20200002 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Prospectus_20191125

%,O,o-
ecolerra
Presented to:
North Carolina Interagency Review Team
Three Creeks Farm
Mitigation Bank
Draft Prospectus
Davidson County, North Carolina
Sponsor: Eco Terra Partners, LLC
Prepared By: VHB Engineering NC, P.C.

Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary..........................................................................................................................................1
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................2
Purpose, Need and Feasibility.....................................................................................................................2
Qualifications.....................................................................................................................................................5
ExistingConditions..........................................................................................................................................8
ProjectDevelopment................................................................................................................................... 13
SuccessCriteria.............................................................................................................................................. 19
Bank Establishment and Operation........................................................................................................20
References........................................................................................................................................................ 23
Tables
Table 1. Goals and Objectives
Table 2. Stream Morphological Snapshot
Table 3. Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection
Table 4. Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Davidson County
Table 5. Proposed Mitigation Credits
Table 6. Conceptual Planting Plan
Table 7. Conceptual Permanent Seed Mix
Table 8. Temporary Riparian Seed Mix
Table 9. Proposed Ecological Uplift
Table 10. Proposed Stream Credit Release
Table 11. Proposed Wetland Credit Release
Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Proposed Service Area Map
Figure 3. Existing Conditions
Figure 4. FEMA Map
Figure 5A. Historic 1948 Aerial Map
Figure 5B. Historic 1964 Aerial Map
Figure 6. Soil Survey Map
Figure 7. USGS Topographic Map
ecoterra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank

Figure 8. Drainage Area Map
Figure 9. Cultural Resources Map
Figure 10. Proposed Mitigation Credit
Appendices
Appendix A. Signed Option Agreement
Appendix B. NCDWR Stream Forms and USACE Wetland Forms
Appendix C. Soils Report
eco,Iterra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank

Eco Terra Partners, LLC I Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site
Executive Summary
Eco Terra Partners, LLC (Eco Terra) respectfully presents the following Mitigation Banking Prospectus
to provide stream and riparian wetland mitigation credits in the Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03040103). Eco Terra has entered into a contract to purchase an easement that would comprise the
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank in Davidson County near the community of Midway. The Three
Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank" or TCFMB) is within 14-digit
Hydrologic Unit 03040103030010 of the Yadkin River Basin (Figure 1). The Bank will include the
restoration and/or enhancement of five stream channels as well as the restoration and preservation
of riparian wetlands in the Abbotts Creek watershed.
Implementation of the Bank will provide both ecological and water quality benefits within the
Yadkin River Basin. Although many of these benefits are limited to the actual project location,
others, such as sediment and pollutant removal and improved riparian habitats, have larger overall
effects. Project specific aspects include:
• Restored minimum 50-foot buffers along all stream channels;
• Removal of invasive species, as necessary, throughout the Project Site;
• Cattle exclusion from streams, wetlands, and buffer areas;
• Reduction of nutrient, sediment, and fecal coliform to Little Brushy Fork, its tributaries,
and downstream receiving waters; and,
• Enhanced riparian corridors for wildlife passage;
The Eco Terra Team has the mitigation banking knowledge, experience, financial capability, and the
highly qualified personnel needed to successfully provide these credits. The TCFMB will ultimately
provide significant functional uplift and assist with offsetting impacts in the Yadkin River Basin
(Cataloging Unit 03040103).
ecol,erra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank

Eco Terra Partners, LLC I Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site
Introduction
The Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank" or TCFMB) is located in
Davidson County, approximately four miles south of Winston-Salem near the community of Midway
(Figure 1). It covers four property parcels owned by Norman Shoaf/ Three Creeks Farm Mitigations.
Proposed restoration/ enhancement activities will occur on portions of all four parcels. The majority
of work will be implemented on the parcels identified as Three Creeks Farm Mitigation, LLC. Little
Brushy Fork serves as the main water conveyance across the Site. Four unnamed tributaries
(identified as UT #1, UT #2, UT #3, and UT #4) will undergo uplift activities. Two riparian wetland
areas will also be included as part of the overall project.
The TCFMB proposes to restore and/or enhance streams and restore and/or preserve wetlands in
the Yadkin River 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040103030010. The Project Site is located
within the Abbotts Creek watershed and will directly address multiple stressors and contribute to
overall water quality issues in the basin. By combating these issues at their sources, maximum
ecological uplift can be achieved.
Purpose, Need, and Feasibility
The purpose of the TCFMB is to provide mitigation for unavoidable losses of wetlands and waters of
the United States (WoUS) through effective ecological uplift measures. Restoration, enhancement,
and preservation activities at the Site will focus on improving water quality, as well as restoring
aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the immediate area of the Bank site, which will benefit the
Yadkin River Basin.
The stated goals for this watershed and Cataloging Unit in the NC Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS) 2009 Lower Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) are to continue watershed improvements, protect valuable wildlife resources, improve the
management of stormwater runoff, and contribute to the restoration of water quality. The goal of
the TCFMB is to provide ecological and water quality uplift to the existing and nearby stream
channels via the restoration/enhancement of streams and wetlands. The goals and objectives are
defined below (Table 1).
ecoterra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank

Table 7: Goals and Objectives
Nutrient input will be decreased by filtering runoff from the adjacent pasturelands through
Reduce nutrient
buffer areas, the conversion of active pasture areas to riparian buffers, and improved de -
levels
nitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer areas.
Reduce sediment
Benefits will be achieved via the reduction of sediment from eroding streambanks and
levels
pasture areas due to continuous livestock disturbance.
Fecal coliform will be decreased by excluding cattle from the wetland and streamside riparian
Reduce fecal
zones, filtering runoff from the adjacent pasturelands through buffer areas, the conversion of
coliform
active pasture areas to riparian buffers, and improved de -nitrification and nutrient uptake
through buffer areas.
Preserve/Restore
Benefits will be achieved through the restoration and preservation of wetland areas which will
Wetlands
infiltrate more water during precipitation events than under current site conditions.
Benefits will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer habitats to functioning bottomland
Restore terrestrial
hardwood and mesic forest ecosystems. These restored habitats will connect to habitats both
habitats
up and downstream of the restored/ enhanced areas.
Bank implementation will help to satisfy the need to continue watershed improvements, protect
valuable wildlife resources, improve the management of stormwater runoff, and contribute to the
restoration of water quality.
Project feasibility was determined through preliminary on -site surveys of stream cross sections
(preliminary data provided in Table 2) and assessment of wetland areas. The Bank site has severely
degraded stream channels that have little to no connection their floodplains and wetlands with
degraded hydrology due to ditching and poor floodplain connection.
ecol,terra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 3

Table 2: Stream Morphological Snapshot
Drainage Area (acres)
Drainage Area (sq. miles)
Cross -Sect. Area, Abkf (ft2)
Width, Wbkf (ft)
°
Width/Depth Ratio, W/D
o
Mean Depth, Dmean (ft)
u
0'
Channel Slope, S (%)
LA
w
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bank Height Ratio, BHR
Velocity (ft/s)
Discharge (W/s)
Entrenchment Ratio
Service Area
-896 -2,752 -448 -1,600 -13.9 -45.6
-1.4 -4.3 -0.7 -2.5 <0.1 <0.1
25-28 54 14 37 8.0 4.1
17-18
45
8
18
8
7
10-12
37
5
9
8
13
1.4-1.6
1.2
1.7
2.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.7
1.8
CS/E5
C5
E5
E5
B5c
B5c
1.5-2.1
1.3
2.7
1.7
3.9
2.1
-4-5
-3
-4
-5
-5.1
-4
-100-120
-177
-50
-169
-41
-16
4.1-11.7
5.6
2.2
10.7
2.0
2.1
The TCFMB will provide in -kind mitigation credit to offset stream and wetland impacts within the
Yadkin 03 River Basin (Figure 2).
Current Ownership
Eco Terra has entered into an agreement with Mrs. Peggy Hanes Shoaf and Three Creeks Farm
Mitigation, LLC for Purchase and Sale of Easement covering approximately 29 acres along both sides
of Norman Shoaf Road (Table 3). A memo of the purchase agreement is provided in Appendix A.
The agreements allow Eco Terra to proceed with the proposed Bank and to restrict the land use in
perpetuity through a conservation easement. Eco Terra is prepared to close on the Conservation
Easement and will provide copies of the deed of easement, title, survey, and map.
ecol,terra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 4

