20200002 Ver 1_20200210_Meeting Site Visit Minutes_draft v1_20200213

February 10, 2020

Ref: 39077.06

Kim Browning
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Dr.
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC
27587

Re: Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site, Davidson County, NC
Draft Prospectus On-Site Meeting Minutes

Ms. Browning and Interagency Review Team (IRT) Members,
The Eco Terra Partners, LLC (EcoTerra) Team sincerely appreciates the IRT taking time to visit the Three
Creeks Farm Mitigation Site in Davidson County, NC on January 26, 2020. The following items were
recommended by the IRT during field discussions:
General Comments
 Limit the removal of large trees from the existing stream banks as part of project
implementation efforts. Retain mature trees that are currently providing bank stability
along the existing channel corridors. These areas should be under-planted with
appropriate shade tolerant species.
 Work with landowner to reduce number of stream crossings.
 All stream crossings should consist of culverts or pipes. The IRT no longer encourages
at-grade crossings, especially in areas under current livestock management.
 Attempt to incorporate the existing low area associated with the two ditches near UT 1
east of Norman Shoaf Road. If those areas cannot be included, a marsh-type BMP is
recommended inside of the easement area to diffuse flows prior to reaching Little Brushy
Fork.
 Any proposed duck impoundment(s) at or near the easement area that affect
jurisdictional waters will likely require a Nationwide Permit and potential mitigation.
 Once the proposed conservation easement area has been finalized, EcoTerra should
update and resubmit the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) package.

Ref: 39077.06
February 10, 2020
Page 2

 Wider floodplain benches are recommended for any areas proposed as Priority II
restoration.
 The Mitigation Plan should include a section on Risk Assessment. Kim Browning will
provide an example for review.
 Additional wetland enhancement opportunities exist within the area northeast of the
downstream portion of Little Brushy Fork. This area, if proposed, should be incorporated
into the updated PJD.
Other Specific Requests
UT 1
 The relocation of the proposed crossing along the upper portion of UT 1 be placed
further upstream, near the proposed easement boundary.
 A minimum of 50’ along either side of the channel should be maintained, especially near
the culvert under Norman Shoaf Road.
 The confluence of UT 1 and Little Brushy Fork should be adjusted as necessary to ensure
the appropriate transport of sediment. This may result in an earlier confluence of the
two channels. Design parameters will quantify that determination.
UT 2
 Consider the removal of the proposed crossing along UT 2 near Norman Shoaf Road.
 Overall concerns about losing the loss of hydrology if the channel undergoes Priority I
restoration. A pressure transducer was requested to demonstrate stream flow post-
restoration.
 Consider the possible formation of a wetland area along UT 2 near its confluence with UT
1.
UT 3
 Any areas where planting is not proposed along both sides of the stream will require an
adjustment of credit ratios. Overall, these areas should still be labeled as stream
enhancement.
 Bryan Roden-Reynolds (USACE) extended the Ephemeral/ Intermittent (E/I) point of UT 3
up the valley approximately 250 linear feet.
UT 4
 No comments were noted.

Ref: 39077.06
February 10, 2020
Page 3

Little Brushy Fork
 Any work proposed in the existing right-of-way should be discussed with NCDOT.
 Address any FEMA issues accordingly.
Wetland 1
 The USACE (Bryan Roden-Reynolds) generally agreed with the wetland line presented in
the PJD package.
 Request the inclusion of gauges for pre-construction water table data.
Wetland 2
 Recommended that this area which is currently proposed for Preservation be labeled as
Enhancement with adjusted ratios; the existing forested area at 7.5:1 ratio and the
herbaceous field at 2:1.
 It was agreed that if the proposed acreages are about half and half for the two ratios,
they could be averaged. This however, would need to be justified in the Mitigation Plan
Again, thanks for meeting with our Team on-site. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these
minutes, please let us know.
Sincerely,
VHB Engineering NC, P.C.

Heather Smith, LSS
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]

cc: Ted Griffith & Ryan Perry, Eco Terra
Scott Frederick, SWE Group
Heather Smith & Lane Sauls, VHB