20231370 Ver 1_Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /Post-Field Visit Modifications

Polizzi, Maria
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 11:25 AM
To: Andy Newman
Cc: Kevin Tweedy; Erin Bennett; David Tepper; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Travis Wilson; Kathryn Matthews; Todd Bowers
Subject: [External] RE: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank
/SAW-2023-01803/ Caswell Co.- Post -Field Visit Modifications
Attachments: SAW_2023_01803_Hopkins_IRTVisitNotes_2023.11.22.pdf, Hopkins Revised Approach
and Credits.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Andy,
Thank you for the minutes — they were thorough and useful. We have also reviewed the additional information you
provided from Scott King's review, along with the revised credit table and mitigation figure. Please note I have
attached your minutes and the revised mitigation figure/credit estimate as a reference for those copied on
this email. As we are in the Draft Prospectus stage for the project, our correspondence is a little less formal so
please consider this email as our transmittal of comments generated during the IRT's review of this site. With
regard to your meeting minutes, I did not make any changes and feel that the minutes generally reflect the
conversation on site.
Below I have included the two responses we have received so far from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the
NC Division of Water Resources, along with comments on the Draft Prospectus and field review from myself
and Casey Haywood (combined in the USACE comments section). I wanted to include all of our comments, so
many of these mirror those we made during the field review and those included in your minutes. Today is the
last day for the IRT to provide comments; however, if we do receive any additional comments from IRT
members, we will be sure to pass them along.
With regard to the revised approach and credit estimates that were submitted after our field meeting, I feel it
is important to note that there are still some serious concerns with some of the approaches and reaches, in
particular UT4B, C, and D. I understand from the map that both C and D have been reduced to only the area in
the floodplain, but in both cases there is no OHWM in that area, so I don't see how inclusion of these reaches
is realistic. Also for UT4B, I still have concerns regarding this trib as it appears to be more of an ephemeral
drainage and lacks much need for intervention. As we discussed in the field, I am willing to revisit the site
during a wetter time of the year, and it appears that the site has potential even without these reaches, but I
want to be very upfront about our concerns so you can make the appropriate decision about whether to move
forward with a final prospectus. I also believe that for the prospectus you really need to remove the buffer
multiplier from any calculations. As I mentioned in the field and below, this is not how we assess additional
credit for wider buffers, plus the tool will not allow for additional credit where you are also seeking wetland
credit, so the amounts shown on the credit estimate table do not appear to be accurate.

If you have further questions about our review process or would like to schedule a follow-up visit, please let
me know.
Thank you,
Todd Tugwell
Chief, Mitigation Branch
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District, USACE
[phone]
Kathy Matthews, USFWS (by email dated 10/30/2023):
1. 1 don't have any significant concerns for the project. The only species on the IPaC list is tricolored bat,
and we will deal with it if and when it is listed.
Maria Polizzi, NCDWR (by email dated 11/28/2023):
General Comment:
1. Obtaining a JD as soon as possible would be in the best interest of the project to get a better
understanding of what features can even be considered. Since a number of tributaries are quite small
and borderline, it would be helpful to get this information earlier in the process.
Meeting Minutes:
2. Under Section "UT4 — Reach 1 and UT5": Note that the culverts are undersized and in disrepair. At least
one of the concrete culverts was in multiple pieces and experiencing critical failure.
3. Also under Section "UT4 — Reach 1 and UT5": The second bullet point is based off of my comment in
the field which was more meant to address tree death due to construction activities, although wetter
conditions is also worth considering. Since minimal planting is anticipated in this area due to a
sufficient buffer, it is important to account for tree death and make sure a plan is in place to account
for that with supplemental plantings or other methods.
4. UT4d: Based on the notes provided and my memory of the site, the area of channel near the
confluence with UT4 has minimal bed and bank features making it difficult to identify and potentially
non -jurisdiction. In my opinion it does not make sense to select this section to perform restoration, as
the entire feature was questionable, but the lower section was filled with sediment and essentially
empties into the floodplain rather than UT4 directly. It seems that wetlands in this area would still
benefit from lifting UT4, but restoration on UT4d is not necessary or beneficial in my opinion.
5. UT4c: Similar to the above comment, it seems that the wetlands in the UT4 floodplain will be best
served by raising UT4. Additionally, uplift must be provided to the stream itself to justify stream
credits. DWR is concerned that this uplift not justified.
6. UT4b: DWR maintains the concerns stated in the field and in the above comments. If a JD confirms that
the feature is jurisdictional and considerable uplift can be described in the draft plan, it will be
considered. But DWR cannot confirm that it supports credit in this location.
Todd Tugwell & Casey Haywood, USACE:
General and Draft Prospectus Document Comments:
If you have not already done so, please provide an agent authorization from the landowner as soon as
possible.
Is site in the slate belt?
3. NCWRC will recommend mussel surveys.
4. Flow gauges will be required on all smaller streams.