Table 3: Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection
6841-04-50-6383
Norman Mack
Shoaf
3.74 +/-
Three Creeks
6480-02-79-0248
Farm Mitigation,
23.95 +/-
LLC
Three Creeks
6840-02-56-4939
Farm Mitigation,
0.24 +/-
LLC
0 90 +/
6840-02-68-1081 Mrs. Norman
Shoaf
Qualifications
Agreement — July 31, 2019
Recorded — August 12, 2019 To be determined
2 years
Agreement —July 31, 2019
Recorded — August 12, 2019 To be determined
2 years
Agreement —July 31, 2019
Recorded — August 12, 2019 To be determined
2 years
Agreement —July 31, 2019
Recorded — August 12, 2019 To be determined
2 years
Sponsor Qualifications
Eco Terra Partners, LLC will be the Bank Sponsor. Contact information is provided below.
Company Name: Eco Terra Partners, LLC
Company Address: 1117 Peachtree Walk NE Suite 126, Atlanta, GA 30309
Contact Name: Ted Griffith, Vice President
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Eco Terra started in 2015 working to conserve lands across the southeastern United States. The
team at Eco Terra has worked on over 20 projects, conserving more than 4,000 acres of land.
Examples of conservation and mitigation work are presented in the following text. Eco Terra was
awarded a full -delivery contract by DMS in 2019.
Fisher Creek I Pickens County, GA
Eco Terra facilitated the acquisition and ultimate conservation of 90.44 acres of land located in
Pickens County via placement of a conservation easement on the property. To ensure project
success, Eco Terra engaged and managed various consultants ranging from baseline specialists to
permitting experts, including working with the council for Foothills Land Conservancy to formulate
the appropriate easement language. The Eco Terra team also managed all title transactions and
ultimately delivered a clean title record that would result in successful project completion. The site is
within the high priority Talking Rock Creek Watershed (0315010205) and is proximal to several
existing protected easement tracts. The property includes State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP)
significant habitats, small wetlands, forests, and a stream corridor. The recorded easement has
proved beneficial to the protection of water quality in a watershed that is recognized as significant
by the State of Georgia.
ecoiterra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 5

Boseman Buffer Mitigation Site I Rocky Mount, NC
Eco Terra was awarded a full delivery contract through the Department of Mitigation Services to
provide 610,000 riparian buffer credits in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. Eco Terra has received an
approved Categorical Exclusion and is recording the conservation easement on the project area.
Eco Terra is on schedule to meet contracted deliverables.
Browns Chapel I Oglethorpe County, GA
Eco Terra facilitated the acquisition and ultimate conservation of 86 acres of land located in
Oglethorpe County via placement of a conservation easement on the property. Located within the
Broad River watershed, the property contains high priority habitats as defined by the Georgia SWAP
and includes approximately 0.52 miles of perennial streams and a small area of jurisdictional
wetlands. The preservation of the property also ensured the protection of a wildlife corridor along
the main tributary of Indian Creek. Eco Terra worked with the landowners to explain the potential
benefits of a conservation easement, managed multiple consultants throughout the process,
engaged with the Southern Conservation Trust for final language on the conservation easement,
and ultimately recorded the conservation easement deed when the landowners elected to conserve
the land.
Consultant Qualifications
VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (VHB) will serve as the design consultant. Contact information is provided
below.
Company Name: VHB Engineering NC, P.C.
Company Address: 940 Main Campus Dr., Suite 500 Venture 1, Raleigh, NC 27606
Contact Name: Heather Smith, LSS
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
VHB provides engineering and consulting services throughout the eastern United States. VHB staff
have experience providing and reviewing mitigation projects. Project examples are provided in the
following text.
Ellington Branch Full Delivery Stream Restoration Project I Warren County, NC
VHB's staff recently completed and successfully closed out this full delivery project in the upper
Roanoke River Basin, in Warren County. It included 5,000 linear feet of Priority Level 1 and 2
restoration along Ellington Branch and one of its unnamed tributaries. Responsibilities included all
engineering and environmentally -related tasks, recordation of a Conservation Easement, existing
channel and topographic surveys, reference reach surveys, natural channel designs, hydraulic
modeling, resource agency coordination, permitting, construction and construction management,
buffer restoration, as -built plans, and five years of annual monitoring. Project goals were to
decrease sedimentation, improve water quality and increase wildlife habitat via creation of a
continuous wooded stream corridor, restoration of the two stream channels and restrict access to
lands currently being utilized for pasture and cattle grazing. The approach to the project
concentrated on removing existing sources of impairment, including livestock, and creating new,
eco,iterra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank

stable channels based on reference reach data. During project closeout, the results quantified that
sediment inputs were reduced more than 96 percent on Ellington Branch and 98 percent along its
unnamed tributary. Vegetation counts were well above the minimum per acre requirements and
water quality showed observable improvements.
Watts Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Restoration Project I Perquimans County, NC
VHB is currently working under contract with the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to
monitor a Coastal Plain first order stream restoration project in Perquimans County, NC. This
innovative project type was relatively new to existing mitigation requirements during its design
phase in 2012. VHB designed the headwater channel without using a particular channel
classification or layout. Little guidance was available during this phase and the project has been
strictly monitored since implementation. The project goal is ecological uplift including the
restoration of ecological function, the improvement of overall water quality and enhancement of
native wildlife habitat. Three main components; stream, wetland, and buffer restoration, serve as the
dominant inputs for achieving this goal. VHB is currently beginning the fifth year of annual
monitoring.
As part of the overall scope, VHB's staff installed and monitored ground and surface water wells
across the project site to determine the water budget, completed all environmental reports and
documentation, mitigation designs, construction drawings, erosion and sediment control plans,
project manuals, and construction oversight.
Charles Williams (Sandy Creek) Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Mitigation Project I Randolph
County, NC
VHB staff recently closed -out monitoring efforts at this project site located in northeastern
Randolph County near the Town of Liberty. This design -bid -build project included approximately
2,000 linear feet of stream enhancement along an unnamed tributary of Sandy Creek, 15 acres of
buffer enhancement, and two acres of wetland enhancement. Project implementation occurred
during the 2010/2011 winter season. The goals were to reduce nutrient and sediment water quality
stressors, provide for uplift in water quality functions, improve instream and wetland aquatic habitat,
including riparian terrestrial habitat, and provide for greater overall instream and wetland habitat
complexity and quality. The objectives were to exclude livestock in its entirety from the
Conservation Easement area, install stream structures and plantings designed to maintain vertical
stability, lateral stability, and habitat, revegetate and supplement those areas lacking suitable
vegetation along the easement area, and rip the existing compacted soils throughout the areas void
of woody vegetation.
UT Altamahaw Stream and Buffer Enhancement Project I Alamance County, NC
VHB staff recently completed monitoring efforts and a successful closeout of this Piedmont
enhancement site. The UT Altamahaw Creek Stream and Buffer Enhancement Site is located
approximately 6.1 miles west-northwest of Burlington in Alamance County. Approximately 1,477
linear feet of perennial stream channel and 0.026 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were enhanced
within the 3.6-acre easement area.
ecol,terra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 7

Project implementation included supplemental riparian buffer planting under the mitigation
category of stream enhancement (Level II), auxiliary spillway stabilization immediately outside of the
easement area, and design of a modified level spreader to diffuse surface runoff in the vicinity of
the existing stream crossing. In addition, the Alamance County Soil and Water Conservation District
also provided plans and construction oversight for enhancing the current stream crossing, adjacent
pasture areas, fencing, and livestock watering facilities.
Existing Conditions
The primary land use associated with the parcel is livestock management (Figure 3). Little Brushy
Fork serves as the primary hydrologic input and output. A Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) established floodplain (100-year flood zone) is mapped along Little Brushy Fork, UT #1, and
UT #4 (Figure 4). FEMA compliance will be required as part of Bank implementation. All five stream
channels and wetlands have been impacted by hay production, livestock herd access, and livestock
grazing. Impacts from hoof shear and trampling are obvious and common. Riparian vegetation
density along the channels ranges from absent to very limited in coverage, providing little
protection from bank erosion and excess nutrient inputs. Historical aerials denote that land use,
including the configuration of the channels at the TCFMB, has been consistent for more than 50
years (Figures 5A & 5B). UT #2 does not appear on either the Natural Resources Conservation
Service's (NRCS) 1994 Davidson County Soil Survey (Figure 6) or the 2013 US Geological Survey's
(USGS) Midway, NC Quadrangle (Figure 7). UT #3 is shown as a stream channel on the soil survey
but not the quadrangle map. All channels associated with the proposed Bank are classified as either
perennial or intermittent.
Little Brushy Fork is classified as WS-III waters, denoting waters used as sources of water supply for
drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes, as well as Class C uses. This water classification is
generally reserved for waters in low to moderately developed watersheds. Little Brushy Fork
converges with Brushy Fork approximately one-half mile downstream of the Site and flows
southward and into Abbotts Creek at the Lexington -Thomasville Water Supply Reservoir (Lake Tom-
A-Lex), several miles west of Thomasville. Further downstream, Abbotts Creek flows in a
southwesterly direction towards the Town of Lexington and ultimately into High Rock Lake, the first
of several lake chains associated with the Great Pee Dee River. The Great Pee Dee River flows
southward into South Carolina and empties into the Atlantic Ocean between Pawleys Island and the
City of Charleston.
According to NCDEQ (2019), Abbotts Creek from its source to High Rock Lake is listed on the 2018
NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d)List" Final.
14- Digit HUC Watershed Description and County Land Use
As previously mentioned, the Project Site is located in the Abbotts Creek watershed HUC
03040403030010. According to NCDWQ (2008), Abbotts Creek was identified as Impaired with the
potential source identified as stormwater runoff. Impairments listed were habitat degradation,
turbidity, fecal coliform, and nutrient enrichment. The 2009 RBRP, does not specifically address this
14-digit HUC; however, it does note that the overall HUC has opportunities for both restoration and
protection as there are high existing resource values and positive growth trends. This project will
combat a source of sedimentation and nutrients within the HUC.
eco,iterra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 8

