a steep bottleneck valley, the design team
was able to create a design to satisfy all of these needs.
Bill's Mountain IP Application 5 WNR

2.0 Alternatives Analysis
The proponent has considered four alternatives in order to satisfy the needs
stated above.
1) No Lake
2) On-Site Lake (Off-line Option)
3) On-site Lake (On-line Option)
4) Off-Site Lake
Alternative #1. No Lake
The decrease in revenue for the project with no lake would be approximately
$19,500,000 as discussed above. With this option recreational activities would
have to take place off-site. While Lake Lure and the Broad River would provide
recreational opportunities they would require increased preparation and travel
time and not have the same level of safety. Travel time would be increased from
a 5-10 minute walk or drive, to a 10 to 30 minute drive. More personal fishing
and boating equipment would be required for off-site activities, compared to
community equipment available at an onsite lake recreational area. The level of
safety on a small controlled lake could not be met in the large open water of
Lake Lure of the Class 1 & 2 whitewater on the Broad River. Aesthetically, this
site is inarguably beautiful with or with out a lake. Fire suppression could suffer
from the lack of an adequate on site water supply.
Alternative #2. On-Site Lake Off-line Option
Because there is no on-site location that could provide the size of lake necessary
to achieve the desired benefits, this option would not satisfy the goals of the
lake. Other valley locations are either too narrow or to steep for suitable off-line
lakes. Since small. lakes are not suitable for the recreational activities desired,
these sites were not considered. The bottleneck valley topography, present at
the proposed lake location, makes it the most suitable location for maximizing
lake size and minimizing impacts. Fire suppression could benefit from a smaller
lake as long as it is accessible by large fire trucks.
Alternative #3. On-Site Lake On-line Option
An on-site 7.45 acre lake is the preferred option based on increased recreational
opportunities, economic viability, aesthetics, and fire suppression. It would
increase revenue by more than 50% ($19,500,000). It would also increase the
aesthetic views on site and thereby increase property values. An on-site 7.45
acre lake would allow for multiple individuals and groups to enjoy various
recreational activities simultaneously. The availability of water for local Fire
Bill's Mountain IP Application b WNR

Stations could increase response time for local fire departments. All of these
benefits make this the most viable option for satisfying the proposed needs.
Alternative #4. Off-Site Lake Option
This option would have the same access and safety drawbacks as the no lake
option. Since development is already underway at the Bill' Mountain site, the
time and money spent to acquire another site would be above and beyond
incurred and estimated expenses. Under this option they would also have the
cost of finding another site, building more infrastructure, and the cost of lake re-
design and construction. Since they already have a suitable on-site location, the
extra cost associated with this option makes it impractical.
Bill's Mountain IP Application 7 WNR

3.0 Description of Dischar4e
The subject streams are unnamed perennial and intermittent tributaries to the
Broad River; the lake has approximately 176 acres of drainage measured at the
proposed dam site. The NC Division of Water Quality has classified this section of
the Broad River as a "Class C" water; other onsite drainages with named streams
(Bills Creek and Cove Creek) are also "Class C" waters. The subject streams
have been classified as perennial and intermittent using the NC DWQ Stream
Identification Form Version 3.1 (Attachment 7. Stream Classifications and Stream
Identification Forms & Attachment 8. Photographs).
The project proposes impacts as follows
• 243 cubic yards of fill will be discharged into waters for the dam
• 537 linear feet of direct impacts for dam structure
• 2028 linear feet of indirect impacts for flooding
• No wetlands will be impacted
• (Table 1. Channel Impacts & Mitigation)
Development of the site will require clearing the proposed lake bed, grading the
proposed dam site, filling necessary to impound the stream, and the resulting
flooding. Heavy equipment, including graders, pan scrapers, excavators, bull
dozers, etc., will be used for the construction of the project. Completion of the
proposed project will require the construction of a dam to impound water. The
top width of the dam is proposed to be 20 feet, and the side slope for the dam is
proposed to be 3:1. The proposed permanent impacts to stream channels
resulting from the placement of fill material associated with the dam totals 537
linear feet or 0.087 acres of stream surface area. The proposed impacts
resulting from flooding streams total 2028 linear feet or 0.22 acres of stream
surface area. There are no proposed impacts to wetlands resulting from
construction of the lake. Plans included with this notice show the overall
proposed site layout as well as details of the proposed dam.
The subject channel will be diverted while the fill is discharged into the stream so
that there is no contact between the fill and the water. Conceptual plans include
stocking the lake with game fish (rainbow, brown, and brook trout) and
providing habitat for migratory waterfowl (wood duck). Construction of the lake
allows for the propagation of trout for the residents of the proposed subdivision.
The lake will be constructed with littoral areas and thereby provide diverse
habitat for terrestrial and semi-aquatic wildlife. Fisheries habitat structures will
be created for the game fish. The outlet of the lake will utilize low-flow cold
water design strategies, to create suitable downstream habitat for fish as well
(Attachment 9. Coldwater Release Design Typical). Littoral benches will be field
designed and constructed along the shore of the reach due to the steepness of
the valley.
Bill's Mountain IP Application 8 WNR

4.0 Avoidance and l~linimization
The proponent has avoided hard impacts to the greatest extent practicable by
proposing to construct a single earthen embankment dam instead of constructing
numerous dams to create the same surface area. Impacts requiring discharges
to Waters of the US are limited to the fill associated with the earthen dam to
create additional Waters of the US. The predominant impacts of the project to
perennial streams are indirect in nature (flooding).
The proponent considered alternative development concepts and determined
that the uniqueness of the current proposal provided the best potential for
success.
Cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project are minimized through
the reduction in scope and through design considerations including:
• Engineered low flow / Coldwater discharge orifice
• Establishment of vegetated littoral zones
Bill's Mountain IP Application 9 WNR

5.0 Mitigation Proposal
Impacts can be separated into two classes that merit different mitigation ratios
based upon the effect of the discharge (Table 1. Channel Impacts & Mitigation).
Impacts resulting from the construction of the dam result in a permanent loss of
waters while impacts associated with flooding result in a net increase in
regulated Waters of the US. In consideration of the factors used to assess
mitigation we have developed the following proposal.
