Plan for PN

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan
Zeb Creek Restoration Site
DWR ID# 2021-1420
Jordan Lake – Haw Arm
Cape Fear River Basin
HU 03030002010050
October 2024
PREPARED BY:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PC
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
This page intentionally left blank
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
October 14, 2024
Katie Merritt, DWR
Kirsten Ullman, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Zeb Creek Buffer Plan
Mitigation Plan Review – Response to IRT Comments
Rockingham County, NC
DWR ID# 2021-1420
Below are our responses to DWR comments received on the riparian buffer and nutrient offset plan for
the Zeb Creek Restoration Site dated October 2024.
Thank you for your comments and guidance.
Kirsten Ullman,
Project Manager
Page 22 (Table 7): Cannot confirm compliance until Figure 7b has been updated according to comments
provided.
Figure 7b has been updated to only show watershed boundaries for the ephemeral reach.
Additionally, the figure has been updated to depict width category boundaries as requested in
subsequent comments.
Page 29 (Figure 4): According to .0295 (o) (7) The drainage for just the ephemeral portion needs to be
depicted as well.
See the response to the previous comment.
Page 33 (Figure 7b):
No width boundary is shown to depict this width category ( )
No width boundary is shown to depict this width category ( )
No width boundary is shown to depict this width category ( )
No width boundary is shown to depict this width category ( )
Buffer zone boundaries have been added to all project reaches for all categories represented in
the legend and in Table 7.
Based off of a previous DWR comment (comment 36 in the comment summary of this report) once 101-
200 ft width boundary is drawn on this map, KCI may notice where restoration credit should be
measured off of T3 vs Zeb Creek. Update the credit table accordingly.
We have divided the restoration area adjacent to Zeb Creek/T3 according to the perpendicular
101-200 boundaries, and updated Table 7 accordingly.
The width boundaries (0-30, 31-50, 51-100, and 101-200) need to be depicted on this map (each in a
different line style).
Width boundaries for all the categories have been added to the map.
Page 56: These are good photos, for future reference, please have drone photos time stamped.
Thank you! Noted.
Date: October 8, 2024
To: Katie Merritt, DWR
From: Kirsten Ullman, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Subject: Zeb Creek Buffer Plan
Mitigation Plan Review – Response to IRT Comments
Rockingham County, NC
DWR ID# 2021-1420
Below are our responses to DWR comments received on the riparian buffer and nutrient offset plan
for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site (Version 1, dated August 2023). The previous response to
comments (received April 2024, responded June 2024) is included in Appendix 1.
Thank you for your comments and guidance.
Kirsten Ullman,
Project Manager
1.Monitoring & Credit
The monitoring details have been removed from Figure 7, and a new figure (Figure 8) has been added
showing the monitoring details.
2.As depicted in FIgure 7
This change has been made.
3.These numbers may change. Possibly just use acreage here since that's less likely to change.
Noted

4. Can you supply drone photos to support this statement? the 2022 photos are still too old...

The monitoring plots have been added to Figure 7. A Riparian Buffer Width Figure has been added as
Figure 6.

5. The spoil piles were relevant to these assets because they are noted for being along with tops of the
stream banks and preventing diffused flow. add back in and just acknowledge that they will be
graded back? seeded? planted? left alone? etc..

The sentence was added back in with the addition of "During the restoration of Zeb Creek, graded
back and replanted."

6. is broken into two reaches and.

The change has been made.

7. Address the rule on Ephemerals (0295 (o)(6) and tell me if the area proposed for buffer credits is all
within the contributing drainage area to the Ephemeral channel. You will need to reference a Figure
confirming your answer on that. See rule for specific language and address accordingly..

Contributing watershed areas have been added to the tributaries on Figure 4. The text in this
paragraph has been updated to reference this figure, and also notes that T2a has areas with several
different conditions (pasture and grazed forested area).

8. Stream designations from DWR do not align with the designations in this Plan. If DWR called a
stream "Int", please use that designation in the Plan.

The wording from T2b has been changed to intermittent.

9. According to DWR's on site stream determination, T1, T2b, T3, and T4 are supposed to be
intermittent. Stream designations from DWR do not align with the designations in this Plan. If DWR
called a stream "Int", please use that designation in the Plan.

The wording from T2b has been changed to intermittent.

10. to less than 30'.

This change has been made.

11. Address berm & spoil piles within section 3.1 since the activities proposed within these areas appear
to be applicable to "Site Preparation".

This has been corrected.

12. Where is Figure 9? Is this supposed to reference figure 7 or is it referencing Figure 9 of the stream
plan?

This has been changed to Figure 7.

13. Figure 5 and

This change has been made.

14. Reference the correct appendix.

Appendix 5

15. Figure 5

This change has been made.

16. Reference the correct appendix.

Appendix 5

17. Provide details on how the external easement crossings will be marked in Section 3.5. DWR expects
they will be adequately marked to avoid risks of encroachment or cattle access. When coming out
to do the As-Built Walk for task 2 credit release review, how should this CE crossing look?

Fencing and boundary marking are detailed Appendix 5; this text section has been updated to
include detail on the sign type and spacing of boundary markers.

18. planted

This change has been made.

19. thank you for breaking down the # of plots for just this Buffer Plan. Unfortunately, DWR will not
support such a larger number of random plots versus fixed plots in the buffer/nutrient offset areas.
You will be able to have 2 random plots and the rest will need to be fixed.

The buffer plots have been changed and now include 11 permanent plots and 2 random plots.

20. Add text to this paragraph acknowledging whether the DWR fixed plots in the buffer/nutrient credit
areas are also going to be monitored for IRT.

The text has been added.

21. Since this is a stream/wetland project too, DWR will allow the older way of reporting monitoring
data. If this were not a combo project w/ the IRT, KCI would have to use the new process for
reporting data.

Noted.

22. KCI is not applying non-standard buffer widths towards the stream credits. (is this worded
correctly?)

Correct; any areas of non-standard (wider) buffer within the site are receiving riparian buffer and
nutrient offset credit, where eligible, and are NOT also being considered for additional stream credit.
Stream credits on the site are calculated strictly based on linear footage, level of intervention, and
standard buffer width.

23. approximately 6 acres more or less,

This change has been made.

24. or enhancement (w/ supplemental planting).

This change has been made.

25. riparian restoration or riparian enhancement areas for nutrient offset credit instead of riparian
buffer credits, then the maximum expected nutrient offsets would be 7,673.923 lbs of Nitrogen and
428.180 lbs of Phosphorus. All delivery factors have been applied to the credit calculations depicted
in Table 7.

This change has been made.

26. we do not use delivery factors anymore for credit determination in Jordan. We call these "N Credit
Conversion Ratios and P Credit Converstion Ratios, which are calcuated based on the % delivery
factor within that 14 digit HUC. These credit conversion ratios are already calculated in the hidden
formulas of your Table 7 and are located at the top right of the table. Therefore, whatever N & P is
shown to the far right of the table in WHITE colored cells, is the maximum N & P allowed to be
converted from the buffer credits.

Noted.

27. U

Changed to MBI.

28. Additionally, no credit conversions are allowed until the AsBuilt Report & AsBuilt Survey have been
approved in writing by DWR.

This change has been made.

29. Send Blake the Live spreadsheet so we can check the numbers before FINAL plan submittal

KCI will include this.

30. T3 should have Restoration 0-100, but it appears that area of Restoration is being measured
incorrectly off Zeb Creek instead. See comments on Figure 6 and address accordingly.

The area in question was measured off of T3, but T3 was accidentally omitted from the Feature
Name column. T3 has been added. The feature name now includes "T1, T3, T4, T5" Additionally,
Figure 7B has been added that shows the 0-100' Zones of each stream.

31. This culvert is shown to be wihtin the proposed CE. is it being removed too? This detail should be
depicted on the Figure that represents the Site Plan. Figure 4 or 5 are likely the best options.

This culvert crossing is being relocated immediately upstream of its current location. A label has been
added to Figure 4.

32. Comment responses indicate that all culvert crossings will be moved to be outside of the CE. Since
you said "Remove culvert crossing" on T4, please show that on all existing culverts where that is
occurring.

This culvert is being removed. A label has been added to Figure 4.

33. Remove I & P designations, just call them streams. DWR did not make I/P designations and this is
implies that we support those I/P calls which we did not confirm.

Figure 4 has been updated with this change.

34. For consistency, label T2a and T2b.

Figure 5 has been updated with this change.

35. Seeing the radius off the origin of T2a is very helpful now. However, it would be more helpful to see
these widths also displayed on the credit asset map. Let's meet virtually to avoid confusion.

As we discussed, we have added Figure 7B which displays the 0-100' buffer zones of each stream.

36. Where the width boundaries start being measured from TOB of new feature, like here with T3, the
credits must be measured off that new feature (T3) and must stop being measured off the other one
((zeb creek). How this works: measure 0-100' off a feature (zeb creek) and then once the confluence
of another features (T3) comes in, start at that 100' off Zeb and then start measuring 0-200' off T3.
Currently, the credit asset map provided, shows preservation areas measured off Zeb Creek that
should be measured off T3, which is not subject.

The credit table and figures have been updated. Additionally, Figure 7B has been added that shows
the 0-100' Zones of each stream.

37. Show a different symbology for Ephemeral Credit areas. This is required to be depicted in the
AsBuilt survey as well...These credits must be separated from "Non Subject" credits because we
apply the 25% cap on Ephemerals and need those numbers separated.

The symbology has been updated.

38. There is a culvert here on existing conditions map, is being removed? relocated?

It is being relocated immediately upstream of its current location. A label has been added to Figure 4.

39. There is a culvert depicted here on the Existing Conditions Figure. Being removed?

It is being removed. A label has been added to Figure 4.

40. DWR does not support more than 2 random plots. change accordingly here and in the text. if the IRT
is asking for these to be Random, then that will meet the IRT expectations, but DWR needs them to
be fixed for our expectations. No more than 10-15% of the total plots should be proposed as
random...if there were substantially more plots (maybe 40+). we may could approved up to 20%
could be random.

This information has been moved to Figure 8. The random plots have been reduced to 2 and permanent
have been increased to 11.

41. Are these plots all for DWR monitoring of performance criteria for buffer and nutrient offset? If not,
which are? At asbuilt site walk, we will be comparing this map to what is on the ground for
compliance.

Yes, the plots shown here are for DWR monitoring of performance criteria for buffer and nutrient
offset. However, the data will also be used for the IRT.

42. please select a Solid color for all your areas 0-100' for Rest/Enh/Pres? There are a lot of hatching
symbologies that make it hard to differentiate after a while and i'm unable to confirm compliance
with the project credit table & viability letter

The symbology has been updated.

43. 101-200’

This has been fixed on Figures 7A, 7B and 8

44. these are not sufficient. they should be dated closer to the date of the Plan submittal...so summer
2023 or more recent.

The photo log has been updated with site images captured in August of 2024 using a drone.

