20180199 Ver 1_Mitigation Technical Report_20180208

IV,
a
i
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Neuse River Basin (CU 03020201)
Johnston County, NC
RFP #16-007279
Proposal for Stream & Riparian
Wetland Mitigation Credits September 21, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.
a4 ,Lk�'T; V
V1 fttZvo";�.
W
gip, �1
Prepared for:
WATER &LAND SOLUTIONS NCDEQ Division of
Mitigation Services
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 119, Raleigh, NC 27614 Attn: Kathy Dale
waterlandsolutions.com 1 919-614-5111
217 W. Jones St., Ste 3409-J
Raleigh, NC 27603

September 21, 2017
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Kathy Dale
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3409-J
Raleigh, NC 27603
J
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
waterlandsolutions.com
919-614-5111
RE: Proposal to Provide Stream and Wetland Mitigation Credits Within Cataloging Unit 03020201 of the
Neuse River Basin through the "Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project' In Response to RFP 16-
007279
Dear Ms. Dale:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the following proposal to provide stream and wetland
mitigation credits for the Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201) to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in response to RFP 16-007279. This proposal
is a firm offer from WLS and shall be valid for a period of at least six months from the September 21, 2017 opening
date for this RFP. All paper contained within this proposal is printed double -sided on recycled paper with a minimum
post -consumer content of 30 percent.
WLS has entered into a contract to purchase a conservation easement on acreage to comprise the `Buffalo Creek
Tributaries Mitigation Project" (project), located in Johnston County, between the Archer Lodge Community and the
Town of Wendell. The project site is located in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504, of
the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan Phase II, Final Report (RWP) (2015) Study Area, and in the Targeted Local
Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin. The project will involve restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of stream and riparian buffer functions along unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek, a tributary to the
Little River, which is a tributary to the Neuse River. Restoration of this headwater stream, riparian buffer, and
riparian wetland system will thus significantly leverage and contribute to a comprehensive watershed approach.
Two (2) technical options (Option 1 and Option 2) are being presented under this proposal to DMS for procuring
mitigation credits from this proposed project. As described more fully in the following Technical Proposal, the
proposed restoration project has the potential to provide up to 4,073 stream mitigation credits (SMCs) (Option 1).
In addition, both Option 1 and Option 2 will provide 2.7 riparian wetland mitigation credits (WMCs). The proposed
mitigation credit summary is listed below and is described in more detail in the Executive Summary Section of the
Technical Proposal:

Stream Restoration (PI)
MStream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level I
hancement Le
Stream Restoration (PI)
Stream Enhancement Level II
108 1:1 108
430
429 1.5:1 286
215 Ak 1:1 215
200
Wetland Rehabilitation 2.2 1.5:1 1.4
Wetland Rehabilitatiow 0.9
Wetland Enhancement 0.8 2:1 0.4
Stream Restoration (PI)
Wtream Restoration=
Stream Restoration (PI)
• • WStream Preservation
• • Stream Enhancement Level I
Imtream Restoration (PI)jM"___W
• • Stream Restoration (PI)
Stream Enhancement Level II
108
398
512
215
200
107
1:1 108
1.5:1 341
21 r
1:1 200
2.5:1
Wetland Rehabilitation
2.2
1.5:1
1.4
Wetland Rehabilitation
1.3
1.5:1
0.9
Wetland Enhancement
0.8
2:1
0.4
WLS staff have extensive restoration and mitigation implementation experience and we understand the most recent
requirements and standards applicable for restoration in this sub -basin of the Neuse River. Accordingly, WLS is in a

strong position to implement this proposed project in a timely and effective manner. In summary, this restoration
project will include the following:
• Up to 4,073 stream mitigation credits (SMCs) utilizing a broad, balanced approach including restoration
and enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection to address all of the jurisdictional stream
reaches at the project site, providing the maximum possible functional uplift and utilizing a watershed
approach.
• 2.7 wetland mitigation credits (WMCs) of riparian wetland restoration utilizing both wetland restoration
(through wetland rehabilitation) and wetland enhancement approaches to provide maximum functional
uplift and permanent protection.
• Implementation of "project clusters", or combinations of different practices or measures, collectively for a
combined effect with the stream restoration, to include riparian wetland restoration, riparian buffer
restoration, and various best management practices.
• Collective implementation of water quality improvement features, including treatment basins and
agricultural best management practices (BMPs) for a combined effect with the stream restoration, riparian
wetland restoration, and riparian buffer restoration.
• Improved water quality for receiving waters by restoring riparian buffers to remove and treat nutrients and
sediment inputs, by restoring and stabilizing streambanks to reduce erosion, and by restoring access for the
project stream reaches to active floodplains and associated riparian wetlands to better attenuate and treat
stormflows.
• Improvements to aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitat functions for maximum uplift of the project site's
ecological functions.
In addition, this project is one of two potential full -delivery project sites (this project and the Odell's House Mitigation
Project) being submitted by WLS under this RFP, along with and adjacent to the three currently contracted full -
delivery projects ('Lake Wendell Mitigation Project', 'Pen Dell Mitigation Project', 'Edwards -Johnson Mitigation
Project'), on properties owned by the same landowners. Each of these project sites involve a series of adjacent direct
headwater tributaries to Buffalo Creek, showing our diligent efforts to truly provide maximum ecological uplift
through a watershed approach. The two potential project sites are not being submitted by WLS under a single project
proposal solely to ensure strict compliance with the definition of a "site", as defined under this RFP.
This proposal and its contents are being submitted for the sole purpose of responding to the above-described RFP.
WLS greatly appreciates DMS's consideration of this proposal. We would appreciate the opportunity to complete the
presentation of this proposal to DMS through field review and discussion.
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE will serve as the Vendor's Representative for WLS as defined under this RFP. Mr. Hunt's
contact information is listed below.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
``Nothing Compares.
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Request for Proposal #
16-007279
For internal State agency processing, including tabulation of proposals in the Interactive Purchasing System
(IPS), please provide your company's Federal Employer Identification Number or alternate identification number
(e.g. Social Security Number). Pursuant to G.S. 132-1.10(b) this identification number shall not be released to
the public. This page will be removed and shredded, or otherwise kept confidential, before the procurement file
is made available for public inspection.
This page is to be filled out and returned with your proposal.
Failure to do so may subject your proposal to rejection.
ID Number:
Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN): 46-5068619
Federal ID Number or Social Security Number
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Vendor Name
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 2 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Refer ALLInquiries regarding this RFP
Request for Proposal # 16-007279
to:
Proposals will be publicly opened: September 21, 2017 @ 2:00 pm
Kathy Dale
CITY & STATE & ZIP:
Contract Type: Open Market
Email: kathy. daleCcbncdenr.gov
Commodity No. and Description: 962-73 Restoration /
Reclamation Services of Land and other Properties
Using Agency: Division of Mitigation Services
N/A
Phone: [phone]
Requisition No.: N/A
EXECUTION
In compliance with this Request for Proposals, and subject to all the conditions herein, the undersigned Vendor offers and agrees to
furnish and deliver any or all items upon which prices are bid, at the prices set opposite each item within the time specified herein. By
executing this proposal, the undersigned Vendor certifies that this proposal is submitted competitively and without collusion (G.S. 143-
54), that none of its officers, directors, or owners of an unincorporated business entity has been convicted of any violations of Chapter
78A of the General Statutes, the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (G.S. 143-59.2), and that it is not an
ineligible Vendor as set forth in G.S. 143-59.1. False certification is a Class I felony. Furthermore, by executing this proposal, the
undersigned certifies to the best of Vendor's knowledge and belief, that it and its principals are not presently debarred, suspended,
proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal or State department or
agency. As required by G.S. 143-48.5, the undersigned Vendor certifies that it, and each of its sub -Contractors for any Contract awarded
as a result of this RFP, complies with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the NC General Statutes, including the requirement
for each employer with more than 25 employees in North Carolina to verify the work authorization of its employees through the federal E -
Verify system. G.S. 133-32 and Executive Order 24 (2009) prohibit the offer to, or acceptance by, any State Employee associated with
the preparing plans, specifications, estimates for public Contract; or awarding or administering public Contracts; or inspecting or
supervising delivery of the public Contract of any gift from anyone with a Contract with the State, or from any person seeking to do
business with the State. By execution of this response to the RFP, the undersigned certifies, for your entire organization and its employees
or agents, that you are not aware that any such gift has been offered, accepted, or promised by any employees of your organization.
Failure to execute/sign proposal prior to submittal shall render proposal invalid and it WILL BE REJECTED. Late
proposals cannot be accepted.
VENDOR:
Water & Land Solutions LLC
STREET ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX:
ZIP:
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
N/A
N/A
CITY & STATE & ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
TOLL FREE TEL. NO:
Raleigh, NC 27614
919-614-5111
N/A
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE (SEE INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS ITEM #10):
PRINT NAME & TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OFVENDOR:
FAX NUMBER:
William Scott Hunt, III, Vend e resentative
N/A
VENDOR'S AUT OR ED SIGN
DATE:
EMAIL:
09/21/2017
[e-mail]
Offer valid for at least 18 d fro ate of proposal opening. After this time, any withdrawal of offer shall be made in writing, effective
upon receipt by the agency issuing this RFP.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
If any or all parts of this proposal are accepted by the State of North Carolina, an authorized representative of the Department of
Environmental Quality shall affix his/her signature hereto and this document and all provisions of this Request for Proposal along with
the Vendor proposal response and the written results of any negotiations shall then constitute the written agreement between the
parties. A copy of this acceptance will be forwarded to the successful Vendor(s).
FOR STATE USE ONLY: Offer accepted and Contract awarded this day of , 20 , as indicated on the
attached certification, by . (Authorized Representative of DEQ).
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 3 of 44

Mitigation Services
ENV I RONMENTAL O UAL ITV
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
July 25, 2017
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-007279
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Credits Within Cataloging Unit 03020201 of
the Neuse River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
1
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
September 21, 2017 @ 2:00 P.M.
DATE/TIME:
This correspondence serves as an addendum to the subject RFP. Your response to this RFP should be governed
by the content of the original RFP and the additional information provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question #1:
The HU 03020201-080020 is shown as a TLW from which mitigation credits are being requested on the
map included in the RFP but not listed on the accompanying table. Please confirm if the map or the table
is correct.
Answer: HUC # 03020201080020 was previously omitted from the table but is included in the map.
An amended table is provided in Attachment A of this Addendum.
QUESTION #2:
As the pre -proposal meeting representative for Restorations Systems, I had one question regarding RFP
#16-007279. As I have come to understand in the past, if a site is found outside of a Targeted Local
Watershed, but would provide 10,000+ feet of mitigation, the site would still be considered, or scored in
an alternate manner. So my question is, is a similar allowance or consideration a part of this RFP as well
or is that not the case this round of proposals?
Answer: In previous Full Delivery RFPs, DMS has received IRT approval to accept projects located
outside of targeted areas. This allowance was only in select basins, and was described in the
applicable RFP. DMS did not receive prior approval for such an allowance in this RFP, therefore
sites that are submitted must be in TLW as indicated in RFP.
QUESTION #3
Section 3.0, question 3 of the Technical Evaluation Scoresheet seems to be cut off in multiple locations.
The question is cut off and all four the answer options. Please clarify.
Answer: A corrected scoresheet is provided below.
RFP 16-007279 Page 1 of 5

QUESTION #4
Section 4.0, question 2 of the Technical Evaluation Scoresheet: the first answer option seems to be cut off.
Please clarify.
Answer: A corrected scoresheet is provided below.
QUESTION #5
Section 2.0 of the Technical Evaluation Scoresheet: Are the Stream SMU focus points the total points from
questions 1-4 of Section 2?
Answer: Yes.
CLARIFICATION
1) The following URL is an interactive map specific for this RFP
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htmI?id=950079d8fl c24306b3fa98e119ead1 da
2) Attachment I - Technical Evaluation Scoresheet, page 43 of 44.
Section 3, Question 3 previously illegible.
See Attachment B for Sections 3 & 4 of scoresheet
3) The RFP states that contractor "must use latest templates, found on DMS website" (Section
2.6). The spreadsheet from the hyperlink has later versions (4/26/15 and 5/5/17) of the
conservation easement doc. However, the RFP states to use the 9/4/14 template.
Vendors shall use the appropriate conservation easement template as defined in the RFP. Do
not use the 9/4/14 template.
PLEASE NOTE — THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
SECTION 2
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of
this addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in
our offer.
RFP 16-007279 Page 2 of 5

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: 9 DATE: 09/21/2017
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that the
offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closing Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS / FEDEX /
ETC.)
(Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16-007279
RFP 16-007279
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-J
RALEIGH NC 27699-1652
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE/TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-007279 Page 3 of 5

ATTACHMENT A
Neuse 03020201 Full Delivery RFP
Targeted Watersheds for Cataloging Unit 03020201
HUC #
LWP
RWP
HUC#
LWP
RWP
03020201010030
No
No
03020201100040
No
Yes
03020201010050
No
No
03020201100050
No
Yes
03020201020010
No
No
03020201110010
Yes
Yes
03020201020020
No
No
03020201110020
Yes
Yes
03020201020040
No
No
03020201110030*
No
Yes
03020201030030
No
No
03020201110040
No
Yes
03020201030020
No
No
03020201110050
No
Yes
03020201030040
No
No
03020201110060*
No
Yes
03020201030050
No
No
03020201110070
No
Yes
03020201040020
No
No
03020201120010
No
Yes
03020201050010
Yes
No
03020201120020
No
Yes
03020201050020
Yes
No
03020201120030
No
Yes
03020201050030
Yes
No
03020201130030
No
No
03020201060010
Yes
No
03020201140010
No
No
03020201060020
No
No
03020201150010
No
No
03020201065030
No
No
03020201150020
No
No
03020201065040
No
No
03020201150040
No
No
03020201070060
No
No
03020201150050
No
No
03020201070070
No
No
03020201160010
No
No
03020201070080
No
No
03020201180010
No
No
03020201070110
No
No
03020201180020
Yes
Yes
03020201080020
No
No
03020201180030*
No
Yes
03020201090010
No
No
03020201180040*
No
Yes
03020201100010
Yes
Yes
03020201180050
Yes
Yes
03020201100020
Yes
Yes
03020201200030
No
No
03020201100030
Yes
Yes
*Targeted Resource Areas (Habitat)
RFP 16-007279 Page 4 of 5

ATTACHMENT B
Section 3.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [35 Points Possible] REQUIRED
1
Does the proposed stream project provide
Less than 25% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities?] 1 point
Between 25 - 50% of the RFP request? 2 points
Between 51- 90% of the RFP request? 5 points
Greater than 90% of the RFP request? 10 paints
2
Does the proposed wetland project provide
Less than 15% of the RFP req uest miti ation quantities? 1 point
Between 15 - 25% of the RFP request? 2 points
Between 26 - 50% of the RFP request? 5 points
Greater than 50% of the RFP reg uest? 10 pcints
3
Physical constraints orbarhe rs (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that
affect project design and effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of
crossings, roadways, utilities, or reduced buffer; divided by total linear footage.]
>10% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 1 point
5-10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 5 points
< 5% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 10 points
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways, and/or utilities; or project with
existing constraints removes or relocates the constraints c barriers such that the
design is not significantly affected by the ccnstraint(s). 15 points
Section 4.0 - Provider Experience [15 Points Possible] REQUIRED
JL
Similar mitigation projects completed by the offeror (through at least 3 years of monitoring).
Completed less than 5 mitigation projects. 2 paints
Completed more than 5 mitigation projects. 5 paints
2
Experience of Project Team (people actu al ly comp leting work)
Project team contains at least two individuals with mitigation experience specific to
project evaluation, acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring.
2 points
All of the above and at least two projects brought to successful regulatory closure
with the Interagency Review Team (IRT). 10 paints
REOUIRED 5ECTIONS TOTAL
RFP 16-007279 Page 5 of 5

Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
August 9, 2017
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-007279
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Credits Within Cataloging Unit 03020201 of
the Neuse River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
2
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
September 21, 2017 @ 2:00 P.M.
DATE/TIME:
This correspondence serves as an addendum to the subject RFP. Your response to this RFP should be governed
by the content of the original RFP and the additional information provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1- ADDITIONAL NEEDS:
DMS wishes to increase the need for stream credits by 7,000 credits; The new total request for
stream credits is 32,000.
SECTION 2
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of
this addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in
our offer.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: 09/21/2017
RFP 16-007279 Page 1 of 2

PLEASE NOTE — THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that the
offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closing Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS / FEDEX /
ETC.)
(Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16-007279
RFP 16-007279
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-J
RALEIGH NC 27699-1652
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE/TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-007279 Page 2 of 2

Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
August 31, 2017
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-007279
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Credits Within Cataloging Unit 03020201 of
the Neuse River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
3
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
September 21, 2017 @ 2:00 P.M.
DATE/TIME:
This correspondence serves as an addendum to the subject RFP. Your response to this RFP should be governed
by the content of the original RFP and the additional information provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1
Additional Needs:
DMS wishes to increase the Riparian Wetland Credits by an additional 9 credits, this will make the
new total request 35. Please plan your bid responses accordingly.
SECTION 2
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of
this addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in
our offer.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 11030 Raven
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:
Road. Suite 119. Raleiah. NC 27614
TE: 09/21/2017
RFP 16-007279 Page 1 of 2

Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that the
offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closing Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS / FEDEX /
ETC.)
(Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16-007279
RFP 16-007279
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-J
RALEIGH NC 27699-1652
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE/TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-007279 Page 2 of 2

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Neuse River Basin (CU 03020201)
Johnston County, North Carolina
RFP Number 16-007279
Proposal for Stream and Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits
September 21, 2017
2:00 PM
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attention: Kathy Dale
217 W. Jones St., Suite 3409-J
Raleigh, NC 27603
Prepared by:
HATER & LAND SOLATIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
X919) 614-5111 1 walerlandsolutions_corn
Vendor's Representative: William Scott Hunt, III, PE

Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................1
2 Corporate Background and Experience................................................................................................5
3 Project Organization...........................................................................................................................13
4 Technical Approach.............................................................................................................................22
4.1 Project Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................22
4.2 Project Description......................................................................................................................26
4.3 Project Development.................................................................................................................. 33
4.4 Proposed Mitigation...................................................................................................................46
4.5 Current Ownership and Long Term Protection...........................................................................48
4.6 Project Phasing............................................................................................................................49
4.7 Success Criteria...........................................................................................................................49
4.8 Quality Control............................................................................................................................56
Tables
Table 1-1
Proposed Mitigation Credit Summary......................................................................................3
Table 1-2
Project Reach Summary............................................................................................................5
Table 4-1
Existing Condition Cross-section Survey Data.........................................................................27
Table 4-2
Vegetation Planting Species....................................................................................................41
Table 4-3
Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates.......................................................44
Table 4-4
Proposed Mitigation Credit Summary....................................................................................46
Table 4-5
Current Land Ownership.........................................................................................................48
Table4-6
Project Phasing........................................................................................................................49

Figures
Figures begin after Part 4. The pages are unnumbered but the figures are presented sequentially as listed
below.
Figure1................................................................................................................................. Project Location
Figure2..................................................................................................................... USGS Topographic Map
Figure3.................................................................................................................................. NRCS Soils Map
Figure4......................................................................................................................................... LiDAR Map
Figure5..................................................................................................................................Floodplain Map
Figure6a....................................................................................................................1965 Aerial Photograph
Figure6b...................................................................................................................1999 Aerial Photograph
Figure6c....................................................................................................................2004 Aerial Photograph
Figure6d...................................................................................................................2008 Aerial Photograph
Figure6e...................................................................................................................2017 Aerial Photograph
Figure7......................................................................................................................... Existing Hydrography
Figure 8....................................................................................Channel Stability & Pre -Monitoring Features
Figure 9.....................................................................................................................Water Quality Stressors
Figure 10......................................................................................................... Proposed Mitigation Features
Appendices Section
AppendixA ................................
AppendixB ................................
AppendixD ................................
AppendixE ................................
AppendixF ................................
AppendixG ................................
AppendixH ................................
AppendixI .................................
AppendixJ .................................
AppendixK ................................
AppendixL .................................
..................................................Attachment A: Instructions to Vendors
Attachment B: North Carolina General Contract Terms and Conditions
........................ Attachment D: Location of Workers Utilized by Vendor
................................ Attachment E: Certification of Financial Condition
.......................................Attachment F: Additional Vendor Information
.............Attachment G: Certification of Eligibility - Iran Divestment Act
................................... Attachment H: Targeted Local Watershed Maps
..................................... Attachment I: Technical Evaluation Scoresheet
............................................Conservation Easement Option Agreement
.........................................................................Hydric Soils Investigation
....................................................................Required Copy of Entire RFP

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
1 Executive Summary
This executive summary highlights the proposed Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (project),
presented by Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS). The project will provide stream and wetland mitigation
credits for the Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201) in response to RFP 16-007279. The project
site is located in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504, study area for the Neuse
01 Regional Watershed Plan Phase II, Final Report (RWP), and in the Targeted Local Watershed
03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin (Figure 1, Project Location).
The project will involve restoration, enhancement, and preservation of stream, riparian buffer and
riparian wetland functions along unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek, a tributary to the Little River,
which is a tributary to the Neuse River. The project will involve the potential restoration, enhancement,
preservation, and permanent protection of unnamed headwater tributaries (Reaches MS -R1, MS -112, R3
(Lower), R3 (Upper), R4, R5, and R6), totaling approximately 4,838 linear feet of existing streams.
In addition, approximately 4.3 acres of
degraded riparian wetlands will be
returned to their natural function, utilizing
wetland restoration (rehabilitation) and
enhancement approaches by
implementing Priority Level I Stream
Restoration, limited removal of
overburden soil above the hydric soils, and
re -vegetation. Combinations of different
measures or "project clusters", will be
implemented collectively, along with the
stream restoration, for a combined effect,
to include riparian wetland restoration,
riparian buffer restoration, water quality
improvement features, and agricultural
best management practices (BMPs).
This comprehensive approach utilizes a
suite of stream mitigation practices, from
Priority Level I Restoration to
Preservation, and appropriately addresses
all intermittent and perennial stream
reaches at the project site, including
restoring riparian buffers along all project
stream reaches currently in agriculture.
The approach also includes restoring
degraded riparian wetlands, and limiting
the number of stream crossings.
This watershed contextual map depicts the project
adjacent to the conservation easements of four other
projects that will help protect the Buffalo Creek
watershed.
Water & Land Solutions Page 1

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
As a result of implementing this project approach, DMS will be able to address mitigation components
as defined in the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP, 2010), the Wake -Johnston
Collaborative Local Watershed Plan (LWP, 2013), and the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan Phase II,
Final Report (RWP, 2015).
A majority of the existing stream reaches and riparian wetlands have been degraded significantly as a result
of historic and current agricultural and silvicultural practices, including man-made impoundments, and/or
channelization. Many of the project streams are unstable, with documented active headcut migration
with associated channel widening and bank erosion. Three of the project reaches, however, have
segments that have experienced less degradation, and are mostly stable and thus worthy of
enhancement. Additionally, one of the project reaches is relatively unimpacted, and as a result is stable
and thus worthy of preservation. Most of the project stream reaches and riparian wetlands have been
completely or partially degraded, even though they have adequate riparian buffers. Currently, the
project reaches act as significant sources of sediment to the project watershed, as well as the receiving
waters.
In addition, this is project is one of two potential full -delivery project sites (this project and the Odell's
House Mitigation Project) being submitted by WLS under this RFP, along with and adjacent to the three
currently contracted full -delivery projects (the 'Lake Wendell Mitigation Project', the 'Pen Dell Mitigation
Project', the 'Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project'), on properties owned by the same landowners. Each
of these project sites involves a series of adjacent direct headwater tributaries to Buffalo Creek, showing
our diligent efforts to truly provide maximum ecological uplift through a watershed approach. The two
potential project sites are not being submitted by WLS under a single project proposal solely to ensure
strict compliance with the definition of a "site", as defined under this RFP.
Implementation of the two proposed projects, along with three currently contracted projects, would
permanently protect more than 21,000 linear feet of headwater stream systems in consecutive and
adjoining watersheds, with each system being a direct tributary to Buffalo Creek. This unprecedented
opportunity would establish conservation easements totaling approximately 69 acres and will provide
permanent treatment of more than 1,100 acres of contiguous watershed area (see the Watershed
Contextual Map above).
The proposed project will produce 4,073 Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs) through Restoration,
Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II and Preservation, and includes the treatment of all stream
reaches at the project site [Reaches MS -R1, MS -R2, R3 (Lower), R3 (Upper), R4, R5 (Upper), and R6 (Upper)
and R6 (Lower)]. Treatment of Reaches MS -R1, MS -R2, R3 (Lower), and R5 (Lower) and R6 (Upper) will
primarily involve Priority Level I Restoration, R4 and R5 (Upper) will involve an Enhancement Level I
approach, R6 (Lower) will involve an Enhancement Level II approach, and R3 (Upper) will involve
Preservation. Our proposed Technical Option 1 will also include riparian wetland restoration to produce
2.7 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs) through wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation
approaches. The above scenario describes the stream mitigation credits generated under the proposed
Technical Option 1. Option 2 omits Reach R4 for a total of 3,784 SMCs and also includes 2.7
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs).
Page 2 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Our proposed technical options each also include riparian wetland restoration and enhancement to
produce 2.7 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs) through wetland re-establishment,
rehabilitation, and enhancement approaches. These areas of degraded riparian wetlands are situated
along the floodplains and toe of slopes, and they have been historically manipulated by agricultural and
silvicultural activities, resulting in significant loss of wetland function. The function of these degraded
riparian wetlands will be improved by implementing a Priority Level I Restoration along the main stem
reaches (MS -R1 and MS -R2) to restore hydrology (surface and subsurface) and limited disturbance of
upland soils to protect soil structure and vegetation root zone.
Water quality improvement features and agricultural BMPs, including treatment basins, will also be
implemented collectively with the above practices or measures as part of the project. The combination
of stream and wetland restoration, and water quality improvement features represents a unique
opportunity for a comprehensive watershed restoration approach. Our proposed mitigation credits are
summarized below. Details regarding the specific design and mitigation approaches are more thoroughly
discussed and described in narrative form under Technical Approach.
Table 1-1 Proposed Mitigation Credit Summary
Stream Restoration (PI) 1,497 1:1 1,497
Stream Restoration (PI) 1,34M' 1:1 1,340
Stream Restoration (PI) 108 1:1 108
Stream Preservation
430
.■ 10:1
43
Stream Enhancement Level 1
429
1.5:1
286
Stream Enhancement Level I
. .
" 341
Stream Restoration (PI)
215
1:1
215
Stream Restoration (PI=
200
* 1:1
200
Stream Enhancement Level II
107
2.5:1
43
Wetland Rehabilitation 2.2 1.5:1 1.4
Wetland Rehabilitation 1.3 ■' 1.5:1 0.9
Wetland Enhancement 0.8 2:1 0.4
Water & Land Solutions Page 3

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Stream Restoration (PI)
1,497
1:1
1,497
Stream Restoration (PI)
1,340
1:1
1,340
Stream Restoration (PI)
108
1:1
108
Stream Preservation
398
10:1
40
Stream Enhancement Level I
512
1.5:1
341
Stream Restoration (PI)
215
1:1
215
Stream Restoration (PI)
200
1:1
200
Stream Enhancement Level II
107
2.5:1
43
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
Level I Enhancement is proposed for R4 and R5 (upper) based on the current condition of the headwater
channels. Enhancement Level I will primarily focus on stabilization of localized bank erosion and arresting
of any headcuts. Level II Enhancement is proposed for R6 (lower) based on the current condition of the
headwater channel. Enhancement Level II will primarily focus on vegetation planting and stabilization of
localized bank erosion. Priority Level I Restoration is proposed along MS -R1, MS -R2, R3 (Lower), and R6
(upper). Preservation is proposed for R3 (Upper). Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet in width will be
restored along each side of all proposed project reaches with all work to be protected by a permanent
conservation easement.
All the project stream reaches proposed for restoration are perennial or intermittent streams as
determined using North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Identification Forms. While
some of the drainage areas of the headwater tributaries are smaller, the NCDWQstream scores are above
19, with the exception of R4, whereby the natural flow regime has been manipulated. Discussions with
the landowners regarding flow histories of the streams, as well as our direct experience with restoration
projects in this area of the Neuse River Basin, including our current full -delivery projects, lead WLS to
conclude which of the project stream reaches are suited to the proposed restoration and/or enhancement
practices.
Page 4 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Table 1-2 Project Reach Summary
MS -R&
R (PI)
G5 Incised
MS -R2 543.9 0.850 Perennial R (PI) C4
R3 (Upper) �Mw Intermittent
C5b
R3 (Lower)
24.1 0.038 Intermittent/Perennial
R (PI)
G5 C5
�MMllI E emeral3
EI
0 _
R5 (Upper)
11.8 0.018 Perennial'
EI
Incised E5 E5/C5b
R5 (Lower)
18.88t 0.029 Perennial
R (PIA
_
R6 (Upper)
18.4 0.028 Intermittent
R (PI)
N/A (Ponded) B4
wer) rmittent B4 B4
Note 1: Watershed drainage area is estimated based on USGS topographic and LiDAR information at the downstream end of
reach.
Note 2: R= Restoration, E1= Enhancement Level 1, Ell= Enhancement Level ll, and P= Preservation.
Note 3: Reach R4 is shown as a blue line stream on the USGS topographic map. The historic flow appears to have been piped
from an existing stormwater BMP towards Reach R5 and diverted away from its natural stream valley.
2 Corporate Background and Experience
Firm Background
Water & Land Solutions (WLS) is a mitigation provider that concentrates on the production and delivery
of high quality mitigation units and services to clients across multiple regions of the United States.
Founded in 2014, WLS was started with the purpose of combining the key components of high quality and
successful mitigation sites, including the technical expertise for mitigation site development, the
understanding of land management, and the expertise in environmental economics and finance. Through
its inception WLS has identified, targeted and employed some of the most well-respected practitioners in
the mitigation industry who have specifically focused their careers on all the required aspects and stages
of successful mitigation project implementation. Beyond our focus to improve ecological function of
impaired systems, WLS has a specific mission to positively impact people in our industry and the public
through education, partnership, and relationship building. In just under three years since establishment,
WLS has grown to a staff of seven people with offices in Dallas, Texas, Huntersville, North Carolina, and
Raleigh, North Carolina. Individuals making up the WLS staff have been recognized by our industry
colleagues and peers as leaders in the development, management, design, permitting, construction, and
monitoring of mitigation projects. Our projects and opportunities that we are currently pursuing are
located in North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Water & Land Solutions Page 5

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Unlike many larger multidisciplinary firms that are diversified into numerous industries, WLS's sole focus
is on implementing high quality and successful mitigation projects. WLS staff have demonstrated the
ability to work successfully with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies for permitting, design,
construction, monitoring, and closeout of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration projects. We
have worked extensively on numerous full -delivery projects for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS). In addition to our current staff, WLS maintains partnerships with multiple firms that can
provide support with skill sets and services unique to the mitigation industry, on an as -needed basis,
should the need arise.
WLS is structured to manage the various stages of mitigation project development. The WLS concept
includes a family of companies that were created to work together, with each company focusing on its
respective strength. Water & Land Solutions, LLC represents the project management and financial
component of the WLS family. Water & Land Solutions, LLC owns and manages the conservation
easements and contracts for each mitigation project and maintains the necessary legal and insurance
requirements needed to successfully manage projects. WLS Engineering, PLLC represents the engineering
component of the WLS family. Owned and operated by a licensed engineer, this firm practices and
oversees all technical services that constitute engineering services. WLS Engineering, PLLC is licensed with
the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineering and Surveyors (License Number P-1480), is
organized with the North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State, and is managed by William Scott
Hunt, III, PE, member and organizer.
Ability to Carry Out All Phases of Proposal
WLS staff bring vast and varied experience to each project, having worked full-time in the North
Carolina mitigation industry since its inception nearly 20 years ago. Scott Hunt led one of the most
successful statewide ecosystem restoration teams while at Michael Baker International, where he
served as Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager. Adam V. McIntyre has started and/or
led environmental divisions for several firms that practice in the mitigation industry, including one
of the most successful ecosystem restoration construction firms where he served as Vice President
of Operations for Backwater Environmental. Kayne Van Stell has been recognized as a leading
designer and project manager within the industry for over a decade, having helped to grow Buck
Engineering into a nationally recognized industry leader.
WLS has assembled an impressive team of turn -key expertise in response to this RFP. The WLS
team consists of Water & Land Solutions, LLC, WLS Engineering, PLLC, Ecosystem Services
(Ecosystem Services and Ecosystem Services Engineering, PLLC), Kee Mapping & Surveying, and
Brown's Environmental Group. Our team has extensive experience with all aspects and components
of full -delivery and other restoration projects, having completed many projects for DMS, the NC
Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), and public and private clients across the country.
WLS has been successfully partnering with Ecosystem Services Engineering, PLLC on a broad variety
of mitigation, restoration, and other natural resources projects, finding that both companies
complement each other very well. WLS and Ecosystem Services engineering, permitting, design,
and monitoring staff are working together on numerous projects involving existing conditions
assessments, stream restoration, BMP designs, and hydrology/hydraulics engineering. This
experience and direct coordination will allow for the seamless integration between tasks involving
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and design, and FEMA flood studies (if necessary).
Page 6 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
In addition, our team have worked directly with the Kee Mapping & Surveying on numerous projects
involving existing conditions surveys and assessments, conservation easement platting and deed
recordation, as well as as -built and monitoring surveys. WLS plans to utilize Kee Mapping &
Surveying for topographic mapping and land surveying activities. WLS has also partnered with
Brown's Environmental Group (BEG) to perform hydric soil investigations and wetland assessments.
WLS has worked with BEG staff on several projects that involve detailed soils classification and
jurisdictional wetland determinations. WLS staff's long history of cooperation and partnership on
full -delivery projects with these partners, as well as with the pre -qualified construction contractors
currently under consideration, allows DMS to rely on the efficiency of our team as we undertake
the proposed project.
WLS has identified the proposed project site and has secured the necessary options to purchase a
conservation easement from the applicable landowners. The WLS team will obtain the necessary
conservation easements, identify site constraints, and ensure site access. WLS staff has vast
experience in every aspect of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration and mitigation,
having worked full time in the industry since its inception in North Carolina in the 1990s. Based on
this experience, we are familiar with all documentation requirements necessary to proceed with
DMS full delivery projects. WLS will apply for and obtain the necessary permits and approvals
required for project implementation. WLS staff are experienced with developing the Categorical
Exclusions for mitigation projects and will coordinate with the required local, state, and federal
agencies to resolve any Threatened and Endangered Species, Cultural, Historic or FEMA related
issues associated with the restoration efforts.
Once permits are received, the WLS team will restore the project site based on the concepts
described herein. While selecting the lowest bid for project construction may maximize overall
project profits, WLS recognizes the value in selecting a well-established construction contractor as
a partner early in the project life cycle, as we view full -delivery as a true design -build process. For
this reason, WLS will select the construction contractor prior to beginning the formal design
process. WLS and DMS have extensive experience with specialized construction firms with
expertise in stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration and mitigation projects. We will select
a pre -qualified contractor who has a proven track record and consistent workmanship when
constructing full -delivery and other mitigation projects in North Carolina. Our selection criteria will
consider project construction costs, as well as contractor availability to ensure that the project
design, permitting, construction, and monitoring can be accomplished within project budget and
schedule constraints.
Finally, once construction has been completed, WLS will adhere to the current DMS monitoring
guidelines and templates to conduct the required monitoring activities and to develop the annual
monitoring reports. Throughout the monitoring process, WLS will ensure that the site meets DMS
credit goals. WLS staff have provided mitigation monitoring services across North Carolina and we
are familiar with the site-specific needs of this project. The WLS team understands the regulatory
issues and financial constraints, as well as the challenges associated with full -delivery mitigation
projects, and we have proven our ability to meet contracted mitigation credit goals and project
schedules.
Water & Land Solutions Page 7

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Similar Mitigation Projects in North Carolina and Other States
WLS staff have significant experience with stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration. Our
staff have been involved with the entire suite of services for hundreds of mitigation projects over
nearly two decades. This experience equates to the successful restoration of hundreds of
thousands of feet of stream and thousands of acres of wetlands. In addition, WLS staff have
successfully completed five years of monitoring on more than five DMS mitigation projects and
have successfully navigated and managed the regulatory closeout of four DMS full -delivery
projects in recent years. Several project examples are highlighted below:
Monteith Park Mitigation Site, Charlotte/Mecklenburg Stormwater Services, Huntersville, NC
Monteith Park before (left) and one year after restoration (right)
WLS staff developed one of the most unique watershed restoration projects in the mitigation
industry. The Monteith Park Mitigation Site (MPMS) is the only project to date in North Carolina
that utilized a watershed restoration approach to generate additional mitigation credits at ratios
above and beyond those typically awarded for stream and wetland restoration credits. The MPMS
was identified as one of the highest ranked stream restoration reaches in the McDowell Creek
Watershed of Mecklenburg County, NC. The project involved the Rosgen Priority Level I restoration
of 3,550 linear feet of stream, 1.1 acres of wetland restoration, and the retrofit design and
installation of five Stormwater Control Devices (bioretention basins) to restore watershed
hydrology to predevelopment conditions.
WLS staff identified the project in 2008 and have led project management duties on all aspects of
the project throughout its entirety. This complex project required significant resource agency
coordination, including stakeholders from Mecklenburg County, City of Charlotte, NCDWR, and
USACE. The project team used guidance and protocols to negotiate the additional credit ratios and
associated values for the project. The Monteith Park Mitigation Site continues to be a highly
successful example of how ecosystem restoration, that involves technical, legal, political, and
educational aspects, can be implemented in rapidly developing watersheds.
Page 8 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Spindletop Bayou Mitigation Bank, Ecosystem Renewal, Chambers County, TX
WLS is currently partnered with Ecosystem
Renewal and EcoGenesis on a wetland and
stream mitigation bank in Liberty and
Chambers Counties, Texas. The proposed
460 -acre bank site will restore over 400
acres of riparian and non -riparian wetlands
and 10,000 linear feet of 1st order
headwater streams. The proposed property
has been highly impacted by agricultural
practices (rice and sorghum production)
since the 1930's. This project will provide
significant uplift to aquatic and terrestrial
habitats as well as water quality
improvements to Spindletop Bayou.
WLS has led coordination efforts with the
Spindletop Bayou involves over 400 acres of wetland USACE-Galveston District IRT, assisted in the
restoration and 10,000 linear feet of stream overall credit assessment, determination,
restoration and generation, and full restoration design
of the mitigation bank site. The proposed design was finalized in 2016 and construction will likely
occur in Winter 2017/2018.
Pinch Gut Creek Restoration Project, DMS, Stokes County, NC
w'
i
Pinch Gut Creek before (left) and five years after restoration (right).
WLS staff, formerly with Michael Baker Engineering, helped to restore over 10,500 linear feet of
perennial stream channel in northwestern Stokes County, North Carolina. Streams on the site had
been severely degraded primarily due to agricultural practices and cattle access. The project
involved restoring six tributaries that drain a headwater catchment approximately 1.7 square miles
in size. Rosgen Priority Level I and II approaches were used to reconnect the streams to their active
floodplain. In -stream structures were used to provide stream stability, as well as to improve
Water & Land Solutions Page 9