Impacts to the subject stream include the 537 linear feet of dam structures and
2028 linear feet of flooding impacts. The' applicant considers all of these streams
to be "Good" quality, and will use the 2:1 Compensatory Mitigation Ratio set
forth in the Corps Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
The mitigation for hard impacts will be satisfied at a 2:1 ratio with a multiplier of
1. Therefore we propose 1074 linear feet of restoration for 537 linear feet of
impact. This mitigation will be through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program's in-lieu fee program. The mitigation for flooding will be satisfied at a
2:1 ratio with a multiplier of 2.5, for a final ratio of 5:1. Therefore we propose
on-site preservation of 10,140 linear feet of stream channel to mitigate for 2028
linear feet of flooding. This onsite preservation will include a 30' vegetated
buffer adjacent to the channels. These buffers will be preserved through deed
restrictions. (The onsite survey of all streams is not yet complete, thought we
approximate total stream length to be about 20,000 linear feet, we will likely end
up preserving more than 10,140 linear feet.)
Bill's Mountain IP Application 10 WNR

Attachment #1
Location Maps & Site Plans

~;.
"` ~.~.
~~ .~ -
~ ~~ ~ ~
~_ ~
~~ ~ ~~
~~~ ~ ..~ ~ `-~ ' ,r~.i- `'
!~ '~ i
,~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~x
1 fi '"'~ /y~ • ~ ~~1~
r ~ ~
~'.V ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i
,f ~ `~:
Legend ~~ ~ ~ ,r~
~ ~ I ~ = ~:
o :- C~1 ~~7/ ~ .
~, ~
(Wniting for stream survey for exnct locaClons> T ~~ ~ ~ ~ - , ~~~ ~~~ ~'
4~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~q
~` ~~ ~~/ ~.~~ ,lS.
~~
~~, ~,~
~~
~. ~
~y
'' J,, Proposed Lake Site
:,~~
~ ~ (StreaMS within the lake
footprint were located
~,,, -" with asub-r~eter GPS)
,}
„~~ I ~ I I
-~ ~ ~~ Bill s Mountain Site Plan
~/ uthe fond Coy NC
.;i1 ~ 1000 2000
Scale in Feet

Blll's
`_ f
~~ °~ J f
\~,; ~~
J-~i
l!;
y
~~
500
~`'`.;P,
I`,/\
,, ~ /\.
1000
0
N
R
T
H
)X/
fake
Legend
Re~~ Lot Line & Prop~- ~y ~~ri~
Blacks Proposed Roads
Blues Proposed Pond
Blacks Strear~ Ir~pact Locations
///
Scale in Feet

~ill~ 11~unl~~.ir~
F'u~ h~i i~~i ~ ~'{~
~":urlculai ~~lnemiainre
•V
_i
C~
IR~!i 4:fgi: ~i
.gq, L.3ke ~,AJ~d'
LJra;aa
Cwmp q~oram~lcc6cec
S. '..t
f~
G'
'. .~ff~-
~;~
~~
cn
y
3
i
J
~;
,~Bi~ls creek
~ ~;,~
sr Lsrilsnyrk Ur
~ ~
~N,y 4)
~O

82. i 666666 ° W I I I I 182.1500000 ° W I I I I 182.133333 ° W I I I I 182.11

`
~
mi
~
~
l` r
~/`.._-- ,t ~ ,• ~ `\l J 1-~\~ \ ~'~
~\~ ~
~' ~ ~ ~ I
~
~ )
~~ t I ~~.. _ I
! l~l ~`- ~ Iro
_
~..
~ _ ~i it ~ rte. \ 's 3
,~
~
-
-
~ `
~ li `
: ~
. ~: ~<< ` ~.I\ i ~ i ail ~~ /
~ ~ 1 - Z

\
-~! ((

I

_ 1 ~~ ~ J

`~ ~ v , /
~.. ,~~ ~ , Cr /. ~ I
1tJ86 r
,
/
z
~
_--.__
~- ~ ~
_: r ~\
~
. . -
i
i cry ~' ~
~ ~
" i
_
~
~,
}/ : it c ~
,t`~ ( '' '' ~.~'~ ~ `/,
I
~
•
,
!
~
d
I ~ /
I, ~ ..~ r i,
~ / f I J -~
C
I
1
i
~
J
/
~ I
J,7 i'
1 - a

..
~ ~ ~~ R
,~.
1;' ~ ~~ ~ I J I T'`I R , _ as >~~a,~.
T~~ ~ '~ ° '
/

J
_ ~ ~ i
1 T ~ _
M 1
% I
. ~
~
-
;
~
~ ~
J I / ~
~ -. ~
,
r,
~~
J / _
_I__. -.- :..
~..-.-.. ..

..as..-~~ ~ / - \ ~5

r - i /~
82.166 666 ° W 82.150 000 ° W 82.133 333 ° W 82.116 66 ° 1
Name: LAKE LURE Location: 035.4328576° ~ 082.1431631 ° W
Date: 3/9/2006 Caption: Vista Developers -Bill's Fountain
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Copyright (C) 1998, Maptech, Irc.

Windows ~,ive ~,ocal -Custom Print Options
http://local.live. cam/PrintableMap. aspx?mkt=en-us
Page 1 of 1
5/25/2006
~$` 1f~En+dt~trvs ~i~r~ L~~~G
_ _ , ~, ~E

ti'i,iti E4ill~~ '~9,~ui;~,rs,, ~,.il.
_ ;;
_ ~
'~ - ~ ~ •~ -
'
'. s: - ;~ ' ..
. - ~ -

Attachment #2
Agent Authorization Form

~~
Wetland and Natural Resource ~;~.-~::~::.;
Consultants, Inc.
_._,'.-
®epartment of the Army
If~ilmington district, Corps ®f Engineers
Attn: lCen .volley, Chief Regulatory ®ivision
~® 8ox 1890
°~Iilmington, ~®rth Carolina 28402-1890
-and-
lVC division of ~lUater Quality
Attne Cyndi CCaroly
2321 Crabtree 81vd.
Raleigh, ~lorth Carolina 27604-2260
I, the current landowner of the property identified below, hereby authorize ~l/etland end Natural
Resource Consultants, Inc. to act on my behalf es my agent during the processing of permits to
impact 1/Vetlands and ~JVatets of the ~S that ere regulated by the Clean mater Act and the
Rivers and l•larhors Act.
Federal end Mate agents are authorized to he on said property when accompanied by wetland
and ~iaturel Resource Consultants, Inc. staff.
~l6etland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. is authorized to provide supplemental
inf®rmation needed f®r permit processing et the request ®f the Corps or ~InIQ,

property ~3wner of Record: .¢ ~ f
~ ~, ~ ~ ' ~ "~ ~? ~:~~,~-~~ s ~;~., ~ . ~ -~-

Address: ~,' ~ >1« ~~ . ~~~~u~ _v~__ ~~ f?, fem..

Address e ~ : ~~ : ~= ~ <,,<<-- ~ ~° ,, ~
lshone ~4umi~er: `"~ f
t `
~, ,;.
