FW: [External] RE: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/ Caswell Co.- Post-Field Visit Modifications

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.

Hi Andy,

Thank you for updating the site visit notes and compiling IRT comments. Please reach out if there is anything else we can do to help in the interim.

Hope you have a good weekend!

Thanks,

Casey

From: Andy Newman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail]>; Erin Bennett ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; David Tepper <[e-mail]>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.T.Isenhou
[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [External] RE: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/ Caswell Co.- Post-Field Visit Modifications

Casey-

Good chatting today.

Please find EPR/TEP meeting minutes with USACE/Agency Comments added for your final records. We are evaluating the project in light of the attached comments. Thank you for your time
and thoughtful comments.

Have a great one.

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] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 8:01 AM
To: Andy Newman <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Erin Bennett ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>; David Tepper <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/ Caswell Co.- Post-Field Visit Modifications

Good morning Andy,

Please note that we received an additional comment for the Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus review. Please see the below correspondence from NCWRC, and include them in your
notes.

Thank you,

Casey

From: Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 8:51 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Polizzi, Maria <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/ Caswell Co.- Post-Field Visit Modifications

Good morning Todd,

I have been in the field, so sorry for the late response. I do not have any additional concerns than those you have expressed below and those we discussed in the field. If they go forward,
then we may ask for mussel surveys in the downstream section of UT4.

Olivia Munzer

NC Wildlife Resources Commission

336-269-0074

From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 11:25 AM
To: Andy Newman <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Erin Bennett <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; David Tepper <[e-mail] <mailto:david.tepper@teplp.c
om> >; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
my.mil <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Polizzi, Maria <[e-mail] <mailto:maria.polizzi@
deq.nc.gov> >; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: [External] RE: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/ Caswell Co.- Post-Field Visit Modifications

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. I 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:

1. If you have not already done so, please provide an agent authorization from the landowner as soon as possible.
2. Is site in the slate belt?
3. NCWRC will recommend mussel surveys.
4. Flow gauges will be required on all smaller streams.
5. 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.
6. 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?
c. 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 may be 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. UT4D - 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. UT4B - 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 UT4B, 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] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 9:53 AM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Erin Bennett <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; David Tepper <[e-mail] <mailto:david.tepper@teplp.c
om> >; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 8:43 AM
To: Andy Newman <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
v> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Erin Bennett <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; David Tepper <[e-mail] <mailto:david.tepper@teplp.c
om> >; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Erin Bennett <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; David Tepper <[e-mail] <mailto:david.tepper@teplp.c
om> >; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:todd.tugwell@usace.
army.mil> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Erin Bennett <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; David Tepper <[e-mail] <mailto:david.tepper@teplp.c
om> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>