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site
Jordan Lake, Haw Arm - Cape Fear River Basin
i
Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 3
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 PROJECT AREA – EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 4
2.1 Parcel Features ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Parcel Soils ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Existing Vegetative Communities ................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................... 6
2.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 PROPOSED RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, AND PRESERVATION PLAN ....................... 7
3.1 Parcel Preparation ....................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Riparian Restoration and Planting Plan ....................................................................................... 7
3.3 Riparian Enhancement ................................................................................................................ 9
3.4 Riparian Preservation ................................................................................................................ 10
3.5 Easement Boundaries and Fencing ........................................................................................... 10
4.0 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN ...................................................................................... 10
4.1 Monitoring Protocol .................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 Parcel Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 11
4.3 Ownership and Long-Term Management ................................................................................. 12
5.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE ................................................................................................................. 12
6.0 MITIGATION POTENTIAL ................................................................................................................ 13
7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 15

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site
Jordan Lake, Haw Arm - Cape Fear River Basin
ii
TABLES
Table 1. Project Attributes ............................................................................................................................ 3
Table 2. Viable Hydrologic Features ............................................................................................................. 5
Table 3. Parcel Soil Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 5
Table 4.1 Planting List for Zone 2 (Stream/Wetland Corridor) – Woody Species......................................... 8
Table 4.2 Planting List for Zone 3 (Slopes) – Woody Species ....................................................................... 8
Table 5. Planting List – Permanent Herbaceous Seed Mix ........................................................................... 9
Table 6. Planned Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 12
Table 7. Detailed Credit Table ..................................................................................................................... 14
FIGURES
Figure 1. Service Area Map ......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 3. Soils Map ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4. Existing Conditions Map ............................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5. Planting Plan Map ........................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 6. Riparian Buffer Width Map .......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 7A. Project Credit Map ..................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 7B. Riparian Zone Map ..................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 8. Proposed Monitoring Plan Map ................................................................................................... 25
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Agency Correspondence
Appendix 2: Photo Log
Appendix 3: Historic Aerial Photographs
Appendix 4: Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan Conservation Easement
Appendix 5: Construction Plan Sheets

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
3
1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

1.1 Introduction
The Zeb Creek Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Bank Parcel (“Parcel”) is a buffer mitigation and
nutrient offset bank being proposed to the North Carolina DEQ, Division of Water Resources (DWR) under
the conditions of the proposed Zeb Creek Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) intended to be made and
entered into by KCI Technologies, Inc and the Division of Water Resources. This Buffer Mitigation and
Nutrient Offset Plan (Plan) has been developed following the guidelines and rules found in the
Consolidated Buffer Rules 15A NCAC 02B .0295 for riparian buffer mitigation and 15A NCAC 02B .0703 for
nutrient offset. The Parcel offers the chance to restore impacted pasture and agricultural lands to
forested, functional riparian areas. This Plan is Appendix 12.7 of the concurrent stream and wetland
mitigation plan that has been submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, and its
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The complete mitigation plan for the Parcel includes a
proposal to generate stream, wetland and riparian buffer mitigation credits as well as nutrient offsets, as
depicted in Figure 7A.
The Parcel has been designed to provide buffer mitigation and nutrient offset credits for unavoidable
buffer and nutrient impacts within the Haw Arm of the Jordan Lake watershed. There are six main project
tributaries (Zeb Creek, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5) that drain to the Haw River. The project is anticipated to
produce riparian buffer credits and nutrient offset credits on approximately 12.8 acres of pasture where
eligible. In general, the riparian areas dedicated to riparian buffer mitigation will be a minimum of 20'
from tops of stream banks and a maximum of 200’ from tops of stream banks with a minimum of 50' and
a maximum of 200' for nutrient offset credits. The Parcel may also produce 7,673.923 delivered pounds
of nitrogen nutrient offset credits and 428.180 delivered pounds of phosphorus nutrient offset credits.
Table 1 provides a summary of the site’s location and area. A vicinity map of the Parcel is shown in Figure
1 and the proposed service area is displayed on Figure 2.

Table 1. Project Attributes
Project Name Zeb Creek Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Bank Parcel
County Rockingham
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36.2712 N, -79.5351 W
DWR Project # 20211420 v1
USGS 1:24,000 Quad Williamsburg
Basin Cape Fear
Watershed Jordan Lake, Haw River Arm
HUC 14 03030002010050
NCDWR sub-basin 03-06-01 (Little Troublesome Creek, Haw River)
Mainstem Stream Name Zeb Creek
Stream Index Use Classification WS-IV; NSW
2018 303(d) listing Not listed (Haw River, DRW Index # 16-(6.5))
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted) 6.49

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
4
2.0 PROJECT AREA – EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Parcel has experienced significant landscape and vegetative modifications to allow for agriculture and
grazing along the five project streams, Zeb Creek, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, as well as adjacent riparian
wetlands. Parcel photographs are provided in the appendix from September 2024; there have been no
changes from what was observed and noted in the site viability letter issued by DWR on January 27, 2022.
Zeb Creek begins at the eastern boundary of the property, flowing west. There is a partial canopy provided
by isolated riparian species along some sections of the banks, but the trees are small early successional
individuals. The stream has been channelized, and agricultural fields are located immediately adjacent to
both sides of the stream. During channelization or as part of agricultural practices, spoil piles have been
placed along the tops of the stream banks in many locations. These spoil piles have become partially
vegetated, but they currently prevent diffuse flow through the riparian areas. There is evidence of
frequent livestock access in the form of cattle trails to the stream and larger wallows through the entire
length of Zeb Creek.
Tributary 1 (T1) begins at the eastern edge of the project and flows west and south to the confluence with
Zeb Creek. There are spoil piles along its right bank for almost the entire length of the stream. A swale is
graded in places along the spoil to accelerate drainage along the stream corridor. The riparian vegetation
is in a mixed condition, with some sparse existing overstory, but it is heavily grazed in some parts of the
understory. There is evidence of frequent livestock access in the form of cattle trails to the stream and
larger wallows.
Tributary 2 (T2) is broken into two reaches and begins as an ephemeral stream south of a dam and pond
that are on an adjacent property to the north. This reach is identified as T2a in the DWR Site Viability
Letter. The contributing riparian drainage area for T2a contains areas of mature trees with moderate
existing understory that has been grazed by livestock, and a sliver of active pasture with only herbaceous
vegetation, as shown in Figure 4. About halfway down the valley, the channel transitions to at least an
intermittent stream, identified as T2b in the DWR Site Viability Letter. The T2b right bank riparian zone
has several mature trees but the understory has been impacted by grazing, trampling, and contributions
of animal waste that have degraded the stream banks and limited the development of a riparian
community. The existing tree line and reach breaks between T2a and T2b are shown in Figure 4.
T3 begins at a breached pond dam at the southern edge of the project and flows north. The breached and
drained pond bed is currently a degraded wetland and is located south of T3 within the project easement.
Downstream from the dam the stream is a single thread channel with headcuts and some adjacent existing
wetland outside of the channel. Where the lower portion of T3 hits the former backwater of the old pond
on Zeb Creek the channel condition becomes less incised, but headcuts are migrating upstream from Zeb
Creek. There are multiple cattle wallows along this reach with some mature trees and a sparse understory
that has been impacted by grazing.
T4 begins as an intermittent stream where it flows into the northern side of the project, flowing south to
its confluence with T5 where it transitions to a perennial stream and continues to flow to Zeb Creek. It is
a channelized stream and has extensive livestock impacts. There is evidence of spoil along the right bank,
which is disrupting natural drainage patterns. T4 is predominantly incised with moderate to severe bank
erosion. The stream shows minimal bed feature variability or stable bed features. The riparian vegetation
is in a mixed condition, with some area of no buffer and some areas of sparse existing overstory, but
heavily grazed in some parts of the understory.
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
5
T5 is an intermittent stream that begins at a headcut to the east of T4 and flows southwest to the
confluence with T4. It is a channelized stream with a spoil piles along its right bank. This prevents overland
flow from properly draining to the stream, affecting the system’s hydrologic functions. T5 is
predominantly incised, and bank erosion varies from moderate to severe. The riparian buffer consists of
a sparse forested area along the northern half of the stream, evidence of livestock access throughout the
understory.
Historic aerials were examined for any information about how the site has changed over recent history
and are included in the Appendix from 1950, 1969, 1977, 1993, 2000 and 2010. From this photographic
record, it is apparent that the area surrounding the project site has been used for agriculture for many
years. In the earliest aerial photo from 1950, most of the site had already been cleared. Between 1950
and 1977, the cleared areas at the top of Zeb Creek, T1, T2, T4, and T5 had reforested. Between 1977 and
1993, the ponded area above T3 had been constructed. Between 1993 and 2000, the pond on Zeb Creek
upstream of T4 had been constructed. Between 2000 and 2010 both ponds on site breached. There has
been little change within the project area between 2010 and the most recent aerial photo.
2.1 Parcel Features
The following hydrologic features listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 3 are eligible for buffer mitigation
and/or nutrient offset. A representative from the North Carolina DEQ, DWR performed a site viability
determination for riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset potential on December 8, 2021, and KCI
received a viability letter dated January 27, 2022. The letter is included in the Appendix.
Table 2. Viable Hydrologic Features
Feature
Name
Feature ID from
DWR Assessment
Stream Type Subject to
Buffer Rule
Buffer Credit
Viable
Nutrient Offset Viable
Zeb Creek Zeb Creek Perennial Yes Yes Yes, for non-forested & partially
forested areas only
T1 T1 Intermittent No Yes Yes, for non-forested areas only
T2 T2a Ephemeral No Yes Yes, for non-forested areas only
T2 T2b Intermittent Yes Yes Yes, for non-forested areas only
T3 T3 Intermittent No Yes Yes, pond bed footprint only
T4 T4 Intermittent/Perennial No Yes Yes, for non-forested areas only
T5 T5 Perennial No Yes Yes, for non-forested areas only
2.2 Parcel Soils
According to the Rockingham County Soil Survey, most of the area around the project streams consist of
Pacolet series (PaD and PcD2), Helena sandy loam (HeB), and Chewacla loam (CeA) soils (see Figure 4)
(USDA 2018).
Table 3. Parcel Soil Characteristics
Soil Name Location Description
Pacolet series
(PaD and PcD2)
Mapped along all of T3
and T5 and along Zeb
Creek, T1, T2, and T4.
Pacolet soils are non-hydric, very deep, well drained soils, that are moderately
permeable and found on gently sloping Piedmont uplands.
Helena sandy
loam (HeB)
Mapped along T1 and
T2.
Helena soils are non-hydric, moderately well drained soils located on side
slopes and interfluves.

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
6
Chewacla loam
(CeA)
Mapped along all of Zeb
Creek and along T4.
Chewacla is frequently flooded and found on flood plains on river valleys. The
parent material consists of loamy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained.

2.3 Existing Vegetative Communities
Much of the historically forested land within the Parcel has been cleared and converted to cattle pasture.
The pastures are now host to numerous herbaceous species and lack a consistent developed riparian
buffer. Forested riparian areas along Zeb Creek and its tributaries are dominated by invasive species.
Vegetation in the Project is classified as piedmont alluvial forest (Schafale 2012). Vegetation found in the
open fields include species typical of early field succession, such as pokeweed (Phytolacca americana),
fescue grasses (Fescuta spp.), and dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Invasive species such as Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) are also present along the edges of forested areas. In the forested areas around
Zeb Creek and its tributaries, canopy species include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and white oak (Quercus
alba). Understory species include American holly (Ilex opaca), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana),
river birch (Betula nigra) and greenbrier (Smilax spp.). Invasive species are also present, including Chinese
privet, Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).

2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
There are three federally protected species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for Rockingham
County: Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), James spinymussel (Parvaspina collina), and smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata). No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed
during preliminary project evaluations. A letter received from the USFWS, dated November 30, 2021,
stated "the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or
threatened species, their formally designated habitat, or species currently proposed for listed under
the Act".
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was consulted
to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species are mapped within one
mile of the project. Results from NHP indicated that there are no known occurrences within a one-mile
radius of the project area. No further consultation with NHP is required.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has known records for the state threatened
notched rainbow (Villosa constricta); and the significantly rare eastern creekshell (V. delumbis) and
Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi) within the vicinity of the site. On October 7, 2021, NCWRC staff
visited the site but did not find any listed species during the visit. Other recommendations for the project
included the use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices , avoiding
the use of orchard grass, fescue, or cereal rye, which exhibits allelopathic characteristics, or any other
non-native species for soil stabilization, and maximizing riparian buffer widths when possible.
2.5 Cultural Resources
There is one cultural resource located within one mile of the project. The RK1542 (Keck House) is located
0.6 mile south of the project. The project is not expected to have any effect on the Keck House. Should
historic or archeological resource issues arise during the permit process for the Site, KCI will address these
issues using historians and archaeologists.