;
_
`~
"
property l_ocetion: ~'s~ t
~ '%` -
,
Cwners Signatureo .. ~~ rw~.~- __ _ ~-~_ ~ ,~,c~ ._=r v~, , . _:.,
.~ ~,
~ ~~ ;
date: '' ~%.
Canton Office Newton Office
I'G Sox 882 ~,vnrlnc.con~ I'G Box 22~
Canton, i\9C 2871 ~ newton, ~!C 2868
828-~4~8-88C l 828-~05-3035
828-6d8-8802 Fax 828-~=5~-30~C :~ryx

Attachment #3
Application for Department of Army Permit (ENG FORM 4345)

61PPLiCt~TiON F®R ®EPARTilWE9BT OF TiiE ARBt9Y PERMIT
4 d®n-Line bersion o4 Form 33 CFR 325) ~/ ~ pa a ®AAB APPR®bAL PNO.07°BO °0003
-1 p Eupires Alprii 30, 2008
The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require 5 hours or less.
This includes 4he time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204,
Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be
aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a
currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District
Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water,4ct, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USG
1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting navigable waters of the Untied States, the discharge or fill material into
waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form
will be used in evaluating the appliption for a permit. Discosure: Disclosure of requested infgrmation is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit
application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the
proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instruciions) and be submitted 4o the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the
location of the proposed activity. ~ An application that is not completed in ful! will be returned.
(lTElws ~ THRU ~. T® BE FILLED BY THE coRPS) - . -
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED

dITElY6S BELC~V11 TO BE FILLED BY APPLBCANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME
Salutation First Name Middle Initial Last Name Suffix
Mr. Stig ~ ~Wennerstrom ~ 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Salutation First Name Middle Initial Last Name Suffix
Mr. Neill ~ ~ Yelverton
Title Representing (Organization) Title Organization
Vista Developers, LLC Environmental Consultant WNR
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
Street Line 1 525 N. Main Street Street Line 1 P.O. Box 882
Street Line 2 Street Line 2
°City Hendersonville State NC Zip 28792 Ciiy Canton ~ State NC Zip [28716
Use Guide to AddNiew Additional Applicants
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. W/AREA CODE, FAX, E-MAIL
Residence 828-698-2400 Business 828-698-2400
Fax E-Mail 10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. WIAREA CODE, FAX, E-MAIL
Residence 828-712-9613 1 Fax [phone]
Business 828-648-8801 ~ E-mail neillQwetland-consultants.cc
11. STATEMENT ®F AtBTiiORIZATiCiN
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. It,, i ~F I L
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE DECEIVED
SEE A~t-~~ At°sEN1' A~v't~R-t~JN ~-rvt
NAME, LOC~TBON, A,ND DESCRIPTI®N ®F PRC{.IECT ®R ACTIbITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
_
Bill's Mountain

13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Watershed Broad River Street Line 1 Bills Creek Road
Waterway i UT to Broad River Street Line 2
Lake City State Z
-

15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
County Rutherford ~ State NC
Lake Lure NC
~
l
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, tat/Lon, andlor Acces~sor'S PIaPC~I NUmt1~P, for
Latitude 35.4329 N ^UTM Northing Mile Section I I Sub Section example
Longitude 82.1432 W UTM Fasting Bank Township -~ ~ Meridian
UTM Zone Waterway Range Baseline
Other Location Descriptions i
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Asheville, take Hwy. 74 east pas# Lake Lure. Turn left on Bills Creek Road, site entrance is approximately 1.2 miles on the right.
~ ENG FORM 4345, Ju197 EDITION OF FE694 IS OBSOLETE (Prapanent CECW-OR)

18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
cre residential development.
Construction of a 7.45 acre pond within a38ff a
c
,i•!~>1

19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
This project will provide housing opportunities to the surrounding area.
The pond will provide an ammenity for this development. (see Attachment 1)
USE SL®CKS 20-221F DREDGED ~1PID/®R FELL 9dflATER1AeL BS TO RE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of a 7.45 acre recreational and amenity pond.
(see Attachment 2)
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Fill for Dam: 243 cubic yards.
Flooding: 450 cubic yards
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Area Units Gross Area
0.307 Acres Other Waters
Comments
see Table 1 and attached Stream Forms Use Guide t0 ViewlAdd
Another Surface Area
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ®No IF YES, DESCRIBE TFiE COMPLETED WORK
Road crossings within the devetopmen4 have already been permitted an are in place. (See attached permits). No work has begun for the pond.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody
Salutation First Name Middle Initial Last Name Suffix
~~
Street Line 1 See Attached list
Stree4 Line 2
Cky State Zip

Use Guide to ViewlAdd Another Adjoining Property
i
25. List of Other Certifications or ApprovalslDenials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
-
~
Use Guide t4 ViewlAdd Another Certification
*Would include but is no4 restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. 1 certify that the information in this application is complete
and accurate. 1 further certifij that 1 possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly author ~ agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGN I~E AGENT ~ 7 DATE
-~
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake 4he proposed acti ity (applicant)~~ may be si ed by a duty authorized agent if the statement
in Block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any departmem or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies,
conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any
false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more
than free years or both.
~ ENG FORM 4345, Ju197 EDITION OF FE694 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent CECW-OR)

Attachment #4
Bill's Mountain -- Previous Permits
Action ID # 200630549
NWP 33, for 130 I.f. of temporary impact necessary for the construction of a
bottomless culvert was issued February 17, 2006.
NWP 39, for 110 I.f. perennial stream impact and 290 I.f. intermittent stream
impact, was issued June 6,.2006.

BJo~s 29 ~ ~®63 ®~ ~17~51`7~H'l1i~A9
V~II,GT®N I~g3~'RI~"T
Action ~. County:. Itntherford 1JS~S t~uad: Lake Lmre

Propt;rty ®wner / Authori~d Agent: Vista l?evelopers. LLC: Att'-t: Orson Lee
Address: 525 N. Male Street
glendersouville. N~ 2792
Telephone No.:
Size and location of property (water body, road natnelntunber, town, etc.}; Vista at 13llls Mountalu
development located on 760 acre tract off of I;ills Creek Itd.t near Lake. Lace
Description of projects area and activity: Install a temporary 130 LIB' culvert In an unnamed tribntary
to the Broad Ialver for ecauipnaetet acceess_purposes to construct au arch bottomless cttlvert. ®nce
the ctelvert is installed. the pitae will be removed and the channel restored to oris~llDa1 conditions.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Mater Act, 33 ITSC 1344)
^ Section 10 {Rivers and harbors Act, 33 H3SC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 33
Four work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached Nationwide conditions, those conditions outlined In the enclosed NC3~6'ktC letter elated 2/17!06, and
your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject
the permittee to a stop woak order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing NWPs are
scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked prior to March 1 S, 2007. It is incumbent upon you to rerexiin
informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you
commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide pem»t is
modified or revoked, you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP
to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. If prior to the expiration
date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain
valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all new and/or modified terms and
conditions. The I3istrict Engineer may, at any time, exercise his discretionary authority to modify, suspend, or
revoke a case specific activity's authorization under and NWP.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Watea Quaflty
Certification. You should contact the NC I9ivision of Water Quality (teflephone [phone]} to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State ar local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Steve Chapin at 828-271-7980 x231.