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
aquatic habitat and fisheries. The restored riparian buffers adjacent to the streams are protected
through permanent fencing that excluded cattle and other livestock. WLS staff conducted
watershed analyses, performed existing conditions and reference reach surveys, prepared 401/404
permitting documents, developed construction documents, and provided construction oversight.
Construction of the project was completed in 2008, five years of performance monitoring were
completed, and the project regulatory closeout was successfully completed in the Summer of 2013.
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project, DMS, Alamance County, NC
UT to Cane Creek before (left) and one year after restoration (right).
As part of a DMS full -delivery project, WLS staff, formerly with Michael Baker Engineering, helped
to restore approximately 3,400 linear feet and enhanced approximately 2,900 linear feet of
perennial and intermittent stream channels in southeastern Alamance County, North Carolina. The
streams were degraded primarily as a result of agricultural practices and associated cattle access.
The project involved restoring two tributaries that drained headwater catchments, 452 acres and
80 acres, respectively. Rosgen Priority Level I and II Restoration approaches were utilized to
reconnect streams with their active floodplain. Enhancement Level I and II were also employed to
stabilize the streambanks and bed features. In -stream structures were included in the design to
provide stream stability and improve aquatic habitat and fisheries. The restored riparian buffers
adjacent to the streams were protected through permanent fencing that exclude livestock and an
alternative livestock watering system was provided. WLS staff conducted a watershed analysis,
performed existing conditions and reference reach surveys, and prepared the mitigation plan.
Construction of the project was completed in the Summer of 2014.
Page 10 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
UT to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, DMS, Onslow County, NC
Under a DMS full -delivery contract, WLS
staff, formerly with Michael Baker
Engineering, successful designed and
oversaw construction activities for 1,513
linear feet of single thread channel, 2,093
linear feet of multi -thread channel, and 4.0
acres of riparian wetlands in the White Oak
River Basin. In addition, the project
enhanced 600 linear feet of stream and
excluded cattle from an intermittent
tributary that flows into the project area.
The project is located in the Inner Coastal
Plain Physiographic Region, which has a
long history of aquatic resource
degradation caused by agricultural
practices such as ditching, draining, and
watershed hydromodifications. As part of
the design and permitting considerations
for the project, WLS staff worked
extensively with the DMS and the NCIRT to
determine what restoration approach
would be appropriate for the headwater
stream and wetland system based on the
current coastal plain mitigation guidance
and functional uplift potential at the site.
WLS staff helped perform detailed field UT to Mill Swamp before (top) and one year after
assessments, which included jurisdictional restoration (bottom).
wetland delineations, hydrologic analyses,
geomorphic surveys, stream determinations
for intermittent and perennial status, and a delineation and investigation of hydric soil units. Based
on the existing conditions analyses, a unique design plan was developed for the site which involved
removing spoil piles and filling the highly -degraded channel to restore a shallow, broad or diffuse
flow path across the relic floodplain and allow the channel to adjust naturally on its own after
construction. This creative headwater restoration approach raised the local water table and greatly
improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat by providing in -stream cover through the addition of
woody debris and brush piles.
WLS staff also sought to minimize unnecessary disturbances to ecologically functioning areas that
were prevalent within the stream corridor. On-site woody material was stockpiled and
incorporated back into the system whenever possible, and a revegetation plan was developed to
remove invasive plant species and improve the riparian stream buffers with native vegetation
species.
Water & Land Solutions Page 11

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
To meet one of the DMS's RBRP project goals, WLS staff implemented an agricultural BMP to reduce
non -point source inputs into the restoration area. A low -maintenance wet pond was installed to
capture runoff from adjacent farm fields and to thereby increase filtering capacity through
sediment and nutrient settling, demonstrating the application of innovative/non-traditional
restoration. The pond also serves as a site amenity that creates aquatic habitat and recreational
opportunities for the local community. The project construction was completed in June 2013 and
the project is currently in its fifth year of successful post -construction performance monitoring.
Firm Office Locations
WLS's home office is in Raleigh, North Carolina and we also maintain offices in Huntersville, NC and
Dallas, Texas. WLS's goal is to maintain a moderate-sized presence to ensure company leadership
remains actively involved in all project work, while concurrently maintaining the high level of
quality desired and deserved by our clients. Unlike most firms that maintain a primary goal of
company profit growth, WLS's primary goal is to focus on project success and client satisfaction.
As a small company, we can positively impact people inside and outside of the industry: partners
and stakeholders such as landowners, and individuals in the public that can learn about the value
of ecological restoration.
Multidisciplinary Project Approach
The goal of ecosystem restoration is to return the maximum level of hydrologic and biological
functioning to a degraded stream, wetland, and/or riparian buffer corridor, considering the
associated land use and landform constraints. The WLS team of scientists, engineers, surveyors,
and biologists lead the efforts to document the existing conditions at the project site and document
the impairments and constraints. Our team then works closely together to develop restoration
designs that provide optimum functional uplift, again considering site constraints, as well as to
coordinate the efforts for the Categorical Exclusion tasks and other permitting efforts. Hydrologists
and hydraulic engineers prepare models and analyses to evaluate FEMA requirements, flooding
conditions, and sediment transport.
WLS's senior staff have significant experience with regulatory review, including project closeout, as
demonstrated by having successfully brought four DMS full -delivery projects to regulatory closure.
Construction specialists perform constructability reviews with the project designer to ensure
designs are practical and can be constructed efficiently. Our team's construction experts, including
foremen, equipment operators, laborers and vegetation specialists ensure that sound, innovative
and cost effective construction is employed in adherence with the project schedule. When needed,
the WLS construction team can adapt easily to various environmental and site conditions. After
construction, our team's surveyors and designers perform as -built and monitoring surveys to
document project conditions during the monitoring period. This multi -disciplinary approach has
been a primary factor in our successful track record with ecosystem restoration projects.
Page 12 4

3 Project Organization
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Proposed Staffing, Deployment, and Organization
1�
Team Members _1
Water & Land Solutions: WLS Load Firm Venclo
WLS Engineering: WLSE WLS Scott Hi
Ecosystem Services: ES
Kee Mapping & Surveying: KEE Project Manager Technic,
Brown's Environmental Group, INC: BEG
Kayne VanStell, WLS Scott Hu
Field Survey
Catherine Manner, WLS
Jon Morgan, WLS
Kayne VanStell, WLS
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS, KEE
ChrisTomsic, PE, CFM, ENVSP, ES
IAnalyses & Assessment I
Jon Morgan, WLS
Kayne VanStell, WLS
Scott Hunt, PE, WLSE, WLS
Kip Mumaw, PE, ES
ChrisTomsic, PE, CFM, ENVSP, ES
Wyatt Brown, LSS, BEG
Design
Kayne VanStell, WLS
Chris Tomsic, PE, CFM, ENVSP, ES
Kip Mumaw, PE, ES
Scott Hunt, PE, WLSE, WLS
1 0 Permitting 1
Catherine Manner, WLS
ChrisTomsic, PE, CFM. ENVSP. ES
Construction Oversight
Adam McIntyre, WLS
Kayne Van Stell, WLS
Scott Hunt, PE, WLSE, WLS
Kip Mumaw, PE, ES
Chris Tomsic, PE, CFM, ENVSP,
`Construction contractor to be
selected at a later date
WLS
WLS
As -Built Survey
Kayne VanStell, WLS
Monitoring
Jon Morgan, WLS
Catherine Manner, WLS
Brad Kee. CFS. PLS. KEE
Water & Land Solutions Page 13

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Primary Sub Contractors
Ecosystem Services will provide hydrology/hydraulics engineering and modeling
support as well as permitting, design, biological assessment and monitoring
support. Since their founding in 2011, by field recognized experts, Ecosystem
Services has emerged as a leading full-service engineering and ecological
consulting firm. Drawing on staff from diverse professional backgrounds, they have provided
detailed designs and hydrologic/hydraulic models in support of a broad variety of restoration
projects. Recent projects represent over $10 million invested in restoration. As a small business
enterprise, Ecosystem Services has the flexibility, and innovative power to tailor project solutions
to complex problems. As a company, they pride themselves on principal level involvement, a
science -centered approach, and experience -based solutions that meet the needs of multiple
stakeholders including regulators, funders, and landowners. Ecosystem Services specializes in
hydraulic/hydrologic modeling applications for all aspects of ecological restoration projects
including assessment, planning, design and permitting. Their water resources engineer complete
detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to inform decision making and to document predicted
effects of restoration practices including flooding, sediment transport, and hydraulic
conditions. This information is regularly used for the development of FEMA Flood Studies,
understanding the effects on species of concern and habitat conditions, and determining the most
effective and successful restoration design.
Ecosystem Services staff begin with detailed field surveys and review of all base data including
topographic surveys, GIS data, FEMA mapping, precipitation and stream flow data. This
information is analyzed to ensure that the project objectives can be accomplished and any
remaining data gaps are identified. Their engineers then perform the necessary hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling using state of the art 1-D and 2-D modeling software to show the effect of
different engineering scenarios and guide design efforts. Their proven FEMA permitting process
starts with acquisition of the proper models; followed by development of the existing conditions,
corrected effective, and proposed improvement models; and ending with completing the MT -2
forms, providing public notifications, and applying for certification of no impact to structures.
Ecosystem Services also provides cost-effective, scientifically valid pre- and post -restoration
monitoring of macro -invertebrates utilizing the Rapid Bio -assessment Protocols provided by the
EPA. Ecosystem Services staff routinely document reference conditions, complete visually based
habitat assessments, and sample and interpret field data regarding the health of aquatic
communities by assessing the assemblage of benthic macroinvertebrates. Their staff is prepared
with field equipment, field knowledge, and GIS mapping and GPS locating capability. Ecosystem
Services staff analyze monitoring data to characterize existing conditions and help to evaluate the
effectiveness of restoration activities.
Kee Mapping & Surveying will serve as the surveyor for the WLS Team for this
WU
project. Kee Mapping and Surveying (Kee) was founded in 2007 with the goal of
becoming one of North Carolina's top Professional Land Surveying and Mapping
organizations. They specialize in GIS mapping, boundary, topographic and conservation easement
surveys for a wide variety of projects. Although Kee offers a vast array of services, Kee has the
passion and expertise for specializing in land conservation projects such as stream and wetland
Page 14 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
mitigation projects and their associated conservation easements. Kee provides an entire suite of
survey and mapping services, in support of mitigation projects, including existing condition surveys,
as -built surveys, aerial topographic surveys, construction layout, both conventional and machine
control, as well as all the needed FEMA surveys, including Elevation Certificates, floodplain
stakeout, Letters of Map Amendments (LOMA), and FEMA cross-sections. With an in-depth
knowledge of local, state and federal requirements, their team provides sound advice and accurate
results in an efficient manner. Kee's primary focus is providing clients with top quality services of
mapping and surveying solutions, with a strong belief in the preservation and protection of land for
future generations.
Kee Mapping & Surveying is a member of American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Western
North Carolina Green Building Council, North Carolina Society of Surveyors, National Society of
Professional Surveyors, Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, RiverLink, Carolina
Mountain Land Conservancy and the Asheville Home Builders Association.
Brown's Environmental Group will provide hydric soil, wetland delineation, and
permitting support services. Brown's Environmental Group (BEG) is led by Wyatt
BRo Brown a licensed soil scientist with over 35 years of experience in natural
R P. resources, including identifying and delineating jurisdictional streams and
wetlands. Mr. Brown has a strong reputation within the industry, and has successfully served
respective clients such as the NCDOT, DMS, and the NC Mining Industry for mitigation related
services. BEG staff understand how to obtain agency approval while navigating the regulatory
stream and wetland mitigation issues that pertain to restoration, re-establishment and
rehabilitation.
Qualifications and Experience
For all personnel assigned to this project, resumes are included below and include description of
qualifications, experience, and responsibilities.
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Kayne M. Van Stell, Ecosystem Restoration Specialist
Mr. Van Stell has over 18 years of experience working on a wide variety of ecosystem restoration,
compensatory mitigation, water resources, and civil engineering projects. He has extensive site
design and project management experience that includes developing construction plans and
specifications while providing technical assistance for clients, stakeholders and contractors on
numerous projects throughout the United States. He has completed all levels of Rosgen natural
channel design (Levels I through IV) and has expertise with natural systems surveys such as stream
and wetland delineations, geomorphic and ecological assessments, conservation easement mapping,
and is proficient with numerous GIS, CADD, and H&H modeling software programs. Kayne has
successfully navigated and managed the regulatory closeout of two DMS full -delivery projects
in recent years.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Van Stell will serve as the project manager and will lead the design and
construction administration.
Water & Land Solutions Page 15

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Education: BS Biology/Ecology, Northern Michigan University, 1997.
Continuing Education: Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Level 1), River Morphology and Applications
(Level II), River Assessment and Monitoring (Level III), and River Restoration and Natural Channel
Design (Level IV) with Dave Rosgen, USU Sediment Transport in Stream Assessment and Design with
Peter Wilcock.
Professional Memberships: North Carolina Environmental Restoration Association (NCERA), North
Carolina Association of Environmental Professionals (NCAEP), Society for Ecological Restoration
(SER).
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE, Senior Water Resources Engineer
Mr. Hunt is an accomplished natural resources engineer with more than 25 years of civil engineering
experience, specializing in stream, wetland, and habitat restoration, conservation and stewardship.
He is an avid, conservation -minded outdoorsman with passionate vision and a genuine desire to
strike a balance between sound engineering principles and environmental stewardship to promote
and implement improvements to the conservation of natural resources. Mr. Hunt most recently
served as ecosystem restoration technical services manager and lead engineer responsible for the
management of more than 20 ecosystem restoration staff, clients, and services across North
Carolina, as well as national and regional level coordination of ecosystem restoration technical,
business development and marketing services. Mr. Hunt's career includes ecosystem restoration
design, civil engineering site design, storm drainage design, stormwater management design,
wireless telecommunications tower site design, and utility and erosion control design for a variety of
public and private sector projects across the Southeast. Scott successfully navigated and managed
the regulatory closeout of four DMS full -delivery projects in recent years.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Hunt will serve as the professional engineer of record (under WLS
Engineering, PLLC), the senior technical advisor and QA/QC coordinator, and the vendor's
representative as defined under this RFP.
Education: BS Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, 1992.
Professional Registration: Professional Engineer, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and
Georgia.
Continuing Education: Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Level 1), River Morphology and Applications
(Level II), River Assessment and Monitoring (Level III), and River Restoration and Natural Channel
Design (Level IV) with Dave Rosgen; Stormwater BMP Inspection and Maintenance, North Carolina
Cooperative Extension.
Professional Memberships: North Carolina Environmental Restoration Association (NCERA), Past
Vice -President.
Adam V. McIntyre, Watershed Hydrologist, CEO
Mr. McIntyre has been in the environmental resource management business for more than 19 years,
specializing in the identification, planning, design, permitting and construction of mitigation sites
throughout the United States. In addition to mitigation Mr. McIntyre has been active in reviewing
Page 16 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
land tracts to identify potential environmental hurdles, assist in the planning and development of
various projects to maximize land value and protect environmental features, and the permitting of
those sites to expedite the process. Mr. McIntyre has successfully completed over 200 mitigation,
permitting, and delineation projects throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, New
Jersey, and Texas, as well as reviewing opportunities in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio,
and Virginia. Mr. McIntyre has used his technical experience and personal/professional skills to
develop partnerships and relationships with government officials, clients, and investors in the
mitigation arena. Mr. McIntyre has been involved in developing reference stream attributes and
regional curves in North and South Carolina. Mr. McIntyre has attended all four fluvial
geomorphology Natural Channel Design courses offered by Dave Rosgen, along with presenting at
workshops and conferences involving stream and wetland mitigation. Mr. McIntyre maintains
experience in all phases of watershed restoration planning, design, construction, and monitoring. In
addition, Mr. McIntyre has worked with multiple government entities to develop an efficient, low-
risk, and highly successful mitigation procurement process to help these entities meet their
mitigation needs.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. McIntyre will assist with the existing conditions analyses and
assessment, design, permitting, and construction inspection.
Education: BS Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, 1999.
Continuing Education: Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Level 1), River Morphology and Applications
(Level 11), River Assessment and Monitoring (Level 111), and River Restoration and Natural Channel
Design (Level IV) with Dave Rosgen.
Professional Memberships: National Mitigation Banking Association (NMBA), North Carolina
Environmental Restoration Association (NCERA), Past Vice -President, South Carolina Mitigation
Association (SCMA), Executive Board.
Jon G. Morgan, Project Scientist
Mr. Morgan is a project scientist specializing in stream, wetland, and habitat restoration,
conservation and stewardship. He is a lifelong outdoorsman who cares about the conservation and
preservation of our natural resources. Mr. Morgan most recently served for seven years as a Master
Officer with the Law Enforcement Division of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, in
Wake County. He worked closely with the public, landowners, outdoorsmen and sportsman to
conserve and protect the natural resources of North Carolina. In addition to the enforcement of the
state's wildlife laws, Mr. Morgan also worked diligently to educate the public and landowners about
our ecosystems and the issues created by an increasing urban environment. He also assisted NCWRC
biologists with wildlife population counts and wildlife disease control. Mr. Morgan joined WLS in
2015 and has trained in most aspects of restoration projects including site evaluation, existing
condition survey, and conceptual design/planning. In addition to ecosystem restoration aspects, he
has trained in wetland and stream delineation and Trimble GPS surveys. Mr. Morgan also holds a
North Carolina Commercial Pesticide and Herbicide Applicator's License and serves as the lead for
WLS for invasive species management and control.
Water & Land Solutions Page 17

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Morgan will assist with the existing conditions field surveys, analyses
and assessment, permitting, and will lead the monitoring efforts.
Education: BA Sociology, North Carolina State University, 2011.
Professional Memberships: National Mitigation Banking Association (NMBA), North Carolina
Environmental Restoration Association (NCERA).
Catherine A. Manner, Project Scientist
Ms. Manner is a project scientist specializing in stream, wetland, and habitat restoration,
conservation and stewardship. She leads GIS analyses and map production, as well as managing
mobile data collection. She has a passion for improving the health and quality of surrounding
watersheds. Ms. Manner most recently served as an Environmental Consultant for ICF International
where she worked in the Environmental & Planning Division. She assisted with Tier 2 Environmental
Site Specific Reviews for the FEMA and HUD New Jersey Hurricane Sandy Project. Currently, Ms.
Manner is pursuing her Masters of Natural Resources at North Carolina State University while
working full-time for WLS.
Project Responsibilities: Ms. Manner will lead project GIS activities and will assist with the existing
conditions field surveys, analyses and assessment, permitting, and monitoring efforts.
Education: BS Environmental Science, Concentration in Hydrology and Double Minor in Geology and
Geography, University of Delaware, 2015.
Continuing Education: N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM), and NC State University River
Course: Aquatic Insect Taxonomy and Pollution Ecology (161), and Stream Morphology Assessment
(101). On-going graduate course studies at North Carolina State University.
Professional Memberships: North Carolina Water Resources Association (NCWRA).
an'
Chris Tomsic, PE, CFM, ENV SP, Project Engineer
Mr. Tomsic is a senior water resources engineer with expertise in ecosystem restoration and natural
system processes. With over 12 years of experience, he has completed a diverse variety of stream
and wetland restoration projects involving field surveying, hydraulic/hydrologic modeling,
geomorphic assessment, stream/wetland design, and construction management. As a Certified
Floodplain Manager (CFM), Mr. Tomsic has experience incorporating floodplain management
strategies into the design of stream and wetland restoration projects. In addition to engineering and
design, Mr. Tomsic has experience with project management and construction crew supervision.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Tomsic will provide hydraulic/hydrologic engineering, modeling
support, stream design, as well as permitting and coordination support.
Page 18 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Education: MS Civil Engineering, Ohio State University, 2006. BS Civil Engineering, Ohio State
University, 2000.
Professional Registration: Professional Engineer, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, South Carolina,
and Tennessee.
Professional Certifications: Certified Floodplain Manager; Envision Sustainability Professional;
Rosgen I-IV Stream Assessment, Design and Monitoring Training.
Professional Memberships: North Carolina Association of Environmental Professionals (NCAEP).
William Kipling "Kip" Mumaw, PE, Project Engineer
Mr. Mumaw is professional engineer with over 11 years of expertise in ecological restoration design
and stormwater management. He has completed numerous stream and wetland restoration
projects involving hydrologic/hydraulic analyses related to design, specification, permitting and
construction. He uses a combination of natural channel and analytic design methodologies to
evaluate constraints and create project opportunities. He routinely provides sediment
transport analyses, geomorphic surveys, concept plans, construction plans, and as -built
surveys. Mr. Mumaw has extensive experience with model drafting and modeling technologies
including: HEC-RAS/HMS, Autodesk H&H, PCSWMM, Autodesk Civil 3D, GeoRAS, GeoHMS, and
more. Beyond engineering and design, Mr. Mumaw has experience with project management,
construction crew supervision, budgeting, scoping, and quality control.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Mumaw will provide hydraulic -hydrologic engineering, modeling
support, as well as permitting and coordination support.
Education: BS Civil & Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, 2007.
Professional Registration: Professional Engineer, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, West Virginia,
and Pennsylvania.
Professional Certifications:
VA DEQ Stormwater Management Certified Combined Administrator, 2014; NC State River Course
302 Hydraulic Modeling for Stream Restoration, 2012; Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Training Program, Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc., 2010; Natural Channel Design,
Shepherd University/National Conservation Training Center, 2010; NC State Fluvial Geomorphology,
2010.
Water & Land Solutions Page 19

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
i4tiAPPINC; & SUHVEYIfM1C;
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS, Surveyor and Certified Floodplain Surveyor
Mr. Kee is a professional surveyor over 19 years of experience in GIS mapping and land surveying as
well as the owner and founder of Kee Mapping & Surveying, and employs a dedicated and skilled
staff that add to the increased success of the company. He began his career as a GPS Technician at
Dinosaur National Monument. He then became a GIS Technician for Analytical Surveys, Inc. Brad's
love for the outdoors influenced his decision to become a land surveyor in 1999. Brad is a certified
floodplain surveyor and is trained in stream morphology assessment. He also specializes in
boundary, topographic, construction and as -built surveys for stream restoration and storm water
design. Brad is proud that his company Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA has been a part of over 40
projects involving streams, rivers and water quality.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Kee will serve as the professional land surveyor of record and will
oversee all surveying activities.
Education: BS Geography (Geographic Information Systems Concentration), Appalachian State
University, 1997; Surveying Technology, Asheville -Buncombe Technical Community College, 2003.
Professional Registration: Professional Land Surveyor, North Carolina.
Professional Certification: Certified Floodplain Surveyor, North Carolina.
Nolan Carmack, CFS, PLS, Surveyor and Certified Floodplain Surveyor
Nolan Carmack began his career as a field technician for New River Surveyors in 2006 where he found
a profession that combined both his love of mapping, geography and the outdoors. He manages
multiple field and office personnel for Kee, while overseeing the completion of large scale surveying
and mapping projects. Nolan sits on the Geomatics Advisory Committee for Asheville -Buncombe
Technical Community College, is a National Geodetic Survey OPUS Project Manager and a Certified
Flood Plain Surveyor. He specializes in control networking, boundary retracement, topographic and
construction surveys. Nolan has experience in 3D modeling of streams for construction using GPS
machine control. His role with Kee Mapping and Surveying is in quality control of final products using
efficient field methodology, AutoCad and GIS software.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Carmack will provide project management and surveying support
services for surveying activities.
Education: BS Geography, Appalachian State University, 2006; Associates Degree, Surveying
Technology, Asheville -Buncombe Technical Community College, 2011.
Professional Registration: Professional Land Surveyor, North Carolina and Tennessee.
Professional Certification: Certified Floodplain Surveyor, North Carolina.
Page 20 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
aRowN's
Wyatt Brown, LSS, Soil Scientist
Mr. Brown a licensed soil scientist with over 35 years of experience in natural resources, including
identifying and delineating jurisdictional streams and wetlands. Mr. Brown has a wide range of
practical knowledge of identifying and evaluating hydric soils for soil science classification. He has
been applying his extensive soil knowledge for projects throughout North Carolina over the span of
his career and is licensed to conduct soil science in North Carolina. Mr. Brown has extensive
knowledge of NC soils having worked in over 75 counties in NC. In the last 5 years Mr. Brown has
personally delineated wetlands on over 4,000 acres of land in North Carolina. Mr. Brown has a strong
reputation within the industry and has successfully served respective clients such as the NCDOT,
DMS, and the NC mining industry for mitigation related services. Mr. Brown is also a Certified
Professional Erosion and Sedimentation Control Specialist successfully obtaining permits and trout
waivers for stream and wetland restoration projects.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Brown will provide hydric soil investigations support.
Education: BS, Agronomy, NC State University, 1978.
Professional Registration: Licensed Soil Scientist, North Carolina.
Professional Memberships: Soil Science Society of North Carolina.
DBE/HUB Participation
WLS has an agreement with a SPSF/SWAM certified firms for this project. Ecosystem Services is a SWAM
(Small, Woman and Minority -Owned) firm in Virginia.
Water & Land Solutions Page 21

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
4 Technical Approach
4.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (project) will provide numerous water quality and
ecological benefits within the Buffalo Creek Watershed, which drains to the Little River, which eventually
drains to the Neuse River. While many of these benefits are focused on the project area, others, such as
nutrient removal, sediment reduction, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-
reaching effects extending downstream to the Neuse River. The project will meet the general restoration
and protection goals outlined in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP). More
specifically, three out of the four functional goals and objectives outlined in the Wake -Johnston
Collaborative Local Watershed Plan (LWP) as well as the Neuse 01 RWP will be met by:
• Reducing sediment and nutrient inputs to the Buffalo Creek Watershed.
• Restoring, preserving and protecting wetlands, streams, riparian buffers and aquatic habitat.
• Implementing agricultural BMPs and stream restoration in rural catchments together as "project
clusters".
In an effort to revise its watershed prioritization process, DMS developed and finalized the Neuse 01 RWP
in July 2015 the Upper Neuse River Basin within Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03020201. The purpose of the Neuse
01 RWP was to identify and prioritize potential mitigation strategies to offset ecological impacts from
development and provide mitigation project implementation recommendations to improve ecological
uplift within the RWP. The project recommendations include traditional stream and wetland mitigation,
buffer restoration, nutrient offset, and non-traditional mitigation projects, including stormwater and
agricultural BMPs; and rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) species habitat preservation or
enhancement (Neuse 01 RWP).
The project is situated in the lower piedmont where potential for future development associated with the
rapidly growing Wendell and Johnston County areas is imminent, as described in the Neuse 01 RWP. The
USGS 2011 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) GIS Dataset was compared with current aerial imagery to
estimate the impervious cover and dominant land use information for the project catchment area.
Currently, the catchment areas have an impervious cover estimated near 12 percent and the dominant
land uses are agriculture and mixed forest. A new high school, Corinth Holders High School, was built in
2009, adjacent to the project, which has contributed to a significant increase in impervious surface area
and surface runoff within the project watershed.
As recommended in the Neuse 01 RWP, this project provides an ideal opportunity to implement "project
clusters", or combinations of different practices or measures, collectively for a combined effect with the
stream restoration, to include riparian wetland restoration, riparian buffer restoration, and various BMPs,
ahead of the described development.
The proposed project will meet DMS' broad focus points which include: maintaining and enhancing water
quality, restoring natural hydrology, and protecting fish and wildlife habitat. The project will improve
water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs from the project area. The natural headwater
flow regime will be improved and/or restored to riparian wetlands and floodplain areas by removing man-
made impoundments and implementing Priority Level I Restoration where possible to raise the existing
Page 22 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
streambed. Additionally, fish and wildlife habitat will be restored and protected through a permanent
conservation easement in excess of 50 feet wide along both sides of all stream reaches.
The project is located east of Lake
Wendell which is classified as a Natural
Heritage Natural Area (NCNHP, 2015).
Currently. The surrounding headwater
tributaries that flow directly into Buffalo
Creek are largely undeveloped on
parcels that are privately owned. The
proposed project would extend the
wildlife corridor and protect aquatic and
terrestrial habitat in the area through a
permanent conservation easement. The
in -stream restoration practices will
improve habitat diversity (e.g.
protect/restore floodplain and spring -
fed wetlands, provide deeper pools and
backwater areas) and promote native
wetland species propagation throughout
the conservation easement.
Photo showing an existing stormwater BMP that treats
surface runoff before entering the project area.
Additionally, agricultural BMPs, such as grassed waterways, and water quality treatment features, riparian
buffer protection and stormwater wetlands will be installed and/or utilized to remove direct effluent
inputs and pollutant contamination from the project streams and wetlands.
Expected Project Benefits
The expected benefits and improvements to impaired chemical, physical, and biological functions are
summarized below as part of the overall goals described in the referenced Neuse RWP, RBRP, and LWP.
Benefits Related to Hydrology and Hydraulics
Floodplain Connectivity—A Priority Level I Restoration approach will reconnect channels with their active
and/or relic floodplains and improve stream and wetland hydrology to areas that have been degraded
and/or been historically manipulated.
Surface Storage and Retention — The restored streams will be raised and reconnected to their active or
relic floodplains to restore wetland hydrology and to spread higher flow energies onto the floodplain
thereby increasing retention time, storage, and roughness. Riparian wetland restoration and
incorporation of vernal pools, depressional areas, and other floodplain wetland features will provide
additional retention, storage and habitat diversity and uplift. Native species riparian vegetation will be
established throughout the riparian buffer corridor.
Groundwater Recharge and Hyporheic Exchange — The restored riparian buffers and wetland
microtopography will increase infiltration and improve overall hydrogeologic function. Benefits will be
achieved through the establishment of vegetated buffers which increase groundwater infiltration, surface
water interaction and recharge rates.
Water & Land Solutions Page 23

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Benefits Related to Geomorphology
Proper channel form — Restoring an
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile
will efficiently transport and deposit sediment
(point bars and floodplain sinks) relative to the
stream power and load that is supplied from
banks and uplands. Stream channels that are
appropriately sized to convey a smaller storm
flows will greatly improve channel stability by
reducing active bank erosion (lateral stability)
and bed degradation (vertical stability; i.e.
headcuts, downcutting, incision).
In -stream structures — In -stream structures,
such as log step -pools, j -hook vanes, brush toe
and constructed riffles made from native Photo showing evidence of channel widening, active
woody and rock materials, will help to control bank erosion and sediment inputs along MS -R1.
grade and reduce bank erosion by diverting
shear stress away from streambanks during storm events. Based on preliminary site assessments,
streambank erosion is a main contributor of sediment and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) within the project
area.
Sediment Transport — Boundary conditions, land use, climate, and geologic controls influence stream
channel formation, migration, and how sediment is transported through its watershed. Appropriate
transport capacity, flow competency and bed material size will ensure sediment is more evenly
distributed, such that excessive degradation and aggradation do not occur. Adequately transporting or
entraining fine-grain sediment will prevent embeddedness and create interstitial habitat and in -stream
cover within riffle areas.
Riparian Buffer Vegetation — Currently, excess nutrients and pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus
from agricultural practices are entering many of the project reaches without adequate riparian buffers.
High -functioning riparian buffers will be enhanced and permanently protected to remove direct pollutant
sources and filter runoff prior to entering the project reaches.
Bioengineering Treatments — Bioengineering practices such as live staking, brush layering, and vegetated
soil lifts will provide lateral bank stability, rapid tree growth and bank shading to reduce water
temperatures, bank erosion and increase dissolved oxygen levels.
Benefits Related to Physicochemical (Water Quality)
Nutrient Reduction — Benefit will be achieved through the removal of excess nutrients through filtration
and nutrient uptake within the restored, enhanced and protected vegetated buffers.
Sediment Reduction — Benefit will be achieved through stabilization of eroding banks; installation of
vegetated buffers; and by dissipating excess flow energy and shear stress with increased overbank flows
during storm events.
DO, NO3-, DOC Concentration — Benefits will be achieved through the restoration of more natural stream
bedforms, including riffle and pool sequences, which will increase dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations.
In addition, the riparian buffers provide increased shade and vegetation density/structure will reduce
Page 24 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
water temperatures and groundwater nitrates (NO3-) as well as increase dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
(King et al, 2016).
Agricultural BMPs — As discussed under
the RWP, appropriate agricultural BMPs
will be implemented to provide various
levels or methodologies of pollutant
removal. When implemented collectively
along with stream, riparian buffer, and
riparian wetland restoration, these water
quality features can be effective at
reducing nutrients and pollutants,
particularly sediment loadings, and
therefore provide additional ecological
uplift to a project.
The agricultural BMPs that are best suited
for use at this project site include grassed
waterways and small basins to treat
agricultural and stormwater runoff.
Photo illustrates an untreated area of surface runoff and
scour that flows into the project area.
Water Quality Improvement Features — These features will be in the form of small "maintenance -free"
treatment basins and/or constructed wetland features that will capture and treat runoff from the
surrounding active agricultural fields and stormwater runoff before it reaches the restored riparian buffer
corridor and stream channel. These features will improve water quality by increasing infiltration and
groundwater recharge, providing diffuse flow energies, and allowing nutrient uptake within the extended
buffer area.
Benefits Related to Biology
Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat — Benefits will be achieved through the incorporation of physical
structure, removal of invasive species and improving native vegetation within riparian buffer areas.
Benefits to aquatic organisms will be achieved through the installation of appropriate in -stream structures
using native rock material and woody debris. Adequately transporting and depositing fine-grain sediment
onto the floodplain will prevent embeddedness and create interstitial habitat, organic food resources and
in -stream cover. In -stream habitat will be improved by creating deeper pools and areas of re -aeration.
These small lotic systems can provide sources of organic matter that ultimately improve the biodiversity
of downstream river systems.
Landscape Connectivity — Benefits to landscape connectivity will be achieved by restoring a healthy
stream corridor, promoting aquatic and terrestrial species migration and protecting their shared
resources in perpetuity.
Water & Land Solutions Page 25

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
4.2 Project Description
Site Location
The project is located in Johnston County between the Community of Archer Lodge and the Town
of Wendell. The project site is located in the NCDEQSub-basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek
Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504, study area for the Neuse 01 RWP and in the Targeted Local
Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin (Figure 1, Project Location). The project
reaches are all unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek. Buffalo Creek flows southeast to its
confluence with the Little River near Micro, North Carolina. The Little River drains southeast to its
confluence with the Neuse River in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Buffalo Creek (Lake Wendell) is
listed by the NCDEQ Division of Water Quality (NCDENR DWQ, 5/1/1988) as C and NSW waters from
the project area all the way downstream to its confluence with the Little River.
The land use within the project area is comprised of mostly forested and mixed agricultural
(predominantly row crops), with a very small percentage of low density residential use. Figure 2, USGS
Topographic Map, illustrates the existing topography of the project area. Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) soils information for the project area is show on Figure 3, NRCS Soils Map.
The Figures in this proposal include: Project Location (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), NRCS
Soils Map (Figure 3), LiDAR Map (Figure 4), Floodplain Map (Figure 5), Aerial Photographs (time series
historical aerial photography) (Figures 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d and 6e), Existing Hydrography (Figure 7), Channel
Stability & Pre -Monitoring Features (Figure 8), Water Quality Stressors (Figure 9), and Proposed Mitigation
Features (Figure 10).
Site Investigations and Existing Conditions
WLS first conducted field investigations in September 2015 to evaluate and document the existing
conditions at the project site, as well as for each of the project stream reaches and riparian areas.
Subsequent field investigations included evaluating channel conditions, riparian buffer vegetation
assessment, photographic documentation, cross-section surveys, and hydric soils investigations. Field
work dependent sections of the DMS's "Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Neuse 03020201"
(Attachment 1: Technical Evaluation Scoresheet), were completed as well. Copies of the completed rating
forms are included in the appendices. The results of the existing condition cross-section surveys and the
visual field evaluations were used to conduct geomorphic stream classification and assess channel stability
for each of the project stream reaches. The results of the existing condition cross-sections surveys are
summarized in the table below. The results of the field evaluations were used in conjunction with
available GIS data to develop the mapping required under this RFP.
All the project reaches have been heavily impacted from historic and current land use practices,
including agriculture, silviculture and site development. Within the project area, approximately 55
percent of the stream banks are experiencing active bank erosion. Figure 6d, shows recent aerial
photography of a high school under construction in 2008. Completion of the high school construction
in 2010 added approximately 8% impervious surface cover to the watershed (See Figures 6d). This recent
land use change and past land disturbances have severely impacted the stream and wetland
functions within the watershed. The lack of adequate stormwater management, past land use
Page 26 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
disturbances, increasing impervious cover and current agricultural practices present an opportunity
for water quality and ecosystem improvements through the implementation of this project.
Project Reach Summary
The streams at the project site were broken down into nine reaches [MS -R1, MS -R2, R3 (Upper), R3
(Lower), R4, R5 (Upper), R5 (Lower) R6 (Upper) and R6 (Lower)] totaling approximately 4,838 linear feet
of existing streams. Project reaches were differentiated based on drainage area breaks at confluences,
changes in restoration/enhancement approaches, and/or changes in intermittent/perennial stream
status. Field evaluations determined that Project Reaches MS -R1, MS -R2 and R5 are perennial streams.
Reaches R3 and R6 were determined through field evaluations to be intermittent streams. Upper R6 was
ponded and no evaluation form was completed. Reach R4 was determined to be ephemeral; however,
upon further site investigations, it appears the drainage to the historic flow path has been diverted. The
natural drainage to Reach R4 is being piped from an existing stormwater BMP towards Reach R5 and
perennial flow has been diverted away from its natural valley. The presence of historic valleys for each of
the project stream reaches can clearly be seen from LiDAR imagery (Figure 4, LiDAR Map), and are obvious
through field observation.
The evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were first made in September 2015 during
moderate drought conditions and again recently in September 2017. These evaluations were based on
NCDWQ's Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v4.11,
Effective Date: September 1, 2010) stream assessment protocols. Table 1-2 in the executive summary
presents the results of the field evaluations along with the unverified jurisdictional status of each project
reach. Copies of the supporting field forms are available upon request.
The results of the existing condition cross-section surveys and the visual field evaluations were used to
describe the geomorphic stream classification and assess channel stability for each of the project stream
reaches. The existing conditions cross-section survey data are summarized in the table below. The results
of the field evaluations were used in conjunction with available GIS data to develop the mapping required
under this RFP.
Table 4-1 Existing Condition Cross-section Survey Data
MS -R1
474.8
1.3, 5.0
5.3, 8.4
2.3, 1.8
MS -R2
543.9
5.2
6.4
1.6
R3 (Upper)
21.4
3.5
9.5
1.0
R3 (Lower)
24.1
1.2
9.2
3.7
R4 4
29.9
9.1
11.2
1.1
R5 (Upper)
11.8
9.3
3.8
1.8
R5 (Lower)
18.8
1.8
2.7
4.8
R6 (Upper)
18.4
N/A 3
N/A 3
N/A 3
R6 (Lower)
25.1
2.2
6.5
1.3
Water & Land Solutions Page 27

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information and
compared with USGS StreamStats at the downstream end of each reach.
Note 2: Cross-section locations are shown on Figure 8, Channel Stability & Pre -Monitoring Features.
Note 3: Geomorphic parameters for project reaches are based on best professional judgment and rapid field
measurements. No survey data is provided for upper R6 due to the ponded conditions.
Note 4: The R4 cross-section was measured along the remnant channel feature.
Visual inspections of the channel substrate materials were conducted for each of the project reaches, and
representative bed materials were sampled. The reaches were observed to be predominantly medium
gravel materials with embedded fine sands due to severe bank erosion associated with lateral instability.
Vertical grade control along the project reaches appears to be provided by root mass, the upstream pond
dams, and culvert crossing.
Since the project will appropriately address active streambank erosion along the main stem reaches (MS -
R1, MS -R2) and surface volume runoff, the future supply of sediment from on-site streambank erosion is
expected to be reduced significantly. A detailed sediment transport analysis will be conducted to quantify
sediment that is being supplied to Buffalo Creek downstream, and if it will be transported adequately,
thus preventing excessive aggradation.
During the formal design process, WLS will assess the hydraulic design forces to ensure that the channel
bed will not aggrade nor degrade. Bed degradation (incision) can occur without an adequate sediment
supply if the design channel has excessive shear stress or stream power. Consequently, constructed riffles
may be incorporated into the proposed design with adequate rock sizes and/or wood materials that will
be immobile during storm events, since the sediment supply may not be sufficient to rebuild riffles
naturally. The constructed riffles will also increase dissolved oxygen content, provide aquatic habitat and
assurance that the restored channel will not degrade over time. Further discussion of sediment transport
analysis is provided in Section 4.3.
Project Reach Descriptions
Photo of MS -R1 showing excess aggradation
resulting from active stream bank erosion.
MS -R1 is a main stem perennial tributary that
originates from the upstream boundary of the
project site, and flows downstream to the
confluence with MS -R2 and an existing culvert
crossing. MS -R1 has a stream length of
approximately 1,497 feet, average valley slope
of 0.7 percent, and drainage area of
approximately 474 acres. Based on watershed
reconnaissance, field observations,
depositional patterns and landscape position,
the excess sediment appears to be fine
grained material mostly from active bank
erosion and surface runoff from adjacent
fields and impervious surface from a nearby
high school.
Page 28 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
The channel in this section lacks a floodplain connection and is laterally unstable as mechanical bank
failures were observed in many of the meander bends. According to the landowner and historic aerials,
portions of the stream have been manipulated to accommodate silvicultural and agricultural practices. In
this area, the degree of incision is severe, with bank height ratios exceeding 2.0 and a low to moderate
sinuosity (k=1.17). Woody riparian vegetation has re-established and is mostly present throughout the
reach. However, MS -R1 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of high sediment
inputs from severe bank erosion. Based on the existing channel conditions and anthropogenic
disturbances, the reach is classified as Rosgen G4c stream type throughout most of its length.
MS -R2 begins downstream of MS -R1 at a
culvert crossing and flows south for
approximately 1,340 feet. The valley slope in
this area is approximately 0.6 and the channel
is vertically stable; however, most of the reach
appears to be moderately -to -severely incised,
with active bank erosion and bank height
ratios averaging 1.6. The sinuosity is low (k=
1.08) and active bank erosion was observed
over 70 percent of the stream banks. The
lateral instability is caused by near bank
stresses during storm flows and the lack of
deep rooting vegetation.
Looking downstream at lateral instability and stream Throughout MS -R2, portions of the stream
bank erosion along MS -R2. appear to be overly widened and historically
manipulated. However, the riparian buffer is
greater than 30 feet throughout its entire length. The reach has mature trees interspersed along the
streambanks and floodplain; any large canopy trees will be saved and incorporated as part of the
restoration design. Based on the existing conditions and coarse gravel/small cobble, MS -R2 is classified
as a Rosgen 'G4' stream type. MS -R2 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of
high sediment inputs from severe bank erosion.
R3 begins near the top of the project and flows
southwest for approximately 550 feet towards
its confluence with MS -R1. The valley slope is
approximately 2.6 percent and the channel in
the upper section is currently stable, bedform
diversity is excellent, and the degree of incision
is low, with bank height ratios near 1.1. Stream
bank erosion is minor, and most the reach has
deep rooting vegetation. Along this stretch of
R3, the reach is classified as Rosgen C5b. The
lower portion of R3 is experiencing an active
headcut and the channel condition worsens as
observed by downcutting and stream bank
erosion. The conditions will likely continue to
Looking upstream at stable bed form and bank
conditions along R3 (upper).
Water & Land Solutions Page 29