________________________________

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

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] <mailto:[e-mail]>

⦞乫獞橌쳼㏲欉Ӕ笌톖흓硃軽㿥발槫醥㯕碑韬➕軜딇㴞痿깽指὜䠿屚ힳ羓쉬칇錩緓鷗὞彍懴璙鼥丫廷酝욜뼳捋礿Ⅎﴛ茦ﾘ�姅ྵ柝笍陿웱⭸肿覷礳㱡뗖蹋랍칯妊콷阙嵵懴狤⺛♶௥㹇ᭋ间휲씵ᑸ䵦㷄竛㏝읮皁ன뗗쐚ᕦꢝ톺쑡᪴甁ꮳ蛅㚪乒瑺﵋쇶｠�魌埞贁✬璬윙ꂀខ璽ꗉ尙ꊶ�껙갠䴍┴黁纂魹鬨닦䓉蓙㭒헋﷥窢콸ힺ⦖䙿�㔥◂羂㷜귋힋퐸굴멞䄦돕裞⿡刦ꋈ◀Ⴚ檘䕶�ⴿⷖī顅凊䡁⯕ꠄ穮℅�┹犆郄ｘ
퀰놬ﯻ拐忛둻䵩헑얓Ꮭᬩ헼稃頗嘳�砽㛒讶ំ潤ꝋ伞ᧂ猩閮��꺱峧宗钮햊ػẽ勺ݩ믛餧ᰚ႙ﭿ�嫾ꫲ瞩䰟翨璡﷯꿩̍텆䴞毱ꇭ莻뱛먳�飩缴빢犩뛆륹໭띶鱼⟝懒㣶醶ᎇ꺬夃�촪㲎瑖㛺铊捱ꦟ䯋嫛䤼㜚惼�设黫ᳬᙪ弼ﻩ㢜掶뢐潏୊㭓돋�绍鳗떞˭簞唘ꉱ轻팕ꮥᏃￎ屙请䥣䖋빕蛁칅䟙딻瀪缫癩릘哣྽蝏빮撳㪅孤쇒鸁庶촃࿆ᗨ挗뎷皶扽釮톅䫟�ᝋᏘ༹涣㫻够㩾処䟛俣켰๟䴬澋햝燫ត껋駏Ɀ빂첫浛ꁼ嵻凌ⷔ
福꩷᦬�ꬤⱡﮫ쮥孋韹膱跒潟㽴�棳껎껹涣푅旖�흶�蓇ڛ᪥果ꟻ麬纾ꃩ땕㏕鴋䲯총ࠈ慜ꬬ㷮䶾醋�㸯镩瑼珮췮ᑷ벱泒ᇨ釉닻쯇鵧磻덾�쾻쓥㖖㾗Ⰶ獏㿈壊藼㜨K්떲삥忟鐅轢則ⁱ遁矻눂苡ր䛊⁘ሑᙎ졨뿰셾乒뇽偶芠ǚ湢쯕䪏ᝫ㗿斗钿❛漆뵿ꞥ싻雨量窏ﲥ춲찰캙㻝뽼ꭹꅫ蟹⽬붛�윷ﵰᐋ嘻맴譊텢懨ﯓ隵宮鷀⣷ᯙﱕꚍ﷌껫沬뚻擄ꗝᦙ難ᬹ쨼逰旧镠쩱�귘鞙૓㦽ꈦ赏絃憛햢儲ꃈ핥ꭂꚢ뾽�齂ꗢ�ᘇꮻ䔙ꞻ
