20231370 Ver 1_Hopkins_IRTVisitNotes_2023.11.22

1

Meeting Minutes
Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Cape Fear River Basin (CU 03030002)
Caswell County, North Carolina
USACE Permit/Tracking No.: SAW-2023-01803

Subject: IRT Draft Prospectus Site Meeting
Date: November 14, 2023
Prepared For: US Army Corps of Engineers

Prepared By: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
Kevin Tweedy, PE – Principal
Erin Bennett, PE – Project Manager
Andy Newman, PWS – Project Ecologist

Meeting Attendees: Todd Tugwell – US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Casey Haywood – US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Maria Polizzi – NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (DWR)
Andrew Friedman-Herring – NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (DWR)
Jennie Emmons – NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (DWR)
Olivia Munzer – NC Wildlife Resource Commission
David Tepper – The Earth Partners, LP (TEP)
Andy Newman – The Earth Partners, LP (TEP)
Chris Herbers – NextEra Energy, Inc.
Kevin Tweedy – Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR)
Erin Bennett – Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR)

These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(IRT) Draft Prospectus Site Meeting for the Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank (Project, Site). No representatives from
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or N.C. State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) were present at the meeting. The Site is located in Caswell County, North Carolina,
approximately 2.5 miles north of Alamance County and approximately 1.5 southwest of Jericho.
The site meeting began as scheduled at approximately 10:00 AM with introductions and a general summary of the
overall Project background and concepts. After the Project introduction and overview, attendees toured the Site
to review existing conditions and proposed mitigation types, strategies, and design concepts. The Site review
notes that were recorded are presented below.

2

• The attendees started at the upstream end of UT8, UT4 and UT5 and walked the site generally from upstream
to downstream stopping at UTs to the left side of UT4 looking downstream (UT4e and UT4d) first and circling
back upstream to the UTs on the right side looking downstream (UT4c, UT4b, and UT4a). The group walked
the majority of the site viewing each stream, wetland, and pond features proposed for restoration.

o General Discussion
 Need to update channel incision, bank erosion, and water quality stressors mapping to most
recent conditions. Maps provided in prospectus were generated when beaver dams were
located within the project area and are no longer present.
 Intermittent streams need to be monitored for flow and it will likely be recommended to do
benthic sampling to document in-channel utilization. Show intermittent and ephemeral
points on mapping.
 Tri-colored bat will soon be federally listed as an endangered species, so Sponsor should plan
accordingly.
 Olivia mentioned that mussel species have been documented previously on Benton Branch
(the main stream that the Project drains to, but it was unclear where on Benton Branch), so
IRT will probably recommend, but not require, mussel surveys on this project. If mussels were
found, they would need to be relocated. After the Site walk was completed, Olivia stated that
she didn’t see a concern for federally listed species of mussels, but it was possible there could
be state listed species on the main stem UT4. TEP will review species identified within Brenton
Branch and determine the likelihood of those species within the Site.
 It was suggested that wetland gauges be installed prior to construction that can serve as
documentation of modifications to site hydrology by implementation of the mitigation plan.
Selection of these monitoring gauge locations should not be impacted by grading activities
during construction.
 SAM and WAM methodologies will need to be used to establish baseline conditions.
 Preliminary Jurisdiction Determination (PJD) will be required for this project. Coordination
directly with regional USACE office and use SAW-2023-01803 in all correspondence during
PJD process.

 An agent authorization form is needed.
 Make sure to address adaptive management and constraints in MBI.
 Check the buffer multiplier calculations and how it works with adjacent wetlands, and ensure
these are accurate on future submittals.
 Adhere to the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update
(2016) for performance standards. There should be some mention of this in the final
prospectus.
 Showing wetlands overlaid with streams in the figures would be beneficial (they were split
into two separate figures in the draft Prospectus).
 Intermittent reaches that need grade control should include some rock for long-term stability.
 Some BMPs may be needed at locations where concentrated runoff will enter the easement
area.