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
degrade further if not addressed during the restoration design. R3 is classified as Rosgen G5 stream type
along its lower reach.
Looking at R4 below an existing stormwater BMP.
Note the stable channel conditions, but dry conditions
and absence of base flow.
R4 begins as a small headwater tributary that
originates from a stormwater BMP pipe
outlet. The channel below the pipe outlet was
classified as ephemeral, however the base
flow has been redirected from the natural
valley to R5 through a stormwater outfall pipe.
R4 has a drainage area of approximately 58
acres and the valley slope is 3.1 percent. This
reach has experienced historic manipulation
and has been excavated to accommodate a
drainage pipe outlet. Based on a review of
historic aerials, the headwaters of R4
originated at a farm pond prior to being
converted as a stormwater BMP to treat runoff
from Corinth Holders High School.
The reach is slightly -to -moderately incised in
the upper portion and is classified as a Rosgen 'F4' stream type. The channel condition improves towards
the downstream end as the valley widens and flattens before its confluence with MS -R1. The reach has
mature trees interspersed along the stream banks and floodplain; any trees of significance will be saved
and incorporated as part of the restoration design.
Similar to R4, R5 begins as a small headwater
tributary that originates from a stormwater
BMP pipe outlet. R5 has a drainage area of
approximately 19 acres and the valley slope is
2.5 percent. The channel below the
stormwater outfall was classified as
perennial, however it appears the increased
flows coming from the stormwater outfall
have led to channel degradation throughout
the reach. The upper reach of R5 is classified
as and incised Rosgen E5 stream type.
The lower portion of R5 is experiencing an
active headcut, and the channel condition
worsens as observed by downcutting and
stream bank erosion. The conditions will likely
Photo illustrates active bank erosion and degraded
wetland area along lower R5.
continue to degrade further if not addressed during the restoration design. The existing buffer contains
mature trees interspersed along the stream banks and floodplain; any trees of significance will be saved
and incorporated as part of the restoration design. The lower reach of R5 is the reach is classified as a
Rosgen 'G5c' stream type.
Page 30 4

Looking downstream below pond at poor channel
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
R6 is a small headwater tributary that is
currently experiencing backwater effects
from a man-made farm pond dam. R6 has a
valley length of approximately 400 feet and a
small drainage area of 25 acres. Prior to the
farm pond construction, the natural valley
slope in the upper catchment was
approximately 2.2 percent. The pond depth
at the upstream base of the dam was
measured at approximately 3 feet deep. The
entire pond perimeter is subject to active
water quality stressors, mainly resulting from
nutrient inputs from adjacent farm fields.
definition and stream bank eros ►on along R6. The pond excavation has degraded the in -
stream habitat, and poor definition was observed below the pond in upper R6. Lower R6 is slightly -to -
moderately incised and is classified as a Rosgen'B4' stream type. The channel condition improves towards
the downstream end as the valley widens and flattens before its confluence with MS -R2. The reach has
mature trees interspersed along the stream banks and floodplain; any trees of significance will be saved
and incorporated as part of the restoration design.
Geology and Soils
The Project site is located in the Raleigh Belt region of the eastern Piedmont physiographic province in a
transitional zone near the Eastern Slate Belt and Inner Coastal Plain. More specifically, the geologic unit
is classified as 'PPmg' and lies within the Rolesville batholith (Rg) or pluton, which contains igneous
intrusive bedrock formations (USGS, 2016). The lithologic unit is described as foliated to massive granitic
rock and exposed outcrops were observed in the project vicinity east of Lake Wendell. Additionally,
various upland areas near the Project site are in the Coastal Plain (Tt) and contain pockets of
unconsolidated sedimentary rocks and terrace deposits of coarse-grained sands, fine gravel and clayey
sand (USGS, 1998).
The Piedmont province in this transitional zone or 'fall line' is generally characterized by gently rolling,
well-rounded hills and low ridges, with elevations near the project site ranging from 240 to 320 feet above
sea level. The surface topography and dendritic drainage patterns within these alluvial valleys are
consistent along many first order or headwater streams mapped in this region, with average valley slopes
ranging from just under 1 percent to just over 2 percent. The narrow valley confinement and steeper side
slopes (approximately 8 to 15 percent) typically decrease as the contributing drainage areas increase near
the confluence of larger stream systems (i.e., Buffalo Creek).
As shown on the NRCS Soils Map (Figure 3), existing floodplain soils around the project reaches are mostly
within the mapping unit Wt. Wt (Wehadkee soil series) soils are classified as 'Hydric A' and described as
poorly drained soils formed mainly on floodplains along headwater streams in the Piedmont Region that
are frequently flooded. Slope ranges from 0 to 2% on landscapes with low relief and predominance of
hardwoods. Loamy surface layer and loamy subsoil or sandy underlying material. On-site investigations
of the project areas proposed for wetland mitigation were conducted on September 6t", 2017 by a licensed
soil scientist (LSS), Wyatt Brown, LSS, with Brown's Environmental Group (BEG) (See Appendices for soil
Water & Land Solutions Page 31

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
boring information and mapping), as required under this RFP. The findings were based on hand -turned
auger borings and indicate the presence of hydric soils along the floodplains of both headwater
tributaries. The hydric soils status is based upon the "Hydric Soils of the United States — A Guide for
Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils" (Version 7.0, 2010). The soils within the project area were
categorized as "Hydric", "Non -Hydric over Hydric", and "Non -Hydric" in the hydric soils investigation. BEG
noted that areas of existing hydric soils have been manipulated by a combination of past agricultural and
silvicultural uses.
As such, combining hydraulic stream modifications with limited soil removal, if needed, qualifies the
Hydric Soil Unit as a candidate for wetland restoration. It is anticipated that as a direct result of
implementing Priority Level I stream restoration, limited overburden soil removal, and revegetation of
wet tolerant species, the natural wetland hydrology will be restored and allow the wetlands to regain
their natural/historic functions. The areas proposed for wetland rehabilitation and enhancement are
labeled on Figure 10.
Endangered/Threatened Species and Cultural/Historic Resources
Based on a review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database, there are currently four federally -
listed threatened and endangered species known to occur in Johnston County: the Red -cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussell
(Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii). The project site is not known to support
anadromous fish species. Project implementation is not anticipated to have a negative impact on
these species. The Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was recently listed as an
endangered species, and the project site is located within the USFWS habitat range and white -nose
syndrome zone per Final 4(d) rule (USFWS, January 2016). However, it is not anticipated that the
proposed mitigation activities will take place within known hibernacula, or remove known occupied
maternity roost trees. WLS will coordinate with the appropriate agencies should a determination be
required for permitting.
Furthermore, the project is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on cultural or historic
resources. There are no sites currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
within the project area. The nearest site is the Sunnyside Home 2001 (HPO Site ID: WA2127) which
is approximately 4 miles from the project site. On-site investigations and discussions with the
landowners have not disclosed any potential resources or occurrences of this type on the property.
If the project is awarded, WLS will coordinate with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (NCSHPO) to ensure that there will be no cultural or historical resource impacts as a result
of restoration activities. Based on a review using Google Earth, the nearest airport to the project site is
the Raleigh East Airport, which is located approximately 7 miles northwest of the site.
FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
None of the proposed project reaches are located within a FEMA regulated floodplain. While it is not
anticipated that there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation, WLS will
coordinate with the local floodplain administrator as needed and prepare the required documentation to
obtain approval for any FEMA regulated impacts. In addition, the project will be designed so that any
increase in flooding will be contained within the project boundary and will not impact adjacent
landowners, therefore hydrologic trespass will not be a concern.
Page 32 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
4.3 Project Development
The Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project will involve the potential restoration, enhancement,
preservation, and permanent protection of nine reaches [MS -R1, MS -R2, R3 (Upper), R3 (Lower), R4, R5
(Upper), R5 (Lower) R6 (Upper) and R6 (Lower)] totaling approximately 4,838 linear feet of existing
streams, their associated riparian buffers (Figure 10, Proposed Mitigation Features). This comprehensive
approach utilizes a suite of stream mitigation practices, from Priority Level I Restoration to Preservation,
and appropriately addresses all of the intermittent and perennial stream reaches at the project site,
including improving riparian buffers along all of the project stream reaches, along with restoring degraded
riparian wetlands, and limiting the number of stream crossings, thus providing the maximum functional
uplift and utilizing a watershed approach.
Many of the existing stream reaches have been degraded significantly due to historic agricultural and
silvicultural practices, including channelization. Across the project site, over 55 percent of the total
streambank length is experiencing active bank erosion, and nearly 80 percent of the total stream
length is actively subject to onsite water quality stressors resulting from sediment and nutrient
inputs. Approximately 65 percent of the total stream lengths exhibits significant, obvious incision.
As described in the project reach summary,
many of the project reaches are highly
unstable, with documented active lateral
migration and associated localized channel
widening and downcutting. Based on
landowner discussions, historical aerial
imagery and observations made during field
investigations, the project reaches are
contributing direct and excessive sediment
inputs to receiving waters. There is strong
evidence of these high sediment loads from
recent and regular dredging activities at Lake
Andrew Acres, immediately downstream of
MS -R2.
The proposed project will provide adequate
floodplain access to all stream reaches and
prevent excess stream bank erosion. For
Looking at recent Lake Andrew Acres dredging
activities downstream of project reach MS -R2.
Note the excess sediment being excavated by heavy
machinery.
any project reach along which Priority Level
II Restoration must be utilized, the following elements will be incorporated into the proposed
design and construction:
• Floodplain bench excavation grading will extend a minimum of 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the
stream belt width such that meandering floodplains are not created.
• All proposed floodplains will be constructed such that they are over -excavated to accommodate
replacement of topsoil.
Water & Land Solutions Page 33

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
• Design and construction oversight measures will ensure the proper harvesting, segregating,
stockpiling, storage, handling, overall management and replacement of A and B soil horizon
materials onto the excavated floodplain.
• Constructed return slopes between the outer edge of the excavated floodplain and the terrace
will be a minimum of 5:1 or flatter.
WLS will compile and assess watershed information including: drainage areas, historic and current land
uses and development trends, geologic setting and landscape controls, soil types, and terrestrial plant
communities. WLS will compare the results of the existing conditions analyses along with reference data
from previous project implementation to determine the degrees of impairment and functional losses as
they relate to physical and biological processes, as well as aquatic resources. To develop an appropriate
design approach for the project reaches, the restoration potential must be determined to maximize the
highest functional uplift based on the hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, physiochemical, and
biological hierarchy (Harman, 2012). The design will utilize hybrid stream restoration approaches
(Skidmore, 2001) that have been successfully implemented on past projects. This includes using process
based analytical tools when appropriate, as well as Rosgen's methodology (NRCS NEH, 2007), under which
dimensionless ratios from reference reach data (analog) and past project experience (empirical) are
analyzed to develop design criteria.
The proposed project will provide increased floodplain access throughout the project area for all
Restoration reaches and will be monitored to demonstrate successful floodplain function. The stream
channel design will include analysis of the hydrology, hydraulics, shear stress, sediment transport, and
bankfull channel dimensions. WLS will consider three methods (field indicators if present, published
regional curve information, and hydraulic modeling) for estimating a bankfull discharge. The hydrology
and hydraulics analysis will evaluate a range of lower flow discharges and flood frequency curves to help
determine an appropriate design discharge. The design discharge will be used to select an appropriate
channel geometry and help monitor long-term project performance.
Sediment transport calculations and stream power analyses will be performed for both the existing
degraded channels and the proposed design channels. WLS will assess the stream's transport competency
and capacity to quantify the stream's ability to move its sediment load. Small alluvial channels in Eastern
Piedmont (Raleigh Belt) commonly have a relatively low sediment supply (i.e., rural headwater streams
with an upstream impoundment) with fine grained material, however, severe bank erosion has led to
excess sediment loading into the system. Sediment transport calculations and/or models may be
necessary to help quantify the sediment loads and reductions after restoration activities are completed.
It is critically important to perform watershed reconnaissance and estimate how much sediment is being
supplied to the project reaches by determining load rates from both within the channel (eroding
bed/banks) and upland sources.
WLS will perform quantitative channel assessments that include bulk samples, pebble counts, collecting
sediment samples (pavement/sub-pavement, bar), and predicting streambank erosion rates and
comparing model results using the BANCS Method (BEHI/NBS) to evaluate bed and bank material
characteristics and estimate sediment yields. The bed material will be sieved and a grain size distribution
developed. The results of the substrate analyses will be used to classify the streams, and complete critical
shear stress calculations required for designing slopes/depths and predicting channel stability. Other
Page 34 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
observation methods, such as dendro-geomorphic studies (bank root mass), bank pins/profiles, cross-
section surveys, and time -series aerial photography may also be used as a comparative analysis.
Additionally, WLS will calculate stream power and compare the results to stable reference and published
values to reduce uncertainties. If the results fall outside common stable ranges for similar stream types
and slopes, multiple design iterations and methods, such as the Copeland Stability Curve, HEC -RAS -SAM
modeling program, will be run to confirm that sediment loads can be transported adequately through the
system without containing excess energy in the channel and verify that the design will not excessively
aggrade or degrade.
In -stream structures are utilized for grade control, streambank protection, and improving bedform
diversity and habitat. All in -stream structures will be constructed from materials naturally found at the
project site such as hardwood trees, trunks/logs, brush/branches, gravel, stone, and cobble/boulder
materials. To ensure sustainability of those structures, WLS will use methods of structure design and
construction that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same geographic region. WLS
may also incorporate bioengineering practices, when appropriate, that use biodegradable materials and
fabrics, uncompacted soils, live plant cuttings, and native vegetation to stabilize streambanks.
Bioengineering treatments will provide initial bank stability that allows for the quick establishment of
deep-rooted vegetation along the eroding streambanks. Once established, these live, dormant plant
cuttings will provide long-term stability to the treated areas.
WLS has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Note that physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings, account for less than two
percent of the proposed total project footage within the conservation easement area. These same
existing site access points and features will be used for future access after the completion of construction.
Where practicable, impacts to existing native riparian buffer vegetation and existing wetlands will be
minimized. The use of native species riparian buffer transplants will be maximized as well. Any potential
impacts to existing wetland areas will be avoided during construction, with only temporary, minimal
impacts expected and when necessary for maximized permanent stream, wetland, and riparian buffer
functional uplift.
MS -R1: Restoration
MS -R1 begins at the northern boundary of the project site immediately downstream of an existing pond
and natural bedrock feature. Work along MS -R1 will involve a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the
bed elevation and reconnecting the degraded stream with its geomorphic floodplain. A majority of the
reach will be relocated through the low point of the valley and will tie vertically into the downstream
culvert to allow for a proper connection to the downstream reach MS -112. This design approach will
promote more frequent over bank flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating favorable
conditions for wetland restoration (rehabilitation) and improving hydrologic function.
The reach is severely incised and currently exhibits lateral instability as evidenced by active bank erosion
and irregular meander geometry. This systemic degradation is causing excess stream bank sediments to
enter the system and will likely continue, if restoration is not implemented, since the existing channel has
vertical banks that are devoid of deep rooting vegetation, which have resulted from historic land use
practices and recent development within the watershed.
Water & Land Solutions Page 35

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen 'C4' stream type using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with
conservative meander planform geometry that accommodates the flatter valley slope and width. This
approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as
improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is anticipated that the
design width/depth ratio for the channel will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. In -
stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks, and
eliminate the potential for further bank erosion. In -stream structures will likely include constructed riffles
for aquatic habitat and bedform diversity as well as log vanes for encouraging pool formation and bank
stability.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be improved and protected along the entire length of MS -R1. Any
mature trees or significant native vegetation will be protected and incorporated into the design.
Bioengineering techniques, such as geolifts, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes, will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. The existing
unstable channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its historic
floodplain or an excavated floodplain using suitable fill material from the newly restored channel and
remnant spoil piles. These proposed restoration activities will provide the maximum possible functional
uplift. Any exotic species vegetation will be removed in this area, and native riparian species vegetation
will be planted in the resulting disturbed areas. Finally, a water quality improvement feature is proposed
along the left floodplain to capture, attenuate, and treat overland flow that is causing excess scour and
sedimentation that is currently entering the riparian buffer as untreated water.
MS -R2: Restoration
MS -R2 continues downstream of MS -R1 below an existing culvert crossing. Work along MS -R2 will involve
a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the degraded stream with its
geomorphic floodplain. A majority of the reach will be relocated through the low point of the valley and
will tie into the downstream bed elevation. This design approach will promote more frequent over bank
flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating favorable conditions for wetland restoration
(rehabilitation) and improving hydrologic function.
The reach condition for MS -R2 is similar to MS -R1, and currently exhibits lateral instability, as evidenced
by active bank erosion, some channelization, and irregular meander geometry. This systemic degradation
is causing excess stream bank sediments to enter the system and will likely continue, if restoration is not
implemented, since the existing channel has vertical banks that are devoid of deep rooting vegetation,
which have resulted from historic land use practices and recent development within the watershed.
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen 'C4' stream type using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with
conservative meander planform geometry that accommodates the flatter valley slope and width. This
approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as
improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is anticipated that the
design width/depth ratio for the channel will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. In -
stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks, and
eliminate the potential for further bank erosion. In -stream structures will likely include constructed riffles
for aquatic habitat and bedform diversity as well as log vanes for encouraging pool formation and bank
stability.
Page 36 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be improved and protected along the entire length of MS -R2. Any
mature trees or significant native vegetation will be protected and incorporated into the design.
Bioengineering techniques, such as geolifts, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes, will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. The existing
unstable channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its historic
floodplain, or an excavated floodplain will be constructed, using suitable fill material from the newly
restored channel and remnant spoil piles. These proposed restoration activities will provide the maximum
possible functional uplift. Any exotic species vegetation will be removed in this area and native riparian
species vegetation will be planted in the resulting disturbed areas. Finally, two water quality improvement
features are proposed along the right floodplain to capture, attenuate, and treat overland flow from
adjacent farm fields to prevent future sediment and nutrient inputs from entering the riparian buffer.
R3 (Upper): Preservation
The upstream portion of R3 is an intermittent stream that is currently classified as a Rosgen 'C5b' stream
type. Preservation is being proposed along this reach since the existing headwater stream and wetland
system is mostly stable with a mature riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation
area will be protected in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. Riparian buffers in
excess of 50 feet will be protected along the entire length of R3. This approach will extend the wildlife
corridor from the main stem floodplain boundary throughout a majority of the headwater valley, while
providing a natural hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
R3 (Lower): Restoration
Lower R3 is severely incised with bank height ratios (BHR) exceeding 3.0. Work along Lower R3 will involve
a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the stream with its geomorphic
floodplain. A majority of the channel will be restored in its current location to tie into MS -111. This
approach will promote more frequent over bank flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating
favorable hydrologic conditions for wetland restoration (rehabilitation) across the floodplain.
The reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as evidenced by active bank erosion and
headcuts. This degradation is causing excess sediments to enter the stream system and will likely
continue, if restoration is not implemented, since the existing channel has vertical banks that are devoid
of deep rooting vegetation, which have resulted from headcut migration and channel overwidening.
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen 'C4b' stream type using appropriate step -pool morphology with a
conservative meander planform geometry in the lower 100 feet that accommodates the valley slope and
width. This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity,
as well as improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is anticipated
that the design width/depth ratio for the channel will be similar to stable headwater streams in this
geologic setting. In -stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies,
protect streambanks, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In -stream structures will
most likely include constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat, log j -hook vanes, and log and
rock weirs for encouraging step -pool formation, bank stability, and bedform diversity.
Bioengineering techniques, such as geolifts, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes, will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. The existing
Water & Land Solutions Page 37

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
unstable channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its historic
floodplain, or an excavated floodplain will be constructed, using suitable fill material from the newly
restored channel and remnant spoil piles. These proposed restoration activities will provide the maximum
possible functional uplift. Any exotic species vegetation will be removed in this area, and native riparian
species vegetation will be planted in the resulting disturbed areas.
R4: Enhancement Level I
R4 is small ephemeral headwater tributary that begins at a stormwater outfall pipe within the upper
catchment. Currently the existing channel has limited bank erosion and channel incision; however, the
base flow is being detained by a stormwater BMP and has been redirected through a pipe culvert that
discharges into the R5 catchment. Consequently, WLS proposes to modify the outlet of the described
BMP and reroute the flow back into the natural stream valley. It is anticipated that over time the reach
will reform a new stable channel on its own and maintain stability within the riparian corridor. These
proposed enhancement activities will improve the natural flow regime and provide functional uplift.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be protected along the entire length of R4. Any mature trees or
significant native vegetation will be protected and incorporated into the design. Any exotic species
vegetation removed in this area will be planted with native riparian species vegetation in the resulting
disturbed areas.
R5 (Upper): Enhancement Level I
Upper R5 begins at an existing stormwater outfall pipe. Due to the past manipulation and degraded
conditions of upper R5, an Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for the reach to improve stream
functions and water quality. The upstream portion of the reach is actively degrading and exhibits slight
lateral and vertical instability, as shown by moderate bank erosion. Enhancement activities along upper
R5 will involve slightly raising the bed elevation and providing an active floodplain. In -stream structures,
such as log weirs and woody riffles will be used to dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks, and
eliminate potential for future incision. Eroding channel banks will be graded to stable side slopes and
bioengineering techniques such as geolifts and live stakes will also be used to protect streambanks and
promote woody vegetation growth. This reach has experienced historic floodplain and flow alterations,
but has mature woody buffer vegetation. Healthy mature trees or significant native vegetation will be
protected and incorporated into the design. Riparian buffers of at least 50 feet wide will be protected
along the entire reach.
R5 (Lower): Restoration
Lower R5 is severely incised with bank height ratios (BHR) exceeding 4.0. Work along lower R5 will involve
a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the stream with its geomorphic
floodplain. A majority of the channel will be restored in its current location to tie into MS -R2. This
approach will promote more frequent over bank flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating
favorable hydrologic conditions for wetland restoration (rehabilitation) across the floodplain.
The reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as evidenced by active bank erosion and
headcuts. This degradation is causing excess sediments to enter the stream system and will likely
Page 38 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
continue, if restoration is not implemented, since the existing channel has vertical banks that are devoid
of deep rooting vegetation, which have resulted from headcut migration and channel overwidening.
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen 'C4b' stream type using appropriate step -pool morphology with a
conservative meander planform geometry in the lower 200 feet that accommodates the valley slope and
width. This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity,
as well as improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is anticipated
that the design width/depth ratio for the channel will be similar to stable headwater streams in this
geologic setting. In -stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies,
protect streambanks, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In -stream structures will
most likely include constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat, log j -hook vanes, and log and
rock weirs for encouraging step -pool formation, bank stability, and bedform diversity.
Bioengineering techniques, such as geolifts, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes, will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. The existing
unstable channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its historic
floodplain using suitable fill material from the newly restored channel and remnant spoil piles. These
proposed restoration activities will provide the maximum possible functional uplift. Any exotic species
vegetation will be removed in this area, and native riparian species vegetation will be planted in the
resulting disturbed areas.
R6 (Upper): Restoration
The restoration of upper R6 will begin near the top of an existing farm pond. In this area, the existing
channel begins experiencing backwater conditions from a man-made dam. The existing farm pond is
approximately 0.3 acres in size and serves as a water source in support of the landowner's agricultural
operation. The earthen dam will be removed, and the pond will be drained to reconnect the new stream
channel with its geomorphic floodplain. If necessary, channel and floodplain excavation in this short reach
segment will include the removal of shallow legacy sediments to accommodate a new design channel and
in -stream structures, as well as a more natural step -pool morphology using grade control structures in the
steeper transitional areas.
This impounded reach has likely experienced some sedimentation of finer sandy/loam material, extensive
floodplain alteration and spoil piling, and the removal of mature woody vegetation. Over time, the design
approach will also promote a more natural flow regime and lotic conditions, thereby improving hydrologic
function. Shallow vernal pools will be created in the floodplain to provide habitat diversity, nutrient
cycling, and improved treatment of overland flows.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along the entire length of R6. Any
mature trees or significant native vegetation will be protected and incorporated into the design.
Bioengineering techniques, such as geolifts, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes, will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. These proposed
restoration activities will provide the maximum possible functional uplift. Any exotic species vegetation
will be removed in this area, and native riparian species vegetation will be planted in the resulting
disturbed areas. Finally, an agricultural BMP is proposed above R6 to capture, attenuate, and treat
concentrated flow that would otherwise enter the riparian buffer as untreated water. The proposed
Water & Land Solutions Page 39

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
improvements will reduce direct sediment and nutrient inputs and provide the maximum possible
functional uplift.
R6 (Lower): Enhancement Level II
Work along lower R6 will involve Enhancement Level II practices to improve the current channel condition
and aquatic function. The reach in this section is classified as a Rosgen '134' stream type. This area has
been historically disturbed through agricultural and silvicultural practices, and the channel exhibits poor
channel definition in some sections. However, the existing channel has limited bank erosion and channel
incision before its confluence with MS -R2. Consequently, WLS proposes to stabilize isolated bank erosion
and construction activities will consist of strategic mechanized removal of invasive species and regrading
the stream banks back to the existing stable dimension, installing erosion control matting, and
supplemental riparian buffer planting and live stakes.
Any mature trees or significant native vegetation will be protected and incorporated into the design.
Bioengineering techniques, such as geolifts, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes, will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. Any exotic species
vegetation will be removed in this area, and native riparian species vegetation will be planted in the
resulting disturbed areas.
Water Quality Improvement Features
WLS plans to include water quality
improvement features, along with
agricultural BMPs, as practices or measures to
be implemented as part of a comprehensive
watershed restoration approach, as
recommended under the Neuse 01 RWP.
When implemented collectively along with
stream, riparian buffer, and riparian wetland
restoration, these water quality improvement
features and agricultural BMPs can be
effective at reducing pollutants, particularly
sediment loadings, and therefore provide
additional ecological uplift to the project.
The proposed water quality improvement Photo shows an existing stormwater BMP that treats
features include small impoundments or directsurface runoff before entering R5. Incorporating
basins to treat agricultural runoff. The these features into the project will improve water
agricultural BMPs that are best suited for use quality by reducing peak flow volumes, nutrient and
at this project site include grassed waterways, sediment loads.
which currently the landowner actively employs. Therefore, the continued use of grassed waterways and
the addition of treatment basins will be employed under this project.
Water quality improvement features in the form of treatment basins or impoundments will be designed
and constructed to capture and treat runoff from the surrounding active agricultural fields before it
reaches the restored riparian buffer corridor and stream channel. These features will increase infiltration
Page 40 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
and groundwater recharge, diffuse flow energies, and allow nutrient uptake within the extended buffer
area. The features will be excavated along non -jurisdictional or depressional areas where ephemeral
drainages intersect with the proposed restored stream corridor.
This strategy will allow these features to function properly with minimal risk and without long-term
maintenance requirements. A stable outlet channel will be constructed to deliver runoff to the receiving
restored project stream reach.
Stream Crossings
The location of the existing stream crossing is shown on the proposed figures located after Part 4. The
proposed conservation easement is broken at the existing crossing location to best facilitate the
landowner's use of the property. The stream crossing is currently culverted, and the pipe(s) will be
analyzed to ensure proper hydraulic function and stream stability, as well as to promote aquatic passage.
The proposed easement break will be 60 feet wide to accommodate and maintain needed property
access.
Conservation Easement Boundary Marking
Immediately following site construction and planting, the conservation easement boundaries will be
permanently marked and posted. All boundary marking, posting, and signage will be in accordance with
the applicable DMS, NCSPO, and State of North Carolina standards.
Restoration of Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers extending a minimum of 50 feet from the top of the streambanks will be restored,
enhanced and protected along all project reaches. The proposed plant selection for stream buffer areas
will include appropriate native species vegetation described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) and will
adhere to the tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN -RS -4.1 (1997). The proposed natural vegetation
community will include appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on
an appropriate reference community. Within each of the four strata, a variety of species will be planted
to ensure an appropriate, diverse plant community as shown in the table below.
Moderately -tolerant vegetation species can survive on soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood -tolerant vegetation species can survive on soils that are
saturated or flooded for long, indefinite periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Vegetation
species planted along the streambanks, floodplain, wetland areas, and upland areas will include a mixture
of native species plants appropriate for the piedmont region, with the selection also based on expected
wetness conditions. Site planting will be conducted at a density to achieve the vegetative success criteria
described in Section 4.7.
Table 4-2 Vegetation Planting Species
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Canopy
Riparian Buffer FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
Canopy
Riparian Buffer FACW
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Canopy
Riparian Buffer FACW
Water & Land Solutions Page 41

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore Canopy
Acer rubrum
Red Maple Canopy
Liriodendron tulipiferaj
Tulip -poplar dL_ Canopy
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak Canopy
Diospyros virginianrhersimmon
=`Understory
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood Understory
Hamamelis virginiana
-Understory
Salix nigra
Black Willow Understory
Asimina triloba ...ff
Paw -Understory
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood Shrub Layer
Alnus serrulata'
Jjag Alder �Mhrub Layer
Corylus americana
Hazelnut Shrub Layer
Salix
Black Willow #=hruMW
Chasmonthium
River oats Herbaceous Layer
latifolium
Riparian Buffe'l FACW
Riparian Buffer FAC
Riparian Buffer FACU M
Riparian Buffer FACW
.Miparian Buffets
Riparian Buffer FAC
'Miparian Buffer'
Riparian Buffer OBL
'Wiparian Buffer) FAC
Riparian Buffer FACW
,Miparian BuffeMM OBL A
Riparian Buffer FACU
1Wiparia_tBuffeXN
Riparian Buffer FACU
Carex lurido . urid sedge F Herbaceous La—yW1111riparian Buffer. OBL
Carex crinita Fringed sedge Herbaceous Layer Riparian Buffer OBL
Andropogon virginicus ,groom sedge Ja Herbaceous Layrrtiparian Buffer
Vernonia noveboracensis New York Ironweed Herbaceous Layer Riparian Buffer FACW
Herbaceous'
Andropogon glomeratus Bushy bluestem Herbaceous Layer Riparian Buffer FACW
Eutrochium fistulosumll Herbaceous LayM=iparian Buffe=r
WLS utilizes a successful planting strategy that includes early successional, as well as climax species. The
vegetation selections will be mixed throughout the project planting areas so that the early successional
species will give way to climax species as they mature over time. The early successional species which
have proven successful include river birch, green ash, and sycamore. The climax species that have proven
successful include red maple and tulip poplar. The understory and shrub layer species are all considered
to be climax species in the riparian buffer community.
WLS recognizes that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites are not reflected at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species being to establish and compete with herbaceous
vegetation. To account for this, a riparian buffer planting strategy that includes a combination of
overstory and understory species, planted at a density of 680 stems per acre, is typically utilized. WLS will
also consider, via prescription in the mitigation plan, the revegetation and supplemental planting of larger
and older planting stock to modify species density and type. This consideration will be utilized particularly
to increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety, as well as to decrease the
planting/application costs. Examples might include selective supplemental planting of older mast
producing species as potted stock in later years for increase survivability. This technique can be effective
as it avoids sun scald common with bare root planting at initial revegetation.
During the project implementation, invasive species exotic vegetation will be treated both to control its
presence and reduce its spread within the conservation easement areas. These efforts will aid in the
establishment of native riparian vegetation species within the restored riparian buffer areas.
Page 42 4

Restoration of Riparian Wetlands
Degraded riparian wetlands were found along the
floodplains of the project tributaries. These areas
containing hydric soils properties total
approximately 5.4 acres (See Figure 7), and
conditions are favorable for restoring these poorly
functioning wetlands. The predominant wetland
vegetation communities are largely absent or not
considered reference quality in areas proposed for
restoration and/or enhancement.
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
On-site investigations of the soils within the project
area were conducted on September 6t", 2017 by �n j, h '` �x" t
licensed soil scientist (LSS), Wyatt Brown, LSS, with
Brown's Environmental Group (BEG) (See Hydric Photo of hand auger soil boring located in the
Soils Investigation in the Appendices). The findings project floodplain showing typical hydric soil
were based on hand -turned auger borings and properties.
indicate the presence of hydric soils along the floodplains of R3 (lower), MS -111, the lower end of R4, MS -
R2, R5 (lower), and the lower end of R6 (lower). The hydric soils status is based upon the "Hydric Soils of
the United States — A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils" (Version 7.0, 2010). The soils
within the project area were categorized as "Hydric", "Non -Hydric over Hydric", and "Non -Hydric" in the
hydric soils investigation.
BEG noted that these Hydric Soil Units have been manipulated by a combination of past agricultural and
silvicultural land uses. As such, combining hydraulic stream modifications with limited overburden soil
removal, if needed, qualifies the Hydric Soil Unit as a candidate for Wetland Restoration (Re-
establishment/Rehabilitation) and/or Enhancement. After conducting multiple site visits over the last two
consecutive years, WLS concluded these areas have experienced seasonal wetness for prolonged periods
and conditions are favorable to support wetland hydrology.
Wetland Rehabilitation
Based on BEGS' findings, conditions are favorable for rehabilitating areas of degraded riparian wetlands.
Riparian wetland rehabilitation will involve improving current hydrologic conditions across the
geomorphic floodplain. It is expected that, as a direct result of implementing Priority Level I stream
restoration, limited overburden soil removal (less than 1 foot of depth), and revegetation, most, if not all
of the historic wetland functions will be lifted and restored. A natural overbank flooding regime will be
restored throughout the area by restoring the appropriate bankfull channel geometry and stream pattern,
and by raising the stream bed elevation to reconnect the channel to its historic floodplain. Wetland
rehabilitation is typically awarded at a 1.5:1 credit ratio, and WLS is proposing 2.3 riparian wetland
mitigation credits (WMCs) in these areas (See Figure 10).
Wetland Enhancement
The overall restoration approaches will improve the hyporheic zone interaction and both biological and
chemical processes associated with aquatic functions of the stream and wetlands. These activities,
including minimal grading and blending of microtopography, will provide significant functional uplift
Water & Land Solutions Page 43

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
across the project area. Where possible, any existing wetland areas will be avoided by keeping proposed
restoration and construction activities away from the wetland boundaries. In some areas, disturbance of
the existing wetlands may be unavoidable to restore a stable and fully functioning wetland and riparian
system. Restoration of a stable stream system requires that the new channel be restored to the lowest
part of the valley, which may result in a temporary disturbance of an existing wetland through the area.
However, restoration of the stream channel will also provide restoration and enhancement to the areas
of adjacent wetlands through higher water table conditions (elevated stream profile) and a more frequent
over -bank flooding regime. These wetland enhancement areas within the conservation easement will be
planted with native wet tolerant species and protected in perpetuity against cattle intrusion.
In some areas of the site, the existing streams have been channelized or relocated to the toe of the
hillslope. As a result, many toe -of -slope seepage wetlands that may have existed on the site have been
drained and lost. Restoring stream channels within the natural topography and adjacent floodplain
crenulations will also reconnect many of these small seepage and seasonally saturated wetlands when
the channelized stream segments are filled in as part of the proposed restoration practices. Native
riparian vegetation species will be established throughout the restored stream and wetland complexes.
Wetland enhancement is typically awarded at a 2:1 credit ratio, and WLS is proposing 0.4 riparian wetland
mitigation credits (WMCs) in these areas (See Figure 10).
Expected Pollutant Reduction
WLS utilized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 Model to quantify how
the proposed project can reduce pollutant loads into Buffalo Creek and the Neuse River Watershed. The
Region 5 Model was developed for the EPA (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1999) and is
used throughout the United States to determine sediment and nutrient load reductions from the
implementation of urban and agricultural BMPs, including, but not limited to, vegetated filter strips,
wetland detention, and bank stabilization/stream restoration. Model inputs include eroded streambank
length, streambank height, lateral recession rates, soil weight, and BMP type/efficiency applicable to the
agricultural piedmont area. The project reaches were estimated individually to demonstrate the
maximum ecological uplift. The summary of total annual pollutant loadings and removal estimates are
shown in the table below.
Table 4-3 Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates
MS -R1, 4,838 3,115 285.8 1,700.7 211.6 228.0, 1,340.0, 211.6,
MS -112, 79.8% 78.8% 49.5%
R3, R4,
R5, R6,
R7
Note 1: Soil Texture Class is predominantly fine sandy loam.
Note 2: Average Bank heights in scour areas ranged 2 to 3 feet.
Note 3: Lateral Recession Rates (ft/yr) ranged from slight category (0.01 to 0.05) to severe (0.06 to 0.20)
Note 4: Agricultural BMP input used for streambank stabilization/restoration.
Page 44

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
WLS understands that pollutant load reduction performance standards may not be specifically required
for this project, however, we are interested in developing more function -based goals and quantifying how
the proposed project could reduce pollutant loads into the Buffalo Creek Watershed.
Although the model data and calculations are empirically based and contain a degree of uncertainty, they
are intended to be used as basic planning tool. Inherently, there are certain assumptions and limitations
that must be considered when refining model inputs and evaluating the results. For example, water
quality calculations and sediment loading are highly dependent on actual BMP efficiencies, sophisticated
algorithms, regression analysis, and not calibrated field measurements. However, all studies reviewed by
WLS conclude that stream restoration will significantly reduce pollutant loads, including sediment and
nutrients. Furthermore, the reductions are comparable to those commonly accepted for the restoration
of riparian buffers as referenced above.
Functional Uplift Potential
Developing specific goals and objectives based on the resource condition and functional capacity of the
watershed is a critical path for implementing a successful restoration project. WLS will utilize the Stream
Functions Pyramid (Harman et al, 2012) to better define the project goals and objectives by linking them
to stream functions. Function -based parameters and measurement methods will be evaluated using the
Stream Functional Lift Quantification Tool (SQT) to help assess the existing stream conditions, determine
restoration potential and identify risks associated with the project site. The SQT is a qualitative and
quantitative resource used to describe the function -based condition of each project reach, as well as
evaluate functional capacity and predict the overall proposed lift (Harman and Jones, 2016). WLS will
apply the SQT to help further define goals and objectives based on the restoration potential. The results
of this assessment will help determine the highest level of restoration that can be achieved based on site
constraints and existing conditions. The Pyramid Framework includes performance standards associated
with the function -based assessments and measurement methods described above. The performance
standards are used to determine the functional capacity and are stratified into three types: Functioning,
Functioning -at -Risk, and Not Functioning (Harman and Jones, 2016).
After the function -based assessment is completed, the restoration potential will be determined to better
define the Project design goals and objectives. It is common for restoration projects to occur at a reach
scale that provide significant functional lift of Level 2 and 3 parameters. However, to achieve goals in
Levels 4 and 5, a combination of reach scale restoration and upstream watershed health must be
measurable and sustainable. It is expected that the implementation of this project will significantly reduce
pollutant loads, including sediment and nutrients, improving overall aquatic functions. Given the
landscape position and catchment size, WLS expects that restoration activities will likely provide
functional lift within the physicochemical and biological functional categories. Therefore, post -restoration
efforts may include monitoring physicochemical and biological conditions to document any improvements
and/or identify trends during the monitoring period.
In their current conditions, the project stream reaches are highly degraded as a result of past
channelization, land use disturbance, and agricultural and silvicultural practices. The maximum possible
ecological or functional uplift will be achieved by:
• Restoring and permanently protecting the stream, riparian wetland, and riparian buffer functions
of a direct headwater system to the Buffalo Creek Watershed.
Water & Land Solutions Page 45

