20231370 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20231004

Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Prospectus for Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Credits
For Cape Fear River Basin (CU 03030002)
September 2023
Prepared by:
the earth artners
Prepared For:
Hopkins Farm Mitigation, LLC
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 1 of 75

Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Project Location............................................................................................................................4
1.2 Service Area..................................................................................................................................
4
1.3 Purpose and Objectives................................................................................................................ 4
1.4 General Need and Technical Feasibility........................................................................................4
1.5 Bank Ownership............................................................................................................................6
2. Qualifications........................................................................................................................................
7
2.1 Sponsor.....................................................................................................................................
7
2.2 Sponsor's Agent........................................................................................................................
7
2.3 Sponsor's Consultant................................................................................................................
7
3. Existing Conditions................................................................................................................................
8
3.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization........................................................................8
3.2 Existing Conditions of Wetlands..................................................................................................
10
3.3 Soils & Geology...........................................................................................................................11
3.4 Potential Bank Constraints..........................................................................................................
11
3.4.1 Existing Easements on the Bank..........................................................................................12
3.4.2 Mineral or Water Rights Issues...........................................................................................12
3.4.3 Hydrologic Trespass.............................................................................................................
12
3.4.4 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................
12
3.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species..................................................................................12
3.4.6 Conditions Affecting Hydrology...........................................................................................13
3.4.7 Adjacent Land Use...............................................................................................................13
4. Proposed Conditions...........................................................................................................................
14
4.1 Conceptual Mitigation Plan.........................................................................................................
14
4.1.1 Stream Restoration Approaches.........................................................................................14
Wetland Reestablishment, Rehabilitation, and Enhancement...........................................................15
4.2 Monitoring Requirements...........................................................................................................
16
4.2.1 Wetland Monitoring Requirements....................................................................................
16
S. Bank Establishment and Operation.....................................................................................................
17
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 2 of 75

5.1 Proposed Credit Types................................................................................................................17
5.2 Credit Release Schedule..............................................................................................................18
5.3 Proposed Financial Assurances................................................................................................... 19
5.4 Long -Term Management............................................................................................................. 19
6. References...........................................................................................................................................20
TABLES
Table 1.1
Summary of Project Goals and Objectives
Table 1.2
Parcel Information
Table 3.1
Summary of Existing Condition Stream Data
Table 3.2
Threatened and Endangered Species
Table 5.1
Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs)
Table 1.2
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs)
Table 5.3
Proposed Credit Release Schedule
FIGURES
Figure 1
Watershed Contextual Map
Figure 2
Vicinity Map
Figure 3
Existing Conditions Map
Figure 4
Water Quality Stressor Map
Figure 5A
1950 Historical Aerial Photo Map
Figure 513
1973 Historical Aerial Photo Map
Figure 5C
1993 Historical Aerial Photo Map
Figure 6
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 7
LiDAR Map
Figure 8
NRCS Soils Map
Figure 9
Channel Incision Map
Figure 10
Bank Erosion Map
Figure 11
Adjacent and Proximal Planning Elements
Figure 12
FEMA Map
Figure 13
Air Transport Facility Map
Figure 14A
Stream Mitigation Practices Map
Figure 14B
Wetland Mitigation Practices Map
Figure 15
Pre -Monitoring Features Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Bank Photo Log
Appendix B
NCDWR Stream Classification Forms
Appendix C
Existing Conditions Cross Sections
Appendix D
Effective FEMA FIRM 3710898200J
Appendix E
Soil Scientist Report
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 3 of 75

1. Introduction
Hopkins Farm Mitigation, LLC (Hopkins Farm) is pleased to submit this prospectus for the proposed
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank (Bank) located in the Cape Fear River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030002. This prospectus was prepared in accordance with C.F.R. §332.1-8 (2008), Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, and was based on current District Guidance, which is subject
to the approval of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with the NC Inter -Agency
Review Team (NCIRT). The purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits to
compensate for unavoidable impacts to Waters of the U.S. authorized under section 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and all applicable state statutes.
1.1 Project Location
The proposed Bank is located in Caswell County, North Carolina in the Cape Fear River Basin, HUC
03030002. The Bank centroid is located at 36°17'03.9"N 79°24'23.1"W (Figure 1), approximately 2.5 miles
north of its boundary with Alamance County and approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Jericho (Figure 2).
The proposed Bank will protect approximately 43 acres in a permanent conservation easement. The
easement is located on two parcels, which are used for residential and agricultural purposes.
1.2 Service Area
The Bank will provide compensatory mitigation credits to offset unavoidable impacts to stream resources
within the Cape Fear River Basin (8-digit HUC 03030002). The bank site is further characterized by the 12-
digit HUC 030300020401 which is located within a NC Targeted Local Watershed.
1.3 Purpose and Objectives
The overall goal of the proposed Bank is to provide complete functional uplift and ecosystem restoration
to the headwaters of an impaired stream and its adjacent floodplain. The bank is proposed to generate
compensatory mitigation credits in the Cape Fear River Basin. The goal will be achieved through the
following objectives:
- Nutrient and sediment removal through the filtration of runoff
- Elimination and control of exotic invasive species
- Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat by restoring the riparian forested stream buffers
- Restore and enhance stream channels using natural steam design techniques and
- Restoring and enhancing hydrology of wetlands and bottomland hardwood habitats
1.4General Need and Technical Feasibility
The Project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Benton Branch, Toms
Creek, and Cape Fear River watersheds. The main water quality stressors in the Cape Fear River basin, as
outlined in its Basin wide Plan (2005), are habitat degradation, fecal coliform bacteria, and low dissolved
oxygen. In HUC 03030002, the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP; NCEEP, 2009) states that
the primary goal within this HUC is to reduce nutrient inputs into B. Everett Jordan Lake, a drinking water
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 4 of 75

supply that is listed as Nutrient Sensitive Water. This watershed includes the Haw River and all tributaries
that have their terminus at Jordan Lake.
The Bank's streams drain to Benton Branch which drains to Stony Creek. That part of Stony Creek to which
the Bank's streams drain is impounded to form Lake Cammack, one of the primary water reservoirs for the
City of Burlington. Downstream of Lake Cammack, Stony Creek flows less than 1 mile and is then
impounded as Stony Creek Reservoir, which discharges directly to the Haw River approximately 3 miles
further downstream. Therefore, the proposed Bank presents an opportunity to implement a restoration
project that will contribute to improve water quality in multiple drinking water reservoirs and throughout
the Haw River watershed through exclusion of livestock and restoration of woody riparian buffers along
the Bank's streams. In addition, the Bank will also restore aquatic habitats that are currently degraded by
livestock access and stream bank erosion; re-establish riparian wetlands by reconnecting streams to their
historic floodplains; and restore appropriate hydrophytic vegetation. As part of the proposed Project, there
is the opportunity to improve more than 8,400 feet of stream and the improvement of over 12 acres of
wetland. This proposed work would restore riparian buffers at least 75 feet in width along all stream
reaches, and much wider in many locations, and provide significant overall reductions in nutrients,
sediment, and fecal coliform supplied to the Haw River watershed (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 Summary of Proiect Goals and Obiectives
Current
Proposed
GoalsObjectives
Functfo
Functional
• Restore and protect riparian buffers.
• Exclude cattle and livestock from streams,
Nutrient Reductions
buffers, and wetlands.
Not Functioning
Functioning
• Increase riparian wetland acreage and
function.
■ Stabilize stream channels and other areas of
Sediment Reductions
erosion on the project site.
Not Functioning
Functioning
• Restore and protect riparian buffers.
• Restore appropriate bed form diversity and in -
stream structures to provide appropriate
habitat.
Improve Aquatic
Restore riparian buffer vegetation to provide
Functioning -At-
Functioning
Habitats
organic matter and shade.
Risk
■ Exclude cattle and other livestock from
streams, buffers, and wetlands.
• Remove stream channelization and restore
overbank flooding.
Restore Wetland
Hydrology
Restore natural microtopography to increase
Not Functioning
Functioning
surface storage and decrease runoff.
■ Provide stabilized outlets for runoff.
Restore Wetland
Habitat
Restore high water table conditions.
Not Functioning
Functioning
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 5 of 75

• Plant native wetland species that are
appropriate for the system.
■ Protect restored habitat with a perpetual
conservation easement
Restore Terrestrial
' Restore riparian buffers in wetland and upland
Habitat
areas.
Not Functioning
Functioning
1.5 Bank Ownership
Hopkins Farm Mitigation, LLC ("Sponsor") submits this prospectus for the proposed Hopkins Farm
Mitigation Bank. The Point of Contact for the Bank and Primary Agent are listed below:
Sponsor.
Chris Herbers
Hopkins Farm Mitigation, LLC
700 Universe Boulevard
Juno Beach, FL 33408
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Sponsor's Agent:
Krystyn Bennett
The Earth Partners, LP
4317 Elm St.
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
The Sponsor has options to purchase conservation easements on the parcels listed in Table 1.2 below.
Table 2.2 Parcel Information
PARCEL ID PIN NUMBER(S) PROTECTED ACREAGE
PARCEL 1 10059000000080000 32.82
PARCEL 2 10059000000090000 10.18
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 6 of 75

