20201095 Ver 1_Catawba 01 - September Meeting Minutes_20211025

Strickland, Bev
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 2:29 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt
Cc: Davis, Erin B; Kirsten Gimbert; Eric Neuhaus
Subject: [External] RE: Catawba 01 - September Meeting Minutes
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Hey Andrea
Thanks for sending these. I just wanted to clarify the discussion on crossings. If it's a utility crossing, or an area
with an existing easement, they should be external crossings. But for Livestock/Ag crossings, we prefer them
to be internal to the easement so we can ensure maintenance. I think there was a lot of discussion on site that
day (in many different directions) and previous discussions we've had with John and Jeff were getting mixed
into the content. If a planned crossing is significantly wider than a typical farm crossing and they intend to
develop the adjacent property and use the crossing for a subdivision road, those are the situations where a
crossing should be external. Below is a section from out DRAFT guidance on crossings. I sent this to Jeff earlier
this year. Hopefully this helps clear it up and I apologize if I confused the situation.
The preservation area on Double Rock did contain a lot of early successional species due to recent logging
(over 10 years ago), but many of the species observed are slower growing. I don't think it's appropriate to
agree to a credit ratio at this stage. We'll look at the justification presented in the draft mitigation plan to
determine whether 10:1 is appropriate. Thank you for the explanation.
Thanks!
Kim
Number of Crossings
As a general rule, sponsors should work with landowners to minimize the number of crossings as much as
possible. The following recommendations should be considered when considering site design and preparing
Mitigation Plans:
1. Mitigation plans must show the location of all crossings, indicate whether the crossing is in or out of the
easement, and provide justification for all crossings.
2. When possible, existing crossings of utilities and roads should be relocated outside the project area if
possible (e.g., move power transmission lines that cut across a site to the road shoulder). If crossing cannot be
moved out of the project area, they should be co -located to further minimize the total number of crossings.
3. Farm paths or other landowner access roads should be located either the upstream or downstream of
the ends of streams within the project (e.g., above the stream origin and associated buffer) rather than in the
middle of a reach.
4. Only one crossing should be used to access land or parcels that would otherwise be isolated.
1

5. If there are small parcels of land that are inaccessible, include them within the project easement if
possible by expanding the required buffer rather than adding an additional crossing to gain access to that land.
Exterior vs. Interior Easement Crossings All existing utility easements, primary roads (i.e., NCDOT,
city/county roads), maintained residential driveways, greenways, or access corridors reserved for future
development should be excluded from the conservation easement. Per Section 5.2.1, setbacks may be
required for some of these crossings to account for future maintenance or widening. In general, exterior
crossings that are relocated, added or reconstructed as part of the mitigation project should be either culverts
or bridges.
For reserved access corridors in particular, sponsors should consider the potential impact that constructing
future crossing may have on the mitigation project resources even though these crossings will not be
constructed as part of the mitigation project. These crossings should be located to minimize potential effects,
and crossing widths should be sufficient to meet local ordinance requirements for road design. These
crossings will not be subject to the requirements of the conservation easement or oversight by the long-term
steward.
Crossings that are added for landowner access (e.g., cattle crossings, farm equipment crossings, other
maintenance roads or trails) should generally be located within the conservation easement. These crossing
are subject to the restrictions of the conservation easement and oversight by the long-term steward. They
must also be identified in the conservation easement description and/or map so that the allowed activity (e.g.,
10' wide gravel path) and extents of the easement exception are clear. Conversion to a different use,
expansion, or modification will be treated as a violation of the conservation easement. It is the responsibility
of the sponsor to maintain all interior crossings until the project is transferred to long-term stewardship at
closeout. The condition of these crossings should be assessed and reported during annual monitoring.
Following transfer of the project to stewardship, the long-term steward is expected to work with the
landowner to ensure proper maintenance and upkeep of these crossings. Maintenance funding may be
required as part of the long-term endowment in some cases.
Interior farm paths that may be used as livestock crossings must be designed to prevent livestock from
accessing the project while in use. Crossings should also have gates where the crossings enter the easement
to restrict access, which should remain closed with the crossing is not in use. For stream projects,
converted/bridged crossings that restrict livestock access to the stream channel are preferred to ford crossings
because they prevent access to the stream even if the crossing gates are left open.
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Original Message
From: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 3:03 PM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<erin.davis@ ncdenr.gov>
Cc: Eric Neuhaus <[e-mail]>; Kirsten Gimbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Catawba 01- September Meeting Minutes
Kim and Erin
2

Attached are the meeting minutes from the September 9th Catawba 01 Umbrella Bank site walk.
* Double Rock Mitigation Site (USACE Action ID 2020-01532)
* Firestone Mitigation Site (USACE Action ID 2020-01534)
The revised pJDs were submitted to Steve K on October 1st for both sites.
Please let us know if you have any questions or comments at this time.
Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Ecological Assessment Team Leader
0: 704.332.7754 x101 M: 704.560.2997
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <Blockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/>
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203