穷�홞襮簽锖漨䛚뷶챙ᆔٗᱯ템䫲෧㏣嘟輦繴፝熐牷皇荫Ṻ�毹맠婚ට휛്瘛繶剭⦏⇮쮇썄�姧熭ᳲ뱹㭾抭믂鞬禧辧맞巇⛝퇋쭧漉낟댶믃㾶搵퓃⺵쮞ᔼ鷃㖟盦첛㫝໳乬沏筍ꙹ瞤׀㯏䲊䕱宱圻쭓꺳뇮�婼޷㗡轖뤼ᴻ얷�徻牙肋몍㦸弇珬뽉戺폂⹄粱쓕伛⽻�鳺篛镧縍띙將鼌쭥�鬟⠽捫죀﫳ᗔ窼끖柟猒呒寞抣༫⒘㰜㒿䀦⃽➼醓濙�짎⍁彿꘿䤅㏵ꮌ캖笾�೹컔䵇뾔襵溓ᶃ溕쫞枣ㅈ묘嵱ꇽ
�偅鍙繣㎵멈磵懹᧖쫏ꉠ夗퐍ᕮ翜黫蠏ၛ₵畘┗䑙噐⁠猪᳊䢏鈡쫴⯟罳征鑍萭담䑙瓙沢亊﹉ꈴѬꤑ䜥㢥ﴄ쮫鄬ꡜ鈂੉쨄ꅢꞟ‮璢ꠈ灄䂫ᗜ쁋쟠懶躸뱼౛⩆菍녧㾻�藔諫뎥꙯㬖鿻겻㊨榛䭳甸ꇌ譧⟍ᗯ不㬳�㲯こ죮ꚇ㫇痔륙跸ꫤ캰搣곩질읃ꗅ嶤鼶玬霷ᴷ잣仱ﾯ羒뎧뾑핯份霭�嫬㴴턣�荎㱊ミ⺆겛ㄞﺡី층�䬝ᩖ垘쬽飻㿧�툯뼯圧曨鄢髵裮㷺�뗄ﺽ쎹巩⼡浤�뗴阷쳸鶚�熵䗥ﶷ躁德氞뉷苷�퍰ꙃ໻妭潻
闣멣穳ֆṶꆾﯞ痽Ѧ餮ㆽ㊣♏빟뵕쨿烀씙꟏祳⌤윱佬寛蚓좻蟭陲및帧㾼鞓녝嗟绘앖�볟㍐ﯗ濖杋纝⦞�淩漴杴⋃㏃ᮆ�盬Ћ徛燾▨䭡엗企ﵧ퍙䵢껜㞌隳璚랋厞盪렽檡⑩ꢧ졕뎡ᚋⰭ᣸쌿항⺧ꖞᝯ꾼�淚蔧鲃㺟鴎엛콚슼績계뇴쎤쾺㏄쉺ᯄ਷萋㩓馝⏟뤩㒮ꏝ遦ꁍ쥻똋蛩俈丫줬寜꘳紪轀碤黎ꏨ͕魻욖翧帩瞸䅗ａ㲣쌕⒢㟥㥖㵽乑䵟傥늈９십생䞆픣ݥ㣑঱斍ﾮל텰㈰奣晴构䛃଺뚤◅陻顏�䗠콖ꎴ봣类䒹颶窳ꤐ绕䶥
㭽긅❹岍뻳ꈾ᫢튯㿖拔㲅⥗헟穦Թ介ⷾ쯿鎬雧﷟全뇍귻巼�곇銘䨻㿨抩ᝀ솺胮뇣坽폰夺➘턲填偢㎗䟙繖鱼뒾꯭箘㪏≳煏덳쬲唾仜პ㶈Ḳ榷뽔−㸩픣轍�ꆭ眧窸揳㌄꼄鲗᝕著疼Ꝑ燌닅쪕廍꼇�䛽⑑�킽없䭹�䌋뤶鲜�짻军虋᭞뜐포ꮘ퍱距ỳﶔ꽶௵居苵ᶢ莜娭ⶴ윹⽿녎둼ǥ鹻ቚꩽ㫋완⫮�㚚㫍ר涔먟㜟롭ৱ㍅丟猌돼ꚾ七婏�郈乕޵㙓㗈︧⻗鯄칾馓ꎄ䮾㖚⼼¤뫢̕ᖖ趼拌花惠灖ᾯ㈼ᬑ䥵흵损簞⦼窢睿Ӊ╽
퇤䊙ꆛ똗솵첩鯃Ͳ䮧陎咗璶띫웎隊ꯆ浟ợ⧟笪ﺛ삭㏂洎ᝲ�᷐쥤텕⢩ꊤ퍛ᾋ忳ࣕⴗ⹈᪚靪ퟞ煅쯃滟陮㚷䙻廏赫ᤞᴹ곿狚唽밓⺎碎韢淛甩푐폆뭻屭慄떢붜陋劁햿爐�쭝ᵢ嚲�熕댾ꟿ⌺킧ĵ轃黬眱⼅橬ꏂ寙켧뜮탨シ뼦ꋿﵟ鎽Ẇ瓟異�䟏�뀶璽譶㏞㠿ⴎ찒侦껨⦸�鹸災뙌拢졩ꢵ謍Ɓ῾鄘⊺਍湥獤牴慥൭攊摮扯൪㐊㤳〠漠橢਍㰼䘯汩整⽲汆瑡䑥捥摯⽥敌杮桴㈠㘲㸾਍瑳敲浡਍鱸遝橍ツ蔌㻷隅엓쳠䊔℗ꘐ눔࿨筍윀㉖䚆訶좳⯭憻