2. Qualifications
Together Hopkins Farm Mitigation, LLC, The Earth Partners, LP (TEP) (Sponsor's Agent) and Ecosystem
Planning and Restoration, PLLC (Sponsor's Consultant) have extensive experience in environmental
services, engineering, construction, wildlife and land management, and business management in the
mitigation banking industry. All project permitting, monitoring, and short-term management will be
accomplished by Hopkins Farm Mitigation, LLC, Sponsor's Agent and Sponsor's Consultant. A summary of
the experience of the Sponsor, the Sponsor's Agent, and the Sponsor's Consultant are summarized below:
2.1 Sponsor
NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEE) is a leading clean energy company headquartered in Juno Beach, Florida.
NextEra Energy, Inc. owns a competitive clean energy business, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, which,
together with its affiliated entities, is the world's largest generator of renewable energy from the wind and
sun and a world leader in battery storage. NextEra Energy, Inc. has been recognized often by third parties
for its efforts in sustainability, corporate responsibility, ethics and compliance, and diversity. NextEra
Energy Marketing, LLC (NEM) is the energy marketing arm of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. NEM provides
a wide variety of services including the purchase and Sales of Environmental Products and Solutions,
specifically wetland and stream mitigation credits. NEM (directly and/or through its wholly owned
subsidiaries) owns and operates eight mitigation bank projects across three states, with >10 miles of
stream restoration and >1,000 acres of wetland restoration under construction and management. Hopkins
Farm Mitigation, LLC is wholly owned by NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC.
2.2 Sponsor's Agent
The Earth Partners, LP (TEP) works to simultaneously maximize environmental, social, and financial
outcomes by driving large-scale investment through public -private partnerships and new market
development, and by advancing policies that support market -based solutions. TEP targets and scales
ecological restoration and conservation projects to improve water quality, reduce carbon emissions, create
wildlife habitat, and build resiliency to the impacts of a changing climate. Through its inception, TEP has
managed the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of approximately 58,500 LF of stream, as well
as over 2,500 acres of wetland restoration. In addition to stream and wetland restoration, TEP has also led
multiple land restoration efforts, including the removal of invasive brush species across 10,000 acres of
Texas rangelands and recycling said brush as a biofuel for export. They also discovered new ways to convert
the low value biomass (tree fall) created by an infestation of pine beetle into a variety of consumer
products, thereby minimizing the overall carbon release of the site.
2.3 Sponsor's Consultant
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC (EPR) is a premier environmental planning and ecosystem
restoration company focused to provide the highest quality products and to improve the science and
application of stream and wetland restoration through innovative projects and applied research. The
ownership of EPR was structured to represent the core disciplines of ecosystem restoration:
geomorphology, engineering, and biology. Mr. Will Harman, a Professional Geologist, has 26 years of
experience dedicated to advancing the science and application of stream restoration; Mr. Kevin Tweedy is
a Professional Engineer that has led and participated in hundreds of stream restoration projects across the
nation; and Mr. Sonny Kaiser has performed thousands of feet of stream assessments, and managed and
performed environmental planning studies for NEPA documents. By collective personnel experience, EPR
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 7 of 75

has initiated over 500 projects in more than ten years and has restored more than 100 miles of stream and
more than 1,000 acres of wetlands.
3. Existing Conditions
3.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization
EPR staff conducted field investigations to evaluate and document the existing conditions of the Bank.
These studies, conducted in August and September 2020, included cross-section surveys, photographic
documentation, bank erosion and channel incision documentation, and documentation of other observed
site conditions and stressors. The proposed Bank was submitted as a NC Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) Full Delivery project in 2020 and passed the technical evaluation required for consideration by the
DMS. Site conditions were confirmed in April and June of 2023. A summary of the significant geomorphic
parameters is provided in Table 3.1 and collected field data are provided in Appendix B. Locations of the
features evaluated during the field investigations are shown in Figure 15. Areas of documented erosion
are provided in Figure 10, areas of channel incision are provided in Figure 9, and watershed stressors are
illustrated in Figure 4.
The Bank's stream systems are predominantly gravel bed transport channels with clear indications of past
vertical instability, which is beginning to translate into lateral migration. Many of the Project reaches have
been channelized and straightened for agricultural activities or timber harvesting (See Figures 5A through
5C) and range from slightly incised to fully incised and entrenched. The overall reach stressors are
agricultural impacts, mainly direct cattle access, anthropogenic channel modification, specifically
channelization and straightening, in -stream constructed impoundments, and partial to complete removal
of the riparian buffer vegetation. These historic practices have resulted in channel incision, entrenchment,
mass wasting of banks due to channel evolutionary processes, localized channel scour, degradation of
adjacent riparian wetlands, and poor riparian habitat throughout the stream network. UT4, UTS, and UT8
appear as dashed blue lines on the USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map (Figure 6). The presence of historic
valleys for all the project stream systems can be seen from the USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map and
on LIDAR imagery for the Site (Figure 7). Given the number of reaches across the project, reaches have
been grouped together where possible when discussing the specific stressors and conditions in detail in
the following paragraphs.
Table 3.1 Summary of Existing Condition Stream Data
PROJECT WATERSHED ENT. WIDTH/DEPTH TYPICAL BANK ROSGEN
REACH DRAINAGE RATIO RATIO HEIGHT RATIO CLASSIFICATION
AREA (AC.)
UT4
689
1.6
11.9
2+
F / B
UT4A
18
2.9
4.7
1.9
E
UT4113
11
1.9
7.2
2+
B
UT4C
12
2.7
3.8
2+
E
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 8 of 75

UT41D
13
1.2
8.5
2+
G
UT4E
19
4.5
10.3
1.2
E
UT5
403
1.9
17.9
2+
B
UT8
47
1.3
6.7
2+
G
3.1.1 Reaches UT4 and UT5
UT4 and UT5 are large to mid -size streams that have been anthropogenically altered over many years. The
alterations include: 1) relocation of the channel in various places along each reach; 2) installation of farm
crossings and creation of artificial incision points, the effects of which often migrate; 3) reduction in quality,
diversity, and density of the riparian buffer through timber harvesting; and 4) manipulation of the
floodplain to decrease riparian wetland
function. In addition to these alterations, cattle
have had direct access to these streams for
many years. The consequences of these
influences are vertical and lateral instability
from widespread incision and entrenchment,
which manifest through steep vertical banks,
mass wasting of banks, toe erosion, cross
channel bar development, and poor bedform
diversity. These reaches classified as either
Rosgen F or B channels, depending on whether
they exhibited low or moderate entrenchment
ratios, respectively. However, each of these
reaches exhibited high bank height ratios and
localized to systemic instability.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 9 of 75

3.1.2 Reach UT8
UT8 is a small to mid -size stream with an inline pond
used for cattle watering. The installation of the pond is
the most notable alteration to the system, converting
habitat type in the immediate vicinity of the pond and
promoting incision and entrenchment along
downstream reaches. Cattle have direct access to these
entire systems and can often be seen wading in the
pond or using the buffer for shade. The constant
pressure has compacted the floodplain, decimating the
natural understory and significantly decreasing any
wetland functions within the riparian corridor. UT8 has
incised deeper and is classified as a Rosgen G channel
in most sections.
3.1.3 Reaches UT4A — UT4E
All the smaller streams on -site, UT4A -
UT4E, have been disturbed by past
timbering practices. The surrounding
buffer is immature and there are signs of
logging access and ditching in some of the
floodplains and terraces. Non-native
species have moved into these buffers
causing reduced wetland function and
buffer health. A subset of these streams,
UT4C and UT41D are displaying various signs
of instability. UT41D has experienced
headcuts in their downstream extents,
both of which have migrated through each
system. Often the headcut is still visible at
the top of the reach draining the upper
headwater wetland. UT41D is classified as a
Rosgen G with toe erosion and bank
failures indicating a transition towards a
Rosgen F channel. UT4C is classified as a Rosgen E channel and is low to moderately incised with increased
signs of lateral migration. The channels have undercut banks along outer bends, active bank failures, and
minimal vegetative cover for protection.
3.2 Existing Conditions of Wetlands
Riparian wetlands are present across the Bank but appear to cover much less extent than they would have
historically. Channel alterations, incision, and ditching, as described above, have altered the hydrology of
many of the existing wetlands, and drained a number of acres that likely supported wetland communities
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 10 of 75