Please keep in mind that we will not approve any credit ratio at this stage in the process. Final credit
ratios are generally approved during the draft plan review when we have more detailed information
regarding the stream conditions and approaches (restoration/enhancement methods and extents)
used to generate functional uplift.
Project goal (complete functional uplift) is pretty broad. Otherwise objectives may be to be revised -
invasive species will be only temporarily treated and should not be listed as a long-term source of
uplift. The site appears to be forested already, so how will buffers be restored as suggested?
7. Constraints:
a. Include discussion of the large gap between sites. Is it possible to connect the two sites?
b. There are areas where the CE does not extend to the edge of the floodplain. Will these areas
experience increased flooding that may affect off -site areas?
Do you anticipate beaver impacts to the site?
d. Are there any other restrictions on the property, such as farm conservation agreements?
8. How will sediments in the pond bed be removed? There are activities we generally require dam
removal, such as dewatering through filter bag, full removal of the dam in the floodplain. Additionally,
wetlands proposed within the dam footprint may not be considered reestablishment, especially under
the dam.
9. Areas where the stream (including benching) will be within the wetland need to be removed or
considered creation, if appropriate.
10. Would like grading map clearly depicting areas and depth of cut, especially areas deeper than 12
inches.
11. Inclusion of 75-foot buffers is appreciated, but what is the "buffer multiplier"? UT4 has a length of
2,826 and multiplier of 0.08, which should equal 3,052, not 3,968. Was this based on restoration
length? Please clarify. Also note that we have an accepted tool for providing additional credit for
wider buffers, which is available on the RIBITS website for Wilmington District. If you intend to
proposed additional credit, you should use this tool; however, it appears that many of the stream
reaches also have wetland proposed within the buffers and additional stream credit will not be
approved within any wetland area. Based on this, estimates of stream credit do not appear to be
accurate.
12. How will the project restore a canopy of appropriate native species? Will this require clearing of
existing buffer? Are there plans for understory monitoring?
13. Fig 14A shows 2:1 enhancement, but Table 5.1 lists 2.5:1.
14. What is proposed hydroperiod for wetlands? Wetland gauges should be installed to document
baseline conditions prior to construction. If possible, keep these gauges in the ground unless they are
in an area to be disturbed.
15. We will need to know the long-term steward, endowment amount, and financial assurances at the
draft mitigation plan review stage.
16. Figure 10 lists bank erosion and has several reaches that have greater than 100% erosion. How is that
possible?
17. Strongly recommend assessment of site conditions using NC WAM and NC SAM. Indicated locations on
map where assessment forms and NC Stream ID forms are conducted.
18. Per 2023 WOTUS wetlands may be non -jurisdictional if not connected by surface flow but still can be
included as long as they have 3 characteristics of wetlands.
Field Review:
19. Trib UT8 Upper— restoration on this reach generally looks like an acceptable approach. The stream is
significantly impacted by cattle. Wetland area at top has hydric soils. Rose and privet are
extensive. No flow in upper reaches of the channel. 75ft buffer proposed. Opportunity for BMP with
wider buffers. Adjacent land use will continue to be livestock. Channel likely won't be jurisdictional all

the way up and maybe hard to maintain a channel near the top. Farm road near the top is proposed
to be removed. Soil sample was bright but had some redox at the bottom of the reach.
20. UT8 Lower - Further down the reach some offline restoration but mostly located in center of valley, has
flow toward bottom. Will use stone from farm for restoration. Profile really flattens out by the pond
and there are several cattail areas. Add discussion in adaptive management for channel
maintenance. The pond also has parrot feather. Don't release species downstream during dewatering.
In wetland, proposed approach is generally ok. PII proposed at culvert.
21. UT 4/5 - stream is impacted by cattle and has eroding banks in many spots, plus is very
incised. Restoration approach on this trip is appropriate. We discussed potential tree mortality if trying
to save some trees. Culverts appear to be undersized and would need replacement.
22. UT4E is mostly E2. While there are areas within this trib that are degraded, there is really only one
primary headcut that needs to be fixed. Otherwise work could be justified by identifying the areas
along the channel (locations and % of channel where work will be conducted) to support ratio
proposed ratio in enhancement area. The bedform is not that degraded and the buffer is mature, so
not much work there. Ratio needs to be justified if only basing on stabilization. Doesn't look like it's
really impacted by cattle. Will require flow gauge.
23. UT41D - this trib is disconnected from UT4 with no OHWM in the floodplain, and while incised
upstream, is generally still stable. The buffer is not that old but is intact. We see little benefit to lifting
this channel given the likely impacts, lack of flow and minimal potential to restore adjacent wetland
areas due to valley shape and bright soils. The watershed is also small and mostly forested.
24. UT4C - this trib is generally not that degraded and had no flow during the meeting. It is also lacking an
OHWM toward the bottom where it is disconnected from UT4. It would be difficult to justify as part of
the project. Though wetlands are proposed along the trib, soils sampled appear to be non-hydric, and
it has a very small watershed.
25. UT413 -This trib is dry and appears to be a erosional feature/ephemeral drainage. Not incised for much
of it's length. Though wetlands are proposed along the trib, soils sampled appear to be non-hydric,
and it has a very small watershed. If this reach had flow, it would be stable and not appear to justify
further intervention.
26. UT4A - this trib has flow and is a bit larger than others. Approach to add structures and fence out
cattle here seems reasonable.
27. We discussed path forward and willingness to revisit the site during wetter conditions. I also stated
that I felt the site could provide mitigation, but that Tribs UT413, C, and D would likely not be
approved. Up to provider is it is possible to do so without these.
From: Andy Newman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 9:53 AM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail]>; Erin Bennett <[e-mail]>; David Tepper
<[e-mail]>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/
Caswell Co.- Post -Field Visit Modifications
Casey et al.,
Please find field notes attached. I left it in word with track changes turned on so comments/revisions can be
placed directly within document. Not sure how you prefer to handle amalgamation of comments, but I am
more than willing to compile any and all edits for final documentation.

