20200002 Ver 1_MB Pre-Prospectus Site Visit Minutes_20200219

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 1:45 PM
To: Sauls, Lane
Cc: Smith, Heather; Ted Griffith; Ryan Perry; Scott Frederick; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (US); Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Munzer, Olivia; Wilson, Travis W.; Roden
Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US); Bowers, Todd
Subject: [External] RE: Three Creeks Farm MB Pre -Prospectus Site Visit Minutes
Attachments: 20200210_Three Creeks Farm Meeting Site Visit Minutes -draft v1.pdf; Bank Document
Submittal Format for IRT.XLSX
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
Good afternoon folks,
Below are the IRT comments on the Three Creeks Farm site visit summary. Please add these comments to the summary
and include with the final prospectus, to be submitted to Bryan.
Erin Davis, DWR:
A few clarifications:
- Regarding the large tree preservation vs. removal, in my notes for UT1 Reach 1 I had the following: Trees along channel
will be used as in -stream structures and habitat, but requested large trees in buffer area to remain (notjust cut to allow
sun for replanting). I don't remember many large trees actually providing bank stability along this reach.
- Note that the use of culvert/pipes at crossings is not a requirement, but an IRT preference based on mitigation site
reviews.
Additional general comment:
It was discussed at multiple points that with the drainage area size and sediment loading there is risk involved with this
project. Sediment transport modeling will be critical.
Olivia Munzer, WRC:
-Including more wetlands would be preferable.
-Reducing the number of crossings is preferred.
Kim Browning, USACE:
-Along Little Brushy Fork, some clay field tiles were noted. These tiles appeared to be connected to the small tributary
and wetland near cross-section 3. This wetland was discussed to add to the proposal at a low enhancement ratio, with
some supplemental planting and invasive control.
-The inclusion of the two linear wetlands and the surrounding area (rehabilitation and creation) would increase the
functional uplift of this project, especially since this area would be within the floodplain of the proposed restored stream
channel.
-This project involves risk with the sediment load, though there is some clay in the banks, it's mostly a sandbed system
and the there is concern that rock structures will not remain stable, or be covered. Including wood in the system is also
beneficial.

Please let me know if you have questions. Thanks, Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105 1 Wake Forest, NC 27587 1 919.554.4884 x60
BUILDING STRONG (r)
-----Original Message -----
From: Sauls, Lane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 11:14 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Smith, Heather <[e-mail]>; Ted Griffith <[e-mail]>; Ryan Perry <[e-mail]>; Scott
Frederick <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Three Creeks Farm MB Pre -Prospectus Site Visit Minutes
Hi Kim,
I hope you are well. Attached are the draft minutes from our onsite meeting several weeks ago in Davidson County.
Please forward these to the IRT members for review and comment. Thanks again for taking the time to meet with us.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Lane
Lane Sauls
Natural Resources Manager
Venture I
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27606-5217
P 919.754.5017 1 F 919.833.0034
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Engineers I Scientists I Planners I Designers Blockedwww.vhb.com <Blockedhttp://www.vhb.com>
VHB Viewpoints<Blockedhttps://www.viewpoints.vhb.com>
Explore trends and critical issues with our thought leaders.

This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use,
dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. VHB Engineering NC, P.C. is not responsible for any
undetectable alteration, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this
transmission.
VHB Engineering NC, P.C. I [e-mail]
This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use,
dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. is not responsible for
any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference
with this transmission or attachments to this transmission.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. I [e-mail]

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,
`�►i;�Vlib.
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.
Venture 1
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
Engineers I Scientists I Planners I Designers Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
P 919.829.0328
F 919.833.0034

Ref: 39077.06 `ma S Vhb
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 7
• 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.
UT2
• 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.
UT3
• 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/1) point of UT 3
up the valley approximately 250 linear feet.
UT4
0 No comments were noted.

Ref: 39077.06
February 10, 2020
Page 3
qM ''*1
hb
Little Brushy Fork
• Any work proposed in the existing right-of-way should be discussed with NCDOT.
• Address any FEMA issues accordingly.
Wetland 7
• 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

Mitigation Bank Document Submittal
USACE Bank Manager*
USACE (Todd/Kim)
DWR (Mac/Erin and/or Katie)
Draft Prospectus/Final Prospectus
Hard copy and digital CD/email
Digital email or CD
Digital
DRAFT Mit Plan &Addendum
(includes 60% drawings)
Hard copy and digital CD/DoD SAFE
Hard copy and digital CD
Hard copy (and one for Katie if buffer/nutrient and
Laserfiche
FINAL Mit Plan &Addendum
(complete drawings)
Hard copy and digital CD/DoD SAFE
Digital CD
Digital (Laserfiche)
Permit ePCN
Hard copy of PCN form and Mit plan
response errata sheet, and digital CD
Hard copy of PCN form and Mit plan response only and
Digital (Laserfiche)
Financial Assurances
Original Hard Copy
Record Drawing (As -built)
Hard copy and digital CD/DoD SAFE
USACE Bank Manager will provide a link to
the I RT
Digital (Laserfiche)
Baseline (MYO)
Hard copy and digital CD/DoD SAFE
USACE Bank Manager will provide a link to
the I RT
Digital (Laserfiche)
Monitoring Reports
Hard copy and digital CD/DoD SAFE
USACE Bank Manager will provide a link to
the I RT
Digital (Laserfiche)
*Please contact USACE Bank Manager for preferences as some prefer to only receive digital copies.
*The USACE Bank Manager will send an electronic link or coordinate delivery of documents to the rest of the IRT not listed above.
Todd Bowers, EPA prefers digital copies only, and typically gets them from the Bank Manger via RIBITS.