and functions prior to land use changes and alterations. Livestock access has also altered vegetation
communities and soil conditions.
3.3 Soils & Geology
The Bank is located in the Piedmont physiographic province, which is characterized by gently rolling, well-
rounded hills and long low ridges with a few hundred feet of elevation difference between the hills and
valleys. The Bank is located in the Carolina terrane, which consists of heated and deformed volcanic and
sedimentary rocks. The terrane contains rocks associated with a series of oceanic volcanic islands about
540 to 630 million years ago. The Bank is specifically located in the Carolina Slate Belt, which was formed
in the Late Proterozoic -Cambrian period and consists of Metamorphosed gabbro and diorite, foliated to
massive. As shown in Figure 8, mapped soils in the project area are Enon, Frogsboro, and Chewacla,
Loams. The Enon series generally consists of very deep, well drained, slowly permeable soils on ridgetops
and side slopes in the Piedmont. Enon soils are mapped along all of the stream valleys within the Site.
Frogsboro soils are considered very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that are commonly mapped on
interfluves. Frogsboro soils are mapped along the upper terraces and side slopes of the Site, and in some
cases the stream heads of some of the Project stream reaches. Chewacla soils are very deep, somewhat
poorly drained soils that are commonly found along Piedmont River valleys. Chewacla soils are only
mapped along the upper reach of Benton Branch within the Project.
To further investigate soil conditions on the Bank, Ground Truth Soil Consulting, PLLC (Ground Truth) was
contracted to conduct on -site hydric soil investigations to determine the presence or absence of hydric
and poorly drained soils within the proposed project area. On -site investigations, consisting of hand -
turned auger borings, were conducted in September 2020 by Ground Truth , a licensed soil scientist, as
required for this RFP. Seventy-five (75) soil borings were advanced throughout the study area and placed
into one of the two categories below:
• Hydric soils — soils that met specific hydric indicators (often indicator F3 — Depleted Matrix). Most
hydric soils showed signs of manipulation from past agricultural and timber practices.
• Somewhat poorly drained soils — soils showing characteristics indicated of somewhat poorly
drained soils were mapped in the upper reaches of headwater streams and along incised stream systems.
These areas likely represent locations of historically wetter moisture regimes where seasonal wetlands
would typically be located.
Ground Truth concluded that the Site exhibited evidence of alteration through past and present cattle
production and lowering of the groundwater via stream incision and loss of hydrology. Identified hydric
soil units are prime candidates for wetland re-establishment and enhancement, while areas of somewhat
poorly drained soils will benefit from restored hydrology and could likely be reclassified as hydric. See
Appendix E for the hydric soil and site investigation report, including soil boring information and soils
mapping.
3.4 Potential Bank Constraints
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 11 of 75

3.4.1 Existing Easements on the Bank
There are no identified existing easements or constraints that will affect the implementation of the
proposed Project.
3.4.2 Mineral or Water Rights Issues
There are no mineral or water rights issues within or adjacent to the Bank.
3.4.3 Hydrologic Trespass
Upon review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program's
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM), the Bank is located within a FEMA Area of Minimal Flood
Hazard (Zone X), as mapped on Flood Map 3710898200J, effective date 9/28/2007 (Figure 12). No
coordination with FEMA or the local floodplain administrator will be required.
3.4.4 Cultural Resources
This project is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on cultural or historical resources. On -site
investigations and landowner knowledge have not revealed any potential resources of this type on the
property. The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be contacted to ensure no cultural or
historical resources will be impacted.
3.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Table 3.2 lists the species found in Caswell County that are protected under the Federal Endangered
Species Act. Potential habitat is very limited within the project boundaries for the listed species. US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) will be consulted with to
ensure that there will be no impacts to protected species.
Table 3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
COMMON
NAME
FEDERAL
STATUS
HABITAT
PRESENT'
BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
PERIMYOTIS
Tricolored Bat
E (Proposed)
Yes
To Be Determined
SUBFLAVUS
PERCINA REX
Roanoke Logperch
E
Yes
To Be Determined
FUSCONAIA
Atlantic Pigtoe
T
Yes
To Be Determined
MASONI
Notes: E — Endangered denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T — Threatened denotes a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range
— possible habitat exists on the larger stream reaches (UT4) on the Bank.
2 - it is unlikely that the presence of protected species will impact proposed mitigation approaches, but EPR
will coordinate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service upon project contracting to determine any concerns
regarding protected species.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 12 of 75

3.4.6 Conditions Affecting Hydrology
Beavers have historically been active within the Project area but there do not appear to be any active dams
or lodges currently. If beaver dams do develop during the development of the Bank, the dams and beavers
will be removed in their entirety during construction and monitoring periods. The removal of beavers is
not expected to adversely affect the hydrology of the site. Hopkins Farm, or through contracted third
parties, will extensively manage beaver on the Bank site during the monitoring period.
There is a culverted farm road crossing near the location where UT8 enters UT4. This culvert will remain
in place. Therefore, design elevations will tie into this reference point.
There are several ditches throughout the Project. These ditches were historically used to drain wetlands
and create arable land for farming. These ditches will be plugged during restoration activities to prevent
them from negatively affecting hydrology on the completed project.
3.4.7 Adjacent Land Use
The Bank's adjacent land use is primarily agriculture and forestry activity. None of these land uses will
have negative impacts on the operation of the Bank.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 13 of 75

4. Proposed Conditions
4.1Conceptual Mitigation Plan
The plan for the Hopkins Farm Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project involves the potential restoration
and enhancement of more than 8,400 feet of stream and the improvement of over 12 acres of riparian
wetlands (Figures 14A and 14B). The proposed Project will reestablish, rehabilitate, and enhance the
functions of riparian wetland systems and restore a stable headwater stream -wetland complex. Aquatic
resources on the Bank have been impacted by past channelization, ditching, direct cattle access, loss of
riparian buffers, in -stream impoundments, and past land use.
4.1.1 Stream Restoration Approaches
The stream restoration approaches for the Project are divided into two categories: restoration, and
enhancement level 2.5. These approaches were chosen based on the existing stream condition, channel
evolutionary stage, adjacent wetland function, and riparian buffer health. The categories, associated
practices, and applicable streams are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Streams UT4, UT4C, UT41D, UTS, and UT8 (either portions or the entire reach) will require a full-scale
restoration approach. These are highly degraded and moderately to highly incised due to past
anthropogenic alterations and/or natural stream incision in response to land use changes. As a result,
riparian wetlands along these reaches have been significantly impacted and lost. One of the primary goals
of the proposed stream restoration efforts is to rehydrate adjacent wetland areas to promote increased
riparian wetland acreage and function. The design approaches for the reaches will involve reconnecting
the streams to active floodplains and restoring natural channel form (Priority Level I and II Restoration
Approaches). By restoring proper stream form, historically removed through channelization and incision,
and reconnecting the streams to a functional floodplain, the following functional improvements will be
achieved:
• Reestablishment, Rehabilitation, and Enhancement of Adjacent Riparian Wetlands — Based on
observed soil profiles and existing wetland areas, it is apparent that wetlands were once prevalent
along much of the floodplain areas of the streams. A considerable amount of existing wetlands
are already present along these floodplains but are functioning at a reduced level. Raising of the
stream beds and reconnection to an active floodplain, along with restoration of natural stream
forms, will promote higher water table conditions in the streamside area, more overbank flooding,
and expanded wetland acreage and function.
• Filtration of Flood Flows —Currently, discharges significantly higher than the bankfull discharge are
carried within the incised stream channels. Reconnection to an active wetland floodplain will
provide filtration of flood flows through native vegetation, effectively reducing storm flow energies
and velocities.
• Improved Buffer Function — Higher water table conditions associated with reconnecting the
floodplain will promote better denitrification of groundwater flowing to the stream channels.
Reestablished, rehabilitated, and enhanced wetland areas adjacent to the stream will promote
increased plant uptake and retention of surface runoff before reaching the stream channels,
minimizing overland flow velocities while also encouraging nutrient removal processes.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 14 of 75

• Reduced Water Quality Impacts — By simply excluding livestock from the project area, significant
reductions in direct input of nutrients and fecal coliform will be achieved.
Excavated floodplain reaches (Priority Level 2 design approach) will likely be required in several locations
to tie to existing stream grades near the Project boundary. Design approaches will ensure that all excavated
floodplain areas allow for the design meander belt width. This width is considered practical and achievable
based on available floodplain widths measured in the field. In some locations, natural pinches in the valley
topography may necessitate tighter floodplain widths. For excavated floodplain areas, depths will be
undercut so that excavated topsoil can be replaced to approximately 8 to 10 inches in depth to achieve
final design floodplain grades. Good quality topsoil will be stockpiled separately during construction
activities to be used in the replacement of topsoil in excavated areas. The slopes between the outer edge
of the floodplain grading and the terrace will be a minimum of 5:1 unless natural hill slope topography
dictates the need for steeper slopes.
Reach UT8 has an in -stream impoundment that will be removed to restore the stream and riparian wetland
systems. The earthen dam will be breached, and the dam will be partially to entirely removed such that
proper floodplain function can be restored through the restored valley and connect with the floodplain
downstream. Restoration of these reaches will focus on not only restoring stable stream conditions but
also maximizing riparian wetland extent and function.
The remaining small channels, UT4A, UT413, UT4E, and a portion of UT8, are in more stable conditions
overall and will receive the less intensive enhancement approaches. These reaches are small enough or
have transitioned into a stream/wetland complex to have minimal in -channel stress. Areas that need
stabilization will be achieved through vegetation practices such as live staking or sod matting, with
structure placement needed to address vertical and lateral stability. The focus in these areas will be
improved buffer function through vegetation management practices, enhanced channel stability and
habitat, native plantings, and cattle exclusion.
For all approaches, in -stream structures will be constructed from materials naturally found at the Bank
such as hardwood logs and brush, with the use of quarried rock and stone only as required. There is
considerable amount of natural rock piled around the farm that will be used when practical for rock
structures. EPR will use methods of structure design and construction that have proven successful on
numerous past projects, and practices that have been well received by regulatory agencies.
Finally, the proposed buffer widths to be protected by the conservation easement have been maximized
to the fullest extent practical. The minimum buffer width for all streams within the Project is 75 feet with
many extending out over 100 feet.
Wetland Reestablishment, Rehabilitation, and Enhancement
The re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement of riparian wetland areas along the floodplains of
the Project streams will be critical components of the ecosystem restoration design for the Bank. Existing
wetlands on the Bank are degraded due to drainage, primarily through stream channelization, cattle
access, loss of vegetation, and mass wasting and erosion of adjacent streams.
Re-establishment practices will consist of restoring wetland hydrology and vegetation to areas of hydric
and poorly drained soils that do not currently support wetland function. Wetland hydrology will be
reestablished by raising the restored stream beds, removing drainage features, and restoring natural
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 15 of 75