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
• Providing stable channel forms to reduce streambank erosion and sedimentation.
• Restoring riparian wetlands along the project stream reaches.
• Restoring and enhancing riparian wetland and riparian buffer vegetation to promote native
species establishment, improve vegetation densities, filter flood flows and runoff, and to improve
riparian buffer habitat value.
• Providing improved floodplain connection to dissipate flood energies, filter storm flows, and
promote sediment and debris deposition on the floodplains and streambanks.
• Restoring diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and
landscape setting.
• Restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect to existing wooded areas and natural
communities at the periphery of the project site.
It should be mentioned that not all parameters and performance standards may be compared or required
to determine project success and stream mitigation credit and debit scenarios. However, selecting
applicable monitoring and evaluation methods will help develop a more function -based assessment and
improve our project implementation process, thereby advancing the practice of ecosystem restoration.
4.4 Proposed Mitigation
This technical proposal describes in detail the proposed stream mitigation approaches for the Buffalo
Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project. The project will include restoration, enhancement, and preservation
along 4,838 linear feet of existing streams. Two technical options are being presented under this proposal
to DMS for procuring mitigation credits from this proposed project. The proposed Technical Option 1 has
the potential to provide 4,073 stream mitigation credits (SMCs). The proposed Technical Option 2 has
the potential to provide 3,784 stream mitigation credits (SMCs). In addition, both proposed technical
options will also include riparian wetland restoration to produce 2.7 Riparian Wetland Mitigation
Credits (WMCs) through wetland rehabilitation and enhancement approaches. The stream mitigation
credits proposed for contract are presented below in the Proposed Mitigation Credit Summary
Tables. Any additional mitigation credits developed within the conservation easement areas beyond
the contracted amounts or types will be available to DMS as part of the proposed project.
Table 4-4 Proposed Mitigation Credit Summary
Stream Restoration (PI)
1,340
1:1
1,340
Stream Restoration (PI)
108
1:1
108
Stream Preservation
430
10:1
43
' Stream Enhancement Level 1
429
1.5:1
286
Stream Enhancement Level 1
512
1.5:1
341
Stream Restoration (PI)
215
1:1
215
Page 46 4

Stream Restoration (PI)
Stream Enhancement Level II
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
EEZIMM Wetland Rehabilitation 2.2 1.5:1 1.4
EEZIMM Wetland Rehabilitation L— 0.9
Wetland Enhancement 0.8 2:1 0.4
Stream Restoration (PI)
ream Restor
Stream Restoration (PI)
• • K Stream Preservation
• •00 Stream Enhancement Level I
• W Stream Restoration
• • Stream Restoration (PI)
• Stream Enhancement Level II
1,497
1:1
1,497
■■ 1:1
108
1:1
108
512
1.5:1
MINE
341
00�10
200
1:1
NEW
200
NN'43
Wetland Rehabilitation 2.2 1.5:1 1.4
Water & Land Solutions Page 47

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
4.5 Current Ownership and Long Term Protection
WLS proposes to transfer a conservation easement to the State of North Carolina for this project. The
conveyance of the conservation easement will serve as the legal mechanism that will be used to provide
Long -Term Protection of the mitigation site. WLS has secured an option to purchase a conservation
easement from the landowners of the properties to comprise the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation
Project. The option agreement for each involved project parcel has been executed and will be recorded
with the Johnston County Register of Deeds and is valid for a period of at least six (6) months from the
closing date of this RFP. A copy of each Memorandum of Option to Purchase Conservation Easement
agreement is provided in the appendices, and summarized in the table below. The option agreements
described above allow WLS to proceed with the project and to restrict the land use in perpetuity through
a permanent conservation easement.
WLS is prepared to close on the project conservation easements after contract award by DMS and will
subsequently provide, at any time, copies of the recorded deeds of easement, titles, surveys, and
associated mapping.
Table 4-5 Current Land Ownership
179100-39-9802 Annie Laura G. Johnson
September 14, 2017 24 months 47.36
Revocable Trust, Annie
Laura G. Johnson,
Trustee
179100-59-0695 Annie Laura G. Johnson
September 14, 2017 24 months 24.76
Revocable Trust, Annie
Laura G. Johnson,
Trustee
179100-48-5465 Markham Living Trust,
September 18, 2017 12 months 58.3
John W. Markham, III,
Trustee; Bettie I.
Markham Estate,
Sandra Markham
Tedder, Executrix
The property owner that owns the majority of the easement property for the Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project grew up, worked and live in the community where the project is located. The project
property is currently used primarily for silvicultural and agricultural production. The landowners have a
strong desire to improve their land and protect it in perpetuity. As a result of the development the
implementation of the three current full -delivery projects (Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, Pen -Dell
Mitigation Project, and Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project), the majority landowner's interests in future
mitigation projects has grown. Specifically, this project landowner desires to implement additional
mitigation projects (this project and the Odell's House Mitigation Project) on their adjacent and nearby
properties as a stewardship and water quality improvement endeavor. This action will help to fortify a
comprehensive watershed approach with regards to maximizing ecological uplift on all the of the Buffalo
Creek headwater tributaries that are on the subject properties.
Page 48 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
4.6 Project Phasing
WLS staff have extensive stream restoration experience, and understand the most current requirements
and standards applicable to mitigation projects. As a result, WLS is in a strong position to implement this
project in a timely and effective manner. Upon project contract execution, WLS will follow the project
schedule shown in Table 4-7, as required under this RFP.
Table 4-6 Project Phasing
Task 1. Categorical Exclusion
Document
Task 2. Submit Recorded
Conservation
Easement on the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan (Final Draft)
and Financial Assurance
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork
Completed
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting and
Installation of Monitoring Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring
Reporting (Including As -built
Drawings)
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1
to DMS (meets success criteria)
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2
to DMS (meets success criteria)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3
to DMS (meets success criteria)
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report
#4 to DMS (meets success criteria)
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report
#5 to DMS (meets success criteria)
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report
#6 to DMS (meets success criteria)
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report
#7 to DMS and complete Project
Closeout Process (meets success
criteria)
4.7 Success Criteria
3 months April 1, 2018
7 months August 1, 2018
12 months January 1, 2019
1 year, 8 months September 1, 2019
1 year, 11 months December 1, 2019
2 years, 0 months January 1, 2020
2 years, 11 months November 30, 2020 I
3 years, 11 months November 30, 2021
4 years, 11 months November 30, 2022
5 years, 11 months November 30, 2023
6 years, 11 months November 30, 2024 ,
7 years, 11 months November 30, 2025
8 years, 11 months November 30, 2026
WLS staff have obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream and wetland mitigation projects
(Permittee Responsible and both NCDOT and DMS full -delivery projects). The stream and wetland
restoration design and applied success criteria for the project will follow necessary performance standards
and monitoring protocols presented in the approved mitigation plan, developed in compliance with the
DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template Guidance, adopted August 2016, as well as the USACE
Water & Land Solutions Page 49

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 and Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic
Resources; Final Rule, issued in 2008.
In addition, the monitoring success criteria, practices, and corresponding reporting will follow the NCEEP
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued February, 2014, the NCDEQ DMS As -built
Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in June, 2017, the
NCDEQ DMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance, issued June,
2017, the NCDEQ DMS Closeout Report Template, Version 2.2, adopted January, 2016, and the NCEEP
Closeout Template Guidance, Version 2.1, adopted February, 2015.
Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of five to seven years with the final duration dependent
upon performance trends toward achieving project goals and objectives. An early closure provision may
be requested by WLS for some or all the monitoring components, understanding that early closure may
only be obtained through written approval from the regulatory agencies. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
Stream Restoration and Enhancement Level I Success Criteria
Stream Hydrology: Two separate bankfull events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring
period. These two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will
continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. In addition to the two bankfull
flow events, two "geomorphically significant" flow events (Qgs=0.66Q2) must also be documented during
the monitoring period. There are no temporal requirements regarding the distribution of the
geomorphically significant flows.
Bank Height Ratio: Bank Height Ratio (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 —1.5 along the restored project reaches.
This standard only applies to the restored project reaches where BHRs were corrected through design and
construction.
Entrenchment Ratio: Entrenchment ratio (ER) shall be no less than 2.2 (>1.5 for "B" stream types) along
the restored project stream reaches. This standard only applies to restored reaches of the channel where
ERs were corrected through design and construction.
Cross -Sections: Cross-sections along representative meander wavelengths of the project stream reach(es)
will be monitored for seven years, with monitoring events occurring at a minimum during Years 1, 3, 5, and
7. There should be little change expected from the as -built restoration cross-sections. If measurable
changes do occur, they should be evaluated to determine if the changes represent a movement toward a
more unstable condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetation establishment, deposition along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio).
Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method and all monitored cross-
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Longitudinal Profiles: Longitudinal profiles will be developed to document the as -built conditions of the
Restoration and Enhancement Level I project stream reaches. Observed bedforms should be consistent
with those observed for channels of the design stream type(s). Additional longitudinal profiles may be
required if problems are identified during monitoring.
Page 50 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Visual Assessment: Visual monitoring of the project will include representative photographic
documentation and will be conducted annually for each of the seven years of monitoring. The visual
monitoring will be used to support the development of the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and tables
that organize the visual assessment metrics. Visual assessment will be conducted to monitor streambed
and streambank stability, condition of in -stream structures, horizontal stream channel migration, headcuts,
live stakes and other bioengineering vegetation mortality, impacts from invasive species plants and/or from
animals, and condition of pools and riffles. This visual monitoring will also include assessment of riparian
buffer conditions. Photographs will be used to subjectively document, compare, and analyze stream
channel aggradation or degradation, streambank erosion, success of riparian vegetation establishment,
and effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. Longitudinal project reach photos
should document the absence of developing bars within the stream channel or excessive increase in
channel depth or width. Lateral project reach photos should document the absence of excessive erosion
and the lack of continuing degradation of the streambanks. Comparison of a series of the successional
visual assessment photos taken over time should demonstrate maturation of the restored riparian
vegetation.
Stream Enhancement Level II Success Criteria
Success criteria for Enhancement Level II of the project stream reaches will follow the success criteria for
Visual Monitoring/Photo Reference Stations and Vegetative Success Criteria as outlined herein.
Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
Hydrology: For each normal year within the monitoring period, the restored wetland areas at the site must
be inundated or saturated for a certain hydroperiod. The objective is for the monitoring data to show that
the site exhibits an increased frequency of flooding. Groundwater levels will be compared to pre -
restoration conditions and reference conditions. The success criteria for riparian wetland hydrology will
be met when the site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum percentage of the
growing season or consecutive days during a period when antecedent precipitation has been normal or
drier than normal for a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (USACE, 2005 and 2010). Per current regulatory
guidance, the targeted hydroperiod must meet a minimum of 5 percent or twelve (12) days and may be up
to 12 percent, or twenty-seven (27) days, which will be based on the range of wetness conditions for the
type of wetland system to be restored and comparable hydrology of a nearby reference wetland site. WETS
tables for the applicable county will be utilized to determine normal precipitation.
At the discretion of the regulatory agencies, the site may be found to meet hydrologic success criteria on
the basis of comparison to the monitoring data collected at the site with monitoring data collected at an
established reference site that was previously approved by NCDMS and the regulatory agencies. However,
if a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, WLS will continue
to monitor hydrology at the site until we document that the site has been inundated or saturated for the
appropriate hydroperiod. In the event that there are years of normal precipitation during the monitoring
period, and the data for those years do not show that the site had been inundated or saturated for the
appropriate hydroperiod during the normal precipitation year, the regulatory agencies may require
remedial action. WLS will take required remedial action and continue to monitor hydrology at the site until
we demonstrate that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod.
Water & Land Solutions Page 51

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Wetland Reference Site: Existing jurisdictional wetland areas maybe available at the project site or nearby
and will be used to provide a hydrologic reference to compare wetland restoration areas. If the rainfall
data for any given years during the monitoring period are not normal and if the desired hydrology for the
project site is not on a trajectory to achieve success, then the reference data will be assessed to determine
if there is a positive correlation between the under performance of the project site and the natural
hydrology of the reference site(s)
Visual Monitoring/Photo Reference Data: Photographs from permanent reference stations will be used
to visually document wetland vegetation and system performance and identify areas of low stem density,
invasive species vegetation, beaver activity, or other areas of concern.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for restored plant density at the project site will be based on the
recommendations presented in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) Technical Note and WLS's recent
experience and correspondence with review agencies on DMS full -delivery projects. Measures of
vegetative restoration success for the project during the intermediate monitoring years will be the survival
of at least 320, three-year-old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period and at
least 260, five-year-old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period. The final
vegetative restoration success criteria will be achieving a density of not less than 210, seven-year-old
planted stems per acre in Year 7 of monitoring. A listing of preferred woody vegetation species to be
planted at the site is provided in Part 4.3.
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built
monitoring report documenting the stream and wetland mitigation will be developed within 60 days of the
completion of planting and monitoring device installation at the restored project site. In addition, a period
of at least six months will separate the as -built baseline measurements and the first year monitoring
measurements. The baseline monitoring document and as -built monitoring report will include all
information required by the current NCDMS templates and guidance referenced above, including
planimetric (plan view) and elevation (profile view) information, photographs, sampling plot locations, a
descriptions of initial vegetation species composition by community type, and location of monitoring
stations. The report will include a list of the vegetation species planted, along with the associated planting
densities.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document development of the stream and wetland
systems and the progress toward achieving the success criteria referenced above. Monitoring activities
will be conducted such that at least 180 days will separate the completion of the initial vegetation planting
and the initiation of first year monitoring. Stream morphology, stream hydrology, wetland hydrology, as
well as vegetation, will be assessed to document the success of the implemented mitigation. The
monitoring program will be followed for seven years or until final success criteria are achieved, whichever
is longer. For Enhancement Level II stream reaches, the monitoring will be limited to reference
photographs and assessment of vegetation survival.
Annual monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each monitoring year and will be submitted to
DMS by the November 30 deadline for each monitoring year. The monitoring reports will follow the current
Page 52 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
DMS monitoring report guidance and templates, as specified under this RFP, and referenced above, and
will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored project site and the all regular
maintenance activities.
2. Project background information.
3. As -built topographic maps showing location of vegetation sampling plots, monitoring gages,
permanent photo points, and location of transects.
4. CCPV map including monitoring features and any areas of concern or problem areas notes during
monitoring.
5. Photographs showing views of the restored project site taken from the fixed photopoint stations.
6. Geomorphic and stream sediment data.
7. Hydrologic data.
8. Vegetation data, as described below.
9. Any geomorphic, hydrologic or vegetative problem areas.
10. A description of and areas of damage caused by animals or vandalism.
11. Wildlife observations.
Stream Monitoring
The stream mitigation success criteria are defined above.
Hydrologic Monitoring: The hydrologic success criteria are defined above under Stream Hydrology for
streams.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. The
restored project site will be photographed annually from the photo reference stations for at least five years
following construction. The reference photos will be taken once per year and will be taken from a
consistent height of approximately five to six feet above grade. Permanent makers will be established for
each photo reference station to ensure that the reference photos will be taken each year from the same
locations and view directions.
Stream Hydrology and Floodplain Access: The occurrence of geomorphically significant events, bankfull
events, and floodplain access by flood flows during the monitoring period will be documented using crest
gages and photographs. The crest gages will be installed on the floodplain of and across the dimension of
the restored channels as needed for monitoring. The crest gages will record the watermark associated with
the highest flood stage between monitoring site visits. The gages will be checked each time WLS staff
conduct a site visit to determine if a bankfull and/or geomorphically significant flow event has occurred
since the previous gage check. Photographs will be used to documents the occurrence of debris lines,
wracking, and sediment deposition on the floodplain during the monitoring site visits.
Cross -Sections: Representative meander wavelengths will be selected for each Restoration and
Enhancement Level I project stream reach that has specific design criteria. Two permanent riffle cross-
sections and two permanent pool cross-sections will be located along the selected meander wavelength.
Each of the cross-sections will be monumented on both streambanks to facilitate repetition each year. The
annual cross-section surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank,
bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, for each of the said features that are present. Riffle
Water & Land Solutions Page 53

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
cross-sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification system. Bank pin arrays will only be
installed and utilized if warranted for the monitoring of lateral erosion at cross-sections occurring in
meander bends, typically at pools.
Lateral Reference Photos: Reference photos will be taken annually from the same locations and
orientations at each permanent cross-section. Photographs will be taken of both streambanks at each
cross-section. A survey tape stretched between the permanent cross-section monuments/pins will be
centered in each of the streambank photographs. The photographs will be taken such that the waterline
will be oriented in the lower edge of the frame and as much of the streambank as possible will be included
in each photo.
Structure Photos: Photographs will be taken annually at representative in -stream structures, typically
grade control structures, along the restored project stream reaches. The in -stream structure photographs
will be taken from consistent locations and orientation each year.
Wetland Mitigation Monitoring
The wetland mitigation success criteria are defined above.
Hydrology: Groundwater monitoring gages will be installed and monitored year-round in the wetland
mitigation areas to document hydrologic conditions of the restored wetland area. Gages will be
downloaded at least quarterly. The groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to evaluate hydrology
during each growing season for seven years of hydrologic monitoring, or until success criteria have been
met, whichever occurs later. Groundwater monitoring will follow USACE standard methods found in the
WRP Technical Notes ERDC TN -WRAP -00-02, (July 2000). In order to determine if the rainfall amount is
normal for the given year, a rainfall gage will be installed at the site to document precipitation amounts.
To meet the hydrologic success criteria, the monitoring data must show that for each normal year within
the monitoring period, the site has been inundated or saturated for the targeted hydroperiod. The
targeted hydroperiod will be based on the type of wetland system to be restored, reference site hydrology,
and the hydrologic modeling of the restored site conditions as described in the success criteria. WETS
tables for the appropriate county will be utilized to determine normal precipitation.
Wetland Visual Monitoring/Photo Reference Stations: Visual monitoring of the restored wetland areas
will be conducted annually. Photographs will be used to visually document wetland vegetation and system
performance and to identify areas of low stem density, invasive species vegetation, beaver activity, or other
areas of concern. Reference stations will be photographed annually for each of the required monitoring
years following construction. Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet.
Permanent markers will be established to ensure that the same location and view direction on the site are
documented in each monitoring period.
Vegetation Monitoring
The vegetation monitoring success criteria are defined above. Monitoring will be conducted during Years
1, 3, 5, and 7. Successful restoration of the vegetation at a mitigation site is dependent upon successful
hydrologic restoration, active planting of preferred canopy vegetation species, and volunteer regeneration
of the native plant community. To determine if these criteria are successfully achieved, vegetation
monitoring quadrants will be established across the restored project site, and monitored as required by
Page 54 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
DMS monitoring guidance as reference above. Vegetation monitoring will be conducted in the fall of each
monitoring year. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will include specific data for
monitored stems on height, species, date planted, and grid location, as well as a collective determination
of the survival density within that quadrant. Relative values will be calculated and importance values will
be determined. Individual planted seedlings will be marked at monitoring baseline setup so that those
stems can be found and identified consistently each successive monitoring year. Volunteer species will be
noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be evaluated with DMS on a case-by-case basis. The
presence of invasive species vegetation within the monitoring quadrants will also be noted, as will any
wildlife effects. At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be
evaluated. For each subsequent monitoring year, the restored site will be evaluated between July and
September, until the final success criteria are achieved.
Additional Water Quality and Biological Monitoring
Water Quality Sampling: Based on preliminary model estimates, and in conjunction with results from
other referenced studies, WLS expects that implementation of this project will significantly reduce
pollutant loads in the watershed. As appropriate, WLS will coordinate with the DMS and NCIRT to
document water chemistry and water quality improvements directly related to sediment, and nutrient
reductions. The water quality sampling should be conducted prior to construction to establish and
document baseline conditions. After completion of construction, samples should be collected and analyzed
concurrent with the monitoring baseline activities. Sampling locations and protocols should be repeatable
with the specific intent of documenting nutrient reductions directly attributable to the implementation of
the project. For example, samples may be collected periodically during base flow levels and after storm
events to measure water chemistry parameters such as
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), NO2/3, NH4, Total
Phosphorus (TP), pH, Temperature, Conductivity,
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and Percent Saturation. WLS
anticipates sampling along the project reaches using
industry standard equipment, accepted evaluation
methodologies and protocols, as approved by DMS and
Photo illustrates benthic macroin vertebrate
species found along MS -R1.
the NCIRT.
eenthic Macroin vertebrates and Fish Sampling: In
addition to the water quality sampling described above,
the WLS team will also consider performing a multi-
metric sampling of benthic macro invertebrates
collected in each restored perennial reach and up to two
reference reaches, all within the project watershed. The
sampling methods and procedures will follow those
defined by NCDWR's "Standard Operating Procedures
for eenthic Macroinvertebrates" Qual-4 Methodology
(NCDWQ, 2012). We anticipate that the overall benthos
community in the project area will improve as a result
of the proposed restoration activities.
Water & Land Solutions Page 55

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
The proposed sampling should include a pre -(baseline) and post -restoration sampling comparison as well
as a sampling comparison, with up to two reference reaches, during the appropriate sampling window for
small streams (i.e. April -June during normal flow conditions). WLS could also use this information as data
point for comparison and demonstrate improved water quality function and bioclassifi cation rating. The
sampling activities should include the appropriate macroinvertebrate community (BMI) metrics in each
comparison to help determine a water quality rating and ecological condition. WLS will also collect other
field observations of both terrestrial and aquatic habitat based on the NCDWR "Standard Operating
Procedure Biological Monitoring —Stream Fish Community Assessment Program" (NDWR, 2013) and "EPA
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol) (USEPA, 1999). This data includes observed fish species/assemblages,
barriers to aquatic life movement, riparian buffer condition, embeddedness, bank erosion, algae, shade,
riffle composition, etc. This information will be summarized in the monitoring report and submitted during
the appropriate years throughout the monitoring period.
WLS understands that this additional monitoring may not be required to demonstrate project success for
credit determination, asset release and regulatory closeout. However, collecting and analyzing additional
monitoring data aligns with the overall goals and objectives of the project. We believe selecting applicable
monitoring and evaluation methods will help develop a more function -based assessment and improve our
project implementation process, thereby contributing positively to the advancement of the practice of
ecosystem restoration.
Remedial Actions
In the event that specific component(s) of the restored project site fails to achieve the defined monitoring
success criteria, WLS will develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or will implement
appropriate remedial actions for the site in coordination with DMS and the review agencies. Appropriate
remedial action will be developed to achieve the necessary success criteria previously specified, and will
include a work schedule, strategy, and monitoring criteria that will consider physical and climatic
conditions.
4.8 Quality Control
WLS takes pride in the quality of our products and the satisfaction of our customers and clientele. To
reach this high standard of quality, we have developed a system to ensure that reports, other deliverables
and products are developed to meet agreed-upon standards and requirements in a timely fashion. This
system involves three aspects: work plan, communications plan, and quality management plan.
Work Plan
The project manager will develop a work breakdown structure that outlines the tasks needed to
produce the final deliverables. These tasks are further divided into subtasks that will be scheduled
and executed individually to comply with the schedule set forth in the previous section. The work
breakdown structure allows the project manager to estimate the time and resources required to
complete the work. The work breakdown structure also allows the project manager to identify the
proper staff to work on each subtask. The staffing plan ensures that key staff are aware of and
committed to duties and deadlines associated with their respective tasks.
Page 56 4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Communications Plan
The project manager will also develop a communications plan that facilitates productive and efficient
communication pathways between the various project partners and staff members. Team members
will know who to contact for various aspects and when those communications need to occur.
Regular, planned communications are important to decrease schedule delays, avoid duplication of
efforts, and to allow time to correct any errors that may arise.
Quality Management Plan
The quality management plan clearly identifies the standards set forth by DMS and describes how
the project manager and team members will meet or exceed these standards. The plan details
quality objectives, key project deliverables, quality roles and responsibilities, and the process for
identifying and rectifying non -conformances. The quality management plan helps the project
manager determine if processes are being followed and products are being produced to the highest
standards.
These three aspects of quality control will ensure that all aspects of this project are delivered according
to the schedule established herein. The Quality Management Plan for this project will establish and
document various quality assurance reviews to cross-examine all engineering and design methods, to set
forth document preparation and delivery methods and activities, and to ensure that all deliverables are
technically sound, follow DMS formats, contain all required information, and are grammatically and
typographically correct, and are delivered on schedule. Reviews will include:
Peer Reviews
Staff who are independent of a respective subtask will perform peer reviews. The objective of these
reviews will be to assess the product versus DMS's requirements, spot check key values, verify
completeness and clarity, and to determine if the design meets sound engineering practice.
Deliverable Reviews
The project manager and a member of the company leadership team will review the entire submission for
overall presentation, format uniformity, consistency, and completeness.
Constructability Reviews
All members of the WLS leadership team have extensive experience in construction oversight. At least
one member of the leadership team will perform constructability reviews relative to scope, schedule, and
acceptability. Results of the constructability review will be incorporated into the design to optimize work
and material used during construction, and to ensure the project is completed in compliance with required
federal, state, or local permits. During the construction phase of the project, the WLS Project Manager will be
responsible for oversight of construction activities. This will involve checking the contractor's adherence to
schedule, design documents, making decisions regarding field changes, and checking compliance with federal,
state, and local permits.
Water & Land Solutions Page 57

m

Legend i0
Catchment Area: 543 acres '1
0 Conservation Easement Impervious Cover: 12.5%
Catchment 1: 543 acres �- : Dominant Land Use: Agriculture (22% pasture/crops)
Forest (64% deciduous/evergreen/mixed)
and Open Water (1.5% ponds)
10
300 - 9
�` • 11 `(` ' •1312 •
itky
Cem
00 t 'A
i�
�,c
7` Flowers Quadrangle
01 500 1000
_ . � � �IL , North Carolina -Johnston Co. _
Feet
? • • �'1 Copyright:© 2013 Nartional Geog�aphic5ocfety, i-cubed
USGS FIGURE
WATER & LAND Buffalo Creek Tributaries Topographic
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 2
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
0 Conservation Easement
— Existing Stream
Soil Map Units (NRCS Data from Web Soil
Survey)
CoB: Cowarts loamy sand, 2-6% slopes
DoA: Dorian fine sandy loam, 0-2%
slopes, rarely flooded
0 GeB: Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
GeD: Gilead sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
_ Ly: Lynchburg sandy loam, 0-2% slopes
(Hydric B)
MaB: Marlboro sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
UcB: Uchee loamy coarse sand, 2-6%
slopes
UcC: Uchee loamy coarse sand, 6-12%
slopes
W: Water
WoB: Wedowee sandy loam, 2-8%
slopes
WoD: Wedowee sandy loam, 8-15%
slopes
Wt: Wehadkee loam, 0-2% slopes,
frequently flooded (Hydric A)
MS -R1
LUTT
R4
L
R5 (lower)
\woD,,— UCC �
R3 (upper)
GeB
DoA w
CoB
- R5 (upper)
DoA GeB
r
R6 (upper) MaB
MS -R2
R6 (lower)
GeB
500
1;UU1
EIF
obe, GeoE
IoGRID, IG
FIGURE
WATER & LAND Buffalo Creek Tributaries NRCS
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Soils Map
3
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Conservation Easement
NC Floodplain Mapping Program
LiDAR
Window Size: 6.000
Elevation
363.397 - 1741.29
330.946 - 363.397
■ 308.944 - 330.946
■ 297.757 - 308.944
■ 287.537 - 297.757
■ 277.736 - 287.537
■ 267.224 - 277.736
253.891 - 267.224
206.85 - 253.891
4iWATER &LAND
SOLUTIONS
p
f
ryli
i" 1�"tS y 2)ya
J �
- fa
1,000
Feet -
ource Esri, -Di i4allobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNE I
D' U� DA, U'GS, AeroGRID, IGN, and,the GI- User Communit
FIGURE
Buffalo Creek Tributaries LiDAR Map
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 4
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend AF
Conservation Easement
.. t
r M,.
K
Source: Johnston County
Soil & Water Conservation
r-7
♦j
,
1
-
N
f
0
500 11000
_
Feet
{
ource. ES I,, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthshar
Geographies, CNE /Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS;, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Communit,
FIGURE
WATER & LAND
Buffalo Creek Tributaries
1965 Aerial
Photograph
/a
SOLUTIONS
Mitigation Project
Q
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
0 Conservation Easement Source: Google Earth Pro
t
010
i
-Y
` Source. Esri, DRIM, IGlob e, GeoEye, Ear$hr4ar Geographies, CNES%Airbus
DS; USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Communit,
FIGURE
WATER & LAND Buffalo Creek Tributaries 1999 Aerial
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
6b
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Conservation Easement
7—'
hiE=--'
•
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
t
000 ,`.
FIGURE
Buffalo Creek Tributaries 2004 Aerial
Mitigation Project Photograph 6c
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Google Earth Pro
T�.l�
•
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
t
000 ,`.
FIGURE
Buffalo Creek Tributaries 2004 Aerial
Mitigation Project Photograph 6c
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

• c ^ .:� . r YfF!" � 'T r of '�1�.
Legend r.
Source: Google Earth Pro
Conservation Easement
y��;� '�` K�`J�`-. � �� ,�• *�w , � ."� Wit',;; -
41
�"�� ��r ~ • aRp.. y �� ' ,� • lam+ ,2�r y- �;� - e �' °
44
y M,
> n
•''.'•'�.;N�<.11 ' ••� 'ter +
�w�Arh�� � •� � s` r r•,tw', � t' � < ', r 1 ^' rt
�,�� v�'•SL �j�f�nY�'-_•rti�t �r. h' r<J� i - �_ -..qsi,.
• :!! kyr,-�i�tr'sdb'. ' ''� ��� ��� r�'yZ: � .,�`..
•� . � • % � 7" �'�'n=�� � L.,;,iNi j rill ~ . ,�, ,
� � i � � r �•a a rat st+.+�j, i..
r .wM .;'r �;+,`,tk*._-►�:1��:�''Y�!'` `•'=•. -, `moi •f K' .-, 't��i�'�'M�
•t' ,� , ►� yit •V f� ,J�+, ` hi�r�.� r .►'.tea rn.
0 9s 500 1,000 •* `� ^ ;wt ''� •/ ,�..
yf ` Feet
DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNE /Airbu•s
r DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and bhe GIS User CommuFit
FIGURE
WATER & LAND Buffalo Creek Tributaries 2008 Aerial
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
6d
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