3

 Design and construction should seek to minimize disturbance to existing trees and forest as
much as practicable. Newman take- alignments will be routed to minimize the disturbance of
larger individual trees within the Site. However- it is anticipated a thinning cut will be applied
along UT4 as much of that stand was of a singular age class, likely the result of previous logging
activities. Thinning cutting will be left in place in increase carbon within valley, promote
heterogeneity of floodplain, and provide microhabitats for organisms.
 Going forward, Wilmington District will be requiring Sponsors to submit their MBI within 1
year of Final Prospectus approval.
 When submitting the Final Prospectus, include adjacent landowner address labels, and
include a template public notice letter for the Project.
o UT8
 Check the jurisdictional start of channel. May want to propose credit further down to ensure
it is an intermittent channel.
 When dewatering the pond, the water will need to be treated before releasing into
downstream restored channel. Fish and parrot feather should not be released downstream.
Remove the cattails in the wetland/pond area.
 There is some concern about stream stability in pond beds; designer should use caution and
best practices.
 If excavation is involved, like at pond dam and bottom, wetland restoration/ rehabilitation
does not apply, the mitigation type will be wetland creation.
 Vegetation monitoring plots (post-construction) will be required in old pond and dam
footprint.
 Corps recommends removal of accumulated sediment in the pond bottoms and replacement
with appropriate soil materials.

o UT4 – Reach 1 and UT5
 Need to discuss the culvert conditions of the existing pipes in future submittals and if they
will be replaced/modified (this comment applies to the whole Project). The culverts appear
to be undersized.
 Need to discuss the potential for adaptive management if the existing trees get too wet and
die.

o UT4e
 The stream goes underground near the confluence with UT4 and may not be jurisdictional.
There was considerable discussion that a break in jurisdiction does not mean that the reach
above cannot be proposed for mitigation. Corps/IRT have discretion to allow credits if
appropriate for the overall system and functional improvements.
 Will not know the enhancement ratio until the design plan set shows the level of work that
needs to be done on the enhancement channel. If the level of work is insignificant, such as
just fencing, an enhancement of ratio of 7.5:1 may be warranted. Kevin discussed that there
would likely be frequent structures along the reach to improve habitat and prevent

4

downcutting, justifying the 2.5:1 ratio. This would be described more fully in later submittals.
IRT mentioned that showing the locations of headcuts on maps may help justify level of effort.
 Cow impact not significant upstream. The level of cow impact on all reaches will need to be
discussed.

o UT4d
 Lifting the stream may cause the stream to become ephemeral due to the small drainage area
and the wooded condition for the watershed upstream.
 The stream channel becomes difficult to follow near the confluence with UT4 and may not be
jurisdictional.
 IRT member commented that the channel does not seem to contribute large amounts of
sediment. Kevin questioned that assessment, based on upstream headcut and bank erosion.
 There is potential for a BMP at the bottom before it goes into the wetland, particularly if the
channel is not considered jurisdictional. BMPs have been credited in the past but it is a case-
by-case situation.
 IRT members questioned whether there was sufficient uplift provided by restoring the
stream. There were also questions about the potential for wetlands in the UT4d floodplain.
The uplift from restoring the stream may not be worth the risk and credits.

o UT4c
 IRT members commented that restoring the stream may cause the stream to become
ephemeral.
 Wetland credit may not be worth claiming along stream credit.
 This stream might not be appropriate for restoration. If moving forward will need more
justification on the mitigation types.

o UT4b
 While showing evidence of being altered, IRT questioned whether the channel was an
ephemeral drainage. May need to look at it in a wetter condition. Kevin commented that the
channel met intermittent scoring criteria in more normal rainfall conditions.
 IRT members did not believe there was justification for restoration mitigation type based on
drainage and hydric soils.

o UT4a
 General agreement with the mitigation approaches proposed.

o UT4 and UT5
 General agreement with the mitigation approaches proposed.
 Wetlands on UT4 need to be reassessed since the area is no longer impounded due to beaver
activity.

5

The above minutes represent EPR and TEP’s interpretation and understanding of the meeting discussion and
actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these minutes to be in error,
incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or additions to allow adequate time for
correction and redistribution.