wetland microtopography. Rehabilitation practices include improvements to hydrology through increased
over -bank flooding and reduced drainage, and improvements to vegetation through restoration of a
wooded canopy with appropriate native species. Enhancement practices are proposed at two different
credit ratios: 2:1 and 5:1. Enhancement 2:1 will be used in locations where either wetland hydrology or
wetland vegetation will be improved. Enhancement 5:1 will be used in locations where the practices
proposed include cattle exclusion, invasive species treatment, and some supplemental plantings.
Species selection for re -vegetation will generally follow those suggested by Schafale (2012) for similar
communities and tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997). Tree species planted across
the floodplain areas will likely include a mixture of the following species which have been observed on the
site or are endemic to this area: river birch (eetula nigra), various oaks (Quercus spp.), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), American elm (Ulmus americana), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica), black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum),
and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Planting will be done at a density to achieve the vegetative
success criteria further described in the Mitigation Banking Instrument.
4.2 Monitoring Requirements
Stream stability and vegetation survival will be monitored across both the restoration and enhancement
areas of the site to determine the success of the stream and buffer mitigation. Stream stability will be
monitored with cross section surveys and visual assessment stream walks. Vegetation survival rates will
be monitored using vegetation plots over approximately two percent of the planted area. The monitoring
schedule and frequency proposed for the Bank will include annual assessments for a minimum of 7 years.
Reports will be submitted to the USACE by April 1s' of each year.
4.2.1 Wetland Monitoring Requirements
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland restoration areas. This
will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in representative
locations across the restoration areas and reference wetland. The gauges will be downloaded quarterly
and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation will follow
current USACE guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will
also be recorded during quarterly site visits.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 16 of 75

5. Bank Establishment and Operation
5.1 Proposed Credit Types
Expected credit types are Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs) and Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs).
Warm water stream mitigation credits will be generated through Restoration and Enhancement Level I
(Table 5.1). Riparian, riverine wetlands mitigation credits will be generated through Restoration (both Re-
establishment and Rehabilitation) and Enhancement activities (Table 5.2). The mitigation concept is
illustrated in Figures 14A and 146.
Table 5.1 Proposed Stream Mitiaation Credits (SMCs)
STREAM
COMPONENT
LENGTH
STREAM MITIGATION
TYPE
RATIO
BUFFER MULTIPLIER
SMCS
UT4
2,826
Restoration
1
0.08
3,968
UT4A
525
Enhancement
2.50
0.04
218
UT4A
234
Restoration
1
0.04
292
UT413
90
Enhancement
2.50
0.04
37
UT413
537
Restoration
1
0.04
670
UT4C
158
Enhancement
2.50
0.04
66
UT4C
586
Restoration
1
0.04
701
UT4D
47
Enhancement
2.50
0.04
19
UT41)
482
Restoration
1
0.04
576
UT4E
593
Enhancement
2.50
0.04
247
UT4E
247
Restoration
1
0.04
308
UT5
165
Restoration
1
0.04
172
UT8
1,972
Restoration
1
0.08
2,449
TOTALS
8,462
9,724
Table 3.2 Proaosed Wetland Mitiaation Credits (WMCs)
WETLAND COMPONENT
(BY STREAM REACH)
ACREAGE
WETLAND MITIGATION TYPE
RATIO
WMCS
UT4
3.75
Restoration
1
3.75
UT4
3.98
Enhancement
2
1.99
UT4A
0.32
Enhancement (low)
5
0.06
UT4A
0.14
Restoration
1
0.14
UT4B
0.22
Enhancement (low)
5
0.04
UT4C
0.28
Restoration
1
0.28
UT41)
0.23
Restoration
1
0.23
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 17 of 75

UT4E
0.60
Enhancement (low)
5
0.12
UT4E
0.55
Enhancement
2
0.28
UT8
0.67
Rehabilitation
1.5
0.45
UT8
0.57
Restoration
1
0.57
UT8
0.45
Enhancement
2
0.23
UT8
0.94
Enhancement (low)
5
0.19
TOTALS
12.70
8.32
5.2 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases, except the initial release, will be based on the total number of mitigation credits
generated as reported by the as -built survey. The initial credit release will be based on the proposed
restoration lengths (SMCs) and acreages (WMCs). The credit ledger will be managed by Hopkins Farm and
approved by the District. The estimated credits will be released following District guidance, as shown in
Table 5.3 below. For streams, 10% of credits will be withheld until four (4) bankfull events, in separate
monitoring years, have been documented. Bank establishment shall include approval of mitigation
banking instrument, approval of final mitigation plan, securing the Bank, financial assurances delivery,
long-term protection mechanism delivery, title opinion delivery, and issuance of any permits necessary for
construction.
Table 5.3 Proposed Credit Release Schedule
CREDIT
RELEASE ACTIVITY
STREAM:
STREAM:
WETLAND:
WETLAND:
RELEASE
INTERIM
TOTAL
INTERIM
TOTAL
RELEASE
RELEASED
RELEASE
RELEASED
1
Bank Establishment (as defined
15%
15%
15%
15%
above)
2
Approval of Construction Completion
15%
30%
15%
30%
Report and As -built Survey
3
Year 1 Monitoring Report
10%
40%
10%
40%
demonstrates interim performance
standards have been met
4
Year 2 Monitoring Report
10%
50%
10%
50%
demonstrates interim performance
standards have been met
5
Year 3 Monitoring Report
10%
60%
15%
65%
demonstrates interim performance
standards have been met
6
Year 4 Monitoring Report
5%
65%
5%
70%
demonstrates interim performance
(75%)
standards have been met
7
Year 5 Monitoring Report
10%
75%
15%
85%
demonstrates interim performance
(85%)
standards have been met
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 18 of 75

8
Year 6 Monitoring Report 5% 80% 5% 90%
demonstrates interim performance (90%)
standards have been met
9
Year 7 Monitoring Report 10% 90% 10% 100%
demonstrates all performance (100%)
standards have been met
5.3 Proposed Financial Assurances
Financial assurances will be in the form of a bond. Hopkins Farm has begun the process of securing
coverage for the Bank. Details will be finalized prior to completion of the Mitigation Bank Instrument. The
performance bond will be submitted for review and approval by Office of Counsel. The Corps will hold the
original policy document.
5.4 Long -Term Management
The Bank will be protected in perpetuity by conservation easements that extend at least 75 feet from the
top of bank (edge of channel) and encompass all wetland areas.
The responsible party for long-term management has not yet been chosen but will be secured prior to
publishing the Mitigation Plan. Financial assurances for long-term management will be approved by the
IRT prior to the commencement of any Bank establishment activities.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 19 of 75

6. References
NC Division of Water Quality. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009.
M. P. Schafale. March 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina Fourth Approximation.
NC Natural Heritage Program and NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 20 of 75

FIGURES
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 21 of 75

_4 �,, _� rr-,

FG,
inghlford
,mj Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
TT a
PROJECT LOCATION
62
119
86
------------ -@Ilog-
�4
I
I�
49
PROJECT LOCATION HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
I VICINITY MAP
36.2845, CASWELL COUNTY, NC
Reidsville 758 -79.395401 PREPARED BY:
N
FIGURE 2
z9 ECOSYSTEM
.. PLANNING &
� RESTORATION
Graham p 1 2 DATE:
Mile AUGUST 2023
SAW-2023-01803 1:125 000 Page 23 of 75

Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
5 ® ESTIMATED EXISTING WETLANDS
n EXISTING STREAMS
v
UT4
= UT4A
V UT4B
v
UT4C
= UT4D
i UT4E
= UT5
Li
y = UT8
n Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
A
O
UT4C LTS
14 0 ftol
UT4 - r
UT4E 8
UT4D w' _
UT8 LOWER
UT8 UPPER
11 Now
JT.
N PROJECT LOCATION HOPKINs FARM MITIGATION BANK
e, Jf EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
36.2845, o% CASWELL COUNTY, NC
Reidsville 758 -79.395401 PREPARED BY:
N
FIGURE 3
29 ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
/� g rainy cn - Knee RESTORATION
Grahams' "'",� '»a'' 0 500 1,000 DATE:
Feet
SAW-2023-0180031 :12, 000
3 Page 24 oAUGUST 2023
5

