20211427 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20210922

150 9 001:20 15 CERTIFIED
EN GIN EER S • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCT ION MANAGERS
KCI4505 Falls of Neusc Rd.. Suite 400 + Raleigh, PAC 2760c) • Phone 91Q-783-9214 • Fax [phone]
01 l: y OF N c
September 22, 2021
From: Jean Cheveallier, Project Manager
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Subject: Haunted Creek Restoration Site
Post Contract IRT Site Review Meeting
Little Tennessee River HUC 06010202
Macon County, North Carolina
Contract No. #200301-01
DMS Project #100204
Dear DMS & IRT Staff,
We have now had several conversations with the landowners at Haunted Creek. We have worked with
them to explore several scenarios in the hope of finding a way to make this project work for all parties.
After all of our discussions we finally got them to agree to the Scenario 4 plan we shared with you all last
week (also attached here) which greatly expands the buffers for the site. Scenario 4 is based on a 5:1
mitigation ratio for Enhancement II and a 10:1 ratio for Preservation. Unfortunately, this excludes the
upper reach of preservation which would be on a separate lot. The landowners do not feel comfortable
adding restrictions on an additional lot and one that will already be harder to market due to topography
While we did finally come to an agreement that works for the landowners regarding the easement size
and lot layout, they are so far unwilling to add further restrictions to Lot 2 by incorporating the
restrictive covenants we discussed with you all last week. You may recall that KCI proposed purchasing
the lot fee simple and then adding these covenants prior to any future land transfer. Regrettably, the
real estate market here has spiked, causing the landowners to ask for a land price that we cannot afford
based on the project financials. We have also had discussions with Mainspring Conservation Trust about
ways in which they could help make this work. However, we once again came up short of finding a
solution that could work within their required parameters. At this point we feel that we have pushed the
landowner as hard as we can to make this a high -quality project, specifically with them agreeing to the
expanded buffers. We are still left with a path forward for this project, but we are not able to achieve all
of the project components we discussed with you last week. I ask the IRT to consider approving this
project with the significantly increased buffers as shown in the attached, but without additional
restrictive covenants on the property. This would seem to be the only way to complete the Haunted
Creek Mitigation project for DMS.
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE
Employee -Owned Since 1988
WWW.KCI.COM

As you know, it is very difficult to find good restoration sites with willing landowners, especially in this
watershed. We were fortunate enough to find one here and we believe it to be a very good project with
excellent potential to protect and restore important headwater resources. We hope the landowners'
reluctance to a fee -simple purchase of the lot does not require KCI to abandon the project. While KCI
understands the IRT's desire to mitigate future land use changes, the expanded buffers that we have
been able to get for this project are three times the distance of the minimum standard and is our best
effort to make this a viable project.
Sincerely,
Jean Cheveallier
Attachments:
1. Scenario 4 Proposed Mitigation Plan with Buffers
2. Revised Lot Layout with 4 Parcels
3. Topography study of lots with 2' contours
4. Scenario 4 Buffer Calculation Output
Employee -Owned Since 1988
RISE TO THE CHALLENGE WWW.KCI.COM

C

Haunted Creek Restoration Site

z,Streams
r•::
�; -

Site Name: Haunted Creek Restoration Site
USACE Action ID: SAW-2021-01273
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
Number of Exempt Terminal Stream Ends': 2
County: Macon
Minimum Required Buffer Width': 30
Mitigation Type
Restoration(1:1)
Enhancement 1(1.5:1)
Enhancement II 12.5:1)
Preservation (5:1)
Other(7.5:1)
Other(10:1)
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals
Buffer Zones
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)s
Ideal Buffer (square feet)`
Actual Buffer (square feet)'
Zone Multiplier
Buffer Credit Equivalent
Percent of Ideal Buffer
Credit Adjustment
Total Baseline Credit
2259.10
Mitigation Ratio Creditable Stream Include in Buffer
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Baseline Stream Credit
Buffered Stream Credit From Buffered
Length Streams
2162.00 2162.00 2162.00
11.70 117.00 11.70
85.40 427.00 85.40
2706.00 2259.10 2706.00 2259.10
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
less than 15 feet
>15 to 20 feet
>20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
81886.5
27609.5
27766.5
27923.5
113264
136477.5
136634.5
136791.5
145112.5
82339.99
27351.15
27337.63
27315.48
108889.96
130592.95
120222.24
115975.46
111983.10
79920.79
26378.67
26282.42
26179.06
103553.43
122144.86
109724.71
58078.48
4796.84
50%
20%
15%
15%
9%
7%
6%
5%
3%
1129.55
451.82
338.87
338.87
203.32
158.14
135.55
112.96
67.77
97%
97%
97%
97%
95%
94%
91%
50%
4%
-28.46
-11.64
-8.82
-8.88
193.35
147.91
123.71
56.57
2.90
Credit Loss in Required Credit Gain for Net Change in
Total Credit
Buffer Additional Buffer Credit from Buffers
-57.80 524.44 466.64 2725.74
'Number of terminal stream ends, including all points where streams enter or exit the project boundaries, but not including internal crossings even if they are not protected by the easement.
zMinimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
'Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet -to -credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
°Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
'This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width and no internal crossings. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
'Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non -creditable stream reaches
within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
'Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are more than
150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.

Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
(Updated 11/07/2018)
Since the implementation of the Stream Mitigation Guidelines in 2003, the Wilmington District has required that all compensatory stream mitigation projects have a minimum buffer width of 50 feet from
the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in coastal and piedmont counties and 30 feet in mountain counties. Current guidance includes an allowance of up to 5% of total stream length to be less than the
minimum width to account for areas where it is not possible to obtain the minimum width, such as where streams intersect property boundaries, farm crossings, or where allowable exceptions are
included with the easement. Additional stream credit may also be generated by protecting and planting buffers that are wider than the minimum stated above. The spreadsheet below is used to
calculate additional credit; however, if additional credit is sought for wider buffers, the 5% allowance does not apply and any areas that have less than the minimum width will also be considered in the
calculation (e.g., any areas lack the minimum buffer in any direction will count as a credit deduction). The exception to this is for stream "terminal ends" where streams exit or enter the project boundary
(not including internal stream crossings, even if not within the easement). This method may be used for all mitigation types, including preservation; however, this method is not applicable to streams
where credit is determined by valley length. Buffer areas may include both planted areas and areas of existing forest cover, provided they meet all vegetation and performance standards and are
protected by easement or other approved mechanism. Additionally, when seeking extra credit, some areas must be removed (clipped in GIS) from all buffer zone area calculations, including the area of
stream itself (as determined either by OHWM or average width), all easement exceptions (e.g., farm crossings, utility lines, cleared stream access points), open water resulting from beaver ponds or other
features, areas that are not meeting performance standards (e.g., areas of low stem density, low vigor, or excessive invasive species), or other areas that do not support forest canopy species. Areas that
are also generating wetland credit, state buffer or nutrient offset credit must be removed from calculations for extra credit for wider buffers but are not considered toward credit loss where they occur
inside the minimum buffer width (i.e., these areas do not have to be clipped from buffer zones that are less than 50 feet from the OHWM in piedmont and coastal counties, or 30 feet in the mountain
counties). In some cases, such as projects that were implemented after the minimum buffers were established where easements do not meet the minimum width on more than 5% of the total stream
length, this methodology may also be used to calculate credit reductions. In these cases, areas on the project that have wider buffers may be used to offset lost credit up to the total amount proposed in
the approved Mitigation Plan, but not more.
In order to apply this methodology, GIS must be used to determine the area (in square feet) of buffer zones around all streams within a project. The applicable buffer zones and their distance from the
stream OHWM are shown in the table once the project county has been selected. Complete the table as follows:
Step 1- Fill out the information at the top of the Buffer Calculation table, including the project county, and creditable stream length for each mitigation type. If there are stream reaches that are credited
at a ratio that is not shown, enter custom mitigation ratio multipliers, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet -to -credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a preservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the
multiplier would be 8). Also enter the number of stream terminal ends on the project, which are where project streams leave the easement at a property or easement boundary. This includes road
crossings where the road is not owned by the property owner, but does not include internal crossings within each property. Additionally, efforts should be made to capture the 50 foot buffer for all
stream origins when the occur within a subject property.
Step 2 - Clip (remove) all non -credible streams from the GIS layers prior to creating the buffer zones. This may include stream segments within road or easement crossings, streams with easements on
only one side, streams that have failed to meet performance standards, etc. Please note that some stream reaches may be removed from credit generation during monitoring, in which case additional
credit from wider buffers will be affected.
Step 3 - In GIS, use the buffer tool to create concentric buffers equal to the zones shown on the table around all creditable streams on the project (e.g., 0 to 15 feet, 15 to 20 feet, etc.). For the inner zone
(less than 15 feet), be sure to create the buffer from the outside edge of the OHWM, not the stream centerline. If OHWM is not surveyed, assign an average width to the stream centerline and create the
zone from the edge of this width. For braided channels, buffers should start at the OHWM of the outer -most braid on each side of the channel. Note that the outer zone stops at 150 feet from the
channel, so do not include areas that are greater than 150 feet from the channel in the outer zone.
Step 4 - Measure the square footage within each buffer zone before clipping the zones to the easement or other areas that do not count for credit. These measurements are the Ideal Buffer to be
entered in the spreadsheet, which represent the maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches. These measurements must include the area
within the arc around stream termini (terminal ends), regardless of whether these points are stream origins or points where streams exit/enter the easement. In this step, all stream terminal ends must
be included in the measurement - the square footage of terminal ends is automatically deducted at a rate of 50% from the ideal buffer of each zone based on the number of terminal ends entered into
the spreadsheet.
Step 5 - Clip the buffer zones to eliminate all areas outside the easement and all non -credible areas within the easement (see the instructions above for more information on these areas).
Step 6 - Calculate the square footage within each zone after clipping the zones to the easement and other areas that do not count for credit. These calculations are the Actual Buffer to be entered in the
spreadsheet, which represent the creditable size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches.