Davidson County covers approximately 567 square miles. Its census in 2010 recorded 162,878
people and in 2018, the population was estimated at 166,614 people. The county is within the
Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, which also includes the Greensboro-Winston-
Salem-Highpoint, NC Combined Statistical Area. Cities within the county include High Point,
Lexington, and Thomasville. Towns include Denton, Midway, and Wallburg. Landuse at and
immediately surrounding the Project Site is considered agricultural/ rural consisting of moderately
sized farms with single-family residences.
Soils and Geology
Streams and wetlands at the Project Site are underlain by Chewacla loam (Figure 6). This frequently
flooded soil commonly occurs on nearly level floodplains throughout Davidson County. It is
characterized as somewhat poorly drained and consists of loamy to fine sandy loam material. The
water table is near the surface and permeability is considered moderate. Bedrock is usually more
than 60 inches deep. Smaller areas of Congaree and Wahee soils may occur as inclusions within this
mapping unit. In Davidson County, only Chewacla loam is classified as a hydric soil.
Geologically, the Project Site is located within the Piedmont physiographic province in the Charlotte
Belt. This belt consists of intrusive rock (granitic) formed during the Paleozoic Era during the
Pennsylvanian -Permian Period. Elevations at and surrounding the Project Site are flat to gently
sloping.
Little Brushy Fork Stream Complex
Little Brushy Fork and its tributaries all exhibit signs of heavy manipulation throughout the Project
Site. Direct livestock herd access is available to all five of the channels and hoof shear, trampling,
and compaction are very common. Channel sinuosities are very low, indicative of prior
straightening. Sediment inputs have resulted in a change of channel classification from gravel to
sand, as well as both dimension and profile geomorphology. No riffle/pool complexes were
observed along any of the on -site channels during preliminary investigations. Nutrient inputs have
adversely affected aquatic fauna and riparian vegetation has been heavily manipulated by livestock.
Limited fish and benthos were observed during site visits. Five channels will be restored/enhanced
as a result of Bank implementation. As previously mentioned, all streams associated with the Bank
classify as either perennial or intermittent (NC Division of Water Quality stream identification forms
are included in Appendix B). Existing morphological data (preliminary) for these channels is
presented in Table 2 and drainage area delineations are
presented in Figure 8.
Little Brushy Fork serves as the main channel associated with
the Site. For assessment reasons, the stream was divided into
two distinct reaches. Both reaches have been severely
impacted via current and past landuse activities and both are
actively contributing sediment downstream towards Brushy
Fork. Little Brushy Fork enters the Project Site from the north
via a double culvert under SR 1719 (Tom Livengood Road)
and flows southeastward across the property. Headcuts along
eco,iterra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank

this channel over the years have resulted in a disconnection (perching) with the existing culvert. The
current separation is more than two feet. Bank height ratios exceed 1.5 in most cases and Bank
Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) ratings are considered High to Very High. Streamside vegetation exists
as a single row of trees along a portion of the channel; however, it lacks the diversity, composition,
and the width needed to help to filter surface runoff. Little Brushy Fork maintains slight
entrenchment and a moderate to high width/depth ratio, although instability is obvious. The lack of
meandering and the existence of a "channel within a channel" reflects prior channelization, but this
could not be confirmed via historic aerial photographs. Bank height ratios are less on the reach
downstream of the confluence with UT #1; however, overall instability remains similar.
Unnamed Tributary #1 (UT #1) enters the Project Site from the
west and flows in a generally easterly direction towards Little
Brushy Fork. Like its receiving stream, UT #1 has been heavily
manipulated by past and present landuses. Bank height ratios
commonly exceed 2.0; in some cases, 2.5. Shear stress in the
near bank region has affected the width/depth ratio and
sinuosity is less than 1.1. Vegetation along the channel is
sporadic and lacks diversity and composition. A culvert
associated with SR 1715 (Norman Shoaf Road) separates
Reach 1 and 2. This culvert appears in good condition and
the streambed is entact throughout both ends. Immediately
downstream of the culvert, a small channel (UT #2) connects
with UT #1. Instability along this UT #1 reach remains
consistent from this location to its convergence with Little Brushy Fork.
UT #2 is a small channel that originates along the property to
the south of the Project Site, west of Norman Shoaf Road. Its
drainage area covers approximately 14 acres and the channel
meets NC DWQ's definition of an intermittent stream. Its
disconnection with the culvert immediately upstream of the
Site exceeds a vertical distance of more than four feet. Bank
height ratios exceed 3.0 along this reach and overall instability
(eroding banks, etc.) is very common. The slope on the UT
exceeds 1.5 percent. The width/depth ratio was calculated at
8.4. UT #2 classifies according to the Rosgen Classification
System as a 135c stream type.
Facing downstream along the upper reach of UT #1.
Perched culvert associated with UT #2.
ecol,terra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 10

The drainage area associated with UT #3 is approximately 45 acres. This intermittent channel is
located along the eastern side of the Project Site and incorporates the perimeter of the headwater
area associated with Wetland #2. Instability and down -cutting are common, especially throughout
the middle of three reaches. UT #3 is classified similar to UT
#2 (135c) due to its increased slope, moderate entrenchment,
and moderate width/depth ratio. The channel originates on
the adjacent property to the east and flows into UT #4, prior
to entering Little Brushy Fork.
UT #4 enters the Project Site from the north, approximately
200 feet east of Little Brushy Fork. It flows parallel to Little
Brushy Fork for nearly 1,000 linear feet before converging with
the channel. Although it has been significantly impacted by
past and present land use, the UT does not appear as unstable
as the other channels within the Project Site. Bank height
ratios in most cases are less than 1.2, despite the limited
amount of streamside vegetation and ongoing disturbances.
Riffle/pool morphology is not existent and sediment loading
is common.
Little Brushy Fork Wetland Complex
Two distinct riparian wetland areas exist within the Project
Site. Both are riparian and have direct livestock herd access.
Labeled as Wetland #1 and Wetland #2, these areas will be
protected as part of the conservation easement. VHB's
licensed Soil Scientist assessed both wetland areas and
concluded that hydric soils were present. A copy of the soil
analysis is provided in Appendix C.
UT #4 facing upstream towards Tom Livengood Road.
wetiana 41 is iocateci along the western tiooapiain aajacent
to Little Brushy Fork, downstream of its convergence with UT Facing north at Wetland #1. Little Brushy Fork is
#1. This wetland receives limited hydrology from over -bank located to the right of the photograph.
flooding along Little Brushy Fork. Livestock grazing and trampling keep the area in a state of early
vegetative succession. A ditch exists within Wetland # 1 to drain excess water towards Little Brushy
Fork.
Wetland #2 is situated along UT #3 and the eastern perimeter of the Project Area. This headwater
wetland provides a constant source of hydrology for UT #3. It exhibits successional vegetation in
the form of small trees, moderate understory and a thick herbaceous layer. The vegetation and
ground surface have been negatively impacted by livestock access.
ecolterra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 11