}-
Reach
r•.
� `1+r►,
`
w�
UT4
<!
�•-� •
UT4c
I
�. -
UT4b
UT4c
UT4d
w
UT4e
UT5
a
UT4s
UT8 upper
UT4A
UT8 lower
UT4c
UT5
Totals
O
!Y
W
J
UT4
�.
UT4D
" }-
U'r8 LOW'EH
• . `���
-
UT8 UPPER
O
>I Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
v IN -STREAM IMPOUNDMENTS
_ LIVESTOCK ACCESS
ll
> > EXISTING STREAMS
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
Impacted
% Impacted
Length (ft)
2,826
100.0%
759
100.0%
627
100.0%
744
100.0%
529
100.0%
840
100.0%
165
100.0%
E
400
100.0%
z
1,572
100.0%
°
8,462
100.0%
a
E
' f
N
O
N
o
m
m
"Mvw!� r c
N PROJECT LOCATION
HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
l _
o
WATER QUALITY STRESSOR MAP N
U
758
36.2845, n
N
CASWELL COUNTY, NC g
Reidsville
-79.395401
PREPARED BY:
N
U
FIGURE 4 9
29
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
r
=
Graham
RESTORATION
0 600 1,200
e
DATE:
Feet
AUGUST 2023
SAW-2023-01803
t : i 5,00o
Page 25 of 75
a

'tip •• .' -`�i .ti•, t,.ap.C. .�.- _
_ .
�1 Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
-21
O
N PROJECT LOCATION
C
HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
r
o
e n
1993 HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTO MAP y
U
-
758
36.2845,
N
CASWELL COUNTY, NC a`
Reidsville
-79.395401
PREPARED BY:
N
U
FIGURE 5C 9
29
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
h - a Y-- i
Graam" "'",�'»a''
RESTORATION
0 500 1,000IV
DATE:
Feet
AUGUST 2023
SAW-2023-018003
page 28 o5
1 :12,000
a

NORTH
CAROLINA
e I
ratic —
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
-III -
I
II
II
+u 1n
2
a
- E
0
0
c
N PROJECT LOCATION HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK L)
r
n USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP y
U
N
O
- 36.2845,
Reidsville 758 -79.395401
CASWELL COUNTY, NC
a
PREPARED BY:
N
U
FIGURE 6 9
29
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
DATE:
5 rliny cn - feeal i
5b iY GrahamY' -11 ' a''
RESTORATION
0 500 1,000
Feet
AUGUST 2023
SAW-2023-0180033
Page 29 o5
1:12,000
a

CONSERVATION EASEMENT
VALUE
745.75
3 614.346
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
N PROJECT LOCATION
Fr
36.2845,
Reidsville 758 -79.395401
77
ut
HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
L►DAR MAP
CASWELL COUNTY, NC
PREPARED BY: N
FIGURE 7
29 ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
/� Burlingron ara.ii•, RESTORATION
6otii/ Graham - "al,b ro qh 0 500 1,000 DATE:
033 SAW-2023-0180Feet3oAUGUST 2023
1 :12, 000 page0 5

I'
0 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ENC. ENON SANDY LOAM, 6 TO 10
a CHA - CHEWACLA LOAM, O TO 2
PERCENT SLOPES
_ PERCENT SLOPES, FREQUENTLY
END - ENON SANDY LOAM, 10 TO 15
y FLOODED
PERCENT SLOPES
CUB2 - CULLEN CLAY LOAM, 2 TO 6
EXC - ENON LOAM, 6 TO 10 PERCENT
PERCENT SLOPES, MODERATELY
SLOPES, VERY STONY
ERODED
`a
E-A
EXD - ENON LOAM, 10 TO 15 PERCENT
CUC2 - CULLEN CLAY LOAM, 6 TO 10
SLOPES, VERY STONY
a PERCENT SLOPES, MODERATELY
FGB - FROGSBORO SANDY LOAM, 2 TO
ERODED
6 PERCENT SLOPES
CUD2 -CULLEN CLAY LOAM, 10 TO 15
_ PERCENT SLOPES, MODERATELY
0
FGC - FROGSBORO SANDY LOAM, 6 TO
10 PERCENT SLOPES
ERODED
VAB - VANCE SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 6
_ ENB - ENON SANDY LOAM, 2 TO 6
PERCENT SLOPES
PERCEh'.SL.G2PSEParm Mitigation Bank
W -WATER
­ V72.
ExD a
o
m
w
Z
FGC al
0
N
O
lY
C_
O
HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK IL)
0
NRCS SOILS MAP N
U
CASWELL COUNTY, NC g
PREPARED BY: N
FIGURE 8 0
ECOSYSTEM
71PLANNING &
Lj_gM RESTORATION
0 500 1,000 DATE:
AUGUTSAW-2023-01803 15
1:12,00o Feet page 311 of 75 2023
l(L

■ v
1 , -
u'r4c
UT4b
n
n
0
.4 V
a Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
v = EXISTING STREAMS
1 = CHANNEL INCISION
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
UT4s�
uT4n
UTS
I
UT4E &'•.
Reach
Incision
% Incision
Length (ft)
UT4
1,494
52.9%
UT4a
227
29.9%
UT4b
0
0.0%
UT4c
575
77.3%
UT4d
461
87.1 %
UT4e
235
28.0%
UT5
165
100.0%
UT8 upper
0
0.0%
UT81ower
663
42.2%
Totals
3,820
45.1%
UT8 LOWER
UT8 UPPER �, p
N PROJECT LOCATION
HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
o
CHANNEL INCISION MAP N
U
36.2845, n
758
N
CASWELL COUNTY, NC g
PREPARED BY:
Reidsville -79.395401
N
FIGURE 9 9
29
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
ra
r
m
DATE: �3
Birlingron vek, v,
156:]
Graham yi1156or a�qh
RESTORATION
0 500 1,000
Feet
AUGUST 2023
SAW-2023-018003
Page 32 of 75
1:12,00o
a

CT4C
9
4
UTS � i m
•R N
7
UT4 UT4E � a
_ v
i M
N
y M
Z P ----
zf41.O
A. UT8 LOWER
a
Reach Left Bank Right Bank Left Bank % Right Bank I
Erosion (ft) Erosion (ft) Erosion %Erosion
UT4 1,505 1,482 53.3% 52.4%lb
> r:
UT4a 226 248 29.8% 32.7% U1'x UPPER R� o
UT4b 0 0 0.0% 0%
UT4c 0 0 0.0% 0%
UT4d 465 457 87.9% 86.4% Y
f7 a
UT4e 241 248 28.7% 29.5% 4 =i
UT5 161 169 97.6% 102.4% Q7 Z
q UT8 upper 607 622 151.8% 155.5%
r UT8 lower 1,040 1,040 66.2% 66.2%
. o
uth.
Totals 4,245 4,266 .
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT N PROJECT LOCATION [—IQPKINS FARM IVII I IGAI ION BANK
v EXISTING STREAMS' o
° BANK EROSION BANK EROSION MAP N
U
ll N
D 36.2845, CASWELL COUNTY, NC g
Reidsville 158 79.395401 n PREPARED BY: N
V
y U
FIGURE 10 0
a 29 ECOSYSTEM a
PLANNING & r
n 5 gron vek,,,v, RESTORATION e
u ISM Graham ""° °'° qh ra 0 500 1,000 DATE:
Feet AUGUST 2023
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 33 of 75
n 1 : 12,000 a

WRC CASWELL
GAMELAND
MASSEY ROAD
-o
HARDPAN
'` a
FOREST
z
U
N
is Z
71
•1 N
• a
a
M
E
M
O
N
62 O
W
Q
STONY
n
l0
CREEK
c
FLATS
cc
m
d
o
m
m
E
o
d
N
a
U
N
D
Q
STONY CREEK
y
Z
MOUNTAIN
C
C�
fn
y
O
2
5` f
W
O
O
L
N
Q
W
U'
c
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
N PROJECT LOCATION
HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK v
® PROTECTED STATE LANDS
^-` =� —
o
cn 8 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS
F;
ADJACENT AND PROXIMAL PLANNING ELEMENTS y
U
®WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS
0
36.2845,
758
CASWELL COUNTY, NC a
PREPARED
BY:
Reidsville 79.395401
N
U
FIGURE 11 0
r
29
ECOSYSTEM
ra
PLANNING &
r
DATE:
w
g rainy cn - wree
5� ViY Graham
RESTORATION
0 0.5 1
Miles
AUGUST 2023
0 Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank.
SAW-2023-01803
Page 34 of 75 a
1 :65,000