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
7
3.0 PROPOSED RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, AND PRESERVATION PLAN
3.1 Parcel Preparation
The proposed work at the Parcel will consist of the ecosystem restoration of riparian areas, streams, and
degraded wetlands to improve the functional capabilities of this integrated stream and wetland system.
All the riparian areas will be protected with a minimum of a 50’-wide conservation easement, with the
only exception at the top of Zeb Creek, where a gas line easement comes onto the Parcel at an angle,
reducing the project easement width to less than 30'. The project riparian buffers and other riparian areas
will be planted as outlined in Section 3.2 and as shown on the project plan sheets in Appendix 5. The
riparian buffer credit and nutrient offset credit determination is depicted on Figure 7.
The project streams (Zeb Creek and T1-T5) will all be improved as part of the concurrent stream and
wetland mitigation plan for the stream & wetland mitigation bank. The proposed activities described in
this Plan include restoring, enhancing, and preserving riparian areas adjacent to mitigated streams and
wetlands. Streams and wetlands proposed for stream mitigation are described in detail in the included
Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan. All riparian activities will occur in conjunction with stream
and wetland construction activities and not before. Improvements to each of these features has been
proposed based on the level of departure each of them exhibits from a stable stream system.
As a part of the restoration of stream and wetland hydrology along T1, the existing berms and spoil piles
along the channel will be graded back and replanted. These activities are described in detail in the included
Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan.
There are five proposed culverted crossings and one ford that will be installed; all will be outside the
project easement. These crossings are necessary to provide private landowner access and will reduce
sediment inputs typical from ford crossings. The 15’-wide crossings will be in 30’-wide easement
exceptions and replace existing degraded or failed fords and culverts. Two of the crossings have been
moved to the beginnings of tributaries so that there is greater easement continuity. Figure 7 and Sheets
BM1 – BM8 of the Boundary Marking Plan in Appendix 5 shows the locations of the crossings. Crossings
will be gated to exclude cattle from these areas when they are not being used to facilitate movement
between pastures.
Additional water quality improvements will come from two water detention structures that will be
installed within the easement at the end of gullies to allow for water quality treatment: one along the left
bank of the upper section of Zeb Creek, and one at the top of T5. These proposed structures will allow for
ponding and settling, and each will have a rock outlet directing outflow into the respective streams. These
structures will be planted similarly to the proposed restoration areas outlined in Section 3.2 but will not
be used to generate riparian buffer or nutrient offset credit. Water detention structures are shown in
Figure 7 (labeled as “BMP”) and detailed in the construction plans in Appendix 5.
3.2 Riparian Restoration and Planting Plan
All riparian areas proposed for restoration will be planted to establish a diverse forested riparian
condition. Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 968 stems per acre (9 feet x 5 feet spacing).
Woody vegetation planting will be conducted during dormancy. Species will be evenly distributed across
the site to ensure diversity. Sheets PP1 - PP8 in the project construction plans included in Appendix 5 show
the proposed planting lists and areas; native herbaceous planting mixes suitable for either winter or
summer periods are shown in Table 5. Woody species to be planted will consist of the species detailed in
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
8
Tables 4.1 and 4.2, which correspond with the areas shown as Zone 2 and Zone3 on Sheets PP1 – PP8 in
Appendix 5.
Table 4.1 Planting List for Zone 2 (Stream/Wetland Corridor) – Woody Species
Common Name Scientific Name
Wetland Status
(Eastern Mts &
Piedmont)
Tree/Shrub Layer % composition
American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW Tree Canopy 10.0
Willow Oak Quercus phellos FAC Tree Canopy 10.0
Persimmon Dispyros Virginiana FAC Tree Canopy 10.0
Spicebush Lindera benzoin FAC Shrub Sub Canopy 10.0
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata FACW Tree Subcanopy 10.0
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis OBL Shrub Subcanopy 10.0
Pin Oak Quercus palustris FACW Tree Canopy 10.0
River Birch Betula nigra FACW Tree Canopy 10.0
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW Shrub Subcanopy 10.0
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii FACW Tree Canopy 10.0
Total 100.0
Table 4.2 Planting List for Zone 3 (Slopes) – Woody Species
Common Name Scientific Name
Wetland Status
(Eastern Mts &
Piedmont)
Tree/Shrub Layer % composition
American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW Tree Canopy 10.0
Willow Oak Quercus phellos FAC Tree Canopy 10.0
Persimmon Dispyros Virginiana FAC Tree Canopy 8.0
Spicebush Lindera benzoin FAC Shrub Sub Canopy 8.0
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata FACW Tree Subcanopy 8.0
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica FAC Tree Canopy 8.0
Painted Buckeye Aesculus sylvatica FAC Tree Canopy 8.0
Pignut Hickory Carya glabra FACU Tree Canopy 8.0
Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata FACU Tree Canopy 8.0
Southern Red Oak Quercus falcata FACU Tree Canopy 8.0
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera FACU Tree Canopy 8.0
White Oak Quercus alba FACU Tree Canopy 8.0
Total 100.0
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
9
Table 5. Planting List – Permanent Herbaceous Seed Mix
Common Name Scientific Name % of Mix
Virginia Wildrye Elymus virginicus 20.0%
Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans 15.0%
Deertongue Panicum clandestinum 14.6%
Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii 14.0%
Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea 10.0%
Lurid Sedge Carex lurida 6.3%
Blunt Broom Sedge Carex scoparia 6.3%
Blue Vervain Verbena hastata 3.0%
Soft Rush Juncus effusus 2.0%
Golden Alexanders Zizia aurea 2.0%
Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata 1.9%
White Vervain Verbena urticifolia 1.0%
Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum 0.6%
Wrinkleleaf Goldenrod Solidago rugosa 0.5%
New England Aster Aster novae-angliae 0.4%
Purplestem Aster Aster puniceus 0.4%
Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa 0.4%
Square Stemmed Monkeyflower Mimulus ringens 0.3%
Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens 0.3%
Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus 0.3%
Lance Leaved Aster Aster lanceolatus 0.2%
Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica 0.2%
American Water Horehound Lycopus americanus 0.2%
Grassleaf Goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia 0.1%
3.3 Riparian Enhancement
Riparian enhancement is proposed for areas outlined in the DWR site viability determination from January
30, 2022, where there is a mature or partially mature overstory of trees, but a limited understory in active
pasture areas. Enhancement actions in these areas will involve fencing out all livestock to allow native
herbaceous vegetation to become reestablished. Fencing to be installed is denoted on the Boundary
Marking Plan (Sheets BM1 – BM8) in the project construction plans in Figure 5 and Appendix 5. Invasive
species, primarily Chinese privet, will also be treated in these areas. Mechanical removal (including
grubbing) will occur throughout the stream construction phase. Any debris from mechanical removal of
privet and other invasive species will be burned on site as needed. Following mechanical removal, KCI will
follow up during the construction and monitoring phases with chemically treatment of the invasive
species. Typical topical chemical treatment of Chinese privet involves using a tank mix of active ingredients
triclopyr and glyphosate throughout the riparian areas of the easement using backpack sprayers.
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
10
The riparian enhancement of the partially forested pasture area along the upper left bank of Zeb Creek
will consist of measures outlined in this section, with additional supplemental planting as described in
Section 3.2.
3.4 Riparian Preservation
Riparian preservation will include the existing riparian areas along the right bank of T2. No additional
action is proposed in these areas aside from restoring the project streams, treating any invasive species
encountered, and maintaining the conservation easement and perimeter fencing.
3.5 Easement Boundaries and Fencing
Livestock exclusion fencing will be installed around the entire perimeter of the project easement, with
gates at all crossings, as depicted on Figure 5 and the Boundary Marking Plan (Sheets BM1 – BM8) in in
Appendix 5.
Easement boundaries will be identified in the field marked with signs provided by the long-term steward,
Unique Places to Save (UP2S), to ensure clear distinction between the Parcel and adjacent properties.
Easement fencing and boundary marking will be completed prior to the As-Built onsite visit by DWR.
Easement corners will be well marked with plastic or metal signs identifying the easement, which will also
be placed along the exterior of the fence line, facing out, at a maximum spacing of every 100 feet. The
current UP2S sign standard is a six-inch-by-six-inch aluminum sign with contact information. Signs will be
refreshed as needed. Typically, a sign will last five to ten years before it is no longer legible due to fading
from the sun. The easement boundary will be checked annually as part of monitoring activities and the
conditions as well as any maintenance performed will be reported in the annual monitoring reports to
DWR.
4.0 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
4.1 Monitoring Protocol
For areas of buffer restoration and enhancement with required supplemental planting, vegetation
monitoring will take place between the end of August and mid-December. The success of the riparian
plantings will be evaluated using twenty-three 0.02-acre square or rectangular plots within the restored
riparian buffer in order to cover the 6.49 planted acres of riparian buffer restoration and enhancement
(excluding enhancement areas in forested pasture). As part of the Stream/Wetland Mitigation Plan, 23
monitoring plots will be installed and will cover at least 2% of the planted mitigation area for the Stream
Mitigation Bank. At least 11 fixed plots and 2 random plots will be located inside the Riparian buffer and
nutrient offset crediting area. Vegetation must be planted, and plots established at least 180 days prior
to the start of the first year of monitoring. The DWR fixed plots in the buffer/nutrient credit areas are also
going to be monitored as a success criteria component for the Stream and Wetland assets on the site.
In the permanent plots, the plant’s height, species, vigor, location, and origin (planted versus volunteer)
will be recorded and provided in the annual reports. In the random plots, species, height, and vigor will
be recorded. Height will be used as a determination of plant vigor. In all plots, exotic and invasive stems
will also be included in the stem counts, but not be counted towards the success criteria and will be
monitored and treated so that none become dominant or alter the desired plant community of the site.
Additionally, a photograph will be taken of each plot. Beginning at the end of the first growing season and
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
11
no sooner than 5 months following planting, KCI will monitor the planted vegetation for riparian area
success in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or until DWR approval is obtained.
The vegetation within the areas proposed for riparian buffer credit must contain 260 stems per acre at
the end of five years of monitoring. There should be a minimum of four native hardwood tree and native
shrub species, with no species greater than 50% of the stems. For any volunteer tree stem to count toward
vegetative success, it must be a species approved by DWR, which could include species from the approved
planting list included in Section 3.2 of this Plan.
For preservation areas and areas of enhancement with cattle exclusion, an annual site walk will be
conducted by KCI at the end of each monitoring period to document any problem areas. A visual
assessment of the conservation easement will be performed each year to confirm: no encroachment has
occurred; status of fencing condition, no invasive species in areas where invasive species were treated,
diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement areas; and there has not been any cutting,
clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would negatively affect the functioning of the buffer. The
findings of the visual assessment as well as any recommended corrective actions for problem areas will
be summarized in the monitoring reports. KCI will monitor the Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank for 7
years or until release by IRT approval. Therefore, some plots placed within riparian restoration areas that
are generating riparian buffer or nutrient offset credit may be monitored beyond the required 5 years per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)(4) for DWR, but to meet the monitoring protocol in the Zeb Creek Stream &
Wetland Mitigation Plan. DWR will only assess the vegetation conditions of plots monitored under this
Buffer Mitigation Nutrient Offset Plan.
4.2 Parcel Maintenance
The Parcel will be monitored on a regular basis, with a physical inspection of the site conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period. These site inspections
may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Maintenance needs or
actions will be recorded in the annual monitoring reports. Table 6 details monitoring and potential
maintenance to ensure success criteria for the Parcel.
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
12
Table 6. Planned Maintenance
Component/Feature Maintenance Through Project Close-Out
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall
be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture
(NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, tree-blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
Beaver and Other
Nuisance Fauna
The site will be monitored for the presence of beaver or other fauna that may impact the
success of the project. Adaptive management approaches will be used to evaluate whether
beaver or their structures or other animals should be controlled or managed at the site.
Cattle Exclusion
Areas
To comply with 0295 (o)(6), KCI will conduct a visual assessment to determine that:
• Fencing is in good condition throughout the site;
• no cattle access within the conservation easement area;
• no encroachment has occurred;
• diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement area; and
• there has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that
would negatively affect the functioning of the riparian buffer.
4.3 Ownership and Long-Term Management
The Parcel shall be established under the terms and conditions of the MBI referenced in Section 1.0 of
this Plan. The privately-owned land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of the
project will be protected under a permanent conservation easement. The easement document and plat
are included in the Appendix.
The Point of Contact for the sponsor is:
Adam Spiller, Project Manager
KCI Technologies, Inc.
4505 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone [phone]/ Fax [phone] / [e-mail]
The easement will be held by Unique Places to Save (UP2S). They shall be responsible for periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
5.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
After approval of this Plan for the Parcel by DWR, the Bank Sponsor shall furnish a performance bond from
a surety that is rated no less than an “A” as rated by AM Best in the amount of 100% of the reasonable
estimate to complete buffer mitigation in accordance with the Plan. The Bank Sponsor shall ensure the
Performance Bond shall remain in effect in the full amount required by this MBI throughout the
performance of construction and planting to establish and restore riparian buffers and other riparian
areas in accordance with the Plan. The fully funded amount will be $175,000. In lieu of posting the
performance bond, the Bank Sponsor may elect to construct the project prior to the first credit release.

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
13
In that case no performance bond will be necessary. After completion of the restoration/construction, a
separate performance monitoring/maintenance bond will be secured for 100% of the estimated cost to
implement the monitoring and maintenance plan (estimated at $75,000), but not less than $100,000. The
performance monitoring/maintenance bond shall apply at the inception of the monitoring period for a
term of two years, to be renewed every years for a minimum of five years. Upon DWR approval, this bond
premium may be lowered each year based on the adjusted cost to complete the monitoring and
maintenance work. Confirmation of renewal will be provided to DWR with each annual monitoring report.
DWR reserves the right to alter the credit release schedule if monitoring reports are submitted without
proof of bond renewals. Financial assurances in the form of bonds provided in this section must be
separate from the financial assurances provided as part of the stream and wetland mitigation bank.