Documented Cultural Resources
The NC State Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) online mapping resource was reviewed to
determine the presence of known historic resources at or near the Project Site. According to the
database, there are no resources on the properties that are associated with the proposed project;
however, four resources were identified within one mile of the Project (Figure 9):
1. DV0152 Crotts-Craver Log House — approximately one-half mile to the southwest near
Jones Drive.
2. DV0151 Henry W.B. Crotts House — approximately one mile to the south along Midway
School Road.
3. DV0167 Eller Homeplace (Ruin) — approximately 0.75 miles to the southeast near Midway
School Road.
4. DVO144 Smith -Lawson House — approximately one-half mile to the east near Crotts Lane.
Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identifies two federally threatened and endangered
species under the Endangered Species Act and one species under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act as potentially occurring in Davidson County (Table 4). According to the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer Report (dated August 8, 2019), there are no known
occurrences of federally listed species within one mile of the Project Site. As part of the Mitigation
Plan, a concurrence request will be submitted to the USFWS Asheville Field Office.
Table 4: Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Davidson County
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle BGPA No
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Yes
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E Yes
* E - Endangered, T — Threatened, BGPA- Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Airports
There does not appear to be any airports within a five -mile radius of the Project Site. The
restoration/ preservation of wetlands is not expected to create issues with waterfowl since the
footprint of the existing wetland area will not be increased. In addition, the restoration and
enhancement of stream channels and riparian buffer is also not expected to create issues with
waterfowl for the nearby airports.
Other Site Constraints
The Project is located within the 100-year floodplain of Little Brushy Fork (Figure 4). It is anticipated
that a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)/ Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be required
for the project. There are no other known easements at or near the Project Site that would prevent
project implementation.
ecol,terrca. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 12

Project Development
Bank implementation will ultimately result in the restoration of approximately of 6,310 SMUs,
enhancement of 690 SMUs, rehabilitation up to 0.94 WMUs, and preservation of 0.06 WMUs in the
floodplain of Little Brushy Fork (Table 4). Streams, wetlands, and their associated buffers will be
protected in perpetuity. Proposed mitigation approaches involve Stream Restoration, Stream
Enhancement Level I, Stream Enhancement Level 11, and Wetland Restoration (rehabilitation). Figure
10 depicts proposed uplift activities at the Project Site. Proposed mitigation amounts are
summarized in Table 5.
Table 5: Proposed Mitigation Credits
Little Brushy Fork R1
(LBF)
Restoration 2,300 If
Restoration 900 If
I
Restoration 1,400 If
Restoration 1,400 If
Restoration 310 If
Enhancement II 200 If
Enhancement 1 195 If
Enhancement 11 150 If
Enhancement II 1,050 If
1:1
2,300 SMUs
900 SMUs
Little Brushy Fork R2
1:1
LBF UT #1 R1
1:1
1,400 SMUs
LBF UT #1 R2
1:1
1,400 SMUs
310 SMUs
80 SMUs
130 SMUs
60 SMUs
420 SMUs
0.94 WMUs
0.06 WMUs
7,000 SMUs/ 1.0 WMUs
LBF UT #2
1:1
LBF UT #3 R1
2.5:1
LBF UT #3 R2
1.5:1
LBF UT #3 R3
LBF UT #4
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
2.5:1
2.5:1
Restoration
(rehabilitation)
Preservation
1.4 ac
1.5:1
0.6 ac
10:1
Total Mitigation
Units
Stream Restoration/Enhancement Approach
Stream restoration efforts along Little Brushy Fork and its unnamed tributaries will be accomplished
through a combination of analytical and analog and/or reference reach -based design methods. The
result will be a combination of Priority Level I stream restoration and stream enhancement. The
cross-section geometry, planform, and profile will be modified to restore appropriate capacity and
sinuosity to the channelized, sand/gravel bed streams. The Priority Level I stream restoration will
incorporate the design of a single -thread meandering channel with parameters based on data taken
ecoiterra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 13

from reference sites, empirical relationships, and NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curves.
Approximately 6,310 linear feet of stream channel will be reconstructed. Enhancement Level I and
Enhancement Level 11 will be applied to the remaining 1,595 linear feet of channel within the Site.
Current stream conditions demonstrate significant degradation with varying degrees of incision or
entrenchment as a result of straightening and channelization performed to promote livestock -based
management. Surveyed cross sections indicate significant bank instability throughout the
restoration reaches. To address the incision caused by channelization, the proposed restoration
design will incorporate raised bed elevations. Conceptual plan views are provided in Figure 10.
Additionally, the riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout the majority of the Project Area.
Most of the riparian zone is either devoid of trees or shrubs and very narrow in overall coverage or
dominated by single, non -diverse species.
The TCFMB design approach will begin with a thorough study of existing conditions, including the
onsite streams and ditches, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel,
habitat, and floodplain features, will be developed from analysis of suitable reference streams and
data gleaned from existing DMS sites. Other empirical data sets such as the NC Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) reference reach database may be used to verify design parameters.
Analytical design techniques will be an important element of the project and will be used to
determine the design discharge and verify the design as a whole because of the nature of gravel
bed channels.
Engineering analyses will be performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the
reference reach/analog based design. A combination of methods (including HEC-HMS, Hydraflow
Hydrographs, and flood frequency analysis) will be used to calculate flows received by the channel
for bankfull and other significant storm events. A HEC-RAS model will then be used to simulate
water surface elevations of flows generated by the hydrologic analysis. The development of the HEC
models is an important component to the design; therefore, model input parameters are field
verified when possible. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data
and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling will be confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function
and/or the Sediment Transport Analysis components within HEC-RAS.
Engineering analyses are performed concurrently with geomorphic and habitat studies. While
stream design will be verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable
habitat features will be derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both in -
stream and riparian habitat features will be designed. In -stream woody structures such as root wads,
log vanes, and log weirs will be used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank
stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank stability will be enhanced
further through the installation of brush mattresses and cuttings consisting of species such as silky
willow (Safix sericea) and silky dogwood (Corpus amomum).
In -stream habitat is highly dependent on available cover and organic material. A quantitative habitat
assessment method will be used to measure type, location, and quantity of habitat in the reference
streams. During design, the habitat assessment results will be scaled appropriately to the design
parameters, and habitat features will be placed in the restored channels to mimic reference
conditions. This process provides a natural channel design that addresses aquatic function in
addition to stability.
ecol,terra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 14

Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled with material excavated from the Project
Site to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel. The floodplain will be
planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will provide numerous water quality
and ecological benefits. Species selection for re -vegetation of the riparian buffer will consist of
those identified during the reference survey and additional species suggested by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) for Piedmont/ Low Mountain Alluvial and Mixed Mesic Hardwood communities.
Stream banks will be stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting, bare -root plantings,
soil bioengineering techniques, structure placement, live stakes and sod transplants, where possible.
The stream and adjacent riparian areas will be protected by a minimum 50-foot permanent
conservation easement.
When these components are combined, a highly functioning low gradient gravel channel with
diverse habitats will be established. According to Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003) published by
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the US Environmental Protection Agency, The NC Wildlife
Resources Commission, and the NC Department of Environmental Quality, the proposed restoration
will meet the guidelines of stream restoration and will be subject to a mitigation ratio of 1:1.
The revegetation plan for the Stream Enhancement II will include planting bare root trees and
treatment of invasive plant species (as necessary). Two planting zones are expected, low stream and
wetland zone and upland riparian buffer zone (Table 6).
Wetland Restoration Approach
Wetland #1 will be restored through rehabilitation efforts focusing on locations where wetland
hydrology is being negatively impacted by small ditches and/or drainage conveyances. The area
will be planted with native hardwood trees and the ditches/conveyances will be plugged to increase
the time water remains on -site. This increase in time will help to offset any negative impacts to
wetland hydrology that will come from establishing forest vegetation. The introduction of forest
species over time has the potential to reduce the hydroperiod in the wetland. The wetland will be
enhanced in the remaining areas by planting hydrophytic trees species, characteristic of a
bottomland hardwood riparian system.
ecol,terra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 15

Table 6: Conceptual Planting Plan
Acer negundo
Acer rubrum
Betula nigra
Carpinus caroliniana
Cornus amomum
Diospyros virginiana
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Nyssa sylvatica
Platanus occidentalis
Populus deltoides
Salix sericea
Sambucus canadensis
Quercus phellos
Quercus nigra
Celtis laevigata
Acer negundo
Ulmus Americana
Lirodendron tulipifera
Low Stream and Wetland Zone
Box elder
Red maple
River birch
Ironwood
Silky dogwood
Persimmon
Green ash
Blackgum
Sycamore
Cottonwood
Silky willow
Elderberry
Upland Riparian Buffer Zone
Willow oak
Water oak
Hackberry
Box elder
American elm
Tulip poplar
Understory
Canopy
Understory
Understory
Understory
Understory
Canopy
Canopy
Canopy
Canopy
Shrub
Shrub
Canopy
Canopy
Canopy
Understory
Canopy
Canopy
Site Preparation and Stabilization
All disturbed areas will be stabilized to prevent erosion. To provide a rapid herbaceous cover,
planting of a temporary seed mix will be required. All disturbed areas with the buffer will receive an
appropriate permanent riparian seed mix (Tables 7 and 8).
ecol,terra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 16

