20211420 Ver 1_Zeb Creek Mit Plan_IRT Comments

Fw: [External] Draft Mitigation Plan IRT Comments/ KCI Cape Fear 0 UMBI - Zeb Creek
Site / SAW-2021-01870/ Rockingham County
Polizzi, Maria <[e-mail]>
Tue 1/2/2024 10:05 AM
To:Friedman-Herring, Andrew <[e-mail]>
0 1 attachments (199 KB)
Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo-KCI CF02 Zeb Creek_SAW-2021-01870.pdf;
Hey Andrew,
I hope you had an enjoyable holiday! Would you mind filing this email in Laserfiche and updating the spreadsheet
when you get a chance. I may send you a couple other emails to file as well.
Thanks!
Maria Polizzi
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Office: (919)-707-9083 Cell: (919)-815-4586
Email: maria.polizzi deq.nc.gov
Address: 512 N. Salisbury St., Archdale Building 942-H, Raleigh, NC
US Mail: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
a.rr.ti�al r,�r'�fr..al ouspxr
From: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Kirsten Ullman <[e-mail]>
Cc: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Twyla Cheatwood <[e-mail]>; Polizzi, Maria
<[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie <[e-mail]>;
Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Draft Mitigation Plan IRT Comments/ KCI Cape Fear 02 UMBI - Zeb Creek Site / SAW-2021-
01870/ Rockingham County
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.

Kirsten,
Attached are the KCI Cape Fear 02- Zeb Creek Mitigation Plan IRT comments. You may proceed with developing
the final mitigation plan provided you adequately address all comments/concerns in the enclosed memo. I would
like to review KCI's response to IRT comments prior to receiving the final mitigation plan.
After review of response to IRT comments, please submit one (1) electronic copy of the Final Mitigation Plan to
me via RIBITS and I will distribute to the IRT. Additionally, please upload the final plan to DWR's Laserfiche. Please
submit your Nationwide Permit 27 application to me directly for review and approval prior to discharging fill
material into waters of the United States. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to set
up a call to discuss the enclosed comments.
Thank you,
Casey
From: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:25 AM
To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Matthews, Kathryn ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Twyla Cheatwood <[e-mail]>; Polizzi,
Maria <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kirsten Ullman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notice of Draft Mitigation Plan Review/ KCI Cape Fear 02 UMBI - Zeb Creek Site / SAW-2021-01870/
Rockingham County
Good morning IRT,
On September 20, 2023, KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC provided a draft mitigation plan for the KCI Cape
Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Zeb Creek Mitigation Site (SAW-2021-01870), located in Rockingham County.
With this email, we are initiating the NCIRT review of these documents as outlined in Section 332.8(d)(6) of the
Mitigation Rule. If you would like to receive a hard copy, please let me know and one will be provided to you.
30-Day Comment Start Date: September 27, 2023
30-Day Comment Deadline: October 27, 2023
90-Day DE Deadline: December 26, 2023
The draft mitigation plan can be found on the RIBITs website at the following
link: https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=107:278:1629795654776Q.-.RP,278:P278 BANK ID:6129
Please note that you must be logged in to access documents in the cyber repository. If you have any trouble
accessing the link, please let me know.
Davey Contact: Kirsten Ullman, [e-mail]
Bank Sponsor: KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC
USACE Bank Manager: Casey Haywood, [e-mail]
Thank you for your participation,

Casey
Casey Haywood
Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
[phone] work cell
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an
authorized state official.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
December 21, 2023
CESAW-RG/Haywood
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: KCI Cape Fear 02- Zeb Creek Mitigation Site (SAW-2021-01870) - NCIRT
Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review, Rockingham County, NC
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received from the NCIRT during the 30-
day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(d)(7) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
Olivia Munzer NCWRC:
1. Pg. 15, Section 3.1.9 Threatened and Endangered Species:
a. Second paragraph: Fix date
b. The tricolored bat should be mentioned in this section since there is
habitat at the site and it is proposed endangered. Perhaps state that KCI
will consult with the USFWS once the tricolored bat is listed.
c. Since NCWRC did not conduct official federal or state -listed species
surveys, please remove the sentence that states "On October 7, 2021,
NCWRC staff visited the site but did not find any listed species during the
visit." For clarification, NCWRC had no incidental observations of mussels
at the I RT site visit.
2. Section 6.13 Planting: NCWRC would like to see different seed mixes for
different habitat types, especially wetlands vs. uplands. We would also like to
more diversity in herbaceous flowering species for pollinator species. We
recommend species such as Monarda, Eupatorium, Helenium, Vernonia,
Solidago, or Bidens.
Maria Polizzi, NCDWR:
1. Could culvert crossings be internal to the easement? This has become the
preferred standard for agricultural crossings and ensures future maintenance
of the crossings can be performed through the conservation easement
steward.