6.0 MITIGATION POTENTIAL

The project easement will protect 25.0 acres for the totality of the buffer mitigation, nutrient offset, and
stream and wetland mitigation components. Of this, 13.39 acres are dedicated to generating riparian
buffer credits, which excludes areas within the wetted perimeters of the streams, wetland mitigation, and
land ineligible for buffer credit (pines). Within this buffer mitigation area, approximately 6 acres have been
determined by DWR as being agricultural and worthy of riparian restoration or enhancement (with
supplemental planting) and thus are eligible for either buffer credit or nutrient offset credit, but not both,
based on DWR’s site viability assessment. If KCI elects to use any of the riparian restoration or riparian
enhancement areas for nutrient offset credit instead of riparian buffer credits, then the maximum
expected nutrient offsets would be 7,673.923 lbs of Nitrogen and 428.180 lbs of Phosphorus. All delivery
factors have been applied to the credit calculations depicted in Table 7. A detailed table showing the
calculations per tributary, buffer width category, and mitigation type is included in the Table 7. KCI
understands that the Sponsor must submit a written request and receive written approval from DWR prior
to any credit conversions and transfers to the riparian buffer and nutrient offset credit ledgers. With each
conversion and transfer request submitted to the DWR, the Sponsor will provide all updated credit ledgers
showing all transactions that have occurred up to the date of the request. All transactions must be
compliant with the MBI prior to DWR approving the transfer request. Additionally, no credit conversions
are allowed until the AsBuilt Report & AsBuilt Survey have been approved in writing by DWR.

Transactions will be reviewed by DWR during the annual credit sale audit. The credit release schedule is
described in Section VIII of the KCI Jordan Lake Watershed – Haw River Arm Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient
Offset Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument with DWR.

Table 7. Zeb Creek Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank, 20211420 v1
Project Area
N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
Credit Type Location
Subject? (enter
NO if
ephemeral or
ditch 1)
Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer
Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (ft2)
Total (Creditable)
Area of Buffer
Mitigation (ft2)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit Final Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Convertible to
Riparian
Buffer?
Riparian Buffer
Credits
Convertible to
Nutrient Offset?
Delivered
Nutrient Offset:
N (lbs)
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: P (lbs)
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0-100 Zeb Creek, T2b 102,140 102,140 1 100%1.00000 Yes 102,140.000 Yes 2,900.879 161.860
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 101-200 Zeb Creek, T2b 4,713 4,713 1 33%3.03030 Yes 1,555.292 Yes 133.854 7.469
Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0-100 T1, T3, T4, T5 118,533 118,533 1 100%1.00000 Yes 118,533.000 Yes 3,366.456 187.837
Buffer Rural No Ephemeral Restoration 0-100 T2a 20,943 20,943 1 100%1.00000 Yes 20,943.000 Yes 594.802 33.188
Buffer Rural No Ephemeral Restoration 101-200 T2a 4,721 4,721 1 33%3.03030 Yes 1,557.932 Yes 134.081 7.481
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Enhancement via
Cattle Exclusion 20-29 Zeb Creek 61 61 2 75%2.66667 Yes 22.875 No ——
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Enhancement via
Cattle Exclusion 0-50 Zeb Creek 361 361 2 100%2.00000 Yes 180.500 No ——
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Enhancement via
Cattle Exclusion 0-100 Zeb Creek 149,489 149,489 2 100%2.00000 Yes 74,744.500 No ——
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Enhancement via
Cattle Exclusion 101-200 Zeb Creek 1,242 1,242 2 33%6.06061 Yes 204.930 No ——
Buffer Rural No I / P Enhancement via
Cattle Exclusion 0-100 T1, T3, T4, T5 118,729 118,729 2 100%2.00000 Yes 59,364.500 No ——
Buffer Rural No I / P Enhancement via
Cattle Exclusion 101-200 T1, T3, T4, T5 3,770 3,770 2 33%6.06061 Yes 622.050 No ——
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Enhancement 0-100 Zeb Creek 23,072 23,072 2 100%2.00000 Yes 11,536.000 Yes 327.634 18.281
Nutrient Offset Rural Yes I / P Enhancement 101-200 Zeb Creek 2,460 2,460 2 33%6.06061 Yes 405.900 Yes 34.933 1.949
Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 101-200 T1, T3 6,384 6,384 1 33%3.03030 Yes 2,106.722 Yes 181.312 10.117
———
———
———
———
———
Totals (ft2):556,618 556,618 393,917.199 7,673.951 428.182
Total Buffer (ft2):554,158 554,158
Total Nutrient Offset (ft2):2,460 N/A
Total Ephemeral Area (ft2) for Credit:50,807 50,807
Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ft2):145,034 8.8%Ephemeral Reaches as % TABM
Enter Preservation Credits Below Total Eligible for Preservation (ft2):184,719 3.5%Preservation as % TABM
Credit Type Location Subject?Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer
Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (sf)
Total (Creditable)
Area for Buffer
Mitigation (ft2)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit Final Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Riparian
Buffer Credits
Buffer Rural No Ephemeral 0-100 T2a 22,575 22,575 5 100%5.00000 4,515.000
Rural No Ephemeral 101-200 T2a 2,568 2,568 5 33%15.15152 169.488
Rural Yes I / P 0-100 T2b 835 835 10 100%10.00000 83.500
—
—
Preservation Area Subtotals (ft2):25,979 25,979
Square Feet Credits
257,433 246,835.945
296,724 146,675.354
25,979 4,767.988
580,136 398,279.288
Square Feet Credits
Nitrogen:34.933
Phosphorus:1.9492,460
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Nutrient Offset:
Preservation:
Total Riparian Buffer:
Cape Fear - Jordan Haw 03030002010050
35.21002
631.04096
Restoration:
Enhancement:
Mitigation Totals
1. The Randleman Lake buffer rules allow some ditches to be classified as subject according to 15A NCAC 02B .0250 (5)(a).
last updated 08/03/2020
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
15
7.0 REFERENCES
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. Last accessed at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
16
FIGURES
^_
Haw River Arm
Upper New Hope
Lower New Hope
010050
Image Source: ESRIWorld Street Map
FIGURE 1. GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA MAPZEB CREEK MITIGATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 105
Miles
^_Bank Location
Jordan Lake Watersheds
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Credit Service Area
Project 14-digit HU (010050)
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan6/6/2024 Zeb Creek Buffer & Nutrient Offset Site and Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
030300020401
030300020107
030300020205
03030002010050
03030002020070
03030002010040
03030002030020
03030002030030
03010104032010
03030002020030
03030002010030
03010104021010
03030002030010
03030002020060
Source: USGS National Map,WilliamsburgQuadrangles
FIGURE 2. PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAPZEB CREEK MITIGATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 10.5
Miles
Project Conservation Easement (25.00 ac)
Project Watershed (545 ac / 0.85 sqmi)
14-digit HUC
^_
Project Location:
Haw River 03030002
Rockingham County, NC
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan6/6/2024 Zeb Creek Buffer & Nutrient Offset Site and Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
PcD2
CdB2
CdB2
CcB
CdB2
PaD
IrB
PcD2
PcD2
CdB2
HeB
W
CeA
PcD2
CdB2
W
CeA
PcD2
W
HeB
PcD2
CdB2
CuC2
CuB2
CuD2
ChA
HeB
CuD2
CuD2
CuB2
CuB2
Source: NRCS Soil Survey, Rockingham/Caswell Counties;NC StatewideOrthoimagery, 2022.
FIGURE 3. NRCS SOIL SURVEYZEB CREEK MITIGATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 400200
Feet
Project Conservation Easement (25.00 ac)
NRCS Soils
Soils Key:
CcB - Cecil sandy loam
CdB2 - Cecil sandy clay loam
CeA, ChA - Chewacla loam
CuB2, CuC2 - Cullen clay loam
HeB - Helena sandy loam
IrB - Iredell fine sandy loam
PaD - Pacolet sandy loam
PcD2 - Pacolet sandy clay loam
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan6/6/2024 Zeb Creek Buffer & Nutrient Offset Site and Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
G A S L I N E E A S E M E N T
Remove
culvert
crossing
Remove
culvert
crossing
Relocate
culvert
crossing
upstream
Sources: NC StatewideOrthoimagery 2022.
FIGURE 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAPZEB CREEK MITIGATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 400200
Feet
Project Conservation Easement (25.00 ac)
T2a Watershed (Ephemeral)
Ephemeral Streams
Streams
Existing Wetlands
Existing Culvert
Existing Tree Line
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan10/10/2024 Zeb Creek Buffer & Nutrient Offset Site and Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
Zeb Creek (Subject)
T2b (Subject)T1 (Non-Subject)
T3 (Non-Subject)
T4 (Non-Subject)
T5 (Non-Subject)
T2a (Non-Subject)
Zeb Creek
T1T2b
T3
T4
T5
T4
T2a
Sources: NC StatewideOrthoimagery 2022.
FIGURE 5. PROPOSED PLANTING PLANTYPE AND EXTENTZEB CREEK MITIGATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 400200
Feet
Project Conservation Easement (25.00 ac)
Project Parcel
Stream Restoration (6,108 lf / 6,108 SMC)
No Credit (Ephemeral Stream)
No Credit
Proposed Access Gates
Proposed Woven Wire FencePlanting Areas
Zone 2 - Stream/Wetland Corridor (10.45 ac)
Zone 3 - Slopes (10.59 ac)
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan9/9/2024 Zeb Creek Buffer & Nutrient Offset Site and Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Zeb Creek
T1
T2a
T3
T4
T5
T4
T2b
Sources: NC StatewideOrthoimagery 2022.
FIGURE 6. RIPARIAN BUFFER WIDTHSZEB CREEK MITIGATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 400200
Feet
Project Conservation Easement (25.00 ac)
Project Parcel
Stream Restoration (6,108 lf / 6,108 SMC)
No Credit (Ephemeral Stream)
No CreditRiparian Buffer Widths
0-30' from TOB
31-50' from TOB
51-100' from TOB
101-200' from TOB
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan6/6/2024 Zeb Creek Buffer & Nutrient Offset Site and Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Zeb Creek
T1T2b
T3
T4
T5
T4
T2a
Buffer Enhancement
CE 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Preservation 0-100' (Subject)
Nutrient Offset Credit
Enhancement SP
101-200' (Subject)
Proposed
BMP
Proposed
BMP
Buffer Enhancement
CE 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Sources: NC StatewideOrthoimagery 2022.
FIGURE 7A. PROJECT CREDIT MAPZEB CREEK MITIGATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 350175
Feet
Project Conservation Easement (25.00 ac)
Project Parcel
Stream Restoration (6,108 lf / 6,108 SMC)
Ephemeral Channel (457 lf)
Wetland Credit Areas (9.35 ac)
Existing Tree Line
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Eph Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
Eph Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 20-29' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 0-50' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement SP for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement SP for Nutrient Offset 101-200' (Subject)
I/P Buffer Preservation for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
Eph Buffer Preservation for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
Eph Buffer Preservation for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan10/11/2024 Zeb Creek Buffer & Nutrient Offset Site and Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Buffer Enhancement
CE 0-50' (Subject)Buffer Enhancement
CE 20-29' (Subject)
CE=Cattle Exclusion; SP=Supplemental Planting
I/P= Intermittent/Perennial; Eph=Ephemeral
Culvert
crossing
Culvert
crossing
Culvert
crossing
Ford
crossing
Culvert
crossing
Culvert
crossing
Remove
culvert
crossing
Note: For a breakdown of Buffer Credits see the Buffer
Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan Section 12.7
Zeb Creek
T1T2b
T3
T4
T5 T2a
Buffer Enhancement
CE 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Preservation 0-100' (Subject)
Nutrient Offset Credit
Enhancement SP
101-200' (Subject)
Proposed
BMP
Proposed
BMP
Buffer Enhancement
CE 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Sources: NC StatewideOrthoimagery 2022.
FIGURE 7B. RIAPRIAN ZONE MAPZEB CREEK MITIGATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 350175
Feet
Project Conservation Easement (25.00 ac)
Project Parcel
Stream Restoration (6,108 lf / 6,108 SMC)
Ephemeral Channel (457 lf)
Wetland Credit Areas (9.35 ac)
0-30' Stream Buffer Zone
31-50' Stream Buffer Zone
0-100' Stream Buffer Zone
101-200' Stream Buffer Zone
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Eph Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
Eph Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 20-29' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 0-50' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement SP for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement SP for Nutrient Offset 101-200' (Subject)
I/P Buffer Preservation for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
Eph Buffer Preservation for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
Eph Buffer Preservation for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan10/11/2024 Zeb Creek Buffer & Nutrient Offset Site and Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
CE=Cattle Exclusion; SP=Supplemental Planting
I/P= Intermittent/Perennial; Eph=Ephemeral
Note: For a breakdown of Buffer Credits see the Buffer
Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan Section 12.7
Zeb Creek
T1T2b
T3
T4
T5
T4
T2a
Buffer Enhancement
CE 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Preservation 0-100' (Subject)
Nutrient Offset Credit
Enhancement SP
101-200' (Subject)
Proposed
BMP
Proposed
BMP
Sources: NC StatewideOrthoimagery 2022.
FIGURE 8. PROPOSED MONITORING PLANZEB CREEK MITIGATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 350175
Feet
Project Conservation Easement (25.00 ac)
Project Parcel
Stream Restoration (6,108 lf / 6,108 SMC)
Ephemeral Channel (457 lf)
Wetland Credit Areas (9.35 ac)
Permanent Vegetation Plots (11)
Approx. Random Vegetation Plots (2)
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
Eph Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
Eph Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 20-29' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 0-50' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement SP for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
I/P Riparian Enhancement SP for Nutrient Offset 101-200' (Subject)
I/P Buffer Preservation for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Subject)
Eph Buffer Preservation for Buffer Credit 0-100' (Non-Subject)
Eph Buffer Preservation for Buffer Credit 101-200' (Non-Subject)
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan9/9/2024 Zeb Creek Buffer & Nutrient Offset Site and Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
CE=Cattle Exclusion; SP=Supplemental Planting; I/P= Intermittent/Perennial; Eph=Ephemeral
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
APPENDIX
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)