ᔊ⃘枉䯩퓷侑��ጞ麌嘒ࢶ七풞ʩ淧믚�䓙֥럮퇜吘荝ჾ䥱솼疡쁡ꔻ�笡痰ꗩퟯ뼘䙱偊ꚩ蜁ಣㅺ헱࣌悺컇盓䖹玄俩憿灬䒸酣䴍ꩊ嬨꩙䡑鿮厾棃蚯﮳廱뚇㷽拾띻癐陥攼┇蹈ৠ歯↊⩦ᾟ䙯਍湥獤牴慥൭攊摮扯൪㐊〴〠漠橢਍㰼䘯汩整⽲汆瑡䑥捥摯⽥敌杮桴㘠ㄹ⼸敌杮桴‱㐱㠱㸰ാ猊牴慥൭砊햜଻፴뗇묳嚒趿思낅報ﲶ㛁禮ﰈᢒ섌졎⯃浩Ɑ镩蒕꒭⇍䟤植蛜鉾शἡĒ歉椸튛篫筩뻚隓ﴴ鏑㚼ꇎ韓㎻⮳惉全乲廻顷㮝眳�쳿ߊᆄ
�㋰�穫꽵ꡜࡇ惻嫴䁏륾ጮ뼦挂秗䓶侜蔽홐萑귌ꆃ삡�譩ﰃỬ쟲蜆翟ֱ벡ࠋ癙擹﯉菖랯괂ꂷ虜⁠㼯ঽ⵨ﺁ弒㈠⦘﨏⌯뷄埪鈽ꚳ柺초셷�㒀퍅쀤ě౟ᇈ繷䓢禨荫䁒מּᆻ댪琢晕ൈ晇郚ࠋ䡾䎓ﳗ⥠Ꟍ䝯�袎暬廮鿋㷛핯嚻ಲ잞�䴷鿚㺿蕕瓐祐葯剦⭀䷔⃷熔ꄐᾙﾧㄦ㱣瑣ۨ䣄⡲㤇树뼂�棍ଈ㣱⌲팕쀫配⋑⼯쉦闄⶞ꊽ岈씗例꩚揰亨쎨뷱妉䈓掴﯑㗖獨╚琺牅쿿퀟翑廔燿ﵻ㱟叼쮗�槾⣴䀫椼⥰୔ൊ瑊᱙뺒쫩璱叙�뿾庝맲鏽
館ẛ爓鈡겝↠엓ៅ岷廴⻔㤾茳䗐뉛倏죞騩�媥㕲沯텞彐ୗ훉땑奼틥㛅텱ׂ镗캕⤯⨮젬쯏駍鶗馕麑ᕦ昬켓듨൷膊ꦸ뻂捱◛逘ْఢ쵵视΋䴔趜˩쇌かౝ闓쓀됪�瘡엚뿸�৅�㻖냩请䧱漊낡芩뉶掠솳넊쒳⇗�稀㋇�穲ε䬝Ḭ̈碠㶗౴굷ᓁ뫠嬺熏髈尅㟅㯛萝㢅�礩㷣ﭛ㬺泊ﺶ䝪뜜㣮꾲쾏ꊫ꠨溝뜓잴먅ꢍ焐ǐ飱莱㤓㷈镐뗩ꕻ絝幱⟪앖�減傾삘汏误떧恏붴⓯㳚ꛘᶽﴝ띤뮾稩ꀱ�ꅼᾌⳫ䑑᷒묛豛�韚欺绾娠
훞ͧޝ≅뛆⨾ခ◅恎貒ㄑ삙붲貓�온놾ܛ壀接둱昭帻�牵럦獨㢧붶滏꾋댭䯷圝⬝捀招㘧쒹덍ꩧ윝牲ꚙ斏폏첁咬乀凌ꊈࠓ㚸赔䜉䷶⋠텱ȣ紧㣶빗벒闤챨ኳ쟩冠〷펖ొ⹡뇏掋⋯Ѱ덛⑇쑽鹒⻳•靱쮄볁윁ꪫ쯢᎗ᅏ쇚살᫙濚皬觬�㥃뱢君窆惺网Ꭻ湔ᆳἫ炘㜡띻뇶袾旜采始῕ۧ쳈웋㈎ힳ䦘Ἤ莰뼻̀ス굮ﱈ鞛鑓赫ꋣ馏�萼ꝏ챸⹤ꯩ욐鐎ౕᶌ߬瓓⡁趎�껅膱椱晢�쟘疎轷㪅ఇ⚑幦倾眖懷橐膼⍩�쟞熗೽쫢ﻸ䓊嵝䫀깞뗕鱑髠澎螬盦奧ೳ

