20131200 Ver 5_USACE Request for Additional_20170726

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:23 PM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: FW: Additional Information Requested Regarding TIEC Response to Corps Comments
Hi Jennifer—
Received your voicemail. Forwarding this email to you to let you know that we are also looking for some additional
information based on the applicant's response to comments. I am meeting with Clearwater Environmental next Monday
to discuss the items listed below.
Scott Jones
CESAW-RG-A
828.271.7980, ext. 4222
From: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 10:33 AM
To:'Clement Riddle' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Steven. L. Kichefski @usace.army.miI>, Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Additional Information Requested Regarding TIEC Response to Corps Comments
Forwarding to you on behalf of Mr. Steve Kichefski.
Clement,
I have received and reviewed the additional information that was sent the evening of July 18, 2017. The additional
information provided justifies why all alternatives cannot be the LEDPA except for Multipurpose Field Alternative #2, #3
and #7 east. Please provide further detail based on the questions below:
1. Multipurpose Field Alternative #2 - Please provide additional information to support your reasoning for this
alternative not being feasible or practicable.
a. Your response states that "...construction at this location would not be allowed by the gas/utility
company." It appears many other areas of TIEC are built or proposed to build infrastructure of some sort
over the gas line. What is different about the polo field that makes building on top of the gas line not an
option? Will any portion of the gas line be utilized by the preferred field location and, if so, what?
b. If the field were moved further east from the preferred option, your comments expressed concern over
the redundancy of infrastructure and amenities making this option impracticable. What
infrastructure/amenities would the preferred alternative share that the further option would not benefit
from? With a 10 -acre field, would any concessions, restrooms, or parking need to be constructed anyway
for the preferred field location? How would the horses be handled differently for the preferred option as
far as shared infrastructure (off-loading and barns)?
c. c) Feasibility - Can the polo alternative (to the east of the endurance race start/finish line) location and
parking be adjusted to provide additional buffer between White Oak Creek so as to provide more
conducive grading issues and further avoid/minimize impacts to the UT's to White Oak Creek. For
example, shifting the field further west even if it means adjusting the endurance race infrastructure and
start/finish line location.

Depending on the responses to the three items listed above, further information could be needed to
determine the practicability of any lost residential lots as a result of moving the polo field. Based on the
submitted plans, options appear available for moving the road network in a way to still support this
residential area without significant additional impacts.
Multipurpose Field Alternative #3 - Since this alternative depends on whether the Multipurpose Field LEDPA
involves a different location/configuration then the preferred alternative as presented, there may need to be
additional information provided as to why the temporary infrastructure needed for the endurance event/polo
exhibition cannot be moved/puzzled to further avoid/minimize impacts. This additional information will depend
upon your responses to the other two alternatives discussed in this email.
Multipurpose Field Alternative #7 East - The feasibility of this alternative depends in part to answers provided for
Alt#2 above regarding the shared versus new infrastructure/amenities needed. There is a bridge proposed (or
already built) on either side of this location, could these bridges either be utilized or moved to prevent the need
for an additional $750,000 bridge? Depending on the responses to these items, further information could be
needed to determine the practicability of any lost residential lots as a result of moving the polo field.
4. Mitigation Plan:
a. For any areas where the channel is filled or lifted, will existing substrate material be collected for use in
the new channel bottom?
b. The wording in a design note is confusing, but there appear to be areas where credit is still being sought
within breaks in the easement (UT 2 Reach 3 and UT 3 Reach 2). Please verify whether there are any
areas where this is the case, since no credit should be given within any easement breaks, utility crossings,
or farm crossings within the easement.
c. Performance standards and monitoring should match the Oct. 2016 guidance, so review that document
and update the proposal to meet the minimum standards stated. That guidance applies to banks and
Permittee Responsible Mitigation alike.
d. Based on the plans submitted, it is difficult to tell where plan features occur on the landscape in order to
verify design approaches previously discussed in the field. A plan view overlain on an aerial with reaches
labeled is needed so we can see the land use/condition for each of the different reaches.
e. In cut areas of the project, will the topsoil be preserved and reused for better vegetative growth? If not,
why is that not needed?
f. On UT2 from —28+50 to —31+00 there appear to be some bends in the channel that are close to the CE
boundary. Please verify boundary widths in this area (any areas of the proposed mitigation where there
will be less than 50' of buffer from the top of bank). Can the easement be adjusted to provide 50' buffers
in these areas?
g. Please provide a letter from Polk County that explains their breakdown of annual costs for LTM (labor,
travel, supplies, etc. so that we can verify the amount committed is sufficient), their commitment to the
project, and how the non -wasting individual fund will be managed. For the non -wasting individual
account, who manages the account and what is the projected return on the endowment?
h. Please explain what is being done in the UT3 design from —104 +50 to 106+00 with the channel step
down in order to help clarify the design approach in this area.
Thank you and feel free to contact us for any clarification of items requested. I will be back in the office beginning
Wednesday, August 9th or you can contact Scott Jones in my absence.

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