Table 7: Conceptual Permanent Seed Mix
Andropogon gerardii
Coreopsis lanceolate
Elymus virginicus
Panicum virgatum
Rudbeckia hirta
Schizachyrium scoparium
Sorghastrum nutans
Tripsacum dactyloides
Big bluestem
Lanceleaf coreopsis
Virginia wildrye
Switchgrass
Black-eyed susan
Little bluestem
Indian grass
Eastern gammagrass
Table 8: Conceptual Temporary Riparian Seed Mix
Hordeum sp.
Secale cereal
Panicum romosum
Pennisetum glaucum
Sorghum bicolor
Setaria italica
Barley
Winter
Winter rye
Winter
Browntop millet
Summer
Pearl millet
Summer
Sudangrass
Summer
German foxtail millet
Summer
Marking and Protecting of Easement Boundary
The easement boundary will be protected in perpetuity. It has been agreed upon by the landowners
and provides adequate protection for all resources proposed as part of the Project. The easement
has been strategically located to connect adjacent natural habitats and extend wildlife corridors
throughout the Project Site and surrounding areas.
Marking and protecting of the easement boundary will utilize various methods depending upon the
existing land use. All easement areas will utilize rebar on all corners with aluminum survey caps. All
livestock areas will be fenced with a minimum of five strands of barbed wire or woven wire including
at least one strand of barbed wire. Conservation easement signs will be posted at all corners, gates,
access points, and at 200-foot intervals.
ecol,terra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 17

Project Ecological Uplift
The restoration/enhancement of streams and restoration/preservation of riparian wetlands at Three
Creeks Farm Mitigation will help to reduce fecal coliform and sediment and nutrient inputs both at
and downstream of the Project Site. By protecting the Site in perpetuity, restoration and
enhancement efforts can be utilized to their fullest extent. The Project will provide ecological uplift
by stabilizing, planting, and establishing a riparian buffer corridor along the Project streams and
associated wetlands. The corridor will be planted at a density suitable to meet requirements for
stream and wetland mitigation.
The restored riparian corridor and wetland will reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients that
are entering the Project streams and ultimately Brushy
Fork and Abbotts Creek. The removal of
cattle from the stream corridor and wetland will reduce fecal coliform inputs. Table 9 summarizes
the proposed ecological uplift provided by the Project.
Table 9: Proposed Ecological Uplift
Activity Goal Addressed A
10�0"
Improve water quality by reestablishing the connections
Stream Reduce nutrient and sediment
between the stream channels and their floodplains. This
Restoration & inputs; Increase dissolved oxygen;
allows for increased time on -site for the filtering of
Enhancement Improve hydrologic connection
sediment and nutrients prior to flows reaching Brushy
Fork and Abbotts Creek
Improve water quality by allowing diffuse flow from
surrounding cattle pasture to filter through a vegetated
Riparian Buffer Reduce nutrient and sediment
riparian buffer and forested wetland. This allows for
Restoration inputs; Runoff infiltration;
increased time on -site for sediment, nutrients, and fecal
Restoration of habitats
coliform to settle or be absorbed. The vegetated buffer
will provide wildlife habitat with a native food source.
Improve water quality by allowing diffuse flow from
surrounding cattle pasture to filter through a vegetated
Reduce nutrient, sediment, and fecal
Planting streams coliform reduction by restoring
riparian buffer and forested wetland. The increased time
and wetland with riparian buffers
the runoff has with the vegetated buffer will allow
native hardwood AND
sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform to settle out or be
Enhance/restore wetlands
absorbed. The vegetated buffer will provide wildlife
trees AND
habitat with a native food source and continue a forested
Restoration terrestrial habitats
corridor along Little Brushy Fork and its unnamed
tributaries.
Fill on -site
Improve water quality by increasing time water spends in
ditches in Restore (re -habilitation) wetland
the wetland before it reaches Little Brushy Fork and its
existing wetlands
unnamed tributaries and discharges into Brushy Fork and
Abbotts Creek.
Recording a
conservation Protect project in perpetuity
Improve water quality by focusing project implementation
in targeted areas to increase the density of projects.
easement.
1�
eco_ erra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 18

Success Criteria
The success of the planted vegetation and integrity of the easement boundary will be monitored on
a yearly basis for a minimum of seven years to determine overall project success and the expected
ecological uplift described in the Project Development Section. The success criteria for the Three
Creeks Mitigation Site will follow current accepted and approved success criteria presented in the
USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Monitoring reports will be prepared annually and submitted to the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (IRT).
As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition,
and location. The survey will include plan views, dimension and longitudinal profile data to compare
with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual monitoring reports
unless requested by the IRT.
Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive
species, and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a
complete stream -walk. Digital images will be recorded at fixed representative locations during each
monitoring event; any noted problem areas or areas of concern will also be photographed and
mapped. Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description
of problem areas and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of
erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars
within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate
excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time
should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in riffles along the Restoration and Stream Enhancement I reaches. Cross section
measurements will include bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio. Cross sections will be
monitored annually. Morphological changes are anticipated during and immediately after the first
several bankfull events; however, these changes should be minimal as the channels attempt to
acquire equilibrium. These changes should become less apparent as yearly data is accumulated. If
major changes begin to take place, they will be evaluated to determine rationale and whether or not
the end result is a less stable condition (i.e., down -cutting or erosion). Minor changes commonly
observed generally represent an increase in stability (i.e., settling, vegetative changes, deposition
along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2, and
entrenchment ratios shall be no less than 1.4 within restored reaches. Channel stability should be
demonstrated through a minimum of two bankfull events documented in the seven-year
monitoring period.
ecol,terra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 19

Bank Pin Arrays
Where applicable, a bank pin array may be installed at each cross section located on a meander. It
will be placed along the outer bend, upstream third, and downstream third of the meander. Bank
pins will be a minimum of three feet long and will be installed just above the water surface and
approximately every two feet above the lowest pin. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each
monitoring event, and the exposed pin will be driven flush with the bank.
Surface Flow and Hydrology
Surface flow stages will be recorded via a crest gage strategically placed along Little Brushy Fork.
This gage will depict high flow elevations for the determination of bankfull events.
Wetland hydrology will be monitored via one groundwater gauge within the restoration (re-
habilitation) area. The proposed hydroperiod is 10 percent per the recommended range for
Chewacla soils in the 2016 Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. This gauge will
document daily fluctuations in groundwater elevations.
Vegetative Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the wetland rehabilitation areas and
riparian buffers on the Site will follow the updated 2016 IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots
will be a minimum 0.02 acres (100 mZ) in size and will cover a minimum of two percent of the
planted area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting
date (or volunteer), and grid location. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The interim
measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 three-year old trees
per acre at the end of Monitoring Year 3, and 260 trees per acre at the end of Monitoring Year 5.
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 trees per acre at the end of
Monitoring Year 7 of the monitoring period. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and
controlled so that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Site. If
necessary, Eco Terra will develop a species -specific control plan.
Remedial Actions
The Mitigation Plan will include a detailed adaptive management plan that will address how
potential problems are resolved. In the event that the Site, or a specific component of the Site, fails
to achieve the defined success criteria, Eco Terra will develop necessary adaptive management plans
and/or implement appropriate remedial actions for the site in coordination with the IRT and the
review agencies. Remedial action required will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified
previously, and will include identification of the causes of failure, remedial design approach, work
schedule, and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and climatic conditions.
Bank Establishment and Operation
Eco Terra Partners, LLC will be the sole bank Sponsor. The Sponsor will provide financial assurances
in the form of a performance bond to the IRT. The bond will be sufficient to assure completion of
mitigation work, required reporting/monitoring, and any remedial activities. Financial assurances
will be payable at the direction of the USACE to his designee or to a standby trust. Financial
assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Sponsor are not
eco,Iterra. Draft Prospectus - Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 20

acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE receives
notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
Proposed Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of
the Site. The pre -construction credit release will be based on the total in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The second credit release will be based on the As -built survey and will adjust the total released
credits based on the actual constructed channel lengths and restored wetlands. The District
Engineer (DE), in consultation with the IRT, will determine if performance standards have been
satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedule below. In cases where some
performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics
of the case. At the direction of the DE, in consultation with the IRT, monitoring may be required to
be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance
standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 10 and
Table 11.
Table 70: Proposed Stream Credit Release
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above) 15%/15%
2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built survey 15%/30%
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being met 10%/40%
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being 10%/50%
met
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being met 10%/60%*
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being 5%/65%*
met
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being met 10%/75%*
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being met 5%/80%*
9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being 10%/90%*
met
*10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met. The 10% credit
release will be awarded in the monitoring period demonstrating success of the bankfull requirement.
ecolterra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 21