鹫쵢협줼꾚협찼䶚�髈갍콙᜚홫暰欕塚慣覍㰵끫᫫彨窃ꂯ߾﵁퐆ꄗ༾⣵柔ạ嬨퐤ꆇо䇵ި�픎甃ꔷ㳹紣㖔덏০㳖髎壇ჳ㩫던㖎妫銳ȵ챫荘⹜罨倗䇏ǽ돔콐﵀퐦ꀗ肞ᳺ쏔뽐㔀픆놻₾₭禭ɼ燯ቭῆ옑Ꮿ옑慕⿜ྌゲ䮾뼘ᡎ៯﯆▄엖텖킺镺풵扚눭堖곳혹歬㖦櫝媵⚬末΅鸨矏�睱旼譶㠓煵綳踽痧ꬫ�驾⛍쳰谱眿ᥧ摉ᄧ㏆�ꙓﶷꣽꟲ噤뮯娒鮄‘蛯숓搋឴읆ᤸꜝ▣磸ꨏ雯ఎ䀬ၳ㹎揸杧癡䐪黜掾둖뾾᝽佫ᥰ⃩䃏궙絿乑൨긕囍
歲⧙숓假쐆♳လ偙哉뫵痪੤⩤鲛精쥔涭늶㺈Ε맃쪠�㺓봿䳢ᐝ滣껣좫ꀇꅺ࿞♟뢇ఓ㔇赀됃봙㹡䚑ᯇꟐ�ﺁ訊讻겎湂瞘栙샗ޜ䱚ᱩ߂ﭩ琙퀇௾艷촻ꚝ殳艦ુ쉷๼৆�珑痨琖찟䒝┿肫⇲ⶸ辿ꄫ쀜쑿岓谏뉢퀿ؙ䏬톷턯밂輆韡✀뮏盂௛朸ﲠ劔攡ᕣ䂳˳珇䂍珶릇眸괷鼱驙㼅셐ꝰ凣䠮ꡈ赝慺㝧⦺镁龕๠앯뇛缏ἉḆ⡉烯�큚⤺䰇ꚙ촷ꅇ뎜წ됞聚ᦶᐾ酋쪈૑ꪐ૘笼跑曨湚큩㻥ヴ谺䄞ꅏ﨔�鴓꽇㭁ꃳ뤐熚�ꔉ訟
澆矅㺀ꐎ箔ퟰৰ੼ﯸ︑뜅ꐈ앦툏⸳쑾᯽᯷ˮ⟷⿮볝ྛ迳俳㿳翦�㩨穬㌵윶ꚩⳲ阅Ⱋꀇᐜ蓒싳슃툷偫젱å㚹鶣唠␌㓹�꣇軕祁봁靖鄓쨃⺌⤉렭眃ᷡ祖痱ͰḰ䡍ᣴɾ섟耯뼬㸪羏ﾇ�칽ᗂ啱契롺湞㜧緌뮉ﮟ砌৤◮嗮痮젮솘ﲅ빂늂뾝ᾞ濥迧ꟲ⓼ⷘ듓듚듆瓃젃홾셴⛴鉘狦ꍳᖹ쾊㐜櫟怾ࡾ稼㳒쥩媤돉寤Ⳛ孷똞난틼┲ਔ쉅⡢䈵킝㶅폂ׂ෡돫铒ⴴ臝蚞鿯幯봒舯罷뮏ꕄ㳸썸ﱍ쀼䤒燬芙䴿仡庄ड़殺稵侟�뎦❨㵿鯲糝
㨖쎂�㏰᝼ᙺ⸽쇬ﰃＤ릸틜㷉㿀쐭Ƅ෡︝댾ꡏߌᇰ⵮둄랆믰忨뜈鴜齅﭅ự瀸夎얟ၙ杫䖸胸凹룾ラ槟ᖾ̯阋쾙矱䚢ࡔ䛟梕ᦺᶾ쟉䜠⍾烳�龄퍣橛餆࢏ꜹ猧턦럚巡�殐ⷋ棲⽪ꚇ撚ߜ캚ᾑ㙚鳏�伱ꀌ詟꣬㴍ꫦ头榬礙┅㚥ٻ鶗�럆霔췫鋢諲䭪ꨕ韟安�尓⪪ɮ⁲攮榑䕡㎡朇⤮텟楦扂教慤湵ꑎ峉焜믞艰煛ꦼ瓉謒譤橳뉪朥薲�押겨鍥㠰䝉宋峨䭱浝옱聾譐⯋蚦䋺́呐�짰뭇赍⨫诬�曍�﮼슭ḏϤ⹟�헾猏㍳ㄪ�並
櫙痸쫳Ⲧ秹ﱙ첪࿬뗧겎׬嘛ᘕ漕魘喙僝㾎ᔴ顯ￃഴ㳷뷷횏⪛맒佧청땮井㢉✷費喋ᾉ绽껣୕㌲ⷬ洛诹際摥┬㽺還ჵ냘丘嚈ƴ䝭킻꺣闬ᩫｱꚎ궕헼䨫聶뽶诙隸혋ﮘ렧Ꮶ칥㚻ශ◔絞믶쯒퍺⻷㭇⿧텘뫘鐓ﵼ뱒뺤�続�崥ꏹꏙ▮䮣�◚轴뚺❍න㭕謧䁛캥䧉迺髩⯾煮떢೔匹䷯㰒翐溋꜏꺳ଖ⭋⺖梭Ŝ✚혟悂Ⱙ⸨উ놊謋讋謄ㅽ㕠ﴓ鮛ᣀ൅哵냿錄큵榇竲⻲᝴罄뗘�쮰㦄₭荿웩ꔅ督硿쫍ꋂ㥫硞臠꾧㸍垃烻ϻ쿼८꽕ꃸ溬닽䎞跽翕屔㮮힦恖
꺹隮먟窶썕䏵�෭鵚䗅ᬙꑗ䱧쾿흽㳔솵땦붊뷯杭컻돡囫䵶劽㕯銡ꅅ捭ᮛ籶훴⫫弫�柸㰧널杇寎蟯ꥨ啄ڨ眢樅䚭먏쮪ⶖ푷鲚⡹묳楬䵕絝諃웢閦洭ⲫ鰖��⸫韟垗⓬닱鋐삱䭙髰垚뒶㑦⽖幛뛕땪쇅摧瀵겑敷봬묷腦刣鵝磝�튁풜側�䂹웍Ȣ揸쐳륪짅ぱꅚ뜩�ꌗ鳆웲暦㱦赢ቦԷ㣄셋蔬롅㼹膿엇峘왬祂삾䯳秳ḿﺜ毡꟧衿��뉾님槕櫳崂ﱟ쭵綣훻辰檭섨霛뽍뮉펭슿╽쿓퐷繮崙즤ﾷ팋뼏ﴶ뢯蘉�驟㡙콴㗃讏ꮥ핎翮ᬢ쩿ﴶ㺘쮏䴗쫿Ⳣ纛
�ꛯꯢ㾦讓␣ᷣ蝅ᜬ왨葛籮铑塗ቤꗖ蟣造֝⊚ᙰ癧ꆥ㸂ˇ闑੾ꂷ뢅룭⼹嵧쀆력ᔍᥢ颈鯉郳ϔﺎꐎꠞЬኈ椡┒헖㜶૚ꅱ톭긆᪌ᇪ미먍虍἗㒵둿㸀訹鿧贾迧觢Ω鲏㨞衴᫫琻﷋웟퍹罯ﻻ๛轢뾞㯣맟秣ᖸ씝焯ꙓ恌࡛쵳풐䱹膹畿例꺐犏耽㏔朕⏒鑋齊�롖ףּ晌뭈嶛陙⚽鴐鞿ힻ蚔⟈鍑ꚓ꧓ᛜ隴⑂쭪浳䋹덮圭漰㆜柳꘼῕皞퓁爙噢罛슏㻅陋㿭ﲸ⣕쵼弿㞡犟㩼䯱㵩縲왛䇠㩍⇌ﳁ຦ꣳﳌ຺力챰패�氺륁댖଎꽨䢥궇삨◲丝㼷묋㠱픃鹛ﰬ쭽