Appendix 1: Agency Correspondence

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)

Date: June 28, 2024
To: Katie Merritt, DWR
From: Kirsten Ullman, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.

Subject: Zeb Creek Buffer Plan
Mitigation Plan Review – Response to IRT Comments
Rockingham County, NC
DWR ID# 2021-1420

Below are our responses to DWR comments received on the buffer plan for the Zeb Creek Buffer Plan
dated August 2023.
Due to recent policy change, we have elected to create a KCI Jordan-Haw Nutrient Offset and Riparian
Buffer Umbrella Mitigation Bank, rather than an individual MBI for this site. As such, we are submitting
the Draft UMBI along with this final mitigation plan and request that the previously submitted Zeb Creek
MBI be disregarded.
Thank you for your comments and guidance.

Kirsten Ullman,
Project Manager

General Comments for the Stream & Wetland Plan (these comments have been copied to Maria Polizzi
to determine whether to add them as part of the IRT comments made earlier in January)

a. Concept map (figure 9) doesn't show buffer or nutrient offset credits being generated on the
site. need to show IRT this to ensure no credit double dipping where not allowed.

An additional map (Figure 10) has been added to show all site assets.

b. Monitoring plot map doesn't depict where the DWR plots are that are required to meet DWR
performance criteria.
Monitoring plots specific to the buffer/nutrient assets have been distinguished on the monitoring
map (now Figure 11).

c. Planting plan doesn't speak to buffer and nutrient offset areas that are being planted for buffer
and nutrient offset credits. Plan text lacks transparency about ALL the credit types being
generated on the site. When reviewing the plan, I wouldn't have even known there were other
credit types or other regulatory considerations being made for the site if I hadn't noticed the
Appendix in the table of contents.

This is typically how we've structured mitigation plans in the past: the mitigation plan focuses on
the stream/wetland assets, and the buffer/nutrient plan focuses on the buffer and nutrient assets.
There is a sentence in section 1.0 that the stream and wetland site is co-located with a
buffer/nutrient site, and that the buffer/nutrient-specific information is in Section 12.7. We've
gone through the mitigation plan to include references to the buffer/nutrient plan, where
appropriate, and we've also included an additional figure that show all the site assets.

d. Figure 10 only implies IRT plots for stream & wetland performance.

Monitoring plots specific to the buffer/nutrient assets have been distinguished on the monitoring
map (now Figure 11).

e. Section 6,7: should speak to the fact that there are different performance standards for
vegetation within the RBC and NOC credit areas (hence: 5 years, 260 each year, etc)

A sentence has been added to reference section 12.7 for the buffer/nutrient performance criteria.

1. Add the DWR ID# to the plan. it is 2021-1420. this is also the same number tied to the Stream Plan

The DWR ID# has been added.

2. The Project Credit Table, which is referenced in the MBI, is not shown. It needs to be Table 7.0 and
included in Section 6.0 under "Mitigation Potential".

The buffer credit table has been added as Table 7, replacing the Credit Release Table.

3. Remove Table 7, this is in the MBI.

The original Credit Release Table has been removed.

4. Missing Figures include the following: 1) Monitoring Figure showing plot locations for RBC and NOC
areas, 2) Riparian width map showing the 50', 100' and 200' width boundaries as they are measured
off each Feature. This is needed for comparing with the project credit table. Usually this can be
included on the credit determination figure, but there is a lot going on in that figure.

The monitoring plots have been added to Figure 7. A Riparian Buffer Width Figure has been added as
Figure 6.

5. The Appendices were hard to follow/find. Each of these needs to be labeled. I recommend adding
Appendix 1 as "Agency Correspondence" and lumping in all docs related to agency correspondence
about the project. Parcel photos Appendix 2, etc.

The Appendices have been updated and should be easier to follow.

a. The MBI doesn't need to be in the Appendix, remove that. Once each of these items has an
Appendix label, add the appropriate reference where applicable in the Buffer Plan.
b. Construction Plan Sheets (only need the Planting Plan and the Boundary Marking Plan). Remove all
other irrelevant plan sheets since they are all more relevant just with the Stream Plan."

The Appendices have been updated and should be easier to follow.

6. This conservation easement needs to be edited to say “Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan””
instead of Bank Parcel Development Plan.

The change has been made and it has been added as Appendix 4.

7. Parcel photos predate the site visits by DWR. Photos are dated 2020. Provide recent photos that are
dated closer to the date you submitted the plan. These photos need to show the riparian conditions
adjacent to each tributary.

The photos have been updated to reflect site conditions in the riparian areas in 2022.

8. Figure 5 does not depict any nutrient offset areas (see Figure 5 for this comment and others)

Figure 5 is now Figure 7. The nutrient offset areas are now shown in the legend.

9. General and grammatical comments for page 4.

All comments have been corrected.

10. As noted, before, these photos are from 2020 and do not support the statement that there have
been no changes since the site viability site visit and letter. Add additional photos showing current
conditions of the riparian areas.

The photos have been updated to reflect site conditions in the riparian areas in 2022.

11. Issued by DWR on January 27, 2022.

This has been corrected.

12. There was a subjectivity determination performed by DWR staff on the subjectivity of these features
to the Jordan buffer protection rules. However, no subjectivity determinations are noted in the Plan.
This is important information because you must have this information to fill out the Project Credit
Table. As noted on the Table, "Non Subject" vs "Subject" was not differentiated correctly. Only Zeb
Creek and T1 were considered to be Subject to the Jordan buffer rules. Add this information within
this section, correct the Project Credit Table accordingly, and update Figures 3 as instructed on
Figure 3 comments.

A column in Table 2 has been added showing the subjectivity determinations. The Project Credit Table
and Figures have been corrected. Note that Zeb Creek and T2b are subject (not T1 as noted in
comment).

13. Explain how the berms/spoil piles are going to be addressed. If not in this section, then include in
Section 3.0
These activities are described in detail in the Stream and Wetland Mitigation plan and are more
related to those assets. The sentence describing the berms has been removed.

14. T2 is broken out into two sections as noted here. But no figure or Project Credit Table shows this.
Update figures and the project credit table accordingly to accurately show T2a and T2b. T2a is
shown as Wetland on supporting maps/figures. Explain here in this section how T2a is going to be
manipulated during construction, if at all. I need to know if the existing banks are going to be
affected. If KCI is grading or manipulating this area to fit the scope of any wetland credit, it may no
longer meet the viability for generating ephemeral buffer/nutrient credits. Explain and then DWR
will have to determine if this feature is still viable.

The Figures and Project Credit Table have been updated. The buffer credit was calculated based off
the TOB of the proposed constructed main channel/thalweg of the T2A ephemeral stream, which
corresponds with the location of the existing feature that was field verified by DWR. This feature is 3
feet wide. The adjacent wetland enhancement and creation areas will include designed drainages to
convey water through the wetland. These smaller channels are designed to improve the hydrology and
connectivity of both the stream and wetland features and may evolve over time. The main channel
used for the TOB calculation is anticipated to be permanent and will likely have a higher level flow
regime than the current ephemeral feature.

15. Is the breached pond inside or outside of the easement boundary?

The breached and drained pond bed is currently a degraded wetland and is located south of T3 within
the project easement. There is an additional intact pond upstream of this reach that is outside the
project easement.

16. Reducing the parcel's easement width to what? 20'? explain. I also didn't see this on Figure 5, so
please show as an inset if what you are describing here is proof of the minimum 20' (as shown in
project credit table in 20-29' width category.

Our easement will abut the gas line easement. An insert has been added to Figure 7 showing the
area of reduced buffer width.

17. which Appendix?

Appendix 5; this has been updated.

18. General and grammatical comments for page 8:

All comments have been completed.

19. KCI applying the non-standard buffer widths towards their stream crediting?

No, stream crediting is based on standard buffer width (50 feet).

20. These crossings need to be included in a Figure for this Plan, even though also referenced in Sheets
BM1-BM8.

Crossing labels have been added to Figure 7.

21. Water detention structures are not shown on supporting figures. where are they? call them out on
figures and denote as "noncredit area" and are depicted on your future as-built survey

These areas have been added to Figure 7.

22. Which plan sheet can be referenced here to show the water detention structures?
The locations of the water detention structures have been added to Figure 7, and they are also
shown in the construction plans in Appendix 5.

23. Which "Appendix" is being referred to here? I need an appendix number, letter, etc. to know where
to look. There are a lot of Appendices for Combination plans.

The reference has been updated to reflect Appendix 5.

24. Are these crossings also going to have cattle exclusion fencing? Add a statement here regarding how
cattle will be excluded from easement at the crossings.

All project reaches will be fenced. Sheets BM1 through BM8 in Appendix 5 detail the proposed
boundary marking and fencing plan. All crossings will be external to the project easement and will
include fencing to exclude cattle from the easement.

25. Since you are citing that you are planting "trees and shrubs" not just "trees", you need to include a
column for "Tree/Shrub" in Table 4.

Tree/Shrub column has been added to the planting tables.

26. There are 17 species represented in the table 4. Therefore, DWR expects that all 17 species will be
planted and included in the As-built Report. If you are not planting all 17 species, then you will not
be in compliance with the approved Plan. Is KCI planting all 17?

We have split the table into two separate tables, showing the species planted in each of the zones.
Zone 1 will consist of previously ponded areas that are now wetlands and will only apply to the stream
and wetland portion of the site. It is KCI’s intention to plant all 17 species listed for Zones 2 and 3.

27. "Feature T2a is an ephemeral channel that is shown to be proposed as Wetland Credit. Explain how
T2a is being impacted or affected by the Wetland plan. Depending on how this feature is being
manipulated from its existing conditions at Site Viability Assessment, it may no longer be viable to
generate buffer or nutrient offset credits. Explain. Is KCI doing a ""multi thread wetland channel""?
if so, what does this entail and how will measurements from TOB be taken?"

Feature 2a will be graded into a multi-thread headwater wetland channel with a “main” channel
that corresponds to the location of the existing ephemeral feature. The width of this main channel (3
feet) will be excluded from wetland crediting. This feature will also not receive stream credit, as it
has been deemed an ephemeral reach. Project activities are expected to improve channel hydrology,
even through the reach is uncredited, and as such, it should remain eligible for buffer/nutrient offset
credit. TOB distance for the calculation of buffer/nutrient credit were based on the 3-foot wide main
channel. Details of the planned approach can be found in Section 6.5 of the Stream/Wetland
mitigation plan and are shown on Sheet SP5 of the construction plans.

28. There is no description of the "Zones" in this section. But the planting plan sheets show "zones". the
criteria of having at least 4 different Hardwood trees and shrubs as well as the "no one specie
representing more than 50%" needs to be reviewed for compliance with the Rule. Without
additional information, I cannot determine if the performance criteria will be achieved by the
proposed planting plan. Explain & give more detail.