2. The existing conditions table (Table 3) is very helpful.
3. The NCDWR Stream ID forms included in the appendix are blank.
4. Have any wetland gauges been installed to monitor pre -construction
hydrology as requested at the IRT field meeting?
5. DWR would like to see more soil borings with associated "in" or "out" points
plotted on map. The detailed profile descriptions are sufficient unless a
different soil series is identified during the investigation. This is necessary to
determine the appropriate wetland mitigation strategy and associated credit
ratio. Specifically, investigation along T1 and T2 is required to identify soil
series and ensure that hydric soil is present for areas proposed as
reestablishment.
6. Does the cattle exclusion fencing encompass all wetland areas along T2? It
appears that it may only extend slightly past the stream restoration portion of
the reach, but it is difficult to tell based on the boundary marking plan as the
conservation easement boundary is not shown. Cattle should be excluded
from the entire conservation easement if that is not already being proposed.
7. Based on the information provided in Section 6.2, the uplift provided by
riparian wetland enhancement is invasive species treatment (a temporary
benefit) and inclusion in the conservation easement. DWR does not feel that
this justifies a 2:1 credit ratio as this is the same level of action that would be
taken on a preservation area (at a ratio of 10:1). Please provide additional
justification if additional uplift is proposed or reduce the ratio to better suit the
actions described.
8. It appears based on the planting plan that T2 will receive Zone 2 and 3
plantings. However, the aerial map shows this area to be mostly forested. No
stream work is proposed in this location, although berm removal is shown on
the design sheets. Please provide more detail about how much tree removal
will occur and what planting is needed/planned in this location.
9. Please include a mini -map on the design plan sheets to help identify where
the current sheet fits into the overall site. This would help prevent a lot of
flipping back and forth and overall simplify the review process.
10. Please include design specifications for all proposed culvert and ford
crossings to be installed or upgraded as a part of the project.
11.Typically, cascades are found in A -type streams, or other rocky, high slope
reaches. Please provide more information about why cascade riffles are
proposed for this project.
12. DWR requests additional groundwater gauges to monitor wetland hydrology
throughout the project. There are four different wetland practices proposed

(reestablishment, rehabilitation, enhancement and creation) over 5 separate
streams. Six stream gauges is not sufficient to monitor all these variables,
especially on Chewacla soils, which are not technically hydric and are prone
to variability.
Casey Haywood, USACE:
1. Please list sections 3.1.8 & 3.1.9 in the Table of Contents.
2. Section 3.1.9- ESA: IPaC indicates suitable habitat for tricolored bat (Perimyotis
subflavus) may be present at the site. Species proposed for listing are not
afforded protection under the Act; however, as soon as a listing becomes
effective (typically 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register), the prohibitions against jeopardizing its continued existence and "take"
will apply. Therefore, if you suspect the project may affect tricolored bats after the
potential new listing goes into effect, we recommend coordinating with USFWS.
Please run the IPaC planning tool again since other species have been listed/up-
listed, and please include the species conclusion table in the final mitigation plan.
3. Section 3.1.5- Existing conditions of Tributary 4 need to be discussed in more
detail. As indicated on Table 3, and discussed during the October 2021 site visit,
there was approximately 100 LF below the confluence of T5 that had good bed
features and appeared to be stable.
4. Section 3.1.11- As a reminder, please be sure to include an impact map with the
ePCN application. Also, any crossing impacts you believe qualify as agricultural
exemptions should be clearly reported with location, impact length, culvert size,
etc.
5. Section 6.0- Do you have any reference wetland sites available?
6. Section 6.2-
a. As discussed during the October 7, 2021, IRT site visit, pre -gauge data
should be collected as well to help demonstrate uplift. The text states that
existing wetlands will be improved by increasing the hydroperiod, but how
do you know this without capturing hydrology data?
b. The narrative indicates the uplift in wetland enhancement areas only
include invasive species treatment and inclusion in the easement. Please
provide further justification for the proposed ratio. Looking at the planting
plan, it appears that these areas will also be planted. Please confirm.
7. Section 6.7- (related to comment 3) What work, if any, is being proposed on the
stable section of T4? Given the discussion on site, the functional uplift potential
for this section seems limited, and a 1:1 ratio would not be appropriate. Please
discuss the existing conditions and proposed functional uplift of this section of T4
in greater detail to justify the ratio. Would enhancement be more appropriate?
Additionally, please update Figure 7 & 9 accordingly.
8. Section 6.10- It is appreciated that the some of the crossings were moved to the
top of the reaches outside of the project area. Please clarify the language in this
section to state that there are a total of five culverted crossings as shown on
Figure 9. More details should be included in the narrative (ie internal/external,
culvert material, etc). If crossing will remain external, please briefly state why
they were not able to be internal. The IRT strongly encourages crossings to be