Cotes Regulatory Official Steve Chatyin Bate: Febrmaa-v 11, ZOt96
Expiration Date of~lerification: Maa~ch l~. 2®®7

J.S. C®I~S ~F ENG~~RS
WII.,MINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 200630549 County: Rutherford USGS Quad: Lake Lure
GENERAL PERMIT' (REGI®NAL AND NA'TI®N~VII)E) VERIP'ICATI®N
Property Owner /Authorized Agent: Vista Developers, LLC, Attn: Carson Lee
Address: 525 N. Main Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Telephone No.:
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): Vista at Bills Mountain
development, Phases I and II, located on 760 acre tract off of Bills Creek Rd.; east of Lake Lure
Description of projects area and activity: After-the-fact impacts to 110 LI' of a perennial unnamed
tributary to Bills Creek and 290 LF of unnamed tributaries to Bills Creek and the Broad River in
association with construction of a road network to serve the above referenced residential
development.
Applicable.Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
^ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: .Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 39
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached Nationwide conditions, those conditions outlined in the enclosed NCWRC letter, and your submitted
plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to
a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing NWPs are
scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked prior to March 18, 2007. It is incumbent upon you to remain
informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you
commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide permit is
modified or revoked, you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP
to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. If prior to the expiration
date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain
valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all new and/or modified terms and
conditions. The District Engineer may, at any time, exercise his discretionary authority to modify, suspend, or
revoke a case specific activity's authorization under and NWP.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Steve Chapin at 828-271-7980 x224.
Corps Regulatory Official Steve Chapin Date: June 6, 2006
Expiration Date of Verification: March 18.2007

Attachment #5
11-16-06
Bill's Mountain Real Estate Analysis
SUBJECT: Benefits for Constructing a Lake at Vista at Bill's Mountain
The following are reasons and benefits for. constructing a lake:
• The lake would provide a community amenity for swimming, sun bathing,
picnicking, hiking, canoeing and kayaking, and fishing.
• The lake would include a walking trail, boat house and a small beach area.
• The lake would provide an on-site water source for fire suppression.
• The lake would provide aesthetics with views.
The following summarizes the potential lot revenue differences: .
# of With Without
Lots Lots Lake Total Lake Total Difference

Lake 15 $350,000 $5,250,000 0 0 $5,250,000
Lake View 50 $275,000 $13,750,000 $100,OOOI65ea$6;500,000 $7,250;000,
Condo 20 $800,000 $16,000,000 $600;000.- $12,000,000 $4,Q00;000,
*Other Lots 200 $115 000 $23 000 000 $100 000 $20 000,000 $3,000,000
TOTAL: $58,000,000 $38,500,000 $19,500,000
* Other lots: Generally speaking, all other lots will go up in value since the lake
would be shared by all residents. Lot prices would increase approximately 15%.
The cost of building the lake is estimated at $700,000 and includes dam and fixed
amenities.

Attachment #6
From: Lake Lure Fire [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:01 AM
~'o: Scott McDowell
Subject: Lake for Vista at Bills Mountain
Scott,
As we discussed on the phone the proposed lake for Vista development would be of great benefit
for Fire Protection as long as provisions are made for the Fire Department to draft. There is
currently no water source in the development that can be adequately used for fire protection.
If I can be of further assistance please contact me.
Ron Morgan
Lake Lure Fire Coordinator
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 /Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 -Release Date: 11/20/2006

Attachment #7
Stream Classifications & Stream Identification Forms

~Y®~~ C'~r®la~ at~~-®ies Listed y C'®u
Note: Waterbodies are listed in more than one county if they cross county lines.
Report Date: 07/25/06
4ecords Pound: 164
Search Parameters:
County: -.Y
Class:
SpDes:
Name:
Desc:
Index#:
1llame of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Sasin Stream Index
Rutherford C~vrety
BROAD RIVER From source to Pool C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-(1)
Creek, including
backwaters of Lake Lure
below elevation 991
Fa11 Creek From source to Broad C;Tr
River
BROAD RIVER (Lake From Pool Creek to B;Tr
Lure below Carolina Mountain Power
elevation 991) Company Dam
Pool Creek From source to Lake C;Tr
Lure, Broad River
Wolf Creek From source to Pool C;Tr
Creek
Rock Creek From source to Lake C;Tr
Lure, Broad River
Buffalo Creek From source to Lake C;Tr
Lure, Broad River
Cane Creek From source to Dam at B;Tr
Camp Occoneechee
Bathing Lake
Cane Creek From Dam at Camp C;Tr
Occoneechee Bathing
Lake to Lake Lure,
Broad River
BROAD RIVER From Carolina Mountain ~

o
Power Company ~
Rutherford County SR
1167
Island Creek From source to Broad C
River
Cove Creek From source to Greasy C; Tr
Creek
Cove Creek From Greasy Creek to C
Broad River
Greasy Creek From source to Cove C;Tr
Creek
Frasheur Creek From source to Greasy C;Tr
(Harris Creek) Creek
03/01/63 Broad 9-16
03/01/63 Broad 9-(17)
03/01/63 Broad 9-18
03/01/63 Broad 9-18-1
08/03/92 Broad 9-19
03/01/63 Broad 9-20
03/01/63 Broad 9-21-(1)
03/01/63 Broad 9-21-(2)
08/01/98 Broad 9-(22)
03/01./63 Broad 9-22.5
03/01/63 Broad 9-23-(1)
07/01/73 Broad 9-23-(9)
03/01/63 Broad 9-23-10
03/01/63 Broad 9-23-10-1
Wage 1 of 9

blame of Stream Qescription Curr. Class Dafe Prop_ Class t3asin Stream index #
Stone Creek From source to Cove C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-11
Creek
Cringer Branch From source to Stone C; Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-11-1
Creek
Chalk Creek From source to Cove C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-12
Creek
Otter Creek From source to Cove C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-13
Creek
Cedar Creek From source to Cove C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14
Creek
Cane Branch From source to Cedar C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-1
Creek
Sally Branch From source to Cedar C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-2
Creek
Long Branch From source to Sally C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-2-1
Branch
Taylor Creek From source to Cedar C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-3
Creek
Rosy Branch From source to Taylor C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-3-1
Creek
Noah Branch From Dam at Camp C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-3-2-(2)
Elliott Bathing Lake to
Taylor Creek
Bailey Creek From source to Taylor C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-3-4
Creek
Wash Branch From source to Cedar C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-4
Creek
Coon Branch From source to Cedar C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-5
Creek
Youngs Creek From source to Cedar C;Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-6
Creek
Piney Creek From source to Cedar C; Tr 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-14-7
Creek
Bills Creek From source to Cove C 03/01/63 Broad 9-23-15
Creek
Knob Creek From source to Broad C 08/01/98 Broad 9-24
River
BROAD RIVER From Rutherford County WS-IV 08/01/98 Broad 9-(24.3)
SR 1167 to a point 0.4
mile upstream of mouth
of Mountain Creek
Page 2 of 9

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ~ ~' --- ~ =~'r,~ ~ Project: '. ~ ~~ ~ ti d;;~ y /~y Latitude:
Evaluator: ~.i~ ,. ~+~$ w~=~~(~.;0~~ Site: ~~; ._ i~ Longitude:
Total Points: ~ ,~, Other ~ , ,, :-
Stream is at least intermittent .,"'~~ County: ~ ~. ~, ~ ~; un~i~ ~~_r e.g. Quad Na e: '~"! ~`= ~"'~/ °`" e
if z 19 or erennial if Z 30
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = ~ ~ )
1a. Continuous bed and bank Absent
0 Weak
1 i Moderate
~ Strong
~ 3~
2. Sinuosity 0 1 ^~ 2 ~ 3
3. In-channel structure: rifrle-pool sequence 0 1 2 " 3 ~
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 ' 3 ~.