Table 77: Proposed Wetland Credit Release
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above) 15%/15%
2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built survey 15%/30%
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being met 10%/40%
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being 10%/50%
met
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being met 10%/60%
6* Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being 10%/70%*
met
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being met 10%/80%
8* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being met 10%/90%
9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates success criteria being 10%/100%
met
*Vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years unless
otherwise stated by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
Proposed Ownership and Long -Term Management
Eco Terra Partners, LLC, acting as the Sponsor, will establish a conservation easement, and will
monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. The Mitigation Plan will provide detailed
information regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual monitoring
activities, for review and approval by the IRT. Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the Site will be
transferred to a long-term land steward (to be determined in the Mitigation Plan). The long-term
steward will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure the terms of the
conservation easement are being upheld. Endowment funds required to maintain the conservation
easement will be negotiated with the responsible party.
Assurance of Water Rights
Sufficient water rights exist to support the long-term sustainability of the site, as there are no
severed rights on the property.
ecoiterra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 22

Eco Terra Partners, LLC I Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site
References
NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2019. 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List"
Final. Available: https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-NC-
303-d--List-Final.pdf.
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality. Division of Mitigation Services. 2009. Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River
Basin Restoration Priorities. Available: https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation°/`20Services.
N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. N.C. State Historic Preservation Office. 2019. Available via:
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb. Accessed July 31, 2019.
N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2019. Public airports within North Carolina. Available via
https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/aviation/Pages/nc-airports.aspx.
N.C. Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008. Yadkin- Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Available via: https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-planning.
N.C. Floodplain Mapping Program. 2019. N.C. Flood Risk Information System. Available via:
https://fris.nc.gov/fris. (Accessed August 2019).
NC State University. 2019. Riparian Vegetation. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering.
Available via: https://www.bae.ncsu.edu/extension/srp/technical-resources.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. Available via: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/WiImington-District-Mitigation -
Update.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2019. Official Soils Description. Available: https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1994. Soil Survey of Davidson County,
North Carolina. Available via: https://www.nres.usda.gov.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. Available via:
https:Hwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2019. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and
Candidate Species, Davidson County, North Carolina. Updated 27 June 2018.
(https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/davidson.htm1).
U.S. Geological Survey, 2013. Midway, NC. 1:24,000. North Carolina Topographic Quadrangles (7.5-minute
series). Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS, 2013.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2019. StreamStats. Available via: https://streamstats.usgs.ciov/ss.
Wikipedia. 2019. Davidson County, North Carolina. Available via:
https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidson_County,_North_Carolina
ecol,erra. Draft Prospectus — Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank 23

Proposed Conservation Easement 28.83 acres
8-Digit HUC 03040103
u. Frl f.R
I
-jr laensry
J-'Ft--''.T
;Nigh
L
Ar
I
I,
r rt.a.
FI..rsj'Irrr -
I
I
w*wry
1
Id I
YALNq., ,
F.uIL
I
s ryl
I
,q• ��
r�r...�_1
1, r I .
Y
_
*g
4
r:r 11,. 1
I x b y.ny
r�nlul
or—r+
S,
. d
Ja
6.5 3.25 0 6.5 TI,.
MEMM Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Interm p� i crement P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
Miles FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©QpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
Vicinity Map N
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site
Yadkin 03040103 Figure
Davidson County, North Carolina 1
ec terra- ` hb November 2019
2013 USGS Quadrangle Midway

ServiceArea
Proposed Conservation Easement 28.83 acres
Grel
R•'.T
t
�.� ;HighIL
I
I•
I
i rr r�rt�a.
Jig"+ Ka
r3+n
r
D.Id :I I I
YaLNq., ,
im
F.uIL I
fy� s , ,
I
-- - r4•z,ml
-- r13 r:
I rnrry
S,
d -
14
,-.5-�r�•nn
6.5 3.25 0 6.5 Ti—
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
Miles FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NIL, Ordnance Survey, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©QpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
Service Area Map N
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site
Yadkin 03040103 Figure
Davidson County, North Carolina 2
eco � [vhb November 2019
2013 USGS Quadrangle Midway

%X.�`' W.

500 250 0 500
Feet
E: D
CProposed Conservation Easement 28.83 acres
1948 Historical Aerial N
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site
Yadkin 03040103 Figure
Davidson County, North Carolina 5A
eco terra Vhb November 2019
USGS 1948 Single Frame Aerial
ARlFQ0000050174

600 300 0 600
Feet
Proposed Conservation Easement 28.83 acres
for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
1964 Historical Aerial
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site N
Yadkin 03040103 Figure
'.. ����► Davidson County, North Carolina
n
November 2019 5B
eco tLrra� lib USGS 1964 Single Frame Aerial
ARB650102802583

710 355 0 T 710
Feet
Proposed Conservation Easement 28.83 acres
ApR
eD ° -
NE PaE
Pa
r
daFlaB I PaD r Pali
t
x
r
Pa L) �l
r ■
P Fr Pa D `
ff � �
l Pa E'
Soil Survey Map N
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site
Yadkin 03040103 Figure
�V�1 Davidson County, North Carolina 6
ecolterra. November 2019
1994 Soil Survey Map Sheet 2

s Proposed Conservation Easement 28.83 acres
cc
cr
CL
co k
CP
ek-
11� de
J d�y yi5 � f 4�J
700 350 0 700
ll f 'ir I Feet
INS—
USGS Topographic Map N
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site
�►,' Yadkin 03040103 Figure
ec6i ~i� Davidson County, North Carolina 7
tGrrClA V�� November 2019
2013 USGS Quadrangle Midway

m Branson Charles House
Charles
a am"
1-Mile Buffer
Proposed Conservation Easement 28.83 acres House
Surveyed Only �* Andy Bodenheimer Log House
ct,
.4fi. d
­1 O.'R
.-_ Smith -Lawson House
Midway Lookout Tower
A.
. r Crotts-Craver Log House , �)
rr.
3 Eller Homeplace (Ruin)
Hil
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
ecolterra ':�'Vhb
B
Cultural Resources Map
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site
Yadkin 03040103
Davidson County, North Carolina
November 2019
2018 ESRI Basemap
SHPO Data Points
Leonard Block
N
Figure
9

T
400 200 0 400
UT 4
Feet 420 SMUs
Actual credit and design will
be refined in the mitigation plan.
Amounts here are preliminary.
LBF Reach 1
+� y P 2,300 SMUs
r .
WV..
r'
9
11
a
X
t
Proposed Conservation Easement 28.83 acres
Total: 7,000 SMUs
— - — Stream Restoration
�•� Stream Enhancement I
---� Stream Enhancement 11
Total: 1.0 WMUs
Wetland Preservation 0.06 WMUs
Wetland Rehabilitation 0.94 WMUs
UT 3 Reach 3
\
60 SMUs
UT 3 Reach 1
� 80 SMUs
low
UT 3 Reach 2
130 SMUs
UT 1 Reach 2
1,400 SMUs
LBF Reach 2
900 SMUs
L UT 1 Reach 1 -..
1,400 SMUs
UT 2
310 SMUsME!s i Di.' i I b I
Proposed Credit N
Three Creeks Farm Mitigaiton Site
Yadkin 03040103 Figure
Davidson
Vil
County, North Carolina 10
e'Co terra..November 2019
2018 ESRI Basemap

Appendix A: Signed Option Agreement

FILED
DAVIDSON COUNTY, NC
Michael E. H4rne
REGISTER OF DEEDS
August 12, 2a19 11:45:13 AM
DEED BOOK 2369
PAGE 591 - s96
INSTRUMENT 0 2019000016133
DOCTYPE: AGMT
RECORDING:$2e.00
Deputy: CRAINO
File/Return to: Ted Griffith
Eeo Terra partners
1 1 17 Peauhtree Walk NE
Suite 126
Atlanta. GA 30309
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DAVIDSON
Cross Reference:
DB 5061 P275
DO 0311 / P57
Do 1213 / P19
Register of Deeds
Davidson County, NC
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (this "Memorandum") is hereby made this Mat day
of July, 2019, by and betwccn ECO 'TERRA PARTNERS, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company,
whose mailing address is 1117 Peachtree Walk NE, Suite 126, Atlanta, GA 30309 (herein "Buyer") and
PEGGY HANES SHOAF, an individual resident of the State of North Carolina and THREE CREEKS
FARM, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, whose mailing address is 1430 Norman Shoaf
Road, Winston Salem, NC 27107 (collectively, the "Seller").
1. For good and valuable consideration, Seller and Buyer have entered into that certain
Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Conservation Easement of even date herewith (the "Agreement").
1 Pursuant to the Agreement, Seller has agreed to sell and Buyer has agreed to purchase a
permanent conservation easement containing approximately 28.53 acres, more or less, over a portion of the
Seller's real property located in Davidson County, State of North Carolina. The Seller's property (the
"Propea") is described on Exhibit A. The portion of the Seller's Property which consists of the casement
property is also set forth on Exhibit A (the "Easement P1�ogerty"); the Easement Property is more
particularly depicted on Exhibit A-1. The final legal description for the property encumbered by the
proposed conservation easement shall be determined by a survey and, upon consummation of the
Agreement, incorporated into a Deed of Conservation Easement to be conveyed by Seller and recorded in
the Register of Deeds.
4. Seller and Buyer have agreed to execute and record this Memorandum in accordance with
the terms of the Agreement to give public notice of the Agreement and this Memorandum shall not
supersede or in any way modify the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The Agreement shall run with
the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective heirs, legal
representatives, administrators, successors, and assigns,
5. This Memorandum shall expire, and the Agreement shall no longer run with the land, or
be considered a cloud upon title, upon the earlier to occur of (i) a termination of the Agreement by Buyer
(subject, however, without limiting any rights Buyer may retain which survive a termination of the
Agreement); (ii) the conveyance and subsequent recording of the Deed of Conservation Agreement from
Seller as contemplated by the Agreement; or (iii) the date that is two (2) years from the day and year first
above written.
4841-7253-3381.✓1