澗뤓枷ཚ塓缠뉙䬾㓡彚懒⫒页�܅页䵇ꌅ氺셊ꌱ芒瓧苘᜖햜š芣男諘ପ㠍ꌽ䴯쨭縬兿슄蓩紐償茸姰亚쳡순ປϧ垜䩚苡鰔먲䇖ס졋틚ѕᚶ윥齽歫쒛設升䑠坬邵䦪䔑혍综魱蒋淅塲�夾꧜蜄傼᪠즄夑䖓Ჯ虖늂瑗쓇䵮謉唛䁿謎큒똫⓻࿍竰䡥꯶ꈣᐒ嫫橚ᳩ甀戵穖㩖鴡偂铕┡廊ㇽﲑ틑縫뱑뢒ꏉ쌆焎ꚝ⎩ዐ봚䤑謋唑ꣴ邁๟쇈ᢈ樁諺㲈ꄚ얔⥁ 怽䲑膇솬ᚷƮๆ鍑浕ੈ㜪ຓ䃙ﶓᒲḆꋵ且婑ὂ䨎擓鉃Ꚑ凮늼褨芠᪀푔ᡨ䠘⬨䜬畄呐
䲈䮰͈ܽ䀣劋焂ൠ䪕쨍Ẅ蛠垀蝂ᆣፙ뇃䑰『鍕㉥œễꓒ侐ñᑺࠬ쏼䆂⏉ᎇܺ䭕ᥐ茋⚪듶䐻櫂필Ჰꭳ䌥ŀ퐤켤᮰∠䕹ꚯ臬꽡Ḓ⎖舑蔠玀ᰩ�䚐瓷ᵇᲢ퓱蠸䛶灤栮�⨎ꉾ뼵稃➪蕊趀씥�畮虔ᆁ뚥邕᷎綑Ʉ렽숥赈⦸䨨꽞㱂釙뇢큊迣廒践鑇侈ꭴ˰ᢹ꠶ႊ橋Ⱇಥંẃ✐⣸髿쳂ꪤ꙾ό슼矄눤㢓⟤퀪ಙ醑䞰蜉≕宜ꭳ㜁בֿ콤ꢰ陋颢઀䥆䩥䠉쁃艷夁嬂뛨ࡾ〗砑쁃㰍我䴑꯵푃㫺Ლ⣴잚鸏З櫵씒⼃쯴눞⤘㱀ࢌ앃횢哓䒷㯽蟤ꈛꈃ戉候ᨩ净窈㵘슪
飼ጂ஬൒免ꌒ톃�颖씥鍓੎固鳉䥡᠒∍ᙪ⇏㝣ࣝ㦑ᒲ꫈ꉌ莹㼀冃�⯜嘱�䲈Ẳ�邫萕꽙즢뜺≤褜觹嶰뫠⑻配ㄣ欦␠≹䋄꣮⿟顇搡췐麰咭꒍㯚暉謈昀ዴ應噈爃卄∼ᶳ쫑免鱠䏘쟵梆萾㠔盄첣䉁䦬恪㲛婋뢫랥ꚕ毼⍡뮢髆뫚娄躵ኖ怭蕬馺Ḅꐶ䄐ㆀ離䁲蛒ᙁ䦘໩緎႖ፕ검팢ᵼ䝡ᎃꠈʹ᪏舍䒐䦥�Ⅳ歹책褗媄캝醑骑ㆀ͝梌偑䡽剶㬫ే鷞⩉棡ਧ⠥戵ᪿ沅⌒ᄉ劘羘폐戃숷奲⿈飅椪˾샮茧곔ᴐ━愒ᴧ쨑碯⃤֡愓ᆢ᠝椔蓂悖�㎁ᯁ䓵諀ꑰ␪ꢩ扚
倃ࣔ腄蔯ᆳ鄩벶⃕⎜쪕儲렎䦉ꯄ蘿詛㍎㠔〉�찆㩒㚭膪Պ腶蘃匘윣␧ꃟ镟뎼➵ꤙ䱞哘䚍蜠槂쑇㠤�騟冭斸挄㨺蠱콂齌⛢劎芃䕈ਚठ凹訯ᭀ幄歸绰褊୰薬Ӓᛐ₤谏⢫甌瀐푅坎艛ԑ₠兼梋퀝䏳ර蛆ྐ싦➴⭃砞Ż㭳짌댰肂헩艛䠽놩⎕ᕴᩒ檄튐鄐씛�씊ࣝﳫ錠筌≌ꯂ쪏ퟥ퟇ᩓꁕ툮䕽蝔ꁚꛔ掬産꩔鐬ꭎ᳜钪↓兊窢ﰠ㠑玠⧼Ԕ⩝퍔�〄Ꭱๆ㦪檍䑹ᯯぼ棫꽴찈璋U侴∤莔⛔鴑�䑻池캔㰛蠓ꑰﳨⴱ꬚㫃鞷鯪忬宣⤲좓⑎ꈟ⬜賄脡땆䌭갿⇫ᓵ
簳伅�᰿�隒뽐⛔䨡ཥ苕몋Зᘨퟱ怨ല葙࣏냖錓䐥懟꾌伤㫌齬궤䩔톏啺罵扉ꥇ㓝䧊樌媄픺趫幙꒐䐽㌣堄箄㵆잪팠�螂獊龹멫壮ꪛ䆅煪瑀笑娘킍㉱ల扫寠麪౓올댃䚡ỷⰆⴖ蒎법⫔騤廘퓃鄮Ԅꑐ蘒ꭵ댙먡郞ꇓﷻ蔨鸈␇⑶潼檄鿒쿨贠쌙ﳗ濔�봣隒በ瑋⩍瑌䨲ﮠ퐪즢踀�훏憝ᇷῊ즑⅍醦騚艍켔畋읤爕脬仈�査㱋⥂棸偶衵⯙뚕熋霶닯劘ᐼꏓ❛덌⾔ｅ亚裙锦㣪㩽且ᷤ℩罸ூ武鐲ী쳓ꘘ朱치宭ꇞᭋ㞀䵛聢ꟸ襸飶
ꔀ缩Ꚍ䌃뺺휯䲀勏◟䯚俗ᘗⱅз漨ᓾ⋎펑⡭卧ꦓᐥ轐틶詳꽹坆⹘叴ᡍᣒ䘹ㅦ塠椦播ᇬ���﹄杢㬇�ⲹ⟫䆞趍�奷妁噥举쏥殫產퍖餣㞴攁섹鑁읪횐隈玹峪钙럹墚楷ᩌ룧䞤垚礿꒯탧뉥軍좄磟抗啶멵몃䦟茎轣ᾮ஢䉿潲巊礯გᥛ뵷횤㒽ߪ叵榄䯖丽䒾욷ㆹ雽ⱆꗛ�鐽蔗맦Ⳙኻ鏯㔨蘣铜㽟䷅ࢍ摖錶�ጻ挾煨촮疅☋믹䐰䛯㨁冦ᆯ앧쐫⓿国탡中⛮⥃䏷୶騜嬥獒纒魃ߋ톶謈ﳒꆨ䑖婮뒽渵ퟹዪ縙ࣗ檔绡㥶ꡋ緍낶囈뉒꒙냧㨡턛
싽銛攭ᶚ騵핯髄枹턇쒻櫰丣ᕷᵾꥁൟ鵎㔃Ʌ촏䄿鋝鞆엎盅岰⍟쑟瑨Dծ仚ᦈ橒ⷨ᫪᳽퉵ꉽힺⲓ䳫斉级䡯믕乳졞ጩ廉荐龾쓊⛮똤榌饊㾕�騞乾�䋋ᯔ덢㊼ｹ䖛鄤␉雽팮뤛�鋚瓟ꖆ哼餢Æ诣ࢭ簧惈قꉇ큯䮚섻佋裢謞⯬䥕哜蓔叵急㔞龢븅⑬魱뵌祭퓧夽뻃⩇缁贙 鶽꽸�허䲟䦷짪ᐻ䃋깆䰄ₕ꘵雕Ϣቄଦ苻∱䍓ퟆ묧۹崮퉑秤יּ潖❘丵穕攃僷淶塧ꃓꏣ洧揨鑽雽퐑錭溤衄殢鷗⣈鑪淼久䧩鿔罓慭篷ぷꐟ␫ꩺᅸ闹枆ѿ妜﹉�ྜ