This section has been revised to tie the planting zones for the buffer and nutrient assets to the planting
zones shown in the construction documents. The tables now show the % composition of each species.

29. "Instead of layer, I need to see ""Tree/Shrub"" to determine what performance standard will apply
to the site. Example: 260 trees per acre or ""260 trees and shrubs per acre""…"

A Tree/Shrub column has been added to the tables.

30. Is Painted Buckeye an acceptable hardwood species for this area? Did the IRT have any comments
about this species?

The IRT did not comment on this species.

31. This is a great reference, but since fencing is required for the Cattle Exclusion credit, it needs to be
seen on the supporting figures where buffer credits are being sought. Add a figure to reference here
and include the fencing boundary for review in the buffer plan figures.

Fencing and Gate locations have been added to Figure 5

32. Add a figure showing cattle exclusion fencing to be installed.

Fencing and Gate locations have been added to Figure 5

33. How will the riparian areas within the external crossings be marked/secured to ensure no cattle
access?

All crossings will be gated and lined with woven wire cattle exclusion fencing to limit cattle access to
supervised movement between pastures.

34. "There is no monitoring plot figure included in the buffer plan. Add this figure. DWR needs to see
that there are plots in all buffer and nutrient offset credit areas and that the plots adequately
represent both Nutrient Offset credit areas, Buffer credit areas, 0-100, 0-200 width categories,
Enhancement areas where supplemental plantings are required, as well as Restoration areas. I have
no figure that shows how these plots are arranged. Additionally, only buffer and nutrient offset
credit are shown to be generated within the 51-200' width categories. I didn't notice where other
credit types were also being proposed (example, non std buffers or wetland credit). Therefore, DWR
will be holding KCI accountable for meeting the performance criteria assigned to buffer and nutrient
offset credit areas. therefore, if KCi intends to ""Share"" these plots with the IRT for the stream
and/or wetland"", then the figure provided showing these plot locations, need to show ""DWR ONLY
PLOTS"" vs ""DWR/IRT SHARED PLOTS"".It is my understanding that the DWR ONLY PLOTS would be
in the widths represented as RBC or NOC credit only (851-200) and the shared plots would be in the
first 0-50' width. Provide a figure showing this level of detail.”

The monitoring Plots have been added to Figure 7. There are 6 permanent and 7 random plots located
within the buffer areas. The plots located within the wetland credit areas are not shown on Figure 7.

35. "22 is way over the 2% planted area for buffer and nutrient offset credits. Only reference which
plots will be installed for this Buffer Plan compliance requirement and then identify if they are fixed
vs random. This will be the number of plots DWR expects to be included in the as-built
walk, report and future monitoring reports.
Other plans use the following language:
As part of the Stream/Wetland Mitigation Plan, # monitoring plots will be installed a minimum of
100 m2 in size in the planted area (??acres) and will cover at least 2 percent of the planted
mitigation area for the Stream Mitigation Bank. At least # fixed plots and # random plots will be
located inside the Riparian buffer and nutrient offset crediting areas.

As part of the Stream/Wetland Mitigation Plan, 22 monitoring plots will be installed and will cover at
least 2% of the planted mitigation area for the Stream Mitigation Bank. At least 6 fixed plots and 7
random plots will be located inside the Riparian buffer and nutrient offset crediting area.

36. Is the 6.49 acres the "Credit Acres" or the "Planted Area"? This may explain my confusion.

This is the planted area, which includes the buffer credit restoration areas and the Buffer Enhancement
Supplemental Planting Areas. The total credit area is 13.37 acres.

37. "DWR offered up an option at the annual meeting in November where a provider could propose
recording Height and Vigor as follows: Height of each planted stem in plot + Average Vigor of plot at
Year 1, 3 and 5 Otherwise, the standard requirement is height and vigor are to be collected PER
STEM PER PLOT PER YEAR for 5 years.
If KCI wants to utilize the option above over the Standard method of collecting and reporting this
data for vegetation, then it needs to be proposed within this Plan within this Section."

KCI will utilize the standard methodology.

38. "Will be noted" how frequently? and "noted" needs to be changed to "recorded and provided in the
annual reports."

“Noted” has been changed to "recorded and provided in the annual reports.

39. Your planting plan shows both trees and shrubs, therefore KCI should only select the performance
standard in the rule for "trees and shrubs."

There should be a minimum of four native hardwood tree and native shrub species, with no species
greater than 50% of the stems.

40. General and grammatical comments for page 11.

These comments have been corrected.

41. Just to confirm, does this mean KCI intends to have a bond that secures two monitoring years at a
time? If so, the language in the Bond for DWR will need to be very specific about Term start date
and Term end dates. I can help with this when KCI is ready to submit a Template for the Surety Bond
they intend to use."

The two-year term is meant to cover the potential for a delayed credit release due to
underperforming vegetation; if things are going well, KCI intends to reduce the bond amount
annually. Bond retirement will be tied to contractual milestones, rather than calendar dates.

42. Which Appendix is being referred to here?

The detailed credit calculation was previously an appendix; it has been moved into the main body of
the report as Table 7.

43. Described in Section ?? of the Zeb Creek Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking
Instrument with DWR.

Transactions will be reviewed by DWR during the annual credit sale audit. The credit release schedule
is described in Section VIII of the Draft Jordan Lake Watershed – Haw River Arm Buffer Mitigation &
Nutrient Offset Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument with DWR (note: KCI is re-submitting the MBI
as an UMBI).

44. The Project Credit Table needs to be moved to Section 6.0 and referenced in previous sections of
the Plan accordingly.

The credit table has been moved here and is now Table 7

45. Page 14: Remove from Plan.

This has been removed.
46. Even though I have Plan Sheets depicting the Planting plan areas, add a Figure here just like Figure 8
in the Stream Mitigation Plan. Make sure I can tell that the supplemental planting areas receiving
Enhancement credit are labeled. Add the fence line that will be installed as well, so that DWR. Can
confirm that the fence line being installed will meet with Cattle Exclusion requirements for
Enhancement credits.

Fencing and Gate locations have been added to Figure 5. Fencing will meet Cattle Exclusion
requirements for Enhancement credits.

47. General and grammatical comments for page 17:

These comments have been addressed and corrected.

48. Label T2a and label T2b. This needs to match the Site Viability Letter since this Figure is representing
DWR relevant information for buffer mitigation and nutrient offset potential.

This has been corrected.

49. DWR did not perform any Intermittent or Perennial Stream designations. Remove from legend. This
is a DWR only Figure, and since it is included in the Buffer/Nutrient Offset plan, only DWR relevant
figures, labels, texts, etcetera should be included.

Staff from DWR (Sue Homewood) performed stream designations on-site on November 22,2021; this
correspondence is included in Appendix 1.

50. General and grammatical comments for page 19:

These comments have been addressed and corrected.

51. You must differentiate between Ephemeral Preservation off T2a and Subject Preservation off T2b.
This is shown correctly in the Project Credit Table, but not on the Figure.

This has been corrected.

52. The Symbology where hatching is used to differentiate Enhancement at different widths is difficult
to follow. Instead of using the same color but having hatching, change to using Different shading of
the same color maybe...
No matter what you choose, the current figure needs to be easier to see the different credit types
and credit widths. hatching can be a good way to differentiate the credit areas, but for this figure,
it's hard to discern."

We have added different color shades to help differentiate the buffer areas. Additionally, we have
added additional labels identifying the smaller buffer areas, as well as a “call out” for the areas of
buffer enhancement at the upstream portion of Zeb Creek.

53. Is this restoration area being measured off Zeb Creek 0-100, 101-200 or off T2? Provide a separate
figure showing the different width categories so that DWR can review the Project Credit Table for
accuracy with this Figure. For this extra Figure, since there are a lot of different width categories, I’ll
need to see the 0-30', 50', 100', 200' width categories represented by different colors. Ask Katie if
you have questions on what is being asked for this figure.

As an option, Providers can elect to use the first 100' to measure off feature 1. but after the first
100', the credit assets must be measured off the feature that is entering feature 2. Feature 1 and 2
in this example are comparable to the situation you have here with T2 and Zeb Creek or with T4 and
Zeb Creek.

Nonetheless, without the width boundary Figure included in the plan, DWR cannot confirm that this
figure matches the Project Credit Table. This is of upmost importance when preparing the As-built
Survey. the As-built survey has to match with the Project Credit Table and if it doesn’t, DWR will not
accept it. Getting the Figures and Tables right at Plan review, will help KCI better plan for the As-
built survey expectations.

Figure 6 has been created to show the riparian buffer widths.

54. Edit the figure according to all comments on page 21:
a. Show where the water improvement structures are going to be located.
b. Label each as "Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit" or Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset""
or "Riparian Enhancement CE for Buffer Credit"
etc./.
c. Remove the ft2 and credit from the table.
d. Conservation Easement
e. The 20-29' area needs to be included as an inset/callout in order to be seen. I cannot tell where
this area is represented.
f. Remove the "No Credit" line since this isn't relevant to the buffer plan. this is supposed to be
designated as Ephemeral, and labeled, unless the channel is being removed and manipulated for
wetland credits. this comment was made within the text of the Plan for your explanation.
g. Is there a reason that the 0-50' width category cannot be lumped into the 0-100' width category?
Before commenting, I wanted to know if there was a particular reason."

This category was because the area is greater than 30' from TOB, but do not extend beyond 50'

h. what does "SP" mean? Supplemental Planting?
Yes.
i. Remove all wetland credit types and show only as "Wetland Credit Area".
j. Add the tree line as provided in the Site Viability letter. Keep in mind, that this tree line HAS to be
on the As-built Survey in order to quantify credits since at As-built, the tree line will likely change
with the removal of trees for the stream restoration corridor. DWR will only use the tree line
submitted with the Plan for credit determination."
k. Change to "Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Credit Map"
The project credit table shows Nutrient Offset credits. This figure does not show any nutrient
offset
credits. If KCI wants to only have this site be for buffer mitigation, then let DWR know. Otherwise,
show where the nutrient offset credits are being designated."

These comments have been addressed/corrected.

55. Comments for Page 24:
a. Project Attributes is Table 1.0. Change this.
b. Change to Zeb Creek Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank
c. Why do these fields say ""N/A""? If wanting Buffer, then it needs to say "YES:"
d. I have edited this column accordingly based on the existing Feature Names. But, when you edit the
table to correct mistakes as noted in my comments, make sure your "Convertible" designations
carry over to the right rows when you make the changes.
e. This is not correct. Change the table to show Non subject Streams (T1, T3, T4, T5) as "Non-Subject"
and then Zeb Creek w/ T2b as "Subject". As requested, use the Existing Conditions Map that I
requested and edited, to make sure the NS and Subject match with the viability letter."
f. T2 stream needs to be depicted as T2b and lumped in with Zeb Creek since they have the same
designation.
g. this should be T2b.
h. Yes
i. Ephemerals have caps, and unless being proposed as Buffer credit at Plan review, it cannot be
converted to buffer later.
j. Yes
k. This area is not depicted in the figures.
l. Ephemeral channel is represented as T2a. change to match viability letter and new figure edits.
m. Cross-Out
n. Cross-Out
o. No nutrient offset is depicted on figure.
p. Yes
q. No nutrient offset is depicted on figure.
r. I made a comment on this on Figure 5, explain why it is pulled out by itself.

This category was because the area is greater than 30' from TOB, but do not extend beyond 50'.

s. No
t. This should be T2b, but T2b and Zeb Creek should not be lumped in with these other features since
T2b and Zeb creek are "Subject" whereas the other features are "non subject."
u. No
v. No
w. Yes
x. Yes
y. Change designation to T2a and T2b accordingly. The figure was hard to discern Preservation credits
off T2b vs Zeb Creek. Make sure the figure is easy to follow.

All comments for page 24 have been corrected.