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as of
the day and year first above written.
BUYER:
ECU TERRA PARTNERS, LLC
By: (SEAL)
Name: Luther Theodore Griffith. Jr.
Title: JVice-Prmmident
Date: �f ' / 1 1
1 STATE OF
COUNTY__O��--F
On this L6d ay o 2019, before me personally appeared Luther Theodore Griffith, Jr.,
to me known to bete on described in and who executed the foregoing i ustrur nt, and acknowledged
that he executed the same as his free act and deed. n � / �
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto s my hand
and State aforesaid, the day and year alcove written.
V - I
My Commission Expires:
2
seal in
4841-7253-2381.v2

SELLER:
PEGGY HANES SHOAF
By: Elizabeth Anne Shoaf White, Attorney -in -Fact for Peggy Hanes Shoaf, Principal,
Under Durable Power of Attorney dated November 20, 2018
Recorded November 21, 2018 in the Register of Deeds, Davidson County, North Carolina
Date: l ()A-0 t
STATE OF jAbeAN
COUNTY OF _Q,►t ,,c e r.
On this I day of 2019, before me personally appeared Elizabeth Anne Shoaf White,
to me known to be the per n described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged
that s/he executed the same as his/her free act and deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the County
and State aforesaid, the day and year above written.
5
i
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
01 ray ` KIMBERL,Y K. CHANEY
Notary Public
Davidson County, NC
4841-7253-2381A

THREE CREEK FARMS, LLC
a North Carolina limited liability company
h
(SEAT.,)
By. �Ll Arm 11V H�L�.
Its:
STATE OF 1 A%)P�k Ce.,-a 1, "e—
COUNTY OF � cLj % As 6 ,
On this 10 day of 2019, before me personally appeared a R76L Jj:�, f ' - 'Sho xr-
1 , the [sole memberAnanaging member/duly authorized officer] of Three Creek Farms, LLC, a
North Carolina limited liability company, to me known to be the person described in and who executed
tho foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that s/he executed the same as his/her free act and deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the County
and State aforesaid, the day and year above written, ,
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
0 8-0�:a
0
KIMBERLY K. CHANEY
Notary Public
Davidson County, NC
4841-7253-2381A

Exhibit A
Attached to and made a part of that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Conservation Easement
dated July 3111, 2019, by and between ECO TERRA PARTNERS, LLC, a Georgia limited liability
company ("fret"); and PEGGY HANES SHOAF, an individual resident of the State of North Carolina
and THREE CREEKS FARM, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company (collectively, the
" el V).
Legal Description of the Property
The ShonfTracts:
As to property owned by Seller Peggy Hanes Shoaf,
(1) that property identified with PIN 6841-04-50-6383 and conveyed put-suant to that certain
Deed recorded at Deed Book 506, Page 275 in the Register of Deeds, Davidson County, North Carolina;
and
(2) that property identified with PIN 6840-02-68-1081 and purported to be. conveyed
pursuant to that certain Deed recorded at Deed Book 311, Page 0057 in the Register of Deeds, Davidson
County, North Carolina;
The Three Creeks Tracts -
As to property owned by Seller Three Crceks Farm, LLC,
(1) that property identified with PIN 6840-02-79-0248 and conveyed pursuant to that certain
bred recorded at Deed Bonk 1213, Page 19 in the Register of Deeds, Davidson County, North Carolina;
and
(2) that property identified with PIN 6840-02-56-4939 and conveyed pursuant to that certain
Deed recorded at Deed Book 1213, Page 19 in the Register of Deeds, Davidson County, North Carolina;
and
Legal Description of the Easement .Property
A portion of the Shoaf Tracts and the Three Creeks Tracts, comprising in total a parcel of real property
consisting of 28.83 acres, more or less and depicted on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto; and as more
particularly described pursuant to the legal description set forth on the Easement Survey obtained by
Buyer, which legal description, upon receipt, shall be deemed to be fully incorporated herein.
4841-7253-2381 A

Appendix B: NCDWR Stream Forms and USACE Wetland Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: July 2, 2019
Project/Site: Three Creeks Farm
Latitude: 35.969237
Evaluator: L. Souls
County: Davidson
Longitude:-80.195230
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Little Brushy Fork
Stream is at least intermittent 41.5
if > 19 or perennial if > 30
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 22.0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
0
1
2
C3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step-poo
ripple -pool sequence
O
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
CID
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes 3
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 11.0 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table
No = 0
Yes - 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 8.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75 OBL = 1.5 other0
perennial scream may also oe iaencinea using omer memoas. zee P. aD or manual.
Notes

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: July 2, 2019
Project/Site: Three Creeks Farm
Latitude: 35.965506
Evaluator: L. Souls
County: Davidson
Longitude:-80.199295
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Little Brushy Fork UT #1
Stream is at least intermittent 41.0
if > 19 or perennial if > 30
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 22.0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
0
1
2
C3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step-poo
ripple -pool sequence
O
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
CID
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes 3
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 11.0 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table
No = 0
Yes - 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 8.0 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.75 OBL = 1.5 OtherEC
perennial scream may also oe iaencinea using omer memoas. zee P. aD or manual.
Notes

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: July 2, 2019
Project/Site: Three Creeks Farm
Latitude: 35.964370
Evaluator: L. Souls
County: Davidson
Longitude:-80.195533
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Little Brushy Fork UT #2
Stream is at least intermittent 27.5
if > 19 or perennial if > 30
Ephemeral ntermittePerennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 13.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step-poo
ripple -pool sequence
0
O
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second orgreater order channel
N = 0
Yes = 3
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
14. Leaf litter
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.52
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table
No = 0
Yes(--3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.51
1
1 1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75 OBL = 1.5 Other 0
perennial scream may also oe iaencinea using omer memoas. zee P. aD or manual.
Notes

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: July 2, 2019
Project/Site: Three Creeks Farm
Latitude: 35.969404
Evaluator: L. Souls
County: Davidson
Longitude:-80.193444
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Little Brushy Fork UT #3
Stream is at least intermittent 26.3
if > 19 or perennial if > 30
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10.0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step-poo
ripple -pool sequence
O
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
Cn
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
N = 0
Yes = 3
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 10.0 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table
No = 0
Yes - 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.25 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
_2j
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW 0.7 OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial scream may also oe iaencinea using omer memoas. zee p. aD or manual.
Notes

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: July 2, 2019
Project/Site: Three Creeks Farm
Latitude: 35.969522
Evaluator: L. Souls
County: Davidson
Longitude:-80.194708
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Little Brushy Fork UT #4
Stream is at least intermittent 30.25
if > 19 or perennial if > 30
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 14.0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step-poo
ripple -pool sequence
O
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1.2
2
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
N = 0
Yes = 3
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
Q 1
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
Cp
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table
No = 0
Yes - 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.75 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0)1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
25. Algae
0
C0.5
1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC 0.7 OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial scream may also oe iaencinea using omer memoas. zee p. aD or manual.
Notes

