Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming

Baker, Caroline D
From: Davis, Erin B
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 7:55 AM
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] FW: Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming
Laserfiche Upload: Email
DWR#: 20230029 v.1
Doc Date: 1/5/23
Doc Type: Mitigation — Mitigation Information
Doc Name: General topic of email title
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:45 PM
To: Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
FYI
From: TugwelI, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:43 PM
To: Adam Riggsbee<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming
Adam,
I have reviewed the Final Prospectus submitted for the proposed bank and have a couple questions/comments that I
wanted to share before we move any further with the review. Per the Mitigation Rule, we need to determine if the
prospectus is complete before we move on in the review process, which includes advertising the project on public notice
(our next step). Once we do advertise a prospectus, the basics of the bank are really locked in, so we must then make an
initial evaluation based on the bank as advertised. Obviously some of the specifics may change, but if there are major
modifications that are required, we might have to go back to the beginning of the process and re -advertise the bank,
which would not be ideal for you or us. Given that, I wanted to share some initial comments with you before we move
forward. Some of these comments pertain to the requirements for a complete prospectus, and others are comments
related to things that we would have to address during the iterative review that would follow the initial evaluation. I've
numbered them for reference below:
1. 1 noticed that you have changed the sponsor from Glen Raven to Riverbank, which I think was a needed change
given the concerns regarding having a non -banking entity as a sponsor. We may have more questions later
about the agreement between Glen Raven and RiverBank related to the operation of the bank or other sites,
assuming this would be a umbrella bank (see more on this below).
2. Proposing a dam removal bank as an umbrella bank could be problematic. We do encourage sponsors to use
umbrella banking instruments whenever they anticipate developing multiple sites within the same service area,
but generally the sites included in umbrella banks are very similar (our standard instrument template on RIBITS
is for an umbrella bank). However, I am concerned that each dam removal site would have such unique

considerations that it may not make sense to include them all under one instrument. I'm not saying that we
cannot do so, but it will definitely be something we need to consider further, especially with regard to how it
might complicate the instrument itself.
3. Related to this, it appears the prospectus is proposed to allow the bank to be used state-wide, with each site to
have its own service area. We generally restrict each umbrella instrument to a given service area because this
ensures similarity in watershed resources and functions that are provided by the bank. In some cases, we may
modify an instrument to align with particular ecoregions or other geographic boundaries, but I do not think we
would approve an umbrella bank with a state-wide instrument. If you want to continue to propose this bank as
an umbrella bank, I suggest that you modify the prospectus to include the service area in which the Ossipee Mill
site is located. This is one issue that may potentially affect our initial evaluation of a site, requiring that we re -
advertise if it were changed. (This is because the service area of a bank really drives the interest/concerns that
the public or other bank sponsors may have.)
4. Under the discussion of the bank's establishment and operation, the prospectus indicates that individual bank
sites may be developed for single users. I'm concerned with this statement as it suggests that some sites may be
proposed more as PRM mitigation sites than as actual bank sites. If that is not the intent, I don't see the point of
including this language. We do have "single -client" banks, but these have unique instruments, and we would
not use the same instrument to authorize a public bank and a single -client bank. Of course, as a public bank,
you could still sell all the credits from one site to a single entity, but that is not the same as a single -client bank. I
suggest this language be removed prior to advertising the bank as it could cause confusion.
5. The prospectus does not enumerate the proposed credits to be generated by the site. This was something that
was commented on during the draft prospectus review, and part of the reason behind providing you with the
draft dam removal guidance to assist with predicting credit amounts. The mitigation rule does not require that a
prospectus state the amount of credit to be generated, but this is an important factor. We can move forward
with the prospectus and advertise the bank without a specific number, but this will be an important factor that
must be addressed in order for us to approve the bank/site.
6. 1 noted in sec 4.1 of the prospectus that the impoundment length is propose to be based on the upstream
thalweg elevation measurements. Per our draft guidance, the upstream limits of the impoundment should be
based on the water surface elevation rather than the thalweg elevation.
After you have a chance to review these comments, please let me know how you would like to proceed. I recommend
making some changes to the Final Prospectus prior to our sending it out for review. I'm concerned that if we move
forward as is, it is likely that there may be some changes required that may set up back in the process.
Lastly, I wanted to address the process a bit. Following the public notice process, we will provide an initial evaluation
letter to indicate if it you should move forward with development of a draft mitigation plan. Please keep in mind that
even if we do agree that the site has potential to provide credit, we still need to concur with the specifics of the site later
in the process. If there are significant changes to the proposal or details about the project the IRT cannot concur with,
we may find at a later date that project is no longer viable. I feel it's important to mention this because this is a unique
project and we don't currently have any approved dam removal guidance, but also because the prospectus does not
identify a proposed credit amount.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed or if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Todd TugwelI
Chief, Mitigation Branch
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District, USACE
[phone]

From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 5:09 PM
To: Adam Riggsbee <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming
Thanks Adam. I did receive the Final Prospectus. It will likely be January before we are able to get this out for the start
of the formal IRT review process, but I will let you know how it's going. If there are any major issues that I see, I'll let you
know before it goes out for review.
Have a great holiday,
Todd Tugwell
Chief, Mitigation Branch
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District, USACE
[phone]
From: Adam Riggsbee <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 6:19 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming
I hope you have a great weekend as well. I just had the prospectus uploaded.
Thanks,
_ ST 11
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, December 9, 2022 at 3:55 PM
To: Adam Riggsbee <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming
Yes, that sounds fine to me.
Thanks and have a great weekend.
Todd
From: Adam Riggsbee <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 12:50 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming
Thanks, Todd. We have addressed all IRT comments from the last draft prospectus review. So I think we're good, but I
suspect you will tell me if there are some major, glaring issues that cause pause.
We can visit the site sometime in the New Year. We can schedule that as soon as submitted and you're ready to do so.
Given the 60-day window after you post the PN, there should be sufficient time for us to visit the site and for the IRT to
provide comments. Sound reasonable?

Many thanks,
Adam
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:29 AM
To: Adam Riggsbee <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming
Yes, that folder is still open, so you can submit it there. Did you want to send it for another draft review first? Also, we
will want to conduct a field meeting during the prospectus process, so just think about of the timing for that as well.
Thanks,
Todd
From: Adam Riggsbee <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 5:17 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Ossipee Final Prospectus Forthcoming
Hi Todd -
I am ready to submit the Final Prospectus. I think you set up a project folder on RIBITS, which is how I submitted the
Draft Prospectus last year. Is that folder still open, and should I submit it there?
Thanks,
Adam