January 27, 2022
Joseph Sullivan
KCI Associates of North Carolina
(via electronic mail: [e-mail] )
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset – Zeb Creek Site
Near 36.2712, -79.5351 in Gibsonville, NC
Haw River Sub-watershed
Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
On November 23, 2021 Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a
request from you on behalf of KCI Associates of North Carolina (KCI) for a site visit near the above-
referenced site in the Haw River Sub-watershed of Jordan Lake. The site visit was to determine the
potential for riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset within a proposed conservation easement
boundary, which is more accurately depicted in the attached map labeled “Figure 5-Aerial Map”
(Figure 5) prepared by KCI. The proposed easement boundary in Figure 5, includes all riparian areas
intended to be proposed as part of the mitigation site. This site is also being proposed as a stream
mitigation site and therefore stream bank instability or presence of erosional rills within riparian
areas were not addressed. On December 8, 2021, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of the
subject site. Staff with KCI were also present.
Ms. Merritt’s evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
and landward 200’ from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(effective November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703.
Feature Classification
onsite
1Subject
to
Buffer
Rule
Riparian Land uses
adjacent to Feature
(0-200’)
Buffer
Credit
Viable
3Nutrient
Offset
Viable at
2,249.36
lbs-N/acre
4,5Mitigation Type Determination w/in
riparian areas
T1 Stream No Mostly non-forested pasture
grazed by cattle. Tree line
on Figure 5 indicates
forested pasture.
7Yes Yes (non-
forested
pasture
only)
Non-forested pasture - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
Forested pasture - Enhancement Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0EF3DD47-8033-423B-A3F7-6530C34A2C9B
Zeb Creek Site
KCI
January 27, 2022
Page 2 of 3
1Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated June 1, 2021 (DWR# -no ID) using the 1:24,000
scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the
NRCS .
2The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
3NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment. Credits are calculated differently in the Jordan Lake Watershed. Phosphorus may be calculated separately.
4 Determinations made for this Site are determined based on the proposal provided in maps and figures submitted with the request.
5 All features proposed for buffer mitigation or nutrient offset, must have a planted conservation easement established that includes the
tops of channel banks when being measured perpendicular and landward from the banks, even if no credit is viable within that riparian
area. Easement breaks that disconnect the continuity of riparian restoration/enhancement/preservation result in no credit viable beyond
the break.
6The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channels shall comprise no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7).
7The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all of 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6). Cattle
exclusion fencing is required to be installed around the mitigation area to get buffer credit under this part of the rule.
Feature Classification
onsite
1Subject
to
Buffer
Rule
Riparian Land uses
adjacent to Feature
(0-200’)
Buffer
Credit
Viable
3Nutrient
Offset
Viable at
2,249.36
lbs-N/acre
4,5Mitigation Type Determination w/in
riparian areas
T2a
(starts at
36.2732,
-79.5329 )
Ephemeral No Mostly non-forested pasture
grazed by cattle. Tree line
on Figure 5 indicates
forested areas
2,6Yes Yes (non-
forested
pasture
only)
Non-forested pasture - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7)
Forested Areas – Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
T2b Stream Yes Mostly non-forested pasture
grazed by cattle. There is a
narrow fringe located along
top of banks.
7Yes Yes (non-
forested
pasture
only)
Non-forested pasture - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Narrow Fringe - Enhancement Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
T3
Stream No Mostly forested areas
grazed by cattle with a dry
pond bed upstream.
7Yes Yes (pond
bed
footprint
only)
Pond Bed Footprint- Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
Forested pasture - Enhancement Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
T4 Stream No Combination of forested
and non-forested pasture
grazed by cattle. Tree line
on Figure 5 indicates
forested areas
7Yes Yes (non-
forested
pasture
only)
Non-forested Pasture - Restoration site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
Forested pasture - Enhancement Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
T5 Stream No Combination of forested
and non-forested pasture
grazed by cattle. Tree line
on Figure 5 indicates
forested areas
7Yes Yes (non-
forested
pasture
only)
Non-forested Pasture - Restoration site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
Forested pasture - Enhancement Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
Zeb Creek Stream Yes Combination of forested
pasture, partially forested
pasture and non-forested
pasture all grazed by cattle.
Tree line on Figure 5
indicates forested areas.
7Yes Yes (non-
forested &
partially
forested
pasture
only)
Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (n)
Forested pasture - Enhancement Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
Partially forested pasture - Enhancement
Site per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n) -
*requires supplemental plantings
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0EF3DD47-8033-423B-A3F7-6530C34A2C9B
Zeb Creek Site
KCI
January 27, 2022
Page 3 of 3

Determinations provided in the table above were made using a proposed easement boundary showing
proposed mitigation areas shown in Figure 5. The map representing the proposal for the site is
attached to this letter and initialed by Ms. Merritt on January 27, 2022. Substantial changes to the
proposed easement boundary or stream mitigation plans as well as any site constraints identified in
this letter, could affect the Site’s potential to generate buffer mitigation and nutrient offset credits.

This letter does not constitute an approval of this Site to generate buffer and nutrient offset credits.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to
DWR for written approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or
surface waters for buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703, a proposal regarding a
proposed nutrient load-reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for
approval prior to any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.

All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0703.

This viability assessment will expire on January 27, 2024 or upon approval of a mitigation plan
by the DWR, whichever comes first. This letter should be provided in any nutrient offset,
buffer, stream or wetland mitigation plan for this Site.

Please contact Katie Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,

Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
PW/kym

Attachments: Figure 5: Aerial Map

cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0EF3DD47-8033-423B-A3F7-6530C34A2C9B
Project Easement (23.60 ac)
Ephemeral Stream
Intermittent Streams
Perennial Streams
Tree Line

T4 36.2732, -79.5329

T5
T2
T4 T1

Zeb Creek

T3

0 200

400
Feet
FIGURE 5. AERIAL IMAGERY
ZEB CREEK RESTORATION SITE
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC

Sources: NC Statewide
Orthoimagery, 2018.

Zeb CreekRestoration Site
±
T2a
T2b
Dry Pond
Bed
=Preservation
=Enhancement (Cattle Excl)
=Enhancement (Supplemental plant)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0EF3DD47-8033-423B-A3F7-6530C34A2C9B

November 22, 2021

KCI Technologies
Attn: Joe Sullivan
Delivered via email to: [e-mail]

Subject: On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Jordan Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0267)

Subject Property: Zeb Creek Mitigation Project

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

On May 4, 2021, I conducted an on-site determination with you to review features located on the subject
project for stream determinations with regards to the above noted state regulations.

The attached initialed and dated sketch and stream table accurately depicts all Division stream
determinations and stream origin determinations conducted during the site visit. Zeb Creek and the
intermittent portion of T2 are subject to the Jordan Lake Buffer Rules.

This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. The owner (or future
owners) should notify the Division (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any future
correspondences concerning this property. Landowners or affected parties that dispute this
determination made by the Division may request a determination by the Director of Water Resources.
This determination is final and binding, unless an appeal request is made within sixty (60) calendar days
of the date of this letter to the Director in writing.

If sending via U.S. Postal Service:
Paul Wojoski - DWR 401 & Buffer
Permitting Branch Supervisor
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.)
Paul Wojoski - DWR 401 & Buffer
Permitting Branch Supervisor
512 N Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604

This letter only addresses the features on the subject property and/or within the proposed project area
and does not approve any activity within buffers or within waters of the state. If you have any
additional questions or require additional information, please call me at 336-776-9693 or
[e-mail]. This determination is subject to review as provided in Articles 3 & 4 of G.S.
150B.

Page 2 of 2

Sincerely,

Sue Homewood
Winston-Salem Regional Office

Enclosures: USGS Topo Map
NRCS Soils Map
KCI Figure 3 Potential WOTUS map

Cc: Charles Brown, 1391 Zeb Rd, Gibsonville NC 27249-9335
Katie Merritt, 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch (via email)
DWR, Winston-Salem Regional Office

Zeb Creek
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T4
Wetland Form
Wetland Form
Upland Form Wetland FormW9
W16W2
W2
W1
W15
W5
W6
W7
W12
W13 W14
W10
W3
W4
W11
W17
W8
Project Easement (23.49 ac)
Ephemeral Stream
Intermittent Streams
Perennial Streams
Wetlands
Zeb CreekRestoration Site
Sources: NC StatewideOrthoimagery, 2018.
FIGURE 3. PO TENTIAL WO TUSZEB CREEK R ESTOR ATION SITE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 400200
Feet
11/22/2021
03030 00201 0050
0301010403 2010
03030002030030
Source: USGS National Map,Milton and AltonQuadrangles
FIGURE 5. USG S TOPO GRAPHIC MAPZEB CREEK RESTORATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 1,000500
Feet
Project Easement (23.49 ac)
Project Watershed (545 ac / 0.85 sqm i)
14 D igit HUC Boundary
Zeb Creek Restoration Site
Source: NRCS Soil Survey, Rockingham County (1992)Map 11
FIGURE 4. NR CS SOIL SURVEYZEB CREEK RESTORATION SITEROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC ±0 410205
Feet
Project Easement (2 3.49 ac)
Zeb Creek Restoration Site

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Via Email

20 May 2022

Joseph Sullivan
KCI Associates of North Carolina
4505 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609

SUBJECT: Environmental Review of the Zeb Creek Mitigation Site in Rockingham County, North
Carolina.

Dear Mr. Sullivan,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your request for
review and comments on any possible concerns regarding the Zeb Creek Mitigation Site. Comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The Zeb Creek Mitigation Site is located 1,800 feet north of Zeb Road and approximately 5.6 miles
southeast of Reidsville in southeastern portion of Rockingham County, North Carolina. The proposed
project would restore six unnamed tributaries of the Haw River in the Cape Fear River Basin and
reestablish, rehabilitate, and enhance wetlands. The existing land use is a mix of woodland, cattle pasture,
and agriculture.
We have records of the state threatened notched rainbow (Villosa constricta); and state significantly rare
eastern creekshell (V. delumbis) and Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi) downstream of the site.
The lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of federal or state-listed species.
An on-site survey is the only means to determine if the proposed project may impact federal or state rare,
threatened, or endangered species.
Stream mitigation projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. We offer the following general recommendations to
minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources:
1. We recommend riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner
needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to
maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland
runoff, and wildlife habitat.
Page 2

20 May 2022
Zeb Creek Mitigation Site
Lincoln/Catawba Counties

2. We recommend a plant list that consists of species typically found in reference streams and the
appropriate natural vegetation community, as described by M.P. Schafale in The Guide To The
Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation
(https://www.ncnhp.org/references/nhp-publications/fourth-approximation-descriptions). Also,
ensure the species planted occur naturally within Lincoln and Catawba Counties.
3. Avoid using orchard grass, fescue, or cereal rye, which exhibits allelopathic characteristics, or
any other non-native species for soil stabilization. We recommend adding several species of
flowering herbaceous species in the seed mix to create pollinator habitat within the project
boundary.
4. The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose-weave netting
that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal
twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it
impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of
eggs, and clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If I can be of additional assistance, please call (336)
269-0074 or email [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

November 30, 2021

Casey Haywood
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Re: KCI Cape Fear 02 UMB Zeb Creek Mitigation Site/ SAW-2021-01870/ Johnston County

Dear Mrs. Haywood:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project. The project, based on the description in your letter to our office, and other
information, is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to adversely
affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We believe that the
requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember that
obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.

For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North
Carolina is now available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Our web page contains a
complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened species protected by the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of
federal species of concern 1 that are known to occur in each county in North Carolina.

Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representative), in
consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such
agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed endangered or
threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill that requirement
and in determining whether additional consultation with the Service is necessary. In addition to the
federally-protected species list, information on the species’ life histories and habitats and information

1 The term “federal species of concern” refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation
does not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or
threatened species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse
impacts to federal species of concern.

on completing a biological assessment or evaluation and can be found on our web page at
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the web site often for updated information or changes.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be present
within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect
those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine the species’ presence
or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys.

If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to
adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed
species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any
activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect
(i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you are not
required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared).
However, you should maintain a complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your
determination of effect, the qualified personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site
photographs, and any other related articles.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone],
extension 27.

Sincerely,

Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

for
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)

Appendix 2: Photo Log
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)

APPENDIX B
STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services
ZEB CREEK RESTORATION SITE PHOTO LOG:August 2024 Drone Photos
Photo 1: Zeb Creek looking west from start of the project.
Photo 2: Zeb Creek looking west near the confluence with T3.

APPENDIX B
STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services

Photo 3: Zeb Creek looking west toward the breached pond berm.

Photo 4: T1 tree line looking east near the confluence with Zeb Creek.

APPENDIX B
STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services

Photo 5: T2a and T2b looking northwest near the confluence with Zeb Creek.

Photo 6: T4 and T5 looking north near the confluence with Zeb Creek.