\N
Legend 4
r__1 Proposed Conservation Easement R6 (upper)
Cross Sections
— Existing Stream
R6 (lower)
R3 (upper)
.
MS R1
MR4 -�
R5 (lower) ;
R5 (upper)
MS -R2
Channel Stability & FIGURE
WATER & LAND Buffalo Creek Tributaries Pre -Monitoring
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Features
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Channel Incision and Stream Bank Erosion
Existing Stream
Not Incised
Slightly Incised
Severely Incised
BHR @ Cross-
Bank Scour
Mass
R3 (lower)
Reach ID
Length (ft)
(BHR "1.0)
(BHR = 1.1-1.3)
(BHR >1.5)
section
%
Wasting
MS -R1
1,497
10%
90%
2.3, 1.8
60-70%
30-40%
MS -R2
1,340
20%
80%
1.6
50-60%
20-30%
R3 (lower)
108
100%
3.7
60-70%
30-40%
R3 (upper)
430
90%
10%
1.0
5-10%
0-5%
R4
429
10%
40%
50%
1.1
0-5%
0%
R5 (upper)
512 1
20%
1 60% 1
20% 1
1.8
1 30-40% 1
10-20%
R5 (lower)
215
100%
4.8
60-70%
80-90%
R6 (upper)
200
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
R6 (lower)
107
10%
60%
30%
1.3
20-30%
0-5%
Note: The percentages
shown were estimated
for both
streambanks combined. Approx. 100' along upper R6 was ponded/backwater
conditions, therefore channel geometry was not estimated
along the entire reach length.
\N
Legend 4
r__1 Proposed Conservation Easement R6 (upper)
Cross Sections
— Existing Stream
R6 (lower)
R3 (upper)
.
MS R1
MR4 -�
R5 (lower) ;
R5 (upper)
MS -R2
Channel Stability & FIGURE
WATER & LAND Buffalo Creek Tributaries Pre -Monitoring
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Features
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
117-1 Conservation Easement
Water Quality Stressors
Excess Sediment and NutrieJInputs O*At� A-1
Water Quality and Habitat Stressors
Existing Stream Livestock
Reach ID Length (ft) Access
Narrow Buffer
(< 30')
Buffer (> 30')
Nutrient and
Sediment Input!
MS -R1 1,497 0%
0%
100%
100%
MS -R2 1,340 0%
0%
100%
100%
R3 (lower) 108 0%
0%
100%
100%
R3 (upper) 430 0%
0%
100%
30%
R4 429 0%
0%
100%
10%
(upper) 512 0%
0%
100%
30%
—R5
RS (lower) 215 0%
0%
100%
100%
(upper) 200 1 0%
0% 1
100% 1
100%
—R6
R6 (lower) 107 1 0%
0% 1
100% 1
100%
Note: The percentages shown were estimated far both streambanks combined. Approx. 100' along upper R6
was ponded/backwater conditions, therefore channel geometry was not estimated along the entire reach
W
,. i
R6 (upper)
R6 (lower)
R3 (lower) '
R3 (upper)
MR. I-
V%W-7
M
:.F R4 l
R5 (lower)
MS -R2
R5 (upper)
FIGURE
WATER & LAND Buffalo Creek Tributaries water Quality
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Stressors
9
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
ti
r-1 Conservation Easement
Water Quality Improvement Features
Mitigaton Types
Restoration (P1)
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
R3 (lower)
P s MS -R1
reservation
Riparian Wetland Restoration
0 Wetland Enhancement
0 Wetland Rehabilitation
Option 1- Mitigation Credit Summary
Stream
Stream
Total Stream
Stream
Stream
Enhancement
Enhancement
Mitigation Credits
Restoration
Preservation
Level
Level 11
SMCs
3,360
627
43
43 4,073
Total Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Wetland
Wetland Re-
Wetland
Wetland
Mitigation Credits
establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
(WMCs)
2.7
0.0
2.3
0.4
Option 2- Mitigation Credit Summary
Stream
Stream
Total Stream
Stream
Stream
Enhancement
Enhancement
Mitigation Credits
Restoration
Preservation
Level
Level 11
(SMCS)
3,360
341
43
40 3,784
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Total Riparian
Wetland
Wetland Re-
Wetland
Wetland
Mitigation Credits W2
establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
(WMCs)
2.7
0.0
2.3
0.4
R6 (upper)
` R6 (lower)
1116.
\_■1� 500
R3 (upper)
L
,
r
i
W1
R4
R5 (lower)16
• e:
R5 (upper)
FIGURE
WATER & LAND Buffalo Creek Tributaries Proposed
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Mitigation Features
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 10
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS
1. READ, REVIEW AND COMPLY: It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read this entire document, review all enclosures
and attachments, and any addenda thereto, and comply with all requirements specified herein, regardless of whether
appearing in these Instructions to Vendors or elsewhere in this RFP document.
2. LATE PROPOSALS: Late proposals, regardless of cause, will not be opened or considered, and will automatically be
disqualified from further consideration. It shall be the Vendor's sole responsibility to ensure delivery at the designated
office by the designated time.
3. ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION: The State reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality
in proposals and, unless otherwise specified by the Vendor, to accept any item in the proposal. If either a unit price or an
extended price is obviously in error and the other is obviously correct, the incorrect price will be disregarded.
4. BASIS FOR REJECTION: Pursuant to 01 NCAC 05B .0501, the State reserves the right to reject any and all offers, in
whole or in part, by deeming the offer unsatisfactory as to quality or quantity, delivery, price or service offered, non-
compliance with the requirements or intent of this solicitation, lack of competitiveness, error(s) in specifications or
indications that revision would be advantageous to the State, cancellation or other changes in the intended project or any
other determination that the proposed requirement is no longer needed, limitation or lack of available funds, circumstances
that prevent determination of the best offer, or any other determination that rejection would be in the best interest of the
State.
5. EXECUTION: Failure to sign EXECUTION PAGE in the indicated space will render proposal non-responsive, and it shall
be rejected.
6. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE: In cases of conflict between specific provisions in this solicitation or those in any resulting
contract, the order of precedence shall be (high to low) (1) any special terms and conditions specific to this RFP, including
any negotiated terms; (2) requirements and specifications in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this RFP; (3) North Carolina General
Contract Terms and Conditions in ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND
CONDITIONS; (4) Instructions in ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS; and (5) Vendor's Proposal.
7. INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE: Vendor shall furnish all information requested and in the spaces
provided in this document. Further, if required elsewhere in this proposal, each Vendor must submit with their proposal
sketches, descriptive literature and/or complete specifications covering the products offered. Reference to literature
submitted with a previous proposal or available elsewhere will not satisfy this provision. Proposals that do not comply with
these requirements shall be subject to rejection without further consideration.
8. SUSTAINABILITY: To support the sustainability efforts of the State of North Carolina we solicit your cooperation in this
effort. Pursuant to Executive Order 156 (1999), it is desirable that all responses meet the following:
• All copies of the proposal are printed double sided.
• All submittals and copies are printed on recycled paper with a minimum post -consumer content of 30%.
• Unless absolutely necessary, all proposals and copies should minimize or eliminate use of non -recyclable or non -
reusable materials such as plastic report covers, plastic dividers, vinyl sleeves, and GBC binding. Three -ringed
binders, glued materials, paper clips, and staples are acceptable.
• Materials should be submitted in a format which allows for easy removal, filing and/or recycling of paper and binder
materials. Use of oversized paper is strongly discouraged unless necessary for clarity or legibility.
9. HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES: Pursuant to General Statute 143-48 and Executive Order #150
(1999), the State invites and encourages participation in this procurement process by businesses owned by minorities,
women, disabled, disabled business enterprises and non-profit work centers for the blind and severely disabled.
10. RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE: G.S. 143-59 establishes a reciprocal preference requirement to discourage other states
from favoring their own resident Vendors by applying a percentage increase to the price of any proposal from a North
Carolina resident Vendor. The "Principal Place of Business" is defined as that principal place from which the trade or
business of the Vendor is directed or managed.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 25 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
11. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: To the extent permitted by applicable statutes and rules, the State will maintain
confidential trade secrets that the Vendor does not wish disclosed. As a condition to confidential treatment, each page
containing trade secret information shall be identified in boldface at the top and bottom as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the
Vendor, with specific trade secret information enclosed in boxes or similar indication. Cost information shall not be deemed
confidential under any circumstances. Regardless of what a Vendor may label as a trade secret, the determination whether
it is or is not entitled to protection will be determined in accordance with G.S. 132-1.2. Any material labeled as confidential
constitutes a representation by the Vendor that it has made a reasonable effort in good faith to determine that such material
is, in fact, a trade secret under G.S. 132-1.2. Vendors are urged and cautioned to limit the marking of information as a
trade secret or as confidential so far as is possible.
12. PROTEST PROCEDURES: When a Vendor wishes to protest a Contract resulting from this solicitation that is awarded
by the Division of Purchase and Contract, or awarded by an agency in an awarded amount of at least $25,000, a Vendor
shall submit a written request addressed to the State Purchasing Officer at Purchase and Contract, 1305 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1305. A protest request related to an award amount of less than $25,000 shall be sent to the
purchasing officer of the agency that issued the award. The protest request must be received in the proper office within
thirty (30) consecutive calendar days from the date of the Contract award. Protest letters shall contain specific grounds
and reasons for the protest, how the protesting party was harmed by the award made and any documentation providing
support for the protesting party's claims. Note: Contract award notices are sent only to the Vendor actually awarded the
Contract, and not to every person or firm responding to a solicitation. Proposal status and Award notices are posted on
the Internet at https://www.ips.state.nc.us/ips/. All protests will be handled pursuant to the North Carolina Administrative
Code, 01 NCAC 05B .1519.
13. MISCELLANEOUS: Masculine pronouns shall be read to include feminine pronouns, and the singular of any word or
phrase shall be read to include the plural and vice versa.
14. COMMUNICATIONS BY VENDORS: In submitting its proposal, the Vendor agrees not to discuss or otherwise reveal the
contents of its proposal to any source, government or private, outside of the using or issuing agency until after the award
of the Contract or cancellation of this RFP. All Vendors are forbidden from having any communications with the using or
issuing agency, or any other representative of the State concerning the solicitation, during the evaluation of the proposals
(i.e., after the public opening of the proposals and before the award of the Contract), unless the State directly contacts the
Vendor(s) for purposes of seeking clarification or another reason permitted by the solicitation. A Vendor shall not: (a)
transmit to the issuing and/or using agency any information commenting on the ability or qualifications of any other Vendor
to provide the advertised good, equipment, commodity; (b) identify defects, errors and/or omissions in any other Vendor's
proposal and/or prices at any time during the procurement process; and/or (c) engage in or attempt any other
communication or conduct that could influence the evaluation and/or award of the Contract that is the subject of this RFP.
Vendors not in compliance with this provision may be disqualified, at the option of the State, from the Contract award.
Only those communications with the using agency or issuing agency authorized by this RFP are permitted.
15. TABULATIONS: Proposal tabulations can be electronically retrieved at the Interactive Purchasing System (IPS),
https://www.ips.state.nc.us/ips/BidNumberSearch.aspx. Click on the IPS BIDS icon, click on Search for Bid, enter the
proposal number, and then search. Tabulations will normally be available at this website not later than one working day
after the proposal opening. Lengthy or complex tabulations may be summarized, with other details not made available on
IPS, and requests for additional details or information concerning such tabulations cannot be honored.
16. VENDOR REGISTRATION AND SOLICITATION NOTIFICATION SYSTEM: The North Carolina electronic Vendor Portal
(eVP) allows Vendors to electronically register free with the State to receive electronic notification of current procurement
opportunities for goods and services of potential interests to them available on the Interactive Purchasing System, as well
as notifications of status changes to those solicitations. Online registration and other purchasing information is available
at the following website https://www.ips.state.nc.us/.
17. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL: a Proposal may be withdrawn only in writing and actually received by the office issuing
the RFP prior to the time for the opening of Proposals identified on the cover page of this RFP (or such later date included
in an Addendum to the RFP). A withdrawal request must be on Vendor's letterhead and signed by an official of the Vendor
authorized to make such request. Any withdrawal request made after the opening of Proposals shall be allowed only for
good cause shown and in the sole discretion of the Division of Purchase and Contract.
18. INFORMAL COMMENTS: The State shall not be bound by informal explanations, instructions or information given at
any time by anyone on behalf of the State during the competitive process or after award. The State is bound only by
information provided in this RFP and in formal Addenda issued through IPS.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 26 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
19. COST FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION: Any costs incurred by Vendor in preparing or submitting offers are the
Vendor's sole responsibility; the State of North Carolina will not reimburse any Vendor for any costs incurred prior to
award.
20. VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIVE: Each Vendor shall submit with its proposal the name, address, and telephone number
of the person(s) with authority to bind the firm and answer questions or provide clarification concerning the firm's proposal.
21. SUBCONTRACTING: Unless expressly prohibited, a Vendor may propose to subcontract portions of the work to identified
subcontractor(s), provided that its proposal clearly describe what work it plans to subcontract and that Vendor includes in
its proposal all information regarding employees, business experience, and other information for each proposed
subcontractor that is required to be provided for Vendor itself.
22. INSPECTION AT VENDOR'S SITE: The State reserves the right to inspect, at a reasonable time, the equipment/item,
plant or other facilities of a prospective Vendor prior to Contract award, and during the Contract term as necessary for the
State determination that such equipment/item, plant or other facilities conform with the specifications/requirements and
are adequate and suitable for the proper and effective performance of the Contract.
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 27 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PERFORMANCE AND DEFAULT: If, through any cause, Vendor shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner the
obligations under this contract, the State shall have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice to the Vendor
and specifying the effective date thereof. In that event and subject to all other provisions of this contract, all finished or
unfinished deliverable items under this contract prepared by the Vendor shall, at the option of the State, become its
property, and the Vendor shall be entitled to receive compensation for units actually produced, if any, in an amount
determined by reducing the total amount due had the full number of Units been produced pro rata, such that the ratio
of the final compensation actually paid to the original total amount due in accordance with Attachment C (as amended,
if applicable) is equal to the ratio of the Units actually generated to the total Units identified in Attachment C.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this agreement, Vendor shall not be relieved of liability to the State for damages
sustained by the State by virtue of any breach of this contract, and the State may withhold any payment due the Vendor
for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the State from such breach can be
determined. The State reserves the right to require at any time a performance bond or other acceptable alternative
guarantees from a successful Vendor without expense to the State.
In case of default by the Vendor, the State may procure the services necessary to complete performance hereunder from
other sources and hold the Vendor responsible for any excess cost occasioned thereby. In addition, in the event of default
by the Vendor under this contract, or upon the Vendor filing a petition for bankruptcy or the entering of a judgment of
bankruptcy by or against the Vendor, the State may immediately cease doing business with the Vendor, immediately
terminate this contract for cause, and may act to debar the Vendor from doing future business with the State
2. GOVERNMENTAL RESTRICTIONS: In the event any Governmental restrictions are imposed which necessitate alteration
of the material, quality, workmanship or performance of the goods or services offered prior to their delivery, it shall be the
responsibility of the Vendor to notify, in writing, the Contract Lead at once, indicating the specific regulation which required
such alterations. The State reserves the right to accept any such alterations, including any price adjustments occasioned
thereby, or to cancel the Contract.
3. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Any and all payments to the Vendor shall be dependent upon and subject to the availability
of funds to the agency for the purpose set forth in this contract.
4. TAXES: Any applicable taxes shall be invoiced as a separate item.
a. G.S. 143-59.1 bars the Secretary of Administration from entering into Contracts with Vendors if the Vendor or its
affiliates meet one of the conditions of G.S. 105-164.8(b) and refuses to collect use tax on sales of tangible
personal property to purchasers in North Carolina. Conditions under G.S. 105-164.8(b) include: (1) Maintenance
of a retail establishment or office, (2) Presence of representatives in the State that solicit sales or transact business
on behalf of the Vendor and (3) Systematic exploitation of the market by media -assisted, media -facilitated, or
media -solicited means. By execution of the proposal document the Vendor certifies that it and all of its affiliates,
(if it has affiliates), collect(s) the appropriate taxes.
b. All agencies participating in this Contract are exempt from Federal Taxes, such as excise and transportation.
Exemption forms submitted by the Vendor will be executed and returned by the using agency.
c. Prices offered are not to include any personal property taxes, nor any sales or use tax (or fees) unless required
by the North Carolina Department of Revenue.
SITUS: The place of this Contract, its situs and forum, shall be North Carolina, where all matters, whether sounding in
Contract or tort, relating to its validity, construction, interpretation and enforcement shall be determined.
6. GOVERNING LAWS: This Contract is made under and shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with
the laws of the State of North Carolina, without regard to is conflict of laws rules.
7. PAYMENT TERMS: Payment terms are Net not later than 30 days after receipt of correct invoice or acceptance of goods,
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 28 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
whichever is later. The using agency is responsible for all payments to the Vendor under the Contract. Payment by some
agencies may be made by procurement card, if the Vendor accepts that card (Visa, MasterCard, etc.) from other
customers, and it shall be accepted by the Vendor for payment under the same terms and conditions as any other method
of payment accepted by the Vendor. If payment is made by procurement card, then payment may be processed
immediately by the Vendor.
8. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: The Vendor will take affirmative action in complying with all Federal and State requirements
concerning fair employment and employment of people with disabilities, and concerning the treatment of all employees
without regard to discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability.
9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY: Vendor shall hold and save the State, its officers, agents and employees,
harmless from liability of any kind, including costs and expenses, resulting from infringement of the rights of any third party
in any copyrighted material, patented or unpatented invention, articles, device or appliance delivered in connection with
this contract.
10. ADVERTISING: Vendor agrees not to use the existence of this Contract or the name of the State of North Carolina as
part of any commercial advertising or marketing of products or services. A Vendor may inquire whether the State is willing
to act as a reference by providing factual information directly to other prospective customers.
11. ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS: During and after the term hereof, the State Auditor and any using agency's
internal auditors shall have access to persons and records related to this Contract to verify accounts and data affecting
fees or performance under the Contract, as provided in G.S. 143-49(9).
12. ASSIGNMENT: No assignment of the Vendor's obligations nor the Vendor's right to receive payment hereunder shall be
permitted.
However, upon written request approved by the issuing purchasing authority and solely as a convenience to the Vendor,
the State may:
a. Forward the Vendor's payment check directly to any person or entity designated by the Vendor, and
Include any person or entity designated by Vendor as a joint payee on the Vendor's payment check.
In no event shall such approval and action obligate the State to anyone other than the Vendor and the Vendor shall remain
responsible for fulfillment of all Contract obligations. Upon advance written request, the State may, in its unfettered
discretion, approve an assignment to the surviving entity of a merger, acquisition or corporate reorganization, if made as
part of the transfer of all or substantially all of the Vendor's assets. Any purported assignment made in violation of this
provision shall be void and a material breach of this Contract.
13. INSURANCE:
COVERAGE - During the term of the Contract, the Vendor at its sole cost and expense shall provide commercial insurance
of such type and with such terms and limits as may be reasonably associated with the Contract. As a minimum, the Vendor
shall provide and maintain the following coverage and limits:
a. Worker's Compensation - The Vendor shall provide and maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance, as required
by the laws of North Carolina, as well as employer's liability coverage with minimum limits of $500,000.00, covering all of
Vendor's employees who are engaged in any work under the Contract. If any work is sub -contracted, the Vendor shall
require the sub -Contractor to provide the same coverage for any of his employees engaged in any work under the Contract.
b. Commercial General LiabilitV - General Liability Coverage on a Comprehensive Broad Form on an occurrence
basis in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 Combined Single Limit. (Defense cost shall be in excess of the limit of
liability.)
C. Automobile - Automobile Liability Insurance, to include liability coverage, covering all owned, hired and non -owned
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 29 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
vehicles, used in connection with the Contract. The minimum combined single limit shall be $250,000.00 bodily injury and
property damage; $250,000.00 uninsured/under insured motorist; and $2,500.00 medical payment.
REQUIREMENTS - Providing and maintaining adequate insurance coverage is a material obligation of the Vendor and is
of the essence of this Contract. All such insurance shall meet all laws of the State of North Carolina. Such insurance
coverage shall be obtained from companies that are authorized to provide such coverage and that are authorized by the
Commissioner of Insurance to do business in North Carolina. The Vendor shall at all times comply with the terms of such
insurance policies, and all requirements of the insurer under any such insurance policies, except as they may conflict with
existing North Carolina laws or this Contract. The limits of coverage under each insurance policy maintained by the Vendor
shall not be interpreted as limiting the Vendor's liability and obligations under the Contract.
14. GENERAL INDEMNITY: The Vendor shall hold and save the State, its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from
liability of any kind, including all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any other person, firm, or corporation furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Contract, and from any and
all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation that may be injured or damaged by the
Vendor in the performance of this Contract and that are attributable to the negligence or intentionally tortious acts of the
Vendor provided that the Vendor is notified in writing within 30 days that the State has knowledge of such claims. The
Vendor represents and warrants that it shall make no claim of any kind or nature against the State's agents who are
involved in the delivery or processing of Vendor goods or services to the State. The representation and warranty in the
preceding sentence shall survive the termination or expiration of this Contract.
15. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Vendor shall be considered to be an independent contractor and as such shall be
wholly responsible for the work to be performed and for the supervision of its employees. Vendor represents that it has,
or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this contract. Such employees
shall not be employees of, or have any individual contractual relationship with the State.
16. KEY PERSONNEL: Vendor shall not substitute key personnel assigned to the performance of this contract without prior
written approval by the State's assigned Contract Lead. The individuals designated as key personnel for purposes of this
contract are those specified in the RFP and persons identified in Vendor's proposal.
17. SUBCONTRACTING: Work proposed to be performed under this contract by the Vendor or its employees shall not be
subcontracted without prior written approval of the State's assigned Contract Administrator. Unless otherwise indicated,
acceptance of a Vendor's proposal shall include approval to use the subcontractor(s) that have been specified therein in
accordance with paragraph 20 of Attachment A: Instructions to Vendor.
18. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: The State may terminate this contract at any time by providing _ days' notice
in writing from the State to the Vendor. In that event, all finished or unfinished deliverable items prepared by the Vendor
under this contract shall, at the option of the State, become its property. If the contract is terminated by the State as
provided in this section, the State shall pay for services satisfactorily completed by the Vendor, less any payment or
compensation previously made.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY: Any State information, data, instruments, documents, studies or reports given to or prepared or
assembled by or provided to the Vendor under this contract shall be kept as confidential, used only for the purpose(s)
required to perform this contract and not divulged or made available to any individual or organization without the prior
written approval of the State.
20. CARE OF PROPERTY: The Vendor agrees that it shall be responsible for the proper custody and care of any property
furnished it by the State for use in connection with the performance of this contract or purchased by or for the State for
this contract, and Vendor will reimburse the State for loss or damage of such property while in Vendor's custody.
21. PROPERTY RIGHTS: All deliverable items and materials produced for or as a result of this contract shall become the
property of the State, and Vendor hereby assigns all ownership rights in such deliverables, including all intellectual property
rights, to the State; provided, however, that as to any preexisting works imbedded in such deliverables, Vendor hereby
grants the State a fully -paid, perpetual license to copy, distribute and adapt the preexisting works.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 30 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
22. OUTSOURCING: Any Vendor or subcontractor providing call or contact center services to the State of North Carolina
shall disclose to inbound callers the location from which the call or contact center services are being provided.
If, after award of a contract, the contractor wishes to relocate or outsource any portion of the work to a location outside
the United States, or to contract with a subcontractor for the performance of any work, which subcontractor and nature of
the work has not previously been disclosed to the State in writing, prior written approval must be obtained from the State
agency responsible for the contract.
Vendor shall give notice to the using agency of any relocation of the Vendor, employees of the Vendor, subcontractors of
the Vendor, or other persons performing services under a State contract to a location outside of the United States.
23. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Vendor shall comply with all laws, ordinances, codes, rules, regulations, and licensing
requirements that are applicable to the conduct of its business and its performance in accordance with this contract,
including those of federal, state, and local agencies having jurisdiction and/or authority.
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This RFP and any documents incorporated specifically by reference represent the entire
agreement between the parties and supersede all prior oral or written statements or agreements. This RFP, any addenda
thereto, and the Vendor's proposal are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth verbatim.
All promises, requirements, terms, conditions, provisions, representations, guarantees, and warranties contained herein
shall survive the contract expiration or termination date unless specifically provided otherwise herein, or unless
superseded by applicable Federal or State statutes of limitation.
25. AMENDMENTS: This contract may be amended only by a written amendment duly executed by the State and the Vendor.
The NC Division of Purchase and Contract shall give prior approval to any amendment to a contract awarded through that
office.
26. WAIVER: The failure to enforce or the waiver by the State of any right or an event of breach or default on one occasion
or instance shall not constitute the waiver of such right, breach or default on any subsequent occasion or instance.
27. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither party shall be deemed to be in default of its obligations hereunder if and so long as it is
prevented from performing such obligations as a result of events beyond its reasonable control, including without limitation,
fire, power failures, any act of war, hostile foreign action, nuclear explosion, riot, strikes or failures or refusals to perform
under subcontracts, civil insurrection, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, or other catastrophic natural event or act of God.
28. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: Notwithstanding any other term or provision in this contract, nothing herein is intended nor
shall be interpreted as waiving any claim or defense based on the principle of sovereign immunity that otherwise would
be available to the State under applicable law.
(THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 31 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR
In accordance with NC General Statute 143-59.4, the Vendor shall detail the location(s) at which performance will occur, as well
as the manner in which it intends to utilize resources or workers outside of the United States in the performance of this Contract.
The State will evaluate the additional risks, costs, and other factors associated with such utilization prior to making an award.
Please complete items a, b, and c below.
a) Will any work under this Contract be performed outside the United States? ❑ YES ❑X NO
If the Vendor answered "YES" above, Vendor must complete items 1 and 2 below:
List the location(s) outside the United States where work under this Contract will be performed by the Vendor, any
sub -Contractors, employees, or other persons performing work under the Contract:
2. Describe the corporate structure and location of corporate employees and activities of the Vendor, its affiliates or any
other sub -Contractors that will perform work outside the U.S.:
b) The Vendor agrees to provide notice, in writing to the State, of the relocation of the
Vendor, employees of the Vendor, sub -Contractors of the Vendor, or other persons ❑X YES ❑ NO
performing services under the Contract outside of the United States
NOTE: All Vendor or sub -Contractor personnel providing call or contact center services to
the State of North Carolina under the Contract shall disclose to inbound callers the
location from which the call or contact center services are being provided.
c) Identify all U.S. locations at which performance will occur:
Raleigh, NC; Clayton, NC; Weaverville, NC; Hillsborough, NC; Durham, NC; Charlottesville, VA ; (All locations USA)
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 33 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279
Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
Name of Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
The undersigned hereby certifies that: [check all applicable boxes]
❑X The Vendor is in sound financial condition and, if applicable, has received an unqualified audit opinion for the latest
audit of its financial statements.
Date of latest audit: June 01, 2015
® The Vendor has no outstanding liabilities, including tax and judgment liens, to the Internal Revenue Service or any
other government entity.
❑X The Vendor is current in all amounts due for payments of federal and state taxes and required employment-related
contributions and withholdings.
❑X The Vendor is not the subject of any current litigation or findings of noncompliance under federal or state law.
® The Vendor has not been the subject of any past or current litigation, findings in any past litigation, or findings of
noncompliance under federal or state law that may impact in any way its ability to fulfill the requirements of this
Contract.
® He or she is authorized to make the foregoing statements on behalf of the Vendor.
Note: This is a continuing certification and Vendor shall notify the Contract Lead within 15 days of any material change
to any of the representations made herein.
If any one or more of the foregoing boxes is NOT checked, Vendor shall explain the reason in the space below:
Signature nate
William Scott Hunt, III
Vendor's Representative
Printed Name Title
[This Certification must be signed by an individual authorized to speak for the Vendor]
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 34 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION
VENDOR'S INFORMATION
Vendors Primary Contact (or Project Manager)
Name:
William Scott Hunt III
Agency:
Water & Land Solutions LLC
Title:
Vendor's Representative
Address:
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC/27614
Telephone:
919-614-5111
Fax:
N/A
Email:
scott waterlandsolutions.com
Vendors Execution Address (Where the contractshould be mailed forsignature)
Name:
William Scott Hunt III
Agency:
Water & Land Solutions LLC
Title:
Vendor's Representative
Address:
11030 Raven Ride Road Suite 119
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC/27614
Telephone:
919-614-5111
Fax:
N/A
Email:
scott waterlandsolutions.com
Vendors Payment (Remit -To) Address (Where the checks should be mailed)
(This address should agree with the "Remit -To" address associated with the Vendor's Tax ID. This information must
be verified with the Vendor's Corporate Accounting Office)
Name:
William Scott Hunt III
Agency:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Title:
Vice President of Operations
Address:
11030 Raven Ride Road Suite 119
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC/27614
Telephone:
919-614-5111
Fax:
N/A
Email:
scott waterlandsolutions.com
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 35 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279
Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ATTACHMENT G: CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY -IRAN DIVESTMENT ACT
CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Under the Iran Divestment Act
As provided in G.S. 147-86.59, any person identified as engaging in investment activities in Iran, determined by appearing on
the Final Divestment List created by the State Treasurer pursuant to G.S. 147-86.58, is ineligible to contract with the State of
North Carolina or any political subdivision of the State. The Iran Divestment Act of 2015, G.S. 147-86.55 et seq.* requires that
each Vendor, prior to contracting with the State certify, and the undersigned on behalf of the Vendor does hereby certify, to the
following:
1. that the Vendor is not identified on the Final Divestment List of entities that the State Treasurer has determined engages
in investment activities in Iran;
2. that the Vendor shall not utilize on any contract with the State agency any subcontractor that is identified on the Final
Divestment List; and
3. that the undersigned is authorized by the Vendor to make this Certification.
Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, L
By: 44%� —
Signature
William Scott Hunt, III
Printed Name
September 21, 2017
Date
Vendor's Representative
Title
The State Treasurer's Final Divestment List can be found on the State Treasurer's website at the address
https://www.nctreasurer.com/inside-the-department/OpenGovernment/Pages/Iran-Divestment-Act-
Resources.aspx, which will be updated every 180 days. For questions about the Department of State
Treasurer's Iran Divestment Policy, please contact Meryl Murtagh at [e-mail] or
[phone].
* Note: Enacted by Session Law 2015-118 as G.S. 143C-55 et seq., but renumbered for codification at the direction of
the Revisor of Statutes
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 36 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ATTACHMENT H: TARGETED LOCAL WATERSHED MAPS
Neuse 03020201 Full Delivery RFP
Targeted Watersheds for Cataloging Unit 03020201
HUC #
LWP
RWP
HUC#
LWP
RWP
03020201010030
No
No
03020201100040
No
Yes
03020201010050
No
No
03020201100050
No
Yes
03020201020010
No
No
03020201110010
Yes
Yes
03020201020020
No
No
03020201110020
Yes
Yes
03020201020040
No
No
03020201110030*
No
Yes
03020201030030
No
No
03020201110040
No
Yes
03020201030020
No
No
03020201110050
No
Yes
03020201030040
No
No
03020201110060*
No
Yes
03020201030050
No
No
03020201110070
No
Yes
03020201040020
No
No
03020201120010
No
Yes
03020201050010
Yes
No
03020201120020
No
Yes
03020201050020
Yes
No
03020201120030
No
Yes
03020201050030
Yes
No
03020201130030
No
No
03020201060010
Yes
No
03020201140010
No
No
03020201060020
No
No
03020201150010
No
No
03020201065030
No
No
03020201150020
No
No
03020201065040
No
No
03020201150040
No
No
03020201070060
No
No
03020201150050
No
No
03020201070070
No
No
03020201160010
No
No
03020201070080
No
No
03020201180010
No
No
03020201070110
No
No
03020201180020
Yes
Yes
03020201090010
No
No
03020201180030*
No
Yes
03020201100010
Yes
Yes
03020201180040*
No
Yes
03020201100020
Yes
Yes
03020201180050
Yes
Yes
03020201100030
Yes
Yes
03020201200030
No
No
*Targeted Resource Areas (Habitat)
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 37 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ATTACHMENT H: TARGETED LOCAL WATERSHED MAPS
Targeted Watersheds for Neuse 03020201
PA'S r- .f N.VC]tLN
VANCL Ck
I�
Lake Rogers
+.It.1 I I. 3� �f lriltiva,,5:ry �
LWP
020010
1005-
020020
040020,
f
-
i
02004
03003002Q
060020
k[.IN
rr+
030 .-
030040 300
FR
o
Wake/Johnston
Ellerbe
w
o , ' `
Collaborative LWP
�t
Creek LWP
065030
070070
180010
h
Little Lick -
Creek LWP
I
; :,,,
080M.,
--
`
7011
_ r
ar
A F,
1 +
r
Lick Creek'oaaolo.
1
F
LWP
Upper Swift
120010
100
180040
- `-
Creek LWP
0
120020
10060
�o
- %
120030
i r
130030
140010
�
Legend
150010
150020
200030 .
Regional Watershed Plan
CatalogingUnit150050
14 -Digit Hydrologic Unit
150040
Target Local Watersheds
f
Targeted Resource Area (Habitat)
Local Watershed Plans 1 _
Municipal Boundary 0 5 10 20
Miles
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 38 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ATTACHMENT I: TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET
Important Notes/Guidance
1. Projects MUST be located within DMS Targeted Local Watersheds within Neuse 03020201. Projects located within Local
Watershed
Planning (LWP) or Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) HUCs may receive additional points,as noted in Section 1.0 of this Technical Proposal Rating
Form (or "scoresheet").
2. Questions in sections 1 through 4 are required and MUST be addressed in the proposal. BONUS questions in Section 5 (after the
required section) may receive additional points, but will NOT disqualify a Provider's proposal if unanswered or not applicable. Bonus questions
can add up to 7 points to the total score.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Neuse 03020201 Rating Form
Offeror:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Site Name:
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
River Basin / Catalog Unit:
Neuse River Basin/Cataloging Unit 03020201
RFP Number:
16-007279
Date of Site Evaluation:
Type/Amt of Mitigation
Offered:
Proposal Review
Committee:
Alternate Attendees:
Overall Merit (Proposal Screening)
Yes/No
or N/A
1 -For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence of stream(s) on the
project site, and provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide accurate, process -based descriptions of all project stream
Yes
reaches and tributaries?
2 -For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the technical proposal adequately document the presence of hydric soil
indicators (including soil boring logs prepared by a Licensed Soil Scientist and a map showing soil boring locations and mapped soil
Yes
series)?
3 -For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the proposed success hydroperiod exceed the 5% minimum and is it
appropriate for the project site and soil series? If the proposed hydroperiod differs from the 2016 IRT guidance, justification
Yes
must be provided in the RFP.
4 -Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that currently exist on the
Yes
project site?
5 -Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented? [The Technical Proposal
must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activities are appropriate for existing site conditions and watershed
Yes
characteristics (e.g., adjacent land use/land cover), and are optimized to yield maximum functional gains.]
6 -Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
Yes
7 -Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
Yes
8 -Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
Yes
9 -For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal OR is Priority
2 stream restoration limited to "tie-ins" (designed tributary confluences)?
- Floodplain bench grading will extend a minimum 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the stream belt -width (no
meanderingfloodplains — see Diagram below).
Yes
-The floodplain will be over -excavated to accommodate replacement of topsoil.
-The design and construction oversight will ensure the management of topsoil to include the harvest and segregated
stockpiling of A and B soil horizons for placement on excavated floodplain features.
-The slopes between the outer edge of floodplain grading and the terrace will be a minimum of 5:1.
Note: An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected.
Continue
Continue or Reject?
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 39 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279
VnnArw- \A/Ater R I and Rnliitinnc I I C:
200
Diagram for Priority 11 Question Above.
Prieriey 11 flecd Plain bench
16O
eradme b -d— m�n�m oms
100
1
`Y
50
,P.O. 10
r.�224.6.
1449,3.1
.0
O
�i
-
}
100
20 foot channelwidth
-150
30 foot benchwidlh(1.S times <hannelwid[hl beyondthe betlwidth.
.200
O
100 200 300
400 900
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [40 Points Possible] REQUIRED
Projects Located outside of LWP or RWP
1 For proposed projects located outside of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) or Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) area -- but within
another targeted HUC (TLW, TRA) -- to what extent does the project support the CU -wide watershed improvement goals?
The following are CU -wide and TLW goals: 1 -reduce & control sediment inputs; 2 - reduce & manage nutrient inputs; 3 -
augment designated Significant Natural Heritage Areas ; 4 - Contribute to protection of or improvements to a Water Supply
Waterbody. [Provider must describe specific elements/features of the current site conditions and proposed project design that
will contribute substantially to meeting these goals.]
ct addresses fewer than 2 Roals 1 point
Project addresses 3 of 4 goals 5 points
Project addresses 4 of 4 goals 10 points
N/A
2 For projects located within a LWP, does the proposed project address watershed planning priorities identified in Findings and
Recommendations Summary? These prioritieis include: 1 --reduces sediment loading; 2 --reduces nutrient loading; 3 --provides
& improves instream habitat; 4 --provides & improves terrestrial habitat; 5-- improves stream and bank stability; 6 --improves
hydrologic function; 7 --improves rare species habitat. To receive points, Provider must describe in detail how the proposed
Project addresses fewer than 2 priorities 1 point
Project addresses 2 to 3 of 7 of priorities. 5 points
ct addresses 4 to 5 of 7 priorities. 15 points
Project addresses 6 to 7 of 7 priorities 20 points
n the
N/A
For projects located within the RWP, does the proposed project address watershed planning priorities identified in the
Preliminary Findings Report? These priorities include: 1 --reduces sediment loading; 2 --reduces nutrient loading; 3 --improves
stream and bank stability; 4 --improves hydrologic function; 5 --improves riparian buffer condition. To receive points, Provider
must describe in detail how the proposed project will contribute significantly to addressing identified stressors.
ct addresses fewer than 2 priorities 1 point
Project addresses 2 of 5 of priorities. 5 points
lProject addresses 3 to 4 of 5 priorities. 15 points
Project addresses 5 of 5 priorities. 20 points
20
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 40 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Section 2.0 - Uplift Potential Module [120 Points Possible] REQUIRED
Stream (SMUs) Focus
1
What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > "'1.5)?
Less than 50% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 1 point
50-75% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 5 points
5
>75% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 15 points
2
What is the proportion of the existing condition proposed for treatment indicative of active bank erosion? Active bank
erosion includes surficial scour (distinguished from bare banks), hyraulic and mechanical bank failures.
Less than 20% active erosion. 1 point
20-50% active erosion. 5 points
>50% active erosion. 15 points
15
3
What is the dominant buffer vegetation condition?
Small woody Vegetation >30 feet in width (shrub, early successional trees). 1 point
1
Small woody vegetation <30 feet in width or an herbaceous dominated condition; or
mature trees are scattered and sparse within the proposed boundary (the proposed
reach treatments could take place with minimal impacts to mature trees).
5 points
No buffer vegetation, maintained cover, or grazed pasture; or impervious cover
proposed for removal. 15 points
4
What is the percent of proposed easement length actively subject to water quality stressors that will be addressed by the
project? [stressors within or immediately adjacent to easement may include pasture with direct livestock access, livestock
exclusion but with poorly managed crossings, hydrologic bypass of buffers (e.g. the drains, discharge outfalls, hydrologic
connections to livestock wallows or CAFO ponds), stormwater outfalls, adjacent row crops, maintained vegetation, or
impervious surfaces within 30 feet of proposed easement boundary]
Proportion of affected length less than 50%. 1 point
Proportion of affected length 50-75%. 5 points
Proportion of affected length >75%. 15 points
15
The following multiplier is included to prevent a bias against stream projects that include appropriate levels of
enhancement.
TOTAL STREAM SMU FOCUS POINTS
36
Ratio of Total LF to SMUs:
1.2
SECTION 2 (Streams) TOTAL = Stream SMU focus total x
Ratio of Total LF to SMUs(not to exceed 60 points)
43.2
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 41 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Wetland (WMUs) Focus
1
What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and immediately adjacent to the proposed
easement have on the project (i.e., impervious surfaces, nutrient inputs, sediment inputs, or other land disturbing
activities)?
Low (little to no evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater flow into the system). 1 point
5
Moderate (evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater flow into the system, i.e. ). 5 points
High to Very High [direct and excessive evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform and/or
sediment input. 15 points
2
For proposed wetland restoration/rehabilitation projects: existing condition of predominant wetland vegetation
community. [Predominant means covering >50% of the area proposed for restoration and/or enhancement.]
Wetland vegetation is present but is not reference quality. 1 point
Wetland vegetation is present but is managed to prevent
appropriate wetland community. 5 points
5
Wetland vegetation is absent. 15 points
3
Confidence in existing wetland hydrologic condition and uplift potential.
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, but their
location and extent are not clearly depicted. 1 point
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, and the effects
and extents are clearly defined. 10 points
5
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, and the effects
and extent are clearly defined and are supported with field data
and/or modeled results. 15 points
4
Confidence in wetland hydroperiod for performance criteria.
Success hydroperiods are based on a thorough modeling effort of
the site such that a pre/post water budget is estimated and is
5
appropriate for the setting and landscape position. 5 points
Success hydroperiods are based on a thorough modeling effort of
the site such that a pre/post water budget is estimated and is
appropriate for the setting and landscape position, AND modeled
results are supported with local reference gauge data. 15 points
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 42 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Section 3.0- Implementation and Risk Module [35 Points Possible] REQUIRED
1
Does the proposed stream project provide
Less than 25% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities?) 1 point 1
Between 25 - 50% of the RFP re uest? 2 points
Between 51- 90% of the RFP request? 5 points
Greater than 90% of the RFP request? 10 points
2
Does the proposed wetland project provide
Less than 15% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities?) 1 point 1
Between 15 - 25% of the RFP request? 2 points
Between 26 - 50% of the RFP request? 5 points
Greater than 50% of the RFP request? 10 points
3
Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that affect project
design and effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of crossings, roadways, utilities,
>10 % of the total project footage is segmented by
5-10 % of the total project footage is segmented by
< 5% of the total project footage is segmented by
10
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways,
and/or utilities; or project with existing constraints
Section 4.0 - Provider Experience [15 Points Possible] REQUIRED
1
Similar mitigation projects completed by the Offeror (through at least 3 years of monitoring).
Completed less than 5 mitigation projects. 2 points
2
Completed more than 5 mitigation projects. 5 points
2
1 Experience of Project Team (people actually completing work)
Project team contains at least two individuals with
mitigation experience specific to project evaluation,
All of the above and at least two projects brought to
successful regulatory closure with the Interagency
Review Team (IRT). 10 points
10
REQUIRED SECTIONS TOTAL
107.2
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 43 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Section 5.0 - Bonus Module (7 points possible)
1
�ls the proposed project located within a priority subwatershed within the LWP or RWP
area?. 1 point
2
Does the proposal implement all or part of a project identified within the LWP or RWP Project
Atlas? 1 point
3
For projects Located within or outside LWP (but still in a designated TLW): Does the project's
conceptual design include one or more structural BMPs (other than livestock exclusion fencing
and alternate watering) within or immediately upstream of the project easement such that
nutrient and/or sediment inputs or hydraulic stresses from outside the project easement are
more effectively addressed? [In rural subwatersheds, this would be agricultural BMPs; in
urban/suburban watersheds, this would be stormwater BMPs.] The BMP locations and types
should be clearly identified on a map figure in the proposal. 1 point.
1
4
Project each (es) are on or confluent to (directly discharge to) an impaired stream or
waterbody. Impaired waters include those that are 303d listed (Category 5) or Category 4
waters, per the most recent Integrated Report (provided online by NC DWR). 1 point
5
Proposed project is on or drains to WS -classified reach(es) within a Water Supply
watershed, as designated by NC DWR. 1 point
7
Ability to connect adjacent (having a common boundary with) natural habitats and extend
wildlife corridors. 1 point
8
Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (have a common boundary with)
another protected property.
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with a conservation
easement that is not used for mitigation. 1 point
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with another mitigation
property (DMS project or approved Mitigation Bank site) with a permanent easement.
2 points
9
For stream or buffer mitigation projects on first order streams (headwater drainages), do
project easements extend upstream toward drainage divides on all tributaries/reaches such
that flow (whether perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) in >90% of all upstream channels is
captured within the project easement(s)? [To receive points, Provider must include
appropriate maps and calculations to demonstrate that this criterion is met.] 1 point.
TOTAL BONUS POINTS 1
Total Required Section Points (Maximum Possible = 210 Points) =
107.2
+ Bonus Points (Maximum Possible = 7 Points) =
1
Total Points =
108.2
Proposal Rating ( Score x 0.01) =
1.08
Comments:
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 44 of 44

EXHIBIT D
Prepared by and Return:
Water & Land Solutions
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHA,F CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this 19 121 day of September of
2017,by and between Annie Laura G. Johnson Revocable Trust,
Annie Laura G. Johnson, Trustee ("Grantor") and WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS, LLC, allorth Carolinalimited liability company located at 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite
119, Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 ("WLS").
WHEREAS, Grantor and WLS have enteredintointo a'cg rtain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option") dated SFPlV.K`I' , 2017, pursuant to which Grantor
granted to WLS, its successors and assigns, an option to purchase aconservation easement (the "Easement')
over certain real property located in Johnston County, North Carolina, which property is more particularly
described on the attached Exhibit A he "Property") and
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions ofthe Option and to provide constructive notice ofthe Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
1. The term of the Option commenced on 56,012rFA! I/IV 14 , 2017, and
shall expire on 5'9',0rQJA5M 14 , 2019.
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRANTOR: , `P_,
Ry: Sri
Print me: l�riP1�P [-Qt,w-A G-._ld�yt150f1
Title: iii r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTYOF .VohIS�a'1
1, CA-khadra 2 _ a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that Annie Laura G. Johnson Revocable Trust, Annie Laura G. Johnson, Trustee appeared before me this
day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed the foregoing instrument. 1 have received
satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of \ A ejFuS LilutSe-
This the
O -VARY _c
its E""RES
ti
Putt _,4t
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
day of September, 2017.
Official Signature of Notary Public
COW&L MAAYLQ,/ , Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: 2 2A2— [
11

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
North Car�jt a Limi[ed Liability Company
Ey: C/— (7
Print Name: Jct V /♦.(:.:.rid v 6
Title: C O
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTYOF V0GV—R—
I,CCK\Nje9kP&— P)Qf\fla,! , the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certify that Adam V. McIntyre appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he/she is
Chief Executive Officer/Principal of Water & Land Solutions, LLC a North Carolina limited liability
company, and that he/she acknowledged to me that he/she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for
the purposes therein expressed and in the representative capacity so stated. I have received satisfactory
evidence of the principal's identity in the form of D r W P Y� I C ! n,✓. W
This the
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
'~ day of September, 2017.
A44i6,A. iYluxn✓ur-
Official Signature of Notary Public
(tq H n4. MO IOV ,Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: W
12

EXHIBIT A
[INSERT DESCRIPTION OFPROPERTY]
13

Legend
Parcel Bounds
Annie Laura G Johnson
Revocable Trust
PIN: 179100-39-9602
Parcel Acreage: 47.36 AC
.................:.r, I.
This map and all data contained within are supNied as is wild no
asininity Water 6 Land Solutions. LLC expressly disdaims
menomm ity for damages or Natiddyhom any chime that may arse
out of Me use or misuse of this map It is the sole responsibiuyV
the user to determine if the dam on this map maefa the users
needs. This map was not creased as survey data, nor should it be
used as such. Itis the user's reaponsibiby to obtain proper survey
dataprepared by a licensed surveyor, where rammed by law.
Annie Laura G Johnson
Revocable Trust
PIN: 179100-69-0695
Parcel Acreage: 24.76 AC
A Buffalo Creon Project es WATER &LAND
o aoo egg Mitigation Project
r.M Johnston County, NC SOLUTIONS
ExhibitA 4

EXHIBIT D
Prepared by and Return
Water & Land Solutions
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this 14 'F� day of September of
2017,by and between Annie Laura G. Johnson Revocable Trust,
Annie Laura G. Johnson, Trustee ("Grantor") and WATER&LAND
SOLUTIONS, LLC, allorth Carolina limited liability company located at 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite
119, Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 ("WLS").
WHEREAS, Grantor and WLS have entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option")dated 59PGKrliq45P= 14 .2017, pursuant to which Grantor
granted to WLS, its successors and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the "Easement')
over certain real property located in Johnston County, North Carolina, which property is more particularly
described on the attached Exhibit A ([he "Property") and
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions ofthe Option and to provide constructive notice ofthe Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
1. The term of the Option commenced on 1 , 2017,
and shall expire on L4 2019.
All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns.
tSIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
i
By e7. POLO,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF �flr+rfA1`
1, l QA< e,,�, NQ , 'M0(1RYV^r , a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that Annie Laura G. Johnson Revocable Trust, Annie Laura G. Johnson, Trustee appeared before me this
day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed the foregoing instrument. I have received
satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of 1i64 "dLir y1g+—
This
OOTAgy .S
w
Oommaa NExF";ES
r� JDUBIt� jr,
[AFFIXNOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
kh day of September, 2017.
Irk
Official Signature of Notary Public
C0'Vn42 rna. in"VIgA1' . Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: 2a (202.1
11

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
North Carola L* ked Liability Company
By: :/
Print Name: Q r(6n ✓
Title: e, G O
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
1, CL%Aytp do f,(\O,wnm./ , the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certify that Adam V. McIntyre appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he/she is
Chief Executive Officer/Principal of Water & Land Solutions, LLC allorth Carolina limited liability
company, and that he/she acknowledged to me that he/she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for
the purposes therein expressed and in the representative capacity so stated. 1 have received satisfactory
evidence of the principal's identity in the form of h✓' a pd4 Lt c p vx.2,
This the
> NOTARr
NY
COMMMION EMMNEs
2 'I
"UBLIG ,O
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
day of September, 2017.
Official Signature of Notary Public
03k gn✓ At_lMA,3N 9k Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: I Z�
12

EXHIBIT A
[INSERT DESCRIPTION OFPROPERTY]
13

Legend
t.—,.. Parcel Boundary
Annie Laura G Johnson
„•1
Revocable Trust
•i'
PIN: 179100-39-9802
.e i
Parcel Acreage: 47.36 AC
i
i
fes,
�• i
i...............
If
i
r i •�.
i
I !
1
i
I
1
1
j
!
1
� 1
1
j
i
i !
i
j•.,
.....................................
�•
I
I
I
1
1
I
.................... r
Annie Laura G Johnson
mit map and all data contained witGn are awpltad as �a with no
Revocable Trust
restrent, Water 8 land Slainons, LLC eViessly dbdaims
PIN: 179100-59-0695
ponvhlbtymrdamayes oroabnitynom anydamstnatmayanse
out olthe use or misuse o/ fhia map II is the mle 2spon"Iyily or
Parcel Acreage: 24.76 AC
the user to determine it the data on this map meefs the users
needs. This map wea not [reeled as ney data, nor abouM it be
usadas suet. Itis tha users responvbiha Io brain proper survey
data. prepared by a hbenad surveyor, where requiml by law.
Tributaries
Buffalo Creon
WATER &LAND
o aoo eco
tae.
A
Pject
Mitigation Project
Johnston County, NC
SOLUTIONS
4
ExhibitA