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 ~ 1 2 3
7. Braided channel X 0 3 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits (0 a 1 2 3
9a Natural levees Y~,O ~ 1 2 3
10. Headcuts ~ 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 '`'0.5`~ 1 1.~^
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 ~ 0.5 1 ~(,1.5~'
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 I - =_-~~--._
Yes = 3 ;-
Man-made ditches are not rated; se(.+e/'.discussions in manual
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3:'
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rowin season 0 1 2 ! `'3`
~°~'
16. Leaflitter 1.5 ~ ~~ 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5~
` 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 `', ,,~_..~ ~ 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ~ Yes= 1~5
~~
~ Q,,.i,.,.., is ~ti+„*~i - ~ ~ \
20b. Fibrous roots in channel ~ 3 , 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel ' 3 ` 2
° 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 ~ 0.5
,`. 1 1.5
23. Bivalves ~,0 '~~ 1 2 3
24. Fish ~ 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 t' 0.5, 1 1~6
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 (. 1.5„%
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ^~:' 0,? 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ~ '~0~` 0.5 1 1~5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0~ Other = 0'
"Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item za rocuses on ine presence of ayuauc ~~ wC~~a~ ~~ N~a, ~~~~
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ;f~ 1 - ~° - '~ ~ Project'. t~ t.__~' .~,~ ~~ ,mss Latitude:
Evaluator: ~ _ I ~i~,ft~~~;,<:,~~ Site: ,~s ~,r=- ~p„ Longitude:
Total Points: ~~ Other
Stream is at least intermittent ~ a t ~~ County: (;~'""" ;y y~~ ;% ~ : ~ ~.~r~,:'""~
if z 79 or erennial if z 30 ~ ~ y i ~ '~ e.g. Quad Name:. d--~}";+~~ i t
e' ,;
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = ~ )
Absent
Weak
Moderate -
Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 Z ,~, 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2y` 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 ~ 1a 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 i 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ~ 0. 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches ~ 0~: 1 2 3
7. Braided channel Or 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ~,' 1 2 3
9a Natural levees i!0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts ~/p' 1 2 3
11. Grade controls ~,0~ 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 , 0.5 Q, 1d 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
i i, N 0';
~`"°~"~~
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
Rye.. ~ psi-
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 ~1~ 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rowin season
0 ~
~~ ,' ~
2~
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 i~, 0.5 .~ 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 ~, 1 ' 1.5 ~,
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 ~'' 0.5,% `1 ~_ 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 ~! Yes = 1.5 ;/

20b. Fibrous roots in channel , 3 ~ 2) 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 i 2 1 0
22. Crayfish ~.0 %' 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves ~ 0 ° 1 2 3
24. Fish F 0 1 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 ` 0.5 ~ 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 (b:5? 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton (0® 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. t 0;i 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other= 0 '
- Items 20 and 21 tocus on the presence of upiana pianos, rcem za rocuses on zne presence vi ayuauc ~~ wauai iu Nianw•
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ~ ~, - „?'? _ ~ (~; Project: j ~l;;~r_i'> ~A+^t'i'~~ Latitude:
Evaluator. rE" ~; ~~ , ~'r~ ,~;>~ Site: v,t~ R~ y~ Longitude:
'~,<~d,~
Total Points: Other -_
Stream is at /east intermittent ~ ~ County: ~) ~° ~ ~ ~,y ~."t,~y Ly'a e.g. Quad Name: `""' ~`;" ~- ~y tl~`
if>_ 19 or erennial if>_ 30 -
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = ~ - ~) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2'~ 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3i
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 v'~ 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 ~ 3
5. Active/relic floodplain I 0~ 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 ' 2 3
7. Braided channel ~ 0 ~ 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 '" 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts ° 0 ;~ 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1_' 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 ~ 1.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existin4
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 m..~a-°> 4
Yes = 3 f,
"°°°°~y"
a Man-made ditches are-not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = YEA ~- ~~ 1
14. Groundwater flowldischarge 0 1 ~2°; 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season
0 ~
1 '"`~
'2 'y
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 t, 1 ~~ 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 l,1 ? 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 t 1 ,) _ 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 i es = 1.5 'd
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ~ )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel `;°~„~ 2 1 0
21e. Rooted plants in channel ~ 3 ~~ 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 ~ 1.5
23. Bivalves ~0~ ~ 1 2 3
24. Fish ~~ 0~ ~ 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 ~~ 1F 1.5
~ 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 y 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ,~- 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ' 0 ' 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0 '~,
° Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. °`-°'
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ;~;' .-`~, ~ - ;;,~, Project: r~ it_~t'~ ~~~~~~-;~; Latitude:
Evaluator: r•~ ~ r-~~:, ~l,,,~,~~ Site: ,r' ~ °~, ~;:~
~.~' Longitude•
•
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent r°'°
-,, ~-~
if ? 19 or erennial if ? 30 >'' ~
County:
Y,l q~~'~,C= ~y ~,d
ti @Q ~ Other
i Ott- i ,~,~;~ R.
e.g. Quad Name; !. W~wiw _ (v y-
-
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 ~ 2'° 3
2. Sinuosity i 0 1 ; 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence ~ 0 1 ~: 2? 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting I 0 1 2 .a 3
5. Active/relicfloodplain ~ 0" 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 ' 1 ~ 2 i 3
7. Braided channel ~0~ ~' 2 I 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits P Q,- 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees g' 0 ,a 1 2 3 I
10. Headcuts ~ 0 1 2_ 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 ~ =1,s 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 ~"~ 1 ` 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. - ~~----~
~~ yNo = 0 ~•
'~.