YV
I
i
�r
r
y r�
-DNS:: � .. ' • '1' .�,�.
i _ram
V
yf
9 ■
J
0 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
a FLOOD ZONE
0 ZONE AE
® FLOODWAY
y = ZONE X, 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
f...
N PROJECT LOCATION HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
E FEMA MAP
36.2845, CASWELL COUNTY, NC
Reidsville 758 -79.395401 PREPARED BY:
N
FIGURE 12
29 ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Burlingron ve6ov,' a RESTORATION
156� Yalsb.r—jh
Graham 0 500 1,000 DATE:
SAW-2023-0180031 :12, 000
3 Feet page 35 of 75 2023

r
Ruffin
CASWELL
62
29
158
14
65
Reidsville -r
/I if 150
I;
WARF 186
87 I'I
II H & J STRIP
it
II A K&D
Ili
I�
ICI
ill �57
ill
III WINSTEAD'76'
158
, I
I'
I�
I
i
l
li WHITFIELD
lu FARMS
i
l
C4111/atom
jl 62 I
61 _ III 49
I: I
I I.
it Altamahaw
III Ossipee
Ip III
lil it 57
�I� III
157) 1 i
r III
i�(
eGreen
Lv l I
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
N
PROJECT LOCATION
HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK v
5-MILE BUFFER
._
s
Z
AIR TRANSPORT FACILITY MAP y
© AIRPORT
36.2845,
758
CASWELL COUNTY, NC a`
PREPARED BY:
Reidsville -79.395401
N
n
FIGURE 13 9
29
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
r
y
DATE: �
u
Burling on +����.��•,
36Ydl56ora qh
AVGraham
RESTORATION
0 1.5 s
Miles
AUGUST 2023 6
n Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
1:250,00o
Page 36 of 75 a

• •v s
Yl
w+
UT4B
L
E
r J uTs z
UT4C
UT4 .
UT41) lF N
UT8 LOWER Y r'
r U
a '+ o
UT8 UPPER ►. O m
U '
N
e
�
7 i
C
_ Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
N PROJECT LOCATION
HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK v
a STREAM RESTORATION (1 :1)
s
o
STREAM ENHANCEMENT (2: 1)
`a
�f
E'
MITIGATION PRACTICES MAP Z
36.2845,
758
o
CASWELL COUNTY, NC a`
Reidsville -79.395401
PREPARED BY:
N
9
U
FIGURE 14A o
ECOSYSTEM
29
ra PLANNING & r
q
Burlingron - Mrbdilr_
"' _ _� Graham-� llll oro 4h
RESTORATION 2
0 500 1,000 DATE:
v
'
Feet AUGUST 2023 6
n Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 37 of 75
1 :12,000 a

ik.
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
WETLAND REESTABLISHMENT (1: 1)
_ WETLAND REHABILITATION (1.5:1)
® WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (2: 1)
® WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (5: 1)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
'12, �.`Fi7it,
X!r
r•
ti
�) R �M
L Rad
JT.
.10 "M
N PROJECT LOCATION HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
E, Jf MITIGATION PRACTICES MAP
36.2845, CASWELL COUNTY, NC
Reidsville 758 -79.395401 PREPARED BY:
N
FIGURE 14B
29 ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
Burlingron - Mrbdilr- RESTORATION
sev "' _ _� Grahams- "11s6oro 4h 0 500 1,000 DATE:
SAW-2023-01803 1 :12, 000 Feet page 38 of 75 2023
ME

UT4C
UT4D
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
a EXISTING STREAMS
X CROSS SECTION
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
EA
UT4B
. +1
r�
UT4A
Z
rt iu
N
UT4E ` t
_ _ F
' Oil M
N
- O
UT8 LOWER
m
o
UTBUPPER xn� 1
N PROJECT LOCATION HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
f PRE -MONITORING FEATURES MAP
E n
- 36.2845, CASWELL COUNTY, NC
Reidsville 758 -79.395401 % PREPARED BY:
N
FIGURE 15
29 ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
g rii h - e Y -- i eaRESTORATION
Graam"'"°'��'��a'' 0 500 1,000 DATE:
IV I Feet AUGUST 2023
SAW-2023-01803 1 :12,000 Page 39 of 75

APPENDIX A
BANK PHOTO LOG
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 40 of 75

HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2020
CASWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS SECTION AT UT4 UPPER LOOKING
DOWNSTREAM SHOWING SEVERE BANK EROSION
AND TYPICAL EXISTING REACH CONDITIONS.
CROSS SECTION AT UT4A LOOKING
CROSS SECTION AT UT4 LOWER LOOKING
DOWNSTREAM SHOWING BANK EROSION,
INCISION, AND TYPICAL EXISTING REACH
CONDITIONS.
CROSS SECTION AT UT4B LOOKING UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM SHOWING INCISION AND TYPICAL SHOWING INCISION AND TYPICAL EXISTING REACH
EXISTING REACH CONDITIONS.
CONDITIONS.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 41 of 75
APPENDIX 1 1

HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2020
CASWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS SECTION AT UT4C LOOKING
DOWNSTREAM SHOWING INCISION AND TYPICAL
EXISTING REACH CONDITIONS.
CROSS SECTION AT UT4E LOOKING UPSTREAM
CROSS SECTION AT UT4D LOOKING
DOWNSTREAM SHOWING BANK EROSION,
INCISION, AND TYPICAL EXISTING REACH
CONDITIONS.
CROSS SECTION AT UT5 LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
SHOWING TYPICAL EXISTING REACH CONDITIONS. SHOWING BANK EROSION, INCISION, AND TYPICAL
EXISTING REACH CONDITIONS.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 42 of 75
APPENDIX 1 2

HOPKINS FARM MITIGATION BANK
AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2020
CASWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS SECTION AT UT8 UPPER LOOKING
UPSTREAM SHOWING CATTLE INTRUSION, LACK
OF WOODY RIPARIAN BUFFER, AND TYPICAL
EXISTING REACH CONDITIONS.
CROSS SECTION AT UT8 LOWER LOOKING
DOWNSTREAM SHOWING SEVERE INCISION, BANK
EROSION, AND TYPICAL EXISTING REACH
CONDITIONS.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 43 of 75
APPENDIX 1 3

APPENDIX 6
NCDWR STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 44 of 75

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 AQe,4 f
Dater •
Project/Site'. l ,� `a t,k
Latitude:
a
Evaluator- �,* s , r
County:
Longitude. - ) L[O r6
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
�z,
if> 19 or perennial if>_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 7,5•
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
12'Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
-ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3.7
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
71
3
8. Headcuts
(]
' 1 ,
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
' 1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
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 = g,x` )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1 ,3
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5 f
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
( 5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes:: 3
C. Biology Subtotal
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
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
CID
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
{ .5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
D.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACUG= 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 45 of 75

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
5MC,Ar k& 40( - i
Date: -r
('
ProjectlSite: Hopkins Farm
Latitude: 2 `k)9
Evaluator: ; �-/
County: Caswell
10
Longitude: ` 1 -7
Total Points:
Stream De�errfi-j7tatio (circle one)
Other ONAter `�
Stream is at least intermittent
if z 19 or perennial if? 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:V 4
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
12 Continuity of channel 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 -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodpiain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1)
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
>5
3
9. Grade control
0
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. Hvdrninav !Subtotal = " ) 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
;0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Bioloav !Subtotal = (� - u' l
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
0.
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5 '
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: /�
, div.c CiA r4 rayp +�t
1 l
fa
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 46 of 75

Nr nwo Rtream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ;v
ProjecVSite: Hopkins Farm
Latitude: 136,
Evaluator: 7�� cif' � fi
County: Caswell
Longitude: - '7q, T d
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)'
Other%eery (2^�
Stream is at least intermittent �O,
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if 2: 30`
It -
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = CJ)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thaiweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
r 2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
( 22
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
-.- _ 0.5
1
1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
e artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B H drolo Subtotal = 19
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14, Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
Na = 0
Yes =,3-
r Rinlnnv lSiihtntal = 7. ii } ✓
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
a .5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1,415
Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: 94
V " r= �$��� �V°" vim✓
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 47 of 75

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 146
Date: 7 2pZp
Project/Site. �h�j'�ry,�
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: Gas r,�
Longitude:_ 40�511
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent k q
Stream Detenmi tion circle one)
--'
Ephemera ntermii#ent etenniai
Other t�Y1G-
e.g. Quad Name: r�y/Cj
if? 19 orperennial if>_ 30' f l
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1� Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
'3'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
i
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
D
0.5
1
1.5
10 Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
`artificial ditches are not rated; see dis,cusons in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal T - "-' )
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
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = __LQ
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)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
D
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24, Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
D
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 rother = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 48 of 75

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 qa'
Date:
Z� [ �Q
ProjectlSite'. p( y A;,F-
Latitude:
Evaluator: A,
County: C p6wr i f
Longitude: - ?j 4g12,y 9
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent r,
�'`� '
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other (�yy
e.g. Quad Name'
if>_ 19 or erennial if a 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = `y )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
10_ Continuity of channel 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 -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0,
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0,
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
D
1
3
9. Grade control
L5
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discusss in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = (0. )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14, Leaf titter
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 = (D )
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
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 49 of 75

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site: Hopkins Farm f 4-'�
Latitude: ' (,
Evaluator: A , P ftiCo7e
County: Caswell
Longitude: -__rl, 101 f152
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other (7 i e"- r
•
if a 19 or perennial if t 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = L )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel 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 -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2)
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.t
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
li-
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
i
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0)
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
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. Biolo9Y (Subtotal = )
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
0)
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
1.5
25. Algae
l
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 50 of 75