EXHIBIT D
Prepared by and Return:
Water & Land Solutions
11030 Raven Ridee Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCSE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this 19 day of September of 2017, b y
and between John W. Markham, III, Trustee of Markham Living Trust, and spouse Cynthia B.
Markham; and Sandra Markham Tedder, Executrix of Bettie 1. Markham Estate (Beneficiaries: Sandra
Markham Tedder; Terri Markham Hunt, and spouse Arnold Joseph Hunt; Charles Michael Briggs, and
spouse Nancy Sue Briggs; and Michael Markham), (all the "Grantor"), ( a I I t h e " G r a n t o r")
and WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, allorth Carolina limited liability company located at 11030
Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 ("WLS").
WHEREAS, Grantor and WLS ha entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option") dated 5 VIA141 b f � , 2017, pursuant to which Grantor granted
to WLS, its successors and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the "Easement") over
certain real property located in Johnston County, North Carolina, which property is more particularly
described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property") and
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions ofthe Option and to provide constructive notice ofthe Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows
I . The term of the Option commenced on 515? (6a 0 .2017, and shall expire on
5j:544fl;'M0,G !.9, 2018.
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
15

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GNT
By. 4 �%
Print ' me: TOG, v, `vn• rJr11s �
Title: olf 5eee
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF QI.li� F-!.
I, 19-c—NC- Kq Ci -E a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that John W. Markham, 111, Trustee of Markham Living Trust appeared before me this day and
acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed the fore oing instrument. I ave received satisfactory
evidence of the principal's identity in the form of oZay �-� 3
This the I lblr3 day of September, 2017.
```ss�N . tK Y R p����
'VARy'
lixp
7��cPUB\-
,;//OIRDGOJ`\`\�.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
Official Signature of Notary Public
119- =N6 112E , Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires:
16

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRA
Print Name: C4 n7 h u, ar k ha rn
Title: w, Vit o / r u 5i ¢ e.,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF (!�Z A4
I, 19%P**3 E K -q D2E a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that Cynthia B. Markham appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed
the oregmng instrument. I have received satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of
a-2-41ZA1
This the L D n day of September, 2017.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
J;emd�
Official Signature of Notary Public
[ReIv Lc%t�E . Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: DL{—O14^'&L0a1
17

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
By:
Title:
STATE OF N0RTk1 CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
1, ✓ 1 /0, do, / a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that Sandra Markham Tedder, Executrix of Bettie L Markham Estate and beneficiary of Bettie 1.
Markham Estate, appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed the
fore Ding instrument. I have received satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of
fg i6
This the % (1 -
[AFFIX Nl$AYi. AL,STAW-§F.AL[
day of September, 2017.
Official Signature: of Notary Public
Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires:
is

JN WITNUS;%%IIEREOF, lb- lurlics hacduly exerulcd this ltcrur nd;tmas fifth_ dale first
abot'c wrii(en.
CR,15'I'Uit:
PimtName: rf ✓i M_10-
STAA:OF \ORTFf C.001 -INA
COUNTYOr t�V. 41ph
1, r *- •`U_ �— �1. , Ir. r,...+} _ a N(mary Public oft he. Coun:} and Sta;c a:brc vi�f, i.eriiry
that Terri MarMIM I Itnt- aPPOIL t before me this d:ry and xckno� th_m 1:. Thr voluntarily executed
Ifke furcrn4ttu[' IfUWRIenI. 11114e reiCit'Cd N[tltifaCln71' C4'IfiCllrl•9f [�'.�: prilkiFxa-c fide ;tit}in the forin of
This the i�-r day of Scptcmbcr. 201 T
OfiZcial Signature of \4u t, -v Public
Notary Public's \ame Pmint«J c+r'[ypeA
htv Commission I:.vpires'tT`. ,Zh �n5. �c'z G
JAMIX NOTARIAL Sl'at1P-NF. ►L]
tltt lIf( ler
CA A
` NC'7ARy m=
�v P(Jsl rc
'7 ti
,fsOv7
19

IN ►Y11 \'ES.S WHEREOF, the parties have duly execuced this Mt rf randunans ofth: date first
above s+rittcn-
Tille:
STATE OF NQR� CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
.. � a Notary Public of the Counq and State afoies�,id, certify
chat Arnold Joseph Hunt, apps; rcd b [ore me this d;w and acknowledged ih he she voluntarily executed
the faregoine imtrumcm, I tune received satisfactory evidence Of the primipal's klentily in the form of
This the _ day of Septcmhsr, ?0I i.
OialS�t 'iGnatt:reUfNotzn public
7 l06 , 1ptan Public
Nalwy Pubhc's Narna Printed Or T%lvd
Rly COmnnission F:spires: r t'�ccl�l ��".7� .7�-�- v
[AFFIXLNOTARIAL, 3I'AMP-S \L)
tA ,�1��'yN
NOTARY _
PUBLIC
tel- 2c'`
20

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
B RAN —W I
Print Name: (2[}A I-4cs M i al'A£l —31�1 GG5
Title:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF Gtl- Irb"
I, T o4&4L A eAl 1 ""�1eO-S a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that Charles Michael Briggs, appea ed before me this day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily
executed the foregoing instrument. I have received satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the
form of D9l"4-T
This the ($+�_ day of September, 2017,
ffficil ignature of Notary Public
z1C81�", Q� e fL s , Notary Public
Notary Public's Name rinted or Typed
My Commission Expires: 7 28 ;-O �
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
vvVplN �IM�I'//i
Ca
NOTARY =
Gi'� PUBLIC 2v
21

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRAN. By
Print
Title:
STATE OF NORTH CA OLINA
COUNTY OF (=,1LI
I, cJ 615kkc� 4 ezA A W11-5 a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that Nancy Sue Briggs, appeared before hie this day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed
the fore oing instrument. I have received satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of
n isp_oS (.1CP1, ,+-
This the 6 day of September, 2017.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
\`�\\U11 I//ii i
NpTAR y
7F-4pG PUBLIC
O�ffi2'Signature of Notary Pulic
klea-S ,Notary Public
Notary Public's Name kinted or Typed
My Commission Expires:
22
22

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRANT
Print Name: Nw�
Title: Oct A k*IL.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I, � 1 �� j L rYl a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that Michael Ma am, appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed
the foregoing instru ent. I have received satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of
�r:T901= P Q A c A!
This the _ ( 2$A day of September, 2017.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
4&6L -
Official Sitgature of Notary Public
23

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
North Carolina Limited Liability Company
By: �i��`y <L
Print Name: 4 da t V ti! G i {�
Title: C U
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF 03Qkg,
I, C UNY14 1, r�L MAIN6g , the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid,
certify that Adam V. McIntyre appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he/she is Chief
Executive Officer/Principal of Water & Land Solutions, LLC a North Carolina limited liability company,
and that he/she acknowledged to me that he/she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purposes
therein expressed and in the representative capacity so stated. 1 have received satisfactory evidence of the
principal's identity in the form of h , \� LJ4, U r PA SA
This the I .-r day of September, 2017.
NOTARY I
MV
(,OMMISSI EXPIRES
2 10'
sL PUBUG ,c
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
Official Signature of Notary Public
r (C\N'gL SNL Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: IN 2
24

EXHIBIT A
[INSERT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY]
25

Legend
Parcel Boundary
Bettie I Markham &
Markham Living Trust
PIN: 179100-48-5465
�.�'•� Parcel Acreage: 58.3 AC
._ _.._.._.._ ._.._.._.._.._.._ .....................
,i
•� i
`..._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.....................................
i
This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no
warranty Water & Land Solutions, LLC expressly disclaims
responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise
out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility or
the user to determine i1 the data on this map meets the user's
needs. This map was not created as survey date, nor should it be
used as such. It is the user's responsibility to obtain proper survey
data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law.
N Buffalo Creek Tributaries WATER & LAND
A 0 350 700 Mitigation Project
Feet Johnston County, NC SOLUTIONS
Exhibit A

Hydric Soils Investigation
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Neuse River Basin (CU 03020201)
Johnston County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] 1 waterlandsolutions.com
Prepared by:
J
BROWN'S
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC.
SELMA, NC
242 Batten Farm Road
Selma, North Carolina 27526
[phone]

Introduction
Water and Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is investigating the feasibility of stream and wetland mitigation for
the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project, in Johnston County, North Carolina in the Upper Neuse
River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201). WLS has contracted Brown's Environmental Group's Inc. (BEG)
to perform a hydric soils investigation at the project site. The objective of the hydric soils investigation
was to identify the soils at the project site and to and determine soil areas suitable for wetland mitigation.
The described field investigation was performed on September 6, 2017 by Wyatt Brown, LSS.
The project site is part of the Neuse River Basin in northern Johnston County near the community of
Archer Lodge. The project study area is located in natural stream valleys situated with active agricultural
and forested areas. The stream systems are mostly incised, being greatly impacted by historic agricultural
and silvicultural practices.
Background
The project area has been mapped as moistly upland soils with hydric soils located along the stream
channels. This is common is the lower Piedmont of North Carolina. The publication Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States, A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, (Version 8.0, 2016)
defines a hydric soil as a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA Soil Conservation
Service, 1994). Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repeated periods of
saturation or inundation for more than a few days. Saturation or inundation, when combined with
microbial activity in the soil, causes the depletion of oxygen. This anaerobiosis promotes certain
biogeochemical processes, such as the accumulation of organic matter and the reduction, translocation,
or accumulation of iron and other reducible elements. These processes result in distinctive characteristics
that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods, making them particularly useful for identifying
hydric soils in the field (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010). This definition is for hydric
soils in their natural state receiving adequate hydrology.
Methodology
BEG performed 25 hand auger borings using visual and tactile methods to describe the soil along the
stream corridors that make up the project study area. Soil profile descriptions were recorded at the boring
locations and the borings were located by GPS. For each boring, BEG confirmed the existing soil mapping
and recorded the depth of the seasonal high-water table (SHWT). The depth of the SHWT or soil wetness
condition is stated by Rule .1942 (NCAC.2004) as the first occurrence of redox depletions observed in the
field as having a low chroma color (< or equal to 2) in Munsell Color Book at (> or equal to 2%) of soil
volume.
Discussion and Conclusions
The soil borings found hydric soils that were visually saturated, being found in apparent wetlands, as well
as hydric soils along the incised stream reaches that appeared to lack recent hydrology indicators.
According to the mitigation strategy proposed for the project, the headwater stream systems will be
restored, using Priority Level I Stream Restoration, to raise the proposed streambed back up to its historic
location to re -gain floodplain access. For the areas of hydric soils along these incised stream reaches that
appear to lack hydrology, it is BEG's opinion that the described restoration of hydrology to starved hydric
soils will support hydric soil restoration and development of hydric soil criteria.

rqA6 JIT7
�- STrrr 1'2e1-red-6 f-f
o yR ?/a SL
s1t s o�N, ccs 1
-2v` yk s// Sc4-&,
v2 7lz
yX _ 312 S,4 AJ D
4Zy-q" 1ovr, `VII SAtin e',.e,t
/o SAN D
f• /Fai✓t IUYQ 5/� MoHi>C /%a
//��/ ,I
s/z S-AdD 69,tX � �I
Jo ;o /U yt `//L jC Eck • J I3/<
� w� io y2 �1G m�li�c l
Ifnu��:.v

RFP Number: RFP 16-007279 Vendor:
Nothing Compares-,-,.
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Request for Proposal #: 16-007279
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Credits Within Cataloging Unit 03020201 Of The
Neuse River Basin As Described In The Scope Of Work
Date of Issue: June 21, 2017
Proposal Opening Date: September 21, 2017
At 2:OOPM ET
Direct all inquiries concerning this RFP to:
Kathy Dale
DMS Purchasing Agent
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 1 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
``Nothing Compares.
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Request for Proposal #
16-007279
For internal State agency processing, including tabulation of proposals in the Interactive Purchasing System
(IPS), please provide your company's Federal Employer Identification Number or alternate identification number
(e.g. Social Security Number). Pursuant to G.S. 132-1.10(b) this identification number shall not be released to
the public. This page will be removed and shredded, or otherwise kept confidential, before the procurement file
is made available for public inspection.
This page is to be filled out and returned with your proposal.
Failure to do so may subject your proposal to rejection.
ID Number:
Federal ID Number or Social Security Number
Vendor Name
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 2 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Refer ALLInquiries regarding this RFP
Request for Proposal # 16-007279
to:
Proposals will be publicly opened: September 21, 2017 @ 2:00 pm
Kathy Dale
PRINT NAME & TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OFVENDOR:
Contract Type: Open Market
Email: kathy. daleCcbncdenr.gov
Commodity No. and Description: 962-73 Restoration /
Reclamation Services of Land and other Properties
Using Agency: Division of Mitigation Services
Phone: [phone]
Requisition No.: N/A
EXECUTION
In compliance with this Request for Proposals, and subject to all the conditions herein, the undersigned Vendor offers and agrees to
furnish and deliver any or all items upon which prices are bid, at the prices set opposite each item within the time specified herein. By
executing this proposal, the undersigned Vendor certifies that this proposal is submitted competitively and without collusion (G.S. 143-
54), that none of its officers, directors, or owners of an unincorporated business entity has been convicted of any violations of Chapter
78A of the General Statutes, the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (G.S. 143-59.2), and that it is not an
ineligible Vendor as set forth in G.S. 143-59.1. False certification is a Class I felony. Furthermore, by executing this proposal, the
undersigned certifies to the best of Vendor's knowledge and belief, that it and its principals are not presently debarred, suspended,
proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal or State department or
agency. As required by G.S. 143-48.5, the undersigned Vendor certifies that it, and each of its sub -Contractors for any Contract awarded
as a result of this RFP, complies with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the NC General Statutes, including the requirement
for each employer with more than 25 employees in North Carolina to verify the work authorization of its employees through the federal E -
Verify system. G.S. 133-32 and Executive Order 24 (2009) prohibit the offer to, or acceptance by, any State Employee associated with
the preparing plans, specifications, estimates for public Contract; or awarding or administering public Contracts; or inspecting or
supervising delivery of the public Contract of any gift from anyone with a Contract with the State, or from any person seeking to do
business with the State. By execution of this response to the RFP, the undersigned certifies, for your entire organization and its employees
or agents, that you are not aware that any such gift has been offered, accepted, or promised by any employees of your organization.
Failure to execute/sign proposal prior to submittal shall render proposal invalid and it WILL BE REJECTED. Late
proposals cannot be accepted.
VENDOR:
STREET ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX:
ZIP:
CITY & STATE & ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
TOLL FREE TEL. NO:
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE (SEE INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS ITEM #10):
PRINT NAME & TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OFVENDOR:
FAX NUMBER:
VENDOR'S AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:
DATE:
EMAIL:
Offer valid for at least 180 days from date of proposal opening. After this time, any withdrawal of offer shall be made in writing, effective
upon receipt by the agency issuing this RFP.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
If any or all parts of this proposal are accepted by the State of North Carolina, an authorized representative of the Department of
Environmental Quality shall affix his/her signature hereto and this document and all provisions of this Request for Proposal along with
the Vendor proposal response and the written results of any negotiations shall then constitute the written agreement between the
parties. A copy of this acceptance will be forwarded to the successful Vendor(s).
FOR STATE USE ONLY: Offer accepted and Contract awarded this day of , 20 , as indicated on the
attached certification, by . (Authorized Representative of DEQ).
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 3 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS.....................................................................................................
18
Table of Contents
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT.............................................................................
1.0
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND...............................................................................................
5
2.0
VENDOR INFORMATION..........................................................................................................5
PRICING.................................................................................................................................
2.1
MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE.....................................................................5
ACCEPTANCE OF WORK........................................................................................................18
2.2
PROPOSAL QUESTIONS.........................................................................................................6
DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS.............................................................................
2.3
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL..........................................................................................................6
INVOICES...............................................................................................................................
2.4
PROPOSAL CONTENTS..........................................................................................................
8
2.5
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS..............................................................
10
2.6
REQUIRED TEMPLATES FOR THIS RFP..............................................................................
10
2.7
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................
10
3.0
SCOPE OF WORK..................................................................................................................
14
3.1
OBJECTIVES..........................................................................................................................
14
3.2
TASKS....................................................................................................................................
15
3.3
PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONES ...........................................
18
4.0
ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS.....................................................................................................
18
4.1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT.............................................................................
18
4.2
CONTRACT TERM.................................................................................................................
18
4.3
PRICING.................................................................................................................................
18
4.4
ACCEPTANCE OF WORK........................................................................................................18
4.5
DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS.............................................................................
19
4.6
INVOICES...............................................................................................................................
19
4.7
PAYMENT TERMS.................................................................................................................
19
4.8
PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES...............................................................
19
4.9
NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS ...............................
19
4.10
INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES....................................................................
20
5.0
PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHOD OF AWARD ......................................
20
5.1
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION..........
20
5.2
PROPOSAL OPENING PROCESS.............................................................................20
5.3
EVALUATION PROCESS.......................................................................................................
21
5.4
EVALUATION CRITERIA........................................................................................................
21
5.5
METHOD OF AWARD.............................................................................................................
22
6.0
REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................................
22
6.1
FINANCIAL STABILITY...........................................................................................22
6.2
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.......................................................................................................
22
6.3
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................23
6.4
ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS..............................................................................
23
6.5
BACKGROUND CHECKS.......................................................................................................23
6.6
SUBSTITUTION OF PERSONNEL..........................................................................................
23
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 4 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
6.7 VENDOR REPRESENTATIONS..............................................................................................23
7.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.............................................................................................24
7.1 PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE...............................................................24
7.2 REPORTS.............................................................................................................24
7.3 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.........................................................................................................24
7.4 CONTRACT CHANGES..........................................................................................24
7.5 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR..............................................................................................24
ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS..........................................................................25
ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........... 28
ATTACHMENT C: PRICING..............................................................................................................32
ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR............................................33
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION....................................................34
ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION......................................................35
ATTACHMENT G: CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY- IRAN DIVESTMENTACT ..........................36
ATTACHMENT H: TARGET LOCAL WATERSHED MAPS........................................................37
ATTACHMENT I: TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET................................................39
1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The mission of NCDMS is to provide cost-effective mitigation alternatives that improve the state's water resources.
This RFP is soliciting Proposals from qualified Vendors for needed mitigation as described herein for the NCDMS to
successfully meet permit conditions mandated by the regulatory agencies.
Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this RFP and any addenda issued hereto.
This RFP is not an offer for a Contract, nor does the Department's acceptance of any Technical /Cost Proposal guarantee
a Contract with the Department. The Department reserves the right to reject any or all proposals deemed not to be in the
best interest of the State of North Carolina.
2.0 VENDOR INFORMATION
2.1 MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
A MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE will be held to clarify all information contained within this Request for
Proposals (RFP) and to provide information relative to specific requirements. Vendor and/or his representative must attend
the scheduled Mandatory Pre -proposal Conference.
Attendance at this Pre -proposal Conference is a prerequisite for consideration of a bidder's offer. Vendor and/or his
representative must:
(1) arrive prior to the scheduled start time of the Pre -proposal Conference; Late arrivals will not be allowed to sign in or
participate in the meeting
(2) sign -in on the attendance sheet; and
(3) sign -out upon completion of the Pre -proposal Conference.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 5 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
Failure to comply with this requirement will cause offer to be rejected. The purpose of the pre -proposal conference
is for all prospective offerors to acquaint themselves with the conditions and requirements of the tasks to be performed.
Submission of an offer shall constitute sufficient evidence of this compliance and no allowance will be made for unreported
conditions that a prudent offeror would recognize as affecting the performance of the work called for in this solicitation.
Offeror is cautioned that any information released to offeror other than during the pre -proposal conference which conflicts
with, supersedes, or adds to requirements in this solicitation, must be confirmed by written addendum before it can be
considered to be a part of this solicitation document. Vendor bidding otherwise does so at his own risk.
Each offeror is permitted to send no more than (2) people to the conference. Only one (1) representative per offeror
is allowed to sign both the sign -in and sign -out sheet (the representative that signed in must also sign out).
Only one (1) pre -determined, pre -proposal conference will be held; individual pre -proposal conferences are not
allowed.
Pre -proposal Conference Location 1 Date 1 Time Details:
Location: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street, Suite 1210
Raleigh, NC 27603
Date: July 14, 2017
Start Time: 2:00 PM
2.2 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS
Upon review of the RFP documents, Vendors may have questions to clarify or interpret the RFP in order to submit the best
proposal possible. To accommodate the Proposal Questions process, Vendors shall submit all such questions by 5:00 PM
on Friday, July 21, 2017.
Written questions shall be e-mailed to kathv.dale aancdenr.aov by the date and time specified above. Vendors should
enter "RFP #16-007279: Questions" as the subject for the email.
Contact with anyone working for or with the State regarding this RFP other than the person named on the face
page of this RFP in the manner specified by this RFP shall constitute grounds for rejection of said Vendor's offer,
at the State's election.
2.3 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
Sealed proposals, subject to the conditions made a part hereof and the receipt requirements described below, shall be
received at the address indicated in the table below, for furnishing and delivering those items or services as described
herein.
IF DELIVERED BY "US POSTAL SERVICE"
Address as below:
RFP # 16-007279
NC DEQ -DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1652
IF DELIVERED BY ANY
(UPS/FEDEX/ETC.)
Address as below:
RFP # 16-007279
NC DEQ -DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
217 WEST JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-J
RALEIGH NC 27603
IMPORTANT NOTE: All proposals shall be physically delivered to the office address listed above on or before the proposal
deadline in order to be considered timely, regardless of the method of delivery. This is an absolute requirement. All risk
of late arrival due to unanticipated delay—whether delivered by hand, U.S. Postal Service, courier or other delivery service
is entirely on the Vendor. It is the sole responsibility of the Vendor to have therho op sal physically in this Office by
the specified time and date of openina. The time of delivery will be marked on each proposal when received, and any
proposal received after the proposal submission deadline will be rejected. Sealed proposals, subject to the conditions made
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 6 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
a part hereof, will be received at the address indicated in the table in this Section, for furnishing and delivering the commodity
as described herein.
Note that the U.S. Postal Service generally does not deliver mail to specified street address but to the State's
Mail Service Center. Vendors are cautioned that proposals sent via U.S. Mail, including Express Mail, may not
be delivered by the Mail Service Center to the agency's purchasing office on the due date in time to meet the
proposal deadline. All Vendors are urged to take the possibility of delay into account when submitting a
proposal. Attempts to submit a proposal via facsimile (FAX) machine, telephone or electronic means,
including but not limited to email, in response to this RFP shall NOT be accepted.
Vendors must follow the steps below when submitting their bid:
a) Submit two (2) signed, original executed Technical Proposal responses and five (5) photocopies (All 7 Must Be
Placed in separate 3 Ring Binders or Notebooks and Include Section Tabs). Original responses must be labeled.
b) Submit two (2) redacted electronic (Proprietary and Confidential Information Excluded) copies of the executed Technical
Proposal on USB flash drives to the address identified in the table above. The electronic files shall NOT be password
protected, shall be in .PDF or .XLS format, and shall be capable of being copied to other media including readable in
Microsoft Word and/or Microsoft Excel
Technical Proposal must list any proprietary information identified as confidential and proprietary in accordance with
Attachment A, Paragraph 11 of the Instructions to Vendors. The Division of Mitigation Services, in responding to
public records requests, will release the information on this disc. It is the sole responsibility of the Vendor to ensure that
this drive complies with the requirements of A, Paragraph 11 of the Instructions to Vendors.
c) Submit one (1) read-only USB flash drive containing the ArcGIS format of the boundaries of the proposed project.
The flash drive should be clearly marked as "ArcGIS". The boundary can be the proposed easement(s), or general
project area. NCDMS expects that the submitted file will match closely the project area(s) shown in the project
proposal location map. The file must be in ArcGIS format and must be projected in the State Plane Coordinate
System (NAD 83) using a base unit of meters or fee. It is preferred that the *.prj file holding the coordinate system
information be included in the file. The table for the ArcGIS file must contain the following:
•
Site—Name- (List as named in proposal report)
• Company- (Vendor)
•
Project—Type- (Stream, Wetland, Buffer or Combination)
•
Coordinate—System- (SP Meters or SP Feet)
Ownership of the flash drives and the contents become the property of NCDEQ-DMS
d) Submit your technical proposal in a sealed package. Clearly mark each package with: (1) Sealed Technical Proposal
(2) the RFP number, (3) the Due Date and Time, (4) Vendor Name and Address, (5) the River Basin and Cataloging
Unit for which the proposal response is being submitted, and (6) the Site Name and Type of Mitigation being proposed.
Address the package(s) for delivery as shown in the table above. If Vendor is submitting more than one (1) proposal,
each proposal shall be submitted in separate sealed envelopes and marked accordingly. For delivery purposes,
separate sealed envelopes from a single Vendor may be included in the same outer package. Proposals are subjectto
rejection unless submitted with the information above included on the outside of the sealed proposal package.
3) Submit two (2) signed, original executed cost proposal responses and two (2) photocopies (All 4 must be placed
in one separately sealed envelope). All cost proposal response packages must be clearly marked with (1) Sealed
Cost Proposal (2) the RFP number, (3) the Due Date and Time, (4) Vendor Name and Address, (5) the River
Basin and Cataloging Unit for which the proposal response is being submitted, and (6) the Site Name and Type of
Mitigation being proposed. If Vendor is submitting more than one (1) cost proposal option, each response
shall be submitted in a separately sealed envelope and marked accordingly. For delivery purposes, separately
sealed envelopes from a single Vendor may be included in the same outer package.
NOTE: All technical and cost proposals must constitute a firm, irrevocable offer for a period of at least six
(6) months beyond the specified "Opening Date" for this RFP.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 7 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
2.4 PROPOSAL CONTENTS
Vendors shall complete all the attachments in this RFP that require the Vendor to provide information and include an
authorized signature where requested. Vendor RFP responses shall include the following items and those
attachments should be arranged in the following order and separated by tabs:
a) COVER LETTER
b) TITLE PAGE: Include the company name, address, phone number and authorized representative along with the
Proposal Number.
c) EXECUTION PAGES and any ADDENDA released in conjunction with this RFP that requires the Addenda to be
returned. These must be completed and signed. Failure to comply will result in your bid being disqualified.
d) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The executive summary shall consist of highlights of the general contents of the
proposal, and shall clearly state the anticipated mitigation type and amount of credits proposed. If the Vendor is
proposing multiple mitigation options, each option must be specifically described in this section.
e) CORPORATE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE: This section shall include background information on the
firm submitting the proposal, the firm's ability to carry out all phases of the proposal, information concerning similar
mitigation projects completed in North Carolina and other states, the firm's office location(s) and the firm's
multidisciplinary approach to the project.
f) PROJECT ORGANIZATION: This section must include the proposed staffing, deployment, and organization of
personnel to be assigned to this project. The Vendor shall provide information as to the qualifications and
experience of all executive, managerial, legal, and professional personnel to be assigned to this project, including
resumes citing experience with similar projects and the responsibilities to be assigned to each person including
sub -vendors and DBE/HUB participation.
g) TECHNICAL APPROACH: This section shall include and be completed in the following sequence:
Project Goals and Objectives- Specifically describe how the proposed project will address the watershed
goals identified in the River Basin Restoration Plan (RBRP) and/or Local Watershed Plan (LWP) applicable to
the project area, and the objectives that will be used to accomplish those goals. RBRPs and LWPs can be
found at: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-documents
searchable by river basin. Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, the proposed ecological benefits and
functional uplift the project could provide may be determined at the discretion of the Vendor. If a proposed site
addresses more than one of the watershed goals, it will be taken into consideration in the site rating.
Project Description- Provide a detailed description of the project including, but not limited to a description of
the site in its existing condition; watershed (including County and 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit) and its condition;
soils and geology; anticipated cultural resources, protected species issues, and known site constraints (i.e.
other easements, crossings, site access, etc.). Note: due to concerns regarding waterfowl attraction near air
transport facilities, the project description must include a site location map that identifies any air transport facility
located within 5 miles of the project site. The presence of an air transport facility will not exclude the proposal from
consideration.
■ The proposal shall include a map(s) preferably with topographic background that includes mapping of
channel stability features (i.e. Incision, bank instability, the occurrence of bedrock) and any relevant
features which have implications for describing impairments (e.g. ditching) and/or support the proposed
level of intervention. The map should also include a table which provides a reach description.
• Project Development — Describe in detail how the proposed changes will be made. Identify individual project
reaches and the specific method in which the mitigation will be completed. Describe in detail reasons for the
anticipated activities and why these activities are warranted to the level proposed. Clearly state the anticipated
ecological uplift for each activity for each reach. Submittals for restoration of both intermittent and perennial
streams must provide sufficient documentation and discussion of the net gain in function resulting from the
proposed level of restoration as compared to other levels of restoration. Modification of pattern, dimension
and profile should not be assumed to be the appropriate level of restoration for all degraded streams. The project
development description must include:
■ Where restoration is appropriate, Priority I restoration is strongly encouraged. It is understood that Priority
II restoration will sometimes be necessary for tie-ins and transitions, but if it is proposed as the overall
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 8 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
design approach for a given reach then at a minimum it must meet the criteria described in the technical
score sheet for this RFP.
■ A general description for all stream crossings, fords, roads etc. The description must include the location,
width, and type of crossing (ford, culvert, bridge etc.). Crossings that utilize bridges and/or culverts with
fencing that permanently prevent livestock access both upstream and downstream of the crossing (so
that livestock exclusion is not dependent on the use of gates) provide better protection of the riparian
area, and will therefore be awarded more points on the Technical Proposal Evaluation Form.
Proposed Mitigation - Provide a description of the mitigation credits proposed. Include an explanation of how
the proposed credits were derived and a table of anticipated mitigation types and credits. The table should
include a total for each type of mitigation (i.e. restoration, enhancement, preservation, etc.) being offered. If
multiple options are proposed, a table for each option should be provided.
Current Ownership and Long Term Protection - Identify the ownership of all parcels which will be affected
by the project. Include the landowners name and parcel number and the proposed method for providing long
term protection of the mitigation site. Based on the Federal Code of Regulations (Federal Register/Vol. 73, No.
70/Thursday, April 10, 2008/ Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7 Management, the long-term protection
may be provided through real estate instruments such as conservation easements held by entities such as
federal, tribal, state or local resource agencies, non-profit conservation organizations, or private land managers;
the transfer of title to such entities; or by restrictive covenants.
■ In this section of the technical proposal it should be clearly stated that conveyance of a conservation
easement to the State is the method that will be used to provide long term protection of the mitigation
site.
■ A signed option agreement valid for a period of at least six (6) months from the closing date of this RFP
or other suitable documentation of real property must be provided for each parcel.
Project Phasing — Provide a complete schedule for completing the tasks for the project as identified in this
RFP. Describe methods for completing these tasks. The proposed schedule must be based on completion of
the project within the ten (10) year contract period. The proposed schedule should be based on the number of
months (from contract issuance) needed to complete each of the tasks listed in the scope of work.
• Success Criteria — Identify specific performance standards that are anticipated to be utilized to measure
success of the project. The success criteria must be directly related to the anticipated ecological uplift identified
in paragraph Project Development above.
Quality Control — This section shall describe the Vendor's quality control program and other procedures
that will be used to ensure: 1) each deliverable (i.e. mitigation plan, baseline monitoring document,
monitoring report, etc.) is submitted in accordance with the schedule established in the technical proposal,
it follows the format(s) established by NCDMS, it contains all required information, and is
grammatically/typographically correct; and 2) sufficient oversight is provided during the construction
phase so that the project is completed on schedule and is in compliance with any required federal, state
or local permit(s).
Maps diagrams, and/or photographs may be used to supplement the text and may be printed on one side.
However, the Technical Proposal shall not exceed a total of 50 pages printed front to back (100 -nage
limit) and shall be submitted within a three ring binderwith section tabs. Photographs, maps and diagrams
will count toward the 100 pages. If a technical proposal does not meet all the Department's requirements,
it will be rejected and the corresponding sealed cost proposal will not be opened.
h) ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS
i) ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
j) ATTACHMENT C: PRICING (Completed, Signed and Separately Sealed)
k) ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR (Completed and Signed)
1) ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Completed and Signed)
m) ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION (Completed)
n) ATTACHMENT G: IRAN DIVESTMENT ACT CERTIFICATION (Completed)
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 9 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
0) ATTACHMENT H: TARGETED LOCAL WATERSHEDS & WATERSHED MAP
p) ATTACHMENT I: TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET (Completed)
2.5 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS
a) The DMS recognizes that a Vendor(s) might not be able to find one site that provides the total amount of mitigation
requested for the cataloging unit listed above. Therefore, proposals may be submitted in any of the following
categories:
■ One or more sites providing all the requested mitigation credits; or
• One or more sites providing a portion of the requested mitigation credits.
b) Unless the Vendor states in both the cover letter and the Executive Summary of the technical proposal that multiple
mitigation options are being offered for a site, and specifically describes each option, the Department shall only
consider the full proposal amount and will not extend an offer to contract for less than the full amount indicated in
the proposal.
c) Proposals will NOT be accepted using the following types of sites:
1. Property purchased with Clean Water Management Trust Fund monies
2. Property that is enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Conservation Reserve
Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, or any other state or federal program that provides funds for any of
the tasks outlined in this RFP
3. Property that has been used for compensatory mitigation under Section 404 and/or 401 of the Clean
Water Act
4. Properties that are in the control of the State or currently in negotiation for compensatory mitigation
needs by any state agency
5. Properties that are controlled by any federal agency
6. Properties that have been timbered, filled, or manipulated (stream channel dredging or channel
re- alignment) in violation of federal or state rules or statutes.
d) Please note that the State of North Carolina will NOT accept fee simple title to any property for this RFP. As
stated in Section 3.3, Task 2 of this RFP, long term protection of the selected properties must be provided
by a conservation easement held by the State of North Carolina as defined in the Federal Code of Regulations
(Federal register/Vol. 73, No. 70/Thursday, April 10, 2008/Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7
Management).
2.6 REQUIRED TEMPLATES FOR THIS RFP (Must use latest templates, found on DMS
website)
http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-vendors/rfp-forms-tem plates
2.7 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
Adjusted Credit Cost — The Credit Cost of a Site divided by the Proposal Rating; units are Dollars per Wetland
Mitigation Credits, Stream Mitigation credits, Buffer Mitigation credits, or Nutrient Offset Credits.
Agencies — The regulatory and advisory units of the state and federal government in North Carolina which are
involved in permitting and/or commenting on proposed activities in wetlands, streams, or riparian areas and in
approving and/or commenting on proposed compensatory wetland, stream, riparian buffer or nutrient offset mitigation.
As -Built Drawings — Scale drawings depicting the final configuration, dimensions, and locations of all pertinent
features of a Site after all implementation activities have been completed.
BAFO- Best and Final Offer, submitted by a Vendor to alter its initial offer, made in response to a request by
the issuing agency.
Baseline Monitoring Document — A written document, supplemented with graphics (including as -built
drawings), that describes in detail the implemented mitigation site, the goals established for the project, how it
was implemented, how it will be monitored, the amount of mitigation credits the project will generate, and the
criteria by which its success will be determined.
Cataloging Unit ("CU") — A geographic area representing part or all of a River Basin and identified by an 8 -
digit number as depicted on the "Hydrologic Unit Map — 1974, State of North Carolina, published by the U.S.
Department of Interior, Geological Survey".
Categorical Exclusion — Categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 10 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
the human or natural environment and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is required.
Categorical Exclusion Action Form and Document — An abbreviated environmental document, prefaced
by an Action Form, that briefly describes the mitigation site, the plan for its implementation, and documents that
it will have minimal or no impact on the environment. The Categorical Exclusion must be approved by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Coastal Wetland — As defined in North Carolina General Statute 113-229(n)(3) and described in the
CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina — Section 2(A)(4) found at:
htta://dea.nc.aov/about/divisions/coastal-manaaement
Closeout Report — A component of the final year of the Monitoring Report that provides an assessment of the
monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period to demonstrate attainment of success criteria.
Conservation Easement — A restriction a landowner can voluntarily place on specified uses of their property to
protect its natural, productive, or cultural features. It is recorded as a written legal agreement between the
landowner and the "holder" of the easement. The State of North Carolina must receive from the landowner a
conservation easement as prepared and facilitated by the full delivery provider for all NC Division of Mitigation
Services full delivery projects.
Contract Lead- Representative of the Division of Mitigation Services who corresponds with potential Vendors to
identify and contract with that Vendor providing the greatest benefit to the State and who will administer this contract
for the State.
Credit — A unit of measure (e.g., a functional or a real measure or other suitable metric) representing the accrual
or attainment of aquatic functions at a compensatory mitigation site, as approved by the regulatory agencies.
The measure of aquatic functions is based on the resources restored (rehabilitated), established, enhanced or
preserved.
Credit Cost — Total bid cost divided by the number of offered credits for each type of mitigation.
Credit Release Schedule - The timeline established for the periodic release of mitigation credits based upon
the successful implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan, including construction and post -construction
monitoring.
Department — The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Division of Financial Services — Contracting arm of NCDEQ.
DOA/P&C — The North Carolina Department of Administration, Division of Purchase and Contract.
Financial Assurance — Financial security assuring the ability of the provider to deliver the contracted for
mitigation credits. Financial Assurance must be provided through Performance Bonds, Letters of Credit or
Casualty Insurance or another pre -approved method.
Hydrologic Unit ("HU") — A geographic area representing a portion of a Cataloging Unit as depicted on
the "Hydrologic Unit Map — 1974, State of North Carolina, published by the U.S. Department of Interior,
Geological Survey," and identified by a number.
Interagency Review Team (IRT) — A group of federal, tribal, state, and/or local regulatory and resource
agency representatives that review documentation for, and advises the USACE district engineer on the
establishment and management of a mitigation bank or an in -lieu fee program.
Intermittent Stream — A well-defined channel that contains water for only part of the year, typically during
winter and spring when the aquatic bed is below the water table. The flow may be heavily supplemented by
storm water runoff. An intermittent stream should score at least 19 points using the NC Division of Water Quality
Classification Manual, Version 4.11, 2010, effective September 1, 2010. This manual can be found at:
http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources
Jurisdictional Wetland - A wetland as defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Local Watershed Plan — An NCDMS watershed plan that is conducted in specific priority areas (typically one or
more TLWs) where NCDMS and the local community have identified a need to address critical watershed issues.
Through this planning process, NCDMS collaborates with local stakeholders and resource professionals to identify
projects and management strategies to restore, enhance and protect local watershed resources. LWPs can be found
by County or River Basin at http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-
planning-documents
Long Term Protection — Defined in the Federal Code of Regulations (Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 70/Thursday,
April 10, 2008/ Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7 Management, the Long Term Protection of a mitigation site
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 11 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
may be provided through real estate instruments such as conservation easements held by entities such asfederal,
tribal, state or local resource agencies, non-profit conservation organizations, or private land managers; the transfer
of title to such entities; or by restrictive covenants. The use of conservation easements and/or restrictive covenants
must receive prior approval by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) — District Engineer. As noted in
the Federal Code of Regulations, the USACE District Engineer shall consider relevant legal constraints on the use of
conservation easements and/or restrictive covenants in determining whether such mechanisms provide sufficient
protection.
Mitigation Plan — A written document, supplemented with graphics, which describes: the existing site conditions,