Yes = 3
`Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
r v
R Hvrlrnlnnv tSi ihtntal = ~ ,.'~ 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 ~'~~~~ 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rowin season 0 1 ~
~ ~ 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 ~.~' 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 ' 1 f w _- _ 1.5
19. Hydiic soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 f~Yes = 1.5 `~,
fl ~..~~ -
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ~ ~ 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel s'%'3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel " 3 ! 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 '•, 1.5
23. Bivalves "0`' 1 2 ~ 3
24. Fish ~ 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 i.'~1.51
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 ~`,~,1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton -,"~0'` 1 2__, 3
~ 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 ~`~ 1 .) 1.:5..:
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0 Other = 0
"Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.-""""
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

4 North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ,~ ~ ~ - s, L Project: '`~ ~-.t `3 't:~-"C ~~ Latitude:
Evaluator: ,~ ,~ ~~~~,~-;~.~,~,~,~ Site: ~ _~f" ~~r~ Longitude:
Total Points: Other _
Stream is at least intermittent ~l ~'-°; County: i'~" ~; 4 ~g=-'a,"y ~:- F~ ~ e.g. Quad Name: (--aT'(~-~" ~'~ i~~~
if >_ 19 or erennial if ? 30 a--~-~'
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1, t 2 r 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 ~ 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 '% 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting ~ 1 h/ 2 '~ ~ 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0; ~ 1 2 ~ 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel r 0 j 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ~ 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees ' 0~ 1 2 3
10. Headcuts O j 1 2 3
11. Grade controls ~_ -~ 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 a 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. ~--- ~= --°°°:;
No = 0~
~'```~°
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual .
B_ Hvdrnlnnv (Suhtntal = 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 ~`~1 ~ 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rowin season 0 z 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 H 0"
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 ~ ~ 0.5~,'--' 1 `- 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5 ~
19. Hydric soils (redoximprphic features) present? No = 0 ~ Yes = 1.5 '
4--,.
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = "~ )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 ~,, 2 %
" 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 .`'
' 2 1 0 ',
22. Crayfish ~ 0
% 0.5 1 I 1.5
23. Bivalves ~ 0 ' 1 2 3
24. Fish 0, 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 °'1 : 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 ~ 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ~~-~; 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ~` 0 `~ 0.5 1 1~5__,,_.,
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2,0 Other = 0
"Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants:"-
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

U~ACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
C
s j
_.~ ~'~~ S'I'I2E~41VI LTALITY ASSESSIVIEN'I' W®~SHEE'I' ~~ `~
1 ~ _ - _-: ~, Q ~~
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Vista Developers 2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton
3. Date of evaluation: 5-23-2006 4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
5. Name of stream: UT to Broad River 6. River basin: Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 75 ac. 8. Stream order: second
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 feet 10. County: Rutherford
11. Site coordinates (if known}:35.4375N / 82.1428 W 12. Subdivision name (if any):_Bill's Mountain
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):-
Channel B
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel fill & floodine
15. Recent weather conditions: hot
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot and d
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ^Section 10 ^Tidal Waters ^Essential Fisheries Habitat
^Trout Waters ^Outstanding Resource Waters ^ Nutrient Sensitive Waters ^Water Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES^ NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES^ NO®
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NO^
21. Estimated watershed land use: ~% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 4-6' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1-4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ^Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) ^Moderate (4 to 10%) ^Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: ^Straight f Occasional bends ^Frequent meander ^Very sinuous ^Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 63 Comments:
Good Quality second order stream with some degradation probably from bein~louged in the past.
Evaluator's Signature . " Date 5-23-2006

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT W®RKS~IEET

#
I ECOREGION POIN T RANGE.
CHARACTER
STICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountaim
000 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
O 1 no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints)
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 5
no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max oints

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 4
4
extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints)
,,~
5 Groundwater discharge
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 4
1
~ no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints)
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
~„~ (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints)
x ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 0
a (dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max oints)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
(no wetlands = O; lar e ad
acent wetlands = max oints)
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 3
extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
(fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
~ (dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints
~
13 Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
3
~ severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
E,,,, (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu out = max oints)
~
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
3
substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints)
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 5
~ (no riffles/ri les or ools ° 0; well-develo ed = max oints)
~ 17 Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 5
~ little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats = max oints
~ 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 5
~, no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 4
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
~ no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 1
O (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)

22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 63
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

U'~3ACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
f __.~._.~;,
f ....
1 i
~ 1
~, ~ ~ v,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT W®l~S~IEET
--="~ 1
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Vista Developers
3. Date of evaluation: 5-23-2006
5. Name of stream: UT to Broad River
7. Approximate drainage area: 75 ac.
1~
4~ e
~„~ 4
i
2. Evaluator's name: Yelverton
4. Time of evaluation: mid-day
6. River basin: Broad
8. Stream order: second
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 feet 10. County: Rutherford
11. Site coordinates (if known):35.4375N / 82.1428 W 12. Subdivision name (if any): Bill's Mountain
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):,-
Channel 4B
14. Proposed channel work (if any): channel flooding
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: hot and
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ^Section 10 ^Tidal Waters ^Essential Fisheries Habitat
[1Trout Waters ^Outstanding Resource Waters ^ Nutrient Sensitive Waters ^Water Supply Watershed _ (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES^ NO® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES® NO^
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES® NO^
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
100% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 4-6' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1-4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ^Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) ^Moderate (4 to 10%) ^Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: ^Straight Occasional bends ^Frequent meander ^Very sinuous ^.Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 64 Comments:
Good Quality second order stream with some degradation probably from being logged in the east.