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Three Creeks City/County: Davidson Sampling Date: 7/18/19
Applicant/Owner: Eco Terra State: NC Sampling Point: W1
Investigator(s): H. Smith Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.965417 Long:-80.191766 Datum: 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI classification: Not mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Site is in an active cattle pasture. Very dry time of year
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (66)
X Surface Water (A1) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (61) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
—Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 3
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W1
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1. No rooted trees
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 9.1 m )
1. Salix nigra
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover: 1
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 9.1 m )
1. Juncus effusus
2. Sagittaria latifolia
3. Polygonum persicaria
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 23
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet:
=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
1 No
20% of total cover:
10 Yes
5 No
30 Yes
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 6 x 1 = 6
FACW species 40 x 2 = 80
OBL
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 46 (A) 86 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.87
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
X 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
1
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
20% of total cover: 9 height.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: W1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Types Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-2
10YR 3/3
Loamy/Clayey
2-5
10YR 4/1 80
10YR 5/6 20 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
5-12
10YR 4/2 80
10YR 5/6 20 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Three Creeks City/County: Davidson Sampling Date: 7/18/19
Applicant/Owner: Eco Terra State: NC Sampling Point: Upland
Investigator(s): H. Smith Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.965823 Long:-80.192023 Datum: 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI classification: Not mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Site is in an active cattle pasture. Very dry time of year
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (66)
—Surface Water (A1) —True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (61) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
—Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches): 6
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes No
x Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Upland
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. No rooted trees
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 5 x 1 = 5
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 9.1 m
)
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 15 (A) 25 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.67
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 Prevalence Index is :53.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 9.1 m )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Juncus effusus
10 Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Sagittaria latifolia
5 Yes
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
4•
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5,
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7•
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8,
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
8 20% of total cover:
3
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 4/4 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
6-12 10YR 4/3 85 10YR 5/6 15 C M Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Three Creeks City/County: Davidson Sampling Date: 7/18/19
Applicant/Owner: Eco Terra State: NC Sampling Point: W2
Investigator(s): H. Smith Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): headwater Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.969246 Long:-80.192753 Datum: 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI classification: Not mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Site is in an active cattle pasture. Very dry time of year
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (66)
X Surface Water (A1) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
—Water Marks (61) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
—Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 6
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W2
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1. No rooted trees
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 9.1 m )
1. Salix nigra
2. Diospyros virginiana
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover: 8
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 9.1 m )
1. Juncus effusus
2. Sagittaria latifolia
3. Polygonum persicaria
4. Cyperus esculentus
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 28
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet:
=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
5 Yes
10 Yes
20% of total cover:
10 No
5 No
30 Yes
10 No
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 10 x 1 = 10
FACW species 50 x 2 = 100
OBL
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 70 (A) 140 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.00
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
FACW
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
20% of total cover: 11 height.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: W2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
4-12 10YR 5/1 85 10YR 5/6 15 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Appendix C: Soils Report

Hydric Soils Evaluation
Three Creeks Mitigation Site
Davidson County, NC
August 6, 2019
Prepared for
Eco Terra Partners, LLC
By
940 Main Campus Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27606
Heather C. Smith
NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1336

INTRODUCTION
At the request of Eco Terra Partners, LLC, VHB performed a soils evaluation on the Three Creeks Mitigation Site
shown on the attached hydric soil delineation figure. The site is located off Norman Shoaf Rd, Winston-Salem,
NC. The site is located in LRR P, MLRA 136, located in the uplands of the Southern Piedmont.
The site evaluation was for the purpose of determining if hydric soils are in the proposed stream restoration and
wetland restoration project area offered, in response to RFP #16-007878 from the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Mitigation Services.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Three Creeks Mitigation Site is currently being used for cattle and hay production. The site has been in
either crops or cattle grazing over the past 50 years. The wetland areas on the site are as Chewacla.
METHODS
A two-inch Dutch auger was used to hand bore approximately 75 holes to determine the boundary between
upland and hydric soils. This boundary was used to determine the extent of jurisdictional wetlands. (See
attached descriptions, photos and Figure 1). This determination for the presence of hydric soil indicators is
described in the manual Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, 2070, USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Hydric indicator utilized on this site:
F3: Depleted Matrix: A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less and that has
a minimum thickness of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface
Notes: A depleted matrix requires a value of 4 or more and chroma of 2 or less. Redox concentrations, including
soft iron -manganese masses and/or pore linings, are required in soils with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, or 5/2.
The soils were evaluated under moist to saturated conditions with overcast skies.
RESULTS
Borings were performed along the upland/wetland boundary and representative soils were described at the
location shown on the attached figure; see the soil boring sheet.
1. The hydric indicator F3 was met in soil borings found within the wetland boundary within the top six (6)
inches.
The chroma for the Upland point, near Wetland 1, was a three or four. There were stressed obligate
plants within these areas, but soils lacked a hydric soil indicator and these areas were not considered as
part of the existing wetland.

CONCLUSION
The soils have a chroma of two within the upper six inches of the soil profile for a minimum thickness of four
inches. The soils described are consistent with the range of characteristics exhibited by Chewacla soils. It is my
professional opinion the Three Creeks Mitigation Site exhibits evidence of hydric soil indicators in the upper 14
inches within the areas labeled wetland 1 and 2.
Disclaimer: Design plans and strategies forthis project area have yet to be determined. VHB has not evaluated
the design approach, design hydroperiod, or other methodologies necessary to determine the likelihood of
meeting regulatory success criteria.
REFERENCES
Schoeneberger, P.J., D.A. Wysocki, E,C, Benham, and Soil Survey Staff. 2012. Field book for describing and
sampling soils, Version 3.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils in the United States V. 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, MRCS in cooperation with
the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
Sincerely,
Heather C. Smith
NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1336

Client
Project Name
County
Location
Soil Series
Soil Classification
Observed WT
Vegetation
Baring Depth
Soil Profile Description
Eco Terra Partners, LLC
Three Creeks Stream Restoration
Davidson
Norman Shoaf Rd.
Date
7-18-19
VHB
Project #
39077.06
State
NC
Boring ID
Wetland 1
Mapped Chewacla
Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Not
'lbserved SHiNT ''" SI Q 95
Pasture Drainage
14" Reason
Sm, Poor, Drain
Indicator Met
ope
Latitude 35.965417
Longitude-80.191766
Depth (in)
Matrix Color
Mottles
Texture
Notes
-
0-2
10YR 3/3
Sandyloam
2-5
10YR 4/1(80%)
10YR 5/6 (20%)
clay
5-14
10YR 4/2 (80%)
10YR 5/6 20%)
clay
Comments: Overcast, had saturation at 6-inches. Some oxidized rhizospheres; not found throughout the wetland.
Stressed obligate wetland plants were established outside of the hydric soil boundary.
LSS Seal and Signature:
� 50IL ,.�§�f
0,VL , ^
A,
,P
A "" ,• ,�.
X336 d
O°C- Na R-r�A C"
Date:8/6/19

Soil Profile Description
Client
E=co Terra Partners, LLC
Date
7-18-19
VH13
Project Dame
Three Creeks Stream Restoration
Project #
39077.06
County
Davidson
State
NC
Location
Norman Shuaf Rd.
Boring ID
Wetland 2
Soil Series
Mapped Chewacla
Soil Classification
Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Observed WT
Surface SHWT 0"
Slope
0-2 %
Vegetation
Forested Drainage Sm. Poor. Drain
Latitude
35.969246
Boring Depth
14" Reason Indicator Met
Longitude
-80.192753
Depth (in)
Matrix Color
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-4
10YR 4/1 (90%)
10YR 5/6 (10%)
clay
4-14
10YR 5/1 (85/0)
10YR 5/6 (15%)
Sandy clay
Comments: Sunny, existing seep that transitions into Tributary 4. Surface water in portions of the wetland,
LSS Seal and Signature:
Date:8/6/19

600
`M00-0
Yvlib
Solt Profile Description
Client
Eco Terra Partners, LLC
Date
7-18-19
VHB
Project Name
Three Creeks Stream Restoration
Project #
39077.06
County
Davidson
State
NC
Location
Norman Sheaf Rd.
Boring ID
Upland
Soil Series
Mapped Chewacla
Soil Classification
Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Not
Observed WT
Observed SHOUT N/A
Slope
0%
Vegetation
Pasture Drainage 5m. Poor. Drain
Latitude
3.5.965823
Boring Depth
14" Reason N/A
Longitude
-80.192023
pepth (in)
Matrix Color
Mottles
Texture
Notes
0-3
10YR 3/3
10YR 5/6 (10%)
Sandy
loam
3-8
10YR 4/4 (90%)
10YR 5/6 (10%)
clay
8-14
10YR 4/3 (95%)
10YR 5/6 (5%)
clay
Comments: Overcast, soils were very dry. Had to moisten them to determine color. Observed stressed obligate
plants in vicinity of upland soil boring.
LSS Seal and Signature:
iate:8/6/19

,t .. .
600 300 0 600
Feetky,
AL
;ram► _ r. • � �, ��.
��
r �• 1 a v
� � • � "� � Wetland 2
A,
AP'. `1 1 T-,'I - c �
o Soil Borings
Proposed Conservation Easement 28.83
Wetland
Soil Boring Locations N
Three Creeks Stream Restoration Site
0000 Yadkin 03040103 Figure
* Davidson County, North Carolina 1
eco terra: Vhb July 2019
2018 Aerial from ESRI
a