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
s � qe
Date: 8/31/20
Project/Site: Hopkins Farm
Latitude: 3 6.292_
Evaluator: Thomas Barrett
County: Caswell
Longitude: - 7q. Llvqttl,
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
stream Determination (circle one)
Other
✓ '
Ephemeral- n ermltten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if z 30`
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
Lr
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1"
2,
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence_
0
1
L_%
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2 7
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
COP
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5,";
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdr'ologv (Subtotal = r?t )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
t0.5
1 _
1.5
l T Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal = G • D
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
�3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0-5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: �y,� z itGYM+-s
�a
[- GJ i";L�YU �r•t-n� ��+p9 r7a(I 5
�� `• � -
P ` , - �Lrt
7
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 51 of 75

T
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 8131120
Project/Site: Hopkins Farm
latitude: 3G, ?-6 - 363
Evaluator: Thomas Barrett
County: Caswell
Longitude: 71?e Lf(j2_
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
p
e. Quad Name: Cf rrrvv�
9
if a 19 or perennial if? 30' r
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = '' )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool se uence
0
1 i
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3.
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2 \
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2-
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2' '
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = , S
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
, 0.5._
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
f 717
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =. J
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
0
2
3
22. Fish
0
0,5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
D
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
.0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 52 of 75

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 8/31/20
Project/Site: Hopkins Farm
Latitude: 36e 12'"
Evaluator: Thomas Barrett
County: Caswell
Longitude: 7q,{
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent C
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other n
if z 79 or perennial if>_ 30" 2 , 7 9-
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:,
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ID • 5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
r1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
{� 1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
4 2
`
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
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
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 = q • a
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
0.
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 = , 25 )
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
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75 OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual,
Notes:
Sketch:
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 53 of 75

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4-11
-&'_ (n'J v�
Cry A m 9
Date: 8/31/20
Project/Site: Hopkins Farm
Latitude: 34! Z6063a
Evaluator: Thomas Barrett
County: Caswell
Longitude: ''� 3 Q � gf C
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent �
J
Stream Determination circle. one -
- >
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
if a 18 or perennial ifz 30* •
...
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
1 "'Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2)
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool se uence
0
1
r
2'
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
0
1
1
C 2.
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0
1
1
_Z-.
r2
3
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
C3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.
11. Second or greater order channel
a
No = 0
Zes=3
anmaa3 aftcnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
S. Hydrology {Subtotal = A .1 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
i
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0:
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
i 0.5
1
15
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
t Yes = 3
C. Bi0l0QV (Subtotal =
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
0
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 ;
1.5
25. Algae
0 "
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI = 1.5 Other = 0 ?
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: {
1
3 ✓�t �c)f
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 54 of 75

APPENDIX C
EXISTING CONDITIONS CROSS SECTION
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 55 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 4.35
ER Ratio = 1.9
W/D Ratio = 7.5
Classification = B
UT4 - XS1
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .58
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = 2.51
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 56 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 10.7
ER Ratio = 1.6
W/D Ratio = 11.9
Classification = B
UT4 - XS2
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .9
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = 9.64
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 57 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 3.08
ER Ratio = 2.9
W/D Ratio = 4.7
Classification = E
UT4a - XS1
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .66
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = 2.03
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 58 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 1.73
ER Ratio = 1.9
W/D Ratio = 7.2
Classification = B
UT4b - XS1
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .24
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = .42
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 59 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 1.88
ER Ratio = 2.7
W/D Ratio = 3.8
Classification = E
UT4c - XS1
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .5
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = .94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 60 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 3.77
ER Ratio = 1.2
W/D Ratio = 8.5
Classification = G
UT4d - XS1
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .44
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = 1.65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 61 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 4.1
ER Ratio = 4.5
W/D Ratio = 10.3
Classification = E
UT4e - XS1
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .4
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = 1.63
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 62 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 4.66
ER Ratio = 1.9
W/D Ratio = 17.9
Classification = B
UT5 - XS1
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .26
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = 1.22
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 63 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 2.94
ER Ratio = 6.6
W/D Ratio = 7.5
Classification = E
UT8 - XS1
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .39
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = 1.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 64 of 75

C
O
.5
N
W
O Ground Points
Wbkf = 6.16
ER Ratio = 1.3
W/D Ratio = 6.7
Classification = G
UT8 - XS2
♦ Bankfull Indicators
Dbkf = .92
♦ Water Surface Points
Abkf = 5.64
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-01803
Page 65 of 75

APPENDIX D
EFFECTIVE FEMA FIRM 3710898200J
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 66 of 75

S LATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FIRM PANEL LO(:ATOR DIAGRAM
0p
e e
°�
�° ar
- �p
lele
pb
�Ael
A
-
0p4,W
tip
b
8v
DATUM INFORMATION
M1eprolrtbn urtl in preparnion d IM1ia me„wr iM1e Nu1M1 Lerollne SIM
IdFIPSzoNE
GRSeD ellipaddM1O dliprN. PDAmeam
pdpn, OF
adia< lun'adNVms`may res X MAA.
1— land tlNhr�enms in map anuros
eases 11'wnd bmatlaMa. T U S l Feel when
Af IN. FIRM Fod130W393] MueA mr aro in .. urroY
ee INAVO eel. Tn mm°Peres to
rdnn devuwns referenmtl IA 011 amewNcald— A
and Geptletic Veuml Ddum u
919 jNAVO 281 has°brn cemWletl MNexA NenM1 Carolina mumy. Th
e B°ptl eleai°m that xwe rM reuisetl
mum
aetl NGVO 9filom
antl pp tl
M 9ee Sea3i°n e.t d
_umem devnion, a
ylreu
enbMNAVD661 em NEI/D i29 To
a nten
nNm lomli^ CaNine Ge°tlNic Survey w the
etltlrer shown be GYYou m` , alm wmaq IM1a IMorm—
Servicea BrerlcM1
_ _ a S, rey n 13Mug ) ]l12. Pr aB wabma n
(9,R]3}3e36
7 rd naaGe°e tic Survey
121 -At n Rdh. NL B92]6o
(ski 01
uroame lium In g fiNE suwy. Olhm II—Id hrtl m4 ahvxntlantllM1iA
map may I.bean tlenvetl uunB NtM1Br a manal endyda or limeetl tludletl
Ihl
e ys ,s mnminm in lne Fl°°e lnsumnm Sweymie;ZH rndie y Mr
NOTES TO USERS
My w;.d — as aer " �`saa _ mm MAE RevoslTORy
_ _ Ny rop°m a„nm rn PomeN apmlm «FRI.Rd rol dMa a
wFBmFtlEsvaiw« Poa 1 w a avaen « sure v epoulwwsm My nmsavaa Mmuwrnw adl°°emanwm
g/FAA A
EFFECTME Dore Fa Dx RAN ERgre M<P PAxE1
,•.,, ...r..w�..„ :mow ecA
O n.�ev"ie siraPo+11—AI sr II FIRM
m m �dlrl sEP]ELeER:e tom
re mr wr .:n mm �:,ry r0ai..er sae
s dBiN� Map (FIRM)wr PWYCM rau9he unique retry mtlenmw ml rarrm msmd p 11-rrc emaami mlamn,m abml bete °ca EFFEI—Fw S) OF REASIOWSI TO THIe PANEL
60 ,n aevw �aWrlMm eHvelM a map dapaalwn.
IFEMAI. IT. Slue d�NMM1 Leroynetlhr no egainmerevaman m0 �"a ulitansexA.MAPltanaaszsx]I°ry Ift FEM ,—
irndmm my cn d fimaplain mra R—Ft to susses lna x reblsMwurema aroaiooewnsu.l°gdewenn Mrv.p, rererl°ma c°mmunny Map
is mmmdraua lw ma Slda'z mmmilmem ror ur'l-E, Lnl«d Fes' nlmE me waynm nalunmidim
a om°tld`tl epM1ndth'a eRon lM1 m� a!n wwM cw from q°metl em(IOOMA)reas reeg II m,•,aex rvFooa
nM1 Cara na C°°W niml Slue a9 meet w M Mapdnp m,� re«
EMA toW—atd manlan Ihi.di aFRMr" wxeae p`aeel Wm«Mda as wal�a°n nvrr xnr wnl wlamNa ua alurmaerwmu FIRM naxnydw cmma was rereA°°ra mMP�dd4 °mo P ubwrdtrm9aFrue m,m°re`recarw naaanerti0A1O
www.neflooN Wlfls'nmea elwi Iwalw ror lM°drar smrms dm� msla an«mmn x°Irmree ar°mvax u tmo.36es62D ens d weMas n Dviean d Emer cy IA aoo5aeummm
m`PMi)kins Farm itiaajon arrfem� °° ^ w SAW-202 ""116NOOmnr mlm
LEGEND
- IN�UM—
® ROODWAY ARFIS IN ZONE qE
hvlrrmdaMm i nntnrw r%amwwn
M i.OMERFLZDIZ AS
Opna°mpav
® COASTALBARRIERRESOu—
OTHERWISE PROTEETEO AREA
••••••••••••••••- eaemaenvna.
A� P w..aw•ee
BMe tOG re. Im me nunwm.0
BMSetD® nre wansw, w
• Mt 5 a.exe
Pac
GRID NORTH
MAETr: I aoD• V : u9DB1
mv�
PANEL 88821
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
®
D
PANEL 8982
EFFECTIVE DATE MAPNUMBER
SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 37108982DOJ
Caroline
mergency l Eenagemcnt Agency
i�SIMe—yM