Please let me, Kevin, or Erin know if you would like any clarity on specifics prior to providing any final
revisions.
I hope everyone has an awesome Thanksgiving weekend and gets to do something they are passionate about.
Andy Newman, PWS
Chief Ecologist
[phone]
The Earth Partners LP
"The philosophical study of nature endeavors, in the vicissitudes of phenomena, to connect the present with
the past."
Alexander Humboldt
From: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 8:43 AM
To: Andy Newman <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail]>; Erin Bennett <[e-mail]>; David Tepper
<[e-mail]>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/ Caswell Co.- Post -
Field Visit Modifications
Hi Andy,
Thank you for providing the additional information. We will discuss internally and review this with the field notes. Thank
you again for your time. I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving!
Thanks,
Casey
From: Andy Newman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail]>; Erin Bennett <[e-mail]>; David Tepper
<[e-mail]>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/
Caswell Co.- Post -Field Visit Modifications
Casey/Kim/Olivia/Maria-
My first email got kicked back- so I am resending- Please see original email below.
Andy Newman, PWS
Chief Ecologist
[phone]

The Earth Partners LP
"The philosophical study of nature endeavors, in the vicissitudes of phenomena, to connect the present with
the past."
Alexander Humboldt
From: Andy Newman
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 2:54 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail]>; Erin Bennett <[e-mail]>; David Tepper
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/ Caswell Co.- Post -Field
Visit Modifications
Casey/Todd and IRT,
First, thanks to everyone for the participation and feedback from the meeting at Hopkins Farm last week.
Based on the discussion that day, we would like to propose a revised plan for the bank site. Our hope is that
we can provide brief information in this email, but enough to solicit additional feedback from the IRT, before
we move to preparing a final prospectus. We've attached a revised credit table and mitigation figure, based on
the information below.
After the IRT visit last week, EPR had their soil scientist, Scott King, visit the site and do additional inspections.
Because of the dry conditions, Scott and his team had to use shovels to evaluate soil profiles rather than
typical augering. This allowed a more detailed inspection under the current conditions.
From his review, and feedback from the IRT, we propose the following modifications to the plan for the site:
• UT4b - Scott found hydric soils at the top and bottom of this reach, and sporadically in the middle
sections of the reach. We are proposing to restore the bottom -186 feet of incised channel at the
confluence of the main stem (UT4) to provide the proper connection to the restored UT4 and support
the restoration of the UT4 wetland floodplain. The upper -471 feet would be minor enhancement (5:1)
to install structures, promote additional flooding of hydric soil areas, and keep cattle out.
• UT4c - only proposing restoration on the lower -100 feet that will have to be reworked to tie into the
UT4 restoration and support the restoration/enhancement of the UT4 wetland floodplain.
• UT4d - proposing restoration of the lower -100 feet that will have to be reworked to tie into the UT4
restoration and support the restoration/enhancement of the UT4 wetland floodplain. This will
primarily address the eroding and highly incised existing channel at the confluence with UT4, but can
also reconnect the section that has lost channel form at the edge of the UT4 floodplain to be restored.
• Wetlands - we changed the crediting of the pond area to creation. There will certainly be additional
adjustments to wetland credits after delineations are completed on site.
We want to keep this email as brief and to the point as possible but can provide any additional information
requested. We are also working on the meeting minutes from last week that we anticipate circulating before
the holiday.
Thank y'all for your time,

Andy Newman, PWS
Chief Ecologist
[phone]
The Earth Partners LP
"The philosophical study of nature endeavors, in the vicissitudes of phenomena, to connect the present with
the past."
Alexander Humboldt
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please forward any suspicious content to [e-mail]