APPENDIX B
STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services
Photo 7: T4 tree line downstream of the confluence with T5 looking south towards Zeb Creek.
Photo 8: Tree line near the start of T5 looking east.
APPENDIX B
STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services
ZEB CREEK RESTORATION SITE PHOTO LOG
Photo 1: T1 looking downstream. Photo 2: T2 looking at headcut near transition from
Enhancement 2 to Restoration.
Photo 3: T2 looking downstream along Restoration
reach.
Photo 4: T3 looking at breached pond berm and the
beginning of the Restoration reach.
Photo 5: T3 looking downstream at livestock impacted
reach.
Photo 6: T4 looking downstream at livestock impacts in
the stream channel, at the upstream portion.
APPENDIX B
STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services
Photo 7: T5 looking downstream near the beginning of
the reach.
Photo 8: Zeb Creek looking at actively eroding bank.
Photo 9: Zeb Creek looking at existing ford crossing. Photo 10: Zeb Creek looking at incised channel and
vertical eroding banks.
Photo 11: Zeb Creek upstream of breached pond
levee.
Photo 12: Zeb Creek looking at over-widened channel.
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
Appendix 3: Historic Aerial Photographs
1950
1977 1993
1969
±HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, 1950-2010
ZEB CREEK BUFFER MITIGATION AND
NUTRIENT OFFSET BANK
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC
Image Source: USGS Earth Explorer;NC OneMap
0 800400
Feet
Project Easement
1998
2010
HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, 1950-2010
ZEB CREEK BUFFER MITIGATION AND
NUTRIENT OFFSET BANK
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NC
Image Source: NC OneMap
Project Easement
0 500250
Feet
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)

Appendix 4: Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan Conservation Easement

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S
USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made
this day ____ of _______________, 202__ by and between Charles C. Brown,
whose address is 1391 Zeb Road, Gibsonville, NC 27249 (“Grantor”) and
Unique Places to Save, a North Carolina non-profit corporation, whose address
is Post Office Box 1183, Chapel Hill, NC 27514-1183 (“Grantee”).

The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said
parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural,
masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated,
lying and being in Rockingham County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”);

WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational
corporation, association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of
the Internal Revenue Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the purposes
or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) – (d) listed below;

(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space aspects of
real property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational,
educational, or open-space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic,
natural, or aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the
following natural communities: riparian wetlands, perennial streams, intermittent
streams and riparian buffers. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to
maintain streams, wetlands and riparian resources and other natural values of
approximately 24.999 acres, more or less, and being more particularly
described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated fully herein by
reference (the “Conservation Easement Area”), and prevent the use or
development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose or in any
manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.

WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the addition of
the Zeb Creek Mitigation Site to the KCI Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation
Banking Instrument (UMBI) and the Mitigation Plan for the Zeb Creek
Mitigation Site, Department of the Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-2021-
01870, with KCI Technologies, Inc. acting as the Bank Sponsor, and
submitted to the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The
Zeb Creek Mitigation Site will be submitted to the Corps for use as a
mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts
authorized by DA permits.

WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is also a condition of the approval of the Zeb
Creek Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI)
and Bank Parcel Development Package (BPDP) or Mitigation Plan for the
Zeb Creek Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank, North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Project ID# 20211420 v1, which will
be submitted to the NCDWR for approval, and will be made and entered into
by and between KCI Technologies, Inc. acting as the Bank Sponsor. The Zeb
Creek Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Site is intended to be used to
compensate for riparian buffer and nutrient impacts to surface waters.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third-party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (“Third-
Parties,” to include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through the
appropriate enforcement agencies of the United States and the State of North
Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to, and do not limit, the rights of
enforcement under the NCDWR Project ID# 20211420 v1 and the Department
of the Army number SAW-2021-01870, the “Umbrella Mitigation Banking
Instrument”, or any permit or certification issued by the Third-Parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns, forever and in
perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the
extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area described on
Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:

ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT

This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation
Easement is an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by
Grantee against Grantor, Grantor’s personal representatives, heirs, successors
and assigns, lessees, agents and licensees.

ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent
with the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The
Conservation Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and
restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities
and uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated
hereunder:

A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance,
alteration or impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement
Area or any introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is
prohibited.

B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any
building, mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other
advertising display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock
or any other temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the
Conservation Easement Area.

C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential
and/or commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes
are prohibited.

D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing,
animal husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area
are prohibited.

E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction,
harming, cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan and
BPDP/Mitigation Plan. Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for
purposes of enhancing planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the
Mitigation Plan and BPDP/Mitigation Plan is allowable once a year for no more
than five consecutive years from the date on page 1 of this Conservation
Easement, except where mowing will negatively impact vegetation or disturb
soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by KCI Technologies, Inc. and
shall not violate any part of Item L of Article II.

F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or
walkways on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or
modification to existing roads, trails or walkways.

G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation
Easement Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying
the conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving
directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the
Conservation Easement Area.

H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes,
garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous
substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or
aboveground storage tanks or other materials on the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.

I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading,
filling, excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand,
gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography
of the land in any manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to
restore natural topography or drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and
enhancing streams and wetlands within the Conservation Easement Area, KCI
Technologies, Inc. is allowed to perform grading, filling, and excavation
associated with stream and wetland restoration and enhancement activities as
described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by Department of the Army
Nationwide Permit 27.

J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking,
draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related
activities, or altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or
disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns.
In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or
underground water into, within or out of the easement area by any means,
removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or
wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.

K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been
encumbered or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be
transferred pursuant to a transferable development rights scheme or cluster
development arrangement or otherwise.

L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not
limited to, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is
prohibited other than for temporary or occasional access by the KCI
Technologies, Inc., the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors,
assigns, NCDWR, and the Corps for purposes of constructing, maintaining and
monitoring the restoration, enhancement and preservation of streams, wetlands
and riparian areas within the Conservation Easement Area. The use of
mechanized vehicles for monitoring purposes is limited to only existing roads
and trails as shown in the approved in the Mitigation Plan and BPDP/Mitigation
Plan.

M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the
Conservation Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the
purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental
systems, is prohibited.

ARTICLE III.
GRANTOR’S RESERVED RIGHTS

The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation
Easement Area for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the
Conservation Easement Area, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to
hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement Area, the right to sell,
transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement Area, in whole or
in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms
of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, including KCI Technologies, Inc. acting as the Bank
Sponsor, the right to construct and perform activities related to the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within
the Conservation Easement Area in accordance with the approved Zeb Creek
Mitigation Plan, the approved Zeb Creek BPDP/Mitigation Plan, and the two
Mitigation Banking Instruments described in the Recitals of this Conservation
Easement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as “Internal
Crossing” on the plat Zeb Creek Mitigation Site and recorded plat book page
number in the Conservation Easement Area: vehicular access, livestock
access, irrigation piping and piping of livestock waste. All Internal Crossings
that allow livestock access will be bounded by fencing and will be over a
culvert.

ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS

The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns,
the Corps and NCDWR, shall have the right to enter the Property and
Conservation Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to determine if the Grantor, or his
personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is complying with the
terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement.
The Grantee, KCI Technologies, Inc., and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, the Corps and NCDWR shall also have the right to
enter and go upon the Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making
scientific or educational observations and studies and taking samples. The
easement rights granted herein do not include public access rights.

ARTICLE V.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps,
and NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation
Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to
require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement
Area that may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the
terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of
the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The
Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions
constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the
Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal
proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a
temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the breach of
the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or otherwise
materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement.
The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances damage
to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate.
The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition
to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in
connection with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, correction
or restoration, including the Grantee’s expenses, court costs, and attorneys’
fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be
responsible for the breach. The Corps and the NCDWR shall have the same
rights and privileges as the said Grantee to enforce the terms and conditions of
this Conservation Easement.

B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or
provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other
covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce
the same in the event of a subsequent breach or default.

C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be
construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or
change in the Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor’s control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of
God or third parties, except Grantor’s lessees or invitees; or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from such causes.

ARTICLE VI.
MISCELLANEOUS

A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns
the Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the
Property which may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement
or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other
interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this
Conservation Easement. Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the
use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising out of this
Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the
Property against the claims of all persons.

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms
of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that
transfers any interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area.
The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60)
days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the
terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and
easement interests in the Conservation Easement Area or any portion thereof
and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written
consent and approval of the Corps.

C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of
this Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however
that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or
assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will
be a qualified holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34
et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the
Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or
assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to
continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.

D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The combined Mitigation
Banking Instruments: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and MBI with
corresponding BPDP/Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation Easement sets
forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation
Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings
or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found
to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder
shall continue in full force and effect.

E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate
taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall
keep the Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations
incurred by Grantor, except those incurred after the date hereof, which are
expressly subject and subordinate to the Conservation Easement. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.

F. Long-Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic
resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are
sustained.

G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render
impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the
conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.

H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation
Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to
substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of
such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.

I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property
interest immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the
Conservation Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted
following an extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall
be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation Easement as
determined at the time of the extinguishment or condemnation.

J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other
communication required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such
address as may be hereafter specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):

To Grantor:
Charles C. Brown
1391 Zeb Road
Gibsonville, NC 27249
336-584-6909 (mobile)

To Grantee:
Unique Places to Save
Post Office Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-1183
919-428-2040

To Sponsor:
KCI Technologies, Inc.
4505 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Attn: Gary M. Mryncza, PE
919-783-9214

To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

To NCDEQ -DWR:
NCDEQ – Division of Water Resources 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to
enforce this Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified
grantee, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of
these events Grantee fails to make an assignment pursuant to this
Conservation Easement, then the Grantee’s interest shall become vested in
another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a
court of competent jurisdiction.

L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but
only in a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment
does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of
the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation
purposes of this grant.

M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The
wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of
the Conservation Easement Area, and its current use and state of
improvement, are described in Section 3.0 of the Mitigation Plan, prepared by
Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and Grantee to be complete and
accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of this
report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use
of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with the terms of this
Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the
use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the Conservation
Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually
unto Grantee for the aforesaid purposes.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and
seal, the day and year first above written.

___________________________________
Charles C. Brown

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF _________________

I, _____________________________, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do
hereby certify that _________________________, Grantor, personally appeared before me this day
and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the __________ day of
___________________, 20__.

________________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires:
______________________________

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantee has executed this Conservation Easement, the day and year
first above written.

UNIQUE PLACES TO SAVE,
a North Carolina non-profit corporation

By:___________________________________(SEAL)
Name:________________________________
Title:_________________________________

STATE OF _______________________
COUNTY OF _____________________

I, _________________, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that
_____________________ personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due
execution of the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and official seal this the ____ day of
____________________, 20___.

_________________________________________
printed name:__________________, Notary Public (Official Seal)
My commission expires:________________

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)

Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan for the Zeb Creek Restoration Site – Jordan Lake, Haw Arm
(Section 12.10 of the Zeb Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan)
Appendix 5 : Construction Plan Sheets
ZC Reach 1 759 10+31 to 17+90 759 Restoration I / II 1:1 759.000            
ZC Reach 2 360 17+90 to 21+50 330 Restoration I 1:1 330.000            30' exception from 19+80 
to 20+10
ZC Reach 3 615 21+50 to 27+65 615 Restoration I 1:1 615.000            
ZC Reach 4 760 27+65 to 35+25 730 Restoration I 1:1 730.000            30' exception from 32+32 
to 32+62
ZC Reach 5 460 35+25 to 39+85 460 Restoration I / II 1:1 460.000            
T1 970 100+31 to 110+01 970 Restoration I 1:1 970.000            
T2 393 202+34 to 206+27 363 Restoration I 1:1 363.000            30' exception from 203+88 
to 204+18
T3 632 300+29 to 306+62 602 Restoration I 1:1 602.000            30' exception from 300+29 
to 300+59
T4 795 400+30 to 408+25 795 Restoration I 1:1 795.000            
T5 484 500+53 to 505+37 484 Restoration I 1:1 484.000            
Riparian Wetland 
Enhancement 1.241 N/A 1.241 Enhancement N/A 2 : 1            0.621 
Riparian Wetland 
Creation 3.5 N/A 3.500 Creation N/A 3 : 1             1.167 
Riparian Wetland 
Restoration (Re‐
establishment)
2.504 N/A 2.504 Re‐
establishment N/A 1 : 1            2.504 
Riparian Wetland 
Restoration 
(Rehabilitation)
2.102 N/A 2.102 Rehabilitation N/A 1.5 : 1            1.401 
StationingExisting Footage/ 
Acreage
Project Component     ‐or‐ 
Reach ID Notes/CommentsMitigation 
Credits
Mitigation 
Ratio (X:1)
Approach 
Priority LevelRestoration LevelCreditable Footage or 
Acreage