The following information must be submitted to the District when this methodology is used:
1. Hard copy of this spreadsheet with project information included.
2. Maps of the project identifying the credible stream reaches with different mitigation types, easement boundaries, buffer zones, and all areas that are not eligible for credit (e.g., farm crossing, open
water, areas not meeting performance standards, areas generating other credit types located outside of the minimum buffer width, etc.). Most projects will require multiple maps in order to depict the
project at a legible scale.
3. A digital copy of all GIS files and the excel spreadsheet.

Site Name: Haunted Creek Restoration Site
USACE Action ID: SAW-2021-01273
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
Number of Exempt Terminal Stream Ends': 2
County: Macon
Minimum Required Buffer Width': 30
Mitigation Type
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement 1(1.5:1)
Enhancement 11(2.5:1)
Preservation (5:1)
Other(7.5:3)
Other(10:1)
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals
Buffer Zones
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)s
Ideal Buffer (square feet)°
Actual Buffer (square feet)'
Zone Multiplier
Buffer Credit Equivalent
Percent of Ideal Buffer
Credit Adjustment
Total Baseline Credit
2259.10
Mitigation Ratio Creditable Stream Include in Buffer
C3LI3L
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Baseline Stream Credit Buffered Stream Credit From Buffered
Length Streams
2162.00 2162.00 2162.00
11.70 117.00 11.70
85.40 427.00 85.40
2259.10 2706.00 2259.10
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
less than 15 feet
>15 to 20 feet
>20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
81886.5
27609.5
27766.5
27923.5
113264
136477.5
136634.5
136791.5
145112.5
82339.99
27351.15
27337.63
27315.48
108889.96
130592.95
120222.24
115975.46
111983.10
79920.79
26378.67
26282.42
26179.06
103553.43
122144.86
109724.71
58078.48
4796.84
50%
20%
15%
15%
9%
7%
6%
5%
3%
1129.55
451.82
338.87
338.87
203.32
158.14
135.55
112.96
67.77
97%
97%
97%
97%
95%
94%
91%
50%
4%
-28.46
-11.64
-8.82
-8.88
193.35
147.91
123.71
56.57
2.90
Credit Loss In Required Credit Gain for Net Change in
Total Credit
Buffer Additional Buffer Credit from Buffers
-57.80 524.44 466.64 2725.74
'Number of terminal stream ends, including all points where streams enter or exit the project boundaries, but not including internal crossings even if they are not protected by the easement.
'Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
'Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet -to -credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
4Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
'This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width and no internal crossings. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
6Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non -creditable stream reaches
within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
'Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are more than
150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: Haunted Creek_DMS# 100204_ Little Tennessee 06010202 (Macon County)
Date: Monday, November 1, 2021 2:05:42 PM
Attachments: Haunted Creek 100204 Mitigation Proposal (Scenario 4) 9-22-21.1)df
HauntedCreek v4-4 v2 Copy of Buffer Calculation 20200904.xlsx
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20211427 v.1
Doc Type: Mitigation Information
From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:16 AM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J
CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Adam Spiller
<[e-mail]>; Jean Cheveallier <[e-mail]>; Tim Morris
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Haunted Creek_DMS# 100204_ Little Tennessee 06010202 (Macon County)
Casey, Erin, Kim, Andrea and Todd;
Please find attached KCI's follow up response and proposal based on our meeting last Friday and
numerous discussions with the project's landowner.
Unfortunately, this excludes the upper reach of preservation based on landowner discussions and
constraints. Both KCI and DIMS believe that this still a viable mitigation project in a difficult basin.
Please review the information and provide feedback at your earliest convenience. I am happy to set
up a meeting to discuss further.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesner&ncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801

Z�'- r p: Q
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 10:02 AM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood(@usace.army.mil>; Davis, Erin B
<erin.davisPncdenr.gov>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Kimberly.D.Browning(@usace.army.mil>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<Todd.J.TugwelIPusace.army.mil>; Leslie, Andrea J <andrea.lesliePncwildlife.org>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <matthew.reid(@ncdenr.gov>; joe.sullivan(@kci.com; Adam Spiller
<Adam.SpillerPkci.com>; Jean Cheveallier <Jean.Cheveallier(@kCl.com>; Tim Morris
<Tim.Morris(@kci.com>
Subject: Proposed IRT/DMS/KCI Meeting - Haunted Creek_DMS# 100204_ Little Tennessee
06010202 (Macon County)
Casey, Erin, Kim, Andrea and Todd;
DMS and KCI would like to request a conference call meeting to discuss the project. We would like
IRT input on several issues discussed since the initial on -site meeting and follow-up documentation
provided.
If possible, we would like to discuss this Friday (Sept. 17th) from 11:OOam—12:OOpm. If that works,
please let me know and I will set up the meeting in MS Teams.
If there is a better time on Friday afternoon, please let us know.
I know you all are in the field most of next week. If this Friday does not work, is there a time next
week on Thursday or Friday (Sept. 23-24) that would be feasible for a meeting?
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesner&ncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.