Evaluator's Signature -' ' Date 5-23-2006

S'I'IZEAIVI QUALITY ASSESSIVIEN'I' W012I~SIIEE'T
ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
000 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
O l (no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max oints
Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 3
2 (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 5
no buffer = 0; Conti ous, wide buffer = max oints
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 4
4 (extensive dischar es = 0; no dischar es = max oints
a
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 0
d (no dischar e = 0; s rin s, see s, wetlands, etc. = max oints)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2 1
~„~ no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints)

,x Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 1
0. ~ (dee I entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max oints)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 0
acent wetlands = max oints
(no wetlands = 0; lar e ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints)
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 3
(extensive de osition= O; little or no sediment = max oints)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 4
fine, homo enous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max oints)
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
~ 12 dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max oints

13 Presence of ma or bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints)
Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5
4
14 no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw hout = max oints
~ Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
15 substantial im act =0; no evidence = max oints)
Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0_ 3 0- 5 0- 6 5
16 (no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max oints
E
~ 17 Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 5
(little or no habitat = 0; fre went, varied habitats = max oints)
~q Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 5
1 g no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints
x
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 4
(dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 3
20 no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
~
~
21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 1
O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)
'~
22 Presence of fish
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 64
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Attachment #8
Photographs

Bill's Mountain - NC DWQ Stream Form Pics (OS-23-2006)
Stream Form #1 (Channel B)
Stream Form #2 (Channel 3B)

Stream Form #3 (Channel 4B)
Stream Form #4 (Channel 6B)

Stream Form #5 (Channel 5B)

Attachment #9
Coldwater Release Design Typical

li
-~_--
'%' %~ j ~'///~
%%;~ i/i
%/~ viii % ~i G~// % nAr-i
i /!//~ ~ !z/%%!
i~ j%si%% ~ ~'!/%
,, ,,, o i i
~~j%;,
j / ~/ ~/
/ j~/r , ~/~ i ,%
figure 1, Coldwater Release Drainpipe Design Typical

Attachment #10
Adjacent Landowner List

Bill's Mountain -- Adiacent Landowner List
Charles Dalton
152 Old Mill Rd
Lake Lure, NC
28746
Hazel Smith
220 White Pine Dr
Asheville, NC
28805
Mrs M.G Johnson
666 Walker Farm Rd
Gaffney, SC 29340
John D. Howard
1825 Dandridge Ave
Knoxville, TN
37915-1907
Vivian T. Howard
1825 Dandridge Ave
Knoxville, TN
37915-1907
Kathleen Moore
79 Linden Ave
Asheville, NC 28801
Lawrence Alexander
4910 Hoover Drive
Charlotte, NC 28213
Jacob Michael Haynes
39 Cassada Rd
Marshall, NC 28753
Bradley D. Brown
225 Old Brick Lane
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Scarlett L. Barron
P.O Box 1142
Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Mack Earl Williams
1009 High Country Lane
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Charles Thomas and Rebecca Gaddy Wright
5794 US64/74 Hwy
Lake Lure, NC 28746
Susan Lee Chapman Brooks
7870 Bridgeview Rd
Rocky Mount, NC 27803
Sue Chapman, Whiteside Trust
And Thomas M. Austin, Trustee
P.O Box 187
Jonesville, NC 28642
Salvatore and Marta Costa, J Rev Trust
18 E. Pelican Street
Naples, FL
34113
McCarthy, DF Investments XV LLC
167 Commerce Blvd
Loveland, OH 45140
Hardy and Janet Huntley
7801 Park Blvd
Plant City, FL 33565
John W. Repasky
3432 Hwy 319 E
Conway SC 29526
Lee Owens and Helen J. Lathan
c/o Jeffrey Lathan
2410 Liberty Rd
Greensboro, NC
27406
Katherine Louise Montgomery & Anna Jean Montgomery
154 Rock Branch Rd
Lake Lure, NC 28746
Jeanette and Douglass K. Bryant
7 Franko Ave

.~
Piscathway, NJ 08854
Walter G. and Hester Montgomery
197 Rock Branch Rd
Lake Lure, NC 28746
Eric Lee and Mary Delilah Thompson
P.O Box 1145
Rutherfordton, NC
28139
Mickie Sylvanus Whiteside
P.O Box 152
Lake Lure, NC 28746
Edith M. McGant and others
16708 Eldamee
Cleveland, OH 44128
Ruth Horne and Julius Edgerton
305 W. Terrell
Greensboro, NC 27406
Peter L. and Debra A. Gellert
253 Rock Branch Road
Lake Lure, NC 28746
William M. Flynn Heirs
231 Short Flint Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Millard Edgerton Heirs
231 Short Flint Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Howard D. and Andrea Posey
1260 Martin Smith Road
Gilbert, SC 29054
Kenneth W. and Brenda E. Hall
12113 Targate Drive
Charlotte, NC 28273
Renaissance Builders LLC
152 E Main Street
Forest City, NC 28043

Wayne E. and Tara Cabral
30 Ridge Rd
Shirley, NC 11967
Martha Jane Noblett Melton
830 Bills Creek Rd
Lake Lure, NC 28746
Lester and Sue Wilson
850 Bills Creek Rd
Lake Lure, NC 28746
Tessneer, Arthur and Verlan
1261 Bills Creek Rd
Lake Lure, NC 28746
Zelma W. Young and Leslie Dionne
Co Trustees
6023 N Alton Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46228

1r
co stem
__
PROGRAM
September 14, 2006
Neill Yelverton
P O Box 882
Canton, NC 28716
Project: Bill's Mountain County: Rutherford
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NC EEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. 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 404/401/CAMA permits to NC EEP. Once NC EEP receives a copy of the 404 Permit and/or the 401
Certification an invoice will be issued and payment must be made.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
River Basin Wetlands Stream Buffer Buffer
Cataloging (Acres) (Linear Feet) Zone 1 Zone 2
Unit (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Ri arian Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool Warm
Broad 0 0 0 0 1,074 0 0 0
03050105
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation for the permitted impacts
up to a 2:1 mitigation-to-impact ratio; (buffers, Zone 1 at a 3:1 ratio and Zone 2 at a 1.5:1 ratio). The type and amount of the
compensatory mitigation will be as specified in the Section 404 Permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or
CAMA Permit. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact David Robinson at [phone].
Sincerely, ~ ~,
r~
{ ~- ~
illiam D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Chapin, USACE-Asheville
Kevin Barnett, DWQ-Asheville
File
~OV'l,12~... ~ ~ ... ~trD~2GtP,~2~ ~~ ~ta~~
~'~~
NC®ENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 ! www.nceep.ne#

Attachment #12
Qualitative Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

s
Qualitative Analysis ®f Cumulative Impacts
For
The Vista at Bi//'s Mountain
Vista. Deve%pers, LLC.
