HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAW_2023_01803_Hopkins_IRTVisitFinalNotes_Comments_2023.12.01
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 mitigation.
o General
▪ Need to update channel incision, bank erosion, and water quality stressors mapping to most
recent conditions.
▪ Intermittent streams need to be monitored for flow and it will likely be recommended to do
benthic sampling. 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.
▪ 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 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.
▪ Reference the action ID on all submittals.
▪ 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.
▪ 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
3
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
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.
4
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.
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.
5
USACE Comments
Email from Todd Tugwell (dated 11/29/2023):
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 t o 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.
USACE Notes:
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.
6
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.
7
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.
8
Agency Comments (Transmitted from USACE):
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.
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC (by email dated 12/01/2023):
1. I do not have any additional concerns than those you have expressed below (USACE previous email) and
those we discussed in the field. If they go forward, then we may ask for mussel surveys in the downstream
section of UT4.