�䅗㾯ꐸꛃ茰Н⺾ଜ敖䀿㶎ഋ攊摮瑳敲浡਍湥潤橢਍㐴‱‰扯൪嬊〠⁛〵崰†㌱嬱㐠㠵⁝⁝਍湥潤橢਍㐴′‰扯൪㰊⼼祔数䴯瑥摡瑡⽡畓瑢灹⽥䵘⽌敌杮桴㌠㠰㸳ാ猊牴慥൭㰊砿慰正瑥戠来湩∽믯⊿椠㵤圢䴵䴰䍰桥䡩牺卥乺捔歺㥣≤㸿砼砺灭敭慴砠汭獮砺∽摡扯㩥獮洺瑥⽡•㩸浸瑰㵫㌢ㄮ㜭㄰㸢㰊摲㩦䑒⁆浸湬㩳摲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯睷⹷㍷漮杲ㄯ㤹⼹㈰㈯ⴲ摲ⵦ祳瑮硡渭⍳㸢㰊摲㩦敄捳楲瑰潩摲㩦扡畯㵴∢†浸湬㩳摰㵦栢瑴㩰⼯獮愮潤敢挮浯瀯晤ㄯ㌮
∯ਾ瀼晤债潲畤散㹲楍牣獯景쉴₮潗摲映牯䴠捩潲潳瑦㌠㔶⼼摰㩦牐摯捵牥㰾爯晤䐺獥牣灩楴湯ਾ爼晤䐺獥牣灩楴湯爠晤愺潢瑵∽•砠汭獮携㵣栢瑴㩰⼯異汲漮杲搯⽣汥浥湥獴ㄯㄮ∯ਾ搼㩣牣慥潴㹲爼晤区煥㰾摲㩦楬款睴敥祤⼼摲㩦楬㰾爯晤区煥㰾搯㩣牣慥潴㹲⼼摲㩦敄捳楲瑰潩㹮㰊摲㩦敄捳楲瑰潩摲㩦扡畯㵴∢†浸湬㩳浸㵰栢瑴㩰⼯獮愮潤敢挮浯砯灡ㄯ〮∯ਾ砼灭䌺敲瑡牯潔汯䴾捩潲潳瑦껂圠牯⁤潦⁲楍牣獯景⁴㘳㰵砯灭䌺敲瑡牯潔汯㰾浸㩰牃
慥整慄整㈾㈰ⴳ㈱〭吱㤰㔺㨳㈰〭㨶〰⼼浸㩰牃慥整慄整㰾浸㩰潍楤祦慄整㈾㈰ⴳ㈱〭吱㤰㔺㨳㈰〭㨶〰⼼浸㩰潍楤祦慄整㰾爯晤䐺獥牣灩楴湯ਾ爼晤䐺獥牣灩楴湯爠晤愺潢瑵∽•砠汭獮砺灭䵍∽瑨灴⼺港⹳摡扯⹥潣⽭慸⽰⸱⼰浭∯ਾ砼灭䵍䐺捯浵湥䥴㹄畵摩䘺㡆ㅂいⴷㄱ㘲㐭ㄷⴵ䔸㡃㐭㡅㐴䈳〴ㄴ㰵砯灭䵍䐺捯浵湥䥴㹄砼灭䵍䤺獮慴据䥥㹄畵摩䘺㡆ㅂいⴷㄱ㘲㐭ㄷⴵ䔸㡃㐭㡅㐴䈳〴ㄴ㰵砯灭䵍䤺獮慴据䥥㹄⼼摲㩦敄捳楲瑰潩㹮 ††††††††
†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††ਠ†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††ਠ†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††
††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††ਠ†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††ਠ†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††
†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††ਠ†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††
Subject: \[External\] RE: Notice of Draft Prospectus Review/Hopkins Farm Mitigation Bank /SAW-2023-01803/ Caswell Co.-
Post-Field Visit Modifications

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):
3

1. I 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:
1. If you have not already done so, please provide an agent authorization from the landowner as soon as
possible.
2. Is site in the slate belt?
3. NCWRC will recommend mussel surveys.
4. Flow gauges will be required on all smaller streams.
5. 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.
6. 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?
c. Do you anticipate beaver impacts to the site?
4

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 may be 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 d iscussed 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
5

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. UT4D - 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. UT4B - 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 UT4B, 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

6

"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]
7

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]
8

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

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]
9