internal, so they are held to the restrictions of the conservation easement, and
oversight by the Long-term Steward.
9. Section 6.13- During the IRT site visit we discussed considering a scrub -shrub
type of wetland community for the wetland that is in the location of the old pond
at the headwaters of T3 due to the wetness regime of that area. Are there any
concerns regarding the survivability of the species proposed if the area becomes
too wet?
10. Section 6.14- Please remove the statement that refers to the site as a golf
course. If there is a significant amount of fescue on site we recommend to
treating it prior to or during construction to improve the overall functional uplift of
the site, and to ensure planted vegetation can establish.
11. Table 14: Please update to include the enhancement acreage, and please verify
if the wetland restoration acres listed are correct.
12. Section 7- If you intend on using the regional supplement to document vegetative
indicators and soil temperature at the beginning of the growing season, you must
also take these measurements at the end of the growing season to determine the
end -date. If you intend on using the WETS table for establishing November 11 as
the end of the growing season, you must also use what is listed in the WETS
table to establish the beginning of the growing season. Only one method for
determining the growing season dates should be used. Additionally, once the
growing season is established those same dates will need to be used for the life
of the project for project monitoring consistency.
13. Section 8-
a. Will an onsite rain gauge be installed? If so, please include on Figure 10. If
not, please identify the proposed rainfall data source location and distance
from the project site.
b. Stream Hydrologic Monitoring: Please clarify that the stream gauges have
been installed to document bankfull and flow.
c. Reporting: Please be sure to include redline drawings in the MYO Report
detailing any changes/deviations from the approval mitigation plan design,
including plant species and quantities.
14. Please update the figures to include the Zeb Creek reach breaks that are
discussed in the narrative.
15. Figure 10-
a. As a general rule, please include at least one random plot along each
tributary each monitoring year to give an overall indication of vegetation
success. Please add a permanent veg plot to the wetland rehabilitation
area above the crossing on Zeb Creek near the wetland gauge (below the
confluence of ZC and T3).
b. Flow gauges: Please add flow gauges to T1 & T3 intermittent reaches.
c. Wetland gauges: Given that approximately 9 acres of wetlands are
proposed on site with varying approaches, the site does not have an
adequate number of groundwater gauges proposed. Please install a
minimum of 3 additional gauges in the following locations (1) Near the veg
plot in the wetland reestablishment area above the T3/ZC confluence (2)
on the fringe of the wetland reestablishment area above the T1/ZC

confluence & (3) in the wetland creation area between existing wetland 13
and 14.
16. Design Sheets:
a. Cover page needs to note Design Sheets as Section 12.1
b. A grading plan would have been helpful for this review considering the
amount of grading proposed in wetland credit areas (re-establishment,
rehabilitation & creation) to include stream grading. Please include a
grading plan differentiating areas less than and greater than 12 inches.
c. Please include culvert type and dimensions in callout, and a typical culvert
crossing detail. Recommend coordinating with WRC prior to finalizing
culvert type/design.
d. Sheet DT2- The water quality treatment feature depth is shown as 1 foot
minimum, is a max depth proposed? Is the feature meant to dry
seasonally?
e. Please show monitoring stations on the design sheets.
17.Appendix 12.2:
a. Please include the NCSAM & NCWAM forms in this section as referenced
in the plan.
b. The nutrient calculation document is missing from this section.
c. Soils Report: In general, a more detailed soil investigation report should
be provided for proposed wetland restoration areas, including a map of all
soil sample GPS locations delineating drained and hydric soil boundaries,
photos, representative boring logs, and LSS assessment narrative.
18.Appendix 12.4: Initial Allocation of Released Credits -
a. First bullet should read "Execution of the UMBI by KCI and the USACE
(this was a modification to an instrument);"
b. last bullet should read "Documentation of the establishment of the long-
term endowment/escrow account."
19. Appendix 12.5:
a. Financial Assurance: Please identify the Principle, Surety and Obligee.
b. Please state that it is anticipated that the Bank will provide financial
assurances in the form of overlapping Performance Bonds, obtained from
a company licensed in North Carolina, for mitigation banking activities that
conforms to stipulations detailed in Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-1,
dated February 14, 2005.
c. Model Performance Bond: Please use the most updated USACE
Wilmington District Performance Bond template dated December 2016.
This can be found on RIBITS.
d. The long-term management plan should identify the financial institution
where the funds will be kept, and the account status should be available to
the District upon request. For banks that have a long-term endowment
established, annual monitoring reports must include a bank/account
statement form the institution holding the funds that shows the balance
and account activity, including deposits, withdrawals, and interest earned.

20.Appendix 12.6: Please ensure that the signed PJD is included in the final
mitigation plan, signed by Casey Haywood 11/30/2021. The version included in
the draft plan was not signed.
21. General comment: The appendices were difficult to navigate. Please QAQC the
document to eliminate any unnecessary blank pages, and please consider
moving the buffer plan to the last section of the document. I would suggest
following something similar to the DMS template for future mitigation bank plans.
22. Please be advised that the Zeb Creek Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
included as an Appendix in the report has not been reviewed by the IRT. Please
continue to coordinate with NCDWR as needed.
Sincerely,
cla-17 W F11"I-3-d
Casey Haywood
Project Manager
USACE Regulatory Division
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List