the goals and objectives of the project and other pertinent information. The Mitigation Plan is developed and
submitted prior to the implementation of the project.
Monitoring Report —A written document, supplemented with graphics due on December 1 st of each year during the
seven (7) year monitoring period following the completion of construction. This report contains results of the
measured success criteria as defined in the Baseline Monitoring Document.
NCDMS — The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services.
Non -Riparian Wetland — An area underlain with hydric soils that is NOT located in a geomorphic floodplain or natural
crenulation and NOT contiguous to natural lakes greater than 20 acres in size or artificial impoundments. Non -
Riparian Wetlands are typically found on flats in interstream divides (pocosins), side slopes (seeps), and in
depressions surrounded by uplands (mafic depressions, lime sinks and Carolina Bays). The hydrology of non -riparian
wetlands is driven by precipitation and is characterized by groundwater being at or near the surface for much of the
year. Must meet US Army Corps of Engineers wetlands definition (33 CFR 328.3(b)).
Opening Date — The location, date, and time that the Sealed Technical Proposal and Sealed Cost Proposal must be
delivered to NCDMS. Proposals will not be accepted by NCDMS after the closing date/time.
On -Time Delivery- The delivery of all items to the receiving point designated by the delivery time required.
Perennial Stream — A well-defined channel that contains water year-round during a year of normal rainfall, with the
aquatic bed located below the water table for most of the year. A perennial stream should score at least 30 points
using the NC Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Manual, Version 4.11, 2010, effective September 1,
2010. This manual can be found at: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources
Preliminary Findings Report — An NCDMS report that is developed during the Local Watershed Planning process
that contains an evaluation of available data sources and an initial determination of watershed conditions; identifies
data gaps; and includes a plan for a detailed evaluation of the watershed and its water quality, habitat and hydrologic
functions.
Prior Converted Cropland — Areas defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Section 512.15 of the
National Food Security Act Manual, August 1988) as wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise
physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the extent that
they no longer exhibit important wetland values.
Project Area — For the purposes of this RFP, project area is defined as the area within the proposed conservation
easement for the project.
Project Milestones — A deliverable, such as a document or completed action that signifies that the endo of a task in
the Scope of Service.
Property— A Site may be comprised of one or more pieces of real Property owned by one or more individual.
Proposal — The response to the RFP from an interested Vendor consisting of a signed Sealed Cost Proposal and a
Sealed Technical Proposal.
Proposed Project - A site that is in a pre -construction state and that is not associated with, or a part of, an approved
(signed, fully executed) Mitigation Banking Instrument by the closing date of this RFP.
Proposal Rating ("PR") — A value (number) that is calculated for each Proposal based upon the evaluation of the
Proposal by the PRC. The PR is established by dividing the points scored by the total amount of potential points.
(Technical Score)
Proposal Review Committee ("PRC') - A committee established by the NCDMS to review and evaluate each
Proposal received and to make recommendations to the NCDMS Director and Procurement Manager.
Release of Credits — A determination by the USACE district engineer in consultation with the IRT, that credits
associated with an approved mitigation plan are available for sale or transfer as defined under the Federal Guidance
for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (Federal Register April 10, 2008, Volume 70, Number
73, pp 19594-19705).
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 12 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
RFP — Request for Proposals; the document issued by the Department to solicit Proposals from interested Vendors.
Riparian Wetlands — An area that is underlain with hydric soils and located within a geomorphic floodplain or natural
crenulation, or contiguous with NATURAL water bodies greater than 20 acres in size.
River Basin — The largest category of surface water drainage; there are seventeen (17) river basins in North Carolina.
River Basin Restoration Priorities - A planning document prepared by the NCDMS that targets specific watersheds
(TLWs) with descriptions of existing degradation and protection needs for restoration project implementation. Unless
otherwise stipulated in the RFP, NCDMS requires mitigation sites to be located in these targeted local watersheds
(i.e. hydrologic units).
Scope of Services — All services, actions, and physical work required by the Department to achieve the purpose and
objectives defined in the RFP; such services may include the furnishing of all required labor, equipment, supplies and
materials except as specifically stated.
Sealed Cost Proposal — The completed Sealed Cost Proposal form included in the RFP signed by the Vendor
specifying the total compensation requested for the performance of the specified scope of services as defined by the
RFP. If more than one Site is proposed, a separate Sealed Cost Proposal must be submitted for each Site. If the
Vendor is willing to offer multiple options (i.e. different quantities of mitigation at different credit costs) for one proposed
site, a separate Cost Proposal must be submitted for each option offered.
Service Area — 1) A geographic area where mitigation credits from a mitigation site can generally be utilized to satisfy
permit requirements. 2) A geographic area where a mitigation requirement can be satisfied.
Site — Property or properties identified by a Vendor in a Proposal as having potential to provide either wetland, stream,
buffer or nutrient offset mitigation. A proposed project shall describe mitigation activities that occur on a single
property parcel, or which occur on multiple property parcels. Project proposals shall demonstrate hydrologic
connectivity and/or habitat continuity such that the functional relationships between the project components,
encompassed within each parcel is clearly evident. DMS shall have the sole discretion to determine whether the
project components have sufficient hydrologic connectivity and/or habitat continuity to be considered in a single
project proposal.
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) — A 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit identified as a targeted area in the RFP. These are
preferred locations for mitigation projects because they may have environmental characteristics that can be improved
through restoration projects.
Targeted Resource Area (TRA) — A unique or substantial important asset, opportunity, or function located within a
defined area. TRAs can include targeted assets or targeted opportunities. These are identified by analyzing spatial
data representing assets, problems, and opportunities that manifest as patches of significance at a smaller scale
than the 12- or 14 -digit hydrologic units. These are analogous to TLWs; however, TRAs have defined boundaries
based on an area of influence or an area of habitat extent NOT necessarily defined by a watershed boundary.
Technical Proposal — One of the two parts of the Proposal which contains a technical description of the proposed
mitigation.
USACE — United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District
USGS — United States Geological Survey.
Vendor — A private agency, corporation, firm, organization, business, or individual offering to provide qualified
professional or specialized services to the Department; if two or more private agencies, corporations, organizations,
businesses or individualsjoin together in a prime vendor/sub-vendor relationship to submit a proposal, the Department
will consider the prime vendor to be the Vendor; only the Vendor may enter into a contract with the Department (The
words `Vendor' and `Contractor' are used interchangeably for this RFP).
Wetland Enhancement - The manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site to
heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in the gain of selected
aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does
not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Wetland Preservation - The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by an action in or
near those aquatic resources. This term includes those activities normally associated with the protection and
maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms.
Preservation does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area orfunctions.
Wetland Restoration - The manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site with the
goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. Wetland restoration is divided
into two categories: Re-establishment and Rehabilitation. See definition of Wetland Re-establishment and Wetland
Rehabilitation.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 13 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
Wetland Re-establishment — The manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site with
the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a
former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and function.
Wetland Rehabilitation — The manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site with the
goal of returning most, if not all the natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation results in
a gain in aquatic resource function, but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 OBJECTIVES
The Department desires to acquire 25,000 Stream, 26.00 Riparian Wetland and 15.00 Non -Riparian Wetland
Mitigation credits within the service area (see Attachment H) for Cataloging Unit 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin.
River
Basin
Cataloging
Unit
Stream
Credits
Riparian Wetland
Credits
Non -Riparian Wetland
Credits
NEUSE
03020201
25,000
26.00
15.00
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Temperature regime: N/A
No more than 10% of the total linear feet of stream offered for mitigation can be stream preservation.
Wetlands:
Riparian Wetlands must be made up of at least 70% restoration. Non -Riparian Wetlands must be made
up of 100% restoration.
DMS is not seeking Riparian Buffer credits at this time. On the Cost Proposal form (Attachment C),
there is a line for an optional riparian buffer credit cost. If DMS has a riparian buffer credit need
during the contracted project lifetime, an amendment can be made to the contract payable to the
contracted vendor for the amount per credit delivered (and accepted by DWR) as indicated by the
optional cost. Vendors must provide an optional cost for Riparian Buffer credits if they wish DMS to
purchase these credits from the vendor.
Mitigation Information and Restrictions
Stream Mitigation:
The definitions of stream restoration, enhancement levels I and II, and preservation are defined in the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, April, 2003) available on their website.
For the purposes of this RFP (the technical proposal, and any contract(s) that may result from this RFP), all
mitigation must be consistent with 2003 USACOE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the Wilmington District Stream
and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT-October 24, 2016).
Wetland Mitigation:
Information, including soil boring logs prepared by a Licensed Soil Scientist (LSS), must be provided in the technical
proposal to demonstrate that areas proposed for restoration consist predominantly of hydric soils, and:
1. Are not currently jurisdictional wetlands as defined in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual and USACE regional supplements, and that are devoid of the proper community type of vegetation
(Wetland Re-establishment).
2. Are degraded (poorly functioning) jurisdictional wetlands that have been drained or otherwise manipulated resulting
in a significant loss of wetland function (Wetland Rehabilitation). Wetland Rehabilitation should restore most, if not
all natural and/or historic functions to a degraded wetland.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 14 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
3. Are degraded (poorly to moderately functioning) jurisdictional wetlands that have been manipulated resulting in a
loss of wetland function (Wetland Enhancement) — Wetland Enhancement results in the gain of selected wetland
function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s).
3.2 TASKS
TASK 1 DMS requires two (2) hard copies and one electronic copy of the deliverables for Task 1:
a) Conduct an on-site meeting with the IRT and DMS to discuss basic concepts of the proposed mitigation plan
and identify concerns or issues related to that plan. Concerns or issues identified must be addressed prior to
conveyance of the conservation easement or development of the formal mitigation plan.
b) Conduct an environmental screening to identify/survey potential protected species, archaeological sites,
historical architecture structures, contamination, etc. of the site.
c) In addition, in accordance to USACE requirements, the Vendor will provide a signed and dated DMS Full
Delivery Landowner Authorization Form for each parcel AFTER contract has been awarded and prior to the
post contract on-site meeting with the IRT.
TASK 2 Property
The Contractor shall electronically send the following five (5) items to the DMS Project Manager and State Property
Office (SPO) Manager Blane Rice (Blane.Rice(a)doa.nc.gov) for review:
Draft Conservation Easement in Microsoft word document form
• Use the 9/4/2014 conservation easement template.
• The contractor shall convey to the State of North Carolina the rights to all mitigation, including but not
limited to, stream, wetlands, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation credits derived from each site
and within the area of the conservation easement.
• The easement boundary must mimic the boundary provided within the technical proposal within reason.
Any variations must be communicated to the DMS Project Manager.
• The Contractor must provide a copy of the conservation easement to the landowner, and be aware of tax
implications such as NC General Statute 105-277.4 which addresses county agricultural deferred taxes
that may be incurred at closing.
Preliminary Survey Plat in Adobe PDF form
• All surveys shall meet the Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina as described in
Title 21, Chapter 56, of the North Carolina Administrative Code. As such, surveys and digital files shall
be tied to the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System NAD83 (NSRS2007).
• The survey title block shall read, "Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina, Division
of Mitigation Services." The title block shall also contain the project name, SPO number, DMS Project
number, name of the owner, location, date surveyed, scale of the drawing, name, address, registration
number and seal of the surveyor.
• A table of coordinates (northing and easting) for all property corners, numbered consecutively, must be
included on the plat. If multiple parcels comprise a single project, assign a unique number for each
property corner within the project.
• A text metes and bounds must be provided for recordation with the Conservation easement.
• The Contractor shall show the following that exist within 100 feet of the easement boundary: roads or
trails, property corners, nearby easements, dwellings, roadways, streams and creeks, manholes, poles,
and right-of-ways.
• The landowner(s) or his/her legal representative must sign the recorded plat.
• Access to the easement area must be shown, with location and width depicted by a dotted line and note
on the recorded plat.
3. Digital Easement File in AutoCAD (.dwg) and ArcMap (.shp) format
• The CAD and GIS files must contain a closed polygon layer of the conservation easement shape in
addition to the line work.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 15 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
4. Copy of the attorney's report on title based on a 30 -year title search with all supporting deeds and documentation
• Each conservation easement conveyed must have good, marketable title free of liens and encumbrances.
5. Title attorney's "Schedule A" with any documents describing possible exceptions to title and exhibits.
Step Two: Approval for Closing
1. SPO and DMS will review and issue written approval to record after documents meet requirements.
2. The Contractor shall record the final approved easement and plat and obtain all necessary approvals from the
County Review Officer.
Step Three: Task 2 Payment
The Contractor will complete the seven (7) listed deliverables along with invoice for Task 2 payment. Document
deliverables shall be submitted electronically to the DMS project manager and SPO Manager Blane Rice
(Blane.Rice(a-)doa.nc.gov). Additionally, SPO requires one (1) hard copy of all the original documents and a
compact disk mailed to Blane Rice, NC Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. Once received, SPO will issue authorization for payment.
1. Recorded Conservation Easement in Adobe PDF form
2. Recorded Survey Plat in Adobe PDF form
3. Updated digital easement file in AutoCAD (.dwg) and ArcMap (.shp) format
4. Final attorneys report on title based on 30 -year search with deeds and documentation.
Additionally, the following must be satisfied during Task 2:
5. Original title insurance policy shall be forwarded to SPO as soon as it is available to Blane Rice.
6. Provide the name, address, phone number, and e-mail address (if available) of each grantor via electronic
communication to SPO and DMS.
7. Install survey monumentation and conduct boundary marking with the following specifications:
The Contractor shall set 5/8" rebar 30" in length with 3-1/4" aluminum caps on all easement corners.
Caps shall meet DMS specifications (Berntsen RBD5325, imprinted with NC State Logo # B9087 or
equivalent). After installation, caps shall be stamped with the corresponding number from the table of
coordinates on the survey.
• The Contractor shall place a 6 -foot tall durable witness post at each corner in the conservation easement
boundary. Posts shall be made of material that will last a minimum of 20 years.
• The Contractor shall attach a conservation easement sign to each witness post and place additional signs
at no more than 200 -foot intervals on long boundary lines. When applicable, the Contractor can mark
existing trees (>3dbh) with conservation easement signs and/or blaze property lines at approximate eye
level in lieu of line posts. Where applicable, established fence posts can be used for placement of
signage.
ALLOWANCES:
1. The contractor may elect to install monumentation and boundary marking during Task 5 preparation. No payment
for Task 5 will be approved prior to installation.
2. The original title insurance policy(ies) must be received prior to payment for the Task 5 deliverable.
3. The contractor may elect to complete Task 3 (site specific Mitigation Plan), including the requirement forfinancial
assurance (See Section 6.2 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE) prior to completion of Task 2. Please be advised,
however, that subsequent failure of the contractor to convey an acceptable conservation easement to the State of
North Carolina, or to provide for the Long -Term Protection of the site through other methods acceptable to DMS,
will require the contractor to fully reimburse the State for any payment(s) made to the contractor for completion of
Task 3.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following recommendations are based on previous mitigation project experience. These practices are
proven to benefit overall project cost, save time, protect mitigation credit, and lend favor during regulatory
close-out consideration.
1. Simplified project boundaries with lines greater than 200 feet and with fewer corners minimizes
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 16 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
encroachments, protects mitigation assets, lowers fencing costs, and makes it easier for adjacent
landowners to understand boundaries.
2. Culverts are often preferred over ford crossings to encourage aquatic passage and minimize stream impact.
3. Fence type established should be based on landowner and livestock needs. In general, well-built
fences will provide less opportunity for encroachment, better maintenance, and long term protection of
property.
4. Carefully locating fences for long-term maintenance lessens impact to the conservation easement.
5. Using the survey plat as baseline documentation for existing roads, paths, trails, or other items of note
provides a reference for long-term stewardship and landowners.
6.Woven wire and multi -strand barbed wire fencing installed in accordance to NRCS standards are proven fencing
methods during project closeouts. Past projects with electrified high tensile have experienced many difficulties
during monitoring and closeout. The contractor should discuss fencing options with landowners; however,
continue to be cognizant of mitigation credit protection and long term stewardship.
TASK 3 Develop a site-specific mitigation plan, as appropriate for each site and submit it to the DMS for review,
comment, and approval. DMS requires three (3) hard copies and one (1) pdf file on a USB flash drive
of the "Draft' mitigation plan. After "Draft" approval, DMS requires five (5) hard copies and one (1) pdf
file on a USB flash drive (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the "Final Draft' mitigation
plan which will be posted on the DMS Portal for review by the IRT. Following IRT approval, DMS
requires two (2) completed Pre -Construction Notice (PCN) forms with DMS named as the "permittee"
and the Vendor as "agent', six
(6) hard copies and one (1) USB flash drive with the .pdf files of the "Final' mitigation plan and the
PCN. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE is also due as part of this deliverable.
TASK Secure all other necessary permits and/or certifications (i.e. Erosion and Sedimentation Control permit,
etc.). Submit one (1) copy of all applicable permits, certifications, etc. to DMS prior to implementation of
the earthwork portion of the mitigation project. Upon completion of earthwork, notify DMS in writing of
completion date and submit payment request (invoice).
TASK 5 Complete planting of the mitigation site and install all monitoring devices/plots. Vegetation must be
planted at least six months before vegetation monitoring activities are conducted at the end of the
growing season. Upon completion of planting and installation of monitoring devices/plots, notify DMS in
writing of completion date and submit payment request.
TASK 6 DMS requires three (3) hard copies of the "Draft' baseline monitoring document and "Draft' as -
built drawings. After "Draft' approval, DMS requires three (3) hard copies and one (1) pdf file on a USB
flash drive (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the "Final' baseline monitoring document and
the as-builts. The as -built drawings (final record of project construction) should be submitted with the
following criteria:
a. Pre -Construction Plan design
b. As -built survey (on same sheets as Pre -Construction Plan design)
C. Must bear Professional Land Surveyor (PLS) seal and/or Professional Engineer (PE) seal
where applicable
d. Annotation and corrections of the Pre -Construction Plan design
TASKS 7-13 (7 years monitoring). DMS requires five (5) hard copies and one (1) .pdf formatted copy on a USB
flash drive (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the yearly monitoring reports. Monitor the
mitigation site as stipulated in the mitigation plan and baseline monitoring report to assess the success
of the restored site for a period consistent with regulatory guidance. Each annual monitoring report
must be submitted to the DMS by December 1St of the year during which the monitoring was
conducted. The 7th year monitoring report (or final year in cases where monitoring has been
extended beyond 7 years) must include a closeout report that provides an assessment of the
monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period. The contracted firm must attend closeout
meetings and present final project to the IRT both in a closeout meeting at a site to be named later
and on the project site, following all DMS closeout procedures and templates.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 17 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
3.3 PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONES
'Vendor is only eligible for payment after DMS has approved the task/deliverable.
*If site fails to meet success criteria, as indicated in any monitoring report, payment of the monitoring task maybe
made if a suitable contingency plan is submitted to and accepted by the DMS.
'For any year, beginning with delivery of task 6; if credits are withheld by the regulatory agencies or credits
are lost for other reasons, and deliverable payments must be adjusted, then all futureyearly payments will
be made following IRT yearly release of the credits.
4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS
4.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT
The RFP is comprised of the base RFP document, any attachments, and any addenda released before Contract
award. All attachments and addenda released for this RFP in advance of any Contract award are incorporated herein
by reference.
4.2 CONTRACT TERM
The Contract shall have a maximum term of up to 10 years, beginning on the date of contract award (the "Effective
Date"). The Vendor shall begin work under the Contract within seven (7) business days of the Effective Date.
4.3 PRICING
Proposal price shall constitute the total cost to Buyer for complete performance in accordance with the requirements
and specifications herein, including all applicable charges handling, administrative and other similar fees. Vendor
shall not invoice for any amounts not specifically allowed for in this RFP. Complete ATTACHMENT C: PRICING
FORM and include in Proposal.
4.4 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK
Acceptance of work by the State shall not be unreasonably withheld; but may be conditioned or delayed as required
for reasonable review, evaluation, installation or testing, as applicable to the work or deliverable. Final acceptance is
expressly conditioned upon completion of all applicable assessment procedures. Should the work or deliverables fail
to meet any requirements, acceptance criteria or otherwise fail to conform to the contract, the State may exercise all
rights hereunder, including, fordeliverables, such rights provided bythe Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in North
Carolina.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 18 of 44
Project Milestones and Payment Schedule
Task
Project Milestone
Payment"
(% of Contract Value*)
1
Categorical Exclusion Document
5
2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
20
3
Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial Assurance
15
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork completed
15
5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
10
6
Baseline Monitoring Report (including As -Built Drawings)'
10
7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
5
8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
2
9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
2
10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
2
11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
2
12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
2
13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS and complete project Close-
Out process (meets success criteria*)'
10
TOTAL
100
'Vendor is only eligible for payment after DMS has approved the task/deliverable.
*If site fails to meet success criteria, as indicated in any monitoring report, payment of the monitoring task maybe
made if a suitable contingency plan is submitted to and accepted by the DMS.
'For any year, beginning with delivery of task 6; if credits are withheld by the regulatory agencies or credits
are lost for other reasons, and deliverable payments must be adjusted, then all futureyearly payments will
be made following IRT yearly release of the credits.
4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS
4.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT
The RFP is comprised of the base RFP document, any attachments, and any addenda released before Contract
award. All attachments and addenda released for this RFP in advance of any Contract award are incorporated herein
by reference.
4.2 CONTRACT TERM
The Contract shall have a maximum term of up to 10 years, beginning on the date of contract award (the "Effective
Date"). The Vendor shall begin work under the Contract within seven (7) business days of the Effective Date.
4.3 PRICING
Proposal price shall constitute the total cost to Buyer for complete performance in accordance with the requirements
and specifications herein, including all applicable charges handling, administrative and other similar fees. Vendor
shall not invoice for any amounts not specifically allowed for in this RFP. Complete ATTACHMENT C: PRICING
FORM and include in Proposal.
4.4 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK
Acceptance of work by the State shall not be unreasonably withheld; but may be conditioned or delayed as required
for reasonable review, evaluation, installation or testing, as applicable to the work or deliverable. Final acceptance is
expressly conditioned upon completion of all applicable assessment procedures. Should the work or deliverables fail
to meet any requirements, acceptance criteria or otherwise fail to conform to the contract, the State may exercise all
rights hereunder, including, fordeliverables, such rights provided bythe Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in North
Carolina.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 18 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
4.5 DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Payment by the Department will be based on the number of credits the vendor delivers at the credit price first
established by the cost proposal pursuant to the proposal review process and credits identified in the technical
proposal. To ensure that the Department does not overpay at the end of the process, periodic adjustments may be
made so that the final total payment equals the final number of mitigation credits, as determined by the IRT, delivered
by the vendor multiplied by the original per credit price. Payment adjustments may be made after the initial contract
is executed based on the number of mitigation credits the project is anticipated to provide as documented after
contract execution, including but not limited to: completion of the mitigation plan; site restoration
(earthwork/planting), completion of the baseline monitoring document; the post construction monitoring period, and/or
after final determination/release of mitigation credits by the IRT.
4.6 INVOICES
a) Invoices are to be submitted for the Contract Administrator's review after NCDMS approval of each
individual task/deliverable.
b) The Vendor must follow the NCDMS Invoice Guidelines dated March 1, 2014.
c) Final invoice must be received by the DEPARTMENT within 45 days after the end of the contract period.
d) Invoices must bear the correct contract number to ensure prompt payment. The Vendor's failure to include
the correct contract number may cause delay in payment.
e) Invoices must be submitted to the following address:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Debby Davis
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
4.7 PAYMENT TERMS
a) The Vendor will be compensated at the rates quoted in the Vendor's Cost Proposal.
b) The Vendor will be paid net thirty (30) calendar days after the Vendor's invoice is approved by the State.
4.8 PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Vendor shall complete ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR. In addition to any
other evaluation criteria identified in this RFP, the State may also consider, for purposes of evaluating proposed or
actual contract performance outside of the United States, how that performance may affect the following factors to
ensure that any award will be in the best interest of the State:
Total cost to the State
Level of quality provided by the Vendor
Process and performance capability across multiple jurisdictions
Protection of the State's information and intellectual property
Availability of pertinent skills
Ability to understand the State's business requirements and internal operational culture
Particular risk factors such as the security of the State's information technology
Relations with citizens and employees
Contract enforcement jurisdictional issues
4.9 NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read the Instructions, the State's terms and conditions, all relevant exhibits
and attachments, and any other components made a part of this RFP, and comply with all requirements and
specifications herein. Vendors also are responsible for obtaining and complying with all Addenda and other changes
that may be issued in connection with this RFP.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 19 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
If Vendors have questions, issues, or exceptions regarding any term, condition, or other component within this RFP,
those must be submitted as questions in accordance with in the instructions in Section 2.2 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS.
If the State determines that any changes will be made as a result of the points raised, then such decisions will be
communicated in the form of an RFP addendum. The State may also elect to leave open the possibility for later
negotiation of specific components of the Contract that have been addressed during the question and answer period.
Other than through this process, the State rejects and will not be required to evaluate or consider any additional or
modified terms and conditions submitted with Vendor's proposal. This applies to any language appearing in or
attached to the document as part of the Vendor's proposal that purports to vary any terms and conditions or Vendors'
instructions herein or to render the proposal non-binding or subject to further negotiation. By execution and delivery
of this RFP Response, the Vendor agrees that any additional or modified terms and conditions, whether
submitted purposely or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect, and will be disregarded. Noncompliance
with, or any attempt to alter or delete, this paragraph shall constitute sufficient grounds to reject Vendor's
proposal as nonresponsive.
4.10 INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES
This Request for Proposal serves two functions: (1) to advise potential Vendors of the parameters of the solution
being sought by the Department; and (2) to provide (together with other specified documents) the terms of the Contract
resulting from this procurement. As such, all terms in the Request for Proposal shall be enforceable as contract terms
in accordance with the General Terms and Conditions. The use of phrases such as "shall," "must," and "requirements"
are intended to create enforceable contract conditions. In determining whether proposals should be evaluated or
rejected, the Department will take into consideration the degree to which Vendors have proposed or failed to propose
solutions that will satisfy the Department's needs as described in the Request for Proposal. Except as specifically
stated in the Request for Proposal, no one requirement shall automatically disqualify a Vendor from consideration.
However, failure to comply with any single requirement may result in the Department exercising its discretion to reject
a proposal in its entirety.
5.0 PROPOSAL OPENING. EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHOD OF AWARD
5.1 CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION
During the evaluation period—from the date proposals are opened through the date the contract is awarded each
Vendor submitting a proposal (including its representatives, sub -vendors and/or suppliers) is prohibited from having
any communications with any person inside or outside the using agency, issuing agency, other government agency
office, or body (including the purchaser named above, department secretary, agency head, members of the general
assembly and/or governor's office), or private entity, if the communication refers to the content of Vendor's proposal
or qualifications, the contents of another Vendor's proposal, another Vendor's qualifications or ability to perform the
contract, and/or the transmittal of any other communication of information that could be reasonably considered to
have the effect of directly or indirectly influencing the evaluation of proposals and/or the award of the contract. A
Vendor not in compliance with this provision shall be disqualified from contract award, unless it is determined in the
State's discretion that the communication was harmless, that it was made without intent to influence and that the best
interest of the state would not be served by the disqualification. A Vendor's proposal may be disqualified if its sub -
vendor and supplier engage in any of the foregoing communications during the time that the procurement is active
(i.e., the issuance date of the procurement to the date of contract award). Only those discussions, communications
or transmittals of information authorized or initiated by the issuing agency for this RFP or general inquiries directed to
the purchaser regarding requirements of the RFP (prior to proposal submission) or the status of the contract award
(after submission) are excepted from this provision.
5.2 PROPOSAL OPENING PROCESS
Proposals will be received from each Vendor in two separate, sealed packages - the Technical Proposal and the Cost
Proposal. Each original of both proposals (Technical and Cost) shall be signed and dated by an official authorized to
bind the firm. Unsigned proposals will not be considered.
NOTE: No technical information shall be contained in the cost proposal. No cost information shall be
contained in the technical proposal. Inclusion of any cost information in the technical proposal and/or any technical
information in the cost proposal shall constitute sufficient grounds to reject Vendor's proposal.
All proposals must be received by the issuing agency no later than the date and time specified on the cover sheet of
this RFP.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 20 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
At that date and time, the package containing the technical proposals from each responding firm will be publicly
opened and the name of each Vendor announced publicly. A notation will also be made whether a separate sealed
cost proposal has been received. Cost proposals will be placed in safekeeping and opened at a later date.
5.3 EVALUATION PROCESS
The State will conduct a Two -Step evaluation of the Proposals received.
The State shall review all Vendor responses to this RFP to confirm that they meet the specifications and requirements
of the RFP. The State reserves the right to waive any minor informality or technicality in proposals received.
All technical proposals will be evaluated prior to opening any cost proposal.
Upon completion of the technical evaluation, the cost proposals of those Vendors whose technical proposals have
been deemed acceptable will be publicly opened. The total cost offered by each firm will be tabulated and become a
matter of public record. Interested parties are cautioned that these costs and their components are subject to further
evaluation for completeness and correctness and therefore may not be an exact indicator of a Vendor's pricing
position.
At their sole option, the evaluators may request oral presentations or discussion with any or all Vendors for
clarification or to amplify the materials presented in any part of the proposal. Vendors are cautioned, however,
that the evaluators are not required to request presentations or other clarification—and often do not; therefore,
all proposals must be complete and reflect the most favorable terms available from the Vendor.
Vendors are cautioned that this is a request for proposals, not a request to contract, and the State reserves the
unqualified right to reject any and all offers at any time if such rejection is deemed to be in the best interest of the
State.
The State reserves the right to reject all original offers and request one or more of the Vendors submitting proposals
to submit best and final offers (BAFOs), prepared in collaboration with the State after the initial responses to the RFP
have been evaluated and determined to be unsatisfactory.
Upon completion of the evaluation process, the State will make Award(s) based on the evaluation and post the
award(s) to IPS under the RFP number for this solicitation. Award of a Contract to one Vendor does not mean that
the other proposals lacked merit, but that, all factors considered, the selected proposal was deemed most
advantageous and represented the best value to the State.
5.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA
All qualified proposals will be evaluated and award made based on the following criteria considered, to result in an
award most advantageous to the State. A proposal may be rejected during any phase of review if the PRC determines
that the proposal has not provided the requested information in the specified format, has determined that the firm is
not qualified to perform the services, and/or if it has been determined that the proposal cannot provide the mitigation
indicated in the proposal. Each proposal will be reviewed and assigned a proposal rating prior to opening any cost
proposal.
Proposals will generally be evaluated per completeness, content, experience with similar projects, ability of the offer
or and its staff, and cost. Specific evaluation criteria are listed below.
Technical
a) Technical Proposals will be reviewed for length, format requirements and qualifications of firm and project
approach by the PRC. Only vendors who meet these initial qualifications will move forward.
b) Upon completion of the initial review, a field review and evaluation of the proposed site will be conducted
by the PRC.
c) Each Vendor will be scored based on the Technical Scoresheet located in Attachment I of this RFP.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 21 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
Price
a) Sealed cost proposals for all proposals still under consideration will be opened and tabulated.
b) The adjusted credit cost is a combined technical and cost measure. This is a best value determination by
NCDMS after evaluating all factors in the technical proposal and then evaluating the cost proposal. The
adjusted unit cost will be calculated and determined using the following formula:
Unit Cost _ Proposal Rating (Technical Score)
All sites will be ranked by the lowest adjusted credit
cost.
5.5 METHOD OF AWARD
The NCDMS Procurement Manager and the Director, will analyze the ranked sites, determine the proposal selections
and submit recommendations to the Department and the Department of Administration, Purchase & Contract section,
as required, for approval, considering the following information:
■ adjusted credit cost
■ credit cost
■ available funds
■ mitigation needs at the time of selection
■ the best interest of the State of North Carolina
While the intent of this RFP is to award a Contract to single Vendor, the State reserves the right to make separate
awards to different Vendors for one or more line items, to not award one or more line items or to cancel this RFP in
its entirety without awarding a Contract, if it is considered to be most advantageous to the State to do so.
6.0 REQUIREMENTS
This Section lists the requirements related to this RFP. By submitting a proposal, the Vendor agrees to meet all stated
requirements in this Section as well as any other specifications, requirements and terms and conditions stated in this
RFP. If a Vendor is unclear about a requirement or specification or believes a change to a requirement would allow
for the State to receive a better proposal, the Vendor is urged and cautioned to submit these items in the form of a
question during the question and answer period in accordance with Section 2.2.
6.1 FINANCIAL STABILITY
Each Vendor shall certify it is financially stable by completing the ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION. The State is requiring this certification to minimize potential issues from Contracting with
a Vendor that is financially unstable. From the date of the Certification to the expiration of the Contract, the Vendor
shall notify the State within thirty (30) days of any occurrence or condition that materially alters the truth of any
statement made in this Certification. DMS reserves the right to ask for additional financial data if clarification is
needed.
6.2 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
The vendor must provide financial assurance in one of the following forms:
1) Performance Bonding-- The vendor must provide security in the form of an acceptable performance bond
as described in the following paragraph to guarantee delivery of the maximum number of originally contracted
credits. The performance bond must be obtained from a company licensed in North Carolina as shown in the
Federal Treasury Listing of Approved Sureties (Circular 570). The maximum allowable amount provided by a
surety may not exceed the "underwriting limitation" for the surety as identified in the Federal Treasury Listing.
Although this RFP is a request for mitigation and not construction, the performance bond shall follow the
prescribed wording provided in N.C.G.S. § 44A-33. The performance bond must be for 55% of the total value
of the contract and must be in effect and submitted with the Task 3 deliverable before DMS will authorize
payment for that deliverable. The bond must remain in effect until the vendor has received written notification
from the DMS that the requirements of Task 6 (submittal of baseline monitoring report) have been met (the
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 22 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
financial assurance document must indicate that it is in effect through approval of task 6 and must
include the NCDEQ contract number). After the successful completion of Task 6, the bond can be retired.
2) Letters of Credit- LDCs must be drawn from a reputable bank identified by the FDIC as "Well Capitalized" or
"Adequately Capitalized" and follow the submittal timing, contract amounts and schedules as those described
above for the performance bonds. Evergreen or irrevocable LDCs shall be required to provide a 120- day notice
of cancellation, termination or non -renewal.
3) Casualty Insurance on underlying performance of credits of mitigation, must follow the same submittal timing,
contract amounts and reduction schedules as those described above in performance bonds. The insurance must
contain the following information:
The "NCDEQ" must be named as the "Regulatory Body". NCDEQ shall have the sole right to place a claim
against the policy. NCDEQ shall have the sole right and obligation as the responsible "regulatory body"to
approve any claim settlement,
The insurance amounts and duration must follow the same as described above in performance bonds.
6.3 REFERENCES
The State reserves the right to request and verify references. Upon request references, must be submitted within 3
business days. Failure to provide references will cause your proposal to be rejected.
6.4 ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS
Pursuant to Item # 11 of the North Carolina General Terms and Condition, the State Auditor and the using agency's
internal auditors shall have access to persons and records as a result of all contracts or grants entered into by
State agencies or political subdivisions in accordance with General Statue 147-64.7 and Session Law 2010-194.
Section 21 (i.e., the State Auditors and internal auditors may audit the records of the Vendor during the term of the
contract to verify accounts and data affecting fees or performance). Vendor shall retain all records for a period of
six (6) years following completion of the contract or until any audits begun during this period are completed and
findings released.
6.5 BACKGROUND CHECKS
Any personnel or agent of the Vendor performing services under any contract arising from this RFP may be required
to undergo a background check at the expense of the Vendor, if so requested by the State. These background checks
may be performed for the following:
(a) Any regulatory sanctions levied against Vendor or any of its officers, directors or its professional employees
expected to provide services on this project by any state or federal regulatory agencies within the past three
years or a statement that there are none. As used herein, the term "regulatory sanctions" includes the
revocation or suspension of any license or certification, the levying of any monetary penalties or fines, and the
issuance of any written warnings;
(b) Any regulatory investigations pending against Vendor or any of its officers, directors or its professional
employees expected to provide services on this project by any state or federal regulatory agencies of which
Vendor has knowledge or a statement that there are none.
6.6 SUBSTITUTION OF PERSONNEL
Vendor shall not substitute key personnel assigned to the performance of this Contract without prior written approval
by the Contract Administrator. Vendor shall notify the Contract Lead of any desired substitution, including the name(s)
and references of Vendor's recommended substitute personnel. The State will approve or disapprove the requested
substitution in a timely manner. The State may, in its sole discretion, terminate the services of any person providing
services under this Contract. Upon such termination, the State may request acceptable substitute personnel or
terminate the contract services provided by such personnel.
6.7 VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIONS
a) Vendor warrants that qualified personnel shall provide services under this Contract in a professional manner.
"Professional manner" means that the personnel performing the services will possess the skill and competence
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 23 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
consistent with the prevailing business standards in the industry. Vendor agrees that it will not enter any
agreement with a third party that may abridge any rights of the State under this Contract. Vendor will serve as
the prime vendor under this Contract and shall be responsible for the performance and payment of all sub-
vendor(s) that may be approved by the State. Names of any third -party vendors or sub -vendors of Vendor may
appear for purposes of convenience in Contract documents; and shall not limit Vendor's obligations hereunder.
Vendor will retain executive representation for functional and technical expertise as needed to incorporate any work
by third party sub-vendor(s).
b) If any services, deliverables, functions, or responsibilities not specifically described in this Contract are required
for Vendor's proper performance, provision and delivery of the service and deliverables under this Contract, or
are an inherent part of or necessary sub -task included within such service, they will be deemed to be implied by
and included within the scope of the contract to the same extent and in the same manner as if specifically
described in the contract. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, Vendor will furnish all its own necessary
equipment, management, supervision, labor, facilities, furniture, computer and telecommunications equipment,
software, supplies and materials necessary for the Vendor to provide and deliver the Services and Deliverables.
c) Vendor warrants that it has the financial capacity to perform and to continue perform its obligations under the
contract; that Vendor has no constructive or actual knowledge of an actual or potential legal proceeding being
brought against Vendor that could materially adversely affect performance of this Contract; and that entering into
this Contract is not prohibited by any contract, or order by any court of competent jurisdiction.
7.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
7.1 PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
The Vendor shall designate and make available to the State a project manager. The project manager shall be the
State's point of contact for contract related issues and issues concerning performance, progress review, scheduling
and service. Vendor must complete a copy of ATTACHMENT F: Additional Vendor Information and return with
bid.
7.2 REPORTS
Reports shall be submitted well organized and easy to read. The Vendor shall submit the reports in a timely manner
and on a regular schedule as specified by this RFP.
7.3 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve disputes informally. A claim by the Vendor shall be
submitted in writing to the State's Contract Lead for resolution. A claim by the State shall be submitted in writing to
the Vendor's Project Manager for resolution. The Parties shall negotiate in good faith and use all reasonable efforts
to resolve such dispute(s). During the time the Parties are attempting to resolve any dispute, each shall proceed
diligently to perform their respective duties and responsibilities under this Contract. If a dispute cannot be resolved
between the Parties within thirty (30) days after delivery of notice, either Party may elect to exercise any other
remedies available under this Contract, or at law. This term shall not constitute an agreement by either party to
mediate or arbitrate any dispute.
7.4 CONTRACT CHANGES
Contract changes, if any, over the life of the contract shall be implemented by contract amendments agreed to
in writing by the State and Vendor.
7.5 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
Kristie Corson is designated as the contract administrator for the Department for the purposes of this RFP.
Attachments to this RFP begin on the next page.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 24 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS
1. READ, REVIEW AND COMPLY: It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read this entire document, review all enclosures
and attachments, and any addenda thereto, and comply with all requirements specified herein, regardless of whether
appearing in these Instructions to Vendors or elsewhere in this RFP document.
2. LATE PROPOSALS: Late proposals, regardless of cause, will not be opened or considered, and will automatically be