APPENDIX E
SOIL SCIENTIST REPORT
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 68 of 75

HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Hopkins Farm Project Site
Caswell County, North Carolina
Ground Truth Job No. 20-152
Prepared for:
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration
1150 SE Maynard Road
Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
Prepared by:
Ground Truth Soil Consulting, PLLC
1302 Roberts Road
Newport, NC 28570
[phone]
October
9�
John C.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 69 of 75

INTRODUCTION
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration (EPR) is investigating the feasibility of on -site wetland
mitigation within the Hopkins Farm project site in the Cape Fear River basin (8-digit HUC
03030002). The project site is located off Byrds Sawmill Road in Jericho, Caswell County,
NC. Ground Truth Soil Consulting, PLLC (Ground Truth) has been retained to perform a
Hydric Soil Investigation to describe and classify the soil on the basis of its present and/or
past hydric status.
The project site consisted of a mix of pasture and wooded areas of an active cattle farm. The
topography consisted of gently rolling hills and generally narrow drainageways. The
evaluation focused mainly in drainageways, depressions, and existing stream channels.
METHODOLOGY
Prior to performing the evaluation, NRCS soils maps, USGS topographic maps, and the
previous hydric soil reports were reviewed. The field investigation was performed on
September 23, 2020 by John C. Roberts, LSS. Soil borings were advanced via a hand auger
and evaluated under moist conditions using procedures listed in the Field bookfor
Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 3.0. Soil color was determined using a Munsell Soil
Color Chart. Observations of the landscape as well as soil properties (depth, texture,
structure, wetness, restrictive horizons, etc.) were recorded. Hydric soil status is based upon
the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the Unities States - A Guide for Identifying and
Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 8.2, 2018). Soil wetland mitigation potential was
determined based upon evidence of past and present hydric soil conditions. The limits of the
hydric soil areas were general identified via soil borings and topography.
RESULTS
Seventy-five (75) borings were advanced throughout the study area and placed into one of the
two categories below.
Hydric - Hydric soils within the study area showed some manipulation from past agricultural
and timbering practices. The areas showing the greatest manipulation and soil degradation
were observed in areas open to cattle traffic. The majority of the hydric soils were identified
within drainageways, depressions, and riparian areas and dominated by soils that exhibited
the F3 hydric soil indicator, which is defined as follows:
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 starts at a depth <10 cm (4 inches) from the soil
surface, or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting at a depth <_25 cm (10 inches) from the soil
surface.
A representative soil profile description is appended. These soils are most strongly
associated with the Bannister soil series.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 70 of 75

Somewhat Poorly Drained - Soils showing characteristics indicative of a Somewhat Poorly
Drained drainage class were mapped and are shown in the attached figures. These soils
generally occurred in upper reaches of headwater streams and along incised stream systems.
The soils appear to be wet for a sufficient period for soil wetness characteristics to develop in
the form of redoximorphic concentrations, Mn oxides, and oxidized root channels. These
characteristics were noted beginning 6 to 10 inches from the existing soil surface. These
areas likely represent areas of historically wetter soil moisture regimes where wetlands would
typically be located. A typical soil profile description is appended. These soils do not fall
into any specific soil series.
CONCLUSION
The study area has been degraded by past and present timbering/agricultural practices, in
particular cattle production, and this is reflected in the degraded riparian areas. The
identified hydric soil units are prime candidates for wetland enhancement by amending the
site with native wetland vegetation and restoring the hydrology by raising the existing stream
beds. It is anticipated that wetland enhancement will result from effectively establishing
native wetland vegetation and restoring hydrology via elevating and stabilizing the existing
stream. Areas of SWPD soils will benefit from the restored hydrology and could likely be
reclassified as hydric.
The findings presented herein represent Ground Truth's professional opinion based on our
Hydric Soil Investigation and knowledge of the current regulations regarding wetland
mitigation in North Carolina and national criteria for determining hydric soil.
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank SAW-2023-01803 Page 71 of 75

.'V� �� � • airy .i,•� ',+�� :,a:�
• err} ��..��i �ry4�. � � r ..� I +
10,200 sqft
Legend
Soil Borings
O Hydric
• Somewhat Poorly Drained
0 Hydric Soil Unit
Somewhat Poorly Drained Soil Unit
Existing Streams (CF02)_Estimate_20200917
Existing Wetland (CF02)_Estimate_20200917
Potential Wetland (CF02)_Estimate_20200903
Hopkins —Study Area_20200930_tb
ar.sr=ry.. fir•,
Or?V
r ^:
8,700 sqft
- - _ - _ 'fir .•Y1
0.4
.
f ..•, ti.' A.F
4.
x
10,000 sgft pn`
.
A.
r'' 1; f it •• u
I i WN..i.
k ,
z
2M
AIM
r ^:
8,700 sqft
- - _ - _ 'fir .•Y1
0.4
.
f ..•, ti.' A.F
4.
x
10,000 sgft pn`
.
A.
r'' 1; f it •• u
I i WN..i.
k ,
z
2M
AIM
>r
44 i
y ti r�+s
q
Ground Truth Soil Consulting,
PLLC
Prepared For:
Ecosystem Planning &
Restoration
Hydric Soil
Investigation
Hopkins Farm
Caswell County
Scale:
0 400 800 ft
Figure
Date:
October 2020
1
GT Job No.
20-152
W
o
ns Farm Mitigation
72 of 75

Ground Truth Soil Consulting,
PLLC
Prepared For:
Ecosystem Planning &
Restoration
Hydric Soil
Investigation
Hopkins Farm
Caswell County
Scale:
0 400 800 ft
Figure
Date:
October 2020
2
GT Job No.
20-152
W
��
ns Farm Mitigation
73 of 75

N,
Legend
Soil Borings
Hydric
• Somewhat Poorly Drained
0 Hydric Soil Unit
� Somewhat Poorly Drained Soil Unit
Existing Streams (CF02)_Estimate_20200917
� Existing Wetland (CF02)_Estimate_20200917
� Potential Wetland (CF02)_Estimate_20200903
� Hopkins —Study Area_20200930_tb
4,000 sgft \
1,300 sgft
0 sgft '`��.•
iLAli
ti 4,400 sgft
W." r
is ^, ���:�_:. .. !.�.' � �' '•fr - .'.'. ^����n {
t F:
44,625 sgft
�
Ground Truth Soil Consulting,
PLLC
Prepared For:
Ecosystem Planning &
Restoration
Hydric Soil
Investigation
Hopkins Farm
Caswell County
Scale:
0 400 800 ft
Figure
Date:
October 2020
3
GT Job No.
20-152
ns Farm Mitigation
4 of 75
04

SOIL EVALUATION FORM
Ground Truth Soil Consulting, PLLC
1302 Roberts Road
Newport, NC 28570
252.725.1320
Job: 20-20-152 Hopkins Farm Site
County: Caswell
Date: September 23, 2020
Sheet: 1 of 1
c
Structure /
Consistence /
Matrix
Mottle Colors
o
a
`- _ a
Texture
Mineralogy
Color
(Quantity, Size, Contrast, Color)
B2
Al
0-4
1, M, GR / SIL
FR / SS,SP
10YR 3/2
A2
4-8
1, M, SBK /
FI / SS,SP
10 YR 5/2
C,2,P 7.5YR 4/8
SICL
Btg1
8-30
1, M, ABK / C
VFI / S,P
10YR 6/2
C,2,P 7.5YR 4/8; C,2,D 10YR 5/6
Btg2
30-36
1, M, ABK / C
VFI / S,P
N 7/0
C,2,P 10YR 6/2; C,2,P 7.5YR 4/8
Notes:
Boring located in wooded area along stream
Slope: 2-4%
Saturated at 8 inches
Drainage Class: Hydric — Poorly Drained
Soil profile best described by the Bannister soil series although wetter: Fine, mixed, active, mesic Aquic
Hapludults
0
=
0
v =
Structure /
Consistence /
Matrix
Mottle Colors
aTexture
Mineralogy
Color
(Quantity, Size, Contrast, Color)
B12
A
0-12
1, M, GR / L
FR / SS,SP
10YR 4/4
Common Mn concentrations; redox concentrations
Btg
12-24
1, M, ABK / C
VFI / S,P
10YR 6/3
C,2,P 10YR 6/1; C,2,D 10YR 5/6; C,2,D 10YR 5/4;
common Mn concentrations
Notes:
Boring 12 drainageway of pasture
Slope: 2%
Saturated at 18 inches
Drainage Class: Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil profile best described by the Bannister soil series: Fine, mixed, active, mesic Aquic Hapludults
Evaluated by: John C Roberts, LSS
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
SAW-2023-018C
Page 75 of 75