Rutherford County, North Carolina
November 28, 2006
Prepared by:
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants

1
Yntroduction
Current regulations applicable to the issuance of 401 Water Quality Certifications
require that the Division of Water Quality confirm that the project it is evaluating
"does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably
anticipated future impacts, which cause or will cause a violation of downstream
water quality standards".
DWQ currently utilizes the following documentation to implement its regulatory
obligation to evaluate cumulative impacts: "Draft Internal Policy, Cumulative
Impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetland Program.
NC Division of Water Quality, October 3, 2002, Version 1.6". DWQ's policy
provides for three levels of cumulative impact analysis. Most small scale projects
where little impervious surface is added and where the project is situated in an
already developed locale will only require a "Generic Description" of the project's
possible cumulative impacts. A "Qualitative Analysis" is required for projects of
somewhat more impact that are located near existing roads and development. A
"Quantitative Analysis" is required where a project is significantly and is likely to
have a growth stimulating effect.
DWQ's policy provides that it is applicable to private development projects,
although it recognizes that "many private development projects are unlikely to
cause cumulative impacts". DWQ recognizes that private development projects
most commonly have cumulative impacts when they are "1) relatively large, 2)
involve commercial development, and 3) occur in otherwise relatively
undeveloped landscapes with an impact on regional growth patterns".
For Bill's Mountain, a qualitative analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of
the project in terms of its effects on downstream water quality should be
appropriate.
To determine potential cumulative impacts, this project was reviewed for any
growth stimulating effects and their downstream impacts on water quality. As
described in greater detail below, the applicant does not believe that the project
will result in cumulative impacts that cause or will cause a violation of
downstream water quality standards because it is not likely to be growth
stimulating due to its size, its nature, and the fact that it will be constructed in an
otherwise relatively developed local landscape.

s
a
v
Project Description
Vista Developers, LLC is proposing the construction of an approximately 7.45-
acre lake to provide the central amenity to a 769-acre tract known as Bill's
Mountain. The site plan consists of a residential development with
approximately 230 single-family lots and 32 multi-family units. On site,
development in Phase I & II is already underway. Some housing units are under
construction, and road construction is ongoing. Previous impacts were permitted
under a Nationwide Permit 39 (Action ID#200630549).
Location & Physiograpgy
Bill' Mountain is located off BiIIs Creek Road, east of Lake Lure in Rutherford
County, North Carolina. It is situated on the east side of Bills Creek Road, and to
the north of Hwy. 64. The Site is in the Southern Inner Piedmont physiographic
province of North Carolina within USGS Cataloging Unit 03050105 of the Broad
River Basin. Elevations within the Site range from approximately 1000 to 1850
feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (USGS Lake Lure, NC 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle).
Existing Site Conditions
The site is primarily forested. Ridges and peaks are dominated by mixed mesic
hardwood stands of differing age classes; the valleys are primarily rich cove
rhododendron thickets. There is some agricultural land on site also. There are
existing logging roads within the property boundary.
Project Area Description
The project is located approximately three miles west of the Town of Lake Lure,
North Carolina. The Lake Lure area has been, and continues to be, part of the
largest resort area in Rutherford County. Lake Lure, Chimney Rock, and other
regional forest and recreation areas within close proximity are seasonal
destinations for outdoor enthusiasts and prospective'~second home" buyers. The
Town of Lake Lure has just over 1000 permanent residents. This population
along with the growing seasonal population has instigated commercial and
residential development in the area. The main commercial development in Lake
Lure is along the NC Highway 64 corridor and/or adjacent to the lake itself.

Watershed Description
This project is located in the Broad River Basin. The proposed lake is located on
UT's to the Broad River located on the southeastern portion of the property. The
Bills Mountain Site also contains UT's to Bills Creek and UT's to Cove Creek. All
streams and unnamed tributaries on the site are classified as "C" waters. Class
°C" waters are defined as "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife."
All wetlands are associated with on-site channels. They are seeps located along
and above channels; they are groundwater seeps that may or may not support
vegetation, typically sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) and sedges (Carexspp.).
Project Induced Growth
The project is not likely to induce adjacent development primarily because there
are no services, utilities, or roads being constructed by the Vista Developers, LLC
that will be available to adjacent landowners or the general .public. There is no
commercial development directly associated with site development and any
induced commercial growth will be accommodated by the Town of Lake Lure.
The members of this new community are likely to shop and dine at the local
restaurants and retail stores in the Lake Lure area. The majority of the residents
at Bill's Mountain will be baby-boomers who do not have school aged children.
Therefore, no schools or other related supporting development will occur due to
the development of Bill's Mountain.
Summary
Vista Developers, LLC proposes to develop this project in accordance with likely
conditions in the 401 Water Quality Certification and the 404 Permit
authorizations. The purpose of implementing these guidelines is to protect the
downstream water quality in the area of the project. Other development that
occurs in the same watershed will likely be restricted to similar conditions
providing protection to surface waters. Because of the projects close proximity
to Lake Lure and the NC Highway 64 corridor, the applicant does not believe that
any potential effects on growth will occur due to the development of Bill's
Mountain.

Table 1. Bill's Mountain Channel Impacts and Mitigation for Proposed Pond
Impact ~
1
2
3
4
Impact ~
5
6
7
8
9
10

Channel Classification Impact Linear Feet Cubic Yards
T e of Im act Filled Mitigation Linear Feet
Miti ation T Ratio Multi tier of Restoration
B Perennial Fill 303 224 Restoration EEP 2:1 1 606
36 Intermittent Fill 159 9 Restoration EEP 2:1 1 318
46 Perennial Fill 64 9 Restoration EEP 2:1 1 128
3B Intermittent Fill 11 1 Restoration EEP 2:1 1 22
TOtal8 537 Z43
7U/4

Channel CIa88ification Impact Linear Feet Cubic Yards
T of Im act Flooded Mitigation Linear Feet
Miti ation T Ratio Multi tier of Preservation
3B Intermittent Flood 72 4 Preservation 2:1 2.5 380
4B Perennial Flood 410 137 Preservation 2:1 2.5 2050
B Perennial Flood 84 50 Preservation 2:1 2.5 420
B Perennial Flood 975 217 Preservation 2:1 2.5 4875
8B Intermittent Flood 194 11 Preservation 2:1 2.5 970
5B Perennial Flood 293 33 Preservation 2:1 2.5 1485
TotaiB zvze a5v
Restoration for 537 I.f. at a 2:1 ratio equals 1,074 I.f., which will be done through EEP's in-lieu fee program.
Preservation for 2028 I.f. at a 5:1 ratio equals 10,140 I.f., which will be preserved on site with 30' vegetated buffers.
_°
~ ~~
~,

~u~4u