disqualified from further consideration. It shall be the Vendor's sole responsibility to ensure delivery at the designated
office by the designated time.
3. ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION: The State reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality
in proposals and, unless otherwise specified by the Vendor, to accept any item in the proposal. If either a unit price or an
extended price is obviously in error and the other is obviously correct, the incorrect price will be disregarded.
4. BASIS FOR REJECTION: Pursuant to 01 NCAC 05B .0501, the State reserves the right to reject any and all offers, in
whole or in part, by deeming the offer unsatisfactory as to quality or quantity, delivery, price or service offered, non-
compliance with the requirements or intent of this solicitation, lack of competitiveness, error(s) in specifications or
indications that revision would be advantageous to the State, cancellation or other changes in the intended project or any
other determination that the proposed requirement is no longer needed, limitation or lack of available funds, circumstances
that prevent determination of the best offer, or any other determination that rejection would be in the best interest of the
State.
5. EXECUTION: Failure to sign EXECUTION PAGE in the indicated space will render proposal non-responsive, and it shall
be rejected.
6. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE: In cases of conflict between specific provisions in this solicitation or those in any resulting
contract, the order of precedence shall be (high to low) (1) any special terms and conditions specific to this RFP, including
any negotiated terms; (2) requirements and specifications in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this RFP; (3) North Carolina General
Contract Terms and Conditions in ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND
CONDITIONS; (4) Instructions in ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS; and (5) Vendor's Proposal.
7. INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE: Vendor shall furnish all information requested and in the spaces
provided in this document. Further, if required elsewhere in this proposal, each Vendor must submit with their proposal
sketches, descriptive literature and/or complete specifications covering the products offered. Reference to literature
submitted with a previous proposal or available elsewhere will not satisfy this provision. Proposals that do not comply with
these requirements shall be subject to rejection without further consideration.
8. SUSTAINABILITY: To support the sustainability efforts of the State of North Carolina we solicit your cooperation in this
effort. Pursuant to Executive Order 156 (1999), it is desirable that all responses meet the following:
• All copies of the proposal are printed double sided.
• All submittals and copies are printed on recycled paper with a minimum post -consumer content of 30%.
• Unless absolutely necessary, all proposals and copies should minimize or eliminate use of non -recyclable or non -
reusable materials such as plastic report covers, plastic dividers, vinyl sleeves, and GBC binding. Three -ringed
binders, glued materials, paper clips, and staples are acceptable.
• Materials should be submitted in a format which allows for easy removal, filing and/or recycling of paper and binder
materials. Use of oversized paper is strongly discouraged unless necessary for clarity or legibility.
9. HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES: Pursuant to General Statute 143-48 and Executive Order #150
(1999), the State invites and encourages participation in this procurement process by businesses owned by minorities,
women, disabled, disabled business enterprises and non-profit work centers for the blind and severely disabled.
10. RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE: G.S. 143-59 establishes a reciprocal preference requirement to discourage other states
from favoring their own resident Vendors by applying a percentage increase to the price of any proposal from a North
Carolina resident Vendor. The "Principal Place of Business" is defined as that principal place from which the trade or
business of the Vendor is directed or managed.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 25 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
11. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: To the extent permitted by applicable statutes and rules, the State will maintain
confidential trade secrets that the Vendor does not wish disclosed. As a condition to confidential treatment, each page
containing trade secret information shall be identified in boldface at the top and bottom as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the
Vendor, with specific trade secret information enclosed in boxes or similar indication. Cost information shall not be deemed
confidential under any circumstances. Regardless of what a Vendor may label as a trade secret, the determination whether
it is or is not entitled to protection will be determined in accordance with G.S. 132-1.2. Any material labeled as confidential
constitutes a representation by the Vendor that it has made a reasonable effort in good faith to determine that such material
is, in fact, a trade secret under G.S. 132-1.2. Vendors are urged and cautioned to limit the marking of information as a
trade secret or as confidential so far as is possible.
12. PROTEST PROCEDURES: When a Vendor wishes to protest a Contract resulting from this solicitation that is awarded
by the Division of Purchase and Contract, or awarded by an agency in an awarded amount of at least $25,000, a Vendor
shall submit a written request addressed to the State Purchasing Officer at Purchase and Contract, 1305 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1305. A protest request related to an award amount of less than $25,000 shall be sent to the
purchasing officer of the agency that issued the award. The protest request must be received in the proper office within
thirty (30) consecutive calendar days from the date of the Contract award. Protest letters shall contain specific grounds
and reasons for the protest, how the protesting party was harmed by the award made and any documentation providing
support for the protesting party's claims. Note: Contract award notices are sent only to the Vendor actually awarded the
Contract, and not to every person or firm responding to a solicitation. Proposal status and Award notices are posted on
the Internet at https://www.ips.state.nc.us/ips/. All protests will be handled pursuant to the North Carolina Administrative
Code, 01 NCAC 05B .1519.
13. MISCELLANEOUS: Masculine pronouns shall be read to include feminine pronouns, and the singular of any word or
phrase shall be read to include the plural and vice versa.
14. COMMUNICATIONS BY VENDORS: In submitting its proposal, the Vendor agrees not to discuss or otherwise reveal the
contents of its proposal to any source, government or private, outside of the using or issuing agency until after the award
of the Contract or cancellation of this RFP. All Vendors are forbidden from having any communications with the using or
issuing agency, or any other representative of the State concerning the solicitation, during the evaluation of the proposals
(i.e., after the public opening of the proposals and before the award of the Contract), unless the State directly contacts the
Vendor(s) for purposes of seeking clarification or another reason permitted by the solicitation. A Vendor shall not: (a)
transmit to the issuing and/or using agency any information commenting on the ability or qualifications of any other Vendor
to provide the advertised good, equipment, commodity; (b) identify defects, errors and/or omissions in any other Vendor's
proposal and/or prices at any time during the procurement process; and/or (c) engage in or attempt any other
communication or conduct that could influence the evaluation and/or award of the Contract that is the subject of this RFP.
Vendors not in compliance with this provision may be disqualified, at the option of the State, from the Contract award.
Only those communications with the using agency or issuing agency authorized by this RFP are permitted.
15. TABULATIONS: Proposal tabulations can be electronically retrieved at the Interactive Purchasing System (IPS),
https://www.ips.state.nc.us/ips/BidNumberSearch.aspx. Click on the IPS BIDS icon, click on Search for Bid, enter the
proposal number, and then search. Tabulations will normally be available at this website not later than one working day
after the proposal opening. Lengthy or complex tabulations may be summarized, with other details not made available on
IPS, and requests for additional details or information concerning such tabulations cannot be honored.
16. VENDOR REGISTRATION AND SOLICITATION NOTIFICATION SYSTEM: The North Carolina electronic Vendor Portal
(eVP) allows Vendors to electronically register free with the State to receive electronic notification of current procurement
opportunities for goods and services of potential interests to them available on the Interactive Purchasing System, as well
as notifications of status changes to those solicitations. Online registration and other purchasing information is available
at the following website https://www.ips.state.nc.us/.
17. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL: a Proposal may be withdrawn only in writing and actually received by the office issuing
the RFP prior to the time for the opening of Proposals identified on the cover page of this RFP (or such later date included
in an Addendum to the RFP). A withdrawal request must be on Vendor's letterhead and signed by an official of the Vendor
authorized to make such request. Any withdrawal request made after the opening of Proposals shall be allowed only for
good cause shown and in the sole discretion of the Division of Purchase and Contract.
18. INFORMAL COMMENTS: The State shall not be bound by informal explanations, instructions or information given at
any time by anyone on behalf of the State during the competitive process or after award. The State is bound only by
information provided in this RFP and in formal Addenda issued through IPS.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 26 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
19. COST FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION: Any costs incurred by Vendor in preparing or submitting offers are the
Vendor's sole responsibility; the State of North Carolina will not reimburse any Vendor for any costs incurred prior to
award.
20. VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIVE: Each Vendor shall submit with its proposal the name, address, and telephone number
of the person(s) with authority to bind the firm and answer questions or provide clarification concerning the firm's proposal.
21. SUBCONTRACTING: Unless expressly prohibited, a Vendor may propose to subcontract portions of the work to identified
subcontractor(s), provided that its proposal clearly describe what work it plans to subcontract and that Vendor includes in
its proposal all information regarding employees, business experience, and other information for each proposed
subcontractor that is required to be provided for Vendor itself.
22. INSPECTION AT VENDOR'S SITE: The State reserves the right to inspect, at a reasonable time, the equipment/item,
plant or other facilities of a prospective Vendor prior to Contract award, and during the Contract term as necessary for the
State determination that such equipment/item, plant or other facilities conform with the specifications/requirements and
are adequate and suitable for the proper and effective performance of the Contract.
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 27 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PERFORMANCE AND DEFAULT: If, through any cause, Vendor shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner the
obligations under this contract, the State shall have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice to the Vendor
and specifying the effective date thereof. In that event and subject to all other provisions of this contract, all finished or
unfinished deliverable items under this contract prepared by the Vendor shall, at the option of the State, become its
property, and the Vendor shall be entitled to receive compensation for units actually produced, if any, in an amount
determined by reducing the total amount due had the full number of Units been produced pro rata, such that the ratio
of the final compensation actually paid to the original total amount due in accordance with Attachment C (as amended,
if applicable) is equal to the ratio of the Units actually generated to the total Units identified in Attachment C.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this agreement, Vendor shall not be relieved of liability to the State for damages
sustained by the State by virtue of any breach of this contract, and the State may withhold any payment due the Vendor
for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the State from such breach can be
determined. The State reserves the right to require at any time a performance bond or other acceptable alternative
guarantees from a successful Vendor without expense to the State.
In case of default by the Vendor, the State may procure the services necessary to complete performance hereunder from
other sources and hold the Vendor responsible for any excess cost occasioned thereby. In addition, in the event of default
by the Vendor under this contract, or upon the Vendor filing a petition for bankruptcy or the entering of a judgment of
bankruptcy by or against the Vendor, the State may immediately cease doing business with the Vendor, immediately
terminate this contract for cause, and may act to debar the Vendor from doing future business with the State
2. GOVERNMENTAL RESTRICTIONS: In the event any Governmental restrictions are imposed which necessitate alteration
of the material, quality, workmanship or performance of the goods or services offered prior to their delivery, it shall be the
responsibility of the Vendor to notify, in writing, the Contract Lead at once, indicating the specific regulation which required
such alterations. The State reserves the right to accept any such alterations, including any price adjustments occasioned
thereby, or to cancel the Contract.
3. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Any and all payments to the Vendor shall be dependent upon and subject to the availability
of funds to the agency for the purpose set forth in this contract.
4. TAXES: Any applicable taxes shall be invoiced as a separate item.
a. G.S. 143-59.1 bars the Secretary of Administration from entering into Contracts with Vendors if the Vendor or its
affiliates meet one of the conditions of G.S. 105-164.8(b) and refuses to collect use tax on sales of tangible
personal property to purchasers in North Carolina. Conditions under G.S. 105-164.8(b) include: (1) Maintenance
of a retail establishment or office, (2) Presence of representatives in the State that solicit sales or transact business
on behalf of the Vendor and (3) Systematic exploitation of the market by media -assisted, media -facilitated, or
media -solicited means. By execution of the proposal document the Vendor certifies that it and all of its affiliates,
(if it has affiliates), collect(s) the appropriate taxes.
b. All agencies participating in this Contract are exempt from Federal Taxes, such as excise and transportation.
Exemption forms submitted by the Vendor will be executed and returned by the using agency.
c. Prices offered are not to include any personal property taxes, nor any sales or use tax (or fees) unless required
by the North Carolina Department of Revenue.
SITUS: The place of this Contract, its situs and forum, shall be North Carolina, where all matters, whether sounding in
Contract or tort, relating to its validity, construction, interpretation and enforcement shall be determined.
6. GOVERNING LAWS: This Contract is made under and shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with
the laws of the State of North Carolina, without regard to is conflict of laws rules.
7. PAYMENT TERMS: Payment terms are Net not later than 30 days after receipt of correct invoice or acceptance of goods,
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 28 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
whichever is later. The using agency is responsible for all payments to the Vendor under the Contract. Payment by some
agencies may be made by procurement card, if the Vendor accepts that card (Visa, MasterCard, etc.) from other
customers, and it shall be accepted by the Vendor for payment under the same terms and conditions as any other method
of payment accepted by the Vendor. If payment is made by procurement card, then payment may be processed
immediately by the Vendor.
8. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: The Vendor will take affirmative action in complying with all Federal and State requirements
concerning fair employment and employment of people with disabilities, and concerning the treatment of all employees
without regard to discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability.
9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY: Vendor shall hold and save the State, its officers, agents and employees,
harmless from liability of any kind, including costs and expenses, resulting from infringement of the rights of any third party
in any copyrighted material, patented or unpatented invention, articles, device or appliance delivered in connection with
this contract.
10. ADVERTISING: Vendor agrees not to use the existence of this Contract or the name of the State of North Carolina as
part of any commercial advertising or marketing of products or services. A Vendor may inquire whether the State is willing
to act as a reference by providing factual information directly to other prospective customers.
11. ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS: During and after the term hereof, the State Auditor and any using agency's
internal auditors shall have access to persons and records related to this Contract to verify accounts and data affecting
fees or performance under the Contract, as provided in G.S. 143-49(9).
12. ASSIGNMENT: No assignment of the Vendor's obligations nor the Vendor's right to receive payment hereunder shall be
permitted.
However, upon written request approved by the issuing purchasing authority and solely as a convenience to the Vendor,
the State may:
a. Forward the Vendor's payment check directly to any person or entity designated by the Vendor, and
Include any person or entity designated by Vendor as a joint payee on the Vendor's payment check.
In no event shall such approval and action obligate the State to anyone other than the Vendor and the Vendor shall remain
responsible for fulfillment of all Contract obligations. Upon advance written request, the State may, in its unfettered
discretion, approve an assignment to the surviving entity of a merger, acquisition or corporate reorganization, if made as
part of the transfer of all or substantially all of the Vendor's assets. Any purported assignment made in violation of this
provision shall be void and a material breach of this Contract.
13. INSURANCE:
COVERAGE - During the term of the Contract, the Vendor at its sole cost and expense shall provide commercial insurance
of such type and with such terms and limits as may be reasonably associated with the Contract. As a minimum, the Vendor
shall provide and maintain the following coverage and limits:
a. Worker's Compensation - The Vendor shall provide and maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance, as required
by the laws of North Carolina, as well as employer's liability coverage with minimum limits of $500,000.00, covering all of
Vendor's employees who are engaged in any work under the Contract. If any work is sub -contracted, the Vendor shall
require the sub -Contractor to provide the same coverage for any of his employees engaged in any work under the Contract.
b. Commercial General LiabilitV - General Liability Coverage on a Comprehensive Broad Form on an occurrence
basis in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 Combined Single Limit. (Defense cost shall be in excess of the limit of
liability.)
C. Automobile - Automobile Liability Insurance, to include liability coverage, covering all owned, hired and non -owned
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 29 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
vehicles, used in connection with the Contract. The minimum combined single limit shall be $250,000.00 bodily injury and
property damage; $250,000.00 uninsured/under insured motorist; and $2,500.00 medical payment.
REQUIREMENTS - Providing and maintaining adequate insurance coverage is a material obligation of the Vendor and is
of the essence of this Contract. All such insurance shall meet all laws of the State of North Carolina. Such insurance
coverage shall be obtained from companies that are authorized to provide such coverage and that are authorized by the
Commissioner of Insurance to do business in North Carolina. The Vendor shall at all times comply with the terms of such
insurance policies, and all requirements of the insurer under any such insurance policies, except as they may conflict with
existing North Carolina laws or this Contract. The limits of coverage under each insurance policy maintained by the Vendor
shall not be interpreted as limiting the Vendor's liability and obligations under the Contract.
14. GENERAL INDEMNITY: The Vendor shall hold and save the State, its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from
liability of any kind, including all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any other person, firm, or corporation furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Contract, and from any and
all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation that may be injured or damaged by the
Vendor in the performance of this Contract and that are attributable to the negligence or intentionally tortious acts of the
Vendor provided that the Vendor is notified in writing within 30 days that the State has knowledge of such claims. The
Vendor represents and warrants that it shall make no claim of any kind or nature against the State's agents who are
involved in the delivery or processing of Vendor goods or services to the State. The representation and warranty in the
preceding sentence shall survive the termination or expiration of this Contract.
15. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Vendor shall be considered to be an independent contractor and as such shall be
wholly responsible for the work to be performed and for the supervision of its employees. Vendor represents that it has,
or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this contract. Such employees
shall not be employees of, or have any individual contractual relationship with the State.
16. KEY PERSONNEL: Vendor shall not substitute key personnel assigned to the performance of this contract without prior
written approval by the State's assigned Contract Lead. The individuals designated as key personnel for purposes of this
contract are those specified in the RFP and persons identified in Vendor's proposal.
17. SUBCONTRACTING: Work proposed to be performed under this contract by the Vendor or its employees shall not be
subcontracted without prior written approval of the State's assigned Contract Administrator. Unless otherwise indicated,
acceptance of a Vendor's proposal shall include approval to use the subcontractor(s) that have been specified therein in
accordance with paragraph 20 of Attachment A: Instructions to Vendor.
18. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: The State may terminate this contract at any time by providing _ days' notice
in writing from the State to the Vendor. In that event, all finished or unfinished deliverable items prepared by the Vendor
under this contract shall, at the option of the State, become its property. If the contract is terminated by the State as
provided in this section, the State shall pay for services satisfactorily completed by the Vendor, less any payment or
compensation previously made.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY: Any State information, data, instruments, documents, studies or reports given to or prepared or
assembled by or provided to the Vendor under this contract shall be kept as confidential, used only for the purpose(s)
required to perform this contract and not divulged or made available to any individual or organization without the prior
written approval of the State.
20. CARE OF PROPERTY: The Vendor agrees that it shall be responsible for the proper custody and care of any property
furnished it by the State for use in connection with the performance of this contract or purchased by or for the State for
this contract, and Vendor will reimburse the State for loss or damage of such property while in Vendor's custody.
21. PROPERTY RIGHTS: All deliverable items and materials produced for or as a result of this contract shall become the
property of the State, and Vendor hereby assigns all ownership rights in such deliverables, including all intellectual property
rights, to the State; provided, however, that as to any preexisting works imbedded in such deliverables, Vendor hereby
grants the State a fully -paid, perpetual license to copy, distribute and adapt the preexisting works.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 30 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
22. OUTSOURCING: Any Vendor or subcontractor providing call or contact center services to the State of North Carolina
shall disclose to inbound callers the location from which the call or contact center services are being provided.
If, after award of a contract, the contractor wishes to relocate or outsource any portion of the work to a location outside
the United States, or to contract with a subcontractor for the performance of any work, which subcontractor and nature of
the work has not previously been disclosed to the State in writing, prior written approval must be obtained from the State
agency responsible for the contract.
Vendor shall give notice to the using agency of any relocation of the Vendor, employees of the Vendor, subcontractors of
the Vendor, or other persons performing services under a State contract to a location outside of the United States.
23. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Vendor shall comply with all laws, ordinances, codes, rules, regulations, and licensing
requirements that are applicable to the conduct of its business and its performance in accordance with this contract,
including those of federal, state, and local agencies having jurisdiction and/or authority.
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This RFP and any documents incorporated specifically by reference represent the entire
agreement between the parties and supersede all prior oral or written statements or agreements. This RFP, any addenda
thereto, and the Vendor's proposal are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth verbatim.
All promises, requirements, terms, conditions, provisions, representations, guarantees, and warranties contained herein
shall survive the contract expiration or termination date unless specifically provided otherwise herein, or unless
superseded by applicable Federal or State statutes of limitation.
25. AMENDMENTS: This contract may be amended only by a written amendment duly executed by the State and the Vendor.
The NC Division of Purchase and Contract shall give prior approval to any amendment to a contract awarded through that
office.
26. WAIVER: The failure to enforce or the waiver by the State of any right or an event of breach or default on one occasion
or instance shall not constitute the waiver of such right, breach or default on any subsequent occasion or instance.
27. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither party shall be deemed to be in default of its obligations hereunder if and so long as it is
prevented from performing such obligations as a result of events beyond its reasonable control, including without limitation,
fire, power failures, any act of war, hostile foreign action, nuclear explosion, riot, strikes or failures or refusals to perform
under subcontracts, civil insurrection, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, or other catastrophic natural event or act of God.
28. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: Notwithstanding any other term or provision in this contract, nothing herein is intended nor
shall be interpreted as waiving any claim or defense based on the principle of sovereign immunity that otherwise would
be available to the State under applicable law.
(THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 31 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT C: PRICING
RFP# 16-007279
RFP TITLE: FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM, RIPARIAN WETLAND AND NON -
RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03020201 OF
THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN AS DESCRIBED IN THE SCOPE OF WORK
A Separate Sealed Cost Proposal Is Required For Each Proposed Site And For Each Option Proposed For ASite.
VENDOR MUST LIST ON THE FRONT OF EACH SEALED COST PROPOSAL ENVELOPE, The Site
Name/Location And Option Number (If Applicable) Must Be Indicated.
All costs related to the mitigation offered must be included in this SEALED COST PROPOSAL. No additional
charges for travel, per diem, or cost of any services will be allowed. Cost will be a major factor in the selection
of proposals. ALL Sealed Cost Proposals will be compared to mitigation cost data maintained by the NCDMS.
SITE NAME
OPTION
PROPOSED COST
GRAND TOTAL:
RIPARIAN BUFFER CREDIT OFFER FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE PURCHASE
CREDIT COST
($/CREDIT)
Printed Name of Authorized Representative Signature of Authorized Representative
Company Name (Printed)
Date
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 32 of 44
STREAM
CREDITS
RIPARIAN WETLAND
CREDITS
NON -RIPARIAN
WETLAND CREDITS
TOTAL CREDITS
CREDIT COST
$/CREDIT
TOTAL COSTS
GRAND TOTAL:
RIPARIAN BUFFER CREDIT OFFER FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE PURCHASE
CREDIT COST
($/CREDIT)
Printed Name of Authorized Representative Signature of Authorized Representative
Company Name (Printed)
Date
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 32 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR
In accordance with NC General Statute 143-59.4, the Vendor shall detail the location(s) at which performance will occur, as well
as the manner in which it intends to utilize resources or workers outside of the United States in the performance of this Contract.
The State will evaluate the additional risks, costs, and other factors associated with such utilization prior to making an award.
Please complete items a, b, and c below.
a) Will any work under this Contract be performed outside the United States? ❑ YES ❑ NO
If the Vendor answered "YES" above, Vendor must complete items 1 and 2 below:
List the location(s) outside the United States where work under this Contract will be performed by the Vendor, any
sub -Contractors, employees, or other persons performing work under the Contract:
2. Describe the corporate structure and location of corporate employees and activities of the Vendor, its affiliates or any
other sub -Contractors that will perform work outside the U.S.:
b) The Vendor agrees to provide notice, in writing to the State, of the relocation of the
Vendor, employees of the Vendor, sub -Contractors of the Vendor, or other persons ❑ YES ❑ NO
performing services under the Contract outside of the United States
NOTE: All Vendor or sub -Contractor personnel providing call or contact center services to
the State of North Carolina under the Contract shall disclose to inbound callers the
location from which the call or contact center services are being provided.
c) Identify all U.S. locations at which performance will occur:
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 33 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
Name of Vendor:
The undersigned hereby certifies that: [check all applicable boxes]
❑ The Vendor is in sound financial condition and, if applicable, has received an unqualified audit opinion for the latest
audit of its financial statements.
Date of latest audit:
❑ The Vendor has no outstanding liabilities, including tax and judgment liens, to the Internal Revenue Service or any
other government entity.
❑ The Vendor is current in all amounts due for payments of federal and state taxes and required employment-related
contributions and withholdings.
❑ The Vendor is not the subject of any current litigation or findings of noncompliance under federal or state law.
❑ The Vendor has not been the subject of any past or current litigation, findings in any past litigation, or findings of
noncompliance under federal or state law that may impact in any way its ability to fulfill the requirements of this
Contract.
❑ He or she is authorized to make the foregoing statements on behalf of the Vendor.
Note: This is a continuing certification and Vendor shall notify the Contract Lead within 15 days of any material change
to any of the representations made herein.
If any one or more of the foregoing boxes is NOT checked, Vendor shall explain the reason in the space below:
Signature
Date
Printed Name Title
[This Certification must be signed by an individual authorized to speak for the Vendor]
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 34 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION
VENDOR'S INFORMATION
Vendors Primary Contact (or Project Manager)
Name:
Agency:
Title:
Address:
City:
State/ Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Vendors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed forsignature)
Name:
Agency:
Title:
Address:
City:
State/ Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Vendors Payment (Remit -To) Address (Where the checks should be mailed)
(This address should agree with the "Remit -To" address associated with the Vendor's Tax ID. This information must
be verified with the Vendor's Corporate Accounting Office)
Name:
Agency:
Title:
Address:
City:
State/ Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 35 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT G: CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY -IRAN DIVESTMENT ACT
CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Under the Iran Divestment Act
As provided in G.S. 147-86.59, any person identified as engaging in investment activities in Iran, determined by appearing on
the Final Divestment List created by the State Treasurer pursuant to G.S. 147-86.58, is ineligible to contract with the State of
North Carolina or any political subdivision of the State. The Iran Divestment Act of 2015, G.S. 147-86.55 et seq.* requires that
each Vendor, prior to contracting with the State certify, and the undersigned on behalf of the Vendor does hereby certify, to the
following:
1. that the Vendor is not identified on the Final Divestment List of entities that the State Treasurer has determined engages
in investment activities in Iran;
2. that the Vendor shall not utilize on any contract with the State agency any subcontractor that is identified on the Final
Divestment List; and
3. that the undersigned is authorized by the Vendor to make this Certification.
Vendor:
By:
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
The State Treasurer's Final Divestment List can be found on the State Treasurer's website at the address
httos://www.nctreasurer.com/inside-the-department/ODenGovernment/Paaes/Iran-Divestment-Act-
Resources.aspx, which will be updated every 180 days. For questions about the Department of State
Treasurer's Iran Divestment Policy, please contact Meryl Murtagh at [e-mail] or
[phone].
* Note: Enacted by Session Law 2015-118 as G.S. 143C-55 et seq., but renumbered for codification at the direction of
the Revisor of Statutes
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 36 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT H: TARGETED LOCAL WATERSHED MAPS
Neuse 03020201 Full Delivery RFP
Targeted Watersheds for Cataloging Unit 03020201
HUC #
LWP
RWP
HUC#
LWP
RWP
03020201010030
No
No
03020201100040
No
Yes
03020201010050
No
No
03020201100050
No
Yes
03020201020010
No
No
03020201110010
Yes
Yes
03020201020020
No
No
03020201110020
Yes
Yes
03020201020040
No
No
03020201110030*
No
Yes
03020201030030
No
No
03020201110040
No
Yes
03020201030020
No
No
03020201110050
No
Yes
03020201030040
No
No
03020201110060*
No
Yes
03020201030050
No
No
03020201110070
No
Yes
03020201040020
No
No
03020201120010
No
Yes
03020201050010
Yes
No
03020201120020
No
Yes
03020201050020
Yes
No
03020201120030
No
Yes
03020201050030
Yes
No
03020201130030
No
No
03020201060010
Yes
No
03020201140010
No
No
03020201060020
No
No
03020201150010
No
No
03020201065030
No
No
03020201150020
No
No
03020201065040
No
No
03020201150040
No
No
03020201070060
No
No
03020201150050
No
No
03020201070070
No
No
03020201160010
No
No
03020201070080
No
No
03020201180010
No
No
03020201070110
No
No
03020201180020
Yes
Yes
03020201090010
No
No
03020201180030*
No
Yes
03020201100010
Yes
Yes
03020201180040*
No
Yes
03020201100020
Yes
Yes
03020201180050
Yes
Yes
03020201100030
Yes
Yes
03020201200030
No
No
*Targeted Resource Areas (Habitat)
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 37 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT H: TARGETED LOCAL WATERSHED MAPS
Targeted Watersheds for Neuse 03020201
PA'S r- .f N.VC]tLN
VANCL Ck
I�
Lake Rogers
+.It.1 I I. 3� �f lriltiva,,5:ry �
LWP
020010
1005-
020020
040020,
f
-
i
02004
030030
060020
rr+
03002Q .- 300
030040
rRRF 1.IN
o
Wake/Johnston
Ellerbe
w
o , ' `
Collaborative LWP
�t
Creek LWP
065030
070070
180010
h
Little Lick -
Creek LWP
I
; :,,,
080M.,
--
-r
`
7011
� _ r
alai;;
Lick Creek
'�00mo.
1
F
LWP
Upper Swift
120010
100
180040
- `-
Creek LWP
0
120020
10060
�o
- %
120030
i r
130030
140010
�
Legend
15no100
150020
200030 .
Regional Watershed Plan
CatalogingUnit150050
14 -Digit Hydrologic Unit
150040
Target Local Watersheds
f
Targeted Resource Area (Habitat)
Local Watershed Plans 1 _
Municipal Boundary 0 5 10 20
Miles
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 38 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
ATTACHMENT I: TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET
Important Notes/Guidance
1. Projects MUST be located within DMS Targeted Local Watersheds within Neuse 03020201. Projects located within Local Watershed
Planning (LWP) or Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) HUCs may receive additional points,as noted in Section 1.0 of this Technical Proposal Rating
Form (or "scoresheet").
2. Questions in sections 1 through 4 are required and MUST be addressed in the proposal. BONUS questions in Section 5 (after the
required section) may receive additional points, but will NOT disqualify a Provider's proposal if unanswered or not applicable. Bonus questions
can add up to 7 points to the total score.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Neuse 03020201 Rating Form
Offeror:
Site Name:
River Basin / Catalog Unit:
RFP Number:
Date of Site Evaluation:
Type/Amt of Mitigation
Offered:
Proposal Review
Committee:
Alternate Attendees:
Overall Merit (Proposal Screening)
Yes/No
or N/A
1 -For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence of stream(s) on the
project site, and provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide accurate, process -based descriptions of all project stream
reaches and tributaries?
2 -For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the technical proposal adequately document the presence of hydric soil
indicators (including soil boring logs prepared by a Licensed Soil Scientist and a map showing soil boring locations and mapped soil
series)?
3 -For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the proposed success hydroperiod exceed the 5% minimum and is it
appropriate for the project site and soil series? If the proposed hydroperiod differs from the 2016 IRT guidance, justification
must be provided in the RFP.
4 -Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that currently exist on the
project site?
5 -Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented? [The Technical Proposal
must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activities are appropriate for existing site conditions and watershed
characteristics (e.g., adjacent land use/land cover), and are optimized to yield maximum functional gains.]
6 -Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
7 -Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
8 -Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
9 -For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal OR is Priority
2 stream restoration limited to "tie-ins" (designed tributary confluences)?
- Floodplain bench grading will extend a minimum 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the stream belt -width (no
meanderingfloodplains — see Diagram below).
-The floodplain will be over -excavated to accommodate replacement of topsoil.
-The design and construction oversight will ensure the management of topsoil to include the harvest and segregated
stockpiling of A and B soil horizons for placement on excavated floodplain features.
-The slopes between the outer edge of floodplain grading and the terrace will be a minimum of 5:1.
Note: An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected.
Continue or Reject?
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 39 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [40 Points Possible] REQUIRED
Projects Located outside of LWP or RWP
1 For proposed projects located outside of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) or Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) area -- but within
another targeted HUC (TLW, TRA) -- to what extent does the project support the CU -wide watershed improvement goals?
The following are CU -wide and TLW goals: 1 -reduce & control sediment inputs; 2 - reduce & manage nutrient inputs; 3 -
augment designated Significant Natural Heritage Areas ; 4 - Contribute to protection of or improvements to a Water Supply
Waterbody. [Provider must describe specific elements/features of the current site conditions and proposed project design that
will contribute substantially to meeting these goals.]
ct addresses fewer than 2 Roals 1 point
Project addresses 3 of 4 goals 5 points
Project addresses 4 of 4 goals 10 points
2 For projects located within a LWP, does the proposed project address watershed planning priorities identified in Findings and
Recommendations Summary? These prioritieis include: 1 --reduces sediment loading; 2 --reduces nutrient loading; 3 --provides
& improves instream habitat; 4 --provides & improves terrestrial habitat; 5-- improves stream and bank stability; 6 --improves
hydrologic function; 7 --improves rare species habitat. To receive points, Provider must describe in detail how the proposed
Project addresses fewer than 2 priorities 1 point
Project addresses 2 to 3 of 7 of priorities. 5 points
ct addresses 4 to 5 of 7 priorities. 15 points
Project addresses 6 to 7 of 7 priorities 20 points
n the
For projects located within the RWP, does the proposed project address watershed planning priorities identified in the
Preliminary Findings Report? These priorities include: 1 --reduces sediment loading; 2 --reduces nutrient loading; 3 --improves
stream and bank stability; 4 --improves hydrologic function; 5 --improves riparian buffer condition. To receive points, Provider
must describe in detail how the proposed project will contribute significantly to addressing identified stressors.
ct addresses fewer than 2 priorities 1 point
Project addresses 2 of 5 of priorities. 5 points
lProject addresses 3 to 4 of 5 priorities. 15 points
Project addresses 5 of 5 priorities. 20 points
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 40 of 44
Diagram for Priority 11 Question Above.
Priority 11 flecdplain bench
150
_dm- b -d— m�n�m oms
100
1
`Y
50
0.0.10
r.�224.6. _-`
1449,3.1
.0
0
/
�i
-
}
1m
$
20 foot channelwidth
-150
30 foot benchwidlh(1.S times <hannelwid[hl beyondthe betlwidth.
-2m
0
100 200 300
400
5m
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [40 Points Possible] REQUIRED
Projects Located outside of LWP or RWP
1 For proposed projects located outside of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) or Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) area -- but within
another targeted HUC (TLW, TRA) -- to what extent does the project support the CU -wide watershed improvement goals?
The following are CU -wide and TLW goals: 1 -reduce & control sediment inputs; 2 - reduce & manage nutrient inputs; 3 -
augment designated Significant Natural Heritage Areas ; 4 - Contribute to protection of or improvements to a Water Supply
Waterbody. [Provider must describe specific elements/features of the current site conditions and proposed project design that
will contribute substantially to meeting these goals.]
ct addresses fewer than 2 Roals 1 point
Project addresses 3 of 4 goals 5 points
Project addresses 4 of 4 goals 10 points
2 For projects located within a LWP, does the proposed project address watershed planning priorities identified in Findings and
Recommendations Summary? These prioritieis include: 1 --reduces sediment loading; 2 --reduces nutrient loading; 3 --provides
& improves instream habitat; 4 --provides & improves terrestrial habitat; 5-- improves stream and bank stability; 6 --improves
hydrologic function; 7 --improves rare species habitat. To receive points, Provider must describe in detail how the proposed
Project addresses fewer than 2 priorities 1 point
Project addresses 2 to 3 of 7 of priorities. 5 points
ct addresses 4 to 5 of 7 priorities. 15 points
Project addresses 6 to 7 of 7 priorities 20 points
n the
For projects located within the RWP, does the proposed project address watershed planning priorities identified in the
Preliminary Findings Report? These priorities include: 1 --reduces sediment loading; 2 --reduces nutrient loading; 3 --improves
stream and bank stability; 4 --improves hydrologic function; 5 --improves riparian buffer condition. To receive points, Provider
must describe in detail how the proposed project will contribute significantly to addressing identified stressors.
ct addresses fewer than 2 priorities 1 point
Project addresses 2 of 5 of priorities. 5 points
lProject addresses 3 to 4 of 5 priorities. 15 points
Project addresses 5 of 5 priorities. 20 points
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 40 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
Section 2.0 - Uplift Potential Module [120 Points Possible] REQUIRED
Stream (SMUs) Focus
1
What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > "'1.5)?
Less than 50% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 1 point
50-75% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 5 points
>75% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 15 points
2
What is the proportion of the existing condition proposed for treatment indicative of active bank erosion? Active bank
erosion includes surficial scour (distinguished from bare banks), hyraulic and mechanical bank failures.
Less than 20% active erosion. 1 point
20-50% active erosion. 5 points
>50% active erosion. 15 points
3
What is the dominant buffer vegetation condition?
Small woody Vegetation >30 feet in width (shrub, early successional trees). 1 point
Small woody vegetation <30 feet in width or an herbaceous dominated condition; or
mature trees are scattered and sparse within the proposed boundary (the proposed
reach treatments could take place with minimal impacts to mature trees).
5 points
No buffer vegetation, maintained cover, or grazed pasture; or impervious cover
proposed for removal. 15 points
4
What is the percent of proposed easement length actively subject to water quality stressors that will be addressed by the
project? [stressors within or immediately adjacent to easement may include pasture with direct livestock access, livestock
exclusion but with poorly managed crossings, hydrologic bypass of buffers (e.g. the drains, discharge outfalls, hydrologic
connections to livestock wallows or CAFO ponds), stormwater outfalls, adjacent row crops, maintained vegetation, or
impervious surfaces within 30 feet of proposed easement boundary]
Proportion of affected length less than 50%. 1 point
Proportion of affected length 50-75%. 5 points
Proportion of affected length >75%. 15 points
The following multiplier is included to prevent a bias against stream projects that include appropriate levels of
enhancement.
TOTAL STREAM SMU FOCUS POINTS
Ratio of Total LF to SMUs:
SECTION 2 (Streams) TOTAL = Stream SMU focus total x
Ratio of Total LF to SMUs(not to exceed 60 points)
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 41 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
Wetland (WMUs) Focus
1
What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and immediately adjacent to the proposed
easement have on the project (i.e., impervious surfaces, nutrient inputs, sediment inputs, or other land disturbing
activities)?
Low (little to no evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater flow into the system). 1 point
Moderate (evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater flow into the system, i.e. ). 5 points
High to Very High [direct and excessive evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform and/or
sediment input. 15 points
2
For proposed wetland restoration/rehabilitation projects: existing condition of predominant wetland vegetation
community. [Predominant means covering >50% of the area proposed for restoration and/or enhancement.]
Wetland vegetation is present but is not reference quality. 1 point
Wetland vegetation is present but is managed to prevent
appropriate wetland community. 5 points
Wetland vegetation is absent. 15 points
3
Confidence in existing wetland hydrologic condition and uplift potential.
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, but their
location and extent are not clearly depicted. 1 point
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, and the effects
and extents are clearly defined. 10 points
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, and the effects
and extent are clearly defined and are supported with field data
and/or modeled results. 15 points
4
Confidence in wetland hydroperiod for performance criteria.
Success hydroperiods are based on a thorough modeling effort of
the site such that a pre/post water budget is estimated and is
appropriate for the setting and landscape position. 5 points
Success hydroperiods are based on a thorough modeling effort of
the site such that a pre/post water budget is estimated and is
appropriate for the setting and landscape position, AND modeled
results are supported with local reference gauge data. 15 points
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 42 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
Section 3.0- Implementation and Risk Module [35 Points Possible] REQUIRED
1
Does the proposed stream project provide
Less than 25% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities?) 1 point
Between 25 - 50% of the RFP re uest? 2 points
Between 51- 90% of the RFP request? 5 points
Greater than 90% of the RFP request? 10 points
2
Does the proposed wetland project provide
Less than 15% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities?) 1 point
Between 15 - 25% of the RFP request? 2 points
Between 26 - 50% of the RFP request? 5 points
Greater than 50% of the RFP request? 10 points
3
Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that affect project
design and effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of crossings, roadways, utilities,
>10 % of the total project footage is segmented by
5-10 % of the total project footage is segmented by
< 5% of the total project footage is segmented by
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways,
and/or utilities; or project with existing constraints
Section 4.0 - Provider Experience [15 Points Possible] REQUIRED
1
Similar mitigation projects completed by the Offeror (through at least 3 years of monitoring).
Completed less than 5 mitigation projects. 2 points
Completed more than 5 mitigation projects. 5 points
2
1 Experience of Project Team (people actually completing work)
Project team contains at least two individuals with
mitigation experience specific to project evaluation,
All of the above and at least two projects brought to
successful regulatory closure with the Interagency
Review Team (IRT). 10 points
REQUIRED SECTIONS TOTAL
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 43 of 44

RFP Number: 16-007279 Vendor:
Section 5.0 - Bonus Module (7 points possible)
1
�ls the proposed project located within a priority subwatershed within the LWP or RWP
area?. 1 point
2
Does the proposal implement all or part of a project identified within the LWP or RWP Project
Atlas? 1 point
3
For projects Located within or outside LWP (but still in a designated TLW): Does the project's
conceptual design include one or more structural BMPs (other than livestock exclusion fencing
and alternate watering) within or immediately upstream of the project easement such that
nutrient and/or sediment inputs or hydraulic stresses from outside the project easement are
more effectively addressed? [In rural subwatersheds, this would be agricultural BMPs; in
urban/suburban watersheds, this would be stormwater BMPs.] The BMP locations and types
should be clearly identified on a map figure in the proposal. 1 point.
4
Project each (es) are on or confluent to (directly discharge to) an impaired stream or
waterbody. Impaired waters include those that are 303d listed (Category 5) or Category 4
waters, per the most recent Integrated Report (provided online by NC DWR). 1 point
5
Proposed project is on or drains to WS -classified reach(es) within a Water Supply
watershed, as designated by NC DWR. 1 point
7
Ability to connect adjacent (having a common boundary with) natural habitats and extend
wildlife corridors. 1 point
8
Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (have a common boundary with)
another protected property.
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with a conservation
easement that is not used for mitigation. 1 point
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with another mitigation
property (DMS project or approved Mitigation Bank site) with a permanent easement.
2 points
9
For stream or buffer mitigation projects on first order streams (headwater drainages), do
project easements extend upstream toward drainage divides on all tributaries/reaches such
that flow (whether perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) in >90% of all upstream channels is
captured within the project easement(s)? [To receive points, Provider must include
appropriate maps and calculations to demonstrate that this criterion is met.] 1 point.
TOTAL BONUS POINTS
Total Required Section Points (Maximum Possible = 210 Points) _
+ Bonus Points (Maximum Possible = 7 Points) _
Total Points =
Proposal Rating ( Score x 0.01) _
Comments:
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 44 of 44